Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

User:Future Perfect at Sunrise; inappropriate deletions?

Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has taken it upon himself to mass-delete several non-free images with seemingly appropriate rationales, thus short-circuiting discussions he is involved in here and here. This seems to clearly contravene Wikipedia:Administrators: Administrators should not use their tools to advantage, or in a content dispute (or article) where they are a party (or significant editor), or where a significant conflict of interest is likely to exist. With few specific exceptions where tool use is allowed by any admin, administrators should ensure they are reasonably neutral parties when they use the tools. Whatever the merits or otherwise of FPR's understanding of non-free content guidelines, he should not in my opinion be speedying images like this. An image I uploaded, Image:1994Chinookcrash02.jpg was one he nuked, which is my potential COI; I would therefore not use admin tools in connection with the matter. I invite uninvolved editors to review his actions with a view to helping him to be a better admin in future. Thanks in advance for any time you can give to this. --John (talk) 05:54, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

• Just because you don't agree with a deletion doesn't make it wrong and I see that no deletion review has actually established the action was incorrect. ANI is not the place to discuss cases like this. Raise a conduct RFC if you can find evidence of a pattern of abusive actions rather then this being a simple case of sour grapes. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:03, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I think you may be missing the point. Try reading what I wrote again, especially the bit in italics. Again, whatever the merits or otherwise of FPR's understanding of non-free content guidelines, he should not in my opinion be speedying images like this. I am perfectly well aware of the function of this page and I know what a user RfC is. As I said, I am seeking uninvolved input, and if you have anything salient to say, I'd love to read it. --John (talk) 06:10, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
• (ec)According to WP:CSD#7, WP:NFCC#2 violations are 48h-notification speedies. WP:NFC#Unacceptable use provides authoritative guidance about the interpretation of that rule. All the images I speedied yesterday fell precisely under its scope. I pointed this policy out to a number of people in a number of places recently, including some IfD cases similar to the ones I closed. The fact that I told people about the policy doesn't make me "involved" in the sense of barring me from applying it. Just as an admin who explains CSD A7 to a user isn't barred from applying CSD A7 on a similar article the next day. – In the present case, there were IfD discussions about these speedy candidates, with a few "keep" votes in several cases. All the "keep" opinions boiled down to a logical confusion between necessary and sufficient criteria. We have a round dozen of NFCCs; the must all be met; but all keep votes were effectively saying that one was met so the others can be ignored. Such votes being obviously outside policy, they must be discarded just like you would ignore a "hangon – but they have a page on Myspace!" tag as an objection to a A7-band speedy. It's just irrelevant. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:09, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
  • • That is your interpretation of policy. It is not shared by others and discussion is in progress about this. You didn't "advise" you plainly !voted delete. You were a participant; then you used admin tools as an involved editor. Ty 06:15, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
  • (ecx2) First a user mass noms images on a contentious point. Fut. Perfect participates in some of these discussions, agreeing with the nom. Then he deletes others, where there is debate still in progress, and there's still 3 days of the IfD to run. It's a blatant abuse of admin tools. Ty 06:11, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
    • Yes, and he is being pretty economical with the truth here as well; he didn't just "[tell] people about the policy", he commented at the deletion discussion, and the policy discussion, and even edit-warred to enforce his narrow view of non-free use, before abusing his admin tools to delete the images in question. If this is allowable, why would we even have an IFD process? --John (talk) 06:16, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
      • Edit-warring? Get your facts straight. I removed the original image, perfectly within process; then a user – instead of contacting me – immediately uploaded a new version of the same image under a new filename and reinserted it. Of course I deleted that again (duly removing the redlink from the article), and told him to take it to DRV. That's the normal thing to do. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:56, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
• This is an ongoing problem with Fut Per. He once threatened to block anyone who dared readd an image he removed from an article, and closed an IfD as delete where every one of the three recommendations was a policy-based "keep." He's using his admin tools as a weapon to enforce his disputed view of image policy, which is completely unacceptable, and needs to stop immediately. ^S._D.D.J.Jameson 07:16, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

So far, what's apparent from this discussion is that John and Ty think that FP's deletions were invalid and FP disagrees. The place to debate that is obviously deletion review. Also John and Ty claim that FP misused his tools in a content dispute, which FP denies. If they want this charge to be considered, John or Ty will have to document the content dispute with diffs. (Full disclosure: I am not an administrator.) --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 09:09, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I did, Steven, just a couple of sections above. Here are sample diffs again, bolded this time since you missed them: he commented at the deletion discussion, and the policy discussion, and also edit-warred to enforce his narrow view of non-free use, before he mass-deleted the images in question. He has since lied, or at best been highly disingenuous in this very discussion, claiming only to have "told people about the policy", when in fact he was highly involved in the matter. If I ever abused my tools in this way, I hope that someone would pick me up for it. I also hope I would be more responsive than FPS has been. Cut to the chase; I don't want to be a part of a project which condones an admin treating other good-faith users and long-standing policy with contempt like this. This isn't about image policy any more, it's about an admin who says on his user page he wants to be a rouge admin and has invited others here to "quarter" him. These are not indicative of the sort of clue we expect an admin to possess. --John (talk) 15:28, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I've also been the victim of this editor deleting an image when the consensus was clearly that the image should be kept. I believe I gave an adequate summary of why the image counted as fair use in the rationale given when I uploaded the image - used in the Chillenden Windmill article. I'd like to know how to go about restoring the image to the article. Mjroots (talk) 09:20, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

• I see that nothing's changed in the world of policy wikilawyering whilst I've been gone. Claiming that a policy is "disputed" because there's a conversation going on about it is quite neat - on that basis I could claim that any policy with a talkpage is disputed. The editor two above me is entirely correct - DRV is the place for this, not here. Black Kite 09:36, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
  • On the other hand, if an admin is unilaterally reinterpreting a policy consenus on their own, then that is a AN or ANI problem. And that's what's claime here. And I tend to agree there's a problem - The foundation had Mike take a look at non-free fair use and his response was (to greatly paraphrase) that we're not in any danger of being sued for what we're hosting, that our standing policy is far stricter than it needs to be from that standpoint. Reinterpreting NFCC to include "no press image can be reused as it might infringe on someone's future profits" is a pretty big deal, and contrary to policy guidance (informal and nonspecific as it was) from on high. So, I think there's a problem. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 09:46, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
    • Link please? And by the way, I'm not "reinterpreting" a policy consensus. I'm applying a policy that has always been in place. I can remember at least three DRVs where speedy deletions of mine of just this kind have been upheld, and that's talking of my own deletions alone. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:01, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
    • Even if there is a problem, it belongs on the talkpage of the policy (NFCC#2 has needed clarifying for ages, IMO), at DRV for the image, or at the very most at an RFC. What is more of a problem is what has been happening for ages - a group of editors blindly ignores NFCC and plasters copyright violations all over Wikipedia, and when an admin steps in and fixes the problem, they are accused of "re-interpreting a policy against consensus" when what is actually happening is that they are correctly interpreting it. Then an argument starts on WT:NFCC and the group of editors cries "but it's a disputed policy!" and have to be quietly told that "A disputed policy" does not mean "A policy that you disagree with". Now this might not fully fit what is happening here, but we really do need to decide whether this is a Free Encyclopedia or not, and then either (a) get NFCC tightened up completely to prevent these sorts of shenganigans or (b) throw the majority of it out of the window. Having policies that are "open to interpretation" (even if those interpreters are being wilfully obtuse) doesn't do anyone any favours. Black Kite 10:05, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

The fact is those images shouldn't have been deleted until the dispute was settled. There were far more keeps than opposes and this administrator has shown a clear disrespect to the views of others and abused his tools by deleting them. The Bald One ^{White cat} 10:28, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

The outcome of the following in normal circumstances would have been quite clear. To keep it. Hpwever this was not the case:

Copy of IFD discussion

Image:Chillenden windmill blown down.jpg Image:Chillenden windmill blown down.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Mjroots (notify | contribs). Image copied from a news source, not used for commentary about the image itself (because it's not notable by itself). Important Notice: If you plan to argue about "irreplaceable images" or "historic events", you probably haven't understood the reasoning behind this nomination. Read it again carefully. Damiens.rf 14:37, 21 August 2008 (UTC) Keep Unique image of an event about the subject itself, would not be replaceable as the debris has been removed. MBisanz talk 14:44, 21 August 2008 (UTC) D'oh! --Damiens.rf 14:47, 21 August 2008 (UTC) Keep, image is of low resolution and small in size, there is no free alternative that can be used and it would be impossible to recreate the exact image even if the mill were to collapse again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjroots (talk • contribs) Hi, Mjroots. You haven't addressed the real concerns raised on the nomination. Please, explain how is it ok to take the image bbc spent money to produce and reproduce it freely on our website? --Damiens.rf 19:24, 21 August 2008 (UTC) The explanation under US law is at Fair use. Ty 01:04, 22 August 2008 (UTC) I believe I have adequately covered why it is OK to use the image in the fair use rationale given when I originally uploaded the image. Mjroots (talk) 11:07, 22 August 2008 (UTC) Delete. WP:NFC#Unacceptable use images #6. howcheng {chat} 23:53, 21 August 2008 (UTC) Speedy keep Uploader is making a WP:POINT nomination, as s/he is acknowledging with the "important notice" that this passes the fair use criteria, which it unabashedly does. WP:IFD isn't a place to challenge the rightness of our fair use policy. Nyttend (talk) 01:23, 22 August 2008 (UTC) Keep. Meets WP:NFCC. See also WT:NFC#Press agency photos. Ty 02:04, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

• I said a couple days ago that Future's behavior might need looking into, given an IfD was in progress at Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion/2008_August_21#Image:Chillenden_windmill_blown_down.jpg and that he was involved in a discussion on this part of the NFCC rules, it does seem rather inappropriate for him to have deleted the image, tagging it for speedy deletion would've been one thing if he disagreed on an I7 basis, but he really ought not to have deleted it outright. MBisanz ^talk 10:59, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah but at the same time it's become common practice to short-circuit AFD discussions by declaring that BLP applies, and that it can only be overturned through deletion review or arbcom, and regardless of how many people are convinced that the deleter is misinterpreting policy and/or smoking crack. Copyright policy is of at least equal gravity (greater, I would argue) but "process" is decidedly streamlined against those enforcing it. Something's gotta give here. — CharlotteWebb 13:42, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Copyright isn't up for a vote

The argument that the outcome "would have been quite clear: to keep it." is sort of weird. You can't out-vote our copyright policies. If 100 Wikipedia editors vote to keep a copyrighted image for which there is no fair use claim, for example, any admin is justified in coming along and deleting it. Now, there seems to be a good faith dispute about whether this image violates the policies. The place to resolve that dispute is WP:DRV, not here. Nandesuka (talk) 11:11, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of vote stacking, three administrators clearly expressed that they believed the image was justified for use and we could claim usage of it. The use of the image was disputable and 3 administrators believed it wasn't a clear cut copyvio as the image was irreplaceable. The deleter clearly showed a disrespect to his fellow administrators by not reaching an agreement first. If "Copyright isn't up for a vote" why do we have an IFD process?? Many of the images placed there are copywrighted images so what is the point in other editors joining in a discussion and the keep/delete process?? It is there because some images have disputable fair use claims which need sorting out and coming to a general conclusion on whether they should be kept. The deleter has completely gone against the IFD procedure and deleted something just because he thinks it is a copyvio. If we based on decisions on wikipedia on the basis of one editors view we would be in complete disorder. The Bald One ^{White cat} 11:52, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

• Indeed, as a number of people have pointed out. Black Kite 11:22, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

There are some weird notions about process here too. It is a perfectly normal thing to shorten an IfD on a speedy basis, it happens every day. And I don't need to "tag" something for speedy and then let somebody else do the deletion either - the whole point about speedies is that they can be handled by a single admin without consultation. That's why we have speedy criteria, and these images matched the speedy criteria exactly. What if the nominator hadn't brought the images to IfD but just {{dfu}}'d them? We'd have the same result: the images would legitimately have hit the deletion queue after 48h and would be gone now. As I said, all objections were of the type: It passes NFCC xyz, so it doesn't matter if it doesn't pass the others. Such objections are not ground for a legitimate debate, they are simply, self-evidently, wrong. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:22, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I'll be away for most of the rest of the day and much of the next few days, so if anybody wants to draw and quarter me in my absence, feel free. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:23, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

The Chillenden image's original source is here. I fully accept that it's a copyright image - that is not the issue. It's been mentioned above about images without fair use rationales. The image I uploaded did have a fair use rationale, and one that I believe was a valid one. It seems to have been targeted because it was from a news agency, the other copyright images used in the article have not been touched. Mjroots (talk) 13:18, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Note Images deletion has been asked to be reviewed Mjroots (talk) 14:00, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

• See, that's his tactic it seems: delete the image anyway, and force it to go to DRV, where he can claim the burden of proof is on those wishing to overturn the deletion. It's out-of-process, as the burden of proof for deletion is on those calling for deletion. Yet the same ones who always defend Fut Per's actions are here doing so now, so I highly doubt anything will change. As for Fut Per's statemento of "willing martyrdom" about being "drawn and quartered", perhaps he should take a step back for awhile. All people are asking for is that he quit misusing his tools to enforce his own narrow view of a disputed policy. If he stops doing that, no one will be starting threads at ANI about him. ^S._D.D.J.Jameson 14:33, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Drawing and quartering would not be a good idea, because then there would be *four* of him. As with the brainless starfish. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:39, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
    • I agree four of me would be unbearable. I would be forever getting into edit conflicts with myself over which of me would get to press the delete button first. Please don't quarter me. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:09, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
• I think this image is a bad example, as it does actually need to be deleted under WP:NFCC. See howcheng's point in the original discussion. I've said more at the deletion review and at WT:NFC. Carcharoth (talk) 14:44, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

For fun and bedtime reading further examples, I would suggest:disputes FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:52, 24 August 2008 (UTC).

Action to be taken on Consensus violations

We have a policy here that we discuss things and agree them before changing them, except in the most egregious cases where a living person is being defamed or where the foundation is at risk of legal action. We have no evidence whatsoever that this is even close to being an example of this. We also have a policy here that admins do not exercise their tools in cases where they have been involved. Without wiki-lawyering about what "involved" means here, which other admins here would have used their tools in a dispute like this? I would not, and I can't believe that anybody would think this was ok. Maybe it is me who is out of step. What do others think? --John (talk) 15:34, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. When those entrusted to administer things practice unilateralism, thinking they are beyond some of the rules because they alone know what other rules mean, all process breaks down and we have a free for all. - Wikidemo (talk) 15:43, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I would disagree. Future's actions were perfectly in line with longstanding policy and precedent. Kelly ^hi! 16:00, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Kelly, can you point me to the "longstanding policy and precedent" that FPS's actions were perfectly in line with? Thanks in advance. --John (talk) 16:04, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I'd point toward this discussion at WT:NFC, which explains the history fairly well. Future's actions were in line with the policy as it has long been understood (Jimbo has made deletions under the same interpretation). Whether the policy needs changing is another matter, but Future shouldn't be sanctioned for following policy as it exists. Kelly ^hi! 16:13, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response. Has Jimbo personally deleted images he was involved in discussion with, do you know? If he has I would have similar qualms to those I hold in this case. It seems vital to me that an admin doesn't take admin action in areas he/she has been involved in discussing, and policy seems to agree with me. --John (talk) 16:17, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I understand where you're coming from. However, when it comes to clear policy violations, I think we have a different interpretation of "involved admin". Just because Future Perfect pointed out policy during the discussion does not disqualify him from taking action in the same case. If an admin were to opine that a particular fact was a violation of WP:BLP in a particular biography, this does not bar her from blocking the BLP-violating editor or protecting the article. The overall community consensus of site policy overrides the individual consensus of involved editors in cases like this. Kelly ^hi! 16:22, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

And I think I understand where you are coming from too. In cases of WP:BLP oder WP:OFFICE I would agree with you. I guess we disagree over the seriousness of this particular issue; I really don't think this rises to the urgency of these examples, and I do think there is legitimate discussion to be had. This was ongoing and so no action should be taken until it is complete and a consensus emerges. --John (talk) 16:33, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. Thanks, John. Kelly ^hi! 16:38, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Support. Sorry, but the resolution allows us to set our policies about fair use and as such consensus does dictate each on a case-by-case basis. Using a mis-application of CSD to bypass consensus and/or force a DRV (which is much harder to pass and thus favors that of the deleting admin) is gaming the system. MBianz is a respected image specialist and he made an excellent argument for keeping. FPAS was sore because he didn't get his way and we shouldn't be condoning his behavior. --Dragon695 (talk) 17:15, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support. Fut Per does this all too frequently, and it's not appropriate in any way. ^S._D.D.J.Jameson 17:29, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
• Some comments above state that Future Perfect is enforcing policy. He is not. There is nothing in the policy WP:NFCC about press agencies. He is applying the guideline WP:NFC, which does not have the same force and is open to discussion about its application in particular cases. Ty 00:41, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Actually, WP:NFCC#2 specifically addresses this issue. It's policy, all right. Kelly ^hi! 00:58, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
    • As I said, WP:NFCC does not mention press agencies. If you think it does, then please quote that mention. Ty 02:28, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
• Support As an admin myself, I sometimes think that "policy" is used as a poor defence for individual rational judgement. However, rational judgement in the absence of a clear consensus on a particular issue is simply IAR, and the question then goes to whether it improves the encyclopaedia. I think we're looking at a case of admin burnout, sadly, based on the last couple of months of evidence. Some incivility and failure to discuss is also a problem, as is acting as an involved admin in a dispute - which our basic principles kind of discourage in a big way. I'm not overly willing to criticise Fut Perf too hard though, as I myself had a little episode of the same over a school article a month or so ago. Orderinchaos 14:54, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

  Slight change in my own view towards some sort of action after having seen some further examples of behaviour which suggest this is a much more advanced case than I thought we were looking at. I'm not absolutely sure this user should continue to be an admin at all if we see much more of this. If I was to see evidence of an acknowledgement of community concern and an undertaking to change their behaviour, I would feel a lot more comfortable as I think would many others. Orderinchaos 18:54, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support Presently uninvolved but mindful that admin actions can be detrimental if consensus and basic decorum are not respected. Bzuk (talk) 16:51, 25 August 2008 (UTC).
• Support Future Perfect's take on NFCC enforcement is extreme and controversial, and he has no compunctions about applying it unilaterally in the face of a consensus that finds otherwise. (Note: Not an admin.) Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 20:14, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
• !vote ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 06:03, 26 August 2008 (UTC) (wait, why are people even supporting a paragraph that ends with a rhetorical question?)

Change of topic title made; see: Issues with admin actions for the genesis of this topic. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:31, 26 August 2008 (UTC).

• Support (not sure this is a poll, but I agree with those saying "support") - the issues with this admin as discussed here and on AN (which Bzuk mentions) did not specifically follow on from one another, but they do appear to be different examples of some of the same issues. You can read my concerns in more detail in this section at AN. Pfainuk talk 16:16, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
• Support Support, I have also expressed my concerns in some detail at this section at AN. Justin talk 17:22, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
• Comment Interesting discussion here regarding this. --John (talk) 03:11, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
• Comment I'm coming here from that interesting discussion. I don't think the "involved" clause is what we are looking for here. If FPS is deleting images under CSD that don't meet those criteria, then that is a problem. If he is doing so as an application of the WP:SNOW clause, that also may be an error but it is less grievous. This is a much thornier problem than we seem to be treating it as. As I see it, very few actions can be justified post hoc as proper on the basis of some contingent outcome. By this I mean that if FPS deleted an image that "shouldn't have been deleted", then there was an error on his part. However, if it turns out that his deletion was "legitimate" (read: endorsed by DRV's, which almost all have been), then there was no error. That is a problem, because we can't base our valuation on his actions as "correct" on the basis of their outcome. But we also don't have much of a leg to stand on if his actions weren't wrong. In other words, if those images didn't have a snowball's chance in hell of being kept as FU images, then all the talking in the world won't change things. As was said above, NFCC/COPY aren't up for a vote. We have those policies in place because the foundation tells us to. So how do we deal with this? DRV's support the outcome, which (presumably) means the deletion was proper. But it is inappropriate to justify curtailing of discussion based on eventual outcome. My suggestion is that the community admonish FPS to not be a jerk about things but that we hold off on what is looking to be a snowy endorsement of a community reprimand for violating WP:CONSENSUS. Protonk (talk) 03:30, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Um, actually, NFCC is always up for a vote. The foundation requires that each project establish it's own criteria for fair use, but it doesn't dictate the content of those policies. Please stop spreading the meme that somehow parts NFCC are not up for debate. As with all things on this project, consensus changes, especially when it comes to portions that are being misapplied. --Dragon695 (talk) 07:40, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

The exact wording may be up for debate, but the spirit isn't. No valid wording (no matter how many support!'s you can count) would allow the use of those images Fut.Perfs deleted. This is the eternal skirmish of an unpopular policy. People like images, you know, and they get angry when we say "you shouldn't have been copying images from Associated Press". People don't read the upload page warnings. And there's this common misconception that for every image you'll find on google, there's an hypothetical non-free-content-rationale that would allow it to be used. --Damiens.rf 13:32, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

• I enthusiastically support everything Damiens said here. All too often at IFD we run into a large number of people who aren't discussing an image based on policy, but how much they like the image. Take this discussion, for instance, where a number of people commented on the need to retain the image based solely on how much they liked looking at Paris Hilton's face, completely disregarding the policy at the NFCC. While I think all administrators should wait until a deletion discussion is over (if one is started) and that they should probably refrain from deleting images for discussions they participated in (though I don't know that this ever happened), I find no fault in any actions that Future Perfect has taken. He, like Betacommand before, has been willing to make tough calls on images which, when analyzed strictly from a policy standpoint, are almost always upheld. This also tends to make him a magnet for criticism when the primary grievance appears to be the policy with which his actions are executed. I think the distinction there is important for the purposes of this discussion. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 16:15, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

The extent to which we use fair use, both in letter and in spirit is determined by the community. The foundation mandated we have an EDP, but the community decides how liberal we are. Note that the Wikinews community even allows Grant of License images under their EDP, which is basically cc-by-nd. So yes, if the community decides that we should start allowing cc-by-nd, then we are free to do so. It is not our mission to produce and house redistributable media, that is commons' mission. We are here to produce a high quality encyclopedia that is as free as possible. While free is always preferred and a reasonable effort to obtain free should always be expended, we can and we should consider fair use if it enhaces the quality of the article. --Dragon695 (talk) 19:47, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Strong speech, but empty arguments. What you says goes directly against WP:5P. --Damiens.rf 04:14, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Does it? In what way? --John (talk) 05:12, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

"Wikipedia is free content", I presume. A decent amount of people strongly dislike using fair use images at all. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 09:40, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Which is immediately followed by "...that anyone may edit. All text is available under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) and may be distributed or linked accordingly." (my emphasis) This project still allows fair use of images. If people don't like that, they should either find another project to volunteer for, or work in the proper ways to change our mission. To say this is against WP:5P shows ignorance of WP:5P. --John (talk) 13:12, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Of course. I agree. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 09:31, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

• Further, in order to accuse FPS of taking an image to DRV in order specifically to shift the burden of proof over deletion, we need to prove as much. It is a pretty bold accusation. Far more likely to me is that FPS is speedying images that he feels fall under the CSD while there disagreement over that very fact exists. Protonk (talk) 14:17, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

  It's rather irrelevant whether he's doing so intentionally, as the practical result is that this is what's happening. In an IfD, the burden is on the nominator to provide a strong-enough argument that consensus will support the deletion of the image. Once the image is deleted, though, at DRV the burden shifts to the supporters of keeping the image to show that the deletion was improper or incorrect. By closing IfDs as "deletes" against the consensus of the debate, FPS's action helps to ensure that the image will stay deleted, as he argues that NFCC policy (his interpretation, of course) trumps the debate's consensus, thus playing the "policy card". Whether he behavior is intentional or not is irrelevant, it still ends up with usable images being deleted because while they withstood the lighter burden of IfD, the supporters can't muster the strength to overcome at DRV in the face of what seems like legitimate policy concerns. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 06:06, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support action on him: the NFCC is fine; disregarding consensus is not. Sceptre ^(talk) 18:01, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
• Support FPS (and others) seem to have the notion that their understanding of NFCC policy is policy, and they behave accordingly. FPS has ignored consensus numerous times in deleting images, and has done so with, at times, uncivil and authoritarian language. He has threatened blockage for one-time restorations of images that were incorrectly removed from articles, as being "edit-warring", and has generally used his administrative powers to further his personal (and extreme) conception of what image policy should be. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 05:34, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
• Support something I do think that the way he goes about things is in need of some correction. Just because he gets calls right, or even if he got all calls right, does not excuse him from being civil or from other policies. To what extent correction is required is probably better decided in an environment other than ANI (Perhaps a RFC?). Narson (talk) 09:45, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
• Kommentar Instead of all these vague "Support ... erm ...something" comments, would it not be better to take this to an RfC? Something like this can't really be decided at AN/I. Black Kite 09:59, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
• Kommentar I am confused about what "support" means above. I also have a huge problem with FPAS's conduct in deletion of images under his own interpretation of policy, as well as his entirely uncivil manner if communication, treating image uploaders as convicted criminals. In addition to mass deleting images, he openly trolls through individual user's upload logs, and deletes many images by the same user, and leaves bad faith edit summaries that provoke argument. I asked him to stop this conduct, but he just gave me a shitty reply, so I gave up on him and predicted that a wider discussion would inevitably occur if he persisted in Burger-Kinging his way around with the tools and treating people that way. Obviously I was right. IMNSHO FPAS should refrain from (or be prevented from) deleting images for 6 months so he can be able to see that the project can still exist without his aggressive and unilateral behavior. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 21:42, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Mamalujo and Hitler's Pope

For several weeks User:Mamalujo has been inserting the claim that John Cornwell, the author of Hitler's Pope, "recanted" the main thesis of his book. He has refused to provide a source for the claim that Cornwell "recanted" his thesis; indeed, he refuses to come to the Talk: page at all. Saying that an author "recanted" the main thesis of his most famous book is a very serious charge, and I've several times warned Mamalujo that this is a WP:BLP violation. Unless I get other advice here, I plan to block him next. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:17, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

• Some diffs showing that the behavior is persistent and that the user was sufficiently warned would help. But assuming that the user was indeed warned and his behavior is persistent I think blocking is the only way Alex Bakharev (talk) 00:27, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, here are some diffs of him doing it: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]

Here are diffs of warnings: [6] [7] [8] [9] Jayjg ^(talk) 00:30, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Two minutes after my last warning, he removed the warning from his Talk: page, under the guise of archiving it, and told me he would give my "hasty warning" "the consideration it deserves". He has yet to discuss this on the article Talk: page. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:33, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

My advice is to notify him of this thread, reiterate this is the final warning, and if he does it again block him. --mboverload@ 00:52, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

He did in fact archive the whole contents of his talk page, but his behavior here is stretching the limit. I'm going to leave him a warning as an uninvolved admin that his behavior violated policy and further reverts without citing reliable sources to that specific effect will be blockable under BLP (what he's writing is also OR, as far as I can tell, lacking a RS to the contrary...). Assuming good faith, a clear explanation of my conclusions will go on his talk page. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:58, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's true, he suddenly decided to archive his Talk: page, for the first time since January 11, 2008, 2 minutes after my warning. And you're right, he appears to have cherry picked a quotation from an interview with Cornwell, and is using that primary source to synthesize an argument. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:02, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Your position is correct in the underlying content dispute regarding the Cornwell quote. But why haven't you notified Mamalujo of this AN/I thread? Nsk92 (talk) 01:12, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Because within 2 minutes of my first posting to his page he deleted my post, so I thought it would seem needlessly confrontational. But I'll notify him now, and hope for the best. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:16, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I am strongly against blocking the editor. I understand the severity of a BLP vio, but I think what Mamalujo needs is a calm voice to explain BLP, and, especially, OR. I feel the editors actions have nothing to do with an attempt to cast a shadow upon the article's subject, but rather make assumptions based on their own opinions of the article. This is a distinct POV that results in original research, but they might not understand that. There is no reason to block an editor who is simply trying to improve the encyclopedia (for better or worse in this case), although I do understand Jayjig's position. Cheers, ( arky ) 01:24, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I am thinking that, judging from the tone of the reverts, as well as the snippy on Jayjg's page, that this dispute is far from over. and in fact will prolly lead to a block. While a calm voice does help, when one is reverted, the time for discussion is then not after an ANI thread is begun. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 03:28, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

"Prolly" a block, you say? Edison2 (talk) 05:55, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Prolly = probably. And yes, while the well of Good Faith does spring Eternal, some of that headwater peters out when some folk abuse it too much. I am guestimating that the user has a tiny bit of good faith left, and it won't help them the next time they go flippant. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 14:57, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd just like to give my perspective of this dispute and point out that I'd been acting in good faith. From my perspective, you have a book, Hitler's Pope, which ascribes evil motives to Pius XII with regard to the Holocaust. Then, after authors like Ronald Rychlak point out to him myriad factual errors, mistranslations, ommissions and misinterpretations in his book, he says that he can no longer judge the pontiff's motives. If words have their plain meanings this is recanting or retraction. First he says bad motives then he says I can't judge his motives. This didn't appear to me to need a source, it's a recantation or a retraction on its face, at the very least in part (a very significant part). I didn't think it was OR either because it does not really require any interpretation at all. There didn't seem to me to be any real BLP issue, either. Cornwell's words seem to be plainly and unequivocally a recantation or retraction with regard to Pius' motive - I can't imagine that Cornwell, himself, would even object to calling it recantation or retraction. The edits merely called his statement what it is. And to show how reasonable that characterization is and the fact that I was acting in good faith, you can see that at least two books have made this same characterization (using the word recant or retract): Righteous Gentiles at p. xiii and The Myth of Hitler’s Pope p. 138. Also, his words were characterized the same way numerous other publications: the New York Sun, the Washington Times, Frontpage Magazine, Human Events, Seattle Catholic, National Review, Homiletic and Pastoral Review and First Things. Some of the individuals who have called Cornwell's statement recanting or retraction include professor of history and polical science Rabbi David Dalin, UCLA Law Professor Steven Bainbridge, writer and law professor Ronald Rychlak, and philosopher Michael Novak. If I am mistaken about BLP and OR policies with regard to this matter, so be it, but I was acting in good faith. I don't think my position was unreasonable considering these other characterizations of Cornwell's statement. I understand in retrospect that I should have acted more moderately, addressed the issue on the talk page or perhaps found a cited source. I will keep that in mind in the future. Thanks.Mamalujo (talk) 18:07, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Mamalujo, I understand that you believe that this sort of fact does not need sources. However, the beauty of a reliable source is that even people that doubt the information can't deny it. If you truly believe the fact is true (I have no opinion on the matter since I am not acquainted with the subject) research it and find a credible source to back it up. Good luck, and, once more, I understand where you are coming from. Cheers, ( arky ) 14:00, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Productive socks

I have blocked two socks of community banned users: User:Kostan1 is a sock of User:M.V.E.i. and User:Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog is a sock of User:HanzoHattori. For the proof see User_talk:Biophys#Good_work in the hindsight it seems quite obvious.

Both socks earned a few short blocks on their own right but overall were reasonably constructive and IMHO have done much more constructive work than disruption. I do not feel indefinite banning them is in the best interests of the project.

I propose to change the community bans to community civility parole and community 1RR per day restriction for the period of one year. Lets say any administrator could block them for the period of up to 1 week for incivility of revert warring (more than one revert per article per day). Three such blocks would mean restoring of the community ban. Thus, they would have a very little room to disrupt but all the possibilities in the world to contribute constructively.

As they are of the opposite POV I feel it is good to keep the restrictions to be equal to avoid supporting a particular POV. Although in my opinion Hanzo was less disruptive than M.V.E.i.

Any thoughts? Alex Bakharev (talk) 11:58, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the proposal. Alæxis_¿question? 12:34, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Based on the evidence and discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/M.V.E.i, plus a cursory look at their block log, I would feel extremely uncomfortable removing the community ban of M.V.E.i. (block log). I haven't yet had time to review the situation for HanzoHattori (block log), but unless they are related shouldn't we be discussing them separately anyway? — Satori Son 12:45, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I understand these two users edit some of the same articles, but I still think unban proposals should be discussed individually. If others agree, perhaps we should start a subsection for each? — Satori Son 12:59, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not sure of the premises here. You blocked two accounts for violating WP policies, but wish to limit the sanction because they have good contributions - even though they are obviously the socks of other accounts who have been banned for using socks to continue their POV compaigns? If I am right, you are advocating the rewarding of a couple of editors whose recent accounts were used for some edit warring by permitting them to continue while the ratio of vandalism to good edits is... "reasonable"? Nope, sorry! As you have had to block them, again, it is evident that the editors are trying to game the system and have not moved on from their previous behaviour. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:03, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I would strongly object to M.V.E.i ever being unblocked, or any known sock of his being allowed to edit. He was community banned for very good reasons. Not very familiar with HattoriHanzo, although what I saw of Captain Obvious suggested his heart is in the right place, albeit he has civility issues. Neıl ☄ 13:36, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I think a distinction should be made here. I don't really know M.V.E.I. here but I've seen reports of him creating sock puppets all too much. How many accounts has he created? As for user HanzoHattori/Captain Obvious, assuming that they indeed are the same person, let's recall what got him banned in the first place. HanzoHattori was banned by an admin after he made a bad remark about this admin. This was an extremely dumb move, and in part may have been motivated by bad circumstances and said health problems he had back then. His ban seems to have been protested back then as well. I think that an attempt to give this user limited acces again to wikipedia would be addressed anyway at some point in the future, because he created and updated a lot of good articles to wikipedia. So yes, I support this move, looking back that a ban in the first place may have been far too strict. Grey Fox (talk) 18:28, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

All users are different. This can only be decided individually. I agree with Neil and Satori Son that M.V.E.i. should not be unblocked. As about "Captain", I would like to see a checkuser report.Biophys (talk) 14:28, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely no way should M.V.E.i. ever be unbanned. Do we need racist, neo-fascist trolls contributing to WP? No thanks, I think we have plenty already. I'm amazed this has even been raised again. --Folantin (talk) 22:01, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Discussion of proposed unban of HanzoHattori

I agree with User:LessHeard vanU and would strongly object to ever unblocking HanzoHattori, or any known sock of his being allowed to edit. He was community banned for very good reasons and the community noted that they had shown an incredible amount of tolerance to him[10]. We should not essentially reward a banned user for ban evasion, socking and violating policy - not to mention Hanzo's sock continued to break 3RR (3 times in a month-check Captain Obvious' block log) and continued to be uncivil-""Fuck this shit, I'm outta here"[11].

For those unfamilar with Hanzo, his incivility was dreadful. Here are just a few examples:

I wanted to post here so Mr. Bot would fuck off[12]

what the fuck[13]

Fuck you Wikipedia.[14]

Oh Osli, you one silly fucker, you can kiss myass[15]

Yes, note this. You can kiss my ass too. [16]

Blanked page and replaced with lol wikipedia[17]

Another Fuck you wikipedia [18]

God dammn. WHAT THE FUCK?[19]

"Well, I've got sort of a pretty bad real life crisis, I'm unemployed but I have a chronic depression and the meds don't really help, so the nonsense like this should be the last thing for me to take seriously about now. You know, I wanted to leave anyway, but I found myself too addicted and also I lied to myself that what I'm doing has any importance. So if they think I was doing a shitty job, fine, I'm not going to BAAAWWWW about this and I wasted my time enough. In short, Wikipedia is worthless, my life suck, and I should instead get off the internets and get my shit together. (Which I probably won't anyway)."[20]

This user clearly has serious issues. As another user noted at his permanent ban proposal, wikipedia is not therapy. Community endorsed bans are given for a reason, we should not reward users for evading bans, not to mention that his sock continued his incivility and edit warring. Allowing an unblock of Hanzo would set a procedural fairness (a legal concept where everyone is entitled to the same procedure) precedent - we would have to tell all banned users "you are banned but if you evade your ban and your sock acts nice then we'll let you come back".--Miyokan (talk) 14:09, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

It looks like you have a grudge towards this user, Miyokan. As you yourself have also been nominated for a 1revert limit before I don't think the paragraphs you've written above should influince administrators decisions.

Many of the incivility comments that you seem to have archived are from his old account, and the post about his health problems was under emotional circumstances after he was banned. I agree with Alex Bakharev, this user has also proved himself to be a great contributer. Considering his incivility I would like to address that back then his health problems may have attributed to his, so I'm also in favour of a second chance. Grey Fox (talk) 18:11, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I would also strongly hesitate in having Hanzo unbanned. He's made positive contributions, yes, but valid edits aren't a currency that one can exchange for immunity to our civility policies. He's incredibly antagonistic, and I'd rather we not reward his inability to make the much-needed attitude adjustments. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:03, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and to comment about the "old account/health problems" thing, please. I have as much belief that Hanzo's long-standing antagonistic attitude was tied to "health problems" as I do that a unicorn will chase the Easter Bunny out in front of my car on the way home. The diffs above are from earlier this year; I first blocked him for personal attacks in 2007, and his first block (for edit warring) was in 2006. This is not some sort of "incivility flare-up" that is a largely isolated incident; it's a perpetual behavioral issue, and one that I don't see any clear evidence has been cleared up (especially since CO's "smartasses" comment[21] sounds exactly like the Hanzo of old, and CO has already garnered himself some blocks for edit warring). EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:29, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Hanzo and all his socks should be indef'd. We don't need this behavior nor disruption. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:31, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

You're the one who banned him in the first place right? Don't you think you've been way too strict? It could have been a long ban instead of a permaban. The only problem with this editor is that he occasionally uses swear words, in the same style as rappers do in the states. Grey Fox (talk) 21:16, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I had good experiences with Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog - and with HanzoHattori in the past. I support his unblock, and as I said some time ago, we should put spirit (of encyclopedia building) above the letter of our wiki-laws: if a banned user proves he is useful, unban him.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:33, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how calling an anon editor a fag[22], or lobbing childish "your mom" jokes[23], or just flat-out calling someone an idiot[24] is in the "spirit of encyclopedia building". If he can't make positive contributions and follow our civility policies, he shouldn't be here; end of story. It's a collaborative environment, and he has issues collaborating. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:12, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I saw someone getting a 2-day block for far worse behaviour (if you want I can show you). Why are these uncivil comments (perhaps against anonymous vandal users) from a year and half ago worth a permaban? Grey Fox (talk) 21:21, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

They are the ones I cited in my block of him from May of 2007. I've got better things to do with my time than to sort through his more recent stuff; he's a problem editor, has been for a long time, and is still excessively antagonistic. User talk:HanzoHattori/Archive 2#Geez... clearly shows that attempts had been made for him to improve his attitude, yet he hasn't. I've yet to see any reason that the ban shouldn't stick. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:25, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

If this editor wants to return to the project as a purely constructive editor, nothing is stopping them from doing so under a new user name. The sock demonstrate that this isn't someone who has exactly found themself locked out of the project by the ban to begin with, so they clearly know enough to create a new account. If they are serious about being a non-disruptive member of the community, it is almost in their best interest to just start new. Hiberniantears (talk) 21:29, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

But Captain was blocked exclusively for being an alleged sockpuppet of HanzoHattory, not for any specific disruption. I had extensive communication with HanzoHattori (much less with the "Captain" recently). I actively argued with him on various occasions. I found him much more collaborative than a number of users who currently edit here. I would actually call him a "neutrality fighter", who was much less biased than me (that is why we argued). He was a strong enforcer of WP:NPOV policy, but an impatient one. And he was extremely productive. Yes, his irony and occasionally incivility was a problem, but I think a civility parole would be sufficient. If "Captain" was him, he definitely demonstrated a visible improvement lately.Biophys (talk) 21:38, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Right, excellent point. It's obvious he's here to be a non-disruptive member of the community, which is why he's garnered three blocks for edit warring.[25] EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:42, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

You beat me to it. Well said. He was blocked indefinitely for being a sock of a banned editor, but that may not have happened if he had not been blocked previously, and had a clean track record. Of course, he was blocked multiple times in the past month for disruption, so the block was entirely reasonable. Hiberniantears (talk) 21:50, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

No one disputes the block. But a person who made this block (Alex bakharev) came here and asked if these two users can be unblocked. Hence this discussion. My reply to EVula: I have no idea why User:Deacon of Pndapetzim blocked Captain, but in two other cases that was a violation of 3RR rule on his side. On the second occasion (that was actually Battle of Tskhinvali rather than 2008 Ossetian war) he reverted repeated copyright violations by User:Top Gun who was later indefinitely banned. On the first occasion (Okinawa) he tried to remove poorly sourced accusations of war rapes by US soldiers. Yes, he is guilty of 3RR violation. But this does not justify his indefinite block.Biophys (talk) 22:03, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Unblock. From what I've seen, the positive contributions far outweigh the "incivility". We could do with a few more foul-mouthed neutralists round here to balance out the "civil POV-pusher" brigade. --Folantin (talk) 22:10, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

It's not hard to find out why Deacon blocked him; see User talk:Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog#3RR violation for the block notice. While you're at it, scroll up, and you'll see a slew of additional warnings about civility and edit warring. Gee, almost like he hasn't changed his editing patterns or something... strange, who'd have thunk? EVula // talk // ☯ // 23:12, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I took my time to think about this one, and I agree with EVula, LessHeard vanU, and Rlevse that the community ban of HanzoHattori is still justified. Even if we ignore the socking issue, there has simply been too much disruptive editing. — Satori Son 23:49, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

With regards to User:Grey Fox who is defending Hanzo and trying to vilify me, he himself is a sockpuppet of User:Pietervhuis who is trying to avoid scrutiny from his massive block log.--Miyokan (talk) 05:11, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Please don't throw around sockpuppet claims without some evidence of some sort. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:26, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

M.V.E.i. should be NEVER, EVER, EVER, EVER be unbanned. The thought of letting this neo-fascist monster run about like crazy is intolerable. He has complete contempt for all our rules: I speak as the blocking admin. Generally speaking, I support unbanning Captain Obvious, probably under restriction of some kind. No, he's not perfect, but he has clearly improved, and on South Ossetia articles has done good and neutral work. Moreschi (talk) 13:51, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I strongly agree with Moreschi. I watched very closely all content changes made by Captain in many articles, because this is my area of interest. I found that he usually make non-controversial changes, including a better sourcing and more comprehensive coverage of a subject. However, he often deleted poorly sourced claims (e.g. in 2008 Ossetian war-related subject or Okinawa battle) which caused a very angry reaction of certain POV-pushers. Note how several socks of M.V.E.i. came to Captain's talk page page to argue with him (User:Chrystal_Blue_Moon and User:Log in, log out). Then Captain struggled to enforce WP:NPOV and sometimes was sanctioned for 3RR violation.Biophys (talk) 19:36, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Hanzo "struggled" to "enforce WP:NPOV" - what a laugh! You can try to spin it however you want, but the fact is that he broke the 3RR rule 3 times in the month while he was on an indefinite ban, not to mention continue to be incivil to boot, "Fuck this shit, I'm outta here"[26]. And for this we should reward him?--Miyokan (talk) 06:10, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

"Clean start under a new name" is explicitly prohibited to banned users Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry#Legitimate_uses_of_alternative_accounts - "This option is also not available to banned users, who are prohibited from editing Wikipedia altogether, either anonymously or under any user name."--Miyokan (talk) 07:52, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

• And this is said by User:Miyokan who edited under at least three different accounts, each time accumulating numerous blocks for 3RR violations, as has been discussed and even voted previously at this ANI page! This edit by Myokan right now is not really civil, and the following my edits only only to make blind reverts does not serve any purpose but disruption as well.Biophys (talk) 16:21, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

• That is neither here nor there, unlike Hanzo, I was not banned when I created accounts and hence I was allowed to create them. Also, A) "each time accumulating numerous blocks for 3RR violations" - that is just a lie. B) I made clear I that I was was using a previous account B) "as has been discussed and even voted previously at this ANI page" - and what was the result of that ANI? Anybody can create an ANI. Biophys accussation that I stalk him is laughable, when he is the king blind revert stalking me, from the Ronald Reagan, to Terek Cossacks [27] to Chechen Republic of Ichkeria [28] to Russia [29], etc etc. Comment on the content, not the contributor. I cited the facts and policy, while your transparently pathetic attempt at attacking me shows that you cannot refute the valid points I made, which are based on the facts and policy. --Miyokan (talk) 02:42, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Tenmei's abusing AfD and personal attacks

• 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.[30] His articles is the newest one, so I thought his article should be merged into the oldest one. The discussion started peacefully[31][32] except a little friction on the title. He started to attack my comment on User:LordAmeth's talk page[33], so I said him to be civil.[34]

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[35][36] and encouraged us to keep the discussion for merge. Other editor pointed out on his usage of the perjorative "Wonkery" as well.[37]. 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.[38][39][40][41] 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.[42][43] He rather more making inexcusable ad hominem attacks regardless of the chances.[44] 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.[45] 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)

Caspian blue is attacking me

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)

NO to "strong bias against Korean editors"

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. Read the following and decide for yourself where I've tried to engineer my focus:

Withdrawal from AfD
Taemyr counsels me to withdraw the AfD listing. If advised again to do so, I will comply with good adice ... but then what?

- * ------ * ------ * -

In re-visiting Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, I was inspired to examine Wikipedia:Userfication#Userfication of deleted content. If someone else is able to stretch WP:AGF farther than I'm able to do -- if we assume that everything above is really nothing more than a big mistake, then would it be reasonable to consider "userfication" of the text posted at Joseon tongsinsa? The citations look like bad faith to me, but the reference source is real. Taemyr counsels me to keep focused on the potential of this article.

Frankly, I don't quite understand what this would achieve ... but it could be construed as a recognition of the importance of Korean contributions, especially in the process of developing further articles which flow from Foreign relations of Imperial China.<

Both Joseon Tongsinsa and Korean missions to Edo at present account for only a relatively short 300-year period in the history of the Joseon Dynasty, and Korean scholarship will continue to be important as this subject evolves over time.

This could provide an excellent opportunity for collaboration -- the complementary historical records which were developed using primarily Korean sources or using primarily Japanese sources could be explored jointly. Just because this seems to have started off badly doesn't mean that more constructive alternatives can't be imagined. --Tenmei (talk) 19:55, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

- * ------ * ------ * -

In response to Taemyr's well-reasoned and patient counsel, I have been persuaded that it is no longer essential that Joseon tongsinsa be deleted, but that does not mean I disagree with Stifle. With Taemyr's help, I've begun to think I may see another way to handle what seemed like an intractable problem, but I truly don't know what's best.

Fundamentally, the impeccable posture of Taemyr's wiki-weltanshauung still troubles me because it necesssarily implies a deliberative cognitive dissonance, a stance which is undeniably best in this setting .... This is in no way a criticism or a complaint. I have nothing but thanks to offer Taemyr as I acknowledge his thoughtful assistance in helping me begin to re-evaluate a small problem from a broader perspective.

There is no reason for Taemyr to have expanded the ambit of this AfD evaluation to include a consideration of Liancourt rocks, also known as Dokdo (or Tokto) (독도/獨島, literally "solitary island") in Korean and as Takeshima (竹島, , literally "bamboo island") in Japanese,[46][47][48][49] which is currently move and semi-protected. There is no cause for complaint if Stifle was entirely unaware of the following not-"normal editing" notice which has been posted by administrators on this not-unique page:

----This is a controversial topic. Before making substantial changes, please

----read the talk page and make sure to edit only in a spirit of cooperation.

----This article is currently under special administrative surveillance and

----absolutely no edit-warring will be tolerated.

----Users who make more than 1 revert in a 24-hour period will be blocked.

----Incivility and edit-warring will not be put up with, and all reverts must be discussed fully

----on the talk page before you revert. Not after! Thank you.

Although Brianyoumans may have known about controversial Dokdo class amphibious assault ship[50][51] and about ROK naval manoevers last month [52][53], there was no obvious reason to acknowledge that current events might impact an AfD concerning a 17th-19th century subject. Indeed, Brianyoumans constructively noted that "the Tongsinsas seem to have been seized upon as an example of good Korea-Japan relations."

I did know about something about these subjects -- enough to be scrupulously concerned in crafting Korean missions to Edo so as to avoid, as best I could, any plausible cause for controversy. That I was unsuccessful in real world terms does not undercut the extent to which I did manage to comply explicitly with WP:V -- and my efforts were for naught. Two specific sentences informed this AfD nomination; and to both my response was a clear, unequivocal, disgusted NO -- NOT POSSIBLE:

1. "If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD." -- NO, CAN'T BE FIXED

2. "Articles should only be deleted when the issues are not repairable." -- NO, NOT REPAIRABLE

The sum of Caspian blue's contributions affirm my dour pessimism. If Caspian blue were joined by other like-mindedAny future tag team editors who similarly 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. 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. The dignified and sober Taemyr asks "What is best?" Stifle thinks deletion is a better course of action. I myself don't know but I would invite consideration of the following:

ONE: It is frustrating that the following fell on deaf ears in this AfD venue:

"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)

TWO::It is frustrating that it would take hours to respond to just one paragraph Caspian blue posted at Talk:Korean missions to Edo#Merge#Opposition to Merge, and in all probability the questions were merely rhetorical -- which means that any misguided attempt to respond calmly, rationally, critically will only become fodder for yet another perverse escalation of angry accusations:

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)

Fostering scholarly collaboration -- analysis, text and source development

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).

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.

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.

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)

• 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)

• Kommentar: 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)

Sub-thread: Other contexts and other editors

• 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: [54], [55], [56], [57], [58], [59], [60] and [61] and the warnings Tenmei has recieved for his behaviour on that article include [62], [63], [64], [65], [66], [67], [68] and [69]. 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. [70]: What incivility? Weird yes, but incivil no. [71]: 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. [72] and [73]: I don't see anything that could be construed as incivility here.

[74]: 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. [75]: No incivility, although a clear element of failure to AGF on Tenmei's part. [76]: Clearly not helpfull, but not a personal attack. [77]: 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)

Wait! This thread is becoming so complex, I can't sort out how to respond

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)

Quoting out-of-context in order to malign, Part I

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.[78].]

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.[79]

• 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.[80].]

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)

Taemyr escalating the situation by his own personal attacks

Caspian Blue, you have been blocked once in part for attempting to use NPA to solve your content disputes[81], and two more times for edit warring with a pro Korea POV[82]. 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)[83]

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)[84]

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)

Blunt talk

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)

Quoting out-of-context in order to malign, Part II

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.[85] 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.[86].]

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)

Tenmei apologizes to Caspian blue

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)

When two men fight over a woman it's the fight they want, not the woman

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 ....[87]

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)

DCFan101 user page bonanza

Resolved

 - key stuff removed

This list of user pages looks a bit beyond the pale to me. The complete Disney Channel schedule and complete list of Disney bootleg download links seem especially beyond reason.Kww (talk) 03:29, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Main UserPage seriously needs to be deleted, as he gives away WAY too much private information. Further, he's got multiple pages of links to off site downloads. His barnstars are all 'You found a hidden page' nonsense. I'd deep six it all under the ' Wikipedia isn't MySpace'. ThuranX (talk) 03:35, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

The list of bootleg links is particularly troubling and a fairly clear misuse of Wikipedia. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 03:45, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and deleted two pages of "download links" under WP:ADVERT. Toddst1 (talk) 03:58, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

(e/c) I'm reviewing all the pages, and will be deleting any that are blatantly inappropriate; any I find questionable will be put up at MfD. Some of these pages look like they may be intended for article work, and so I won't be nuking all of them. Looks like Todd just got the important ones, but some of these still need to go, methinks. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 04:01, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Two mass MfD's posted at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion#August 28, 2008. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 05:01, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

That's all well and good, but what about his mainpage? Gives way too much private data, per WP:CHILD. ThuranX (talk) 13:22, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello? Any Admisn want to handle this? ThuranX (talk) 03:18, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Why not just leave him a polite note asking him to remove it? No need to throw the book at him if he can be convinced to take it down himself. --erachima talk 03:25, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I left him a note, but we typically just Remove it. However, it's usually admins doing that, so I'm asking them to do it. ThuranX (talk) 03:28, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

• I have deleted the userpage based on WP:NOTMYSPACE (mainly an advertisement for the user's secret page game) and the concerns raised re WP:CHILD (user is under 13 and states excessively personal information). Unless someone disagrees or thinks it needs to be taken further, this matter is probably resolved. The many subpages related to the secret page game will resolve themselves at MfD.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 14:50, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

• I deleted my subpages too. --DCFan101 (talk) 08:55, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

New Betacommand category sorting screwup

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

I am taking the liberty of closing this thread. Relevant discussion should be directed to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/I have blocked Betacommand where a proposal for clearly-stated editing restrictions is under active discussion and receiving pretty solid support thus far. To people who want to ban Betacommand or send him back to ArbCom, please consider that the first option doesn't have anywhere near the sort of support it would need and that ArbCom would most likely decline the case. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 21:00, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Betacommand (talk · contribs) seems to be using some (semi)automated tool to add reference sections to articles, and do some "cleanup" which involves changing category sorting. The adding of reference sections is an improvement, since these articles previously had references in the wikimarkup that were not actually displayed when the articles were viewed.

However, his edits are once again screwing up category sorting. In articles such as Transport in Finland, that article is the main article for the category Category:Transport in Finland and should therefore be the first article displayed in the category. This is done by setting the sort key to a space, i.e. writing [[Category:Transport in Finland| ]]. Betacommand's tool seems to be removing all such sort keys, leading to the main article being sorted in-between all other articles in the category. Looking through only the first page of his contributions, I find 11 diffs where this error was done: [88] [89] [90] [91] [92] [93] [94] [95] [96] [97] [98]

A few of these edits have been reverted by User:Fram, and I am starting to fix the rest of these that I can identify - but all of Betacommand's latest "cleanup & ref section" need to be checked for this error. There are some other edits I am not sure about - such as removing wikilinks to years - but I will not revert those since I am not all that familiar with the Manual of Style, so those could be correct.

I am also a bit disconcerted that Betacommand is once again running such tasks without discussing them first, only days after the community has expressed doubts about his use of such tools in a discussion that unfortunately seems to have stalled. Also, this seems to be a verbatim repeat of the previous "DEFAULTSORT" erroneous edits, although at a somewhat slower pace. Once again, Betacommand's edits have caused disruption to the mainspace, and efforts must now be undertaken to correct his errors. Is he back? (talk) 08:19, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

If this is still in force, shouldn't we just call these edits so poorly checked that they are probably automatic (I am sure they are) and block him for another week? Kusma (talk) 08:39, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I have added my comments to Betacommands talk page. Generally speaking, adding reference sections is the only good part of his latest edits. The rest, labeled "cleanup", contains some good edits, some bad (like the categorization errors), and many which are completely unneeded (changing one optional layout for another), which goes against the WP:MOS#Consistency and shouldn't be called cleanup and shouldn't be done at all (his preference does not takes precedence over the current state of an article if both options are allowable according to the pertinent guidelines). It's very tedious going through all his contribs. I have not reverted his unneeded personal preference edits unless they also contained errors (categorization, unlinking years but leaving the dates and months linked, ...) Fram (talk) 08:44, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Update: I have found even more of these errors. See [99] [100] [101] [102] [103] [104] Is he back? (talk) 08:52, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

These edits are clearly automated. I have therefore blocked Betacommand for 24 hours for making automated (or seemingly automated) edits in violation of the community editing restrictions logged at the bottom of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand 2#Remedies.  Sandstein  09:50, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

For the record, there is a long recent block discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/I have blocked Betacommand, however it has been quiet there for two days. I havent seen any "conclusion" notification on BC's user talk, so I am not sure what the current communal outcome is. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 10:05, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

It stalled. I have opened up a new subsection, where I am pleading for an agreement in how we are supposed to deal with BC's desire to use scripts in his editing - and his too frequent habit of having them fall over. There were previously some good suggestions, and I would hope that some other, different editors could look over the content (please ignore the sometimes fractious tone) and either get behind the best ones or suggest new ones. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:19, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

The block has occurred almost six hours after the last edit. I think it is safe to assume he is asleep. I'm not sure why his code would be changing the category in that way. Surely he should know about this, or he has been informed that his tool shouldnt remove the "| "? Im guess so, but it would be nice to have a few diffs to indicate he is fully aware that the "| " shouldnt be removed. Whether or not he was watching these edits or not, the block seems reasonable as proper care was not taken.

Edits like this, where he changes "football team England]]international footballer" to "football team|Englandinternational]] footballer" are not perfect (it would have been nice if he fixed it along the way), but he has not left the article in a worse state than he found it (for that specific aspect of it).

John Vandenberg ^(chat) 10:26, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

• If the wish is to stop Beta using scripts, isn't the solution to purge his monobook and related files (see them here? Neıl ☄ 10:34, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

  The problem is that a new community sanction was being worked on, and not everyone was in agreement that all scripts should be removed. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 10:44, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

  Don't try to white wash it. The problem is he threatened retaliation against any admin that blanked his monobook. Let me also make some points crystal clear. Any admin who attempts to edit my monobook in an attempt to remove "simi-automated" tools and screws up my user interface will not be tolerated. such blatant abuse and disregard for me will end in bad results for whom ever decides to be that disrespectful to me Maybe we should give him a barnstar for this latest effort?--Crossmr (talk) 12:39, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

How is blocking someone who hasn't edited for seven hours preventing disruption, or in anyway inline with the blocking policy? If he had been blocked while running the script then that is understandable, but numerous hours after the fact? ~ AmeIiorate _{U T C} @ 11:11, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

What would you have us do? How do you propose we get him to stop running faulty scripts? Haukur (talk) 11:13, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

THIS GUY IS A MENACE. How many ANI complaints does it take for somebody to listen? The only reason why people tolerate him because he seems to have some intent on improving whatever he thinks it is but rarely does so correctly. If it was anybody else he would have been blocked indefinately for his continuous screw ups which cause major disturbances. It doesn't matter whether he makes these edits days apart, he is still wreaking havoc and should undeniably be stopped from doing so unless he can do things correctly. He nevers follows the correct procedure and never shows any regard to the concerns of others The Bald One ^{White cat} 11:26, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Please be civil. He didnt hurt you, and you havent done any of the cleanup at this time, so there is no need for you to act as if you were personally assaulted. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 11:48, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I concur with John here.  Sandstein  12:02, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Blofeld might be referring to the line in the article about Hanlon's razor which states that someone who is both industrious and stupid is a menace and must be removed. That might be overstating things... but when someone continually does something stupid that he's been asked many times not to do, it's fair game for such criticism. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:25, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I believe this was a bug in an old version of AWB. We've seen in the past that he uses custom AWB builds. --NE2 21:30, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Block review

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

Block endorsed by numerous users. No consensus to unblock. D.M.N. (talk) 15:48, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Extended content

Betacommand (talk · contribs) has posted the following request on his user talk page: "Please unblock as you have clearly violated WP:BLOCK, I dont have time at the moment for a long discussion. but these tools where not automated. also please actually read the discussion as it did not contain anything about semi auto work. βcommand 11:19, 28 August 2008 (UTC)". I disagree. His recent edits, whether or not they were in fact automated, certainly appeared to be automated by their volume and uniformity, and are therefore subject to the community sanction cited above. I don't see a distinction between "semi-automated" and "automated" edits being made in that sanction. Either are automated and thus prohibited because of Betacommand's apparent propensity to screw them up. However, I welcome a review of my block.  Sandstein  11:28, 28 August 2008 (UTC) I think he would find a more sympathetic audience if these had been good edits. They clearly weren't - and he hasn't even indicated that he will address the issues. Haukur (talk) 11:32, 28 August 2008 (UTC) Thats exactly what I find concerning is the lack of willingness to admit his errors and discuss problems with concerned editors as I;ve just said to him The Bald One White cat 11:38, 28 August 2008 (UTC) Then ask him to address the issue. From what I have seen of BC's history, instead of asking him not to make bulk edits that cause problems, every time he makes a mistake ANI threads ensue, calls for blocking are rampant and the Beta-supporters/opposers have a slanging match that should have Template:Round In Circles on it by default. The result is that even when Beta tried to discuss the issues, he's normally walking in on a discussion that has gone on for hours without him and the community has already made up their own minds about how we will edit his monobook and block his bots. He shouldn't have made a load of edits like that when there was already a discussion ongoing (especially since they were mistakes) but if blocking him hasn't worked in the past (hence this discussion) then why will it work now? ~ AmeIiorate U T C @ 11:47, 28 August 2008 (UTC) The problem is he has been told to address issues and to make sure his edits are actually constructive. Although discussions about this issue tend to be pretty nasty, it's not through lack of attempts to resolve it. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 11:54, 28 August 2008 (UTC) Look at how this specific incident was handled; Beta made (semi)automated edits, they caused damage, an ANI thread spawned and Beta was blocked - without even being given the chance the defend himself. And then we are all surprised when he responded to the action so negatively. ~ AmeIiorate U T C @ 12:12, 28 August 2008 (UTC) No one controls him. Stop excusing his behaviour. He chose how to respond to this. NO ONE HELD A GUN TO HIS HEAD. He's had the chance to defend himself. In the latest community discussion he threated war over any admins applying sanctions he didn't personally approve.--Crossmr (talk) 12:34, 28 August 2008 (UTC) Endorse. As someone who was in fact sympathetic as Haukur has pointed out, I agree with the block. He should have waited until the community was finished discussing this. He needs to take the time to be thorough before clicking the accept button on any tool (whether that be a semi-auto tool or not is besides the point, multiple mistakes being made are the real issue here). Synergy 11:40, 28 August 2008 (UTC) Also, to be more specific, there were also concerns raised about any large amounts of edits that appear to be automated and not just rapid edits that are automated. At this point I feel it makes no difference to stipulate how he made the edits. Hes just not getting the message here that these fast paced changes are the subject of debate; are reviewed by multiple editors; are (almost) always being fixed directly after, and are unacceptable by the community. Synergy 12:02, 28 August 2008 (UTC) Endorse per above. ViridaeTalk 11:46, 28 August 2008 (UTC) Endorse as I have said above, and also on BC's talk page. John Vandenberg (chat) 11:48, 28 August 2008 (UTC) Endorse - D.M.N. (talk) 11:55, 28 August 2008 (UTC) Endorse - As a self-proclaimed Beta-apologist, this is too much for even me to take. Considering discussion on whether or not he should be restricted from using semi-automated tools is still being discussed, it seems highly unnecessary that he use them at this time. In that he has made further mass errors with such a tool during said discussion, it seems highly unlikely that a consensus for him to keep this privilege will be reached. Quite to the contrary, I believe this will be the turning point for many of Beta's apologists. Jennavecia (Talk) 12:04, 28 August 2008 (UTC) Endorse (although the block was a bit short), if these edits were not automated, then Betacommand clearly doesn't pay enough attention to be editing at all, especially after having been asked many times. Kusma (talk) 12:07, 28 August 2008 (UTC) Endorse Betacommand knows the score. He is not to operate automated tools. Yet he continually seeks to push what he does to the very edge of the boundary between manual and automated editing. Given his threats against any admin who dares to edit his monobook (what reason can there be for retaining automated tools in there that he isn't allowed to use), it is clear that he has no intention of complying willingly with the restrictions, but intends to waste yet more of other peoples' time arguing about whether this action or that action is allowed. Mayalld (talk) 12:36, 28 August 2008 (UTC) Endorse and recommend extension of block. Stifle (talk) 12:48, 28 August 2008 (UTC) Endorse Even if he were not a problematic editor, he would still be blocked for a time until he acknowledged the error and pledged to do something about it in the future. As he's made this same mistake (removing " " or "*" as a category sort key) in automated edits before, and been warned (or blocked) for it, I think one week is the minimum block that should be considered. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 12:51, 28 August 2008 (UTC) Beta has plenty of history to warrant the block (or so consensus seems to indicate) but are you seriously asserting that if it was an editor without a community-imposed sanction against automated edits making those mistakes they would have been blocked? ~ AmeIiorate U T C @ 13:07, 28 August 2008 (UTC) Yea, of course. Betacommand has endured a lot of crap from the community and has done a truckload of good; as a result he has been given a lot of grace. If a newer person repeated the same types of problematic editing straight of the back of a block, after having been told a few times what is wrong with the edits, it is highly likely they would be looking at sanctions like Betacommand is, or they would be facing increasing length blocks for repeatedly wasting our time. I've hoped that he could work with the community to de-escalate the bitterness, but that isnt going to happen when he does edits like these while we are having a hard thinking about the types of tools he should have in his toolbox. As a result, I think he needs a fresh start; he needs to feel like he has to obtain the trust of his peers, just like a new user. I'd prefer he does his as his current nick as most of us will quickly forgive if we see due care being taken. He has many talents, many friends, and understands Wikipedia and the mediawiki software very well. John Vandenberg (chat) 13:39, 28 August 2008 (UTC) If it were someone (like Beta) who had been warned and blocked for similar behaviour numerous times, then sure, but the point I was getting at was "Even if he were not a problematic editor" — I read that as saying that if an editor with no previous blocks or warnings used an assisted-editing tool to make a number edits, then left (sleep, work etc.) and a few hours later someone found they were messing up category sort parameters, they would be blocked — which to me seems punitive, rather than preventative and since when were people blocked for making mistakes? ~ AmeIiorate U T C @ 13:56, 28 August 2008 (UTC) Yes, a first time serious tool (mis)user would probably be blocked, or had that tool taken away, although possibly a level 3 warning might be more appropriate. As this is apparently a private tool, we couldn't take the tool away without taking his computer. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:03, 28 August 2008 (UTC) I'd also add that in Betacommand's case, the majority of his edits are made in batches. Even if he's gone to sleep/work/eat, you can be reasonably certain that when he returns he'll resume using his faulty tool. So in that sense, the block is preventative. And even though Fram left messages for Betacommand while he was apparently away, I personally wouldn't trust Betacommand to stop and take the time to address the situation before resuming his edits. After all, his unblock request stated "I dont have time at the moment for a long discussion." The emphasis clearly is on being able to edit, not explaining what happened with his tool. 68.43.197.22 (talk) 14:49, 28 August 2008 (UTC) Endorse Meh. I have been one of Beta's supporters in the past, especially on fair use, but since I have blocked people in the past for creating work for others after being warned repeatedly, I'd be a hypocrite if I didn't endorse this. Beta, check what you're doing *before* you do it! Black Kite 13:09, 28 August 2008 (UTC) Endorse Looks kosher by both my blocking criteria and Beta's ad hoc committee proposal. MBisanz talk 13:10, 28 August 2008 (UTC) Endorse. Beta was unblocked prematurely last time, and this is the result. He must not be this time. Jonathunder (talk) 13:26, 28 August 2008 (UTC) Endorse, and I continue to advocate purging Beta's .js files to prevent any reoccurance. Neıl ☄ 14:24, 28 August 2008 (UTC) Endorse I find it ironic that BC upbraids an admin for misapplying WP:BLOCK (which they haven't, per BLOCK#Purpose and goal - point 1) when they are seemingly incapable of writing script that is bug free. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:37, 28 August 2008 (UTC) Endorse, and further endorse Neil's suggestion to purge his monobook. These regular appearances at ANI are getting really tedious, and the behaviour I'm seeing, as an uninvolved outsider who's never interacted with Betacommand, is that of someone who just doesn't get it. Where automated edits have been shown to be problematic, a clueful editor would voluntarily avoid making similar edits... as opposed to finding ways to wikilawyer their way around the spirit of the law while sticking to the letter. Enforcement would seem to be the only remaining option. EyeSerenetalk 14:48, 28 August 2008 (UTC) Endorse (note: non-admin) and reccommend adoption of manual editing proposal. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 15:00, 28 August 2008 (UTC) Endorse without support for the block length (I don't want the next person to think they have to inch up to 48 hours because the last one was for 24), and I also endorse the manual editing proposal. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 15:34, 28 August 2008 (UTC) Endorse and also scratch my head at Betacommand's inability to recognize that he's digging his own hole. At the same time, I also strongly recommend closing this thread before it turns into the usual "let's ban BC" vs "let's not". Pascal.Tesson (talk) 15:39, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A suggestion to mitigate problems in future

Having following this and the previous case on the fringe, it seems that the problem is 1) the community decision on Beta's editing behavior is not 100% clear on the use of assisted scripts and 2) Beta's (AGF) manual scripts appear to run untested or unchecked on a large # of articles before a problem is found. Given that, for the first, there's no bright line between manual, semi-automated, and fully-automated, we need a solution that takes this arbitrariness into account.

Thus, might I suggest that we request (not demand or require) that Beta (and a similar remedy for anyone in the future) propose at some fixed page what manually-assisted script/semi-automated tool he plans to use and its purpose, and to test it on a small number of pages, linking to those pages. If, within 24/48 hrs, no one has objected to its use, Beta's free to go ahead, realizing that if the edits appear to be wrong, he needs to stop use immediately and readdress the problems, then rerequest use of that script/tool on this page. If the request is denied to start, then he shouldn't run that script/tool at all. Failure to check first or stop when requested should then be blocked as per the community solution. --MASEM 13:41, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

• I think the only way to mitigate problems in the future is to permanently ban Betacommand from the project. There are people here who will absolutely never give up until he is gone. Worse, they are exceptionally vocal and strident in their insistence he be blocked. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:49, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

• That looks like a failure to WP:AGF on your part. It seems to imply that there is some kind of stalking of Betacommand by those who are looking for any excuse, no matter how tenuous, to ban him. I just don't see that. Certainly there are several people who have a bee in their bonnet about this, having seen him being given a quite breathtaking number of chances to reform, but I don't see a vendetta. As somebody who has rarely if ever weighed in on this, but who has come to see his position as increasingly untenable, it is my belief that he needs to understand that he is not only drinking in the last chance saloon, but he is sitting by the exit. It seems perfectly clear to me that we should welcome his constructive edits, but that he has repeatedly shown a cavalier lack of discipline in turning loose poor quality automated code on the live site, and an unacceptable degree of hostility to those who take issue with his maverick coding. He must refrain from doing those things that he has time and again proved to lack the required skill for, and if he refuses to abide by that restriction, he must ultimately cease contributing entirely. Mayalld (talk) 14:15, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

• WP:AGF doesn't assume that we should forever more assume people have the best of intentions, despite blatant evidence otherwise. There are definitely people stalking Betacommand, and would be happiest if he were banned. The quality of his contributions are of subjective measurement. Some have found them highly, highly helpful and his services have been specifically requested. Others see that work and scream high holy that he's the anti-christ. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:53, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

• That's right we don't. Which means that also goes both ways. BC has burned even the remotest hint of good faith he has left with his continued testing of the communities patience. The people calling for anything short of a ban should remember that. Someone acting in good faith wouldn't threaten administrators against potential sanctions.--Crossmr (talk) 16:10, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

• Yes and no. There undoubtedly has been stalking and harassment of Beta in the past, especially (unsurprisingly) related to his fair-use work, but in those cases Beta almost always had policy on his side. This is somewhat different, and I don't see the previous "usual suspects" in the discussions above. Black Kite 15:38, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Ugh, just indef him already. He clearly is never going to learn. Jtrainor (talk) 16:11, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Interpretation of the "threat"

I read "Any admin who attempts to edit my monobook in an attempt to remove "simi-automated" tools and screws up my user interface will not be tolerated." differently than others: He has a lot of stuff there besides tools - I just previewed his monobook.js, and it's understandable he'd be pissed to lose _all_ of that because someone just blanked it. --Random832 (contribs) 16:24, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Let's not forget to quote the second part shall we? such blatant abuse and disregard for me will end in bad results for whom ever decides to be that disrespectful to me it is a threat plain and simple. For whatever reason he thought it was appropriate, it isn't appropriate for wikipedia. Any admin would happily provide him a backup copy for when he'd be permitted to use it again. Regardless, this was his first response to an item being discussed as possible sanction, it hadn't even been agreed upon at that point. It only furthers the evidence of his behaviour and inappropriateness for this community. The community is discussing sanctioning him and its not up to him to dictate how that sanction will go. He can either like or leave.--Crossmr (talk) 16:28, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

For reference, here's Betacommand's current account status:

1. BetacommandBot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Bot account, indef blocked in June 2008 to enforce sanction against running bots.
2. Quercus basaseachicensis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Sockpuppet account, indef blocked in May 2008.
3. Betacommand (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Main account, currently blocked for 24 hours. Extensive block history.
4. Betacommand2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Alternate account, not currently blocked, not used since June 2008. Previously blocked for misuse of alternate accounts.

--John Nagle (talk) 18:14, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

• I recommend upping the block (likely expired, I didn't even look) to indef for the threat to the community. Until that is explained or retracted, he should be treated same as the nutters who say 'we'll sue you if you don't let our myspace bands article stay'. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 19:44, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

• Severe over reaction. If someone came into your userspace and obliterated something you'd worked hard on, you'd be quite upset too, and I'm sure it would turn out badly. He didn't threaten to kill or sue anyone. Enough already. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:55, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

It's not *his* userspace and we delete things people worked hard on day in and day out. We expect new editors to understand that this is so, so Betacommand should have no problem with the concepts. I've blanked User:Betacommand/monobook.js and protected it. There are a million and one things can be done to help the project that don't need any special tools. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:18, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Eek... while I can't deny that I've considered doing this, I certainly wouldn't have, and were I not worried that it may be considered wheel-warring, I'd probably revert that. You'll find (as you surely knew, if you'd read the relevant discussions) that you'll have a lot of opposition to this... _TalkIslander 21:20, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

It's only for an hour or two. One of the wiki BFFs of Betacommand will undo it anyway. I'll be nothing short of amazed if it's still blanked and protected when I get up tomorrow. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:24, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

If there's anything there crucial to Beta's user interface, he can quite easily explain it and ask an admin to restore it, can he not? Franamax (talk) 21:26, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, maybe someone better at javascript, could look it over, and restore the more harmless things. I can't read the stuff at all, but, do we even know if that was used to do the edits in question? If not, what's the point of blanking this, now? SQL^{Query me!} 21:52, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Completely blanking it does seem rather excessive. While I don't have time to review all of it, quite a lot appear to be user-interface things and not tools. Mr.Z-man 22:09, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Off with his head!Because I wouldn't know what was semi-automated wizardry and what was useless chrome. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:09, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Latest set of edits were likely AWB or pywiki, not javascript. If you "wouldn't know", why did you take the step of blanking the monobook? Gimmetrow 22:16, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

That was my thoughts too (not regarding messing with things you don't understand, but, about it most likely being pywiki or AWB). SQL^{Query me!} 23:01, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

He's still blocked, no? It hasn't been discussed yet. Give it some time. No reason to blank his monobook in this manner. Jennavecia ^(Talk) 22:17, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

One thing, though. I guess now we will know how Betacommand reacts to having his monobook blanked. He was quite explicit about how he would feel about it being edited selectively to remove simi-automated tools. I'm not sure if blanking it entirely counts, but I think a lot of people will be watching Betacommand's reaction very closely. If this is what is required to get the message across to him, then maybe this is what is required. Carcharoth (talk) 22:26, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I can read it all pretty well. A lot of it is admin stuff he won't be using, some of it is identifiably used to make "automatic" edits within the edit box (and automatically save sometimes), a whole bunch of other scripts are loaded too. I could chop it apart pretty well, but I won't bother while it's up in the air. The best approach would be for Beta to identify what he needs. Gimmetrow, I think Angus is working on the precautionary principle - it is certainly possible to edit with a blank monobook. Franamax (talk) 22:31, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, franamax, that stuff's greek to me. SQL^{Query me!} 22:58, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

It is also possible to use every tool that was just removed with an empty monobook. Blanking it will serve no purpose other than to antagonise Beta, which I am sure Angusmclellan knew when he did it. ~ AmeIiorate _{U T C} @ 22:42, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Rather than throw around more assumptions of bad faith, lets look at it another way. If it's still possible to use all those tools, Beta has nothing to be mad about, does he? Franamax (talk) 22:55, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Other than that he has to take a needless few minutes to paste the code into Greasemonkey. Much the same as how Angus has now removed Beta from AWB's checklist. If this isn't going to accomplish the goal of preventing the use of the tools then what other possible reason is there to do it? ~ AmeIiorate _{U T C} @ 23:11, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

(undent) I really doubt that Beta needs the help of any external tools at all to accomplish whatever he wants. He knows how to write code. The point here though is that previous discussions didn't completely address the "semi-automatic" issue, people looked at the spirit perceived in the wording of the sanctions and were satisfied. The skirting around what "automatic" means caught people by surprise and it was pointed out that certain tools and scripts hadn't been removed. Community sentiment has now visibly hardened to obey all the formalities to be sure the spirit of the message sinks in. Heck, if Jennavecia is saying "manual edits only", sentiment is shifting, for sure (pace Lara if I'm misquoting). The putative three-person committee is a rescue squad, there really seems no doubt about it anymore. Franamax (talk) 23:41, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

• And on and on the witch hunt goes. Now Beta's monobook is wiped out without so much as a by your leave. Good grief this is insane. It's time for ArbCom to step in again just to stop the insanity. Will it never end until he's blocked permanently?????????????????????????????? --Hammersoft (talk) 23:59, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Unless he changes, I hope not. 68.43.197.22 (talk) 00:30, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
  • A witch hunt? You know many of us are asking the same thing "Will it never end?" As in will he never smarten up and stop acting the way he is. It ends when he stops acting the way he does. With no regard for the community. He's been given far more chances than any other problem user that I'm aware of. If he'd abide by the community sanctions there would be no need to further sanction him. after time he'd gain the trust back and could have his tools again. He seems incapable of doing that.--Crossmr (talk) 00:34, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
• FYI I've restored his monobook.js page. Blanking that page accomplished nothing. If he makes edits that led to his previous block, reblock him. The scripts within Beta's monobook.js page are (for the most part) explained on the page itself; most do nothing more than add tabs, personalized toolboxes, and general site navigation/editing aids. If any of them are used for automated edits, again, reblock him. - auburnpilot talk 01:21, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
  • If any of them are used for automated edits, again, reblock him. Didn't someone say this the last time? Has anything changed that would make you think it'll be any different? Do you all really like firing up the ole Drama-Go-Round this often? I have an idea what the answer to this problem is, and "more of the same" isn't it. --Kbdank71 15:56, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

It turns out the meat of his threat would be to file an arbcom case against the admin, which I'm sure would have had Angus quaking in his boots. ;) He's clearly off to sleep, and he'll rise to see that his prediction about not awaking amazed came true. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 01:34, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Yet another proposal

OK, in light of recent developments, I'll propose this as an interim solution:

• "For the next 30 days, or until an oversight arrangement acceptable to the community is established (whichever comes first), Betacommand is prohibited from making any automated, semi-automated or script-assisted edits beyond those available to any editor using the standard gadgets available to any editor using the MediaWiki "monobook" interface. This restriction is in addition to, and subject to the same penalties as, the community restrictions as described at [blah, blah - bottom of the arb page]. Assessment of violations of this prohibition will depend on the judgement of the administrator evaluating each occurence."

Can we agree on this for the meantime, until the "committee" decides how it wants to go forward? This is just a stop-gap to cool things down. (Also, I kind of lost it on the last sentence, not sure how to word that). Franamax (talk) 02:20, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support fair, reasonable, no loopholes. Assuming the "administrator evaluating each occurence" must be uninvolved (or as uninvolved as one can be, given Beta's history). ~ AmeIiorate _{U T C} @ 02:35, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm not that worried about the admins actually. I really haven't been able to identify an "anti-Beta" admin. Perhaps some pro-Beta admins could help out there. Franamax (talk) 03:00, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
• Support If indefinite until consensus overturns it. See Wikipedia:No vested contributors. Enough's enough--didn't we just do this? If any fanboys try to stop this just send it to RFAR. And block anyone who unblocks against the above consensus. Sorry, Beta. Just edit like a normal person and every other person does so this doesn't keep happening. rootology (T) 02:49, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose The fact that we have 2 simultaneous proposals going on Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents/I_have_blocked_Betacommand#Ad_hoc_committee_proposal shows the disarray of this discussion. There is no reason such a proposal should have a hard time limit, and there needs to be far more addressed here and in far greater detail.--Crossmr (talk) 02:55, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Actually, the 20 minute crossover in proposals is of no serious concern, it's a watchlist issue if anything. I'm asking for an interim sanction here, which would hopefully be agreed on quickly, explicitly to allow the betacommittee to do their work in peace. Franamax (talk) 03:05, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
    • As an interim sanction a hard time limit doesn't work. If it takes the "special committee" more than 30 days to solve it, or it has to go to arbcom, this will expire. No interim sanction should be expiring before the solution is reached.--Crossmr (talk) 03:13, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
• Comment Let's not try to achieve too much here. This is an interim proposal, so let's look at the next 30 days or until something better is achieved elsewhere. If everyone can agree to this, we have 30 days of peace where we can focus our efforts elsewhere - the longer-term solution rather than what Beta did last hour. This interim sanction is cut-and-dried, no wiggle room. (Although it unfortunately coincides with the working-group proposals.) Franamax (talk) 03:29, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
• What defines a "standard gadget?" Mr.Z-man 12:57, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I presume the OP meant any gadget listed under the "Gadget" tab of Special:Preferences that can be enabled. --MASEM 18:11, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Yet another another proposal

The proposals keep falling on their face for a variety of reasons. Even if we somehow agree on one, it will fail. Let's face it, there's a vocal group of people who want Betacommand blocked permanently. This won't end until that group is silenced in some way or Betacommand is permanently blocked. The only way I see this happening is taking this back to ArbCom for strict delineation on what Betacommand can and can not do, along with a stern warning to editors who seek to have Betacommand blocked or vociferously complain about something he is allowed to do.

All the running around that the admins are doing, with blocking/unblocking over the last few months, plus wiping out files of his and broadly vs. tightly interpreting prior decisions is nothing more than running in circles and solving nothing. Both sides have their points. Neither side is right or wrong.

What IS wrong is the ongoing abuse that is being heaped upon Betacommand over this situation. I don't particularly care if you're sympathetic to Betacommand. But, understand that the extreme majority of editors under this sort of stress would have snapped long ago. It is not fair, regardless of what he's done in the past, to keep doing this to him.

Has there even been a day in the last month that a thread about Betacommand has not been active on this noticeboard? Ignoring anything that Betacommand has or has not done, the never ending arguments over him have become their own monster, and are increasingly disruptive on their own. This must end. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:12, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

While I agree that there are those who would just like to see betacommand banned entirely from the site, betacommand consistently gives those folks real reasons to feel that way. He clearly intends to violate the spirit of whatever reasonable 'non-bot use' sanction is come up with. Therefore, an unreasonable one will be required (nothing that appears to be an automated edit, period). I don't like it, but Betacommand has only himself to blame. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 15:26, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Yes, because it is everyone's fault except BetaCommand's. Tell me another one. The way the image cabal stick up for each other is admirable, but it is not grounded in reality. If this were any other editor, they would have been banned a long time ago. Again, I refer you to CarolSpears, who was honestly trying to help the project but ended up being a liability due to a lot of cut & paste copyvios. It became impossible to determine what was her own work and what was plagiarized. As such, she was shown the door. Also, people are just tired of the double standard for people with wikifriends and those who have no wikifriends. --Dragon695 (talk) 15:42, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

• I think you both just proved my point. Thank you. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:00, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

• It's not as if Betacommand's problems showed up after he had been subjected to repeated stress and attacks from other editors. Bad judgment, poor communication, and running unauthorized tools have been a running theme and were in fact among the primary reasons that he was desysopped over a year ago. A 9-0 vote by uninvolved individuals to remove his adminship should have sent a pretty clear message that he needed to shape up. The fact that he's on your side regarding removal of inappropriate non-free images doesn't mean that he walks on water. 141.214.37.42 (talk) 18:06, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

• Bingo! Anon, I do believe you've hit the crux of the problem for some of BC's die hard supporters: they actually approve of his extreme stance against fair-use and actually approve of how he often battles to the bitter end to enforce those views. Nevermind that it almost always ends in maximum drama on both sides, especially when it comes to certain aspects of pop-culture. --Dragon695 (talk) 19:28, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

User:HarryAlffa

User:HarryAlffa is exerting ownership over Solar System, including a number of personal attacks, despite repeated warnings (see User talk:HarryAlffa, and note that he has acknowledged more warnings by removing them). Three other editors (myself, User:Ckatz, and User:Serendipodous) raised these issues in a Wikiquette alert (permanent link), but Harry has continued his pattern of insulting comments. His behavior makes it very difficult for the other editors to make improvements to the article, so I think some administrator intervention is now necessary.

Ashill seems to have copied Ckatz claim of "ownership", where I challenged Ckatz to offer evidence, which was not forth coming.

Please do read the Wikiquette alert (permanent link), where I rebutted. It was closed as stale. -HarryAlffa (talk) 13:18, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Many of his difficult comments are listed in the wikiquette alert, such as accusing Ckatz of lying, saying I "show a lack of cognitive ability," calling Serendipodous "Sod", calling other editors "drunk", and, after I said I'm a scientist, saying "if you really are a scientist, it has to be concluded that you are not a very good one. C'mon, you're a computer technician at an observatory aren't you! Confess all!" He also accused me of operating Ckatz and Serendipodous as sock puppets.

You keep brining up this sock-puppet thing - I was genuinly suspicious, and have long since, and more than once, accepted that this is not supported by evidence. Ashill, you look dishonest when you make it seem like I still advocate this.

I showed that Ckatz was lying!

When I said a comment of yours showed a lack of cognitive ability, are you saying it actually showed the opposite?

Serendipodous's name is to long, and the way he signs it the "pod" is super-scripted, The initial "S" and "od" just fell from my fingertips - oops!

I didn't call anyone drunk. In a critique of Ashill's contribution I used a rhetorical device of asking "Are you drunk?".

Here is the full quote with emphasised text from the quote above;

My initial choice was hail instead of blast, in an earlier edit. For someone who claims to be an ISM scientist, you say "unceasing" is an inaccurate way to describe the solar wind? Are you drunk? The solar wind does occasionally cease? - No. It doesn't. From what you have written then, if you really are a scientist, it has to be concluded that you are not a very good one. I won't even comment on a single word not being a compendium of knowledge. No! Really? Oh! Pardon me, you meant that "unceasing" and "blast" were unsuitable for use in an encyclopaedia? You want to remove these two words from all of wikipedia? No? You didn't mean that either? Are you drunk? A blast from a car-bomb is small potatoes compared to the blast from an atom bomb. It doesn't mean you can only apply it to the latter. A blast from a fire-fighter hose is small potatoes compared to the blast from a ship's steam hose. It doesn't mean you can only apply it to the latter. The volume of the interstellar medium virtually equates to the volume of the galaxy itself. Are you drunk? Of course it's not going to impact much of that volume, nothing will! Yes, the solar wind could kill an astronaut without specific shielding, for example, on the surface of the moon. You don't think it would be the speed of the particles that would do it? Are you drunk? It's a hail of free protons, and electrons! The faster they're travelling the more deeply they'll penetrate matter. So yeah, sure, the speed doesn't matter, yeah, yeah. Sure. C'mon, you're a computer technician at an observatory aren't you! Confess all!

You will have noticed that Ashill also looks dishonest when he used the plural when he siad I called other editors of being drunk. Anyway, what's wrong with being drunk? It's a terrible curse The Drink, ... long may it remain. -HarryAlffa (talk) 13:18, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Today, he said "The version [Ckatz] obliterated was a merging of what I had done on Ice plus what Serendipodus had done on Rock and Gas" (ownership) and "Ckatz and Ashill's rv was emotionally motivated, not logically." "I can only shake my head in pity at Ashill 'not liking the wording' of "intrinsically bound". That was a sentence with beauty and truth. Only a philistine would fail to appreciate it." Lastly, Harry said "I have no need to attach any adjectives to [Serendipodous], appropriate ones will spring to the mind of any intelligent reader. " —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 15:33, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Having examined the article and talk page, it appears to me that all involved parties are intelligent, well-meaning people who have contributed substantially to the article. This may be an ideal case for mediation. Looie496 (talk) 16:13, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I would ask that you also review HarryAlffa'a contribution history. In particular, his edit summaries and talk page contributions illustrate a pattern of behaviour that - while not extreme - is becoming increasingly disruptive . Since resuming editing in mid-2008, he has focused virtually exclusively on adding his particular changes to just one article, Solar System, and has demonstrated an unwillingness to listen to other contributors. --Ckatz^chat_spy 18:57, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Ckatz, if only you had put a little of the effort of critiquing me here and in the now stale wiki alert into the Solar System talk page then ... who knows? But then it wouldn't take much effort to score higher than the near zero you presently score in this department. -HarryAlffa (talk) 13:18, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Note: User:Looie496 has offered informal mediation at Talk:Solar System, to which User:Serendipodous and I have agreed. If User:HarryAlffa also agrees, administrative action would be inappropriate for the time being. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 20:44, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I would be interested to learn where you agreed to this. In wikipedia somewhere? -HarryAlffa (talk) 13:18, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

For the love of god, please help

See also: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Dbachmann

I've run out of patience here. Big-dynamo (talk · contribs) is relentlessly trolling Talk:Ancient Egyptian race controversy, after I reverted his rewrite of a sourced lede to a totally unsourced version. So far as I can make out he's trying to say that we should totally change the scope of the article, when consensus is quite clear that the current scope (and content) is not only acceptable but also desirable. He's already had a 48h page ban page, along with a long history of disruption in this topic-area. And now I see he's turned his userpage into a POV fork of the article in question. Can someone enforce the article probation, but this time to the tune of something like six months. I am bashing my head against a brick wall trying to argue rationally with this Afrocentrist. Help? Moreschi (talk) 20:04, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

• I think that is long overdue, looking at it. Ice Cold Beer has issued a notice to that effect, and frankly I think we should consider blocking if he doesn't drop it. Relentless civil POV-pushing is simply not acceptable, it causes good editors to burn out and undermines the ability to assume good faith. Guy (Help!) 20:42, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
  • (ec) Banned for six months by me. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 20:43, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
    • Thank God. Infinite thanks to both of you. Moreschi (talk) 20:52, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Let's get to the point. The article Talk:Ancient Egyptian race controversy is about the minority openly challenging the concensus view of the majority as being motivated by racism. Sure, wikipedia has a policy of pushing the consensus, but if the consensus is the topic of the debate then how can you be objective and push the consensus? And when you talk of issues involving race in America and controversies related to such, it would behoove people to use common sense. If the minority is (and has been) openly challenging the consensus and authority of the majority over an issue, should you minimize the minority view? Do you push the view that the consensus should be accepted? Sure that may work with other types of controversies, but in this particular case, it should be obvious that caution should be exercised.

On that note, my latest comments on the newly revised article have been consistent, which is that Moreschi and other admins on the topic are not interested in being objective. They openly hold the ideas of the minoritities in contempt and have openly slandered such views as being inferior or not worthy of debate, ie. as WP:FRINGE or WP:UNDUE on the talk pages. They have openly shown scorn against African scholars and African Universities and they openly announce their support for the "consensus", while at the same time claiming to be objective in a controversy surrounding the consensus. It can almost be viewed as saying minorities have no right to challenge the views of the majority. Now we can pretend that this topic is purely abstract and theoretical, but the fact is that minorities in America have been openly challenging the views of the majority for a very long time. And we know that the majority has been "supporting the consensus" on many racist views in many ways for a long time as well. Therefore, we need not kid ourselves about the nature of the controversy. This is why I have written my comments on the talk page concerning the POV of the admins. Moreschi may not like the fact I challenged his "authority", but that is precisely what the controversy is about and why he should refrain from trying to enforce "consensus" as being the correct view as if that is objective.

I am not claiming that one has to agree with what I say on the topic. But I am saying that Moreschi is abusing his authority as an admin to promote a biased view of a controversial subject and that this ban is an unwarranted use of administrative privilege to enforce consensus on a controversial topic.

As for the copy of the article on my talk page, I put it there so I could edit it without disturbing the main article. I never intended to make tenditious edits and if I did it was unintentional. I only made one series of edits to the actual article and that was to remove the overt "support of the consensus view" that appeared right at the beginning, which again reinforces the idea that the article is not intended to be objective, but is biased against the views of the minority and can actually be construed by some as being against the views of minorities. Bottom line, if one cannot stand the heat they should get out the kitchen and if you don't have a clue about why race and power in America as always having been a controversial issue, then you shouldn't be an administrator for such articles.Big-dynamo (talk) 03:08, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

We follow the sources, by which we mean the acknowledged references. If there are minority viewpoints which are disallowed by the orthodox authorities then that is a matter to bring up with those authorities. WP does not have the expertise (nor the remit) to challenge the orthodoxies on which it bases its references and sources. Your argument is with the communities upon which WP relies for its sourcing, and not the project community. Lastly, to the lasting good to WP, this project allows - with due weight - viewpoints articulated by minorities which are not encyclopedically represented elsewhere (until recently, anyway). I suggest you direct your energies to where they might result in the changes you desire. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:22, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

• Big-dynamo, if you really think your case is helped by trying another counter at the Wikipedia Forum Shop then I think you may well be sadly mistaken. Guy (Help!) 17:21, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I suggest a community ban of Big-dynamo might be in order? --BenBurch (talk) 17:26, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I left a note on his talk; if he can't bring himself to leave this alone then we might have to forcibly assist him, but let's see how he reacts tot that note. Guy (Help!) 18:01, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism cum legal threat

Resolved

 - Vandal has got his cum uppance._Gb^T/c 07:43, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Both vandalism and legal threat? Special:Contributions/99.249.172.137. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 20:22, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Not really a legal threat (describing something as libellous isn't a legal threat, nor is saying that someone has been warned by the police). Unhelpful, and clearly sockpupetry, so rolled back and blocked. _Gb^T/c 20:26, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Now he's saying he's going to contact the "Wikipedia police", whoever they are. Corvus cornix_talk 22:11, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

! will contact policethat sounds like a legal threat from a few days ago..--Crossmr (talk) 01:18, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll play good cop, who wants to be bad cop? Wildthing61476 (talk) 00:10, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Hell, I came here expecting porn.

How was I supposed to know 'cum' was a real word...? HalfShadow 00:22, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Any truth to the claims that there's police involvement? If so, in addition to the block, the IP should be instructed to contact them again, and ask them to contact Godwin for more help, this may be a real case of needing an OTRS ticket and off-wiki (or behind-wiki) resolution. ThuranX (talk) 00:39, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

No - have a read of the talk page and a bit of the background on the pages that he's attacking and you'll see that there are already numerous OTRS tickets about this. _Gb^T/c 07:43, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Cum is a real word, but with several meanings, and the meaning used in the heading of this section has naught to do with porn. Wiktionary explains it better than I could, but the heading is using cum as a preposition, and means Vandalism that has changed into a legal threat. ϢereSpielChequers 00:49, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I know that... Sheesh... HalfShadow 04:33, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

cum = Latin for "with". – ukexpat (talk) 15:12, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Royce Mathew (Pirates of the Caribbean)

Hello!

Just recently, there was an issue with User:Disneysuit ([105]), who was permanently blocked, because he kept posting one-sided arguments on his view of an "ongoing" lawsuit between himself and Disney on the Pirates of the Caribbean page, in addition to posting personal attacks against other users (myself being an example). We have asked him not to further do this and once again, he has posted the same information online using an IP address: [106] - his edits on the Jerry Bruckheimer page have also been reverted.

I'm not entirely sure as to what to do at this point, but he does not seem to want to comply with Wikipedia Rules which have so often been brought up in his situation. I thought it best to bring this up to you, the administrators, who would know what is best.

Thank you for your time! BlackPearl14^{Pirate Lord-ess of the Caribbean} 21:48, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

To clarify:

It is suspected that this user has used one or more accounts abusively. The abuse of multiple accounts is prohibited; using new accounts to evade blocks or bans results in the block or ban being extended. (Account information: block log • suspected sockpuppets • confirmed socks)

Sock puppet report

The talk page of this indefinitely blocked user was deleted. However, I thought it might be wise to link to a suspected sock puppet report regarding edits made from IP addresses that appear to be the same person evading the block. The report contains a concise summary of the situation, including a description of what led to the original block. —Whoville (talk) 13:10, 2 September 2008 (UTC) was blocked indefinitely for making legal threats after repeatedly inserting biased, COI edits regarding his complaint against Disney. He showed no willingness to accept Wikipedia's policies and the consensus of other editors. —Whoville (talk) 22:21, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Last edit an hour ago, likely the IP dynamic and nothing needs to be done. Cheers. lifebaka++ 23:10, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Someone who I can only assume is the same person is currently arguing to get an article on Wikinews. Let's just say it's not looking likely. Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 01:45, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

It's worth noting that Royce Mathew says I had no choice but to dismiss my lawsuit on his website so there's little value in adding information about it to Wikipedia. He appears determined to "prove" his case outside a courtroom. —Whoville (talk) 10:48, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Ed Fitzgerald revert-warring over non-free images

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 [107] and [108]). 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)

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)

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)

Repeated copyright violations by Dowhatyoudo

Resolved

 - Blocked all images deleted per some variant of WP:DUCK

New editor Dowhatyoudo (talk · contribs) uploaded a number of copyrighted images, which have been speedily deleted, but now he is uploading them again. He was warned on his talk page about each violation. He states variously that they are his images (not true) or that he has permission to upload them (probably not true). Is a block in order? Thanks. --Uncia (talk) 01:55, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, it is. Also appears to be probable sockpuppet. Black Kite 02:08, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I managed to find ABQSNOW.jpg (MD5: a1530a62faad084bef22ba0806b53423) over on Flickr. The remaining images all need to be examined.   — C M B J   03:41, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
    • I've deleted them all. The combination of the one found on Flickr and the fact that the EXIF data showed wildly different cameras and dates suggests to me that they're all stolen. Black Kite 10:02, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

This Page's layout...

what's going on with this page's layout? the borders seem to be vanished. every other page lays out fine though... ThuranX (talk) 03:15, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Are you using Firefox? The same thing happens to me. Not on just AN, but many really big pages, like the AfD archives. I'm not a programmer, so I'd have no idea how to fix that. Paragon¹²³²¹ 03:21, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

This has been going on with a few of the longer pages. I have no idea what's up, but WP:VPT is a better place to get answers. Cheers. lifebaka++ 03:22, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Could be the case. Thanks, I am on Firefox... but I'd hope that 3.0 would be more robust about such things. ThuranX (talk) 03:23, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

How would Firefox fix malformed code? --mboverload@ 05:55, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

New Firefox has screwed a lot of shit up. Pardon my French. JuJube (talk) 06:29, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, the Firefox upgrade changed mine; I think the borders only last for a default length, effecting cells and other stuff. It will be fixed in due course, I suspect. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:46, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Charnock

So this may be a false concern, but on Job Charnock I'm seeing some pretty drastic edits by a user at such a ferocious pace that I can't keep up without violating WP:3RR. My attempts to communicate with the user (User talk:59.93.178.151) have been absolutely useless so far, and my original attempt to communicate stemmed from the fact that he was removing what was the second paragraph in the Life section, which seemed to not be controversial, and which was well cited. I don't have much knowledge about the article subject however, and I'd just appreciate it if someone could take a look for themselves to make sure the user isn't either only making appropriate edits to the article or only vandalizing the article, because if the former is the case I can stop heckling the user, and if the latter is the case, I, or someone else, can revert the user.--danielfolsom 06:39, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

The IP seems to be making edits identical to others made by Devarshiroychoudhury (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who has not yet been blocked but has been warned about vandalizing the article and once created an article called "Forget Job Charnock". The IP is likely to be the same user trying to avoid impending sanctions. I think the best thing would be to semiprotect the article and revert to the last good version. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 06:49, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I almost forgot to say that the autoconfirmed account should probably be blocked for disruptive sockpuppetry. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 06:54, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I have semi-protected the article, and blocked Devarshiroychoudhury (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) until there is a commitment to discuss changes. Kevin (talk) 07:08, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Well done, Kevin. Now someone who knows India should have a look at both accounts' other edits, for instance, I note that Sabarna Roy Choudhury Paribar Parishad has been created and deleted five times, yet the autoconfirmed account has created an article called Sabarna Roy Choudhry Paribar Parishad that still exists (note Choudhury≠Choudhry). I suggest deleting and salting both titles. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 07:14, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Rangeblock required

• Carrington family and Carrington, North Dakota is seeing persistent vandalism from a certain range of IPs. 58.178.149.68 (talk · contribs) is the latest one. JuJube (talk) 08:00, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

9 edits in the past 10 days on Carrington family and nothing since the 15th on Carrington, North Dakota. I dunno... WP:RBI seems like the best idea. Range-block could have negative consequences and the disruption here seems low-key. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 08:08, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I've semi protected Carrington family for a week. Maybe that will be enough for them to get bored and move on. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 08:09, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Sarah Palin: Wikipedia needs to be fair and immediate administrative moderator attention given to this

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 oder 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)

Wikipedia needs to be fair

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 no wikilawyering

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)

Lift page protection on Todd Palin

Resolved

 - Article has been unprotected and a draft copy moved in to its place. Shereth 20:30, 29 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[109] 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 ([110]) 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)

It didn't take long...

...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)

Caspian blue

• Note, the Plala anon, 125.204.38.32 (talk · contribs) who made this report is blocked for his harassment by admin, Fut.Perf.--Caspian blue (talk) 15:43, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
  • How long is everyone going to have to put up with Caspian blue (talk · contribs)'s modus operandi on Korean-Japanese pages, the noise, the waste of others energy, the admin distraction?
  • How long is it going to take for enough admins to wake up to what he does time and time again?

I am going to quote what some other editor wrote, that Caspian blue contrives as a "personal attack". Having watched and experienced him, I can state this is not an attack. It is a fair, observant and objective summary.

" 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 ... 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 ... Without a strategy to avert [such] a kind of failure ... [contributing] quickly becomes worse than a waste of time. by Tenmei (talk · contribs)

”

Yeah, Because of that personal attacking comment by Tenmei (talk · contribs), he has been reported by me at WP:ANI, and you're using it.--Caspian blue (talk) 15:43, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Caspian blue is nothing more than an immature Korean nationalist, albeit one that has run to Mummy America for security and comfort, that is using the Wikipedia to satisfy his delight in goading and then crushing others (primarily who he perceives as Japanese) through a variety of manipulations, admin sneaking and repeated jockeying. How long is he going to be permitted to keep finding new admins to use, persisting in his strategies, perverting discussion and development ... and ultimately damaging the spirit of the Wikipedia?

Surely enough of you have been watching this for long enough to see this; the false summaries, avoided discussion, the pages of complaints, the contrived lobbying and informal use of admins such as checkusers to gain information about and obstruct others. --125.204.38.32 (talk) 14:26, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Not one diff showing any actual wrongdoing. Do you seriously expect admins to take action on the above? Theresa Knott | The otter sank 14:33, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Caspian Blue has filed so many checkuser requests against abusive sockpuppetry on Japan-Korean article disputes that it would be easy to assume they are abusive. Funny thing is, they almost all turn up positive. Thatcher 14:36, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

And this anon is of course again from the same Japanese IP range as all the previous harassment socks. Damn it, C.B. can indeed be a pain in the ass at times, but this harassment campaign needs to stop before anything can be done about him. (Blocked the IP, by the way. Business as usual.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:39, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

How amusing that you're taking advantage of the person's comment who are making personal attacks against me at AFD for Joseon tongsinsa, and so has been reported by me. When I ever come to ANI for some matters, Lucy always has tried to turn the topic to me with false/racist/personal attacks. --Caspian blue (talk) 14:53, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Caspian blue is one of the best editors we have. What are you talking about? The Bald One ^{White cat} 15:37, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Request for checkuser on the sock

125.204.38.32, Japanese Plala anon, is it a courtesy to notify me first after filing this? Well, Thatcher, I think th user is highly likely Lucyintheskywithdada (talk · contribs) per the same poor attempts to make false accusations against me and same writing habit. Modus Operandi is one of her favorite phrases that Lucyintheskywithdada used to use. Please do CU on the accuser. If the user is really the indef.blocked user, banning the user infinitely is really necessary per the repeated harassment against me (bogus 3RR file, bogus meatpuppetry file, bogus ANI files, personal/racist attacks countless times). Thanks.--Caspian blue (talk) 14:42, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Very likely Lucy, yes, couldn't just think of the name. S/he is already indef-blocked, not much else we can do right now. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:47, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Banning her/him would be necessary, I think. I could not put up with all the same harassment by the user.--Caspian blue (talk) 14:49, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand what you are asking for here. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 14:51, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm asking Thatcher to see if the Japanese anon is Lucy because the checkuser happens to be here. I don't understand why you're asking the question.--Caspian blue (talk) 14:56, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

What I mean is Lucy is already indefinitely blocked, so what action would you want admins to take? Theresa Knott | The otter sank 14:58, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Banning him in English Wikipedia (if he could speak Japanese and not doing the same thing as here, he can contribute to there).--Caspian blue (talk) 15:01, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm still not 100% sure what you are asking. You want us to prevent him from editing any wikimedia project in any language? Theresa Knott | The otter sank 15:05, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Banning and indefinitely blocking a user is different, and given all history of his harassments (you witnessed several cases), I think banning him in English Wikipedia is quite reasonable. I don't know why you keep asking me about the same question.--Caspian blue (talk) 15:08, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Well I kept asking because I did not understand the point you were making. Yes banning is different from blocking, practically speaking a community ban is a block that no admin will lift, and that is certainly the case here. A ban is enforced by blocks. "Banning him" will make no difference in real terms.Theresa Knott | The otter sank 15:15, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I know that the enforcement of banning Lucy is not much different from that of indef.blocking him. However, it is so obvious that the troll still has been wandering in English Wikipedia (highly likely he/she already created socks as always doing so), and so if his abuses are detected in much later future, indef.block can be some excuse when admin enforce some action to him/her. And banning is not reversible unlike blocking. --15:22, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Cluster@#$^

See also: WP:ANI#User:Tenmei's abusing AfD and personal attacks. seicer | talk | contribs 15:26, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Overlinking

Could another admin have a look at the contributions of Jeremy Bolwell (talk · contribs), with regard to overlinking in Welsh village articles please. He has been warned previously about this, and I discussed it with him earlier (as my alter ego), when he agreed to stop. However, he seems to be continuing. I admit my comments to him were possibly a bit bitey, so a second opinion would be useful. —  Tivedshambo  _(t/c) 15:44, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I've left a message on his talk page. Exploding Boy (talk) 16:11, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Kabalu

Resolved

 - Seems to have stopped. Warning sent - Papa November (talk) 16:18, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Kabalu (talk · contribs) Adding statements regarding murdering Sarah Palin.

• First: 11:38, 29 August 2008 "whenn will she be killed?"
• Second: 11:48, 29 August 2008 "kill the bitch g"

Reported by --Elliskev 15:55, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Dan Schneider (writer)

This came up at AIV last night, but after today's reverts, I thought it would be best to bring it here for admin attention. Dan Schneider (writer) is an article about a semi-notable writer, which was created legitimately (no AfD's or quite a while ago. I believe by an admin. However, for the last couple of years, the article seems to have been maintained by a series of SPA's (and possible sockpuppets). Check out the contributions of Cop 666 (talk · contribs), Mitziohara (talk · contribs), Mathemaxi (talk · contribs), Vester99 (talk · contribs), Nightnipper (talk · contribs), Lyledag (talk · contribs), Wallaby Jones (talk · contribs), and Corinthiani (talk · contribs). All of them seem to exist only to edit this writer's article, and also insert his links into other pages.

After this came up at AIV last night, StevenEdmondson (talk · contribs) pared the article down, then was reverted by one of the SPAs above [111] which called the edits vandalism. This happened again [112], which was again called vandalism. Cop 666 did post to the talk page in this time, which seemed to invoke WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.

The page seems to have become a complete vanity page, but with the large number of SPAs editing the page and the possibility of an edit war, I wanted to bring the matter here for the admins. Thanks in advance. Dayewalker (talk) 16:55, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

• If they continue to edit war then they can be treated as one editor per established precedent. We can protect the wrong version, too. Guy (Help!) 17:17, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi, it's good to see the page has been 'capped' so to speak so the information can't go back in. I came to the page after being made aware of the review links he puts under so many film articles. I've removed loads of those, however he is very prolific so it's impossible really for me to get them all. My problems, to outline, with the page was that it was essentially a plug for himself and the sites, and was written by himself, (writing style is very, very obvious, as is volume of what he writes). It was also irrelevant. I think the page is a strong candidate for deletion altogether, but it's not really my place to say, and I have edited it down considerably, but would leave it to an admin, if deemed appropriate, to delete the article. (Just a quick note, I remembered that the article had been nominated for deletion previously- Before it was inflated to a huge length. Therefore it makes sense that the article is kept, as previously decided, but in a smaller, and crucially unbiased form)(StevenEdmondson (talk) 18:19, 29 August 2008 (UTC))

Note: two of the references are dead links. The other is a self-published site featuring one of Schneider's poems. This doesn't establish notability. You can't leave it to an admin to delete the page. It has to be nominated for deletion and left to the community to decide. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 19:19, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Also, it might be a good idea to ask that cosmoetica.com be put on the blacklist. That's Schneider's site that these accounts are spamming all over the project. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 19:52, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh right, I didn't know that. I'll need to look up how nomination for deletion can be done. I agree that cosmoetica.com needs put on the blacklist, however he has used other sites with similar content before, but a blacklist on that page would get rid of the bulk.(StevenEdmondson (talk) 20:15, 29 August 2008 (UTC)).

I deleted quite a number of his links, but remember, blacklisting doesn't automatically remove the links. However the next person who edits the page won't be able to unless they take the link out, too. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 20:24, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm. Some of those accounts are stale, but some are still active. Links to cosmoetica.com are manifestly excessive for the objective significance of it, and one more WP:SPA in evidence as well.

• Rebeccamack (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) edits only Charlie LeDuff (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), which reads as vanity.

I think that the 100+ links to this website likely need pruning. Guy (Help!) 20:50, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm the original author of this article. It appears that the article has been subjected to a lot of edits by SPA in recent months. However, I have now reverted the article to an earlier version, which was both NPOV and filled with a number of reliable sources proving that this subject is notable enough for an article. This is essentially the same version of the article that was subjected to a previous AfD, where the decision was to keep. While I don't agree with the SPA POV pushing, this is a notable subject and a good article.

I also wish to note that I have a long tract record of writing NPOV articles about literary figures who may not be well known to the general public but which meet the Wikipedia notability standards. Just because we don't like the SPA accounts editing this article is no reason to delete said article. --SouthernNights (talk) 21:54, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Would anyone be amazed at the fact that a SPA has already shown up. --Procutus (talk) 22:15, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I hear you. But my concern is with the article, not with the SPAs or the link spam elsewhere on Wikipedia. We shouldn't delete a valid and sourced article because of the actions of editors we disagree with.--SouthernNights (talk) 22:26, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree. The article should not be deleted but it also should not have been expanded to an outrageous length by obvious sockpuppets. Perhaps a reversion to how it was before the tampering would be in order (and thats being generous I think)? I'd also like to point out that the offending editor/s is very likely Schneider himself by the way he writes and takes the whole thing personally. I say very likely- I'm actually certain its him. Tmwns (talk) 01:02, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I have already reverted the article to a version prior to the SPA edits (a version that was stable for a number of years). I also think the article should remain protected until the SPAs lose interest in the article. --SouthernNights (talk) 03:00, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

In the interest of scrupulous accuracy, I will note that the decision at that earlier AFD was "no consensus" which defaults to "keep". --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 07:59, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Lantanabelle

Lantanabelle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is removing content from Territory FM (Clearly vandalim since it's facts from the report and is sourced). I also believe that the user works for Territory FM or Charles Darwin University and could also be the user Territory fm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who also did the very removal yesterday[113]. The comments that make be think that this user is a worker or POV-pusher that that the word Vexatious[114] was used in the responce by the station in the ACMA report[115] and is really pushing the point for not having it in the article which is a nice try of PR work. Bidgee (talk) 18:02, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

The proper venue for this is WP:DRV, though they will most likely tell you to create a draft article in your userspace first, to prove that an article can be made which meets Wikipedia's rules & guidelines. 68.156.149.62 (talk) 18:44, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Erm, 68, it looks like Bidgee has a complaint about content edits by an editor, not the deletion of an article. Could you clarify why Bidgee needs to create a draft? MBisanz ^talk 18:46, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

errr the article hasn't been deleted. Just content removal by a disruptive editor which the content meets the policy and guidelines. Bidgee (talk) 18:48, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Yea, you are in the right place Bidgee, I dont know what 68 is saying, I don't have time to read this over right now, but other admins should review this. MBisanz ^talk 18:49, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I've not much time ATM (After this comment I will be offline and I should have been offline almost 4 hours ago). It's clear that Lantanabelle is using anything they can to try and not have it included however ACMA don't release insufficient investigations. The breach was classed as serious breach[116]. The latest comment is more like a PR spin "This is the point people rush in now with the internet without the appropriate "inteligence" and slap in fast food comentary on subjects they are not qualified to do so. Wikipedia is a wonderful reference tool so why use it to devalue, denegrate and besmurch? This radio station may have recieved a rapp but it must also be doing something right by its listeners to command the audience the site states. At the end of the day what is a broadcasters purpose to cater for its presenters or its listeners?[117]" and as I also said with the edit summary the use of vexatious that was used in the edit summary by the editor was used by the station to responce to ACMA and the word itself isn't used commonly anymore. It's also not the first time a community radio station has removed content about an ACMA investigation and its not going to be the last. I'm not part of any group nor am I trying to be bias. Bidgee (talk) 19:03, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Also found Lantanabelle on Youtube with a Territory FM ad (Video) http://au.youtube.com/user/lantannabelle1041 which proves there is a COI. Bidgee (talk) 19:25, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Assuming good faith, User:Territory fm was asked to change his username; he may have simply registered a new one in an attempt to comply with the rules. Under that assumption, I've blocked the old one. I also blocked this user for the edit-warring; there were reverts after the final warning on his talk page. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:29, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Evasion of block by User:Wikitestor

User:Wikitestor was blocked for 12 hours for violating WP:3RR and was warned at that time not to use anonymous IP accounts to evade the block. Just five hours after the block was instituted and four hours after the don't-evade-the-block warning was issued, he began editing using 81.184.70.220. This IP account clearly is a sockpuppet of Wikitestor given the common articles they have edited, the fact that Wikitestor has previously admitted to using 81.184.71.22, and their editing styles. Tennis expert (talk) 18:36, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

• You can file a report at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets or get some confirmation at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser. Protonk (talk) 19:10, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
• Contacted the admin who originally responded to the AN3 report. Also semiprotected Rafael Nadal, Spain at the 2008 Summer Olympics and Roger Federer for a bit. Checkuser might be useful, here, though looking at the AN3 report I'm not sure if we need it. – Luna Santin (talk) 19:14, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I've reblocked Wikitestor for one week for abuse of multiple accounts. I suggest that we consider semi-protection for all the tennis articles that his IP socks take an interest in. Anyone should feel free to block his IPs, in my opinion, but I'm not sure it will do much good. Checkuser probably not needed. (It is obvious which IPs are his socks). EdJohnston (talk) 19:26, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Also, even if those IPs weren't so obvious, you could always get confirmation at WP:RFCU as Protonk said. ~ Troy (talk) 01:44, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Tendentious editing on Wikipedia:Threats of violence

Resolved

 - no biggy

Edit Bstone (talk · contribs · count) refuses to discuss a suggested page redirect, and continually reverts it. discussion Multiple editors are attempting talk page about his objection, but he won't discuss them. HE would rather edit war. This is disruptive. NonvocalScream (talk) 19:36, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Fully protected page 4 days. I'm sure it's the wrong version. Toddst1 (talk) 19:44, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

That was a bit premature. I won't be reverting his edit. Could you unprotect it? NonvocalScream (talk) 20:05, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Why do you assert it was premature? Toddst1 (talk) 20:27, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

• This does seem to be a bit of a repeating pattern with Bstone. Guy (Help!) 20:33, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

• Yes it is, and this isn't the first time he's appeared here with the same. seicer | talk | contribs 20:45, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it's a pattern of behavior. Maybe someone could try having a word with him? I believe I'm banned from his talk page, so it shouldn't be me. Friday (talk) 20:52, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

this is probably worth a review - and whilst I agree that it seems to have gotten a bit heated for one reason or another, I can't really see the level of disagreement as disruptive (but then I'm definitely 'involved' and believe the page currently describes what actually happens pretty well :-) ) Privatemusings (talk) 20:55, 29 August 2008 (UTC)it's always worth taking a breath when considering if someone you disagree with strongly is being disruptive or not, I reckon too.....

Sigh. How did I know this was going to be Bstone as soon as I read the header? He has previous here. Black Kite 20:58, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

After being called ignorant and naive by Celarnor and being accused Tendentious editing by NonvocalScream, I stated I would detach until it cooled down. I rather think that detaching and not continuing is the most appropriate thing to do as a cooldown period is never a bad idea when the editing gets heated, but now it seems this issue has made its way to AN/I. I will say that NVSs accusation of tendentious editing is rather baseless and the civility violations of Celarnor are really a tempest in a teapot- which is why I decided to detach and let things cool down. In fact I am going to not edit from now until Sunday, a sort of a wikibreak to myself. Wishing you all a good weekend. :) Bstone (talk) 21:07, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I fail to see how the word "ignorant" was used in an attacking manner. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 21:16, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Concur - being ingorant of a fact or ignorant in a particular field is different from just plain ignorance. Toddst1 (talk) 21:19, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

"Willfully ignorant" would be a variation that could be an insult. Do I win anything? --mboverload@ 22:07, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Without reading any of the above (which I will do in a moment) how do you get accused of tendentious editing on an essay? (And its tendentious, I've refactored the spelling error in the heading - hope you don't mind!) Avruch ^T 21:43, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I am so disappointed. I was really hoping someone in the argument would threaten violence, and they didn't. Now I'm irony-deprived and sad. In fact, I feel so sad that I think I will kill myself, and then a bunch of other people. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:49, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

=) +1 non-barnstar barnstar. --mboverload@ 21:56, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to go beat up a barnstar now that FisherQueen has suggested WP:Beans. Toddst1 (talk) 22:13, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

zOMG I am going to report Toddst1 on WP:ANI for that threat. In response to Avruch's comment - I think the problem is that, while technically its status is "essay", it doesn't have the Wikipedia essay notice on it, but instead something that makes clear that one day it intends to be policy. Perhaps that's why people feel strongly enough to edit war. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 02:18, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

< you'll notice above, Sheff.. that I've got this weird idea that it sort of is policy at the moment! - in the sense that the page describes accurately how we (the wikipedia community, I guess...) react to such things as and when..... I'm currently accepting applications to join my minority of one!! :-) Privatemusings (talk) 02:24, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Off topic: :) :) This is not how things are already done on Wikipedia. Every threat is not reported. This is reality! :) You even state so in your "minority of one" comment! :) NonvocalScream (talk) 04:51, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

AFD discussion

Can one of you end this? It was started on August 21. Schuym1 (talk) 21:01, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

• Done. Guy (Help!) 21:20, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

When are we going to get an adminbot to close AfDs? --mboverload@ 22:08, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

When we can code Clue. Guy (Help!) 22:38, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

if(rand()%1)
  Close("Keep, exists");
else
  Close("Delete, non-notable");

— Coren ^(talk) 23:39, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Wrong language! if( rand( 1, 999 ) == 257 ) { Close('keep'); } else { Close('delete'); } X!xlamation point 00:28, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Fools! Python ftw!

import clue

Mr.Z-man 00:50, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

An adminbot to close AfDs? What exactly will it do? Could someone explain to me the details of this "adminbot" planned to be in use? Thanks. -- RyRy (talk) 01:38, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

It's a joke RyRy.;) You can't really create a bot "smart" enough to find consensus in AfDs, though maybe Data could be connected to Wikipedia's servers to do the job.:P--Xp54321 ^{(Hello! • Contribs)} 01:42, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Hah, I see. :P Bots can't possibly decide consensus and have good judgement enough to close AfDs... (Or can they?) -- RyRy (talk) 01:44, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

No one thought that there would be anything like the internet a hundred years ago, and look were we are today! (I still doubt any idea of bots being able to use "logic" for making good judgements). ~ Troy (talk) 01:48, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

True, oh so very true. But still, what about future robots? Say, they are directly connected to the internet and have human level intelligence? What then? ;)--Xp54321 ^{(Hello! • Contribs)} 01:51, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Then why should humans edit Wikipedia when there are "high-tech bots" to do the work for us? But as far as I know, that will never happen, and if it did, I wouldn't enjoy it. Wikipedians should be the ones building Wikipedia, not bots who do all the work. But again, I doubt that will happen at all, so lets not worry about it. :-) -- RyRy (talk) 01:56, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. If a guy didn't do any work on anything, how would he/she feel privileged? That's the whole point. "Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" (*not vandalize*). But then again, I agree that high-tech bots are unlikely and I will probably have been dead long before that sort of thing could even exist. ~ Troy (talk) 02:00, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

if strloc($_CONTENT,"POKEMON") return (KEEP) else return (NO_CONSENSUS); Wikidemon (talk) 02:42, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

try
{
    debate.close(XFDConstants.DELETE);
}
catch (AdminAbuseException ex)
{
    User troll = ex.getComplainant();
    enWiki.block(troll, "indefinite", "Abusing administrators again.");
    // Remove the frivolous complaints.
    Revision[] contribs = enWiki.getContributions(troll, Wiki.PROJECT_NAMESPACE);
    for (int i = 0; i < contribs.length; i++)
        enWiki.rollback(contribs[i]);
}

You forgot to handle the errors. Seriously, I think the best we programmers can do is hack up something that executes the human-made decision. MER-C 06:35, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Mamasaidnakuout

I have been dealing with this editor for almost seven months on various seasons of American Idol. The editor continually changes the weekly themes and makes reversions without a single edit summary. From the end of January to the end of May, I left seven messages on User_talk:Mamasaidnakuout#American_Idol_themes without getting any response. At the beginning of February I started discussions on each of Talk:American_Idol_(season_2)#Recent_theme_week_changes, Talk:American_Idol_(season_3)#Recent_theme_week_changes and Talk:American_Idol_(season_4)#Recent_theme_week_changes, and in April with no response on the article talk pages, I changed the themes back to what they were. In July I found sources for three of the theme weeks, thinking it would be harder for an editor to deleted sourced information, but that did not help either. In the past week, I went through uw-delete1-4 and a uw-3rr warning on the editor's talk page.

The editor has made 466 edits on Wikipedia without a single edit summary. The editor has only made three edits to article talk pages, [118], [119] and [120], all to delete the discussions I started trying to discuss with the editor. The editor also has two User edits, [121] and [122], both times to blank my User page.

I could see how this could be classified as a limited content dispute, but the editor seems to make the same deletions on numerous articles like America's Next Top Model, [123] and [124] without edit summaries. I would like to think I am being patient after almost seven months but it very annoying to deal with this editor that makes no effort to communicate with anyone else. Aspects (talk) 23:34, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I have taken the view that by blanking your userpage that this editor has indeed communicated; I have blocked the account indefinitely in consequence. In the not unlikely event of there being a sudden influx of ip accounts to those articles, please let me know at my talkpage. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:10, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Rollback abuse?

Resolved

 - Rollback revoked, Tiptoety ^talk 03:45, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

When reviewing the unblock request for Bomsalam (talk · contribs), I saw in the history of Emil Gilels EricV89 (talk · contribs) apparently using Huggle and rollback to revert war with Bomsalam, who is apparently the article subject's niece. Bomsalam received only 1 warning for vandalism, though EricV89 reverted her 4 times over the course of 2 days. This seems to be a fairly major misuse of rollback and this does not look like vandalism at all (Bomsalam did at one point blank the page several days ago, but reverted it a minute later). As I said on EricV89's talk page, if the article was a BLP, I would have removed rollback immediately, but as its not, I'm bringing it here for further review. Mr.Z-man 00:20, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Endorse removal. —Animum (talk) 00:23, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Yup, should be removed. That's rather shocking really. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 00:24, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to see his response first, but this is certainly not what rollback is for and is probably one of the worst situations in which you could have used it. John Reaves 00:25, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Endorse, edit warring with rollback is wrong and the edit you cite was clearly not vandalism. MBisanz ^talk 00:26, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

(massive ec) JaGa was uing Huggle to revert the same non vandalistic edit - needs looking into - I dont have time now,. Viridae^Talk 00:36, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

As JaGa only reverted the once I have left a stern reminder at their talkpage about the appropriate use of semi-automatic tools, while noting this discussion. LessHeard vanU (talk) 01:06, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I stand by my edit. I saw a user remove cited content, and I put it back. I didn't warn the user, since it wasn't definitely malicious, so I don't think I abused Huggle in any way. I disagree with the idea that this was definitely not vandalism; I saw this as a POV struggle (trying to spotlight vs. obscure Jewish heritage) and sided on keeping the adjective, since it was already established in the article and cited. What good is there in removing information? (Side note, of my many Beethoven sonata recordings, Gilels is my favorite. I only wish to honor him, and not offend his family; but I also want to maintain a good encyclopedia, and don't think I did anything wrong, despite my warning.) --JaGa^talk 01:46, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

You will note that WP:VAND#NOT mentions NPOV violations as something that is not by itself vandalism. Taemyr (talk) 01:51, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

JaGa, that edit was still a rollback, so it shouldn't be used in content disputes. Does a few seconds of convenience sound worth the trouble? ~ Troy (talk) 01:54, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't in an edit war or a content dispute. I saw a user remove established, cited content and I put it back. I didn't warn the user. I feel like I'm getting piled on via guilt by association with EricV89. We can split hairs about content disputes, but I don't think an impartial observer will find anything wrong with my choices. --JaGa^talk 02:13, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

(e/c) A much batter idea to have done was to discuss the issue on the article's talk page instead of rollbacking away. I would think discussing something first before taking any action (if any) would have been best instead of reverting, especially while using rollback. I see myself echoing what Taemyr mentioned that WP:NPOV violations is not vandalism in most cases. Rollback should only be used to revert vandalism and vandalism only. -- RyRy (talk) 02:16, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

JaGa, I'm afraid that you misunderstand: rollback is only to be used for actual vandalism. Sure, it is easy and even tempting to press the rollback button, but you could have easily written a short edit summary. No one said that your rollback was to be revoked for one edit (*silliest thing I've ever heard*), but it isn't a good habit to revert good faith edits. Also, since you were technically in an edit war, I expect you to give a 3rr warning or provide an informative edit summary. ~ Troy (talk) 02:22, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Troy. Simply using the undo button would have been much more convenient, having the ability to provide an edit summary, rather than using the rollback feature. -- RyRy (talk) 02:29, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

That brings up an interesting question - why was she so determined to take that out anyways? It he not of Jewish descent after all? --JaGa^talk 02:34, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

If you were wondering why, then that's all-the-more reason you should use the user's discussion page instead. Even if you use the rollback feature, which you shouldn't, you should at least give a valid reason at the right time. Instead of waiting until this issue affects you (ie: here and now), you should have discussed/explained it while the edit war was going on. ~ Troy (talk) 02:45, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, this poor, dead horse. OK. This user started an account with one purpose, and one purpose only: remove the mention of a Jewish family from the Emil Gilels article. The content was established in the article, and cited. The user also blanked the page. Page blanking and anti-Semitic edits (and yes, I think editing the article solely to remove cited references to Jewish heritage smacks of anti-Semitism) is vandalism. So this user was acting like a vandal, and I rolled them back. Now they claim to be Gilels' relative (do we have any actual proof of that?) and we're all falling over each other to throw EricV89 and myself under the bus to show this user how sorry we are. I don't think what either of us did is wrong. If you disagree, feel free to take away my rollback, because I do not think I did anything wrong, and would do the same thing again. Otherwise, let's let the dead horse be and agree to disagree. --JaGa^talk 03:55, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Let's see. It was a "cited reference" - cited with an OTRS ticket, which is not exactly a topnotch reliable source. What you characterise as "anti-Semitism" could also be an exercise in removing information that had been given undue weight - there is nothing else in the entire article discussing how his Jewish heritage influenced his life or his achievements. As I've said below in response to EricV89, I could probably accept a single revert on this, although it would be much better using "undo" than "rollback" since it isn't clearly vandalism. Remember that almost all Wikipedians start off with just one article on their watchlist, where they make mistakes and try things. One of the most valuable things that patrolling editors can do is reach out to these new editors and help them to learn our processes. But before one can reach out, one has to have enough of an open mind to believe that new editors might have something to add, even if they do it imperfectly. Risker (talk) 06:54, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

(Undent) Ah, I think we finally have some common ground. There are different ways to perceive this user's actions. What I saw looked like vandalism and I acted accordingly. Now, we have new information about this user, so things are perceived in a different light. The point is, (and I believe this of Eric as well) I was not trying to win some content battle or something like that. I saw actions that I thought was vandalism, and dealt with it. The question is, was my intent bad? Was my reasoning at the time unreasonable or indiscriminate? Did I want to bully some new user with the awesome power of Huggle? No. Look at my edits. It's not my way. I'm trying to do a very thankless job of vandalism patrol as effectively as possible. And I think the same of Eric. We talk about having an open mind toward the new users, but we don't have enough of an open mind towards Eric's intentions to even let him try to explain himself before taking away rollback. That is unjust - look at his contributions, he's done loads of great work for Wikipedia: 9000+ edits, never been blocked, adopts new users. We worry about the harm we did to the new user, but what about the harm we did to the established one? Is the kangaroo-court rollback revoking any different than Bomsalam's block? In both cases an authority rushed to judgment before hearing all the facts. I'm sure my arguments can be wikilawyered to pieces, but there's a spirit to the law that I'm concerned with here, and I don't think Eric has received justice. He should get his rollback, er, back. --JaGa^talk 08:05, 30 August 2008 (UTC) There are a few issues that concern me here:

• For the most part, the "edit war" was over an adjective - whether to describe the family of the subject as "Jewish" or "musical". That makes it a clear content dispute, with no reason to think this was vandalism. Ordinary content dispute mechanisms should have been used after the first reversion. There was nothing on the talk page of the article relating to this, the last entry being June 2008.
• One of the editors, apparently the niece of the subject, was clearly new to Wikipedia and was focused entirely on this article. Her first edit was August 13th. She received no welcome, no assistance on how to edit, and no personal messages on her talk page to help her understand what the problem was or what steps to take to resolve the content dispute.
• An OTRS ticket is involved in this situation. I have asked the admin who inserted the OTRS message to please comment on the talk page of the article, as it appears to involve the information in dispute. The OTRS ticket was issued on August 24th, and there is some indication that the editor who was blocked may have been the person who provided the information for the ticket as well. Incidentally, the OTRS ticket is also not mentioned on the talk page of the article.
• It's unclear to me, having read the article, why anyone would consider it essential to include in the article whether or not the subject was Jewish. There is nothing in the article to indicate that the subject being Jewish had anything to do with his accomplishments or the key events documented in the article.
• This isn't a BLP; the subject has been dead for over 20 years.

Not only do I see rollback abuse, I see a textbook case of WP:BITE, and some very significant communication issues happening here. Risker (talk) 01:23, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

(e/c) (<--) I endorse revoking rollback from this user. Obviously this user is committing repeated and disruptive misuse of rollback. Causing revert wars with the help of rollback? Certainly a situation to remove rollback. -- RyRy (talk) 01:31, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Risker, my impression is that you are entirely correct in saying that this is a bad case of biting a newcomer. However, I would like to know what sort of explanation Ericv89 could come up with. ~ Troy (talk) 01:34, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Endorse removal of rollback. It is abuse to use it for edit warring.--Xp54321 ^{(Hello! • Contribs)} 01:35, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I will still also endorse revoking rollback, though. ~ Troy (talk) 01:37, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I have removed EricV89's rollback flag, not sure why it was not done earlier actually. Tiptoety ^talk 03:45, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

That's funny, I sent an approved AIAV report and he was blocked for disruption for vandalism. The user was blocked by a admin and I thought that it was a decent AIV report. Not only that but Tiptoety closed this before I could respond. This is ridiculous, I've sent tons of good AIV approved reports considoring my thousands of edits of vandal fighting, you seem to see only a recent, focused event to take my rollback rights. How am I suppose to revert vandalism now? --eric (mailbox) 05:07, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I think this might have been a premature action. The disputed information that Bomsalam was removing was inserted as the result of an OTRS ticket. EricV89 was reverting removal of the information. There may be more going on here, and I'm not certain that rollback should have been removed from his account. AniMate 05:19, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

RyRy, get your facts straight before you accuse someone of only using rollback to edit war and disruptions. Everyone runs across people who disagree but I have never intentionally done anything to disrupt Wikipedia, if it is a personal issue then it can be solved on talk pages and not by revoking someone's rights. Why do I feel like I'm being ganged up on? The user's SPA was to edit Jewish to musical. These don't even relate to each other. I reverted them as vandalism becuase the edits seemed to be unconstructive, not only that but no one confonted me in regards to this prior. You are making irrational ideas. --eric (mailbox) 05:27, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

So what do I do now? --eric (mailbox) 05:56, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Keep editing without rollback, is the easiest answer. I've never bothered to ask for it (though I probably should), and have never had a problem. If you really want it back, I'd engage Tiptoey as the administrator who revoked it and you should probably contact User:Avraham about the OTRS ticket that was responsible for the inclusion of the information. Finally, you should remember the "undo" button isn't that tough to use either. AniMate 06:03, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Eric, you continue to do the things you enjoy doing here. I'm still looking into why the information you were putting back into the article was even there; the fact that an OTRS ticket is used as a reference source is somewhat unusual, especially for what is an apparently trivial point. Perhaps that is a take-away lesson from this; when a new editor is determinedly trying to remove information, take a look at the information they are trying to remove, and its reference sources as well. Reverting it the first time was reasonable; when the removals continued, that was a good opportunity to start asking some questions: what's the issue with this content, is the source any good, is this content essential to the article, is it just an editorial decision to modify this sentence, etc. Article talk pages are also available to editors carrying out RC Patrol, and I'd encourage all of them to use them more often. Even I have found myself rolled back by RC patrollers under similar circumstances, but at least I know how to address the situation.

With respect to the OTRS ticket that is being used as a reference source for this article, a message has been left for the administrator who worked on this ticket requesting some further information. It is my understanding that he will not be on-wiki before Sunday at the earliest, so this aspect won't be fully addressed for a while. Given there is no immediate concern (i.e., the subject of the article is deceased so there is no BLP issue), I think it can probably wait. Risker (talk) 06:20, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

How is a controversial move carried out without discussion handled?

Palin was move to Palin (disambiguation) without discussion even though it was always going to be a controversial move as Michael Palin is a rather well known person, probably better know worldwide then Sarah Palin before she was selected as the Republican VP candidate. How should this be handled? IMHO, the move should be reverted and a discussion started as per WP:RM but I'm open to suggestions Nil Einne (talk) 02:02, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

See Talk:Palin to discuss. In my opinion this move is a bit U.S.-centric. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 02:06, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

It's always a good idea to discuss the move before going ahead with it—even if it "doesn't look controversial" because there is always that chance that it actually is. Discussing is a good editing practice, and, for controversial moves, they should always be discussed. I suggest that you use the talk page instead of reverting the move in order to avoid any edit warring or incivility. ~ Troy (talk) 02:08, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Proposed rangeblock: 67.236.245.9/19 (not /27 as prev. stated)

Due to ongoing problems with the IP socks of the curious vandal Jwjkp (talk · contribs) at Major League Baseball 2K9 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), I am proposing a rangeblock of 67.236.245.9/19. I wanted someone more experienced with rangeblocks to make sure I got the right range to shut down this guy. I have filed an RFCU case to make sure there's no collateral damage and to make sure there's no other IPs/sleeper accts that need to be blocked. Cheers, caknuck _° is not used to being the voice of reason 02:13, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

• I support the proposal. ~ Troy (talk) 02:26, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I rechecked my math, and this would require a /19 instead of a /27. Ugh. caknuck _° is geared up for football season 03:06, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Careful, there. If you miss it by a couple of digits, that can influence up to several thousand users. I'm still confident that there is a reasonable range to block. ~ Troy (talk) 03:11, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

This I can say for sure:

• number of edits in the range of "67.236.245.9/24": 8 matches
• number of edits in the range of "67.236.245.9/16": 413 matches

...you sound close, but you're gonna have to make sure. ~ Troy (talk) 03:16, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

This is my first rangeblock, so I want to make sure I get it right. I checked my work against the applet on toolserver, so I'm pretty sure I have it right this time. caknuck _° is geared up for football season 03:20, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Good luck! I'm right behind you, so if anything happens, I'll be there. Also, I have a tool that might prove useful for you. Just remember that you don't want to block ten thousand people living in Texas! ~ Troy (talk) 03:25, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I want to be extra cautious, because the CIDR from the WHOIS gave me a /13 range, and that just won't fly. I'm hoping that the IPs are assigned geographically, and the /19 will suffice. caknuck _° is geared up for football season 03:32, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

The range checker showed roughly half of the recent edits from the /19 range were by our vandal. I'm placing the block now. caknuck _° is geared up for football season 03:47, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Serious Help Needed

Please end the conversation between Zephyrad and me. I sure can't end it. Schuym1 (talk) 02:33, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you consider striking the word 'jerk'. PhilKnight (talk) 02:36, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Maybe if you stopped making personal attacks things would settle down. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:37, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

It seems like he used a sock puppet to reply since the user's only edit is the AFD. Schuym1 (talk)

Hardly, his contribs go back to 2005. I see what you're saying, please use diffs? Gwen Gale (talk) 02:54, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going any farther with it just in case it isn't a song puppet. That user scares me so I'm done watching the page. Schuym1 (talk) 02:59, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

"Song puppet" -- I like that. A sock puppet who sings. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 04:41, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

He's at it again. Schuym1 (talk) 04:48, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Personally, Zephryrad seems to be trolling to me, and Schuym1 took the bait. The comments by Zephyrad seemed to be rude and critical of Schuym. However Schuym1's comments are equally as rude and critical. The single purpose account is also worrysome. <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 06:34, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

PS: User:Zephyrad noted of ongoing discussion. <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 06:35, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Schuym1, you're not helping things with comments like this. Please be civil. Gwen Gale (talk) 06:42, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Wow, this is amazing. This admitted (former) vandal calls for one of my articles to be deleted on the grounds that John Peterson, author of The Littles series of books, isn't "notable" or "historically significant" (since he's too young to remember them, is my guess), then can't handle it when I question his claims, then his motives. Then he actually bails out of the discussion, after resorting to namecalling, accusations of sockpuppetry (King Vitiman laughed at that, and I could also make a charge of "biting a newcomer"), four-letter words, reversing himself on Peterson's "notability", admitting he doesn't understand a term he used (in ALL-CAPS AND BOLDFACE, yet), then coming here and complaining.

"Trolling"? By pointing out policy he's already broken, and answering his questions and charges? I don't think so, and I'd say he's the troll, if anyone is in this situation. I'd say he bit off more than he could chew, and doesn't like hearing the truth. I stand by my words and actions... other than I sorta regret getting so far in with him, because all that's likely to do is make him feel important, which I think was his initial intention. Zephyrad (talk) 07:04, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

BTW, I appreciate Tinkleheimer qualifying that "trolling" statement ("personally... to me"). That one's a first for me, after three years, 3000+ edits, and a couple hundred original articles. Zephyrad (talk) 07:15, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Uninvolved comment: It looks to me like both of you are going out of you way to wind each other up at that deletion discussion. You've both made your opinions about deletion clear; there's no need for either of you to say any more. Let others comment and the deletion discussion proceed to closure. Schuym1 has no obligation to say anything on the talk page beyond his nominating comments, so criticism of him for "bailing" on the discussion is not well taken. Likewise, Zephyrad has articulated his/her views on the matter. (Full disclosure: I am not an administrator.) --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 07:37, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

The trolling comment is my personal view on it. Like Steven said in the comment above me, "It looks to me like both of you are going out of you way to wind each other up at that deletion discussion." In my opinion, you were both winding each other up in hopes of breaking down the other or angering them. That may have not been your intention, but that is my interpretation, with all due respect. :) <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 08:05, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Rats, your reply here cost me my initial answer to Steven, via an edit conflict. True, Schuym1 may have no further obligation to speak... but he did so, and from my end, he got in over his head, then ran for help (repeatedly) when he realized where he was. If the AfD debate (which he says he has abandoned) must continue, I hope it will remain open long enough for me to obtain some printed resources, if the notability of a non-Littles book by the author of that series, sold for years through a major publisher, isn't "notable" enough for a few folks. Tinkleheimer, I've left a message on your talk page, and your respect is noted and returned. Steven, thanks for weighing in. I admit I've spent too much energy on this already... and I apologize to everyone else who's been sucked into this matter. (I might have asked an admin to step in, if Schuym1 had continued; I certainly saw no need to run to a sysop, or post an incident. Overkill, I'd say.) Zephyrad (talk) 08:21, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Unwelcome use of real life name in a vandal's edit summary

I need to get a particular revision deleted from my user page's history tab because it contains my real life name. Just for the record, it appears that a particular real life stalker has placed that vandalism on the user page. GO-PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 02:42, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

You probably want it oversight-ed. See WP:RFO. - Rjd0060 (talk) 02:57, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Concur. In the meantime, though, the revisions have been Deleted. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 03:01, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

 Erledigt - Alison ^❤ 05:43, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/203.97.221.19

Can anyone please look at this stranger than fiction note in my talk page? Thanks. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 05:15, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I think he is getting you confused with User:Taamu. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 08:16, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Naadapriya again

Can someone please block him to prevent edit-warring with tendentious argument and force him to discuss the NPOV vios? Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:21, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

You both seem to be edit warring. Gwen Gale (talk) 06:41, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Instead of allowing contentious material that is subject to NPOV concern to be removed from the article (until those concerns have been addressed), he insists on reinserting it into the article with tendentious argument. He refuses to engage in proper discussion, refuses mediation (in the same way he did in the past) and other than the article RFC I've opened to hopefully resolve this, I don't know what else can be done. I've left a note for Blnguyen asking for reprotection of the article if necessary, under the version without NPOV concerns. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:29, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Looks to me like you both have violated the 3 revert rule. I think you should both leave off. I think you should set up an RfC to discuss changes on the article.Cheers, Dlohcierekim 08:33, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I've opened the Article RFC a short while ago pending input by others. I'm about to add a notification to the relevant WikiProject noticeboard in the hope that helps get more input. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:38, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Good job. I've have given User:Naadapriya a 3RR notice. I don't see why come sort of compromise can't be agreed upon between completely excluding and including the matter in question. "Some say thus and so, while others disagree." Expanded paragraphs covering both sides of the argument?? Cheers, Dlohcierekim 08:45, 30 August 2008 (UTC)