Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
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)
Please see . I'm unsure as to whether any further action needs to be taken here. It's seriously concerning but this might just be simple vandalism. Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 02:18, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
I did not know anything about that threat. I saw that the last edit inserted a bunch of "Blah Blah Blah"s all over the place, that they were after a recent final warning, and then blocked the IP. I was totally unaware of the suicide threat. Jesse Viviano (talk) 04:48, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Do we really report every since "suicide threat" to the police? That diff looks very much like a joke. At least in some countries, making unnecessary reports is also a crime, so this reporting policy of ours seems a bit concerning. Offliner (talk) 02:55, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
I agree with you on that one Offliner, it looks more like a "joke" (a very sick joke) than an actual threat. In regards to policy Misplaced Pages:Responding to threats of harm is the only documented Misplaced Pages guideline on the subject that I am aware of and it states: "Law enforcement and emergency services have consistently stated that such reports are not a waste of their time, even in cases where the suicidal statements are determined to be a hoax or non-immediate threat." Though RTTOS is an essay and not an approved Misplaced Pages guideline or policy. Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 03:05, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
It might be a PR nightmare, but there is no liability to worry about. Misplaced Pages is not a mandated reporter. We have no duty here. -208.97.245.131 (talk) 19:24, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
(ecx2):::There is a vast difference between a prank report ("do you have Prince Albert in a can?") and a sincere editor reporting an event which might or might not be a suicide threat. We are not paid to decide whether a suicide threat is real or not. The police and 911 responders are. Let them make that judgment. People should not be avoiding reporting these things because they think the police will be angry or annoyed at them - it is the responders' job to take reports and make the judgment calls required, not ours. If our report is sincere, we are not contravening any laws in North America. In my opinion, all suicide threats should be reported if humanly possible. --NellieBly (talk) 03:07, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. I highly doubt any law enforcement agency would take offense to a report of a suicide threat, even if it did seem dubious. Where possible, report. Throwaway85 (talk) 09:14, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
As far as I'm aware most experts would recommend treating any such threat as serious and you'd have to be very unlucky to find yourself on the wrong side of the law if you did report it. raseaC15:48, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
I wouldn't be overly concerned. Usually, suicidals don't tell others about their intentions, until after they've committed suicide (via a letter, of course). GoodDay (talk) 20:02, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
This is absolutely, absolutely not true. I have to step in here and in the strongest possible terms tell you that you are factually wrong. I have worked as a counsellor for years with those who have attempted suicide. It is remarkably common for potential suicides to do just what you're saying they don't do. In fact, I would suggest that well over half of suicide attempts are predated by calls for help exactly like this. Unfortunately, TV and the mass media have convinced people beyond dissuasion that people who actually kill themselves don't ask for help. This has actually prevented friends and family from noticing calls for help or taking them seriously until it's too late. Please, please, please: don't fall into the "the mass media is right about everything, people are crazy and just looking for attention" trap. Suicides do this all the time. All the time. --NellieBly (talk) 07:57, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
I'd also add that the majority of suicides do not leave suicide notes. Another thing people have picked up from TV and movies that doesn't reflect real life, to the point that survivors don't believe that a suicide actually killed himself if he didn't leave a note. TV is entertainment and doesn't reflect real life. --NellieBly (talk) 08:01, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
You know, I was about to reply in the same way (having some experience in the matter) but I assumed that GoodDay was making a joke (a suicide can't tell people of their intentions afterward because they're dead). Many suicides are really calls for help, even our article states as much, and often attempts aren't meant to actually succeed but to draw attention to the problems of the person. That doesn't mean that the person doesn't need help, if they're desperate enough to act out in that way then they have some serious problems that probably should get attention. -- Atama頭01:16, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Correct, as far as it goes; in my experience, those who are determined to top themselves will usually manage to do so, and do so either extremely dramatically (e.g. by leaping in front of a train) or very quietly (e.g. by OD'ing)- in neither case will they advertise the fact beforehand. But there is another case; the "cry for help" from those who may be desperate but not terminally so, and these are the people that tend to advertise beforehand in the hope that they might receive assistance. I realise we should not be in that business ourselves, and should resist false positives, but there is a humanitarian case for reporting them, per Jeanne Boleyn and others above. Rodhullandemu00:37, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
You always take these things seriously, no matter how silly they may appear. It's just not something that we, as uninvolved volunteers, are in a position to make a judgement call on. The cost of doing nothing on the off chance they were serious is nothing compared to the cost of being wrong when they aren't. Throwaway85 (talk) 21:07, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Usually a suicide threat that doesn't include any reason at all is either a joke or one of the very rare occasions of a real intent. That doesn't mean we should just disregard them by ignorance but rather forward any information posted on Wiki to the local authorities as far as it is possible. It would be the right thing to do as it really isn't much "effort" to potentially prevent one in a thousand (or so) going this way. Generally spoken, editors especially admins who have more tools available should keep this in mind for future reference.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 21:32, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
So it was decided that threats of suicide should be reported to the police. But did anyone actually call the police? ~~ Dr Dec (Talk) ~~ 21:22, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
That's a dangerous precedent. Process from edit > Admin > CU > police > ISP > police at best probably an hour. That's assuming it's a 100% straight desktop with an ISP that hands out info on the spot. Wow, good lord. I sound heartless. The CU presumably contacting authorities would be in a damn odd spot given suicide is more taboo than bomb plots to talk about enough of the time. Truth be told, without experience in direct therapy/group sessions or personal musings, it's damn hard to fit one's head around. :My actual biggest concern? Abuse/vandals/hoaxes. A bomb threat hoax still can result in a massive world of law enforcement hurt for the poster regardless of hoax nature, when/where they did it, etc. Suicide issues where acting on anything would have to be instantaneous? ...Do we want law enforcement globally lining up outside our virtual door after countless reports from proxies, dynamic IPs, personal jokes using a friend's PC, and any level of puppetry? No. Misplaced Pages doesn't have a full-time staff to handle this stuff. Actually, we just don't have any staff at all. We already list a number of important resources on the matter to the point that it's a cool enough place for overlinking. It'd be really easy to go on with the "reasons why not" bit and how this could never work until Misplaced Pages comes in a small neutral implant, but I'd expect myself hacked and my rotten soul sucked away through my monitor. ....... Someone has say some things, though. ♪daTheisen(talk)10:17, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Proposal: Any editor found deliberately mocking someone or making light of any live situation in these matters is subject to a 100% ban without notice, escalated from admin > bureaucrat > arb with times of 24hr block, indef block, and ban after an evaluation of absolutely anything less than 100% AGF confirmed. This makes a generic chain of permissions set and keeps it somewhat balanced. "Live" being important, since we don't want to infringe on the rights of users to laugh at suicide in their spare time on one another's talk pages. Seriously. ♪daTheisen(talk)10:17, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Long-term readers of WP:AN/I and such pages will know that there have been numerous skirmishes over articles related to ethnic/"racial" groups in south America. Two articles that have been particularly affected are German Brazilian and White Brazilian. I no longer remember how it was that I first became involved, but I'd guess that at some point I noticed that some other admin was getting rather too many requests and thought I'd give him or her a break. I've never been to south America, don't read Portuguese or Spanish, and couldn't care a fig if south Americans, my neighbors or my inlaws were black, white or green, or of Nubian, Inuit or Livonian ancestry. Anyway, I entered as a neutral party, with a couple of big red buttons to use if/when appropriate. Since that time I have spent rather a lot of time nudging and mollifying authors, and often wished that I had not done so, or that south America were exclusively and indisputably populated by homogenous llamas rather than variegated humans.
Ninguém then made a long and almost uninterrupted series of edits from 1 December until 00:43 6 December. One minute after that last edit, User:Off2riorob reverted the last batch of these. Forty-two minutes later, Off2riorob reverted the article to the state in which it had been on 1 December, with the comment " reverting undiscussed mass edits". On the talk page, Off2riorob elaborated slightly, saying variations on:
I have also clearly stated my reasons for reverting to the previous position, mass editing of an article without apparent discussion (talkpage discussion six months old) so as to make the article almost unrecognizable.
So the objection that there had been no discussion was tacitly admitted to be mistaken: the discussion -- which at the time of the reversion was still on the talk page rather than in an archive -- was now merely too old.
Ninguém's edits appeared to me to have been based on cited sources (though in Portuguese, which I have never claimed to be able to read) and to be informative, and they had edit summaries (although I never claimed to have checked the accuracy of these). The material he deleted also seemed misplaced. All in all it seemed to me that his edits were for the better, although I was (and remain) open to argument to the contrary.
As there had been no objection to the substance of Ninguém's edits, and believing that they at least deserved a levelheaded evaluation before they were rejected, I boldly (or rougely) protected the article (more precisely, what I thought was the wrong version) as a preemptive measure. I archived most of the (bloated) talk page, and initiated a discussion of the first stage of Ninguém's edits.
At this point I may have made a mistake. For in addition to describing these edits as neutrally as I could, I also commented on them. "Judge and jury", it could be said. And indeed Off2riorob has politely asked about this.
Now, I'd be happy to take any of several options, one of which is never to involve myself in south American ethnic/"racial" matters again. However, I'm most reluctant to deprotect this article. I'm sure that Ninguém's set of edits merit evaluation, at the least, and that deprotecting the article would lead either to an edit war or to a wholesale and insufficiently considered rejection of those edits.
So I invite one or (better) more administrators to take a look and to keep looking. An ability to read Portuguese would be a help. Patience will be a necessity. -- Hoary (talk) 04:21, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Hoary's full protection of White Brazilian is certainly justified, and I am not perturbed by the efforts he made on the Talk page to get a discussion started. He added some content opinions of his own, but they seem mild and unlikely to be perceived as bossy by the other editors working there. (Note that Hoary protected the current version). If his efforts lead to a successful discussion, he should withdraw from the content issues. If he wants to have a longer-term role on improving the content, he should ask some other admin to take over the protection. EdJohnston (talk) 05:50, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. In the long or medium term, I'd very much like to withdraw completely from these two articles, from Brazil, and more. I'd be happy to accelerate that, if I had reason to think that I'd be replaced by one or more other people who had no particular interest one way or another in Brazilian or other "color" and who would judge edits on their merits.
As for the content dispute -- which, however this may violate the rules of this particular project page, has so far been inextricable from the reversion/BOLD/OWN dispute -- I have some sympathy for the argument that simplicity here is a Good Thing and that Ninguém's elaborated and longer lead is too long and elaborate; however, the current version strikes me as simplistic and wrong-headed, and if avoidance of misunderstandings takes more words, that strikes me as a good use of words.
So I hope to draw both administrators and fastidious editors to the article. Or rather, to a bunch of articles. Because on the rare occasion when I (wearing janitorial and not editing hat) have thought that one article was settling down, it would soon be pointed out to me that the warring parties were simply continuing the war elsewhere. -- Hoary (talk) 11:01, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks to Hoary for commenting, I am not involved in all these previous issues and I am not involved in any of the related issues. I noticed the edits occurring and went to see what was occurring, I saw a recent removal of content that I thought was well written and well cited so I reverted the edit, and had a bigger look at what was going on and decided that the article appeared to be more or less being rewritten to reflect a differing position to the content the article had more or less reflected for a length of time. I had a quick look at the archives and found some discussion six months old, I then had a quick look at the article and a small discussion with User talk:Ninguém about the objective of the edits and the lack of appearance of a consensus to support a rewrite and making a judgment mostly on the additions to the lede that the version the existed previous to the mass editing by User Ninguém was imo preferable to what had just been created, I reverted to that version and am presently in discussion as to how to move forward and what direction the content should contain, there does seem to be some support from Hoary, lucan and Ninguen that they simply agree with the rewritten version, although there is also an acceptance that the new lede is excessive, I have some personal knowledge of the color issues in Brazil and felt that the original article was not so bad as to require a rewrite, I thought that if major alterations were to occur to the article that wikipedia and the article would be better served and more rounded and balanced if it was discussed and edited by two editors. I have commented regarding this position on the talkpage at the article. If there is acceptance that the article is in need of a rewrite and that it should be done by Ninguém then I will happily step aside, as Hoary as also commented, I had no idea that there were additional issues surrounding the situation. Off2riorob (talk) 14:50, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
At this moment, this article has a curious particularity: it talks at lenght about the subject of "White Brazilians", but the section on "Conception of White" comes not at the beggining, but at the end. But this is far from being the worse.
The article's lead reads,
White Brazilians are all people who are full or mainly descended of European and other White immigrants.
The section on "Conception of White", on the other hand, states,
The ancestry is quite irrelevant for racial classifications in Brazil.
So, is "ancestry" what defines who is and who is not a "White Brazilian", or is it quite irrelevant for "racial classifications" in Brazil? Or perhaps "White Brazilian" is not a "racial classification" in Brazil?!
This is quite typically the quality standard of the articles on Brazilian demography. The most curious thing is that this is not the result of multiple editors placing their POVs without caring for coherence, but rather the result of one only editor's work. Ninguém (talk) 14:32, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Ninguém removed several informations and included unsourced informations to that article. He did not even discuss what he was doing. The article was fine, and there was no need to re-write it. Opinoso (talk) 15:54, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
A degree of discussion has broken out on the talkpage there, revealing a fair bit of underlying conflict, also could I clear this up as Admin Hoary seem to have said that he has no involvment in the article and would rather not be involved but since he made those comments here his recent two edits here and here seem to be reflective of a degree of involvment in the dispute, could he clarify if he is acting as an admin here as as an editor in the way of dispute resolution? Off2riorob (talk) 18:27, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
You're more or less repeating your earlier question, which I repeated above to see what others thought. I didn't say that I had no involvement; I'm disinterested but not uninvolved, as recent edits demonstrate. I froze the article. When time permits, I try to work out where the disagreement lies. This combination may or may not be proper. I asked here about it. So far just one admin has responded, and as he seemed to think it was OK, I continued. I'd be happy if he and others volunteered to look at the article and keep looking at it; I'd then happily leave. -- Hoary (talk) 23:39, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Yes its the same question that I felt the need to repeat after your two discussion edits to the talkpage, it is confusing when you appear to be involved and also taking administrator actions on the article. I took from the comment from Ed that your actions were fine, but he also seemed to suggest that you get to one side of the fence regarding the article..either an editor or an admin, in the situation I think it is unwise to act as both there. Off2riorob (talk) 23:43, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
This comment of yours here overlapped this further question of mine there. ¶ As you have said, I haven't edited the article for a long time, if ever. I've no desire to edit it. I don't care whether it concludes that ten or ninety percent of Brazilians are "white", or how it describes these "white" people. I do care that whatever it says is well-informed and well-reasoned, and I am willing to ask questions in order to clear up what appear to be contradictions or to find just what an objection consists of. I'd be much happier if others volunteered to do this work instead. And that's one reason why I asked here. -- Hoary (talk) 00:04, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
ec.I am not finding this easy, admin Hoary has now gone off involving himself again in the content discussion asking editors if they mind if he asks questions , under the circumstances I would find it excessive if he was to take any more administrator actions on the article. Off2riorob (talk) 00:07, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
And in the last few minutes I've made other edits to the talk page besides that. Well, I understand what you are saying here. My administrative action on the article so far has been protection; tempted though I occasionally am to take the further administrative action of deleting it, I agree that this would be excessive and intend to resist the temptation. Have my edits to the talk page been improper? Let's see what others here think; and again, I hope that the unbiased among them will dive in to this group of articles and stay there. -- Hoary (talk) 01:02, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
I didn't want it, but I am seeing that it's necessary a few coments of mine in here:
I stil do not know what is the issue in the article White Brazilian. Neither Off2riorob nor Opinoso has come with good reasons to oppose Ninguém's edits. And when I say that, I mean that none of them brought sources that goes against Ninguém's edit. That is, "according to editor X, he says Y, while what you wrote means Z." All I saw was "I did not like your changes and for that reason I am reverting them and sorry, but I can't discuss with you why I did that because I am too busy in real life." That's the best way to keep the article locked and with the discussion with no end, which means that what they want is an article that can/will not be changed. If no one can change anything in the article unless he/she asks for permission from other editors (that is, according to both Opinoso and Off2riorob, it is needed a "consensus"), that is nothing more than ownership of an article.
So far Hoary has not done anything, I repeat, anything that could make anyone, I repeat, anyone, complain about his actions. He blocked the article because he feared that it would take to an edit war probably due to past disagreements in it that he witnessed by himself. And that was a correct action of his. Then, he pointed out what were Ninguém's edits and asked everyone to make comments about it. As a far as I know, trying to settle a dispute by bringing both parties to reason can not be considered a fault, and that was what Hoary tried to do. Off2riorob's insinuations, and that's what they are, insinuations of possible bad faith from Hoary as possibly taking sides is not only a huge mistake but also unfair.
Off2riorob complained that Hoary was one of the people who Ninguém asked for help to deal with matter, implying that Hoary was someone that Ninguém could be sure that would take his side. Untrue. Hoary is the administrator who has been dealing with issues related to such article for quite sometime and if he got involved in it it was to do his job as an administrator and also because he, more than any other administrator, already knows very well what it's being discussed.
Again, neither Opinoso nor Off2riorob has brought sources to oppose Ninguém's edits. Off2riorob has reverted good faith edits done by Ninguém without waiting for other editor's opinions in the talk page. And he reverted every single thing Ninguém did to a previous version that he considered "stable". To me, that is nothing more than ownership, again.
What should be done, then? First of all, Off2riorob should apologize to Hoary for the insinuations he did because wanting or not, they will harm his credibility not only among editors but also among his peers if they are not taken back.
Second of all, the article must be unblocked, reverted to the last Ninguém's edit and once both Off2riorob and Opinoso has time to discuss and have REAL reasons to oppose a change, they may ask for changes in the talk page and wait for other editors' opinions. Those are my thoughts. --Lecen (talk) 01:30, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Well, thank you for your kind words about me, but it is indeed odd for an admin to protect a page and then to comment on aspects of content that may or may not have provoked the edit war. It's even odder when the protection was preemptive. And I'm not sure that Off2riorob has been insinuating anything. Certainly I'm not after any apology from anyone. I appreciate your amicable intentions, but let's avoid blowing this up further or making it more personal than it needs to be. -- Hoary (talk) 02:50, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Fine. So here are my points:
Off2riorob was the one who started all this discussion.
So, he should bring reasons to why he oppose Ninguém's edits.
Those reasons can not be his personal opinions. They must be something like "author X says Y while what Ninguém wrote says Z". Simple like that.
If he does not bring sources, reliable sources to where and why Ninguém's edits are wrong, the article must be unlocked and what Off2riorob reverted. Is that fair enough? --Lecen (talk) 19:54, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
That's pretty much it. Off2riorob keeps saying that he wants to discuss the article, but is not able to point to any specifical disagreement. Also seems to be unable to understand either the article as it is, or the version he reverted; indeed, seems to confuse them, and attribute to one the merits or demerits of the other. Opinoso wants to discuss soccer player Ronaldo's race.
There is no reason for protection, I think. The reverted version should be restored, as it is uncomparably better than the protected one. Attempts to edit war at the article in order to restore the unsourced and distorted version should be watched for. Ninguém (talk) 22:54, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
The article is clearly in need of current protection, some kind of discussion about the article needs to be established before unprotecting, there are still two editors that totally object to the rewrite that was occurring by user ninguen, I have tried to discuss the article but this is the position that is being expounded Ninguen and the other involved editors, they support the rewrite and want to enforce consensus on the rewrite when there is not a clear consensus to support one. Off2riorob (talk) 00:21, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
There are no clear objection to what was written. If you can expose any, I am willing to discuss it, but up to now you haven't. Ninguém (talk) 00:33, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
This is not the place to discuss content disputes, I have made a fair few good faith attempts to move forward with the discussion on the talkpage there. Off2riorob (talk) 00:36, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
I don't deny they have been made in good faith, but they fail to clarify what you disagree with in the reverted version. Ninguém (talk) 00:42, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
No, there is plenty of reason for protection. I believe that the version that's protected (below, "VP") is inferior to the version as edited by Ninguém (below, "NV"). My reason for saying this is that problems with VP have been clearly described, and NV is the result of incremental changes that are described in summaries and seem to be improvements. But it's not incomparably better; comparisons can be made by editors who are openminded and levelheaded.
However, as I'm not able to read Portuguese and have limited reserves of time and energy, I must concede that I can't guarantee that NV doesn't have faults. Indeed, it probably does have faults: most good revisions do. These faults can be discussed rationally in due time.
So there's nothing inconsistent in claiming that the wrong version is protected while conceding that the alternative needs improvement. And it's normal in Misplaced Pages for the wrong version to be the protected one. This does not mean that the article is doomed to remain inferior after protection is lifted.
If protection were lifted today, I've no reason to think there wouldn't be a straightforward edit war between VP and NV (or minor revisions thereof), leading to blocks, accusations of tag teaming or even "sockpuppeteering", miscellaneous other drama, and speedy reprotection (very likely of VP). But in the end I'm just one editor. If there appears to be general agreement among the disagreeing factions that they want the article to be unprotected ("Give us enough rope; we want to hang ourselves"), I'll unprotect it.
And of course if another administrator volunteers to oversee this mess, I'll happily bow out. Which was my point in starting this section of WP:AN/I. -- Hoary (talk) 00:44, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
OK, but then we need some way to make discussion actually happen. Generalities about "the article should explain what is a White Brazilian" don't help, if it cannot be pointed what is lacking in the explanations given by each version. Diatribes on how Ronaldo is so wrong in self-classifying as "White" are even less useful. And up to now these are the only things we have. Ninguém (talk) 00:53, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Moreover, I would think it as a disaster if you quit moderating the article. Up to now, you have been the only admin that made a serious effort to understand the ongoing disputes. But there seems to be some strange idea that to moderate an article someone should be "uninvolved". This is evidently impossible; without making actual decisions, it is impossible to maintain order in an article. And without understanding what is going on it is impossible to make actual decisions. Ninguém (talk) 00:57, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
As I have passed by these disputes with only minimal involvement, but seen the scale of the task, I can only applaud Hoary for handling them, Hoary is to modest, even if a perfect job has not been done it is far better than not having an admin with a watching brief there at all, which would have lead to 3RR, blocks, bans, socks and arbs. RichFarmbrough, 11:53, 10 December 2009 (UTC).
Thank you for your appreciative words, but I'm hardly handling these pages. My attention to any one isn't close and generally comes with a complete lack of attention to any of the others. Off2riorob is within his rights in asking of me "could he clarify if he is acting as an admin here as an editor in the way of dispute resolution"; the answer "a bit of both" probably breaks some guideline and is potentially if not actually problematic. So I hope that
One or (better) more experienced, disinterested editors will attend to the dispute, leaving me to administer; or
One or more admins will announce that they'll handle the administrative side, unprotecting the article when it seems appropriate, issuing block warnings and blocks when justified, etc, leaving me to argue with all eight cylinders (and of course render myself less popular and more blockable); or (best)
Both the above so I can take a little break from Brazilian affairs.
Of course people tend not to want to dive into such imbroglios (other than for the wrong reasons, of course). I'd point out that although there's a great amount of irritation and frustration on display, all of the more active participants seem concerned to improve the article, and although there are apparent non sequiturs, naivity and tantrums from time to time, there's little or none of the shrillness or noxious racism for which articles on "racial"/ethnic (non-) matters elsewhere in the world are notorious. So you shouldn't be scared. -- Hoary (talk) 14:08, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Hoary asked me to help; I cannot help as extensively as he wishes, but i support continuing the present protection of the article, which is the only immediate question for AN/I. My reason is pragmatic: the dispute involves the structure of the article, not just the wording; in such cases it is essential to have a stable version to avoid confusing the discussion. I have made some further comments about the lede at the article talk p. DGG ( talk ) 02:45, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
I support the continued protection of the article. If Hoary wants another admin to take over the admin duties on this article, I'm willing to do so. The very topic of this article, White Brazilian, fills me with dread because WP usually has trouble with contentious topics that involve national, racial, or genetic issues. Since this article has all three, it's a triple whammy. I caution Hoary that my inclination would likely be to keep the full protection in place for a long time, until a clear consensus emerges on the talk page. If other editors at ANI don't agree that a long protection is wise then I'd withdraw my offer in favor of someone else. EdJohnston (talk) 19:28, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Well, I still don't know where to begin with. Editor Off2Riobob was the one who began all this discussion. With the exception of his complain that the lead is larger than it should, I have no idea what is the problem after all. I have requested him several (several, several and several) times what is wrong with editor Ninguém's edits and according to which authors they are wrong. Unfortunately, he hasn't bothered to answer me so far. You all want a consensus? Well, how are we going to find one if the editor that started all this hasn't told what is wrong, yet? --Lecen (talk) 19:46, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
If an objection really is unclear, the person who made it fails to answer requests to clarify it within a reasonable time, and nobody else clarifies it, then surely the objection can be ignored. -- Hoary (talk) 06:21, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Ed, I appreciate your offer to administer, but I have to say that I'm unhappy with quite so much stress on protecting the article for a long time. Protect it until "consensus" (in the WP sense) emerges, yes of course; but if it looks as if it will remain protected "for ever" (for a longish time), then chances are high that at least one bellicose editor will move the war elsewhere. And there are plenty of potential battlegrounds: the article on each of the other "colors" (ugh) of Brazilians, the article on each hyphenated Brazilian, etc. I'd rather phrase the administrative talk in such a way as to encourage uninterrupted work towards an agreement. (Not that I can claim to have been, or to be, much good at such encouragement myself.) -- Hoary (talk) 06:21, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
If I say that I'd like somebody else to take over the job of wielding the cluebat janitorial mop over these issues, I can hardly demand that they do so in the way that I happen to think is best: after all, I'm after a replacement, not an executive assistant. So I hand the job over to EdJohnston and wish him (you) the best.
I now consider myself freer to suggest what I think are improvements to the article. (Perhaps I too will need to be cluebatted from time to time.) -- Hoary (talk) 23:37, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Disruptive Conduct at Mass killings under Communist regimes
I am requesting an administrator use Digwuren discretionary sanctions to counsel User:Termer in relation to their disruptive conduct at Talk:Mass killings under Communist regimes. Mass killings under Communism has had a disrupted life as it falls under the heading of a number of strongly felt Eastern European experiences. The article has been moved, had no consensus at multiple AFDs. Recently, the article has settled down due to an agreement to use academic sources dealing with the article.
Termer has been disrupting this relatively settled editing pattern on a difficult article by:
mischaracterising and misrepresenting sources, particularly on talk
mischaracterising and misrepresenting consensus decisions made by the article editors
misreading, or acting as if misreading, comments posted by other editors
The depth and rapidity of Termer's responses, on an easily disrupted article, are causing disruptions of the article's editorial process.
I request that the first stage of Digwuren Discretionary sanctions be applied: warning and counselling regarding the conduct. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:03, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
I guess I come from the other side of the trenches on this, having defended the article in the past, but I wholeheartedly concur with regards to Termer's conduct - whether it is intentional or not, it is certainly very disruptive to the editing of the article. --Anderssl (talk) 23:56, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
I think maybe Termer should have a chance to explain himself. His talkpage comments are getting in the way, but this may be partly because other users (me included) are confused as to what he is about. On the other hand, Digwuren sanctions, as far as I understand them, look as if they could help without harming in this case. I wish I had known about them in previous cases (do they only apply for articles relevant to Eastern Europe?). What is EEML, btw?--FormerIP (talk) 01:18, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
The core of Digwuren Discretionary sanctions is, "12) Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict (defined as articles which relate to Eastern Europe, broadly interpreted) if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process." I would classify this request as an article relating to Eastern Europe, that warning has been given, the conduct is repeated rather than serious, and the conduct violation relates to disruption which goes against the purpose of Misplaced Pages (through misrepresentation of sources meanings) and normal editorial process (misrepresentation of editorial consensus on the article). In this case there is an excellent opportunity for counselling to effect a change in the conduct. There may be other standing sanctions, or discretionary sanctions out there. See Misplaced Pages:General sanctions#Active sanctionsFifelfoo (talk) 03:41, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
To be fair you haven't explained what your view is of what the consensus was that led to the renaming of the article or adequately articulated your view of what the sources say, imho. This is a content dispute, bringing this to ANI rather than getting a third opinion or mediation seems to me to be a bad faithed approach. --Martin (talk) 05:09, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Move discussion, Summary of article direction, Discussion leading to the summary of article direction. Termer was an active participant in these discussions. Now that the material investigated as a result of the consensus does not substantiate his position, he has taken to disruption. The content discussion is ongoing, and has been conducted politely. Termer visits ongoing content discussions and disrupts them by mischaracterising external sources (lying baldly about what they say, and reactive abusively when caught in the lie by extensive quotation) and past agreements. The disruption is the issue: Termer's conduct. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:25, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, Martin, but I do not understand what you are saying about the reductio. The Digwuren Discretionary sanctions apply to "articles which relate to Eastern Europe, broadly interpreted". Evidence in EEML shows that this article qualifies. Do you agree that this article relates to Eastern Europe, broadly interpreted? The Four Deuces (talk) 06:48, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Just for the record, I've read this thread but since there has been absolutely no evidence given to support any of the allegations. and since I've been labeled with worse tags than a "liar" on wikipedia before, I really don't see any reasons at the moment to react to those allegations here. In case any evidence are going to given in here later on that would clearly show my mistakes in this situation, any uninvolved administrator is welcome to take action against my editing privileges as deemed necessary. Thanks!--Termer (talk) 06:53, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Diffs would be nice. That's all I can say. I see some sections on the talk page that look completely irrelevant but people need to learn to enforce WP:TALK and not get involved (or just collapse or archive the sections). Honestly, what did people expect when they engaged this silliness]? While not the best conduct, it's a bit fast to immediately demand sanctions. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:02, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Most of these arguments are essentially repeats of the AFD discussion. As such, they are irrelevant to the article itself. People can dispute the AFD debate at DRV or somewhere else in my opinion. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:30, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Any disruptive conduct does not appear limited to the one editor, to be sure. If Digwuren applies, it should apply to the others who appear to be engaged in contentious conduct. It should also be noted who nominated the article for deletion, etc. as that may have a bearing on the discussion. Collect (talk) 11:27, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
I think you should uncollapse those sections Ricky. Yes, it may be going over ground that's already been gone over, but users are entitled to do that if they want, even if you think it is a waste of time. Discussing the title of the article, whatever the merits and demerits of engaging in that, cannot reasonably be said to be irrelevant or inappropriate on the talk page. --FormerIP (talk) 12:19, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
No, it's not that the topic is a waste of time so much as the discussion has long gone beyond being fruitful. I really don't think whether Theodore Kaczynski is a Eastern European serial killer has any bearing anymore. If there's an actual dispute about the title, that's fine, but a dispute about "why aren't these articles around, why is this article not deleted" is doing the AFD debate, round 2, with no end in sight. If someone wants to uncollapse them, go ahead but if the section goes off again, I'm just pulling it straight into the archive. And honestly, I'd probably vote to delete it in the AFD since I cannot figure how this is not just a random essay with people just pulling quotes without a single bit of thought behind it. But consensus is consensus. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 12:40, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
There were indeed some problems keeping the discussion on-topic, but neither of the sections you collapsed were supposed to be about Eastern European serial killers etc. Would it not be better to warn about arguing over off-topic matters? --FormerIP (talk) 12:45, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
I don't feel like reading that whole thing and trying to figure who at which point went off-topic. Frankly, I think the original IP's comment was irrelevant, but that's just me. If someone else feels like taking on a different tack (as I've instead spent time actually, you know, editing the article), fine with me. I really don't care. If someone is serious, they can start a new topic if they wish, but I don't know how anyone can seriously have a discussion about the scope of the article without first a discussion of the sources in the article. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 12:52, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
I'll contribute diffs for the part I have reacted to, but that came at the end of a long discussion so someone else should document the previous parts. I initially came in to support Termer against arguments that I thought were irrelevant: and . I then reacted to this confused comment from Termer, asking him to slow down and make sure he had understood other people's comments correctly before responding (as the misunderstandings were flourishing and continuously derailing the discussion). He responded by altering the grammar of my comment to change the meaning of the statement, and then arguing against this new version. I find that particularly unsettling given that the very topic of the discussion at this point was his continued misrepresentations and misunderstandings/misinterpretations. After this ANI discussion started, Termer has admitted to pursuing at length points he knew to be irrelevant, indicating that at least part of the disruption is intentional. --Anderssl (talk) 19:26, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
By diff then if we must Termer claims to edit on the basis of reliable sources this is after he engaged in deliberate mischaracterisation by selective quotation the lie can be seen here. Yes, we can expect blow in editors who feel strongly about their pro- or more typically anti-Soviet education to spout lies and garbage when they discover this article. Termer, who is a party to the current consensuses by forming them, has not repudiated them, and claims to abide by them, is introducing deceptive and misleading article sources to the end of mischaracterising the sources. This is a conduct issue as we rely on editors to adequately and correctly draw out the nature of sources. This is a conduct issue because the effect of Termer's mischaracterisation and deception is to cause the drama llama to come to town, especially as he is unwilling to accept any measure of fault in his characterisations (as demonstrated up thread). Fifelfoo (talk) 22:18, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
The conduct has extended to badly misrepresenting the statements of other editors as here. I would greatly appreciate administrator attention to the issue of the continuous misrepresentation and disruption attendant. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:37, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
You are now iterating your first comments in bringing the matter to this board. The fault, dear Brutus, appears likely to be on more than one side. Collect (talk) 11:17, 10 December 2009 (UTC) Your comments at do not appear helpful, nor does your edit at the article where you removed a substantial portion of the entire article with a single bold edit. Collect (talk) 11:21, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Collect, the topic of this thread is not the repeating of previous points, but misrepresentations and misinterpretations that go so far they cross the limit to disruptive conduct. If you have other things you would like to discuss, such as Fifelfoo's editing of the article, start a new section for it. --Anderssl (talk) 17:49, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
You know, perhaps it could be considered in the future, in case anybody likes to accuse anybody of lying and 'misrepresentations' etc, how about presenting evidence so that first comes what is an alleged 'lie' and 'misrepresentation' etc and then right next to it would be nice to have an explanation: what exactly would be the 'truth' and 'correct representation' all about in your opinion. So far unfortunately I really am not getting it what exactly are you talking about and why do you paste random diffs from the talk page to this notice board.--Termer (talk) 02:54, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
You claim that this is a source is characterising as specifically communist a causal structure for mass killing, "An alternative form of autocracy is a communist regime. The organizational base of these regimes is the communist party, often having a membership consisting of upwards of 10 % of the total population of the society. Communist regimes have an ideology (Marxism-Leninism) that can legitimize massive regime efforts to transform society – often including mass killings in the millions. This combination of ideology and organization permits the killing of millions in communist mass killings." Within a few pages (your lack of page citation with your quote prevents me from specifying), the authors actually outline their theoretical approach, "Additionally, we create military regime and communist regime variables. Mostly, both of these regimes are sub-categories of autocratic regimes, but we consider it is very important to set such variables to separate different types of autocratic countries. Military regime and communist regimes, in theory, create very different conditions vis-à-vis initiation of mass murder. A military regime, by its definition, is more likely to have stronger armed forces and a lower threshold for using them (Wayman, 1975). Any regime has policies that affect society, and the regime, if it wishes to carry out these policies, needs to find a way to get its way and impose its acts on society."
This is a deceptive practice, to claim that sources say what they do not. To be specific, "both of these regimes are sub-categories of autocratic regimes" indicates that Weyland & Tago are not theorising a specifically communist cause for the mass killings they deal with. The fact that you claim to be presenting excellent sources for discussion, but the sources in no way say what you claim, has disrupted the article. Fifelfoo (talk) 10:03, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
We rely on you Termer not to lie about the content, character, and opinion of sources. Your consistent habit of cherry picking without reading goes back to the introduction of Valentino to the article, and has continued. This isn't about the content of what your sources say as you can see from the editing we've done together. This is about your conduct in misrepresenting what sources say and the disruption you cause as a result. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:31, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
I can clearly see my mistake now. I shouldn't have ever responded to this thread here. Happy editing to both of you!--Termer (talk) 02:41, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Admin:Rama ignoring previous consensus, refusing to gain new consensus
In 2007 a user (User:CBM) proposed to delete File:Chicago Spire.jpg. After a discussion 2 users (myself and User:Wikidemo) and an administrator (User:Quadell) gained consensus saying the image should be kept and was not a copyright violation (the user proposing deletion (User:CBM) was the only user disagreeing). I was anticipating replacing the image once some measurable progress had been made on the structure.
A few days ago, the admin User:Rama ignored that previous consensus and abruptly (speedily) deleted the image without discussion. I briefly introduced points where I disagreed with his assessment (on Rama's talk page) and pointed out that others disagreed as well. I thought it would be best to restore the image and propose it for deletion so that a proper discussion could take place and another administrator could determine consensus.
User:Rama refuses to do any of this; he has ignored previous consensus on keeping the file and refuses to gain new consensus, stating that he is the only one who is right and everyone else is wrong - User:Rama stated "I do not care whether people disagree with me or not, this is not a democracy. If you want to vote reality out of existence, do that in a sandbox. I am very obviously right, and no matter of how many people are wrong and disagree with me, they are still wrong." He then stated that pointing out others who disagreed with him was a "waste of time" and that this discussion was "futile". Another administrator (User:Xeno) stated to Rama that "the 2007 discussion was closed as "fair use permitted" so it's probably unwise to unilaterally reverse that decision with a speedy delete".
All I am requesting is that the image be restored and then proposed for deletion so that other editors can discuss this. I have many points to make about why it shouldn't be deleted, but wish to do this on a deletion page, not on a user talk page. Thanks! DR04 (talk) 19:23, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Rama does look to be taking a particularly aggressive "my way or the highway" stance here. I've noted that a few other editors who work in the Fair Use area tend to get like that as well. Also User:Rama/Fair use is quite unhelpful, as it uses an obscure slang word throughout, without explanation (the more mainstream use of the word gives it the meaning 'manly' --Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:39, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
For clarity, I don't believe that English is Rama's first language. Where he uses the term jocker, what he probably means is joker, in the sense of a wild card, free pass, or get-out-of-jail-free card to wave about as an excuse to ignore the rules. I thought his explanation at the top of the page was reasonably clear as to his intent — and the approximate meaning is certainly clear from context later on. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:01, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
I would also invite a review of other recent F7 deletions. I am not familiar enough with the NFCC and fair use criteria, but I am concerned that Rama's interpretation may not dovetail with the community's - however admit that I am a novice in this area. I think it might be more appropriate they bring these to FFD, given that they take a somewhat hardline on fair use. –xeno19:41, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
So what do you guys recommend I do? Kusma, should I go over to DRV now and request undeletion for this and/or the other images? Or will you guys be doing something? Should I wait? Thanks!. DR04 (talk) 19:53, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
I think DRV is the best place for this. I won't do anything about it, though, as I am WP:VEGAN and don't touch non-free images if I can at all avoid it. — Kusma20:44, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Working in this area is a pretty thankless job. I'm not sure that it's an area where local consensus can rule in any case. Dougweller (talk) 19:58, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Again, I am a novice; but if I have understood Rama's argument correctly it's that the image is replaceable by a 3D model rendered by an editor and released into the public domain: but isn't this simply a recreation of a copyrighted work? –xeno19:59, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
I agree that Rama's interpretation may not dovetail comfortably with the bulk of the Misplaced Pages community, but I have a strong suspicion that Rama's perspective is probably much closer to legal reality. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:01, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
The Misplaced Pages policy, even with a relatively lax interpretation. is deliberately stricter than the legal standard. There seems to be fairly general consensus that it ought to be. DGG ( talk ) 20:56, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
I am concerned that certain aspects of Rama's personal interpretation of fair use, located at User:Rama/Fair use, do not seem to jibe with either official foundation policy OR with community standards. Some of what he says there seems perfectly legit points he is making, his peculiar interpretation of replacability seems to be bothersome. For example, Misplaced Pages:Non-free content, the primary guideline which contains community standards on the enforcement of the foundational policy at Misplaced Pages:Non-free content criteria, only states that pictures of people still alive are considered to be unsuitible for fair use claims, however Rama seems to unilaterally declare that pictures of dead people are also unsuitible for fair use claims, with absolutely no community backing at all. I am concerned not that he is trying to enforce a foundational policy (which is a good idea) with a personal interpretation that is unsupported by the community. Now, in this case the fact remains that there can be no freely-made reproductions of the archetectural plans of this unfinished building because, say, if "I" drew my interpretation of these plans, they would still be derivative works. Furthermore, the detailed rationale at the image description page seems perfectly fine to me, so I see no reason to delete an image of this type, when everything seems in order. --Jayron3220:02, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I hope you don't mind if I chime in again, but to TenofAllTrades - I'll quote something I posted on Rama's talk page. "A much safer, IMO legal situation would simply to be use the renderings as provided by the architect (and I actually went through a great deal of work to get that permission). It seems Misplaced Pages is more at risk if we create our own renderings of a copyrighted design and then post them as "our own." The way I see it, either no images are allowed of unbuilt buildings - drawn by the architect or drawn by Wikipedians based upon models drawn by the architect or the copyrighted version itself is used. Shelbourne Development and Calatrava gave Misplaced Pages permission in an e-mail to me to use the images. I doubt they would look so kindly on us creating our own images of their copyrighted works, however. The bottom line - modeling your own renderings of a copyrighted design is much scarier from a legal perspective IMO. DR04 (talk) 20:10, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Even more problematic with Rama's deletion then, is if, as you claim, the original copyright holder did give email permission for this usage. --Jayron3220:22, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Jayron, Kim Metcalfe, a representative for Shelbourne Development (you'll see she is quoted in many of the news articles of the structure), gave me an FTP login to the directoy where Calatrava uploaded the copyrighted images for release (for publicity). She also provided explicit permission for the images to be used as long as the copyright information was included. I have saved these emails if anyone needs to see copies of them. DR04 (talk) 20:30, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Did they give permission only for Misplaced Pages or also for possible reusers? "Only for Misplaced Pages" used to be a reason for speedy deletion. — Kusma20:44, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Kusma, it was a copyrighted image that she gave permission for Misplaced Pages and others to use, but obviously I requested permission for Misplaced Pages to use it (I didn't ask for anyone else). I think you are referring to images that people upload but only allow Misplaced Pages to use - you are right those get speedy deletes ("This includes "for non-commercial use only", "non-derivative use", "for Misplaced Pages use only" or "used with permission". See CSD F3" from Template:Db-f3. But this was a copyrighted image, with a fair use rationale with permission to use (the permission isn't required and is an optional addendum. I believe both of the following copyright tags were used on the image page {{Non-free fair use in}} and {{Non-free with permission}}. As you can see, permission for Misplaced Pages tags (Non-free with permission) are used but must be used in conjuction with another tag and fair use rationale. The image's file page satisfied all of these requirements. Here is a cached version of the page - DR04 (talk) 21:35, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Consensus does not mean a majority vote, it means that all parties can agree with the solution. It strikes me that the original decision was not a consensus but a decision by three individuals to overrule a fourth. Dabbler (talk) 21:22, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
No, it does mean unanimity in the sense that all parties are prepared to live with the solution. If someone still objects to the solution, it is not a consensus but an over ruling of that individual's opinion. To establish a consensus, the minority opinion must consent to the solution voted on by the majority. I suppose it is arguable that User:CBM consented to keeping the disputed image because he/she made no other attempt to remove it. Dabbler (talk) 21:32, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Dabbler I agree and disagree. Consensus, as I understand it on Misplaced Pages, is the ability for everyone involved to make a case and a decision to be made. Not everyone agrees, but hopefully each argument has been looked at in depth. You see "rulings" as you call them being made all the time on nominations for deletion, nominations for featured articles, etc. Not everyone always agrees, but at least everyone knows the reasoning for decisions and had a say in the matter. You are right, in the original nomination 3 were for keeping the image, 1 was still against, but the issues were discussed at length and in the end an admin made a decision. This is my point with what happened with Rama's speedy deletion. Previous precedence existed, it was ignored, and there was absoultey NO opportunity given for further discussion - although I guess I will eventually need to go to WP:DRV. DR04 (talk) 21:49, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
But no matter our definition of consensus, I do think it is important Misplaced Pages's community do come up with some type of decision or precedent of image use - this image is a perfect example (copyrighted images for unbuilt buildings). I hope the discussion here will result in some decision, either for or against their use in articles. DR04 (talk) 21:49, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
The problem here is that none of us, not you or I or Rama, are lawyers who specialize in intellectual property rights (well, I suppose we could be, but even if we were, we are not acting as such when we edit wikipedia, but I digress). This is a place where, IMHO, the foundation has fallen eggregiously short. Of course they cannot police every aspect of Misplaced Pages, but it seems to me that copyright violation is one place where the foundation stands to be on precarious legal standing (much like the WP:BLP policy, except that I think they have handled that one well). The existing foundation guidance is too vague, IMHO. There is too much room for interpretation, so you get a situation where the interpretation of some users (a conservative approproach favored by Rama) is in conflict with more liberal interpretations, and absent community consensus here, there is no way to resolve this, since no one has standing to say their interpretation is the right one. If we return this to a community consensus issue, and as some state above, Rama is expressing an opinion in the matter, as some contend above indicating that this represents a !vote of 3 to 1, then as a participant in the discussion, Rama should not be involved in enacting any results. Still a bad delete, if he wants to have an opinion that's cool, but he should then pass off to another admin to enact the decision. Admins should not be participants AND enactors of a consensus discussion.
I know I kind of rambled a bit there, but the basic point is that the BEST solution would be clearer guidance from the Foundation on this issue; absent that guidance we must default to community consensus, and in this case I cannot see consensus to support Rama's move here, either in the general sense of interpreting WP:NFC or in the specific sense on how to deal with this image. --Jayron3222:03, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Of the two images (File:Nakheel Tower.jpg and File:Freedom Tower New.jpg) speedily deleted by Rama (talk·contribs·blocks·protections·deletions·page moves·rights·RfA) that I have discussed with this admin, (only after the fact on Rama's talk page), Freedom Tower New.jpg had a very similar fair use rationale to the one on File:Chicago Spire.jpg. I am unsure if Nakheel Tower.jpg had similar, but given the chance I would have improved the rationale. Whilst there is the question of potential copyright violation if Misplaced Pages editors create their own derivative work, I am also worried about amateur artists misrepresenting a building's design and leaving readers wondering whether we have used accurate dimensions, accurate colours, and so on. Astronaut (talk) 22:27, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Also, based upon what others have said, we need to list the images Rama created as copyright violations. It is not my intention to upset him, but I am seriously concerned with creating images based on a copyrighted design and someone publishing them as their own work. This is something that could tick off Santiago Calatrava or Shelbourne. DR04 (talk) 00:51, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
If you have an opinion on either of these matters, whatever it is, I would appreciate your input. Thanks so much. DR04 (talk) 01:53, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
I do wish people would use the adverb 'arbitrarily' more carefully in these discussions. I fully agree that if Rama were deleting images arbitrarily – "La di dah, I think I'll delete an image today. Ah! This one clashes with my wallpaper, it's got to go — bloop!" – then it would be perfectly appropriate to undo that deletion on a similarly lackadaisical basis. On the other hand, Rama's actions certainly don't seem to be arbitrary in this case. He seems to have acted on the basis of careful thought and extended reasoning. Whether or not one agrees with his reasoning is open to discussion, but to imply that his action was whimsical or capricious and therefore subject to instant arbitrary reversal is a very disrespectful approach. Feel free to disagree, but don't dismiss his actions as 'arbitrary'. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:21, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Ten, I can't speak for Spartaz, but he might be referring to Rama's tendency to ignore other user opinions - something I have found to be very frustrating. It happened when the image was deleted the first time by Rama, it happened again when Rama tried to speedily delete the image again today (this was after much of the discussion on this page was posted) and how he hasn't discussed his shape equivalent theory (as I introduced below) to this thread. It seems as if he detests talking with the community and consistently makes rash decisions. Again, I can attest how frustrating it has been for me, and probably a few other editors/admins dealing with these issues. I understand his perspective - and he might even be right, but won't he please just discuss things first? Sorry I'm done ranting lol. DR04 (talk) 18:18, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
As Spartaz commented, he has restored the copyrighted image. The commons page still needs opinion on deletion. Also, I have updated the fair use rationale on the copyrighted image. It should be more exhaustive in its argument now. DR04 (talk) 04:16, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Language issue?
Looking at the discussion on Rama's talkpage, I'm wondering if there's a language issue here (Rama appears to be French-speaking from his userboxen). He is interpreting "The copyright in an architectural work that has been constructed ... " (from s120 of the US code) to apply in a situation where building work has not yet started, and he has interpreted Misplaced Pages:Non-free_content_criteriaNo Free equivalent: as Even if a Free alternative did not exist, that would not be a proof that a Free alternative cannot exist. In this case, the file is simply a random file taken amongst a number of files in a portefolio, and any other could have done, indicating that the file is indeed replaceable, and is improperly claimed for Fair Use which is completely contrary to what the policy says, but may be based on a mistranslation???Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:39, 10 December 2009 (UTC) On second thoughts, I don't think this is the problem at all. I think this admin could end up at RfC if things carry on this way. Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:52, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
The grey area
I wish Rama would have brought this up in the first place, this would have saved a lot of time. Anyway, as I brought up on the restored image's talk page (I mean the copyrighted one, not the svg), Rama will now claim that per commons:Template:PD-shape, we can just use a geometric shape of the Spire instead of a copyrighted image. In other words, if shapes were free equivalents we could delete the copyrighted fair use image as there would be an equivalent. I'm inclined to say it is not an equivalent. The entire reason that copyrighted images of buildings have been considered fair use in the past (and IMO should continue to be fair use) is because they are illustrations of the primary subject of the article. I agree, copyrighted images of living persons should not be considered fair use. A celebrity or famous person's appearance is not the primary subject matter of the article. However with these articles on proposed buildings, the structure itself, as illustrated by the architect, is the primary subject of the article and therefore fair use. Either the image is sufficient enough to show the work (the copyrighted image) or it isn't sufficient enough (a shape). You can't have it both ways - it is a contradiction. Either it is usable in the article as an image or it is not. Therefore, I'm inclined to say I do not believe an image of the shape of a building is a free equivalent. Other comments please? Agree or disagree? DR04 (talk) 18:10, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Quite, juste like the photograph that we have at Marilyn Manson is not as "cool" as this .
Problem is, we do not do Fair Use to snatch copyrighted images that we fancy, without charge, to make our webpage nicer. We take the one precise image that we need because it is discussed critically, like on Raising the Flag in Iwo Jima. All the difference between stealing an honest work. Rama (talk) 21:33, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Nothing was snatched here. The copyright owner gave specific permission. Furthermore, the analogy you make is a false one. No one is actually claiming that the picture is included for merely aestetic reasons. The arguement is that the picture you created to replace it is actually the more eggregious violation, because it is a derivative work created without permission, being used to replace the original work which DOES have permission for use. Furthermore, the image isn't merely decoration. The article discusses such issues as building design and location, all of which are uniquely enhanced by the picture. You appear to be inventing policy out of whole cloth here, without the support of the community. If you believe the foundation supports your interpretation, get the foundation to make a statement saying so. If you believe that the existing guidelines need to be changed to a more conservative view, then feel free to initiate those discussions. But to unilaterally decide that your own singular interpretation of policy is the only valid one, without actual support, seems to be particularly problematic here. --Jayron3201:40, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Have you noticed that even admins who are generally quick to support the NFCC and remove inappropriately used free images are disagreeing with you here Rama. If I were in your shoes I might take pause at that. Spartaz09:01, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
What is going on here!?!?
Does Rama have an obsession with deleting images? He really needs to gain consensus on issues like these - what is with the consistent, rash decision making? Rama can respond to this directly and so can anyone else - but is this type of behavior consistent with how an admin acts? If I am out of line, feel free to let me know, but this is getting really irritating, for a lot of people.
This was after admin User:Quadell kept the image in 2007, admin User:Spartaz restored the image yesterday, and after all the discussion here!!!
I have asked them to stop deleting files out of process and also noted to them that if this pattern of behaviour continues, an RFCU may be initiated to gather community opinions as to their approach. For now, I think we should allow the Commons process to run its course and that will inform our actions here as to whether this and similar images recently deleted by Rama qualify for fair use.
Keep following the discussion on Rama's talk page. Somehow, lost in translation I presume, he has come to the conclusion that where the policy says "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose", the word ONLY means that fair use can only be applied in cases where there is only one IMAGE in existence and can only ever be one image (eg the Mona Lisa). I simply cannot persuade him that the sentence means that the rule applies where ANY image of that subject would be non-free. This is why he believes it is OK to allow the use of the Iwo Jima image, but existence of several architects drawings means that fair use can never be applied. This is almost moving into an issue of competency, but I think he's just dug his heels in. Is there a discussion area where other Commons editors would discuss this kind of thing that we could take this discussion to?Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:52, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
On the other hand
“
Nothing forbids using plans or schematics issued by the architect as documentation. The information that they carry is not, in itself, protected. Rama (talk) 17:39, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
”
I find it hard to believe that someone who is so hot for Misplaced Pages's fair use policy (which goes over and above the law) is unaware of the copyright issue raised by this sentence in relation to his drawing. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:10, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
He's confusing simple data with rendered drawings. For example, a basic table created in Excel is not copyrightable, since it has no creative element and data itself can't be copyrighted. An architectural drawing does not fall under this exception, obviously. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 08:48, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Take a look at . Can someone explain to me why Rama thinks that s120, which has by now I think been quoted 3 times and says that the architect's design copyright does not extend to making images of a constructed building viewable from a public place, means that he can make copies of the architects plans. For someone so adamant about not "snatching" other people's work, why can he not see how badly his approach breaches US law. Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:47, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
I understand the need to wait until the deletion discussions are over, but I seriously question how someone who doesn't think it matters that by making a drawing of a building that isn't built yet, based on the architect's drawings, he has breached the architect's copyright, can continue in a position of responsibility relating to deciding on the use of non-free imagery. Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:20, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
I have deleted File:Freedom Tower New.jpg because of invalid license. What was there had no fair use, just a claim of permission to use on Misplaced Pages. Whether an email permission (should be OTRS) can override the fair use requirement for minimal use and size would also be an issue for the possible fair use. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:54, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Someone re-uploaded it after Rama deleted it, but didn't add any fair use rationale. Also, isn't it instadeath for any file that only has permission to be used on Misplaced Pages, as Misplaced Pages cannot police its use? Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:55, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
We should still provide a fair use rationale even if we've been given permission "only for Misplaced Pages". –xeno13:57, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Indeed. If anyone has the source for the image, I would be willing to re-upload it with a sturdy fair use claim - I've been getting some practice lately at fair use rationales lol. DR04 (talk) 16:56, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
FUR added. I also uploaded a lower resolution version of the image - the same resolution used in the article infobox. DR04 (talk) 17:10, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
That seems the correct course. That's what should have happened with the Spire drawing as well. It's not replacable until the building is complete and a photo or artists drawing can be made based on the finished structure. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 18:55, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps, a final discussion point...
I don't mean to jump the gun, but it looks like (currently) there is overwhelming consensus, except for Rama, that the "free" svg image he created at commons is a copyright violation (8 deletes including the proposal for deletion (me) to 1 keep by the original uploader, Rama) and the same thing for fair use of the Chicago Spire image. Of course this thread can and should stay open for as long as it needs to. I'm just worried the commons discussion could close at any time (maybe within a few hours or weeks), and wanted to point out there was one important ancillary consideration (to this Rama discussion) I think deserves a fair amount of discussion. It will have a decent impact on so many other articles and copyrighted building designs on Misplaced Pages - and I didn't want this thread to be "resolved" as soon as the commons discussion concludes. And the question is -
At what point should copyrighted, fair use images created by architects be replaced by free photographs of the building? In other words, when would a "free equivalent" exist? When it is 25% complete? 50% complete? 90% complete? When it is 100% complete? At some other point? Please discuss!!! DR04 (talk) 19:07, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
In 2007 I said about 25% complete (of the exterior) because that seems the point at which the design of the building can begin to be appreciated and understood. I'm not set on that and I've heard others here state that the copyrighted image should say up until the building 100% complete. I could understand that perspective as well, but there probably should be some consistent consensus on this moving forward from this lengthy discussion. DR04 (talk) 19:07, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
It depends on the scope of the architectural drawing. If the drawing represents an exterior view of the complete building, then it should be removed when an equivalent version of a free image becomes available. Whether drawings at other stages of construction (or other methods of representation) can be replaced depends on the availability of equivalent free images and the purpose for which the drawing is used. Nathan19:41, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
I am not convinced that any use of a non-free image is acceptable in such a case. If a building has not yet been erected, I consider that it is non-notable and therefore should not have a Misplaced Pages article. An exception muight be made in the case of a commercial disaster like the Bay-Adelaide Centre which achieved notability before it was completed, see Bay-Adelaide Centre stump. If other editors are not convinced by my argument, then any non-free image should be replaced by a free one as soon as the new building is far enough along in construction as to provide a recognisable exterior photograph. Dabbler (talk) 21:01, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Something doesn't need to be exist to be notable. If stories have been written about construction, whether it exists or not is immaterial to its notability.--Crossmr (talk) 04:56, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
As soon as a useful photograph is available that gives some idea of the nature of the building (in other words, not just the excavation).Butthis should be an addition, not replacement, until the structure is actually completed, or so substantially completed in that the exterior is essentially identical. Buildings under construction can be notable, just as other incomplete projects can be, and even plans for such a building can be notable, again as other projects. It depends on the perceived public importance of the building, as typically measured by the GNG. DGG ( talk ) 21:07, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
I think that the most ideal situation would be some more unambiguous, comprehensive policy from the foundation which would clear up more of these gray areas in general WRT copyright. However, in this case, insofar as a free alternative cannot be created until such time as the building is completed (enough) to do so, I think that the copyright architectural plans can be used as a stand-in under fair use. Once the building is in a state such that a real, free picture can be taken of it, the fair use claim would then go away. However, there are notable projects that are cancelled, or delayed, or not yet complete, and I think there is a compelling case in THOSE cases for using the copyrighted work, since no free equivalent could exist. --Jayron3221:18, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Personally I don't think the licensing resolution is particularly unclear, but you're right that it isn't very specific. I'm not sure this is a bad thing; the issue for the Foundation isn't one of legal liability (that accrues to the uploader), but content that is reusable consistent with its mission. Within the guidelines of the resolution, each project (through its EDP) is responsible for making and enforcing its own specific rules. Nathan21:51, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
The point basically stems from whether "built visible from a public space" should be interpreted as accenting "built" of "visible from a public space". I believe that the very question exhibits the magnitude of the absurdity that the "built" interpretation entails, leading directly to a Theseus' paradox. At the very least, assuming that the "built" interpretation is retained, which seems likely, we cannot accept arguments like "let's say 25%" proposed without the slightest reason. If we do not find very good and firm reasons to believe otherwise (which I doubt we would), we would have to struggle for safety and, thus, wait until the building is fully commissioned. Rama (talk) 22:13, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
PPS: And I do not believe that "Fair Use" images can be used at all before that point. These images do not constitute the subject of the article, but merely depict the subject of the article. Furthermore they are not unique, but taken amongst a number of other images in port-folios, and clearly not notable for themselves. As such, they are not candidates for Fair Use. Rama (talk) 22:31, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Over at Burj Dubai the image used in the info box was finally changed from a computer generated rendering to this image from Oct '08, which showed the building nearing completion and included many of the major design elements which are discussed in the article. However, in light of this discussion, the earliest I think we could have changed the image, is perhaps to this one from Nov '06; at which time around half the concrete structure had been built, and it was large enough to show at least some elements of the design and the scale of the building. As for notability, I think buildings can be notable while still at the proposal stage, particularly if the proposal is for something that might make it into the tallest/biggest lists if built and it meets the general notability requirements. Astronaut (talk) 22:32, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Rama has made a point worth further consideration here. The law is different in different countries - in the UK you can pretty much photograph any 3d item standing in or visible from a public place, and not breach the creator's copyright. So you could take pictures of say the Gherkin at any stage of construction that you could see from the street, or from an aeriel photo. In France, you cannot take a picture of anything for which the creator can claim a copyright, without permission of the copyright holder. It follows therefore that there is never going to be a free image of any architecturally significant building in France unless the copyright holder chooses to release one. The specific exemption of US s120 appears in natural language to apply only to buildings that have a fully constructed exterior "that has been constructed" - I am not aware of any caselaw precedent for permission applying to images of buildings that are under construction. This means that the decision will depend not only on how much of the building is standing, but where in the world it is.Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:28, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
"...there is never going to be a free image of any architecturally significant building in France..." That's absurd. I can see it now, the French courts filled by the millions of tourists every year who have dared to photograph the Eiffel Tower, the Louvre Pyramid, the Château de Versailles, La Grande Arche de la Défense, etc... And Misplaced Pages would be in huge trouble with pretty much any image of a building in France. Astronaut (talk) 17:21, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, every single photograph of the Eiffel Tower lit at night is a copyvio under french law, see Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#France. Absurd, isn't it. To clarify the rest of the law, it does restrict itself to two criteria for originality: "a definite artistic character" (« un caractère artistique certain ») and the fact that it does not belong to a series. Which probably means one is safe photographing the Paris suburbs! The issue as always with copyvio is not making the image but publishing it. In Misplaced Pages's case, I have no doubt there are some images of French buildings that are not free and consequently need a fair use rationale.Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:10, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Each deletion needs to be reviewed, in particular their Fair-Use rationales to establish whether their claim to Fair-Use is valid. Perhaps the easiest way to do that would be to restore the images, perhaps on a temporary basis.
Images deemed to be valid fair-use should also be restored to the articles where their fair use is permitted. That will need someone to go through the log of the ImageRemovalBot and any separate image removals carried out by Rama or other editors. I am, of course, happy to do some of this. Astronaut (talk) 20:39, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Support. It'll need an admin though.
Of the last ten on the list, only four had plausible source data. That's six gone because having a valid source is absolutely critical and that isn't "I found it on Flickr". Two were of the same design which isn't minimal use of non-free content. That leaves three left for us to look at whether they have a valid rationale. Any that did would need to be re-uploaded in lower resolution. Seems like a complete waste of time. Anyone who really wants to use these sort of things should be begging the architects for a free image of the design. "Didn't bother to ask for a free version" is not a sound rationale for using non-free content. Angus McLellan(Talk)22:42, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
User:Ed Poor - POV and COI
For some reason Ed Poor (talk·contribs·deleted contribs·nuke contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log) has never been banned or restricted from Unification Church topics. He has been engaging in low-level warfare on these articles for years, and has recently been smearing and needling User:Cirt who has been attempting to get Ed to conform to the rules. I won't paste difs here at this point under the presumption that enough old-timers exist to know what I'm talking about - but will begin pasting them if necessary. I suggest that enough is enough. Ed spends most of his time rewriting the bible at Conservapedia these days anyway. I don't remember the last time he made a truly helpful contribution to this site. I bring this here to gauge community feelings about a topic ban on all Unification church related articles. KillerChihuahuaAdvice18:30, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Ed Poor 2: A case involving Ed Poor. POV pushing and disruption. Ed Poor was party to two prior cases; the first was closed after Poor resigned his status as a bureaucrat, and the second resulted in his desysopping.
Oppose. Although Ed Poor's presence on the arbitration committee certainly would make it more interesting, his sanctimonious inability to see his flaws and his infrequent but regular outbursts of puerility will lead to some impressive flareups and flameouts. Just one guy's opinion. The Cunctator 20:36, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Oppose. Doesn't understand basic policy. Agree with the Cunc. ] 21:03, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)
Oppose. Does not follow Misplaced Pages policies for stating credible sources for articles such as Demographics_of_terrorism. --Rebroad 21:24, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Oppose Does nothing but add POV. Just look at his edit history. Ruy Lopez 23:51, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Strongly Oppose. Shameless (indeed, proud) bigot, as stated above. Exploding Boy 21:58, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)
Oppose, for the reasons stated above. Shorne 06:51, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Oppose. Agree with Cunc, Rebroad. 172 15:53, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Oppose Pays lip service to the NPOV policy and consistently makes POV edits (sometimes subtle, sometimes not so subtle) without bothering to balance his remarks. --Axon 14:50, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Opppose due to POV-related issues. --] 18:47, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
If I were in violation of site policy, Cirt would provide evidence. Rather, he makes up his own interpretations of the rules. "Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views" is against the rules, but Cirt just did it here. Announcing what side I'm on doesn't mean I have a conflict of interest, as long as I can write neutrally. Give one example of me POV-pushing (rather than telling both sides where there are conflicting accounts), and I'll refrain from such edits in the future. Otherwise, ask Cirt to stop harassing me. --Uncle Ed (talk) 18:54, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
That's exactly the defense you used in the ArbCom case where you got banned from ever editing Intelligent design articles, isn't it, Ed? Do you really think everyone here is that stupid? KillerChihuahuaAdvice19:15, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
No, I'm the only stupid one here if it's stupid to think that demanding evidence (rather than votes) would stop me from suffering an unwarranted ban. --Uncle Ed (talk) 19:54, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
This in an example of the sort of personal attack that KillerChihuahua and others have been making against me in recent months. First of all, it's not relevant what I do on other websites but it's false that I'm "rewriting the bible" at Conservapedia or anywhere. Apparently KC is trying to destroy my credibility for some reason known only to her. Please encourage her to stop this.
I have not smeared or needled Cirt, and IIRC correctly making an accusation like that without evidence is in itself a personal attack.
The reason I've never been banned from topics relating to the Unification Church is that I am unusually gifted at writing neutrally about it, despite my affiliation. Barring evidence that I am violated WP:NPOV with my edits, I suggest that KC and the others who are harassing me are (perhaps unconsciously) trying to get their own biased views enshrined in articles and to censor alternative views.
All I do is add information which I believe is true; I'm always willing to dig up online or dead tree sources to back up anything I add to an article. Hardly anything I write on other topics is reverted, despite KC's needling crack above; I suggest an official warning is in order. --Uncle Ed (talk) 18:54, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
We're just tired of your bullshit, Ed. I think Cirt's tired of cleaning up after you. I pretty much gave up years ago. If we have to I guess we can go for Ed Poor AbrCom 3, but that's an awful lot of work. It isn't like it isn't well known that you mostly edit to push the UC POV. You've even admitted in, somewhere in the past. KillerChihuahuaAdvice18:58, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
If you had any evidence of me POV-pushing, you'd supply a diff. Should be easy to find in my 30,000-plus edits if cleaning up after it is making people tired.
All I do is add balancing information to biased articles. Last time I checked, this was considered to enhance neutrality. --Uncle Ed (talk) 20:00, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Support a topic ban from Unification Church topics. Frankly I'm surprised this is the only action being taken against this editor. Crafty (talk) 19:07, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
If you wish to suggest stronger measures, I would support that. As seen in the (now collapsed) 2004 ArbCom opposes, he's been a POV pushing, rules-ignoring bigot since before I was even registered here. I would support up to and including a full site ban. KillerChihuahuaAdvice19:10, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Now that the topic ban is in effect, let's see how he does. Breach it and be damned for all time - that sorta thing. Crafty (talk) 19:44, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Oppose The diffs provided hardly justify any action. If they're the worst, they praise with faint damns. The rest seems quite ancient history. Absolutely everyone has a POV. Neutrality is a goal, not something anyone can perfectly practice, and COI is not a reason for excluding competent editors.John Z (talk) 00:06, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Please note I said "I won't paste difs here at this point" and by the time you objected that no difs had been posted, Ed had already been topic banned. He wasn't banned for any difs posted in this section, but for an overall history / continuing behavior. KillerChihuahuaAdvice11:58, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
I did not object that no diffs were posted and did notice you said you would not post diffs immediately. I was referring to the diffs Cirt had posted. I was opposing a topic ban which seems to me to have very little basis. The burden is on those desiring a ban to prove their case.John Z (talk) 01:12, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Support - Kafziel's entry of the new topic ban of Ed Poor from both articles and talk pages related to Category:Unification Church. I'm aware of Cirt being a patient and methodical editor on contentious topics so I find Ed Poor's response to Cirt's well-sourced comment above to be very disappointing. COI situations are often negotiated and can arrive at a good outcome, but Ed's approach is going nowhere fast. EdJohnston (talk) 16:10, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Comment As a long-time member of Misplaced Pages, I have a fair amount of respect & automatically extend good faith to three of the parties in this dispute -- Uncle Ed, KillerChihuhua, & Cirt. However, the diffs provided above don't support the accusations, & I wonder if this is a case where the actual conflict is due more to the parties reading intent into the edits where none is intended; Uncle Ed has never made a secret of his membership to the Unification Church. If I'm wrong, please supply more diffs. And even if Uncle Ed is not making edits to the detriment of Misplaced Pages, perhaps he could show some of that peace-making skills we long-time Wikipedians remember him best for & voluntarily stay away from Unification Church-related articles in order to promote harmony here. (This is the primary reason I stay away from articles relating to US politics.) -- llywrch (talk) 19:20, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Support, per WP:COI Ed should avoid editing any article related to this organization. The unfortunate fact that he has continued to edit these articles makes a topic ban the next logical step. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:57, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Archiving. There does not seem to be a need for an administrative action here. The basic call has been for an admin to take a look at the situation and I am in the process of doing that and will soon post a note on the article talk page with some thoughts, but the core issue seems to be a content dispute (the exact nature is unclear) and some ill-advised comments by multiple parties. Further discussion here is not going to be useful. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs02:07, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Would some willing admin with time on hand take a look at this. It's a mess, I now but as I still at least try to assume good faith in the editor (don't know why by now to be honest), s/he just doesn't listen to ANY good faith advise given by several editors (mostly given at the article's talk page). It really could help a lot if someone uninvolved could step in. BTW, this is the very first post I've started here in my whole wiki-life and I wish it wouldn't have come to this. Also, I'm not looking for some immediate block or other similar actions against the editor, What I'm seeking is a strong, trustable (to the editor) admin with a soft but determined hand and politeness, able to approach the editor in question with all kindness and as much politeness as possible so s/he might listening. this issue is beyond a simple content dispute which can be worked out as there is plenty of time on hand to do so and no serious edit warring was going on either. It's simply just about the editors approach by not adhering to the very basic guidelines and policies of WP. Please see the editors and the article's talk page history for context. Thanks for listening. The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 20:54, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Yes, AniMate. It's vague and I posted it this way on porpoise since I don't want to make a big deal out of it. What I'm trying is to prevent that it becomes a "big deal" and therefore was and are still just looking for at least one uninvolved admin to take a look at it and keep his/her eye on it so it doesn't become one more unneeded and useless dramathread (which I'm not a fan of). If I start posting diffs I'm almost certain this thread will just end up in such (drama). AniMate, if you don't want to waste your time on this that would be absolutely fine with me. If I would be an admin I would think twice before getting involved here but there is the possibility that one or more (admins) would "waste" they're time in part on this issue. If I'm proven wrong and there is no improvement within reasonable time I might post diffs and else. Till then there is still hope from my side that it won't be needed. Thanks for responding anyways. Best, The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 21:53, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Magnificent Clean-keeper keeps ignoring the real issue--hurling insults.
The issue here is that I posted a quote from the NPOV policy and was met with a personal insult. I was called "rude" and "arrogant" by an editor named Rturus for posting an excerpt from NPOV policy rather than linking to the article on NPOV policy. Clearly, such a personal insult was not deserved for such a minor stylistic issue. The editor then sent me a message with anti-American comments, including remarks about the U.S. being seen as a "bully" and "arrogant" and Misplaced Pages becoming too "USA-slanted". Then he again posted personal insults, two more times, such as calling me "rude, manipulative and disingenuous." Magnificant Cleaner appeared to be encouraging him by critcising me for technical failings, while ignoring the real issue of the personal insults. There have been numerous anti-American insults posted in the discussion page. Some are gone, some are still there. The point is that there should not be insults included in a discussion page. Some of the insults about the U.S. have been horrible. I believe that underlying the insults that Rturus has directed at me is his anti-American bias. While Magnificent Cleaner wants to couch this as a dispute over my lack of following formal rules, the fact is that I do not know what all of the rules are. Most importantly, that is a totally separate issue from the issue of hurling insults when you don't agree with an editor or when you don't like someone's country. Magnificent Cleaner seems to be condoning the use of personal insults on a talk page by intentionally ignoring that crucual issue while trying to shift the focus to minor tecnhical violations on editing. That all this is going on in the context of a discussion page where other anti-American comments once appeared and keep popping up is not productive to the production of a good article. PilgrimRose (talk) 21:56, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
It sounds like you guys might want to file an WP:RfC to get more eyes on the article. Since no one has provided a single diff, there really isn't an incident for us to deal with. If there are specific concerns about the treatment of those still living that were involved in the trial or murder, probably WP:BLPN would be better. Neutral point of view problems? WP:NPOVN. Reliable sourcing problems? WP:RSN. If there is a specific incident you would like administrative assistance with, this is the right board. I personally recommend a content RfC. AniMate22:33, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
An RFC? No, sorry but this is, again, something I would like to prevent as it is not needed at all. Please, AniMate, I like you a lot but I am just looking out for an admin who is willing to place his eye on this article and it's talkpage before it gets out of hand. If that won't happen there is a good chance we end up here again with "real" drama and "tears to flow". I just think ANI should also be a venue for preventable complications but if you think different let's just close this thread for now and if needed I or someone else will open it up again when it becomes a "diva's" issue. Believe me I know first hand what that means in case you don't and it's not funny, (it torned my family apart). Sorry for my last personal input which was drama itself. :O Best, The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 22:52, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
I'd observe that, although opinions are strongly held and (IMO) there's really problematic bias issues in the article, conduct (with some exceptions) has not been too bad, all things considered. I have not actually noticed any edit-warring, for example. So, from that point-of-view you are right, AniMate, there is no incident and no reason to get involved.
Posting on NPOV may seem logical.
However, there's a key probem, in that it is not entirely clear how the article should be constructed. I have my own, very clear, view, but I suspect the article may be unprecedented in a number of respects. Should it be about a murder and subsequent trial? Should it be about the media depiction of those things (the issue here being that many feel that coverage has been distorted and should not be a guide to how weight should be applied in the article)? Is it really an article about Amanda Knox? If it is, is this appropriate?
Because of the nature of these questions, my view is that we are on quite novel terriotry and existing guidelines may be of little help. It is possible that we are flying blind.
So, in my view, it may be helpful for an experienced admin to just take a look, not with a view to any action, but maybe just to advise, acknowledging that this is beyond the call of duty.
Lastly, I don't agree with PilgrimRose's tendentious editing. However, I have not personally seen anything to suggest a serious, actionable problem with this particular editor. --FormerIP (talk) 23:32, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
The latter was my intend and I made that clear. Although it needs an admin who is willing to give some of his/her time up and keep an eye on it. That is ALL the involvement I was looking for and I do think I was pretty clear in what I tried to achieve. If not I apologize for the distraction I might have caused.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 23:45, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Don't worry about it, MCP, I'm certainly not having a go at you - apologies if it might have sounded like that. It feels to me like the article should have some sort of action taken, but it is not clear what, IMO. Perhaps you could say that the correct noticeboard has not yet been set up. That's not your fault. --FormerIP (talk) 00:58, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
"the correct noticeboard has not yet been set up." Indeed and my try here went on deaf ears. So I guess this is the first and last time I'll start a thread here since I HATE drama. Guess you get my point. Thanks for your thoughtfull remark. Best, The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 02:53, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
I really am beginning to regret ever having tried to defend Misplaced Pages's NPOV policy in the subject article. PilgrimRose has reacted to every comment, correction and objection by anyone in a knee-jerk reaction of thinking s/he is being insulted, attacked and bullied. I strenuously object to PilgrimRose trying to paint me in a very unfavourable light by misquoting and misrepresenting my remarks and actions. I willingly submit (and encourage) users to read my personal message to RilgrimRose - which I have copied onto my talk page - and my remarks on the Kercher Murder talk page. I fully affirm that I referred to some of PilgrimRose's actions as arrogant, rude, manipulative and disingenuous. However those are not intended as personal insults but factual descriptions of the exhibited behaviour, and have also been echoed in other user's criticisms of PilgrmRose's actions. PilgrimRose also fails to acknowledge that I freely apologised to them for any offence which they had felt over my remarks which were not intended as a personal insult.
The general consensus of opinion (I believe) on the talk page is that PilgrimRose is not exhibiting a NPOV but is rather seeking to mount a campaign designed to paint the trial of Amanda Knox as a miscarriage of justice. Any remarks made to PilgrimRose asking for a more NPOV approach are being interpreted by PilgrimRose as personal attacks. I have clearly stated that I hold no views on the issue and am only seeking to maintain a NPOV, although I did infer in my personal message that I "viewed the trial with misgivings and apprehension". Nobody (least of all me) wants to see a miscarriage of justice but Misplaced Pages is not a place to campaign.
There has been blatant defamation of me by PilgrimRose in making unfounded allegations of an anti-American bias on my part by misquoting my information to them that: "On the subject of how the USA is perceived in Europe, you might like to have a look at the editorial pages of various news agencies over here. Many people feel that the USA has an arrogant and bullying approach to other countries. There has often been much disquiet about various activities and policies of the USA government and major corporations." I can only assume that their intention was to try to discredit me and garner support for their stance and actions. I have made no insults about the USA and PilgrimRose needs to retract the allegations.
I have at no time "bullied" PilgrimRose, nor have I sought to have them not participate. The hysterical response of PilgrimRose to all criticism and advice seems to me indicative of someone on a crusade. rturus (talk) 05:32, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
By posting insults and exaggerated complaints against another editor, that does indeed constitute a type of bullying. Editors are here to enjoy the experience of writing about an interesting topic. They should not have to put up with being insulted over and over by someone who does not agree with her views or holds unfavorable views of her country. Rturus says he apologized yet again hurls insults at me by again calling me "arrogant, rude, manipulative and disingenuous". His apology is phoney since he keeps defending and reaffirming his insults. Now he calls me "hysterical" for being offended by him. His tactics are obvious--make the situation as unpleasant as possible so that an editor whose views he does not agree with will go away. This is exactly the type of bullying tactic that has caused the vast majority of editors to quit Misplaced Pages, and should not be tolerated. PilgrimRose (talk) 17:51, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
OK, that's it, I have had enough of this treatment.
Your method of editing was arrogant and rude, in that you posted (and lectured) at the top of the talk page and deleted other user's comments (mine included)- that is not to say that you are an arrogant and rude person - can you not see the difference? Perhaps you can suggest synonyms for those descriptions that you would not take as an insult? Again you ignore the fact that I apologised if my use of the words caused offence - do you just not see things that you don't want to see?
Your later editing was manipulative and disingenuous because you misquoted and misrepresented me on the Kercher talk page, using information that I had placed on your own talk page (in good faith and in a friendly spirit) without having the courtesy to reply to me personally. I am not the only editor that you have abused and reacted to, others have also remarked that your editing has been rude and disingenuous. The fact is that you are determined to press your agenda at whatever cost, insulting and disabusing me and other editors. You even launched a vicious attack on me on this page (repeating your deliberate misrepresentation of my words) without even the courtesy of informing me of your posting. I repeat that I was not making a personal attack on you, my original remarks were referring to the editing behaviours that I and others have objected to. It is obvious now that you are being disingenuous and manipulative because I have several times drawn your attention to the fact that you have misquoted me and yet you still persist in doing so. You again insist that I hold "unfavorable views" of your country when I have given you ample responses to the contrary. Do you think that trying to appeal to some sort of "McCarthyism" will garner you some sympathy from others? I will not resort to personal attacks on your character, that is something that you do to me, I am far too much of a gentleman to do such a thing.
It is my belief that you are using your attacks on me as an attempt to draw attention away from the fact that many editors have remarked on your frequent POV postings and obvious bias on the Kercher page. I also presume that you think that I will be cowed by your personal attacks and refrain from making NPOV suggestions in case people think I am bullying. I demand that you apologise with a full retraction here and on the Kercher talk page for your continued misrepresentation of me and I am formally asking that your continued behaviour towards me be reviewed by an admin. I also am happy to have my remarks reviewed also and if any further apology over any words I have used is required I will happily comply or accept any other justified sanctions rturus (talk) 18:52, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Well, if you want to "formally" ask for a review of someone's behavior, this isn't the place - WP:RFC is closer to what you're looking for, though still not "formal"... Tan | 3918:56, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Actually Tan I think I didn't mean formal review in the sense of RFC yet, I really meant that I would like an admin to comment here on PilgrimRose's uncivil behaviour as in "2.(d) quoting another editor out of context to give the impression they hold views they do not hold, or to malign them." Also to be honest I retract the "demand" about an apology and rather say "request".
PilgrimRose It is you that raised this here and I am not bullying I am asking you to correct your misrepresentation of me and apologise for doing so - see your talk page. rturus (talk) 20:21, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
FYI - I have made a further reconciliatory move by striking out my original words that PilgrimRose seemed to find insulting and providing more moderate language. I await a response. rturus (talk) 21:39, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
FYI, I would deffinetley strike out my "ditto comment" if it still would be where I put it in context. Neither I nor another involved editor "moved it" besides Pilgrim and I didn't move it back since Pilgrim reversed one of my edits before w/o any editsummary which I only made to adhere to talkpage guidelines (Pilgrim seems not to be aware of), thus I could've have reversed it and mark it as vandalism but, I didn't chose to do so as I still assumed good faith. I gave him the doubt of an honest mistake the first time, yet he chose to repeat it and therefore made clear that there was no honest mistake from his side. But anyways, if Pilgrim is willing to move it back to where it used to be or verbally acknowledge to agree to move my "comment of agreement with another editor" (who already retracted his remarks) back to where it was to respect the timeline I will certainly do what I said above in my very first sentence of this post. No I have to take my right to pass out again....Thanks, The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 22:49, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Uninvolved Admin Requested: User:Damiens.rf multiple JPG deletions and related matters
Please bear on the length: this matter involves the deletion of many images, associated with the work of many wikipedia editors, and multiple violations of multiple wikipedia policies. Thank You !!!
1. User User:Damiens.rf failed to follow civility protocol, failed to first contact the user(s) in question for dialogue before engaging in marking such large number of JPGs for deletion, thus unnecessarily precipitating an offesive/defensive, warring environment.
2. The amount of time the user allotted to resolve the alleged problems (7 days http://en.wikipedia.org/File:Ponce_Massacre.JPG) for all the JPGs in question is unreasonable, it is not sufficient given the large number of JPGs the user marked for deletion in one lump batch.
4. The user's rebuttals to the lengthy responses of editors who attempted to address the alleged problems would seem to indicate user is not really intent on resolving the alleged problems user is alleging, but to simply run a show of sorts where user is not part of a team but some sort of an aristocratic patriach intent only on finding fault with others and putting them to do the actual work. See, for example, "try to discover what happened to the newspapers archive, or actually, to the archives copyright!" at http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Marine_69-71#PONCE_MASSACRE.JPG. On another occassion, which I just can't put my finger on right now, user Damiens.rf was directing an editor involved in one of the PR-related images to go to his relatives (that editor's relatives) to get the necessary copyright information. (this is how I vaguely remember Damiens.rf's rebuttal went). And, I am afraid I am not the only editor with this view (see, for example, Jmundo's "If you don't like the quote from an ACLU report that directly discussed the image, and the placement of the image in the article, so fix it!. Maybe other editors from WP:PUR are busy trying to save the images you nominated for deletion." at http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2009_December_8#File:Ponce_Massacre.JPG)
5. The user's sometimes sarcastic closings (see, for example, the context in which the user User:Damiens.rf used the closing phrase "See you." in http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Damiens.rf#Edit_warring), though not exactly against policy that I know, leaves much to be desired from an administrator.
6. The user engaged in edit warring with several other editors and administrators (
8. The user's behavior (which could be described as arrogant ) is inconsistent with a community working together.
9. The user's overall intentions (note -- not necessarily as evidence but as an example to be taken with the rest of user's all other actions -- note the user's use of double quotes around "vote" in "I would "vote" to keep it" at http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2009_December_8#File:Ponce_Massacre.JPG) would appear to be un-democratic. That is, that regardless of the input, effort, and even correctness of the other editors responding, the user has already premeditated the files will be deleted (This is called "malice" in some places).
11. The user's overall who-cares? attitude (see, for example, "Now live through your own drama. I'm tired.--" at http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Damiens.rf#Edit_warring) is overall nonproductive, in so far as this batch delete project the user has undertaken.
The user's behavior of not showing consideration to the editors involved is clearly unwelcomed (given the negative feedback user has gotten from everyone (5-7 users) that has reacted to user's style just in the PR project) and, to myself, counterproductive, and I believe counterproductive to probably other editors as well (see for Ex: http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Caribbean_H.Q.#Just_a_thought).
I don't doubt that something good can come out of all of this: sharper abuse management skills, a renewed review of wikipedia behavioral policies, more detail written into some articles, etc. If improvement is what the user seeks, there is no doubt there will always be room for more improvement - even after user gets done with this exercise. However, the user's methods violate wikipedia's community behavioral policies. The problem here is that the user's behaviour is resulting in more damage than good: edit warring, name-calling, threats, undue scrutiny of seemingly no-randomly selected images, in short, an athmosphere of distrust and low morale. The problem is that while a few of this user's comments might be helpful, overwhemingly they are not, and, even if they were all helpful, they come tainted with the indignant mark of that user's aggressive behaviour. The user has at this point damaged beyond repair his/her ability to operate civily in this Project.
I petition that the user be banned from further work in PR images in question and in any other PR-related images in wikipedia.
I petition that, at least while this matter is resolved, that all PR-related images user has tagged as nominated for deletion be hereby postponed beyond the 12/14/09 deadline. Thanks.
I petition that a different, neutral, less intransigent editor or administrator with greater ability to get others to work in a collaborative environment be asked to review all the images in question and determine if, in effect, there is any problem with them, for follow up.
I'm not really inclined to read through this wall of text and diffs (short messages are usually preferable), but making assumptions about an editor's personal life is unacceptable; please redact these statements. –Juliancolton | 21:47, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
I gave it a quick read through. Damiens.rf has a history of nominating huge numbers of images for deletion at the same time, usually uploaded by the same user. Having to scramble through huge numbers of your contributions can be demoralizing and a huge time suck. Personally, I'd like to see him restricted in someway in regards to the number of uploads he can nominate for deletion in a 24 or 48 hour period. Also, he certainly doesn't do much to inspire a collegial environment around here, though that should be addressed at WP:WQA most likely.AniMate21:58, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
(ec with AniMate) Damiens.rf specialises in non-free image cleanup. This work is often bound to get affected users angry, but that doesn't mean it isn't legitimate. Damiens has a lot of expertise and experience in this, and the huge majority of his nominations are soundly argued and usually find the consensus of well-informed image administrators. Yes, he can be brusque at times, but this seems to be a minor issue in the present case. So, in short: no, forget it. He will not be "banned" from doing this job, and the images he nominated will be reviewed in the normal way like all others. Mercy: your whole approach of making this a "Puerto Rico" topic-related issue, as if that country as a topic area needed some special protection from an "attack", shows you have gotten something fundamentally wrong here. Fut.Perf.☼22:04, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Minor now... sorry but I'm starting to see a trend with some of the users who get involved in this particular bit of work on wikipedia, this may need a much larger looking at by the community.--Crossmr (talk) 23:23, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Future Perfect: As you have addressed me directly, I hereby respond to your statement. You seem to have missed a major point altogether: I have singled out PR in my discussion based not, as you claim, on a belief PR deserves some special protection from an attack, but because that country is the home-base wikiproject (WP:PUR) for an article I had substantially worked on (Ponce Massacre) and which contains an image (Ponce Massacre.jpg)) that was NfD'd by Damiens.rf.
What is at the core of this whole discussion is, When confronted with a choice between uncivil good work and civil but not so good, which choice will you pick? Oftentimes people become so puffed up from having developed a lot of expertise and experience in certain subject area that they forget about the human element of a collaborative work. Whether to-be-banned or not to be, is a secondary matter that can be handled as a second phase. Regards, Mercy11 (talk) 10:59, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
I think I agree with both AniMate and Future Perfect, at least in part. As Future Perfect points out, User:Damiens.rf has accumulated a lot of expertise and experience in dealing with non-free images, and has provided much useful service by identifying problems with images. At the same time, I share AniMate's perception that Damiens.rf's nominations of images for deletion tend to have demoralizing effects on other users, the vast majority of whom are utterly befuddled by the rules on images. It appears to me that Damiens.rf intimidates other users with his(?) superior knowledge of image copyrights and fair-use justifications. I doubt that this intimidation is intentional -- it's just something that has happened. I'd like to ask Damiens.rf to take pity on other users who lack his thoroughgoing knowledge (i.e., most of the rest of us) by making a couple of changes to his modus operandi:
Instead of telling other users that their "fair use" justifications are incomplete or incorrectly formatted, assist them by revising their justifications (if they appear to have merit) or explaining to them what the problems are.
When dealing with an apparently non-free image that has been in use in Misplaced Pages for more than about 6 months, refrain from nominating the image for deletion until after contacting (on user talk pages) all currently active registered users who appear to have an interest in the image (i.e., the uploader, people who have edited the image page, and people who have made substantial edits to articles that use the image) to identify and explain the problem, listen to the other users' points of view, and advise on resolving the situation (if possible).
I could hardly agree less. We have a big problem here, but it has nothing to do with Damiens.rf. The problem here is these other users, the ones you're wasting your sympathy on. Anyone who is "demoralised" by the removal of non-free content is entirely missing the point of what we're trying to do here. If editors feel that they are being made to jump through hoops to justify the use of non-free content, that's right and proper. Those who seek to retain it should work hard to justify every single piece of non-free content.
We should be ruthless, relentless and remorseless in removing non-free content. This is a 💕. Every time we add something to it that's not free and not absolutely necessary for our readers' understanding we can chalk that up as a failure. Every time we remove something that's not free and replace it with something that is, whether that's better-written text or some other sort of content, that counts as a success. Here endeth the lesson. Angus McLellan(Talk)01:45, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
"We should be ruthless". Really? Are we in a collaborative project or a game? No wonder editors are leaving Misplaced Pages. You can enforce policy and be civil about it. I don't understand why he can't engage the uploader or the project before mass nominating similar images. --Jmundo (talk) 02:26, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
You may be confusing ruthlessness and rudeness but I'm not. There are many thousands of non-free images on Misplaced Pages which do not meet the EDP. Deleting these is doing the Right Thing. And will ruthlessly deleting them upset people? Yes it probably will but we can't not delete such images just because someone might leave in a huff. We should try to avoid making things worse by being rude or aggressive but that cuts both ways. Experienced editors whose non-free images are sent to FFD shouldn't overreact either. It's not a personal attack any more than nominating "their" category or template would be. Angus McLellan(Talk)02:52, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
OK, this is why sometimes I whish WP:DRAMA still redirected here ;). I'll try to be brief but will fail.
1) Damiens specializes in a generally thankless, but important job. I agree with the comments that ask that we keep this is mind.
2) I have also tried to approach the matters with him in a civil and honest manner, including my unease at assuming good faith in this case. I have done some what in the deletion discussions, but mostly in his talk page. He has been generally civil, except one instance of borderline dickery - the usual trick of "am calling your actions 'imbecile' not you" etc.
3) However, the issue here is how he approaches this work. The massive nature doesn't allow - in spite of his denial - for a real nuanced approach to the fair use criteria. Damiens seems to use a general criteria that is his interpretation of global consensus. However, fair use doctrine is by definition a case-by-case one by which other than defining what it is *not*, everything else is open to reasonable interpretation. My discussion with him on his talk page illustrates this point, for example, he claims one image lacks any intrinsic
4) I think AniMate's comments mostly approach my experience. The problem is not the activity per-se, but the approach to this activity. Basically, in this particular case, he is targeting a series of articles actively maintained and curated by an active Wikiproject made up of a fair number of veteran editors and administrators. Rather than this meaning any special status, it means that common sense tells you that you should approach the matter differently. In fact, Tony the Marine deleted or changed the criteria for a number of images when Damiens' rationale proved to be unquestionable. Damiens, in other words, in failing to assume good faith.
5) Ultimately, the community except in speedy deletion cases, always prefers that people talk things out before going to third parties. It seems damiens sees this common sense community approach unapealing, and prefers a strict, policy based approach. I understand this is a debate with camps etc, so I am not arguing that he is doing something inherently wrong. I am saying that in my opinion, this is a highly unproductive way to proceed, that ends up in AN/I instead of fixing the article space and its images.
I think Damiens is well intentioned, but perhaps should trust the community to be able to learn the intricacies of fair use doctrine, and that it too shares his concern about minimizing the use of fair use images. However, he also shoudl have a little bit of patience:There is no deadline. --Cerejota (talk) 02:28, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
I will say this again, the problem is not nominating the images. The issue is the way that said action was done. The user was highly sarcastic in his approach to edits trying to fix the issues that he claims, calling the contributions either "jokes" or "idiotic ". Mass nominating at once doesn't help either, Misplaced Pages is a collaborative project, in order to fix things we need to collaborate. By mass nominating dozens of pictures at once he is creating a massive backlog for a project, he can't really expect to have the issues resolved as fast as he is nominating, seeing that he seems to have limitless time to do so. - Caribbean~H.Q.03:04, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Since I have been discussed here, I think that it is only fair that I express myself. This discussion is not about the removal of non-free images. Those that do not meet Misplaced Pages policy must be removed. Damiens' expertise is images and he is a good editor. I have had the pleasure of interacting with him over a year ago. I agree with Caribbean H.Q. that there some who have misunderstood what is really being discussed here and have missed the point of the issues involved, which are the mass nomination of one editors upload and the name calling which went on during the process.
1. I believe that mass nomination of an editors uploads is a unproductive stressing situation for the uploader and in some cases may give the impression that the nominator has agenda. It should have been handled in different manner. If the situation involves numerous images, the nominator could point out the situation to the uploader by a simple discussion, giving the uploader the opportunity to fix or find a solution to the situation. If that doesn't work then nominate. There are some nominations made by Damiens which I do not agree with, especially those which I consider historically significant, however I realized that others were within reason and I deleted them. I have to add that even though in some cases we did not see eye to eye, Damiens has began to discuss some of the images in my talk page with reasonable logic and as such I have deleted or replaced some of the images. Damiens has also helped in some of the image formats.
2. I found the name calling on Damiens part rude and offensive. It was uncalled for and as a result tensions rose. There is no need for such actions during the process. Discussions should be carried out without any name callings or offenses Even though I am an administrator, I am not a know it all. I have dedicated myself to the creation of historical and military related Puerto Rican articles and therefore I have kept updated in regard to changes in image policy. But, I am not an "imbecile." However, I also sinned by warning Damiens with a "block" for his conduct during the process, when I should have discussed the issue in ANI. The bottom line is that discussions should be carried out in a civil manner without what any words which any of the parties may consider offensive. Tony the Marine (talk) 04:23, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Agree w/comments by Mercy, AniMate, Crossmr, and Jmundo. I've looked at the diffs, and believe if people looked at them carefully they would reach the same conclusion. This isn't just a matter of someone civilly doing a good job. It completely uncivil. And unacceptable. The loading up on individual editors, when coupled with the incivility, does much to suggest that the presumption of AFG may well be rebutted by the behavior. There's not deadline here on wikipedia, as has been pointed out. Damiens should slow down and be civil. If we had to choose between "uncivil good work", and no contributions at all from his, I would go for the latter. I would hope, however, that with input from the community he can become a civil, helpful contributor. I should note, btw, that I've found his recent AfD judgment to be markedly poor here, which reflected a complete failure to do a wp:before nom review for sources.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:51, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, but this whole meme about "it's bad to nominate multiple images by the same uploader" just needs to be rejected. This has come up repeatedly, including Arbcom proceedings and RfCs, and the result is always the same: it's just not a reasonable demand. If an image reviewer comes across a whole group of images of a similar kind uploaded under similar conditions for similar articles by the same editor or small group of editors, of course the natural reaction is to try and deal with them all in one go. How else would one be able to go about it efficiently? Do people really think it would be a reasonable and efficient way of dealing with problematic images if you were obliged to just randomly pick one here and one there? And what good would it do to just "slow it down", as some have demanded? It would cause the same pain, and only spread out the pain over a longer period. Seriously, as long as the main objection against Damiens' work seems to be the fact of the batch nature of his nominations, I can't see any merit in them. Fut.Perf.☼10:19, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
That's fine, but just because its a thankless job, or really hard, or whatever the excuse du jour is, doesn't mean they get a pass on civility, plain and simple. There are zero exceptions built into the policy that say "If you had a bad day..." "if you made 10 good contributions today.." "If you think what you're doing is for the good of mankind.." etc. I'll also re-raise the point that I feel there seems to be a trend with some users, this particular field of work and civility. As mercy pointed out I'd rather have someone who can be civil and only work at 50% of the speed than someone who works twice as fast but pushes you out of the way to get there.--Crossmr (talk) 14:24, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
To stay on track, the core issue here, as in my submission, is: When confronted with a choice between uncivil good work and civil but not so good, which choice will you pick? Said differently, What constitutes a good editor, one that has expertise in some area, or one that has expertise in some area and can behave civilly? Oftentimes people become so puffed up from having developed a lot of expertise and experience in certain subject area that they start to believe that also earns them the right to be ruthless, relentless and remorseless with other editors. Regards, Mercy11 (talk) 10:59, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Do you really expect us to pick "civil but not so good"? If this was just about incivility, you wouldn't have needed such a huge wall of text to say it. No, the core of this thread is non-free images being deleted, and rivers being cried over it.--Atlan (talk) 14:20, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
The core discussion is neither what Mercy says, or Atlan says: its about Damiens, using policy as his weapon, ignores other equally valid policy. Not being civil and not being collaborative is as against policy (not to mention harmful and as unproductive) as including non-free images with sketchy criteria.
That said, the only policy I really care about is that we are writing an encyclopedia.
I am troubled by comments such as Atlan's that seem to ignore the purpose we are here for, which is to write an encyclopedia, not enforce policies. Damiens work is needed, but it is not more important than advancing the goal of writing an encyclopedia. Justifying his behavior only serves to reinforce is mistaken belief that the way he is doing thing is productive. --Cerejota (talk) 16:54, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
The problem is not the deletion of images based on policy, but Damiens' aggressive tactics and lack of communication. He mass nominate images here and then goes to Commons where he doesn't notify the uploader. BTW, it was a simple request and he withdrew the nomination (1). When does it becomes pointy? --Jmundo (talk) 17:36, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Cerejota, I was merely answering the choice Mercy stated, which had poor conduct versus less good editing. It's a stupid choice. We shouldn't have to substitute Damiens' effectiveness simply to get him to act civilly. There's certainly a better way to do that, and I'm sure bitching about his (sound) image nominations for deletion is not going to make him any more forthcoming. You seem to believe uploading non-free content is "building the encyclopedia" and nominating said content for deletion is "enforcing policy" and somehow a bad thing. That's completely understating the importance of our non-free image policies and those that have the thankless job of enforcing them, like Damiens. Jmundo, if you mass upload non-free content without proper licensing and rationales, you can expect them to be mass nominated. It's not Damiens' responsibility to give the uploaders ample time to address each nomination. It's not even his responsibility to notify the uploaders.--Atlan (talk) 21:10, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
We are not the only ones "bitching" (Sure, let's talk about civility!), it seems now that he has move to mass nominate Greek historical images as a new discussion was open below. --Jmundo (talk) 21:57, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, it's not disruptive or aggressive to mass nominate images, when they're sound nominations. Get over it. The uploaders should spend more time properly uploading images and less time running to the drama boards complaining about their precious work being tagged. The only real issue is Damiens' sometimes brusque approach, which can set people off that are already annoyed by their images being nominated. That doesn't need admin attention. --Atlan (talk) 22:16, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
How about this as an easy fix so at least people are on equal footing, while the patrolling editor can mostly continue behaviors:
For images seen as largely from the same contributor, notify coming actions on his/her talk page.
Turn off notifiy in Twinkle or whatever is being used.
Keep a full list of everything a template is added to and post that to the user's talk page as well.
...Not so hard, is it? I would say it could be possible to nominate the list as a whole like occasionally happens with WP:GARAGE matters, but each image needs to be evaluated differently in some way and don't automatically group as precisely the same things. Really though, problems with those 3 steps? I have no doubts the patrolling is in good faith overall, but in respect to users who put a lot of time into things I can't see why a little politeness wouldn't be good. If this were articles being marked it would be welcomed for the nominator to help improve the article, which is a level of courtesy far higher than even the proposed above, so it doesn't seem like all that much. ♪daTheisen(talk)00:43, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Condensing notifications into one has been brought up before. Would it be possible for the scripts to autodetect previous warnings and replace them with a new warning that included a list of all effected articles?--Crossmr (talk) 04:46, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
It may not have been brought up "here" but it has DEFINITELY been brought up; I know because I brought it up, back in the days of the Betacommand hoo-raws. I am certain SOMEONE, SOMEWHERE in this project has the technical expertise to write a bot, a script, a something, that can condense a series of pending deletions, sort them by user, and then post the LIST of items to be deleted on each affected user's talkpage, without evoking the recurring cries of "notice-bombing", without leaving room for operator incivility either real or imagined, and without anyone, on any side of this misery, being given any reason for driving out any sort of WAAAAHHH-mbulance whatsoever. Regrettably, I am not the person with that technical expertise; if that person were to come forward, I would expect he/she/it/they to find the Nobel Peace Prize in next year's e-mail somewhere. Or at least a nomination for sainthood.GJC05:12, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
AGAIN, to stay on track, this issue here is
“
When confronted with a choice between uncivil good work and civil but not so good, which choice will you pick?
”
— Mercy11
Second guessing me on this has lead to a distraction that, though among the valid "related issues", is best dealt via a separate thread so as not to fall off track again. Categorizing my statement above as "stupid" just shows how irrational behavior can quickly take over what is a discussion about civility and, in itself, shows the first sign of uncivility -- name-calling. I invite Atlan, who specifically refered to me by name earlier, to re-read my submission and note that civility is not only inherent in the title of my submission, but it's there throughout virtually all the bullets of my submission from bullet#1 to the last bullet#11. Please don't second guess me on my own submission.
Mass deletions were dealt with in bullet #2 alone. Is the subject of mass deletions important? -- yes, but in the sense that it provides a stronger case to the lack of civility, and in the sense that it adds the element of lack of good faith, both undesirable community behaviors (read uncivility again).
The problem is not in nominating the images, and the problem is not in mass-nominating the images, the problem is uncivility, bad faith, failure to seek consensus, unreasonableness of expectations, edit-warring, name-calling, uncivility, uncivility, uncivility. And this is why rivers are being cried over it both by those of us affected by the uncivility AND by those other insightful editors able to see the bigger picture of the consequences of letting this sort of behavior go unnoticed. Is Damiens above wikipedia policy? I do not share in the belief of some commentators here who support that. Obviously, editors don't just behave uncivilly for no reason at all; there is always a backdrop for such behavior, and this is why I mentioned multiple JPG deletions in the title of my submission: multiple JPG deletions is the backdrop for the uncivility. However, such backdrop (as noble as the underlying cause may be(read: attempt to follow copyright law)) doesn't justify the edit-warring, name-calling, and uncivil behavior, does it? Misplaced Pages has mechanisms to deal with questionable images -- and uncivility, edit warring, and name-calling are not part of that mechanism, or are they?
One word on the distracting issue of mass nomination: It is poor logic to say that "if you mass upload non-free content without proper licensing and rationales, you can expect them to be mass nominated". This ignores the significant fact that these so-called "mass uploads" (unlike the mass nominations) did not occur at the same time (nor in so far as I can tell, with malice or bad faith). Compare that with the mass delete nominations which were done on the same day and hour (minute?).
Mercy11 (talk) 14:24, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
This is correct. I replied to a similar accusation yesterday in the now closed thread which I initiated. Accusing someone with "Mass uploading" when the uploading occured during a long time interval is wrong. Furthermore such uploading, done over a long time period, is within the range of human capabilities. Now compare this action to a machine assisted onslaught during which the human operator is flooded with warnings over a period of minutes. The robot-assisted operation undoes the months-long work of a human in mere seconds. This is the recipe for the extinction of human effort in Misplaced Pages, including reasoned discourse. For it is almost impossible for a human to keep up with the rain of robot-assisted ffds and try to defend all of them. If this were the Terminator series of films this would be the "Rise of the Machines" segment. Except it is happening in Misplaced Pages and it is unleashed upon us. Dr.K.λogos16:45, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
My two Cents Really, that block of text could be summed up in a paragraph or two. No need for the full brief, most people in ANI know what to look for anyways. I have noticed that the user in question has targeted images relating to Puerto Rico in large numbers, however I have not seen enough of him to know if he is just going topic by topic or has an axe to grind. Regardless, he tends to be right about 60% of the time. That's not high enough for my tastes. He needs to slow down, but not stop. Nuclear Lunch DetectedHungry?22:20, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Scientific opinion on climate change - review of Tedder's actions
At Scientific opinion on climate change, User:Tedder reverted a tag 4 times, then protected the article. This was reported at AN3 which resulted in a warning. I don't think Tedder should have been blocked (as I said) but he should withdraw the protection and withdraw from the dispute: he has become involved.
He should either remove the protection or the tag, he can't have both. Unfortunately, he should be considered involved now. Verbalchat22:17, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
I agree, Tedder is involved. Being involved in a content dispute, violating WP:3RR and then protecting the page to his preferred version is not appropriate. Since he has become involved I would suggest the page be unprotected to the last version since his protecting and Tedder asked to not take administrative actions on this article. Basket of Puppies22:25, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Agree. Contrary to his assertion on AN3 that he had not commented on the article, his comments on his talk page show otherwise, and that he did have a position. He stated quite clearly that he thought the POV tag should be readded. He then edit warred to keep it, and when that didn't work, protected the page to his preferred version. in blatant violation of the protection policy. -Atmoz (talk) 22:28, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Not one of these diffs relates to anything but the war over the POV tag, which he originally mediated by blocking those who were adding the tag last week. The tag was removed, and a week later the dispute has not been resolve, so GoRight asked for the tag to be added from the same admin who enforced its removal. When he tried to do that, the other side edit-warred. Instead of blocking them (which he had every right to do), he reverted in the hopes that they would stop. They didn't and then they reported him for 3RR. Verbal and WMC should be blocked for warring with an uninvolved admin, just as GoRight was blocked last week. These games have to stop on the GW pages. ATren (talk) 22:45, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for agreeing with me. Tedder took a position on whether the POV tag should be in the article. He then edit warred to keep it in the article. Then locked the page in his preferred version. These are the facts, and they are not disputed. -Atmoz (talk) 22:48, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Tedder's previous position was the opposite of his current position! He blocked those adding the tag last week, and when the dispute wasn't resolved, he decided it would be best to add it back in. He has never (as far as I can tell) been involved on the GW pages, and he only came here because of the edit war on the POV tag which was ongoing. That's not involved, that's following up on the dispute. By that logic, any admin who ever protects an article is banned from protecting it ever again. ATren (talk) 22:59, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
No. At that point, Tedder stated he would block anyone for adding or removing the tag. Less than 24 hours ago, he changed his position to endorse the addition of the tag.That was when he ceased being uninvolved. If he was truly uninvolved, he would not have done any reverting but would have simply protected the page on the WRONG version. -Atmoz (talk) 23:10, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
No, please review the diffs. Tedder reverted the first time as well when he blocked GoRight and ZuluPapa5. In that case, of course, he reverted to your preferred version. So did you consider that an involved block? Because by your definition above, it was. Yet even though Tedder was "involved" back on Dec. 2, WMC saw fit to request more admin action from Tedder against ZuluPapa5. Why would he seek admin action on Dec. 2 if he was involved? Apparently, WMC didn't think he was involved on Dec. 2. It was only today, when Tedder took the exact same action against WMC's side of the debate did WMC suddenly cry "involvement". Sounds like admin involvement is a sliding scale for WMC. ATren (talk) 00:49, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Tedder has not been involved on that page. There has been an ongoing dispute on that page for maybe a week now, and Tedder never made a single contribution to that debate. As the debate went on, the two sides were warring over the tag as discussion continued on talk. Tedder blocked two editors on one side of the debate and the POV-tag war ended, temporarily. But the dispute remained.
Fast forward to yesterday, when GoRight asked to add the tag back after a week of no progress in the dispute. Tedder agreed. The other side (Verbal & WMC) reverted him a total of 4 times. Tedder probably should have protected the page, but he has said he didn't believe those editors would revert-war on that tag. He's obviously new to the global warming debate, since this kind of edit warring is common among 3 or 4 editors on the pro-GW side.
In any case, the dispute is ongoing, and Tedder's argument was that the POV tag should remain until it goes through dispute resolution. I have been following the GW pages for a year now, and I've never seen Tedder on any of these pages. His only involvement was last week, when he blocked editors on the other side of the debate. ATren (talk) 22:28, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Please do not restrict tedder from administrative actions in this topic area. Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident and the Copenhagen conference are making it a hotbed of disputes right now, and they have been invaluable in trying to maintain a calm and collegial editing environment. Edit warring the tag in was wrong, sure, we all see that; there is an active meta-dispute and if we can resolve that quickly - great. There is plenty of talkpage discussion, so I really could not care less whether we let the tag abide for four days or remove it now. - 2/0 (cont.) 22:43, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
It's not "four days." GoRight's stated intent (in which Tedder apparently concurs) is to keep the article tagged until all avenues of dispute resolution have been exhausted, up to and including an Arbcom case. That means the tag could stay up for six months or more. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:41, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
I was pointing out an error in the previous post, and did not state or imply that it was a "problem." You may want to consider not imputing things to people that they did not actually say. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:58, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Four days is the length of the protection. It should also be plenty of time to determine whether the current tagging is an effort at genuine discussion or IDIDNTHEARTHAT. - 2/0 (cont.) 01:45, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
No worries, I was unclear. On an unrelated note - has this thread been completely derailed from something AN/I can deal with? Four hours and a scant handful of uninvolved editors seems a little light, but I am tempted to ask that it be closed anyway. - 2/0 (cont.) 02:07, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Oh boy. My only involvement on this page has been to stop the edit warring that has been occurring over the {{POV}} tag after it was reported 10 days ago to WP:RFPP. My first involvement was to set up some ground rules to keep the POV tag from being inserted as that seemed the right thing to do . I protected the page, blocked a few users who edit warred after my talkpage rule.
As ATren says, I decided the POV tag should be included when GoRight posted to my talk page, as the POV "issues" hadn't been resolved. I told GoRight to include it, then I re-added it after it was removed by various editors. I specifically didn't ask GoRight or others to undo these removals as the intent was to not have this turn into an editor-based edit war again. My edit summaries on the additions made this pretty clear: "unexplained removal of maint tag" after a SPA, likely "bad hand" account added it, " leave the POV tag in place. Discuss on talk page and/or on my talk page." after WMC removed it, "it's been justified. Do not edit war with the tag. Leave it, take concerns to the talk page." after Verbal removed it, "as I said, don't edit war over this tag. See endless discussions on talk page." after Verbal removed it the second time.
I've purposefully tried not to be involved in this article, and I've repeatedly suggested it go through the steps on WP:DR, likely WP:MEDCAB. Hopefully this discussion will at least spur some interest from other admins, hopefully some that are better at untangling and resolving these sort of issues. I've given it the best effort I am capable of doing with my adminly hat on. tedder (talk) 23:52, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Without accusing either principal editor involved in this section, I would very much like to ask for more administrative eyes on the whole nexus of global warming/climate change/IPCC articles. Since the email disclosure incident, the onwiki climate has seriously deteriorated to the point where it's headed for WP:PLAGUE territory, with editors acting on the principle that things are right or wrong according to the effect that rightness or wrongness would have on their political beliefs, and judging other editors as culpable or blameless according to the advantage they perceive for some editorial side. Neutral intervention is very much needed. — Gavia immer (talk) 00:13, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
What is purpose of POV tag there anyway? The scientific opinion on climate change is pretty clear. It is also clear that GoRight and a few others disagree with the scientific opinion. But unless you can argue that the article on the scientific opinion misrepresents this scientific opinion in some way, giving the wrong weight to some POVs, then the POV tag shouldn't be there. Count Iblis (talk) 00:27, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
(Edit conflict)
This is a complete mischaracterization of the dispute, as has been made clear. No one is disputing the scientific opinion or even how it is described. That is a red herring of the first order. The dispute over the neutrality of that page is, in essence but not limited to, the fact that there are public controversies related to that scientific opinion. The public controversies are being blocked from the page by mischaracterizing our arguments as we see here. If there are controveries about topic X those controversies are customarily described on the same page that describes topic X. This is clearly self-evident but our opponents simply continue to not hear that. This is the fundamental source of the issue and the reason that this issue was not resolved long ago. I made a good faith proposal, the others ignored it for days, so when I pointed out to Tedder that I can't resolve the dispute if the others refuse to participate he agreed to let me finally put up the POV template.
"What is purpose of POV tag there anyway?" asks Count Iblis. Well if one reads what it says and follows up further to read the essay it directs the reader to, its purpose is merely to alert the reader to an ongoing dispute. It does NOT indicate that the article is NOT neutral, only that someone is claiming that it is not neutral. As the template itself states, it should be left up until the dispute is resolved. That's all we are asking, leave it up until the dispute is resolved. This seems perfectly in line with the letter and the spirit of the tag and its associated essay, yet these editors continue to edit war against its inclusion when there CLEARLY IS a dispute.
I was reluctant to bring this issue here myself, see and , because it appears to be a garden variety content dispute, although the use of the POV template and attacks on Tedder are an entirely different matter.
So I ask the independent editors here, what is the purpose of the POV template if not for these exact situations? When is it appropropriate to put the POV template up on a page? What are the community customs and norms in this respect? --GoRight (talk) 01:05, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
This review is an unnecessary escalations, I originally placed the tag, it should reasonably remain on during a dispute. Any admin can review the page and see a valid dispute progressing. The principal complainant has brought their edit war here and I pray for reasonable oversight. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 00:54, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Is the neutrality of the article disputed because people have sourced information suggesting there is no scientific consensus, or is the neutrality disputed because people disagree with global warming? The first is an issue that the tag would be appropriate for, the second is not. Throwaway85 (talk) 00:59, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Neither, at least in my case. The neutrality is being challenged because discussion of public controversies specifically centered on the "scientific consensus" are being systematically blocked despite long standing norms on Misplaced Pages to include such discussions on the pages where the topic in question is described. We all know that the "scientific opinion/consensus" is controversial in the public domain yet we are blocked from using WP:RS to describe that controversy. --GoRight (talk) 01:11, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
As best I can tell, the main issue is that GoRight wants to change the long-standing scope of the article. For a long time (at least a couple of years), the article has restricted itself to statements by academies of science and other bodies of national or international standing. GoRight wants the scope of the article to be altered so that it includes most any individual or organization with a verifiable opinion on whether a consensus exists (e.g., "public controversies" about the existence of a consensus, etc. as he says above). Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:17, 11 December 2009 (UTC
(edit conflict)If such is the case, then said change in scope is inappropriate. If there exist overviews of scientific thought on the matter, then they outweigh individual reports, as including those reports would be OR by synthesis. Grabbing a few scattered reports and deriving statisistics regarding consensus is exactly what the creators of the large reports did, except on a much larger scale and without prejudice to individual POVs. Thus the official reports are more valid than an attempt at sysnthesis of a few reports by an individual editor. Throwaway85 (talk) 01:25, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
It is not a matter of comparing sources because the content is being completely blocked. There are no public controversies discussed on that page. I guess by default that means any WP:RS discussing the controversy automatically trumps the empty set. --GoRight (talk) 01:35, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Not necessarily a change in scope, as evidenced by the fact that Scientific consensus on global warming redirects to that page. If that page is not about the consensus, then as I said in my proposal the discussion on that page of consensus should be moved to the overlapping and competing article Climate change consensus and the redirect should be updated accordingly. If that page wants to discuss ONLY an articulation of the "scientific opinion" as documented by the statements of the academies I don't actually object, but then people should not be directed there either by redirects such as the one above, nor should it include any discussion of the issue of "consensus" as that would be out of scope. My position is simple. If an article is prominently utilized to represent the "consensus" as evidenced by redirects and wikilinks to that effect then THAT is where the controversies related to the consensus should be addressed. This is the long-standing custom for how to address controversies on wikipedia and this article should not be an exception. --GoRight (talk) 01:32, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Uh, how about leaving the disputes at the talk page for the article, and talk about the admin-level needs/admonishments here? tedder (talk) 01:29, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
A fine suggestion but I still wish to have an answer to my questions about when it is appropriate to use the POV tag based on community norms as articulated by the independent voices here. --GoRight (talk) 01:32, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
That discussion is certainly valid, but AN/I isn't the proper forum for it. The purpose here is to request admin intervention regarding a particular incident, not discuss wikipedia policies. Throwaway85 (talk) 01:39, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. This is as I thought, see my comment . Please note that we were attempting to do as you suggest, , when the process was disrupted by WMC and Verbal. Please block them for edit waring after they were clearly warned not to and for disruption so that we can return to the task at hand. 55 hours seems to be the going time frame for this particular offense. --GoRight (talk) 01:54, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
You are best advised to take your discussion to one of the forums mentioned. There does not appear to be consensus that an actionable offense occurred. Throwaway85 (talk) 01:57, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I guess I'm a bit confused. Is it ok for admins to edit war to a version of an article they like, then protect that version? Thanks! Hipocrite (talk) 04:00, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Tedder's reply to the 3RR report seems receptive to moving forward within the community norms. They seem to be working through the RFPP board right now, so make of that what you may. My position, basically, is that we need more admins working in controversial areas, and should try not to excoriate the ones we have without dire cause; I acknowledge the seriousness of the principle involved, but I still see this as a minor incident not like to be repeated; I further acknowledge that I have something of a vested interest in hoping that the community may forgive but not overlook any mistakes I will probably make working the same area. tedder was clearly not involved at that article before today; there are reasonable arguments on either side for involvement status after having expressed an opinion on whether the talkpage debate warranted an {{NPOV}} tag; I really wish that the sides of the present debate did not align so neatly with the battle lines drawn in the topic area of climate change generally. Personally, I lean towards the revert, admonish, and move on solution ({{resolved}}?); I advise against lifting the protection just yet unless there is an enforceable consensus here regarding the tag. Other not necessarily exclusive reasonable resolutions to this thread include: admonish but leave the tag; request that tedder not use the admin bit on that article; request that tedder not use the admin bit in that topic area or with those editors (to be defined more rigorously if necessary); and request that WP:WikiProject Meteorology or WP:WikiProject Environment open a discussion on the organization of these articles (see Talk:Scientific opinion on climate change for the antecedent of these). - 2/0 (cont.) 08:18, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
IMHO, the POV tag is useful for articles that have only a few regular editors. In these cases, it draws the attention of other editors to possible problems. In the case of the many Global Warming articles and their related BLP's, there are already enough people representing many different points of view. There is really no need to advertise for more editors to get involved. On the other hand, it make sense to place some kind of indicator at the top of the articles to warn readers that these pages are very controversial. I believe that Template:Controversial would be appropriate for that. A better solution might be to create a special GlobalWarming template for these articles, in that way we could agree on less generic text AND provide a link to a page discussing the problems of producing a balanced NPOV article. (Yes, I am suggesting that it is time to have an article about the problems of creating good Global Warming articles. It may be OR, but it could be useful to people using wikipedia.) Q Science (talk) 07:41, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Agreed, I think Controversial is a better template for this particular article than NPOV. That being said, I suggest we wait until some outcome to the current discussion is apparent before changing it, to avoid further muddying the waters. One issue at a time seems best here. As for the essay, that sounds like a great idea. Throwaway85 (talk) 08:24, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Originally posted to Tedder's talk page, but he has requested I post it here where I presume he will answer: Tedder, "As you have admitted edit warring over this tag and incorrectly reverting and protecting, despite prior warning, please undo your fourth revert and remove the tag, or justify its presence on the article talk page. I do want to add that I feel you had good intentions, yet you still broke two rather basic rules and need to fix that. Thanks," Verbalchat18:25, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
No, this thread was designed so that the ususual suspects could argue about global warming. Actually adressing adminstrative misconduct was not the goal here, regardless of the fact that that waas the expressed goal. Hipocrite (talk) 18:42, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
I have reviewed the protection at Tedder's request. Regardless of whether or not it was appropriate for Tedder to make the block himself, there was an edit war occurring, and there is still a lot of debate on the talk page, so I won't be undoing the protection. I also won't be getting involved in the dispute, so the wrong version will continue to stand as the protected version, and I will monotor for further edit warring after protection expires. You can more or less consider me the protecting admin at this point, as Tedder indicated to me on my talk page that he would not be taking any further action in this matter. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:47, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
You declined to adress if Tedders actions were appropriate. Regardless of results, it was my understand that users were not to edit war, that admins were not supposed to protect favored versions, that admins were not supposed to protect articles they were involved in, and that admins were not granted the power to "bless" tags. Were my understandings incorrect? If they were, we need to update a few pages. I'll get right on that, shortly. Hipocrite (talk) 18:52, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
As you said, I declined to address those issues. I am not endorsing or condemming Tedder's actions or getting involved in this dispute. I was asked as an uninvolved person who regularly deals with page protection to simply review the protection and take whatever action I thought best, and that is what I have done, and all I will be doing. I think we can assume Tedder has got the message after all this drama. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:56, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
The edit war was a direct result of Tedder's actions. He has yet to acknowledge any wrong doing, and the incorrect and justified result of his edit warring that he forced on the rest of us in violation of 3RR and WP:PROTECT, and without any discussion, despite prior notice, is still in place. I have placed an edit protect request to get the tag removed. I don't think we can assume all admins get the message, especially without Tedder saying he has got the message, we need a clear statement that this is not appropriate. Either he admits his mistake or is told with community authority that this should not happen again (no block, etc needed). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Verbal (talk • contribs) 10:17, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Verbal and his allies were warring long before Tedder came to the article - and Tedder arrived there as an admin responding to a noticeboard request. The insinuation that the edit war was a "direct result" of Tedder is completely wrong. ATren (talk) 14:54, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Please check my contribution history to that article, and their is no cabal. I have not editwarred. Do you dispute the fact that Tedder broke editor and admin rules with his action? Verbalchat14:58, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Inaccuracy by Tedder
Note that Tedder said above FWIW, I've asked an uninvolved admin to review my tagging and protection of the page. tedder (talk) 18:35, 11 December 2009 (UTC) . Thus is false. Tedder only asked for the protection to be reviewed. The admin he asked has specifically declined several requests to review the tagging William M. Connolley (talk) 23:35, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
*Why* don't you want an admin to review your tagging? that is, after all, the controversial bit. Please invite an admin to review the tagging, just as you invited an admin to review the prot William M. Connolley (talk) 17:44, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
I invite (present tense) any admins to review my protection and tagging. I invited (past tense) an uninvolved admin to review my protection, as this admin spends time doing protection. tedder (talk) 18:04, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Tedder, I invite you to review your own tagging of this article, and justify why it wasn't a clear violation of 3RR and PROTECT. Verbalchat23:17, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
This is not adequate. You managed to find someone to review the prot; this is good. That same admin refuses to review the tag; you should *invite* a *specific* admin to review the tagging William M. Connolley (talk) 23:24, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
It is interesting that Tedder has noted The lack of admin comment on that thread is telling. I agree - it is telling. Where are the Admins who agree that Tedders tagging, let alone his breaking 3RR, were correct? Please speak up folks! William M. Connolley (talk) 23:24, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Editwarred and protected POV tag
As is made clear in the above section, Tedder is only willing for his protection to be reviewed. However, most do not object to the protection. What is objected to is the editwarring engaged in by Tedder, who then protected the page so that it is stuck at his preferred version - despite being against the consensus, not being supported on the talk page, Tedder not engaging in discussion, and Tedder being warned that he was violating the 3RR. Tedder violated both 3RR and PROTECT, and has not admitted any wrong doing and has only "invited" review of the uncontroversial aspect of his behaviour. His only talk page response is to point people to this derailed ANI thread. What action needs to be taken? The POV tag should be removed to show that edit warring is not tolerated and that violation of WP:PROTECT and WP:WRONG will not be sanctioned. In addition, Tedder and admins in general need to be made aware that this is not acceptable behaviour in any forum, let alone such a controversial area where consensus is clearly against the action being forced. Verbalchat14:56, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Comment. Tedder is imo a very good admin and editor. Looking at it from a technical point of view it does look a little bit like he got carried away, There is currently a lot of tension around the wikipedia regarding the climate change issue. I would say that there isn't a contentious disputed article on the wiki that you couldn't happily put a npov tag on, so why not just leave it there, to me it just says to the uninvolved that wikipedian editors are divided about some of the content in the article. perhaps it would be better if Tedder agreed not to act as an Admin on that article in future.Off2riorob (talk) 17:59, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
I think Tedder is a good admin too. What is needed is a clear statement that this was wrong and should not happen again, and this can be achieved either by an acknowledgement by Tedder or a reversal of the disputed and unsupported action, with a note that it was improper. Verbalchat18:17, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
I don't think that is needed at all, the article has a tag and clearly the content is disputed and there is agreement that it needed protection, we are none of us perfect Verbal, really this is excessive commentary over a minor issue. The issue was at 3RR and only a comment there and now it is here and there is no support for all this drama here either. Quality editors should not be hounded for the occasional misjudgment..if that was the situation we would all be in trouble wouldn't we. Off2riorob (talk) 18:31, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
This issue is not minor, unless you are saying that 3RR and PROTECT are minor? If we make a mistake we should be told and admit to it if we are clearly in error. Verbalchat23:15, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
(e.c.) The level of grandstanding here by Verbal and WMC is astounding. Tedder's only previous involvement with this debate was to sanction the editors on the other side a week earlier while changing the tag -- the exact same action he took here against WMC and Verbal. Yet, after that previous apparent transgression went his way, WMC was so impressed with Tedder's actions that he requested that Tedder take it one step further and institute a topic ban.
So, to review: Tedder arrives to this toxic debate as an uninvolved on Dec. 2. His action is to change the tag and block two editors. WMC is fine with this result and asks for more admin action. One week later, Tedder (having no involvement in the interim) sees that the dispute is ongoing, so he changes the tag back and protects the article after others edit-warred -- basically the same thing he did the previous week. The only difference is, this time WMC and Verbal didn't get their way. So all of a sudden, an action which one week earlier was commendable when taken against the other side, is now so controversial that it has triggered long, contentious discussions on at least three pages.
In fact, there was yet another difference here: Tedder blocked those in the initial conflict, but he chose page protection in the latter -- in effect, sparing WMC and Verbal a block. If he had done the exact same thing he did one week earlier to the other side, WMC and Verbal would have been blocked too. So, in effect, WMC and Verbal are raising all this fuss even though they got better treatment than the opposing editors did one week earlier.
This "review" misrepresents the facts. Do you dispute that Tedder broke 3RR and PROTECT policy? If I was edit warring I should be blocked, however I didn't and wasn't. Tedder, on the other hand, clearly broke 3RR. Please don't pretend anyone was doing me a favour. Verbalchat23:15, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
The lack of admin comment on that thread is telling
As Tedder put it . So, to put a nice quick close in place - can we have a couple of admins come and OK Tedders breaking 3RR to insert the tag and then protect the article? Once we've got that, I'll shut up. Otherwise, this looks like the blue wall of silence because people don't want to embarass a well-respected admin William M. Connolley (talk) 23:28, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
I hope admins aren't avoiding commenting because they'll hurt my feelings or that I'm respected. My guess is that admins aren't commenting because it's a combination of a minor issue and they don't want to get dragged into the drama- look at the article talk page, my talk page, beeblebrox's talk page, and this ANI thread for proof of that. See MastCell's ELcomment, among other comments in this thread. tedder (talk) 23:39, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Maybe you could help by responding to my query above, and giving us a review and justification of your own actions? I hope you asked MastCell before invoking him in support of your thesis. Note that the actions that created this "drama" were yours. Verbalchat23:41, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Range blocking for Rcool35?
Hi, even after the range block on his IP, he is still at it... I'm asking if it would be possible to rangeblock Rcool35's IP's using the following ranges.
That is blocking a total of 13 separate /16 ranges. Unless you can narrow it down there is no any administrator would block 851,968 IP addresses for one problem user.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:07, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
I was going to say the same thing. That range is way too big to block. They cover physical addresses, at the very least, from Texas to Chicago. Try narrowing it down more. In the meantime, whackamole may be your best solution. Throwaway85 (talk) 09:12, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, if we don't rangeblock schools, with maybe 1000 IPs, I can't see us rangeblocking 262k. Even if you can narrow it down to IPs that geolocate to a particular city, those IPs belong to AT&T. You'd be blocking every AT&T user from that city, and I don't see that going over well. Throwaway85 (talk) 00:49, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. Sometimes there's not much you can do. In extreme cases, the Foundation's lawyers could seek a subpoena and injunction prohibiting this person from editing, but it would take a lot more than run of the mill vandalism to rise to that level. I'm speculating here but I think it would have to be at the inserting-viruses or making-credible-death-threats level before they would go that far. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 02:39, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
I know, but I just want to see it it's possible. This is my last attempt so.
Also this user has refused to stop spamming my talpage with mass deletion messages. Please do something about it. Thank you. Dr.K.λogos17:54, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Don't know what script you use. In Twinkle, there is a checkbox at the top of the deletion dialog that you need to uncheck. I'd certainly recommend using some such feature to avoid mass notifications. Fut.Perf.☼18:11, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Excellent question. His comments on the deletion pages are also spurrious and unhistorical. Dr.K.λogos
Dr.K., he is simply nominating the files for deletion (with valid reasons AFAIK). He is not being disruptive. If you don't like the messages, simply remove them. Damiens.rf, when you are tagging the file using twinkle, there'll be a checkbox saying "notify if possible" - uncheck that to not issue a message. ≈ Chamal¤18:02, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
If you are mass-nominating a group of images by the same uploader, it's best IMO to leave one message by hand that tells them which images you nominated, rather than dozens of messages that overwhelm their talk page or no message at all. Just my $0.02. Tim Song (talk) 18:14, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Everything seems fine here, the images are being nominated, and you can feel free to go and state why you think they should be kept. All the nominations seem reasonable to me. Canterbury Tailtalk18:04, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Everything is not fine when you use software as a weapon to mass nominate images for deletion. Am I supposed to participate in mass discussions? Where is the intelligence in that? Dr.K.λogos18:10, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Uh-oh, first it was Puerto Rico, now it's Greece (see a bit further up on this page.) I know it can be stressful, but Damiens.rf follows this programme of non-free image cleanup, and it often involves him coming across whole groups of images with similar situations. His view of the non-free content rules is usually reasonable, though a bit on the strict side. Let me know if there are any problematic cases you'd like a review of. Fut.Perf.☼18:15, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
I uploaded these images over a period of many months in a gradual and evolutionary way. You use robotic tools to undo this work in mere seconds and then you dump the output on humans. I think there is a clear difference. Dr.K.λogos19:32, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Being notified of a deletion discussion is not spam - it's a nicety...in fact, if someone nom'd an image that I had uploaded and didn't tell me, I'd be pissed off. On the other hand, a dozen nomination messages is a bit much - as already stated, one succinct message listing all of them make far more sense. I would ask Dr K ... would you rather not be notified? (talk→BWilkins←track) 18:19, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
It is a nicety if they don't dump on your talk page multiple messages in a very short period of time using automated tools. I thought you'd catch the nuance of this but I guess you didn't.Dr.K.λogos19:19, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
My apologies and my retraction of my previous comments. I am still in fast mode trying to reply to everything. That's what you get when you have to reply to multiple sections and fight the robots on the side :) Dr.K.λogos19:38, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Nobody's telling you to participate in the discussions; you can do whatever you like there. There is nothing wrong with Damiens.rf's use of the tool, and he has valid reasons for nominating those files for deletion. If your problem is the messages you received, that issue has been settled (see above comments from him) and you can remove them if you wish. I don't think there's anything more here that requires administrator intervention at this time, so shall we just drop it please? ≈ Chamal¤18:22, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Your answer does not fully address the complexities of the issues involved. I would like to defend the use of these images on Misplaced Pages because I believe they are invaluable historical documents. But I cannot under the circumstances because automated tools have been deployed rendering participation in image discussions a robotic and labour intensive task. It is stifling the debate by using software as a weapon against human editors. Dr.K.λogos19:26, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
This inexperienced user is nominating articles for deletion so nonstop that you can't go a millisecond without bumping into his user name. Now nominating because it's blatantly created by a random spambot or user looking to advertise is good but I feel this needs to be checked. OutlawSpark (talk) 21:22, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Uhhh... what? Carlossuarez46 is not a) inexperienced, b) nominating nonstop, c) random or a bot. Carlossuarez46 started 15 AfDs so far today, which is hardly "a millisecond". Do you have a specific complaint or just making wild claims without backing things up? -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 21:42, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
OutlawSpark didn't even bother to ask me about this spurious and blatantly false accusation, failed to WP:AGF, and well the rest of OS's post speaks for itself. Dramamongering... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:04, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
I've just filed a WP:CCI on this contributor, whom I placed under a 24 hour copyright block earlier today. Corensearchbot tagged several of the contributor's articles within recent weeks, and I confirmed that the contributor was aware of copyright policy. The block was intended to prevent future vios, by reinforcing the need for familiarity with copyright policy. Further investigation suggests a much larger problem, and particularly concerning to me is the contributor's evident unwillingness or inability to recognize the issue. With respect to recent violations, he suggested that he was unaware that material could not be temporarily placed on Misplaced Pages while being constructed that was copied from other sources, but I have found a number of violations that are clearly not under construction. For an obvious example, see History of quantum gravity. I've also realized that he had a rash of articles G12ed in March of this year (see ).
I have seen more than a few copyright infringers stop, once they realize what they're doing wrong. I just don't see how that can happen here, though, if he does not seem to recognize what he's done wrong and if he thinks that efforts to stop him from doing it are part of some campaign against him.
Since he's evidently concerned that my POV is not neutral, I would appreciate assistance determining if an indef block is warranted and, if so, application by someone whom he may recognize as uninvolved. --Moonriddengirl22:00, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Fun read. Given at this point a number of other admins have looked it over on the user's talk page, the history of these problems, refuse to admit to any wrongdoings (ever), and simply blanking one's own talk page presumably when they get sick of reading unfortunate truths, I think that all qualifies as ongoing disruption. They were offered plenty of chances to make a case with diffs in a logical, well-formatted post... seemed to not be up to it. ♪daTheisen(talk)23:20, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
I suggest we let the current block run it's course, and indef block if he persists once it is over. Copyright violations can't be ignored as they expose the Foundation to legal risk, and if this user is unwilling or unable to acknowledge that, then they need to be shown the door. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:29, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
User still has own talkpage rights... Normal process can be completed at some point, a month maybe? Do note he doesn't even seem to be disputing the process, just why his actions were justified. Actually, user should specifically be reminded they're being left talk page rights as a courtesy. *Shrugs* ... I guess the concern about watching the page would be valid, technically. Even if low risk it is the reason it gets taken away. ♪daTheisen(talk)23:38, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
I support an extension of the copyright block to indef:
User was told about the copyright rules a long time ago (March 2009)
He continues to deny that there is any problem. He hints that others are persecuting him.
Instead of joining in a real discussion, he just deletes all the reports and comments off his Talk page
If he gave any hint of being willing to cooperate, it would be reason enough to lift the block. There is no such hint.
Dougweller and Beeblebrox have already declined his unblock requests due to the noncooperation
As a side remark, most of User:Henry Delforn's edits in mathematics and mathematical physics have been problematic, the principal reason being that he does not seem to be knowledgeable about the articles that he creates. He makes no attempt to give precise definitions or locate proper sources. A series of articles that he created, often with misleading titles, have been appearing recently at AfD. Some can be salvaged, but it is often easier to create the new articles from scratch with a more appropriate title. Mathsci (talk) 06:55, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
As a block is intended to be preventative and not punitive, and since this editor has (perforce) not edited since he was blocked, it does not seem appropriate to me to lengthen his block at this time. The fact that he has blanked most of his talk page since his block is not truly relevant. It would, however, be wholly reasonable, if he again violates copyright on conclusion of his block, to recognise that he has no prospect of reforming his behaviour and block him indefinitely thereafter. He will need warning of this, which I propose to do now. He has blanked his talk page, which I see as irrelevant to the main issue. --Anthony.bradbury14:45, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Well, my proposed purpose is not punitive, but preventive: I'm not interested in punishing him for the copyvios he's already placed, but stopping him from doing it anymore. :) The "next offense" suggestion would be fine with me, but, again, I believe we need somebody to keep an eye on him. I'm rather too busy with the daily load at WP:CP and the astronomical backlog at WP:CCI to monitor potential reoffenders. Would you or somebody else be willing to check in? While it's possible that Corensearchbot will detect issues for us, it is also (sadly) possible that it will not. There are about 340 articles to which he has already contributed that are already going to need scanning. I would hope to avoid arriving several months now to 340 more. --Moonriddengirl14:51, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
I would like to announce that it is yet again the intention of several of my clients to seek an undisclosed sum in damages against the Wikimedia Foundation. I would be happy to forward a list of specific editors who have failed in their duty to prevent the spread of libel and misinformation about my clients, against whom legal proceedings are to be commenced. I have been instructed to watch this page and await responses from any persons wishing to discuss this issue.
You would think that a Canadian lawyer would know that both Canadian and American laws prohibit suing a website for content its users post. If I were his clients, I'd be asking for my retainer fee back. Perhaps, Mr. Phillips, you'd like to acquaint yourself with modern communication law. You seem as if you could use a refresher course. Throwaway85 (talk) 00:55, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
My mistake. I mistook "QC" to be the abbreviation for "Quebec". I realize that makes no sense whatsoever. It's day 3 of 7 of Nothing But Finals and my spare brain power is severely limitted. Throwaway85 (talk) 04:23, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Seeing as the ips other edits were all vandalism, including posting a "notice of intent to wikistalk" on my talk page, this is obviously a block-on-sight troll only here for disruption. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:56, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm quite a bit concerned here, when i noticed Grundle2600's comment on my talk-page. Earlier this week i reverted this, which was introduced by Grundle here. Now normally i'd consider this a regular revert of a synthesis on a BLP article. But, it seems that Grundle's synthesis has spawned off this - and that he is rather proud of it (see edit-comment).
Considering that these kind of edits have been the basis for many of Grundle's problems here on Misplaced Pages, i believe that this is an issue to be handled here. If this is nothing to worry about, then i am sorry to have brought it here, and the issue can be closed. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:16, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you want us to do. If it is true that she made these remarks, and has two children, then we actually did our job right by reporting that. That pundits and drama-mongers are using it elsewhere to promote their own agendas is out of our control. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:36, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
My problem is not that she has 2 children - but that we as Misplaced Pages have implied something about her integrity - and that this synthesis (2 children + support of China's one child policy) has now become news. This is exactly what we must avoid on BLP articles. And it seems to me that Grundle knew exactly what he was doing. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:46, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Kim D. Petersen: Millions of people turn to wikipedia every day for information. On websites, blogs, and message boards all over the internet, people are referring to the Diane Francis wikipedia article's claim that she has two children. The fact that you removed such information in this edit is something which should be of concern to anyone who favor wikipedia's policy of openness. It is very common for wikipedia biographies to cite the children of the article's subject. Please stop trying to remove this relevant, well sourced information from this article. Grundle2600 (talk) 23:46, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Yes, it is very common that we mention how many children that a person has. It is not however wikipedia's job to connect that to a person's view. That is a synthesis, and it is a very serious breach (imho) of our BLP policy. That this has now become news, makes the breach of BLP even more serious. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:51, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Regardless of its previous form, it's apparently now being used as self-promotion and bragging rights , etc etc... see edit summaries also. If they want to brag about not understanding our BLP policy they can do it elsewhere. Biographical info on persons is secondary and 100% superfluous, technically, as the focus of the article is why they happen to be a notable person. Trying to attach a dubious claim to such harmless secondary info is just cruel and not in the spirit of BLP. ♪daTheisen(talk)23:54, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
(ec) Ok, let's look at it that way. Unsourced controversial information about living persons should of course be removed ASAP. Is it "controversial" that she has 2 children, or is that point not in debate? Perhaps putting this fact in the lead as opposed to right after the current incident would alleviate your concerns? Beeblebrox (talk) 23:57, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Now that I think about it, this doesn't really belong here, as it's not really a matter requiring admin action. I think maybe this whole thread should be pasted over to WP:BLPN. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:01, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
The issue is that an editor by synthesis has done real world harm to a living person. And that that editor has a rather long history of doing exactly the same (synth of this kind, not real world harm (i hope)). This is rather more than the simply BLP violation i reverted imho. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:07, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Per the edit summary claim of "famous on the internet!", I suppose that's a relative term. It's not that it's about having 2 kids, it's that the kids were used as golden idols for a wider bit of writing. After thinking of it further, I failed to even realized why on earth there's a claim of notability attached to one blog post. We've cracked down really hard on where possible recent events and the time scope of WP:NOTNEWS and the whole notability is not temporary, etc etc. Just because this is "harmless" compared to Tiger Woods and the like doesn't mean it can just slide through. Good BLP patrolling. Fair notice on pointless edit warring and a re-read of WP:BLP all around. etc ♪daTheisen(talk)00:06, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
It is a fact that the subject wrote that she favors global adoption of a one child policy. And it is also a fact that the subject has two children. I added both of those facts, with sources, to the article. I did not do anything wrong. On the contrary, I provided true, sourced information to the readers of wikipedia. That's a good thing, not a bad thing. Grundle2600 (talk) 00:04, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
You apparently "created" those news-stories, with your synthesis, which now will haunt that person. At least that is what i surmise from both the dates of the newsblurbs and your edit-comments. Whether it is true or not is secondary. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:18, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Indeed. It has a lot to do with the fact that this one matter isn't exactly encyclopedic vs claims on notability of the other. It's an op-ed comment that's been turned to holding the kids hostage as a talking point. Direct quotations are needed about relation with her two children, otherwise the two are indeed a WP:SYNTH matter of tying two separately-mentioned topics together to push a POV perspective. No one said you'd done anything wrong, we're just trying to fill you in on the finer points of Misplaced Pages articles on living persons WP:BLP. You've had offers of advice on your talk page, so I'd suggesting talking this out over there. This isn't particularly an admin issue unless anything pointless disruptive continues. ♪daTheisen(talk)00:20, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Have you looked at Grundle's history and why he is currently indef topic banned on US politics. A lot of that is because of such synthesis, so by now he really should know why such shouldn't be added. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:39, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
For the record, we had to deal with this same issue in Obama-related articles as well. Grundle apparently lives to find contradiction in the words and deeds of politicians, doing the same "Source A says John Doe did B", "Source B says John Doe did !B" shtick and gluing them together to paint a picture of hypocrisy. Tarc (talk) 00:38, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm still looking for the part where admin intervention is required. I renew my call to close up and move over to WP:BLPN. Grundle does not appear to be violating his topic ban in this case. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:45, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
A user is indef'ed from one topic area for a certain type of tendentious editing behavior, and appears to be repeating same in another topic area? I'd say that warrants at least a discussion here. Tarc (talk) 00:59, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Tarc is referring to my indefinite topic ban on U.S. politics and U.S. politicians. None of the people who favored my topic ban had the decency to answer these 7 questions that I asked about my topic ban. Tarc claimed that my questions had already been answered. But when I asked him to quote the answers, he refused to do so, because such answers never existed. Grundle2600 (talk) 01:01, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
The dreaded "7 questions" again? Yes, let's all review the WP:AN thread to see how well that went for you the last time. Tarc (talk) 01:40, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
The information that I added to the article came from the subject herself. It was the subject's own opinion column on her support of a one child policy, and the subject's own personal blog about her two children, that I used to source the information. The subject herself chose to put all of that information on the internet for people to read. How did I "harm" the subject, by citing information that she herself put up on the internet for people to read? Grundle2600 (talk) 00:49, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
The continued (continuous?) editing of the article despite it presently being in ANI isn't terribly well taken, especially since nothing seems to be changing. Smelling and hoping to avoid any coming temporary blocks, I generally propose the following 100% voluntary actions:
Any of the following terms may be extended by any uninvolved administrator at any time so long as a message is sent to both directly involved parties.
Length: 1 week to 1 month. Everyone should be bored enough to not go back to it.
A revert to before the edit war and manually replace unrelated content removed in the process,
Voluntary avoidance of the article by all article editors of this evening and participants in this ANI, except in matter of BLP libelous content or legal threats.
Grundle2600 voluntarily avoid talk pages of any persons here or involved in editing that article unless directly related to libelous or legal threats in this article.
Grundle2600 voluntarily avoid articles recently contributed to by Kim D. Petersen except in matter of BLP libelous content or legal threats.
An uninvolved party may evaluate possible violations of 3RR on either side and report if considered appropriate.
Issues regarding changed to the article can be discussed at the Biography of Living Persons Noticeboard during this week, though civility should be strictly enforced.
Kim D. Petersen voluntarily agrees to avoid this article for the same week as a sign of good faith.
Any violations should be considered as evidence of continued disruption and may be weighted heavily in any further Admin/ANI interventions or any other dispute resolution.
Future participation of User Grundle2600 in any BLP discussion are open to posting by any editor of this diff which first proposed this, as a reminder of weight on the situation and possible administrator consideration. This should be heavily enforced, for at least the full length of this agreement.
I object. I added well sourced info to the article, which is what wikipedia editors are supposed to do. I should not be punished, because I did nothing wrong. How can people say that I caused "harm" to the subject, when it was the subject herself who first put the information on the internet, because the subject wanted people to read it? Grundle2600 (talk) 01:04, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
There's unanimous consensus (that I've seen) on the BLP concerns raised. Misplaced Pages's BLP policy is basically a 100% enforcement once reported and evoked. ...I'll add a few things on the list to balance it off. Ok, done. ♪daTheisen(talk)01:16, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Nope, content dispute only. Is it really surprising that reporters use wikipedia as a source of information? Is it a bad thing that an editor includes factual (and indisputed as far as I can see) information to an article. Nope and Nope. Resolve this, it's silly. Arkon (talk) 01:20, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
This is meant to resolve, by getting everyone to move on with things for the night and taking it to BLP/N if nothing else can be agreed to. Everything else is just general civility. ♪daTheisen(talk)01:22, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
When resolving a non-issue, there is no need for a bullet point list of made up remedies. We already have nice little policies for such things, 3RR, Civility, BLP. If/when these policies are broken, feel free to propose something or another. At this point, it's just pointless rulering (if that's not a word, it totally should be!) Arkon (talk) 01:26, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Hmm - you don't think that there is a problem with Grundles combination of this biography and this article (synthesis) into this, stating by implication, that Francis is a hypocrite. Which was then taken up in the news, here, herehere and here which basically all are harmful to the persons reputation, by restating Grundle's synthesis that she must be a hypocrite. In effect Grundle created the news/information combination - not the other way around, and that is a non-issue? Especially when Grundle is already sanctioned for creating exactly such synthesis' other places? Ok. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:31, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Since this wasn't getting anywhere, I figured this might actually get people's attention. It's put in bullets for clarity and to split up text. Just trying to be precisely. ... Look. It's an attempt to drop this issue on the spot, move it to the correct forum, and try to avoid any blocks that just further waste everyone's time. This is also one more desperate attempt at AGF on assumption blocks might be highly reasonable if any violations of specific civility mentions are broken. Sorry to spam up the discussion, then. Whatever. GO TO BLP/N ON THE CONTENT, but the civility issues still have to stopped. This started as "mostly" a content dispute but ... forget it. No wonder blocks are so common. ♪daTheisen(talk)01:44, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I'm sorry to raise a new issue on Gibraltar-related articles, but this time it's seems the most weird situation I've lived in this wikipedia.
Possibly you're not familiar with Gibraltar-related topics. So, I'll try to provide some information in order to make the issue understandable. The issue relates to the section Demographics of Gibraltar. When reviewing the whole article (there's an ongoing RfC) I found the following text:
“
By 1753 Genoese, Maltese, and Portuguese people formed the majority of this new population. Other groups include Minorcans (due to the links between both British possessions during the 18th century; immigration begun in that century and continued even after Minorca was returned to Spain in 1802 by the Treaty of Amiens) Sardinians, Sicilians and other Italians, French, Germans, and the British.
”
You'll possibly not see any surprising statement, but I did. Well, as I've been reading a number of books on Gibraltar, I've got very familiar with this topic. The first strange issue was the lack of mention to Jews in Gibraltar, as I knew they were one of the main "nations" in 18th century Gibraltar. The second was the lack of mention to the Spaniards, as they has been for the whole history of British Gibraltar more than the Portuguese. The third, and even weirder, was the mention to Maltese people. It's widely known that Malta become a British territory in 1802 so it was impossible such a massive presence.
Well, in this point I could have included a {{fact}} template. But it was not sensible, as I have the means to get the right information. I took one of my books (William Jackson (1990). The Rock of the Gibraltarians. A History of Gibraltar (Second ed.). Grendon, Northamptonshire, United Kingdom: Gibraltar Books. ISBN0-948466-14-6.) and looked for the information. It provided information about the 1753 census (I don't know which this specific date has been chosen) and got the following figures: British: 351; Genoese: 597; Jews: 575; Spaniards: 185; and Portuguese: 25; without further mentions to other nationalities. I was right (no Maltese, but Jews and Spaniards). So, I included the following text:
You've possibly noticed that the original text did have references. However, it referred to a one of the nationalities (the "Minorcans", from Minorca) and not to the whole sentence.
For me, it was simply a "routine" task (fixing an obvious mistake). To my surprise, Justin A Kuntzreverted my edition with a weird edition summary "happens to be sourced and correct, ask Imalabornoz who helped draft it on Demographics of Gibraltar". As I've shown, the paragraph was neither sourced nor correct (as I had verified data with a proper source; today I've double-checked it with other source and, as couldn't be otherwise, the same data is provided). So I reverted, explaining why ("your edition doesn't happen to have a source (Maltese stock in 1753? :-D). I have provided one (Jackson) and unless you provide a source on the 1753 census (I did) I needn't ask anyone"). Well, I thought it was solved, but unfortunately wasn't. New reversion by Justin, with a new and weird edition summary ("FFS will you stop edit warring over every fucking thing. IT IS SOURCED ON Demographics of Gibraltar"). Obvious to say that Demographics of Gibraltar does not talk about any census or similar information dated in 1753).
So, at the end, I wonder why this is happening. It's not a secret that Justin and me are "opponents" in a mediation process. However, I don't know where this stupid edit war comes from. I could guess that it's because I've introduced the banned word in Gibraltar-related articles ("Spanish"). It wouldn't be the first time. It took several days, and only because third-parties supported it in an ANI, to introduce Spanish guys in the section on notable people born in Gibraltar (you can see it here). On the other hand, the section I've removed has sources in the Minorcan stock (curiously that's the only "nationality" with an explanation), and I've done it since Minorcans are not mentioned in the 1753 census. The reason of that mention (and sourcing) can be seen in here (it took months to remove an story entirely invented by Justin on how perfidious Spaniards had expelled Minorcans upon the devolution of the island to Spain; I say it took months because the story begun here).
Well, possibly I'm a little bit paranoid, but I hate wasting my time with stupid things like this one. I'm not here to destroy other people's work for no apparent reason. I obviously challenge the current status of many Gibraltar-related articles (as I think they have an obvious anti-Spanish bias), but the issue I'm raising has nothing to do with any dispute, but with an obvious mistake that must be fixed. I wouldn't like to know that these incidents are part of a tactic to, as Gibnewsopenly suggest, get rid of Gibraltar-related articles. --Ecemaml (talk) 23:59, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Well this goes back a long way, right to the very first time I interacted with Ecemaml.
As an example, I would bring to your attention my first interaction with Ecemaml . I give a clear edit summary explaining the reason for my revert of his edit, does he take that comment in good faith? No he does not, he immediately reverts ignoring the comment see . And again and again . Regarding his claim that there is no consensus in the talk page please see . And if Ecemaml claims that I never pointed this out to him see . Further Ecemaml is an admin on the Spanish wikipedia, he really should have known better than to edit war over a content dispute. After a long history of needling, admittedly by both sides, I thought this is stupid, why don't we just stop this draw a line under it and made that suggestion on his talk page. See .
Ecemaml sees all Gibraltar related articles as biased and since he started editing those articles, the tension and fractious nature of the edits has increased. What he forgets to mention is that I am in fact half-Spanish, hence the repeated accusations of an anti-Spanish bias are not only irritating but deeply hurtful. The story about Minorcans is invented, I worked with other editors to develop the article to its present form, I simply hadn't noticed that one article was missed.
To be honest I'm just tired of butting heads all the time, I kind of feel this is a tactic to chase editors from Gibraltar articles. Trouble is it seems to be working as two serial contributors to Gibraltar articles have already left. Justintalk00:34, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Ecemaml (talk·contribs) seems to be disrupting wikipedia to prove a point. He is treating wikipedia as a WP:BATTLEGROUND and his continued postings here are unhelpful. He is an administrator on es.wikipedia.org, but his behaviour here seems to have become disruptive. It looks like his intention is to WP:BAITUser:Gibnews and User:Justin A Kuntz by constantly picking fights with them and bringing content disputes over niggling details to this noticeboard. Leaving aside the standard of his english, he seems to have started writing on this wikipedia simply to push a Spanish nationalist point of view on Gibraltar-related articles. If this continues, a topic ban on Gibraltar-related articles might be needed. (Why did he not use WP:AN3?) Mathsci (talk) 04:05, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Dear Mathsci, this is the second time I've read you pointing Ecemaml to WP:BATTLEGROUND policy recently. Well, I've read the aforementioned policy and it refers to certain attitude which I can't see Ecemaml indulging in. He hasn't broken 3RR lately nor has he restorted to personal attacks but rather. Finally, I don't know how exactly challenging unsourced statements could be deemed as disruptive behaviour. On the contrary, he has added referenced material instead. Don't be so fast in singling him out for his "nationalist point of view", nor in advocating for a topic ban, please. Thanks.--Cremallera (talk) 13:59, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
What kind of argument is that?! Do you naturally suspect of people capable of speaking Spanish, or you've been taught to it? Have a nice day. --Cremallera (talk) 14:43, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Can this please stop being made into a race or national issue? All it does is put people off. Content disputethat consisted of two reverts? Hardly ANI level. Justi needs a trout that he doesn't have to hit the RV straight away, if things are wrong then consensus will form around that. Ecemaml needs to realise this isn't other wikipedias and he /does/ have to talk to people and can't just go off on his own when he knows it will be controversial. Lets stop making assumptions based on nationalities. --Narson ~ Talk • 16:59, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
I'd just like to raise a few diffs to ask an opinion, ,,,,. There does on the face of it appear to be a spot of co-ordination of activities among three editors on Gibraltar. I could provide more as it goes back a long way and it does regularly feel like I'm being tag teamed on Gibraltar with a good cop bad cop routine. Although I could just be getting paranoid. Justintalk21:05, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
So answer the question
Just answer this question. Why was the information supplied from the source on the 1753 census reverted. Do not say anything about Spanish editors, points of view or anything at all about the motives of the poster. The validity of the information is not affected by the motives of the poster. Just say why the information somehow doesn't belong in the article. If there is no reason not related to Justin's mistrust of the Spanish, then it should be put back in, and Justin told to stop this pattern of behaviour.Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:38, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
His 'mistrust of the Spanish'? It is nice to see AGF is taking it in the ass so early in the Misplaced Pages Day. --Narson ~ Talk • 16:54, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
The figures for the 1753 census are here. They are 597 Genoese, 575 Jews, 434 British, 185 Spanish, 25 Portuguese. So what is in the article is not quite correct. It probably is better not to use this particular date, which has no special significance. The book of Sir William Jackson is still in the references. However, the book of Edward G. Archer gives a far more detailed breakdown of the history of the settlers in Gibraltar, post 1704, which is correctly summarised in Demographics of Gibraltar. Choosing the 1753 census was arbitrary, since there were many other censuses (eg 1721). All that is needed is a brief list of settlers. I have no idea why this content dispute has been brought here, when the sources are easy enough to check. Statements about the 1753 census are somewhat irrelevant when Archer's book contains full details on demography, which has evolved in the last three centuries. Mathsci (talk) 20:17, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
I don't think there's any harm to use the census data if it doesn't overload the article, but I think the Spanish contributor has misread the sentence he objects to. The category 'Spanish'plainly should not be included, as the sentence is describing the incomers who arrived after 1704, not the Spanish part of the population. I think however that the article should mention the comparatively large number of Sephardic Jews who inhabited the area during the 1700s. No mention at all is made of them, even though they outnumbered the Brits during the 1700s, and vastly (factor of 10) outnumbered the Portuguese. Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:52, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi Narson. I don't think Justin has made any secret of the fact that he believes the Spanishesa couple of Spanish editors are POV pushing on Gibralter articles because of the political situation on the ground. Sometimes he's right, sometimes I think that the information belongs even if it is being put in by a potential POV pusher.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:38, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Ah I see User:Elen of the Roads is back with the presumption of bad faith that anything I do is based on racial motives. As it happens on the Demographics article, I worked with a Spanish editor to improve a poorly referenced piece of work. At the time we updated the main Gibraltar article but I guess it became confused with the combination of two sources poorly referenced. Funnily enough the same Spanish editor has made another suggestion to revise the current section getting rid of the dates. Bizarrely given my mistrust of anything Spanish I agreed straight away it was the way to go. Now I have previously dealt with your bad faith presumption, given my racial origins its a bizarre accusation that I'm biased against myself. Justintalk20:56, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't mean it to sound as if you were biased against the entire Spanish nation, just a couple of Spanish editors that you do consistently say are POV pushing (which I think they sometimes are - I'm by no means supporting them all the time). I will strike/refactor my comments, as clearly they can be misunderstood in a way which is not my intention.Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:01, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Banned editor continuing to come back to Misplaced Pages partly to harass
User:Raven in Orbit was banned from Misplaced Pages due to his consistent defamatory accusations about fellow Wikipedians -- calling editors pedophiles and pedo-pushers, all because he does not grasp the difference between it and ephebophilia (for whatever reason). He additionally has a specific "hate on" for me, as though I am some pedophile, despite my contributions to the Pedophilia article and comments on its talk page clearly showing that I am in no way a pedophile and am very much against pedophiles. My edits to that article and talk page show that I have consistently combated actual pedophile-pushers, and yet Raven in Orbit treats me as a pedophile villain.
Though Raven in Orbit was banned from Misplaced Pages, he has come back to harass me twice now. Once seen in this link, which was reverted by editor Legitimus (also seen in that link), and now more recently in a discussion on my talk page (which administrator LessHeard vanU happened to be involved in). I see that he has even edited his user page to state defamatory remarks about why he left Misplaced Pages.
What should I do about this person in regards to Misplaced Pages? Luckily, I have not experienced any email harassment from him. If I have, I missed it. But I could stop the email harassment if that was going on. There does not seem to be anything that I can do to stop this harassment regarding Misplaced Pages. But as I stated to Legitimus, " I am beyond tired of this troll, even though I have not heard from him in months. I do not take well whatsoever to being called a pedophile or a pedophile-pusher."
Also, I state that Ravin in Orbit's user page should note that he is banned, and MiszaBot should be taken away from archiving his talk page. If I had not looked at his edit contributions some minutes ago, I would not have known that he asked to be unblocked earlier this year. I am unsure about whether to alert him to this discussion through his talk page, though, since he is banned. Flyer22 (talk) 00:31, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
I think a banned user is probably the exception to the "users must be informed rule." Will look this over and check back in a few. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:48, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Declined new unblock request, blocked latest ip sock, tagged user page as indef blocked. I couldn't find a banning discussion, if you could find it and link it here we can change the tag to indicate that. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:58, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Isn't an indefinite block the same thing as a ban?
I did not get a chance to read that latest vile accusation, but I want to. Would it be okay for me to request a copy of it for record, through email? Flyer22 (talk) 10:56, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Something isn't quite right here. Really odd that Outlaw would have his/her 7th, 10th and 11th edits reporting someone on ANI, using terms like spambot. Outlaw, do you want to tell us who you're a sock of? Toddst1 (talk) 04:12, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Mdphd2012
Freshly back from block, personal attacks and disruption at talk:Proton therapy (, ), weird unpleasantness at my talk page ( (copy of my warning to the editor), ). Notified the editor of this thread. - Sinneed02:27, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Okay, I'm sorry, but I got a big kick out that "weird unpleasantness" on your talk page. It always amuses me when wannabe-administrators put "warnings" on other editor's pages.--66.177.73.86 (talk) 02:45, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Why do you believe that only admins can issue warnings? Please point to any Misplaced Pages policy which supports this view. Woogee (talk) 08:31, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Now to the matter at hand: This is a civility matter, and unrelated to the previous blocks, which were related to WP:SOCK. I suggest you take this to WP:WQA, this is not serious enough to require admin action. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:03, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Kent Hovind's copyrighted doctoral thesis, which he and his alma mater have steadfastly refused to release to anyone's view for many years, has recently appeared on Wikileaks, complete with the information that Hovind, along with his alma mater, Patriot Bible University, has consistently refused to allow his dissertation to be offered for public reprint or scholarly inquiry. and that at the time of appearance on wikileaks: At that time was classified, confidential, censored or otherwise withheld from the public.. Well intentioned editors have been readding the link to this ever since, and been reverted by multiple editors. I protected the article in order to stop the near continuous violation of copyright, and then found I'd protected The Wrong Version. I followed WP:IAR and removed the offending link, and now place myself here for review and commentary. KillerChihuahuaAdvice02:46, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Just to clarify KC, you haven't protected the article, but merely removed the link, correct? There was no edit warring occurring at PBU, merely the inclusion of that link. Throwaway85 (talk) 08:40, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
To state that it's been leaked needs a reliable independent source that says it is Hovind's and not a joe-job; to link to the thesis requires a copy that is provably not hosted in violation of copyright per WP:C. Those promoting the link have done neither so far, as far as I can tell. Guy (Help!) 09:34, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
So strictly speaking, can one not say that it has been leaked on wikileaks, and then reference wikileaks to support that claim? Throwaway85 (talk) 20:20, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Indeed - WP:ELNEVER says never - and with no exceptions. So no - you can't use that wikilinks page as a reference. I suppose you could reference wikileaks in general though. SteveBaker (talk) 22:49, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps it's just me, but I really don't see that there is any call for action here. This is not at all wp-related and, barring suicide/legal (or illegal) threats, this sort of teenage angst isn't really the sort of stuff for AN/I. --Xdamr03:03, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
And seriously, if I were at work and some teenage girl were sobbing on the sidewalk and crying "someone help me" I wouldn't ignore her because it Was Not My Job. We're just trying to point her to help; Not Therapy can be over-applied. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahuaAdvice03:11, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Few people would ignore the girl (one would hope). That doesn't mean that, absent a crime, phoning up the emergency services is necessarily the first course of action... --Xdamr03:16, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Admin attention is needed at this AfD. An SPA user User:Laura.grimblay and a bunch of SPA IPs keep throwing bizarre and outlandish accusations against all the delete !voters, accusing them of being "scamsters", "blackmailers", "hackers" and of using "fake accounts" and to be secretely representing some company in India. Similar accusations have been inserted in the article Manu Shanker Mishra itself. There is now also a borderline legal threat. This stuff goes well beyond WP:NPA and the entire AfD has become something of a spectacle. Although the AfD is only 2 days old, I think it is ripe for an early close based on pretty clear consensus, and I think some administrative action needs to be taken regarding User:Laura.grimblay and the SPA IPs. Thanks, Nsk92 (talk) 03:25, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Laura.grimblay (talk·contribs) needs to be blocked for making legal threats, and wild allegations of fraud, hacking etc against both reallife persons and wikipedia editors (see , , , ). Various other comments made by IPs (probable socks/meatpuppets) are also borderline NLT and BLP violations (eg, , , ). I am not blocking the accounts since I commented at the AFD, but some uninvolved admin needs to take a look and perhaps refactor some of the BLP violations. PS If no uninvolved admin is available to review the situation, I plan to place the blocks myself in another hour or so, in which case I'll add a note here. Abecedare (talk) 05:10, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Resolved – IP blocked for a month (would indef, but it's an IP.. even static... whatever), talk page access revoked. I have NO idea why this got to the point it did; a block should have happened a long time ago. Clear legal threat. Tan | 3904:19, 12 December 2009 (UTC) Resolved – Block lifted after polite unblock request. Users are reminded to use good judgment and not be a WP:DICK when dealing with IP users. Fut.Perf.☼09:24, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
99.236.221.124 (talk·contribs·WHOIS) seems to believe that the shared IP template is providing personal identifying information about the user, and is removing it. In itself, this is a minor issue. But, due to their perception of it being personal information, they made legal threats:
And I'm going to keep deleting it because I've done nothing wrong and I don't want it on my page. If you don't like that, feel free to ban me, in which case I will feel free to contact my lawyer about weather or not this is infringing on Canadian electronic privacy laws, and I'm pretty sure it does.
And then goes on to point out wording of the law with which they are concerned. I replied, and placed a warning about legal threats on their talk page ... but due to the legal threat, wanted to also post it here. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 03:45, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Is it really "their" page? It's a talk page for a shared IP. Seems like it ought to stay if it's meant to communicate with multiple editors. Burpelson AFB (talk) 03:50, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
If I wanted to sue someone I wouldn't warn them beforehand, this was simply asking my lawyer if it is okay for you guys to do this. You are too easily threatened 99.236.221.124 (talk) 03:51, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
It is "clearly meant to intimidate" only in your mind, not through any of my intentions. My desired outcome is respect of my privacy in accordance with the law, so far, you seem to disagree. Do you even have any idea what lengths I would have to go to to pursue litigation against you (who I don't even know) or wikipedia? I said I would ask my lawyer for clarification, which I do a lot of. If you feel threatened by a passive action such as that, it is your problem and not mine. 99.236.221.124 (talk) 04:00, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
I left a comment at your talk page and will copy it here so discussion can remain in one place: Why not just create a named acount so that your IP address is concealed entirely? That way, only administrators will be able to see it. Using an account instead of editing via IP is far more private. Burpelson AFB (talk) 04:03, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Incidentally, the {{ISP}} template which you continue to remove does not contain a map, address, or any identifying information beyond listing your IP (already shown on page), and your ISP (who actually owns the IP address). Additionally, the ISP's name can already be seen by clicking the "whois" link which is available at the bottom of any IP's talk page within the box which begins with the text "This is the discussion page for an IP user ...". --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 04:11, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Looks like Tan blocked them for the legal threats. Should the IP template be readded? I was going to do it but don't want to step on anyone's toes. Burpelson AFB (talk) 04:14, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
99.236: In addition to WHOIS information, ip2location is available at the bottom of every IP editor's talk page. If you don't wish this information to be made public, you need to register an account. As an aside, legal threats (which this most definitely was) never go over well on Misplaced Pages. Throwaway85 (talk) 04:20, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
I need something explained to me. Out of the blue today, for no reason I can tell, this was left on the IP's talk page. If you look down at the bottom of the page, the editor who left the note says he does not think the IP is shared. So,
Why was an apparently incorrect shared IP botice left on the talk page
Why (besides the simplistic "it's policy" reason) are we so excited about leaving the template up
Isn't it clear from the IP's comments above that this wasn't intended as a threat? Plus, aren't we all smart enough to realize even if it was, it's completely unrealistic?
Why is NeutralHomer everyone re-adding the template, repeating the exact same ridiculous behavior that ultimately caused him to "retire" so much drama a couple of months ago?
If you can't think of a good reason to do something besides "it's policy", the don't do it. You're treating an apparently good faith editor like dirt, and it is wrong. :Any chance we could all step back from the brink, leave the guy alone, unblock him, and find something remotely more productive to do? --Floquenbeam (talk) 04:22, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Floquenbeam, don't make this about me, it isn't...and as you rightly stated in your post the reason the template was readded again is...hey, it's policy, you said it yourself. The reason the anon was blocked, he made a clear legal threat. Edit warring and legal threats equal what, a block. Not about me, never was, it was about an anon user not following the rules. Now, I ask you strike your comment about me and move on. Thanks...NeutralHomer • Talk • 04:26, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Then talk to Godwin and change WP:LEGAL. This is as clear as policy gets. Its a little odd that you pick this behavior to defend. The IP is trying to prove a point and is on a crusade, and happened to make a legal threat in the process - full stop. Bye bye, until it's retracted. It wasn't retracted. Behavior continue, talk page locked. If the IP wants to fully back the hell off his soap box and email someone about it, that's his prerogative. Maybe when you're an admin, Floquenbeam, you can pick and choose which policies you care to look the other way on, but this one isn't one that I do. Tan | 3904:30, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
It looks like a good block to me, Tan. The user made a clear and unambiguous legal threat, has had the opportunity to recind it, and has not. If he is serious about sueing, he can have his lawyer contact our lawyer and they can hash it out off-wiki. The threat is clear and meant to intimidate. I see nothing worth all this hoopla over. --Jayron3204:42, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Can anyone, then, at least explain the insistence on the template? I can understand the legal threat block, even if I think it unnecessary in this case, but I really want to understand why, every month or so, we throw an unnecessary shared IP template on a talk page, edit war with the owner of the non-shared IP over the template until he snaps, and then block him. Anything at all besides "it's policy"? --Floquenbeam (talk) 04:35, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Because it's necessary for communicating with multiple users. This is all explained in the blanking policy. How does anyone know the IP isn't really shared? Maybe the person just leaves their router on all the time or something. Burpelson AFB (talk) 04:37, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Actually, I am with you on that one, Floquenbeam. Too often, we are concerned with poking the bear. Note that poked bears still must be dealt with, you cannot have an angry bear roaming the campground unattended, so the block was good. But we should exercise some caution in forcing such issues. Could this have been avoided. Yes. Was this still a good block? Yes. These are not mutually exlcusive ideas. --Jayron3204:42, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
As much as I want to say it, I will say the it is probably because of the migrating patterns of the South American IT'S POLICY! There is no reason. Policy is the end-all-be-all reason. There is no other reason you need to know or think about. What is a rule or policy makes any other reason moot and unnecessary for discussion. Dude, why is "it's policy" so hard for you to understand and comprehend? - NeutralHomer • Talk • 04:40, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Well, not to fan flames, but I see what Floquenbeam is getting at. I blocked for the legal threat and continued behavior (and non-retraction) afterwards. I did not block for edit warring or any such thing. Legitimate question - was policy being "broken" by the IP's removal of any identifying template at the top? Tan | 3904:42, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Comment: Asking a question or two is hardly "defending" an editor; please try to AFG when replying to Floquenbeam. Some of you have been very short, not to say hostile, in your responses to her Flo. Perhaps its time for a cup of tea? KillerChihuahuaAdvice04:44, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Ya know, you are right. I am just irked by the continued asking for a reason and annoyed that "it's policy" isn't good enough (always works for me). I will be less "short" in my responses. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 04:50, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Uh, the questions might not have been defending, but "You're treating an apparently good faith editor like dirt, and it is wrong" sure looks like defending to me. Jussayin'. Tan | 3904:49, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Also, per Flo's user page reference to "Mrs. Floquenbeam", I always assumed he was male. I suppose it could be a same-sex marriage, but occam's razor and all that.
Floquenbeam ... As I mentioned at the top, in itself, re-adding the shared IP header is a minor issue. One I likely would have dropped if not for the legal threat. A bit more history ... I followed a posting to the talk page, saw the removal of the IP header, and reverted per WP:BLANKING, then switched it from {{whois}} over to {{ISP}}, (ironically, changed the header because I find the ISP template wording to be bit less bite-ish). When the IP again removed it, they made the legal threat - which then resulted in my starting the discussion here. Their intent in following through on the threat is not the point - the fact that a relatively lengthy post of legal intimidation was used was the point.
Tan ... I do have a question on the need to retract the legal threat. Obviously, I agree that it was a threat because I started this thread at ANI ... but looking over the history I noticed that the IP was never told that was a requirement to de-escallate. The IP did post a few times that he never intended to follow-through, which isn't quite the same thing. But they were never provided guidance either. For that one reason, I would support re-allowing their access to their own talk page - provided at the same time they were given guidance on how to retract the legal threat. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 04:43, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
I posted to the IP's talk page, with guidance on retracting the legal threat. Hopefully my wording was clear enough - if others feel that clarification is needed to the IP, please add it there. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 05:31, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I just can't deal with the edit conflicts, especially when I'm trying to respond to several different comments, so I'll dump it all here:
NH, I've retracted a bit of that, you had a point
Tan, I'm not defending the legal threat so much as defending expressing understanding at the events leading up to it; the IP feeling ganged up on for no good reason, until he snapped.
The annoying part is this same thing happens once or twice a month.
These templates are not necessary to communicate with shared IP addresses. The vast majority of IP talk pages that are shared don't have these templates, and we manage just fine. I'm hard pressed to think of a reason for them, other than to try to intimidate any users with a "we know who you are" message. For sites with lots of vandalism from apparently different people, this is a useful thing. For an IP that doesn't appear to be shared, with a non-vandal editor, not so much. --Floquenbeam (talk) 05:14, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Technically, I agree that these types of templates are mainly useful where it's demonstrated that multiple users are in fact accessing from the same IP address as the {{sharedIP}} tag provides verbage that clarifies for others as well as the new users of the IP that warnings seen on the page may be related to other (past) users of the IP address (schools being the most common, but others exist). My reason for bringing the issue here was the legal threat - as I mentioned above, had that threat not existed I likely would have dropped the issue of the IP header after the IP reverted my initial restore of the tag. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 05:31, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Apparently this IP editor does have an account . As for why they're not using it, your guess is as good as mine. And they don't seem to be very new... if their IP is really static they have edits going back to last March. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 06:20, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Sorry people, but I really find it hard to understand why this was let to escalate in this ridiculous fashion. The IP ought to never have been pestered with reinstating that useless and ugly template. And the "legal threat" was of a kind that a person intending not to be a WP:DICK could just have intelligently overlooked. Even after that point, the natural and un-Dickish response to the IP would have been: "okay, sorry for the trouble, out with the ugly template, but please just remember not to mention lawyers around here the next time". – Note that I have removed the template now, and strongly advise anybody against reinstating it. Fut.Perf.☼07:18, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
I agree. That said, there are many ways to express concerns about infringing privacy laws that can achieve a satisfactory result (that is, in ways that reasonably do not violate the letter or spirit of NLT). Accordingly, I appreciate Tan's first block. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:46, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Just as a matter of clarification, what was the justification for the tag in the first place? (before any of the arguments started). I know that there was a history of edits from that IP, but was there anything to suggest they were not the same editor, or that the registered editor simply wasn't logging in? Throwaway85 (talk) 08:43, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
I have no idea; you'd have to ask the person who added it. In fact, somebody who added a welcome template was first adding a {{whois}} template together with a message saying it was not a shared IP ; then, after the user objected against the "whois", and people had started edit-warring it back in, somebody else exchanged it against a {{ISP}} template on the way. And after they had replaced the "non-shared" tag with the "shared IP" tag, that user began to cite a rule from WP:BLANKING which said that IP users were supposedly not allowed to remove shared IP tags from their page. None of all this was pretty to watch – the more I look at the history, the more I find the IP had good reasons to be upset. Anyway, they have now posted a polite unblock message distancing themselves from the NLT issue, and I have unblocked as a matter of routine, so I hope we can now treat this as resolved at last. Fut.Perf.☼09:14, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
(<-)There is a thread of discussion, now closed, at my talk page on this topic that anyone may read. I wanted to respond here to the question asked regarding the application of the whois template to this poor IP editor. I also want to offer an apology, which I'll replicate on the IP editor's talk page.
From my contributions, I hope you will see that I do interact with IP users quite a bit (I have over 2,500 pages on my watchlist). Over time, I have tried to refine my approach to balance welcoming with notice of issues that may have been raised by their recent edits. The vast majority of such IP users do appear to be new contributors (at least in terms of their contributions from that IP).
I have seen that some IP talk pages are mislabelled as being shared IPs, less frequently, shared IPs are mislabelled (in particularly, sharedIPEDUs are not infreqently missed as being such)
Sometimes, IP users, despite good faith efforts to inform and educate, end up being blocked. Appropriate notification and blocking should include an understanding of the IP type involved. I've thus made it a habit to routinely use network lookup tools (which I use off-wiki in the Information Security field) to make this determination, and document on the talk page, both for my own use, should I have a need for subsequent interaction with the IP editor, as well as for the edification of other editors who look at that IP editor's talk page.
Template:Whois states "This template can be transcluded onto the user talk page of any IP address", but "Please do not use this template on the talk pages of evidently good-faith constructive IP users, since its wording could be misunderstood as implying the IP's edits are problematic".
Apology #2 I should have provided notice to the editors who were restoring the template, and then adding and restoring the sharedIP templates, that (a) the IP was not shared, as I originally noted, and (b) there was no policy reason to restore the IP information for a non-shared IP.
In my own defense, I had believed that notices to these other editors could increase, not defuse, the situation. In addition, as my contribution log will show, I was offline for a number of hours after I last posted on this topic to my talk page (I can't always multitask with wiki and non-wiki things). When I returned and saw the sturm und drang, it seems that the ANI thread had wound down, so I replied matter of factly to the couple of posts on my talk page, and hoped that my own original recommendations would be sufficient.
I have decided to not use the Whois template again, except in the case of a shared IP being unambiguously used as a source of vandalism (e.g., including blatant vandalism, or repeat vandals, or IPs used for vandalism category), and have substitituted a hopefully more welcoming invitation to sign up for an account to place at the bottom of a talk page, as appropriate.
Thank you very much, 4wajzkd02, for this graceful gesture, and let me in turn apologise if I came across to you as curt or accusatory on your talkpage (as you apparently felt), which wasn't my intention. I should have noted your friendly efforts at de-escalation more clearly in what I said over there. Fut.Perf.☼16:27, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
I also apologised on 4wajzkd02's talk page, and would like to do so here and on the IPs talk page, about my misunderstanding of the template's usage. I, personally, also had not looked at the IP's contribution log and had assumed that it had been put there for a reason. Next time, I shall be more thorough as, though I only account for two of the edits, I was the one who kicked this all off and I would like to sincerely apologise for that. --ThejadefalconThe bird's seeds16:30, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps this user intended to work on these articles in their userspace. Unless non-free images are being used in their userspace, there is nothing wrong here. What policies do you think are being violated? (It's a slow day at the help desk today) Intelligentsium04:15, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
I've removed all the fair-use images, as you can't have those in your userspace. Other than that, if he doesn't put the images back, I have no other problems with his user page. @Kate(parlez)04:26, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Read, WP:UP#COPIES. User space is not intended to indefinitely archive your preferred version of copies of articles. In other words. Private copies of articles that are being used solely for long-term archival purposes may be deletion.--Zink Dawg -- 04:48, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Sorry for bring it up. I thought it was wrong. I guess its ok to have articles on your user page and talk page.--Zink Dawg -- 05:06, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
After a user reverted one of my changes, hereby adding a misinformation, I wrote this on his user page:
Please stop destroying Misplaced Pages. If you don't have a clue about a topic, let others write the articles. (Are your really sure nothing else I did was in any way objectionable?)
After this, User:MBK004 twinkled me an "only warning" about PAs. I can't ask him about it on his user page, as it is locked. (Will someone please notify him?)
Non-admin's opinion: the implicit accusation of malice (one doesn't ask someone to "stop destroying Misplaced Pages" unless they are destroying it) was garnished with a put-down as clueless — deprecating both motives and capacity, a two-fer. Way to punch anyone's buttons. So, yeah, 91.55; how would you feel if that had been said to you? — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 10:01, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
But looking into the background, 91.55 has some basis to be miffed too: a legitimate edit to My Life Without Me got repeatedly reverted as "vandalism". That could account for some flaring temper, too. I've reinstated and vouched for it, in edit summary and with a note to the reverting editor. Hope that helps. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 10:40, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
To clarify this: After an edit war on an unrelated article, the user I allegedly attacked was following me around to My Life Without Me. There is no indication that his involvement in My Life Without Me is anything but WP:WIKIHOUNDING. So I think my choice of words is appropriate. This PA warning is only reasonable if you pick some details from the context and ignore others. --91.55.204.136 (talk) 11:31, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
And I gather that there was some display problem (in your browser) from the formatting on Varyag? This is not a WP:ANI topic, it's techie, but just as background to your edits...? — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 11:52, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, discussions on AN:I do have a tendancy to wildy spread over all kind of topics; I don't want to compound that. Let's just say that the changes on the carrier's pages do not change content and are thus not as significant as the one on My Life Without Me.
Two articles have been semi-protected because 91.55.211.58 (talk·contribs) / 91.55.204.136 (talk·contribs) has been removing hidden lines. The 3RR rule would have been broken on Soviet aircraft carrier Varyag and CVN-79 if they had not been semi-protected. His remarks to other users seem to have been uncivil and factually incorrect. He played the same game on My Life Without Me, until Sizzle Flambé proxy-edited for him without adding sources to the article (an edit summary is insufficient). I don't think Sizzle Flambé is particularly helping here: he does not seem to have looked carefully at the edit histories of the two IPs and on the last article appears to be enabling the disruptive IP hopping. Mathsci (talk) 13:51, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
You are again picking details from the context. Please stop doing this, it does not help to explain whether or not the PA warning is justified. Only an unobstructed view on the context can do that. (I would also recommend to follow WP:AGF, but I get the impression that you're past that.)
If you show us diffs and a warning that has been issued and that it is a current problem that needs to be stopped and yes, we would. Toddst1 (talk) 16:45, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Now, let's play a game: When User:MBK004 blocked the page, which version do you think was The Right One? You have one attempt.
Correct! So of course there is no ongoing problem that needs to be stopped. (Of course there is also no warning by the blocking editor, except the one I got.) --91.55.204.136 (talk) 16:53, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Studies have shown that the wrong version is always protected ;) Rather than edit war in the articles and abuse other editors then complain here when you're warned for this, please discuss your views on the articles' talk pages. As you're not a new editor, you should know better. Nick-D (talk) 23:37, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
As usual in cases of admin abuses, the actual matter got out of sight. So again: Is this kind of warning justified? (If you want to respond, please do not blank out part of the context.) --91.55.204.136 (talk) 20:27, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
GeoCities
Geocities is now closed. I searched this site for geocities.com and found what must be hundreds of dead links. Could somebody run a bot to remove them? Unknown Unknowns (talk) 10:11, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
If you use archive.org, they may not be dead links. The Wayback Machine (as it's called) has archive copies of webpages you can link to, long after the originals have been taken down. PDF copies of old documents, for instance, that might now be found nowhere else on the Web. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 10:44, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Here's one of my favorite Javascript bookmarklets; add it to your toolbar and use it while you're looking at a "dead" link: javascript:void(location.href='http://web.archive.org/web/*/'+location.href) Label it WayBack! — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 11:25, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Latest views of what, Will? The latest archive.org copies of any given page? Precede the dead-link URL with http://web.archive.org/web/*/ (which is what the above bookmarklet does), and that takes you to a list of all the saved pages archive.org has. But don't automatically assume the latest date is a good copy; archive.org may have saved a few "page not found" messages. Go back from the end until you find a good copy. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 11:25, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Archive.org does pick up some of the geocities links, although it misses others. If an EL can't be picked up using archive.org it should be removed, as there's hardly a chance it will come back. If I had my way, a cleanup crew would go around to each of the geocities links and check if they have an archived history which is relevant to the article. That probably won't happen because link cleanup doesn't generate much excitement here, which is probably why noone was enthusiastic about the issue at the other related discussions. C'est la vie. ThemFromSpace11:31, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Exactly. The URLs shouldn't be deleted simply because they are now dead; they should be deleted because they are Geocities links. Tan | 3913:07, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Geocities was the earliest free web provider on a large scale. Therefore some early adopters used them for publishing high quality information, and never changed later when web hosting became cheaper. I hope that's at least part of the reason we have such links. HansAdler13:24, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Indeed, since the reduction of geocities quality, many geocities links remained until more suitable replacements could be found. The trick now is to actually find more suitable links, rather than simply redirect to a new version of geocities. (talk→BWilkins←track) 13:46, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Most geocities links aren't appropriate here and should be removed anywhere. Unless they could have been verified to have been written by the subject of the article, they weren't reliable sources and their usage as citation should be extremely limited.--Crossmr (talk) 15:47, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
I've semi-protected the article for 3 days. The SPA was newly registered so neither will have access to the article. Mjroots (talk) 16:15, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Massive emptying of "People from" categories
Resolved – DuncanHill should know better than to ask for admins to help with anything
See Special:Contributions/89.241.115.228. IP editor is emptying "People from" categories, without going through CFD first. I have told him on his talk page to stop, but he's done masses already so he needs mass reversion. I saw something like this about a week ago, can't remember if it was the same IP address though. DuncanHill (talk) 15:53, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
IP seems to have stopped upon notice of this discussion. And, hey, in our defense, us admins are really busy, important, people with lots of things on our minds. Particularly when we're in the admin lounge. Then, pretty much the only thing on my mind is Gigi, one of the waitresses, wearing her French maid costume. Particuarly when one of us stupidly drops something and she has to pick it up. But it is a good idea for everyone to do things up front, because us disgustingly important admins don't always think to check on such things ourselves once messages are posted here. We probably should have someone go through and revert the category removal though. Anyone up for it? John Carter (talk) 17:11, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Not sure it needs reversion in every case - he's emptying categories for villages in England, most of which have only one or two members, and proposing merging them to slightly larger administrative areas. What's the smallest area one should have a category for??Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:16, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
He's emptying categories before any merge discussion. To John, I'll apologize for my bad temper. I was distracted from informing the IPs by a call from my mother, and given that oversighters have decided it's OK for them to make personal attacks on her I have no patience at all with unhelpful behaviour or attitudes from people in positions of power here. DuncanHill (talk) 17:23, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
And I had no way of knowing that. I was busy too, and since you aren't new, and there were two IPs to notify, I thought I'd just remind you. I didn't expect you to make a big deal of it. I don't know how this has something to do with me being an Admin as well as an editor. Dougweller (talk) 18:07, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
There is an old ongoing wardiscussion about how specific categories should be as well as how many articles should be required for one to exist. Particularly in cases which these appear to be, dealing with categories for small areas with few articles, it could be argued that he wss being bold before proposing them for deletion. And, of course, there is the separate question as to whether anyone agreed to these categories existing in the first place. My own personal view is that, with few exceptions, we should have at least three biography articles in a category for it to be really useful. I Know I personally wouldn't object to refilling any such categories. Otherwise, maybe the easiest way to go would be to leave messages on the talk pages of the most directly relevant WikiProject and let the individuals involved there decide what to do with the categories. Anyway, 'xcuseme. Looks like I dropped something again. John Carter (talk) 17:58, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
I wouldn't call it WP:VAN, but it is typical Balkan nationalist POV pushing/disruption, however the editor is now discussing on at least one talk page. Informed of Balkan warning. Toddst1 (talk) 16:24, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
I seem to remember this Hungarian-Croatian kingdom stuff used to be a playground of some sockishness a while ago. Haven't looked into it yet, but it might be worth taking a bit of a look at the backgrounds of the present parties. Fut.Perf.☼16:31, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Again AlasdairGreen27
First of all I am not user:PIO neither my logged nicknames or IPs but in every case action of user:AlasdairGreen27 in article pallone is vandalism because version before suspected socks is this but not this disaster or stub! removing valid contribution of PIO who was banned by an Italian admin after these edits but for other reasons not pertinent this article regarding some Italian famous sports. I can develop this article because I have books and sources but I request your action against vandalism of AlasdairGreen27 who is notorious in Italwiki for his battle in meatpuppetry with user:DIREKTOR against all Italian and Serb editors in several articles of European history and this point I will report to you in future. Actions of admins user:Spellcast and user:MuZemike against my logged nicknames are nonsense. If you want, I can develop a lot of articles but I request unblock at least of account user:Vastaso. Last personal attack: read here —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.95.195.151 (talk • contribs) 18:35, 12 December 2009
While I can't speak to the other issues, the supposed last personal attack was made by an account created for the sole purpose of impersonating AlasdairGreen27 (talk·contribs). I've blocked 72neerGriadsalA (talk·contribs) and deleted the user/talk pages that were created to mimic AlasdairGreen27's. Unless a checkuser is done to determine they are the same person, I see no reason to take any action against AlasdairGreen27. --auburnpilottalk18:52, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Hmm, this seems familiar. 'Bout a month ago an editor showed up on Misplaced Pages with his name a complete reversal of MickMacNee's name, trying to get Mick in trouble. Any connections? GoodDay (talk) 19:02, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
This has just been raised at WP:BLP and a quick look into the users edits includes this. I think that this user needs their edits seriously looked at. Martin451 (talk) 01:59, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Not gone to RFC yet most of the contentious material has now been deleted by 3 diferent editors. I Think RFC is fine in regards to S/He NPOV issues which can probably be worked out at talk page. IMHO a large percentage of his edits were problematic and dubiously sourced. The bigger concern was the BLP issues - worst offences listed:
First Edit on the account included (previously posted as ip)
• 22:47, 1 December 2009 (hist | diff) Manuel Zelaya (Too much removed, including entire sections about Los Horcones and Hondutel. Restored and added more information.) (Tag: possible BLP issue or vandalism)
introduced Los Horcones massacre into article from CIDOB which is definitely not an RS
Theen Reverted to reintroduce
• 22:47, 1 December 2009 (hist | diff) Manuel Zelaya (Too much removed, including entire sections about Los Horcones and Hondutel. Restored and added more information.) (Tag: possible BLP issue or vandalism)
00:50, 7 December 2009 (hist | diff) N Marcelo Chimirri (←Created page with 'Marcelo Chimirri is a Italian-Honduran businessman.
“1998 murder of a girlOn January 1998, Yadira Miguel Mejia was found dead in a septic tank in Honduras. Mejia was pregnant and according to her friend, the father was ….source is a blog referring to a newspaper story.
• 19:21, 8 December 2009 (hist | diff) N David Romero Ellner (←Created page with 'David Romero Ellner is a Honduran politician, journalist, congressman, convicted child rapist who was stripped of his parliamentary immunity and sentenced to ...') source is a blog and an oppinon piece in the WSJ
In fairness while combing through the article I did find one reliable citation that was buried in a duplicate ref name in a website archivedlink. This verifies that he was sentenced for the offence and ref predates the political crisis.Cathar11 (talk) 19:07, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
I have reviewed the edits and I do find that User:Alb28 is a gung-ho editor whose first language is not English. I do not believe that Alb28 is the same as the IP 190.53.244.15 due to their different use of English.
I have copyedited Alb28's work on Manuel Zelaya and Marcelo Chimirri and I have found in all cases that there are facts and Reliable Sources behind his edits. He does have a distinct target (Honduran officials who have been charged with corruption during the presidency of Zelaya) and does have a unique way of writing, but I find no attempt to circumvent or ignore the rules at Misplaced Pages. Madman (talk) 17:00, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Supercopone removed information from University of Atlanta, stating it was not cited (example: diff. This removes also the information "The DETC noted the school was founded in 1991 ...".
After the block, Mistro12 pointed me to the document, which moved. strangely, the document does not contain the information which was there half a year ago. However, it still contains 'The DETC noted the school was founded in 1991', but on a different page.
Seen that the article has been suffering of promotional edits for a long time, I have blocked both editors, but I'd like to hear a second opinion on this. --Dirk Beetstra19:57, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Supercopone is a "sleeper" account that was created in February, a month before Mistro12 began his activities, but did not actually start editing until December 5, a week before Mistro12 popped up again after a 7-month hiatus. It's worth pointing out that Beetstra actually unblocked Mistro12 last spring after another admin had blocked him. Those two users appear to be either socks or agents of the guy who runs the school, and is/are desparate to suppress any connection with its predecessor school. ←Baseball Bugscarrots→ 20:08, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Note2: The fact of the namechange to University of Atlanta as was in the DETC document is corroborated by several blogs and forums on internet (but they are not a reliable source for this information). This looks like a situation where someone is very busy 'cleaning' the past of something they don't like. --Dirk Beetstra20:13, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
I should expand on this, indeed. Mistro12 has, via email, confirmed he is not part of the school itself, though has been working with them. His identity has been established as not being the other editors in the sock investigation, and I unblocked on that. However, it appears to be meatpuppetry in stead of sockpuppetry now, which is more a rationale for my re-block of the account. Also note that Supercopone did not edit all day, but appeared soon after I blocked him. Coincidence? --Dirk Beetstra20:16, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Maybe the DETC should be notified, to find out how that guy was able to persuade them to change the information. You might also want to capture a "before" on it and post it somewhere here so that it can be verified before he calls them on Monday.
As I recall from last spring, Amithani and his puppets basically wanted the article to either be the way he wanted, or to be deleted. He lost that argument, and is apparently now engaged in subterfuge of some kind, as you noted. ←Baseball Bugscarrots→ 20:19, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Block requested for Cathar11 - Persistently pushes personal views in an article
Cathar11 (talk·contribs) adds personal analysis based on sources which do not mention the topic at all. He picks some off-topic sources about Honduras and attempts to link them to the crisis in Honduras.
I note that none of his sources talks about the crisis.
Cathar11 reinserts his personal analysis in the article.
User:Alb28 deleted en masse external links the links he quoted must be part of them. He also deleted links to BBC Photos etc.see dif
This is what he is calling WP:OR see which was discussed on the talk pages in the archive and is backed by another editor as relevant. This is a new editor/sockpuppet which has engaged in a whirlwind of edits (130 most since the 7/12/2009) since he started on 11/29/2009 including BLP attacks, raising me twice here etc. While trying to believe in his good faith it appears he has a severe POV problem and an agenda. See Alb28 on ANI instead of responding to this as a wiki lawyering attack and all from a "new" userCathar11 (talk) 22:23, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Jackson, William (1990). The Rock of the Gibraltarians. A History of Gibraltar (second edition ed.). Grendon, Northamptonshire, UK: Gibraltar Books. p. 225. ISBN0-948466-14-6. {{cite book}}: |edition= has extra text (help):
“
The open frontier helped to increase the Spanish share, and naval links with Minorca produced the small Minorcan contingent.
William Jackson (1990). The Rock of the Gibraltarians. A History of Gibraltar (Second ed.). Grendon, Northamptonshire, United Kingdom: Gibraltar Books. p. 143. ISBN0-948466-14-6.. British: 351; Genoese: 597; Jews: 575; Spaniards: 185; Portuguese: 25
Resolved – fundamentally flawed report, no admin action needed at this time. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:26, 11 December 2009 (UTC)