Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.

For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
If you are new, try the Wikipedia:Teahouse instead.
Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead use Wikipedia:Requests for oversight.
For administrative backlogs add {{Admin backlog}} to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent.
Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here.
Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
If opening a close appeal, use {{RfC closure review}}

When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough.

You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

Sections inactive for over seven days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search)

Start a new discussion

'Confirmed' usergroup will be grantable in the near future

FYI bugzilla:19611 gives us the ability to grant "confirmed" (jumpstarting autoconfirmed). We can grant it when discretion warrants it, and remove it after autoconfirmed is granted. Further discussion should be held at WT:PERM#'Confirmed' usergroup will be grantable in the near future. –xeno^talk 19:26, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: we can grant the right but it doesn't seem to be effective yet. –xeno^talk 03:21, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to Special:ListGroupRights, the usergroup only gives you the ability to upload files and patrol new pages, not the right to edit semiprotected pages or move pages. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 03:22, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, 'twas noted in the bugzilla. I'm sure it'll be fixed shortly. =] –xeno^talk 03:25, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is there really a point? Isn't there a very low barrier to getting autoconfirmed? —harej (talk) (cool!) 03:37, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's currently no way around the 4-day waiting period; the idea is to allow a way around it for people who genuinely need fully confirmed rights or who ought to have them. — Gavia immer (talk) 03:39, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why can't they wait four days, once? It seems like a solution in search of a problem. — Carl (CBM · talk) 04:04, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TOR users wait 90 days. --King ♣ Talk 13:09, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One use is for some kind of Wikipedia Academy coming up in a few weeks... [1] See Wikipedia:VPR#add edit-semi as a feature to "Uploader"? and the previously discussion for more reasons. –xeno^talk 14:30, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm more intrigued about removing the right; I can see that obviating the need for full protection on certain articles for repeat edit warriors. -- Avi (talk) 04:06, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Usually if it is just one person they are blocked instead of the page being protected? Removing the right is likely to be equally contentious with blocking. I'm bowing out now, since I don't really have anything in this discussion, but I still don't see the motivation to this. — Carl (CBM · talk) 04:11, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but I see this as a measure less extreme than blocking, in that they can still edit unprotected pages. Also, if it were used in this situation, it would perforce be temporary. I'm just thinking out loud as to the possibilities here, not calling for a purge :) -- Avi (talk) 04:14, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The new right doesn't give us the ability to revoke autoconfirmed, once they're past the post they're in the clear. –xeno^talk 14:30, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh well, 'twas just a thought. -- Avi (talk) 14:40, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the clear? Last I recall, unless I am mistaken, I had my autoconfirmed status accidentally revoked by a faulty Abuse Filter made by NawlinWiki, although I never really noticed, because I rarely create articles or upload images... Until It Sleeps ^{Wake me} 04:43, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, AF can do this but not admins. –xeno^talk 17:24, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Topic) ban of Interestedinfairness

Interestedinfairness (talk · contribs) is an Albanian user which has strong views about Kosovo. Which is fine in itself, except that he tries to push his views by all means available, violating WP:BATTLE, WP:ARBMAC, and a number of other policies such as WP:NPOV. I'm really surprised how he wasn't indefinitely (topic) banned so far. A few pieces of evidence follow; it's not difficult to find more just browsing through *all* his contribs:

AN search: [2]
Previous discussion on topic ban [3] ended prematurely because he was ostensibly indef-blocked. However, the block was soon lifted and he returned to his old ways.
1-month topic-banned from Kosovo by Mangojuice on June 6. [4]
Yesterday, at Slavic peoples, Talk:Slavic_peoples#Neutrality_tag consensus on the talk page is reached that his neutrality tag, based on just the "wrong" map, is unjustified. He reinstates it [5].
Yesterday, on Kosovo, he inserts cn's just after the references: [6], with a snide edit summary
A nice example of WP:TE on Serbia: [7]. (Yesterday)
There's Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Interestedinfairness, but it didn't prove alternate accounts other than IPs, and he apparently wasn't Mr.Neutral (talk · contribs).

I propose a complete ban, or topic ban from Kosovo, Serbia and Albania-related articles. Since all his contributions are in this area, the difference between the two is purely nominal. (I probably won't be around in the next couple of days, so I can't submit additional evidence, but I think that contribs speak volumes) No such user (talk) 07:55, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another ridiculous attempt to silence me by a user who cannot use the talk pages to rebuttal. As soon as I start challenging the status-quo of articles which do not conform to the NPOV policy I have a case opened against me. But just like the past case here and the sock puppet investigation launched here, there is only a vendetta against me, no real evidence. I am not even going to bother to respond to your "examples" of my "unlawful" behavior. The edits speak for them selves. (Interestedinfairness (talk) 08:12, 15 July 2009 (UTC)).[reply]

I feel I had to break a lance in favor of Int here:

I don't find a WP:TE on Serbia: [8] by Int. If it is stated that the Greeks colonized the southern area IV BC Romans north area II AD so natural question is what did they colonized?Were there any people etc Everyone accepts the fact that Illyrians laid in Serb territory at that time and their history on that area, what kind of WP:TE is here?! Romans and Greeks are mentioned, but the Illyrians the people who really lived and inhabited the areas should not be mentioned?! And if they are mentioned this is tendentious?!Why?It is the opposite standing that could look tendentious. Everyone mentioned except Illyrians, the people who inhabited the area?! SO no WP:TE here.
As for the cn tags I agree that it is wrong to put them behind ref, but I must stress the fact that Int didn't remove anything from the text, he was pointing to the POV standing of the author(maybe in wrong way with his cn tags) and when he discussed in the talk page here [9] none tried to discuss according to WP:NPOV WP:RS WP:R etc wiki rules, the result was a personal attack and a topic ban proposal.
For the previous accusations of sock and etc there has been much said before, Int wasn't guilty I don't know why it was brought up here again. Aigest (talk) 08:41, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IIF's persistent pushing of "Kosovo is a country" on Slavic peoples is disruptive and, in my view, tendentious. It illustrates a problem faced by any article whose scope includes the Balkans or any map covering that region: until the statehood of Kosovo is determined either at some binding international level or by en.wiki policy such articles can't do right for doing wrong. IIF accuses Slavic people of non-neutrality because it contains a map - intended to give readers a general geographical awareness of the distribution of Slavs at a resolution level limited to countries - which does not show Kosovo as separate from Serbia. IIF is on a hiding to nothing trying to force such articles to change their depiction of Kosovo, because the Serbians will then be justified in jumping in and demanding a reversion. IIF has ignored the substantive arguments made on the article's talk page and continued to push his own POV. Whatever sanction is applied must take into account not only articles related directly to Kosovo, but also the evidence of IIF's willingness to take his unproductive WP:BATTLEs and WP:SOAPboxes to any other article with a tenuous link. -- Timberframe (talk) 09:40, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please take this to dispute resolution. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 09:51, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit-warring: [10] [11] [12] [13], edit-warring and POINTy behavior [14] [15], examples of tendentious editing [16] [17] [18], edit-warring on Illyrians (72 hour block) [19] [20] [21] [22], assumptions of bad faith [23] (opening a bogus sockpuppet investigation), [24] [25] (anyone who disagrees with him is "colluding"), [26] ("an administrator acting in a cavalier way) [27] ("I'm 100% more neutrak), incivility: [28]. He has also cluttered Talk:Illyrians and Talk:Kosovo with countless inane clueless rants for the past two months now, the examples are too many to list. This is an nationalist POV advocacy SPA of the kind we don't need on this encyclopedia. I'm amazed he has gotten away with as much as he's had already. I've seen users get topic banned per ARBMAC for a lot less. I also recommend relocating this section to WP:AE, where it is more appropriate. --Athenean (talk) 17:03, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is no longer a simple dispute. The dispute was a couple of weeks ago. He couldn't accept that Wikipedia consensus was against his POV, and he went ahead with his POV pushing, on the Kosovo article, on many other articles related to Kosovo or Albanians. Let me explain it this way: let's say we all agree that the Alps are a mountain range, but one user simply doesn't and then keeps repeating it. This is pretty much what's happening here. Kosovo is a region, some see it as a province, some as a country, but Interestedinfairness wants it to be a country, even attempting to prove it's not a region or territory. ?!!. I don't even have the energy to repeat all the other Wikipedia rules he has broken, it's all on the Kosovo talk page, or on his talk page... Athenean's examples are proof enough, but there are MANY more examples of Interestedinfairness' disruptive behavior, if you have the energy to look through his edits which are highly disruptive and this is making other constructive editors tired of arguing with this POV-pushing user over and over again. He had his chance, he had many chances, he blew them all. Enough. Simply enough. --Cinéma C 18:07, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a previously uninvolved editor, who is even 'on his side' (in as much as I support the independence of Kosovo), yet I still seem to be on the reciving end of this user. Two examples in the last couple of days seem indicative of the general manner in which IIF approaches these topics:

He placed a {{neutrality}} tag on Slavic peoples - we eventually worked out that the sole reason was that one of the maps didn't show Kosovo as a disputed region. The map was so small you couldn't make it out, but cue a large section of soapboxing, disrupting to make a point and some wikilawyering for good measure. Even after being asked to get down from the Reichstag, he still continued trying to make some kind of point, and followed up with a snide comment on my talk page.

In addition, a similar incident at Talk:Kosovo#Neuatrality_tags showed all the same hallmarks - disruption, attempts at wikilawyering etc. To conclude, taking into account his other contribs, IIF does not appear to be able to make wholly constructive edits, and his patter of editing is indeed tendentious. I would concur with a topic ban. ninety:one 23:14, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So your opinion is more relevant and correct than mine. This seems to be the general line of argumentation followed in this discussion. Heed the administrators advice and take your requests to dispute resolution. dispute resolution. Interestedinfairness (talk) 03:00, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is not about a dispute, but rather a topic ban. ninety:one 21:34, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a consensus to ban or topic ban Interestedinfairness on Wikipedia. I ask the administrators to take action now. --Cinéma C 22:12, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I stepped over to the Kosovo article a long time ago, after one of the many calls for more uninvolved editors to help build consensus. IiF engages in some of the most obnoxious and obstructionist forms of the 'Civil POV Push', esp. the 'if consensus goes against me today, I can restart the discussion in two to three days and surely prevail' tactic, wherein multiple similar ideas are presented serially in the hopes that eventually he'll bully, bulldoze, or bore people into letting something get by. Wasn't there an ArbCom bit about this topic, already? ThuranX (talk) 22:25, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Attempting to remove me from Wikipedia because I point out some utterly ridiculous things on Kosovo-related articles is malicious and vindictive to say the least. I think dispute resolution is where you like-minded peeps want to be, Interestedinfairness (talk) 09:19, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uninvolved admins needed for slashdotted article

The Rorschach test article, or more specifically the debate on its talk page was recently mentioned in a slashdot article. We have had a sudden in flux of new users who have immediately begun to take sides. There are at least three administrators already involved in the debate, but they are all wearing editor hats due to their involvement in the debate. It would be good to have some eyes there that are not involved help deal with this influx of people unfamiliar with Wikipedia. Chillum 15:34, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The debate is getting mentions on some other social media sites as well, so this will likely be an issue for a while. Please do watch things if you can. — Gavia immer (talk) 15:53, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gee, who would have thought that a handful of people arguing for the removal of the some information would cause an influx of people looking at the information. Someone should give a name to this effect. Chillum 16:22, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note that there is also a proposal (consensus, with which I agree, is that the proposal is an attempt to end-run around the consensus on the article talk page) located here to elevate removal of Rorschach images to policy. → ROUX ₪ 17:09, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cheeky, Chillum... –xeno^talk 17:37, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Things have started to degenerate into "you are <insert insult> because you are trying to hide these images", and "you are <insert insult here> because you are trying to show these images". And we were doing so well. Chillum 01:25, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a brief semi-protection and a notice at the top of the talkpage explaining why might be in order. It would presumably at least temporarily prevent the exchange of attacks from continuing. rdfox 76 (talk) 01:52, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Huh. I just see a very spirited debate between editors of two clearly opposed viewpoints. Maybe I need to see a doctor. Steveozone (talk) 03:58, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And much more civil than I would have expected, given the contentious nature of the issue. Incidentally User talk:Danglingdiagnosis/Involuntary health consequences is a related battleground for this debate. Reso lute 03:11, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Andy Murray

Hello, Admins! I just want you all to go and look to see if the fansite link on Andy Murray's external links is approprate. Further, go and look at the talk page to see the debate! I am looking for Admin attention because they are trying to make a unique exception for this tennis player, which I don't think I have ever saw a fansite in external links before on any article not just tennis players. So, just go look at this and determine if this meets wikipedia's criteria! A similar fansite http://www.goroger.net/ is not include on Roger Federer's page for good reason because it is a fansite, but it has authority and credibility like http://www.murraysworld.com/ is asserting to get there's included here. They say go ahead and put that on Federer's page, but it is ill-appropriate on wikipedia. TW-RF (talk) 19:53, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Fansites, by their nature, tend to be HEAVILY biased, and are rarely reliable sources. --King ♣ Talk 21:54, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This one looks a bit different. The fansite owner was responsible for heavy pushing to include his link. AGF he thinks it's useful, and has made reference to his site being quoted by BBC, Sky, and some newspapers. There was confusion between external links and sources, but the link is now only used as an external link. Finally, there seems to be some (AbadF) 'odd' editing by some new editors. So perhaps someone could have a closer look? 87.113.86.207 (talk) 23:32, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am really not a new user, I have another account that has been around for a couple of year, but I am not going to disclose that because I am no longer using that account! I love how that IP Address is from England any coincidence? I would love to know if it is an IPSOCK of User:Mark7144.TW-RF (talk) 00:46, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for calling you a new user. It wasn't meant to be an insult. To answer your question - I am not a sock of any logged in editor. I am not Mark7144. There are many English editors. I thought I'd given a concise, neutral, account of problems on the talk page. Please, how would you describe the problems? (keep it short, and try to keep it neutral.) 87.113.86.207 (talk) 02:04, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was doing this to alert people of an exception they were making for the inclusion of a fansite on wikipedia, and pointing you to the discussion so some admins could weight into the converstation on the appropriateness of this link. I just believe their should be no exceptions to this kind of link Twitter links are banned form wikipedia.TW-RF (talk) 02:25, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Research Survey on the RfA Process

As part of an ongoing research project by students and faculty at the Carnegie Mellon University School of Computer Science we are conducting a survey of anyone who has participated in the Request for Adminship (RfA) process, either voting or as a candidate. As Admins I'm sure all present have experience with the process =)

The survey will only take a few minutes of your time, and will aid furthering our understanding of online communities, and may assist in the development of tools to assist voters in making RfA evaluations. We are NOT attempting to spam anyone with this survey and are doing our best to be considerate and not instrusive in the Wikipedia community. The results of this survey are for academic research, are not used for any profit nor sold to any companies.

Take the survey

Thank you!

If you have any questions or concerns, feel free comment on our talk page. CMUResearch (talk) 07:19, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not only do you have to sign up to participate, which gets a big meh from me, but judging by the above you seem to be using a group account, which is against our policy. Exploding Boy (talk) 07:46, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A look at their user page confirms this is a group account, and also a promotional one, so these users have now been blocked. Exploding Boy (talk) 07:51, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE - The survey by default did ask for an email address, it is only looking for any kind of label to put on the data for your survey, you may enter any characters or description you would like. The question has been updated to reflect this. CMUResearcher (talk) 14:57, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, the account was actually for one person that was part of a team, but also interested in being involved in the Wikipedia community and contributing to articles. I've created an account that reflects my individual nature =) CMUResearcher (talk) 14:57, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Editors Promoting Somali Towns

I've been having some trouble with editors who are putting things up to promote Somali towns (Bu'aale, Merca) and relevant militant factions, and then putting them back up when I try to remove the advertising material. On his talk page, Rd232/Disembrangler suggested that if the problem happen again I post something over here.

A particular editor copied back in the offending material to the Bu'aale article, but without the inline flags, and then deleted my discussion page item on it. It is getting kind of old having to change things back with folks who wont go to discussion pages except to clear them out. What is to be done in a case like this? --Nogburt (talk) 08:26, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I try to watch over the Somali-related articles because the country is related to my area of focus (Ethiopia), but for the most part that topic area is a swamp needing a lot of work to bring up to standards. (Surf thru the articles in Category: Somali clans sometime, & see if you don't agree with me they share the worst features of the articles related to Micronations & High schools.) Unfortunately, that amount of clean-up would require the full-time attention of at least one person, & I have my hands full as it is. I can offer some pointers, but unless you want to take on this challenge, maybe the best solution would be to leave this subject area as clearly a mess in order to warn readers that the material is more unreliable than usual for Wikipedia. -- llywrch (talk) 18:18, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I prowl over the ones I've edited before every now and then as it is. I don't know exactly what "full time" is but I put an awful lot of effort into it already. But I am nowhere near an expert on anything Somalia; and only got into the mess in the first place because I casually stumbled on the offending articles. I'll try and work on it a bit more. Pointers would be very useful. --Nogburt (talk) 04:36, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and is there any way I can quickly search for the term "smart" in a set of articles? The phrase "smartest people in..." is very common in these problem articles. --Nogburt (talk) 04:40, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I could use some help with the Bardera article. I feel like I'm going postal on the thing. Hopefully I'm not overdoing it but the article is a massive mess of POV and style issues. --Nogburt (talk) 05:06, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Permissible username?

It is almost impossible to post a note to User talk:㍐. Mozilla Firefox does not recognise the code in the URL. Is this username even permitted? -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 11:18, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Firefox 3.5 seems OK with it - what version are you using? (I'm seeing both the userpage and the talkpage as redlinks, but the relevant part of the URL looks OK).

Google Chrome 2.0.172.33 has difficulty with it - the relevant part of the URL appears as a square box. Ditto for Internet Explorer 8.

Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 11:33, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably a matter of fonts installed on each system – here on mine, I see it as a blank in some environments, but as a square showing the Unicode number (the "Last resort" fonts, I assume) in others. It's U+3350, "SQUARE YUAN", a legitimate Chinese character from the "CJK compatibility" Unicode block, as far as i can tell. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:38, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's a problem, however: I can't post to the user's talk page; the character is apparently caught in the title blacklist. Can an admin please contact him? Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:41, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The exact problem I have. I can view the page that says "This page has no text etc etc", but I cannot edit it, it just stalls. This is on Firefox 3.5. I've tried both WP:TW and WP:FRIENDLY, as well as clicking on "talk". There's no problem in the font; I can see the symbol (a block of three katakana), I just cannot edit the page. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 11:51, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Off-topic, and purely out of curiosity - all the browsers I checked with were on the same PC, although I use Firefox 3.5 far more than the other two. When you say "environments", do you mean different-browsers-same-machine, or different-machines? Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 11:41, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, different font environments even in the same browser. There are two separate problems here: the invisibility of the character in certain fonts, and the blacklisting which makes posting impossible; both are probably quite unrelated. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:43, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well can't someone whitelist the page to isolate the other problem, (and establish firmly whether the two are related)? 199.4.27.122 (talk) 12:10, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A single character name seems problematic, and maybe UfA might be interested. But in principle weird fonts is your problem, not that editor's, and the Username might e perfectly good. (The editors real name, for example), and thus username policy would tend to allow weird fonts. OBVIOUSLY being foreign doesn't remove need for complaince with rest of policies. Also, something about unified log-in is going to mae this problem much more common goes here. 87.113.86.207 (talk) 16:13, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't this the English version of Wikipedia? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:20, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comment usernames (or whatever the board is called) has had much discussion about this. as far as I can tell 'consensus' was that usernames can e in any characterset, but must meet traditional guidelines (email addresses are unwise, don't impersonate anyone else, no racial slurs etc etc) but that it'd be lovely if the editor also had some kind of "ENGLISH" sig. I use scare quots for consensus ecause some editors were reluctant for the new policy, feeling forced into it by unified login. A n ew RfC addressing usernames, and sigs, and consequences of poor choices for either, would probably be useful at some point to clear up some evolved weirdness in various overlapping policies. 87.113.86.207 (talk) 17:42, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unified login. If a person has a Chinese (for example) language login in Chinese, they would have the same login in the English Wikipedia. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 21:02, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the consensus is now that we can't block usernames just for being an a non-latin script, since it would amount to overriding the foundation policy that permits unified logins. For the record, editing that userpage works for me. — Gavia immer (talk) 21:28, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Drawn Some seems to be wikistalking User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )

Don't know when I first noticed, feels like a few weeks on a slow burn, but it seems to be ramping up and certainly seems to be the very definition of wikistalking. Drawn Some (talk · contribs) noms numerous items, articles, redirects, etc. that Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk · contribs) created or works on for deletion and then, when they aren't deleted, works at removing content that just survived the XfD. I don't care why they feel this behaviour is acceptable - it clearly isn't. Could some non-involved folks take a look and see if this is alarming? Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) has stated in numerous XfDs that this sure feels like being wikistalked. Personally I would take that as a strong hint to back off. -- Banjeboi 07:34, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I just noticed this too - on checking today's RfD log every current nomination is one of RAN's redirects nominated by Drawn Some. Most of them are at least vaguely reasonable rationales, but it's still rather worrying and does suggest an element of wikistalking. ~ mazca ^talk 07:52, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I feel rather involved as being pretty active with the Article Rescue Squad which Drawn Some seems to not approve, I think Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) also does ARS work but I only pay so much attention unless something seems troubling, like this situation. Clearing out unneeded items is fine, within reason - they are just redirects so really I'm not sure I agree with the urgency to removed them. Coupled with an ongoing pattern and Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) statements they feel wikistalked I would say there's no winners here. IMHO Drawn Some should simply disengage and walk away. -- Banjeboi 08:01, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - It does seem odd to start something like Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#Richard_Arthur_Norton_.281958-_.29 and to then mass nominate redirects of that user for deletion. Why complain about an editor and then when the complaint doesn't build momentum start targetting the articles or redirects he has worked on? You would think if Drawn Some really was concerned about Richard, Drawn Some would avoid him, not of the millions of articles and redirects we have make it a point to go after those created by Richard. After all, you will not see me start nominating articles an editor I am in conflict with created for deletion as doing so would be needless escalation if not counter to the purpose of the complaint. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 17:45, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - To be fair, I was the one that told him to go to WP:WQA, as he seemed to feel the stalking claims were unjustified and I figured that would involve a third party. --Smashville^talk 14:00, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've unarchived this as it seems to be continuing. I find this wikihounding behaviour quite distasteful, is someone neutral willing to look into this and encourage Drawn Some to disengage? Or any other ideas? -- Banjeboi 12:17, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- All I see from the past few days is that DrawnSome is nominating a lot of articles and redirects created by Richard Arthur Norton for deletion. I could find no other related behaviour. Since many of the AfD's and RfD's are agreed upon by different unrelated users, it seems that he is often correct in nominating those. This means that what he is currently doing is not wikihounding, but proper use of someone's contribution list: if you believe that someone is making a lot of articles or redirects which don't belong here, it is acceptable to go through those and list them at the appropriate fora. If your opinion is often supported by consensus, there is no problem with continuing this behaviour. That the person who created these articles and redirects does not like this and describes it as wikihounding is irrelevant. One should not ignore problems to spare the feelings of another editor. Fram (talk) 14:25, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think our civility policies would disagree with that assessment, from the WQA this seemed to get at the issue:

“

* Some of RAN's comments were indeed inappropriate. I've advised him to make helpful comments about other editors on their talk pages instead of at AfD.

* Although all of Drawn Some's deletion nominations are mindful of policy and justifiable, they appear to be targeted towards RAN's contributions. Labeling RAN a "serial creator of inappropriate disambiguation pages" and planning to spend weeks auditing his work sounds an awful lot like wikihounding to me.

”

— --Explodicle (T/C) 19:26, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

- - Then Explodicle asks for evidence of Drawn Some's accusations against RAN which don't yet appear to be presented. -- Banjeboi 16:12, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree wholeheartly with Fram's analysis above. Surely Drawn Some could be a little more diplomatic in some of comments to/about RAN, but none the less, given RAN's history of creating articles which ultimately get killed at AfD or RfD, examining the articles he's created seems like a good way to root out non-notable articles and questionable redirects. It'd be one thing if DS was XfDing articles which had no chance of being deleted, but in this case the consensus of mostly uninvolved editors is that DS is correct in nominating them for deletion. So let's all A-a little-GF and stop second-guessing his motives. Yilloslime ^T_C 19:34, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Somewhere there's a lovely line about AGF is not a suicide pact. I think there is more to it than just Drawn Some's concern for removing non-notable content - all apparently from the hands of RAN. These XfD's seem split and mostly in the gray areas, IMHO, with deletion likely not needed in any of them. I feel my part was to seek wider input and I have done so. If the community feels this is acceptable then I guess we will all live with where this leads. -- Banjeboi 02:12, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Benjiboi, you stated at the 16th that the problem was ongoing, I then checked his contribs from the two days between the initial post here and the "ongoing" post, and could not find a real problem in them. You claim that the WQA disagrees with me by quoting posts from the 8th of July... So I ask you again, what is the ongoing problem, which edits from between the 14th and today do you have problems with? You claim now that on his XfD's, "deletion [is] likely not needed in any of them". But looking at them, I see 1,2,3,4,5 all are headed for deletion at the moment. OF the redirects he nominated, the one here may be in a grey area so far, and of the 7 he nominated here, 2 are in the gray area, the other 5 are headed straight for deletion as well. Fram (talk) 07:44, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Not to belabour this further the issue isn't that between two set dates X and Y occurred but that an overall pattern seems evident. More below. -- Banjeboi 18:27, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Drawn some asked me to take a look at an article List_of_New_Jersey_military_officers_in_the_American_Revolution because I had commented on some AFDs for genealogical bio articles. I tagged that article for notability, without nominating it for deletion, and noted that it seemed to violate not a directory, since lists of soldiers are usually far more select. I now note that RAN was the creator of the article listing a few Revolutionary War officers from New Jersey. I was not aware of any history between Drawn Some and Richard Arthur Norton when I questioned the appropriateness of the article, but a miscellaneous list of individuals of only genealogical interest does not become encyclopedic just because someone is targeting unencyclopedic articles created by an individual. If a lot of articles created by some editor get deleted in AFD, that is a signal that they should comply with guidelines when deciding what articles to create and stop creating inappropriate articles. If a lot of the AFD nominations by an editor are resulting in "Keep" then that editor is nomininating inappropriately. An individual article or AFD nomination should be judged on its merits regardless of who created the article or did the nomination. Edison (talk) 15:39, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care which users are involved or even if RAN earned some extra scrutiny by being uncivil. I would be troubled by anyone accusing someone of maliciously creating articles then digging through their contribution and finding only borderline cases bringing those to XfD in what appears to be harassment. From what I can see these are borderline cases, the redirects were placed to do exactly what redirects do, same with the disambiguation pages. The notability of some of these bios certainly is not well spelled out. There is little evidence that RAN is maliciously causing problems deserving of Drawn Some's campaign - which seems to stem from a fallout they've had in X-Y country Bilateral relationship articles - and Drawn Some's efforts to XfD RAN's work has resulted in just as many keeps and merges as deletes. My point remains is that this seems textbook wikihounding and should be discouraged. Wikipedia is not a battleground and Drawn Some certainly seems to be engaged in rather pointy XfD'ing against RAN. I would feel the same about any two users or even if RAN was doing this to Drawn Some. -- Banjeboi 18:27, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All looks fine to me - if the AFDs were bad and being rejected out of hand, we'd have a problem but examining another user's list and then noming many of the articles they have created (because they are unsuitable) seems a perfectly acceptable way to make use of that information. --Cameron Scott (talk) 18:37, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If that's how the community now feels then sobeit. -- Banjeboi 19:55, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) I dunno. If I were Drawn Some, to demonstrate good faith I'd put this XfD effort on hold for a while. All of these comments suggest RAN is not unreasonable in his concern at this, & maybe a brief respite would lead him to realize that Drawn Some isn't doing this out of malice. (As this blogger points out, there's no urgency over forcing any result over Wikipedia content.) -- llywrch (talk) 19:58, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

that seems a pointless cause of action - why put off for tomorrow, what you can do today. --Cameron Scott (talk) 21:16, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's a great idea! Wikipedia is such a big place, there is no real need or reason to have to nominate or go after articles created or worked on by an particular editor, especially when concerns arise and as if anything is seriously worth nominating someone else will notice anyway. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 04:46, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:CMUResearch

This is a self-admitted role account that has been indefinately blocked. The sole purpose of the user page seems to be to solicite contributions to an external website (a surevy which apparently asks for personal details). This would seem to be against user page content policy. Having said that I doubt it's particularly nefarious and maybe it would be a good idea for someone to get in touch with them? 199.4.27.122 (talk) 14:38, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. GARDEN says no to drama 14:40, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. There is now a new related account User:CMUResearcher, its for an individual rather than a group so no problem there but the purpose still seems to be to gain participants for their survey. Personally I think this kind of research could potentailly be interesting but this probably isn't the best way for them to go about it. 199.4.27.122 (talk) 15:00, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, since it's a survey about the WP:RFA process, there probably isn't any other way to go about it. I would let it go, as long as it's not being used inappropriately in other ways.--Aervanath (talk) 16:36, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the vote of confidence Aervanath! I am indeed trying to do my best to be non-intrusive, I've talked with the Wikipedia Research Network and used their suggestions, but as of now there is no truely "legitimate" way to conduct a survey in Wikipedia. -CMUResearcher (talk) 21:37, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So who, exactly, is conducting this study? I see no names whatsoever, whether grad student, doctoral candidate, principal investigator, or faculty advisor. And the outside website used for gathering data -- I would have thought Carnegie-Mellon, of all places, might have the ability to pull together a functional webpage -- gives me enormous pause. A simple note to OTRS or the Foundation was too difficult? --Calton | Talk 17:28, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Calton, I've updated my userpage with a list of all the names of the people on our research team, I hope that is satisfactory! As to creating a survey and card sort from scratch when the software to do that is freely available, we'd like to spend time building software and developing solutions to issues, not reinventing ways of collecting data. -CMUResearcher (talk) 21:37, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of people have no idea what wikipedia is about. That's why bite exists. but Editors seem to be much to busy to slap a few links to role account pages showing what the policies are, preferring insta-blocks instead. 87.113.86.207 (talk) 19:31, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback requested on Requested Move closure

I closed a move request at Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war#Requested_move.2C_part_2, which is being challenged (see User_talk:Aervanath#South_Ossetia_War_name). I would request that other uninvolved admins please evaluate the talk page discussion, and the arguments made on my talk page, and then contribute at the discussion on my talk page. If consensus there is that I have erred, I will reverse it. Thanks in advance for your input.--Aervanath (talk) 16:28, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In light of the recent discussions...

...about community standards — and I'm thinking in particular of Wikipedia:Civility/Poll — is there something we can be doing to minimize the occurrence and/or impact of threads like this one? I know what my take is, but I'm curious what others think. There's also a related RFC here. -GTBacchus^(talk) 16:35, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why does this belong on AN? Protonk (talk) 16:41, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Because I'm directing the question generally to the admin corps, since we're the ones called upon to "enforce" behavior policies. This is a question about how that kind of enforcement works, but it's not necessarily a call for action, because it's a situation that seems to have largely passed. What's a better forum for that? -GTBacchus^(talk) 16:45, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't followed the civility "poll", is there an actual outcome? If I had the time and energy, what I would do is this: Imagine we are all encyclopedia editors sitting around a conference table in an office building somewhere. If the discussion between a couple people got too heated over some controversial point, the other people at the table might ask one or both of them to step outside until they calm down, so that the rest of the people could continue their business. Have a cup of coffee, or a walk around the block, or play some foosball in the break room, whatever. Then come back and rejoin the conversation with a cool head. Applying this analogy, I would start liberally handing out 3 hour blocks to editors who can't treat each other with decency and respect, even when they disagree. And I would keep it up for as long as it took to get the message across. But, I fear such an approach would be much too controversial. Better to let people treat each other like dirt, it seems. Thatcher 16:57, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(non-admin comment) Foosball? I'm not sure I'd like to work somewhere where the type of behaviour shown by the editor in question would be anything other than a disciplinary matter. --FormerIP (talk) 17:35, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An actual outcome? There's a lot of material generated, and by scanning the topics and the volume of responses, you can get some ideas. It could probably use a lot more input, too. -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:11, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We come from very diverse backgrounds where standards of respect and professionalism can (perhaps unfortunately) vary significantly. (This would less likely to be an issue where people are usually interviewed or have some sort of check before they sit at the conference table - this doesn't happen here). Before a fair number of people are ready to ask them to leave (for even a short time), sometimes they'd rather the person be shown ways to address the underlying problem, and that they be warned adequately. Just as blocks are used to prevent harm, even short blocks can have harmful effects on the individuals who can otherwise help make this encyclopedia what it is. Perhaps more thought and consideration to these factors would take care of the controversial elements. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:22, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes and no. Many people would benefit from calm advice on how to edit collaboratively. However, anyone capable of putting two fingers on a keyboard and editing should know that "fuck off wanker" is not an appropriate way to address a colleague. Want one warning? OK, one warning. Then blocks until they get the message. However, I don't want to be dragged out back and shot myself, so I'll leave this one alone. Got better things to do. Thatcher 17:26, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I posted here. I'd like to hear from those who would drag you out and shoot you. Why would they do that? Is there a way we can get a bit more on the same page? Are the admins who would take a stand for civility cowed by some other faction? What's up with that? -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:32, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise, I don't understand it myself. — Ched : ? 17:36, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree; there's no doubt about it in such a scenario. But controversy can come from a number of situations. For example, a lot of people advocate (or are under the impression) that the sole purpose of this encyclopedia is to "make a free high quality encyclopedia" (aka content contributions - some believe that such contributions are the only quality contributions that are made to wiki). Some such individuals also believe that the part about "in a camraderie of mutual respect among contributors" is not applicable (particularly to those who generate a lot of content contributions). Another example is where people do not care for civility if they don't treat words directed to them or said about them seriously (because we are merely online) - they are ready to be frank and dish it out because they expect others to be like them. Perceived or actual injustices can obviously also contribute to the problem. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:01, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am cowed. [29] If the blocking admin had been anyone other than Jimbo, the admin would be sharing a cement block with Jimmy Hoffa in the foundation of Giant's Stadium, or wherever he is supposed to be. Maybe one day I'll paint that big ol' target on my shirt, but not today. Thatcher 17:43, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If it gets to the point where there seems to be support for a community ban of this user, I'll push the button. I won't call him names while doing it, either. I don't see WebHamster and Bishonen to be similar at all, so I'm not sure about the relevance of that situation. -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:53, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All editors are equal, but some editors are more equal than others is not an ideal that I would be willing to uphold. If I can't block one editor for calling another editor a "little shit", I don't feel comfortable blocking another editor for telling someone to "go fuck yourself". And at least now, I;m not talking about banning, I'm talking about a series of targeted brief blocks when an editor forgets that this is a collaboration built on mutual respect. It might eventually lead to banning if the blocks don't work, of course. Thatcher 18:02, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(multi-ec) I agree that the situation needs to be addressed. I attempted to "suggest" that the level of tone be dialed down on WebHamsters talk page, but it appears that this is not getting better. I certainly do not believe that telling another editor to "go fuck yourself" is acceptable; and I simply can not buy the idea that "fuck off troll" is "Britspeak [...for] "Go away, there's a good chap..." (ref). I think this needs to be looked at, and some sort of resolution developed. — Ched : ? 17:12, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm more inclined to believe that "Go away, there's a good chap..." is Britspeak for "fuck off Troll". I wouldn't address anyone at Wikipedia with either. "There's a good chap"? Get you shot around here... -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:15, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Not judging the situation as a whole, but I'm going to have to assume that the statement was made with tongue firmly in cheek – clearly telling anyone to "fuck off" would be considered extremely rude over here. Unless between close friends, its certainly not "Britspeak" for anything other than "fuck off". – Toon 17:23, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "Go away there's a good chap" is almost as insulting as "go fuck yourself". ALSO there seems to be a reluctance to do anything about unacceptable behaviour from established experienced editors. I have sympathy for that point of view, but I strongly support the various essays about not giving experienced eds a get out of jail free card. 87.113.86.207 (talk) 17:54, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What you fellows are ignoring is the incivility of posting harassing messages on an editor's talk page. Someone who keeps prank calling you (posting baiting, prodding and poking messages that don't have anything to do with article building) should fuck off. It's time the civility police stop dissecting every little word to make sure it's pleasant enough and start considering how editors actually behave towards one another. It's about respect. And the editor told to fuck off has continued to post baiting and unnecessary comments on an editor's talk page where it's quite clear they're not welcome. If the comments were critically important communciation related to encyclopedia building that would be one thing, but they're not. They're trolling. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:01, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If telling trolls to "fuck off" works, then do it. However, if it blows up in your face, or if you ever hit a false positive, then stop. Right? -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:31, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CoM, do you really think I'm playing the "civility police" and "dissecting every word"? Huh? Considering your extremely generous readings of other editors' posts, you don't seem to have any of that to spare for someone who dares to say, "why don't we respect each other?" Don't just be a critic; help us. Answer the question with which I opened the thread.

Also, think on this one: how many wrongs does it take to make a right? Will we get there by making excuses, or by setting a high standard, and then holding ourselves to it? Your post here seems to me like excuses. You criticize the addressing of one side without the other. I say, let's address both. Is that a bad idea? Let's stop the trolling, and educate ourselves on how to deal with trolling without compromising our dignity. -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:39, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quite. Until the civility police start looking at the whole picture, not just the use of one word like "fuck", and begin to adopt a more even-handed approach to whatever it is they perceive to be the problem, then nothing's about to change. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:07, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to hear more about this, so that I can apply a more even-handed approach. That's why I started this thread the way I did. See that?

Help teach us how to do this better, but don't make it a case of making excuses for immaturity because "the other guy started it". Using that kind of language is immature, no matter where you're from, and "he started it" is no better an excuse now than it is in nursery school. Are you willing to step up, Mal, and address the side of the issue that you're indicating in a truly professional manner? If so, I'm with you, all the way. Let's not ignore one side of the problem.

I'm not here to be the civility police; I'm here to make this project run better. If that can be accomplished by telling to fuck off, then I will tell them to fuck off, loudly and repeatedly. I've never seen a situation where that actually helped, but I'm open to learning. Are you willing to teach, Mal? If not... don't complain. -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:31, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You may be surprised to find that I somewhat agree with you. My point is that jumping down the throat of one editor driven by the behaviour of another to the point of saying "fuck off" reinforces the equally uncivil behaviour of the other. Nothing good can come of that approach. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:47, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS. I'll complain whenever and wherever I choose, about whatever I disagree with, and in particular here about the hypocrisy surrounding the application of the absurd civility policy. It is not my job to teach, it is yours to learn. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:51, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Help" is a word for doing useful things, even when they're not your job. I'm not telling you your job; I'm asking you for help. As you are doubtless aware, you may refuse. As for my "job", I get paid for doing that. It's not Wikipedia. -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:56, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not too surprised; you seem to be a reasonable person. I certainly don't think of you as "bad" or "wrong". Perhaps that surprises you!

Do you feel I've jumped down anyone's throat? I think I opened this thread pretty damn neutrally, and my feelings about WH stem from many incidents besides this one. One "fuck off" is nothing. An entrenched "fuck off" attitude is something completely different. I'd like to address both behaviors, because jumping down the throat of the other guy reinforces WebHamsters immature, intemperate, unprofessional reaction. Nothing good can come of that approach, either. Both extremes suck. People sholdn't troll WebHamster. WebHamster should react less like bratty teenager who just learned to curse.

Now, lest we give the other guy a free pass, talk to me about the provocation. -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:56, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was speaking generally. I don't consider that you've jumped down anyone's throat, no, but I can see a few of the usual suspects preparing their run-up. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:03, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In light of all of this, I think this is an oportune time to direct people to WP:NODRAMA, an initiative that started on this page... --Jayron32.talk.say no to drama 18:23, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm actually trying to look at the whole picture, which is why I didn't post this thread as "let's block WebHamster". However, I've seen that he's had issues in the past, and when I think of chronically uncivil Wikipedians, I think of him. Anyone who is unable to maintain civility in the face of some baiting is not prepared to work here. There are people who work in very toxic settings, and never tell anyone to "fuck off", nor say "go away, there's a good chap". There are people who actually employ diplomacy, and do it well. If someone can show me that some other approach is better, then sign me up. -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:32, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) I can agree that the behavior was not the best on several sides; but, I think it's rather hypocritical to suggest that just because one person acts improperly, that it's acceptable for another person to follow suit. If you feel that WebHamster was "baited", then it's open to any editor to offer advice or warnings. Respect has to start somewhere, and sometimes it's best to start with the most offensive items first. I don't think anyone is complaining about a little "bluntness" here. I think that many folks feel that it has reached the stage of an outright violation of WP:NPA. — Ched : ? 18:27, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You and several others have mischaracterised some of the points being made here as in some way "excusing" behaviour some may find unacceptable, or as a childish "he started it" kind of argument, but nothing could be further from the truth. GTBacchus's point above where he writes "Anyone who is unable to maintain civility in the face of some baiting is not prepared to work here" is a very good example of what's going wrong here. It's too difficult to tackle the problem at source, so let's give the trolls a get-out-of-jail-free card and go after their targets. In what world does that seem like a rational approach? --Malleus Fatuorum 18:58, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is this where the misunderstanding is: If I say "people should react better to trolling", it doesn't mean I condone trolling. Analogy: there are fires around, and we're firemen. Most of us use water, but a few seem to be using gasoline instead. If I ask that person to stop using gasoline, does that put me on the fire's side? My only point about incivility is that it's stupid because it makes situations worse. I don't care if you're civil; be smart.

I am 100% ready to go after the source, but it would help if people would stop pouring gas on the fires. It's triage: we have to stop them first.

Also, if someone baits, and someone else rises to it, both are at fault. If you say I'm going after Peter and ignoring Paul, I say you're going after Paul and ignoring Peter. Why do either? -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:08, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite. I'm not "going after" anyone, either Peter or Paul, and I don't see that CoM is either. What I do see though is a mob forming both here and at the associated RfC for Peter to be sacrificed on the holy altar of civility while Paul looks on in glee. Adults ought to be allowed to sort their own relationships out themselves, without being put on the naughty step. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:14, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm not here to put anyone on the "naughty step" (that's a new one). I'm here to learn how we can minimize the incidence and fallout of situations such as this. That's why that was the question I asked. I agree that you're not going after Peter or Paul.

There's sorting out relationships, and there's contributing to a toxic atmosphere. Adults can do the former without doing the latter, if they're clever. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:17, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where's the personal attack? He didn't call him short or stupid. He made it absolutely 100% clear that he wasn't interested in further discussion on his talk page. Since the banter had little or nothing to do with article content building or collaboration, I don't see what the big deal is and It hink he was well within his rights to make his views known. We're here to build an encyclopedia, not to discuss how best to pleasant when some joker keeps popping up on an editor's talk page looking for trouble and trying to pick a fight. In real life if someone does that, they get punched in the face. Lesson learned. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:03, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where's the personal attack? Whoever said anything about a personal attack? In real life, people who make it a habit of punching others in the face get arrested. Even in a case where someone should fuck off, telling them "fuck off" makes things worse.

I don't give a fuck about people not being "pleasant". What in shit has "pleasant" got to do with anything? Don't put those shit-for-brains words in my mouth. I think people can be as goddamned vulgar as they want to be, as long as they're not pigfuckingly stupid about it. Let it not be said that I'm shooting for "pleasant" or "nice". I care about effective, and this "strategy" of WebHamsters - it's fucking ineffective. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:08, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ched said something about personal attacks: "I don't think anyone is complaining about a little "bluntness" here. I think that many folks feel that it has reached the stage of an outright violation of WP:NPA."

Thank you for communicating in a language I can understand. I think we agree. Editors shouldn't tell each other to fuck off. And editors who go around looking for trouble should fuck off. I think this is resolved. Thanks everyone. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:18, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GTB I also agree with you, of course, so does everyone: It's obviously not okay to tell another editor to fuck off. It's also not okay to keep poking an editor with posts on their talk page and to keep bugging them when it's 100% totally clear that such banter is unwelcome. The appropriate Admin response would have been to ask the frustrated editor to please refrain from telling other editors to fuck off and to ask the other editor posting incessantly where they're not welcome to fuck off (buzz off? please move on? get a life?). That's it. After that it should be dropped and the unhappy editor's talk page left alone. There's no need to keep posting there and to keep discussing it ad nauseum. Move the fuck on. If we don't want editors to use foul language, then we need to actually show them some respect and restraint instead of continuing to poke them and acting surprised when they yell. The focus should always be on article content and collaboration. None of this has anything to do with article building, so it's disruptive. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:03, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CoM, no. That's just the problem. It's not true that "everyone" agrees that it's not okay to tell another editor to fuck off. People are arguing that it is ok. Again, I don't give a shit about foul language here. I give a shit about collaboration (which WebHamster is on record as saying he's not here to participate in), and about how stupid, stupid behavior like his fucks up the atmosphere for collaboration. So does the stupid, stupid behavior of the person who was provoking him. Both parties acted like little bitty morons. That's a shame, because I'd bet good money they're not morons at all, when you get right down to it. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:11, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I challenge you to find anywhere that anyone has said it's "okay" to tell other editors to fuck off. What I believe has been said is that if an editor continues to post where they're not welcome they're likely to be told to fuck off. It's a subtle, but important difference. Rest assured that it's not okay to tell anyone to fuck off, but that such a reaction is to be expected when more subtle clues, like go away and please stop posting here are missed. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:21, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

arbitrary break

(multi-ec) OK, first, I'm not "excusing" anyone for "trolling". Yes, I think that is improper as well. In response to "Where's the personal attack?" ... Well, if someone can't see that telling anyone, anywhere, to "Go fuck yourself" is a personal attack - well, I'm just not equipped to answer that. It seems obvious to me. You're "real life" analogy might have one other consequence as well, the person who punched someone, in many parts of the world, could be looking at legal ramifications for assault. As I said, I don't think it's right "troll" or "bait" - but I think anyone who's got the tenure that WebHamster does, would be better served by pointing the editor to WP:TROLL and WP:DENY. — Ched : ? 19:18, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that you have to bear in mind that this incident had its roots in an article's content dispute, something that most administrators seem to have little experience of. Articles, that is. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:26, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is this another excuse? It doesn't matter whether the dispute revolves around content or policy or something else. Editors should treat each other with the same level of mutual respect as if they worked in the same office building and had to share a copier, conference room, toilet, etc. Baiting should not be tolerated but baiting does not excuse reciprocal bad behavior. (I wonder what really would happen if I decided to try and enforce the simple rule that people treat each other with respect. Best not to think about it.) Thatcher 19:42, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything particularly objectionable, so I'm not offering excuses for what doesn't really need to be excused. Sure, I agree that "fuck" off is probably a sub-optimal way to end a discussion with a troll, but if it works ... If you're looking to enforce "rules", then I'd suggest that you take WP:NPA a little more to heart and ignore WP:CIV. That way you might feel able to tackle the trolls as well as their victims. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:51, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

← In the interest of fairness, I've tried to approach this in a manner that might address the concerns about "baiting and trolling" by posting a message: here. — Ched : ? 19:47, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, the pursed lips. The soul-searching. The hand-wringing, the sanctimonious twaddle, the moron-calling. And all because? A needled B. B told A to fuck off. The upshot: B gave A what he was very clearly asking for.

For heaven's sake. It. Just. Doesn't. Matter. And really, the "atmosphere for collaboration" can survive the odd person acting like a jerk and another calling him on it without sysops getting their knickers in a twist and going all UN Security Council Emergency Meeting. There's no threat to the project here. Mountains and molehills come to mind. And pot-stirring. And storms in teacups. This should have been left to blow over at the pathetic RfC/U. Writegeist (talk) 20:03, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's the tragedy of the commons. Everyone thinks their one little bit of poison being released into the environment is by itself no big deal, but pretty soon you get a toxic atmosphere. If the community can somehow be tipped over into a different mindset, that converting the vitriol into constructive energy is better for everyone than venting it, the atmosphere will start to clear. alanyst ^/talk/ 20:15, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Collapse of off topic fork - Ched

So long as Giano and Malleus Fatuorum get to continue to make personal attacks on whomever whenever they want to, with no consequences, there's no point in even addressing civility. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 21:06, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where did Malleus attack anyone? — Ched : ? 21:09, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ha! Where didn't he? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 21:11, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Has the irony of you using this discussion to personally attack me entirely escaped you? --Malleus Fatuorum 21:18, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You've been blocked four times for incivility, and not nearly enough considering the number of times you let the vitriol fly. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 21:22, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you're not going to contribute to the discussion in a helpful way, please walk away. People here, including Malleus, seem to be working, against long odds, to do some productive brainstorming/thinking. It may not work, but so far they might even be partially succeeding, and you are not helping. Indeed, based on your own words, you appear to be trying to derail it. Please don't do that. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:28, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Giano just got blocked. Doesn't look like he was "working ... to do some productive brainstorming". And what productivity is Malleus providing? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 21:34, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you really regard your contributions here as helpful, or constructive? Or is it simply your intention to provoke me into a response that will justify you calling for me to be blocked? --Malleus Fatuorum 21:38, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, let me tell you what I think, which is that you, "gentleman", haven't been blocked nearly often enough for your repeated personal attacks against me and others. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:33, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I collapsed several posts because they were not on the topic currently being discussed. If there is something specific to warrant a discussion of another editor or another topic, please start a new thread (perhaps at AN/I). Thank you. — Ched : ? 22:10, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that the rules are not quite as often stated. Established editors, as well as being on a much shorter leash than trolls, are supposed to sit quietly by while being repeatedly insulted. No wonder some occasionally snap with a "fuck off". --Malleus Fatuorum 22:37, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In a more perfect world admins would actually help resolve editing and content disputes. Imagine how much more would be accomplished if these arbiters of justice actually engaged in content building and article improvement instead of waiting around until an aggrevied party tells a troll to fuck off and then issuing a righteous block. The daft buggers also seem unable to grasp how uncivil it is to block someone with little or no effort to resolve the issues involved in a collegial way. The parochialism reminds me of the parent who smacks around their kids to teach them not to hit. Do as they say not as they do. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:41, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the general thrust of what I think you're saying, which is that more administrators ought to be working at the trenches, and sorting out problems as they see them arise, instead of sitting here waiting to pounce on every report of a naughty word being used. Naturally though I can't endorse your description of "daft buggers". One of the blocks that "gentleman" so gleefully referred to above was for my suggestion that an unnamed editor was a "sycophantic wannabee", so clearly I have to walk on eggshells around trigger-happy administrators. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:49, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's some serious distortion of the situation with WebHamster. His incivility is not confined to his Talk page. After a a Third Opinion was solicited (by moi), he commented on my "stupid comments" and "inane questions" and lack of "a clue." [30]. We were editing an article together, and the comments on his Talk page came from the need to work together. The idea that I shouldn't be posting on his Talk page neglects the fact that he is reverting edits on an article. The idea that he has been provoked by trolling is undocumented and laughable, unless you consider requests for civility to be trolling. The only comment I made that I consider provocative was about his "Nero complex". This was after, oh, six or seven instances being insulted and told to fuck off. I find it incredibly bizarre that his repeated abuse is supposed to be partly excused by "trolling," but my frustration isn't excused by being called stupid, inane, etc. over and over--while having my edit reverted.

WebHamster's incivility isn't a case of a reasonable person just losing his temper, or trolling. WebHamster has flatly stated that he has no commitment to civility: "So you have the choice of no expectation of civility or fucking off and doing what you came here for, ie editing an encyclopaedia." [31] He has flatly stated that telling people to fuck off isn't a personal attack. He has flatly stated he is not going to respect Wikipedia's civility policy. As far as I can tell, admins don't care.

I have proposed that the civility policy be modified to reflect the rule that is actually practiced, namely, that you can call editors idiots and tell them to fuck off, and there is no consequence. [32] Noloop (talk) 00:45, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another point. I find myself feeling (maybe wrongly) entitled to edit-war, because of the lack of enforcement of the civility rules. Nobody deserves to be insulted. If trying to talk to WebHamster results in abuse, you are entitled to not talk to WebHamster. But, you are also entitled to edit articles when he disagrees with you.... Noloop (talk) 00:55, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just take a moment to think about your position Noloop. Many here have said that "he started it" isn't a valid excuse for bad behaviour, and it isn't. Yet here are you, apparently the Defender of the Wiki, arguing that you may now be entitled to edit-war, because nobody has yet blocked an editor you have fallen out of love with. I see that you can type, but I have serious doubts that you can read, or fully understand what all of those little black squiggles actually mean. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:51, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

re: to Noloop statement. Only one provocative statement you say? That is an interesting, if not unique, counting I would think. I also believe your take that "admins don't care" to be in error - and feel that this thread alone is a testament to that, and have left a closing comment on your talk page as well. As to your entitlement to edit war, I believe that would be an error in judgment also. Best to all — Ched : ? 12:46, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At the risk of derailing the thread into being about me--you suggested I trolled, and gave no examples. So I speculate. I made one comment I intended flippantly. I didn't say I am entitled to edit war, I described the feeling this situation creates. Meanwhile, Malleus is now suggesting I can't read....incivility in a discussion on the importance of civility. Isn't that special? It's clear that civility isn't valued around here. Please continue the topic specific to me on my Talk page--I think this thread should be more general. Noloop (talk) 15:19, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As you specifically request this, I will attempt to volunteer even more of my time to provide you with the diffs. you are requesting. The issues of civility have indeed been discussed a great deal lately, GTB indeed started the entire thread with a link to the Poll in question. While that poll has not been closed at this point, and no clearly defined "consensus" has been stated by any person who will be closing the poll, I believe that it is apparent that there are a wide range of views on this topic. Personally, I try to adhere to the WP:CIV guideline to the best of my abilities, and I would hope that others would do the same. Like Thatcher, I am not eager to be taken out back and shot either; however, when I see something that I believe to be a violation of WP:NPA policy - I intend to warn first, and block second. My efforts will be geared at minimizing disruption in regards to those "adminy" actions. Getting back to the direct topic of this thread: I believe that there is enough support here that "fuck off troll", and "go fuck yourself" are unacceptable personal attacks. Two wrongs do not make a right, but there is also evidence here that suggests that "baiting", "trolling", "harassment", and "badgering" need to be addressed as well. At least that is my understanding at the moment. Hopefully all those who have shown an interest in this thread, will not attempt to say WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. As I also have a life outside of WP, it may take a day or two to provide the specific "examples" that you are requesting; but I will attempt to do so when time permits. — Ched : ? 16:39, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How would you propose that I should be dealt with Noloop? A week's block for upsetting you perhaps? --Malleus Fatuorum 18:23, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One point that should be mentioned here is that far too many people seem to think that the banhammer solves all behavior problems, either big or small. Is someone being abusive? Toss a 24-block at them. Someone said "fuck you"? Block them for a week. All of that is just another facet of the problem behind the rule about templating the regulars -- there are always more reasons to do someting than simple malice. What I believe should be done instead is to first ask that person why they are acting that way, especially if they're an established editor who has otherwise demonstrated good judgment. Take, for example, that other infamous incident: had someone intervened by talking to the (admittedly) incivil party, & explained things, maybe an apology would have been forthcoming & the individuals involved would have worked things out & moved past the incident. Instead, without warning the incivil party was struck by the banhammer, & has now effectively left Wikipedia, while the other party not only feels that their problem has not been resolved but has been treated unfairly for acting in good faith. Yes, approaching problems in this way is far more time-consuming, but it's something all of us -- including me -- can start implementing without waiting for some group of Wikipedians to formulate their own solution, & continue to do so even if we do. -- llywrch (talk) 20:28, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A point well made Llywrch; I hope others are listening. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:43, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To steal an epigram from usenet, Llywrch wins the thread. Exactly spot on. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:45, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. In the Bishonen example, the issue is that he called another editor a "little shit". That needed to be dealt with. No context justifies it, and if he wasn't happy with serving time for it, then too bad. --FormerIP (talk) 22:57, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration motion regarding Golan Heights

Per a motion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case:

The arbitration committee advises that one or more neutral admins
chair a new and structured Request for Comment on the disputed naming
guidelines on the Golan Heights within a two month time-frame.

It is recommend that those interested use Wikipedia:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration as a staging post.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Tiptoety ^talk 17:17, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this

Racism and other serious accusations at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam/Paid_editing#Compromised_.22round-up.22

Cinagua (talk · contribs) is accusing Wikipedia of racism, personal vendettas, and abuses. They even cited an article [33] on it... These are serious accusations and are creating a bad image for Wikipedia. Anyone who is familiar with the paid editing issue knows that this is clearly not the case. Triplestop x3 18:20, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then why does it happen? I can't help noticing how the above user too enforces the problem by imagining themselves Wikipedia. I did not accuse Wikipedia, Wikipedia is me too. I accused the lack of real interest in addressing the issue of paid editing, the job is left in the hands of people who imagine themselves Wikipedia, resulting in incompetence, power abuses, personal vendettas, free speech suppression and suspicions of vested interests. Cinagua (talk) 18:58, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cinagua (talk · contribs) apparently belongs to a site called Wiki Experts now the site writes Wiki articles for money.The account of Wiki Experts in Wikipedia was blocked as a company account then the account of Spokerperson of Wiki Experts in Wikipedia and Cinagua (talk · contribs) is upset about both and think the company and user plan to continue Paid editing in Wikipedia.|Here is the list done by user Ha! Sorry to disagree with you Cinagua vested interests lie with the paid editors and not with the unpaid voluntary editors they have only if all there strong opinions both for or against it. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:06, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another example of compromised behavior. What reasons do you have to say that I belong to Wiki Experts? This kind of approach characterized the whole round-up, with users self-assured that any product of their imagination may be presented as the truth and nobody would moot them. The vested interest lie with the round-upists because they decide whom they should target and who should get the money from the jobs posted in the online marketplaces. Cinagua (talk) 06:40, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, why are we treating something from a website called Independent Media Center as fact or useful?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:00, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see the website is quite cited on English Wikipedia, a search reveals 869 links. I was inspired by what was written in the article and I processed the info by myself. In that initial post I brought some serious facts that need discussion. I have hoped a discussion about the lack of interest in dealing with the paid editing and about the monsters that it produced, rather than this initiative of Triplestop, to put racism in front (it is just one of the issues), hoping to avoid such a discussion. Cinagua (talk) 07:30, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let me clarify, why is the self-published (which I take as being the reason behind the word "publish" as the server) part of such a website being used as fact or useful? There are only 16 links to publish.indymedia.org, most of which are mirrors of this page. And what here is necessary for administrators to be aware of other than your apparent assumptions of bad faith on various other editors?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:59, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But the article appears also as [34], without the "publish" part, it's the same as any other Indymedia article. When navigating through that website it is likely to get the articles' links with "publish" in front, for example when searching keywords. Anyway, I'd rather see a focus on the problems, than wondering if the initial source is reliable or not. There are some compelling facts there affecting people, including me, "one of the few chosen". Cinagua (talk) 14:14, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Need an article moved

I initially moved Neuberger,Roy S.(Salant) to Roy Neuberger (author). Someone has gone ahead and renamed it back to the original name, which seems inappropriate under WP:COMMONNAME. Can someone come and undo the move? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 18:36, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done, but this should be listed at WP:RM in future. Stifle (talk) 18:44, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, sorry about that. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 18:44, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Potential threats

62.50.223.253 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) I just reverted an edit by this IP ([35]), after he did the same at User talk:Baseball Bugs ([36]). Could an admin please deal with this accordingly? Thanks, Dylan 620 (contribs, logs) 21:31, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dealt with accordingly. TNXMan 21:46, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[Some trolling redacted]81.130.89.224 (talk) 22:09, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as well. TNXMan 22:26, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NODRAMA

Hey all, just a quick reminder to check out Wikipedia:The Great Wikipedia Dramaout. Cheers! –Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:50, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh the irony? BJ^Talk 06:09, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can some deal with this?

I think this deletion has run it's course, it's sorta just running off into random Runescape users talking about the "riots" and only God knows what else, thanks a bunch mates. Rgoodermote 05:43, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good call. Closed as delete. Tan | 39 05:45, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:(

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

Resolved

– No action required, if the parenthesis requests unblocking, the category will alert admins to this fact. –xeno^talk 11:40, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This account needs to be unblocked. Pzrmd (talk) 10:40, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 10:59, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This user has made thousands of edits, has been editing since 2002, and then no administrators found a problem with his username. See Gurch's talkpage as well. Why would I have to explain this? Pzrmd (talk) 11:01, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And hasn't edited since 2004. A less generously minded editor would wonder what precisely is going on here. Crafty (talk) 11:03, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I knew someone would bring this up. That is irrelevant, and the block is still very inappropriate. Pzrmd (talk)

I'll do it for you, then, Craftyminion: what precisely is going on here? Why are you trying to get an account blocked for three years unblocked? Why is the fact that the account hasn't contributed in five years redundant? What policy is this block contravening? What is this pattern that is forming here with regards to you and unblocks? Have you divulged to a CheckUser or ArbCom what your previous account was? Your behaviour is increasingly suspicious. → ROUX ₪ 11:08, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Explain how this is suspicious. This was a very quiet (afaik) user that is way older than me or anyone here. Pzrmd (talk) 11:10, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The questions I asked should make it perfectly clear why this is suspicious. How about you answer them? → ROUX ₪ 11:11, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're dying to know my old account =). Pzrmd (talk) 11:12, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is an odd one. The user hasn't edited since 2004, has been blocked in 2006, and now this. Still, I fail to see what's wrong with the username itself, considering we have users naming themselves "B" or "E", "(" certainly isn't any worse. So what might be the harm in unblocking? --Conti|✉ 11:13, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Roux: you're a charming fellow, but I can ask my own questions, you just edited conflicteddeded me damn your eyes! ;) I dunno what Przmd is doing but no doubt it's drama-mongering and frankly I should have been smarter than to take his bait. I'm sure an admin will sort this out. I flash the whole thing a big fat whatever. Crafty (talk) 11:14, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Crafy: I am less generously minded, is all ;) I think it's obvious that you (Pzrmd) are avoiding the questions. Please answer them. → ROUX ₪ 11:15, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)Yes, single-letter accounts, at CHU a request for the username "~" with no objections other than a GFDL problem, and Chinese and Arabic characters are allowed. Pzrmd (talk) 11:16, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Closing discussion - this isn't going to end in an unblock, the user isn't going to just come back. If he does he can go create a new account. GARDEN says no to drama 11:17, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, absolutely premature and supressing what I think; it's not your place to decide to close this. If an admin blocks User:WojPob, are we to do nothing? Pzrmd (talk) 11:20, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You know, it would help if you would provide an actual reason why you've come here with this request now. --Conti|✉ 11:24, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's quite unfair considering he made thousands of edits and suddenly some new admin comes and blocks him, don't you? Pzrmd (talk) 11:25, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Three years ago. After not editing for two years prior to that. What is the real reason you're doing this? → ROUX ₪ 11:28, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let's block User:Mintguy. Pzrmd (talk) 11:29, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For what reason? The user in question was blocked due to a username vio, apparently. What exactly has Mintguy done? Why, exactly, are you doing this? → ROUX ₪ 11:31, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was being sarcastic. Pzrmd (talk) 11:32, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So answer the questions: why are you actually doing this, why does the block status of someone who hadn't touched the site in two years before their block matter, what is this pattern with you and unblocks, have you disclosed your prior account to ArbCom or a CU? → ROUX ₪ 11:35, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I already answered these questions, and I think I'm going to tell Kingturtle (my self-appointed mentor) my old account because this is becoming to difficult. Pzrmd (talk) 11:36, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

haha you're taking this so seriously. Pzrmd (talk) 11:39, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You actually have not answered the questions. → ROUX ₪ 11:40, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Xeno) If Freakofnurture blocked User:Mintguy indefinitely let's not do anything. Pzrmd (talk) 11:41, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No one is going to unblock a user who has feasibly not been to Wikipedia since February 2004. Unless you're doing this as some sort of retroactive ad hominem attack against Gurch, you better have a better reason other than the ones you've been giving as to why this user, who has probably moved onto another username by now, should be unblocked.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 11:46, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ryulong, you are by far the most block-happy (former) admin I've ever met. What would you do if Kingturtle blocked User:WojPob indefinitely? not bother to do anything? Pzrmd (talk) 11:48, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you making useless and poor analogies?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 11:52, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Explain how they are useless and poor. Pzrmd (talk) 11:53, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're picking random users that no one cares about and saying that administrators should block them and then asking whether or not we should care about it. Yes, User:( got blocked. No one gives a shit except you. Move on.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 11:55, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that they're random is irrelevant. What would you do? Pzrmd (talk) 11:57, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

possible copyright violation

Some parts of John Edmondson (musician) seems to be copied nearly verbatim from http://www.kendormusic.com/composer/edmondson.htm --24.218.164.106 (talk) 14:43, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removed the offending material. It wasn't sourced either - not great when one sentence read "He came out as publicly gay at that time." GARDEN says no to drama 14:52, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Huge amount of vandalism

Please take a look at this, this and this. Sounds like there are some religious people who don't want to hear anything against their beliefs. The facts which I put on that article are from one of the most reliable books of Muslims (Nahj al-Balagha)) which can not be denied specially by Muslims! If someone has to delete the facts which have came from that book then the whole article must be deleted. I am sure if I add those contents again, there are LOTS of muslims who rush into the article and delete them immediately. Since this encyclopedia is a NON-BIASED source and IT SHOULD CONTAIN ALL RELAIBLE MATERIAL whether positive or negative to someone, I demand that admins protect that page from vandalism and punish the vandals.--Breathing Dead (talk) 02:40, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This looks like a content dispute to me, at least at first glance. Perhaps you might find helpful to first discuss these edits on the talk page? -- Deville (Talk) 02:56, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no dispute. Those sentences are from Nahj al-Balagha. These people systematically delete whatever they fear shows the true face of Islam. This is only sheer vandalism!--Breathing Dead (talk) 03:00, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you're in a position to "demand" anything. None of us are, we're all in this together. If you are involved in an edit war, it's best to discuss the subject civilly on the article's talk page. I'm not convinced you are interpreting the source correctly either. Please try and assume good faith about your fellow editors, and do not assume they are trying to censor the page. [mad pierrot][t c] 03:03, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) See WP:Vandalism. Even if the edits are wholly mistaken and unsupported by reliable sources (not saying they are or aren't), if they're made in good faith, they're not taken as vandalism on en.Wikipedia. For more about the notion of good faith on this website, please see WP:AGF. Gwen Gale (talk) 03:04, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As an involved editor (see 1st diff), I feel I should explain why I reverted the edit. It looked like an unsourced (or poorly sourced with unreliable sources) edit. I reverted using the judgment of previous users and per the edit summary of 3rd diff (in other words, WP:RS & WP:OR). Griffinofwales (talk) 03:09, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure that those sentences are poorly sources or came rom unreliable sources? Please read the article carefully. Nearly all the contents of that article came from the same source which is Nahj al-Balagha! How come didn't you delete the rest?--Breathing Dead (talk) 03:18, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As a side note, I'm not Muslim. Griffinofwales (talk) 03:12, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I put the contents here. You judge whether deleting them is vandalism or not!

His views on women are stated in Nahj al-Balagha, which is the most famous book about Ali and is regarded as the second Qoran by lots of Muslims. The followings are some examples which can be found in Nahj al-Balagha:

Woman is a scorpion whose grip (having sex with) is sweet.Nahj al-Balagha - Saying 61

Jealousy in woman is unpardonable but in man it is a sign of his faith in religion.Nahj al-Balagha - Saying 123

O' ye peoples! Women are deficient in Faith, deficient in shares and deficient in intelligence. As regards the deficiency in their Faith, it is their abstention from prayers and fasting during their menstrual period. As regards deficiency in their intelligence it is because the evidence of two women is equal to that of one man. As for the deficiency of their shares that is because of their share in inheritance being half of men. So beware of the evils of women. Be on your guard even from those of them who are (reportedly) good. Do not obey them even in good things so that they may not attract you to evils.Nahj al-Balagha - Sermon 79

Daily prayers are the best medium through which one can Seek the nearness to Allah. Hajj is Jihad (Holy War) for every weak person. For everything that you own there is Zakat, and Zakat of your body is fasting. The Jihad of a woman is to afford pleasant company to her husband.Nahj al-Balagha - Saying 135

Your society will pass through a period when cunning and crafty intriguers will be favoured by status, when profligates will be considered as well-bred, well-behaved and elegant elites of the society, when just and honest persons will be considered as weaklings, when charity will be considered as a loss to wealth and property, when support and help to each other will be considered as favour and benevolence and when prayers and worship to Allah will be taken up for the sake of show to gain popularity and higher status, at such times regimes will be run under the advice of women and the youngsters will be the rulers and counselors of the State.Nahj al-Balagha - Saying 102

Beasts are concerned with their bellies. Carnivores are concerned with assaulting others. Women are concerned with the adornments of this ignoble life and the creation of mischief herein. (On the other hand) believers are humble, believers are admonishers and believers are afraid (of Allah).Nahj al-Balagha - Sermon 152

Do not seek the advice of women, their verdicts are often immature and incorrect and their determinations are not firm. You must guard and defend them and act as a shelter to protect them from impious and injurious surroundings and infamous sights, this kind of shelter will keep them well-protected from every harm. Their contact with a vicious and sinful atmosphere (even with all the shelter that you can provide) is going to prove more harmful than being left with protection. Do not let them interfere with affairs where you cannot personally guide or protect them. Do not let them aspire for things which are beyond their capacities. They are more like decoration to humanity and are not made to rule and govern humanity. Exhibit reasonable interest in things which they desire and give importance to them, but do not let them influence your opinions and do not let them impel you to go against your sane views.Nahj al-Balagha - Letter 31

If anyone who doesn't like a context, simply deletes it, there will be no article left in wikipedia! Now tell me are the above senteces unsourced or whatever? It is obvious that muslims don't like them and will delete them immediately. It is Admins' job to protect Wikipedia from those incidents. Aint it?--Breathing Dead (talk) 03:13, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is pretty textbook OR and cherry picking quotes to present a POV. Making the unsupported assertion that "Ali's views on women were quite abusive and humiliating. He has described all women with very disgraceful words on several occasions and mostly he has defined the role of women as only sex tools who are created to please men." based on a selective reading of a primary source and then presenting those cherry-picked quotes as summarizing "his views on women". And it was suggested to Breathing Dead to bring this up in talk instead of continuing to revert. Suggestion rejected as nonsense. nableezy - 03:20, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed that conclusion and left only the sentences from Nahj al-Balagha, then you insisted to delete the reliable material! If you believe everything in Nahj al-Balagha and Qoran are true, then why don't you let people put some of the phrases in the article?--Breathing Dead (talk) 03:28, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First, to try and summarize Ali's views on women you need a reliable secondary, preferably scholarly, source doing so. You can't just pick out some quotes and say that summarizes his views on women. Second, who said I believe everything in the Nahj al-Balagha is true? And why are inquiring as to my beliefs anyway? You are right though, I am a Muslim, but I also am a pothead and I am too high to care about this right now. Bye, nableezy - 03:34, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please read this.... "His views on women are stated in Nahj al-Balagha, which is the most famous book about Ali and is regarded as the second Qoran by lots of Muslims. The followings are some examples which can be found in Nahj al-Balagha". you see I didn't summerize anything. If you believe his views on women were different why don't you put your own facts on the article. You are not allowed to simply delete your opposite views.--Breathing Dead (talk) 03:41, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've warned BD. Gwen Gale (talk) 03:21, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He's read the warning. Gwen Gale (talk) 03:23, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any need to add all those (selective or not) to the article in the first place. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a collection of quotes. ≈ Chamal ^talk 03:24, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To prove something in an encyclopedia you need some reliable sources and those quotes are the most reliable sources available to the world to judge the views of Ali on women.--Breathing Dead (talk) 03:34, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia isn't meant to prove anything. As for raw quotes, see Wikipedia:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_directory. Moreover, WP is not an outlet for your own take on published quotations. Gwen Gale (talk) 03:47, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Sound like a good idea. The quotes probably shouldn't go in the main article anyway, and too much cut and paste, maybe a link at the bottom instead. But these are my final comments, I became involved through anti-vandalism work and this no longer involves vandalism, so my work here is done. Griffinofwales (talk) 03:26, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

according to the Wikipedia article, no Sunni scholar, and even some Shi'a ones, do not attribute the book to Ali. The authenticity of these views is therefore a matter of dispute among Muslims. If they are included, they must be given in context, it is possible that these particular sayings are regarded by all Muslims as authentic, but there would need to be some information about that. We can't put for the views of one of the sects as The Truth--not in Wikipedia. This disagreement has been going on for many centuries & we will not settle it here. DGG (talk) 03:32, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Muslim can put their own views on that article too but they are not allowed to delete the facts. Are they?Breathing Dead (talk) 03:34, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Muslims are not allowed to put their own views in an article, nobody is allowed that on this website. Editors can only cite reliable sources and write text which steadfastly follows those sources. Anything else can be removed in good faith. Gwen Gale (talk) 03:38, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't actually mean their own views. What I say that they can also put their facts in the article. The facts I put there, are from a very very reliable source. If you delete them then you should delete the whole article, because nearly the whole article is based on Nahj al-Balagha.--Breathing Dead (talk) 03:47, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can't skirt the policies of this website with bare assertions as to how you think things should be done here. Please have a look at them. Gwen Gale (talk) 03:51, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that you are trying to chase and harass me. I should warn you that what you do is personal attack! I have read all those rules and what I put in that article comply with all 5 sections. Why don't you be precise and tell which rule did I break to put those sentences in Ali's article?--Breathing Dead (talk) 03:55, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You've already been told. Gwen Gale (talk) 03:57, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah? Why don't you show me again? I can't remember.--Breathing Dead (talk) 04:02, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here you go. And then you removed it. Ring a bell? ≈ Chamal ^talk 04:07, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's been made quite clear that it is unacceptable to add these fringe views to the article, but you're going ahead and doing it anyway? --LP ^talk 04:12, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Who has made it quite clear? You have been involved in the edit war. Could you show me who has said that adding those material is unacceptable?talk —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.198.7.205 (talk) 04:25, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See. Gwen Gale (talk) 04:27, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Any reason why the IP should not be blocked too? It's obviously being used to evade the block. ≈ Chamal ^talk 04:35, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See what? you are quite clearly abusing your admin rights to take revenge.Breathing Dead (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.198.7.205 (talk) 04:31, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit notice makin'

I need User:Ryulong/Sandbox/RPM moved to Template:Editnotices/Page/Power Rangers: RPM in order to create an edit notice for said article to replace various items within  tags. Also, WP:RM looks dead.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:36, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abusing Administrator's power by User:Gwen Gale

Resolved

– Part of #Huge_amount_of_vandalism

She has blocked my account indefinitely and reverted my totally constructive edit to a totally dectructive edit. I was rude to her some days ago and she is taking revenge, no matter if she breaks all wikipedia's rules. However I apologized her but sounds like she is very revengeful! :))))))))))))))))))))))talk —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.198.7.205 (talk) 04:23, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like you totally deserved it, especially now that you're casting aspersions that Gwen Gale is at fault for that edit made by someone entirely different.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:30, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah it is obvious that you back up your friend! It is ridiculous! I didn't know taking revenge is also included in those 5 pillars of wikipedia.:)))) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.198.7.205 (talk) 04:34, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't taunt Gwen or Ryulong. What you did is wrong here. Please accept that and don't continue to insult people. We're happy to educate you on Wikipedia's goals and policies - but if you continue to insult people, you are not welcome here, and we'll do what we have to in order to keep you from doing that in the future.

If you want to participate here - be an adult about it, communicate in a mature and responsible manner, and work with us rather than attacking people.

Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:07, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards