Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive471

NonZionist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Admins, please have a look at the user page. Does it violate user page policies (asserting Zionism=Jewish fascism)? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 23:22, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:SOAP HalfShadow 23:28, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Does anyone want to delete it? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 00:42, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Blanked by HalfShadow. Algebraist 00:49, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

• If you want to be consistent, this should be deleted too: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Itzse#Zionism FunkMonk (talk) 00:53, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I looked there and I just don't see how that user comparing people who disagree with him to Nazis or saying that they're trying to start World War IV. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 02:11, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

It's not supposed to be an exact parallel, but a clear example of someone using their user page as a "soap box". This is bordering on racism, for example: "Even though I'm not a Zionist, I will not let the Arabs off the hook for falsifying history (the history of Eretz Yisroel and the history of the Jewish people); and for its savagery in murdering my brothers and sisters, deliberately targeting men, women and children and giving a hero's welcome with Sheiks in attendence for them." "The Arabs"? That's beautiful. And here, basically everyone is demonised: "To the rest of the world, and those Arabs not guilty of the above, this is what I have to say: that G-d will hold you accountable for assisting murderers, either by aiding and abetting them or by providing political cover under the guise of neutrality. No one will be able to claim innocence. Know that you are represented by your heads of State and you are represented in the United Nations. If they don't represent your conscience then it's imperative on you to do something about it, or at least make it known to them." One big pile of self-righteous propaganda. FunkMonk (talk) 02:17, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. But instead of just removing it, let's open a dialogue with him about it. I'll go leave a short message on his talk page, and go from there. L'Aquatique[talk] 02:39, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I left him a message before noticing this item. Please don't WP:BITE while washing out the Soap. Thanks. HG | Talk 15:15, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

A trivial matter, perhaps, but I'm not sure where to take this. The image page states that nothing links to it, and a template to that effect was posted. Yet the article Yankee Doodle Dandy contains that image, and clicking on it takes you to that page that claims nothing is linked to it. What am I overlooking here? Or is something wrong? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:25, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

In fact, all 3 images from that article were tagged. I thought that happened because some idiot IP address had blanked the article. But that was reverted, yet the images still show as "orphaned", which is not correct. I removed the tag from all 3, but would like to know what the problem is. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:31, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I made a null edit to the page and the images seem now to show proper usage links. I do believe the servers are a little wacky today, or else it was just a long job queue to update them. Franamax (talk) 07:18, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

N.B. This was probably not an admin issue. The bit-heads would probably be better people to ask. (I watch that page too - bein' a geek and all...) Franamax (talk) 10:55, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Does it get as fast of action as this page does? When you're not watching, I mean. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:18, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Please review, can we get a range block?

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/69.228.42.160
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/69.228.44.174
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/69.238.209.228
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/69.236.23.40
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/69.228.35.198
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/69.238.209.144

? rootology (C)(T) 16:26, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I already did it about three minutes ago (fifteen minutes only; they'll be expiring soon) ... btw thanks for fixing my talk page. Antandrus (talk) 16:31, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, and no problem. rootology (C)(T) 16:37, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Request some eyes on the above article, given the current vice-presidential speculation. Kelly ^hi! 12:59, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Its been semi-ed. I'll add it to my watchlist. A MILF I can believe in. (Laugh) Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 14:14, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Wow, that one's gonna' be fun. Watchlisted as well. And Kyaa, do you mean MILF or MILF? lifebaka++ 15:28, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Careful, she's a member of the NRA. Or is it the NRA? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:09, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Watchlisted. Skimming the sources, they look reasonable - mostly the Anchorage Daily News - though I haven't looked at the text in depth. MastCell ^Talk 17:03, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Fair how? Why does it need to be semi'd? Corvus cornix_talk 18:09, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Jill Tracy Jacobs Biden is the wife of Vice Presidential candidate Biden. Todd Palin is the husband of Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin. Jill has an article. Todd's article is a redirect and page protected to prevent creation.

Given the big news of Sarah Palin, all administrators should rush and end page protection to allow the Todd Palin article to grow. After a few days, if it doesn't grow then it can be killed. Todd's claim to fame is exactly the same as Jill Biden, a spouse of a VP candidate who has had some news articles written specifically about the person and not the politician spouse. 12.176.20.2 (talk) 16:22, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

(copied from my talk) Sorry, that's not how we work. We consider the merits of each article on its own (see WP:WAX for more details). In this case, the crucial difference between Jill Biden and Todd Palin is that there has been a community discussion, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Todd Palin, that decided that the article about Todd Palin should be deleted, while no such discussion has occurred about Jill Biden. The decision to delete the article can be overturned, though, if the reasons for which the article was deleted are addressed. Here, this would mean that someone would have to write a stub (a short article) that provides references to substantial reliable coverage about Mr Palin himself (see WP:BIO). Then, that person would have to ask for permission to move that draft to Todd Palin at our deletion review page or on another appropriate forum.  Sandstein  16:43, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure how to do this but I have put a delete tag on Mrs. Biden. Will a lawyer help format it and file it in the proper place. What I seek is equal treatment for both Mrs. Biden and Mr. Palin, not killing the Mrs. Biden article. I favor an article for both and will help both articles. Sorry for the clumsiness, but I am not a lawyer. After this, I plan to let the process run without further comment but please do help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.176.20.2 (talk) 17:07, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

We aren't lawyers trying the articles as cases. Each individual article needs to be weighed on the article's on merits using the standards at WP:BIO and WP:N. Please remember WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Wildthing61476 (talk) 17:57, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Please unlock the page now and let us begin working on it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.176.20.2 (talk) 16:59, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome to contribute at Talk:Sarah Palin. The article will likely remain semiprotected for some time, since high-profile biogrpahies tend to attract significant amounts of anonymous vandalism. I would suggest registering an account. I'd also be a bit more optimistic here if you weren't using an anonymizing IP, which I'm tempted to hardblock. MastCell ^Talk 17:09, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I've been editing Wikipedia for almost 5 years and have never seen so many edits to an article within a few hours. I think semi-protections's ok for now. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:36, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

The 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake had a tidal wave of edits. WAS 4.250 (talk) 22:47, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

There's no policy reason why the Todd Palin redirect to Sarah Palin is salted against article recreation via full page protection. As far as I can tell the protection was a bit strong of a reaction to a single attempt to revert the redirect after the deletion result. However, the result of February's AfD does not preclude simply recreating the article in a fashion that avoids the flaws in the original (namely, being a 250-byte sub stub). It's plainly obvious that Palin is notable[1] and that an encyclopedic article will be written about him beyond the sub-stub that was deleted. Deletion review is the wrong process, and it would be counterproductive to create the article on a user page. It's simplest just to unprotect, and let editors get started. Wikidemon (talk) 18:29, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

How about one of the folks calling for unprotection write a version of the article in user-space, present it as "evidence" that an encyclopedic article can be written, and then we can speak of unprotecting the redirect and moving an article in its place? Shereth 18:32, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Because it's wasteful and poor editing practice to edit articles in user space. The guy has more than 700 current news articles - feature profiles, biographies, interviews, articles about his heritage. Of course an encyclopedic article can be written. The purpose of page protection is to prevent edit warring - here it's being used to enact a non-policy (and kind of silly) content/procedure point. Wikidemon (talk) 19:15, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps at least some demonstration that there are sufficient reliable sources? Linking to a Google search is not sufficient - the onus should be on those wishing to have the article unprotected for editing to show that there are pertinent sources. Asserting that it is "plainly obvious" that he passes notability criteria is a subjective argument. Shereth 19:20, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

The bulk of the Google hits just say that he's the husband of the governor and devote a sentence or two to him. Are there any articles devoted to him? Profiles or anything like that? He may be notable for being a champion dog-sledder snowmobiler. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:28, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Stripping the word "Sarah" out of the Google News hits reduces that 700 to just 6 ([2]) and most of those are about his wife as well. That doesn't look too much like independent notability to me. Black Kite 19:30, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

FYI, I just found three articles mostly about Todd Palin:

• "Alaska's "First Dude" takes leave from BP job ; Potential conflict of interest wasn't the reason, but ethicist sees merit in the decision;" TOM KIZZIA Anchorage Daily News. Anchorage, Alaska: Mar 2, 2007. pg. A.1
• "Todd Palin unique among nation's five first spouses ; THE MAN: He's worked the oil patch, won the Iron Dog and takes care of the kids.;" JEANNETTE J. LEE The Associated Press. Anchorage Daily News. Anchorage, Alaska: May 27, 2007. pg. B.4
• "Husband loves to work and should be allowed to, Palin says" Anchorage Daily News. Anchorage, Alaska: Sep 2, 2007. pg. A.10

These would appear to indicate notability. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:35, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I am sure that shortly a large number of articles will be written about him, given today's news. Might it be worth waiting for that to happen rather than trying to cobble together a stub based on a few local newspaper stories? Black Kite 19:41, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

The best thing might be to start a section in the Sarah Palin article, and then spin it off once it's long enough. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:45, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Those are really editing decisions to be made by article editors, not something to decide by page protection at AN/I. Most articles start as stubs, and when a subject has its own article it gets the proper infobox, categories, references, and so on. I'm sure the press will be working faster than we do to fill out the coverage, but there's already enough for a fairly comprehensive biography: his birth, culture, career, family (deciding with his wife to keep, and care for a baby with Down's syndrome, which is important in context of their politics), time on the public stage as first spouse. Wikidemon (talk) 19:48, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes - that sounds like a good compromise. Black Kite 19:49, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I like Will's suggestion the most - start it as a section in the target article and split it off when it's bulked up enough to form its own article. Shereth 19:50, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good. I will do that and remove this article from this page. Radiomango (talk) 20:04, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

This all seems unnecessary. Everyone here knows that an article on Todd Palin will eventually be written. Instead of all of this process wonkery, why not be bold, unprotect the article, and save everyone unnecessary noticeboard debates. AniMate 20:09, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Done, at least for the time being. Shereth 20:18, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

...for the vandals to find it. Semi-protected for 2 weeks. caknuck _° is not used to being the voice of reason 02:21, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I forgot to mention that I indef blocked VPILF (talk · contribs) as a username policy violation, albeit a funny one (in that Stifler-drinking-pee sort of way). caknuck _° is not used to being the voice of reason 02:32, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Just to underscore what's going on here, see [3] - there's certain to be more of the same in this regard. Anyone monitoring articles related to Sarah Palin should be on the watch for it. — Gavia immer (talk) 17:56, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I've deleted & salted a few forms of the vplif variant of MILF which have either referred to or redirected to Sarah Palin. I guess at some point the term or the website might become notable, but it shouldn't be for being linked to her name on Wikipedia. I consider this a WP:BLP issue, but understand there are probably those who won't see it that way. --Versageek 14:05, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

We now have speculation in a vice-presidential candidate's biography that she is not really the parent of her youngest child. Nice. Kelly ^hi! 22:41, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

If speculation does not cease and edit warring starts, I would almost advocate full protection of that article. I think it needs some days to cool down everyone and we have enough admins to make changes if needed. SoWhy 22:46, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

This is exactly the same kind of speculation and inappropriate editing that goes on in every political candidates entry. The article is semi'd and unless you'd like full protection to your preferred version until the end of the election, you're just going to have to actively keep an eye on the article and engage on the talk page, especially since the article won't be fully protected for the next two months. AniMate 22:53, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, currently there is much edit warring even amongst autoconfirmed users. And WP:UNDO does not work, when someone else edits further. I do not think, personally, that there is much more information that just came into existence after she was named presumptive nominee. A full protection for now until the end of the GOP convention might help to stop that...but that's just a thought. SoWhy 23:15, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment I doubt anyone has a problem or I'd have been messaged by now, but I moved this topic up to here and made a sub-topic of it; may as well have everything concerning this subject in one place. HalfShadow 23:17, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

The libelous information is being repeatedly re-inserted, shouldn't there be some blocks for violating BLP per the ArbCom's policy on footnoted quotes? Kelly ^hi! 23:54, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes: I left a note at Talk:Sarah Palin, but: the first time an account makes an edit like this, it should be reverted (3RR does not apply) and a note left directing the editor to WP:BLP and warning them that it will be enforced with blocking. If the account reinserts this material with inappropriate sourcing (and at this point, I think that's all there is) then let me or another admin know. I will block accounts that reinsert this kind of poorly sourced speculation to what is probably our highest-profile article of the moment in violation of WP:BLP, and I suspect (hope) other admins will as well. MastCell ^Talk 03:55, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I've removed it from Talk:Todd_Palin as per this discussion. However do we regard www.dailykos.com as an appropriate or inappropriate source? ϢereSpielChequers 09:34, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Daily Kos is an interesting and sometimes very informative site, but it is not a reliable source.   user:j    (aka justen)   22:32, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

What is the point in blocking him for a day when as soon as he is unblocked he continues to mess with categories in articles like here?. He hasn't taken a blind bit of notice to why he was blocked and is continuing to make faulty edits leaving other editors having to go out of their way to correct him. It is quite embarrassing to think that he is blocked and then continously returns as before -every time. A complete waste of time. Doesn't anybody care enough to stop it permanently? The Bald One ^{White cat} 11:46, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Betacommand made that edit before he was blocked. Nothing to see here. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:02, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I;ve just seen his talk page. Regards. The Bald One ^{White cat} 12:06, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you should just step away from BC altogether; there is little to be gained by your hawk-like attention to his every edit except further acrimony. — Coren ^(talk) 13:39, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Might be time to take a step back, Blofeld. GlassCobra 14:20, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

You think I have nothing better to do than watch his edits? Do you think this is all I do on wikipedia? My "hawk" like scrutiny of his every edit and activity (given that I've only ever checked his contributions list twice ever) as you so wonderfully put it happens to be in the protection of our content of which few people around here seem to care about what he is capable of. Its not your place to tell me who I should be rightly concerned about. I had looked to see if he had taken the liberty to acknowledge his errors and provide a way he might undergo his bot runs more efficiently after he was blocked. I saw nothing on that and saw that he had continued operating again without correcting it again so what am I supposed to think? The Bald One ^{White cat} 15:26, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I can't say what you're thinking, but I can state that I notice that most every time I see your name is you calling for Betacommand to be banned, drawn, quartered, shot and hanged. Whether BC is acting improperly or not is no longer the point because, by this time, you appear to be on a holy crusade to rid Wikipedia of this menace you perceive. Step back, please, and let someone else handle things because you are not helping anything. — Coren ^(talk) 16:29, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Don't be silly. All I want is him to accept responsibility and acknowledge his mistakes and the concerns of others and start doing things properly. If he had done this to start with, we wouldn't be here and he wouldn't have been blocked again. He is without a doubt one of the most serious threats to wikipedia because of the way and speed in which he edits. Now I have the legitimacy to speak up about it as much as anybody on here, particularly when I see a problem. As I can see now that there are others who are concerned and that some attempt to speak to him is being made, I'll make the decision myself to back away, which the crossing out of the message implies as I can now see it hasn't gone unnoticed. I find your response highly patronising as if the say "leave it up to the "authoritive editors". Just because you run a bot too, doesn't give you the right to boss people about. The Bald One ^{White cat} 17:10, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Don't forget "burned at the stake". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:45, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Any substantive discussion should be centralised in one of the BetaCommand ANI subpages, probably Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/I have blocked Betacommand, but Rjd's comments are completely inappropriate, and fail to observe good faith, so I've reverted the section close. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:09, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Just so no one else has to go hunt down what Rjd0060 said, in ANI's history, which is not the easiest task in the world, here's a diff of the removal: [4]. SQL^{Query me!} 20:12, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

{{resolved|indef block for threat of violence Toddst1 (talk) 13:35, 31 August 2008 (UTC)}} Resolved tag disabled for now due to ongoing discussion. — Alan^✉ 18:31, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Could an uninvolved admin please respond to this? Many thanks. — Alan^✉ 13:30, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks. — Alan^✉ 13:37, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

While threats are never acceptable, in my opinion Alan's action was also unacceptable. He should at least have told Martin-1 about the issue first, rather than going in and removing all that stuff without any warning whatsoever. If you're going to do home invasions of that sort, you have to expect violent responses. Looie496 (talk) 16:05, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I would have taken it to WP:AIV, but either way, the indef-block was appropriate. That does not preclude some kind of action against the complaining user if an admin sees fit. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:09, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the complaining user could have brought the issue of the blocked user's talk page here, as just rubbing it out is kind of being a busybody. However, talk pages, including users' talk pages, are supposed to be about furthering wikipedia, not stream-of-consciousness random personal thoughts, which is what it seemed to be. And it's hard to tell from that lengthy rant whether it contained real personal attacks, but personal attacks are fair game for removal, as they are automatically assumed to have nothing to do with furthering wikipedia. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:14, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Having seen the above comments, let me say that I am happy for admins to make a ruling on my own behaviour if they wish to do so, and I will respect it. It is possible that I was out of order, I don't know, and I am willing to apologise or whatever else if it is ruled that way (in which case, please contact me on my user talk or via email, as I may not watch this discussion).

But for now, let me raise the issue which is the reason why I came back to this page at all, namely that not only has the user in question been indef-blocked, but has also been prevented from sending email, and also his user-talk page has been protected. This therefore gives him no channel whatsoever to contest the block. Although his first attempt to request unblocking merely repeated the threat of violence (which I suspect/hope is intended merely as uncivil rather than a real threat), I feel at least that he should be given a chance to try again. I see that he has clearly made good-faith contributions in the past, and it would be a shame to lose him over what may turn out to have been something of a storm in a teacup. — Alan^✉ 18:29, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I am rather beginning to think he should probably be unblocked and be done with it, as what has happened so far is probably enough to have conveyed to him the unacceptability of threats of violence (whether serious or not). If he is unblocked, then I would suggest that he is notified of it via email as a courtesy, as he does appear to have email enabled. However, this is if someone else is willing to do so, as I can't risk emailing him myself and thereby revealing my identity, just in case there is any real intent in the threats of harm (though I seriously doubt it). — Alan^✉ 18:42, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

The admin could consider unblocking his talk page to see if he gets a more reasonable response than continued threats. A full unblock would not be appropriate until he's had a chance to post a reasonable unblock request. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:32, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

This user has previously been the subject of an ANI thread here. Since that time he has been carrying on in much the same way, creating unwikified substubs[5][6], deleting {{fact}}-tagged material in a way that makes nonsense of what remains, making edits that highlight his poor English skills, and unnecessarily duplicating or removing wikilinks. He has also thrown in some vandalistic edits, such as blanking the article Osama bin Laden, and some tendentious ones, such as adding categories not supported by the text of the article. The only thing he's been blocked for so far (twice) is edit warring, but to me the main problem is that his (few) useful contributions are simply not worth the amount of time other editors have to expend in cleaning up his messes. His talk-page history shows that attempts to engage him about his edits and his insufficient command of the English language have, for the most part, fallen on deaf ears. Is there any hope for a lengthy block to give other editors a rest? I think he deserves it for the bin Laden blanking earlier today, if nothing else. Deor (talk) 14:09, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Blocked 2 weeks for vandalism on Osama bin Laden. If others feel this is not long enough, feel free to extend. Toddst1 (talk) 14:19, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Todd. Deor (talk) 18:42, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Yesterday, I made a few edits to the Jewish Internet Defense Force page after a relative absence of about two weeks. Shortly thereafter, the JIDF website issued what they claim to be a picture of me, accompanied by some borderline libelous text speculating that I may be a "High Brow [sic] Antisemite".

The JIDF is also claiming that I deleted "an important Jerusalem Post" editorial on the topic of "Isreal Apartheid Week" from Israel and the apartheid analogy. Their case is somewhat undermined by the link they've provided, however, which shows me adding a link to the JPost article in question. (I later moved this link to a different section of the article. I didn't delete it.)

For details, click here. (Please note that the last time I posted a link to the JIDF's website, they replaced their original text with an Inspector Gadget cartoon. By the time you click on this link, they may have changed the text and/or switched the photograph with a picture of a monkey or somesuch.)

Comments and suggestions welcome. As a side note, I would tend to think that these sorts of petty vendettas speak very poorly about the JIDF ... and about those who write articles in support of them. CJCurrie (talk) 16:31, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

They do at that. Also, that guy's brows don't look exceptionally high. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:38, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

What are our options? I've doing some facilitating/editing of the JIDF article. I suppose policy could allow us to remove links to their site. Other recourse? HG | Talk 16:47, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Possibly stub and fully protect the article under the "Liancourt Rocks more trouble than it's worth" scenario?. Black Kite 16:51, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I've been informed that there are various legal routes I can take. Regarding our on-Wiki options, I'm not entirely certain what the best response would be. I know that User:SlimVirgin went to considerable lengths to remove any and all links to pages that speculated about her identity. I don't think an extreme reaction is warranted in this case (frankly, I suspect that the JIDF might simply be a few idiotic extremists with too much time on their hands), but I would tend to think that Wikipedia articles shouldn't link to pages that libel, or come close to libeling, active editors ... nor to pages that purport to give away that editor's identity.

On the other hand, the JIDF have said that they would prefer their WP article to be deleted. Seen in this light, reducing the page to a stub seems almost like rewarding them for bad behaviour. CJCurrie (talk) 16:57, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I think that the complainer hurts himself by calling too much attention to it. Unless there is a way to control content on the other site, or unless they threaten some kind of illegal action against the complainer, it's best to ignore it - as with other hot-head sites that attempt to expose wikipedia editors' identities. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:08, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

the last thing we need is a repeat of the SV saga. Wait till someone else reports their harrassment, and insert a suitable mention of it in the article. Certainly don't delete it.DGG (talk) 17:17, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Update: The JIDF have removed the picture. However, their page still refers to me as a possible "high brow antisemite" and I see they haven't bothered to correct the Jerusalem Post information. They've now removed this as well. CJCurrie (talk) 17:48, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Too much drama here. This is something of a tempest in a teapot, and seems to be a spillover of a year-long flame war on Facebook. Some of the editors involved seem to be veterans of that flame war, and are bringing that drama to Wikipedia. One editor has published articles about the JIDF and insists that his expertise be recognized. The editing disputes themselves aren't that serious, though. Please watch for more drama; I'm going for a hike. Thanks. --John Nagle (talk) 20:29, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Happy trails! Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 21:01, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

An editor using the following account has claimed to be blogger Nick Anthis of The Scientific Activist: Nickanthis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Anthis has edited wikipedia for some time using this account: Biochemnick (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Biochemnick says that User:Nickanthis is not him. The discussion can be found on User talk:Nickanthis with some of the discussion copied at Talk:The Scientific Activist.

I'd like an admin to take a look and see if a block on the new account would be appropriate. Thanks in advance. -MrFizyx (talk) 19:01, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

You might want to report this at WP:UAA. SoWhy 19:16, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'll try that. -MrFizyx (talk) 19:32, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Indefblocked as a troll. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 20:24, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Please remove Image:IanSpain2.gif as criterion WP:CSD#G7. Reference otrs:1880650. I lack the tools. Thank you. NonvocalScream (talk) 19:36, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Done. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ has nothing to declare except his jeans 19:42, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm guessing Special:Contributions/99.10.114.94 is from Fishers High School and is conducting a dumb vendetta against Hamilton Southeastern High School - can someone deal with in an appropiate fashion? Exxolon (talk) 20:10, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Looks like the IP has stopped for now. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:28, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Correctly cited information regarding Governor Palin is being removed from her wikipedia page by the user Kelly. This user appears to remove any information which could tarnish the Governor's reputation, regardless of how well it is cited. I would very much like this looked into.

Thank you, Tiger97882 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tiger97882 (talk • contribs) 20:32, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

You added a libellous conspiracy theory and it was removed. Your cite was the DailyKos, which is far from a reliable source. Please read WP:BLP. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 20:38, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Go away. Daily Kos is not a reliable source. edit: beaten by ICB Jtrainor (talk) 20:38, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict, but I still think my answer is nicest) Looks to me like you're trying to insert information that is still mainly sourced from a blog. There's no hurry; if this story is true, it will be picked up by a reliable source, like newspapers, soon, and then it'll be added to the article, in a way that doesn't give it undue weight. After all, she is notable for her political career, not for the details of her personal life. I notice that the picture you wanted to add is one about which your copyright is unclear; did you really take that photograph of Governor Palin? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:40, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) PLEASE NOTE that the link to DailyKos is an independent diary entry is and NOT AN OFFICIAL POST. It is at the same level as a post on blogger.com. Please do not cite DailyKos as being the author. This is the author --mboverload@ 20:44, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Is there some sort of Kos meatpuppetry effort at work? Take a look at [7][8]. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 20:45, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

*shrug* when a "story" like this pervades through the InterWeb, there's always going to be people trying to add it to an article. As FisherQueen says, if/when it's picked up by reliable sources it can stand; until then we just RBI. Black Kite 20:50, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

It is also more likely that the two users linked by ICB are the same user. Same ISP, same wording, etc. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 20:52, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

And just as I mention reliable sources, this appears (though they mention "completely unfounded" so as to guard against any legal shenanigans). Still unsure about WP:WEIGHT, though. Black Kite 20:58, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest that "internet rumours" identified as "completely unfounded" are probably not a good candidate for inclusion in a WP:BLP. Guy (Help!) 21:05, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Concur - though the choice of photo in that source is... telling. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 21:17, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

That source mentioned the rumour in one line, but goes into relative depth about some bridge and a case involving her ex-brother in law (quotes from third parties, analysis). These matters receive a couple of lines in the WP article, so the weight given to the pregnancy in that article is properly reflected in ours = none. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:23, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what exactly is going on, but it looks like someone (possibly 66.55.199.47) suddenly made an edit as Deamon138 (talk · contribs) ...what's going on? ~ Troy (talk) 02:35, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Deamon138's edits were fine right before and after that one. That's strange... ~ Troy (talk) 02:36, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Same with GO-PCHS-NJROTC (talk · contribs) ...recently, the edits were radically different. ~ Troy (talk) 02:41, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Very stange indeed, this is out of the ordinary for GO-PCHS-NJROTC (I can not speak for Deamon138 as I do not know him), this edit makes me think the accounts have been compromised and I am thinking a block is in order until we can sort this out. Though for the sake of not wanring to jump the gun I would like another admin opinion. Tiptoety ^talk 02:48, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

concur, both appear compromised. I'll handle GO-PCHS. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 02:50, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Deamon138 has been blocked, I will send him a email in hopes of getting to the bottom of this. Tiptoety ^talk 02:54, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Looks like he does not have email enabled. Tiptoety ^talk 02:55, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

They do appear compromised. I support the blocks.--Xp54321 ^{(Hello! • Contribs)} 02:58, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

(e/c) Has someone tried emailing GO-PCHS-NJROTC about the situation? -- RyRy (talk) 02:59, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll try doing so now.--Xp54321 ^{(Hello! • Contribs)} 03:00, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

RyRy, already have. Tiptoety ^talk 03:01, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I've e-mailed GO-PCHS, and added a string to confirm their identity if and when they get their account back. No idea what to do with Deamon138, though - which is why we always enable e-mail, kids. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 03:01, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Yep, take this as a lesson learned for everyone, enable your email! At this time there is really nothing we can do about Deamon, so he is just going to have to remain blocked. Tiptoety ^talk 03:04, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

With some luck he'll know another Wikipedian off-site (real world, or another site) who can contact him and vouch for him. --Tango (talk) 03:09, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Couldn't the email have been changed or removed by the person who compromised the account? -- Jeandré, 2008-08-31t07:09z

Anybody get a checkuser yet? WODUP 03:06, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Working on it.. Tiptoety ^talk 03:08, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm asking a steward to lock the accounts, pending checkuser, to avoid cross wiki vandalism. MBisanz ^talk 03:15, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Apparently neither is a global account, so a local block should do, pending checkuser. MBisanz ^talk 03:16, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I have also notified a few checkusers, and they should be responding quickly. Tiptoety ^talk 03:16, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Kind of a strange place to do that. I mean, the Sandbox, where the edits are going to do the least amount of damage. HalfShadow 03:26, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, but I don't think it could have gone on for an hour and a half in the mainspace. WODUP 03:31, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Still kind of weird, though. Compies usually try to do as much damage as physically possible before getting axed. HalfShadow 03:33, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll try contacting GO-PCHS-NJROTC via Myspace regarding this. The account's activity indicates that it is compromised by some hacker... Blake Gripling (talk) 07:29, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

 Done I've unblocked GO-NCHS-NJROTC; he confirmed his identity by posting a scrambled list of the dates for the Cincinnati Bengals games from 2005. Why I have a Bengals schedule magnet near my desk is not open to debate, thank you - but since I e-mailed the string, and he posted it, it's a safe bet that his account is back under his control. Did we ever end up running a checkuser to find additional accounts used (or compromised) by this IP? UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 16:21, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Still working on the CheckUser part.. (another lesson learned: We need more CheckUsers). Tiptoety ^talk 17:49, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Checkuser shows that the GO-NCHS-PJROTC "compromised" edits are from the same IP that GO- has been using, and there's nothing to indicate it's from a different computer. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 18:23, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

He's indicated in the past that he regularly edits from public terminals. He may have forgotten to log off. Mr.Z-man 20:43, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

UltraExactZZ, did you use special:emailuser or a known address. Not that a known e-mail account couldn't be compromised, if that's what happened. WODUP 18:58, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

What's the IP address? If it's one of the two public terminals, I'm going to contact the appropriate admin. If it starts with 71 or 74, then email the logs (with timestamp) to abuse DOT 2wire204 AT embarqmail DOT com, or just send them through Wikipedia, and I'll determine the security status of the machine that the activity came from. Do NOT contact Embarq (unless it's the 209.x.x.x IP address) as this will cause unneeded delays. GO-PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 21:23, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Another possible issue at hand is IP address spoofing, but I'm wondering why somebody would go to such trouble to make a few edits in the sandbox. Personal attack at us two users? Testing out a plan to carry out a more serious attack at the project? :/ GO-PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 21:36, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Also, I've noticed that you spelled it "GO-NCHS-PJROTC" on this disscussion, and you probably got inaccurate results if you did the same when running checkuser. GO-PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 23:08, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I have recieved a email from a person claiming to be Deamon, stating that their account was never compromised and that it in fact was them that made the disruptive edits. I have spoken with a CheckUser has states that it more likely than not this users account was never compromised and as such I am going to unblock the account letting them off for timed served for their disruptive behavior. Tiptoety ^talk 23:10, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I was asked by Tiptoey to examine Deamon138. I see Jpgordon did too. He can speak to his CU findings as he likes, but in my view, based on what I saw, either that account is not compromised (in other words, it went "bad") or it was compromised by someone that lives in the same geographical area. Perhaps as close as a friend or little brother. But since the edits in question are just dinking around in the sandbox, I think leaving this editor unblocked is fine. Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 23:19, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi everyone! I thought I'd better comment here, and really say sorry firstly for the disruption I caused, and also apologize to all who have commented here and been distracted by these events. I am sorry for wasting your time. Also, I have enabled email per this discussion. Anyway, this will never happen again, and now I hope to get back to some regular editing! Once again, sorry. Deamon138 (talk) 01:00, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't give you a hard problem. Try not to fuck it up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.112.43.3 (talk • contribs) 22:55, 31 August 2008

I get the feeling that the above editor never made it to the charm school. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:34, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Maybe the one in Joliet, Illinois. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:19, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

But at least he can spell. HalfShadow 00:35, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

This article is seeing an endless revert cycle between BaldPete (talk · contribs) and HairyHannah (talk · contribs); see [9]. The dispute is about whether to mention some minor criminal charges; this page has been protected in the past due to the same dispute. BaldPete was involved in the earlier case. HairyHannah is a 3-day old account. I have just posted the first warnings on their talk pages, but thought this is egregious enough to be worth bringing up here. Looie496 (talk) 01:33, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Might want to suggest a full lock for a couple of days. Page looks like a tennis match. HalfShadow 01:36, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Reported both accounts. Other than full-protecting the page, I see no other option. They clearly have no intention of stopping. HalfShadow 01:44, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Somebody needs to warn or block Ed Fitzgerald (talk · contribs), who has been waging a mass revert-war against admin Calliopejen1 (talk · contribs) reinstating non-free images without any justification, and abusively removing legitimate "di-" deletion tags from image pages she tagged. Links: here and multiple other articles; here and multiple other images. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:13, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

• I have removed some of the more obvious overuses of non-free images, and will have a word with Ed. Black Kite 23:26, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Calliopejen1 came to my attention when she threatened to delete appropriate fair-use images from J.R.R. Tolkien (see [10] and [11]). I thought this choice on her part indicated extremely poor editorial judgement, so I looked at her contributions, and, indeed, found a whole slew of deletions of images that were perfectly appropriate to the articles they were in, and these I restored. Three or four of her deletions were reasonable (for instance, the picture of Tolkien in the Anglo-Saxon Language article) and I left those alone.

I used proper editorial judgment in deciding whether the images should be restored or not, and never restored simply because she had deleted it - so there's been no improper "mass revert-war" on my part.

That's about all I have to say at the moment, except that FPS and I have been somewhat at loggerheads recently (see my comments about him here, and our discussions here and here) because we have a fundamental disagreement about how NFCC poicy should be enforced. My feeling is that images should be deleted because of copyright concerns only on the basis of community consensus, which is properly expressed at an IfD, while FPS apparently believes that any editor can delete images they feel are not in compliance at will, with no community involvement -- or involvement only at DRV when the burden of proof is reversed. (As an admin, FPS can delete images directly, whereas non-admins such as Caliopejen1 have to use a back-door approach, which is to remove an image from an article, so that it is orphaned and will be deleted automatically.) I find this to be fundamentally opposed to the basic values of the project.

I'll perhaps have more to say later on if it's required of me, but right now my dinner has been served, and after that I'll return to the task I was interrupted from, which was posting notices on the talk pages of articles, images from which Calliopejen1 has nominated for deletion -- apparently she didn't think it necessary to notify the editors of these pages that a part of their articles were being considered for deletion. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 23:35, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Calliopejen1 is an admin. Algebraist 23:38, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Really! I find that suprising. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 23:54, 28 August 2008 (UTC) (Ah! I see now that FPS referred to her as an admin in his first sentence, which I missed.) Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 23:59, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

This is a complex subject; all I have done so far is remove (a) images from articles where they are overused (i.e. in two or more articles when one would do), and (b) where free replacements are easily sourceable. Black Kite 23:39, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

As I said on my talk page, it's easy to say that an image will be "easily sourceable", but less easy in reality to find free images. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 00:18, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

(ec)When you get back from dinner and have time in between those notifications, maybe you can explain to us how the burden of proof is reversed at deletion review. So far as my understanding goes, when posting uploading a non-free image, the burden of proof is on the uploader to show that it's use fits the fair use criteria, at an IFD debate, the burden of proof is still on those advocating for the image's retention, and if the image is deleted and goes to DRV the burden of proof remains with those who want to keep the image. Or am I missing something? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 23:43, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't see what's difficult about this. At IfD, the burden is on the nominator to provide a strong argument for the deletion of the image. At DRV the burden is on the person seeking to overturn the deletion to make a strong argument that the deletion was improper. That may not be official policy, but it's very much what happens in reality, as anyone who's tried to overturn a deletion at DRV will attest. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 23:57, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

No, you're right, but as ever, everything doesn't fit into the pre-arranged pigeonholes. For example, we (and Commons) appear to have no non-free image of Idi Amin. Whilst living, I suspect this might be quite a difficult image to source. The second question is whether a non-free image is reasonable at Uganda despite already being in Idi Amin. Whilst being quite tough on fair-use (I have been called am image Nazi in the past by someone who failed Godwin's Law quite dramatically), this might be said to be reasonable. It's something to discuss. However, some of the other examples mentioned above are not, and I have removed them. Black Kite 23:49, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Amin died five years ago. Algebraist 23:52, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Whoops. I was thinking of Robert Mugabe. The general point still applies, though. Black Kite 23:55, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

(out) If I may return to the original subject -- Does this really qualify as a "mass revert war", worthy of a notice at AN/I, here among the sock-puppets and vandals? A blockable offense to disagree with an admin on NFCC policy and their editorial judgment? Seems a bit draconian to me. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 00:18, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Another question - wouldn't it be relatively easy for the system to automatically place a notification on the articles an image is used in when it's nominated for deletion? I understand from FPS that it's not required for an editor to place such a notice, but I always thought it was only fair that they do so -- after all, both the editors of the article and the nominator for deletion are only interested in improving Wikipedia, and should both be interested in a full and open discussion of the image's value among as many interested editors as possible. For that reason I would hope that most editors would make that notification, although Calliopejen1 chose not to do so (and I wish she hadn't nominated so many images of Armenians used on so many pages, since making the notifcations manually after the fact is pretty tedious), but if the system did it, wouldn't it be easier, and fairer, all around? Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 00:54, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

It is definitely something worth discussion; see this thread above, where the judgment of the originator of this thread has been fairly comprehensively challenged. It's interesting that FPS has started a new thread here rather than make a substantive response at that thread or even at their talk. This issue is far from simple, and I think all admins and concerned users need to take an interest in it, refrain from short-circuiting legitimate debate by out-of-process deletions, and consider contributing to discussions at the proper place. --John (talk) 01:35, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Keep in mind that deletionists live to delete stuff. Notification, which would be the polite thing to do, gets in the way of deleting stuff. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:47, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Some people use a tool to help them list something for AfD or other deletion processes though, don't they? It simply needs an extra stage put in that tool, Twinkle or whichever one it is. Sticky Parkin 13:49, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

What's really needed is the deletionist caring about anything other than deleting stuff. Don't hold your breath. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:00, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I sometimes wonder what the motivation is. After all, deleting images isn't like deleting unsourced information, or rewriting for a clearer presentation. It doesn't make the encyclopedia better in any appeciable way - in fact, image deletion arguably makes it less interesting and useful. Are they all copyright attorneys? Were they all abused by an evil image when they were children? Did a drunk-driving image run over their dog? I really don't get why people would voluntarily spend their free time doing this. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 16:15, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

The argument would be that removing excessive fair-use from articles does actually improve the encyclopedia, in that it makes it more "Free", per the mission statement. I admit that this argument rarely goes down well with the editors of those pages :) Black Kite 16:32, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

No, I recognize that's the argument, but it just feels so... I don't know, bloodless to me, that I have difficulty understanding what attracts people (some of them rather fanatically) to dedicate themselves to it.

Clearly, there's a communication gap here, a classic "failure to communicate." Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 16:47, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Adding notifications to articles? Yes - in fact BetacommandBot can ... oh hang on. Black Kite 14:26, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I believe other bots do the same thing, and I'm appreciative of the fact. I wish that notifying the uploader and the talk pages of articles was a requirement rather than a suggestion which appears to be ignored in most cases. I gave up trying to notify talk pages of User:Calliopejen1's nominations for deletion, there were just too many of them. I would have been spending all my time doing this one laborious and tedious task, instead of what I prefer doing, which is editing encyclopedia articles. This means that one day, an editor is going to discover that an image has been deleted from the article he or she watches over, having never had an opprotunity to be involved in the discussion about deleting it, which will be decided by people who hang out at IfD -- doesn't seem quite equitable, does it? Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 16:08, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

No, I couldn't resist the BCBot remark, but actually I completely agree with you. It shouldn't be too difficult for a bot to do this - try asking at Wikipedia:Bot requests? Black Kite 16:29, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that suggestion, I will. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 16:49, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I've posted that idea here. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 16:57, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I was under the impression that Twinkle already did this routinely (not the article talk pages, but the image captions in the articles themselves) - but it turns out I seem to have been mistaken. Strange. It shouldn't be so terribly difficult to implement. (Although, finding the caption to tack the notification on can be trickier than one might think, especially if the image is in an infobox, where the script won't find the standard [[Image:...]] syntax.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:11, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be better that notifications go on the talk page, rather than disfigure the image caption. We already have far too many notices and notes and tags on the articles which are aimed entirely at editors and only get in the way of users, the people who come to Wikipedia to get some information. We need to start thinking more about our presentation to readers, and cut back as much as possible on what are, essentially, internal memoranda between editors put in "public" places. My analogy is opening up a printed encyclopedia, and finding a page covered in post-it notes with messages between the book's editors. We wouldn't put up with that, and there's no reason that our users need to put up with a bunch of internal memoranda getting in their way. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 19:31, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Got a point there, I guess. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:39, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

As to why people want to make the encyclopedia worse by removing images they consider to be not fair use (this is mainly addressed to Baseball Bugs) isn't it because to use them otherwise might be erm...illegal, if they're under copyright? Sticky Parkin 18:02, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeh, there have been countless lawsuits against wikipedia due to the use of images that are also on a thousand other websites. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:05, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Excellent point. In another thread on my talk page I referred to one instance where User:Calliopejen1 had removed from this article a picture of a Nazi officer (this one) and replaced with an inferior image, the first being non-free and the second, a Commons image, being obstensibly free. Not only does this raise questions about when the inferior quality of a free image justifies the use of a superior non-free image, a question which, at least to my knowledge, no one has addressed, but also, in researching the removed non-free image (which I'm fairly certain, but cannot prove, is actually not covered by copyright), I found that it was present on at least a dozen other websites. At what point does the widespread proliferation of an image make it fair game for use here? The absolutists would probably answer both my questions "Never", but I think that's not only unreasonable, and harms the project by unecessarily limiting the range of images available to us, but is not justified by the current state of fair use in American law. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 19:23, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah, the "it's OK to drive at 100mph down this road, because everyone else does it and there's never any police around" argument. Marvellous. Black Kite 19:35, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Gee, that's not even close to a good analogy. Copyright and other intellectual properties are not a god-given right, they're provided for in order to insure that people who create things of value are able to benefit from their work. However, it's not an all-encompassing license, there are limitations to it and fair use is one of them. Another is that rights owners have to make a reasonable effort to protect their property. You can't, for instance, send out a publicity picture for free to every publication in the country, and then claim copyright on it when someone republishes it on a blog without your direct permission. You have, in fact, given de facto permission by widely distributing the photo without restrictions, even if you technically retain the copyright on the photo. The reason that Kimberly-Clarke and Johnson & Johnson work so hard to stamp out colloquial use of "Kleenex" and "Band-Aids" for tissues and bandage strips is that if they don't they're liable to lose their trademarks. So if a photo appears widely on the internet, and no one's going around to try and stop its spread, there's a fairly good argument to be made that the use of the photo is fair game.

Now, that's not at all akin to going 100mph because someone else is doing it, it's more like not stopping at a stop sign because a big bush has obscured it. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 04:05, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

No, it's stretching the analogy a bit, but the important point is to strike a reasonable balance between (a) minimal use of fair-use where it clearly improves the encyclopedia, and (b) plastering copyrighted images all over the place without the slightest thought, even when they're obviously not necessary. Currently, Wikipedia errs too far towards (b), mostly because people don't actually understand the concept of fair-use (or even what fair-use actually means). Black Kite 11:35, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

And that's not helped by the fact that wikipedia's page on fair use is nearly incomprehensible. It looks like it was written by law-school dropouts. But the essence of it seems to be "do no harm", which has virtually nothing to do with wikipedia's notion of how to apply fair use. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:48, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, my understanding is that the boundaries of acceptable fair use are much broader than the project's policy allows, which is wny many people perceive this headlong rush to delete anything that even remotely crosses the line (in terms of WP policy) as "copyright paranoia." What that means is that a significant percentage of those images deleted because T's aren't crossed and I's dotted are not "illegal" in any reasonable interpretation of the law. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 18:56, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Why risk it? Plus it would reflect on us badly. It sort of makes the wiki look good (ethically I mean lol) that we're strict about these things. I agree with you ironically about the warnings etc people place on talk pages when people haven't put the info in the right part of the form or something, so whatever automated tool or robot brain they're using can't see that all the info's on there, they just see the empty box. That is annoying, especially to new users or those of us not that confident at uploading. There's quite a few of such people/bots around though so it's policy/what we deem acceptable that needs changing, not individual people. Sticky Parkin 23:40, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Ethics, sí; esthetics, NO. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:01, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Of course, the reality is that ethics has nothing to do with it. I wasn't privy to whatever deliberations took place within the foundation, but the NFCC policy has the smell of lawyers all over it. It's not there because the foundation wants to be ethical, it's there because some lawyers decided it was a scheme that might prevent the foundation from being sued, and a workable defense if it was. Because of that, it is conservative in the extreme, and when you add an absolutist and extreme interpretation to the enforcement of it, as many here do, you get a situation which has, with some justification, been called "copyright paranoia".

Why take the risk? Because it improves the encyclopedia significantly, and because the risk is actually very much smaller than is being advertised. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 04:11, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

The 100 MPH analogy is misleading. Wikipedia's paranoid approach is actually more like driving 30 in a 45 zone, just to "be safe". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:11, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I've outdented again in order to ask again, because it does rather effect me and no one has yet answered it, was what I did a "mass revert war" and is it a blockable offense, as claimed by User:Future Perfect at Sunrise? Is it legitimate to disagree with another editor's judgment and their interpretation of how NFCC policy should be enforced, and undo their removal of images on a number of articles, given that each revert was individually considered, and those removals which were judged to be legitimate were not reverted? Should I have been warned, and this thread (enjoyable and interesting as it's been) started at AN/I? Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 04:18, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Although Ed's position seems to be more in keeping with the law and with Wikipedia policy, I would like to add a little correction. "... rights owners have to make a reasonable effort to protect their property" is incorrect as to copyright law, both now, under Berne, and in the past. The examples given relate to trademarks, where the statement does apply. In particular, A plastering an image all over the web does not authorize others to do the same, or to plaster it somewhere other than where A plastered it. However, we're not talking about whether the image is a nominal copyright violation, but whether it's allowed by fair use and by WP:NFCC.

The real problem is the underlying assumption (that I once naively believed) that copyright and fair use rules had anything to do with wikipedia's policy on the subject. They don't. Wikipedia simply has a policy of having as few fair-use images as possible, and if a person or building still stand, then theoretically a free photo could be taken, and hence the deletionists clobber any fair use photos in those cases. That's how we ended up with this charming photo of Carmen Electra being the article's main photo for a long time. Free trumps fair use, no matter that the photo is so ugly it would make paparazzi grimace. That's the true wikipedia policy on the subject in a nutshell. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:01, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Give or take the polemic, yes, the policy is precisely that: free trumps fair use. See the top left, under the jigsaw globe. Guy (Help!) 21:07, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia remains "free" regardless of whether it has one fair-use photograph or a hundred. Our concern should be to provide, free of charge, accurate and reliable information, well-presented, and that is something that fair-use images help us to do. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 03:06, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

No, actually, fair use impedes that goal by restricting what is redistributable. But feel free to lobby the foundation to change the policy and allow decorative fair use images if you want - I don't think it's likely to happen, but you can try. Guy (Help!) 21:12, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment It seems to me some editors aren't even aware of current policy. Current policy is that free trumps NFCC regardless of quality issues. The only justification for using images under NFCC if free images are available is if there is something important to show which is not shown in the free image. This may for example be a historic photo. Any argument 'we should use this NFCC image because it looks better then the free image' is therefore liable to be ignored. The second issue is what's a replacable image. Current policy is that if it's a living person who appears in public (i.e. anyone in prison, under house arrest, anyone who lives as a recluse etc is a different case) then it's replacable. Both of these are not only in our policy but spelled out to some degree in the foundation directive Meta:Resolution:Licensing policy. An EDP may not allow material where we can reasonably expect someone to upload a freely licensed file for the same purpose, such as is the case for almost all portraits of living notable individuals. (almost all i.e. there are only going to be limited exceptions) Any content used under an EDP must be replaced with a freely licensed work whenever one is available which will serve the same educational purpose. (same educational purpose, i.e. the fact that one looks better is not sufficient). There is still a very large grey area (e.g. how important is it to show how someone looked 10 years ago?) but the living people and free trumps NFCC regardless of which one 'looks better' is clear cut. Nil Einne (talk) 01:52, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I find this very interesting, and an object lesson in how perceptions differ, because your summary of policy is much more restrictive than the actual policy is, since it clearly allows for possibilities where free images would not trump fair use ones.

This is, I think, the nub of the problem, that deletionists operate on their extremely restrictive understanding of the policy, rather than deal with the reality that the policy recognizes that the issue is complex, that it's not cut-and-dried, and that it's subject to discussion. Those who operate in a dogmatic and absolutist manner to cut off any possibility of discussion are therefore (ironically) in violation of the spirit and the words of the policy.

Frankly, anyone who says "I am absolutely right, there is no need for discussion, this image violates policy" about an image about which other editors have differing opinions, probably doesn't really understand image policy at all, only a cartoon version of it. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 02:52, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Just to remind you, Ed, that the block warning was most of all about the second set of your disruptive edits: removing deletion tags from image pages that had been placed there in good faith, and edit-warring over it [12]. That was definitely against policy, and yes, I would have blocked you for that if you had continued after my warning. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:39, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Really? That's interesting, because this is what you wrote up there at the top of the page:

Somebody needs to warn or block Ed Fitzgerald (talk · contribs), who has been waging a mass revert-war against admin Calliopejen1 (talk · contribs) reinstating non-free images without any justification, and abusively removing legitimate "di-" deletion tags from image pages she tagged. Links: here and multiple other articles; here and multiple other images.

The links you provided were all for my supposed "mass-revert war", and you didn't bother to mention removing the deletion tags until the end, and didn't mention my "edit warring" at all.

So you came here to get assistance from other editors, but didn't communicate to other editors the dire deeds I had done that your required assistance with? Seems odd.

But thank you for your (extremely delayed) clarification. I now know that my transgression was all about process: I impulsively removed a couple of egregiously bad "di-" tags instead of rigorously following whatever explicit procedure was required. (I could, of course, say that I say that I was following your own example when you ignored explicit IfD closing procedures and used your own judgment to delete some images, but I won't -- I just thought the "di-" tags were pretty obviously b.s. so I removed them.) In the future, I will endeavour to follow proper prodecure in those matters, and, in the future, when I come across an editor using extremely poor judgement to remove images from article, I'll restore the most egregious examples with no trepidation, knowing that such behavior is not a "mass-revert war" and is not a blockable offense. I beg you to remember that as well.

I gather that this thread can now be closed? Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 17:14, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, sure it can be closed. Ed's post just above has clearly demonstrated he's beyond reachable by rational discourse, so, yeah, no point in further talk here. He'll just need to be treated like a common vandal next time he acts up. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:45, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

LOL! (literally!) Thanks, my first chuckle of the day! "Unreachable by rational discourse" Excellent - I'm going to add that to my user page.

One of the ways in which we're different (one of them) is that I'm not a full time image warrior, and, for the most part, I don't operate from a dogmatic predisposition. (Yes, I certainly have strong ideas, but I generally deal with the evidence I have before me and not from an absolutist perspective.) I don't go out looking for image problems, I only deal with them when they drop into my lap, such as when User:Calliopejen1 came to the J.R.R. Tolkien article and threatened to remove the fair-use images from it. I prefer to contribute to the encyclopedia in a positive way, by editing and creating articles, which perhaps I can return to now that's it's abundantly clear, thanks to your post above, exactly what's going on here.

Alright, now that we've had a good laugh, could some administrator be bold and close out this thread, now that the instigator and the subject have agreed that it's run its course? Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 18:13, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Looks like no one's around -- all the admins must be dueling each other on the Sarah Palin talk page. Ed Fitzgerald ("unreachable by rational discourse") ^{(t / c)} 00:34, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

If we're unreachable by rational discourse, we have to conclude that the only way we would be reachable is through irrational discourse. Maybe they should try that. After they're done fighting off the Sarah Palin vandalism blizzard. "Ooooh... I'm a nominee and I'm OK... I work all night and I sleep all day..." Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:01, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'll give some irrational discourse a try:

π! √2? e!!

How's that? Ed Fitzgerald "unreachable by rational discourse"^{(t / c)} 04:57, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Awesome. A "π" in the face. Hey, can I use that? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 05:36, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Irrational discourse: it's a piece of cake!

Jeez, I gotta go do some editing, between this and the RFCU on FPS I'm getting nothing done whatsoever. Ed Fitzgerald "unreachable by rational discourse"^{(t / c)} 05:40, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

This user has made repeated legal threats against Wikipedia after I editted an article that he originally authored. 1 2 3. In addition, I consider his personal attacks 4 5 6 (also present in the diffs with legal threats), especially the accusation of racism, to be beyond reason. The user has a history of personal attacks. I wouldn't report him if this was an isolated incident, but the sheer number and intensity of the personal attacks combined with the complete lack of remorse and the complete lack of respect for Wiki policy leads me to believe that action is necessary. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 03:37, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

This is old news. I've already told BehnamFarid about this here when it happened as he apparently was not aware of the policy. And contrary to what you claim, he did respond to my comments. Your diffs are five days old anyways. Khoikhoi 03:48, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

He's been editting for two years and he didn't know that writing in Wikipedia was subject to editting by anyone? You're right, I did wait awhile before reporting him. I slept on it. I'm no longer upset. I think this is the right thing to do. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 03:52, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Whether or not User:BehnamFarid knew about WP:NLT before making legal threats, now that a clear and unambiguous legal threat has been made[13], the threat must either be retracted or the user who made it must be blocked. After taking a quick look throught the talk page of the article in question, Talk:Unruled Paper (film), I do not see User:BehnamFarid retracting the legal threat anywhere thus far. How is that "old news"? Nsk92 (talk) 04:28, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll leave a note on his talk page. Khoikhoi 04:51, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

This is both a legal threat and a revocation of the GFDL licensing of his contributions. Unless there has been a subsequent retraction, he should be blocked immediately. CIreland (talk) 05:00, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

As I've said above, I've asked him to retract his statements, so we'll see what he says. Khoikhoi 05:01, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I thought WP:NLT was clear. Block until legal threat is retracted, not "Let's dither about it for a while until somebody decides to be decisive." Corvus cornix_talk 05:14, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

In my capicty as an adminstrator, I have asked him to retract his comment. We'll await his response once he resumes editing (the user in question does not appear to be online right now), as the comment appears to be about a week old. There is no rush here as his comments at User talk:Stifle doen't even seem to show that he was serious in the first place. Khoikhoi 05:47, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I forgot about that. He called me a racist too. And suggested Stifle might be a racist. You guys don't seem too concerned with his personal attacks, you don't think these are severe enough to warrant action? AzureFury (talk | contribs) 07:48, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

That overshadows the repeated statement, "my Wikipedia article", which illustrates he hasn't read WP:OWN, either. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:58, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

If you're giving him a chance to retract before blocking him, by my understanding, you're going against policy. I understand the policy to be that legal threat=indef block, no questions. The user making the threat then has the opportunity to retract the legal threat on his own talk page as part of an unblock request. Bugs is right that there a clear WP:OWN issues here, too. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 08:02, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:NLT states "If you must take legal action, we cannot prevent you from doing so. However, it is required that you do not edit Wikipedia until the legal matter has been resolved." To me that says INDEF-BLOCK. That doesn't mean forever, but only until the issue is resolved in some way. There is no requirement or even suggestion of any need to wait until the guy has edited again. He should be blocked immediately. He can always appeal the block on his talk page, if he cares to. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 08:10, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

An admin beat me to the quote by a minute, and is presumably making the same point, that the guy should be blocked immediately. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 08:12, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Stifle told him about NLT, and he dropped one week ago. If he continued making threats then we would have an actual issue, but after Stifle told him about it he moved on. This is old stuff being recycled. Khoikhoi 08:16, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

This also raises a technical question - Even though he deleted something and claims he owns it exclusively, it's still in the history and is still fair game for use, right? I would think so, anyway. The exception would be if he had already published it elsewhere and hence it was a copyright violation. But if it's original to wikipedia, then I would think wikipedia would still own it, even if it's currently not in the article. Perhaps a legal beagle could answer this. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 08:04, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

AzureFury, your behavior hasn't been that much better: [14]. If I were to take action on this, I would would probably block both of you. Behnam was already warned for incivility, so please drop it. Trying to get your opponent in a content dispute blocked will not get you anywhere, since you're not citing any recent diffs. Stifle himself is an admin and has already addressed his comment anyways. Khoikhoi 08:12, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

That's sarcasm. I'm showing how ridiculous it is to call us fundamentalists. It's not a personal attack, as I explained. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 08:19, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

<-you will not be allowed to continue editing until it is resolved Corvus cornix_talk 08:09, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

BehnamFarid has advised me that he does not intend editing Wikipedia for some time due to health issues.

I agree with Khoikhoi that this is an old story; while I confess to having extended BehnamFarid considerable latitude in the past, I think that the threats are idle and at this point moot. He is, however, running out of warnings on the WP:AGF and WP:NPA fronts. I don't think any action would be constructive right now, though. Stifle (talk) 08:23, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

He has not retracted the legal threat, so the rules say he still should be blocked. That does not preclude blocking his antagonists also, as needed. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 08:32, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

The rules say it, but what would it achieve? Stifle (talk) 09:22, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

It could achieve a promise from him to remove the legal threat before he does anything else. Then you lift the block, and if the first edit he does is not removing the legal threat, then he gets blocked again. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:25, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Also lost in the shuffle is how POV-laden that Unruled Paper (film) article is. It reads like a movie reviewer's essay, not an encyclopedia entry. The first 3 paragraphs talk about how wonderful it is (which may well be true, subjectively speaking) with maybe 1 sentence actually discussing the content of the film. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 08:47, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Already working on an alternate version at User talk:Khoikhoi/Unruled Paper and User:Khoikhoi/Unruled Paper in the past few days. Khoikhoi 08:52, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

- User:AzureFury has been waging a war against me ever since he encountered me. A brief review of the edits of this User clearly shows that he constantly is engaged in edit wars with various Wikipedia editors; in other words, I am not his first nor his only target. He has now taken on himself to act as a public prosecutor. He claims that he has "edited an article", the article being Unruled Paper (film). As the details on the talk page of this entry clearly show, User:AzureFury has undertaken this so-called editing without having seen the film, without having read an independent source regarding this film, without knowing the director of the film and/or any of his works, without knowing any actors acting in this film, without knowing the second script-writer of the film, without knowing the language of the film [the film as known to me, has no subtitles], etc. How and on what account can he have "edited" the entry at issue? By his own admission, the entries concerning Bach and Beethoven `suffer' from exactly the same `shortcomings' as that concerning "Unruled Paper". Explicitly, he wrote [15]:

I read the leads in the articles on Beethoven and Bach. I noticed they also lacked citation and were laced with POV language such as "brought it to its ultimate maturity" and "unrivaled control". It seems to me artists are not very concerned with objectivity, no surprise there.

At the time of this writing, User:AzureFury has not made even a single edit in either of these two entries, i.e. those of Bach's and Beethoven's. The question arises as to the reason for User:AzureFury taking the liberty and "editing" a Wikipedia entry about the subject matter of which to his own admission, and to my best judgement, he knows absolutely nothing. Is this attitude not a sign of hubris against everything Iranian? As I shall point out below, User:AzureFury has threatened to ram planes into Iranian buildings. In other words, User:AzureFury is at best someone who is incapable of judging the enormity of his own words and actions on the Wikipedia pages and has taken on himself to play the victim of my supposed injustices towards him.

User:AzureFury asserts that I accused him, or perhaps someone else, of racism. A search of the texts written by me on the talk page of Unruled Paper [16] clearly shows that I used the word "racism" once and the word "racist" thrice. I reproduce the relevant part of my text here below (the boldfaced words are made so here for clarity):

Dear AzureFury, please let DGG speak for himself. He undeniably wrote that "the plot section reads to me like a direct copypaste of some other source." DGG's remark is that of a racist; this person is implicitly saying that I, an Iranian, cannot have written this text. The remark not only accuses me of ignorance, but also of theft of someone else's intellectual property. Perhaps you have never suffered from racism, for if you had, you would not have been so insensitive to such a blatant insult addressed at me. I strongly believe, and this has been clearly corroborated by the racist slur of DGG, that if I had written an entry on a Western film, or if my name were a Western name, I would not have been in the present situation, i.e. my entry had not been tagged by almost all negative tags available to an editor, and forced to write thousands of words in defence of my text. That is as racist as things can get. Mind you, none of the people who have been crying havoc has even seen the film; in particular DGG, who has had the temerity to lecture me on how to write an entry for Wikipedia. Please note that the things that he is asking about the opening paragraphs of the entry are all recorded and documented in the entries concerning Khosrow Shakibai and Hadyeh Tehrani (as can be verified, both of these names have been linked to their pertinent Wikipedia entries). No, the person is full of himself, and cannot imagine that an Iranian can have read Nietzsche, Shakespeare or the Old and New Testaments; the thing must have been "copypasted". As I wrote previously, he could have at least tested his racist hypothesis before hurling it at my face. --BF 16:19, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Clearly, I did not call any individual a racist, nor accused any specific person of racism. I called "DGG's remark" as one used by racists and the "slur" by "DGG" as a racist one. I shall expound on my choice of the words "racist" and "racism" below. Before doing that, however, I should like to point out that it is not User:DGG who has initiated the present arbitration process, but User:AzureFury, acting in a way as a public prosecutor. Note that, as my above original text clearly shows, the text to which User:AzureFury had responded was addressed to User:DGG and not to User:AzureFury!

In the initial part of my above-quoted text I have clearly and unequivocally explained my reason for my subsequent use of the words "DGG's remark is that of a racist" and "racist slur". An impartial observer should wonder what reason DGG could have had for making the baseless assertion "the plot section reads to me like a direct copypaste of some other source [my bold]."? What made DGG to believe that I were not capable of writing the plot section of Unruled Paper (film)? For those who feign ignorance, racists entertain the belief that coloured people are weak in their minds, so that e.g. writing a coherent text is beyond their reach; they also are of the opinion that coloured people are weak in morality, so that they have no problem in appropriating someone else's e.g. intellectual property. I shall not repeat myself and therefore quote what I wrote to DGG in response to his insulting assertions [17]:

Dear DGG, you are the second person who has insulted my dignity on the present subject matter (the first one was User:Stifle, and I am as yet awaiting his apology): on which ground is your judgement "reads to me like a direct copypaste of some other source" based? What are the characteristics of a "copy-pasted" text? Do you believe that I cannot have the ability to write what to you appears like a "copypaste"? Are in your opinion all those who sacrifice their precious times on Wikipedia morons? Why this hubristic presumption? You could have at least made a Google search on "Unruled Paper" and tested your baseless assumption before accusing me of "copypasting"; if there was something that I would have copy-pasted, that would not have remained unknown to you (you could have searched on strings of words looking to you as copy-pasted strings --- I have also given the title of the film in Persian; you could even have made a search on this Persian title and informed yourself of the possible existence of any review in Persian that I might have been so unprincipled as to have translated and passed on as my own). I must disappoint you: I am an academic with a wide horizon (film and literary criticism are merely two of my several hobbies), and have tens of works in refereed journals on my name. In my academic discipline it is considered criminal to use texts by others without presenting the pertinent sources. I therefore hereby explicitly demand from you to retract your insulting words and apologise! I am not here to tolerate abuse of my dignity! If you are in the habit of copypasting the works by others without citing your sources, which is your business insofar as I am concerned, you should be careful and not project your habit onto others.

For completeness, User:Stifle, to whom I have referred in my above text, has later explicitly apologized and I have thanked him for that. User:DGG has never apologised for accusing me of copypasting someone else's intellectual property.

To summarise, it is User:AzureFury who has to clarify his behaviour. Why is he trying to misrepresent facts? There is a mob mentality prevailing here on Wikipedia as the following incident shows. Some days ago I pointed out to User:Paul Barlow that an edit by him contained some typing errors [18]. Rather than thanking me for my reminder, he responded very rudely to me, neglecting the fact that the errors introduced by him had been sufficient reason for me to revert his edits. He wrote:

Please do not make pointless notifications of obvious typos. You should correct them, as I do when I see them. Paul B (talk) 17:51, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Clearly, this person besides being rude is oblivious to the fallacy of using the adjective "obvious" with "typos"; "typos" that are "obvious" should not be there in the first place.

The subsequent discussions on the talk page of User:Paul Barlow show the reason for this person's rudeness [19]: Paul Barlow explicitly says that: "My reaction was also partly a result of my distaste for BehnamFarid's quite shocking comments elsewhere - accusing another editor of being a "racist" simply for disagreeing with him". I have reproduced my text at issue here above; did I call any particular Wikipedia editor a "racist"? User:Paul Barlow has apparently had "Distaste" for my "quite shocking comments elsewhere", while I had addressed him thus [20]:

Dear Paul Barlow, just wish to point out that your recent edit of the above-mentioned entry has introduced a number of serious spelling errors (such as "norted" for "noted"). Could you please remove these shortcomings? Thank you. --BF 16:54, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

On the same talk page, User:Dougweller adds [21]: "And he gets away with that?" It seems as though User:AzureFury has taken the advice of his supporters to heart and has taken on himself to push me out of Wikipedia. Remarkably, neither User:Paul Barlow nor User:Dougweller has contributed to the discussions on the talk page of Unruled Paper (film).

It is very strange, to say the least, that User:AzureFury accuses me of "personal attacks". This is what this person wrote to me:

You're right, how silly of us to adhere to a fixed set of rules. All rules can be broken when we really want. Brb, murder. Brb, 1+1=3. By asking you to remove words like "stellar" and "laudable" we are exactly as bad as Osama Bin Laden. He is an Islamic Fundamentalist, we are Wiki Fundamentalists. EXACTLY THE SAME. Next thing you know we'll be ramming our planes into Iran in protest of your opinionated language. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 07:45, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Where in my text had I referred to "Usama Bin Laden"? He is so insensitive and rude as to conflate Iranians with the atrocity of 9/11. Note the words by User:AzureFury: "Next thing you know we'll be ramming our planes into Iran in protest of your opinionated language. [my bold]" This person is calling for violence and does not hesitate to suggest acts of mass murder on Iranians. These are offensive words, AzureFury!!! Can't you see that you have been unapologetically insulting me and my nation all along??? What else would you want to have said before I protested???

User:AzureFury's impertinence seems to have arisen from my use of the word "fundamentalism". Later I explained this use as follows [22]:

Have you ever looked into the dictionary definition of the word "fundamentalist"? I doubt it, for otherwise you would not have used the debased Fox-News language in response to my comment. [...] Please before referring to Iran and that maniac mass murderer Usama Bin Laden in one sentence (which goes a long way in showing the kind of thoughts people must secretly entertain - there is no shortage of ill feelings against all things middle-eastern, excluding middle-eastern oil of course; to wit, the accusation that I could not have written the text of the entry; that I must have copy-pasted it, and a host of other insults that I have had to suffer on this page), take the trouble and read what my "Urgent proposal" was all about. Briefly, I said that one should not use those tags; instead, one should either improve a text, or put one's opinions and suggestions on the talk page of the pertinent entry. That was all. Simple and unequivocal as this proposal is, in a week time, and after having spent thousands of words on explaining it, it has given rise to "Usama Bin Ladan", "1+1=3", "ramming planes into Iran" - AzureFury, you should realise that these are mighty Freudian slips on your part! You must know full well that Iran had nothing to do with 9/11, so that unless you are watching Fox News 24 hours per day, I do not know how you have managed to contrive your venomous sentences addressed to me. Above all, even though Unruled Paper is an Iranian film, we have not been discussing Iran, or even politics, at all.

Let us end this unholy business, here and now. I wasted one week of my time and failed to get the contents of my message through; now I am being presented with "Usama Bin Ladan", "ramming planes into Iran" and a host of other insults and utter irrelevancies (for your information, "fundamentalism" in its most popular sense today was first used in 1923 [according to OED], long before Usama Bin Laden was born, referring to a religious movement within Protestant Christianity which became active in the USA, and not in Saudi Arabia, or even Iran for that matter; in general, however, it refers to the strict maintenance of orthodox doctrines). --BF 13:09, 23 August 2008 (UTC).

User:AzureFury is disingenuous to the utmost in referring to my so-called "history of personal attacks" [23]: After raising this issue earlier with User:Khoikhoi (evidently, User:azureFury has been scheming against me for quite some time), I told him, i.e. User:AzureFury, that he should not take the unfounded statements by User:Eleland at face value, but read my response to these statements. Explicitly, on the basis of the contents of a website written by someone who is not known as an historian (to my best knowledge this person, a certain Gregory Noll, has not a single publication on his name in a peer-reviewed journal, aside from the fact that this person seems to be affiliated with no academic institution), User:Eleland has called me "a nationalist problem editor". The entire problem was the making of User:MiS-Saath who had taken on herself to insert an utter falsehood into the Wikipedia entry of Khuzestan (see later). For a proper understanding of the case at hand, it is important to realise that User:MiS-Saath, an Israeli citizen of European heritage, had been introducing herself to the Arab editors of Wikipedia thus: [24]. Clearly, User:MiS-Saath had been behaving as an imposter, by addressing Arab editors as "fellow arab editors". Here is one of the dubious edits that User:MiS-Saath had been involved in: [25]. It is remarkable that I should be accused of being a "nationalist problem editor" (and later by User:AzureFury of having "a history of personal attacks") for having pointed out that there is not a single authoritative text that would even suggest that there had been an "Arabistan" inside Iran. As User:Nepaheshgar has clearly shown here [26], all the extant historical maps unequivocally show that Khuzestan has always been within Iran's internationally-recognised borders. In fact, I have cited one of the most noted of the American historians on the issue at hand as follows [27]:

I close my discussions by quoting from Modern Iran: Roots and Results of Revolution by Nikki Keddie (Yale University Press, New Haven, 2003), pp. 84 and 85:

Regarding foreign investments, while Millspaugh and the Iranian government were eager to attract American capital, Great Britain, still the most influential power, was hostile to inroads by others. [...]

Millspaugh tried to prevent Russo-Iranian agreement on the Caspian fisheries and on tariffs, though his claims on these points went against the 1921 Russian-Iranian Treaty. No agreement on these issues was reached while Millspaugh was present, and Russio-Iranian trade suffered. Millspaugh's failures made him increasingly unpopular, and disagreements with Reza Shah led to Millspaugh's resignation in 1927.

The British, rebuffed in their attempt to control all Iran, continued to try in the south. They took four years to evacuate their troops there, and considered plans for an autonomous state, including Khuzestan, the main oil province. These plans centred on Shaikh Khaz'al, the powerful Arab tribal chief. The British negotiated with Khaz'al and promised support against the central government. At the end of 1923, Khaz'al formed a group aiming at an independent south Iranian federation and got some Bakhtiari and Luri [both non-Arab] groups to follow him. The government put down the Lurs, but Khaz'al and his allies declared independence. The central government was now too strong for the rebels, however, and Khaz'al was met with the army and forced to surrender in 1924. Soon after this, Reza Khan negotiated with the British, who saw it was in their interest to come to terms with the newly powerful regime. The British henceforth supported Reza Khan. [My italics.]

So much for the Arab Emirate of User:MiS-Saath and her associate. As the above quotation unequivocally shows, Shaikh Khaz'al was just an opportunistic rebel, declaring independence on the instigation of a foreign government.

To my best knowledge, User:Eleland has never apologized for having called me "a nationalist problem editor"; instead, User:Eleland's nonsensical jibe has apparently created a "history of personal attacks" for me. It is a testimony to one's intellectual bankruptcy to use a baseless remark issued by someone who clearly knows absolutely nothing about the history of Iran (i.e. User:Eleland) to accuse me of having had a "history of personal attacks" on Wikipedia. I am absolutely serious on this matter. What should I have done? To have praised an imposter, as User:MiS-Saath has proved to be, for her falsification of history on Wikipedia? To have praised User:Eleland for having cited a worthless piece of scribblings by a non-entity at best and a mercenary at worst, suggesting that Iran occupied part of Arabistan? Even if I had a "history of personal attacks" (User:AzureFury does not mention of what my "personal attacks" consisted), I have not falsified facts.

As for "repeated legal threats". I have explained this issue to User:Stifle earlier. Briefly, when an individual behaves like a loose canon (as User:AzureFury has been doing, and continues to do to this date), what means does an editor in my position have at his disposal? One hopes that taking refuge to institutions of law is not considered as a unlawful here on Wikipedia. Those who are not familiar with the issues pertaining to Law should take note of the fact that threat of sanction(s) against those who may use their constitutional rights (one of which being the right to seek judicial arbitration) is in itself against law: editors of Wikipedia do not lose their constitutional rights by volunteering to edit for Wikipedia. "Due process of law" remains operative, no matter in what activities we engage. Incidentally, before accepting as truth the assertion by User:AzureFury regarding "repeated legal threats", please read what I have exactly written on the issue.

I hope that the above details have made it evident that if some person should be excluded from Wikipedia, it is User:AzureFury. In this connection, it is important to determine what User:AzureFury has carried out on Wikipedia since his arrival, aside from his apparently interminable wars with various editors.

Lastly, if my words in my various texts on Wikepedia, including those on this page, give reason to exclude me from Wikipedia, then so be it. I do not regret, not for a moment, for having stood up and fought for matters of principle on the pages of Wikipedia, for not having hesitated to spend hours of my precious time on arguments with User:AzureFury and his ilk whose behaviour I consider as being utterly destructive. If Wikipedia is seeking after unprincipled editors, then I am not one of them and do not wish to be associated with any of them; so, please close down my account immediately. I advise User:AzureFury to look into his soul and ask himself about his aims in life; what goal does he aim to achieve by constantly taxing people's times on Wikipedia on matters he clearly knows absolutely nothing about. It is just dumbfounding how rude some people behave here on Wikipedia (certainly against Iranians or those who are perceived to be Iranians) and how brazenly they turn the table and act as victims. --BF 13:06, 31 August 2008 (UTC).

A long post with a long list of percieved wrongs against you by other editors. However, I do not see anywhere in this post you addressing the issue of the legal threat that you made here[28]. Are you willing to withdraw this legal threat or not? Nsk92 (talk) 13:41, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

He should be blocked until he pledges to remove the legal threat. And if his first edit after being unblocked is not to remove the legal threat, then he should be re-blocked. The rules are clear about this. I don't see why this guy is being allowed to get away with it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:51, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

And as of right now, the legal threat he posted a few days ago [29] on Talk:Unruled Paper (film) remains in place. Maybe I should make a legal threat against wikipedia also, and it should stay in place, too. I'll threaten to sue over the use of the Arial font as the standard font, when Times New Roman is so much easier on the eyes. For starters, I'll send wikipedia my optometrist's bill. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:24, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

That is the main problem on Wikipedia: People appear to be oblivious to the rudiments of a civilised interaction. For the attention of User:Baseball Bugs: I am NOT "this guy", or any "guy"! You may call your chums guys, not others, and certainly not me! Do you even realise that you are insulting me? Further, if you had read my above text, you would not have said "allowed to get away with it". I am not here to "get away" from anything. It is not an honour for me to be associated with the people who conflate Iranians with a mass murderer, i.e. Usama Bin Laden, threaten to ram planes into Iranian buildings, and subsequently portray themselves as victims. As for the "legal threat", if you had read my above text, you would have known that it is illegal (viz. unconstitutional) to sanction against those who would consider to use their legal rights. Internal rules of Wikipedia cannot run counter to our basic rights as enshrined in our Constitution. We are not living in a banana republic! |--BF 15:43, 31 August 2008 (UTC)]]

Since User:BehnamFarid is unwilling to withdraw the legal threat, would someone please indef block this user immediately? Nsk92 (talk) 15:52, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand why something hasn't been done already. Meanwhile, two points: (1) BehnamFarid is under the false impression that there is a constitutional right to edit wikipedia; and (2) admins should also consider taking some action toward the users that to some degree may have prodded BehnamFarid into making his various threats (legal and otherwise). Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:59, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Once again, I agree. This user is being allowed to post legal threats without sanction, then come here and defend them in a long, rambling post to this page. He shouldn't be editing Wikipedia at all while the threat is pending. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 16:10, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I assume he's been allowed to get away with it out of deference to the admin who cautioned him but hasn't done anything to stop him. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:16, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't so much 'did nothing to stop him;' it was more, 'he hadn't made any more edits when it was time for me to log out and go to church.' When I arrived home, I reviewed his edits, saw that he was not going to make any improvement in his manner of cooperating, and moved to block him, but saw that someone else had already done so. I endorse his block wholeheartedly. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 19:54, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Baseball Bugs: editing Wikipedia may not be a constitutional right, but the threat of sanctioning against someone who would use her/his constitutional rights is unconstitutional. The issue is very simple to understand by the following example. As a citizen, one has the constitutional right to vote for the presidency (provided some conditions are met - e.g. one should not have been convicted for felony). Even though one may choose not to exercise one's constitutional right to vote, it is unconstitutional to make not-voting as a precondition for obtaining or maintaining a particular privilege, such as obtaining a particular job. The same applies here. Certain rights cannot be traded, no matter what the privilege. It follows that one's ability to edit on Wikipedia cannot be based on the precondition that one would waive one of one's constitutional rights. --BF 16:42, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

You have every right to sue, and wikipedia has every right to decide that legal threats against wikipedia forfeit your privilege (not right) to edit wikipedia until, at the very least, you withdraw such threats. The fact that you are not yet blocked for it is, in itself, a rules violation. That is, you've been cut a lot more slack than most editors would be. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:47, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Baseball Bugs, you are mistaken. Ask any lawyer, and they will tell you that certain rights are inalienable and therefore cannot be traded against any privilege, no matter what the privilege. Any privilege that requires forfeiture of any of one's inalienable rights has no basis in the law. Please put this matter to the individual or individuals who give legal advice to Wikipedia and they should really rethink their position. I say this totally independently of the case at hand. In my opinion Wikipedia Foundation may be believing in a false belief. --BF 17:21, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I am puzzled by this user's claim to a contitutional right to free speech. Does such a right exist in Iran? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 19:54, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Baseball Bugs: you refer to "threats (legal and otherwise)". What is "otherwise" meant to mean? If you are aware of any illegal threats, you should not hesitate to disclose them here an now. Otherwise, I hereby demand that you withdraw your inappropriate innuendo with an unequivocal apology. --BF 16:54, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm referring to various "threats" you're making that you will continue to disrupt wikipedia: legal threats vs. other kinds of threats. I do not claim you are making any illegal threats, just threats that run counter to wikipedia policy. And now that I've explained that, you had best get busy and retract your threat to sue, as the admin has asked you to do. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:05, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Baseball Bugs, each of your messages contains a new turn. Where exactly did I say that I would "disrupt" Wikipedia? I repeat, I demand your unequivocal apology for what amount to serious allegations on your part; you have explicitly accused me of "illegal threats" and of "disruption". --BF 17:37, 31 August 2008 (UTC).

Steven J. Anderson: What is the "rambling" bit? Why don't you talk about the specifics? Why the oblique remarks? --BF 16:42, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Standard procedure is to block efitors who make legal threats until they withdraw those threats. BehnamFarid clearly knows this by now and yet shows not the slightest sign to withdrawing those threats, though he does take the time to groundlessly accuse DGG of racism and then demand an apology for an offense that never occured. So why haven't any Admins stepped up and done anything about BehnamFarid's behaviour, which obviously deserves a block? Edward321 (talk) 17:44, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. Enough is enough! This user clearly indicated above that he does not intend to comply with WP:NLT and apparently views the WP:NLT policy itself as illegitimate. He has had more than ample opportunity to withdraw his legal threat but is refusing to do so. Would someone PLEASE issue an immediate indef block, per WP:NLT? (If I were an admin, I would have issued one already.) There is no excuse for allowing an obvious violation of WP:NLT to stand for so long. It sets a bad precedent in terms of the consistent enforcement of the policy and send the wrong message to other users who might feel inclined to do the same. An immediate block is required now; the blocking admin can then engage in a policy discussion with User:BehnamFarid at his talk page, but a block should be placed first. Nsk92 (talk) 17:53, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I consider myself conflicted and am not taking any admin actions in this matter. There's another 1600 or so of us though... Stifle (talk) 17:54, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I read through the above discussions as an uninvolved admin and have made the block. NLT is clear on what should go down, all the "constitutional" arguments aside. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 17:59, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

BF, please see my comment to you on your talk page. Khoikhoi 18:00, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

• Now that that is sorted out, will someone please un-protect Unruled Paper (film) So that the OR and NPOV issue can be fixed? This has been in strong violation of policies for too long. --triwbe (talk) 19:31, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
  • The article definitely needs some extensive de-POV'ing. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:33, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

The dispute at Unruled Paper is not yet resolved. Khoikhoi 19:38, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

How could there possibly be a legitimate dispute over whether "Hadyeh Tehrani's acting in this film is equally superb and laudable" is NPOV? There was a single disruptive editor, he's blocked, what other dispute is there? Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:48, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I've been working on a version at User talk:Khoikhoi/Unruled Paper and User:Khoikhoi/Unruled Paper in the past few days, and he wasn't the only one edit warring. Khoikhoi 19:53, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I can see only one single case of dispute there: one editor legitimately removing blatantly POV and OR passages, and another stubbornly putting them back in. Since one of these two is now blocked, who else would be in dispute now? Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:59, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

CreazySuit and Mardetanha were involved as well. Give me a chance to write a neutral version and check up with them to see if they and the rest of the involved editors agree. Khoikhoi 20:04, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

And I placed the original WP:OR, etc tags that started the RFC that led to all this. So now for how long must this article violate the core principles of Wikipedia? Remove the offending text now and add the improved text when it is ready. --triwbe (talk) 20:08, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Why not leave it to normal editing, the wiki way? Was anybody seriously defending that "acting is superb and laudable" nonsense? I mean, come on, no legitimate editor could seriously even consider that for a minute. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:12, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

That's why "Hadyeh Tehrani's acting in this film has been praised by many critics as equally superb and laudable" would be better. But mass-deletions of the text would probably start another edit war. That's why I think it's best to work on a stable version, show it to all the editors when it's done (which will be very soon), and then the dispute will be resolved. Khoikhoi 20:15, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

We're all reasonable people. The disruptive editor is blocked, and the remaining editors are perfectly capable of working out among them what the best version of this article should be, surely? I've taken the liberty of boldly unprotecting this article, and I have complete faith that the new version will include the best elements of User:Khoikhoi's work-in-progress version and other users' useful contributions, in the best tradition of cooperative editing. I'm also going to archive the arguments with the disruptive user, so the rest of the users can concentrate on making this article wonderful. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:18, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks FisherQueen, now I am going to make the bold move of going to bed. I have a lot of work to do in the morning. --triwbe (talk) 20:22, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

A superb and laudible decision. Although you shouldn't let work interfere with wikipedia any more than absolutely necessary. Jobs come and go. Wikipedia is forever. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:55, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

In spite of repeated reminders since around Aug 19th, 2008 Ncmvocalist has deleted without discussions about 7 times through reverts or edits a valid section and statement those existed for long time with consent of other editors. Now he has created a RFC after deleting the section that existed for a while. RFC should be based on the version before he deleted the section without discussions.Naadapriya (talk) 06:19, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

FYI: Fixed section title, now level 2 header. <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 06:49, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Naadapriya is a civil POV pusher and has continually used unreliable sources and synthesis as a means of keeping his edits on this article. As it is, he has driven away several valuable contributors through tendentious argument, which is why his changes existed in the article prior to the 3 month protection of the article. The section was deleted per NPOV policy concerns of undue weight, which like BLP policy, is critical to this encyclopedia. I've made a compromise pending the RFC by including a mention in the Compositions section that isn't in violation of NPOV. Naadapriya has however insisted that he will continue to reinsert this contentious material that directly reduces the integrity of this encyclopedia. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:24, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Note: Naadapriya was warned by another admin yesterday over edit-warring for reincluding contentious material (in violation of NPOV) that does not have consensus. Browsing through Naadapriya's contributions, one can see the generally disruptive nature of his contributions - these have gone unnoticed for this many months due to lack of input. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:28, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I've made a post outlining what I believe to be the proper solution to this argument is at Talk:Carnatic music#Ugabhoga inclusion argument. However, it comes down a bit harshly (i.e. pointing out that blanking cited article content is grounds for vandalism blocks), so I'd appreciate it if a couple of you could look and see if I'm being reasonable here. --erachima talk 07:38, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Erachima (above) has threatened me with a block for vandalism which is atrocious. Citing unreliable self-published sources as the reason for including this content is disrespecting the very pillars upon which this encyclopedia stands - I'm considering taking this to ArbCom to clarify if there's no consensus on that here. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:49, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Warning an editor whose block log includes a flurry of blocks earned in the course of this exact same dispute that they may be blocked again if they continue it is not "atrocious", it is a reasonable caution. Though I repeat that I would appreciate it if an admin or two could review my statement. --erachima talk 08:18, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

If you think you're improving the article and the pedia by wanting to elaborate every single composition listed in that section, then great - whenever a user feels that the page is too long and they want the section cut down to only leave the most significant forms of Carnatic music (to comply with our policies and guidelines), I will be citing you. And btw, in case you didn't know: "Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia." And the next paragraph "Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Even harmful edits that are not explicitly made in bad faith are not considered vandalism." Naadapriya's atrocious conduct has been unnoticed to date which is why he's dodged blocks so far. Now I know another user who is going to be very involved in the ArbCom case this is going towards. Thanks! Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:24, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Here are my thoughts: First, the section in question is quite poorly written and poorly sourced, whereas the main article Ugabhoga is well written and well sourced. Second, Ugabhoga seems to be a rather obscure topic—it is for example not mentioned at all in [30]. I suggest, then, that the section be deleted, but that the article provide a pointer somewhere to the main Ugabhoga article. Looie496 (talk) 16:33, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the second part - and fortunately, it has been deleted. The Carnatic music article does link to the Ugabhoga article in the 'Compositions' section. As for the first part, the sourcing in the article was misrepresented when you looked at it - but I've removed those parts where the sourcing does not remotely match with what is being said. Ncmvocalist (talk) 02:39, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Projectlongbeach - another use of Wikipedia as a personal website. Corvus cornix_talk 07:27, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

User has edited Project Runway Canada which has similar looking boxes on it, so I suspect he is using his userpage as a sandbox for either that article or a similar one. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 07:55, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

It's nice and colorful, anyway. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 08:21, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it's most likely a sandbox. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 10:00, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I have had Projectlongbeach's userpage on my watchlist for awhile (I think from a message I sent her/him awhile ago). It seems to be a sandbox with no harm. S/he has the tables for Seasons 1, 2, and 5 of Project Runway on there, plus a table for a show I am not familiar with. <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 06:05, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

On the Ganon article, the IP 76.28.138.83 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) first reverts my edit about the use of 'non-canon' in the article, without an edit summary. After the edit is revert back by User:Haipa Doragon, the anon proceeds to revert it again, after which I revert it. The IP reverts my edit for a third time, and his edit is reverted by User:The Clawed One.

The anon then violates WP:POINT by adding non-canon to virtually every paragraph. I revert it as an obvious violation of WP:POINT, and he proceeds to add it back again (violating 3RR.) After I revert his clear disruption, he creates a sockpuppet account called Chickendorfer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and then reverts my edit with that account, claiming it to be vandalism. I revert him, and he reverts me, using an edit summary claiming that I am a sockpuppet of User:The Clawed One. On my talk page, he basically copies and pastes the warnings I wrote on his talk page [31][32][33] (you can tell that he copied and paste it because of the CSS and HTML that surrounds his comments is the same as my signature.

Basically this anon is purely disruptive. Can he be blocked? Artichoker[talk] 02:42, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary, a quick glance at my edit history proves I'm perfectly non-disruptive. You, on the other hand, have violated Wikipedia's policies on NPOV (you insist on inserting non-canon onto ONE source, while leaving all the others alone), you have utilized your The Clawed One sock puppet to enforce your violation of Wikipedia's policies, you've left threatening messages on my talk page, and furthermore, you refuse to even SOURCE your insertion that the item is non-canon, even when politely asked to do so. Do tell, have you even once attempted to discuss your edit on your talk page? If I am to be blocked, then indeed you are as well. 76.28.138.83 (talk) 02:47, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I would say you're both being disruptive and combative, violating Wikipedia's civility policies, refusing to discuss this with each other and bringing other people into what seems to be a ridiculous content dispute. I would recommend protecting the page and putting a 24 hour block on both of these parties involved. And next time, you two should, in the future, learn to settle disputes civilly. -- Daniel Davis 02:49, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but could you please point me to a place where I was ever uncivil? Did you even look at any of my diffs? Artichoker[talk] 02:51, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I would say that vandalism warnings (in what are not cases of vandalism, but what is obviously a content dispute) as well as the overall tone you've presented is pretty obvious. I don't believe you have sockpuppets as the anon claims, but I'm pretty firm on the fact that you could have discussed this instead of just "rvv" back and forth.

User handling dispute in a sub-optimal way can easily be corrected by advising the user how to do things better. I think being positive, instead of negative, will help. In any case, I have filed Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Chickendorfer to sort out the claim and counter-claim of sock puppetry. Jehochman ^Talk 03:03, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) When someone actively creates a sockpuppet for disruption, and then ridiculously accuses me of having a sockpuppet, I would say that any chance of constructive discussion is out of the window, which is why I brought this matter to ANI. Furthermore, I don't see anything wrong with my overall "tone". Artichoker[talk] 03:04, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Socking is definitely uncivil, and the account I ordered checkuser on is a fairly obvious sock, but we should make sure to match it with the correct master account. I agree that attempting dispute resolution with somebody who appears to be socking is not exactly realistic. Jehochman ^Talk 03:10, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Drake Clawfang is a sock of Artichoker? That's as preposterous as the idea of me being a sock of Thrindel (talk · contribs)... right? x_x JuJube (talk) 03:26, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Just so. I have noted in the RFCU request that some of the involved users appear NOT to be socks. Jehochman ^Talk 03:34, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Checkuser has confirmed the anon IP and chickendorfer to be one and the same. 76.28.138.83 (talk) 03:48, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Not. Gwen Gale (talk) 03:51, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked User:76.28.138.83 31 hours for disruption. Gwen Gale (talk) 03:56, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

And I semi-protected the page earlier (at 02:38, four minutes before this report was posted) as a preventative measure. Useight (talk) 03:57, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Could you guys please have a look at what is going on with Aquarius (astrology). That guy keeps inserting unreliable sources / faking sources, even though he had been warned many times before. Thanks, --Nathanael Bar-Aur L. (talk) 05:03, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm surprised that you have the courage to bring this here, given the nature of the other sources that the article uses. Looie496 (talk) 05:28, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

There seem to be a huge number of references to this source already in the article; did he add all of them? Christopher Parham (talk) 05:33, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Not all of them. There are issues with the sources of this article, it's just that Astrology-online.com is particularly problematic as it also violates Elore.com's copyrighted material. --Nathanael Bar-Aur L. (talk) 05:37, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

We don't pay you slackers to sit around here yappin' all night! There's a backlog at Wikipedia:Requested moves. Get to work! --ElKevbo (talk) 06:19, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Can you check on the actions of this user? He has been removing AfD's of the following articles: Hansen Nichols, Van Pojas, and Miguel Mendoza. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 03:26, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

This is an editor who has made lots of good contribs, but got annoyed when a few of the articles he worked on (especially Hansen Nichols) were marked for deletion, handled it badly, and got template-bombed as a result. I've tried the approach of attempting to communicate with him as a human being — let's see if it gets anywhere. Looie496 (talk) 04:10, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Nice message, Looie496.[34] When a good editor starts doing bad things, it is important to talk with that editor and calm her down. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 08:53, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:42, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

HPJoker (talk · contribs) recently left these two edit summaries (thank you jj and fuck off and KEEP IT OFF [35] and END OF DISCUSSION! END THE MOTHER FUCKING SPAM! [36]) while removing an entire section of Chad Johnson's talk page. He may have also been trying to bait Chrisjnelson (talk · contribs) with this comment "Stop the gheyness on the Ocho Cinco talk page. Its just become spam and if it continues I will remove it..." [37]. He also told Gonzo fan2007 (talk · contribs) to "stfu" (shut the fuck up)[38]. Justice America/(5:15) 05:45, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

That was not particularly helpful of him. Both incivility and disruption - blocked for 24 hrs. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:42, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I have just reverted most of an unnecessary but otherwise harmless edit made to Cricket by User:Jackilous. Wondering who this editor is, I looked at the userpage and found that it is deliberately offensive, especially to Wikipedia administrators. Could you please take the appropriate action? BlackJack | ^{talk page} 07:33, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

 Done. Waggers (talk) 07:35, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

This user is a civil POV-pusher. He was warned on his talk page [39] not to edit-war and reinsert contentious content in the Carnatic music article without consensus [40]. I opened an article RFC to settle the matter, and other than myself who is involved in this dispute, several users at the article RFC have repeatedly expressed concerns over the content he tries to insert into the article (on the basis of WP:UNDUE, WP:NPOV and WP:RS) and that it should not be included in the article as it is contentious. He then removed a section saying it had no citation [41] so I reverted and inserted citations from journal articles. He then reverted again [42] and his edit-summary shows that he has the logic of a POV pusher - "Please discuss the quote from the citation before adding it to a section that existed for months without a citation." (WTF?) I reverted this as vandalism. Meanwhile he has also tried to reinsert the contentious content on other articles [43] [44], and has finally reverted JzG [45] against consensus - I refuse to have to revert this user any longer - his agenda is clear and his POV-pushing needs to stop as it is truely damaging this encyclopedia. I request he be blocked for 1 month for extensive disruption. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:52, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I won't speak of the duration of a block here, but certainly as a keen watcher of the RfC discussion on the article's talk page, I was quite peeved at how uncivil an editor can get by constantly focusing on restoration of content he's contending for. And when no one heeded to him, he plainly reverts back to his happiness. Wow! That sucks, IMO. Mspraveen (talk) 10:02, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I have full protected the article for two days. I reviewed the back and forth as an uninvolved administrator - I assume good faith about Naadapriya based on what I saw there. I can see how his/her discussion style is causing others to become irritated, and the reversions without enough discussion are not helpful, but please be patient and keep trying for consensus. I will warn them to not revert, to talk things through to consensus and to provide reliable sources and not give undue weight to things, but please everyone try to get along here. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 10:19, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, we edit conflicted on the editors talkpage - I was advising them regarding a 48hour block I had just applied. Given the accounts block log and the array of warnings, etc. on their talkpage I took the view that concerns required a block for emphasis. I put the tariff at 2 days as I am aware that there is a RfC, and I didn't wish them to be disabled from participating. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:35, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Sounds fair enough, but locking the article rather than the talk page will help. Mspraveen (talk) 10:38, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Was mistaken. My bad. Thanks for locking the article. Mspraveen (talk) 10:40, 1 September 2008(UTC)

[ec] This seems to be a standard case of WP:TRUTH vs. WP:V/WP:RS. Much of what the user says appears to be novel synthesis and his insistence that disputed content must remain in the article until there is consensus for its removal, is simply wrong. I took the section to the talk page for detailed discussion, and there is undoubtedly no consensus therre as yet as to the validity of the sources, some of which at least appear to be self-published and unreliable, but Naadapriya just slapped it right back in. So: I believe that the problem here is Naadapriya and not the article or any of the others involved; the others seemed content to discuss and work away on talk until a consensus was achieved, only Naadapriya insists on the disputed material being in the article while this debate takes place. So I'm with LHVU here. George, will you unprotect the article? Seems that this is a single-editor problem. Guy (Help!) 10:50, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I think that I agree, but I saw it as something that could be solved by education (and not BITEing...). That said, if he's blocked for the moment, the protect is pointless, so I will unprotect. I do urge everyone to try and stay calm and work with Naadapriya moving forwards - they seem to be fairly educated in the subject, even if they have a minority viewpoint and strong opinions. Always better to turn these situations around and get them working with us, and the policies, rather than against and / or bitter outside and looking in. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 10:56, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Georgewilliamherbert, appearances are deceiving. If I did not return to this article after staying away for months, the quality of this article would continue to decline. I've spent an immeasurable amount of time trying to fix this article, and recently adding more journal articles. If protection was all that could be offered, I'd have left the pedia. Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:04, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Now that the editor has been blocked, I wonder about him resorting to sock-puppeting. He's been blocked previously for 2 weeks for socking. A checkuser might help. My two cents. Mspraveen (talk) 11:11, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

User:funguy06 has been making many distruptive and unconstructive edits to this article, such as removing large chunks of infomation. See [46], [47], [48], [49], [50], [51] and [52]. When I asked the user about the edits, He stated that he was a producer on Loose Women and was editing the article to help the programme's image (User talk:Dalejenkins). I reminded him of WP:NOT and noticed that he had previous warnings on his page. However, the distruptive edits and removal of infomation continued. Dalejenkins | 11:18, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

This editors messed up talk page Talk:Sarah Palin

• User:J
• User:Kelly
• User:Coemgenus
• User:LessHeard_vanU
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sarah_Palin&limit=500&action=history

They didn't understood BLP correctly, which is only applies with article, doesn't apply with talk page.--FuturePil()t (talk) 21:20, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Look up. John Reaves 21:22, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Please read the first sentence of WP:BLP in which it says that BLP applies to all Wikipedia pages. Not just articles. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 21:23, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:BLP does also apply to talk pages, user pages, and any space on wikipedia. Dayewalker (talk) 21:24, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

(ec) That's absolutely not true, please don't edit any more BLPs until you understand the policy. John Reaves

Ummm... From WP:BLP

Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons — whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable — should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion, from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space. (my underlining)

Which policy are you reading from? LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:28, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I see that Oren0 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has now wheel-warred to remove semi-protection on the talk page. Kelly ^hi! 21:31, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Not quite a wheel yet, just a stupid move. John Reaves 21:33, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Ooo! A wheel-war! I've never been in a wheel-war before, can I play? I think I'll change it to full protection, with the edit-summary, "Everyone but me is a big stupidhead". -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:35, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Yeah, Oren apparently didn't bother to read the talk page consensus or talk with the protecting admin before undoing their admin action. Kelly ^hi! 21:36, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

(ec)I was unaware that there was discussion being had here about this, I had just been following it at Talk:Sarah Palin. The bottom line to me is that semi-protecting both an article and its talk page completely blocks out any chance anon editors have to improve the article, point out errors, etc. This is a pretty strong step to me and contentious BLP edits that can easily be reverted on a talk page that the public doesn't see isn't enough of a justification as far as I'm concerned. Oren0 (talk) 21:40, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Really? Funny, my orange message bar must have stopped working... If that sysop isn't interested in talking to me, then it will likely be the best that I don't talk to them. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:38, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I was going to drop you a line after the unprotect but I immediately had a message of my own from Kelly and then ended up here. Oren0 (talk) 21:40, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Did you even bother to participate in the talk page discussion? Kelly ^hi! 21:41, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I didn't see it while it was taking place and I had a cursory look when I saw that the talk page was protected. If another admin really wants to restore the protection, I won't complain. Oren0 (talk) 21:44, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I would have appreciated a note before it was undone, where I could have pointed you toward the edit history of the page immediately prior to my initial sprotection (upon which I went to request consensus outside of self interest ip editors, which I received) and the subsequent vandalism to my userpage, mytalkpage, one of my alternate account pages, and the talk/userpages of each editor that reverted the vandalism to my pages. You may have understood why it was felt that that action was required. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:14, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

The talk page shouldn't have been protected to begin with, and I'd oppose reprotecting. If somebody is violating BLP, you can revert until your heart's content, and an admin will block. There is simply no justification, barring dozens of spam bots, to semi-protect an article and the associated talk page. - auburnpilot talk 21:49, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

No, actually I am being threatened with blocking for removing the BLP violations on the talk page. Kelly ^hi! 21:56, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

We all know that you're not going to be blocked for observing BLP. Oren0 (talk) 21:58, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Please tell John Reaves. Kelly ^hi! 22:06, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Kelly, although your intentions may have been correct your implementation leaved a lot to be desired. You can't just continue to remove sections and say "BLP" without a discussion. You should have blanked the discussion and give your reason, like we do at the reference desk. --mboverload@ 22:07, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Blanked? What does that mean? All of the misogynistic gutter garbage parroted in that article and the talk page should really be oversighted. Kelly ^hi! 22:09, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

The text in the section should have been replaced with a reason why you removed it. That is the standard in the reference desk. --mboverload@ 22:23, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

It was in the edit summary. But there's really no reason to dignify those types of trashy vandalism with hidden comments. Kelly ^hi! 22:25, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism they were not. They were misguided users posting in good faith. To remove their section is confusing and causes them to make another one.--mboverload@ 22:31, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Libel and slander are always vandalism. I really don't think anyone propagating that garbage has good faith toward Sarah Palin. Kelly ^hi! 22:33, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Kelly, now I think you are failing to assume good faith. --mboverload@ 22:35, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

For that type of edit? You're damn straight. Kelly ^hi! 22:36, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Let me clarify something for the above. Any BLP violation can be removed without discussion, and without waiting for discussion, from any page. I have not examine the edit in question, but I want to say that this is the going pace. Now if the edit was not a BLP violation, that is different. I just wanted to point this part out. Now... I shall go examine the edit. NonvocalScream (talk) 23:09, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

The talk page is getting VERY heated. We need more admins eyeing it. rootology (C)(T) 22:12, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, we have people there, even admins, in favor of progagating slander against a 16-year-old girl. Kelly ^hi! 22:17, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Kelly, I think you're absolutely right to remove these rumors, and I agree with you that they're intended as attacks against Palin. But I also think that maybe words like 'mysoginistic gutter trash,' while understandable, might be turning up the heat more than absolutely necessary. Maybe something like 'not confirmed by reliable sources' or 'undue weight to a matter unrelated to her public life' would convey the problem more effectively? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:21, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, how else should we dignify this type of comment? Should all BLP vandalism be replaced with a dignified comment stating why it was burned out with fire? Kelly ^hi! 22:27, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

PLEASE stop calling it vandalism. It is not vandalism and causes users reading this discussion to get an improper picture of what is happening. Please refer to Wikipedia:Vandalism --mboverload@ 22:34, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Stop freaking out over semantics. John Reaves 22:36, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I am going to remove myself from this discussion. It appears that I have lost perspective. --mboverload@ 22:37, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I have made this very big warning at the top of the page to let people know that new sections about the baby thing are not ok. [53] The current section addresses the reasons quite satisfactorily.--mboverload@ 22:26, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I just don't think that's helpful, Mboverload. If we need to remove something, we remove it. Painting a big target on her talk page for where people can direct their thoughts on these rumors just doesn't get us anywhere.   user:j    (aka justen)   22:43, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. Should we put big notices on Barack Obama that he is not a Muslim? We flame out the POV-warriors with blocks, that is sufficient. Kelly ^hi! 22:45, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to remove it if both of you agree. --mboverload@ 22:47, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

With the giant controversy forming online its inevitable that real news outlets are going to start reporting on this. When reliable sources do start talking about the controversy it becomes necessary. There is no reason to make that kind of statement.--Crossmr (talk) 01:13, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Uh-huh - if you think "giant controversy" equals some anonymous mudslingers at Daily Kos and Democratic Underground. Kelly ^hi! 01:48, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Does this have anything to do with the cabal? You know, the one that obviously doesn't exist but I mention strictly as an example? HalfShadow 02:02, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Not unless "Trig Trutherism" bullshit counts as a cabal. Kelly ^hi! 02:27, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

In the end it doesn't matter where the story originates. If theres a kernel of truth there, the mainstream media will pick it up. And please, can we keep the politics of us out of this? It's inappropriate as hell--this kind of stuff is going to lead to people equating "Democratic sites attacking Palin" with "paid liars like the Swift Vets attacking decorated war heroes like Kerry". See how that goes? Lets just not do it. rootology (C)(T) 02:32, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Its showing up a lot of other places and getting a lot of attention. Currently no one else has really picked it up, but things that gain that much popularity that quickly, especially about politics usually end up on the "real" news. We can probably expect within a few days for there to be lots of reliable sources on this subject. With that being the case calling for a permanent moratorium on a baby section is out of place.--Crossmr (talk) 03:33, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I just got "warned" by an administrator for removing a call to use the talk page as a forum to discuss the Daily Kos fringe theory. Can we please get one page here on what is acceptable on talk pages and what should be deleted? Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 12:09, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I added my agreement with your action at the admins talkpage; discussion over the sources mentioning the rumour is good, discussing the rumour is not what the page is for. I consider it was likely a simple misunderstanding on the part of the admin. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:23, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok. I've been trying to be good lately and got a bit concerned and second-guessy about myself after this warning. Thanks LHVU. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 12:25, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I've put a note on User talk:65.189.146.128 because they posted that stuff on Talk:Sarah Palin, can I suggest someone semi protect the talk pages for her and her husband? ϢereSpielChequers 16:36, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

• FuturePil()t (talk · contribs) is taking a permanent involuntary wikibreak. Any guesses on how many more trolls and sockpuppets might be on that page? Thatcher 01:26, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Satt 2 and User:Elysander have repeatedly and deliberately (first dusruptive edit, second disruptive edit with an inane claim(cfr. Schröder below), third disruptive edit) deleted crucial statement from the leader of the greatest Ukrainian political party in in International recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Their POV claim is that he does not participate in the government (being well aware thereof, I had placed it at the bottom of the section). This is however, rootless and not impartial, because if the former chancellor of Germany can be quoted in International reaction to the 2008 South Ossetia war, so can accordingly be the former prime minister of Ukraine too.
Moreover, User:Satt 2 has been warned to be blocked because former disruptive and highly one-sided edits considering Georgia and I suggest some edits be taken against him going on that way. Furthermore, User:Elysander has committed another disruptive edit in 2008 South Ossetian war, where he thrice deleted sourced information about the end of the war (first source deletion, second one, where he replaced the sourced 12 Aug with the unsourced 19 Aug, which is his figment, third source deletion and inane claim that it was only Russia's version) with the claim that it were allegedly Russian version, until it turned out to be a mendacious figment, since I inserted a link to an article of a prominent German periodical corroborating that the war lasted 5 days (8-12).
I am not sure whether deleting sourced information is vandalism, but if so, consider this to be a vandalism report.
In concordance with this evidence I demand some measures against the abovementioned users in order to prevent the articles from acquiring an obfuscating and one-sided appearance. Bogorm (talk) 15:37, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I noticed that this IP user is adding middle names to article's at high speed (1 article every 3 minutes). Several of these changes have already been reverted by vandalism patrols, and my own checks if these changes hold ground all come back blank. Before initiating a mass revert and warning this user, can anyone give a second opinion if this is really vandalism? I cannot prove the edits are correct, but at the same time i cannot prove they are not correct, so i rather don't WP:BITE the IP if his edits are true. Excirial ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 16:10, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I spot checked 6 of them, and none of them appear to be true. I think it's quite safe to mass revert and warn for deliberate addition of false information. --barneca (talk) 16:20, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I reported a user called User:PeterBln on August 19, because he was breaking WP:NPOV and WP:CIVIL many times. I have quoted the discussion that then occured regarding him. The discussion, to me it seemed, was leaning towards a decision for a ban, possibly an indefinite one. However, the discussion went inactive on August 21, before a decision was reached. I myself was on holiday from August 22 to August 30. I would like to request that the discussion continue again, so that a decision can be made. I have quoted the inactive decision below. Thank you for reading. JEdgarFreeman (talk) 19:51, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

User:PeterBln has continually broken WP:NPOV, and WP:CIVIL. The evidence I would like to cite to show that the user has broken WP:NPOV continually is [54], [55] (the two pieces of evidence I have just cited are articles that are undergoing AFD discussions, and they may be deleted soon), [56] (this edit is sourced, but its language is not neutral), [57], [58]. There is more evidence, which can be examined from his contributions section, but I didn’t want to clutter this post. The evidence I would like to cite to show that the user has broken WP:CIVIL is [59], [60], [61] (please look at the section entitled “Attempts to falsify history by Allied countries”, and please not where he has accused, for example, people of insulting the memories of people who have died, and how he has threatened to remove material from the Dresden article that does not fit his view of the bombing) , [62], [63], [64], [65]. The evidence I would like to cite to show that this user has been warned many times about breaking WP:CIVIL and WP:NPOV is [66] (please look at the section entitled “Attempts to falsify history by Allied countries”) and [67]. The evidence I have cited regarding warnings also shows, imo, how I have made a real effort to help him become a good Wikipedian. I believe he will not abandon his goal of trying to re-write Wikipedia articles so that they fit his viewpoint. JEdgarFreeman (talk) 22:57, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

That is certainly one problematic editor. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 23:15, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I believe so too. I have tried to teach him about following WP:NPOV, and WP:CIVIL, but he doesn't seem to listen. When it seemed to me that he would not change, I believed that admin intervention was needed. JEdgarFreeman (talk) 23:19, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Proper WP:Diffs (as opposed to URLs) would help folks trying to sort this out. Toddst1 (talk) 23:24, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

User Talk:PeterBln gives a good account of several editors' attempts to resolve difficulties with PeterBln. There are also a number of formal warnings for violating WP:NPOV and WP:NPA. I'm not sure if a block is warranted yet. Stil looking... SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 23:30, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I will work on getting diffs up. In the meantime, I believe this evidence, when considered with his past record, suggests a block is needed: [68]. JEdgarFreeman (talk) 23:35, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I have replaced many of the URLs with diffs. PeterBln's talk page contains lots of relevant info, so I have decided to leave the URL to that, as I would clutter up my statement with diffs if I were to use them to link to his talk page. Please note [69], where he says " I think you Allied people are appalliung, the way you try to hide your evil history. Sorry but this is disgusting", and is asking why a Wikipedian is not going to prison for denying the "British-India Holocaust" (a term which PeterBln has has coined, by which does not appear to be used by reliable sources). JEdgarFreeman (talk) 00:06, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I note that this editor has a focus on Eastern Europe and articles relating to the bombing of Dresden have been the main area of recent disruptive behavior. Moreover, they have been making highly dubious comparisons with the Holocaust and Stalinism in both articles and when discussing other editors. As such, would it be appropriate to apply the Digwuren restriction? This series of edits [70] appears to be the kind of behaviour which the Digwuren restriction is normally invoked for (eg, highly uncivil and emotionally charged posts relating to Eastern Europe). I feel that a block is justified for such uncivil behaviour and blatant POV pushing. Nick Dowling (talk) 11:19, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I understand that this issue is being dealt with, but I urge that some sort of action is taking against him soon. I am asking this because he is continuing to go against WP:NPOV, as evidenced by this edit: [71]. I am trying to revert some edits which do not fit in with Wikipedia guidelines, but they keep getting reversed by PeterBln, [72] and [73]. I will not attempt any more reverts, as I do not want to engage in an edit war. I would like to point out that [74] suggests there was an article in the British Guardian entitled "How Britain Denies its Holocausts, Why do so few people know about the atrocities of empire?", written by George Monbiot and published on December 27 2005. PeterBln cites this article, claiming that it says there was a holocaust in India, and is using it to support his edits that say the famine in India was a holocaust. I have looked, and George Monbiot only published one article that day, and its title is "The Turks haven't learned the British way of denying past atrocities", and nowhere in the article does it specifcally claim the famine in India was a "Holocaust" (please see [75]). The article says Britain was responsible for the famine, but it does not call it a "Holocaust", as PeterBln insists it does. This would seem to suggest that PeterBln is lying about sources in order to get his POV across. I tried to remove the inaccuracies in the British-India Wikipedia article regarding the Guardian article, and PeterBln proceeded to revert my removal of the inaccuracies without explanation([76] and [77]).JEdgarFreeman (talk) 22:23, 20 August 2008 (UTC) JEdgarFreeman (talk) 22:11, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Wow, looks like someone beat me to writing this. See here for example. His POV pushing against the Americans/British is so phenomenal, he's actually tried to argue that the Allies were as much perpetrators in the Holocaust as the Nazis (I'm not joking). Would support a lengthy, if not, indefinite block of this user, clearly has no interest in building a balanced encyclopedia, has complete disregard for WP:NPOV in the face of numerous warnings (as demonstrated recently), is only interested in pushing his agenda. WilliamH (talk) 09:51, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, welcome to the fanciful world of the far right in Germany building up a history of Holocausts everywhere and dreaming in a wonderland of parallel truth. As long they do so in their futile little conventions, it is barely okay. But popular media like Wikipedia should do everything they are allowed to, to keep their waste away. Geo-Loge (talk) 19:21, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I would like to ask for more of a discussion regarding this issue. There have been a couple of recommendations for a block, but no decision has been taken. JEdgarFreeman (talk) 19:44, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I apologise for adding a statement in bold. I am afraid this discussion will fall into inactivity before a decision can be reached, just as the previous discussion did, and I wanted to add this statement in bold because I wanted to draw attention to it. I implore that this discussion move forward. Thank you in advance. JEdgarFreeman (talk) 19:49, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Please see this [1]Amir (talk) 18:57, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I've speedily deleted it - not only was it unused and unlicensed, it had previously been deleted twice before due to a lack of licensing or attribution. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:03, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

My user page was deleted twice and locked although I thought I had responded to the initial criticism. I am now unclear what is an acceptable user page for myself. Is this an acceptable user page ?:

Kay Sieverding completed a master's degree in city planning at MIT in 1977 under her maiden name Kay Anderson. Her master's thesis about municipal bond analysis was published by the Council on Municipal Performance. She has no criminal record. She has never been accused of perjury nor has she ever been sued for defamation or anything else. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kay Sieverding (talk • contribs) 19:22, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I would take out the last two sentences just to be safe, and it should be fine. —kurykh 19:28, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Kay Sieverding has the explanation of why the user page was deleted. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:28, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Is this kind of thing going to go on all day, or what? While it has its entertainment value, I would have thought an admin might have jumped in here at some point. [78] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:26, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

They looked to me to referee, but I can't make heads or tails of it. As far as I can work out, our anon feels that it is his personal responsibility to alert the community about some sort of terrible abuse that User:Caspian blue has committed, something about seizing ownership of the article Comfort women, and so the anon is going to keep working from his every-changing ips to fight the good fight against User:Caspian blue. Caspian appears to feel that, as a blocked user, the anon does not get to participate in the discussion anymore, and the rules are on her side on that. I've read the anon's whole comment, the one they're batting back and forth, and I still can't figure out what he's trying to say Caspian has done. What is it about that particular conflict that makes everyone involved incapable of explaining simply and clearly, in three sentences or less, what specific rule has been broken and what administrative action they are requesting? Do I look like the Referee of All Wikipedia? ARRRGH!!!! Sorry. My recent attempt to keep up with them has left me feeling drained and unhappy, and I need to drink gin and tonic until I feel better. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 19:35, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

No clue what it's about. Anyway, it has to do with the paragraph since posted below. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:36, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Caspian Blue rang me up on my talk page for being sarcastic. While that might be technically true, I was also trying to get the attention of whatever admin might be willing to do something about an ongoing revert war within the ANI page. Usually they'll step in, but a lot of them might be on holiday today. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:49, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

68.110.238.138 (talk · contribs), over the last week, has been surreptitiously changing statistics in a wide variety of articles to boost the standing of Pakistan in whatever statistical table they've been vandalizing and in some cases, to deprecate the standing of India. I've issued a final warning for vandalism, but it's important to get more eyes on this ID's edits. Corvus cornix_talk 19:50, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

This person continues to vandalize as I type, and my request at AIV has been ignored. Somebody, please? Corvus cornix_talk 20:41, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

User(s) blocked: 1 month (talk · contribs). Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 20:55, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

An editor named user:Angie186 has been altering text on the BLP noticeboard instead of adding to it. I put a message on her talk page saying this is improper, but somebody should probably roll back the changes (I can't). Looie496 (talk) 21:19, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Done but you could have so easily done this yourself! You go to the history page, click on the last good revision, click edit, click save. Done! Theresa Knott | The otter sank 21:23, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The editor or editors from this incident have continued reverting against consensus on the same page, now on multiple IPs. Same pattern: relentless, unresponsive, SPAs. --Killing Vector (talk) 22:08, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Final-warned and watchlisted- I'll block the next time he reverts, unless some other admin beats me to it. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:14, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

This user has achieved to break the three revert-rule within one day in more than one pages! I did not want to act on my own, since I am a Greek and the particular user seeks any opportunity he can find to attack Greeks. I thus though I should ask for neutral administrators to act. Here are some of his multiple 3R violations (please check his edit summaries—all the reverts occured within the 24 h time-framework):

• Byzantine empire: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. Some of these edits constitute vandalism, since he deleted sourced material (for example the undisputed fact that the Greek language was official in Byzantine empire from heraclius on).
• Skanderbeg: 1, 2, 3, 4 reverts within one day (introducing the inexistant term "Byzantine Italians"!).
• Darius of Persia: See the absurdity of his reverts!

I think immediate action is needed against the aforementioned user.--Yannismarou (talk) 08:27, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

He is also uploading new maps of Illyria that have "Greeks" blurred out. They are laughably terrible. He's just a kid so he's probably harmless, but an indefinite block wouldn't hurt anyway. Adam Bishop (talk) 08:42, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I think an indefinite block would be complete overkill. I was going to block him for 24 hours for edit warring, but since he has promised to stop, I am just going to give a final warning. Stifle (talk) 08:44, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

His reverts in Philosophy of Greek pederasty are really childish (and again a case of vandalism). I'll agree with Stifle for now, but, if he breaks his word and starts edit-warring and vandalizing again, I feel entintled to (at least) temporarily block him.--Yannismarou (talk) 08:50, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I took a look at his recent contribs and agree that the deletion of images and content is cause for serious concern. I've placed a final, level-4 deletion warning on his Talk page. JGHowes ^talk - 00:23, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

• Lucyintheskywithdada (talk · contribs), *Japanese Plala ISP vandal
• Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Documentingabuse
• Wikipedia talk:Requests for checkuser/Case/Documentingabuse
• IncidentArchive453#Lucyintheskywithdada_:_racist_and_personal_attacks

I'm advised by admin, FisherQueen, to request for range-blocking Lucyintheskywithdada (talk · contribs) who has been repeatedly evading from his indef.block. The user blocked for 5 times in just one hour for his repeated block evasion. The user's indefinite block was reported by me after his harassment and the user reported a bogus file on me three days ago, still is seeking to revenge me. Could admin who knows how to range block trolls take this? Thanks.--Caspian blue (talk) 19:32, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I am here, I am quite willing to discuss. What I am doing, and have been doing, is DELIBERATELY open and identifying a pattern of race hate abuse that Caspian blue is engaged in

Folks, there is something going on a little bit deeper and more wrong than just the obvious. Start with my letter to Jimbo and have a look over what I have documented here on ANI.

I raised this issue on Jimbo's talk page. I will follow up with a better composed hard copy to the foundation. Notably, it was removed from the actual history of the page not just the page itself.

Thank you --58.94.56.254 (talk) 19:45, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

If I were Jimbo, I would ignore that megillah, as it's a general rant with no specifics. As a semi-interested reader, I would like each of you two to provide 3 and only 3 diff's of items that you believe support your side of what the problem is. And don't send us to another rant. Give specific instances of article content that you disagree about, so the rest of us will have some earthly idea of just what y'all's problem is. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:54, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The user was well-blocked for his long time disruptions on not only Comfort women, but also other articles. You're feeding the troll.--Caspian blue (talk) 19:58, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

As usual, that is not quite honest, is it Caspian? And who was it beavering awaying to discredit ... oh, it was you.

Thank you for being at last reasonable, bugs. I will be able to establish a long term pattern of identical reversions going back months shortly and will cause no more disruption until I do so. –- 125.204.110.197 (talk) 20:04, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

No, we don't need any more rants. Just give 3 specific diff's of article content dispute so we have something to work with. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:08, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Why are you enabling a block-evading vandal? This user has been indef blocked, if they want to be unblocked, there are processes. Repeated block evasion and rant posting is not done. Revert, block, ignore. Corvus cornix_talk 20:25, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I would like to hear from both parties, a very succinct explanation for what this ongoing war (and WP:ANI ping-pong match) is actually about. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:30, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Then have him email you. There are rules about block evasion. Corvus cornix_talk 20:34, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I know. And the last thing I need is for that bozo to know my e-mail address. I guess everyone else understands the issue completely and there's no problem. Meanwhile, you all can just keep reverting the continual posting of that rant. P.S. The guy said on my talk page that blocking the various IP addresses is "a waste of time". Yeh, I want to be pals with that. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:39, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Since Lucyintheskywithdada continues to post, would it be appropriate to undelete his Talk page? Corvus cornix_talk 20:29, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

If that would put an end to the ping-pong match, then go ahead. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:32, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I can't. Corvus cornix_talk 20:34, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I've put a range-block in place. Hopefully that will lessen the disruption. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 20:37, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

He posted from one of his IP's on my talk page at 20:37 also. [79] But he's now on a 24-hour block. So all is calm, and I'm still curious to know what the issue is, without having to read months of research on it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:43, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

No, it wont. Suppression and censorship in an issue such as this (race hate campaign) is counter-productive.

Only rational discussion and appreciation of the evidence will work.

In 10 words or less ... young male Korean in American running a race hate campaign against Japanese. (I am not Japanese). --118.18.198.64 (talk) 20:44, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

5 words: Where are the 3 diff's? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:50, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

So where are those 3 diff's you promised to produce? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:46, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Running a race hate campaign against Japanese would be a violation of WP:ATTACK and WP:NPOV. Three diffs that clearly show edits which advocate race hate against Japanese would be helpful. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:50, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

That IP has been blocked too. I guess we'll never find out. :( Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:54, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Korean American? Writing a cheap novel again which nobody read. young male Korean in American running a race hate campaign against Japanese. -->This is your typical racist/personal attack. Shame on you.--Caspian blue (talk) 20:59, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

It is possible, indeed, probable, that the statement is false. However, it does not appear to be racist. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:05, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, I will do. I will be good to my word to stop now to do so and not because of any attempt at suppression of such concerns or Caspian's continued gaming. --121.118.83.195 (talk) 21:04, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

It appears that the anon does not have any diffs that show User:Caspian blue engaging in a 'race hate campaign against Japanese,' which is helpful to know. Is WP:RBI the appropriate strategy here? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:07, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

If I lived in France for a while, and then you would change from the "young male Korean living in US" to "Korean French" or "Korean living in France"? You once called "young Korean American female". Writing a novella--21:17, 1 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Caspian blue (talk • contribs)

Identifying someone as either 'Korean living in US' or 'Korean American' is not racist in English. Your second two sentences do not carry any meaning; whatever you meant to say by them was not communicated. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:21, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The above comment is toward the troll. The user addressed at Talk:Comfort women that I "have to have" anti-Japanese sentiment because Koreans, especially young Koreans are "such race" per his experience in Japan. So I'm reminding him his old argument again.--Caspian blue (talk) 21:29, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Please provide the diff on that rather than making us look for stuff. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:30, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Why should I? I only speak the old thing to remind the troll only, and you're feeding the troll to solve your curiosity. LOOK above the provided reports.--Caspian blue (talk) 21:44, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to be bold here... Put up the diffs or shutup. Seriously, no more games. If there is inappropriate conduct SHOW us where. Until then I think we should ignore this person. How to make a diff --mboverload@ 21:36, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

This person is the 13th blocked troll in 2 and half hours, I believe.--Caspian blue (talk) 21:44, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Due to their complete aversion to showing any proof with extraordinary claims against a member of the community....kill it with fire.--mboverload@ 21:47, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Fire doesn't work. This user is on a dynamic ip. We can only kill it with ice. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:49, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Both sides of this dispute keep dancing around the issue and won't succinctly state, in plain English, what the alleged problem is. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:58, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Simple. The troll has deep grudge at me for him being blocked indefinitely, and wants to revenge. How immature.--Caspian blue (talk) 22:07, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

A useless answer, again evading the question. So we're done here. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:28, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I tried to help. I reverted that IP character several times. I asked for information so I could better understand the problem, and he won't give any. It's plain to see that he doesn't want help. He just wants to complain. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:37, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

That's okay; I stopped caring. If it was important, someone who can explain it succinctly would also have noticed and reported it. There are a lot of people working on comfort women. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:59, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Anthonator has promoted in all these areas:

• User:Anthonator
• Image:M edccb65c9b855f1f8b9eb49b8a4748aa.jpg
• Image:Designall.jpg
• Wikipedia:Requested articles Schuym1 (talk) 22:32, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Diffs plz --mboverload@ 22:55, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Diffs:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Anthonator&oldid=235655563
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requested_articles&oldid=235655052
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:M_edccb65c9b855f1f8b9eb49b8a4748aa.jpg&oldid=235654241
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:M_edccb65c9b855f1f8b9eb49b8a4748aa.jpg&oldid=235656151
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:M_edccb65c9b855f1f8b9eb49b8a4748aa.jpg&oldid=235656260
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:Designall.jpg&oldid=235656456 Schuym1 (talk) 23:01, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

That's a weird one alright... Thanks for the diffs! --mboverload@ 23:03, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely. That user has had a history of vandalism, and this makes it clear he doesn't intend to constructively edit. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 00:22, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I recently warned this user for his edits to Talk:Main Page (see here[80]), and then he came back on my talk page blatantly threating legal action[81]. I frankly would rather clean up the encyclopedia than have to worry about being sued. MattWT (talk) 04:51, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that was a specific legal threat, but he's one disruptive edit away from being blocked anyway. Exploding Boy (talk) 04:52, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

"i can most likly sue you for that and well i dont think that yo u will like that. so yahh just leave me alone and if you think that i can't well then ur wrong and it you make it so that i can not edit this web site will just make it better in court!

I don't mean to say you're wrong on this one, but it really does sound like he's willing to take me to court. Could you maybe contact him and get his input? I'd alert him of WP:NLT because he more than likely doesn't know that he's in violation of that policy, but i'm not feeling too comfortable talking to him at all anymore. MattWT (talk) 04:59, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

That's a clear legal threat, do what i want and don't block me or i'll sue. block him till he explains himself. ThuranX (talk) 05:05, 2 September 2008 (UTC) (On closer look, this all might fall under BLock, Revert, Ignore, and Don't feed the Trolls.) ThuranX (talk) 05:06, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

You're right. That's bizarre: I totally misread that. Think it's time for bed.... Exploding Boy (talk) 05:07, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I put a {{uw-legal}} on their talk page. Let's see a bit of AGF, we've given them just enough rope to hang themselves. -MBK₀₀₄ 05:09, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

The user can't ask for better treatment than that. I would have blocked indef as a vandal only account. Kevin (talk) 06:15, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Someone created this redirect with the name of the person alleged to be Sarah Palin's daughter's fiance. Should the redirect be deleted and cascade-protected? Opinions welcome. Kelly ^hi! 05:18, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the standard RfD process should be used, unless there are BLP issues here? Calvin 1998 ^(t-c) 05:22, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Redundant threads here; see WP:AN#Levi Johnston. Chick Bowen 05:27, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Already discussed on WP:AN --mboverload@ 05:30, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

HughTheA4AndFriends (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who has an obvious conflict of interest with Hugh The A4 and friends (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (already reported to WP:COIN), made an all-caps blanket threat to the entire community at his (hint: WP:OWN) article's AfD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hugh The A4 and friends), saying "HUGH THE A4 AND FRIENDS IS NOT A HOAX OR COPYING THOMAS THE TANK ENGINE! IF YOU DELETE THE PAGE ALL PAGES WILL BE PUT UP FOR DELETION BY ME!" The same was also posted on his talk page. He has also proceeded to vandalize a userpage (see history). In my view, he clearly intends on continuing to be uncivil and to vandalize/disrupt Wikipedia.

I took this issue to WP:WQA, where they told me to come here. It has also been suggested at WP:WQA that the user might be a sockpuppet. MuZemike (talk) 00:55, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

• <joak class="train-wonk">Can we be a bit more pacific here?</joak> Guy (Help!) 11:33, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I've just been reverting assorted vandalism from User:GradualReport. It looks like a bio for Daniel Grozdich, apparently his article was deleted and this was either a draft new attempt or a copy of what was deleted; and the vandalism seems to be a bunch of fans and foes warring over the Bio. So I've taken the liberty of moving the draft article from User:GradualReport to User:GradualReport/Sandbox, and leaving a note on the talk page. I hope that all makes sense and is OK, but can someone who knows why Daniel Grozdich was deleted run an eye over this and tell me whether or not I made the right call? Ta ϢereSpielChequers 09:39, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

From the logs, this article was deleted five times between the 25th and 26th of last month (under various speedy criteria). Notability seems to be the primary concern, but it looks like things rapidly degenerated into edit-warring and vandalism. It gives no reliable sources (youtube, myspace), nothing to indicate notability, and as a WP:BIO article it makes claims that should be cited. The username also indicates a possible WP:COI "Gradual Report" is the name of this chap's internet show. I have deleted it again as a word-for-word recreation of previously deleted material, but I won't be surprised to see it again (looks like someone's got a copy saved offline somewhere). EyeSerene^talk 10:58, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Just a short question, if I may: I thought that CSD#G4 cannot be applied in Userspace? SoWhy 11:01, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

True, and I didn't cite G4 in the deletion log. However, there was no evidence that the user had requested a restoration to their userspace in order to work on the article; to be frank, it looked to me like an attempt to recreate what was basically a vanity article as a personal userpage, under a username related to the article. If someone believes otherwise though, feel free to restore ;) EyeSerene^talk 11:18, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I didn't look but I couldn't think of another reason to delete restored material previously deleted. I guess you know what you are doing :-) I wouldn't have deleted it myself because it will make it more likely for the user to be annoyed and start disrupting but I am no admin so I have no experience to judge if that was correct. I just wondered about it, that's all.^^ SoWhy 11:33, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Heh, no problems, you're right to point out potential procedural issues (quis custodiet and all that...) Normally such things would go to WP:MFD, but I think in a fairly blatant case like this there's no harm in applying a little WP:IAR and saving everyone some time. EyeSerene^talk 11:48, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

"Who watches the watchman? I do!"</Sam Vimes> ;-)

But you are correct of course, I guess a little WP:IAR was correct, after all, it can all be restored easily :-) SoWhy 12:14, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

This your admin toolbar with button on it. You will eat it. You will sleep on it! When Jimbo say Jump, you say... What colour?! ...with apologies to TP EyeSerene^talk 12:27, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I do like admins users with a good taste. But I am fraid we are digressing a bit from the topic. I'll just put a resolved tag on it so that this comment makes some sense at least ;-) SoWhy 13:15, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

63.226.229.234 (talk · contribs) has launched a personal attack against myself and an admin, Parsecboy (talk · contribs). Please check his addition here: [82] and his edit summary here: [83]. This is likely a sock puppet of Jetwave Dave (talk · contribs) or DroneZone (talk · contribs), however a simple ban at this point is likely sufficient. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 12:13, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Note: I fixed the user templates in the above message for sake of clarity. _Gb^T/c 12:20, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

IP blocked for 31 hours. _Gb^T/c 12:32, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joseon tongsinsa

I have been continuously attacked by Tenmei (talk · contribs) on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joseon tongsinsa and relevant talk pages. I had not been interacted with the user until I found out that three articles on a same subject of Korean and Japanese relationship exist Wikipedia such as Korean missions to Edo created by the uer, Joseon Tongsinsa and Joseon tongsinsa. Except Tenmei, the other creators do not seem to be active for months. Therefore, I visited him to suggest for merging the three in due course.[84] His articles is the newest one, so I thought his article should be merged into the oldest one. The discussion started peacefully[85] [86] except a little friction on the title. He started to attack my comment on User:LordAmeth's talk page[87], so I said him to be civil.[88]

However, the user suddenly kept out of the normal track and nominated one of them for deletion in the middle of the discussion. His rationales for the deletion is Joseon tongsinsa does not meet WP:V and its title with the proper noun is not WP:English. However, the Japanese user did some research on my contributions, and stated that his nomination is because I've been engaging in editing Comfort women. Also the user clearly states about his WP:Ownership on his created article. Almost everyone said the AFD is ill-attempted, so recommended him to withdraw the nomination[89] [90] and encouraged us to keep the discussion for merge. Other editor pointed out on his usage of the perjorative "Wonkery" as well.[91]. I also implemented the article with a reliable Korean sources to prevent the deletion of contents. However, he even doubts the source and makes the AFD page with adding all irrelevant things to make WP:POINT to delete the whole content and agendas like Liancourt rocks.[92] [93] [94] [95] As he also uses very vicious languages against me and drags his anti-Korean sentiment to the AFD, so I gave him warning and requested him to remove his ill-faith comments and disorganized and unhelpful contents from there. He also pasted my warning to him without my permission several times.[96] [97] He rather more making inexcusable ad hominem attacks regardless of the chances.[98] The AFD is going to nowhere. The page turns out to be a place for him to abuse the procedure and make personal attacks based on his strong bias against Korean editors. The user recently was recently reported for his personal attacks like this. WP:ANI#Personal abuse and disruptive behaviour by Tenmei filed by admin, Nick Dowling. I think the user really need a proper lesson on WP:Civility. Thanks.--Caspian blue (talk) 01:24, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Tenmei's verbal attacks.

This article comes to my attention because a Korean editor experienced in the harsh melée flowing from Ilbongun wianbu proposed merging Joseon Tongsinsa and Joseon tongsinsa and Korean missions to Edo. including the gravamen of that paragraph Caspian blue has crafted. The sum of Caspian blue's contributions affirm my dour pessimism. If Caspian blue is joined by other like-minded tag team editors who similarly feign wounded indignation, angered offense, and stumbling-block misunderstandings as a disruptive tactic, the success of that strategy is virtually assured. Any hopes for collaborative work on this article are dashed. In the face of what seems like adolescent nationalistic ardour, any scholarly collaboration becomes quickly pointless -- especially in light of the entirely ineffective dispute resolution processes now in place. Wikipedia has been proven to be quite ill-equipped to deal with a concerted, agenda-driven attack of the sort which has been directed at Liancourt rocks. Without a strategy to avert the kind of failure which characterizes that article about an outcrop in the what the Koreans call the Eastern Sea and others call the Sea of Japan, this quickly becomes worse than a waste of time. It is entirely likely that Caspian blue and others similarly disposed will not realize that the Joseon era Silhak school of scholarship which underpins the historic salutatory significance of a Korea-centric dialectic Given the tenor and tone of the run-on paragraph Caspian blue has spewed out, it is entirely reasonable to conclude that an indignant, offended and angry critic won't otherwise know An aroused anti-Japanese bias would likely inhibit a willingness to learn that, while this may not be the first printed description of Korean sovereignty expressing itself through diplomatic initiatives the 18th century editor of Isaac Titsingh's work, and Jean-Pierre Abel-Rémusat, the first Professor of Chinese at the University of Paris, collaborated on pre-Hepburn transliterations to which Caspian blue objects vociferously. In the absence of anything better, this proffered text doesn't deserve derision; and that very derisive contempt diminishes my willingness to engage in a discussion which likely has no chance of enhancing the quality of the article. Caspian blue -- Nope. Not having the affect you seek. FACT: You are offensive -- stop it. You've been offensive for some time; and I've been trying to figure out how to contrive an alchemy which will allow me to focus on the scholarly issues which interest me. It's taken a while to sort through my thoughts, but ignoring you isn't esaclty the answer. NO -- you and your ilk require a quite different strategy. Do us all a favor -- just stop. FACT: You perversely aim to construe anything and everything as a new cause for argument -- stop it. FACT: Your claimed distress is a mere sham. My advice to you -- Find someone else to trouble. FACT: This arguing gambit is a kind of fraud, and it really can't withstand close scrutiny. Instead of bothering me, why don't you focus attention on something constructive, anything. On the other hand, if you're determined to try to make a fuss, you'll have to be more specific. I've done nothing, written nothing, contributed nothing for which I have any regrets except that it took so long for me to figure out a tentative strategy for handling the problems you present. You've managed to feed your appetite for argument in other settings, but maybe all I need to do is to demand you abandon innuendo and instead that you make your complaints specific. Then it's my challenge to figure out how to divert a rambling rant into anything to do with credible source.

--Caspian blue (talk) 02:38, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: Tenmei, do not alter my report on you.[99] I'm trying to keep the report as succinct as possible as holding your notable verbal attacks. You altered my statement and posted to the AFD without my permission several times. That is a no-no, and you've been warned for your disruptive behaviors more than enough. You said I'm editing Wikipedia for anti-Japanese sentiment and doing "tag teaming". Those false accusations are ill and malicious personal attacks done by you. That's why you're summoned here. --Caspian blue (talk) 13:11, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

This is is an extraordinary example of what is called "gaming the system" in wiki-talk; and it deserves to be examined with close scrutiny an and a heightened attention to what actually happened here.

Responding to this very serious charge will take some time; but as a first blush look at this complaint, why don't you click on the hidden text which Caspian blue has created. Look at the last of the choice quotes which are presented as proofs of my intolerable behaviour. The red font text shows what was edited out, and the external link simply provides proof that what I wrote and what is posted here are significantly different. This isn't just bad form. This isn't just an accident. NO -- this is something worse; and the rest of the serial charges Caspian blue has made here can be similarly addressed and deflated seriatim. However, it does take longer to expose and quash a deliberate fraud than it took to create the misleading evidence which supports this false allegation. --Tenmei (talk) 13:01, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I am involved in this only in that I voted in the AFD discussion. After CaspianBlue posted a request on my talk page, I have done some looking into the dispute, but not perhaps enough. Here are some preliminary ideas. First, CaspianBlue and Tenmei both seem to be non-native-English speakers, and ones from different cultures. They should both realize the difficulties of communicating and working together in a foreign language. Tenmei, especially, seems to become very upset whenever he/she perceives incivility - I think that Tenmei should be very careful to assume good faith on the part of other editors, and try to not get upset at what is, in American terms, a reasonable discussion. Tenmei should, at all costs, not abuse other editors - that accomplishes nothing. Tenmei seems to be capable of contributing usefully and working with other editors; he/she should strive to do so always. One thing Tenmei must, however, learn - discussions suffer from the addition of large text blocks. Adding long, rambling, and unnecessary blocks of text to discussions harms the discussion and irritates other editors. Tenmei must learn to discuss in a concise and on-topic fashion. Long documents should be placed in user-space or other off-topic locations and linked to if necessary; comments should be short and concise (unlike this one, but I'm trying to say a number of things). I think Tenmei should be given a chance to change his/her behavior, if they want to try, rather than being blocked. Brianyoumans (talk) 13:24, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

This a phoney claim -- contrived for purposes I can't fathom. We all come to Wikipedia for a variety of reasons. In my case, Caspian blue seems to have come looking for a fight, hoping for an argument, angling for something to complain about. I avoided participating in that game to a greater extent than I would have thought possible given the repeated provocations. The clear record which is saved by the Wikipedia system will show that Caspian blue set out to create something out of nothing. I won't get into why this happened. I don't have to do that. I don't have to explain what motivated this. However, I do intend to show that I neither initiated nor participated in anything like a "personal attack" as defined in wiki-terms. No.

The one phrase that most deserves to be highlighted above is "strong bias against Korean editors." This could be a very serious charge, but it deserves to be rejected as completely out-of-place here.

This is over-reaching, and in way -- sad; but to the extent that the accusation is designed to cause me harm, it needs to bring down harsh rejection in a fashion that Caspian blue cannot misunderstand. --Tenmei (talk) 02:33, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I wrote the following. I'll address the other specific complaints Caspian blue makes; but for now, this is a good beginning. There is no offense in this -- but there is a demonstration of the plain fact that I've had the good fortune to learn from a children's story -- The Emperor's New Clothes.

The fact of the matter is that there are problems in some articles which involve both Korea and Japan. There is current strife between Korea and Japan. That's not a revelation of any kind of anti-Korean bias, it's just the way it is. Having written an article about a time when something went right between Korea and Japan, the question Caspian blue and others force me to confront is how to foster scholarly collaboration -- analysis, text and source development. At the same time, the task becomes one of figuring out how to avoid the endless litany of pitfalls which fill the talk pages of articles like Liancourt Rocks and Comfort Women, just to name two of them. What to do is a real question -- it's not "Korean bashing" unless heightened sensitivity, thin-skinned indignation and a need for something to argue about are combined to make something out of nothing for reasons I don't have to understand ....

I see a problem which affects my ability to work effectively on the task of improving Wikipedia articles, and I did address it in a straightforward manner. As a first step, read what I wrote. The following is an invitation to work together towards worthwhile goals. It was rejected entirely and instead, Caspian blue wants to fulfill a quite different need.

Instead of adding in-line citations and reference sources to Joseon Tongsinsa or Korean missions to Edo or just any article which attracts interest, Caspian blue chooses to focus on me.

-- Note: The collapsed text is more fully parsed elsewhere below. --Tenmei (talk) 18:07, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I don't even read your lengthy rambling but still seem like you fill with same disdainful false accusations. Your serious false charge of me are all attached above. You abuse the AFD from the ill-faith as filling with all bashing instead of focusing the AFD. Besides, you paste the same comment from the AFD. Even User:LordAmeth said that you have a tendency to make personal attacks to editors. Heh.. he knows you way better than me. Well, this rambling seem to be your tactic to distract people's attention. I think you really deserve a proper sanction. Will see.--Caspian blue (talk) 02:45, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: Good grief. I have read both of your ramblings and they are entirely long, winded, and contradictory. Can both of you sum it up in a few paragraphs, with relevant citations, so that the administrators can infer just what has gone on? Thanks, seicer | talk | contribs 03:13, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

  If you read my thread only (I sum up the situation), you can grasp why he should be reported to here. More shortly, Tenmei who has tendency to make personal attacks suddenly made a peaceful merging proposal to be a place for making personal attacks at the AFD. He drags irrelevant articles like Liancourt Rocks and Comfort women which I have edited as a method of attack and distrust for my merging suggestion. He also claims that the nominated article should be completely deleted even after it is getting cited with a reliable source by me. I said he should be stop his making personal attacks and removed irrelevant bashing from the AFD, but he refuses and keeps continuing such behaviors. My report is not for a content dispute, but for his so impeccable behaviors.--Caspian blue (talk) 03:34, 28 August 2008(UTC)

• Comment This seems to be similar to Tenmei's highly uncivil and disruptive behaviour towards me and other editors over the Hyūga class helicopter destroyer article. In my experiance this editor routinely responds to disagreements with long and highly uncivil posts and escalates minor disagreements into major disputes as he not willing to enter into good-faith discussions but instead stubbonly sticks to his position and attacks editors who have different views. Tenmei has been warned many times for his uncivil and disruptive behaviour and has been asked to condense his long-winded talk page posts as these are not contributing to discussions, but this has had no observable impact. Diffs to some of Tenmei's uncivil comments involving the Hyūga class article include: [108], [109], [110], [111], [112], [113], [114] and [115] and the warnings Tenmei has recieved for his behaviour on that article include [116], [117], [118], [119], [120], [121], [122] and [123]. As this editor is displaying a consistant pattern of misbehaviour I believe that some form of block would be appropriate. Nick Dowling (talk) 08:28, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

• It appears too obvious that Tenmei inflates a tiny thing to be a drastic WP:SOAP as resorting to personal attacks. I don't why the user has to show strong enmity toward me as pulling irrelevant matters to the AFD. --Caspian blue (talk) 13:17, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Indented exchange between Seicer and Tenmei, seems unrelated to Dowling-initiated the sub-thread --Tenmei (talk) 16:05, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

• I received this demand on my talk page. That was followed with this equally long rant on a totally unrelated thread at ANI. seicer | talk | contribs 14:44, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Seicer -- If you are not an administration to whom I should have presented a request about restoring what was reverted, to whom should I have gone. I wrote "please" which was coupled with a request to do something. If that is perceived as a demand, I don't know what to say.

I'm in no position to demand anything from you. In fact, as far as I know, no one can demand anything from anyone else in the Wikipedia environment. I asked -- that's it. I take it your answer is "no" and that the question should not have been directed to you.

As for your worry about that mis-posted "rant," I can move it here where it was intended to be posted.

I would have thought that "rant" was perjorative. If so, it is undeserved. What I did do was to use the template provided at WP:CIVIL as a tool to organize my response to a charge that I have been more than uncivil -- that my alleged anti-Korean bias has been exacerbated by a wrongful personal attack. That's not a rant -- certainly not in the context of this rapidly changing thread. --Tenmei (talk) 15:01, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Those diffs you provide show no evidence of incivility. [124]: What incivility? Weird yes, but incivil no. [125]: I don't know what diff he is defending here, there might be incivility in the comment that lead to the warning but I can find none in this diff. [126] and [127]: I don't see anything that could be construed as incivility here.

[128]: On it's own it seems merely to be Tenmei stating that he feels that Nick Dowling is choosing to ignoring reliable sources. Context might mean that this is a personal attack, but in general one must be allowed to disagree with other editors. [129]: No incivility, although a clear element of failure to AGF on Tenmei's part. [130]: Clearly not helpfull, but not a personal attack. [131]: Why do you give this diff twice? Taemyr (talk) 18:58, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

The other editors who warned Tenmei for those posts regarded them as uncivil and highly disruptive - I imagine that you would also be offended if I accused you of "framing sham "queries"", dismissed your responses out of hand or accused you of plotting and acting in bad faith. Sorry for posting the diff twice - that was an accident. To summarise a long story, Tenmei was insisting that the article on the ships label them aircraft carriers, when there is no consensus on what kind of ship they are. Rather than participate in a good faith discussion he abused the other editors, sat out the process of drafting text to describe the ambiguity over the ships' classification and then restarted the dispute. The same behavior seems to be occuring in this dispute - complete with Tenmei's incredibly over-long and unreadable posts. Nick Dowling (talk) 10:59, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Dowling -- I don't see the constructive purpose served by this thread. Rest assured that I have no hesitation about addressing whatever it is you are proffering here. When time permits, I will return to re-visit the knowingly inaccurate summary which has been posited above. With regret, I suppose this posting is unsurprising. Indeed, I was warned that something like this would likely happen, if not now then at some other point in the future. However, in the context of the specific instances which are alleged to have caused Caspian blue to lodge a complaint in this venue, a request for a little more specificity seems not unreasonable.

Dowling -- What evidence of Korea-bashing or anti-Korean bias is to be adduced from my participation in Hyūga class helicopter destroyer? Were there other contexts or other issues you hoped to highlight in the context Caspian blue creates? If so, please be specific so they can be addressed seriatim. By all means, please edit the sub-heading for this section if, as I suspect, it does not sufficiently reflect what you had in mind. --Tenmei (talk) 16:05, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I posted my message here as it was at the bottom of the thread at the time as per normal talk page procedure. I was asked to comment on your behavior and it's clear that you've failed to pay any attention to the many warnings you were given for the Hyūga class article and are continuing to rudely make mountains out of molehills. As it's you whose been adding sub-headings to describe other editors posts (which is an unusual practice) don't go complaining about the sub-headings not matching the content of the posts. Nick Dowling (talk) 01:08, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Dowling -- You note that adding thread sub-headings is non-standard; and you also observe that much else in my Wikipedia participation is non-standard. Thank you for recognizing one of the valuable contributions I make by participating in Wikipedia -- no less in this venue than elsewhere. I the last sentence of your paragraph above, you also exhibit characteristic trait in attempting to contrive a cause for disagreement where none exists.

As you may remember, you you were offended at my temerity in removing brackets which created a link within a sub-heading you created. I did not know then that headings were sacrosanct, and I still believe this just something you made up. Nevertheless, with your complaint in mind, I invited you to edit a thread sub-heading I had created. There is no complaint in the following:

By all means, please edit the sub-heading for this section if, as I suspect, it does not sufficiently reflect what you had in mind.

I would argue that this non-standard invitation to collaborative editing is typical -- as is the contrived indignation such attempts to build bridges seem destined to evoke.[132] I offer no apology for the length of this sentence nor for its substance. --Tenmei (talk) 15:25, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

This can't be made simpler while the thread grown more complex faster than I can figure it out. My initial attempts to clarify have been reverted already. Caspian blue deleted the words which were left out from what has been posted above. This means my words are not read in context. This becomes an impossible hurdle.

Wikipedia:Civility#Engaging in incivility
In the illustrative list of behaviors which can contribute to an uncivil environment, insults and name-calling are near the top of that list. On the same line, there is a helpful injunction -- an inviation to "comment on the actions and not the editor." This is what I have done. In order to identify which actions deserve comment, it is inevitably necessary to identify a specific individual or group of individual editors. That, I have done; and as long as I scrupulously focus on actions and content, there is no personal abuse -- no incivility. Taking umbrage as a way of avoiding further discussion of actions and content can be a mistake, an emotional misunderstanding, a faux pas. In this case, the feigned umbrage is gaming the system. That has always been the fear which motivated the resort to AfD, and that worry is now born out as fully valid.

Also in that illustrative list at Wikipedia:Civility#Engaging in incivility is a warning against "taunting; deliberately pushing others to the point of breaching civility even if not seeming to commit such a breach themselves." Caspian blue has been pushing for something to argue about, angling for a dispute, and posturing to use indignation or feigned offense as a cause to achieve a disagreement. This is not conduct which deserves to be rewarded; and Wikipedia is diminished to the extent that an agenda-driven campaign like this is encouraged in any way.

In a sense, Wikipedia:Civility#Engaging in incivility anticipates both of my invitations to explain myself at WP:AN/I when the illustrative list includes "ill-considered accusations of impropriety;" but while the content dispute which was treated here as a personal dispute with Nick Dowling is be partly explained by cognitive dissonance, this fake-issue, this ersatz-problem with Caspian blue is an entirely different matter. This is a cake baked from scratch by a knowing baker with a recipe in mind.

The easiest proof of my innocence and Caspian blue culpability is in "deliberately asserting false information on a discussion page in order to mislead" and in "quoting another editor out-of-context in order to give the impression that he or she hold views they do not hold, or in order to malign them."

This was never a simple situation, and it can't be resolved by ignoring the context. At its root, Caspian blue has proffered a complaint of foul play, discrimination because of an intolerable bias against Koreans. The nature of that complaint takes this out of the ordinary run of disputes which appear on this page.

Ultimately, Caspian blue's complaint runs afoul the last of the items on the list of behaviors which can contribute to an uncivil environment -- "feigned incomprehension" or "playing dumb." In this instance, Caspian blue's actions are revealing, rather the lack of actions. When an perceived offense was discovered or announced, where was there a realistic opportunity to address that offense with an explanation. The record will show that there was never that kind of opportunity. Rather, Caspian blue was carefully saving up a list of insults and slights and offenses so that cumulatively they could be made into something to complain about.

In conclusion, this was a campaign, an orchestrated strategy. How can I address it without putting my own words in context? That's an essential objective ... else innuendo becomes the only coin which buys anything.

I have to be able to put my words in context; and I can't keep up with constant reverts which happen too fast for me to follow. --Tenmei (talk) 14:40, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Tenmei (talk · contribs), I used to hear a complaint that I made a long-winded report but you surpass me indeed. I don't need to waste my time to read "irrelevant ramblings". It seems that this is your tactic to get out of your charges because you know nobody read "lengthy complaint". You did the same thing to the last report on your disruptive personal attacks. You initiated to attack me out of nowhere from my peaceful proposal for merging as labeling my comment as "premature, unhelpful, discouraging". The uncivil comment was not a big deal until you nominated the article for deletion with pulling the "race card" and "anti-Japanese sentiment". It is YOU who falsely has accused me that I'm editing by tag-teaming with others and do not deserve to edit the nominated article because I've been editing Comfort women and Liancourt Rocks. (how irrelevant to the article) You are digging my contributions to make the whole content to be deleted, and deliberately chose vicious languages like "skewed out" and you denounced all my contribution history. More than half of the AFD is filled with your bashing about me. You still have a chance to give me your sincere apologies and to retract personal attacks. Oh well, after you got a warning from an admin, but you keep continued your behaviors.--Caspian blue (talk) 16:33, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Caspian blue has listed nine examples of "Tenmei's verbal attacks." I can and will respond to all of them; and it will become plain that there never was any personal attack nor was there anything other than an attempt to grapple with a difficult question having difficult consequences. --Tenmei (talk) 17:29, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

• FIRST QUOTE: This article comes to my attention because a Korean editor experienced in the harsh melée flowing from Ilbongun wianbu proposed merging Joseon Tongsinsa and Joseon tongsinsa and Korean missions to Edo.

The article I wrote about the 12 Joseon missions to the Tokugawa court in Edo is fully cited with links embedded in some of the citations; but the rough-draft text was created using only Japanese-, French- and English-language sources. In this instance, I was personally very eager for this to work out because I looked for collaboration in resolving pre-Hepburn romanizations of Korean names in reports of Joseon missions as recorded in Nihon Ōdai Ichiran. Instead, the myriad perceived causes for acrimony were too subtle, too intractable, too omni-present for me to have done more than is shown here; but I hope that an oblique approach may achieve different results. In my view, the subject justifies putting in a little extra effort .... --Tenmei (talk) 21:00, 25 August 2008 (UTC) [This part was edited out because it emphasizes the focus on CONTENT rather than personal attacks.[133].]

RESPONSE:

A. There are articles which are highly controversial. There are people who exacerbate controversy. Some do so intentionally and others do so unintentionally. Without commenting on motivation or intention, the fact remains that there are some whose contributions inflame or worsen an already difficult situation. This happens in life, and it is irrational to conceive of a wiki-reality in which editors do not have the same effect.

B. Regardless of whether Caspian blue was amongst those who make exacerbate or ameliorate any specific emotionally-charged talk page exchange, the fact remains that experience in an environment of heightened strife establishes a tone, a comfort-level, a context which is defined as "normal" based on specific experiences. We all learn from experience, and it is entirely reasonable -- not a criticism -- that prolonged experience at Talk:Comfort women is likely to have produced a conception of what is normal in that context.

C. It is not necessary or vital or productive for that sense of heightened strife from Comfort women (Ilbongun wianbu) or Liancourt Rocks to be replicated in Korean missions to Edo.

D. When I developed a sense that this was escalating too fast into acrimony -- without any apparent causal factor in the context of Talk:Korean missions to Edo, I worried that there may be an external cause; and I tried to figure out how to calm the context for further discourse. The tool of choice for me is WP:V -- focus on the sources, the specific citations, the published facts. Nevertheless, the level of emotionally-charged, accusatory tone continued to worsen.

E. One working hypothesis was that this was a misplaced extension of the on-going contemporary series of disputes between Korea and Japan, between Koreans and Japanese -- nothing to do with Joseon tongsinsa, but everything to do with the present day ... and Wikipedia is naught but another handy battlefield.

F. In the process of testing a hypothesis, it always happens that you look for evidence which seems to support the proposition; and you look for evidence which might lead to another, better formulation of the same hypothesis or another hypothesis altogether.

QUESTION:

Could I have explained all this more succinctly. Should I have expressed these thoughts sooner? If this had been spelled out so clearly, would this clarification have further excited an already inflammatory situation?

CLARIFYING ACTION:

What I did do is this -- I added the following right after the sentence to which Caspian blue objected, hoping to explain in this neutral way rather than making anything worse.[134]

• Ilbongun wianbu redirects to Comfort women; and see Talk:Comfort women with the following templates at the head of the page:

{:{medcabbox|2008-07-25_Comfort_women}} -- This article, Comfort women, is currently the subject of informal mediation from the Mediation Cabal. Please read relevant talk page discussions below before making substantial changes, and respect Wikipedia's talk page guidelines.

{:{calm talk}} -- Discussions on this page may escalate into heated debate. Please try to keep a cool head when commenting here. See also: Wikipedia:Etiquette.

{:{Controversial-issues}} -- This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed.

Before making any potentially controversial changes to the article, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue to see if the issue has been raised before, and ensure that your edit meets all of policies and guidelines. Please also ensure you use an accurate and concise edit summary.

• NINTH QUOTE: Caspian blue -- Nope. Not having the affect you seek.

FACT: You are offensive -- stop it. You've been offensive for some time; and I've been trying to figure out how to contrive an alchemy which will allow me to focus on the scholarly issues which interest me. It's taken a while to sort through my thoughts, but ignoring you isn't exaclty the answer. NO -- you and your ilk require a quite different strategy. Do us all a favor -- just stop.

FACT: You perversely aim to construe anything and everything as a new cause for argument -- stop it.

FACT: Your claimed distress is a mere sham. My advice to you -- Find someone else to trouble.

FACT: This arguing gambit is a kind of fraud, and it really can't withstand close scrutiny. Instead of bothering me, why don't you focus attention on something constructive, anything.

On the other hand, if you're determined to try to make a fuss, you'll have to be more specific. I've done nothing, written nothing, contributed nothing for which I have any regrets except that it took so long for me to figure out a tentative strategy for handling the problems you present. You've managed to feed your appetite for argument in other settings, but maybe all I need to do is to demand you abandon innuendo and instead that you make your complaints specific. Then it's my challenge to figure out how to divert a rambling rant into anything to do with credible source.

That's my plan -- not much really. Kinda simple. Alchemy turning dross to gold.

Speaking of gold -- what about that Korean baseball team? Olympic gold. There is only one explanation for that victory -- hard work, practice and teamwork. A good lesson worth learning in any number of contexts. --Tenmei (talk) 00:11, 28 August 2008 (UTC) [This part was edited out because it emphasizes the focus on CONTENT rather than personal attacks.[135].]

RESPONSE:

From first to last, I have always tried to do what is expressly explained here -- to divert non-constructive complaints into anything to do with a credible source. The result of trying to work through this seemingly intractable problem did result in something succinct. The mere fact that these few important words in red font were excluded proves one thing -- they were not perceived as offensive. It is not proof, but it is suggestive that these words were excluded. It suggests that Caspian blue understood well enough that these words were conciliatory and that if they were read in this context, others might be persuaded that my focus was on collaboration, cooperation, consensus and enhancing the quality of the subject which was the focus -- not personal attack, and not anti-Korean discriminatory bias.

QUESTION:

Could I have explained all this better, sooner, clearer? If I had amplified this crisp statement, would the clarification have further excited an already inflamed situation?—Preceding unsigned comment added by tenmei (talk • contribs)

Caspian Blue, you have been blocked once in part for attempting to use NPA to solve your content disputes[136], and two more times for edit warring with a pro Korea POV[137]. For this reason it is especially important that you are careful to assume good faith in fellow editors, especially on disputes about Korea related articles. I am personally amazed that you are able to be so certain about what Linmei is trying to say, most admins that have commented in this thread finds getting any real meaning out of Tenmei's comments to be very difficult. Stricken reference is fallout from a run in with a sock farm, it is less indicative of a trend on the part of Caspian than what the block log suggest. Taemyr (talk) 21:49, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

It is quite obvious that you come to condone Tenmei's disruptions as accusing the above admin making "false accusations" to Tenmei. I strongly advise you retract your personal attacks against me and the links. My blocks are deeply involved with "sock/meat farms by pro Japanese and they were indef.blocked for their disruptions. The log has nothing to do with the tread. You have witnessed the AFD was going nowhere with personal attacks. I had assumed good faith, and used up all for his repeated personal attacks. Well if you can't not retract the attack, I will ask admins. --Caspian blue (talk) 19:41, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I do not condone Tenmei's statements, there is definitivily an element of incivility there, but I consider your responce to them an overeaction. The fact that you have been blocked over using NPA as a weapon in previous conflicts is relevant, and I see no evidence that Amagase is part of any sock farm. Taemyr (talk) 20:57, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Overraction? Taemyr, retract your personal attacks and bad faith comment. You mentioned my other blocks, which are related to sockpuppetry's disrutpions. You mock me here to defend Tenmei. I say again, remove your increadiblity uncivil and inappropriate comment. You are no position to mock me in the public place.--Caspian blue (talk) 21:25, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I think you are overreacting, because the fundamental problem with Tenmei is his inability to make himself understood, not civility issues. It is not my intention to mock you. The other blocks is less indicative than what I assumed when looking at your log, and as such is not really relevant to this discussion. Taemyr (talk) 21:49, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

You're the one making the situation getting worst and worst. I said you have to remove your mention of my block log, not partially striking out on your comment and adding another ad hominem attacks in a disguised analysis. You made more attacks not retracting your insults. You know how well your statement anger people. Good faith is not always effective to people like you. You also attacked Nick Dowling, and target at me. Your inappropriate behaviors should be examined.--Caspian blue (talk) 22:04, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Tenmei, at the very least statements such as "you and your ilk" is a personal attack. As is the statement "You are offensive". In the latter example note that there is a difference between "You are offensive" and "Your actions are offending me" or "This action offends me". Also, try to keep the discussion you are involved in to the point, you tend to run on a lot, this makes it very hard to get at what you are trying to say. As a consequence people are bound to misunderstand you, and at times this will escalate conflicts you are involved in. Taemyr (talk) 19:18, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

• Folks, much as the above makes the eyes glaze over and inclines one to bypass as TL;DR, I think that Tenmei has proved Caspian Blue's point for him rather well. Question: what, if anything, should be done? Tenmei is clearly exceptionally vexatious, but it's not all one-sided. I'd like to suggest that both disputants accept a 48 hour injunction to disengage, resist the temptation to post further diatribes here, leave all mutually disputed articles alone and allow some space for a measured consideration of the issue - otherwise I'm afraid it's likely to end up with people simply losing patience with the whole festival of Stupid. Guy (Help!) 20:51, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Retracting 'you and your ilk'

Before filing this WP:AN/I, Caspian blue asked User:LordAmeth if I were Japanese. In my view, whatever is going on with Caspian blue has little to do with me. As for what was happening, I don't want to be involved in that difficult speculation.

I did try not to make this worse. Who will not credit me with trying to think through this as best I could? In my view, my efforts to avoid making a bad problem worse should purchase the counseling which will help me figure out how I could have done better ... and that is exactly what I thought was happening at AfD until Caspian blue abandoned a venue in which I thought the participants were helping us re-invent the wheel.

Guy -- Mercutio's curse is not appropriate here -- "A pox on both your houses." Japanese and Korean conflicts may be like the Montagues and Capulets, but I've been trying to figure out how to avoid conflicts, not only with Caspian blue others similarly motivated.

Taemyr -- You identify some of my faux pas above; but this has has nothing to do with Caspian blue in the sense that I am not now, nor have I been angered by this. I've just been frustrated at my inability to participate in a way that makes for a more constructive environment. If "you and your ilk" is an prohibited personal attack, I can withdraw those words immediately. I'm doing my best to be constructive and appropriate. No other interpretation of my edits is accurately reflects my intention. If there are other unacceptable remarks, I can and will remove them in a second. I can even apologize for wrong words, BUT I don't apologize for trying and failing in circumstances which were difficult to fathom.

To whom could I have turned for counsel except to Taemyr? Whatever else you can say about what I was doing, there was a mind at work trying to figure out how to proceed. --Tenmei (talk) 21:35, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

You pulled all anti-Japanese sentiment and race card first because you know I'm Korean, and over analysied my contributiosn and attacked me. Therefore, I have to know why your malicious false accusations come from. According to other editors' saying, you're not a native speaker but uses very odd English. Well, You have to apologize your personal attack. The AFD is clearly your failed attempt filled with the irrelevant matters and your rant.--Caspian blue (talk) 21:25, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Tenmei, I urge you to seek a Mentor. The fact that most editors find your style of discussion to be difficult to understand, as well as tending to sidetrack the discussion, is going to be a problem for you and editors around you until you substantially improve your prose. Taemyr (talk) 21:55, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Caspian blue -- I can and do sincerely apologize for using the term "you and your ilk." Those words are not permitted in this venue, and I am happy to comply with the norms established here. But there is nothing else for which I have any regret except that the consequences were not constructive, nor were they perceived as attempting to conform my behavior in a focus on making Wikipedia better.

If I could be made to understand that other parts of what I've written are deserving of an apology, I will have no problem expressing regret.

Caspian blue -- Do you remember this? You somehow construed this apology as a new cause to get angry:

Please do not feel rushed. Feel free to proceed at a pace which seems comfortable to you. My opposition to the merge can change and will change when in-line citations and bibliographic references are added.

You may want to look at what I've posted at Wikipedia talk:Article Rescue Squadron#Needing diplomacy and finesse. It is possible that this may produce helpful results; and I hope we both find reasons to appreciate the additional help this gesture brings. Maybe we will discover that this gambit was the most constructive step either you or I could have taken.

Please note that it is not possible to engage the attention of this Article Rescue Squadron without listing Joseon tongsinsa as an AfD nominee. Also, please note that I did not list Joseon Tongsinsa as an AfD nominee. --Tenmei 21:23, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[138]

Caspian blue You told me I was too sensitive and that my words were offensive and uncivil. I apologized -- and yet this was a new cause to get angry.

I am pleased to notice that you consider me too sensitive. That significant difficulty is easily resolved. I will strive to be more flexible.

You mention that you construed my words as "offensive and uncivil." That too is easily resolved. I can and do sincerely apologize for having caused offense -- noting easier or more welcome than to confess regret for having erred when nothing but finesse and diplomatic, cautious langauge was intended. --Tenmei (talk) 21:31, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[139]

You stroke the comment and then suddenly began to pour all racial cards and analysis at me.--Caspian blue (talk) 22:07, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what to do going forward, but apologies aren't helpful -- even when sincere. I will only apologize to the extent that someone like Taemyr counsels me to do. --Tenmei (talk) 22:01, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Of course, Taemyr defended you as making insults by him. Good behavior.--Caspian blue (talk) 22:07, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

So "the nom" means your opinion and another person having to mamke personal attacks? Ha! --Caspian blue (talk) 22:37, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Part of my problem is that wiki-norms require me to beat around the bush. Also, Caspian blue construed everything and anything as a new cause for anger -- even an apology caused trouble I don't understand. But what else was I to do except to try to make sense in the only venue where, thanks to Rescue Squadron, there was even half a chance of getting real help?--Tenmei (talk)

THE UNANSWERED QUESTION:

How to limit the kind of problems which mar Liancourt Rocks and Comfort women? How to do something so that Korean missions to Edo (or whatever it is renamed) will not become a battleground? That is the question I've invested time and effort in trying to answer ... or in trying to figure out where to go ...?

Any future tag team editors who feign wounded indignation, angered offense, and stumbling-block misunderstandings as a disruptive tactic at Korean missions to Edo, the success of that strategy is virtually assured. Any hopes for collaborative work on this article are dashed. Any scholarly collaboration becomes quickly pointless -- especially in light of the entirely ineffective dispute resolution processes now in place.

Wikipedia has been proven to be quite ill-equipped to deal with a concerted, agenda-driven attack of the sort which has been directed at Liancourt rocks. Without a strategy to avert the kind of failure which characterizes that article about an outcrop in the what the Koreans call the Eastern Sea and others call the Sea of Japan, this quickly becomes worse than a waste of time.

In the absence of permission to speak more freely, the best I can do is respond to Caspian blue's complaints in an effort to create a constructive outcome ... which was what I thought I was actually managing to to at AfD. In fact, I construe the fact that Caspian blue tried to turn this into something to do with a personal attack was a kind of wierd proof that some of what I was trying to achieve was beginning to become clear.

I'm trying to convert this into something that actually resolves a root problem instead of merely focusing on slapping someone's hand. Under the circumstance, I would have thought that even if my approach is awkward, my persistence deserves to be commended, not derided.

Guy -- This, at least, is not festival of Stupid. --Tenmei (talk) 22:49, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

The fifth through eighth quotes which Caspian blue cites as proofs of personal attacks and anti-Korean attacks are all related to a single paragraph of complaints which drafted by Caspian blue as an overall criticism of what he seemed to have found offensive at Talk:Korean missions to Edo.[140] This paragraph assumes some knowledge of the subject, but for the purposes of this WP:AN/I the tone is oddly excited and scolding.

Hmmm..you added several wrong names. There is no such named Korean officials, and you fix your wrong name/pronunciation after reading Joseon Tongsinsa and Joseon tongsinsa) into the article. It seems like one of your source is not that reliable per the false info. (who the hell are Ko tsi tsiou (or Houng tchi tchoung) and Tsiou nan gouts (or Thsieou nan yuě) ? You should've checked the source first and check their name. The Korean ambassadors are neither Japanese nor Chinese. Besides, the years such as Kan'en are only for Japanese point of view. I have to ask you that why you added some info from the article of Joseon Tongsinsa, and oppose to merging all together on contrary to your claim for WP:V. WP:V is a very important policy, the two other articles are lied in only matter of references, and WP:OR is irrelevant to here. --Caspian blue (talk) 13:59, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

RESPONSE:

Caspian blue's paragraph represents an impassioned reaction to passionless, dry prose. Two books and one scholarly article are listed as bibilographic references, and there are 11 in-line citations, all of which include clickable links which may it very easy to check that what is stated in the Wikipedia article is immediately verifiable in a credible, published source. This unassuming draft text -- very little more than a start -- was construed as a cause for anger ... already, at first glance.

A. It is clear that something else is motivating a reaction which is too extreme for any plausible reading of the provocation. I can't guess what that might be; and in any case, I must abjure such thoughts because WP:AGF requires me to avoid that logical path.

B. Although I must resist speculating about the here and now, there is no wiki-policy which prohibits me from recognizing that, if this non-descript text produces such a strong reaction, I am only prudent in anticipating something similar or something more extravagant in the future.

C. I can and do speculate about how to avert similarly dramatic outpourings in the future; and I make guesses about how best to proceed, and these become a number of tentative hypothesis/conjectures.

D. If there was this much trouble flowing from Korean missions to Edo, what about the more complicated text at Joseon tongsinsa? That prospect seemed like it would ensure that this became another Liancourt Rocks, so I posted the AfD and I posted on Rescue Squadron so that the future problems would be mitigated.

QUESTION:

What else could I have done to avoid escalating problems which seemed likely -- not just from Caspian blue, but from unknown others? If I had been more blunt in explaining what I was doing and why, it would have only inflamed the situation, so I was forced to proceed obliquely. Regardless of my intentions, if I can come to understand that I need to apologize to Caspian blue for other comments, other mis-statements, other mistakes, I will be glad to do it if someone can explain to me what I need to apologize for and why? --Tenmei (talk) 23:21, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

CLARIFYING ACTION:

I anticipated more of the same, if not from Caspian blue, then from others similarly inclined to see no difference between this subject and Liancourt Rocks and Comfort women. In these quotes which are construed as offensive, I showed that I'd tried to understand the Korean perspective, and that what was perceived as offensive was actually respectful. This research also pointed the way towards collaboration and consensus. It fell on deaf ears, but it wasn't a bad thing. In fact, the Silhak school could be a way to construe Caspian blue's disruptive attacks on me as defensible outside the wiki-context which has different norms and rules ... or at least, that was what I was trying to say. What else more could I have tried to do in coming to understand Caspian blue in his own terms?

• FIFTH QUOTE: It is entirely likely that Caspian blue and others similarly disposed will not realize that the Joseon era Silhak school of scholarship which underpins the historic salutatory significance of a Korea-centric dialectic has its roots in the same Neo-Confucianism (성리학) which profoundly affected Japan's Yushima Seidō (湯島聖堂) and the Hayashi clan (林氏, Hayashi-shi).

• SIXTH QUOTE: Given the tenor and tone of the run-on paragraph Caspian blue has spewed out, it is entirely reasonable to conclude that an indignant, offended and angry critic won't otherwise know or allow me to explain that the 19th century version of Nihon Ōdai Ichiran which has been so profoundly disparaged is, in fact, the first non-European history text compiled by a Japanese author and published in the West.

• SEVENTH QUOTE: An aroused anti-Japanese bias would likely inhibit a willingness to learn that, while this may not be the first printed description of Korean sovereignty expressing itself through diplomatic initiatives, it is amongst the earliest to be widely disseminated in the West.

• EIGHTH QUOTE: In the diatribe above, the mere fact that a Japanese source did mention a relevant Japanese era name was construed as evidence of an anti-Korean insult which deserved a resounding rebuff ... and WP:V becomes utterly irrelevant in such circumstances.

Caspian blue points out that the Korean ambassadors are neither Japanese nor Chinese. Yes, but that complaint overlooks the fact that Hangul was disfavoured even in the 17th century Joseon court; and what else was Hayashi Gahō, the 17th century author to do but to record the transliterations of Korean names in 17th century Japanese and Chinese? Julius Klaproth, the 18th century editor of Isaac Titsingh's work, and Jean-Pierre Abel-Rémusat, the first Professor of Chinese at the University of Paris, collaborated on pre-Hepburn transliterations to which Caspian blue objects vociferously. In the absence of anything better, this proffered text doesn't deserve derision; and that very derisive contempt diminishes my willingness to engage in a discussion which likely has no chance of enhancing the quality of the article.

My plausibly constructive action and my potentially collaborative initiative in incorporating un-sourced modern McCune-Reischauer romanizations or Revised Romanizations of Hangul names from Joseon Tongsinsa in the body of Korean missions to Edo could have been construed as a cooperative gesture rather than as a further cause for offense -- but no. NO -- that's not how it played out.

No, no -- perhaps only an impractical optimism underpins my hopes for anything better.

No, no -- this doesn't bode well. Perhaps Stifle is correct. Maybe deleting the article is best after all.

Perhaps the only practical way forward is to address close scrutiny to sentence-by-sentence edits to Korean missions to Edo as they develop over the coming months and years. --Tenmei (talk) 20:33, 27 August 2008 (UTC) [This part was edited out because it emphasizes the focus on CONTENT rather than personal attacks.[141].]

Tenmei, you're now trolling and disrupting ANI as pasting all the same ramblings from the AFD (maybe the last one is third or fourth copy) Now you step up as the most "unique" person whom I've ever encountered in my Wiki life. You think ANI and AFD are your battlegrounds as well as the whole Wikipedia as if you're fighting against illogical people, and you're solely righteous and innocent, aren't you? Open your eyes, and think! You firmly determine to declare who will be survived in your lengthy, intelligible, totally irrelevant and still extremely uncivil ramblings. (the red texts only bother people's eye, and make annoyance toward you) You really make people wasting valuable time with your weird writings. You're proven that you can be very uncivil and deny to acknowledge your errors. I'm pretty sure of that if you would not change your attitude, well you will get a nice treat soon. Good luck.--Caspian blue (talk) 23:14, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Caspian blue -- I appologize for writing "You are offensive" here. --Tenmei (talk) 23:57, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

You don't need to use " " and to link your mockeries against me. The tooooo brief sentence is not even an apology and quite contrasts to your lengthy and unreadable ramblings. Another indef.troll is using your personal attack. How great.---Caspian blue (talk) 15:58, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

There is no mockery or insincerity in the apology above. I was not insincere when I wrote the following, and I still believe it to be valid, accurate, direct, succinct and constructive. However, as it was explained above, in this wiki-setting, I am required to constrict what I truly think; and instead, there are some sentences which are not appropriate, not permissible. Now that I understand that I cannot write "You are offensive," I am apologizing. I did not know it was wrong when I typed it out, but now that I do understand, I have no hesitation admitting that I was wrong. It's as simple and as straight-forward as that.

If you continue to construe mockery and personal attack in everything and anything -- even an apology as clear-cut and uncontroversial as this -- then you appear ridiculous, not because of anything I have said or done, but because your actions, your own words make it hard not to believe that you arise each morning apoplectic, highly excited, ready for a fight about what you believe in. --Tenmei (talk) 16:45, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

For example, Helen of Troy had a face that launched a thousand ships. And the rest of her didn't look so good, either. (Apologies to Chico Marx for that one.) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:34, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that there's a commonly-used American expression which applies here -- an old joke that when two men fight over a woman it's the fight they want, not the woman. I think it's the fight itself which is most important to Caspian blue. At best, maybe it's an adolescent attempt to do what seems to be the right thing ... but somehow the best intentions fall a little short of the mark? I don't think anyone can sort this one out. I know I can't.

The more important problem at hand is that there are likely to be other similarly-motivated wiki-editors who make the prospects doubtful for any article which includes both Korean and Japanese themes. The future is especially uncertain for articles like Korean missions to Edo and Joseon Tongsinsa which rely for their ultimate success on a collaborative merging of Korean and Japanese scholarship.

These articles seem already to have become another one of those Sterling examples of wiki-failure. As some of us know quite well, there are some Wikipedia articles which have devolved into nothing but proxy battlefields in a centuries-old set of disputes between Korea and Japan, between Koreans and Japanese.

When I created the rough draft of Korean missions to Edo, I thought there was a chance that this specific subject could become a meaningful example of something else -- an illustration of something which worked out well to the advantage of everyone; but whatever progress I thought had been made was dashed when Caspian blue accused me of personal attacks and Korea-bashing. As everyone knows, this deflects attention away from working towards developing commonly-understood objectives ... and indeed, I had some reason to believe that an AfD discussion was working towards a consensus decision, but that was untimely closed merely because of the unsubstantiated allegations Caspian blue posted here.

I tried to find an example of this American saying on the Internet. The following is from a televised discussion about a political compromise in the US Senate in 2005. We don't really need to understand the politics of whatever it is these two men are analyzing -- the objective was simply to find an illustration of an apt phrase used in context.

JIM LEHRER: Take us through this, David. These are your folks -- the conservatives. How are the conservatives going to react to this? Is anybody going to have to pay a price, do you believe?

DAVID BROOKS: I don't think they'll have to pay a price. The conservative like James Dobson are apoplectic. James Dobson wakes up apoplectic. But, you know, they wanted to fight. I'm reminded of that old joke that when two men fight over a woman it's the fight they want, not the woman. They were geared up for this fight. But I think in a not-too-distant future people are going to see that this is a good win for those conservatives because ....[142]

Two wiki-examples of wiki-failures are Liancourt Rocks and Comfort women. I recognize that the real-world disputes about these subjects are both controversial and valid; but the talk pages provide ample evidence that for many contributors, the proxy wiki-fights are more important to the combatants that the article itself.

In the example from American television offers another useful mirror in terms of a word I had to look up in the dictionary. Brooks says that "James Dobson wakes up apoplectic," meaning that he wakes up in morning highly excited, ready for a fight about what he believes in. If I've understood wiki-etiquette correctly, Brooks would be reprimanded at WP:AN/I for writing "Dobson wakes up apoplectic," but I think I can safely write that Caspian blue acts as if he were apoplectic before he clicks into a discussion about Joseon tongsinsa or Korean missions to Edo; and what seems like Caspian blue's frustrated anger is only indirectly related to whatever words are to be read on the computer screen.

For Caspian blue and other peers with whom there is common cause at articles like Liancourt Rocks and Comfort women, it appears as if it is often very difficult to maintain a distinction between what infuriates them in the real world and what is construed as inflammatory, offensive or personal attacks in the wiki-context.

When I nominated Joseon tongsinsa for deletion because it did not comply with WP:V, that was not an anti-Korean gesture.

When Caspian blue added an online Korean encyclopedia entry as a reference source for 4 in-line citations in Joseon tongsinsa, I translated the article via Bablefish. That was not an anti-Korean gesture.

The machine translation was largely unreadable, of course; but by simply highlighting the Gregorian calendar dates with a bold font, it became possible to show that there was no correlation between the alleged citations and the source. That was not an anti-Korean gesture.

I mistook the ensuing silence as an indication that the real work of merging reliably sourced information had at last begun. I was even proud of myself for having stumbled through the onerous task of machine-translated Korean to English which could be read by the other AfD discussion participants.

But NO -- that's not what happened. Instead, the modest momentum of constructive engagement was stalled, quashed, blocked. Instead, the consensus reality of wiki-dispute resolution focuses attention elsewhere. I predict this can only happen again and again ad nauseam as it has played out in other articles.

The task at hand is difficult enough, but it explicitly becomes a Sisyphean exercise unless something is done differently. In my view, Liancourt Rocks and Comfort women are doomed to failure because each are independently re-inventing the wheel over and over again.

Caspian blue has participated in both talk pages -- and I mention this only as a way of demonstrating a knowledge that both articles exist and that both illustrate talk page difficulties. In addition, I know about both these pages, and now anyone who reads these words will know as well -- but where is the wiki-mechanism which allows for a chance that participants at Talk:Korean missions to Edo can profit from the investments of time, energy, and intellectual engagement in difficult discussions on these talk pages?

Other than posting here, what can be done to avoid the endless cycle of re-inventing the wheel in Korean missions to Edo and other similarly difficult articles? --Tenmei (talk) 16:45, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Why do you write so much? Everything you said above could have been said in one short paragraph. 86.152.160.18 (talk) 22:46, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

While being concise may be encouraged as a good idea (reader fatigue being a possibility), there is nothing inherently wrong with someone being lengthy in comment. - jc37 23:02, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Posting grossly over-long messages is hardly good practice and can be seen as a way of shutting down discussions as no-one is going to read them. Tenmei routinely posts these kind of messages in disputes, and doesn't respond to requests that he provide a short summary of what he considers the issue to be, which is both discourteous and unconstructive. Nick Dowling (talk) 01:15, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

• I asked Tenmei to stop with the rhetoric as it makes any kind of discussion impossible. Guy (Help!) 12:15, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
• Request for a block on Tenmei, I want to hear a sincere apology from Tenmei, but oh well, in the disguised "apology" section, he made more personal attack as if I'm an insane and hysterical person. Look at his so-called apology.

“

If you continue to construe mockery and personal attack in everything and anything -- even an apology as clear-cut and uncontroversial as this -- then you appear ridiculous, not because of anything I have said or done, but because your actions, your own words make it hard not to believe that you arise each morning apoplectic, highly excited, ready for a fight about what you believe in. --Tenmei (talk) 16:45, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

”

This is so typical of how Tenmei behaves in Wikipedia. When the user defends himself, the degree of the insult is getting worse. I don't need to put up with this extremely uncivil and rude person any more. Besides, Nick Dowling who has also undergone Tenmei's same pattern of personal attacks already requested a block on Tenmei per his continued disruptions. --Caspian blue (talk) 12:37, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Well he did apologise 'I apologize for writing "You are offensive" here. --Tenmei' and instead of accepting that apology you chastised him for using quotation marks and linking to the phrase he was apologising for. Both of which are absolutely standard. He did need to use the quotes because he was quoting himself and that's what quote marks are for and he did need to link to make it clear what he was apologising for. Yes his apology was short, personally I applaud that because he writes waaaayyy toooo much usually. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 14:55, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Theresa, I really don't see what intention you have here and the below thread. It seems pretty clear that you have something in your mind. That is not an apology, because he continues more attacks in the "apology" section. Besides, whether accepting his "so-called" apology is to be reflected by his following behaviors and my mind, not you. The insulting comment is not only one, but too many disruptive comments here and the AFD. Besides, why are you so calm at Taemyr's mentioning my past? I really don't appreciate your intervention here.--Caspian blue (talk) 15:43, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

If you don't appreciate TK commenting, I suggest you post your next complaint to WP:Admin Noticeboard not involving Theresa Knott (or LessHeard vanU, for that matter). I certainly won't miss you. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:50, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I do not need to appreciate any comment addressed here. However, just for a courtesy, I thank you for your "big" help here so far.--Caspian blue (talk) 16:07, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Question: at this point, is there any substantial dispute yet to be settled, or is it really just mutual bickering dragged on and on? Can we perhaps just stop now? Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:09, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Content disputes are not the matter that I reported but Tenmei's behaviors at the AfD. I still don't understand why Tenmei suddenly got hostile from a discussion and did research on me. His mention about my ethnic background and Liancourt Rocks and ianfu are not related matter to the AFD. He was saved by his typical lengthy writing from the last ANI, so evaluation is not done yet.--Caspian blue (talk) 16:23, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Something definitely needs to be done about Tenmei's style of discussion if he is to be a constructive participant in this project. I suggested mentorship higher up in this tread. Taemyr (talk) 21:19, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Taemyr -- I did act on your suggestions. I did apologize as you expressly urged me to do; and I did post at Wikipedia talk:Adopt-a-User#Referral from context of WP:AN/I?.

Your reaction here was not anticipated -- quite the opposite. I expected approval, not disapproval. I thought that I'd at last managed to write something which would be perceived by all thread participants as helpful, on-point and concise.

I'm mystified, for example, that Fut.Perf. above evaluates my contributions to this thread as being within the ambit of anything like "bickering" .... --Tenmei (talk) 22:06, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I was not aware that you had posted at Adopt-a-User. Good. Sorry that I had not picked up on this earlier, I have your user page watchlisted but forgot to put this talk page on my watchlist.

Apologies are good, but your realizations that parts of your posts had an uncivil tone is far more important. While your actual apology was concise, by the time I had returned here you had produced another two pages of text, so it drowned a bit. Taemyr (talk) 22:35, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

A recently archived WP:AN/I thread included something like this sub-heading.[143] Some comments about avoiding future problems need to be incorporated in this thread. If not, the attention focused on a number of issues is wasted, and this thread becomes just another missed opportunity. --Tenmei (talk) 17:42, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think so. The thread is filed by indef.blocked sock, so actually any contributions by such users are generally deleted and that is the case. Besides, your own problems are still not resolved yet and you try to use it. How good attempt.--18:18, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Consider this: Taemyr identified a few specific instances in which, he explained, I should apologize; and as soon as I understood what I'd done wrong, I did act on an implicit suggestion -- I did apologize. Whether or not Caspian blue appreciated or accepted that apology is another matter entirely. Taemyr suggested that I try to locate a Mentor as a practical step towards ameliorating perceptions of impermissible "personal abuse" in the future; and I did follow-up with action by posting an inquiry at Wikipedia talk:Adopt-a-User#Referral from context of WP:AN/I?. Practical consequences were the explicit result of specific suggestions. Practical consequences developed from thoughtful suggestions.

If other constructive comments could convert this into a win/win scenario, those would be worthwhile contributions. --Tenmei (talk) 19:17, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I think some comments about avoiding future problems could be good. Tenmei what did you have in mind? Theresa Knott | The otter sank 19:41, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

For now, I only want to suggest that the thread remain open for others to make constructive suggestions along the lines Taemyr has managed to do. --Tenmei (talk) 23:06, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

This thread began with grave complaints, but the thread failed to develop those specific allegations. In such serious context, WP:TLDR would seemed like misdirection; but Guy's observations about "rhetoric" which "makes any kind of discussion impossible" was resonant and helpful. That observation would have been more constructive if it weren't for one inescapable fact -- that the impossible format of this thread required me (1) to present analysis of what I could only guess were Caspian blue's accusations, (2) to present a cogent evaluation of what I could only guess were the gravamen of Caspian blue's complaints, and (3) to present a parsed response to what I supposed were Caspian blue's claims in this thread. The imbalance was inherent, intrinsic -- not a problem I could resolve in any other manner.

Nevertheless, as the thread comes towards being archived, I don't see how a careful review of Caspian blue's initial paragraphs can be avoided.

Unsupported allegations?

Given the significant nature of the complaints which began this thread, there is no unseemly wiki-lawyering in emphasizing that Caspian blue failed even to try to fulfill any reasonable burden of proof or burden of persuasion in terms of the following specific charges:

• 1. "I have been continuously attacked by Tenmei on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joseon tongsinsa and relevant talk pages."
  • Allegation not proven ... wrongfully presented in this venue

• 2. Tenmei "started to attack my comment on LordAmeth's talk page"[144] ....
  • Allegation not proven ... wrongfully presented in this venue

• 3. "[T]he Japanese user did some research on my contributions" ....
  • Allegation not proven ... wrongfully presented in this venue

• 4. Tenmei "stated that his nomination is because I've been engaging in editing Comfort women" ....
  • Allegation not proven ... wrongfully presented in this venue

• 5. "[T]he user clearly states about his WP:Ownership on his created article."
  • Allegation not proven ... wrongfully presented in this venue

• 6. Tenmei "also uses very vicious languages against me" ....
  • Allegation not proven ... wrongfully presented in this venue

• 7. Tenmei "drags his anti-Korean sentiment to the AFD" ....
  • Allegation not proven ... wrongfully presented in this venue

• 8. He rather more making inexcusable ad hominem attacks regardless of the chances."[145]
  • Allegation not proven ... wrongfully presented in this venue

• 9. "The page turns out to be a place for him to abuse the procedure and make personal attacks based on his strong bias against Korean editors."
  • Allegation not proven ... wrongfully presented in this venue

What was proven?

Two conclusions only are supported by this discussion thread -- neither are good for Wikipedia as a whole.

A. WP:NPA is an effective tactic which conclusively thwarts and overwhelms WP:V.

In the initial complaint, Caspian blue offered a short conclusory observation. He claimed, "AfD is going to nowhere." I don't know how to label this sentence; but I do know that the AfD discussion was not decided by consensus. Why not? Caspian blue used WP:NPA as a tool to thwart the time and work already invested in that ongoing thread, and Caspian blue has avoided addressing the substantive WP:V issues which were the subject of that thread. Seicer independently closed the discussion; and Future Perfect at Sunrise independently merged the unsourced articles.

B. Being named in an WP:AN/I thread taints an accused contributor as if with a kind of wiki-felony.

In the initial complaint, Caspian blue incorporated an odd sentence: "The user recently was recently reported for his personal attacks like this." WP:ANI#Personal abuse and disruptive behaviour by Tenmei filed by admin, Nick Dowling. The relevance of this sentence was neither explained nor expanded. Neither Caspian blue nor Nick Dowling responded to explicit questions: (1) "What anti-Korean bias is to be adduced from my participation in any other discussion threads?" and (2) "Were there other contexts or other issues you hoped to highlight in the context this specific thread is considering?" It becomes noteworthy that neither question was acknowledged or addressed. This context argues for a crucial change in the way WP:AN/I is handled in future. At best, I would not want to see any future threads giving arguable credence to the Alice-in-Wonderland logic which informs such heedlessly harmful outcomes. --Tenmei (talk) 17:02, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

What was constructive?

Taemyr wrote: "Something definitely needs to be done about Tenmei's style of discussion if he is to be a constructive participant in this project." The suggested mentorship was constructive and was well-received. --Tenmei (talk) 17:02, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

[post by block evading sock removed by Theresa Knott | The otter sank 21:17, 1 September 2008 (UTC). If you wish to post here you need to get your block lifted. Take it to the arbitration committee but you don't get to edit here in the meantime]

Please note that, following reports of vandalism on WP:AIV, I have just had to temporarily block 58.94.56.254. I was unaware of this discussion - but the reported actions were sufficient. Thanks, Ian Cairns (talk) 20:10, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Please note that, following reports of vandalism on WP:AIV, I have just had to temporarily block 118.16.243.120. The actions were for identical vandalism to the above anon. Ian Cairns (talk) 21:32, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I did read this whatever-it-was before it was deleted; but the text was too complicated for me to understand with only a quick scan. From what I could gather, the writer was trying to say that I was on to something when I suggested above that Caspian blue's complaint is a cake baked from scratch by a knowing baker with a recipe in mind.

This becomes somewhat troubling in the odd context this thread creates. It causes me to re-evaluate what I thought was happening in the paragraphs above. --Tenmei (talk) 00:52, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Have you guys thought of marketing this as a cure for insomnia? I was asleep halfway through the end of the first section Lemon martini (talk) 13:35, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Numerous accounts beginning with Eml4500.f08 have been created, and it seems that some university class is attempting to use Wikipedia as a sort of free webhost. The names that have come up on UAA have been blocked but new ones keep coming in - any additional help on the matter would be appreciated. Shereth 16:07, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

• Note - similar issue with User:Eas4200c.f08 and related usernames. Shereth 16:09, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Somewhere on Wikipedia there's a guideline for professors who want to use Wikipedia in there classes. The talk pages of these accounts should get a note directing them to it. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 16:44, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

This is already being discussed at WP:AN#It's that time of year again, more college classes to keep an eye on.... Deor (talk) 16:47, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I came across an edit made by Otterathome (talk · contribs) where he/she had removed a fact tag without discussion, using Twinkle rollback to remove it (on Uncyclopedia). I put a message on Otterathome's Talk page that removing a fact tag without providing a cite shouldn't be done, and he reverted me without discussion (except for "Go away"), using the rollback facility of Twinkle. This is an inappropriate use of rollback, and I request that Otterathome's Twinkle use be removed. Corvus cornix_talk 19:56, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Otterathome has now modified my comments on his/her Talk page and replied with "Mind your own business". I've notified him/her of this discussion. Corvus cornix_talk 19:58, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Does look to be needlessly inappropriate and curt. If there is any indication this behavior is pervasive then I would support the above recommendation. Shereth 20:04, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Please excuse Corvus cornix as he didn't know what he was doing and decided to blow everything out of proportion. He is unable to read the full article and see it is already fully sourced, thus the revert.--Otterathome (talk) 20:08, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

All you had to do is to add in a parallel reference tag, or be more civil in your discourse, but after seeing this and this, I am suggesting either sanctions in the future if this behavior continues, or an apology. seicer | talk | contribs 20:12, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I have admin rollbacked the edit, just to see how they like having their actions tagged as vandalism - POINTY I know, but sometimes it gets the right result a little quicker. I am not wedded to the edit, so it can be undone (politely, with summary explaining the situation) with no further reference to me. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:18, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I get a little annoyed when people who have never edited the article before introduce errors, I fix them then another person comes along and re-introduces it again, then I fix it again the an admin comes by and re-introduces the error, again. I think you can see where I'm coming from.--Otterathome (talk) 20:22, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

How is this an "error" when you failed to politely explain to Corvus the situation? That would have gone a long way to solving this issue without going to ANI, branding you an incivil contributor... seicer | talk | contribs 20:33, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

That is what an edit summary is for, it explains the reason for the action. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:45, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

This probably could have been avoided with better communication. "This is cited elsewhere" would be far more helpful than just telling someone to "go away" from the very beginning. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:13, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

On a completely seperate note still regarding this user, I don't really like the coloured sidebar, as I am unable to click any of the links while on her userpage. D.M.N. (talk) 20:35, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

agreed this kind of thing is completely unnecessary.--Crossmr (talk) 21:29, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

There's a reason that image was labelled by its creator as 'Prime example of the most annoying thing ever'. Algebraist 21:49, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

But within an hour the creator said 'Actually, this is the most annoying thing in the universe.' It's a close call. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:49, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I !vote for the sidebar -- definitely as annoying a hell. Ed Fitzgerald "unreachable by rational discourse"^{(t / c)} 01:23, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Real Life Ministries (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Threedux, at least. I know we've been here before but searching isn't helpful for the perma link. There are assorted discussion still linked on the article talk

I posted to COI Noticeboard earlier but that's less-trafficked and the situation on the talk page is heating up again. It's one of the same parties involved the last time, who has been trying to discuss and a new IP, who may or may not be the same IP from last time. The IP has admitted to being a former church member but there are various allegations being thrown around although outside input is welcome. I was asked to mediate neutrality but I really don't have the time, especially since we're nearing night here. Can someone keep an eye on this and hopefully try to find some middle ground that doesn't involve another three month full protection. Thanks! TravellingCari 02:06, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

User:86.136.157.238 is the current IP used by a person signing their posts as the Grand Secretary of the Grand Lodge of All England at York, a schismatic body from the United Grand Lodge of England (and thus a role account). He has posted before with other IPs, also signing as such. I figured he was not going to be an issue, but he has fact-tagged items in Grand Lodge not because they are wrong (they're Google-verifiable) but because they don't fit with his group's claims of antiquity - accepted documentation from UGLE and others says Freemasonry originated in 1717, and IIRC the other group's claim is much earlier (9- or 10-something) from King Athelstan at York. This goes against accepted history, and the vehemency of the position indicates a possible edit war, though I have asked for discussion first (which I don't expect to get). Unfortunately, there's no info on what to do about role accounts on ROLE, so I do need some process assistance here. MSJapan (talk) 17:43, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Role accounts are blocked on sight unless they have approval from the Foundation, however we expect IP addresses to have multiple people behind them. If his edits are being particularly problematic (sorry, don't have time to check now), then we may block for that, however we don't block IP's because they're shared. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 18:12, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

The point MSJapan is making is not that the IP is shared; in general, all IPs are shared. The point is that all the users of the IP are editing with the same intention, possibly from multiple workstaions, with the intention of achieving the aim of their collective organisatoin. ╟─Treasury§Tag►contribs─╢ 18:20, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

The simple answer is that this is not a role account/IP. Roles are used by multiple users under a single guise. This is a disruptive user that has different IPs, but signs his posts. Block if disruptive, but this isn't Role. Keegan^talk 05:27, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Kyo2590 moved the following articles without consensus, or even any talk on the talk page:

Project Runway (season 1) to Project Runway Season 1 Project Runway (season 2) to Project Runway Season 2 Project Runway (season 3) to Project Runway Season 3 Project Runway (season 4) to Project Runway Season 4 Project Runway (season 5) to Project Runway Season 5

What is the process that should be done in this situation. Should they just be moved back (an admin would need to move them back), should we get consensus to move them back, or what else?<3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 18:27, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Reverted, and it didn't require admin access. Rollback failed, as (except for season 3), there was no previous version to rollback to, but a manual moved worked. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:57, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I would have suggested to approach this editor personally and ask him why he did what he did before asking for admin intervention. He also should have been notified of this thread which I just did. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 19:01, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

He should have been notified, but the actions are clearly not right. However, it's understandable, as the articles read Project Runway Season n (where n is the number 1–5). It's up to the content editors to fix the articles so it doesn't look like the right thing to do. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:13, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Ack, I meant to let him/her know, I forgot. Pretty bad when I am usually the one reminding others in other threads. And I assumed it needed an admin to do the move because the pages were redirects, I didn't know you could just move it back. Sorry about that. <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 20:39, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

IIRC it doesn't take an admin to move a page over redirect if there's been only one revision. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 02:06, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:BOLD?--mboverload@ 05:02, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I just blocked HappyHappyBunny (talk · contribs) as a vandal-only account, for reasons easily noted in the editor's contributions and the commentary on the now-blanked userpage. No warnings, because the declaration that this editor was going to provide us a "better class of vandal" seemed like an easy indef. Looks like the editor is now asking for an unblock, so if someone has the time to review, that'd be great. Tony Fox (arf!) 05:37, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Reviewed *cough* ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 05:44, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I posted this many hours ago (01:04, 31 August 2008 (UTC) first posting), and no action or response was taken on it. It was then removed by bot. I returned it (04:23, 1 September 2008 (UTC) second posting) and two hours later (06:35, 1 September 2008), the bot removed it again . One of the socks of this person posted my real name and email address on a talk page, which was removed by oversight. This is a serious issue and really needs action taken on this persistent sock. Thank you.

Multiple blocks have been placed based on sock cases regarding this user, including Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Nyannrunning (2nd) and Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Nyannrunning (3rd) which have included both editing diffs and statistical work, resulting in conclusion that IPs in the 76.93.8x range are IP socks. Specific to this report are approximately identical edits to Wonderland Avenue to include and return non-relevant material related to an ancient arrest of MacKenzie Phillips, here by sock master User:Nyannrunning, here by proven sock puppet User:Evanbayh, here by one IP proven used by sock master, here and here by sock puppet User:Seth4u2nvcs. Related IP in range 76.93.8x, specifically 76.93.87.176, has returned tonight to again add same material here and again here, this time with a comment accusing me of sock puppetry. Requesting longer block on 76.93.8x based on evading ban (as well as recent more serious issues addressed by oversight). Wildhartlivie (talk) 09:00, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

There is no such range as 76.93.8x. There is a range 76.93.80.x-76.93.87.x, or the next bigger one - 76.93.80.x-76.93.95.x; it's unclear from your post which you're requesting. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:07, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

This should be taken to Checkuser ( requests for checkuser ) to verify that they're connected and in the range, and then block the appropriate range(s). The available info right now isn't evident enough to me to justify a rangeblock on a case I don't already know and understand, though another admin may find it credible on independent review... A checkuser would disambiguate the situation. Just file a RFCU. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 10:00, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The problem with this is that the IPs this person uses are dynamic. I have a compilation of evidence here, although it's sorted for me, and what I've already done towards it and wouldn't be meaningful as it exists. The sock has used IPs in an wider range of 76.93.74.x through 76.93.88.x. I'll post this for the bureaucrat who had dealt with the oversight problem. Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:38, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The smallest range containing both any 76.93.7x.x and any 76.93.8x.x extends all the way from 76.93.64.x to 76.93.95.x; are you sure this is necessary? עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:54, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

This user logs in at locations that are dynamic and the sock problems are extensive, persistent and are malicious. Aagain, note that he or she cyber-stalked me from across the country and posted my name and email address on Wikipedia, registered usernames that reference where I live, and invited others to harass me - all based on what were originally content issues. It required oversight intervention to protect my privacy. So long as the user is able to log in, this continues. In Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Nyannrunning (3rd), Rlevse, who is now a bureaucrat, said "I'm convinced Seth4u2nvcs, 69., and 76. IPs are socks. I've blocked Seth indef and the IPs one month. Note, that Nyan/Seth/etc seem to be on a dynamic IP or move around southern California a lot, as all 4 listed IPs trace to that area." I'm a WP editor in good standing, I would hope that Wikipedia recognizes that my privacy and person should be protected. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:20, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the comment, I understand that this user seems to travel throughout south California - and blocking all of South California over a single vandal (even if anon only blocks) is too drastic a step over a single vandal. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 04:31, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

So there is no block whatsoever, despite the fact that the sock most recently edited from 76.93.87.176 and I've given evidence that confirms this without a doubt? This is a confirmed persistent and malicious sock master at work who cyber-stalked me and posted my name and email address and registered usernames that reference me and, and I discovered last week, posted on IMDB talk pages for the same actors/actresses, bragging about it? I've kept a record of the IPs involved because has no intention of stopping and apparently hasn't considered editing pages where she's not been before. That rather indicates the intention to disrupt and not edit constructively. Wildhartlivie (talk) 10:03, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

. SoWhy 10:54, 2 September 2008 (UTC)}}

There's an ongoing attempt to list Barack Obama on the Red_diaper_baby page. Presumably a new form of googlebombing. VasileGaburici (talk) 09:38, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

The page has been semi-protected and this should stop now. If it continues after the protection expires, consider requesting further protection at WP:RFPP. SoWhy 10:54, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

[147]. Doesn't appear to be semi-protected. 24.76.161.28 (talk) 05:43, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Just rollbacked another recently unblocked IP doing this and put a request in at WP:RFPP ϢereSpielChequers 06:39, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Would an admin please check http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Ebfilms&diff=prev&oldid=235979925 please ? An old freind appears to have returned. --triwbe (talk) 07:12, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

He's been indef blocked already by another admin. Neıl ☄ 10:27, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Don’t Like Palin’s Wikipedia Story? Change It about United States vice presidential pick Sarah Palin. This is going to drive MASSIVE traffic and we need more of your eyes than ever on this page. Please add it to your watchlist via this link and help us enforce BLP and ban any vandals. Vandalism sitting for even a minute is going to be seen by 300 people. Wikipedia is the 1st result on Google for her name. Anyone who is searching for information about this unknown is going to go to US. This is make or break.
Thanks everyone! --mboverload@ 02:56, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Way to go Ferrylodge! Kelly ^hi! 02:58, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Good job Ferrylodge - you did Wikipedia a service and came off sounding well yourself. --I am not Paranoid (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 05:17, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I've fixed the link to watch (not unwatch) the article. - Rjd0060 (talk) 02:59, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I'M SORRY! My bad! =( --mboverload@ 03:01, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Please note: I have a Google Alert set to wikipedia palin. I am getting updates constantly. People are talking about this page on a large number of sites, specifically about Wikipedia being "whitewashed". --mboverload@ 03:02, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I investigated shortly after this happened. My conclusion was, "no harm done", because any hagiographic editing was quickly erase by the intense volume of edits. I am impressed that the NYT reporter wrote a very accurate article. I don't think we need to worry. Sarah Palin is already getting more than 500 edits per day. Any additional traffic from this article is not going to increase the activity by any orders of magnitude.Jehochman ^Talk 03:19, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I do have one note... the site is a little slower to respond. :) NonvocalScream (talk) 03:22, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

300 people? Is that how many people read the NYT? :-) Carcharoth (talk) 03:23, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

9 1/2 peoble wash I.T.B. Basil "Basil" Fawlty (talk) 05:08, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Just FYI (I had to scan through the article's history to find him), the user is User:Young Trigg, not YoungTrigg. -- lucasbfr ^talk 11:46, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Could some admins take a look at the talk page of Young Trigg (talk · contribs)? As mentioned above, this user was mentioned by the New York Times in regards to editing at the Sarah Palin article. I looked at that user's talk page, and frankly was horrified. There are bad-faith accusations being thrown around there, that, in my opinion, are edging into harassment and hounding. I looked at the edits the person made to Sarah Palin, and they seem good-faith enough to me. Some admin attention to that page would be greatly appreciated - I'm not sure where to start there. Kelly ^hi! 16:23, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

AFAIK, aren't user/user talk pages that are linked to high-profile websites normally semi, or even fully-protected when things like this happen. I remember this happened last June to do with the IP/Chris Benoit case. D.M.N. (talk) 16:29, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The user would probably be best creating a new account and starting again.--Troikoalogo (talk) 16:33, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd support full protection. The user has retired; the page is just a drama-sink now. (On the other hand... maybe it would keep the drama-queens occupied for a while?) --Chris (talk) 16:45, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, we have a WP:sandbox, maybe we need a WP:flamepit and WP:DRAMASTAGE to keep some people harmlessly occupied.--Troikoalogo (talk) 17:28, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The user has admitted to sockpuppetry and, far from retiring, vows to create new SPAs to continue doing so. Their COI / sock edits to one of our highest traffic articles (for the moment) has brought international attention - one could say disrepute - to Wikipedia. Looking into sockpuppetry is hardly "harassment", though that claim is often made by the puppeteers. It only makes sense to hear what they have to say before pursuing formal administrative remedies. The user should probably be subject to a checkuser, and if the abuse is serious enough or they refuse to stop, banned or indefinitely blocked. Anyone who has watched the election articles knows we have had significant sockpuppetry problems. This is a serious matter that affects the integrity of the project. If they intend a fresh start to edit, as one account, non-COI articles, that is fine. But creating more new accounts to spin 2008 presidential election articles should not be an option. Wikidemon (talk) 06:52, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

And what evidence is there that the editor has a conflict of interest? Is there any proof that the editor is connected with either Sarah Palin or the McCain's campaign? Because without any proof, charges that the editor has a COI simply because he or she improved the Sarah Palin article prier to the announcement is an assumption of bad faith. As for the charges of sockpuppetry, you should first look at WP:SOCK#LEGIT. There are some legitimate reasons why someone may want to create an alternative account. And given the harassment that the editor as received since, it is clearly one of them. --Farix (Talk) 13:07, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Young Trigg has since acknowledged working on the McCain campaign, although they have said editing Wikipedia was not in any way a part of their work for the campaign.   user:j    (aka justen)   01:08, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Support protection/archive. The discussion on the talk page has left the user talk and has become merely a forum about the candidates. .:davumaya:. 17:11, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I will note that this user is not blocked, so protecting their talk page would only allow them to edit without any way for someone other than a admin to contact them. (That is if they ever come back to editing). Tiptoety ^talk 17:14, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

• news coverage just in... Guy (Help!) 13:06, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

The news before it happens...--Tikiwont (talk) 13:19, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

In the event that this turns out to be highly controversial, I am going to be asleep for about 8 hrs, and if an administrator consensus develops here in that time period that that this was a mistake please feel free to boldly revert and just notify me on my talk page. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 11:27, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

(note that this was both under general principles and under the civility parole on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/IRC#Civility: Giano and has been logged there. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 11:33, 1 September 2008 (UTC) )

Support block. We traditionally give Giano a lot of rope, but his noisy vendetta against Stifle was becoming disruptive. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ has nothing to declare except his jeans 11:35, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Oppose block. I dislike any block such as this one which is likely to have a chilling effect on legitimate criticism. The use of the word "troll" is excessive but anyone (Giano included) is free to call an "absurd block" when they see one. Under general principles this lock is a manifest overreaction. It may be justified under that civility parole, but I think it would have been wise to seek a consensus before enforcing such a controversial remedy. I see little good that can come of this block and find it rather ironic given that Giano was making a point about how administrators aren't seeing the wood for the trees - i.e. focus on uncivil comments without seeing and tackling the problematic behaviour that resulted it an editor being so angry/upset that they felt the need to express themselves in that manner. WJBscribe (talk) 12:39, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The more I think about this, the more the block troubles me. Are we also going to block everyone who has ever called Giano a troll? WJBscribe (talk) 12:46, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

way over the top - there is a difference between chronic incivility and heated criticism. Viridae^Talk 12:43, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Oppose block - Sometimes people just need to suck it up. Blocks are not punitive. Jennavecia ^(Talk) 13:06, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Oppose this ridiculous block and chuckle at the above comment. The extra incentive for Stifle to suck it up is that his actions were indeed idiotic and it's almost hard to discuss that particular incident without noting the fact. If Stifle had taken 30 seconds to ponder the situation, he would easily have figured out the absurdity of his actions. He did not and so we get two AN and ANI threads, two bad blocks, one editor gone. And I can see how one might use strong words to criticize both Stifle and people who defended him against all common sense. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 03:43, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

If you take into account that G was railing at the incompetence of an administrator which was further compounded by administrative action only been taken (tho later revoked) against the user on the receiving end of said incompetence, this block begins to look very shaky indeed.--Bsnowball (talk) 13:10, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

As I posted on Giano's page, this is a woefully bad block and should be lifted straightaway. ^S._D.D.J.Jameson 13:12, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

This block seems very unnecessary to me and an overreaction to Giano's comment. If we can somehow get out of the minor incivility->block->irritation->greater incivility->block spiral, we might get somewhere. This block should be reversed, and I urge Georgewilliamherbert to unblock promptly. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 13:16, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Oppose and then some: Stifle was trolling. After all, "trolling" comes from the early message board confusion of "trawling" and "troll": "trolling" is "attempting to get a reaction." What Stifle was doing was pushing someone to try to get him to strike back, and, worse than that, doing so to try to get him blocked. The cringing child who taps another's head so that he will respond and get in trouble with Teacher is a model of rectitude in comparison. We do not block people for having opinions and using the proper terms. There is no magic in a word. What's worse is that this block is an essential repetition of Stifle's own tactic. It is loathsome. That is my opinion, as an administrator, as a long time Wikipedian, as a contributor, and as someone who has been here long enough to see this childishness flourish. Geogre (talk) 13:16, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Unblocked per the torrent of comments condemning the block for various reasons. (GWH has stated he has gone to bed) Viridae^Talk 13:17, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

• Perhaps this is moot now, but does no one else have at least a bit of a problem with Gwh blocking and then going to bed "for 8 hours"? This doesn't seem like the best practice for an administrator who is contemplating pressing the block button. In his defense, he did say that simple notification of an unblock at his page would be fine, but wouldn't it have been better to simply not block in the first place, than to block and go to bed, forcing a rather pointless discussion? ^S._D.D.J.Jameson 13:23, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

• No, I don't see a problem there at all. GWH blocked when he knew that he wouldn't be around to review, so he explicitly went out of his way to avoid drama by inviting an overturn if somebody disagreed without reference back to him. Seems exemplary way to deal with the situation to me Mayalld (talk) 13:27, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

  Exemplary? I would probably disagree with that characterization, as an "exemplary" move would have been to not place a block that would certainly be controversial in the first place, but especially not right before heading off to bed. But as I said, it's probably neither here nor there, but rather a fairly decent reminder that using tools in a controversial manner right before going to bed might not be the best idea. ^S._D.D.J.Jameson 13:32, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, it is exactly how I think Admins ought to behave. If they are "on the scene when a decision is required, they should take that decision, rather than say "nah, I'm knocking off in half an hour", and leave it to somebody else to happen on it later. The whole issue of the fact that we ask for consultation with the blocking admin before reversing is nicely dealt with by pre-emptively assenting to being overturned without consultation. Mayalld (talk) 15:38, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

• Viridae has already unblocked, which has saved me the trouble of reducing Giano's block to ~1 minute. Use of trolling may be a little over the top, but this was not substantially a personal attack, but a valid criticism of bad behaviour. Everyone disperse and go do something productive. I hear Peter Jones (missionary) desperately needs a Good Article Review, for instance. ;) WilyD 13:20, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
• I hadn't seen the "going to bed" part, otherwise I would have done this myself. I fully agree with the unblock. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 13:25, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Just one moment before we all go home: What about Georgewilliamherbert what happens to him - some severe condemnation? sanction? - anything at all? or does he get a cash prize for getting his name on my block log? Some may feel his actions were at best unwise others may have stronger language. I feel it is just one more example of perceived incivility being used as a weapon - to prevent criticism of admins. A phenomenum completely encouraged by the Arbcom. Giano (talk) 13:33, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

IF you have some reason to believe he did this out of maliciousness, rather than a fairly straightforward misreading in the situation, maybe the stocks can be dusted off. Otherwise, no, there's nothing to do beyond say "Maybe read things more carefully before making blocks that will dredge up drama." WilyD 13:39, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Not that unreasonable a question, unfortunately, as this is not the first very questionable block that Georgewilliamherbert has made. On his own talk page is some of the commentary from his block of User:Mackan79, whom he accused of being a sock of User:Wordbomb, and then demanded that Mackan79 self-identify to the Foundation before being unblocked.[148] Perhaps an independent review of GWH's block log would be appropriate. Risker (talk) 13:43, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

• I know this has already been resolved, but I just saw it and my jaw hit the floor. Please, anyone who hasn't already, got read the link that geogrewilliamherbert cites as blockable incivility. The charge is ridiculous. I think geogrewilliamherbert should stay away from Ginao. --Duk 15:30, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

• • Actually, this matter is far from resolved. The question that needs to be answered is: Are admins who bumble and fumble around the encyclopedia misusing their tools to be tolerated? - What is most important protecting the ordinary editors from administerial incompetence and intimidation or sweeping bad actions under the carpet purely to maintain the dignity and reputation of the Administerial office. You can only chose one answer, and at the moment it seems that anything an Admin does is excusable - even one as woefully out of touch as Georgewilliamherbert appears to be, of course there is the possibility that he is not at all out of touch, but of course that would make him a troll too, wouldn't it? Giano (talk) 16:45, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

An admin who is about to go to bed should not block and leave a note, but should refer the matter to someone not so sleepy or a noticeboard full of people to decide whether to block or not block. There are thousands of admins; "Block & Run" should never happen. Jd2718 (talk) 17:22, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

• Oh, my god, this is a horrible block. I've seen a lot of bad Giano blocks, but this takes a very big biscuit. Really this should lead to a month off the admin tools, or something like that. So much for Wikipedia:Expert retention and maintaining encyclopedicity. This is not a young ladies' finishing school, guys. "You are trolling" is harsh, yes, but acceptable commentary in a particularly contentious debate when several others said the same thing in a politer way. Moreschi (talk) 17:28, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
• I agree. This block by George is almost as ridiculous as his blocks of Krimpet and of Mackan79, but not quite. As for the actual appropriateness of the T-word I can only recommend the mailing list thread "[WikiEN-l] Troll, troll, troll" from June 2007. — CharlotteWebb 18:11, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Good, great response, so what are his fellow admins and the Arbs going to do about it - anything at all? Or shall we just let it all slide untill the next bad lazy block by some Admin is reported here, and yet another content editor stalks off in disgust - does anyone care out there? I'm not sure anyone does. Giano (talk) 18:41, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Giano, you're just going to blow this out of proportion into a massive dramafest. Or is that your intention? If his activity concerns you so, be proactive and start an RfC instead of harping on us to do something. You're part of the community too. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 18:48, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah well, that ignorant response is just what poor old Peter Damian got (that's what started this) and look what happened there - he buggered off, and I can't say I blame him. It is not up to me, and ordinary editor to start proceedings to protect myself, that is what Admins are supposedly for. However, one could be forgiven for not realising that these days. Criticise an admin here is always wrong or a "drama fest." Get real Admins - wise up and do what you are supposed to, if not resign. Giano (talk) 18:56, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I'm almost certain that arbcom would reject this case but there's not much more to be lost by trying. — CharlotteWebb 19:03, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I am completely certain they will reject it - me being harrassed by ridiculous imcompetents was exactly what they planned. Giano (talk) 19:05, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like somebody's got a case of the Mondays! I also get criticised for uncivil behavior. May I use you as a model for personal improvement? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:17, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

At best, maybe GWH should voluntarily lay off of these civility blocks for a while. Thats three recent bad ones, plus the one on this guy that was overturned, for four pretty bad ones lately. rootology (C)(T) 19:10, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

@Giano: would you point out where in WP:ADMIN it says we are supposed to be "protecting" you by filing RfC's on your behalf? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 19:39, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Would an admin mind updating this to show the consensus here of a bad block that was undone? rootology (C)(T) 19:11, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

WJB has done it, though I'm not sure there is a continued need for that page to be protected. — CharlotteWebb 19:22, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Done, I'll unprotect the page too - I hadn't realised it was protected. WJBscribe (talk) 19:34, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) I invite an RFC or Arbcom case, if anyone cares to file one. However, I have reviewed the block, the edits by Giano that led up to it, and I remain of the opinion that Giano has once again strayed beyond the boundaries of reasonable civil communications in this thread.

WP:CIVIL exists and exists for a reason. That reason is that the whole community is lessened and corroded by people being rude to each other - It quietly drives people who wish to avoid conflict and abusive behavior away. We know that, we've seen that, and that's exactly and precisely why we have community norms not to do that and a policy that says prescriptively not to do that.

When he made the last post last night that prompted the block, I went over his contributions in the whole thread, several times, and concluded that he was both making a point and had a reasonable opinion, and was expressing that in a manner which was both beyond our civility policy and norms, and significantly beyond what others in the thread were saying in terms of hostility and incivility.

Giano is without a doubt, multiply and currently Arbcom and administrator sanctioned for being the most uncivil user we have within the core community. He also makes lots of positive contributions and helps out a lot around the project. Anyone without his long positive history would have been indef'ed many times over by now - we do this every day to newcomers who clearly are just out to bother people.

Several people who commented above assumed that I disagreed with Giano in the thread in question. I was not involved in the thread, and in the course of reading it to decide if something needed to be done I came to the conclusion that Giano is probably correct in principle, that there had been administrator abuse. I did not block him to stifle his opinion or participation - I agree that there's a valid question there. I blocked him because he, yet again, was more rude than anyone else and more rude than we normally allow, and he specifically is under arbcom sanction to not be excessively rude.

WP:CIVIL means what it says, and the sanctions and findings in the Arbcom IRC case and Geogre/Wm Connelly case and previous cases before that mean what they say, too. They were put there for good reasons. I am not going to sit idly by when he walks right past those warnings and policies. And neither should you.

Giano, you need to learn to stop abusing people by posting in an uncivil manner. As I said on your talk page, it's counterproductive and corrosive to the community. I agree with you on that thread, and yet you were just making it worse.

Many of the rest of you are enabling and encouraging his negative behavior. This is horrible for the project. Stop it and look at what you're doing. If you keep knee-jerk defending Giano when he strays, it will keep going on and on and on as it has done for three years already at least. He will survive short preventive blocks when he wanders across the line. His contributions and history deserve extraordinary and cautious response - but they absolutely do not justify encouragement and enabling of the abusive behavior.

I expect more out of Giano - I and the community have the right to expect that he learn over time and moderate his behavior over time. I also expect more out of the community - take corrosive incivility seriously. In general, but in particular with long term problem cases. Push back, politely when it's mild abuse, firmly but politely when it's worse. But push back. Take this seriously. Civility is important. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:42, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of ludicrous incivility, trolls are now making death threats against me on Wikia wikis over this. [149]. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:52, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

If you feel a block is so controversial that you need to announce it at WP:ANI, 'don't do it. Sysop tools are not to be used in controversial ways. Unless there are other incidents like this, I see no need for an RFC. The feedback on this thread makes the point clear. Instead of blocking for incivility, I recommend asking the user to strike, or removing any egregiously offensive content. We should try to help users who may be over zealous, not antagonize them with spiraling blocks. ArbCom evaluate whether their Civility Restrictions have succeeded or failed, and perhaps consider whether a different approach might work better. Jehochman ^Talk 20:02, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

That's not necessarily true, Jehoch; it's always good to know who's being blocked and for what, and get some reinforcement on any block to avoid the possibility of wheel warring. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 20:19, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

What happened to BOLD and trying to enforce the policies in a fair and even manner? Any longstanding user or administrator block should probably be announced here, and generally are. Saying that we should not block people because it's going to be controversial is a straight path to administrator paralysis and abandonment of enforcing policy - at some point, everything can be controversial.

There was no risk of spiraling blocks. I knew perfectly well what caused the last Arbcom case over Giano, and made it pretty clear above with the first note that I wouldn't do that.

I am trying to help Giano on this. If I wasn't trying to modify his behavior in a positive manner, to reduce his incivility, I would just go straight to Arbcom and ask that they ban him. Giano has a pattern of escalating incivility in certain types of discussion when he's angry, and was already past the red line and escalating. The block was consistent with preventing him from escalating, briefly, and was accompanied by a fairly extensive request to him to reconsider the corrosive effects his incivility had on discussions.

Giano is specifically under active Arbcom sanction that incivility on his part is blockable, up to a day for five instances, up to a week for further instances. My block was not the first one issued and logged under that sanction. If you want to change the general policy on civility blocking, strike up a discussion (I disagree - we need to politely but firmly push back on incivility - but I will abide by any policy consensus). But the active Arbcom sanction in the IRC case stands here, and it's not that Giano hasn't been warned a lot about this before. The message has to get through, the behavior has to change. Arbcom specifically found that the behavior was more problematic than other users and applied a sanction that the behavior in his case was blockable. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:26, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't feel paralyzed, even though I have avoided making controversial blocks (at least in 2008). You can see here Jehochman (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) that I hand out lots of pink slips, and virtually none of them end up on this board. Perhaps the problem isn't with Giano but with those who think that blocking a user helps them to behave more civilly (hint: it doesn't). Jehochman ^Talk 20:32, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Along those lines: let's accept for argument's sake that Giano was crossing some sort of threshold of incivility in his comments. The question then is how to improve the level of discourse and lessen the impact of his (and others') incivility. How many times do we need to repeat this particular experiment before we accept its results? Blocking Giano does not further the cause of a more civil Wikipedia. I can think of few concepts short of gravity and heliocentrism which are more amply supported by empirical evidence. If you view Giano's intemperance as a major impediment to this project, then brainstorm some novel approaches to handling it, but don't keep doing the same thing and expecting different results - there's a word for that. MastCell ^Talk 20:45, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I would rather not go there - the precedent for "repeated short blocks didn't help, what next?" is "block indefinitely", which is not something I desire to happen to Giano, despite my misgivings about his repeated uncivil behavior. I accompanied my block with a polite and firm explanation on his talk page, which he has so far not apparently listened to in the spirit with which it was meant. It might help if others contributed there, too.

Even if you think I went too far and made a mistake, I sincerely hope that nobody actually feels that he was discussing the problem on AN in a polite and constructive manner. Again - I agree with his point in the AN thread, but I feel that he was discussing in a manner which was counterproductive due to its incivility.

If you want to see this not happen in the future... Ask him to edit in a more friendly manner? And ask him again if he starts up again? If he's not listening to uninvolved admins who sanction him (because we must be incompetent, or out to get him despite agreeing with him, or something), perhaps he'll listen to those who support him? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:10, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Jehochman made a similar comment on the RFAR, regarding incivility blocks and incivility block sanctions in Arbcom cases not working, or being counterproductive. I am concerned, on reflection, that Jehochman and MastCell may have a valid point here. This case is somewhat complicated (it's Giano, not some random incivility block). However, it is probably worth looking at more carefully - Does it work? Can it work? Is this a particular case where it doesn't work, but it might work elsewhere? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:26, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I am aware of at least one other ArbComm imposed civility parole that is both in force and not working. During the last related ArbComm case, I asked twice if anyone knew of any examples that were working. While one editor's name was suggested, a review of the relevant ArbComm cases proved that this editor never had a civility parole. So far as I know, no ArbComm imposed civility parole has worked. (I haven't seen the same problems with civility/personal attacks as part of topic area discretionary sanctions.) GRBerry 03:35, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

• I've filed RFAR on GWH. Share and enjoy. Moreschi (talk) 20:46, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
• Gonna jump in here as a non-admin but participant in the thread in question. I don't think this was a bad block by any stretch. Using the logic of "only block for prevention of disruption" is great but it paralyzes us when it comes to dealing with persistent incivility. If we feel (for argument's sake) that Giano was being uncivil and we also feel that a short block won't prevent future incivility (because either the discussion is stale or Giano will just go back to being uncivil when the block expires) then the only block that will prevent future incivility is an indefinite block. Presumably GWH felt that was disproportionate to the "offense" and so he issued a shorter one. I don't feel (personally) that we need to assume that Giano was being uncivil. It seems obvious to me. It probably seemed obvious to GWH as well. I understand that it is not obvious to others. It is likely obvious to some that giano was behaving well within guidelines. My suspicion is that most reasonable observers would look at this situation and see someone making difficult points (Giano talking about how admins get away with murder) in an indecorous manner. the first impulse (given the goals of the project), would be to protect the expression of opinion and not sanction the messenger because of the manner in which the opinion was presented. I don't think that's the right way to look at things. GWH is correct. We are an online, text based community of volunteers. The community has decided that WP:CIVIL is a critical component to Wikipedia. A controversial opinion does not and should not protect the holder from the guidelines that hold together the community. We should demand that participants in debates treat each other with respect and where they show no interest in doing so actions should be taken to prevent them from disrupting debate. GWH saw this and took action. This doesn't mean that Stifle was right or that Giano was wrong. It just means that we should all be able to go about the debate without needlessly antagonizing others. what is wrong with that? Protonk (talk) 21:14, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

  I agree, and this lynch mob out for the admins head is ridiculous. While troll might not get you a block the first time around, when you're on civility patrol you better not use it. Does everyone forget that Giano is on civility patrol? I've seen him behaving uncivil in this very thread where he tries to defend himself. Obviously he didn't get the message during his previous blocks and fails to continue to get the message. Why? Because there are certain users here enabling his behaviour. Several of them agreed its over the top, but then went on to say even if the comment was unnecessary and rude, he shouldn't be blocked. Yet he's on civility patrol which puts him on a shorter leash. If you can follow that logic you're a better man than I am. To address a comment on the RFAR about useful editors, any editor that violates policy and poisons the collabrative environment isn't "useful" regardless of what they add to articles. This mentality of "he made a few good edits so let him run all over the project and do whatever he feels like" is frankly pretty disgusting.--Crossmr (talk) 04:23, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

  "A few good edits" is rather selling Giano's contributions short, and thus your characterization of the attitude here is rather off. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 04:41, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

  Trying to dismiss the point on that is rather weak and ignores the issues. He was sanctioned for his behaviour and violated the sanction. Yet people step all over themselves to excuse it. There are no amount of good edits, or good work that justifies violating policy once, let alone over and over.--Crossmr (talk) 04:54, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

  I didn't say I was dismissing your point. I said your characterization of the situation was off. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 07:21, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

• I think Crossmr that your view could be interpreted as dangerously over simplified, a little naive and quite uninformed. The civility sanction on me was intended to be a form of censorship, expressly to stop me highlighting matters such as this. That is certainly how many Admins have chosen to interpretate it, and the Arbcom has done nothing to dispel this. Which is why I take no notice of it. Many people feel that Admin abuse should not be ignored, a view I share. It is accepted that Sifle trolled a good content editor - who has now quit as a direct result - that is indisputable. Pointing out indisputable facts is not being uncivil - it may be unpalatable, but it is not uncivil. If editors are to be blocked for pointing out unpleasant facts then we will have an encyclopedia fit only for La La Land not the real world.Giano (talk) 07:25, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I have stated this in several places in several ways, but to reinterate - I had no opinion / was not informed on the underlying issue prior to reviewing your AN edits that led to the block, and in the process of that review formed the same underlying opinion that you were expressing. This was absolutely not an attempt to cover up anything or suppress dissent - I agree with people challenging authority, and I agree that the situation in question deserved criticism. This was entirely about the manner in which the criticism was expressed, and whether it broke A) community norms for behavior, and B) specific sanctions outstanding on you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 08:18, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

• Not at all. What's dangerous is the community getting in to a habit of trying to make judgment calls about whether or not someone has done enough "good" to let the latest transgression slide. I also don't tolerate in admin abuse. But you were on a civility patrol and several agreed your comment was over the top. Being "right" doesn't make it okay, while some seem to think it does, they fail to take in to consideration what happens when you're wrong. This obviously isn't the first problem you've had or you wouldn't be on civility patrol and you wouldn't have ended up in Arbcom. You violated the sanction whether or not you think it was justified is fairly meaningless. There are no exeptions in the policies for "if you're right" or "the other guy was a jerk first, so its okay to let loose". That isn't how working in a community works.--Crossmr (talk) 07:45, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I won't bother to respond to Georgewilliamherbert's self-justifying comments. Crossmr, I do not do "good" I am not a monk and have no wish to be. I have merely written a few pages, as have many others. When you say "Being "right" doesn't make it okay" I'm afraid you are completely wrong - somone has to point these things out or they self-perpetuate. The world would be a very bad place if one was forbiden from pointing out what is "right." My views on the Arbcom and their machinations are well know, so do not need repeating here, but let's just say the "civility parole" was a political move, accepted by most as a political move, and as such is treated with the contempt it deserves. I don't beleive in censorship and I won't be censored from pointing out the obvious, no matter how unpallatable you and your friends may find it. Giano (talk) 08:33, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

You've been here a lot longer than I have, so you should know that wikipedia can't "censor you". It isn't possible. Also, you are AGAIN deliberately conflating the issue of arbcom/admins/etc. with your behavior. This is what clouds the issue. It makes it hard for people who support your side (feel that admins get away with too much) to support your block. It makes it seem like GWH and other are operating for political motives. The issue of your incivility is distinct from these other issues. Beyond that, would it be possible for you to crusade politically without being uncivil? Have you ever thought that maybe treating people with something other than contempt would result in less attention? Protonk (talk) 13:30, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I have to say I agree 100% with Georgewilliamherbert when he said "WP:CIVIL exists and exists for a reason. That reason is that the whole community is lessened and corroded by people being rude to each other - It quietly drives people who wish to avoid conflict and abusive behavior away. We know that, we've seen that, and that's exactly and precisely why we have community norms not to do that and a policy that says prescriptively not to do that." When I first arrived here, I found that instead of some kindly guidance on how to create my first article, I was abused by Bugs and his like, and that comments like "Sounds like somebody's got a case of the Mondays!" and harsher ones seem to be the norm on these messageboards. It certainly lessened my entheusiasm for being involved in this project - and in fact, if a kindly editor had not stepped in and helped me create my first article, that would have been it. I'm not saying there's no place for humour, but biting newcomers, as well as being incivil to people should not be the norm in what has become the largest online encyclopaedia, often the top hit on google for any subject. I know it's a bit off-topic but it needed to be said. If you want more people to contribute, you have to stop treating them like newcomers to mercilessly bait just because they don't know all the rules. Pug power (talk) 12:57, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I remember you. You're the one who was trying to push an article about a "talking dog" or some such. It was explained to you, by various editors, why it was not appropriate. As for the "case of the Mondays", the guy was blocked for being uncivil, and then proceeded to become more uncivil after being unblocked, ironically demonstrating that the block was a good one. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 10:51, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Why bother having WP:Civil and Civility proroles if, just because someone makes many good edits, they're not enforced? Darkson (BOOM! An interception!) 10:04, 3 September 2008 (UTC)