Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

Threats to exterminate me, overdose of lead etc. on my User pages

Hi, I checked my User page and talk page today and found it had some very nasty edits made, threats, wanting me exterminated and given an overdose of lead and so on.

I have now undone the edits but they remain in the history record so I reckon right now it will be easy enough for someone to undo my undones and restore the abusive edits so it is not a satisfactory situation right now to say the least.

This is my user page and my user talk page - Peter Dow (talk)

The abusive and threatening edits have been made both by unsigned IPs interspersed with signed edits by one user called GeorgeFormby1

This is one such edit by IP of my user page to illustrate -

diff [1] IP 82.17.219.182

Helo, my name is peter dow and im a retard, i am a pathetic 47 year old nobody who has committed high treason against the Crown and should be traked down by mi5 and exteminatid.

The abusive threatening edits to my user talk page are

diff [2] IP 86.132.166.95

PETER DOW IS A MENTALLY ILL, DELOUSIONARY FRUITCAKE WHO NEEDS TO BE LOCKED UP FOR THE SAFETY OF OTHERS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.132.166.95 (talk) 10:44, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

and

diff [3] by IP 82.17.219.182

....Including, of course, the Queen and the entire Royal Family, When a government with some balls gets to power he'll get an overdose of lead-Duce Fox, Defender of the Realm and Crown 22:18, 12 August 3008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.17.219.182 (talk)

The pattern of edits on my user page done by IP 82.17.219.182 can be seen here [4] and you can see that that IP has been used for the abusive edits of my Peter Dow user page, and to edit, I presume, the culprit GeorgeFormby1's own user page. So if he thinks he is covering his tracks entirely by making unsigned edits he is mistaken.

The edits made by IP 86.132.166.95 [5] are not yet directly associated with anything else that I can see but it looks like the same guy in my opinion based on the timings of the edits - within a few days of each other.

So I need some administrator help to prevent this very malicious, abusive and threatening edits to my user page and to my user talk page.

I am quite new to Wikipedia and as a newcomer, it seems to be with Wikipedia user pages, is that, it is impossible for the user to protect his or her user pages from abusive and threatening changes - is that right? There is no way actually to take username ownership of your user page, to stop such horrible edits, is there?

So I don't know what action one can take - except initially to report the problem to the administrators. Do you ban editing from troublesome IPs? Well perhaps we can get to the solution once an administrator takes a look at the problem.

Thanks for looking at this and for helping as much as you can.

Peter Dow (talk) 12:54, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

It appears that the edits have been oversighted (removed) from your talkpage history. Under the circumstances, the persons able to remove the edits are also likely to be looking at limiting such edits in future so I think this matter can be closed. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:05, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me LessHeard vanU but the history of both my user page and user talk page seemed unchanged when I revisited those pages - no oversight removal of history edits which I could see - are we looking at the same Peter Dow (talk) pages? Peter Dow (talk) 13:26, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I would advise you to request semi-protection of both pages at WP:RFPP to avoid such things from happening again. It is completely allowed to request such protection :-) SoWhy 13:13, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey thanks SoWhy for the tip about semi-protection. I will now investigate that and take any action I can to protect my user pages. :) Peter Dow (talk) 13:26, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I've put level 3 warnings on both IPs talkpages. If you want to complain to the ISP the July vandalism on your talk page was from a BT IP - their complaint address is abuse@btbroadband.com and you need to send them this link http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Peter_Dow&diff=next&oldid=224544960. The August vandalism to your user page was from an NTL/Virgin IP address and their complaint line is pim@virginmedia.co.uk you'd need to send them this http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3APeter_Dow&diff=231534955&oldid=216438185 ref. Hope that helps. ϢereSpielChequers 13:33, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Gosh. lol Thanks WereSpielChequers Peter Dow (talk) 13:46, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protection will block any IP address from making any changes to your pages. Meanwhile, I'm wondering what an "overdose" of lead would be? That is, what would be a "normal" dose of lead? Anyway, if a registered user similarly vandalizes your pages, you could also get swift action by taking it to WP:AIV. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:29, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

"Overdose of lead" likely refers to shooting him or her with a gun (with lead bullets). It's a common expression. --ElKevbo (talk) 15:54, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Aha, as in "I'll fill ya full o' lead." Not good. And then there's the "exterminate" part, which means the authors probably watch too much Dr. Who. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:39, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Of the two the one I find more worrying is Special:Contributions/82.17.219.182. From the other contribs it could well be connected to user:GeorgeFormby1, who in any event has a user page that I would suggest an admin look at. I'm not necessarily saying that fans of Mussolini should be banned from Wikipedia, but threats of violence? ϢereSpielChequers 17:08, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't look to me like user:GeorgeFormby1 has anything to do with this. He simply removed an offensive sentence, which he may have spotted on RC patrol. Looie496 (talk) 17:28, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

You think? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 17:47, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually it was these three diffs that made me suspect that user:GeorgeFormby1 might be connected to the vandalising IP. ϢereSpielChequers 18:03, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

One fairuse image = 50+(+?) articles using said image?

Resolved

 – Excess FU tags removed, removed from all but the one article. Wizardman 13:19, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Unresolved

 – Edit warring and suchlike means that this is still going Stifle (talk) 16:10, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Image:TBN-Crest_Blockletters.jpg seems to be used by 50+ (I lost count at 50 before giving up, but i'm sure it's more) articles on Wikipedia, mostly used on broadcast stations operated by TBN. My understanding of the rules states that this type of useage for fairuse images is frowned upon. Is the useage in this many articles justified, or did I find a potential lawsuit trap by accident?--293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 01:21, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Jesus F. Christ, proceed directly to IFD and do not pass Go. — CharlotteWebb 01:54, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey, watch it - That's Jesus H. Christ, to you. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:14, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Why? It's a corporate logo, being used on articles about broacast stations the corporation owns. Ed Fitzgerald "unreachable by rational discourse"^{(t / c)} 02:11, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Logos can only be used for the company is represents; the stations that it owns may fall within that company, but they do not qualify to use that logo (the only logo they may use is their station logo/callsign). Also, IFD isn't appropriate as there is at least one true fair use image, but they does need to be a mighty purge. --MASEM 02:14, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I have apprasied WP:TVS on this matter as this is their area of expertise. The problem with this is that TBN stations do not have individual logos; they all universally use the TBN shield as their station logo with their call letters and city of license in boring ol' Helevetica during station identifications. Nate • (chatter) 03:00, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

TBN HQ in NYC is about 1/2 mile from my apartment -- shouldd I run over there tomorrow and ask for official permission to use the logo? Ed Fitzgerald "unreachable by rational discourse"^{(t / c)} 03:12, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Quite honestly, that's probably the simplest solution; the alternative is no images at all, as Nate indicates. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 03:33, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Guys, I think we are missing something. First off, the image in question is a piece of non-free content, more specifically a logo of a company. I would find it very far-fetched if a company would allow the use of their logo on Wikipedia, which means they would be giving up their rights and allow anyone to use the logo for basically any reason. They aren't going to go for it.

Secondly, we need to remember the policy that governs non-free content, WP:NFCC. Specifically, WP:NFCC#8 which states: "Significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic." We need to ask ourselves how the logo of a parent company placed on a bunch articles on all the companies stations significantly increases the readers understanding of the topic. The answer is of course, that it doesn't. Thus, all of the fair-use rationales except for the article Trinity Broadcasting Network fail our policies, and should be immediately removed. This isn't even a borderline case, this is very blatantly against the law. If someone could code a script that can quickly remove the photos, that would be great. Otherwise, the job will have to be done by hand. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 03:44, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

This is certainly not "against the law". It's what the stations themselves use as their logo. Please revert your edits and avoid copyright paranoia. Firsfron of Ronchester 04:13, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Most of the pages you have removed the logo from are TBN owned and operated affiliates, the others carry the network 24/7. I see zero problem with this. But I do see Gonzo_fan2007 "jumping the gun" by removing the logo from pages before this discussion has ended. Firsfron is right, having the logos there isn't against the law (by any means) and you should revert your edits, please. - NeutralHomer • Talk 04:25, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

No, but it is against the Foundation's use of non-free images, which are stricter than fair use allows. Logos are fine for the company they represent, but even if the individual stations are fully owned by TBS, they are a separate entity; if their station logo includes the TBS logo, that's one thing, but if they have no logo at all, then there is no picture to show per WP:NFCC. This is a long-standing practice with logos. --MASEM 04:21, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 04:22, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

People this is a Foundation Issue. The use of the images specifically violates WP:NFCC#8. Someone please explain to me how the use of this image meets WP:NFCC#8 and I will gladly stop what I am doing. Also, I am admin of this site, and am obligated to enforce policy. I am not required to wait to enforce policy, nor do I need consensus to enforce policy. I am stopping now because there is opposition (ignorant opposition, but opposition at that). « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 04:38, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

"Significance": It is the logo of an international television network. A network that owns stations throughout the United States and cable networks throughout the world. It's logo is one that would be difficult to explain in words. I think that is good enough.

I may be overstepping a line here, but saying opposition is "ignorant" isn't very polite. - NeutralHomer • Talk 04:46, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

My apologies, I used "ignorant" as meaning "lacking knowledge or information as to a particular subject or fact." Meant no offense by it. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 04:54, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

That's perfectly fine to demonstrate significance for the logo's use on the TBS page and thus why this isn't a IFD issue but more image review. However, the use of the logo on any of the affiliates is where the significance argument breaks down, because the fact the station may lack a logo doesn't mean the reader's understanding is improved about the station itself by having the controlling company's logo there. It's the same reason we don't paste logos of vendors of products on the product pages (barring any depiction of the product itself). Logos are only significant on the single page of the company that the logo is for, nowhere else with very very very few exceptions (so few I cannot recall any, but needless to say you need a very good rationale to keep it there). --MASEM 04:52, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Like I said a moment ago on Gonzo's talk page "TBN stations don't have individual logos like NBC, CBS, ABC, etc stations. They have just the one. So, that technically is that station's logo along with the logo of the network. It is rare for a TBN station to have a logo that isn't the official one." - NeutralHomer • Talk 04:56, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

If TBN stations don't have individual logos, then they don't need identifying images because no such image exists. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:59, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

The logo of individual TBN affiliates is the national TBN logo. WHRE uses the TBN logo (owned by a Virginia based company) not with a "21" (it's channel number), but just the logo. That's it's station logo. - NeutralHomer • Talk 05:03, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

The reason individual station articles have logo images is not a "one logo per article" quota, but because each station has their own brand, and we're illustrating that brand. In the case of TBN, TBN has one single unified brand, so we deal with that in the one article on that brand. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:06, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Newbie admins, heh. The use of the same image on multiple articles is certainly not prohibited, and in fact it actually reduces the amount of non-free content (instead of having 50 different logos, you have one). Finally, there was a misstatement above (by Masem): it's not that the stations have no logo, it's that they use the TBN logo on-air. Finally, the "ignorant opposition" comment is a personal attack which really shouldn't be used by a fellow administrator. Firsfron of Ronchester 05:00, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Using ignorant in its precise sense is a personal attack, but calling another admin with legitimate concerns a newbie isn't? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:06, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

AMIB, the number of good-faith users driven off the project by you has been huge. I say that as a person with respect for you as an editor, but your demands last year for "one FU image per article" last year upset many good editors, some of whom will not ever come back after trying to work with you on the logo situation on WP:TVS. I was hoping you had calmed down a bit since then and that you would be willing to look at the issue from a different perspective (or at least not make demands that aren't actually even in the policy, like the "one FU image per article" stuff you demanded). Calling another admin a "newbie" when he voices legitimate concerns isn't what I did. Calling a new admin a newbie when he says that the editing being done is "against the law" (his exact words) and actually goes and removes the logos in a mass semi-automated purge while calling the "opposition ignorant" is calling a spade a spade. Seven months isn't a long time, to my mind, and certainly calling "opposition" editors (even that term is inflammatory) "ignorant" only inflames the situation further. I didn't say much last year when you tried to enforce your "one FU image per article" interpretation of the policy, but now the number of FU images on TVS articles is dropping to zero, as some editors plainly intended from the beginning. English Wikipedia still supports non-free image use within the policy; there was a Fair Use Rationale provided for each instance used in an article (diff), the image was sourced, and actually reduced the number of Fair Use images from 50 down to just one. Firsfron of Ronchester 06:04, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Not sure how any alleged history of mine or a misrepresentation of a view I held (and discarded) months ago has anything to do with you making personal attacks while warning people for supposed personal attacks they've already apologized for. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:13, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't allege what you said: you did say it. And calling someone a newbie isn't a personal attack. Calling someone ignorant is. Firsfron of Ronchester 06:26, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Again, not seeing the apology or retraction or explanation for personal attacks other than "Well, I was right to make them" or "They weren't personal attacks." My good-faith conduct months ago is not germane. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:30, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok Firs, first off, I apologized above for the misunderstanding, I use "ignorant" as "not understanding the facts." I meant nothing by it, so get over that. Secondly, been an admin for 7 months, not a newbie. Lastly, you still have not explained how this meets our WP:NFCC, specifically #8. Anyway, I am tired and off to bed. Have a good night guys. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 05:08, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm correct that the stations have no logo. If they use the TBS logo on air, it is using TBS's logo via their affliation with the parent company, not because the station owns the logo - again, they have no logo to speak of. (A logo is not a requirement of any company, and, extending to WP, is not a requirement for a company's infobox, but is allowable should one exist). --MASEM 05:18, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Fully agree with Gonzo here, he's right, it's a blanket corporate logo that adds nothing to the individual page. If there's no individual logo, there shouldn't be an image. What is to be gained by having the logo of the parent company on every page? It would be like using the PepsiCo logo for Doritos. Dayewalker (talk) 05:04, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

If the TBN affiliates used the Pepsi logo on the air as their individual station logo, I would argue for that. But individual TBN affiliates use the national TBN logo as their station's logo (whether they are owned by TBN or not). - NeutralHomer • Talk 05:08, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Only if Doritos actually uses the PepsiCo logo. Firsfron of Ronchester 05:10, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, man. Here we go: we tell them it's not that the stations don't have a logo, it's that they do have a logo: they use one every day, on-air, to identify their station as a TBN affiliate. It's the TBN logo, used on most (but not all) TBN stations. And yet, over and over they repeat the same thing: "well, then, they don't have a logo". Missing the point entirely. The situation is analogous to Wikimedia and Meta-Wiki: they use the same logo. Look at both of the pages. They're run by the same company, and use the same logo. There are other Wikimedia pages which have a different logo, but that doesn't mean that the pages which have the same logo as Wikimedia "have no logo": they clearly have a logo which is the same as that of the Wikimedia Foundation, and they display it prominently on the project pages. Firsfron of Ronchester 05:31, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to dispense with the superior attitude.

There's only one brand here in the case of TBN, so we deal with it on the article on that brand as a whole, instead of putting it in every article that uses that one unified brand. Your example is poor: Meta-wiki uses the Wikimedia logo because it is Wikimedia's coordination/policy/discussion wiki, a project intimately linked with Wikimedia as a whole, and thus lacking its own brand. It does not use its own logo which happens to also be Wikimedia's logo, it uses Wikimedia's logo.- A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:38, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

- Facepalm. Let me try this a different way, because it seems only Firsfron is getting it at the moment. WHRE, a TBN affiliate, uses the official TBN logo as the logo for their station. Most, if not all, TBN affiliates use the national TBN logo as their individual station's logo. It's both...local and national. There is no "unified brand". - NeutralHomer • Talk 05:55, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

"Every station uses the same branding" = "These stations do not have individual branding." That's what individual means. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:10, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

In any case, all the articles we're dealing with are almost meaningless sub-stubs anyway. Most of them should be merged into a single extended-list article. Why does a sub-stub need a logo image at all? No image can pass NFCC#8 (contributes to understanding the article) if there's no content in the article in need of understanding. Plus, of course, all of these articles lack fair use rationales, formally speaking. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:59, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

No, the articles each had a Fair Use Rationale here. The rationales were mass-purged tonight. Firsfron of Ronchester 06:08, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Regardless if all of the stations are broadcasting the content, we can easily explain using words that these stations, under their call signs, are broadcasting TBN content. This would easily remove any reason why we need to use this one image in 50+ articles. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 06:00, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

But we aren't talking about the content, we are talking about the images (the TBN logo). Fut.Perf., I wouldn't call all of the TBN affiliate articles "meaningless" or "sub-stubs". Some have large history sections, some have been affiliated with other networks before TBN, so they aren't all meaningless and certainly don't need to be all merged into one extended list. - NeutralHomer • Talk 06:07, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Could be, for some (not any I've seen). But even so, even for logos, NFCC#8 goes together with NFCC#1. Replaceability, which includes replaceability with text. Each of these infobox usages can easily be replaced with the text "The station uses the logo of its parent company TBN as its own channel logo", or some such. Since we have have the logo in the parent article, that's perfectly sufficient. By the way, "we're talking about the image, not the content" makes no sense. When judging NFCC, you always first and foremost judge the article content, it's only the article content that makes an image legitimate. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:11, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

One could say that very same thing for any number of other affiliate stations like "the station uses the logo of it's parent company, FOX Television, as part of it's own channel logo"...and wipe out all the FOX logos.

But writing a 15 to 20 word sentence about a logo, that one could just put on the page (and was already there to begin with) just seems kinda silly.

Also, I don't think an article's content should decide whether or not to add a logo. If so, I have about 200+ articles that don't need logos. - NeutralHomer • Talk 06:16, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Then remove them. Yes, they don't need them. The routine nature of logo inclusion has apparently led many people to believe logos are somehow exempt from normal NFCC standards. They are not. Of course an article's content should decide whether it can support a non-free image. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:20, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

"As part of" is different from "consists the entirety of." The former means there's a different logo based on the network's, the latter means the logo is just the network's and can be covered in the network's article. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:21, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

@Fut.Perf.: I have seen no rule that says an article has to have "such and such" amount of information before it can "support" a logo. If there is one, I would recommend a change. There are hundreds of pages that have logos on them (or pictures) that have a small amount of information.

@A Man In Black: Do what now? Can you explain what you wrote there for people who haven't the slightest clue what you are talking about, please? - NeutralHomer • Talk 06:24, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

If the article subject doesn't have its own logo that identifies the subject, the article doesn't need a logo to identify the subject. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:28, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

But if the logo listed is the station's logo (which happens to also be the networks logo) then, yes, it does need to be there. Remember, TBN affiliates use the national TBN logo as the logo for their individual stations. - NeutralHomer • Talk 06:31, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

It's not the station's logo, it's the network's logo. The station uses it to identify itself as part of the network. The stations have no individual logos. You said the last yourself. No individual logos for the station means no individual logos for the station articles. We don't add the Apple logo to every Apple product article even though the Apple logo is present on every Apple product, we don't add the Sony logo to every Sony product article even though the Sony logo is present on every Sony product, we don't add the TBN logo to every TBN station article even though the every TBN station uses the TBN logo. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:33, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

"Need to be there"? Since when is it a law of nature that every company article must have a logo image? If it can be replaced – and I showed you how it can – it must be replaced. Find it silly or not. NFCC#1, period. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:36, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

@AMIB: No, I said the stations do not have numbers (channel numbers) on their logos. They use the TBN logo as their own individual station's logo (I think I have typed that about 20 times now)....that logo is the TBN National logo.

I wouldn't doubt that the Apple and Sony logos are probably on those pages somewhere, but that isn't what we are talking about. WHRE (a TBN affiliate) uses the national TBN logo as the logo for WHRE. There isn't a [TBN Logo] 21 (WHRE's channel number), they use the national logo as their logo.

@Fut.Perf.: Facepalm again. We aren't talking about a company article, we are talking about an affiliate article. Also, when did it become a "law of nature" that images weren't allowed? - NeutralHomer • Talk 06:42, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

If that is the case, then remove the images from the affiliate articles. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 06:43, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

How did you get that from what I said? - NeutralHomer • Talk 06:46, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I am tired of having people trying to turn this discussion about an image to some debate/education clusterfuck on what is a brand, a station, affiliate, whatever. So, I decided to cut the crap and said we should remove the images from all articles about the affiliates. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 06:48, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I gotta agree with ya on the "clusterfuck" point, cause this has certainly turned into one. I personally think, with what Fut.Perf. has said, that all logos on all stations (TBN, FOX, ABC, whatever) should go. If you are going to do it on one network, might as well do it on all of 'em. - NeutralHomer • Talk 06:55, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I prefer dealing with one image at a time. I am personally not a big fan of logos on articles of these stations, but just using one image for over 50 articles and the image is copyrighted, something has to give. I maybe can only see this image at, maybe, 2 places (the article on the station and the mass repeaters in Tampa). It's getting late here, but I still think the image should be removed from the articles on the affiliates. Until then, keep the FUR's there. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 07:13, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

There's no policy which states that an image can only be used once or twice. In fact, Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria #10c states that a Fair Use Rationale must be provided for "each article (a link to the articles is recommended as well) in which fair use is claimed for the item," indicating that the opposite is true. Using the same image actually reduces the number of Fair Use images on Wikipedia: the articles link to the same image instead of 50 different images. And this image had a FU Rationale for each instance used in an article, until it was removed tonight. NFCC policy clearly indicates that Fair Use images are to be kept to a minimum; one image is certainly a minimum, despite its use in multiple articles, specifically allowed in the policy. NFCC #8 states "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic." The logo is used to identify the station as a TBN affiliate or owned-and-operated station. "Significant" here is particularly bad wording (because it's led to some significant edit wars between AMIB and various WP:TVS editors over the past year due to differences in interpretation of the word "significant"): it's too easily gamed; anyone can claim "significant!" or "not significant!"). Readers understand the affiliation better with the logo, and it's a logo the stations themselves use: it's not as if the stations use no logo when broadcasting: they definitely use a logo: it's this one. This image complied to NFCC 1-10 until tonight; now with the FURationales removed, it will be far easier to claim that the use is non-compliant, and the removal can continue unabated. Firsfron of Ronchester 07:58, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think it is going to be done whether there is consensus for it or not. I just hope we aren't setting a precedent for other images. - NeutralHomer • Talk 07:23, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Convenience break

There's a proper place to discuss this which is Wikipedia:Non-free content review. There is obviously a difference of evaluation, and this needs to be resolved through consensus, not unilateral action. Ty 07:36, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I wish I could say consensus was trying to be reached, but as it stands Gonzo_fan2007 and Fut.Perf. have pretty much taken upon themselves (Gonzo stopping when there was opposition to his deletions) to remove the logo from all pages except the main Trinity Broadcasting Network page and A Man In Black has removed the fair-use rationales that remain on the logo's page as "false rationales" (which I don't quite understand).

So, I don't think this will be moved to Wikipedia:Non-free content review, because most of the images have been deleted already, so there wouldn't be much to talk about. Consensus wasn't reached here (or even tried for), I doubt it would be reached (or even tried for) there either. - NeutralHomer • Talk 07:45, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

This is quite typical with image deletionists - ignore consensus debates and act in a pre-emptory manner to delete images, creating a "fact on the ground" so that the debate becomes meaningless, and the community's prerogative to create consensus is usurped. This really has to stop, it's undermining the very basis of Wikipedia to have administrators act in this manner. Ed Fitzgerald "unreachable by rational discourse"^{(t / c)} 08:07, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Quite.[6] Ty 08:22, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I didn't know about the RFC on FuturePerfect, but yes, I agree. I'll also note that the editor who uploaded the image that we are currently discussing left Wikipedia in 2007 due to AMIB's overly-rigid "enforcement" of NFCC; this wasn't the only editor who left due to AMIB's personal interpretation of the policy (which was "only one FU image per article"). This interpretation is not part of the actual policy. Firsfron of Ronchester 08:54, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec)That sounds like a couple people I know. Plus, it sets a dangerous precedent...."well, so-and-so did it, then that means I can." Bad idea!

With Fut.Perf. saying above, essentially, that a page didn't need a logo and also saying that some pages needed a certain amount of information first before a logo could be added (he didn't back up what any of this with any links to rules stating such), I am waiting for the precedent he just set to be used to remove pretty much all logos from all TV and Radio Station pages. - NeutralHomer • Talk 08:30, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Gonzo_fan2007 and Fut.Perf for doing the legwork on this. The blatant misuse of fair use was shockingly evident, and it's good to see some "newbie" administrators take this on... seicer | talk | contribs 11:55, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

You are thanking them for completely bypassing this discussion, as Ed put it above "usurping" consensus (and not even bothering to get any period), essentially making the entire consensus process pointless, and creating dangerous precedent in the process? Not to mention breaking several rules to do so and completely ignoring the fact that, as Firs put it, "There's no policy which states that an image can only be used once or twice."

You are thanking them for that? Come on! - NeutralHomer • Talk 12:12, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Consensus is not needed when you are dealing with blatant and gross violations of fair use and guidelines, in which the logo can only be used on the Trinity Broadcasting Network and on no other derivative. I don't see how coping with policy can be so difficult to understand. seicer | talk | contribs 13:09, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Coping with fair use policy is difficult for many, many Wikipedia editors; either they don't understand it, or they believe it can be ignored. Black Kite 14:49, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

The handling of non-free media is one of the very few areas where consensus can be trumped, in this case by the Foundation's mandate on reducing non-free image use. Now, it is true there is absolutely no rule that says how many times an image can be used, only that it needs a FUR for each use it has. And while the TBS logo has/had a FUR for each use of the image, having a FUR does not automatically make the use valid; the image has to meet the other NFCC criteria on the page it is being used at; based on pass precedent and WP:LOGO, the logo, save for very strict exceptions, cannot be used on any other page besides the main corporate entity it represents. --MASEM 13:09, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Neither NFCC or WP:LOGO say anything about a logo only being used on the main corporate entity the logo represents. The logo itself is being broadcast by the individual stations into people's homes; it's the logo they use. Firsfron of Ronchester 13:23, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec)You can't say there is no rule on how many times an image can be used (as long as it has an F-UR) and then say that image has to pass some criteria and then it might not be valid. You can't have it both ways.

The "rule" that limits the number of times the image can be used is WP:NFCC#8 - the significance of the image. There is a practical limit to the number of times a non-free image can be used while still remaining significant. It's not a hard-set number because it will vary for each image, which is why there is effectively no rule on how many times a non-free image can be used, it just has to meet NFCC#8. For example, there's probably a good hundred+ uses of The Simpsons on articles outside the discussion of the show and related elements, maybe as the topic was mentioned on the show or the like. It is not appropriate to reuse a picture of the Simpsons each of those 100+ times because there is likely no significance that the reader will gain by including that picture; some may be appropriate (a characture of an actor, for instance) but not all of them. That's all that that means: there is no limit on the number of uses as long as each use meets NFCC#8. --MASEM 14:28, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

What is it saying to plain ol' editors when the admin can "trump" consensus (no one even tried to get consensus) and make whatever changes he or she sees fit. - NeutralHomer • Talk 13:20, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I've got to agree with what has been said already, my specialty is logo FURs and I've probably handled nearly 6,000 of them, and I agree that in this case, the logo is definitely being overused. The main station should keep the logo and maybe if there is something like a corporate article or a large list it could be debated, but having it reused 50 times is far far too much. MBisanz ^talk 13:18, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

So, we are just going to allow an AN/I discussion to be bypassed, consensus to be usurped, the entire process to be made pointless, dangerous precedent set, rules broken, others ignored (blantantly it appears) and those editors thanked for doing so.....and then call this whole thing "resolved"? - NeutralHomer • Talk 13:23, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

When you are dealing with issues of copyright and gross fair use violations, yes. In addition, I don't see "consensus" towards slapping the logo on 50 articles -- I just see two or three editors spieling of abuse and misrepresentations of policy and guidelines. seicer | talk | contribs 14:07, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, at this point, with you "spieling" accusations of editors being abusive and misrepresentating "policy and guidelines" (not even bothering to assume good faith there) and being that the damage is done and the discussion is "resolved", I am going to go back to the radio and TV station pages. - NeutralHomer • Talk 14:21, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Most of TBN's US TV stations are owned outright by TBN; they're not "affiliates".[7] TBN had problems with the FCC for owning too many stations, but those seem to have been resolved. They own at least 23 full-power stations outright. So the TBN logo can properly used for all the directly owned stations. There's a question as to whether the low-power stations which are just repeaters are notable, but that's a separate issue. --John Nagle (talk) 15:23, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

It most certainly does impair understanding of the topic for individual stations in this network to not have logos on their articles. While there may be no rule requiring a television station's article to have a logo in its infobox, it's certainly expected enough that any station that doesn't have one will cause the user to wonder why. How else is Wikipedia supposed to actually convey "this network's stations all use the same branding and logo without local variation"? Simply not having a logo on the station articles at all doesn't convey that — what it actually communicates, rightly or wrongly, is "Wikipedia is either too lazy or too biased against religious television stations to put in any effort to upload logos which show how the stations are branded", not "this station simply uses a non-localized version of the national network logo".

And there simply isn't any rule against using fair use logos in as many articles as appropriate — the rule about derivatives applies to templates, tangentially-relevant articles like 2006 United States broadcast TV realignment, and other such cases where the logo is clearly being used for a purely decorative purpose, not to cases where it's being used for the exact same purpose as any other television station's logo. It would violate WP:NFCC to use the logo on a network affiliates template, certainly. It would violate NFCC if the logo were being placed on Category:Trinity Broadcasting network affiliates. It would violate NFCC if the logo were being added as a secondary thumbnail to provide a visual identification of "the network this station is affiliated with" in addition to distinct station logos in the infobox. But as long as this logo is the only brand identity these stations use, and as such is their primary visual identification, using it for that purpose on as many articles as necessary most certainly does not violate NFCC — and not using it communicates something very different from the intention. Bearcat (talk) 16:14, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

"the rule about derivates applies to .... cases where the logo is clearly being used for a purely decorative purpose, not to cases where it's being used for the exact same purpose as any other television station's logo..." - the exact same purpose? Ah, you mean purely decorative, then? Black Kite 17:02, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Er, no. Fundamental visual identification of the topic in the infobox ain't purely decorative. Bearcat (talk) 17:05, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Don't be so literal. "Decorative" = "image use I don't agree with" in deletionist lingo. Ed Fitzgerald "unreachable by rational discourse"^{(t / c)} 17:48, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Can we not throw the word "deletionist" around like a slur, please? I think that FPS's and AMiB's interpretation of "decorative" is different from yours for reasons that owe more to their personal opinion than to the facts, but that is usually the primary cause for a difference of opinion. Please don't make broad assertions/aspersions about "deletionists". Thank you. Protonk (talk) 20:13, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I disagree, it seems to me to be an apt (and polite) descriptive term which fits very well with the behavior of people who prefer to delete images rather than take the extra step of exploring ways in which they can be kept, if at all possible. Obviously, not everyone who deletes on image is a deletionist, and not every deletionist abuses the system, but generally those whose actions end up in reports at AN and AN/I or RFCU are without a doubt deletionists who put considerable effort (which could be put into positively improving the encyclopedia) into getting rid of images through a variety of means, including those which, as in the example in this thread, undermine the consensual basis of Wikipedia.

It's like the old saw about different political systems, one in which everything that isn't banned is permitted, and the other in which everything that isn't permitted is banned. Ed Fitzgerald "unreachable by rational discourse"^{(t / c)} 22:17, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Give the sarcasm a rest, please. Incidentally, you might want to look at my logs for image deletion. (Hint: it's not actually very many, and most of them are vandalism and clear speedies). "Decorative" is quite clear, by the way. It's an image which is there for aesthetic rather than informational reasons. If they're free images, there's not an issue with them. When they're fair-use, their use need to be assessed critically. Black Kite 22:32, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Sarcasm? In my last post? There wasn't a drop of it, honestly. I meant, and believe, every word there. But if you're referring to my deletionists' definition of "decorative", yes that was sarcasm, but the irony is that the rhetoric of deletionists are a much better fit to my sarcastic definition than they are to the definition you give, which I quite agree with. I would say that a decorative image is one which has absolutely no connection to the article it's in, does not clarify, explain, supplement or otherwise provide information on the subject, and is included for aesthetic reasons alone; I think that quite closely matches yours.

In reality, I've had all sorts of images that fulfilled the requirements of both our definitions be called "decorative" by people seeking to delete them, and that leads me to observe that to those folks "decorative" is essentially a buzz word, something that can be thrown into an argument or an edit summary to provide a semblence of policy "cover" when you're trying to get rid of something you want to get rid of (for whatever reason). Thus, my sarcasm is based on actual experience and not pulled out of thin air. Ed Fitzgerald "unreachable by rational discourse"^{(t / c)} 01:19, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Let me add that I don't want to completely denigrate aesthetic reasons for adding images -- they are useful in deciding whether one image is preferable to another, and breaking the text up with images also serves a functional purpose in making the page easier to read for the user, whose eye can more easily take in the "chunks". I myself will frequently look at an article I'm working on and say "This really needs an image right here," and I'll go looking for one -- but if I can't find one that is appropriate (i.e. fulfills the requirements above), ah well, too bad, there's no image going there, no matter how much the article may need it. So to have someone come along and claim that an image I've worked hard to find and provide a fair-use rationale for and properly place in the article is "decorative"... well, you may understand why I would be sensitized to the non-specific use of the word.

What's even worse is to have someone delete on image because in their opinion it doesn't fulfill the requirements of Wikipedia's non-free content policy, when that policy is so full of requirements which are subjective that for a great many cases only editorial judgment can decide whether an image is valid or not. Deletionists make a point of acting as if determining the policy-validity of an image is a simple matching operation, equivalent to 2+2=4, or answering a series of yes/no questions, but it's clearly not. It require judgment and, frankly, I don't trust their judgment because they are clouded by what appears to be an ulterior motive, to remove as much fair-use content as possible, no matter how appropriate, and no matter how valid.

But, in any case, when two editors have differing judgments about things, it's supposed to be community consensus which decides what happens, and, instead, we're now having this NFCC-trump card played on us: "I say it doesn't fit the policy, so I'm deleting it and you can't question my actions because it's policy and it's non-negotiable." That's astonishingly opposed to the basic foundations of how this place is supposed to work. Ed Fitzgerald "unreachable by rational discourse"^{(t / c)} 01:45, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Basically, this is a copy of the patent nonsense on your user page? seicer | talk | contribs 02:09, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Is that a question? Sounds more like a statement with an errant question mark.

I don't recall off-hand if I covered this specific topic in the thoughts about Wikipedia I put down on my user page, but I do aim for a certain consistency in my ideas, so it wouldn't surprise me. As for "patent nonsense" -- well, that's a judgment call, and you won't be surprised to hear that I disagree.

Any particular reason you thought it necessary to insult me? Ed Fitzgerald "unreachable by rational discourse"^{(t / c)} 02:36, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to revert

There is obviously disagreement with the unilateral actions of AMiB and FPaS. I would suggest that per WP:BRD, all articles be reverted back to the status quo ante and further discussion happen on the appropriate pages. --Dragon695 (talk) 19:16, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

That would seem to be a reasonable course of action, allowing a consensus to be formed before further action is taken. After all, there's no particular rush here. Ed Fitzgerald "unreachable by rational discourse"^{(t / c)} 19:29, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Uh, no. We're not revert-warring over your misunderstood characterizations of policy and guidelines, and no consensus is needed to enforce copyright policies -- especially when it was this serious of a violation. Continued misuse of the tags led to the images speedy removal from 50 pages that went beyond the scope of NFCC. Since you openly asked editors to revert despite policy, and despite work that has been done to abide by policy, it has been protected for the interim. Don't keep pushing the issue by asking others to edit war. seicer | talk | contribs 19:41, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Ahh, since Dragon695 was inviting a consensual reversion in order to determine what to do about the images, it wouldn't have been "edit-warring". Obviously, though, having used admin tools to bypass a consensus decision, I understand completely that you're not anxious to open things up to community discussion again. So it ever is. Ed Fitzgerald "unreachable by rational discourse"^{(t / c)} 22:22, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion Seeing that some have argued that the useage of a non-free image is begin used for "insignificant" repeater stations, howabout we just combine the other non-24 "powerful" stations into one article or list like List of TBN repeater stations? I'm willing to suggest that many of the low-power stations doesn't meet the criteria set forth in Wikipedia:Notability and any notable events can be listed in a broadcast history of sorts. That way, you have an image that isn't being "violated" over a wide derth of articles.--293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 19:34, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Note I just want to note that the image in question had been placed on over 110 pages (I believe the exact number before removal was 118). I see everyone saying 50ish, which isn't the case. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 20:32, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I stated that I lost count after 50. --293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 23:07, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying that. That makes the issue much more paramount that we don't allow this crap to continue. seicer | talk | contribs 23:13, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Unilateral actions? My actions consist of commenting on this thread. I'd appreciate it if nobody reverted those. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:19, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Not entirely. You removed the Fair Use Rationales last night. I'll also note that Seicer has protected his version of the image: the one with the missing Fair Use Rationales. Firsfron of Ronchester 00:53, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh. Huh. Doesn't seem to have lasted long, in any event. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:18, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, because the image was still being used on 20+ pages and at the time consensus was trying to be reached. I readded the F-URs until that consensus was reached, it wasn't...because FPaS and Seicer pretty much bypassed consensus and removed them all. - NeutralHomer • Talk 02:59, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

• Note that seicer has protected the image page. I've declined to unprotect as the issue that led to the protection has not been resolved and I'm disinclined to see edit wars recommence at 30 paces. Stifle (talk) 16:07, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

See also

How many pages do we need on this? Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television Stations#WP:AN/I#One fairuse image = 50+(+?) articles using said image?. seicer | talk | contribs 17:16, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

That post on WP:TVS was made in between the third post (waaaay at the top) in this very discussion. - NeutralHomer • Talk 17:58, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Can we try to consolidate the discussion here? It's otherwise becoming too disorganized to have effective communications. seicer | talk | contribs 18:02, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

The only reason discussion resumed there was because the issue was force-resolved here. Since the discussion here has been reopened, I offer my opinion. There is nothing in policy that restricts the number of articles in which a non-free image may be used. I challenge anyone to prove otherwise. WP:NFCC#8 is a weak reason for deleting the logos, as it is so subjective that if one wanted to, they could use it to say that no logo significantly adds to the understanding of the article. I disagree. The logo gives a reader a quick visual reference to the subject of the article, so the understanding of the article is significantly increased before the user has even read a word. For that reason alone, the logo is not purely decorative, as some have suggested. That is true when used in one article; it is true when used in 118 articles. If each station used its own logo, then there would be 118 logos, each used only once. By deleting the logo from any one article, the visual reference is lost, and all the reader is left with is a coded callsign, which is meaningless until the prose of the article is read. Since no policy has been breached, there is no reason for the heavy-handed tactics that have been practiced here during the course of the discussion, or for remarks insinuating that those opposed to deleting the images do so out of ignorance, i.e., lack of knowledge. My position is not based on a lack of knowledge; on the contrary, it is precisely because of my knowledge of what the policy says that I take my position. The logos and fair use rationales need to be restored. As for whether or not the stations' articles should even exist, that is irrelevant to this discussion, but is being addressed at the project talk page. dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:26, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, NFCC 10, for starters (As I'm sure there aren't 50+ rationales listed on the image page). Protonk (talk) 19:42, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Sadly, there were over a hundred boilerplate rationales on the image page that said the exact same thing (see the page's history). To everyone else, I still cannot see where someone said "I think this image should be removed because it is on over 100 pages," and if so then I disagree with that statement. So can we stop saying arguing that fact, as everyone basically agrees that just pure quantity is not the issue here (it was only a combo of quantity, the type of articles the logo was used in, and whether that was justifiable). The reasoning for removal was clearly stated as non-compliance of WP:NFCC#8. I agree that that policy is subjective, but it is policy, and sadly this logo came nowhere close to adding any significance to the article, other than recognition. And even that is questionable, as all the articles already stated who owned, operated, or controlled them. I understand your frustration, but the admins (myself included, even though I did cease after there was opposition) were enforcing policy to the best of our abilities. If you want to debate the policy, please do!! (I would agree the policy needs to be clearer and would voice my input where needed) But this is not the place to do it. All we have is a bunch of frustrated people arguing the same arguments over and over (I know I have repeated myself a lot at least) and we aren't getting anywhere. I would recommend a change of venue, such as a policy talk page or even a request for comment on WP:NFCC#8 as a whole. I really think this discussion is getting nowhere and should be moved to a more appropriate place. But that is up to everyone to decide. I for one will be off editing, if anyone would happen to need me, feel free to get in touch. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 20:08, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Let me start by saying that your decision to cease removing image links once opposition was raised I found to be both commendable and appropriate. However, your characterization of those who disagreed with you as "ignorant" in the sense that they lacked knowledge was inappropriate and insulting. That disrespect of the dissenting opinion has been repeated many times by those favoring deletion of the image links. And while no one came out and said "this image should be removed because it is on over 100 pages" in so many words, the number of uses has been brought up again and again, including by you in the first sentence of your last post. But I'm glad we agree that quantity is not at issue here, so that argument should be dropped as a reason for removal. In fact, let's remove quantity from the argument altogether, and turn to one example: KPAZ-TV in Phoenix, Arizona, my hometown station and TBN's first acquisition after its flagship station, KTBN-TV. I strongly disagree that the use of the TBN logo in this article is a violation of WP:NFCC#8. The logo immediately identifies the station as a TBN station, which the article name does not. The visual reference of the logo is powerful and contributes signficantly and immediately to my understanding of the subject of the article, a TBN station, even if it does not have that effect for you. The article is readily identified as being about a religious television station, which alone would give some readers reason to hit the <BACK> button and go on to something else. I am not here to debate the policy, I am here to debate your application of the policy, because you are standing on your application of that policy to add weight to your opinion and to justify heavy-handed tactics of mass removal of image links and fair use rationales, not so much by you personally, but by other like-minded administrators. Enforcement of policy is the crux of your argument, but it is based on a false premise: you are not enforcing the policy as it is written, but rather your interpretation of it, which you cannot back up. Where the policy speaks, you speak, but where it is silent, you must also be silent. Nothing in WP:NFCC#8 quantifies "significant", so you cannot claim to enforce policy when you cannot objectively explain what that policy means. In other words, you are not enforcing policy, you and your like-minded administrators are imposing your baseless opinions on the community as a whole. dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:36, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Don't pit this as an argument that equates to "administrators versus editors." You have already tried to quantify those who are in favor and disfavor at RFPP -- to which you were incorrect in some analysis, and where unprotection was declined once -- although you are already disputing this. This is a policy issue. Don't like it, please take it up to the approperiate venue that Gonzo listed, because nothing is being resolved by pinwheeling over the image. NFCC#8 needs to be more explicit on this issue, so it is an approperiate issue. seicer | talk | contribs 00:23, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I have done no such thing. First, I brought up "administrator" because as a non-admin, I cannot fully protect an article image to preserve my POV, as you can, and did. You should have reverted to the point where the discussion began. Second, my "quantifying", as you put it, was simply to identify administrators that I thought would have a conflict of interest, based on their posts to this discussion, and therefore, should not also review your protection of the image. It included admins who agreed with me as well as those who disagreed, none of whom I thought should rule on this. Third, there is no policy violation. I am not discussing what the policy should or should not be. I'm discussing what it is, and the fact that no policy supports your actions. dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 01:35, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

This is clearly not a policy issue: WP:NFCC#8 says nothing about the number of times that an image may be used in articles (and in fact the policy allows the use as currently written). The removal of the Fair Use Rationales (and subsequent protection by Seicer) seems inappropriate. Administrators should not protect a page to their preferred version of the page, as Wikipedia's page protection policy states. Claims of "enforcing policy" ring hollow when the actual policy says no such thing. Firsfron of Ronchester 05:46, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Firs!! Stop discussing the number of times an image is used!! No one is saying that WP:NFCC#8 says that! And again, focus on the issue at hand. If you want to discuss "admin abuse," then do so somewhere else (like another thread, or make a separate heading in this thread). People are trying to discuss the image and its use. You keep on bringing up the number of times an image is used, yet no one argues against you on that point, cuz every agrees with that statement. Jeez.. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 06:03, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Your lack of understanding of NFCC#8 is quite appalling. Again, the issue is not the number of times the image was used, and we are not stating that is the whole basis for the case here. The image is not being unprotected until the issue is resolved, and I'll request an extension of the protection if need be, because if we have administrators who are failing to uphold copyright statutes and are failing to abide by serious policies, then we have a much larger issue at hand. seicer | talk | contribs 00:28, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

No, I understand NFCC#8, but I do not share your interpretation of that policy. "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic." I disagree with you that the use is insignificant. I agree we have administrators failing to abide by serious policies, such as the administrator who protected to his preferred version of the image, in clear violation of our protection policy. Firsfron of Ronchester 04:09, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

NFCC number 8 says that non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic. I'm not really seeing how including a logo identical to one that the parent company uses increases readers' understanding more than just a brief mention that they use an identical logo. The admins here are merely attempting to enforce the NFCC policy, and I submit that it's the policy those in favor of including the images should be opposed to, not the admins trying to ensure compliance with the policy. But, in order for us to maintain a free-content encyclopedia, it's necessary to minimize the usage of copyrighted material to the greatest extent possible. That means not using a copyrighted logo where GFDL text can adequately serve the same purpose.—Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 02:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

As stated above, it's not just the parent company's logo: this is the logo that the individual stations broadcast as well. It's the logo they use.[8][9] Firsfron of Ronchester 04:30, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

DYK hoax averted

Thanks to the diligence of Cbl62, a DYK nomination of Sioux Falls Uprising of 1923 revealed that the article is almost certainly a hoax. I have thanked Cbl62 and the article has been "prodded", but what should be done with the article author (Sherurcij (talk · contribs)) and/or nominator (Minnehaha Mouse (talk · contribs)? The nominator may perhaps be a sockpuppet - very few edits, all in one day, including the correctly done nom. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:31, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, I confess I am guilty; as explained on the talk page I rely on the old "omg it was a social experiment!" defense, as I'd been asked how likely it was that false information could be propagated through Wiki. I congratulated both editors (I think User:NE2 deserves as much credit as Cbl) who spotted the hoax, and have put a SpeedyDelete template on the article itself. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 01:42, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks for admitting this - what do you know about the nominator - is this your sockpuppet? Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:47, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, they are both sharp cookies but there's one thing I don't understand. What was the goal of your "experiment"? — CharlotteWebb 01:51, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

In the past 18 months, DYK has gone from 4-5 nominations a day, to 20-25 nominations a day, and has gone from being updated daily, to being updated every few hours with new articles. I've been a contributor to DYK since March 2006, and was involved in a discussion as previously mentioned, over whether the "flooding" of DYK meant reduced standards, and consequently reduced reliability. I'm not going to pretend it was the most mature thing I've ever done, but it wasn't exactly mindless vandalism and fact-changing either (the kind of vandalism that always gives me concern, when somebody slyly changes the year Xerxes died or something arcane, which can go unnoticed for months or even years). Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 02:24, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Please answer my question - what is your relationship with the nominator? Is it a sockpuppet account? I am willing to assume good faith for now - my suggestion is that you make up for the time and effort your hoax has caused by checking suggested 25 hooks at DYK. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:36, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

If you're assuming good faith, I'm willing to go on that ;) As for your suggestion, I agree, that does sound like fair punishment -- I'll promise you 25 DYK checks this week :) Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 03:01, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Please, no. Why would anyone trust you to do a "check" on anything, since you've already inserted a hoax article with false references into the encyclopedia? I hope they have better sense at DYK. I suppose we'll see. - Nunh-huh 03:18, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

• I find this to be ignorant. If you have time to be making jokes at everyones expense, Sherurcij, you have time to be making yourself of use to the project as well. HalfShadow 02:58, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

• • That's your right, however if you view my contributions you'll see I actually put in seven hours of use to the project every weekday, which often involves meeting with, telephoning and writing to the subjects of articles, the Department of Defence, Canadian Members of Parliament and the families of alleged terrorists. I do "more than my share" of serious work to improve the project, but there are some questions that can't be answered without an experiment. "Has DYK checking fallen due to the extreme flooding over the last year?" is one of them. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 03:01, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like you're doing several kinds of original research, which isn't appropriate, and now—worse—it's original research by someone whose word can't be trusted. - Nunh-huh 03:18, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

"Sounds like"? You are assuming bad faith. All of what he has said is really quite easily to correlate with good editing process.

For one thing, he does write good original research (on Wikinews), and I know that he talks to lots of people help secure text and images to be released into the public domain or released under free content licenses. I'm not sure what else he might be talk these people about; I am guessing it is for good reasons. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 12:39, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not assuming bad faith, I'm acknowledging that he's already demonstrated it. And original research-which you confirm that he's doing- doesn't belong in Wikipedia articles. - Nunh-huh 09:15, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

For the sake of cataloging, this was already deleted once in October 2007 under the title of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pumpkin riots of 1923 as a Colbert Report prank. I'm surprised it hasn't come up in this discussion. Nate • (chatter) 03:07, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

• My two cents: Sherucij's "experiment" has no legitimate value, and such actions risk undermining the credibility of the project. This was caught, but it was done very cleverly with multiple authentic looking off-line cites. It was also submitted at the last minute to avoid the usual five days of due diligence and reviews. This very easily could have slipped through. The apparent use of the sockpuppetry makes it more eggregious. If there are not serious ramifications for what amounts to an attack on the integrity of the Main Page, it will only encourage more pranksters or "experimenters." Cbl62 (talk) 03:23, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
• I have to concur with Cb162. Disruptive editing usually carries a block, though such action would be punitive in this case, as I am certain that no one will approve a DYK hook from this editor ever again. I seem to recall, though, that an editor who was passing inaccurate items through to DYK was topic-banned from DYK; a similar sanction in this case might be appropriate, to prevent future disruption of this type. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 03:32, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

• I disagree with Cb162 on one point - Sherucij's prank has value. We are fortunate that this one was caught, but copyvios have appeared as DYK entries not too long ago, and it is entirely possible that hoaxes have as well. You are basically arguing for punitive action against Sherucij, but lacking any expectation that he will persist in this type of nonsense, does that serve a useful purpose? It was a very childish way to make a WP:POINT, but the point is valid none the less. Vandals are going to vandalize, regardless of what we do with any other editors. The important question here is to ask how we can prevent vandals from using DYK as an attack point. Resolute 03:38, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I leave it up to the admins here to decide what should be done. But the answer to your question about "how we can prevent vandals from using DYK as an attack point" is simple in my mind. When someone is caught red-handed perpetrating such an attack, you need to mete out meaningful punishment. Otherwise, you will be telling the world it's OK to engage in such an attack without suffering consequences.Cbl62 (talk) 03:52, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

In fairness, established editors with 30,000 edits representing 5-8 hours a day of work on the project make up 0.00000001% of vandalism on Wikipedia. Perhaps it would have been wiser to "log out" before conducting my experiment so that I would just be another faceless crime - but as was said, this was done to test a theory, not to legitimately undermine the project. If it had made it to the main page, I would have immediately had an administrator remove it - and bring up the "breach" and the lack of fact-checking to discuss how we can help prevent the 99.99999999% of anonymous/troll vandalism that represents a legitimate threat to the project. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 04:08, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

In fairness, it appears you did "log out" before making the nomination as the article was nominated by (Minnehaha Mouse (talk · contribs). Do you admit or deny that this is a sockpuppet??Cbl62 (talk) 04:12, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Of course, vandals never suffer consequences, all that happens to them is that they're stopped from editing here, which they're not interested in doing anyway. It doesn't really punish a vandal to take away his can of spray paint; it just makes it more difficult for him to do damage. It looks like Cb162 is advocating for a punitive block, which we don't do. That said, I think Sherurcij has one hell of a lot of gall pulling a stunt like this and then telling us about all the good you've done here. No, it would not have been wiser to "log out". What would have been wiser would have been not to deliberately fuck up the project to satisfy your curiosity about how difficult it would be. When you stop to think about it, that's what most vandals are doing. If you want to continue to be trusted, you can start by saying two things you haven't said yet.

"I was wrong." and

"I'm sorry."

--Steven J. Anderson (talk) 04:21, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I will bell the cat. This conduct is unacceptable, and I have blocked Sherurcij for 24 hours.

There isn't any non-disruptive way this could have been done? You couldn't have made a user page and asked the DYK people if they'd pass it? You couldn't have raised this issue somewhere on talk instead? We prove points by arguing them, not experimentally. At the very least, you wasted the time of one of DYK's factcheckers, time that could have been better spent checking other, legitimate articles. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:19, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

An article for DYK is typically looked at in intermediate states by a small number of editors. It's not a peer review. People do try to check the hook and its reference, but there is no promise that paragraphs of plausible-sounding text will get fact-checked. Editors have put slanted, POV pages through DYK before - and it's usually experienced editors who know how to do it. Here we have an editor with 16k mainspace edits. Somehow, I doubt he'll do it again, since he would certainly be banned for it. The block log should make sure we don't forget. Gimmetrow 04:31, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I waited a while to allow the guy to answer, and he hasn't so I'll call this one. Minnehaha Mouse (talk · contribs) is a  Confirmed sock of Sherurcij (talk · contribs) and yeah, I'm calling this abusive sockpuppetry, hence checkuser. At least now the community can make some sort of informed decision on the matter. My personal choice would be an indef for the silly sock and a large helping of trout for Sherurcij - Alison ^❤ 04:37, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

(numerous EC and server tech diff) That block is clearly punitive and as such unacceptable. In fact, given the recent troubles with DYK, I find his unorthodox experiment, while outside the norms of Wikipedia to NOT be an act of 'vandalism', but perhaps the only way to truly test what we're doing here, and if we're doing it well. I can't 'commend' him for his choice, but not only do I understand it, i myself wondered about the same exact thing in light of the copyvios we saw making it there. He's shown that true 'pranks' and falsehoods still get screened out. To punitively block a good contributor who chose an inelegant solution is abusive. His results are far more reaffirming of the project than a knee-jerk revenge block, and I support an immediate unblock with an apology from AMiB, who clearly does NOT have consensus for it. ThuranX (talk) 04:39, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to have to agree. This is a punitive block and should be undone. Blocking Sherurcij doesn't solve the central issue here, neither does burying our heads in the sand. Resolute 04:43, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

There are two central issues here. DYK has issues with defending the front page from bad content, and a longstanding user who should know better disrupting Wikipedia to make that point. Sherurcij knows better than to waste everyone's time by putting misinformation into Wikipedia to test our ability to detect and remove it. The former can be solved in ways other than disrupting the project, the latter can only be solved by not putting up with disruptive conduct. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:50, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

In a word, a word I like in these situations: Bullshit. Sherurcij was not disruptive in any normal sense of it as used on WP. One, he was watchign the entire time, self-policing with the full intent to pull the article before it embarrassed us, and only to gather information about the first part, the problems with DYK, which regularly get noted, then dismissed as irrelevant to whatever novel problem brought the DYK issues up. The editor is blocked, an article edited, whatever. The underlying efficacy of DYK has not been examined, and yet again, the push here is to sweep aside the faults of DYK in favor of 'getting' Sherurcij. This constant 'I can block one guy, but I can't lead a big discussion and really fix a policy issue' attitude is a weakness of too many admins. AMiB shows here that he thinks one block of one guy will solve this larger issue. He better have a whole lot of big fingers to stick in all the dikes, because the leaks are many, and spilling fast. Sherurcij showed that big problems can be caught at DYK, so that's a positive. However, there are problems there, and now we can refine them. Unfortunately, When we block the proximate cause, we ignore the underlying faults. It's happening again, and AMiB stands on his block as if it's a solution rather than a distraction. ThuranX (talk) 05:04, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

He wasted everyone's time proving things experimentally. I don't think blocking Sherurcij will solve DYK's problems, but it will contribute to solving the problem of people proving their points experimentally instead of with discussion. His conduct isn't solving any problems, either, and we have longstanding consensus that this is not the way we fix problems here. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:11, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

And now DYK noms will be checked relentlessly, there will be a higher burden of proof on offline references, articles will be checked mercilessly for POV, many good contributors will be turned down "because we can't take the chance" and all because one person hid a bomb in their shoe tried to prove a point. ~ AmeIiorate _{U T C} @ 05:15, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Mmm yummy, a Godwin play. Hyperbolic distract, fails. He did no such thing. A carefully monitored experiment, which only proved that DYK worked IF someone took the time to notice. I've yet to see AMiB say anything about an alternative way to actually test the efficacy of DYK. He can't. This IS the only way. it's about time someone did it, but regardless, it's till a punitive block done well after and without consensus in this thread to block. and AMiB, he wasted ONE person's time; You're wasting more throwing out punishment blocks without consensus. Why don't you spend that time figuring out a way to ensure the continued high success of DYK without anythign changing at all. I think it's called WISHING. go start. ThuranX (talk) 05:55, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I came up with two alternate methods after 30 seconds of thinking, and mentioned as much before. Here's a third: it has been claimed that POV or outright false articles have made it through before, so begin a discussion based on previous failures instead of contriving a new one. Discussion is how you effect change on Wikipedia, not experimentation.

As for the "Why doesn't anyone think of the childrenDYK?" argument, why don't you spend time figuring out how to ensure the continued high success of DYK instead of complaining on ANI about a block following unrepentant disruptive conduct? We both have the both answer: we see other issues that also need addressing. Let's address them with a minimum of rhetoric, on both sides, either here or elsewhere. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:03, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

It's true, though,. that DYK is open to gaming. It is very common to see five or six tenuous hooks offered to a series of new articles on barely-notable baseball players all created by the same user, for example. Many of the DYK hooks get an official "so what?" from me. I did get a few through with my alt account, including Gas Light and Coke Company, but many DYKs are strained to breaking point. Guy (Help!) 08:27, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

His method was debatably undesirable, but his intentions were for the best of the project. I can understand the block, but it appears to me as a block for the sake of reprimanding the user. He is a reasonable fellow; discussion would have had the same effect, especially given that his experiment failed. I have requested an unblock. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 09:21, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

There is one question that bothers me most with all this (and I started this thread, above). Why was it necessary for a sockpuppet account to be created to test DYK fact checking? If there was a good reason, why didn't Sherurcij admit the sockpuppet right away instead of wasting more time and effort for a Checkuser to be run? Iasked this question at least twice and there was never any answer. I have assumed good faith that this was an experiment, but more negative interpretations are certainly possible. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 10:56, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Big picture, little picture is my AGF-based solution to that. ThuranX (talk) 11:38, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

My point is that there is little chance Sherurcij is going to go on a sock-filled DYK hoaxing spree anytime soon, and thus we aren't blocking him to prevent further disruption, we're blocking him as a slap on the wrist and a scolding. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 11:50, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

A sock does seem pretty strange; it would have attracted more attention. Maybe he wanted it to be a slightly suspicious set of circumstances, so that it was a DYK that people should have been inspecting more closely.

I can understand that his reluctance to answer you is annoying, but ... he pretty much did admit to the sockpuppet, if you read between the lines, by his reluctance to confirm or deny it, and the cute answer.

John Vandenberg ^(chat) 12:11, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse 24-hour block for sockpuppetry, hoaxing, and extremely POINTy disruption. --Kralizec! (talk) 12:16, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

• On the standard of DYKs, I noticed recently in passing a user page of archived DYKs that an Irish language word had been used in the incorrect context. Although in that case it wasn't the fact that was incorrect but the grammar. Apparently no one noticed so it was allowed to feature on the Main Page. :( --Candlewicke (Talk) 13:56, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Good block, short block, trout slap, very low tolerance for nonsense in the future. Chillum 15:29, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I think it was actually the DYK standards that caught this. If it were simply written and left alone, it certainly would have taken longer to spot. --NE2 17:46, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

For what it is worth, I have to oppose the block as being a punitive rather than a preventative measure; Sherurcij has come clean regarding the inappropriate behavior and there is no reason to suspect that the sockpuppetry/disruptive editing will continue. Absent any evidence to the contrary, how can this block be called anything but punitive? Shereth 17:54, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

What makes you think this won't happen again? The user came clean because the user was caught, this does not bolster any confidence in me. Chillum 18:27, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Because they don't have a history of this kind of thing. A one-off hoax from a long-standing and otherwise behaved editor does not shake my faith enough to suspect that they're about to start running rampant. Whatever happened to assuming good faith and taking people at their word that they won't foul up again? Shereth 18:31, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

How do we know it was a one-off hoax? Assumption of good faith has been revoked. Corvus cornix_talk 19:02, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Additionally, perhaps I missed it, but where did Sherurcij "come clean" regarding his POINTy use of the Minnehaha Mouse sock? In all of the messages I read above, he specifically ignored answering the question (hence the checkuser involvement). Regardless, the very existence of this thread (and its length) is proof positive of the disruption caused by this hoax. --Kralizec! (talk) 19:06, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

• I largely support AMiB's action here (I'm not an admin, FWIW). The block was short, proportional to the disruption (socking, misrepresentation, etc) and not executed from an involved admin. In the absence of evidence pointing to constant future attempts to add Hoaxes to DYK, the only way to issue a "preventative" block to this user would be to see into the future and block both the user and his/her sock prior to the insertion of the hoax. Thus if we require a literal interpretation of the dictum that blocks must only be issue to prevent incipient disruption to the encyclopedia, we can't block this user temporarily. That interpretation leaves us in an untenable position. I think that AMiB operated on a much more plausible interpretation, that "block only for prevention of disruption" is a policy for a reason--this reason is meant to prevent admins from "blocking to serve as a warning to other users", "blocking to win an argument", blocking to "teach a lesson". There is a reason the admonition about blocking is in bold lettering all by itself. It is important. But it isn't a straightjacket. That wording doesn't leave us with the outcome of "well, someone disrupted the encyclopedia in a manner but isn't doing it right now, the only response is to warn them and hope they don't do it again". No. We deal with a continuum of conduct here, ranging from the obviously actionable to the obviously acceptable. Responding to that continuum with disproportionate measures is damaging to the project. Response that is proportional and tailored to the issue at hand is called for. That, in my opinion, is what AMiB did. Protonk (talk) 20:00, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

If so, I demand, yes DEMAND, that A Man in Black present here for public review the evidence he had that there was going to be further disruption. If none, then he needs to apologize, publicly, here, for his thoroughly punitive bully-button block. ThuranX (talk) 21:58, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

But that's my point. If we insist on interpreting the "blocks are only for prevention of future disruption" literally then we can't issue blocks aside from indefinite blocks for levels of disruption that aren't constant. This isn't a "tripwire" standard. We can't base our blocking policy on the insistence that an administrator have actionable information that disruption will occur within the block period. There has to be a gray area. Protonk (talk) 22:44, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, you seem to be misunderstanding me. In no way should there be a bold line test for this sort of thing, nad I'm not saying that. I'm saying that because this is grey area, in this singular case with such divided opinion, AMiB needs evidence to support his block. otherwise, public apology. ThuranX (talk) 22:46, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

You want more evidence to support the block -which has already expired I believe- than has already been presented? Are egregious violations of WP:SOCK and WP:HOAX with a big helping of WP:POINT not enough ... ? --Kralizec! (talk) 23:11, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Not evidence of bad things happening--evidence that they were going to continue, such that only a block could stop them, which is one philosophy for limiting how blocks are used. (Not taking sides here, just explaining.) --Masamage ♫ 23:14, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

exactly. ThuranX (talk) 23:24, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem with this appearing in the user's block record for future reference, but I think he should be unblocked in the meantime since it was punitive. I would also support a topic-ban from DYK for deliberately disrupting it when he knew better--and for dissembling about his sock puppet. --Masamage ♫ 22:11, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Throw me in as someone who feels this is an WP:IAR situation. I think we're better off for what he did here, and while it's not something to encourage, we can grow and learn because of it. I know it's "bad", but eh, blocks aren't to punish editors.. -- Ned Scott 06:28, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Breaching experiments are never welcome, and the 24-hour block was an apt enough signal that further such japery (a textbook breach of WP:POINT) will not be welcomed. I would not support a DYK ban, as Sherurcij is one of the better DYK contributors, and has been very upfront about what he did. I would imagine any further submissions of his will be rigorously checked, and that ought to be enough. The 24 hour block has expired, and I think we can move on. Neıl ☄ 08:45, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I still think we're better for off for this. -- Ned Scott 03:48, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed - so long as we do something about it. Resolute 03:50, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• I endorse the block for the violation of WP:POINT and for disruptive sockpuppetry, even though it may have been carried out with good intentions. As others have pointed out, a similar experimental result could have been obtained in a non-disruptive manner.  Sandstein  16:30, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

• • I endorse the block for deliberately introducing false information, and would certainly have endorsed a longer had he not quickly admitted the disruption. Having used a sockpuppet for this indicates an action planned to the extent that I consider it a clear sign that future disruption was possible. Since the sockpuppet was not admitted, but had to be found by checkuser, I take that as a signal that a longer block might after all have been appropriate after all. DGG (talk) 15:18, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
• There are right ways to make a point and wrong ways. Can you guess what this was, Sherurcij? HalfShadow 16:34, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

User:RedSpruce

Resolved

This user has developed a worrying allergy to WP:CIVIL. This does not appear to be the first time he has had problems with collegial editing, as can be seen by his block log. After I deleted a fair-use image in an article (not a controversial deletion, it was a photo of a living person), he started off with this "Asshole", and the whole of this conversation ("Vandal", "Coward") and finishing up with this one today "Intellectually constipated". Since it would probably be looked upon dimly if I took any action myself, and there's no point in me continuing a dialogue with him as he seems to regard me with the same respect as something he's just stepped in, could an uninvolved admin have a word please? Ta. Black Kite 06:32, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I have issued a final warning re civility, and already I'm thinking a block would have been more appropriate. Kevin (talk) 06:56, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I can't help noticing that this same person had the cheek of just a day earlier "endorsing" multiple sections on a user conduct RFC criticizing me for, of all things, incivility. Somebody might want to do something that those endorsements be struck out. (If not, it just goes to confirm the reasons why I'll be refusing to take that RfC at all seriously.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:18, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Geez, FPS, you've already posted an ultimatum on your RfCU that

I hereby state that I will consider this whole RfC null and void, and will permanently refuse to take anything said on it by anybody into any consideration, as long as Jerry's signature is found anywhere on the main page.

How many excuses do you need to not engage with the good faith editors who are trying to discuss your conduct with you? Step up, be a mensch and talk things over with us, why don't you? Ed Fitzgerald "unreachable by rational discourse"^{(t / c)} 08:00, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Being dragged in a kangaroo court is bad enough. Having a kangaroo court manned with delusional and/or abusive kangaroos is not to be borne. If they won't retract voluntarily, it's a matter for the community to resolve. Be a mensch, go and strike out those signatures, and we can talk, the rest of us. If the community wants to talk with me, the community needs to create an environment where that can reasonably be done. If the community can't get these abusive elements off my back, the community can go f... itself. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:06, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I see that someone has been bold and removed some signatures from the RfCU, so it looks as if the door is open for you to respond substantively to the concerns being expressed there. Ed Fitzgerald "unreachable by rational discourse"^{(t / c)} 08:35, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Striking out another editor's endorsements in any WP discussion space is a thoroughly bizarre and unjustifiable act, and I've undone it for my own sig.s. Furt Perf is saying he'll only participate in the RFC if certain participants are gagged, and someone is "boldly" stepping up with a handful of gags? Weird. RedSpruce (talk) 11:10, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks everyone. I will, bit later today. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:39, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Just for the record, FPS did indeed stop by at his RfCU, to post:

My position hasn't changed. Jerry and Redspruce and all the rest have the right to say whatever they want. But I have the right to not respond. I responded as long as there was some semblance of rational good-willed discussion; now I am perfectly within my rights to ignore any process that looks as if it grants the opinions of such people validity.

So, as I thought could possibly happen, despite his demands that signatures be stricken from the RfCU as a condition of his participation, he continues to refuse to engage with good faith editors who are concerned about his conduct. Ed Fitzgerald "unreachable by rational discourse"^{(t / c)} 18:26, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I noticed the "asshole" diff with consternation. This is about the image on Ann Beattie. The point that RedSpruce is making is that the image is fair use as the owners of the image are not going to dispute its fair use status. It is a fair point, and I sympathise with it, but is an avant-garde attitude about "fair use". We need community agreement on this if we are going to accept this type of image (which is unlikely to happen). RedSpruce is being incivil, but has decided that this is isnt worth it with the "Intellectually constipated admin". I think this will de-escalate from here, and that will be best for all. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 08:05, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

No.. that isn't good enough this time. This is an ongoing and long term problem with this user. Any opposition to what he believes is the status quo in an article is met with ownership and civility issues. As evidenced by the long-term battle on Film Noir. There have been several complaints by several editors. So just hoping it'll blow over won't work. Short blocks in the past haven't gotten his attention, perhaps something longer will get the message through to him and prevent a further recurrence of this behaviour.--Crossmr (talk) 10:12, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

People who engage in the active destruction of valid and valued content on Wikipedia are going to have to expect a little anger to come their way from time to time. Whether they're childish graffiti-vandals or admin.s who carry out their destruction by enforcing obscure and pointless rules, destruction is destruction, and it annoys people. Furthermore, this is not Teletubbies-land or "Barney & his Friends". The purpose of Wikipedia is not to create an idyllic utopian land of butterflies and bunnies where never a harsh word is spoken. Its purpose is to create a better encyclopedia. Sometimes that requires people to be adults who can stand up on their hind legs and defend their actions against criticism from time to time.

My own criticism has involved some uncivil language at times. This is due to the fact that, overall, WP has become a frustrating experience for me lately. I haven't had the time to engage in the kind of substantive work that makes WP enjoyable and satisfying or me for a while, so my involvement has been limited to sitting on the sidelines and watching WP at its worst. This is an unfortunate situation, but I expect it to improve soon. In the meantime, none of the insults mentioned here, with the exception of "asshole" are of any notable harshness in an adult world. And as noted, I used that word only as my parting dismissal of Black Kite, telling him he could "have it his way". It was he who chose to pursue the issue beyond that point, rather infuriatingly hiding behind a "rules is rules" attitude while refusing to engage in meaningful discussion.

My behavior was not ideal, and I apologize for not being an ideal person. RedSpruce (talk) 11:51, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I would also note that I have never in my life come anywhere near making a comment showing such complete contempt for the entire Wikipedia community as "the community can go f... itself." RedSpruce (talk) 14:07, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Stop making excuses for your poor behaviour. It doesn't matter how "harsh" your insults are, the very fact you're insulting people at all is enough (and you're still doing it - "active destruction of valid content" above). I, like many admins, have been called all names under the sun on Wikipedia so I couldn't really care less, but I will say this now - if you call any admin following Wikipedia policy on image work a "vandal" or similar again I will block you for a long time. Since other editors with similar viewpoints to you are able to make their arguments without any sort of tendentiousness (see the FPAS RfC), this is the time for you to cut it out completely. Your block log does not make pretty reading, I suggest you refrain from causing it to lengthen. Black Kite 14:34, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Black Kite, for neatly demonstrating the kind of arrogant, close-minded, bullying attitude that encourages and invites insult-laden responses. I think the defense can rest now (despite the drivel below). RedSpruce (talk) 17:15, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Unwise. Blocked for a week. Black Kite 17:29, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

While RedSpruce may have exercised restraint in refraining from making blanket statements about the entire Wikipedia community, he has no such compunction about individual editors or admins. This is a problem that has cycled through ANI before. This ANI filed in February included some of RedSpruce's classic incivility, such as "Since your contributions to discussion inevitably consist of uninformed wingnut drivel, I object" and "Speaking of senseless waste, was there some point to those 200 words?", additional sources and diffs all available there. This ANI filed in March documented examples of incivility including "rv, you are being an idiot", and topped off by the WP:NPA violation "You are a complete idiot and moron. Please take your stupidity to some other article. Thank you", which was reverted by an edit stating "rm personal abuse, albeit deserved", which removes the comments but confirms the abuse. RedSpruce's latest attacks on FPAS and Black Kite for enforcing Wikipedia policy are not an isolated and exceptional incident of an editor driven to an aberrant fit of rage. This is all part of a pattern of gross incivility on the part of RedSpruce. It's well past time that something was done to address the problem. Alansohn (talk) 16:16, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

We seem to be at the point in every AN/I thread where people with grudges start dropping by; more to the point, RedSpruce has already been blocked for a week by Black Kite for incivility. I think we can close this. MastCell ^Talk 17:45, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

There's another related issue, which goes back to the image deletion that set Red Spruce off, the fair-use photo of Ann Beattie which had been on her article. Believing that it would improve the encyclopedia to have a picture of an important writer on the article about her, I went looking for a free image but, as is so often the case, could not find one. I did find a cover from one of her books which featured her portrait. Knowing the book covers have been removed from writer articles unless they are connected to specific discussion of the book, I searched around for something from a reliable source which would be appropriate and enhance the article. I was lucky enough to find a review of the book in the New York Times which used the stories in the book to discuss Beattie's stylistic changes over the years, a topic which is certainly of interest and important in any discussion of a writer. Having thus gotten the material which would justify the book cover's use according to Wikipedia image policy, I added both the reviewer's comments, and the cover image.

User:Future Perfect at Sunrise then removed the image, with the edit summary "(remove (again), book cover only used as a pretext for showing her portrait)", and then deleted the image I had uploaded as being a duplicate of another image, which it was. I was unaware at the time I uploaded it that it was the same image that Red Spruce and Black Kite had conflicted over. (I had not checked that image because I misread the postings and thought it had been deleted from Wikipedia and not simply removed from the article.)

In any event, I have restored the image to the page, because with the addition of the material from a reliable source hooked to that specific book, it seems to me to fulfill the requirements of the image policy. Should someone come up with a free photo of Beattie, that would, of course, be a better choice, and the book cover image can be replaced, but it's a little disconcerting to have an admin call my diligent effort to rigourously follow image policy a "pretext". I hope that this ends the "Skirmish at Beattieville". Ed Fitzgerald "unreachable by rational discourse"^{(t / c)} 19:19, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

But, with all respect, Ed, if you're now saying that you would accept a free portrait of the author as a better choice instead of the book cover, isn't that precisely confirming that you were using the book cover as just that: a pretext for showing her portrait? It proves that you don't consider the book cover as such as so terribly important after all, for understanding the book. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:18, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

You say "pretext" when the proper word woud be "substitute". Fulfilling the requirements of the image policy allows that image to be used; whether to use it or not then becomes an editorial judgment, not a policy consideration.

In any case, Black Kite has once again removed the image as not meeting NFCC #1. I'm holding off on responding to that contention while awaiting his inquiry at Flickr about the possible release of some Beattie images there. Ed Fitzgerald "unreachable by rational discourse"^{(t / c)} 14:23, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

"Substitute" is exactly it, it boils down to the same thing. If it's being used as a "substitute" for something that a free image could also do, then it's replaceable, and hence out. You see, your misunderstanding seems to be that there is some blanket allowance for using an image in whatever way, provided only that some formal requirement is met (like: so many lines of discussion of the book). That's not the case. NFCC is always evaluated relative to the actual purpose you are using an image for. In this case, the image has in reality nothing at all to do with the need of supporting that passage about the book. You have made it abundantly clear, through your own words, that your real purpose is just to show the portrait. With respect to that function, it's replaceable. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:29, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

As I've pointed out a number of times, your misunderstanding is the belief that your interpretation of image policy is the only possible interpretation, the one and only "correct" interpretation, but that's not the case. The enforcement of policy is not a cut-and-dried mechnical process, it requires judgment and subjective analysis and when there is disagreement about it, that disagreement needs to be settled by consensus and not by the individual views of an administrator, especially when the administrator holds extreme views favoring the deletion of as many images as possible.

ArbCom recognized the lack of precision in Wikipedia's image policy, and the need for interpretation of it, when they wrote:

Editors are advised that periodic review of images and other media to ensure their compliance with the non-free content criteria may be necessary for policy, ethical, and sometimes legal reasons. Editors are invited to participate in policy discussions concerning this and related areas, and are also welcome to challenge the application of policies and criteria in individual cases... (Emphasis added)

Where does one "challenge the application of policies and criteria is individual cases"? In IfD, of course, the mechanism we have been provided for discussing problematic images. When you and other admins play the "NFCC trump card" and delete images on your own, without putting them through IfD, you subvert the intended process, and usurp the right of the community to decide for itself how policy is enforced and applied in individual cases. These actions are undermining the procedural basis of the community's cohesion, which is why they keep coming up here and elsewhere again and again and again, and will continue to do so unless these practices cease. Ed Fitzgerald "unreachable by rational discourse"^{(t / c)} 00:18, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Instead of lamenting how I'm "interpreting" things, why don't you present your own "interpretation" to counter mine? In particular, I'd be curious to hear an "interpretation" of the meaning of the word substitute according to which something that is being used as a substitute for X is not replaceable by X. Do you notice that these two words are closely related semantically? Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:56, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

On my way home after dropping my kid off at school today, I passed by the gymnasium of the NYC Police Adacemy, and some doors that are normally closed were open, revealing a sign on the inside of one of the doors. It said:

Use of these doors for ingress or egress is strictly prohibited.

Now, you'll note that ingress and egress are semantically quite similar to entering and exiting, but the sharp nose will also detect that they have quite diffferent connotations, that penumbra of meanings and shades of interpretation that every word carries with it.

So it is with substitute and replacement.

I'll leave it at that, since I'm waiting to see the results of Black Kite's requests from Flickr about possible photos of Ann Beattie, and I imagine people are getting quite bored of the two of us talking past each other. Before I leave you to your 48 hours vacation from image work and your penance, or whatever it was you promised you were going to do on your RfCU, I will note that what I'm doing is trying hard to find legitimate and policy-compliant ways to enhance the encyclopedia by adding worthwhile, meaningful and instructive images to articles which need them, while it is quite apparent to me, and I suspect to many others out there, that what you are doing is looking for every possible or conceivable angle to delete images, without regard to how it effects the encyclopedia, that thing that we're supposedly all here to build.

Never has the sobriquet "deletionist" seemed so apt to me as in your case. Ed Fitzgerald "unreachable by rational discourse"^{(t / c)} 12:55, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Block Review

As someone directly involved in a conflict (possibly others) with User:RedSpruce, I do not think User:Black Kite should have been the one to block. In any event, I do not see there being consensus to do so (consensus being greater then 2-3 others). Also, while the sentence before the block was certainly a harsh critique, I do not think he should have been blocked for saying it. I am applying the Giano standard here. What he says about Black Kite and some other members of the image cabal may or may not be true, but I think it is his right to express concern about possible WP:TE behavior in the image enforcement area. Lastly, as we know from WMC-Georgre, taunting with say it one more time is not appropriate dispute resolution. --Dragon695 (talk) 18:31, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

On his user page, he concedes that he needs to take a break, so on that basis it would be best to leave it in place. He might come back with a new attitude. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:51, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

On second thought, perhaps you are right. --Dragon695 (talk) 18:54, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

The "Giano standard" is garbage. He was uncivil and he deserves a break for it, he's been uncivil repeatedly and not just in relation to anything to do with images. Anytime anyone edits his articles in a way he doesn't like he attempts to own them and lashes out at them. If he wants to express concerns he can do so politely.--Crossmr (talk) 22:02, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Gene Poole adding socket puppet warnings to Adam233's user page

An old issue has reared its head again[10](Past issue was raised on AN but I feel that this now needs to be on AN/I).

Gene Poole (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has again added Sock puppet warnings to the user page of[11] Adam233 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) without facts to support such claim or taking the issue to WP:SSP (Which Gene was told to do). Bidgee (talk) 07:49, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I've notified Gene Poole of this thread. I've also protected the page for a day. I'm at a loss why Gene thinks something that was pretty unanimously criticized 2-3 weeks ago is now OK. If you have evidence of sockpuppetry, present it. If you don't, stop edit warring to put the tag on his page. When page protection expires, if the tag is added without justification again, I will block for edit warring, whether or not 3RR is exceeded. --barneca (talk) 11:58, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

It's called compiling evidence - and in this instance it very strongly confirms my initial identification of Adam233 a sock account, as well as the likely identity of the puppetmaster. Next stop, Checkuser. --Gene_poole (talk) 12:57, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence to prove that Adam233 is a sock puppet/puppetmaster? Bidgee (talk) 13:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Gene Poole, I suggest you request a checkuser. D.M.N. (talk) 13:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I haven't done anything disruptive. And checkuser is not for phishing. Adam233 (talk) 13:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

For the record, apart from nominating one article for deletion with his very first edit, in a puerile attempt at subverting community consensus by selectively mis-quoting policy, Adam233's contributions to WP consist entirely of claiming not to be a sock. Plain as day. --Gene_poole (talk) 00:35, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Have you taken it to suspected sock puppets or request a checkuser? All you have been saying is just allegation with no evidence. Adam233's contributions look to be a single-purpose account, we can't rule out that they could be a genuine editor but if you have evidence to prove otherwise then take it to suspected sock puppets or request a checkuser as the allegations are not making are not making you look good. Bidgee (talk) 04:35, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring and threat of violence (?) at Floppy disk

An IP editor re-reverted a reversion by User:Mahjongg with the edit summary Mahjongg was fatally wounded in an accident. I know some editors were recently blocked due to edit-warring regarding MOSNUM and binary prefixes, so (newbie admin alert) I'm not sure what's the best course of action - should a checkuser find out whether this nastiness is associated with a named editor? SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 14:07, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I think I recall some similar incident reported to a Admins noticeboard a few days back - but when checking this ip I saw that the above diff linked to the first of three attacks with inappropriate edit summaries, so I have blocked the account for 31 hours. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:36, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

More nastiness at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Thunderbird2. I have blocked another IP, User:217.237.148.72 for similar actions. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 15:13, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Also User:217.237.150.116 editing File Allocation Table. sigh SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 16:06, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Thunderbird2 filed. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 19:47, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

The RfCU is itself now a target for the dynamic IP (217.237.*.*): diff and diff.

Cheers,  This flag once was red  20:58, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Weathermen article

(NOTE: I cite diffs below, but it's easier to follow the talk page discussion at Talk:Weatherman (organization)#Addition of info citing reliable sources about Weatherman called a terrorist group -- just note the timestamps to see whether or not consensus was declared precipitously, as Wikidemon asserts.)

At Weatherman (organization), I added a section [12], which was removed by Wikidemon [13]. Discussion began on the talk page, in which Wikidemon participated (start of discussion: [14]) After several days of discussion, in which four editors and no one else participated, Wikidemon unilaterally said "discussion is over" and appeared to stop participating. [15] (Justmeherenow even asked Wikidemon on the talk page to explain his refusal to discuss more. [16]; so did the other editor in the discussion, Verklempt [17] -- just added info in italics -- Noroton (talk) 19:33, 3 September 2008 (UTC)) I asked the other two discussion participants whether they agreed with a new proposed language. [18] and [19]. They said they did, [20] and [21]. At that point, with discussion having ceased, I implemented the consensus (incorporating some changes as a result of the discussion, including changes that Wikidemon had proposed). [22]

Now Wikidemon returns and reverts the consensus-approved language [23]. He states on the talk page that he still has objections and mentions them generally, but doesn't specify what they are. [24] I revert back to the consensus-approved language [25] and he reverts again [26]. I tell him on the talk page that he is being disruptive [27], seems to be trying a delaying tactic as the election approaches (he believes this information which is independent of the Obama campaign is embarassing to Obama -- it is independent of the Obama campaign and is very relevant to the Weatherman page; it is irrelevant for the purposes of the Weatherman page that it is embarassing to Obama. As a matter of fact, every source cited was written before Obama became a candidate, and the sources go back to when Obama was 8 years old. This is not an Obama-related matter, except in Wikidemon's mind.)

Wikidemon's three final edits on the talk page as of now [28] in which he states:

• (he closes the discussion with a box): ''Closing this part of discussion without prejudice to discussing civilly in the future - discussion has grown too hostile to reasonably reach consensus
• it is unfair to ask me to participate in your disruptive discussion. Do not revert this contentious material again. I will close this discussion for now. There is no consensus. If you want to propose the material again in a civil, proper way please do so,

Wikidemo is the one who wants to stop the consensus from being implemented. His language is far more disruptive than anything I've said (which has been in response to his outrageous behavior here).

We have a behavioral problem here. Wikidemon refuses to accept consensus. After having removed the language from the page and edit warred to do it, he now (yet again) announces that he is refusing to continue discussion.

I would like admins to tell Wikidemo:

1. That consensus has been reached
2. That consensus can change, but it must be respected until it does change
3. That removing language from an article before consensus has been reached is disruptive
4. That he must stop his disruptive actions now
5. That if he wants to change consensus, the place to do it is on the talk page.

I have told Wikidemo that I'm willing to listen to his specific objections, if he ever gives them. I resent having to hunt up all these diffs and make this report here. Wikidemon is wasting my time and everybody else's time. There are other, approved ways of trying to overturn a consensus you don't like. -- Noroton (talk) 18:57, 3 September 2008 (UTC) -- info in italics added above as noted -- Noroton (talk) 19:33, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I've postponed an appointment in order to type this. I'll be around for the next 30 minutes, then will be gone for the following two hours or so, then back here. -- Noroton (talk) 19:07, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the care you put into the above post; it encouraged me to put equal care into reviewing the situation. I think, truth be told, that since your original insertion of the section on August 29, it is a little too soon to claim that edits that have not had objections since then are now the consensus. This is especially the case here, as the discussion has been primarily between you and Wikidemon; the other two participants have made rather minimal contributions. I don't know if I agree with Wikidemon closing the discussion, though, but it was looking like it was going nowhere. I think the best solution is to post a request for comment and try to get more outside opinion involved. Let me state on my own, I think that while the material may be merited in the article, I don't think it belongs directly below the lead, because while whether or not to use the word "terrorist" may be a big debate on Wikipedia, it is not what readers would be interested in: they would be more interested by far in the group's history, activities, and ideology. Mangojuice^talk 19:41, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree that RFC seems the way to go. Personally, I think this section is very long, if the purpose of this section is to establish that they are ofen referred to as a "terrorist" orghanization, why not simply note that the FBI has refereed to them as a terrorist organization on several occasions in the past (e.g. [29], [30]...). If sourced refutations of the label exist (I imagine they do) then cite them claiming the contrary. I think this is what WP:TERRORIST suggests to do. Kazoovirtuoso (talk) 20:35, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

A neutrally-phrased content RfC (not a further behavioral complaint fork - see below) sounds reasonable. Wikidemon (talk) 22:05, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

It's not up to me to do an RFC. It's for me to get consensus. I got consensus. If Wikidemon wants to try to overturn consensus, he can do it. More than once (three times I think), Wikidemon said the discussion was over and he wasn't going to participate. It isn't up to the rest of us to wait for him. Mangojuice, I appreciate your comments about the content, but that's really beside the point on this page. Wikidemon has reverted, stated he has complaints about the discussion and said the edit violates some policies but refused to say how and placed a "close" on the discussion section where he should be trying to convince the rest of us. All disruptive. He needs to stop now, and he needs to understand this is a problem, because if he doesn't stop now and understand he can't do this, he's just going to continue it again and again on that page and other pages. -- Noroton (talk) 23:45, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

By the way, Justmeherenow may not have indicated it in that discussion, but that editor has done quite a bit of research on Weatherman and some of its members. Verklempt seemed to indicate that he or she had done some research as well. I've done a ton of research, spending hours in libraries. All three of us have taken a serious interest in the subject. As far as I know, Wikidemon has done a little and mentioned a couple of Web pages in the discussion. The discussion went on for several days. I don't think it's too soon to claim consensus at all, especially when all parties, especially Wikidemon, agreed discussion was over (Verklempt and Justmeherenow and I were willing to discuss Wikidemon's objections further, but not Wikidemon -- we don't even know just what Wikidemon's objections are). Wikidemon repeatedly said discussion was over. And reverted the consensus result of the discussion at the same time. Isn't that basically disruptive? -- Noroton (talk) 23:55, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) Yuck. Utter fabrications. Can we please close down this noxious behavior complaint and ask the editor to stop wikigaming over content? Weathering personal attacks from disgruntled content warriors comes with the territory of being a serious editor, but the Barack Obama pages are bad enough without this kind of personal attack. Please don't make me deal with this nonsense yet again. There are already two outstanding meta-discussions about Noroton's edits (you can follow the links below) and we hardly need a third. Enforcing the article probation terms would be a welcome relief. Wikidemon (talk) 00:17, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikidemon, what precisely are "utter fabrications". If I've fabricated something, I should be unable to provide diffs to back it up. Please tell me which "utter fabrications" you don't think I can back up with a diff? -- Noroton (talk) 00:25, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, for goodness sake! Noroton is now canvassing editors he thinks are on his side.[31][32] Can we shut this down now or should I alert the various other editors affected by Noroton's latest incivilities and edit warring? Wikidemon (talk) 00:35, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

You forgot one: [33] -- Noroton (talk) 00:44, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

You forgot at least two[34][35] and, considering that this is a fork of an ongoing behavioral dispute you are involved in you forgot Blaxthos, GoodDamon, Arjuna, Gamaliel, Loonymonkey, BehnamFarid, and Flatterworld. I wish we could spare everyone the trouble of yet another pointless AN/I discussion, but assuming this does not go away as it should I'll notify them in a bit. Wikidemon (talk) 02:29, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Response by Wikidemon

(formerly Wikidemo)

Please do not take this new report at face value. It is a process fork of Talk:Barack Obama/Article probation/Incidents#Noroton and Talk:Barack Obama/Article probation/Incidents#Scjessey, arising from a long-term dispute over a cluster of articles (Barack Obama, Bernardine Dohrn, Weathermen, Bill Ayers, and Obama-Ayers controversy) that fall under community-declared article probation (see Talk:Barack Obama/Article probation), on which the reporting editor has been edit warring in an increasingly contentious way to insert a claim of terrorist activity so as to accuse Barack Obama of consorting with "unrepentant terrorists".

Noroton omits the 4+ month history of his involvement spanning several million bytes of material. He re-proposed this content time and time again in different articles, different forms, and on many different theories. He is well aware of the objections by various established editors to repeating on these pages the off-wiki attempts to connect Obama to terrorism. Saying that I refuse to talk specifics, withdrew from the discussion, or that my brief silence signals consent, is untrue to the point of bizarre. The breakdown of the latest discussion happened when Noroton unexpectedly instituted the edits he wanted and amped up the accusations and edit warring - not only on this article[36][37][38] but also simultaneously on Bill Ayers,[[39][40][41][42] Bernardine Dohrn[43][44] and Controversy over an Obama–Ayers connection.[45][46] There is a gap in the talk history for Weathermen because this triggered discussion and edit warring on four articles at the same time. Noroton's edits were rejected in all four articles, and I told him he had killed the consensus process but that if he wished to propose the content addition in a civil way we could discuss. Undaunted, he canvassed two sympathetic editors,[47][48] tallied my earlier discussion as support, then three hours later - on Saturday morning of a holiday weekend! - less than an hour later continued the edit war and declared he had achieved consensus.

Noroton's behavior is already under discussion at the article probation incident pages. He is capable of being a productive editor - he has been in the past. But he is thumbing his nose at article probation and the need for civility, assumptions of good faith, etc. The fabricated accusations against me for "outrageous behavior", partisanship, etc., when he cannot have his way on the content, are particularly toxic. If this matter needs administrative attention it is on the article probation page, not a process fork like this.

Regarding content, I was, and am, willing to consider reasonable discussion of the fact that some people have called the Weathermen terrorists, although the distinction is mostly a matter of opinion and does not relate to what they did and did not do (back when they were active there was no official designation of groups as terrorist, as there is now, so it is all a question of historical analysis). There is room in the Weatherman article for a careful treatment of this material. It does not matter what I want, I am just trying to keep the peace here. What matters is that any discussion about calling people terrorists has to be carried out in a civil way by cooperative editors, without wikigaming, and not as part of an effort to coatrack BLP violations in articles about living people, or POV violations in articles about the presidential campaign. Wikidemon (talk) 22:03, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

(1)This has nothing to do with Barack Obama or any other article. (2)I object to your ad hominem argument re Noroton. I have seen nothing but civil behavior and good editing by Norton on this article. Even if he/she was tendentious, you have yet to address the substance of his/her edits. (3) You have not offered any alternative to Noroton's language, nor have you raised specific objections to specific sentences or sources.Verklempt (talk) 00:17, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I've done research, added sourced content and then edited lead sections to reflect that content sourced elsewhere in the articles. When all my work was reverted for Wikidemon's frivilous reasons (see his edit summaries and talk page comments) I did get angry and reverted back once. Wikidemon is trying to protect Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn from having their articles state what vast numbers of reliable sources state: That they were among the very top leaders of Weatherman, a terrorist organization (Dohrn, the topmost leader). Lucky for Ayers and Dohrn, Barack Obama associated with them for a time, and therefore Wikidemon works like mad to protect their articles from reflecting relevant, fair facts from reliable sources. I followed every freaking policy and guideline in the book, and Wikidemon reverted, making no secret of the fact that his doing so was to protect Obama. Wikidemon closed discussion at Dohrn and told me to go to the Weatherman talk page, and I decided not to contest the matter, instead deciding to have one discussion on a basic issue at Weatherman first. Now Wikidemon, not getting his way on that page, is causing disrpution. As for the rest of what Wikidemon says: he and Scjessey were successful in taunting me a few times; Wikidemon's trademarked strategy of collecting whatever diffs he can on anyone he's in a conflict with then kicks in -- Wikidemon must spend more time collecting diffs than doing anything else on Wikipedia. Nothing I've said to Scjessey or Wikidemon comes close to what each of them have said. I do plead absolutely guilty to disagreeing with them, which, at base, is their real problem with me and always has been. I'm trying to add information about Weatherman, Ayers and Dohrn, and all of those articles I have developed a continuing interest in, and I have added information positive, neutral and negative to each article. I've done the same with Early life and career of Barack Obama because my goal is to get relevant information to readers. Scjessey and Wikidemon (living up to his name) quite clearly appear to have a different agenda. I think mine is the only proper one for a Wikipedia editor. That's what this is all about. I can accept differences of opinion and tolerate some bad behavior, but Wikidemon has been disruptive.

Get him to stop. -- Noroton (talk) 00:18, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

There you have it. That is a content position, pure and simple. Noroton wants the former Weathermen who were in contact with Barack Obama to be labeled as terrorists. Elsewhere he has repeatedly argued that the relevance of the accusation is that it raises questions about Obama's judgment. There's nothing wrong with taking a position as Noroton does, and nothing about it that calls for administrative intervention. Only, Noroton needs to accept it when the weight of consensus falls against him rather than carrying out games and making nasty attacks like this one on other editors. Calling me a disruptive editor or behavior problem is simple retribution. Trying to chase away the serious editors over a holiday weekend through insults, so he can finally get a momentary window to declare himself the victor, is plain rudeness. And belittling my user name (something I recently adopted in good humor after an editor's typo) and my contributions to the project (I have started well over 80 articles, as well as templates used on more than 50,000 articles) is just petty. Noroton tries to portray this as some personal fight between himself and me, or between himself and Scjessey. It is a content dispute between Noroton and most of the legitimate editors on the Obama articles. Playing dirty when you cannot have your way is wrong. Again, can we please end this discussion? It's not going anywhere. Wikidemon (talk) 01:23, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

(1)We are not discussing the Obama articles. Please try to focus. (2) Your ad hominme approach is not productive. Please try to address the content. (3) The WU has repeatedly been described as a terrorist group by scholars, news media, and law enforcement. There is no disputing the evidence. Instead of confronting that inconvenient truth, you're stooping to ad hominem.Verklempt (talk) 01:31, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

If you're trying to insert a word in order to push a point of view, especially a political point of view, you're not likely to get much sympathy here, even if you claim to have sources. Wikipedia is about giving readers information, not about persuading them. Looie496 (talk) 01:37, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey Looie, all the sources were pre-Obama campaign. The earliest ones were from when he was eight years old. Obama is not mentioned in the edit. If your going to support or oppose something based on your own politics, you're doing just exactly what you're criticizing others for. The section that got consensus can be considered entirely separately from anything to do with Obama, and that's the way it was presented, and that's what the editors agreed to. You painting the whole thing as politics is just plain wrong. -- Noroton (talk) 01:50, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Noroton was edit-warring simultaneously across four articles (and has on other articles also) to insert the word "terrorist" by way of impugning Obama. It's disingenuous to claim this article has nothing to do with those articles, particularly considering that in his latest ploy Noroton added the "terrorist" description to this one in the same string of edits in which he added the terrorist description and categories to the other articles. Noroton never had consensus for his campaign to add terrorism mentions, and this is just another failed sneak attack on article neutrality. Wikidemon (talk) 02:06, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

this is just another failed sneak attack on article neutrality This is Wikidemon's description of the addition of POV-balanced information to an article that does not mention Obama. His reasoning is that since this NPOV addition could possibly hurt Obama, it's a "sneak attack on article neutrality." If another soul in this galaxy thinks that there is something to that argument, please see the section that was added. Does anytone else think that this is the way we should consider edits -- whether they might be embarassing to candidates we like or don't like? I mean, we do add negative information directly to biography articles, so, uh, is that a worse BLP violation? If the argument for adding the information is that it will help the article, and that's what the consensus agrees to, and the argument against is that it will hurt a candidate, who is POV pushing and who is not? Who is working for the best interests of Wikipedia and its readers and who isn't? Is this [49] to be considered on its own merits or isn't it? This is basically the core flaw of Wikidemon's way of looking at this. -- Noroton (talk) 04:11, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

If Noroton wishes to seek consensus for his proposed edit we can discuss that (if civility can be maintained) on the talk page or an RfC as proposed. No, proposing the edit was not the sneak attack. The sneak attack is the behavior I describe as the sneak attack. I won't respond to the other random nonsense. Wikidemon (talk) 05:03, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Where did I fail to accept consensus? Oh, when I reverted in the face of consensus and put a "closed" box on the talk page at Talk: Weatherman (organization)? Oh, that's right, that wasn't me, that was you. Holiday weekend? It's Wednesday. I thought getting a consensus and abiding by it was the alternative to edit warring. Questions for others: What am I supposed to do in the face of Wikidemo's disruption? Waste my time reverting the already-passed-consensus section back and forth forever? Plead with Wikidemo to allow the consensus to be implemented? Get a bigger consensus? And why wouldn't Wikidemo just ignore that one as well? Just how disruptive does Wikidemo have to get before he's told to stop? Should I try to revert in the face of consensus when I don't like it? -- Noroton (talk) 01:46, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

(unindent)A new provocation I would like to point out.[50][51] Wikidemon (talk) 02:10, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

You link to a request that you engage in constructive negotation, and label that request as a "provocation"? I am beginning to think that an RfC is called for regarding your behavior on the WU article. We get nothing from you but ad hominem, and not a bit of constructive editing or negotiation. Examine your actions, my friend.Verklempt (talk) 02:25, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Come off it, this[52] is trolling. Your edit speaks for itself. Now cut it out.Wikidemon (talk) 02:38, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Reqeuesting that you lay off the ad hominem and begin good fatih negotiation is "trolling"? You can't be serious.Verklempt (talk) 03:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Your edit speaks for itself - in the middle of this discussion you started a new section on the article talk page in question to accuse me of bad faith and personal attacks. Wikidemon (talk) 04:41, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I object to Noroton's preemptive assumption that no one other his cronies have done research on the subject, as well as his persistent trolling and attempts to steamroll opposition to his POV. We can say that the FBI says they're terrorists. We can say anyone else says they're terrorists. But we cannot say that they are terrorists because that would be direct violation of the Wikipedia Manual of Style. I've done extensive research on the Weathermen, and have actually briefly met Bill Ayers himself at U of C, but did not have the chance to talk to him. (Maybe I should have a userbox that says, "This user is a terrorist because he met one") I do not condone the practices of the Weathermen, and I think of them as terrorists. However, I object to classifying them on Wikipedia as terrorists. Noroton, please do not attack me or anyone else in opposition to you again. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 02:47, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

You've just summarized the content of the proposed language. So where's the problem? Why did you revert it? What is your proposed improvement? Be constructive.Verklempt (talk) 03:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

My "cronies"?? I don't know Verklempt (I don't remember ever participating in any discussion with that editor previous to this), and Justmeherenow is sometimes in agreement with me and sometimes not. If you actually read the section you reverted, Erik the Red 2, you'd find that nothing in it is contrary to what you just said. Shouldn't we be able to present properly sourced, POV-balanced information to readers so that readers will have information they can use to form their own conclusions? I'm not proposing to do anything more than that. We mentioned WP:TERRORISM in the discussion, and the consensus was to follow it. What is your problem with that? -- Noroton (talk) 03:53, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

It is reasonable to discuss, in the article on the Weathermen, whether or not the organization has been classed as terrorist. So, I think on balance I would rather have seen Wikidemon attempt to edit the passage to include the information in a way that was more suitable than to remove it outright. This is not a slippery slope situation: if the classification of the Weathermen as a terrorist organization is controversial it would be absolutely inappropriate to casually refer to Weathermen as a terrorist organization or its members as terrorists. Mangojuice^talk 03:31, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

It is reasonable to discuss, in the article on the Weathermen, whether or not the organization has been classed as terrorist I'm not sure if anything just said was a criticism of the editors involved in the consensus, but just let me be clear: Mangojuices comment is precisely the consensus position on the article talk page. Wikidemon proposed his language. We considered it in the discussion. We opted to use some of his language. Then he decided that he would not allow what we wanted and he would not discuss it further. I'm not in favor of casually referring to Weatherman leaders as terrorists. I saw no indication that anyone in that discussion was in favor of that. -- Noroton (talk) 03:44, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure how to read Mangojuice's comment, but it gets to the consensus discussion on content - which we can have if everyone will behave. As far as I know the Weathermen has never been classified as a terrorist organization. It has been called a terrorist organization, by a few people contemporaneously, many more in hindsight after 9/11, and by far more after February of this year as a campaign tactic to tie Obama to terrorists. The term absolutely is controversial, particularly in reference to Ayers (who denies he or they were terrorists) and his wife Dohrn. Noroton keeps repeating the make believe statement that I unilaterally backed out of a consensus discussion. What happened is that he grew insulting and started wikigaming and edit warring on multiple articles while we were supposed to be having a discussion. This is the continuation of a long pattern of tendentious editing. One of Noroton's frequent moves has been to pester and insult editors until they don't want to deal with him, accuse them of not wanting to discuss things, then threaten to treat their absence as consent. This time he made good on the threat. Another is to start a new discussion on the exact same proposal as soon as consensus runs against him in the current discussion. Anyway, we clearly do not have consensus on the proposed edits but all parties seem willing to entertain a discussion limited to the question of whether, and how, to describe the use by some parties but not others of the label "terrorists"to describe what the Weathermen did, limited to the Weathermen article. I am not willing to widen the scope, as Noroton tried to do, to Noroton's broader agenda of shoehorning the word "terrorist" to the Dohrn, Obama-Ayers controversy, Ayers, or other Obama-related articles where it has been soundly, and repeatedly, rejected. I also must insist, as a ground rule, that the discussion proceed with all due attention to civility and avoiding personal attacks.Wikidemon (talk) 04:32, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Compare: Wikidemon's version of reality: [...] limited to the Weathermen article. I am not willing to widen the scope, as Noroton tried to do. My version of reality: Wikidemo's comments, including this one, are trying to do what he objects to me doing: I do not support the introduction of a section discussing the Weathermen as terrorists unless we agree that: [...] this is not used to shoehorn discussion of terrorism or classification as terrorists into the Ayers, Dohrn, Obama-Ayers, or other related articles. [53] Also: [54] Wikidemon's statements here are often at odds with what can be seen on the Talk:Weatherman (organization) page. In bizarre ways. Also, I decline Wikidemon's demand. Also, decisions on the Weatherman page don't govern what happens on the Dohrn or Ayers or other pages, but if its agreed on the Weatherman page that we should mention that they have been called terrorists, it makes it look more reasonable to assert that we should say that Bernardine Dohrn, the leader of the group, has been identified as the leader of a terrorist group. And there are overlapping sources for that. (See what Wikidemon reverted on the Dohrn page [55]). It would be stupid of me to agree not to point to the Weatherman article on terrorism when arguing at the Dohrn article that it's reasonable to mention she's been called a terrorist. I need to promise not to do that in order for Wikidemon to behave? I think I'd rather not. -- Noroton (talk) 05:51, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

That's a good argument for why we should avoid describing the Weathermen as terrorists in this article too - if Noroton intends to use article to support calling Dohrn and Ayers terrorists, and (as he states elsewhere) use those articles to impugn Obama, this whole thing is part of a concerted program of POV efforts. That is obvious anyway from editing this into all four articles at the same time but it's useful to hear that said directly. My behavior, by the way, has never been reasonably questioned here. Noroton is the one making trouble. Wikidemon (talk) 06:16, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Here's the difference between Wikidemo and me: I do the research, get the information and then put information into the article from there because the way you judge NPOV is by what is reflected in the sources. Wikidemo hasn't shown that he's done anything more than take his personal political preference, then argues that whatever information is out there must conform to what makes him feel comfortable. He doesn't realize that sometimes NPOV actually demands that what goes into the article is what makes you feel uncomfortable because your comfort level, all by itself, is not enough reason to avoid giving readers what seems to be the fairest, truest account. That's where real integrity lies in editing (I'm not saying he lacks integrity; I'm saying I haven't seen him show it). That's why I'm able to add even positive information to even the Dohrn and Ayers articles. That's why I actually even like adding that information -- you get less uncomfortable writing for the other side the more you do it. Wikidemo has never justified his repeated smear that I'm conducting a "program of POV efforts" because the only basis he has for saying so is that many of my edits disagree with his POV, something which shouldn't matter. It shouldn't matter that some of my edits agree with my own POV if I'm distancing myself from it and advocating edits that promote NPOV articles. One check on unconscious POV is discussing differences on a talk page; his refusal to do so is what brought about my complaint. He has not demonstrated that he is interested enough in the subject to actually research it aside from citing a couple of pages he found on the Web. He has only demonstrated that he supports Obama. A search of "Weatherman" and "terrorist" in Google Books yields this result that is entirely, or almost entirely, from books published before this election [56]; as does a search of Google Scholar [57]. That isn't precisely determinative of the state of reliable-source opinion about the Weatherman group, but it certainly proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that recognizing that the Weatherman, Ayers, Dohrn and the rest have been considered "terrorist" by an enormous number of reliable sources is not just some "program of POV efforts". When Wikidemon says that I'm making personal insults by pointing out his ongoing inconsistencies and bad behavior, it's time for him to look in a mirror. -- Noroton (talk) 14:32, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Yikes. I'll turn the other cheek rather than dignify this with a response.Wikidemon (talk) 16:27, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, an IP troll has just edit warred to revert the content in again twice.[58] Wikidemon (talk) 04:46, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Now you're complaining that someone's reverting without discussing the matter on the talk page? Self-aware much? -- Noroton (talk) 06:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

No, I was posting fifteen words to this talk page to say exactly what those fifteen words say. Why does Noroton feel it necessary to respond with a personal insult? This report started as harassment for opposing a POV push, degenerated from there, and ought to be closed. There is not going to be any administrative action as a result, at least not against me. Wikidemon (talk) 06:06, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Erik the Red 2 said, I've done extensive research on the Weathermen, and have actually briefly met Bill Ayers himself at U of C, but did not have the chance to talk to him.

Justme: Wow!

Erik: We can say that the FBI says they're terrorists. We can say anyone else says they're terrorists. But we cannot say that they are terrorists because that would be direct violation of the Wikipedia Manual of Style.[...]

Justme: Hey, folks.....Let's do as Wikidemon says below, at least far as abandoning seeking expression of administrative disapproval of Wikidemon's attempted importation of consensus from other articles possessing unique contexts; still, let's INSTEAD simply agree we add a graf adhering to this excellent, excellent suggested edit of Erik's.  $\sim$ Justmeherenow (  ) 04:51, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

There is no "attempted otherstuff" - there is an demonstrated (and announced) effort to insert content linking Obama with terrorism. We have to decide where, if anywhere, that material belongs. An editor has spread the effort simultaneously across multiple articles, so it is perfectly sensible to discuss that effort as a single matter rather than as multiple content and process forks.Wikidemon (talk) 16:18, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I fully support Erik the Red 2's excellent, excellent proposal. I know Verklempt also supports it. Mangojuice's comments on the Weatherman talk page also seem to agree with it. CENSEI seems to agree, too. Let's bring this content discussion to the talk page. -- Noroton (talk) 19:06, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Can we please close this now

It started out as a personal attack on me[59] by an edit warrior for purposes of POV-pushing, it has degenerated from there, there is no reasonable question of my editing behavior or likelihood of administrative action, this discussion is serving to inflame rather than calm disputes, and the whole matter is now moot because another editor and I have attempted to start a civil discussion on the topic on the article talk page, if the other editors involved here will only follow suit. Wikidemon (talk) 06:16, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikidemon is still insisting that a precondition of his cooperation on the Weatherman article is that no similar edits be made to the Ayers or Dohrn articles (see last paragraph of this edit [60]). So if I get consensus on those articles to state that many reliable sources have called them terrorists, we have every reason to believe he'll pull the same thing again. At that point, two of my options are to come back here with the same complaint in a different article on a different day or to decide this is acceptable behavior and engage in it myself in similar circumstances. Either way, won't that be fun? Another alternative would be for admins to tell him this is disruptive. -- Noroton (talk) 14:46, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Wow, this editor will not let go of a bogus administrative complaint. It would be much appreciated if he could stop antagonizing established editors instead of threatening future trouble.Wikidemon (talk) 16:18, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

This should be closed now with a warning to Noroton to stop POV-pushing and attacking other editors. Saying that just because X and Y both say Z is a terrorist group, Z should be classified as a terrorist group, is a violation of WP:TERRORIST, whether Noroton likes it or not. Come on, AN/I will not get us anywhere but increased animosity and an even greater challenge to consensus. Unfortunately, Noroton does not understand that steamrolling opposition does not create consensus. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 21:51, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree, this should be closed like all the previous such frivolous complaints by Noroton. I would add that Noroton should be warned about his habit of engaging in exactly this sort of time-wasting distraction in order to make a point. I believe this is the fourth time (that I know of) in the month or two that he has gone directly to filing an incident report over a mere content dispute. There appears to be a distinct pattern of bypassing the normal dispute resolution process (and, in at least one case, bypassing the talk page of the article in question entirely) whenever his edits get reverted. --Loonymonkey (talk) 22:06, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Erik the Red 2 and Loonymonkey are fervid partisans of Obama who are not looking at the facts here. Erik has been answered above at 3:24 and 3:53 Sept. 4 (comments by me and Verklempt), and he repeats the same false comment here as to what the content issue is all about. Getting consensus is not "steamrolling opposition", but I guess I don't need to say that. Erik's and Loonymonkey's other comments show a similar relationship to the facts. Noroton (talk) 15:08, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

So your only response to these (very valid) complaints about your behavior is to engage in personal attacks against anyone and everyone who mentions it. And wasn't one of the frivolous AN/I complaints you recently filed an accusation that another user wasn't assuming good faith because they referred to your edits as agenda-driven? I am an uninvolved editor in this content dispute. I have no interest in the Weathermen article and don't edit it. I do have an interest in seeing you cease this habitual abuse of process. --Loonymonkey (talk) 18:33, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• Wikidemon has re-engaged in the discussio on the Weatherman talk page, and Mangojuice has commented as well. Wikidemon has still not indicated that he won't begin edit warring again the minute something doesn't go his way, so as far as I can tell, this could well rev up once again, and I'll make another complaint. If admins applied actual Wikipedia policy, this would be resolved. Noroton (talk) 15:08, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, lets close this and give Wikidemon a warning for edit warring. CENSEI (talk) 18:12, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Yikes! I believe I reverted the BLP violation twice? Please, please, please, close this ridiculousness down. It's becoming a magnet.Wikidemon (talk) 18:31, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Renewed problem

The complaining editor just reverted the "terrorism" accusations[61] back into the article for Bernardine Dohrn (Ayers' wife and suposed Obama "friend"). Her BLP article now says "terrorist" or "terrorism" thirteen times (it had been two, both in citations). Now he's at work on the Bill Ayers article[62] and I don't know where he's going with that - he's said during this discussion that he should be called a terrorist too. This is exactly what he did three days ago that I reverted, leading him to file this bogus complaint. I am stunned he would abandon consensus discussions, and even his own attack on me here, to simply revert war on the subject. Another editor just joined the fray to revert the material (6th time now?) into the Weatherman article.[63] I'm at a loss here. Revert on BLP grounds? RfC? It has become more or less impossible to work with this editor because of his insults, accusations, bogus administrative complaints, and editing stunts - in his last post above he's threatened to bring another complaint against me if I oppose his one-man POV campaign. In the meanwhile I've added an NPOV tag to the Dohrn article. Wikidemon (talk) 17:38, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Ever think that the reason that Dohrn is labeled a terrorist is because so many people call her one? Its only a BLP or POV violation if it cant be properly sourced, and this description, that Dohrn was a terrorist, is very well sourced. Who is the problem editor here? CENSEI (talk) 18:09, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Dohrn is called a terrorist on Wikipedia because an hour ago Noroton inserted into that BLP for a third time the material he has been shopping around to various articles to call her a terrorist thirteen times. The weathermen are called terrorists because a few minutes ago CENSEI, a contentious editor[64] fresh off a bogus 3RR report aimed at derailing another editor, just joined the revert war to insert the same material into that article.[65] Ouch! Wikidemon (talk) 18:41, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikidemon, why are you trying to obfuscate the issue. When there are no behavioral issues, discussion of content is done on the article talk page. I haven't called her a terrorist, I've said others have called the group she headed up a terrorist group, cited sources for that according to WP:TERRORIST and said there are dissenting views. This is not a behavioral problem unless you misbehave. There is nothing unusual in the reliable sources about calling Bernardine Dohrn a terrorist. See this Google Books search [66] ("Bernardine Dohrn + terrorist) and Google Scholar [67] (same search words) -- Noroton (talk) 18:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC) added last two sentences -- Noroton (talk) 18:56, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Palin edit warrior spamming talk pages

I have been following the activities of a couple of the Palin edit warriors when I noticed that one of them is now spamming a number of talk pages to get there message accross.[68][69][70][71][72] As IP: [73][74]

The editor, EricDiesel (talk · contribs), has been one of two editors who creating, and then recreated, a series of articles related to two churches that Sarah Palin has attended and their pastors. Three of the articles have been sent to WP:AfD where they are revising overwhelming support for deletion while the third had been proposed for deletion.

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wasilla Bible Church
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Larry Kroon
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ed Kalnins

I'm not exactly what needs to be done with this particular editor, but IMO, this needs administrator attention. --Farix (Talk) 00:54, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

What did he say when you warned him and ask him to stop? John Reaves 01:11, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

And they call me sarcastic. >:) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:31, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

You are sarcastic, Bugs, but that's what we like about you. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 02:05, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I thought what you liked about Bugs was that he looked good in a dress... HalfShadow 02:38, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Delicious! seicer | talk | contribs 02:45, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

"Is you is, or is you ain't, my baby?" Hmmm... not sure if I was channeling Bugs there, or John Edwards. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:48, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I notified EricDiesel of the thread. I also deleted the above three articles per notability rationales, and because the creator has been spamming WP with various incarnations of this in a vein attempt to push it to some magical notability status. In addition, there was a snowball's chance in hell of having any consensus towards keeping the articles. seicer | talk | contribs 01:36, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

He started a rather bizarre conversation at my talk page User_talk:MBisanz#Palin.2C_Descriptions_becoming_names.2C_Wikipedia_General_Notability_Guideline, I'm not sure he understands our notability, sourcing, or BLP policies. MBisanz ^talk 01:42, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Check my user talk page, and many other user talk pages. seicer | talk | contribs 01:44, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

This definitely appears to be a new editor. I'd add to MBisanz's list that he also does not understand the NPOV policy. It appears he has not chosen at any point to slow down and really try to understand any of the feedback he has been receiving. This editor is not currently on a path towards a successful and long running editing career. But I am still willing to assume the combination of good faith editing and massive ignorance. With such high profile, high activity topics, it is hard to really receive and incorporate feedback - there is just too much and it can be overwhelming. It is possible that if he were to step away from high profile, high controversy subjects he might be able learn the policies better. It also appears that he spends a lot of time reading the political blogosphere, which is not going to help him understand what he is doing wrong; there are too many rants by bloggers who themselves are not well informed. GRBerry 01:59, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The fact that he continues to ignore any message on his userpage and continue to spam every user talk page in existance... seicer | talk | contribs 02:06, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I've interacted with this editor extensively on my talk page, but I've made little progress. He seems determined to counter what he sees as a failure on Wikipedia's part to expose certain religious connections to Palin, thus making Wikipedia complicit in handing the election to McCain somehow. I believe he's read every fifth word I've addressed to him. Acroterion _(talk) 02:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Per this comment on my talk page, I've sent him a reply. seicer | talk | contribs 02:34, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

You know, this spamming is becoming very tiresome. The vast majority of his edits outside of the articles have been spamming user talk pages. seicer | talk | contribs 02:35, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I had some discussion with EricDiesel yesterday. Please give me a chance to discuss things with him. My impression is that this is a just a situation where a new user is not familiar with the content standards. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:48, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

You mean I'm not the only one recieving messages from this guy? Well, now I feel singularly unspecial, also I wasted a good half an hour replying to him. Can we speedy delete these articles now? L'Aquatique[approves|this|message] 06:53, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I stopped replying after he called us "deletion article zealots", a (conservative) "group", "undergraduates", an "army" and then tried to convince me that the whole episode was me deleting the article for political and religious reasons. seicer | talk | contribs 11:54, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Everyone here, thanks for your time. I deleted several messages that had not yet been responded to, since any response would be better made where I posted Five Requests for Clarification on Wikipedia Policies and Standards summarized from numerous Palin related Wikipedia deletion discussion pages on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wasilla Assembly of God. If any of you have the time, it would be appreciated if some of the quesions could be responded to on that page, since the five questions were culled from numerous other (apparently new like me) editors and others on the four deleted articles, Wasilla Assembly of God, Ed Kalnins, Wasilla Bible Church and Larry Kroon.

These were my first four articles, two for creating, two for editing. After review of Wikipedia people and policies, I think I made inappropriate, and certainly unproductive comments all over the place. I did not even know about my own discussion page until late in the deletion debate.

• If you think I should apologize anywhere or delete communications that are inappropriate, please let me know if you have the time.

That said, I still think the edits (deletions of information) of WasillaAG were politically motivated, and that homophobic or anti Semetic sermons, voluntarily attended by Palins, are notable because of their etiological relationship to her bizarre public policy views and reasoning (bizarre at least from the perspective of science).

Thanks. EricDiesel (talk) 17:08, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone think it appropriate that the Barack Obama article has more coverage of Rvverend Wright and his controversial sermons, than the Sarah Palin article devotes to her minister and his controversial sermons, if reliable sources have discussed the sermons and said they are controversial? Edison (talk) 19:30, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

A week ago you and everyone else hadn't even heard of Sarah Palin. Within the last few hours all sort of new things are coming out. This religious stuff is such a small portion and no one in the mainstream media is really paying attention to it right now. Maybe if you wait a few weeks and it turns out to be as important as Barak's paster then it would be appropriate. As it is, the only people who seem to really be paying attention to that stuff are the editors who REALLY REALLY want to make sure we ALLL read about. Not so BLP, NPOV, wiki appropriate. --98.243.129.181 (talk) 22:48, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Question re: Notability is not contagious Thanks for your comment on my discussion page.

I am new, and have been asking questions about this without a response from anyone and maybe you can help me understand the deletion of my four articles.

Palin's history teacher is clearly NOT notable. However, if Palin were a politician known for her denial of the Holocaust, her history teacher WOULD be notable, especially if the history teacher was a Holocaust denier.

Similarly, I would think Hegel’s history teacher would be notable because Hegel’s is notable for his theories on history, while Hegel’s sewing teacher would not be notable.

The general point is that a relation of B to notable A does NOT automatically transfer notability from A to B, but a relationship of B with the CAUSE of A’s notability WOULD, in addition to the mere simple relationship of B to A.

• 1, Is this correct at Wikipedia?

Question re: removing deletions of 4 articles for 5 days of Evolution

• 2. Would it be possible to reopen the pages for Wasilla Assembly of God, Ed Kalnins, Wasilla Bible Church, and Larry Kroon and let them independently evolve for five days, especially as completely different facts were being added by many on each page? A videotape of speaking in tongues in an independent church in remote Alaska, would be appropriate on not be appropriate on the Wasilla Bible Church page, but not on the Sarah Palin page (unless this independent church’s doctrine was to do this at home, like at the White House?). The international coverage is different for the four topics. E.g., Larry Kroon isgetting coverage in the Israeili press, but not Ed Kalnins, BECAUSE the two are NOTABLE for DIFFERENT reasons. since

A third Sarah Palin pastor has been in the media more, but this appears to be ONLY for his being her pastor, so would not be notable.

I also sent these questions to Carl and Seicer, but there may be a variety of opionions, or they may not be online. Thanks. EricDiesel (talk) 23:27, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Removal of speedy deletion tags

Resolved

 – Advice taken. EdJohnston (talk) 04:13, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

The author of Enrique dela Costa, and more recently, an IP address (possibly a intentional or accidental sockpuppet), keeps removing the speedy deletion tag from the article. I warned the author, and the sillyness continues. The article has been on here for the whole day, and I still don't believe that an admin has reviewed it. Since I've been on and off here today, I haven't been available to keep restoring the tag, and no one else has been doing it either. GO-PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 02:37, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The article in question needs some major cleanup but there is an assertion of notability. Therefore, it's not an A7 candidate. Furthermore {{delete|Does not appear to be a notable doctor}} is not a valid speedy criteria. If you have reason to believe the subject is not notable despite the assertion, then you need to nominate the article for deletion. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:54, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I think somebody is having fun at our expense. There is no 'Enrique dela Costa' or 'Enrique de la Costa' mentioned in Ref 1, which is available on Google Books. The doctor seems to have graduated medical school at age 19. The picture of the fisherman looks to be a fake. This article is the only work of a brand new editor. EdJohnston (talk) 04:25, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

He does seem to exist; see [75]. Doesn't make him notable, of course. Looie496 (talk) 05:11, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

If I were to open a CSD candidate and find a {{delete|Does not appear to be a notable doctor}}, I would confirm that the article appears to be about a real doctor, and is without assertion of importance; if so - I would delete as A7, despite the fact that a non-standard tag was used. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:26, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

And if I were the creator of an article where somebody stuck in {{delete|Some random statement}}, I would have no problem removing said tag myself. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:26, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Look, the article says "Doctor Enrique dela Costa has proven to be one of the more significant identities to arise from the region", which is an assertion of importance. It's not a speedy deletion candidate. You should just nominate it at AFD. Frankly, I take the approach of nominating with a detailed explanation over trying to cite some vague standard to a new editor. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:14, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, all an article has to do to avoid A7 is to make a (can I say plausible?) assertion of notability, even if you don't buy it. The possibility that the sources are bogus and that the whole article may have been pulled out of an orifice to be named later is something for AFD to determine. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:37, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Except of course there's the fact that since that statement is unsourced, policy would support removing the comment, therefore notability no longer asserted--Jac16888 (talk) 13:40, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, there's a distinct smell of snow in the air. Looie496 (talk) 16:41, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

An assertion of notability was made. That is enough to save it from CSD, which is reserved for the blatantly obvious stuff. Especially as the article is 24 hours old. I also notice that the discussion page for the article is empty. Wouldnt that be one of the first places to start a dialog on this? Arakunem^Talk 16:53, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

<--outdent [non-admin disclaimer] The age of an article is irrelevant with respect to speedy deletion. The "speedy" refers to the process, not to the "age" of the article. If an article meets the criteria (which this one does not, barely) it should be deleted no matter how old it is. – ukexpat (talk) 17:50, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Looks non-notable as all get out to me. I'd suggest an AFD. Tony Fox (arf!) 18:15, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, if there is any concern, AfD is the place to go. My point on the age of the article was that is was essentially a brand new article, and since an assertion of notability was made, perhaps we hold off on the speedy while giving the opportunity to flesh it out more (such as during the AfD, or just waiting a few days to see if what's there is all there will ever be...) Arakunem^Talk 18:23, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

A newbie isn't going to care what kind of template is used because they usually don't know the policies anyway, which is why speedy canidates are often created by newbies; most people wouldn't waste their time creating an article if they knew it would meet WP:CSD. However, that aside, it appears that the consensus is to nominate this one at WP:AFD. I'd try using WP:PROD, but the template would almost certainly be removed. GO-PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 23:16, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Newbies might not care beyond feeling bit because their article was speedied with something but new page patrollers care. If I see {{delete|some random reason}} I'm going to remove it. If an article doesn't meet one of the criteria listed at WP:CSD then it needs to go to AFD, if anywhere.

As far as prods go, IMHO they are only useful for deletable articles that nobody gives a damn about. If an article has just been created then someone obviously does "give a damn about it", its creator. Therefore, I don't use them on new articles. I speedy them, send them to AFD, or leave them alone. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:13, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

The advice of those who recommended an AfD has been taken. EdJohnston (talk) 04:13, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

User:170.170.59.138 and User:170.170.59.139

• At 01:27 and 01:28 on 4 September 2008 User:170.170.59.139 blanked Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 July 11; that page is about Sloan Bella and other pages.
• At 03:15 and 03:16 on 4 September 2008 User:170.170.59.138 deleted matter about Sloan Bella from my talk page.
  • I have reverted these blankings. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:09, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, the same thing happened "yesterday" with a different IP at User talk:76.169.216.222. They were pretty aggressive in finding and deleting any mention of this person, but in the end, got blocked. I guess it's ultimately "no big deal", but this person (or persons) appears to want the name removed completely, is there any course of action to suggest to the IP, rather than revert/report/block? Yngvarr (t) (c) 11:08, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

And again just now [76], but with a pretty strongly worded edit summary. I'm not going to revert, but I think someone should try to work this out with the person. Yngvarr (t) (c) 16:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I have restored the page, but stopped short of protecting it. Whatever concerns they have, and no comment on the validity of same, removing the log of five other cases plus the one targeted (which one? I don't know!) is not the way of going about this. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:30, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Given the nature of some the editing around what was basically a vanity article, I get the impression that what's bothering the anon is not the fact that Sloan Bella had an article, but that it was removed as non-notable. If it was still up, I doubt we'd be seeing these accusations of 'slander'. That aside though, if the content removal continues, and with the apparent IP-hopping, the page should probably be semi-protected for a while (I've watchlisted it btw). EyeSerene^talk 17:43, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

• If this is the real (rather than stage) name of a living individual, then one might possibly interpret it as a request for courtesy blanking, although the evil cynical bastard in me inclines me to believe that the aim is simply to obscure the debates in the hope of trying again. Either way, {{courtesy blanking}} might avert further foolishness. There's no realistic chance of it coming back right now, I'd say. Guy (Help!) 19:04, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
• FYI this DRV just got blanked by another IP. I suggest what Guy mentioned. Restore the page then courtsey blank the one DRV that the ip is trying to get rid of. might save more trouble.--Cube lurker (talk) 01:15, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
• Restored it again, for now. Do we have consensus for a courtesy blanking of the deletion review? (I haven't done so as other pages may also be involved) EyeSerene^talk 08:50, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I do not see any reason for courtesy blanking. While I will always go and assume good faith, Guy has a valid point. There are no reasons to indicate, that there is any material mentioned on either AfD or DRV that would violate WP:BLP and could be seen as an attack on the person in question. I think we should go with WP:CBLANK: We do not know, why the IP does this, maybe he/she is just some stalker/fan/hater. I'd advise to make it clear to him/her, that if he/she is the subject in question or someone representing her, to write an email through the OTRS, requesting courtesy blanking. If it is done so, I'd suggest using {{afd-privacy}}. But if not, I see no reason for it. Also, otherwise everyone could just go around get stuff courtesy blanked by just removing it until we give it. SoWhy 09:08, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Why not semi-prot the page? It's a DRV with no open cases, so there's no fundamental reason to even edit it at this time. Yngvarr (t) (c) 09:29, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Oops, meant to do that when I restored it, but forgot. Thanks Yngvarr, the page is now semi'd for 1 week. I'm in agreement with SoWhy to be honest; I see no compelling reason for a courtesy blanking, though I don't have a problem if someone else wants to do that. EyeSerene^talk 09:38, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Legal threat

Resolved

 – IP blocked

_Gb^T/c 10:14, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

There's been a legal threat by an anon here. --Tango (talk) 09:50, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Disneysuit, eh? SSP says that he had a vendetta against Disney for allegedly infringing on a trademark or something... His accusations of corruption and fraud against us reminds me of that Jack Thompson guy, I think... Blake Gripling (talk) 10:05, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Ho hum. Since the edits are in exactly the same vein as the previous edits for which he received a 48 hour block, and since he has carried straight on once the block expired, I have reblocked for 72 hours. _Gb^T/c 10:14, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The IP address appears to be static, wouldn't a longer block be in order? Don't we usually block indefinitely (for a static IP that should probably be reduced to a few months) for legal threats, pending them withdrawing the threat? --Tango (talk) 18:27, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Possibly, but let's see how it pans out. If he picks up after the block under the same IP then I'd agree that a long block would probably be in order. _Gb^T/c 18:36, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

For anyone not "in the know" this DisneySuit whacko has been stalking Wikipedia for about a month (?) now on and off. Motivations appear to be they are a lawyer who is trying to get attention for some random trademark suit. Or something. It must be a pretty crappy lawyer if it is one because of their stupid behavior which I think would be admissible in court against them. IANAL.--mboverload@ 19:49, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, close, but not quite. It's an individual who claims that Disney stole his idea for Pirates of the Carribean. He did bring a lawsuit a few years ago, but I believe it was withdrawn. I have read his site, and all of his postings here...he appears to have evolved into attacking Wikipedia and its editors for blanking his soapboaxing on the relevant articles and talk pages. _Gb^T/c 20:17, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

He is currently harassing a 14 year old female editor, mostly on the basis that she has expressed an admiration for things Disney (ah, the innocence of youth), Pirates of the Caribbean (ah, the appreciation of youth) and Johnny Depp (ah, the perceptiveness of youth) who chose not un-naturally to edit the articles she is devoted to - as only a early/mid teen can be - giving him the delusion that he can promote an argument of conflict of interest. While the soapboxing is fairly contemptible, in attempting to create a case where legal avenues have proven a failure, I find the hounding of a volunteer teenager to be reprehensible. My only other comment is that I note the ip used has remained constant, so any action that may be taken in future may be of a mid term duration. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:37, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

If you need anyone else to keep an eye on that please drop me a line. --mboverload@ 22:56, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I like that diff provided. Provides ~8 minutes of entrainment, depending on reading speed.--mboverload@ 23:07, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I am concerned that this 72-hr block is not going to be enough - They're very persistent. It appears that the places they have been contributing are good things to watchlist and monitor going forwards. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:40, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Please do (wtchlist the pages). While we're at it, if this guy registers another account and uses it, block it NEM - he has sent legal threats through the email system (I should know; I received one). -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Bodging WP edit by edit)} 23:47, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

At what point did the term 'lawyer' become synonymous with the terms 'psychotic' and 'stalker'? HalfShadow 00:55, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Henry VI, Part 2 has a helpful line about lawyers. DuncanHill (talk) 01:03, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

How do I sign up for a legal threat? I feel like I'm missing out. Please point me in his direction next time he pops up. --mboverload@ 02:07, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Simple. Just block his account. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Bodging WP edit by edit)} 02:21, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Here's a legal threat for you: I'm thinking of filing an asbestos suit. That should get me into some hot stuff. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 05:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Asbestos? Doesn't anybody tell you coffee is where it's at? -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Bodging WP edit by edit)} 06:21, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Good one. A tempest in a coffeepot. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 09:17, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Disruptive anon editor

I have blocked 124.169.43.56 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 124.169.154.40 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) due to vandalism. I rollbacked all of 124.169.154.40's edits, as many were blatant vandalism and the rest added unsourced claims of Arabic parentage and/or Arabic translations of their names. Shortly afterwards, the editor logged back in as 124.169.43.56 and reverted all of my edits. I blocked the new IP, but it's certainly likely they will hop IPs again. I'm at work right now, so my ability to monitor these articles closely is limited for at least 4 hrs. I would like any other admins to look through the articles targeted by this user (about 30 in all) for further reversions coming from the 124.169.0.0/16 range & semi-protect the articles as necessary... just in case I don't get there first. Cheers, caknuck _° is geared up for football season 19:19, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The anon returned as 203.59.250.242 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Some help semi-protecting the articles in question would be appreciated. caknuck _° is geared up for football season 21:45, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be safer to semi-protect the said page rather than to range block the IPs. It doesn't look safe to do that, and also, a dynamic range like this means that rangeblocking the IPs will pose a risk to people who are not involved. Also, even if the guy can create accounts to bypass a semi, those accounts can be easily dealt with and indefinitely blocked. So, I support the protection. ~ Troy (talk) 01:00, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Innapropriate administrator behaviour

Resolved

 – Peenapplay has meanwhile contacted the deleting admin and has been advised elsewhere about the role of the Afd closer and here about WP:Deletion Review in case of further need. Cut and paste AfD replaced with wikilink below.--Tikiwont (talk) 19:49, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi guys, hope all is well :) I'm sorry to trouble you but I would like to post about an administrators behaviour. Please understand I do no do this lightly - I believe there is complete justification for following this course of action.

My user name is Peenapplay and I am a big fan of Scottish Singer Songwriter "jono" (Jonathan Sammeroff). In essence the original article written about him was lacking in notability, and that was the issue of the other administrators involved. I edited the wiki article to accommodate for this, and demonstrated that wikipedia's notability requirements, stretching well beyond the bounds of acceptability, had then been well and truly met.

The administrator in question http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Smashville (appropriate name) deleted the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Sammeroff without joining in the debate (probably because I won it?) and without providing his/her reasons for doing so. Regardless of my feelings towards this particular article, this kind of behaviour is surely completely unacceptable for a Wikipedia administrator? If so, he/she should be heavily warned, or even struck off the administrator list.

As you can tell I have strong feelings, but also justification for doing so. Following is the debate:

---

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jonathan Sammeroff (refactored for better readability)

---

That is how it ended. As you can see, the article met the criteria necessary to be included in Wikipedia, but was deleted nonetheless. With thanks from Raymond.

The article was deleted with a reason, a link to this articles AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jonathan Sammeroff. If you feel the judgement of consensus is wrong, please request a review for this deletion at WP:DRV. Regards SoWhy 19:28, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I think you want WP:Deletion Review where you can request review of the decision to delete the article if you feel it was incorrect, but there is no need to copy/paste the whole AFD there as you have done here - a link is automatically added if you follow the instructions there. Davewild (talk) 19:31, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

By the way, the fact that the closing admin did not participate in the discussion is a good thing. The closing admin just reads the discussion to see if there was a consensus, and acts accordingly. For a participant in the debate to be the one to close it would raise the appearence of bias in the closing decision. Arakunem^Talk 22:15, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Discussions are not "won" or "lost" on Wikipedia, and if that is your interpretation of what goes on here, you clearly don't understand what WP:CONSENSUS means. Corvus cornix_talk 23:16, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I didn't notice this til now...I'm just impressed it took me less than 24 hours of administratorship to be accused of completely unacceptable behavior...(I did my job...horrors!)...what's the record around here? --Smashville^BONK! 05:56, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Death threats on Sony

Resolved

User:Comicfire posted death threats on Sony recently, and I saw "edit conflict" two times in a row when trying to warn the user. I think (s)he needs to be blocked, and perhaps Sony needs to be protected. GO-PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 21:16, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd say report to WP:AIV if vandalism still is continuing despite uw lvl 4 and request protection at WP:RFPP if he/she returns with different IPs to evade a block. SoWhy 21:20, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Just a particularly offensive racist vandal, now permablocked, along with two apparent socks. No obvious need for protection. Acroterion _(talk) 21:25, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The Royce Mathew Issue

Resolved

 – All sorted, I think (apart from me being an idiot)

I'll just put in a repost as User:Georgewilliamherbert suggested. ;)

An IP of the previous user Disneysuit, none other than Royce Mathew. He has been giving legal threats (he has surely sent one to Wikimedia Foundation) against me for asking him to abide by policies, concocting false claims against me. He has been blocked, several times, but he won't stop. I don't want to lose my position at Wikipedia as an experienced editor; the only reason this is happening is because he is not willing to accept that he isn't following policies! A little help would be greatly appreciated. The link I gave you for "Royce Mathew" above has the IP address he is using. Here is what he has written, and what he will probably send to Wikimedia Foundation against me: [77]. It has been deleted, but I'm not sure if he got the link the following commenter gave him against me. I don't mind a checking of my contributions, but I do not like it when someone is willing to take something so far as a legal threat and my possible blocking when all I've done is try to enforce the rules with both myself and others so as to make Wikipedia a better place! It has been weeks of harassment, and I should like to point out that I am a minor. Therefore, firstly, it is against the law. Secondly, it is against Wikipedia policy, and thirdly, it is just unfair.BlackPearl14^talkies!23:18, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry you had to run into this guy (I've dealt with him in the past, I think). The admins are here to help you contribute productively, not kick you out. The only way you'll leave, I think, is if you quit because he harasses you too much - in which case the admins have failed you. No one is about to block you or ban you from Wikipedia. Regards, SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 00:09, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

LessHeard vanU has sent something about this to someone name "Mike" at WP, but I do not want to have any out-of-interned members involved (e.g. school) because I don't want any bad marks on my record (even though I have done nothing). I am glad - very glad - that you are helping out! Thank you very much for your help! And thank you ;) I was just told by Georgewilliamherbert to post this here... BlackPearl14^talkies!23:18, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked the IP that made the legal threat for a month. Anything else we can do? Black Kite 00:14, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

So long as there's no legal threat in that time, I'll be fine ;) Thank you so much. Sorry for the trouble, I just don't think it right to harass a minor. BlackPearl14^talkies!00:15, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

No problem (apart from the fact I did this [78] while I was blocking the IP) ... D'oh. Black Kite 00:24, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

You're too honest for your own good. You could have simply said it was a test. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:53, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Or stated that you'd settled out-of-court with your sanity :P -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Bodging WP edit by edit)} 01:24, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

LOL! Apparently LessHeard didn't send it, but did tell me that if this should persist, I should email Mike. BlackPearl14^talkies! 00:33, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• There was a very firm reply to his last email to OTRS advising that unless and until he has substantial coverage in mainstream media, he is wasting his time and actually ensuring that he is excluded from consideration by being blocked or banned. I don't think he is very wise though so I am sure he ignored that as he ignores every other comment to the same effect. I think it's a case for WP:RBI as he is clearly beyond rational discourse. Next stop Trenton, NJ. Guy (Help!) 07:58, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Severed Hand

It looks like the article Severed Hand was recreated some time ago in defiance of the AFD, where it was decided to delete the article. I have added a {{speedy}} tag to the article, would have deleted this myself only I'm no longer an admin under this account. I was wondering if someone could delete the article? Thanks. - Tbsdy lives (talk) 00:37, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't see an AfD on this, the article has been here for over 2 years. Corvus cornix_talk 01:09, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Severed Hand, in 2006. It is possible that the band has since established a better claim to natability. DuncanHill (talk) 01:13, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I doubt it. Article was recreated by User:Severedhand soon after it was deleted. - Tbsdy lives (talk) 01:19, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

For some reason, that didn't show up when I did a search for it. Thanks. Corvus cornix_talk 01:15, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

(4 edit conflicts already)I found it by viewing history, then clicking on "view logs for this page" - this shewed the deletion, with which the deleting admin had kindly included a link to the AfD. DuncanHill (talk) 01:20, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I found it when I added an AfD tag to the article. - Tbsdy lives (talk) 03:11, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Awww, I'm disappointed... thought this was going to be another member of the Hand family. the wub "?!" 09:58, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Harassment and apparent hacking by User:Fredrick day

Thread blanked per deny recognition. State prior to blanking: [79]

More complete with edit conflict comment at end, inserted: [80]. --Abd (talk) 13:54, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

If the banned user makes further appearances, revert, block and ignore. Running long threads to discuss his behavior only encourages further disruption. Wikipedia does not provide tech support to users who's systems may have been hacked. Contact law enforcement for such concerns. Jehochman ^Talk 13:35, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring and POINTy reversions

86.143.159.186 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), who has a history of incivility and edit warring, is currently indulging in repeatedly reverting the work of multiple editors. Pages affected are primarily Commerzbank and Sippenhaft. Uncivil edit summaries ([81]) and accusations of vandalism ([82]) are par for the course. The Sippenhaft page in particular was discussed on the article talk page, consensus was reached and then the IP user came back and blindly reverted to the pre-consensus version. Latest development is an extremely pointy reinstatement (twice!) of a WP:PROD template here: [83] and [84]. Orpheus (talk) 03:06, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• The IP is blocked by Stiffle for 3RR Alex Bakharev (talk) 09:43, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

User:123.243.252.142

It looks like User:123.243.252.142 is adding inappropriate tags to their user talk page. Can we get that page protected to prvent this from occuring? See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:123.243.252.142&diff=236380131&oldid=236379767 - Tbsdy lives (talk) 03:54, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Done. The IP is static and was recently blocked for one year due to repeated vandalism. The page is now semi-protected for one year to match the block. Risker (talk) 04:17, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Mel Gussow - persistent IP edit warring

This page was the subject of a Request for Editor Assistance about a month ago, here. The problem was what appeared to be aggressive and persistent edit warring among family members and others concerning (oftentimes spurious) details concerning the (deceased) subject's life. The result was temporary protection from anon IP edits.

Things were quiet for a while afterwards but in the last 24 hours the disputes have exploded again, and I think protection is again in order. Can someone have a look and help out? Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 04:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I had a look, and my view is that it is not so bad as to require (semi-)protection after 24 hours. If it continues for another day or so, then there may be a case, but if it settles down again that action would limit good faith editors from contributing. LessHeard vanU (talk) 09:38, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, there haven't been any good faith anon edits to the article in quite some time. But all right. I'm sure they'll oblige us by continuing. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 10:59, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Cut and Paste move needs fixed

Resolved.

Looks like Chris Brown (singer) and Chris Brown (entertainer) need some admin attention. Entertainer was created, then had singer copied on top of it, and now singer is redirected to entertainer.Kww (talk) 04:19, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

.svg image issue...Wikipedia or me?

Is it me, or is it a Wikipedia issue that doesn't allow me from 5 minutes to see svg images in wikipedia's articles? All I can see is 'Image:Gnome-dev-cdrom-audio.svg" rather than the image link. Same for and all other .svg's. Anyone else having this problem? —Do U(knome)? ^yes..._{or no} 04:36, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I just tested it on my Internet Explorer browser and it's perfectly fine. Perhaps I'm having an issue with Firefox. Any reason for this? I realize I probably shoudn't be asking it here, but it would be nice if anyone could help here. —Do U(knome)? ^yes..._{or no} 04:36, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll confirm that (as far as I know) this seems to be Firefox specific. -MBK₀₀₄ 04:41, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I can see them in Safari, but not in Camino (a Firefox-based browser on the Mac). Opening the svg image itself works fine, it's just the cached png images that aren't working. Wonder what's gone wrong? In any case, this probably better belongs at the Village Pump than here. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:42, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

And now it's back to working again for me. A temporary glitch, I guess? —David Eppstein (talk) 05:08, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Not so, I'm on Internet Explorer 7, and I have the problem. Why is this here instead of at VPT? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:43, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't work on Firefox 3 or IE7. Works on Google Chrome though and now Firefox 3. Bidgee (talk) 04:46, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm wondering if this isn't some kind of linkage problem between en.WP and Commons. A new Commons image I uploaded took a long time before it was seen on the article page I had put it on, and now .SVG images, most of which I believe are free and hosted on the Commons, aren't showing up (I'm on IE7 as well). Ed Fitzgerald "unreachable by rational discourse"^{(t / c)} 04:57, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Wow, I'm running Firefox 2. on a Mac and I have no problem. Aunt Entropy (talk) 05:00, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Just for the record, I'm seeing them with Opera 9.52, Firefox 3, IE 8, Chrome, and Safari on XP; and Firefox 1 and Dillo on Damn Small Linux. AnturiaethwrTalk 05:23, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm having the same problem with the latest version of Firefox on a PC. I started a thread at WP:Village pump (technical). The images in this thread render fine for me. Funny thing is the image I'm having a problem with is a png. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 06:18, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Might be something to do with this. 3000 images were accidentally deleted from the database. Woody (talk) 13:28, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

All but 496 were apparently recovered. There's a list of missing images. Ed Fitzgerald "unreachable by rational discourse"^{(t / c)} 14:57, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Troll patrol

Resolved

 – Bencherlite^Talk 05:54, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

The QuirkyAndSuch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) troll that re-registered my old account name, User:Wikidemo, after I changed mine to User:Wikidemon, is vandalizing the page again. May I get some help to make sure the talk and user pages stay as redirects to my username, and get rid of the sockpuppet account? Alternately, is it possible to ask a bureaucrat to re-register the Wikidemo account to me? Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 05:17, 5 September 2008 (UTC) :Okay, hold on a minute... I'm about to try something. Wikidemon (talk) 05:27, 5 September 2008 (UTC) Nevermind, that didn't work. I still need some help disabling the sockpuppet and/or moving the sockpuppet somewhere else so I can create a doppelganger account. Thanks.

I have fully-protected the redirects from User:Wikidemo and User talk:Wikidemo to your new user/talk pages. Bencherlite^Talk 05:38, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a bunch. if I moved them but obviously things are not so simple. If someone has a chance, those pages probably ought to be deleted. Thx. Wikidemon (talk) 05:41, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

As you said on your talk page, as long as the redirects stayed protected, there's no problem now. Bencherlite^Talk 05:54, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Goaway959 & Wikidemo

Anyone know what the heck this mess is all about? I'm guessing admin attention. rootology (C)(T) 05:36, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Is this sock or impersonator of User:Wikidemon? rootology (C)(T) 05:37, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Didn't even see the section above. Sorry. rootology (C)(T) 05:43, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Zapped. Bencherlite^Talk 05:44, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Troll just resurfaced as !!Wawawiwa!! (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). Other blocked accounts include Avi15 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), Kotla Mohsin Khan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). Possibly Darude101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), Soriano67 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), ComicDude (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), Ultra Mega M (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). Is there a central sock page to keep track of all this? Wikidemon (talk) 11:38, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Maybe try WP:LTA? You could take it to WP:RFCU to get an underlying IP blocked, if there is one single one. _Gb^T/c 11:48, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Another one (Wikiwikiwi (talk · contribs)) just popped up, now blocked. _Gb^T/c 11:51, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

One Salient Oversight

User:One Salient Oversight just tried to move the article breast to boobs 5000 and I've reverted this apparent gag. I don't know what's going on, but it doesn't look good.

Peter ^Isotalo 06:05, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

You should probably leave a message to the person asking why they moved it? Gary King (talk) 06:18, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I have done so, plus deleted the redirect. I don't think there's any need for any action, unless User:One Salient Oversight does anything more like this in the near future. But I'd be interested in hearing the explanation :-) henrik•talk 06:23, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Seems out of character with other recent edits. Maybe the guy left his PC unprotected, and his 15-year-old son jumped on there. But if it happens again, it's trouble, and calls for a block of some kind. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 09:13, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Lajolla2009

Could someone please take a look at User:Lajolla2009's contrib record? The editor has been active for about 2.5 months. Early on he was involved in a bit of an edit war on List of University of California, San Diego people and David K. Jordan (an article he created), trying to add the name of a student who only received his undergrad degree in 2008 and only had college level awards as a notable student/alum to these articles. There was an AN/I thread about it at the time, see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive447#User:Lajolla2009. There were several instances back then where User:Lajolla2009 removed the comments of other editors from the talk pages of these two articles (again see that AN/I thread). He eventually stopped adding the disputed info and removing the comments of others after the AN/I thread. However recently he resumed removing the talk page comments of other editors related to the notability discussion [85][86][87] even after being specifically told again[88] that this is inappropriate. Moreover, he proceeded to assign to the article David K. Jordan (an article he created) first an A-class rating[89] and then GA-class rating[90] the latter after I warned him that assigning A-class ratings requires a special procedure and cannot be done by the author of the article[91]. I don't want to edit-war with him, but I'd like for a previously uninvolved admin to take a look at this. In his last removal[92] of the talk page comments from Talk:David K. Jordan he appears to indicate BLP concerns as a reason for the removal of the comments. I personally don't think there are BLP issues here and the removed talk page comments are directly relevant to the editorial dispute on the article's content. Maybe I am wrong here and an outside view would help. There was also a recent warning message[93] from a crat at User:Lajolla2009's talk page related to his recent RfA comment but I am not familiar with the details there. Nsk92 (talk) 12:23, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

As for the last thing, the "warning" by Dweller (talk · contribs · rights · renames), it was mainly spawned by this user's comment at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/SchfiftyThree#Oppose, a simple "Not enough experience."-oppose without any reason why that is. I do not think that the crat or anyone involved knew about all what you mention above but I have left Dweller a note on his talk page so that he might elaborate here on what he meant by that "warning". SoWhy 13:25, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I was happy to AGF that the double voting (see this) and the strange oppose were all the result of haste. After all, I make mistakes all the time. I did ask the user to return to clarify the oppose, but he has so far chosen not to, which is his prerogative.

I was unaware of the issues raised above - to me, they seem entirely unrelated. --Dweller (talk) 13:55, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I see. You are quite correct that the RfA issue is unrelated and hopefully he will be more careful with his opposes and RFA comments in the future. The talk page removal episodes and assigning A/GA ratings to the article he created are more problematic issues since they are more persistent. Since he does not seem to react well to input from me, I hope that someone else can talk to him and explain that these kinds of actions are inappropriate. As I said, I don't want to keep reverting him (3RR is already close), not even to correct the obviously inappropriate GA-rating assignment for David K. Jordan. Nsk92 (talk) 15:00, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Block review requested

I blocked a user indefinitely for vandalism, but since I'm not in the habit of blocking people, I would like someone to check to see if I did it right. The user in question was Fipps revenge (talk · contribs). Thanks, Gatoclass (talk) 12:55, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Looks fine. Clearly a single purpose account with no intention of being constructive.--Crossmr (talk) 13:10, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

That's what I figured, thanks :) Gatoclass (talk) 13:13, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, me, I'm shocked. A "new" user who's obviously trying to make the encyclopedia better, and you just arbitrarily block him without even a warning? Clearly a terrible miscarriage of justice from yet another rouge admin, mad with power. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 13:24, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Looks like a good block to me. Good job! --Kralizec! (talk) 15:32, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Well done! Now you've got me wondering if I should have requested review on blocking Manoffeathers (talk · contribs) this morning. .. dave souza, talk 17:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Blocked User:Sz-iwbot

I've blocked Sz-iwbot (talk · contribs). It looks like it was doing useful work (adding/removing interwiki links), but I couldn't find any information about who runs it or whether it was approved.-Wafulz (talk) 13:34, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Seems fine. Stifle (talk) 14:18, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

The problem seems to be that he can't find the approval. If you know where that is perhaps you could link to it, otherwise it isn't really "fine" even though the work it may be doing is fine.--Crossmr (talk) 14:51, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

The owner has applied for global bot status on meta, but it has not yet been granted by stewards. – Sadalmelik ☎ 14:56, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Generally interwiki bots are left alone as long as they're not doing any harm. I can't navigate zh.wikipedia well enough to find an approval discussion, but it is flagged there. --Random832 (contribs) 17:40, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Userbox claiming inappropriate WP credentials?

Can anyone point me to any appropriate policy regarding a user claiming to belong to the Provisional Editorial Council - see User:903M. This stems from a rejected proposal to establish an Editorial Council and I guess this user decided to jump the gun. I know there is something somewhere about making inappropriate claims regarding WP credentials but I can't seem to find it easily. Just curious - thanks for any pointers. Ronnotel (talk) 14:55, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with groups of editors getting together to edit collaboratively (cf WikiProjects), and it's not a 'proper' userbox on his page, but it does sound a little odd and I agree it has the potential to confuse. Perhaps just a gentle application of trout would suffice? I've left a note on User:903M's talk page, and his adopter's (User:Sticky Parkin) talk page, letting them know about this thread. EyeSerene^talk 18:48, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Request review of userspace deletion regarding Sarah Palin

Pulsifer (talk · contribs) before protection at the Sarah Palin article was attemtping to add a large paragraph regarding her supposed involvement with the alaskin independance party. Pulsifer edit warred at the page regarding it and has been attempting in my opinion some pretty big POV pushing. After the article was protected a edit request was submitted and denied. This morning I found that Pulsifer had taken the rejected paragraph from the article and effectivley recreated the Sarah Palin article in their userspace with the intro and only the section on the Alaskin Independence Party. I deleted this userpage here. I would appreciate a review of this action in light of the recent sarah palin controversy. Thanks! Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 15:56, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Good deletion, as the editor specifically states their intent to start a "new page" on the subject, which is inappropriate. Since the main article is under BLP Special Enforcement Ruling, does that extend to forks such as this? Oh hell, would it also extend to Political positions of Sarah Palin? UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 16:23, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Please restore the deleted page. This material was a draft of a new wiki article. It was factual, fully sourced, written from a neutral point of view, and relevant to current events. The material deleted was created in my own user page, which is the approach suggested in the Wiki user guide for drafts of new articles. This material was not accepted for a bio page on the grounds that less than half of the participated editors stated that is was not sufficiently relevant for inclusion in a bio page, and therefore no consensus could be reached. That does not mean it would not be sufficiently relevant to another page, which is not a bio page. The author kindly requests that he be permitted to complete the draft article so that it can be considered for inclusion in wikipedia. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pulsifer (talk • contribs) 16:30, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Don't play dumb and/or try to wikilawyer around this. You know very well what you were creating. Your content was declined to be added multiple times at the original article where you make it clear your POV. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 16:32, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec)This is wikilawyering; if the material was rejected as non-notable in the main article, then it will be non-notable for a separate article. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:36, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Chris, I am not going to argue with you about my POV, because that is irrelevant. Many people have POV which they may not even be aware of. The issue is whether the content has a POV, and if and answer is yes, then how to correct that. What you are attempting to do is to call my character into question, which is not appropriate for a civil discussion.

I am calling your actions into question (if it happens to be a result of your character, so be it). You are POV pushing (and has been declined by several other editors). based on this discussion and previous discussions at the Sarah Palin talk page your content has been shown to be full of POV and the example that I deleted was a particular example of a synthesis comprising original research. Your POV is ireelevant, the POV you try to put in articles her eon wikipedia is. That is what I am calling into question. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 18:04, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Chris: you are incorrect again. There was no POV material in the page you deleted. In addition, regarding WP:SYNTH, all material in wikipedia is a compilation of facts from multiple sources. In order to be WP:SYNTH, the article must attempt to draw a conclusion. The draft article made no attempt however to draw a conclusion, it simply recited facts, and was therefore not WP:SYNTH. It is troubling that you are setting a moving bar, first claiming one reason for deleting the page, then another. It is even more troubling that you deleted a draft page of a new article created in a user's own space before it could even be written, preventing it from being reviewed for publication. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pulsifer (talk • contribs) 18:59, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

BTW, should I log this deletion at the BLP log? Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 16:36, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I think your deletion will receive consensus here and will stand. Better to avoid the heavy artillery of the BLP log in my opinion. EdJohnston (talk) 16:42, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

POV forks are bad. POV forks in userspace are even worse. Good deletion. It could be taken to WP:DRV by Pulsifer (talk · contribs), I suppose, but I'd urge him to put that energy to more constructive uses, like finding better sources or arguing his case at Talk:Sarah Palin. Avoid BLP Special Enforcement like the plague. MastCell ^Talk 16:47, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Chris, your actions here are fine. As MastCell says, avoid BLP Special Enforcement - using it is unwise. There was clear consensus at the talk page that this content was inappropriate for the biography and there is not a snowball's chance that a one-two news cycle admitted screwup by the source is going to get an article of its own. GRBerry 18:36, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, I will avoid BLP. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 18:58, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

GRBerry, the article was not complete. The question is not whether it would be suitable for an article of its own, but whether it might be suitable for inclusion anywhere in wikipedia. It was factual, well sourced had a neutral POV and addressed a relevant issue as shown by the amount of media coverage. There is therefore no basis on which it could not be included in wikipedia in some form. There was a disagreement about whether it should be included in the bio, based on whether the amount of material would give the subject undue weight, but there was no consensus. The lack of consensus on including it in the bio does not rule out the possibility of including it is a different article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pulsifer (talk • contribs) 19:06, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

User talking in legal?

Lantanabelle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been wanting content (and has removed content in the past) that has been sourced by an Government body (Australian Communications and Media Authority) on the Talk:104.1 Territory FM talk page but this comment sounds rather legal. I've posted this here for someone (an Admin) who may have more knowledge. Bidgee (talk) 16:46, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

It isn't a legal threat, so I'm thinking it's a copy-paste from somewhere. Cheers. lifebaka++ 17:07, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Catherineyronwode

Catherineyronwode (talk · contribs) who commonly edits as 64.142.90.33 (talk · contribs) made an accusation of libel and slander impinging on her employment,[94] then asserted that "The legal threat is real" after being reminded that making legal threats is blockable.[95] Far from withdrawing the threat or stopping editing, she began to escalate the dispute by preparing an ANI complaint,[96] and took the dispute to an unrelated article[97] with a talk page statement which resembles WP:Wikistalking.[98] I'll ask her to explicitly withdraw the threat and take it through dispute resolution, but Wikipedia:No legal threats states that "Users who make legal threats will typically be blocked from editing indefinitely while legal threats are outstanding." and I'd appreciate it if others could review whether these accounts should be blocked until the threat is withdrawn. . . dave souza, talk 16:56, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I would also agree that Ms Y should withdraw the threat of legal action. The other matters are not actionable. I can't see how, for example, preparing an ANI complaint is a red flag. Madman (talk) 17:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

These look like clear legal threats to me. Other users seem to have valid concerns about possibly copyvio. Saying that discussing those will lead to legal action is unacceptable. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:50, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the user should be blocked until this is dealt with. The diffs show that the editor has reviewed their threat, and have decided to escalate the dispute improperly. The IP should be blocked too. Verbal chat 17:55, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

NYScholar issues revisited

I hate to bring this one up, as it was decided fairly readily by the community on the last occasion after a great deal of debate, but it has come to my attention that the community sanction agreed to in the previous discussion against User:NYScholar in or around 12 July, which effectively required NYScholar to be mentored in order to avoid being blocked, has been railroaded and undermined by a recent failed RfA candidate, User:Ecoleetage. Ecoleetage volunteered to mentor NYScholar (see e.g. User talk:NYScholar/Archive_21#Good_beginnings.21) then proceeded to recruit the latter to support Ecoleetage on a number of AfDs (see e.g. User talk:NYScholar/Archive 22#Hey_there). Somewhere in the interim, Ecoleetage "released" NYScholar from the mentorship on 5 August. They then continued to tag-team together on XfDs, with some more evidence thereafter (for example, on 27 August). NYScholar then voted on Ecoleetage's RfA days later. As it was a community enforced mentorship in lieu of a community ban, it seems to me that this was an entirely inappropriate handling of the situation.

NYScholar has taken this in stride, noting at the RfA that "He mentored me for a short time earlier in the summer when I was (briefly) required to have a mentor." Yet the problems with NYScholar's editing persist - we have repeated examples of hyperediting on the user talk page, mostly of the nature of removing negative commentary. Also some unusual editing at Talk:Czesława_Kwoka and Wikipedia:Non-free content review#Image:Czeslawa-Kwoka.jpg.

It may well be that NYScholar no longer requires mentoring, but I think there is a principle here that the community needs to decide the fate of actions it sets rather than these informal sorts of agreements between two users without any kind of scrutiny (nothing, for instance, was posted here to note the end of the process). The canvassing of a mentoree for XfDs raises alarm bells with me, and raises deep concerns as to whether any mentoring did in fact take place, or what benefit could be derived from it. Orderinchaos 17:51, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I had noticed some hyperediting at WP:Non-free content review,[99] a page on my watch list, and a number of image pages, but due to the huge number of diffs the situation is utterly impenetrable, and daunting.Wikidemon (talk) 17:58, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. Orderinchaos 18:19, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Guido den Broeder and possible legal threats

Guido den Broeder (talk · contribs) seems to have made a new legal threat (or promise of action) on his talk page. I'm not sure whether this is a problem, but considering past problems with this editor maybe this should be reviewed. I brought it to the attention of the person who unblocked him and the person who blocked him previously. Verbal chat 17:53, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

This is just blatant disruption now. There will be no more NLT blocks, and I suggest a permanent ban for disruption. As the unblocking admin, I have reblocked Guido indefinitely, but I think, due to the complex issues involved, the proper length of this block should be decided here. My personal opinion is that it is not appropriate to keep suing editors, regardless of if the language prefix is nl or en. This is not contributing to the collaborative environment we want on the Wikimedia sites. Prodego ^talk 18:30, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

For more info on Guido, please consult the WP:COIN archives here:-/ SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:53, 5 September 2008 (UTC)