Brews ohare (talk | contribs) |
→User:Mcjakeqcool Third time's a charm: poor judgment |
||
Line 281: | Line 281: | ||
::::::It was suggested that if Likebox has a simpler proof or one more accessible to the non-expert, the proposed Likebox page is not a POV fork. You can see things like this with special relativity, for example, where several different levels of treatment are separately presented. The same with quantum mechanics. The issue becomes whether the proposed Likebox page serves a purpose. Before that judgment can be made, the page has to exist. |
::::::It was suggested that if Likebox has a simpler proof or one more accessible to the non-expert, the proposed Likebox page is not a POV fork. You can see things like this with special relativity, for example, where several different levels of treatment are separately presented. The same with quantum mechanics. The issue becomes whether the proposed Likebox page serves a purpose. Before that judgment can be made, the page has to exist. |
||
::::::Many of the disruptive issues that annoy you may evaporate if the new page construction becomes the focus instead of the existing page. Experiment would tell. What is there to lose? [[User:Brews ohare|Brews ohare]] ([[User talk:Brews ohare|talk]]) 19:00, 23 October 2009 (UTC) |
::::::Many of the disruptive issues that annoy you may evaporate if the new page construction becomes the focus instead of the existing page. Experiment would tell. What is there to lose? [[User:Brews ohare|Brews ohare]] ([[User talk:Brews ohare|talk]]) 19:00, 23 October 2009 (UTC) |
||
* Brews ohare was recently topic banned from physics. Does this discussion relate to phyics? Why is one editor who was sanctioned for tendentious editing commenting repeatedly on a discussion about tendentious editing? To me this looks like disruption or very poor judgment. [[User:Jehochman|Jehochman]] <sup>[[User talk:Jehochman|Talk]]</sup> 19:07, 23 October 2009 (UTC) |
|||
== [[User:Mcjakeqcool]] Third time's a charm == |
== [[User:Mcjakeqcool]] Third time's a charm == |
Revision as of 19:08, 23 October 2009
Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents |
---|
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.
When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search) |
|
User:Likebox and tendentious re-insertion of original research
I apologize for the length of this post; the incident has been on and off for several years, so a thorough description is necessarily somewhat long. Brief summary: this is essentially a case of "I didn't hear that" regarding WP:OR. Discussion has been attempted several times to no avail, and so I am requesting an uninvolved administrator to review the situation.
User:Likebox (talk · contribs) has, in several incidents since 2007, inserted what he calls "modern proofs" into the articles Halting problem and Gödel's incompleteness theorems. These were removed because they give original interpretations of the material that cannot be sourced to the literature on the subject. Likebox acknowledges that his motivation is that he feels that the literature should have been written in a different way:
- [1] "There is nothing wrong with the proofs, except that they are different than the usual textbook presentations."
- [2]: "I agree that textbooks do not often mention quines in this context, but I feel that this is a pedagogical mistake."
- [3]: "The modern "literature" is textbooks, which are written by a different process than research papers, and are not generally very well written."
These arguments are parallel to the arguments he made in 2007, such as [4] "Wikipedia is a place where certain questions need to be resolved. What constitutes a valid recursion theory proof is one of those questions. ... Textbook proofs are reworked by secondary authors, and they are, as a rule, the worst proofs in the literature."
Numerous attempts have been made to resolve this via discussion. Some of the older discussions are at:
- Talk:Gödel's incompleteness theorems/Archive 3 (November 2007, starting with the section "modern proof")
- Talk:Halting problem/Archive3#Formal statement redux (November 2007)
- Talk:Halting problem/Archive3#What Is A Rigorous Proof? (November 2007)
- Talk:Halting problem/Archive3#Likebox edits (March 2008).
Likebox acknowledges that, when he inserted this material before, it did not gain consensus [5]. He now says he is making the edits to make a point, to press his case for a proposed guideline [6] .
When Likebox inserted the material again this month, the matter was raised at
- Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Mathematics#Halting_problem_and_Likebox
- Wikipedia:NORB#Halting_problem_and_Gödel's_incompleteness_theorems
Several editors in these two discussion pointed out that the novel proofs should not be added [7], [8], [9], [10] (not counting those who said this the last time it was added), and consensus is against including the material that Likebox has added. Nevertheless, Likebox reverted his edits again today [11]. Likebox has said he plans to continue doing this [12].
Because the consensus against adding this material that developed both in past discussions and in the more recent discussions has failed to convince Likebox to stop adding this material, I would like to ask some uninvolved administrator to review the situation. Likebox appears to be a productive editor apart from these two pages, so perhaps a topic ban would resolve the continued disruption he brings to those pages. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:44, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
- What is exactly the problem with including a novel derivation that is more accessible (apart from it violating the usual wiki rules)? Novel derivations, albeit usually quite simple derivations, are given in many wiki physics and math articles. Count Iblis (talk) 01:41, 19 October 2009 (UTC
- The issue here is not that Likebox is expanding or rewriting proofs from the literature in his own words. The problem is that Likebox is simply ignoring the literature, and rewriting everything the way he wishes the literature was written, As I said, this has already been discussed at great length, which is why I am bringing this here, since Likebox has apparently ignored numerous explanations of WP:NOR over a period of years. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:50, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
- Ok, but what Likebox is not doing is modifying the standard proof that is in the article, he is adding a new section for a "modern proof". At least that is what I see here. The way this is written suggests that this actually is the modern proof, while in fact it is Likebox's proof. To me that would be the main problem with the text and not any OR policies (I've violated OR on similar grounds in many articles).
- If it were up to me, I could live with a rewritten version of Likebox's text such that it is immediately clear that it is an alternative proof that can only to be found here. Count Iblis (talk) 02:33, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
- Right: the text suggests it is the modern proof, while it is really simply Likebox's original interpretation of how the theorem "should" be proved. But if this alternative proof can only be found on Wikipedia, then it violates WP:V and WP:NOR. This has been explained to Likebox by numerous people, which is why I opened a thread here. Simply pointing out that the proof is not permitted because of WP policies has not discouraged Likebox from adding it over and over. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:38, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
- Um, Iblis? That would make it a textbook case of WP:OR. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:57, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
- CMB, I think Likebox would argue that the whole point of the proof is to make Gödel's theorem verifiable from first principles to interested Wikipedia readers. The proof itself is then not the main subject, it is merely an argument that shows why Gödel's teorem is true. That's also how I have defended including original derivations in other wiki articles. But you can make the proof itself to be the subject of the article that then has to be verifiable itself from citations to the literature.
- I agree that a consensus needs to exist among the editors before this can be done. An alternative could be that Likebox creates a Fork of the article. He can then write up his proof there, but then in such a way that it is clear that the article is an accessible self contained proof that is not similar to what can be found in the literature.
- JoshuaZ, In practice we do allow original derivations in wikipedia even though, strictly speaking, this violates OR. I raised the problem a few times on the OR talk page and I was always told that I could invoke IAR. The OR policy was not going to change any time soon to legalize what was going on on a small number of pages. Count Iblis (talk) 03:18, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
- Even if we were to allow OR in this case there's nothing resembling either a consensus to do so. Indeed, all the regular math editors who have weighed in don't want this included. As such an individual who has not weighed in let me add that I agree. Indeed his presentation if anything obfuscates what is going on in Godel's theorem. The primary issue that we should be discussing in this thread is what to do with this user not whether the content should be included. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:22, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
- JoshuaZ, In practice we do allow original derivations in wikipedia even though, strictly speaking, this violates OR. I raised the problem a few times on the OR talk page and I was always told that I could invoke IAR. The OR policy was not going to change any time soon to legalize what was going on on a small number of pages. Count Iblis (talk) 03:18, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
- We could tell Likebox to put his proof for the moment on a subdirectory of his talkpage so that he can work on it to make it acceptable from a purely mathematical perspective (disregarding OR). That would solve the immediate problem. The OR issue can be dealt with later. Count Iblis (talk) 03:36, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
(unindent) Count Iblis, 1) Wikipedia, including Wikipedia user space, is not a venue for developing original proofs of anything (some synthesis from published proofs is necessarily accepted, but that's not what we're talking about here). If Likebox wants to publish new proofs, that's what journals and textbook publishers are for. 2) As CBM says, Likebox's attempts to insert his own research into those articles has been going on for years, so a compromise involving writing them in userspace doesn't sound likely to hold up. 3) The basic problem with Likebox's "proofs" is that they are bogus (see the RFC response from 2007, particularly Hans Adler's remarks) in terms of both content gaps and presentation.
See also the declined arbitration request involving Likebox (and yourself) just a couple weeks ago [13] where User:OMCV, a knowledgeable chemistry editor, proposed a long term block against Likebox. Likebox is highly intelligent and is fairly small fry compared with Wikipedia's worst problem editors, but he disrupts several specialized areas whose editors really have better things to do than deal with him. Some kind of editing restriction definitely seems to be in order. 66.127.54.181 (talk) 06:43, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
- The "declined arbitration request involving Likebox (and [OMCV]) just a couple weeks ago [14]" was declined because an amicable resolution was achieved. Likebox's derivations are useful and no different from hundreds or thousands of proofs elsewhere in Wikipedia. --Michael C. Price talk 08:40, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
- Michael, if Likebox and OMCV have worked out their differences, that is great, though I'd be more assured if OMCV said so directly. Likebox's derivations are not the same as "hundreds or thousands of proofs elsewhere in Wikipedia"--can you identify a single other proof in Wikipedia that so radically departs from published proofs of the same fact, in both substance and style, and has been rejected repeatedly by consensus of knowledgeable editors, but has still stayed in WP? It's true that math editors often (sensibly) go along with it when a math article says something that isn't in a textbook, as long as what is said is correct and is generally fits the standard approaches. That doesn't even slightly describe Likebox's "proof", whose basic motivation (that the textbook proofs are no good) is fundamentally wrong, in addition to the proof itself being mathematically wrong, and whose presentation in the article was just plain ugly, and was found by consensus to not be appropriate for the article. The proofs of the incompleteness theorem found in logic textbooks are perfectly good, and they are studied and understood without undue trauma by many thousands of undergraduate math and philosophy students every semester. Their only problem is that Likebox doesn't like them. 66.127.54.181 (talk) 18:55, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
<-- As an involved administrator I wish to make a point. This is not an isolated incident. Likebox has been doing the same type of thing in a totally unrelated article called History wars. Another article where he has expressed a strong opinion on the, and rather than attempt to compromise over the issue and work through the edits he would like to add sentence by sentence, he has resorted to re-adding the text every so often with comments on the talk page such as
- "This means we need to have a big change, and go on from there. I have made an attempt at a big change. I will do so periodically until it sticks. Likebox (talk) 17:15, 23 June 2009 (UTC)" (see Talk:History wars/Archive_2#Large Changes/Incremental Changes, Talk:History_wars/Archive 3#Large Changes, Incremental Changes,)
- "Listen, those sources don't google, and I'm not about to go do research. But I know the general picture, because I read references to this in popular books many times over. This statement is designed to comply with undue weight. I am not adressing my comments to you, because it is not possible to convince people like you of anything, you must be suppressed by force of numbers Likebox (talk) 14:26, 12 July 2009 (UTC)"[15]
- "Again, there is no point in talking to people like you. You must be put down by force of numbers.Likebox (talk) 14:28, 12 July 2009 (UTC)"
No only has he made these threats but he carries them out by periodically making large changes to the article: e.g., and by insisting that large amounts of material that he has written to the talk page is not archived but each time is copied back to the start of the talk page, [16], he is disrupting the usual development of new conversations on the talk page.
These two disputes on articles about very different subjects are not about content, but are about how Likebox fails to handle consensus building and is disrupting the project. -- PBS (talk) 13:15, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
- User:Rossnixon also behaves in a similar way on the Global Warming page and perhaps also on other wiki pages. But he is not editing there very frequently, so it is not really a problem. No one is arguing that he should be banned. He is not behaving like Scibaby, neither is Likebox. Count Iblis (talk) 14:59, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
- Actually Likebox seems to be a very nice guy and generally seems to have very reasonable opinions. (Which doesn't mean that I always agree with him about everything. I don't.) He just seems to be a bit too stubborn when he realises that he is pushing against a consensus. But he is open about this and I haven't seen him use any dirty tricks. Hans Adler 16:22, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Wiki-nagging
Since some people are talking about my edits, let me try to explain. There are three accusations above about my nagging:
- Godel's incompleteness theorems/Halting problem
- History Wars
- Quantum mysticism
3 was resolved by a fork, and everyone seems to be OK with it for now. OMCV has said "I can live with this text" on the forked quantum mind/body problem page. So that's done with. No more nagging.
2 is a big issue. Wikipedia needs to be mindful of racially offensive historiography. On U.S. history pages, this is dealt with reasonably well. On Australian history pages, there are cases where a Eurocentric point of view is presented without counterbalance. This means that I periodically nag the editors on that pages, leaving behind a trail of sources. I only do it when they archive the discussion, because the issues are not resolved. The nagging is just to alert any interested editor that if they wish to contest this historiography, they will find at least one supporter.
1 is the main issue, and it has come up before. Why do I keep nagging here? One reason is that I can't be sure what consensus will be once people understand the proofs. This is the third time I've put it up. The first time, it stayed for months. The second time, it was deleted, but at least people understood it is correct. This time, the issues have been clarified to the point where I know everyone's position.
I don't like this consensus, not because the text I wrote is so great, but because I am pretty sure that if Wikipedia can't give a simple proof of Godel's theorem, it's going to be a problem for other logic articles. There are a ton of proofs in the literature that are more obscure today than they should be, because the language has not been properly modernized. The method of injury/priority is by now over 50 years old, and still is obscure enough that people are discouraged from using it.
The only editor who pretty much fully understands the text and strongly opposes it is CBM. His position is that text on Wikipedia should follow the consensus of textbooks. Needless to say, I think this is an absolutely terrible idea. Other editors have opposed the proof for other understandable reasons.
I do agree that there might be a some issues with the proof as written. The reason I wrote it in exactly this language is mainly because I have been "talking" this proof to people for many years, and it has ossified in my mind, but also so as to prove the Rosser version of the incompleteness theorem easily, which I don't know how to do easily in other ways. As Michael Price has said, the real issue here is that the proofs in the literature are never self-contained. They always refer you to some other theorem, and some other theorem, and this is a disservice to someone who wants to learn the proof quickly.
In these cases, the policy of WP:ESCA suggests that text that only fills in intermediate steps in a proof is OK, so long as the statement of the theorem is OK, the main idea is sourced, and the intermediate steps are verifiable from first principles. This is true of the proofs I am suggesting. I could place them somewhere else, but there is no guarantee that they will stay up. Also, I am hoping that someone who likes the proof can speak up. There used to be supporters in the past, who have drifted away (also opponents).
I believe that this issue will be resolved one day, when a clear proof of the theorem is up. Until then, I nag a little bit, very infrequently, to keep the issue alive.Likebox (talk) 21:53, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
- Likebox, your statement "I can't be sure what consensus will be once people understand the proofs" presupposes that people don't understand the proofs now. That is bogus: 1) if your proofs are so hard to understand, what business do you have claiming them to be better than the textbook proofs that people do understand? 2) Your notion that people other than CBM don't understand your proof is wrong. I'm sure Hans Adler understands it. I understood it (the 2007 version, I haven't bothered looking at more recent ones). I'm sure plenty of other editors involved in that article understood it too, and found it unsuitable for the article. If your proof is so great, why don't you send it to (say) American Mathematical Monthly, and if they publish it, Wikipedia can cite it? The issue here is not that you have bestowed on us a new and wonderfully clear proof foolishly rejected by Wikipedia's hidebound bureaucracy clinging to stupid rules. Wikipedia's more active math editors are smarter than hell and they are quite capable of ignoring rules with the best of them, when that's the right thing to do. This is not one of those times. There are other online encyclopedias like SEP, which don't have Wikipedia's policies against original research, because they rely on recognized expert referees to make content judgements similar to how a journal does. I don't think SEP would accept your proof, so I don't think Wikipedia should accept it either. If you submit it there and they accept it, then we can revisit the issue. Otherwise, stop beating the dead horse. 66.127.54.181 (talk) 00:44, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
- The issue of "experts" is a red herring. This is mathematics, and it is trivial to check when a proof is correct. Correctness is not the issue anymore, it is originality.
- I apologize for interspersing comments: while I agree that most of the mathematically minded editors (including Trovatore and Hans Adler) did understand the proof very quickly (Trovatore noted an error in the original version of the Rosser proof within a few minutes, which I quickly fixed), there were also several very loud voices that did not understand the proof, and the debate with them drowned out any reasonable discussion for a long time. All these people are gone, and the people that remain understand that the proof is accurate.
- While the proof is very easy, this is exactly why many non-mathematical people thought it must be wrong. It's too simple to be correct. The reason I started editing the page is when I saw a comment on the talk page from years ago that said "The lay person will never understand Godel's incompleteness theorem". And I thought to myself "Why not?". I expected that a simple proof would make people angry, precisely because it sidesteps a lot of notation and terminology that people who write about the theorem would like to pretend are necessary.
- The question of originality is difficult to address. I know that this proof of Godel's theorem by itself is not original. The Rosser proof is borderline for Wikipedia, but it is not original either for a journal. You can go on, however, to prove a few new theorems in the same style, and if enough of these are found, the result might be suitable for a journal.Likebox (talk) 18:45, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
- Your post above is mostly wrong:
- Your proof of the incompleteness theorem is in fact not correct, in that CBM explained that it has a large gap.[17] While it doesn't actually prove something that's false, a famous description that comes to mind is that it's not even wrong. That is, your "proof" is not a proof.
- Checking when a proof is correct is certainly not trivial (as your own inability to do so shows), except possibly for the case when the proof is completely formalized and can be checked by computer. Quite a lot of undergraduate math education (e.g. introductory real analysis) is mostly geared towards teaching how to write and check proofs, and at this point I don't have the impression that you are so hot at it. See Thurston[18] p. 8 for more discussion of the cultural acclimation process necessary to understand what an acceptable unformalized proof is. That acclimation is what Hans Adler was describing in his RFC response, I think, and it does not seem to me that you have absorbed it enough, thus the resistance you get. ( Remember also that Gauss famously gave the first "rigorous" proof of the fundamental theorem of algebra in 1799, only to have a gap discovered in it ~150 years later. Checking proofs is also (part of) why math journals have those referees that you sneer at. A lot of the early development of mathematical logic was precisely an attempt to pin down exactly how to check a proof. Don't trivialize that which is not trivial.)
- As an aside, formally proving the incompleteness theorem is in fact rather complicated: see [19]. You will see the formalization cited spent considerable effort addressing the issues CBM described and which you simply handwaved.
- Showing non-OR-ness on the other hand is trivial: just cite a textbook or published article giving a similar proof to yours, and establish notability for it by the usual means. That you haven't given such citations is a strong sign that your proof is OR.
- Even if your proof was completely fleshed out and checked, the amount of space you want to devote to it in the article is ridiculous. If it were published in a journal, I'd support adding a sentence to the article like "Likebox has given an alternative proof using Turing machines" with a citation, but anything more than that would be undue weight since the proof is so unorthodox. Of course that would change if textbooks and journals started switching to your style of proof in large numbers, but not until then.
- I am glad that you acknowledge that mathematically-oriented editors other than CBM also understood your "proof". I just looked at the current version of Talk:Gödel's_incompleteness_theorems and not a single one of those editors supported inclusion. Trovatore, Zero Sharp, Arthur Rubin, and Paul August all spoke against inclusion. Hans Adler didn't weigh in, so I assume his view didn't change since last time. While a few editors like Count Iblis liked your proof, none of them as far as I can tell have shown any familiarity with the existing logic literature including the usual published proofs. With no disrespect intended to those editors (we all have our own areas of interest), the notion of deciding what to include in Wikipedia based on such uninformed judgement is squarely in WP:RANDY territory and is precisely what the NOR policy is designed to prevent. We are trying to write an encyclopedia whose contents are acceptable by professional standards, so while I can understand a case for inclusion if someone like CBM thinks it's ok, it's completely different if only some less informed editors (anyone unlikely to be given the responsibility of refereeing such a proof for a journal) think it's ok.
- Also, your continued harping on the proposed ESCA guideline to shoehorn your bogus OR into Wikipedia is shaping up to be a strong argument against accepting that guideline. If the proposed guideline supports including your OR when informed consensus says it's bogus, the proposed guideline is no good and should be rejected.
- Finally even if your proof is correct and backed by citations, there is more to the suitability of a given proof than mere correctness. It was a big deal when Erdős and Selberg found arithmetic proofs of the prime number theorem when there was already an existing proof, because the old proof used complex analysis which while correct was considered mathematically unsatisfying. It's of course a subjective matter, but your own proof's excursion into Turing machines for something that can be done directly with arithmetic could be seen as similarly unsatisfying. I am confident that the logicians who wrote the existing textbooks that you don't like, knew perfectly well what Turing machines are and could have written machine-based proofs if they felt like it. They used the approach they did because they found it more tasteful or appropriate. It is not persuasive seeing you attempt to substitute your own judgement for theirs. You are trying to override not only the NOR policy, but the neutrality policy as well, in wanting to present a fringe-ish proof in place of a mainstream one. That, I think, is what CBM is getting at by staying to stay with the consensus of published sources. You cannot be the arbiter of what the best of the available correct presentations is, never mind that you want to use an incorrect one.
- You are one of the reasons why I lost interest in editing the incompleteness theorem article a couple years ago. CBM has a fact-based writing style where he rarely expresses personal opinion about anything, and I can't speak for him, but that he finally brought this issue to ANI after all these years makes me theorize that he is quite fed up. So, I continue to support his call for an editing restriction against you. 69.228.171.150 (talk) 02:09, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
- Your post above is mostly wrong:
(deindent) Hey, Mr. anon. you are totally wrong.
- CBM's "explanation" is totally unfounded. The gap"he pretends to find is the exact embedding of a computer into arithmetic, meaning, how do you take statements like "R halts" and turn them into statements about integers. This "gap" is not a gap at all, but a painfully obvious statement which is easy to prove. It is precisely because this is much easier to prove than anything about logic that I chose the presentation that I did. CBM is resistant to doing things in any way but the textbook way. That's legitimate. But even he doesn't pretend that there is any inaccuracy in the proof anymore.
- Perhaps it's not trivial for you, but I don't find it difficult at all, and neither do any of the editors at Godel's theorems. They have checked the proof, and all of them agree that it is correct, with the exception of Arthur Rubin, who might or might not. N.B. Gauss's proof does not have a gap in it. His proof is that the winding number of the map z->z^n + lower order is n at infinity, and winding number is additive under bisection of a region. This proof was correct, and has stayed correct until the present day, ignorant opinions nonewithstanding.
- Proving Godel's theorem is easy--- provided you do it exactly the way I showed.
- Blah blah OR blah blah. No proof of Godel could be considered OR today. Period. It's too well understood.
- The amount of space is just right, since it is a complete, self-contained, easy-to-understand proof of the theorem. That is important on a page called "Godel's incompleteness theorems".
- Yeah, yeah, but all of them now agree that it is correct. Other editors in the past have criticized it 'because they thought it was incorrect. Many of the editors who like this method are just keeping quiet. With time, consensus will become "include", because that is true. It's just a question of when.
- Yeah. It's not obvious. ESCA takes a little while to appreciate.
- Dude, all the current textbooks use Turing machines to prove the incompleteness theorems. You should not edit the page if you don't understand this elementary fact. It is good that you were driven away.
In fact, one of the nice things about rephrasing proofs in different ways is that it lets you see if you really understand the theorem. If you truly understand the proof, then it doesn't matter how you phrase it. In this case, the proof I am giving is just a minor restatement of the usual proof in textbooks, but making it self-contained, and not shying away from using explicit computer programs.Likebox (talk) 05:20, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
- Likebox (re item 2), Stephen Smale, one of the foremost mathematicians of the past century, wrote:
- I wish to point out what an immense gap Gauss's proof contained. It is a subtle point even today that a real algebraic plane curve cannot enter a disk without leaving. In fact even though Gauss redid this proof 50 years later, the gap remained. It was not until 1920 that Gauss's proof was completed.
- (Citation: Smale 1981 here). Of course the gap is very famous and many others have written about it too, as you are apparently well aware. That you would consider someone like Smale to be "ignorant" and yourself to be a better evaluator of proofs shows the boundlessness of your arrogance and incompetence. As far as I'm concerned, it establishes that you have zero credibility about anything. So I've had enough, and will not bother replying to the rest of your similarly erroneous crap. 69.228.171.150 (talk) 10:03, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
- Smale is talking about the Jordan curve theorem, which states that a closed continuous curve in the plane has an inside and an outside. This theorem can be proved using the winding number of a continous curve, much as Gauss proved the fundamental theorem of algebra. To say that Gauss did not prove the Jordan curve theorem in his winding number argument is disingenuous. It is applying standards of what 20th century mathematicians find interesting to 19th century work.
- In the 20th century, the Jordan curve theorem became a subject of intense study, because it was related to the formal axiomatization of topology. The proof of the Jordan curve theorem for differentiable curves is not difficult, and can be done using mathematics available to Gauss. In fact, this proof is just the winding number of Gauss. A point is on the inside of a differentiable curve if the winding number of the vector from the point to the curve is equal to 1 (or -1). The point is outside if the winding number is 0. The definition of the winding number, the proof that it is additive, and the division lemmas were well within the standard mathematics of Gauss's day.
- But the proof of the Jordan curve theorem for continuous curves without assuming differentiability, is more subtle, because continuous curves can be complicated. They can have positive lebesgue measure in the plane for instance. To prove the theorem for continuous curves requires a good axiomatization of topology, which allows the winding number to be made into a homology or a fundamental group. These advances required the late 19th century axiomatization of limits and calculus, which were unavailable to Gauss.
- When Smale says that Gauss had a gap in his proof, what he means is that the Jordan curve theorem, and the notion of winding number, were not properly understood in the broadest possible context until the early 20th century. But it is uncharitable at best to call this a gap in Gauss's proof. Gauss was only dealing with the winding number of a highly differentiable object, and he could have defined this winding number by an explicit integral. It is not right, in my opinion, to blame a mathematician for not focusing on the broadest possible statement of a lemma used in his proof, especially since Gauss's proof was a stimulant for the development of topology in general over the next hundred years.Likebox (talk) 22:14, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
- Like box you wrote: "On Australian history pages, there are cases where a Eurocentric point of view is presented without counterbalance. This means that I periodically nag the editors on that pages, leaving behind a trail of sources." In this ANI we are discussing a page called "History wars" which is about a debate taking place in Australia. As you threatened you would on the talk page you periodically revert the article content to a version of the text you wrote. Such threats and the actions are considered on Wikipedia to be disruptive, particularly when you have consistently refuse requests to go through you additions sentence and address the issues raised in those discussions. You have been asked on numerous occasions to produce sources eg:
- If you have sources that you can cite showing that comparative genocide scholars have been using Tasmania as a defining example of a genocide "ever since" the 1940s, i.e. they were saying it in the 1950s, the 1960s and all the way through to the present day, let's see them. Not just vague phrases like "repeated in several sources" but give us verifiable citations, otherwise, how about you just admit you can't support your preferred wording with appropriate sources and we go on from there. Webley442 (talk) 13:24, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
- Listen, those sources don't google, and I'm not about to go do research. But I know the general picture, because I read references to this in popular books many times over. This statement is designed to comply with undue weight. I am not adressing my comments to you, because it is not possible to convince people like you of anything, you must be suppressed by force of numbers.Likebox (talk) 14:26, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
- To PBS: You are talking nonsense. It is absolutely true that everywhere outside of Australia, the Black War has been a defining example of genocide all through the 1950s, the 1960s, the 1970s, the 1980s, the 1990s and today. The source I gave you "The Last of the Tasmanians" should have settled the issue as far as the inaccuracies in Windschuttle. This is just the latest source, in addition to Lemkin's notes, the detailed analysis of Lemkin's notes by another scholar, Rashidi's book, the countless web pages, the academic articles by Madley, the academic articles by Ryan, and the textbook on Genocide by Tatz. All these sources, and on the other side is Windschuttle, and a couple of right-wing Australian revisionists, most of whom don't contest what happened.
- I urge anyone here to look over the page, the discussion, and the archived discussion. It is painfully obvious that there is no proper coverage of the majority of sources on the Black War, and there will not be so long as several editors gang up on whoever inserts it.Likebox (talk) 18:33, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
- Likebox I note (and I hope others have) that you do not deny that you have repeatedly edited in your large changes to the article history wars after making threats (more than once) on the article's talk page that: "I have made an attempt at a big change. I will do so periodically until it sticks." without any support on the talk page for the edits.
- I did not raise the issue of edits to the history wars to open up another forum to discuss the rights or wrongs of the sources. I did it to highlight a pattern in your failure to act within the acceptable methods of consensus building in the Wikipedia project, which appears to span several different subjects and involve several different groups of editors. -- PBS (talk) 11:53, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Ok. You are (and have been) consistently editing against consensus in a number of articles. As Hans Adler quite generously and correctly points out, you are doing it 'in the light' and not resorting to (for example) sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry to push your agenda. That is, doubtless, to your credit. Nonetheless, you have by your own admission continued to edit against consensus and what's more pledged to continue to do so. Despite how much you would like to portray yourself as the Innocent Victim of the Big Bad Wikiocracy, (and, as an added bonus, portray those people who disagree with you as idiots who Just Don't Understand You. The very arrogance!) you are quite simply being disruptive. Period. Therefore, it's time (long past time) for sanction, an edit restriction, something. You've managed to exhaust even Carl's legendary patience. Enough is enough. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.145.148.154 (talk) 00:00, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
I have invited User:OMCV to comment here.[20] 69.228.171.150 (talk) 04:10, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
- Its true that I reached text "I could live with" when trying to edit with Likebox but the process took far to long. It was a little more than two months for something that should not have taken more than two days. Honestly I think it was the threat of arbitration that ultimately pushed him into a reasonable frame of mind in line with WP policy. The text we disputed currently exists as a compromise, a compromise which I believe still contains implied OR that Likebox has "owned". Its a compromise because it isn't worth fighting over. I mostly definitely found Likebox's editing style/comments disruptive and exhausting. I made my case against Likebox's activities on quantum mysticism and it was declined in the given context. If anyone wants to review my concerns when exploring or establishing an editing pattern or history they only need to look here. I offer this comment because it was requested and my interaction with Likebox have been discussed in a few places. With that said, I do not wish to participate in the discussion further. I plan to do my best to avoid Likebox now and in the future.--OMCV (talk) 05:04, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
- "Editing against consensus" means that I have brought the issue of Godel's theorem up once every year and a half, to see if consensus changed, and made an argument on history wars every time they tucked away the previous talk page discussion into premature archive. That's not particularly inflammatory.
- It's still editing against consensus if you add it, even once, after it's reverted. Shall we reach an agreement that you are subject ot 1RR every 2 years in regard the material you continue to add against consensus, or as to "testing the consenus". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:34, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
- It's editing against past consensus with a goal of changing this consensus in the future. I only persist in doing this when consensus is absolutely ridiculous, and must change if this project is not going to become a joke. I shall not reach any agreement with you on anything.Likebox (talk) 22:18, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Proposed editing restriction
When I started this thread, I was not aware that there were similar issues on other pages. Now it appears that the same sort of problem has happened on other topics. Given the number of editors who have commented here that Likebox should pursue a different method, perhaps an editing restriction would be enough to resolve this thread. I would suggest the following:
If Likebox adds material to an article that is later removed with a claim that the material is inappropriate, Likebox is prohibited from adding that material again until clear consensus in favor of the material is established on the talk page of the article.
This would still permit Likebox to edit normally and discuss things on talk pages, but it would address the primary difficulty, which is that Likebox continues to insert the same material long after it is clear there is no consensus for it. Moreover, the proposed restriction still allows consensus to change. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:50, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
- It is a pity. I would be in favour of an article on for instance the computer program approach to Gödel's proof. But sticking in 8k of own's idea of better pedagogy is just not right. One needs to stay reasonably close to what is actually done in published sources. He should go an write wikibooks or wikiversity if he wants to do that. And by the way I believe writing a long spiel obscures the points if any in an argument. Dmcq (talk)
- I think this 0RR restriction should be limited to articles on philosophy and to articles on mathematical logic. I don't think it is necessary for articles on ordinary physics topics, like e.g. quantum field theory, special/general relativity etc.. On those type of pages, someone like Likebox repeatedly reverting the page would be ok., because from time to time cranks appear who add (subtle) nonsense and for outsiders it is not clear to see what the consensus really is (the pages are not always frequently edited). I think Likebox' professional working experience lies more in this theoretical physics direction. Perhaps the disputes we've seen with likebox is the typical case of the "arrogant theoretical physicist" trying to lecture philosophers and mathematicians (just joking). Count Iblis (talk) 15:10, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
- Likebox's tendentiousness on talk pages is disruptive in its own right and I'd be happy if the restriction included it somehow, but whatever. DMCQ: Wikibooks doesn't want bogus OR either. If Likebox wants to publish his proof, he should write a journal article about it, I'm serious. (I think his present version needs patching up though). Count Iblis: I'm not involved in any physics articles but I see Likebox's antagonism of OMCV as an alarming thing, and the restriction should try to prevent recurrences of that.
- Note: it looks like I inadvertently posted to this thread under two different IP addresses (my ISP connection must have reset yesterday without my noticing it), which I hope didn't cause confusion. 66.127.54.181 and this current address are both me. 69.228.171.150 (talk) 21:37, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
- What is this nonsense? There are two pages in question, both of which are shoddy. One page, History Wars presents a racially biased version of Australian history, the other page Godel's incompleteness theorems does not present a proof.
- To Dmcq: The 8k discussion is just the latest expansion of a very short text. The short text is found on User:Likebox/Gödel modern proof. If you like it, write a short version. The reason I keep expanding it is because people keep deleting the short versions with silly comments.Likebox (talk) 22:22, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
- I agree, this proposal does not go far enough. Moreover, it seems to me that it's the kind of behavior we should expect from any editor and as such doesn't really amount to much of a restriction, per se. I'd also like to point out that Likebox's comportment in this very discussion has shown him to be argumentative, abusive ("It's good that you were driven away" [21] -- really?), incivil, and most importantly unrepentant. This as well as his repeated 'pledges' (read: threats) to continue 'nagging' (read: disruptive and tendentious editing) does not bode well for the future. I think we're letting ourselves in for a world of eternal hurt if stronger steps aren't taken to curtail this churlish behavior. But, perhaps that's a discussion for a different venue than ANI (I confess, I don't know what the recourse there is).71.139.6.70 (talk) 04:04, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- There is nothing wrong with the way Likebox discusses the topic. The only thing is that Likebox should perhaps voluntarily stick to 1 RR on pages where he is arguing against more than one or two stablished editors. Things go wrong the moment others stop discussing the topic and start a discussion about the way Likebox is editing. Then Likebox can write something about that too and very soon one of the parties will say something that is perceive to be incivil. If Likebox would voluntarily stick to 1 RR then the others are less likely to be annoyed. The others can then more easily agree to discuss the topic of the article wit Likebox and not Likebox himself. Count Iblis (talk) 14:38, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry Count. Shoehorning unsourced OR based on his belief that he can explain Godel's theorem better than Godel (or than any textbook covering the subject), or his belief that "I'm not about to go do research. But I know the general picture, because I read references to this in popular books" (see long quote higher up) is adequate for shoehorning his POV into history articles, or his general incivility is not "nothing wrong". Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:47, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- I realize I said I would stay out of this but I understand the exacerbation that 71.139.6.70 is expressing all too well. I felt that way when I was searching for support or arbitration when dealing with Likebox. I also disagree with Count Iblis on a number of issues. Likebox's problem behaviors as an editor require no provocation and make it difficult (perhaps intentionally) to discuss content, if you don't think this is true please review Quantum Mysticism's talk page and my talk page in detail. Based on discussion on this page, my experience, and a number of Likebox's own claims he plays the long game. I think any voluntary reforms will be disregarded once those who would hold him accountable have moved on (as I would like to do now). Considering all of this, I think Carl's suggestion is interesting, in the end we only want Likebox to display the "kind of behavior we should expect from any editor". The suggested restrictions should come with clearly defined and progressive sanctions. With reasonable sanctions that can be feasibly enforced Carl's proposal would be a significant restriction on Likebox's problem behaviors, which is all we really want to target. A clause concerning civility should also be added and I think it would cover the major issues. This would be much better than my original request for a long term block.--OMCV (talk) 15:12, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry Count. Shoehorning unsourced OR based on his belief that he can explain Godel's theorem better than Godel (or than any textbook covering the subject), or his belief that "I'm not about to go do research. But I know the general picture, because I read references to this in popular books" (see long quote higher up) is adequate for shoehorning his POV into history articles, or his general incivility is not "nothing wrong". Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:47, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- There is nothing wrong with the way Likebox discusses the topic. The only thing is that Likebox should perhaps voluntarily stick to 1 RR on pages where he is arguing against more than one or two stablished editors. Things go wrong the moment others stop discussing the topic and start a discussion about the way Likebox is editing. Then Likebox can write something about that too and very soon one of the parties will say something that is perceive to be incivil. If Likebox would voluntarily stick to 1 RR then the others are less likely to be annoyed. The others can then more easily agree to discuss the topic of the article wit Likebox and not Likebox himself. Count Iblis (talk) 14:38, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- I agree, this proposal does not go far enough. Moreover, it seems to me that it's the kind of behavior we should expect from any editor and as such doesn't really amount to much of a restriction, per se. I'd also like to point out that Likebox's comportment in this very discussion has shown him to be argumentative, abusive ("It's good that you were driven away" [21] -- really?), incivil, and most importantly unrepentant. This as well as his repeated 'pledges' (read: threats) to continue 'nagging' (read: disruptive and tendentious editing) does not bode well for the future. I think we're letting ourselves in for a world of eternal hurt if stronger steps aren't taken to curtail this churlish behavior. But, perhaps that's a discussion for a different venue than ANI (I confess, I don't know what the recourse there is).71.139.6.70 (talk) 04:04, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
(deindent) Or perhaps, instead of focusing on the supposed "problem behaviors", you might want to focus on the pages themselves? These "problem behaviors" are caused by persistent attempts to fix problem pages.
For "History Wars", These problems were noted by several people. Unlike the paragraphs quoted out of context above, if you look at the text I proposed for History Wars (preserved on the talk page), I presented material culled from about a dozen new sources that were each removed systematically by PBS and Webley. This coordinated editing has prevented material about the Black War from being presented on Wikipedia, and I urge other editors to go there, read the sources, and check for themselves.
History is different than mathematics. History must stick to sources very closely, and adhere to undue-weight religiously. Mathematics is verifiable from first principles, and can be checked by individuals without external references. This difference is the essential reason for proposing WP:ESCA. Editing on a subject which can be verified from first principles is very different than editing an article on the Punic Wars.
Regarding OMCV, he has bad feelings, because we disagreed on edits he was making. These edits were factually incorrect, were opposed by several editors, and improved as he learned more about the subject. The final text we settled on was written almost entirely by him, after he had gained enough familiarity to write accurately. This process took a long time, but produced a reasonable text.
The job I am doing here by poking at problem pages makes enemies. It is important to challenge stuff in this way, and it is important for Wikipedia editors to avoid intimidating other editors from challenging material.Likebox (talk) 19:38, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- These comments epitomizes our conflict. The disputed text was blatant OR; I took the time to review the relevant reference to verify that it was OR. After two months the text was reworked to the point that it fairly represented the materiality in the reference (no longer OR). Even if the language in the text is no longer inventive it is still severally out of place so Likebox can argue a thesis that isn't found in any WP:RS. It would be better if the text was just removed and I am not attached to any of the alternatives I offered they can go for all I care.--OMCV (talk) 01:06, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- As it is with the History Wars article. The quote above is not taken out of context it is a discussion about sources to verify the change to the first sentence of the text that Likebox wishes to introduce. Despite repeated requests to provide sources to justify the change, he has not done so, and he ignores the provided reliable sources that disprove his changes to the first sentence, (we have never been able to progress to the second sentence). This seems to me to make the dispute over the "History wars" article to be also OR, specifically WP:SYN, and to date he does not seem to understand that. Instead he thinks he is justified in repeatedly inserting the text into the article and on placing it near the top of the talk page again when the talk page has been archived. I think that he should be restricted from putting the same text or near similar text, into any of the articles under discussion, restricted from block copying text from the archives onto the talk pages, and from initiating discussions on the same subjects. If however another editor, without his solicitation, brings up the subject on the talk page or edits in text to the article with which he agrees (again without solicitation), he should be free to support that editor in the usual Wikipedia consensus editing way.
- Editing on a subject which can be verified from first principles is very different than editing an article on the Punic Wars. No it is not any different. Every blithering crank injecting their pet FLT proof (or these days, P=NP proof, or in your case, incompleteness theorem proof) claims that it is verifiable from first principles and dealing with them is endlessly time consuming, as you are demonstrating. That is why we don't go by verifiability from first principles--we go by verifiability from sources. If you don't like this, the right place to debate it is WT:OR, not in math articles or their talk pages or here. I would not expect a favorable reception there though. If by 1RR you mean one reversion per 24 hours, that's completely useless, since you have been at this for years. 69.228.171.150 (talk) 22:35, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- And the fact that you cannot distinguish a crank proof from a correct proof is a sign that perhaps editing technical pages is not the best use of your time. The way to differentiate the two is to look at the proof and see if it is proving what it is saying.
- The way to establish OR for proofs is to understand the proof method, and check if the ideas in the proof appear in the literature. The wrong way of doing this is to do it like "Punic Wars", by looking for a direct source for each factual statement. The factual statements generated in the course of a proof follow by logic, and are specific to the context. If you lift them from sources and put them into an article, it is nearly certain that they will become wrong statements in the new context. Only the general path is in the sources. This is what the guideline ESCA is trying to explain.
- This is not to say that a bogus proof, or even a novel proof, is OK for Wikipedia. But the incompleteness theorem is 80 years old. The method of proof I was using is over 60 years old. The only innovation was using "print your own code" for "fixed point", and updating the computer from a Turing machine to a modern RAM machine. These are trivial modifications, which are only put in for pedagogical clarity and self-containedness.Likebox (talk) 00:09, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- It is a pity that with the "History wars" article you are not willing to "look
ingfor a direct source for each factual statement", if you did then you would not try to repeatedly to put text into the article for which you have not provided any direct source despite being repeatedly asked to do so. Legitimate requests that you dismiss with statements like the one I quoted above. -- PBS (talk) 13:39, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- It is a pity that with the "History wars" article you are not willing to "look
Anon, while you are welcome to participate in the debate on about WP:ESCA on its talk page, you should not vote on the proposed policies based only on the polemics of the debate here. If you take the time to read WP:ESCA, you'll see that it asks editors to be extra careful, not less careful, when editing articles. Constructive criticism is welcome. Count Iblis (talk) 00:38, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- From afar this debate appears to be one of those where WP simply does not work. This failure is inherent in a "democratic" encyclopaedia where anyone can contribute, whether they know the subject or know how to think or know how to evaluate sources. In such an environment, even supposing Likebox to be 100% right and everyone else out to lunch, Likebox cannot succeed. In this particular debate he is fortunate that a degree of civility prevails, which allows the discussion a veneer of true analysis. However, the bottom line is that Likebox cannot succeed when outnumbered, and will reach stalemate with only one opposing editor that digs in. The application of WP:ESCA will not assist in this case. The best compromise, assuming that the opposition will accept it, is for Likebox to write his own page on his alternative proof and link the the two treatments. Assuming the precepts are sourced and the result is sourced, as seems to be the case, this new article is exempt from claims of WP:SYN and WP:OR according to WP:ESCA. Likebox's argument may have deficiencies, for example, hypothetically, as being too restrictive, and on the new page views of the vocal majority to that effect can be introduced. For example, it can be said that the orthodox proof differs in respects (i) - (n), or that Likebox's argument is confined to special cases like this and that. However, readers will have access to the simpler argument and adequate indication that there exist some doubters, justifiably or not. The reader is put on notice that this is that kind of WP situation where the dust won't settle. I do not think any other compromise is out there that can mend this matter. Brews ohare (talk) 15:55, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
An editing restriction to make it easier for one faction to deal with the other is simply censorship disguised, and is not a procedure that I'd feel was desirable as a general practice. Perhaps not in this case, but in many, the majority is simply wrong, and it is far too easy to label the opposition as a nuisance or worse and try to eliminate the opposition by fiat. That does not serve WP but only the annoyed parties. Brews ohare (talk)
- Very interesting. How do you feel about a single (and single-minded) editor hijacking discussion over the period of years, consuming the time of editors who know better (and have better things to do, probably) to defend against degradation of article content and dilution of quality of the encyclopedia? I suppose that doesn't bother you very much? 67.101.114.82 (talk) 18:50, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- A proposed policy such as WP:ESCA, mostly likely destined to become an essay, has no presidency over the policiy WP:OR. Furthermore there are three separate groups here voicing their concern over Likebox's behaviors which I will try to summarize:
- The content Likebox adds has a strong tendency towards OR especially SYNTH.
- A propensity to edit war and display WP:OWN.
- Disregard for the concerns of other editors and making little effort to reach consensus.
- Uncooperative use of rhetoric and selective understanding to avoid the substance of the debate.
- Civility and tone issues which Likebox has called arguing forcefully.
- Likebox appears to mostly be a damaging element to Wikipedia lately. If he can't be reformed with sanctions he should be blocked. Personally I don't think Likebox even means to create OR. I think he simply has a strong tendency toward correlating and equivocating ideas and concepts to the point that it obliterates contradictions and inconsistent data in his own mind. His name even suggests these tendencies. Armed with his "internally" consistent world view he sets about editing, campaign style, towards the truth no one else understands.--OMCV (talk) 17:37, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- Reply to OMCV: WP:ESCA is a reasoned discussion, admittedly not a guideline. But the answer to dispute is to talk about compromise. You already are leaving the arena of discussion and entering the arena of debate (i.e. scoring points, not clearing things up) with terms like "internally consistent world view" and "equivocating concepts". What do you think of the separate page notion? It is an olive branch that could resolve this argument without seeking sanctions that simply irritate even the "winners" and provide no sense of accomplishment and no service to WP readers. The new page would be available for pointed commentary as to its deficiencies and allow a reshaping of this discussion as a discussion of the alternative view, rather than a defense of the present page. Brews ohare (talk) 17:59, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- Reply to 74.1.184.172: The proposed new page is not a POV fork if it contains different material, viz an alternative simpler proof. Your statement that it is "abundantly clear" is not helpful in suggesting specific objections, but appears instead argumentative. I'd like to point out that if Likebox is placed in the position of defending his page, that is a harder task than sniping at the existing page, and a bit of role reversal is involved that could change the dynamics of the discussion. For one thing, those opposed can relax a bit as their particular views are not under debate, but those of Likebox. Also, specific objections to Likebox arguments should be aired, and the result should lead to clarifications of Likebox's arguments, for example, a tightening of logic or a flag that certain eventualities are ignored, or certain assumptions have been made that should be explicit, etc. etc. When all is said and done, the final Likebox page either has something to say, or has become some clone of the original page that can be summarized on the main page or deleted. Brews ohare (talk) 18:25, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- Please review POV_fork and then explain here -- with specific examples -- why giving a separate page to Likebox's idiosyncratic, non-cited, synthetic OR on a subject that is already covered in an existing article and which consensus was against inclusion of same is not a POV fork. Moreover, this ANI was brought about (Carl, please correct me if I'm misrepresenting your intent) to address Likebox' _behavior_, to wit, tendentious re-insertion of material against consensus over a period spanning years. Likebox was given ample opportunity to 'defend' (or if you prefer a less 'argumentative' term 'explain' or 'support') his proposed additions on the talk page(s) of the respective article. Consensus there was against the insertion. And he persisted, and has pleged to persist. That's disruptive editing. 65.46.253.42 (talk) 18:42, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- It was suggested that if Likebox has a simpler proof or one more accessible to the non-expert, the proposed Likebox page is not a POV fork. You can see things like this with special relativity, for example, where several different levels of treatment are separately presented. The same with quantum mechanics. The issue becomes whether the proposed Likebox page serves a purpose. Before that judgment can be made, the page has to exist.
- Many of the disruptive issues that annoy you may evaporate if the new page construction becomes the focus instead of the existing page. Experiment would tell. What is there to lose? Brews ohare (talk) 19:00, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- Brews ohare was recently topic banned from physics. Does this discussion relate to phyics? Why is one editor who was sanctioned for tendentious editing commenting repeatedly on a discussion about tendentious editing? To me this looks like disruption or very poor judgment. Jehochman Talk 19:07, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
User:Mcjakeqcool Third time's a charm
See previous discussions at:
- Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive554#User:Mcjakeqcool
- Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive563#McJakeqcool_-_back_again
Mcjakeqcool (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
tl;dr version, he was blocked in July for disruptive editing for ignoring other editors and carrying on with "'his'" project. In september it was the same issue again, but this time he promised that "I am prepared to take both advice and guidance from fellow wikipedians and I will both take notice of & execute directions given to me from fellow wikipedians".
Yet, we now have him fighting tooth and nail to mark every single edit that is not in article space as minor, even with multiple users telling him this is inappropriate. He has notes on his talk page back over 1 year old telling him not to mark non-minor edits as minor.[22] He was reminded again in April [23] and I warned him again most recently because I didn't see the previous 2 warnings on his long talk page.[24] In addition to those 3 warnings, Elen of Roads has stepped in and tried to explain it to him. So in the face of 4 editors telling him not to do that, he has a serious case yet again of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Even after having this explained and linked multiple times, he incorrectly states on my talk page that all edits to talk pages are minor edits [25] which he also states at another talk page [26]. He then claims that "other truly minor edits" means any edit to a talk page [27]. It was then spelled out to him in bold with an arrow by Elen of Roads [28], yet Mcjakeqcool continues to make these edits (you can see his contrib history). I told him to stop editing disruptively or we'd come back here for a third go, and he persisted. He told Trey geek that he wasn't a threat to wikipedia[29] yet refuses to listen to other editors and does whatever he wants. On my talk page he proclaimed: I will take WHAT EVER MEANS POSSIBLE to abolish talk page comments as non-minor edits [30] and then opened this discussion [31] at Help talk:Minor edit. To me this is an extension of his previous behaviour. He will occasionally make compromises but the rest of the time Mcjakeqcool is going to do whatever he wants and disregard the policies, guidelines and community and even expect the community to change those policies and guidelines to fit him. He has created vast amounts of work for other editors with his unwillingness to listen to other editors and follow those policies and guidelines. The user is disruptive, and I'd consider the edits made after the multiple warnings from several users to be a little WP:POINTY, and he doesn't seem to give any indication that he intends to start actually working with the community anytime soon.--Crossmr (talk) 00:05, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- Hm. After reading the last ANI thread and skimming the first, it seems that this editor is intent on being disruptive. It's one thing to propose policy/norm change, it's another to cram it down our throats for months on end. Past history - and his stated intention - shows another warning has little chance of preventing further disruption. I settled on a one week block; I'm open to arguments against (either longer or shorter, or no block at all). Tan | 39 01:20, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not sure a one week block will be effective. Mcjakeqcool was blocked for 31 hours during the first ANI discussion with no change in their actions. The second discussion ended with Mcjakeqcool claiming to be willing to work with other editors and make appropriate contributions to Wikipedia; that has not happened. I'd also like to point out the recent discussion at Talk:PlayStation_3#New_PS3_logo_means_new_PS3_casing where Mcjakeqcool is argumentative on what constitutes WP:OR. At the moment, in my opinion, it appears Mcjakeqcool has no intentions to constructively add to Wikipedia. Based on their history, I have doubts Mcjakeqcool will ever do so. --TreyGeek (talk) 02:14, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- I would tend to agree wtih Trey. It has been one battle after another to get him to even do something that resembles good work, and even then he insists on pushing it on just about every single issue. I didn't see the PS3 discussion before.. that is just further evidence that I don't think a week or even a month would change his behaviour.--Crossmr (talk) 02:25, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- Indef-block isn't a permaban, it just means we're tired of dealing with what looks hopeless from our perspective and that the ball is now firmly in bannee's court to make the move towards regaining edit privileges and convince us he deserves it. Bring on da hammer. DMacks (talk) 02:41, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Sorry I wasn't here to take part- I was getting that old fashioned thing called "a good night's sleep". I think McJ made a mistake at one point by marking a talk page comment as a minor edit, but finds it impossibly hard to admit mistakes, so he's turned it into a campaign. If you notice, he never actually takes any advice. He uses English in a really idiosyncratic way (eg describing his edits as "a commercial success" and then coming up with a really strange definition of the term User_talk:Mcjakeqcool#Use_of_English) and he often responds to comments in the running commentary at the top of his user page, rather than reply directly. I don't want to speculate on the reason for this, but to me it suggests that our remarks to him may not be being processed in the way we expect. In which case, while the 1 week block is appreciated, it is not likely to make much difference, as he may come up with some explanation for it that is not what we intended. Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:25, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Why does this sound so familiar? Oh yeah. I admit this sounds elitist, but some people just don't have what it takes to productively contribute to Wikipedia. Despite demonstrated good faith & the best of intentions, while their edits technically aren't vandalism, they are nonsensical & require other editors (who could be doing more important things) to spend their limited time dealing with their edits. Either Mcjakeqcool agrees & cooperates with mentoring so he can more effectively edit/contribute to Wikipedia -- or we ban him. -- llywrch (talk) 21:56, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- I don't see the former happening. He's already rejected such an offer before he got blocked the first time. MuZemike 23:03, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- I didn't want to bring this up on Wikipedia, but I emailed Tan, and Elen is already aware of this, if you google McJakeqcool's name you'll find similar behaviour, language and results all over the internet. This guy's behaviour isn't limited to just wikipedia. As far as I can tell he was banned/got in trouble over at gamespot for awhile for ignoring the rules over there. While it is off-wiki, I'd say his behaviour here is consistent with the behaviour elsewhere which has been going on for a long time. I can't see anything we do changing that at all.--Crossmr (talk) 01:10, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
I had a look at the links Crossmr sent me, & if it's the same guy posting posting in those forums he clearly is not a good fit for Wikipedia. (In a frank, one sentence description, we're talking about the British equivalent of Levi Johnston here.) But based on the principles of WP:AGF, & least amount of work, I'm willing to let the one-week block stand; but if he demonstrates the same, er, "odd" behavior upon returning, I'll then move for or endorse a Community Ban. -- llywrch (talk) 17:21, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Rjanag
I recommend that Rjanag (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) be disciplined for grossly uncivil behavior towards User:Epeefleche. I have no connection to either editor personally, but I simply must protest Rjanag's shocking behavior at the The Shells (folk band) AfD.
By way of orientation, Rjanag initiated the first AfD for The Shells, appealed the keep decision at this DRV and then relisted it 15 days later. This was quick but within his rights; the unacceptable part was his ensuing conduct towards Epeefleche, the article's main defender. Rjanag's words constantly dripped sarcasm [32] [33] as he labeled Epeefleche "Mr. Truth" [34], questioned his adulthood [35] and insulted his intelligence [36] [37]. These attacks occured not on talk pages (though Epeefleeche nobly tried to direct them there to save the AfD drama [38] [39]), but in the middle of AfD debates, and even when Rjanag followed Epeefleche to the talk pages of third parties[40].
Epefleeche pointed out Rjanag's behavior [41] [42] [43] and asked him to refrain multiple times [44] [45] [46] to no avail. I noticed the incivility, as did User:Kiac [47], User:HWV258 [48] User:Tony1 [49] and User:Greg_L on several occasions [50] [51]. When User:HWV258 observed things might have become personal for Rjanag [52][53] [54], Rjanag spit bile his way as well [55] [56].
Doubtless Rjanag has done much good in his prolific career. But this behavior goes beyond a little wikettiquette breach. It is unacceptable in any editor, no less an administrator. Gross incivility like this is poison to the Wikipedia project and demoralizes [57] valuable, content-heavy editors like Epeefleche (edit profile). Rjanag did not abuse his admin powers per se, so I do not believe they should be revoked. But he should be sternly reprimanded at the least, and perhaps blocked for some time to cool his head. - Draeco (talk) 06:09, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- The blocking policy states that cool-down blocks should not be used, as they tend to have the opposite effect. And I would say that Rjanag's behaviour — while definitely not very polite — is nowhere near disruptive enough to justify any sort of block, at least not in my view. I've seen many other editors get away with being far less civil than that. Master&Expert (Talk) 07:21, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- After Epeefleche asked Rjanag to stop conduct which he did not want, Rjanag should have respected that request and stayed away from Epeefleche's talk page. If there were issues with Epeefleche's conduct (
not saying that there were in this casesuch as sockpuppetry) there are alternative venues (like this one) to raise them. Mjroots (talk) 07:35, 22 October 2009 (UTC) Comment amended upon further investigation Mjroots (talk) - Frankly, there are a lot of editors that don't come out of that AfD looking particularly good. However, as
MjrootsMaster&Expert says, we don't use cooldown blocks - there's nothing that we need to prevent by blocking anyone at the moment. Black Kite 07:58, 22 October 2009 (UTC)- No admin participating in that AfD exhibited anything approaching Rjanang's misconduct—which went far beyond incivility, as detailed below. As WP:ADMIN states, where as here a dispute reflects seriously on an admin's administrative capacity because of gross and persistent misjudgment or conduct issues, the matter may be serious enough to lead to summary removal, or a restriction or formal warning related to adminship.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:29, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- After Epeefleche asked Rjanag to stop conduct which he did not want, Rjanag should have respected that request and stayed away from Epeefleche's talk page. If there were issues with Epeefleche's conduct (
- Our rules can be interpreted in many ways, however there's no denying that Rjanag's attitude to dealing with other Wikipedians is too one-eyed, abrupt, and condescending. Attitudes such as his will lead to editors giving up in disgust. I've dealt with many editors, and many situations and know that there is no reason for the behaviour (as described above) that I witnessed. It does WP a great disservice to proffer someone with such behavioural issues as an administrator. Looking at the number of articles he's deleted, and the number of users he's blocked reminds me of the old saying: "the only people who should have power, are those that don't want it". The fact that behavioural problems are combined with power is more than doubly worrying in this case. HWV258 09:02, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- To be honest, given your spectacularly unhelpful contributions to both AFDs, I'd suggest that it would be better for someone uninvolved to be pushing that agenda. Black Kite 11:07, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- I don't see what his number of blockings or deletions have to do with this case. For example, an admin who is active at WP:AIV may have a massive block count, but that does not mean he's going about the place blocking every newbie he sees. Let's keep the discussion focused on this instead of dragging up other unrelated things shall we? ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 13:45, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- IMHO the quality (in Black Kite's view; sharply worded) of the substantive worth of HWV258's AfD contributions is an irrelevant diversion. I would suggest that we, and especially admins, should encourage HWV258 to express himself, rather than suggest that he not contribute to this discussion. And HWV258's comments here as to the role of an admin, and the importance of admin misconduct and its impact on other editors, is very much on-point and is reflected in WP:ADMIN.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:40, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- FWIW, Rjanag was properly notified, but doesn't usually come online until another few hours from now. DGG ( talk ) 16:42, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
I didn't see an effort to discuss the concerns with Rjanag on his talk page. A collegial note from a third party can go a long way in resolving disputes without the need for public flogging/ humiliation or brute force (admin tool use). :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:56, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- His talk page? Multiple editors told Rjanag multiple times at the two AfDs that his behavior in that matter was absolutely abhorrent and amounted to nothing more than a personal vendetta against Epeefleeche so Rjanag could get his “win” in that matter. The message wasn’t going to suddenly sink in because it was conveyed to him on his talk page rather than the AfDs. What was exceedingly clear is that anyone who opposed Rjanag on that matter was the instant recipient of his special style of personal love. He should simply be striped of his admin privileges (yes, it’s a privilege afforded by the community with the consent of the community) and if he wants to be an admin again, he can throw his hat in the ring and look for supporting votes. We all know what the outcome of that would be given this several-week-long display out of the guy. There were plenty of reasonable-minded editors dealing with Rjanag on the AfDs and they all can discern the difference between a fair-minded admin properly carrying out his admin duties in order to make Wikipedia a better product, and that of a rogue admin who has no business in the world having those powers because he inflames things everywhere he goes. Greg L (talk) 19:24, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- We are talking about an incivility issue here, and I don't see any accusation of abusing the admin tools. An admin is "just an editor who has some extra tools" and the same policies and guidelines that apply to every other editor applies to them as well. No special standards are applied to admins whether they do something well or they mess up. Unless we are now regarding admins as some higher level of editors, I see the suggestion to remove Rjanag's admin tools only as a punitive measure (which is not something we do here) that is totally unrelated to this matter. ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 01:35, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- As detailed below, this is far more than an incivility issue (though persistent incivility in the face of requests to stop is part of it). As WP:ADMIN indicates, persistent conduct issues may reflect seriously on an admin's administrative capacity, and the matter can lead to summary removal, or a restriction or formal warning related to adminship.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:47, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- We are talking about an incivility issue here, and I don't see any accusation of abusing the admin tools. An admin is "just an editor who has some extra tools" and the same policies and guidelines that apply to every other editor applies to them as well. No special standards are applied to admins whether they do something well or they mess up. Unless we are now regarding admins as some higher level of editors, I see the suggestion to remove Rjanag's admin tools only as a punitive measure (which is not something we do here) that is totally unrelated to this matter. ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 01:35, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- I’ve edited at Wikipedia over 3 years, have 22,000 edits, and created 180 pages. I’ve never seen an admin engage in such consistently abhorrent behavior in the face of repeated entreaties to stop. It disgraces the position of admin, and poisons Wikipedia.
As detailed above and below, Rjanag—an admin—has been seriously and repeatedly disrespectful and uncivil, and engaged in persistent misstatements and mischaracterizations (always one-way), edit warring, and wikihounding in an apparent effort to game the system and/or make editing by me and others unpleasant. Despite repeated requests by me and others that he stop. I find this especially troubling, as his statements are presumably given greater weight by many due to his admin status. His pattern of behavior has been disruptive. His close relationship with the closing admin, as detailed below in the section entitled "Highly disconcerting: relationship between Rjanag and closing admin", raises highly disturbing questions. I personally find it demoralizing. I've tried addressing it with him directly many times. To no avail.
WP:ADMIN/Request for Arbitration. As his actions reflect quite poorly on Wikipedia and its admins, I concur that he should be sanctioned or have his access removed. As this reflects seriously on Rjanag's capacity as an admin and may be serious enough to lead to summary removal, a restriction, or a formal warning related to his adminship, I suggest to Draeco that as WP:ADMIN permits this discussion be moved to "A Request for Arbitration".
The applicable portion of WP:ADMIN states:
"Administrators are expected to lead by example and to behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others.... sustained or serious disruption of Wikipedia is incompatible with the status of administrator, and consistently or egregiously poor judgment may result in the removal of administrator status. Administrators ... should especially strive to model appropriate standards of courtesy and civility to other editors...[1][2][3][4] ...Administrators who seriously, or repeatedly, act in a problematic manner or have lost the trust or confidence of the community may be sanctioned or have their access removed. In the past, this has happened or been suggested for: ...Repeated/consistent poor judgment ...Breach of basic policies (attacks, biting/civility, edit warring ...) ..."Bad faith" adminship (... gross breach of trust) ...Conduct elsewhere incompatible with adminship.... If the dispute reflects seriously on a user's administrative capacity (... gross or persistent misjudgement or conduct issues), then two other steps are also available: ...A Request for Arbitration if the matter may be serious enough to lead to summary removal, or a restriction or formal warning related to adminship."
Untruths. Rjanag’s comments are replete with untruths. Always one-sided. Such as:
- “all I see is three sentences in Seventeen”.[58] (emphasis added). False.
- “I never misrepresented the length of the 17 article”.[59] False. See above.
- “The "Best Breakout New York Band" thing was not a competition they were involved in”.[60] False.
- ”the "Best Breakout NYC Artist Award” … was never broadcast on national TV”.[61] False.
- ”the "Best Breakout NYC Artist Award" … an AfD determined it was not notable”.[62] False. See here and here.
- ” We're not really "arguing over whether the award is major"; it was already decided at AfD that it wasn't.”[63] False. See above.
- ” The first AfD for this page was disrupted by repeated ranting”.[64] False—no evidence supports that.
- ”the last AfD was closed as 'no consensus' (due mainly to the disruption)” .[65] False-–see here and here
- ” After the last AfD was closed … I waited about a month”.[66] False—Actually, only 15 days.
- ” The Examiner article you link … says nothing more than "they played at this thing" (and they're in the middle of a long list of other non-notable bands).”[67] False—it says more than that, and there were only 3 other bands. See here and here.
- With the edit summary “not MTV”—“They were nominated for a little award that is only tangentially connected to MTV”.[68] False. See this and this and related discussion.
- “Epeefleche's [comment] below) says nothing useful about this article and only focuses on trying to tear down people you consider 'deletionists'.”[69] False.
- ” "First Place Prize Winner" is just made-up fancy language”.[70] False—it is the official MTV language in MTV's Official Rules Section 14(a).
- “no one has expressed an [sic] opposition here" to the proposal that the Written Roads album page be merged.[71] False.
- “MTV rubber-stamped it with their name but was not necessarily very interested in it.”[72] False
Incivility. As to his uncivil speech/personal attacks, the following are ones I found most innappropriate:
- calling me an “idiot”;
- saying (in the alternative) that I “lack the faculties” to understand his messages;
- to me: “Apparently you can't read.”
- to me: “learn how to read”.
- to me: “Apparently you may not be great in thinking”
- edit summary re me: "pathetic"
- calling an editor’s comments “inane”.
- writing: “this is … a crappy article”.
As I don’t have access to the deleted articles at this point, I can’t check their edit summaries for further examples.
Wikihounding & Bullying. In wikihounding me, he even followed me to other editors’ talk pages. As in this instance, in which in his edit summary attacking me he wrote “pathetic”. He then sought to chill my effort to reflect notability of the article. That prompted the editor whose talk page he had followed me to (Kiac; who in fact voted for deletion, along with Rjanag) to chastise Rjanag for doing so ("It's a tad sad that you follow someone around an entire website trying to get a single article deleted").
When I posted a question at an RfA, he wikihounded me to the entry and then (with a “wtf” edit summary) sought on my talk page to bully me into not asking questions at the RfA, writing: “Are you going to go disrupting other people's AfDs and making POINTs just because you have a personal bone to pick with me?”[73] And then in another comment accusing me of “disrupting Kww's RfA”.[74]
He even recently butted into comments that Greg L was leaving on my talk page, trying to bully him into not giving me advice: “You have already given Epeefleche inaccurate "advice" before; perhaps you should reconsider continuing.”[75]
By singling me out and joining discussions on pages or topics I edited or debates where I contributed, he disrupted my enjoyment of editing. His following me around was accompanied by tendentiousness, personal attacks, and other disruptive behavior. It was classic wikihounding.
Bad faith & Bullying. An example of Rjanag's bad faith and his bullying is his treatment of the Seventeen article.
- As mentioned, in the first AfD on Sept. 13 he untruthfully wrote “all I see is three sentences in Seventeen”.[76] (emphasis added).
- When I reflected the true size and content of the article by quoting it, Rjanag sought to bully me and embarass me, writing (responding to that and the rest of what I wrote): "Way too long." Another editor then intervened and responded to him: "Nonsense. WP:TLDR applies to policy pages and guidelines, not arguments. I, for one, appreciate the thoroughness."[77]
- On Sept. 29 Rjanag again misrepresented the extent of coverage in the article here.
- When I corrected him, he chastised me for quoting the article.[78]
- On Oct. 3 he wikihounded me to another editor's talk page, and tried to bully me into not quoting the Seventeen article in full.[79]
- Rjanag then avoided preciseness and disparaged its length in the 2nd AfD by calling it "tiny".[80]
- When I then quoted it at the 2nd AfD, on Oct. 14 Rjanag criticized me vociferously for quoting the entire (tiny) review: “epeefleche, how many times do people have to tell you it's not necessary to copy and paste the entire Seventeen article into this page? Do you not realize how annoying it is?”[81] (NB: He was the only "people" who had done so.)
Edit warring/gaming the system. Rjanag’s tactics were inappropriately disruptive in related articles as well, as he edit warred and gamed the system (deleting sources reflecting notability, then adding unsourced text that would tend to suggest lack of notability on the basis that it comported with "everything I have been told", as detailed here.
This was just a continuation of pattern in which Rjanag previously deleted pertinent sourced material reflecting notability from the very articles he was seeking to delete—for purported lack of notability; see also [82].
Communications with Rjanag re his behavior. I repeatedly sought to discuss Rjanag’s behavior with him. I wrote numerous times in this regard, both on my talk page and in the AfD (as did others, including a non-voting editor):
Contacting Rjanag on talk pages and in AfD re his behavior
|
---|
In addition, another editor (who did not vote to keep the article) wrote to Rjanag that he was “disappointed that you're not setting an example—as WP:ADMIN requires of you.... If you're upsetting a lot of other users in the same place, it's time to self-reflect.”[94] |
Rjanag reaction to complaints re his behavior. While his misbehavior was pointed out many times by me and others, his response was simply to continue his misbehavior.
And—with total absence of contrition—write:
- “I'm just amused to see you guys shooting yourselves in the foot by obsessing over these personal battles … You can complain about me all you want; it won't do any good for the closing admin.”;[95]
- ”As for my "effort to keep readers from reading the truth"...oh goodness, sorry I got in the way of your efforts to spread The Truth to the poor unenlightened masses…. Gosh, I feel so bad.”;[96] and
- "WQA is thataway”.
--Epeefleche (talk) 03:21, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Highly disconcerting: close relationship between Rjanag and closing admin. An admin (Backslash Forwardslash) closed the second AfD before the full 7 days had run. Similarly peculiar was the fact that he described a near-even vote as one in which "the delete voters ... had the numerical upper hand". His timing and his read of what the consensus was (both in numbers and in substance) left some editors perplexed. See [97].
When the closing admin was first up for RfA in February this year (he failed), only one voter (of 100) voted for him terming his vote "Very strong support". The one voter? Rjanag.
The number of other RfA candidates other than Backslash Forwardslash whom Rjanag has supported with a vote he identified as "Very strong support"? Zero.
Of further concern are the comments following Rjanag's vote by Ottava Rima: "of course the above user [Rjanag] would see the situation as -working- with someone you don't like. However, having Backslash close a discussion after his friends stated that outside consensus ... would be inappropriate is definitely a strong concern".
Rjanag then also supported Backslash Forwardslash in his second RfA (which he passed), and was one of the exceedingly few editors to challenge an Oppose voter's comments. See [98].
Furthermore, a glance at the communications between the two that appear in the most rudimentary of searches (as here and here; Politzer was Rjanag's former name) reflect a closeness that far exceeds the relationship a closing admin should have with the nom of a heavily disupted AfD that he is closing before the full 7 days have run.
This, taken together with Rjanag's repeated dishonesty in this process as detailed above in his single-minded effort to get his way, while ignoring basic essential wikipedia tenets of civility, honesty, and fairness--militates in favor of Rjanag being stripped of at minimum his rights of adminship. He is clearly not someone who should have those powers, for he brings disgrace to the project and to his title. I again, and more emphatically, suggest that this be moved to Arbitration, where proper treatment of the matter can be handled by those with the power to address such egregious violations by an admin.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:42, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- I have refrained from responding to this thread because I saw no need to escalate an already pointless argument by defending myself against frivolous complaints. But when you accuse another user, Backslash Forwardslash, of cheating when you have absolutely no evidence, you cross a line. Of course Backslash and I have interacted many times before, we both joined Wikipedia at similar times and work in similar areas, and many editors who've been around long enough have many Wiki-friends. That doesn't mean there was ever impropriety. Backslash Forwardslash is an experienced and neutral user who has closed hundreds of AfDs, it's not like he suddenly appeared out of the blue to close this one. And from the time of the beginning of the first AfD to the closing of the second, I had no interactions with him either on or off wiki (other than responding to one user's question on his talkpage while he was offline; other than that,
I do not remember talking to him at alledit: looks like we exchanged a message in early October over the Nicholas Beale COI issue. not relevant to this subject, and trivial—I didn't even remember it.). So do not go around accusing other editors, especially ones like Backslash Forwardslash, of misconduct. I am not bothering to respond one-by-one to your other lies and exaggerations because they're petty and anyone can see through them, but this one is just too much. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 11:42, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- In response to Master&Expert: I was unaware of the cool-down block rules since I've never proposed any block before, but I think that fact strengthens my case if anything. Let's focus on the spirit of my complaint and not the wording. Secondly, just because you've seen "other editors get away with" worse certainly doesn't make it okay.
- To Black Kite: It's true the AfD was ugly, but that doesn't excuse Rjanag, and he was several degrees worse than anyone else. - Draeco (talk) 05:52, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- What I think others are trying to say is that you should pursue our dispute resolution system; perhaps WP:RfC/U. If you find an issue with a deletion for any reason, please take it to deletion review. Beyond that, I don't see anything that can be done here at this time. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:06, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not protesting the deletion. I'm asking for action, not more comment (I've already cited sufficient editors' comments on his behavior above). This seemed like the right place, but correct me if I'm wrong. - Draeco (talk)
- It appeared that Epeefleche was though. As for action, see my last sentence - perhaps after an RfC/U, ongoing issues that remain unaddressed can be actioned. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:07, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not protesting the deletion. I'm asking for action, not more comment (I've already cited sufficient editors' comments on his behavior above). This seemed like the right place, but correct me if I'm wrong. - Draeco (talk)
- I refrained from commenting here for a while because I figured it would do nothing but escalate the discussions; I saw no real desire for a response from me and I figured this would fizzle out on its own. But given Epeefleche's recent vitriolic messages about Backslash Forwardslash (above), I feel I should make some comments about the more frivolous or misleading of his claims.
- First of all, a procedural thing: Epeefleche and Draeco have been quite selective in choosing which editors to notify of this discussion. Other than me, Draeco only sent messages to people who criticized me in the AfD—so it's no surprise that he's now got a thread full of people showing up to criticize me. Epeefleche, likewise...other than his message to Backslash, he has sent messages just to people who he thinks will criticize me more. If anyone asked the opinion of other people who participated in the debate, you would be seeing a much different picture of these editors painted.
- As for Epeefleche's specific claims, I see no need to go through them all one by one, as most of them are misstatements or exaggerations whose nature is clear enough. In general, the point to take home is that I am not the "only" person who has taken issue with his behavior in this Shells fiasco, and Epeefleche is not the poor, helpless, victimized editor that people are making him out to be here. In fact, many other editors have had the same issues I had (for example, just taking his TL;DR thing...he makes a big deal over the fact that I linked him to WP:TLDR once, but J Milburn has also done so weeks before, and DGG also explicity advised him to shorten his messages; it's not like I'm the only one. And he makes some noise about how mean I was to call the Seventeen review "short" (or "tiny" or whatever)...well, I'm certainly not the only one to say that, most of the delete voters in the AfD also said specifically that they find the Seventeen thing too short, brief, cursory, trivial (pick whatever word you like). It was a tiny "review", there's nothing wrong with calling it that.
- Then there are claims Epeefleche makes, like the one above where he says I "deleted pertinent sourced material" during the first AfD. The diff is broken, but judging by the timestamps the edit he's referring to appears to be this (admin-only link, sorry), where I removed blatant plagiarism that he had inserted. Essentially, what you have here is an editor who, while he appears to make valuable contributions elsewhere, has behaved very poorly with regards to this article, couldn't tell the difference between writing and plagiarism, ran all over Wikipedia to promote this band (see 2009 MTV Video Music Awards, where up until recently he was making a point of only listing an award that his pet band had been nominated for but refrained from listing 7 other equally non-notable awards--and 21 other equally non-notable bands--and then after I listed the rest, he complained at the AfD that I was making the Shells look less notable). Epeefleche has been flying off the handle at critics of this article since well before I was ever involved; see his run-in with J Milburn at NFCR, which happened before I had ever noticed this article (in fact, it's what brought the article to my attention), or look at the history of edit summaries to get an idea of some of the fighting he had with User:Psantora long before I had ever shown up.
- I could go on, but I doubt anyone wants to read a novel-length Wikipedia post. The take-home point is, again, Epeefleche is not some unfortunate helpless editor that I chose at random to descend upon and harass. He has caused problems with numerous other editors during discussions surrounding The Shells, and has done many things unbecoming of an editor with three years' experience. He and Draeco have selectively notified only some editors to try and paint a different picture for you. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 12:16, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- My thought is that this is too complicated and fact based (I notice that Rjanag won the AfD or the subsequent Drv, not sure which) to be dealt with at this page, I suggest the parties avail themselves of dispute resolution, or consider avenues such as an RfC. I don't think it can be done fairly to everyone here.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:36, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- Epeefleche et al are welcome to start one, but I don't really intend to participate (beyond the message I left above). From skimming the above, it's clear that the only people who are complaining are the ones from the AfD; none of the ANI people who have commented (Black Kite, Master & Expert, Chamal, CoM) seem to think anything needs to be done. If Epeefleche et al. believe the AfD was broken they are welcome to start a DRV; if all they want is for someone to say "yes, Rjanag is a mean guy" then I'm not really concerned. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 14:08, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- Fine. No administrative action advisible here, parties advised of possible courses of action if they deem it appropriate. Many thanks for bringing it to attention of AN/I, and note that there is also a civility area which might be more appropriate. Enjoy the rest of your day.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:29, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- Epeefleche et al are welcome to start one, but I don't really intend to participate (beyond the message I left above). From skimming the above, it's clear that the only people who are complaining are the ones from the AfD; none of the ANI people who have commented (Black Kite, Master & Expert, Chamal, CoM) seem to think anything needs to be done. If Epeefleche et al. believe the AfD was broken they are welcome to start a DRV; if all they want is for someone to say "yes, Rjanag is a mean guy" then I'm not really concerned. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 14:08, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- My thought is that this is too complicated and fact based (I notice that Rjanag won the AfD or the subsequent Drv, not sure which) to be dealt with at this page, I suggest the parties avail themselves of dispute resolution, or consider avenues such as an RfC. I don't think it can be done fairly to everyone here.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:36, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Persistant POV pushing and vandalism by user:Slick112
Slick112 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) which is a SPA has been persistently engaged in vandalism, and pushing POV edits in the Raj Rajaratnam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) page[99], [100], [101], and the Insider trading [102][103] [104]pages.
Warnings for him to desist [105], [106], [107], [108] have all had no effect. He has also engaged in vandalism of my talk page too [109]. Therefore please consider blocking this disruptive SPA account. Kerr avon (talk) 14:48, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- Couldn't this have been taken to WP:AIV? Or has this been resolved already, Lord Spongefrog, (I am the Czar of all Russias!) 18:46, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- Whoops, I misread it. Well, I'd say give him a firm last warning for edit warring, then block if he violates again, Lord Spongefrog, (I am the Czar of all Russias!) 18:52, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- He still is persisting in edit warring and pov pushing [110], [111] despite several warnings to stop [112] [113]. Please consider banning this SPA and disruptive editor. Thanks.Kerr avon (talk) 13:02, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- Smallbones has reported him to WP:AN3 for the edit war. -- Atama頭 17:29, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- He still is persisting in edit warring and pov pushing [110], [111] despite several warnings to stop [112] [113]. Please consider banning this SPA and disruptive editor. Thanks.Kerr avon (talk) 13:02, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Block review of User:Interpride
- Interpride (talk · contribs) was blocked with a massive template explaining they were blocked, apparently, for making promotional edits ... and maybe their
username. If they had made their edits under another username I don't think we would have few issues with edits and certainly wouldn't have blocked. Could someone have a look and see if we can't be a little more welcoming here? -- Banjeboi 16:57, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- Bad faith bad block. I can't see that they were even warned. If they had been contacted with a request to consider WP:COI and they continued to edit in this manner, that would be grounds for a block. But this? No. A little insignificant Talk to me! (I have candy!) 17:04, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- Ugh. We need to assume good faith more often here. And by that, I mean assume good faith of the blocking administrator. JBsupreme (talk) 17:08, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- Single purpose/promotional account. That's clearly obvious from the editing pattern. They were slowly turning the article in question into a promo. HalfShadow (talk) 17:16, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- Ugh. We need to assume good faith more often here. And by that, I mean assume good faith of the blocking administrator. JBsupreme (talk) 17:08, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- I asked the blocking admin for explanation but have not seen a response yet, I have also notified them of this thread. Being outside the situation could you point out which of their edit was actually blockable, or even disputed? They seemed to be adding extra details that are unneeded but that in and of itself shows a lack of experience on Wikipedia - not an effort to cause harm. -- Banjeboi 17:19, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- When you start adding 'sunshine and puppies' edits like this, you're no longer being encyclopedial, you're being promotional. HalfShadow (talk) 17:23, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- I asked the blocking admin for explanation but have not seen a response yet, I have also notified them of this thread. Being outside the situation could you point out which of their edit was actually blockable, or even disputed? They seemed to be adding extra details that are unneeded but that in and of itself shows a lack of experience on Wikipedia - not an effort to cause harm. -- Banjeboi 17:19, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- This block appears entirely appropriate. Aside from the generally promotional editing, the user was also adding copyvio text, with an often heavily promotional tone, cut and pasted from the organization's own website. Note that this edit [114] corresponds to this link [115] and this edit [116] corresponds to this link [117] and this edit [118] corresponds to this link [119]. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:34, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- You're not going to persuade many people that this type of account should not be blocked. It's a problem when people's first edits are about the organisation where they work (rather than blatant spamming, these are COI edits) and they get blocked, sometimes hardblocked. But blatant advertising will always be blocked very quickly and you're unlikely to change people's minds about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk • contribs) 17:27, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- Seems like a reasonable block - organization name + promo edits normally translates to a hard block, and there's at least one edit that reads somewhat promotional. Nonetheless, it would be optimal if the user was contacted beforehand, since this is not blatant spamming. Tim Song (talk) 18:02, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- That's my point I guess. Instead of telling this user their name needed to change and their editing smacked of promotionalism we blocked them with no dialog whatsoever. That seems counter-intuitive to dealing with newbies and actually a bit hostile even if intended to curb promotional-like editing. Where's the civility? Where's the effort to explain why the edits were flawed before the indefinite block? -- Banjeboi 18:21, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
It was a good block. One should be expected to only go so far with regards to not biting newcomers. I highly doubt that this person (assuming this is not a role account, which is likely the case anyways) was interested in anything else except staking ownership to the page and turn the page into a mirror of its website, which is not what we're here for.
With that said, I haven't looked at all the contribs to check for copyvios or blatant spamming, but a softblock was warranted at the very least. MuZemike 18:37, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- Good block. This is exactly what I would have posted to WP:UAA. Sorry Benjiboi, I understand why you'd be unhappy about this kind of block but a username that indicates representation/affiliation with the article subject, combined with edits like "Members of our organization are dedicated volunteers who organize and work to put on Pride events all over the world" justify the block and are in total compliance with our policies and guidelines. -- Atama頭 19:36, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
I think this was a good block - but someone (Benjiboi?) could engage with them in more detail to explain why what they were doing was not appropriate on Wikipedia, and help mentor them through engaging more productively with a new account as an individual person not trying to act as an official organizational PR person. This seems the classical "didn't know better" rather than "malign intent", and those people can often simply be educated. Benjiboi, you up for that? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:43, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
This was a good block indeed. I think this thread can be closed now. Keep up the good work, blocking admin. JBsupreme (talk) 08:02, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- Eh. I find this to be a case of using username blocks like a roll of duct tape -- that is, a low-quality solution to a variety of problems it wasn't originally designed to solve. It's a topic of ongoing debate on WT:U whether it's appropriate to instantly username block someone just because their username points out their COI. This was a pretty typical example of such a block, so the block is defensible, but I'm hardly going to applaud the blocking admin for their blunt solution either.
- Talking to the user about COI and asking them to change their name would have accomplished the same result, with just a tiny bit more effort, and without making Wikipedia look as belligerent toward outsiders as it usually does. rspεεr (talk) 09:21, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
User:Noleander
A thread regarding User:Noleander has only just been archived. However, new evidence has now emerged that should be brought to this board.
Earlier this month, Noleander created an article in this form [120] which contains material under the heading Michael Medved that is plagiarised from the Neo-Nazi Stormfront site [121]. Noleander claims here and here that he didn't know the material originated with Stormfront and says he plagiarised it from an equally anti-Semitic article at Radio Islam [122]. He still claims that the material was not a copyvio [here] despite the fact that not only were the same quotes used as in the articles at Stormfront and Radio Islam but also the same linking phrase "Medved continued" etc. also are used.--Peter cohen (talk) 17:22, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, I wrote that article, and yes, I cut-and-pasted some text from the RadioIslam web site. I was trying to get some quotes from Michael Medved from a magazine article he wrote. As I put the text into the article Jews and Hollywood, I failed to proof-read, and failed to remove text that was between the Medved quotes. That was a mistake, and I profusely apologize. I have no idea who originally assembled Medved's quotes in that manner: RadioIslam? Stormfront? There is probably no way of ever knowing. In any case, it is appropriate to include a few quotes from Medved's article ... that is not a copyright violation. As for using RadioIslam as a place to find material? Yes, it is a rabid site, but it does contain material that is often not found elsewhere. I did make a mistake, and I apologize. However, I must point out that I believe this ANI (and the other ANI accusing me of antisemitism) is misguided. They are attempts to ensure that certain material is not included in this encyclopedia (particulary the Jews and Hollywood article). Accusations of minor CopyViolations and Antisemitism are distractions intended, I believe, to distract from the real issue at hand. My perception is that Wikipedia is censored in regards to some topics that reflect negatively on Jews, and I'm attempting to reverse that censorship. Looking at the history of some articles, there appears to be a concerted effort to ensure that some notable material never appears in this encyclopedia. ANIs like this one are one tactic (and it works rather well, I must say :-) Im willing to engage in a discussion on whether that article belongs in this encyclopedia. In fact, I have been positively (and cheefully :-) engaged in that discussion in the AfD for that article. That is where the focus needs to stay. --Noleander (talk) 17:38, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- Disclosure: I'm involved in that I voted to keep the relevant article at AfD. I don't necessarily think this ANI report was made in bad faith as Noleander does, but I understand his reaction, as this is the latest in a barrage of accusations, and the consensus has been that most that occurred prior to this were unfounded. He's only human. Overall I've actually been struck by Noleander's exceptional level-headededness in the face of rabid bad-faith assumptions (of the type that can be seen above). He's in fact been much more level-headed than I've been throughout this ordeal. One need only read through the AfD to see that (if one has the patience; it's pretty long). Since the copyvios have been corrected, Noleander has apologized, and the article is at AfD, I think the matter is settled for now as far as ANI goes. Equazcion (talk) 18:04, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- At this point, I agree we should not be discussing User:Noleander. However, we should exercise our options as participants in this project to accept or reject the article, completely independent of the original author, who may have had the best interests of all at heart. This is a referendum on the article, its content, its structure, its focus, and how it represents the project as a whole. My own opinions can be seen on the AfD page, as can those of many others, on both sides, which is why I suggest we all let our conscience do our talking. -- Avi (talk) 18:27, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
I really must disagree with Avi in this situation. I think this thread should specifically focus on User:Noleander. I won't deny that his comments betray an educated and articulate human being. However, these same comments show someone who is incredibly anti-Jewish. I don't think this is assuming bad faith in the least. Would anyone stand for a similar article that was solely created to angrily decry the involvement of Muslims in organized crime in India? Or the petty crime committed by aboriginals in Australia? No, it would be inappropriate for an encyclopedia. Noleander has explicitly stated that his objective here is to provide negative information about Jews in order to counteract Jewish bias on Wikipedia. To that end he has largely provided copyrighted information from Stormfront and radio Islam.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 21:53, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- No, Im not anti-jewish, or anti-palestinian, or anti-this, or anti-that. I simply view WP as a very valuable asset for people around the world. I also think it has several "blind spots" where it is missing important material, due to political correctness. I first noticed this in regards to the articles on the Mormon church: there was no mention of they way blacks were treated by that church from 1850 to 1970. I decided to jump in and try to add some material there, and after two years of back-and-forth with some very tenacious editors, I think those articles are now balanced. It stikes me that the topic Jews and Hollywood is under-represented in this encyclopedia. So I jumped in, wrote an article, and put it in the Antisemitism category: not trying to hide anything. The canard "Jews Control Hollywood" is notable, but is missing from this encyclopedia. The issue, again, is not an editor, or the editor's motivation: it is absence of notable information in this encyclopedia. Every minute we spend talking about editors motivation, is a minute we are not improving the articles. Hmmmmmm ... or is that the goal of these ANIs? --Noleander (talk) 22:36, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- Scroll up a bit and also look at many of his comments here- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Misuse of antisemitic accusations and here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Controversies related to prevalence of Jews in leadership roles in Hollywood.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 22:51, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- "I simply view WP as a very valuable asset for people around the world." Do you really think this helps us move towards a resolutuion? Is there any reason why an anti-Semite or a racist or homophobe or sexist would not believe this? "I..." (this is me speaking, I just figured I do the Sandra Bernhardt routine first) "...I come here only because of my love for humanity." The problem is that in a few days you put up at least two articles that cut and pasted material directly from a neo-Nazi website and from an anti-Semitic Islamic (no, the two are by no means identical!) radio website, to create articles that - without any kind of scholarly analysis of framing, strung together anti-Semitic canards. If you care so much about Wikipedia, why didn't you create an article on gays controlling Broadway? Or on Jews controlling Wall Street? Or on the way that accusing someone of being a homophobe is a way of silencing them? Or how accusing someone of being a racist is a way of silincing them? You see, it is the highly selecteive nature of your choices that raises concerned. You view WP as an asset for people around the world? Well, okay, then why don't you work on an article on embryology? Or on urban renewal projects? Or dadaism? I mean, there are so many articles you could work on if you are motivated just by your passion for helping people, right? Why these? Now here is something strange - a number of times I called attention to the need fo ranalysis and framing, how historians and sociologists for example analyze anti-Semitic canards to reveal something about anti-Semites or about that period in time. You wrote back something like you are not an expert in sociology or history. Well, then, here is another question: why write articles on topics in which you have no expertise? I mean, we all agree Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can edit, right? But shouldn't we edit articles on topics we know something about? Why do you specifically pic topics on which you are ignorant and then use Wikipedia to spread um, well, your "knowledge" about these topics? Why?
- In fact, here you are lying about your motives. On the AfD pages you have stated that your concern is that accusations of anti-Semitism are a form of censorship and your motive is to publicize this. Well, dude, that is a violation of WP:SOAP and you already admitted to it. And of course, only an anti-Semite complains that accusations of anti-Semitism are meant to censor. Look at it this way: if someone accused of anti-Semitism is an anti-Semite, surely you would agree that there is nothing wrong with accusing them of anti-Semitism, right? And if someone is not an anti-Semite, well, all they have to do is say so right? If someone is not an anti-Semite, it is always very easy for that person (or countless others) to say "No, I am not anti semitic" and to go on talking. I know of no case in which anyone ever accused of anti-Semitism was somehow prevented from speaking. Of course, if many people are convinced that someone is an anti-Semite, they are under no obligation to listen, are they? Well, Noleander, do you thinkg that people's hands should be cufed and their ers fordibly turned to the loud-speakers so that they have no choice but to listen? You also brought up "self-hating Jews" and provided two examples. I know people who will not go to hear Noam Chomsky speak. But I have neve heard him complain that he was somehow "silenced." Can you clarif your agenda, I mean, besides wanting to sprinkle the world with sugar and make everyone happy? I mean, something specific and to the point?
- If your problem is that some topics are "censored" at Wikipedia, creating articles to soapbox is not the solution. Do you think that every AfD is an attempt to censor? Do you think Wikipedia should allow anti-Semitic articles? I am sure you have a lot more to say in response but I'd appreciate yes/no answers to at least these two questions. Then I would really like you to address two points: (1) concrete examples to illustrate this: "My perception is that Wikipedia is censored in regards to some topics that reflect negatively on Jews, and I'm attempting to reverse that censorship" and (2) how, precisely, do these two articles reverse that censorship? Slrubenstein | Talk 23:05, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- Slrubenstien, what constitutes an anti-semitic article? We have an article on anti-semitism. I don't see how you can say with such conviction that this particular article is any more "anti-semitic" than that. Is it the title? What is it, specifically? I'm asking this question in anticipation of a discussion that somehow does not belong at the AfD, but if your issues are content-related, this discussion probably belongs there. Equazcion (talk) 23:12, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
From my limited experience with Peter Cohen, I don't believe the accusation can be made that he started this discussion in an effort to get to the article by targeting the author; if I'm not mistaken he had already been defending the author against charges of this kind, and is on record as being highly sensitive to this issue. My feelings as to the rest of this are mixed. Noleander apologizes for where he got the material, as I think is appropriate. Besides that, I would really recommend to avoid this analogizing from contentious article topic to editors, which I think could hardly be a worse instinct in our attempts to have neutral policy-based discussions. Noleander's comments in general suggest to me someone who admittedly is not especially familiar with these topics. In my view that is relevant, along with his apparent lack of familiarity with various aspects of Wikipedia. If an editor pushes through these topics over years and shows an inability to edit appropriately, then the editor should face sanctions. If an editor comes in and makes some initial mistakes, then I don't believe that this can be the initial response. It isn't that you know whether one will turn into the other; it's that you can't know on so little information. In all I think this is a legitimate point to have raised, but otherwise I agree in full with Avi on the general way forward. Mackan79 (talk) 23:19, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- Equazcion, I answer your questions in the paragraphs above. If Noleander simply admitted that the article he created were ill-planned and poorly-executed, and perhaps ill-conceived, I would have let the matter rest. I and many other editors have suggested a variety of encyclopedic ways that most if not all of the themes raised in the articles could be beter handled with different research and in other existing articles - so this is not a matter of censorship. But rather than accept the constructive criticisms offered, Noleander just dug in her heels, repeating that articles critical of Jews get censored at Wikipedia, which makes two serious errors: first, it misrepresents the lack of tolerance for anti-Semetic articles with a rejection of articles on topics critical of Jews, and second, she is blind to the number of articles here that include criticisms of Israeli persecution of Arabs or occupation of the West Bank. Read Jean-Paul Sartre's Anti-Semite, Jew, as he pointed out, it is the anti-Semite who has the persecution complex. Many editors have suggested othe ways Noleander's concerns could be handled at Wikipedia, as opposed to these two very offensive articles. Noleander, rather than accomplishing her ends without offending, prefers to demand that the offensive articles stay in, flip-flopping on her motives as necessary. I think that speaks volumes. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:28, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- Let me make a proposition: This encyclopedia already contains many articles on canards like Kosher Tax, Well poisoning, The Franklin Prophecy, etc. Oddly, the encyclopedia does not contain any mention of the "Jews Control Hollywood" canard ... not even one sentence in Antisemitic canards. That is an omission in this encyclopedia. My proposition is: let's work together to add that material, either in a dedicated article, or as a section in Antisemitic canards. I'll be happy to cooperate with you on that task. What do you say? --Noleander (talk) 23:32, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- Others have already proposed that the Hollywood Canard be discussed in the Antisemitic Canards article - if you are now agreeable I can't fault you for that! I do wonder why you did not do this, originally. It sounds reasonable to me. However, I have no expertise on this and only make contributions when I have expertise or have done the research. If you have time to read the books and articles on the topic, you'd certainly be helping the project, maybe there are others you can enlist. Also, at 23:05, 22 October 2009 I asked a series of specific questions I would still appreciate your answering, to help clarify things. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:40, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- Let me make a proposition: This encyclopedia already contains many articles on canards like Kosher Tax, Well poisoning, The Franklin Prophecy, etc. Oddly, the encyclopedia does not contain any mention of the "Jews Control Hollywood" canard ... not even one sentence in Antisemitic canards. That is an omission in this encyclopedia. My proposition is: let's work together to add that material, either in a dedicated article, or as a section in Antisemitic canards. I'll be happy to cooperate with you on that task. What do you say? --Noleander (talk) 23:32, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- Mackan79 is correct that up to the point that User:Hipocrite unearthed the word-for-word quotation of material from anti-Semitic hate sites, I had been defending Noleander from editors who were making what seemed to me to be baseless attacks on him implying that he is anti-Semitic. I do believe that accusations of anti-Semitism are often made for ulterior, opften Zionist, motives and as a result of acting on this oopinon I have ended up on the Jewish Internet Defense Force's list of Wikipedians they dislike. Indeed, the last time I was mentioned on this page was by a JIDF activist complaining about me.
- However, now that I know that Noleander was quoting material verbatim from a blatantly anti-Semitic article - the Radio Islam article is no less bigoted than the Stormfront one - my stance has changed. I have brought this to this page because I think Wikipedians need to ask themselves whether an editor who plagiarises material from hate sites is someone we want anywhere near a serious encyclopedia that has a key policy advocating a neutral point of view based on the contents of high quality mainstream publications.--Peter cohen (talk) 23:54, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- You're making it sound like plagiarizing material from hate sites has been a long-term practice for Noleander. He made a mistake and apologized already. You've made mistakes before, right? Why not wait and see if this actually proves to be a pattern, before assuming that it will? Equazcion (talk) 00:03, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- S1Rubenstein: Yes, someone in the AfD did propose a section in the Antisemitic canard. I immediatly concurred that that was an acceptable way to go (I would find the diffs, but I dont have 30 minutes to hunt thru the AfD :-). Not only did I agree to a section (in lieu of a full article), but when a different proposal was made to broaden the article to "Jews and Hollywood" I agreed that such a change was fine. I'll tell you what: If you will create a "Canard: Jews Control Hollywood" section in Antisemitic canard now (I mean in the next day or two, when you have time) I will then help edit that section in a neutral and cooperative manner. --Noleander (talk) 23:58, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
noleander break
Noleander, I'm very glad that you've agreed to merge parts of the Jews and Hollywood article with the article about Antisemitic canards. On that note, I disagree that Wikipedia is overly censorious of antisemitism. Legitimate criticisms of specific people or organizations do belong in Wikipedia and are placed there. However, not all criticisms are legitimate, and Wikipedia is not a place to spread false accusations or weasel worded criticisms. Criticisms that are not based on facts from a reputable source, such as comments about Jews from RadioIslam, should not be presented as facts in Wikipedia. Do you understand my point? --AFriedman (talk) 00:07, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry to butt in, but I don't understand your point. Unless you're actually saying Wikipedia shouldn't say that radioislam said certain things. Or Wikipedia shouldn't say that certain people accused certain other people of things. I rather think those do belong here. The fact is, these accusations were made. The accusations themselves being ridiculous doesn't change that. Equazcion (talk) 00:11, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- It all depends on whether or not those things being said are notable, and said by reliable sources, doesn't it? Jayjg (talk) 00:50, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- Yes. What sources of questionable reputability say can be in the articles about those sources, with information about why their reputability is questionable. What RadioIslam says about Jews (and why, and what is wrong with it) can be in the article about RadioIslam, but not presented as a fact in an article about Jews. --AFriedman (talk) 03:15, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Noleander, I'm curious about the sources you've been using. I've looked at the original article, and even the current one, and it appears that you are citing many different sources. You've already stated that you got the Medved quote from the antisemitic website Radio Islam. Given that that was the source, and not Moment, and in light of WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT and WP:RS, can you explain why you have attributed the quotation to Moment, and how you know the quote is accurate? Also, in that vein, I note your original version of the article, for example, also cited Vogue when quoting Dolly Parton and Victor Marchetti's defunct newsletter "New American View" when quoting Victor Marchetti. Did you actually read those sources? Or is it possible that you actually read the material on, say, a Holocaust denial site like the Institute for Historical Review, which you also cited in your article? Say, on this page: http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v17/v17n5p14_Marchetti.html? Also, you've quoted J.J. Goldberg's Jewish Power: inside the American Jewish Establishment fairly liberally. Do you actually own the book? Have you read it? Jayjg (talk) 00:50, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
noleander break 2
Equazcion, you've been quite stalwart in your defense of Noleander, insisting that he has, at worst, made a few minor and innocent mistakes, and that those who have raised concerns are subjecting him to "rabid bad-faith assumptions". But is that really an accurate assessment of the concerns raised? As is clear, Noleander has created articles using quite obviously antisemitic sources, such as Radio Islam and the Institute for Historical Review. He has claimed that he was, for example, with the "Jews and Hollywood" article, merely attempting to describe an antisemitic canard. Yet, rather then an exposé, those assessing the article found it to be a one-sided original-research/coatrack essay attempting to support the canard. Noleander has stated quite plainly that "My perception is that Wikipedia is censored in regards to some topics that reflect negatively on Jews, and I'm attempting to reverse that censorship." He himself believes that there is a conspiracy to suppress/censor negative information about Jews; exactly the thesis of many of the (often antisemitic) sources used in the articles he created. And he's certainly been as good as his word; contributions he makes to articles relating to Jews appear to be almost uniformly negative. So, what are we all to make of this behavior? Should we, as you seem to propose, view it as essentially neutral, normal Wikipedia editing, with a minor mistake or two? Or can we at least state that it is "anti-Semitic in effect if not in intent"? Jayjg (talk) 01:05, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- Noleander was describing a de-facto censorship, rather than a premeditated one. Some of his latest statements might be interpreted as otherwise, but I feel that's more a product of his frustration than anything else, and this frustration is being felt on both side -- evident from certain lengthy comments by certain individuals who are quite visibly emotional regarding this topic. He used anti-semitic sources because that's what the article was about: a collection of instances of anti-semetism. You generally find such instances at anti-semitic sources. I do believe the copyvio incidents were isolated, and see no reason to believe otherwise. Describing anti-semetism, and pointing it out, and even seeking them out in an attempt to fill a perceived void in Wikipedia's content, are not in themselves anti-semitic acts. "those assessing the article" are a rather large group of people, and their assessments fall on both sides on the debate. Equazcion (talk) 01:33, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- What do you mean "Noleander was describing a de-facto censorship"; what "de facto censorship"? Also, why on earth would you use and rely on unreliable antisemitic sources to describe antisemitism? It's not as if there aren't hundreds of scholarly books and thousands of scholarly articles on the topic! In addition, he doesn't apper to have been "describing anti-semetism" at all; rather, as the comments at the AfD point out, he was, at best, regurgitating it, and at worst, promoting it. And finally, regarding "those assessing the article", aside from a couple of stalwart defenders like you, who appear to have completely ignored/denigrated the valid concerns raised, the assessments are strongly to the side of "POV OR coatrack essay". Jayjg (talk) 02:12, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- Noleander perceives a void in Wikpedia's content. He called it censorship, because he saw it as confined to a certain type of information. In that sense it would be de-facto, in that it wasn't intended necessarily, but is nevertheless the perceived effect. I'm not sure how many scholarly works there are on Jewish leadership in Hollywood; I hope there are hundreds as you say, for the sake of the article. Nevertheless, the lack of scholarly works present, and the use of sub-par sources, could be attributed — and normally would in the majority of other situation — as lack of experience with Wikipedia's sourcing standards. The "comments at AfD", again, are not proof of anything, as there are comments on both sides of the debate. I admit there are a majority of delete votes currently, but not necessarily with the rationale you describe, and a majority doesn't necessarily mean a correct conclusion. I've often stood in the minority opinion and have no qualms about it. You dismiss those who disagree with you as having completely ignored valid reasoning, but they of course feel the same of you, so saying such things gets us nowhere. Equazcion (talk) 02:35, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- There are thousands of works on antisemitism, which is what you are claiming Noleander was attempting to highlight (rather than promote). As for an alleged "lack of experience with Wikipedia's sourcing standards", Noleander has been editing since February 2006; "newbie" excuses won't wash. And I state that you appear to have completely ignored/denigrated the valid concerns raised, because that it what you have quite obviously done, in your own words, when you dismissed the concerns of others as "rabid bad-faith assumptions". Jayjg (talk) 03:20, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- There were some rather rabid bad-faith assumptions, but I suspect we're referring to different comments entirely. There were also some quite valid concerns raised, and I respect them. I'm not saying Noleander is a newbie, but his experience with article creation or sourcing could be lacking. I'm assuming that's the reason, because I'm supposed to, until a longer-term pattern reveals itself. Equazcion (talk) 03:30, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- There are thousands of works on antisemitism, which is what you are claiming Noleander was attempting to highlight (rather than promote). As for an alleged "lack of experience with Wikipedia's sourcing standards", Noleander has been editing since February 2006; "newbie" excuses won't wash. And I state that you appear to have completely ignored/denigrated the valid concerns raised, because that it what you have quite obviously done, in your own words, when you dismissed the concerns of others as "rabid bad-faith assumptions". Jayjg (talk) 03:20, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- Noleander perceives a void in Wikpedia's content. He called it censorship, because he saw it as confined to a certain type of information. In that sense it would be de-facto, in that it wasn't intended necessarily, but is nevertheless the perceived effect. I'm not sure how many scholarly works there are on Jewish leadership in Hollywood; I hope there are hundreds as you say, for the sake of the article. Nevertheless, the lack of scholarly works present, and the use of sub-par sources, could be attributed — and normally would in the majority of other situation — as lack of experience with Wikipedia's sourcing standards. The "comments at AfD", again, are not proof of anything, as there are comments on both sides of the debate. I admit there are a majority of delete votes currently, but not necessarily with the rationale you describe, and a majority doesn't necessarily mean a correct conclusion. I've often stood in the minority opinion and have no qualms about it. You dismiss those who disagree with you as having completely ignored valid reasoning, but they of course feel the same of you, so saying such things gets us nowhere. Equazcion (talk) 02:35, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- What do you mean "Noleander was describing a de-facto censorship"; what "de facto censorship"? Also, why on earth would you use and rely on unreliable antisemitic sources to describe antisemitism? It's not as if there aren't hundreds of scholarly books and thousands of scholarly articles on the topic! In addition, he doesn't apper to have been "describing anti-semetism" at all; rather, as the comments at the AfD point out, he was, at best, regurgitating it, and at worst, promoting it. And finally, regarding "those assessing the article", aside from a couple of stalwart defenders like you, who appear to have completely ignored/denigrated the valid concerns raised, the assessments are strongly to the side of "POV OR coatrack essay". Jayjg (talk) 02:12, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- Also, with regard to this: "He himself believes that there is a conspiracy to suppress/censor negative information about Jews" -- He's not posting negative information about Jews. He's posting instances where notable figures have said or written negative things about Jews. There's a huge difference. Equazcion (talk) 01:41, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- How so? If one edits Wikipedia solely for the purpose of highlighting or promoting negative commentary about an identifiable group that has been subject to serious discrimination, is that not, in effect, the same thing? If one were, for example, to edit Wikipedia for the stated purpose of highlighting negative comments made by notable figures about African-Americans, and just happened to use a lot of racist sites as sources, would we all be saying "innocent mistake, no harm, no foul"? Jayjg (talk) 02:12, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- It is that very perception of "promotion" that I debate. I don't see any promotion here. The language used was matter-of-fact, reporting incidents without judging them to be positive, or negative, for that matter. I don't see any "highlighting", either, although we may have different definitions of that word. If one were to edit Wikipedia for the stated purpose of correcting an imbalance in Wikipedia by adding negative comments made by notable figures about African-Americans, I would not object to that or feel particularly offended. If he happened to use a lot of racist sites as sources for said endeavor, I would let him know about Wikipedia's sourcing standards. If he apologized for using said sources, I would say "Thank you for understanding", and then I would cease speaking; and wait and see if it happened again. Equazcion (talk) 02:35, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- The language used was matter of fact? Not according to large majority of those who !voted at the AfDs, and found them to be inherently POV essays that drew conclusions. Your view of this matter is decidedly at odds with that of most other people who have looked at the articles. Moreover, your view of Noleander's actions contradicts his own stated intent. You're entitled to that view, but I can't see why anyone else would take it at all seriously. Jayjg (talk) 03:20, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- It is that very perception of "promotion" that I debate. I don't see any promotion here. The language used was matter-of-fact, reporting incidents without judging them to be positive, or negative, for that matter. I don't see any "highlighting", either, although we may have different definitions of that word. If one were to edit Wikipedia for the stated purpose of correcting an imbalance in Wikipedia by adding negative comments made by notable figures about African-Americans, I would not object to that or feel particularly offended. If he happened to use a lot of racist sites as sources for said endeavor, I would let him know about Wikipedia's sourcing standards. If he apologized for using said sources, I would say "Thank you for understanding", and then I would cease speaking; and wait and see if it happened again. Equazcion (talk) 02:35, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- How so? If one edits Wikipedia solely for the purpose of highlighting or promoting negative commentary about an identifiable group that has been subject to serious discrimination, is that not, in effect, the same thing? If one were, for example, to edit Wikipedia for the stated purpose of highlighting negative comments made by notable figures about African-Americans, and just happened to use a lot of racist sites as sources, would we all be saying "innocent mistake, no harm, no foul"? Jayjg (talk) 02:12, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- I haven't looked through all of Noleander's edits, but the extent I did look through does not suggest a focus on anti-Jewish editing; if anything it suggests to me a focus on criticism of "organized religion" in general. That's a topic I'm familiar with, and what I see in his edits suggests a fairly broad-based approach. I regret saying this, because I don't feel that I'm in a position to judge Noleander's interests, and I doubt that this is the most productive way to evaluate editing. Mackan79 (talk) 02:43, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- He has two main foci; his primary one is adding critical material about the Mormon church, and his secondary one is adding critical material about Jews. That is trivially obvious when one looks at his contributions. Jayjg (talk) 03:20, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- I see his fourth most edited article is Criticism of Religion. Here is a section on the talk page of Religion I just skimmed through. I would say this supports my assessment. Mackan79 (talk) 03:42, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, that's his fourth most edited article. His first, second, fifth, sixth, ninth, twelfth, thirteenth and fifteenth most edited articles are criticisms of Mormons. In fact, his top two articles (criticizing Mormonism) comprise over 40% of his mainspace edits. In addition, his eight, tenth, eleventh, and fourteenth most edited articles are about Jews. As for his fourth most edited article, Criticism of Religion, the criticisms are sometimes quite specific.[123][124] I would say, and rather more convincingly, that this supports my assessment. Jayjg (talk) 04:08, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- I see his fourth most edited article is Criticism of Religion. Here is a section on the talk page of Religion I just skimmed through. I would say this supports my assessment. Mackan79 (talk) 03:42, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- He has two main foci; his primary one is adding critical material about the Mormon church, and his secondary one is adding critical material about Jews. That is trivially obvious when one looks at his contributions. Jayjg (talk) 03:20, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- I haven't looked through all of Noleander's edits, but the extent I did look through does not suggest a focus on anti-Jewish editing; if anything it suggests to me a focus on criticism of "organized religion" in general. That's a topic I'm familiar with, and what I see in his edits suggests a fairly broad-based approach. I regret saying this, because I don't feel that I'm in a position to judge Noleander's interests, and I doubt that this is the most productive way to evaluate editing. Mackan79 (talk) 02:43, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Mackan seems to be attempting to dismiss Noleander's actions as representing an anti-religious bias rather than any anti-Jewish bias. As an atheist I would not care in the least if that were the case. However the facts do not support this view. If anything his actions have more in common with the attacks on secular Jews by William A. Donohue than anything anyone has written about the religious aspect of Judaism.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 04:04, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- I've been enjoying this debate, but in a practical sense, analyzing Noleander's past edits in an attempt to judge his character or future actions seems to cross the line into completely pointless. Is there an accusation of policy violation somewhere in this? Is there any reason not to let this go, and see what Noleander actually does in the future? Equazcion (talk) 04:18, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- For some slightly ORish thoughts here, I consider this to be pretty difficult ground for the modern religious critic, as distinguished from so many here who are steeped in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. I can cite someone like Richard Dawkins, probably the most prominent critic of this type, who is discussed in Wikipedia's article, Jewish lobby, for being accused of spreading antisemitic conspiracy theories in saying that atheists try to create such a lobby of their own. I would guess I am not alone in thinking, Dawkins, stick to what you know! I doubt many people really think he's antisemitic. But there are many like him, who share his familiarities and lack of familiarities. On Wikipedia, while I certainly appreciate an editor like Slrubenstein editing only in the areas of his expertise, the fact is that others of us edit to push the bounds of our knowledge, and sometimes avoid editing in areas of professional involvement. I should say that I certainly do not mean to defend the copying of something from a clearly antisemitic website; if a professional writer did this, it would be a problem. I am saying that if a college student does this it is something different. We let college students edit here, people who didn't go to college, I think we have administrators who are something like 12 years old. It doesn't mean we should lower standards, least of all regarding the creation of bigoted content, but we should recognize that the content is usually the standard, except where statements of a discriminatory agenda are quite clear. Sharply negative speculation about individual editors, even where there's thought to be some reason for it, is problematic. I do also agree with Equazcion's comment just above. Mackan79 (talk) 06:09, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- I want to make an important and i think relevant qualification. While I seldom stray from my areas of expertise, I will for the same reason many and I think Mackan does: in the process i learn more. But this only works when I work on new articles after having done serious research - to work on the Jesus article I read four books used in college courses. If we are to be as good an encyclopedia as we wish, we should expect the same from other editors. I'd say this is especially the case with controversial situations like anti-Semitism. Be that as it may, Noleander is clearly soapboxing, he has said he thinks that articles criticle of Jews get surpressed at Wikipedia, so he wants to wrkte articles criticle of Jews to challenge such supression. This is just a terrible thing to do and I find Equazcion's doffed support of Noleander - she has supported Noleander in every way, never questioning anything - mind-boggling. If I have misunderstood Noleander i apologize but i have requested clartification many times and have not been given it. Slrubenstein | Talk 09:40, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- For some slightly ORish thoughts here, I consider this to be pretty difficult ground for the modern religious critic, as distinguished from so many here who are steeped in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. I can cite someone like Richard Dawkins, probably the most prominent critic of this type, who is discussed in Wikipedia's article, Jewish lobby, for being accused of spreading antisemitic conspiracy theories in saying that atheists try to create such a lobby of their own. I would guess I am not alone in thinking, Dawkins, stick to what you know! I doubt many people really think he's antisemitic. But there are many like him, who share his familiarities and lack of familiarities. On Wikipedia, while I certainly appreciate an editor like Slrubenstein editing only in the areas of his expertise, the fact is that others of us edit to push the bounds of our knowledge, and sometimes avoid editing in areas of professional involvement. I should say that I certainly do not mean to defend the copying of something from a clearly antisemitic website; if a professional writer did this, it would be a problem. I am saying that if a college student does this it is something different. We let college students edit here, people who didn't go to college, I think we have administrators who are something like 12 years old. It doesn't mean we should lower standards, least of all regarding the creation of bigoted content, but we should recognize that the content is usually the standard, except where statements of a discriminatory agenda are quite clear. Sharply negative speculation about individual editors, even where there's thought to be some reason for it, is problematic. I do also agree with Equazcion's comment just above. Mackan79 (talk) 06:09, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
noleander break 3
- Let me submit that there is a series of appropriate questions. The first question is whether an editor is adhering to policy. The second question, if not, is whether the behavior is correctable. The third question is what should be done. Here, it is fairly clear that there are policy violations regardless of where the material was taken, in that overly large sections were copied from unreliable sources without appropriate attribution. The major question seems to be the second: do the editor's actions show that they are correctable? My view is that this is the question to be resolved, and that currently it can't be resolved, primarily because this appears to be the first time these issues have been raised with this editor.
- I might add that I wish this could all be resolved by interviewing the editor, yet I question whether intense group scrutiny is likely to achieve the desired result. One thing to keep in mind is that a Wikipedia editor is not necessarily a public figure, we don't ask to know who they are, and accordingly while we take the encyclopedia seriously we recognize (largely with WP:AGF) that editors may be of any age, background, level of education, expertise, or so on. It seems to me that this is an easily forgotten but significant point. Mackan79 (talk) 02:18, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- You're saying we should wait and see how this editor acts in the future, and I think that's the appropriate course of action. However, the editor has already stated a certain intent, and we may be able to assume he follows it. If some people here seem to think that intent would itself be a policy violation, what do we do then? Equazcion (talk) 02:46, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- Intent is not a violation; action is. However, it is reasonable to allow stated intent to explain actions. At this point, if Noleander adheres to wiki policy and guideline in the future, it matters not if s/he is a Judeophile or Antisemite. However, if Noleander's future actions indicate a continued reliance on inappropriate sources and article creations, the stated intent would take on a greater role in the understanding of his or her actions, at least in my opinion. -- Avi (talk) 03:03, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- We seem to be in agreement, then, at least on where to go from here. I believe this incident has been resolved. Equazcion (talk) 03:08, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- We're not in agreement, and I don't believe it's resolved. Please don't close discussions in which you're involved again. Jayjg (talk) 03:21, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- Big, huge oops on my part. I mistook Avi's comment for one by you, Jayjg, and therefore thought the closing would be uncontroversial. I sincerely apologize. Equazcion (talk) 03:24, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks. As I said on my Talk: page, please keep in mind that there were many others who raised concerns regarding Noleander, and they all need more than an hour to evaluate and respond as well. Many of them will be off-Wikipedia right now, for various reasons. Indeed, Noelander himself has not had a chance to reply. In light of the various claims of "censorship" flying, including in the very articles that Noleander created, hasty closing of this discussion would seem, at best, ironic. Jayjg (talk) 03:27, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- Big, huge oops on my part. I mistook Avi's comment for one by you, Jayjg, and therefore thought the closing would be uncontroversial. I sincerely apologize. Equazcion (talk) 03:24, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- We're not in agreement, and I don't believe it's resolved. Please don't close discussions in which you're involved again. Jayjg (talk) 03:21, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- We seem to be in agreement, then, at least on where to go from here. I believe this incident has been resolved. Equazcion (talk) 03:08, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- Intent is not a violation; action is. However, it is reasonable to allow stated intent to explain actions. At this point, if Noleander adheres to wiki policy and guideline in the future, it matters not if s/he is a Judeophile or Antisemite. However, if Noleander's future actions indicate a continued reliance on inappropriate sources and article creations, the stated intent would take on a greater role in the understanding of his or her actions, at least in my opinion. -- Avi (talk) 03:03, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- You're saying we should wait and see how this editor acts in the future, and I think that's the appropriate course of action. However, the editor has already stated a certain intent, and we may be able to assume he follows it. If some people here seem to think that intent would itself be a policy violation, what do we do then? Equazcion (talk) 02:46, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
noleander break 4
- This feels like the spanish inquistion :-) Seriously, I'll repeat what I've already said several times: I feel that WP is too "politically correct" in some areas. For some odd reason, I feel like I can help improve the encyclopedia in those areas. If you look at my edit history, you'll see that most (80%?) of my edits are adding/tweaking text that is critical of formal religions (Mormonism, Catholicism, Islam, Judaism, Scientology). I'm an equal opportunity skeptic :-) When I started working on Mormonism articles, there was some tension, but as the months went by, I began to respect the apologetic editors ("apologetic" meaning "defender of religion") and - I hope - they somewhat respected me. After a year or so, I was actually adding in lots of positive info about Mormonism, and improving the formatting of the articles.
- Regarding this ANI: I have no particular axe to grind: just trying to fill in some perceived voids. I'm the first to admit I am a lousy writer, and am very ignorant of many WP policies (including how to properly cite sources). On the other hand, I am also the editor that added the following topics into articles An Empire Of Their Own:
- Jewish actors were forced to change their names
- Jewish producers, far from putting out J. propaganda, actually refrained from depicting J. themes in movies
- Jewish Hollywood figures were unfairly targetted by McCarthyism.
- Some of the above has since been removed by other editors, but I was - to my knowledge - the first to add this material into WP.
- And lets not forget my favorite story in WP:
- In this chapter, Gabler also gives examples of anti-Semitism endured by the Hollywood Jews. Gaber quotes Milton Sperling telling a story about Joseph Schenck: "Schenck walked into a bank .. and the banker said to [the man with Shenck] 'What are you doing with a kike?'. Years later, Schenk went back to this banker and said 'This kike wants to borrow $100 milllion'... The banker said 'I'll be very happy to do business with you' and [Schenk] said 'Fuck you'." -ref - Quoted in Gabler, p. 132
- Do you know who added that? I did. (It has since been removed by another editor).
- So, sure 80% of my edits focus on negative aspects of religion. You know what? My two favorite books are God is not great and The God Delusion. Heck, I was the editor that added the horrible crime by Islam when it destroyed the Buddhas of Bamyan into the article Criticism of Religion (and no Islamic-apologetic editors threw an ANI fit about that). Is there some rule that contributions by a given editor must be 50% positive and 50% negative? I repeat, these ANIs are very obvious attempts to intimidate editors that would add (valid, notable) negative material about religions. --Noleander (talk) 04:55, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- I am appalled and astonished by the above. Admissions of being a lousy writer, a lousy editor, condescending comments about Mormanism, Judaism and other peoples religious beliefs and a smug assurance that your views matter? Are you kidding? What an incredible, incredible egotistic waste of time, - you think Wikipedia is too politically correct - so you figure a few Anti-Semitic articles will help things out, I thought I've seen everything, till now...Modernist (talk) 05:10, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- Equal opportunity, huh? How about evangelical Christian? There are many of those who are anti-Jew/Mormon/Catholic/Scientologist/whathaveyou. You need to answer the question above by Jayjg about your sourcing at subsection Noleander break one, and why you think that Stormfront and RadioIslam are reliable sources for content. That would shed a lot of light on your conduct here. That being said, I agree with the opinions of editors above who think the article in question is an unacceptable coatrack. Auntie E. 17:30, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
noleander break 5
- (outdent) I am not one to encourage or particularly tolerate antisemitic activity on Wikipedia - but the point that overvigilant antisemitism can interfere with reasonable scholarly discussions and documentation of antisemitism is a valid one. Antisemitism is an important topic to bring out into the light and have encyclopedia articles on, because it's a fairly significant societal phenomenon, no matter how offensive or wrong we may feel it is.
- I don't on quick review see clear evidence in Noleander's conduct that he's problematically antisemitic or editing grossly inappropriately, or trying to promote antisemitism as opposed to document it. There has been much sound and fury above about apparent or alleged bias with few diffs.
- I think that it would be entirely appropriate to ask that those who believe there's a problem provide us with some specific diffs to show either point incidents or a wider pattern, and lacking those to close it with a "Just so we're all clear, there's going to be heightened scrutiny going forwards, but no action taken at this time" closing message.
- I'll leave it open for now to offer the opportunity for someone(s) to offer diffs if they have them, but I would close (and recommend others to) if in a few hours diffs aren't forthcoming. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:01, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- Eh, stuff imported from Stormfront, POVish articles about Jews all covered up with the canard of "WP is too politically correct". You're (Noleander) an anti-semitic POV pusher. A clever one, to be sure, but a POV pusher all the same. Crafty (talk) 05:03, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- When I am researching appropriate topics, I find that Stormfront, Covert Action Quarterly, Soldier of Fortune, the Chinese Communist Party, and Internet Trolls are all reliable sources. Usually on their own statements and positions; often on related topics.
- That I grossly disagree with nearly all of what nearly all of those groups believe in doesn't mean that they are uniformly useless information sources.
- Again - I am not ruling out someone finding diffs which are more specific. But I went and looked, and I didn't see any fire under the smoke here. I am perfectly happy to wield the banhammer on deserving antisemitic types who try and advocate on Wikipedia and push POV - I have a number of times before and undoubtedly will again. But I don't see that here.
- I know plenty of educated intellectuals who study controversial topics who get caught up in backlashes. So the basic issue is familiar to me.
- If I am misreading it - if there's actual evidence he's a problem - someone can surface some diffs and convince me. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. But absence of evidence is reason to not overreact or react prematurely. If you really think he's a problem - do your homework and find some diffs. If you or anyone does so and my initial assessment turns out to be wrong then I'll not object to admin enforcement action, and I'll take it myself if it seems appropriate. But I'm not convinced yet, and the way to convince me is diffs, not rhetoric.
- SO - again - diffs, please. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:34, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- Eh, stuff imported from Stormfront, POVish articles about Jews all covered up with the canard of "WP is too politically correct". You're (Noleander) an anti-semitic POV pusher. A clever one, to be sure, but a POV pusher all the same. Crafty (talk) 05:03, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- A few thoughts and ideas:
- Let's stop making ad hominem attacks on Noleander based on a mostly responsible overall record (see Wikipedia:No personal attacks, Wikipedia:Assume good faith, Wikipedia:Etiquette ("forgive and forget") etc.) Some of the most valuable edits are made when people have a vested interest in improving the information about a particular subject, often with a particular viewpoint in mind. Regardless of Noleander's stated or unstated intent, most of Noleander's contributions which were critical of Judaism and other religions seem to have remained within the scope of reasonable editing. The edits cited by Slrubenstein as evidence of Noleander's previous record of anti-Jewish editing, for example, were valuable and creative contributions to articles. The article Jews and Hollywood, in my opinion, was a conspicuous exception. Here, I think the inclusion of quotes from antisemitic sources led to lines being crossed in core areas such as Wikipedia:Verifiability (since the sources were not reputable), Wikipedia:Coatrack (since the core information should have been the individual people and their contributions, not the antisemitic accusations), and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view ("Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves"). IMO it should have been clearer to Noleander, at an earlier stage, which lines he crossed and when, and so I am offering some suggestions.
- For a course of action, one possibility is to give Noleander a Level 2 warning on his Talk page for some of these violations (a Level 2 warning does not include threats or assumptions of bad faith, and also does not include a welcome since Noleander is not a new user). This type of warning is found in Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace. As I said, we should also try and make sure we and Noleander understand exactly where he crossed the line so he can think about how to prevent it from happening again.
- I also feel that possible antisemitism is particularly troublesome even by the standards of bigotry, since the Holocaust occurred less than 70 years ago and antisemitism is still widespread. Antisemitism is a special (I am not saying unique) case because of its potential to lead to violence. --AFriedman (talk) 06:04, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- Was with you up until the end; I don't think antisemetism is particularly troublesome, any more than any other possible bias. Objectivity is paramount over any sort of activism, at least when running an encyclopedia. Could you provide something specific, like a diff or quote from the article history, in which Noleander violated your NPOV snippet of "Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves"? Equazcion (talk) 06:12, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- Equazcion, I think we agree on the big picture, i.e. the first 2 paragraphs that suggest some violations and propose a course of action. Do others agree that Noleander violated NPOV, Coatrack and Verifiability and warrants a Level 2 warning, as well as a note or suggestion that he avoid violating these policies in the future? Regarding the NPOV concerns, I was rethinking that a bit and let me explain: the article originally focused overwhelmingly on accusations of disproportionate Jewish influence, much of which came from fringe and unreliable sources. Viewpoints that were sympathetic to Jews, such as the ADL, were mentioned more briefly and were less thoroughly explained. To me, this seems to violate NPOV. As for antisemitism being particularly troublesome, I am not saying it belongs in a special category relative to anti-Arab, anti-Muslim, anti-Armenian or anti-African bigotry, for example. All these have the potential to cause actual harm to people. However, we probably don't need to be as careful about other types of bias. An outright attack on another group, such as students of Cornell University, may equally violate Wikipedia policy. However, it is less likely to incite people to hatred and therefore less concerning. Offline, it is acceptable to sing anti-Cornell songs at football games that one could never sing about Jews or Muslims :) --AFriedman (talk) 07:03, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- I disagree. It's not our job to run the encyclopedia in such a way as to prevent violence. If it were, there are many articles I can think of that wouldn't exist on Wikipedia. The antisemitism issue we're dealing with in this incident is an emotional one. Let's not kid ourselves with righteousness. As far as NPOV, I didn't see there being enough material from the ADL to balance the volume of content needed to describe the antisemitic incidents, and adding more would've seemed forced. That kind of balance isn't what NPOV is about anyway. NPOV refers to a reporting style and language, not balancing content volume on two sides of an issue. If you had a diff regarding "Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves", that would've been something, as it seems central to many of the arguments presented against Noleander: People are saying he asserted the opinions themselves, or "promoted" them (essentially the same thing), rather than merely stating facts about opinions. If there's actual evidence of that, I'm willing to re-examine my position. So far, no one's presented anything, and until that happens, I don't see any need to discuss any course of action other than accepting Noleander's apology and seeing what he does in the future. Equazcion (talk) 07:19, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- For those who want to discuss what our role is on Wikipedia, above and beyond the question of Noleander--I still disagree with Equazcion's assessment of how severely we should sanction antisemitism and racism relative to other types of bias, and why--I've responded to the more general issue on Equazcion's talk page. Good night. --AFriedman (talk) 08:05, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- Eh, I don't think the two assessments are so far apart. The articles had serious problems, starting with the titles; without repeated instances following feedback that isn't something we generally punish people for, but I think it can be recognized. For one thing, to start an article on controversies with Jews and Hollywood with the allegations about the film industry's negative portrayals of African Americans, and then suggesting that otherwise this history isn't covered on Wikipedia... well, I think a mainstream way to deal with that issue would not be to cover it as a controversy of Jews and Hollywood. My personal suggestion to Noleander would also be, really, please stop saying that people are complaining out of ulterior motives; this is speculative, it's an assumption of bad faith, and it does no good at all. Similarly (and because I assume it is done for the same reason) I think it's bad form to delete people's talk page messages without comment. On the other hand, I think Afriedman is clearly right that the personal attacks here have gone much too far all around. I can't support an additional formal warning without assuming bad faith (which I don't), but otherwise I think AFriedman's comments are well made. Mackan79 (talk) 08:10, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- For those who want to discuss what our role is on Wikipedia, above and beyond the question of Noleander--I still disagree with Equazcion's assessment of how severely we should sanction antisemitism and racism relative to other types of bias, and why--I've responded to the more general issue on Equazcion's talk page. Good night. --AFriedman (talk) 08:05, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- I disagree. It's not our job to run the encyclopedia in such a way as to prevent violence. If it were, there are many articles I can think of that wouldn't exist on Wikipedia. The antisemitism issue we're dealing with in this incident is an emotional one. Let's not kid ourselves with righteousness. As far as NPOV, I didn't see there being enough material from the ADL to balance the volume of content needed to describe the antisemitic incidents, and adding more would've seemed forced. That kind of balance isn't what NPOV is about anyway. NPOV refers to a reporting style and language, not balancing content volume on two sides of an issue. If you had a diff regarding "Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves", that would've been something, as it seems central to many of the arguments presented against Noleander: People are saying he asserted the opinions themselves, or "promoted" them (essentially the same thing), rather than merely stating facts about opinions. If there's actual evidence of that, I'm willing to re-examine my position. So far, no one's presented anything, and until that happens, I don't see any need to discuss any course of action other than accepting Noleander's apology and seeing what he does in the future. Equazcion (talk) 07:19, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- Equazcion, I think we agree on the big picture, i.e. the first 2 paragraphs that suggest some violations and propose a course of action. Do others agree that Noleander violated NPOV, Coatrack and Verifiability and warrants a Level 2 warning, as well as a note or suggestion that he avoid violating these policies in the future? Regarding the NPOV concerns, I was rethinking that a bit and let me explain: the article originally focused overwhelmingly on accusations of disproportionate Jewish influence, much of which came from fringe and unreliable sources. Viewpoints that were sympathetic to Jews, such as the ADL, were mentioned more briefly and were less thoroughly explained. To me, this seems to violate NPOV. As for antisemitism being particularly troublesome, I am not saying it belongs in a special category relative to anti-Arab, anti-Muslim, anti-Armenian or anti-African bigotry, for example. All these have the potential to cause actual harm to people. However, we probably don't need to be as careful about other types of bias. An outright attack on another group, such as students of Cornell University, may equally violate Wikipedia policy. However, it is less likely to incite people to hatred and therefore less concerning. Offline, it is acceptable to sing anti-Cornell songs at football games that one could never sing about Jews or Muslims :) --AFriedman (talk) 07:03, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- Was with you up until the end; I don't think antisemetism is particularly troublesome, any more than any other possible bias. Objectivity is paramount over any sort of activism, at least when running an encyclopedia. Could you provide something specific, like a diff or quote from the article history, in which Noleander violated your NPOV snippet of "Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves"? Equazcion (talk) 06:12, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- I support the view of AFriedman. Noleander is hereby warned about plagiarism, and copyvio (See top of this thread), and directed to be much more careful about neutral point of view, not writing coatrack type articles, and verifiability. I'm still willing to assume good faith. However, if there is any more copying of Stormfront content into Wikipedia, I'll be quick to change my mind and reach for the block button. Wikipedia is not a soapbox and that's policy. Jehochman Talk 09:55, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Mackan and others here are trying to focus on behavior rather than intent. I agree this is a constructive approach, and refreshing - I acknowledge the limits of my original approach which was to raise questions about intent. But this is a problem with collective attacks (like homophobia, racism, sexism etc) - one can always say one was being ironic or providing an example and not intending to do harm. This is especially an issue here where at least one of the articles in question has been revised during the AfD procedure (not in and of itself a bad thing, but it makes it hard to kep a consistent AfD discussion going). I know some editors did not like the way I originally forwarded the problem, and I will confess now to one big doubt I have: I am concerned i may be misunderstanding Noleander. That is why I raised a few questions of my own the other day ... but they were not answered.
I would still appreciate it if Noleander would answer these questions: Do you think that every AfD is an attempt to censor? Do you think Wikipedia should allow anti-Semitic articles? I am sure you have a lot more to say in response but I'd appreciate yes/no answers to at least these two questions,at least as a start. Then I would really like you to address two points: (1) concrete examples to illustrate this: "My perception is that Wikipedia is censored in regards to some topics that reflect negatively on Jews, and I'm attempting to reverse that censorship" - perhaps this can be interprested different ways so I would like no room for misunderstanding - and (2) how, precisely, do these two articles you started reverse (as you claimed they would) that censorship? Again, as concrete and specific as posible to leave no rrom for misundanding. I am acknowledging I may have misunderstood you in the past. I ask these questions in good faith to clear up misunderstandings. Slrubenstein | Talk 09:49, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- Is User:Georgewilliamherbert seriously implying that articles on Stormfront (website) satisfy WP:V and WP:RS? That is how I read his remarks, in view of the copy-pasting by Noleander under discussion.Even the wikipedia article describes it as a hate site. Perhaps, instead of describing his private life and contacts with "educated people", Georgewilliamherbert should clarify this matter a little more carefully than he has done so far, particularly since nobody expects this kind of misleading comment and soapboxing to come from an administrator. Mathsci (talk) 14:14, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- I agree. George's claim sounds bizaare. There seems no reasonable way under any reading of WP:RS that they would be a reliable source for anything. Heck even if Stormfront makes claims about itself I doubt I'd consider it a reliable source for that. I'm deeply concerned here. JoshuaZ (talk) 15:44, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- GWH's statement about Stormfront, etc., concern a important point about when obviously unreliable sources can be treated as reliable sources. This may sound like a contradiction, but it is actually a subtle point which many people get wrong: such sites are reliable only about what they say. One example would be the canard about President Obama being a Muslim: if Stormfront states that he is a Muslim, this is a reliable source for saying "Stormfront stated that they believed President Obama was a Muslim" -- & nothing more. These sites can also be cited in some cases where their statement is at odds with verifiable truth. For example, if Stormfront stated that at their annual picnic they claimed it was attended by 10,000 people, I have no problem quoting them on this -- as long as you include the material from a reliable source (like a local newspaper) which reports only 50 people attended their annual picnic, which consisted of 10 Stormfront supporters & 40 anti-Nazi protesters.
I believe this was the point GeorgeWilliamHerbert was trying to make. (And sorry for the
leftistliberal use of italics.) -- llywrch (talk) 17:08, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- GWH's statement about Stormfront, etc., concern a important point about when obviously unreliable sources can be treated as reliable sources. This may sound like a contradiction, but it is actually a subtle point which many people get wrong: such sites are reliable only about what they say. One example would be the canard about President Obama being a Muslim: if Stormfront states that he is a Muslim, this is a reliable source for saying "Stormfront stated that they believed President Obama was a Muslim" -- & nothing more. These sites can also be cited in some cases where their statement is at odds with verifiable truth. For example, if Stormfront stated that at their annual picnic they claimed it was attended by 10,000 people, I have no problem quoting them on this -- as long as you include the material from a reliable source (like a local newspaper) which reports only 50 people attended their annual picnic, which consisted of 10 Stormfront supporters & 40 anti-Nazi protesters.
User:Macgyver-bd 896 again
Prior discussion: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive569#Disruptive_editing_by_User:Macgyver-bd_896
Following up, User:Macgyver-bd 896 has been editing to add unsourced material to firearms articles. A few users found it disruptive but in my view, since nobody is putting a source out there (and I'm not going to be able to say if it's totally ridiculous as they claim), it's bad but I wasn't going to do much beyond this particularly harsh warning for his edit removing a source. Well, I feel like User:Koalorka has been harassing him on his talk page (with reinserting stuff on his talk page, reinserting a typo and removing a source). I told Koalorka it's his talk page but if someone else can reduce the drama, I'd appreciate it. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:05, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- What?! Why am I the focus of an ANI again!?! This is absolutely frivolous. I made exactly ONE interaction with Macgyver. This is harassment. Koalorka (talk) 21:58, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- What was the logic of your edits at Uzi? He added a source. You removed it without explanation and starting warring at his talk page a few days later. Same thing at Luger P08 pistol. Seems like you're following him around for some reason. You've been blocked for personal attacks and harassment before and you don't seem to have improved. I've ignored your comments[125][126] but I will not allow you to continue attacking others. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:25, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- With regards to the Uzi, I was in the process of mass-reverting a bunch of vandalism on several other pages. I didn't even realize it was him at the time. This "warring" that you describe was simply re-tagging the user as a disruptive editor after eyeballing DanMP5's talk page. Please avoid using inflammatory wording such as "warring" when in fact I only made ONE SINGLE edit to his page without knowledge of the previous revert on the Uzi page. My past history has NOTHING to do with this manufactured drama. You can't hold me hostage to my block history. Another threat based on my block history and I will consider filing an AN/I on the grounds of prejudice. "Attacking others"? Again, sensationalist drama. This is the internet. Take a deep breath and consider the insignificance of this all for a moment. Better? Welcome back to reality. Now, let me resume my work, and you can continue doing whatever it is that you do here. Have a nice day. Koalorka (talk) 02:51, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- You edit history is clear. You reverted on his talk page and then went to Luger P08 pistol and went through 5 separate undids of his edits, including his errors.[127][128][129][130][131]. That is not "reverting vandalism", since it looks like you were going by the editor, not the content. Reverting vandalism tends to imply you were looking at the end result of the page, not just going diffs by diffs (unless you're going to argue that editor is only vandalizing). Look, I'll drop it, since it really seems nobody else has any problems here. I'll just note that your block history is there and yes, people will look at that. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:09, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- No, the edit history is entirely coincidental. Like I said, I had no systemic approach to this user and wasn't aware of him until you popped out with your bogus claim. This is a non-issue. If you wish to harass me, there are much more tenable reasons for you to do so, my perceived incivility for instance. This is not one of them. I think we're done here. Koalorka (talk) 13:31, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- (noted on ANI and on Koalorka's talk page)
- Koalorka - Numerous people have warned you before, and blocked you before, for poking back too hard at editors who are disruptive or who come into conflict with you.
- I agree that this is a relatively minor case and not worthy of any official sanction at this time.
- But Ricky was not hallucinating. You keep pushing this button. Please consider this topic a poorly fuzed land mine. If you keep banging on the button on top, eventually it explodes, and then you are very very sorry.
- Stop banging on the button. Learn to edit in a manner which does not abuse those around you. Even if they are behaving badly.
- You have been baited in the past and subjected to harrassment campaigns. Those are not entitlements for you to push back. Despite you being one of the more productive military topic and firearms editors - and someone who appreciates your content efforts in depth - eventually you will exceed everyone's tolerance. Eventually you will exceed my tolerance.
- Wikipedia does not have space in its community for people who continually abuse those around them. You have gotten better on this point. But you are not doing well enough yet that you're out of danger of indefinite blocking based on ongoing behavior. Take the hint, please. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:48, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- I echo that - more drastic improvement is needed to avoid being banned in the near future. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:01, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
User:Chuthya and the David Shankbone article
Continuing on the earlier thread regarding User:67.160.100.233, it appears as though the widespread predictions at the deletion discussion that the article for David Shankbone would become a harassment coatrack were prescient. User:Chuthya has taken up the ball now, adding a (since removed, and it must be said: non-notable) photograph of a goat urinating to the article. He has stated his intention to attempt to add non-notable male anatomy photographs to the article, as well. Other of his edits pick up a common harassment tactic used against User:David Shankbone, while yet another appears to be highly questionable. I've attempted to explain to him why several of his recent edits are problematic, and not all of his edits have been prima facie harassment (but still appear to fail wp:rs and wp:blp, and apparently open the door to his other goals). However subtle, these edits and his apparent motive appear highly problematic, especially for a wp:blp. user:J aka justen (talk) 18:43, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- I have notified User:Chuthya of this discussion. user:J aka justen (talk) 18:46, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- As I explained on my talk page, all of my contributions to that article involve inclusion of CC licensed images that were contributed by the subject. These images were voluntarily uploaded to Commons by the subject. If the subject feels that these images are embarassing, he certainly has the right to request their deletion as their author. I hardly see how editing an article to include contributions by its subject could be construed as harassment. As I also stated, the subjects numerous contributions of free photographs of male anatomy could be included in the article, but undoubtably shouldn't without discussion first. Lastly, I initiated a discussion in talk regarding inclusion in the article the subject's contributions in the area of gay pornography. The article is arguably non-neutral with regard to coverage of the subject's intrests and contributions in this area. But rather than boldly including this in the article, I initiated discussion in talk. User:J's characterations of my edits, and presumption of what my "goals" are, are a woeful example of not assuming good faith. Chuthya (talk) 18:57, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- As I mentioned to you earlier, adding a non-notable photograph of a urinating goat to the biography of a living person regardless of your explanation, stretches any possible assumption of good faith past its breaking point. user:J aka justen (talk) 19:04, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- Whether or not you feel the image is notable, it is an example representative of his work and contributions to the project. It would be prefectly legitimate to include any of his contributions in the article, though arguably some would be more controversial than others. Images from Commons don't need sourcing because they're automatically sourced on the description page. That's the purpose of Commons. If you question the attributability of Commons, then you question the project's ability to comply with GFDL and Creative Commons licenses. Chuthya (talk) 19:09, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- There is a difference between attribution and actual reliable sourcing. Given the variety and significant quantity of his work, decisions made by you or me to include certains pieces of his work give rise to the potential for a sort of editorial original research potentially lacking in neutrality, as was the case with one of the images you intended to insert and the other images you indicated you would like to insert. This is highly problematic, especially for a wp:blp, and especially given the amplitude of not reliable contributions that could be pulled from here and Commons. user:J aka justen (talk) 22:35, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- What dialect of bafflegab is that? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:39, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- It's a unique dialect utilized primarily when trying to craft a response to a wp:ididnthearthat question. It boils down to: Special:Contributions is not a reliable source. user:J aka justen (talk) 22:47, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- Ah, I should have recognized bullshit when I heard it! So, if a normally reliable source, say Scientific American, uses one of David's images from the Commons and says "Photo of Colbert by David Shankbone via Wikimedia Commons", that means it magically becomes, to use your word, "reliable" even though they took that information from the Commons as supplied by David. Is that your argument? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:07, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- The distinction being that Wikimedia Commons, which is to say you or me, are not a reliable source for editorial decisions, while Scientific American is by our standards. You can call it "bullshit," but it's the only way I see for keeping exactly what happened here today from continuing to occur. Selecting photographs for a biography of a living person that are anything other than a headshot can be a highly editorialized process, and as was displayed here, it can be an easy way for someone with a point to make to make that point much better than they could have with "a thousand words." I don't know of any other wp:blp with these sorts of issues, because I don't think any other notable living person has hundreds or thousands of images from which any given editor lacking in neutrality could pick from to make their point. user:J aka justen (talk) 23:17, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- I'll admit it gets off the hook for choosing which of the many great images of David's to use, but it's not much better than choosing randomly or asking David for his favourites. You keep coming back to this very idiosyncratic idea that reliable sources are needed to prove that David took the image in question. If that were the case, shouldn't we be looking for images that have been written about rather than just re-used, sometimes without credit? Don't you think choosing appropriate images for any artist requires some level of discretion? I'm not suggesting that we insert the goat into David Shankbone, but can we try to treat this BLP like we treat other BLPs? There seems to be some ideas that this article is special, when we really ought to be going out of our way to show that it is not, and to see if there are shortcomings with how we handle BLPs. Please don't bother to reply. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:33, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- I don't think it's idiosyncratic. Again, I don't know of any other wp:blp where this particular issue has ever been an issue, so "treating it like other" biographies, for me, is falling back to relying on pictorial editorial decisions made by secondary, reliable sources, rather than by us. user:J aka justen (talk) 23:38, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- I'll admit it gets off the hook for choosing which of the many great images of David's to use, but it's not much better than choosing randomly or asking David for his favourites. You keep coming back to this very idiosyncratic idea that reliable sources are needed to prove that David took the image in question. If that were the case, shouldn't we be looking for images that have been written about rather than just re-used, sometimes without credit? Don't you think choosing appropriate images for any artist requires some level of discretion? I'm not suggesting that we insert the goat into David Shankbone, but can we try to treat this BLP like we treat other BLPs? There seems to be some ideas that this article is special, when we really ought to be going out of our way to show that it is not, and to see if there are shortcomings with how we handle BLPs. Please don't bother to reply. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:33, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- The distinction being that Wikimedia Commons, which is to say you or me, are not a reliable source for editorial decisions, while Scientific American is by our standards. You can call it "bullshit," but it's the only way I see for keeping exactly what happened here today from continuing to occur. Selecting photographs for a biography of a living person that are anything other than a headshot can be a highly editorialized process, and as was displayed here, it can be an easy way for someone with a point to make to make that point much better than they could have with "a thousand words." I don't know of any other wp:blp with these sorts of issues, because I don't think any other notable living person has hundreds or thousands of images from which any given editor lacking in neutrality could pick from to make their point. user:J aka justen (talk) 23:17, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- Ah, I should have recognized bullshit when I heard it! So, if a normally reliable source, say Scientific American, uses one of David's images from the Commons and says "Photo of Colbert by David Shankbone via Wikimedia Commons", that means it magically becomes, to use your word, "reliable" even though they took that information from the Commons as supplied by David. Is that your argument? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:07, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- It's a unique dialect utilized primarily when trying to craft a response to a wp:ididnthearthat question. It boils down to: Special:Contributions is not a reliable source. user:J aka justen (talk) 22:47, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- What dialect of bafflegab is that? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:39, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- There is a difference between attribution and actual reliable sourcing. Given the variety and significant quantity of his work, decisions made by you or me to include certains pieces of his work give rise to the potential for a sort of editorial original research potentially lacking in neutrality, as was the case with one of the images you intended to insert and the other images you indicated you would like to insert. This is highly problematic, especially for a wp:blp, and especially given the amplitude of not reliable contributions that could be pulled from here and Commons. user:J aka justen (talk) 22:35, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- Whether or not you feel the image is notable, it is an example representative of his work and contributions to the project. It would be prefectly legitimate to include any of his contributions in the article, though arguably some would be more controversial than others. Images from Commons don't need sourcing because they're automatically sourced on the description page. That's the purpose of Commons. If you question the attributability of Commons, then you question the project's ability to comply with GFDL and Creative Commons licenses. Chuthya (talk) 19:09, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- As I mentioned to you earlier, adding a non-notable photograph of a urinating goat to the biography of a living person regardless of your explanation, stretches any possible assumption of good faith past its breaking point. user:J aka justen (talk) 19:04, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- I should know better than to wade into this, but your repeated use of the phrase "non-notable photograph" makes me wonder if you think it means something. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:13, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- Sure. If it were a notable photograph that he had taken, which had been printed in or covered by reliable sources, perhaps its inclusion would be reasonable. As a non-notable photograph, the only motivation for its editorial selection would be on the part of User:Chuthya... I'm sure there are a lot of reasons for why somebody would think a urinating goat would be appropriate to include in a biography of a living person. I just can't think of any. user:J aka justen (talk) 19:23, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- J, someone seems to have reformatted several comments here, so I'm not sure if you were replying to me, but you seem to be saying that only images printed in or covered by RS can be included in David Shankbone? Is that really what you are suggesting, or did I misunderstand? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:41, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- Photographs of the subject are one thing. Photographs taken by the subject are another thing altogether, and, just to start with, there needs to be relevance to the subject greater than him simply having taken the photograph. I personally interpret wp:rs and wp:blp as being problematic in the instance of this biography: User:Chuthya wanted to discuss User:David Shankbone's Wikipedia contributions in the article. I think that's where secondary, reliable coverage becomes important... Along those lines, I'm not yet convinced using a different standard for photographs contributed to Wikimedia, as opposed to text contributed to Wikipedia, is going to work for this biography, given the actions undertaken by User:Chuthya and likely to be undertaken by others. user:J aka justen (talk) 19:49, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- There is no doubt that David took the image of a goat or of Whoopie Goldberg(or any of the literally thousands of images he has contributed). I don't understand why you would think RS is relevant here. Is this something to do with the mysterious "non-notable photograph" you alluded to earlier? DO you think a third-party needs to affirm that David took the photograghs? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:58, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- See my response to User:Achromatic below, which also covers the questions you raised. user:J aka justen (talk) 20:32, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- There is no doubt that David took the image of a goat or of Whoopie Goldberg(or any of the literally thousands of images he has contributed). I don't understand why you would think RS is relevant here. Is this something to do with the mysterious "non-notable photograph" you alluded to earlier? DO you think a third-party needs to affirm that David took the photograghs? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:58, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- Photographs of the subject are one thing. Photographs taken by the subject are another thing altogether, and, just to start with, there needs to be relevance to the subject greater than him simply having taken the photograph. I personally interpret wp:rs and wp:blp as being problematic in the instance of this biography: User:Chuthya wanted to discuss User:David Shankbone's Wikipedia contributions in the article. I think that's where secondary, reliable coverage becomes important... Along those lines, I'm not yet convinced using a different standard for photographs contributed to Wikimedia, as opposed to text contributed to Wikipedia, is going to work for this biography, given the actions undertaken by User:Chuthya and likely to be undertaken by others. user:J aka justen (talk) 19:49, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- J, someone seems to have reformatted several comments here, so I'm not sure if you were replying to me, but you seem to be saying that only images printed in or covered by RS can be included in David Shankbone? Is that really what you are suggesting, or did I misunderstand? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:41, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- Sure. If it were a notable photograph that he had taken, which had been printed in or covered by reliable sources, perhaps its inclusion would be reasonable. As a non-notable photograph, the only motivation for its editorial selection would be on the part of User:Chuthya... I'm sure there are a lot of reasons for why somebody would think a urinating goat would be appropriate to include in a biography of a living person. I just can't think of any. user:J aka justen (talk) 19:23, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- (to Chuthya, to avoid confusion) Oh for christ's sake who do you think you're kidding? AGF is not a shield for the patently obvious tactic here of picking the most famously controversial/salacious images from his commons collection and jamming them into the article to make a point. This has nothing to do with sourcing or attribution, so drop that false argument, please. On another note, this is another reason why marginal BLPs shouldn't be created. Tarc (talk) 19:17, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- Unless the photos are relevant to the article content as sourced to reliable independent coverage, it's not clear why they would warrant inclusion. As far as examples of the subjects work, why not use ones that relevant to the content? ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:28, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- I should know better than to wade into this, but your repeated use of the phrase "non-notable photograph" makes me wonder if you think it means something. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:13, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Blocked for 24 hours for WP:POINT and WP:BLP violations. Cirt (talk) 19:22, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- I'm concerned about this block. Looking at the article I see there is an entire gallery section of "example" photographs. Who gets to decide which ones should be included? If the subject of that BLP has contributed photographs on a range of subjects, shouldn't that be reflected? Otherwise I would think the gallery is itself improper (as may be the case).
- I think continued discussion would have been preferable to a block. As long as that editor was willing to work through dispute resolution and abide by consensus, blocking someone whose position is controversial seems problematic to me. It very well may be the case that they are trying to make a point, but we are expected to assume good faith. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:51, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- As I've said before, I don't see how one can assume good faith when an editor is attempting to add a photograph of the rear end of a goat to the biography of a living person. Assuming good faith is one thing; ignoring the obvious point (at best) is another. That being said, I'm not convinced, as you highlight, that the gallery can survive wp:rs and therefore wp:blp, and this may be a heretofore undiscussed issue that needs to be addressed (as I mention above in reply to User:Delicious carbuncle). user:J aka justen (talk) 19:59, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- Interesting - it seems to be your point that the WP page of an artist should only contain art/photography OF the artist, not BY the artist. One wonders why you are not at Rene Magritte, removing the imagery of "The Treachery Of Images" and "The Human Condition", after all, they apparently hold no relevance to the article. Or perhaps Andres Serrano, where no image of the artist appears, but only "Madonna and Child II", an image which shows these religious figures floating in human urine, after all, surely it is stretching past the boundary of good faith to assume that image is there for any purpose other than to discredit the artist. Or perhaps you'd care to explain to people why some artist's page should have their work exhibited, but that you are fighting tooth and nail for another artist's page NOT to have their work exhibited? Achromatic (talk) 20:13, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- I think you're misunderstanding my position: Andres Serrano has a vast body of work with individually notable pieces which have themselves received significant reliable secondary coverage. If I may, Urinating Goat is no Piss Christ, and the image could not have been selected because of its notability within the "portfolio" of David Shankbone. Rather, it appears to have been selected editorially to make a point, as User:Cirt and others have noted above. Likewise, his intention to include photographs of male anatomy appears geared to include otherwise tangential salacious content in a biography of a living person (as User:Tarc noted above), even though said photographs are representative of a very small portion of what User:David Shankbone has uploaded. All of this to say that I don't believe I've created a double standard: if any of User:David Shankbone's images, individually, receive reliable secondary coverage, they should be included in his article. If not, any given editor selecting which to include here can become a significant editorial neutrality issue, as was proven here, and I think that's why we should look closely to wp:rs and wp:blp to figure out how to deal with this sort of situation. user:J aka justen (talk) 20:32, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- My understanding is that the subject of the BLP has added numerous photos related to gay and sexual subjects. If that part of their work is notable and has been covered in reliable independent media it should be represented (along with other subjects they have worked on). But again, I think the key is that a reasonable discussion based on policies and focused on article content would be the best way to proceed, rather than assuming the worst and blocking someone who includes content that is controversial. If the blocked editor had insisted on continuing to add that material without participating in discussion towards resolving the dispute, that would be a different issue. But I don't see a sign of that. Instead I see anyone who comments anonymously on the talk page regarding the photos that are and aren't being included bein attacked. It's not clear why a goat's ass is helpful to include, so maybe I'm being naive, but if isn't a significant photograph why is it on Wikipedia to begin with? I'm not an expert on David's career or his photographic work, or the media coverage of it, if there is any, so I'm open to discussion on how it should be represented. This Wikinews story notes that censorship and pornography issues have arisen in the past [132]. Were they covered in reliable independent media? Right now the article is full of shots with celebrities and a bunch of shots he's taken of celebrities. That doesn't seem terribly encyclopedic or representative of his body of work. Does that mean it needs more genitalia? Maybe. Maybe not. Let's discuss what's appropriate. Blacketeers article was deleted as soon as there was a controversy about him. If we're going to have these articles on BLPs we need to be transparent, neutral and accurate. If not then just delete the thing and be done with it. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:02, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- I think you're misunderstanding my position: Andres Serrano has a vast body of work with individually notable pieces which have themselves received significant reliable secondary coverage. If I may, Urinating Goat is no Piss Christ, and the image could not have been selected because of its notability within the "portfolio" of David Shankbone. Rather, it appears to have been selected editorially to make a point, as User:Cirt and others have noted above. Likewise, his intention to include photographs of male anatomy appears geared to include otherwise tangential salacious content in a biography of a living person (as User:Tarc noted above), even though said photographs are representative of a very small portion of what User:David Shankbone has uploaded. All of this to say that I don't believe I've created a double standard: if any of User:David Shankbone's images, individually, receive reliable secondary coverage, they should be included in his article. If not, any given editor selecting which to include here can become a significant editorial neutrality issue, as was proven here, and I think that's why we should look closely to wp:rs and wp:blp to figure out how to deal with this sort of situation. user:J aka justen (talk) 20:32, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- Interesting - it seems to be your point that the WP page of an artist should only contain art/photography OF the artist, not BY the artist. One wonders why you are not at Rene Magritte, removing the imagery of "The Treachery Of Images" and "The Human Condition", after all, they apparently hold no relevance to the article. Or perhaps Andres Serrano, where no image of the artist appears, but only "Madonna and Child II", an image which shows these religious figures floating in human urine, after all, surely it is stretching past the boundary of good faith to assume that image is there for any purpose other than to discredit the artist. Or perhaps you'd care to explain to people why some artist's page should have their work exhibited, but that you are fighting tooth and nail for another artist's page NOT to have their work exhibited? Achromatic (talk) 20:13, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- As I've said before, I don't see how one can assume good faith when an editor is attempting to add a photograph of the rear end of a goat to the biography of a living person. Assuming good faith is one thing; ignoring the obvious point (at best) is another. That being said, I'm not convinced, as you highlight, that the gallery can survive wp:rs and therefore wp:blp, and this may be a heretofore undiscussed issue that needs to be addressed (as I mention above in reply to User:Delicious carbuncle). user:J aka justen (talk) 19:59, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not sure why this is controversial. If I thought someone was a goat's arse and put an image of a goat's arse on their article (even if they took the photo) I would fully expect to be blocked for it. NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 23:24, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- For whatever reason, User:David Shankbone is a very widely "followed" editor on here and in the peanut gallery, and has more than a few (unfavourable) "followers" who apparently would like to use his newly minted wp:blp as a new conduit to make what they believe to be unflattering points about him. As to why preventing this is controversial, I can't speculate. user:J aka justen (talk) 23:30, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Look guys, if Shankbone uploads a photo to Wikipedia or Commons with his name on it, and does not choose to "opt out" of his BLP, then any of his photos can be placed in the article as representative of his work. If he was willing to put his name on a photo of the rear end of a goat, then I don't see why he would object to it being placed in his article as representative of his work. It is not a BLP violation as long as it contains no infammatory or insulting verbiage in the image caption. Do not block people for linking to his images in his article. If Shankbone doesn't like it, he can ask for his bio to be deleted. Cla68 (talk) 01:46, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- I think wp:blp is clear that using images "out of context," such as was the case here, is unacceptable. Where did you come up with the interpretation that wp:blp only applies to image captions? user:J aka justen (talk) 01:56, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry, it's not out of context to display any of the images that this guy took. If he's willing to take such a picture and upload it to Commons with his name on it, then he is adding it to his collection of work for which he is known for. Who are we to judge which images (apart from featured images) have more value or are more representative than any other? History is history, art is art. We present the content, within our policies, and let the readers decide for themselves if it has merit or not. Again, if this guy doesn't want to be associated with those photos anymore within Wikipedia, then it behooves him to ask that his BLP be deleted. Otherwise, I guess he'll just have to accept the consequences for the decisions that he makes or has made. A good lesson for us all. Cla68 (talk) 04:38, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- "Who are we to judge which images (apart from featured images) have more value or are more representative than any other?" Precisely. Which is why we should only highlight images that reliable sources have printed, used, or otherwise commented on. "Otherwise, I guess he'll just have to accept the consequences for the decisions that he makes or has made." Seriously? Beyond that, I think your viewpoint is entirely out of touch with wp:blp. "Anything you contribute to this project can and will be used against you in your biography" is not in line with the spirit of Wikipedia or Wikimedia, and makes a laughingstock of our policy on the biographies of living people. user:J aka justen (talk) 04:52, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- I'm trying to figure out what the issue is. Here's a stab at it. It's one thing to decorate your user pages with any and all photos you can find in commons. Far as I know, that's totally acceptable. But when photos are used in an article, even when they're free, they need to be "notable" in some way. Presumably the subject is notable, so obviously photos of himself would therefore be notable. Maybe photos of himself with celebrities would be notable. But photos he's taken from behind the camera are presumably only notable to the article if someone else says they are, i.e. if they were cited by an external, reliable source. I think that's what the argument is. Maybe someone can tell me if I've got it right or not? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:06, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- That's the gist of it, I do believe. user:J aka justen (talk) 05:13, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- Since "notable" has a special meaning here at WP, I think that it is a poor choice of word to use in this discussion. Even so, notability relates to the suitability of the subject for an article in WP, not simply for inclusion in an article. There is a guideline for image use and choice at WP:IMAGE which should be applied here, as it would for any other article or BLP. Outside of that, I can see nothing that even suggests J's criterion for image choice in any WP policy of guideline. I believe this is a conflation and misinterpretation of several guidelines and policies into a synthesis of utter nonsense that serves only to avoid discussion on which images are appropriate for this article. This is a flawed strategy which will ultimately backfire. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:07, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- Just because you disagree with me doesn't mean my position is based on "conflation and misinterpretation." The
policyguideline (wp:image) is clear: "Contributors should be judicious in deciding which images are the most suitable for the subject matter in an article." The other policy (wp:blp) adds that images must be used in clear "context." There are several editors arguing here that any number of images that have little context within the content of the article would be perfectly fine, simply because User:David Shankbone took them. It's clear that our community editorial judgment in this case is failing, and given the wide latitude here in terms of possible images, that seems likely to continue to be a concern (as does happen with text, as well, hence wp:or, wp:npov, and so forth). Lastly, just because "notability" is a significant concept for article retention here doesn't mean the phrase "notable image" is a "poor choice of words." It's a perfectly valid and clear concept (explained numerous times above) that can help editors more neutrally decide which (if any) of User:David Shankbone's images should be included in his article. If you don't like that idea, you should probably explain why instead of blustering ad hominem everytime somebody here suggests it. user:J aka justen (talk) 16:17, 23 October 2009 (UTC)- I'm not sure what you think "ad hominem" means, but I'll resist the temptation to show you. There seems little point in arguing with you here since you are evidently intractable and cannot distinguish between policies and guidelines. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:48, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- Whether wp:image is a policy or a guideline makes a significant difference to the underlying argument for you? In any event, the guideline is descriptive, not prescriptive, and "judicious" selection of which images to use would seem to be common sense. As would the policy requirement that the images be in "context." I still can't make heads or tails of whether you're arguing against that, for that, both, or neither? user:J aka justen (talk) 17:34, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- I will try to make it simple for you. Apply WP:IMAGE just like any other article. Apply WP:BLP just like any other BLP. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:01, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- Whether wp:image is a policy or a guideline makes a significant difference to the underlying argument for you? In any event, the guideline is descriptive, not prescriptive, and "judicious" selection of which images to use would seem to be common sense. As would the policy requirement that the images be in "context." I still can't make heads or tails of whether you're arguing against that, for that, both, or neither? user:J aka justen (talk) 17:34, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what you think "ad hominem" means, but I'll resist the temptation to show you. There seems little point in arguing with you here since you are evidently intractable and cannot distinguish between policies and guidelines. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:48, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- Just because you disagree with me doesn't mean my position is based on "conflation and misinterpretation." The
- Since "notable" has a special meaning here at WP, I think that it is a poor choice of word to use in this discussion. Even so, notability relates to the suitability of the subject for an article in WP, not simply for inclusion in an article. There is a guideline for image use and choice at WP:IMAGE which should be applied here, as it would for any other article or BLP. Outside of that, I can see nothing that even suggests J's criterion for image choice in any WP policy of guideline. I believe this is a conflation and misinterpretation of several guidelines and policies into a synthesis of utter nonsense that serves only to avoid discussion on which images are appropriate for this article. This is a flawed strategy which will ultimately backfire. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:07, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- That's the gist of it, I do believe. user:J aka justen (talk) 05:13, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- I'm trying to figure out what the issue is. Here's a stab at it. It's one thing to decorate your user pages with any and all photos you can find in commons. Far as I know, that's totally acceptable. But when photos are used in an article, even when they're free, they need to be "notable" in some way. Presumably the subject is notable, so obviously photos of himself would therefore be notable. Maybe photos of himself with celebrities would be notable. But photos he's taken from behind the camera are presumably only notable to the article if someone else says they are, i.e. if they were cited by an external, reliable source. I think that's what the argument is. Maybe someone can tell me if I've got it right or not? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:06, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- "Who are we to judge which images (apart from featured images) have more value or are more representative than any other?" Precisely. Which is why we should only highlight images that reliable sources have printed, used, or otherwise commented on. "Otherwise, I guess he'll just have to accept the consequences for the decisions that he makes or has made." Seriously? Beyond that, I think your viewpoint is entirely out of touch with wp:blp. "Anything you contribute to this project can and will be used against you in your biography" is not in line with the spirit of Wikipedia or Wikimedia, and makes a laughingstock of our policy on the biographies of living people. user:J aka justen (talk) 04:52, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry, it's not out of context to display any of the images that this guy took. If he's willing to take such a picture and upload it to Commons with his name on it, then he is adding it to his collection of work for which he is known for. Who are we to judge which images (apart from featured images) have more value or are more representative than any other? History is history, art is art. We present the content, within our policies, and let the readers decide for themselves if it has merit or not. Again, if this guy doesn't want to be associated with those photos anymore within Wikipedia, then it behooves him to ask that his BLP be deleted. Otherwise, I guess he'll just have to accept the consequences for the decisions that he makes or has made. A good lesson for us all. Cla68 (talk) 04:38, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- Well let's get to the crux of this then - from the criteria people have outlined, this photo is fine for the article? It contains the notable individual, it contains other notable individuals we have articles on. Otherwise by the arguments outlined here, we have to remove all of the pictures on the Shankbone article because they are not used in any reliable sources I can find, simply on his blog and uploaded on the commons. --Cameron Scott (talk) 09:24, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Bullying, personal opinion influencing editing of page
I would appreciate a review of the discussion page, Transformers reference, of the F-15 Eagle page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:F-15_Eagle). One or two users are engaging in insulting and bullying behavior by blocking legitimate, valid, and relevant information from being added to this page. They are applying some kind of standard that does not apply to similar or identical information that exists for other aircraft of similar type (F-14 and F-22, for example). Then, they are threatening me with blocking.
As an example of the attitude of one of the "editors" in question, I point to his own page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dave1185), where he says those who have the audacity to use this as a means to have an issue addressed are, in his opinion, "real jerks." Quite a display of childish behavior. Well, I'm not going to back down from this bullying from a bully without a leg to stand on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.78.69.200 (talk) 18:48, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
AIV Backlog
You know the drill. Help is appreciated :) - NeutralHomer • Talk • 19:14, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- ...and as quick as that, the backlog is gone. A question for the admins, could there be a bot that alerts the AN or ANI boards when there is a backlog, kinda like DYK does? It would allow the bot to put these edits here and not a user and clear out backlogs ALOT faster. Just an idea. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 19:19, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- I believe there is an ongoing discussion on this at one of the pumps. –xenotalk 19:21, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- There is such a bot on IRC, in the #wikipedia-en-alerts channel. IIRC, it reports several backlogs including CSD, Unblocks, UAA, AIV, and a few others. Hersfold (t/a/c) 20:14, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- It reports AIV, UAA, Unblock request, edit protected request, and csd levels. (I run it and have been running it for several years now) if any more need added let me know. βcommand 23:09, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- Or people could watchlist AIV. Problem solved! Master of Puppets 04:58, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- It reports AIV, UAA, Unblock request, edit protected request, and csd levels. (I run it and have been running it for several years now) if any more need added let me know. βcommand 23:09, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- There is such a bot on IRC, in the #wikipedia-en-alerts channel. IIRC, it reports several backlogs including CSD, Unblocks, UAA, AIV, and a few others. Hersfold (t/a/c) 20:14, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- I believe there is an ongoing discussion on this at one of the pumps. –xenotalk 19:21, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Please review my block
Please see my notice. If the community decides, any admin may change my action without further discussion with me. - Altenmann >t 20:50, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- Hmm, certainly the editor has been warned frequently, and doesn't seem to have modified his behavior, but going straight to an indef block is too harsh in my book. The editor had a clean block log prior to this, so it isn't clear to me that there was any imminent disruption. I'll look a bit more and see if my opinion changes. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 21:09, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- Not sure I'm even seeing the frequent warnings - user isn't in the habit of blanking his userpage, and all I'm seeing is a dialogue about some of his edits that looks like a continuation of a debate on an article talkpage. I'm also not sure (because there are no template warnings) where the bad edits are taking place. Is there a site of current disruption? Failing something dramatic elsewhere, I would have thought a stern warning from an unconnected admin would have been a preferable first step. But do point out what I've missed. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:49, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not seeing much input here. I am prepared to reduce this block to time served. If anyone wishes to weigh in to the contrary, please do soon. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 13:38, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- And unblocked. Marking this resolved. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 16:23, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not seeing much input here. I am prepared to reduce this block to time served. If anyone wishes to weigh in to the contrary, please do soon. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 13:38, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
I brought up a sockpuppetry investigation against 69.121.221.174 because that user was engaging in behavior that I thought to be reminiscent of the previous Spotfixer sockpuppet TruthIIPower. Later developments in that investigation showed that Spotfixer had indeed edited with that IP. Therefore, that IP was blocked.
After an extremely angry email to me and some gradually calming-down discourse at User talk:69.121.221.174, I believe that the IP should actually be unblocked. From what the IP tells me, it seems that
- The IP belongs to a university residence
- A journalism class at the university brings up the use of "mother" vs. "pregnant woman" on Wikipedia every year, hence the periodic debate over that issue (new classes of journalism students taking that class) which led to my suspicions of sockpuppetry
- Other students at that residence were editing articles on cooking right before the block, and would like to be able to continue to contribute.
and I find this reasonably well substantiated by the user contributions.
I'm afraid that I made a mess of things by actually finding a situation in which similar behavior + same IP ≠ sockpuppet. I now find myself reasonably convinced that they are not a sockpuppet and should be unblocked. Awickert (talk) 20:53, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- Heh, I would agree with you that it is probably reasonable to unblock, but not that you made a mess of things. One of the advantages of creating an account is not being immediately associated with everyone else that ever was at that address. It was a risk that didn't pay off. That doesn't mean it was a bad risk, just that it didn't pay off.- Sinneed 21:08, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- If the IP is used by a banned user then a block is entirely appropriate. Anyone who shares that IP who is not the banned user can create an account elsewhere (like the uni library) and then edit without further restriction. Thatcher 21:18, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- If a journalism class has a yearly debate of "mother vs pregnant woman", why don't they just create a WP account for that purpose? A vandalising IP shouldn't be unblocked just because other people at that location don't vandalize. Heck, where I edit from is usually blocked, don't affect me any. Not sure I agree with a university class using Wiki as a debate project, but that's a different subject. IMHO, you were in the right with the block. Tainted Conformity (talk) 23:21, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- They couldn't just create an account - a wikipedia account can only be used by one person. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:56, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- True enough, I guess. Personally think an exception could be made in that type of case though, considering that they're not on the site to improve it as much as use it for class. As long as they had their class's contact info (name of the university & class) on the userpage, I personally wouldn't see the problem. Tainted Conformity Chat 01:08, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- To clarify: this isn't the IP of a journalism class, it's the IP of a residence where people from the journalism class have lived. Hence the two cooking-related edits right before the block. Also, I think it has been people inspired by the class, but acting on their own initiative, who have editied Wiki. Awickert (talk) 01:38, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- True enough, I guess. Personally think an exception could be made in that type of case though, considering that they're not on the site to improve it as much as use it for class. As long as they had their class's contact info (name of the university & class) on the userpage, I personally wouldn't see the problem. Tainted Conformity Chat 01:08, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- They couldn't just create an account - a wikipedia account can only be used by one person. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:56, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
(Full disclosure: I am involved in the "mother" v. "pregnant woman" argument on the opposing side the ip is on, he or she and I have been sparring) The ip has made many advanced edits inconsistent with a first go at wikipedia (signed edits on talk pages from the start, brought a case to Wikiquette alerts), appears to know the lingo very well and has a rudimentary enough grasp of policy to throw it around in arguments. This is also rather damning. It is conceivable that this is not a sock (or meatpuppet) of spotfixer but I would be very surprised. - Schrandit (talk) 14:20, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Editing talkpage comments
What am I supposed to do with this guy? I propose a move on Talk:Tomislav II of Croatia, 4th Duke of Aosta [133], User:Imbris disagrees. Naturally his next step is to try and sabotage the whole thing by altering the move proposal [134]. imho this last deliberate and malicious disruption should certainly be taken with the context of User:Imbris' past behavior in mind. Especially the fact that he has decided to vandalize other people's posts while on probation. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 21:25, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- First of all there is no probation, even if I am currently under 1RR. I did not revert. The request that Mr. DIREKTOR made is significantly different from his 2008 attempt. The introduction and the closing argument are off-topic, written to slant the evidences and in full disregard toward WP:NPOV. Direktor turned the discussion on my person, and not on the evidence, accusing me of ultra-nationalism and other POV. Placing those tags were the only way to gain Mr. DIREKTORs attention to his not neutral reques, both in the introduction of the request and in the "conclusions" made by Mr. DIREKTOR. -- Imbris (talk) 21:50, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
DIREKTOR, can you point to the vandalising posts incident please. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:51, 22 October 2009 (UTC) Scrub that, I can't see for looking. Imbris, that is just childish - and yes it does count as refactoring another user's talk page comments, which is out of bounds. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:54, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- I did not revert Mr. DIREKTORs deletion of those tags. The request for move provocked me, but I have addressed the matter at the right place. I sincerely appologize if I did not follow the rules. I did not know that it counts as refactoring, on several occassions on Talk:Gulf_of_Piran#No my talk page contributions were marked by those tags, and I did not know it is not allowed. Is there any chances for this to be a first-aid and not CPR. -- Imbris (talk) 22:00, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- Wow, thanks for not edit-warring against me writing my own post. Heh, he most certainly knows full well that what he's doing is against Wiki policy - he's no newbie. User:Imbris has been reported maybe a dozen times - he knows how to "work the system". The move was simply getting "too many" Support votes so he did his best to alter the text of the move rationale. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 22:08, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- I did not know that in such cases when the requestor of the move in his "rationale" writes NPOV, that you cannot mark that sentence with the tag. I know that now. This should not warrant a block. I hope :) I did not say that I am a newbie, but tryed to appologize to the community for the mishap.
- Anyone can see that your rationale is completely against policy and guidelines of the RM.
- Imbris (talk) 22:13, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
I support (yet another) block of Imbris. He simply is not taking the hint. Maybe a months-long block this time? Crotchety Old Man (talk) 22:03, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- This is simply sad, to see. Crotchety Old Man WP:STALKed me. He had never before edited on Tomislav II of Croatia nor monarchism for that matter. Crotchety Old Man insisted I should appologize to him and GoodDay because of refactoring, which I complied. Even if GoodDay went ahed with the discussion (a sign of support) and even if GoodDay expanded the discussion in a completely different direction. Strange to see that Crotchety Old Man had not warned Notpietru when he changed the title of a section for several times. -- Imbris (talk) 22:13, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- User:Crotchety Old Man did not WP:STALK Imbris. He was involved at the talkpage in question and noticed User:Imbris' edit first. Anyway, lets not squabble over irrelevant nonsense. The link is here, what else is there to talk about. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 22:16, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- Crotchety Old Man did WP:STALK, the editor in question had not ever previously edited on the Tomislav II of Croatia, nor any other monarch for that matter, and now we see his edit and a support vote in the biased rationale move request by Mr. DIREKTOR. -- Imbris (talk) 22:27, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
A page movement discussion is in progress. Why is it being treated like a terrible event? Why I am being requested to stay away from an editor's talkpage? A lot of un-necessary dramatics IMHO. GoodDay (talk) 22:22, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- For the sake of peace, I have requested that GoodDay do not contact me ever, on any and all matters. He and Mr. DIREKTOR discussed like GoodDay supports the Tomislav II of Croatia title, while it is evident from the talk page of that article that GoodDay never supported such title (never before), to miracleously turn his position. -- Imbris (talk) 22:27, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Both of you go to the topic below please. Some minnows are waiting. Nezzadar ☎ 23:07, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
User:DIREKTOR
How can the following accusations of Mr. DIREKTOR be characterized?
- [135] has this accusation: "The statement Imbris makes is the worst kind of Ustaše ultranationalist propaganda"
This is not just contrary to WP:AGF but is plain defamation and harrasment.
Constitution of Croatia article clearly indicate that it is common knowledge and not some ultra-nationalist propaganda. DIREKTOR should read the paragraph "the fact that the Croatian Parliament had never sanctioned the decision of the National Council of the State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs to unite with Serbia and Montenegro in the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes (1 December 1918), subsequently (3 October 1929) proclaimed the Kingdom of Yugoslavia;".
DIREKTOR feels that every person claiming what is written above is a ultra-nationalist Ustaše supporter and revisionist.
Please make him stop the crusade against fellow users, who did their best not to interffer with the articles of Mr. DIREKTOR's choice.
Imbris (talk) 22:22, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not interested in seeing anybody blocked over this topic. GoodDay (talk) 22:29, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- More of the same dramatics from you. You must be Wikipedia's foremost martyr. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 22:34, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- Allow me to intervine with the following piece of logic. Direktor, your comment was out of line. Please don't assume that a person is pushing a specific agenda. Imbris, your soapboxing is out of line. I don't see a pattern of abuse, just one comment. Obviously this is a touchy subject, but still. As punishment, I smack both of you with wet fish. Now go be productive. Nezzadar ☎ 23:02, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Plip!
Plip!
- I was not referring to him, I honestly don't think I was out of line. The "statement" I'm referring to in that (obviously out-of-context) quote is a claim first voiced by the Croatian fascist/ultranationalist separatists (the Ustaše) in the 1930s. Therefore I said "The statement Imbris makes is the worst kind of Ustaše ultranationalist propaganda". Other users have previously noted User:Imbris' English is less than perfect.
- Imbris, if you somehow drew from that that I am (in your words) "accusing" you of being an Ustaše supporter, you are obviously mistaken in your interpretation. (Either that, or you're trying to take that statement out of context so it looks like I'm talking about you :). --DIREKTOR (TALK) 23:08, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Nezzadar, while I sympathise to an extent, can we get back to the original complaint. DIREKTOR put up a proposal for a page move. People started commenting on whether they supported it. Imbris then vandalised the proposal. Given that Imbris is on probation with a IRR, this was pure gaming the system. Simples (where's that meerkat when you need him) Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:11, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- actually DIREKTOR seems to be a regular guest on this board complaining against other editors. i'm sure most of the time he's right however it seems that his self-righteous tone brings the worst out of other editors. also his attempt above to trivialise his ugly accusation, instead of an apology, is a bit unpleasant. perhaps he too needs a little slap on the wrist to calm down a little bit. Loosmark (talk) 23:17, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) @Loosmark: I would certainly apologize, as I often do when I believe I am at fault. However I do not think so this time. Here's the slightly wider context so that people can see the whole thing:
The statement Imbris makes, while also irrelevant to this whole issue, is the worst kind of Ustaše ultranationalist propaganda - "a non-existent assembly did not confirm the union of a non-existent entity into Yugoslavia"? That's the exact excuse the Ustaše used.
- Is this a violation of WP:NPA? If so, I shall apologize. I personally believe that it is obvious I was referring to the idea or "theory" that Imbris presented ("a non-existent assembly did not confirm the union of a non-existent entity into Yugoslavia") - not to Imbris himself. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 23:24, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- Not true, Mr. DIREKTOR list is wrong. For the entire history of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia, all the major political parties, like the Peasent party quoted the same quotation as the current Constitution of Croatia. It is common knowledge and his insinuation of Ustaše is particularly gruesom because he links that ultra-nationalist and fascist movement with me for quoting the Constitution of Croatia. Croatian parliament existed in 1918 and did not confirm creating of Yugoslavia. -- Imbris (talk) 23:34, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- @DIREKTOR: Not true the statement is common knowledge to every 9-grader. DIREKTOR was definitely out of line and this is his method of making offences and defamation until the other editor cannot stand it any more and reciprocate. I will not follow that pattern.
- DIREKTOR is accusing every law-abiding citizen of Croatia and the World, who respect each and every constitution of each and every country, Croatian included, that has something with supporting the POV that Mr. DIREKTOR trows constantly at each and every user who disagree with him.
- Imbris (talk) 23:20, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- @Nezzadar: There is a pattern, and en.Wiki is full of victims to Mr. DIREKTORs temper. In the second paragraph of his edit Mr. DIREKTOR said: "If I brought you a dead Serbian zomby with no ears saying "the Ustaše cut-off my ears", you'd say he's lying and that I can't include it in the article." (direct quote, the sentence is not touched).
- The previous is also a: harassment, and made me sick, to be forced to listen his expressive and gruesome attack. -- Imbris (talk) 23:20, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- I did not revert nobody. I have explained everything, appologized twice, and in turn have been subjected to the worst kind of slandering which affect the request for the move. -- Imbris (talk) 23:20, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- I disagree with the merge of these two topics. -- Imbris (talk) 23:20, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Hey folks, atleast we all agree that the current article title is 'confusing'. GoodDay (talk) 23:23, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Alright. I got involved to defuse a stupid argument. As a response to that DIREKTOR apologized and Imbris attacked DIREKTOR. Now lets see here. What does this say about the argument. Imbris, I strongly advise you to cool off. If I were an admin I would probably be considering a block on you right now for attacking a person that has shown interest in reconciliation. Stop. Now. Before an admin stops you for you. Nezzadar ☎ 00:14, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- Seconding the above - Imbris: Stop. Don't comment on DIREKTOR again in this thread until you can do so within the policy stated by WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. Further abusive behavior will lead to your being blocked. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:13, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Legal threat by ANI vandal
This vandal edit [136] by user:174.1.10.116 which Alansohn has just reverted, features a distinct legal threat. Anyone up for blocking ? --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:06, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- Block if ya want, but the legal threat is irreleveant. GoodDay (talk) 23:09, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- I know it's irrelevant. Blocking is probably also irrelevant (unless someone knows who the hell Krimpet is, and why Wikipedia should be sued this time). But I did think I'd mention it. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:13, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- The IPs have been blocked, phew. GoodDay (talk) 23:15, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- I think "Krimpet" might be User:Fran Rogers who has a redirect from User:Krimpet; some discussion on User talk:Fran Rogers in the past few days seems like it might be related. Something involving legal threats / violent threats / threats of harrassment or something. -- Why Not A Duck 04:00, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- It's just User:JarlaxleArtemis, AKA Grawp, having his daily grudge against an administrator. Revert, block, ignore. Until It Sleeps Talk • Contribs 12:12, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- I think "Krimpet" might be User:Fran Rogers who has a redirect from User:Krimpet; some discussion on User talk:Fran Rogers in the past few days seems like it might be related. Something involving legal threats / violent threats / threats of harrassment or something. -- Why Not A Duck 04:00, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- The IPs have been blocked, phew. GoodDay (talk) 23:15, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- I know it's irrelevant. Blocking is probably also irrelevant (unless someone knows who the hell Krimpet is, and why Wikipedia should be sued this time). But I did think I'd mention it. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:13, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Threat to President in Wiki Edit
Nothing further to discuss here. |
---|
The following is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. |
(Put in a collapsing box by kmccoy (talk) 03:16, 23 October 2009 (UTC))
Moved from WP:AN.--Giants27(c|s) 02:17, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
(←) The contact information for where the edit purportedly came from is here. The nearest field office would be in San Jose, with the number listed here. user:J aka justen (talk) 02:25, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
I called it in. But I can't say I'm wild about you guys oversighting the revision, because now it feels like my ass is hanging out in the breeze since he can't see the source material that I was reading off of when I made the call. I assume that the Secret Service can follow up with the Wikimedia Foundation to get access to the revision in question, but still, sure puts me in an awkward place, when all I was trying to do was a good thing. WCityMike (talk) 03:12, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
It seems like this is something that OTRS should handle. They could reliably document what took place and who was contacted. Evil saltine (talk) 03:18, 23 October 2009 (UTC) |
I did the revision deletion, it is still available to all administrators, nothing was oversighted. Deletion logs are public and available upon request and/or database dumps. Lotta smoke, no fire as far as accountability goes. Keegan (talk) 03:23, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- I'm confused. If I go to the IP editor's contributions page, I can't see the edit that was made, but if I look at the link provided by WCityMike, I CAN see it. Why oversight the edit, if it can be linked to? Secondly, why was there not a single comment made to the editor's Talk page, let alone no block? 99.166.95.142 (talk) 15:41, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Not sure how to properly bring this up, but at least half of the above user's few edits have been vandalism, some fixing errors he created. As the user seems to be just trying to drive his post count up, should someone nip this in the bud? -Tainted Conformity Chat 02:38, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- It's just low-level idiot-vandalism, I have given a "serious warning", nothing more is required right now. Looie496 (talk) 02:57, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- It seems that I and Looie496 had the same idea, and just barely avoided an edit conflict (and did edit conflict here). Assuming that he actually listens, I'll try to keep an eye on him, and give him a push in the right direction if needed. Sodam Yat (talk) 02:59, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Threat of violence?
I just reverted this edit. The edit's a bit incoherent, seems like it might be a threat of violence or suicide. Hard to say. Should someone follow this up? -- Why Not A Duck 03:42, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
User:Drsimonwood
Drsimonwood (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (possibly the same as 209.139.218.193 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)) keeps filling Polyglycoplex with ® symbols, removing the advert tag and all the wikilinks, and breaking all the references (diff). Seems straightforward enough, but the user also keeps changing the claimed inventor of Polyglycoplex from one "Dr. Vladimir Vuksanto" to "InovoBiologic®", which this article claims has a financial relashionship with a Simon Wood. I would warn the user again with Template:uw-mos3, but I don't want to get sucked into someone else's apparent priority dispute - I just want to make the article readable! Maybe someone here knows better how to handle this. Thanks. --Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 03:52, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- I've issued a uw-mos4 and explained why the symbol is not to be added. Hopefully this will be an end to the matter. Mjroots (talk) 10:40, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Ref desk user seeking justice of some kind
This is a little out of the ordinary, and I wonder what the correct response should be: [137] ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:04, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- Someone else deleted it, so perhaps it's moot. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:15, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
On a somewhat lighter note, an editor has taken it upon himself to rename anything connected with that German disco-era singing group to Genghis Khan (pop group), on the grounds that that would be their name in English. He did this with no apparent discussion, and he ignored me when I asked why. And of course instead of a standalone name, it now has a disambiguation. So was this a proper rename under normal guidelines, or is he just being a busybody? And if it's the latter, I would like someone to move it back, since that would require an admin. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:21, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- Technical point: the article actually could be moved back per WP:MOR. But triggering a move war would of course be bad. Wknight94 talk 04:29, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- I didn't know that. But I wouldn't do it anyway unless there was consensus or if it was a mistake of some kind, which in this case it's neither. I noticed the guy of this notice. I just wondered whether we're supposed to translate a pop group's name into "true" English or if he just made up that rule. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:33, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- Per Wikipedia is not for a translation you just made up, the title should not be translated. There are many thousands of articles about non-English subjects which have non-English titles. Mjroots (talk) 05:31, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- The exception presumably would be if the group was actually known in the USA as "Genghis Khan". As far as I know, they were really only known in Europe at the time, and the internet has given the group higher visibility, albeit nearly 30 years later. In short, unless the editor can find evidence that the group was widely known in the English-speaking world as "Genghis Khan", then it needs to keep its original spelling. Have I got that right? And if so, what's the proper course of action? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:17, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- As evidenced in the editor's contrib's [138] he also changed the name of their song "Moskau" to the Anglicized spelling "Moscow", despite the fact the song was sung in German (as was their original song, "Dschinghis Khan"; they were a group that named themselves for their first song.) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:23, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- The exception presumably would be if the group was actually known in the USA as "Genghis Khan". As far as I know, they were really only known in Europe at the time, and the internet has given the group higher visibility, albeit nearly 30 years later. In short, unless the editor can find evidence that the group was widely known in the English-speaking world as "Genghis Khan", then it needs to keep its original spelling. Have I got that right? And if so, what's the proper course of action? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:17, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- Per Wikipedia is not for a translation you just made up, the title should not be translated. There are many thousands of articles about non-English subjects which have non-English titles. Mjroots (talk) 05:31, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- I didn't know that. But I wouldn't do it anyway unless there was consensus or if it was a mistake of some kind, which in this case it's neither. I noticed the guy of this notice. I just wondered whether we're supposed to translate a pop group's name into "true" English or if he just made up that rule. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:33, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
It does not need to be move protected. Prodego talk 11:35, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- So, the guy still has not responded. Should I just go ahead and move it back? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:41, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Malia Obama
Moved from AN:
RepublicanJacobite just blanked out the Malia Obama page. That person's personal page cannot have comments added (locked up?) so that person can't be warned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by October 22 2009 (talk • contribs) 04:07, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- This is laughable. I restored a legitimate redirect. I also pointed out my reasoning on the article talk page, and provided a link to a relevant discussion on this editor's talk page. My edits were hardly vandalism. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 04:10, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Keeps on vandalizing by user Republican —Preceding unsigned comment added by October 22 2009 (talk • contribs) 04:12, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
The discussion page has a yellow box with instructions for those who want delete to "Please review the prior discussion if you are considering re-nomination" So they should do that rather than vandalize. —Preceding unsigned comment added by October 22 2009 (talk • contribs) 04:18, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Above discussion moved from AN. Tim Song (talk) 04:39, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- Please don't edit the page without first discussing here, October. Thank you, Master of Puppets 04:41, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
The yellow box on the Malia discussion page is very clear. It says that those who don't want the article should follow the page for re-deletion. It did not say that recreation required going through special hoops. Basically, the decision for delete was well over a year ago when President Obama was "2nd place candidate Barack with the Funny Name". Now Malia is First Daughter with quite a few articles exclusively about her, not her father. Many others who are truly obscure have a Wikipedia article so we have waited a lot longer. Malia should not be punished with a different standard than other people are at Wikipedia. Thank you. The solution may be to recreate and someone ask for deletion and that debate form created.October 22 2009 (talk) 04:56, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- I've expanded on this on October's talk page.
- October (thanks for signing your posts, by the way), an easy way to support that claim would be to go on Google News and search for articles specifically on Malia. That would help establish her individual notability. Master of Puppets 05:04, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- A reminder: this is covered under the Obama article probation. The redirect to the Family of Barack Obama article has been discussed before and consensus has been to leave the redirect in place. Notability is not inherited, and independent notability for Malia and Sasha Obama has not been established - they are amply covered in the Family article. I agree with Republican Jacobite's revert - no arguments have been raised here, and the comments made regarding "punishing" Malia by not having a separate article are familiar, raising the question of whether this is actually a new editor who brought an action to AN on his/her 7th edit. Tvoz/talk 07:12, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Could we get some eyes on this? There seem to be two camps waging a slow war here. On one side, there are the promoters of the company itself, with various accounts, some of which are already tagged as abusive multiple accounts. I've already blocked some of these. But I actually paid some attention to the history of the article (rather than just winnowing out the obvious socks), and noticed a lot of edits, not lasting very long, making strong accusations that the company is a pyramid scheme. Anyway, wtf? --jpgordon::==( o ) 05:17, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- Well, it seems to be a pyramid scheme. Unfortunately, none of the sources which say that are reliable. We can't even say that the material they send to prospective "members" contradicts the 10-K form filed with the SEC, as no BLP-certified reliable source has commented on that. (And it is a BLP problem, because the logical inference is that the then-president of the company was lying.)
- Perhaps the article should just be deleted… — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:44, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- In today's world, there is a pyramid scheme run by a major company and the starving Pirhana among the press haven't burst into a feeding frenzy?- Sinneed 05:49, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- Amway. Mary Kay.
- Although we do have some statements about noted accusations of being a pyramid scheme, for each. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:05, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- In today's world, there is a pyramid scheme run by a major company and the starving Pirhana among the press haven't burst into a feeding frenzy?- Sinneed 05:49, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- There are detailed state laws with harsh penalties that require attorneys to segregate and not spend funds advanced for legal services. If they apply to this firm, which is likely, then I don't see how it could possibly be a pyramid scheme. Perhaps the firm angers JDs by having a deflationary effect on legal fees.--Elvey (talk) 09:54, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
block request
Can somebody please block Satbir Singh (talk · contribs)? He has created a bunch of POV, synthesized rambling messes relating to the Kambojas, and is slow revert-warring on his own in an attempt to impede the consensual cleanup operation. I left a final warning on his talk page yesterday but he hasn't replied and did a couple more reverts this morning. Anything between a couple days off to a week would be much appreciated. Moreschi (talk) 09:02, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Copyvios by User:Taopman
Many articles created by User:Taopman are copyright violations of promotional content. Furthermore, the user has uploaded images claimed to be his own and another editor has complained that it is in fact his photo. This user has an extensive history of ignoring the rules set out in Wikipedia:Copyright violations. Given the complaint by user:Derangotaco on Taopman's user page, I have reason to believe that many of Taopman's uploaded files probably do not belong to him. I recommend that the files be removed if suspicious. Sillyfolkboy (talk) (edits)Join WikiProject Athletics! 10:58, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Legal threat; also SPA and COI
Republic of Ireland postal addresses has, for some time now, had problems with an SPA editor, User:Garydubh, inserting COI material about a GPS/GIS system that his company, GPS Ireland Consultants Ltd, is marketing. This system isn't official and has nothing to do with the official post code system being introduced. On 20th October, a new editor, User:Secretary-whbtc, reintroduced the material about the "independent postcode". I removed it again. After I re-removed it a second time and posted to the talk page, I received this legal threat both on the article talk page and on my own talk page. The disputed material was also subeseqently reintroduced by another SPA, User:Ww2censorbastun (User:Garydubh has also been in dispute with User:Ww2censor in the past, who also tried to keep the COI material off the page). Can an admin take a look at this, please? BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 11:10, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- I have blocked User:Garydubh for making a legal threat. For the other accounts, I would suggest filing a report at WP:SPI. TNXMan 11:52, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Guitarherochristopher Yet again.
- Guitarherochristopher (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Further to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive570#Guitarherochristopher and various warnings we still, IMO, have a major issue with this editor. Leaving alone the various misuse of WP:NFCC as previously warned [139] [140] and the endless WP:NOT#MYSPACE issues - again as warned [141] [142] and [143] (typical example) It finaly looked like he was "getting it" by adding content [144]. Alas Not.'. With a combination of MYSPACE attitude and misuse of NFC now being added to direct copyright violation I'm now of the opinion that we need to move this editor, sadly, away from the project. Input please. Pedro : Chat 12:17, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- Looking on the bright side, he's adding content to articles. Copyright warning issued. Mjroots (talk) 12:44, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- Actually, now I look at it this is not the first time we've had copy-vio problems - User:Guitarherochristopher/Coldplay Releases New Album In 2009 and User:Guitarherochristopher/Genesis Band Member Gets Sacked Out Of The Drums and User:Guitarherochristopher/What Happened To Micheal Jackson?. See here Pedro : Chat 13:29, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Good grief. Why are we enabling this:
- Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive562#Guitarherochristopher
- Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive565#Guitarherochristopher, again
- Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive567#Block needed: compromised/shared_account
- Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive569#User talk:Guitarherochristopher
- Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive570#Guitarherochristopher
Continuing to issue warnings, hoping that this time they'll end the disruption, is counterproductive. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:30, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- Clearly, I agree Floquenbeam. I have to say that this user realy, really does not seem to "get it" no matter what. Whilst a block from nowhere can seem overly harsh, in this case I really cannot see any positive input from this guy. Net negative in my opinion. A shame, but it is what it is. Pedro : Chat 14:44, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- We can't afford to check each edit by this person, and if he is going to keep using copyright material then we need to put a stop to it. If communication has not helped this person "get" it then a block is justified to prevent damage to the encyclopedia. Chillum 15:17, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- ARGH, to hell with it. he's been here before, he's been warned, he won't contribute, he won't listen, he's been given help, he takes up peoples' time... just block him for good. A little insignificant Talk to me! (I have candy!) 16:36, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- I also believe an indef block to be appropriate, and have implemented one. — Jake Wartenberg 17:47, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
No I havent are they blocked? and Im glad that you are;nt mad about me getting mad at you :)--Coldplay Expert 18:12, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
I wanted at least one more admin to be following the activities of this editor, who appears to be determined to be offensive to Jews and may well be a white supremacist. I warned him on my talk page when he called me a "nazi" and I think the pattern of his edits and activities indicates that in the future he will be extremely offensive to all with whom he comes in contact, with little chance of any useful contribution. I think I'm a little too personally involved now to be able to act with the appearance of impartiality, and I understand the relevant policy suggests I can't pre-emptively block him, so I would appreciate it if someone kept an eye on this editor; my experience suggests that he will need further admonishment, if not blocking, in short order. Thanks in advance. Accounting4Taste:talk 14:12, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- Indefblocked. Cut-and-dry racism, there. Tan | 39 14:14, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks; I appreciate your taking a hand. (I frequently think I am too Pollyanna-ish about the possibility that editors will reform.) Accounting4Taste:talk 14:17, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Should we worry?
Is this something we should worry about? A vandal impersonating Wikipedia personnel... - Adolphus79 (talk) 15:14, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- Yes. Also short history of vandalism. Final warning given; anything more can result in a VOA block. Tan | 39 15:16, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
SuggestBot spamming new User talk pages
SuggestBot (talk · contribs) is spamming new user's Talk pages. It used to only send messages to people who opted in, now it seems to have changed to an opt out service. It seems to be sending non-requested Talk messages to new users who have just begun editing. Was there a discussion about this change of service? 99.166.95.142 (talk) 15:58, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- Read the notice it left on one of the contributions: "You received these suggestions because we're trying a little test to see if SuggestBot is helpful for newer Wikipedia editors -- but normally it only makes suggestions for people who ask for them explicitly on the SuggestBot request page". It's just a test, no problem. If you find it disruptive let it's creator know. GrooveDog • i'm groovy. 18:30, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Sal the Stockbroker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - I would like someone to look at this before it becomes an edit war, Sal the Stockbroker is a know person and everything on his page has a source. But another user keeps redirecting it to The Howard Stern Show staff (this person should have his own page). Can someone please look at this. thank you // 98.117.40.154 (talk) 17:34, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- None of the sources cited are reliable, secondary sources. So there is no actual demonstration of notability, making the redirect of the page a defendable action (even though edit warring never is). Regardless, this is a content dispute, so please seek dispute resolution. Someguy1221 (talk) 17:53, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- And upon taking a closer look, given that much of the content is quite disparaging, the lack of reliable sources renders a good portion of the article a BLP violation. Someguy1221 (talk) 17:55, 23 October 2009 (UTC)