MiszaBot II (talk | contribs) m Archiving 3 thread(s) (older than 24h) to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive545. |
→Abuse of Wikipedia:Guidelines: new section |
||
Line 1,024: | Line 1,024: | ||
Meanwhile, Damiens.rf has nominated [[Wikipedia:ASE]] and [[Wikipedia:ASTAR]] for deletion, and I am doubtful these were made in good faith. I strongly suspect the uncivil IP edit [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Allstarecho&diff=296524293&oldid=296472481 here] and the notice here at ANI were done by Damiens.rf as well. Discussions like [[User_talk:Damiens.rf#Issue_with_multiple_files_posted_for_deletion_after_recent_previous_contact|this one]] show Damiens.rf has had problems with stalking before, and has responded dismissively and sarcastically when asked about it. I have had unpleasant interactions with both Damiens.rf and AllStarEcho in the past, so it would be inappropriate for me to use (or threaten to use) admin abilities in this situation, but I wanted to bring the issue here to see what others think. – [[User:Quadell|Quadell]] <sup>([[User_talk:Quadell|talk]])</sup> 14:14, 15 June 2009 (UTC) |
Meanwhile, Damiens.rf has nominated [[Wikipedia:ASE]] and [[Wikipedia:ASTAR]] for deletion, and I am doubtful these were made in good faith. I strongly suspect the uncivil IP edit [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Allstarecho&diff=296524293&oldid=296472481 here] and the notice here at ANI were done by Damiens.rf as well. Discussions like [[User_talk:Damiens.rf#Issue_with_multiple_files_posted_for_deletion_after_recent_previous_contact|this one]] show Damiens.rf has had problems with stalking before, and has responded dismissively and sarcastically when asked about it. I have had unpleasant interactions with both Damiens.rf and AllStarEcho in the past, so it would be inappropriate for me to use (or threaten to use) admin abilities in this situation, but I wanted to bring the issue here to see what others think. – [[User:Quadell|Quadell]] <sup>([[User_talk:Quadell|talk]])</sup> 14:14, 15 June 2009 (UTC) |
||
== Abuse of Wikipedia:Guidelines == |
|||
User:Ironholds and User:Tryde repeatedly abused our guidelines because they redirected clearly notable people and stalk me. User:Jazeking baits me again and again.[[User:Max Mux|Max Mux]] ([[User talk:Max Mux|talk]]) 14:52, 15 June 2009 (UTC) |
Revision as of 14:52, 15 June 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) |
|
Jehochman and David Boothroyd censorship
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User:Jehochman is preventing editors from working on David Boothroyd (aka former arb Sam Blacketer) in userspace (on my user page and most recently at User:JoshuaZ/David Boothroyd) despite the existence of multiple reliable sources from the British press addressing the controversy. He has suggested he will block anyone who includes the material and will only allow selectively restored versions of the Boothroyd article that do not mention his Wikipedia controversy. Coverage in the British national press includes:
- http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1191474/Labour-councillor-David-Boothroyd-caught-altering-David-Camerons-Wikipedia-entry.html
- http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/wikipedia-sentinel-quits-after-using-alias-to-alter-entries-1698762.html
- http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/05/26/wikipedia_westminster_councillor/
Jehochman is now clearly dedicated to preventing any development or discussion in spite of reliable sources. This censorship must end. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TAway (talk • contribs) 21:40, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
- This has already been through three AFDs (1, 2, 3 with 2 and 3 closed as delete), one very lengthy DRV (Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 May 27#David Boothroyd). All have been rooted in extreme BLP concerns, which has led to its recent deletions, salting, and DRV. Please do not throw the word "censorship" around, especially when the intent is to prevent and negative unsourced information from being added to the userfied copy. MuZemike 21:51, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
- With 2 and 3 both having been closed after almost no discussion by Jehochman. This is not about preventing unsourced information -- all the information is sources -- but protecting a former Arb and Wikipedia's credibility. The media has covered him on other issues, they are now covering his Wikipedia activities, and we even use Boothroyd's election guide as a reliable source in over 700 Wikipedia articles. The media coverage is there, and this is censorship. TAway (talk) 22:39, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
- The problem is that there is at least the appearance that what's being protecting isn't BLP concerns, but Wikipedia's rep. The story is out, in reliable sources, the only question is about notability, not verifiability. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 22:21, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
- Yes - and isn't it odd how long we had an article on David Boothroyd BEFORE this controversy broke? The article survived the first AfD, then was bought two more times in rapid succession in violation of WP:NOTAGAIN. "Censorship" isn't quite the right word - but it closely resembles a whitewash. Snarfies (talk) 22:42, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
- The problem is that there is at least the appearance that what's being protecting isn't BLP concerns, but Wikipedia's rep. The story is out, in reliable sources, the only question is about notability, not verifiability. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 22:21, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
- With 2 and 3 both having been closed after almost no discussion by Jehochman. This is not about preventing unsourced information -- all the information is sources -- but protecting a former Arb and Wikipedia's credibility. The media has covered him on other issues, they are now covering his Wikipedia activities, and we even use Boothroyd's election guide as a reliable source in over 700 Wikipedia articles. The media coverage is there, and this is censorship. TAway (talk) 22:39, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
- Jayron32 has userified the article to User:JoshuaZ/David Boothroyd. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 22:13, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
- After userification, Jehochman selectively re-deleted any versions noting the Wikipedia controversy. He also threatened that any re-creation that included the Wikipedia controversy was a "potentially a blockable action." TAway (talk) 22:39, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
- Correct - repeatedly re-creating deleted material is blockable, especially when it involves BLP concerns. I'm unsure what the problem is here. Black Kite 22:44, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
- How is it restoring "deleted material" when the new sources are appearing after Jehochman's inappropriate speedy deletions? Why is it that the article was immediately speedied after Boothroyd resigned from ArbCom after years of existing, then deletion is accepted as the "status quo" when the media picks up on the scandal? He has salted an article and blacklisted an entire issue under threat of ban regardless of how it develops and continues to appear in the media. That is censorship. TAway (talk) 23:26, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
- Correct - repeatedly re-creating deleted material is blockable, especially when it involves BLP concerns. I'm unsure what the problem is here. Black Kite 22:44, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
- as the references accumulate, the material is no longer deleteable. I have respect for Sam for his work here, but neither he nor anyone is actually helped by censorship. That he was an admin here is relevant to his possible outside notability. Jehochman is operating beyond the limits of consensus here. DGG (talk) 23:54, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
- After userification, Jehochman selectively re-deleted any versions noting the Wikipedia controversy. He also threatened that any re-creation that included the Wikipedia controversy was a "potentially a blockable action." TAway (talk) 22:39, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Is it true that there was an article on David Boothroyd before the controversy? If so, for how long? ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:28, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
- Yes. And David Boothroyd effectively wrote it.
The article that was created in article space was a simple copy and paste, by an editor without an account, of the autobiography that User:Dbiv had had on xyr user page since 2004-03-31. M. Boothroyd didn't write xyr autobiography in article space, and nominated the copy and paste for deletion in the article's second ever edit. The only significant subsequent expansion of the article came from an IP address assigned to Westminster City Council. If that wasn't M. Boothroyd himself, it was someone who was using M. Boothroyd's autobiography as xyr source, because it gave that autobiography as an external link in the edit. Uncle G (talk) 02:05, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
- The article would be deletable with or without the Wikipedia scandal - it isn't censorship to say someone isn't notable, nor is it censorship to argue that involvement in one significant event (related to Wikipedia or not) doesn't change that essential fact. He wasn't notable at all before, and the scandal qualifies as his 1BE. I don't think it is Jehochman that is overly focused on the scandal element here; its the folks who insist on recreating this article only to focus on the scandal element of it who need to find other work to do. Nathan T 00:30, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
- There shouldn't be an article on Boothroyd or any other marginally notable living person until Wikipedia implements an effective mechanism for protecting such articles from malicious editing. Cla68 (talk) 00:33, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
- So consensus was that he was notable enough for an article until there was substantial coverage of his getting caught sock puppeteering and violating Wikipedia's integrity by engaging in conflict of interest edits? This is fascinating. I move that anyone encouraging this kind of policy violating behavior should be put up for recall. We can't have this kind of censorship and bias on Wikipedia especially not from Admins and ARbcom member. It fosters rot right at the core of our trustworthiness and undermines the integrity of Wikipedia as a quality information source. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:52, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
- That of course presupposes that there isn't already rot right at the core. --WebHamster 01:03, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
- No, that was not the consensus. The first AFD discussion really didn't apply our primary notability criterion at all. No rationale for keeping makes any mention of reliable sources. We kept the article because it satisfied one of the other, secondary, notability criteria that we had at the time: an arbitrary number related to book readership.
I suggested a complete rewrite from reliable sources, but that didn't happen. In retrospect, that could well have been because there weren't actually any to be had. The source of all of the content was, indirectly, M. Boothroyd documenting himself, throughout the entire life of the article, and the second AFD discussion can well be regarded as doing the right thing, in accordance with Wikipedia policy and guidelines on reliability and independence of sources, albeit four years after the subject himself first requested the right thing to be done. Uncle G (talk) 02:05, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
- That's interesting because I'm finding lots of sources that discuss his political activities before his indiscretions were covered very substantially. I'm also finding he was VERY active in working on political subject including some that are very negative in tone about Conservative politicians. Where is the accountability? Where is the investigation and clean up that needs to be done? Do we know all the sock accounts he used? Have we asked if there are more? Who knew what when? Are we to believe that Arbcom was completely in the dark about his true identity? Stop trying to sweep this under the rug and let's root the rot out. If we spend half the time trying to make things right that we do trying to cover up the impropriety, maybe we wouldn't have this problem all the time. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:10, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
- It doesn't look good to make wild and foolish accusations of sweeping things under a rug when people are doing nothing more than straightforwardly answering your questions. If we'd spent the effort to make things right, by the way, the copy of the autobiography wouldn't have stood in article space for four years, based upon nothing except what the subject claimed about himself. That is what would have been right. Uncle G (talk) 02:39, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
- That's interesting because I'm finding lots of sources that discuss his political activities before his indiscretions were covered very substantially. I'm also finding he was VERY active in working on political subject including some that are very negative in tone about Conservative politicians. Where is the accountability? Where is the investigation and clean up that needs to be done? Do we know all the sock accounts he used? Have we asked if there are more? Who knew what when? Are we to believe that Arbcom was completely in the dark about his true identity? Stop trying to sweep this under the rug and let's root the rot out. If we spend half the time trying to make things right that we do trying to cover up the impropriety, maybe we wouldn't have this problem all the time. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:10, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
- So consensus was that he was notable enough for an article until there was substantial coverage of his getting caught sock puppeteering and violating Wikipedia's integrity by engaging in conflict of interest edits? This is fascinating. I move that anyone encouraging this kind of policy violating behavior should be put up for recall. We can't have this kind of censorship and bias on Wikipedia especially not from Admins and ARbcom member. It fosters rot right at the core of our trustworthiness and undermines the integrity of Wikipedia as a quality information source. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:52, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
- TAway appears to be a sock puppet account or somebody with an axe to grind. The matter of deletion was dealt with at WP:DRV. It is not proper to continue badgering to get one's way against consensus. I hope that TAway stops disrupting Wikipedia to make a point before somebody else blocks them. They did not notify me of this thread. Apparently. Their goal is to stir up drama, not to resolve a problem. Jehochman Talk 00:49, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not a sock puppet and I have no axe to grind. I simply stumbled upon this mess when commenting upon a different mess after finding this board recently. It appears to ME anyways that this is not about protecting a BLP, but is a CYA for Wikipedia. From what I can gather, Boothroyd's article had existed for several years before this last bit of trouble. How does it become deleteable only after it's discovered that Boothroyd had managed to somehow attain a position of trust and power on the project, and then abused that power using sock puppets? The situation -- and Boothroyd -- have been dealt with in reliable sources. Why is this even an issue? It seems obvious that the article belongs on the project. Unitanode 02:08, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
- To be clear, the above regarding my not being a sock puppet was in regards to Jehochman's apparent ad hominem against the originator of this thread. Unitanode 02:09, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
- The reality is that it was deletable right from the start, had we applied our sourcing policy properly at the time of the first AFD discussion. But we didn't. We applied a notability criterion that we no longer have, and the existence of what was effectively an unsourced autobiography in article space for four years is an example of why that criterion, and others like it, were and are bad ideas. Uncle G (talk) 02:39, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
- Whatever the reality of the policy issues, this bears the distinct odor of a coverup. I'm not well-versed in the ins-and-outs of policy here, so I'm commenting simply on the appearance of things. Unitanode 02:50, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
- Then you are creating confusion, and are not being helpful to the process of writing an encyclopaedia. Wikipedia editors, at least, should be capable of getting the facts straight in this affair. Look what happens when one doesn't. TAway has created an entire house of cards in this section predicated upon false information about when M. Boothroyd nominated the article for deletion and what it was that Jenochman deleted from the userfied article. The consequence is that xyr repeated protestations and accusations here look rather silly when compared to the actual MediaWiki logs and edit histories. Uncle G (talk) 12:33, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
- You're being something of a bully with your accusations of "not being helpful to the encyclopedia." My contention is that the continued removal of any reference to Boothroyd, when he has been prominently featured in several reliable sources now, has whiffs of a CYA by those with much more power on this project. Your accusations notwithstanding, all I care about is whether or not the encyclopedia is comprehensive and accurate. Unitanode 12:40, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
- No-one is bullying you, and that mischaracterization isn't helpful, either. The fact remains that "commenting simply on the appearance of things" is not helpful to the process of writing an encyclopaedia. Stick to the facts, to what the edit histories and logs actually say, and to the policies. Don't build and encourage fantasies based upon "appearance", such as the one that you put forward above based upon the false notion that the article "became deletable". They waste an awful lot of everyone's time. If anything, entirely the reverse of your notion is true: The article, being based upon nothing but autobiography, was deletable for almost four years, and it is only now that it is possibly, as DGG points out above, becoming not deletable. Uncle G (talk) 16:00, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
- Appearances are important, whatever you may think. And your characterizing people as being "not helpful to the encyclopedia" appears to be bullying, whatever you may intend it to be. Boothroyd is now notable, and deleting and salting the target page appears untoward, and looks like a CYA move. My saying so is not unhelpful in any way. People disagreeing with your take doesn't make them unhelpful, by the way. It just means we disagree about the importance of the appearance of things. I think that the appearance of things is quite important. Interestingly, and tangentially, the Supreme Court of the United States seems to agree with that view as well. Not that what SCOTUS thinks really matters here, I just found it interesting that they don't simply discard the appearance of impropriety. Unitanode 17:53, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
- No-one is bullying you, and that mischaracterization isn't helpful, either. The fact remains that "commenting simply on the appearance of things" is not helpful to the process of writing an encyclopaedia. Stick to the facts, to what the edit histories and logs actually say, and to the policies. Don't build and encourage fantasies based upon "appearance", such as the one that you put forward above based upon the false notion that the article "became deletable". They waste an awful lot of everyone's time. If anything, entirely the reverse of your notion is true: The article, being based upon nothing but autobiography, was deletable for almost four years, and it is only now that it is possibly, as DGG points out above, becoming not deletable. Uncle G (talk) 16:00, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
- You're being something of a bully with your accusations of "not being helpful to the encyclopedia." My contention is that the continued removal of any reference to Boothroyd, when he has been prominently featured in several reliable sources now, has whiffs of a CYA by those with much more power on this project. Your accusations notwithstanding, all I care about is whether or not the encyclopedia is comprehensive and accurate. Unitanode 12:40, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
- Then you are creating confusion, and are not being helpful to the process of writing an encyclopaedia. Wikipedia editors, at least, should be capable of getting the facts straight in this affair. Look what happens when one doesn't. TAway has created an entire house of cards in this section predicated upon false information about when M. Boothroyd nominated the article for deletion and what it was that Jenochman deleted from the userfied article. The consequence is that xyr repeated protestations and accusations here look rather silly when compared to the actual MediaWiki logs and edit histories. Uncle G (talk) 12:33, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
- Whatever the reality of the policy issues, this bears the distinct odor of a coverup. I'm not well-versed in the ins-and-outs of policy here, so I'm commenting simply on the appearance of things. Unitanode 02:50, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
- Just for the sake of comparison.. the political office held by Boothroyd in the UK is on par with a US "city councilman" - Apart from the bad press for getting caught with "wiki-fingers" (pardon the bad pun).. I don't see how he qualifies for an article. The fact that it was here before just means we have a huge problem with borderline BLPs that noone bothers to read. - and we already knew that. If we had an article for every US city councilman caught in a compromising position - we'd really be screwed. --Versageek 02:11, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
- Actually, the problem of the article existing before is that AFD didn't come to the right conclusion the first time around, because we applied a bad notability criterion. It has been partially addressed by the fact that we don't have that particular criterion any more, but constant vigilance is required to ensure that we don't slip back into applying such faulty notability criteria at AFD, and don't formulate such criteria. Uncle G (talk) 02:39, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
- The article clearly passes the GNG guidelines based on very substantial coverage in numerous reliable sources. It was borderline before this incident, but there's no question now. There's coverage of his activities as a politician, coverage of his activities in private enterprise it look like, and there's now quite a bit of coverage of his subterfuge in editing under aliases against our policies as he sat on our highest administrative body. We are a major information source, we aren't censored, and we shouldn't pretend that he's non-notable now to hide the truth. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:53, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
- Before this incident it was not borderline. It was an unsourced autobiography, and should really have been deleted alongside the other unsourced autobiographies that we delete all of the time here. The subject even asked us to delete it. Uncle G (talk) 12:33, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
- As per precedent, and possibly a guideline (can't find one at the moment, but I think one does cover this issue), the wish of a subject of an article for the article to be kept or deleted is irrelevant. AdmiralKolchak (talk) 13:41, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
- That's certainly true, because an editor is not allowed to own an article. The real question is whether the article should have existed in the first place, regardless of who wrote it. What I'm seeing here among some of those pushing for keeping it, is as coatracking for criticism of wikipedia. There's already an article on criticism of wikipedia, and that's where this situation belongs, if anywhere. It's likely nothing more than a blip in the real life of the subject. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 14:01, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
- Without making comment as to this article, this can depend on the level of notability. We now and then do delete BLPs whose topics are at the very edge of notability if the subject asks for this to be done in a verifiable way. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:06, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
- Ah, I didn't know that. Thanks for the info. AdmiralKolchak (talk) 14:16, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
- Without making comment as to this article, this can depend on the level of notability. We now and then do delete BLPs whose topics are at the very edge of notability if the subject asks for this to be done in a verifiable way. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:06, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
- Nonetheless, it was autobiography, without independent and reliable sources, and the subject asked us to do what, in accordance with our content and deletion policies, we should really have done at the time. AFD came to the wrong result, and that wrong result stood for four years. The arguments being made by two editors, that that wrong result somehow proves notability, when there was no evidence presented either at that first AFD discussion or in the intervening three and a bit years that multiple reliable and independent sources covering this subject in depth exist (because, as can be seen if one actually reads what is cited below, they did not exist), which is the definition of notability, are clearly fallacious arguments. The existence of an unsourced (in effect) autobiography for four years only demonstrates that AFD went wrong. It doesn't demonstrate notability during that time, and both that thesis, and the further thesis (also propounded) that the subject was notable and now is not notable, are predicated upon a falsehood. (As DGG points out above, if anything entirely the reverse is true.) Uncle G (talk) 16:00, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
- For those of us too lazy to look up what actually happened, but not lazy enough to refrain from repeating misinformation:
- WP:Articles for deletion/David Boothroyd "I am nominating this article about myself for deletion as I don't think I make the notability criteria (although possibly verging on them). However I reserve the right to become notable in the future. David | Talk 22:02, 8 August 2005 (UTC)" KEEP
- WP:Articles for deletion/David Boothroyd (2nd nomination) "Non-notable, lack of sourcing. Does not meet our present notability standards for inclusion as a WP:BLP. Last AFD was nearly four years ago. rootology/equality 19:34, 23 May 2009 (UTC)" DELETE
- WP:Articles for deletion/David Boothroyd (3rd nomination) "The individual does not meet our criteria for inclusion. --MZMcBride (talk) 06:44, 27 May 2009 (UTC)" DELETE
- --Hans Adler (talk) 16:16, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
- Uncle G, that's not the definition of "notability" — not in any sense of the word, not off Wikipedia, and not on Wikipedia either — even if you want to pretend that Wikipedia:Notability provides a different definition (it doesn't, it defines "notable" as "worthy of notice", just like the dictionary.) And please don't act like every other notability criterion besides your "PNC" is a bad idea. --Pixelface (talk) 00:13, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
- For those of us too lazy to look up what actually happened, but not lazy enough to refrain from repeating misinformation:
- That's certainly true, because an editor is not allowed to own an article. The real question is whether the article should have existed in the first place, regardless of who wrote it. What I'm seeing here among some of those pushing for keeping it, is as coatracking for criticism of wikipedia. There's already an article on criticism of wikipedia, and that's where this situation belongs, if anywhere. It's likely nothing more than a blip in the real life of the subject. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 14:01, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
- As per precedent, and possibly a guideline (can't find one at the moment, but I think one does cover this issue), the wish of a subject of an article for the article to be kept or deleted is irrelevant. AdmiralKolchak (talk) 13:41, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
- Before this incident it was not borderline. It was an unsourced autobiography, and should really have been deleted alongside the other unsourced autobiographies that we delete all of the time here. The subject even asked us to delete it. Uncle G (talk) 12:33, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
- Actually the problem with the old article was that the notability was not sourced and specified. Borderline in as much as "can't really prove it with the sources given (or lack thereof) but plausible enough". Otherwise Notability is more of an on/off switch. Somebody can be notable and we don't have an article just because we don't have access to the sources. On the other hand we can't take way notability once it is established. IE DH has not had an appearance at a professional football game therefore not notable when notability has been established otherwise. Agathoclea (talk) 23:06, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Administrative action v. outcome
Actually there are two separate questions: whether the article was deleted correctly and whether Jehochman's post-deletion actions were appropriate. The complaint regarded Jehochman's actions, not the deletion itself. So let's break this down:
- The poster lists three sources and calls them reliable: The Register, Daily Mail, and The Independent. Would an editor who knows British periodicals please weigh in?
- What is our general practice on userspace recreations of courtesy deleted biographies?
- The poster asserts He has suggested he will block anyone who includes the material and will only allow selectively restored versions of the Boothroyd article that do not mention his Wikipedia controversy. Yet no the poster provides no diff of this assertion. If Jehochman actually did suggest that blocks would be forthcoming, we need clear answers to the first two questions.
- If at least one of those three sources is reliable, and if userspace recreations are allowable in this situation, and if Jehochman selectively deleted that news and threatened blocks--then a problem exists. Otherwise there's probably little problem, except for one thing:
This issue is developing news, and arguably a reputation management issue. Jehochman is a reputation management professional who appears to have acted boldly without requesting the review and assistance of fellow administrators at the admin boards. It wouldn't be good to see this spin out of control with claims of 'coverup', and if mud gets thrown it might possibly stick. So respectfully requesting that Jehochman seek community consensus before taking further action. DurovaCharge! 03:17, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
- There is absolutely no doubt that the Mail, the Register and the Independent qualify as reliable sources. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 04:14, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
- You make some good points, but let's be clear. This is NOT just developing news. This is a subject we've long had an article on, who has been covered in the media for years. There has recently been a major surge in coverage due to policy violating behaviors that are also unethical for a politician. So he's under fire. Not only are we subject to allegations of a cover-up, so far we are guilty of one. All of a sudden the subject was no longer notable right when lots of coverage was occuring that wasn't favorable? This is the worst kind of censorship and it puts us in a very bad light. It also comes at a time when Arbcom is already involved in coddling POV pushers, bias and NPOV violations. So we have a major problem that needs to be fixed. So instead of attacking anyone who questions those trying to sweep things under the rug, we need to take a step back, take a deep breath, restore the article, put in a few sentences about the issues involved, and see what happens. We have this rush to action any time there's a controversy, but cooler, more rational, and more reasonable heads should prevail. Let's do the right thing instead of engaging in subterfuge to cover up for those violating our policies. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:47, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
- As the person who had the article usefied, I'm currently thinking about this with both the Mail and Indepdent as reliable and the Register as a source only as a matter of last resort for uncontroversial details. The Mail and Indepdent are pretty clearly WP:RS. Regarding the matter of development in userspace, there's a variety of conflicting precedents about that. Given that the closer of the DRV made the decision that userfication in this case was ok that seems ok. He's given one week to work on it as a time limit. Given that, I see it as very hard to see a problem with working on a userfied version. I haven't seen Jehochman claim that he will delete/issue blocks for any mention of the controversy in question although I've already asked him to clarify what precisely he considers to be a BLP problem. It might help matters if Jehochman would have other arbs or admins take a look at this in more detail since a variety of users seem to be upset with his handling of the matter. In any event, it would be appreciated if users would help contribute to a draft rather than attacking Jehochman or stirring up further drama. (Oh, and the next time something in my userspace is the center of an ANI thread could someone please do me the courtesy of letting me know?) JoshuaZ (talk) 04:42, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
- Actually Jehochman wrote in an edit summary to your user talk page: "(WP:BLP1E enforcement -- blocks will be issued if same old problems are reinstated.)"[1] DurovaCharge! 04:49, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, but I don't know what he meant by that. Is the problem using The Reg as a source? Is the problem the Wikipedia matter as a whole. Is the problem some of the unsourceable details about his career that were in the earlier version? Needs clarification. JoshuaZ (talk) 04:53, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
- It's one in the morning in Jehochman's time zone. So he probably isn't available to answer that right now. Was it only a citation to The Register that he removed? It's a long page to scour and you're more familiar with it. DurovaCharge! 04:59, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
- If the recreated page is turned into an attack page, I predict the editors who are responsible will be blocked by somebody else. It won't be me doing the blocking, but I am pretty confident that an uninvolved administrator can be found to review the evidence if a block is called for. Jehochman Talk 11:15, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
- Well, it is 1 AM here too... :). Anyways, I can't tell since he deleted the offending edits [2]. But I believe that was the only material in question. I do of course understand the late hour and don't have any issue waiting for his clarification. (Indeed, I sent him a note. I still see this ANI thread as unnecessary). JoshuaZ (talk) 05:02, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
- If the recreated page is turned into an attack page, I predict the editors who are responsible will be blocked by somebody else. It won't be me doing the blocking, but I am pretty confident that an uninvolved administrator can be found to review the evidence if a block is called for. Jehochman Talk 11:15, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
- It's one in the morning in Jehochman's time zone. So he probably isn't available to answer that right now. Was it only a citation to The Register that he removed? It's a long page to scour and you're more familiar with it. DurovaCharge! 04:59, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, but I don't know what he meant by that. Is the problem using The Reg as a source? Is the problem the Wikipedia matter as a whole. Is the problem some of the unsourceable details about his career that were in the earlier version? Needs clarification. JoshuaZ (talk) 04:53, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
- Actually Jehochman wrote in an edit summary to your user talk page: "(WP:BLP1E enforcement -- blocks will be issued if same old problems are reinstated.)"[1] DurovaCharge! 04:49, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
- As the person who had the article usefied, I'm currently thinking about this with both the Mail and Indepdent as reliable and the Register as a source only as a matter of last resort for uncontroversial details. The Mail and Indepdent are pretty clearly WP:RS. Regarding the matter of development in userspace, there's a variety of conflicting precedents about that. Given that the closer of the DRV made the decision that userfication in this case was ok that seems ok. He's given one week to work on it as a time limit. Given that, I see it as very hard to see a problem with working on a userfied version. I haven't seen Jehochman claim that he will delete/issue blocks for any mention of the controversy in question although I've already asked him to clarify what precisely he considers to be a BLP problem. It might help matters if Jehochman would have other arbs or admins take a look at this in more detail since a variety of users seem to be upset with his handling of the matter. In any event, it would be appreciated if users would help contribute to a draft rather than attacking Jehochman or stirring up further drama. (Oh, and the next time something in my userspace is the center of an ANI thread could someone please do me the courtesy of letting me know?) JoshuaZ (talk) 04:42, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
- Actually this is developing news. That's not the only thing it is, but it certainly is that. Do you have an analysis of the numbered questions, please? DurovaCharge! 04:08, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
- It's not just developing news. Here are a few of the sources that Google News search comes up wit (the first 10 or so predating the latest controversy):
- 1) [3] Fox News
- 2) [4] The Guardian
- 3) Time/CNN [5]
- 4) [6] The Independent
- 5)The Argus [7]
- 6) Wood and Vale [8]
- 7)Westminster’s Icelandic folly - PressDisplay.com - Oct 13, 2008 has a story on him.
- 8) Westminster affordable housing row
PlanningResource - PlanningResource (subscription) - Oct 23, 2008 Labour member of the committee Cllr David Boothroyd, has branded the move as “a smash and grab raid”. He said: "So many people are waiting for transfer to a ...
- 9) Local elections good for gay Labour
PinkNews.co.uk - May 5, 2006 Gay councillors, Matt Cooke and Alan Dobbie held seats in Labour controlled Haringey and David Boothroyd held his in Westminster.
- 10) And then of course there's the very substantial coverage AFTER his latest controversy [9], [10] Daily Mail
- 11) The Register [11]
And then there are other stories that I'm not sure are related. There are several tech stories. Is he David Boothroyd, Contributing Editor to Vision Systems Design? Does he write on wireless standards?
And I understand he's also an author. So there's more notability based on his book and writings and presumably more sources available on Google Books.
And to answer your other questions, Jehochman needs to stop acting unilaterally and in haste. And other veteran editors need to stop covering this up and maintain what's left of our integrity by doing what's right. There's no need for userspace recreations, because the article should be recreated in main space and protected with a couple sentences covering the latest issues so we can all get back to editing and expanding the encyclopedia. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:33, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
- Childofmidnight, those are all very interesting sources. Would you move them out of this subsection to the previous subsection please? For purposes of this subthread, all we really need to determine is that at least one of the new sources is reliable. We're already there. The second question is whether it's ok for users to recreate BLPs in user space after they've been deleted. And looking into this a little more, there's also a subquestion: if it's ok to do this in userspace, are editors prohibited from starting work before DRV? DurovaCharge! 04:42, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
I can answer questions 1 and 3, Durova. Question 1, yes, the Daily Mail (second most-circulated paper in the nation) and Independent (a past top British Press Awards recipient) are both ironclad reliable sources. We use the Register as a source in the Essjay controversy article so I am assuming it is fine. TAway (talk) 04:56, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Question 3: I was incorrectly blocked by Jehochman for "WP:POINT violations" for having the article (entirely sourced) in my userspace (it was in my user space prior to his inappropriate speedy deletion, but he claimed I had restored it post-deletion), and only unblocked if "you will not restore this content anywhere on Wikipedia." When the article was userfied to JoshuaZ's userspace, Jehochman appeared and re-deleted, then selectively restored revisions without the Sam Blacketer controversy material saying, "Attack page or negative unsourced BLP: Deleted revisions were improperly restored" (it was not unsourced, and only "negative" in that it certainly reflects poorly) and "blocks will be issued if same old problems are reinstated." He then left a message on the userfied article's talk page making clear what he had done: "there were a bunch of WP:BLP problems in the deleted history. These were accidentally restored. I have deleted and selectively restored revisions I think may be acceptable."
Let's face it, had the evenly split post-speedy-deletion discussion at the Boothroyd deletion review been allowed to take place as a normal 7-day Article for Deletion it would have been a clear "no consensus" outcome. He has used his ability to speedy-delete and thus force DRV discussion instead of AfD discussion to claim that the book on this issue is now closed. He completely ignored administrator User:SoWhy's attempt to approach him on the matter and instead dismissively pointed to the DRV. By my count, three sysops (SoWhy, Sandstein, and now DGG) have commented with concerns about his protective and anti-consensus behavior during the developing Boothroyd situation.
Jehochman has openly stated "our website with its search-ranking-fu does not need to be made available to those who wish to amplify his (David Boothroyd's) problems" (assuming bad faith of those who hold the story with its coverage to be verifiable and notable). It is my contention that Jehochman is a search engine optimization expert who wants to keep the story out of the search engine results for the sake of Wikipedia and Boothroyd's reputations both. He is obviously about as far from a neutral broker of the Boothroyd situation as one can get right now and is in fact editing with a declared agenda: to minimize the search engine imprint of this story. His actions during AfD (speedying a deletion and denying a full AfD despite substantial new media coverage of a new development) and actions to suppress development of the issue's media coverage on-wiki via blocks and block threats are censorship. TAway (talk) 04:56, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
- Well, let's not rush to conclusions here. Or at least please excuse the ignorance of an editor who doesn't spend much time at AFD. In good faith, Jehochman might have been thinking of the editors David Boothroyd had voted to ban during his time as an arbitrator, who might add frivolous accusations to the substantial material. A portion of editors believe in being generous with courtesy deletions upon the subject's request. Regarding the block of May 27, could people who are familiar with AfD standards comment on the practice of recreating a BLP in userspace before DRV gets underway? Is that an ok thing to do? DurovaCharge! 05:04, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
- Not enough in the way of precedent. If it were an unambiguous attack page then recreation in userspace would have clearly been blockable. However, the deletion reason seems to be primarily BLP1E which is not sufficient reason generally to argue against a userspace recreation. I'm not aware of any similar block occasions for such more or less borderline situations such as BLP1E, or courtesy deletion requests. (There may have also been a GFDL violation in TAQway's actions but I'm not sure). JoshuaZ (talk) 05:08, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
- I'm leaving a whole mess of things to the side here and just offering my own view on Durova's second question. As a matter of commonsense, if we in fact do courtesy deletions of not-well-known BLPs (as has happened here) then it strikes me as the acme of foolishness to turn around and allow recreation of said BLP - even in a different form - in userspace. Leaving the specifics of this case to the side, let's think of this from the perspective of the subject of a theoretical article similar to the one we are discussing. The article subject comes to us and says, "Hey, I'm a local politician in Topeka, KS who is barely notable and I don't want a Wiki bio because I'm worried about defamation and having an article about me is not important for Wikipedia/the world, so can you delete it?" We say yes and then do so, but then we allow an editor to develop a new article in user space, presumably for the purpose of one day importing it into article space (otherwise why would would it be there?). At a basic level that strikes me as illogical, and I think the BLP subject in question would be understandably agog that we deleted it and then let it be created again in some other part of Wikipedia for it to be worked on and then maybe moved back into article space later. The particulars of this case are more complex (and I'm intentionally ignoring them to make a general point), but personally I feel "our general practice on userspace recreations of courtesy deleted biographies" has to be "we don't do that." If not then courtesy deletion is effectively meaningless. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:22, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
- Well, couldn't userspace be noindexed?
The DRV closer in this instance specifically allowed userspace drafts with a time limit. So the post-DRV recreation seems ok. Not sure about the other one.Striking for now. Need to reverify: thought that was written, but having trouble finding it. DurovaCharge! 05:31, 9 June 2009 (UTC)- I suppose that helps, to the extent that average people know what "noindexed" means and/or are comforted by some techie's explanation of it (I barely know what it means, to be honest). Again I'm just thinking about this from the perspective of a the subject of the BLP who asks for deletion—presumably (most of the time) a person who is not familiar with Wikipedia or even maybe the workings of the series of tubes in which this web site lives. If we say, "Sure, we'll delete that!" and then in following up the person in question somehow sees (maybe on the talk page of the admin who did the deletion) that the article we just deleted has been recreated at some random user's user page....well let's just say it probably wouldn't be fun to respond to that OTRS ticket. The moral component of our BLP policy is (or should be) as much about perceived harm as actual harm—i.e. if a BLP subject says "I'm an unimportant person and this article has done and/or might do me harm" we probably are not going to fight with them about that but rather will largely take their word. Similarly I would not want to get in a conversation/argument with such a person about how they don't have to worry because it's in userspace which is "different," something something something "noindexing," etc. etc. And it still doesn't deal with the fact that an article in userspace is, by definition, something that is being worked on to be put in article space, otherwise we wouldn't have it there in userspace.
Like I said there are different aspects to this particular discussion that might complicate matters, but in general I really cannot imagine a compelling argument for saying we can delete a BLP based on a real life request from an article subject and then turn around and put it in user space to work on it so we can later re-create the article we just deleted. In all seriousness I might be missing something but that strikes me as the rub of the matter. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:49, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
- What you are missing: that almost immediately after Boothroyd's deletion request he became the subject of national media attention. National media attention in multiple sources completely changes the ballgame. TAway (talk) 06:54, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
- Like I said above, "Like I said there are different aspects to this particular discussion that might complicate matters..." This case might be slightly different for the reason you suggest (though this supposed "national media attention" seems, at a glance, to be quite minimal). My two previous comments gave my view on Durova's general question about userfying BLP articles that have been courtesy deleted rather than engaging with the specifics of this situation. I think it's obvious that userfying BLP articles that have been courtesy deleted is, as a rule, a definite bad idea. Perhaps this is an exception or perhaps not, but if it's the former I think it would be a very rare one. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:35, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
- 3 years 9 months is not "almost immediately". M. Boothroyd asked for the article to be deleted on the 8th of August 2005. This is one of the errors of fact upon which you have built your house of cards. Uncle G (talk) 12:33, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
- What you are missing: that almost immediately after Boothroyd's deletion request he became the subject of national media attention. National media attention in multiple sources completely changes the ballgame. TAway (talk) 06:54, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
- I suppose that helps, to the extent that average people know what "noindexed" means and/or are comforted by some techie's explanation of it (I barely know what it means, to be honest). Again I'm just thinking about this from the perspective of a the subject of the BLP who asks for deletion—presumably (most of the time) a person who is not familiar with Wikipedia or even maybe the workings of the series of tubes in which this web site lives. If we say, "Sure, we'll delete that!" and then in following up the person in question somehow sees (maybe on the talk page of the admin who did the deletion) that the article we just deleted has been recreated at some random user's user page....well let's just say it probably wouldn't be fun to respond to that OTRS ticket. The moral component of our BLP policy is (or should be) as much about perceived harm as actual harm—i.e. if a BLP subject says "I'm an unimportant person and this article has done and/or might do me harm" we probably are not going to fight with them about that but rather will largely take their word. Similarly I would not want to get in a conversation/argument with such a person about how they don't have to worry because it's in userspace which is "different," something something something "noindexing," etc. etc. And it still doesn't deal with the fact that an article in userspace is, by definition, something that is being worked on to be put in article space, otherwise we wouldn't have it there in userspace.
- Well, couldn't userspace be noindexed?
- I'm leaving a whole mess of things to the side here and just offering my own view on Durova's second question. As a matter of commonsense, if we in fact do courtesy deletions of not-well-known BLPs (as has happened here) then it strikes me as the acme of foolishness to turn around and allow recreation of said BLP - even in a different form - in userspace. Leaving the specifics of this case to the side, let's think of this from the perspective of the subject of a theoretical article similar to the one we are discussing. The article subject comes to us and says, "Hey, I'm a local politician in Topeka, KS who is barely notable and I don't want a Wiki bio because I'm worried about defamation and having an article about me is not important for Wikipedia/the world, so can you delete it?" We say yes and then do so, but then we allow an editor to develop a new article in user space, presumably for the purpose of one day importing it into article space (otherwise why would would it be there?). At a basic level that strikes me as illogical, and I think the BLP subject in question would be understandably agog that we deleted it and then let it be created again in some other part of Wikipedia for it to be worked on and then maybe moved back into article space later. The particulars of this case are more complex (and I'm intentionally ignoring them to make a general point), but personally I feel "our general practice on userspace recreations of courtesy deleted biographies" has to be "we don't do that." If not then courtesy deletion is effectively meaningless. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:22, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
- Not enough in the way of precedent. If it were an unambiguous attack page then recreation in userspace would have clearly been blockable. However, the deletion reason seems to be primarily BLP1E which is not sufficient reason generally to argue against a userspace recreation. I'm not aware of any similar block occasions for such more or less borderline situations such as BLP1E, or courtesy deletion requests. (There may have also been a GFDL violation in TAQway's actions but I'm not sure). JoshuaZ (talk) 05:08, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
The content related to the recent scandal can be added to Criticism of Wikipedia, as there are reliable sources. My concern about the biography is that it was, and would be if recreated, a serious WP:BLP1E violation. We cannot write a biography based on a person being involved in one event when there is very thin coverage of the rest of their life. Unless there is enough substance to the rest of the person's life, the scandal would have undue weight. That's the problem. A public figure, like Chris Dodd can have some scandal content in their biography because there is enough substance to provide balance.
I'd very much like an answer to the question of whether it is kosher to userify a deleted WP:BLP. My initial feeling was against undeletion, but I did not outright delete the article again because I wanted more input, and did not want to generate more shrill comments about coverup. I did delete selected revisions which either 1/ I recalled having been previously deleted by other administrators before I ever set eyes on the article, or 2/ represented WP:BLP1E violations that had been discussed, and the deletion of which had been sustained at WP:DRV. Basically, I think the undeleting administrator was not fully aware of those circumstances and would not disagree with what I did. Jehochman Talk 10:27, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
On a side note: Jehochman involved admin?
Another problem to ponder, which I have so far not considered, but which strikes me now is this: If Jehochman closed the second AFD as delete (very quickly without the usual 24h SNOW waiting period that admins usually apply), doesn't this mean he is now involved? Imho SNOW, unlike consensus judging, requires an admin to decide that deletion is the correct thing to do. SNOW is an interpretation of WP:IAR as we all know and IAR requires a decision by the one applying it, i.e. one should only ignore the rules if they think it's best for the project. But if SNOW/IAR requires such a decision, it means the person ignoring the rules (here the SNOWing admin) has effectively taken a stance on the issue. But if they have taken a stance on the issue by doing so, they are now to be considered an involved administrator and should not take administrator actions regarding the same subject again, especially not closing a new AFD (like the third one) or selectively deleting revisions of the userfied article) based on said close. Opinions? Regards SoWhy 07:33, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
- Trying to solve a difficult problem does not disqualify somebody from continuing to try to solve that problem. You can't just scream "involved!" to get rid of an administrator who disagrees with your point of view. Most of the revisions I deleted had been previously deleted (as best I can remember) before I was ever aware of the article. When the article was userified, I don't think it was the administrators intention to restore those revisions. They included some edits by the HAGGER vandal, for example. I also removed the WP:BLP1E violation that was the immediate cause of the article being deleted (which was upheld at WP:DRV). Jehochman Talk 09:59, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
- I understand that you probably do not view yourself as an involved administrator while I think in the spirit of the reasons you cited on your first close that you were from then on, now having an opinion about what should stay and what should be deleted. A deletion by an involved administrator can be upheld, so pointing at DRV is not really an argument. But my posting was a question to those not involved in the issue at all (unlike you and me) whether my interpretation of IAR/SNOW leading to a seperate decision and thus more than just being judgment of consensus is correct, so I'd like to invite those people to consider this thought/problem (regardless of the issue at hand if possible).
From you I'd like to request that you recuse yourself from taking any further administrative action towards this article (userfied or not) and allow an administrator previously not involved in the issue at hand to decide the further fate of the article (you can tag it for speedy deletion as G4 for example and someone will make a decision). It would serve both you and the project as a whole if any rumors of whitewashing can be avoided and not having the same admin repeatedly deleting an article is imho a way to achieve this. Regards SoWhy 10:10, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
- I understand that you probably do not view yourself as an involved administrator while I think in the spirit of the reasons you cited on your first close that you were from then on, now having an opinion about what should stay and what should be deleted. A deletion by an involved administrator can be upheld, so pointing at DRV is not really an argument. But my posting was a question to those not involved in the issue at all (unlike you and me) whether my interpretation of IAR/SNOW leading to a seperate decision and thus more than just being judgment of consensus is correct, so I'd like to invite those people to consider this thought/problem (regardless of the issue at hand if possible).
- My opinion is that this side-issue that you have created only serves to confuse, not to enlighten. The specifics of the case at hand are that the userfied edits that were deleted, as you can see for yourself, with the sole exception of TAway's contributions were all BLP vandalism making various libellous statements about the subject's sex life and sexual orientation. Abstract notions of "involvement" are irrelevant to that, and only serve to further muddy waters already muddied quite a lot above. If an abstract notion prevents someone from reversing/removing an edit where a BLP has been replaced with the word "cunt" (the one piece of vandalism here that I think to be safe to explicitly describe) then the abstract notion is directly enabling the existence of damage to the project. Uncle G (talk) 12:33, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Applying some simple logic here from my simple mind: (1) If this guy Boothroyd is notable, then he could qualify for a bio article. If not, then delete it. (2) If his own life and career are affected by his abuse of wikipedia, then it could merit a sentence or two. If not, then it doesn't belong in his article. That's not to say it might not belong elsewhere, such as the Criticism of Wikipedia article, as it illustrates some of the flaws in wikipedia's premise, which have been exploited by many, not just that one guy. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 11:38, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Is Jehochman involved 'now'?
It's a simple test.
The level of involvement is simple to determine: is there consensus that Jehochman is involved now? If so, he is, and can't use the tools again without risk of the usual risks that come with that. If there isn't consensus he's involved, he's not. If it is gray or borderline, you probably are. It's fairly simple, everyone. Make your case either way with evidence, or stop alluding to it. rootology (C)(T) 13:14, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
- My case is above. It's an irrelevant side-issue given the actual specifics here, and extra section headings don't change that. Uncle G (talk) 16:00, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Notability of the event in the context of the rest of him and BLP
This is getting pointless in particular. If he's notable, he's notable. If he's not, he's not. You either are, or you aren't. The sourcing IMHO is beginning to look like he is. I will say again what I said before: the fact Boothroyd is or isn't a Wikipedia user is 100% irrelevant in anything. The fact he screwed up here has zero value in any decisions we make. If the Wikipedia Event he caused gets coverage, there is no BLP violation at the least a one-sentence mention of it, relative to what has been reported so far. None. To totally suppress it from David Boothroyd, should it be created, is laughable and not a defense of anything under BLP, but a defense of a Wikipedia user. Given that it's a single notable event in the life of an apparently notable person's diverse biography (and yes, it looks like as a politician he is notable) a one-sentence mention is not harmful. If the news and the event is harmful as an event to the person, that's not our fault; like any other embarrassing event, he regrettably brougnt it upon himself and it's in the press already. rootology (C)(T) 13:14, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
- What is the process for restoring an article after it has been to deletion review and the deletion was sustained? WP:DRVRV seems to be a redlink. Jehochman Talk 13:36, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
- There is no process, as far as I am aware. An article on Boothroyd can be recreated, but like a case involving just an AFD, it must not fall foul of the reasons why the original article was deleted, otherwise it can be speedily deleted. AdmiralKolchak (talk) 13:47, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
- Typically, someone does a noindex userpage draft, gets a working model that would 'pass' AFD trivially, and brings it back to DRV.
IfWhen DRV signs off, someone kicks it back live, and sometimes the old history is merged in (if old content is used) otherwise, new history. Since the draft in Josh's side is used, the history needs to be merged in fully I think when it goes live eventually. Given Boothroyd is a notable politician in the UK that is apparently even getting all over the news for events unrelated to Wikipedia after that mess, I think it's inevitable. rootology (C)(T) 13:44, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
- Typically, someone does a noindex userpage draft, gets a working model that would 'pass' AFD trivially, and brings it back to DRV.
- (edit conflict) Yea, I don't think this was a request to overrule the DRV. Rather a comment about how BLP is being used here as a means to suppress unfavorable information. For example, this threat to block over the reintroduction of the WP controversy is completely inappropriate. This is not a BLP issue, and citing BLP where it doesn't apply does the project no favors. لennavecia 13:50, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
- I said, Recreation in the same form is potentially a blockable action, or perhaps the article will just be deleted again. I really hope it does not get to that point. Not sure I'm seeing a threat there as much as a statement of fact or a warning. I'm not going to block anybody or delete anything further, as this issue is now on the radar of multiple administrators. At the moment I am digging through the deleted edits and some other history where I've found multiple accounts and IPs that appear to be connected to an infamous banned editor. Jehochman Talk 14:25, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not sure whether David Boothroyd should be a red or blue link, but it's odd to suggest that there are not BLP issues here. Leave all of the Wikipedia stuff to the side for a minute. The subject of the article requested deletion—once four years ago (I think before we did that kind of thing, i.e. courtesy deletions) and once more recently. Regardless of how big of a deal this recent controversy is (and I think it's not nearly as big of a deal as some suggest—as of now there are a whopping seven news articles on the issue that I can find, few of which seem to contain any original reporting), Boothroyd is most definitely "relatively unknown" in my view. I'm not sure what the current thinking on deleting BLPs at the request of such subjects is at this point, but in the past my understanding was that this was something that is acceptable and somewhat up to admin discussion per various ArbCom rulings. Maybe the consensus now on this particular case is that there is too much coverage now to not have an article on Boothroyd, but let's not lose sight of the fact that: A) the subject has repeatedly requested deletion; B) the key subject matter can easily be covered elsewhere (since the key subject matter is the Wiki controversy, not the fact that he is a local politician, of whom there are hundreds of thousand across the world); C) BLP is something we all obviously care about—even when it comes to Wikipedians who have articles. To suggest that there is no BLP issue here at all is just bizarre in my view, and I think it would be easier to see that were there not concerns about a coverup of information relating to Wikipedia. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 15:03, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
- I said, Recreation in the same form is potentially a blockable action, or perhaps the article will just be deleted again. I really hope it does not get to that point. Not sure I'm seeing a threat there as much as a statement of fact or a warning. I'm not going to block anybody or delete anything further, as this issue is now on the radar of multiple administrators. At the moment I am digging through the deleted edits and some other history where I've found multiple accounts and IPs that appear to be connected to an infamous banned editor. Jehochman Talk 14:25, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
I already commented in the MfD of the userspace draft, which didn't look at all like a NOINDEX draft to work on a better article, but a parking place for the article because it had been deleted at AfD against his own opinion. I already commented on the MfD about how the sources before the wikipedia "incident" only quote him to show the opinion of a member of the Westminster Council, and how he didn't take any of those controversial decisions himself, it was the council that made them. TAway can make as many claims of censorship in his user page as he wants, but those are not supported by evidence, since both the MfD and the DRV were closed by uninvolved admins. Sooo, I'd suggest that is marked as resolved and that TAway heads to WP:DRV to contest the DRV close, and that trying other noticeboards should be considered forum-shopping (and give him +1 kudos of unnecessary drama for every claim of censorship that he makes, please). --Enric Naval (talk) 15:11, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Maybe another Essjay-type scandal
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/fb/Yes_check.svg/20px-Yes_check.svg.png)
With the already existing coverage of the Sam Blacketer controversy in the media, and on Wikipedia in the form of the relevant article and various discussions such as a large one currently going on above, the apparent news that The Times is preparing a new piece on what's happened and with ABC having caught wind of the story, I'm concerned this controversy may escalate into something, whilst probably not as grand as what happened with Essjay, rather bad. What should we do if this happens? OpenSeven (talk) 15:07, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not a new and weak project anymore. It needs not shake over any possible negative mention in media.
- Just do as instructed in Yes Minister, and everything will be fine. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 15:23, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
- I think it's great if the media wants to cover sock puppetry. This sort of problem is a big issue for many websites, not just Wikipedia. Jehochman Talk 15:25, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
- As a criticism of wikipedia, all it proves is that being totally open to the public can bite you, and that wikipedia might need to become more restrictive, maybe not as restrictive as citizendium, but maybe some steps in that direction. This so-called "scandal" only shames the sockpuppet, not wikipedia. But it should be a wakeup call to tighten the reins a bit, somehow. I wonder what Wales' take is on all this? Has anyone asked him? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 15:37, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
- I'm shocked... shocked to hear that sockpuppets have been editing en.Wikipedia. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:39, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
- We could rename it "shockpuppetry". Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 15:50, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
- I'm shocked... shocked to hear that sockpuppets have been editing en.Wikipedia. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:39, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
- As a criticism of wikipedia, all it proves is that being totally open to the public can bite you, and that wikipedia might need to become more restrictive, maybe not as restrictive as citizendium, but maybe some steps in that direction. This so-called "scandal" only shames the sockpuppet, not wikipedia. But it should be a wakeup call to tighten the reins a bit, somehow. I wonder what Wales' take is on all this? Has anyone asked him? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 15:37, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
It seems that the politicos and mainstream media have taken a fancy to this controversy. The Daily Mail report a few breathtaking inaccuracies, but this goes a long way toward making this situation a lot more complicated. Jehochman Talk 16:13, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
- To be honest, they're lambasting Boothroyd (fancy the newspapers chastising Labour party members...) much, much more than they are Wikipedia. ╟─TreasuryTag►Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster─╢ 16:20, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
- As if he's the only one to have done it. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:22, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
- Still, at least they're aiming at the right target; this is the fault of the editor, not the site. HalfShadow 16:24, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
- If he's suffering slings and arrows in real life, it's a fitting punishment, although it still doesn't make him notable enough for his own page. It could be a footnote in the Criticism article. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 16:30, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
- Fitting punishment? Gross. Who elected you, or indeed any of us, judge and jury? The user known as Sam Blacketer clearly erred here, but it was hardly the most dastardly thing we've ever seen on Wikipedia, and now the real-life person might be facing very real-life consequences based in part on some unsurprisingly sloppy reporting by a British tabloid. I hardly think that's something to celebrate, and a bit more sympathy for the actual living person affected by this - regardless of mistakes they made - would be appropriate (and I say this as someone who has never interacted with the person in question on Wikipedia or anywhere else). This isn't a goddamn video game, and this discussion is rapidly moving in an unseemly direction with little regard for real-world consequences. If there is continuing coverage then presumably Sam Blacketer controversy or something similar will stay an article and we'll talk about this situation there. All I see here right now is unhelpful, and not very thoughtful, speculation. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 16:48, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
- If he's suffering slings and arrows in real life, it's a fitting punishment, although it still doesn't make him notable enough for his own page. It could be a footnote in the Criticism article. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 16:30, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
- Still, at least they're aiming at the right target; this is the fault of the editor, not the site. HalfShadow 16:24, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
- As if he's the only one to have done it. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:22, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
- Sam is going to initiate an admin recall of himself on June 15. Do people think his adminship should go? OpenSeven (talk) 16:49, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
David Boothroyd deletion - do we have a process or not?
One of the most annoying things about the Wikipedia community is the desire to have instant outcomes when we are supposed to be deliberating thoughtfully. We can see this at Articles for Deletion, where the guideline says:
When an article is nominated for deletion, the Wikipedia community may discuss its merits for a period usually no less than seven days, in order to come to a public rough consensus about whether the article is unsuited to Wikipedia. Following seven days of discussion, an experienced Wikipedian will determine if a consensus was reached and will "close" the discussion accordingly.
This rarely comes into practice. The idea that we discuss whether to delete an article for a length of seven days is pretty much non-existent. Case-in-point: the recent AFD for David Boothroyd. There were three for this article as follows:
- First AFD on August 8-August 14, 2005 - 7 days, KEEP - 10 votes total
- Second AFD on May 23-May 23, 2009 - not even one day. DELETE - 6 votes total
- Third AFD on May 27-May27, 2009 - not even one day. DELETE - 7 votes total
There is no way--no way--those last two deletion discussions should have been closed on the same days that they were opened. The third one was open for an hour and a half. The second one for less than that! The admins closing and deleting under these circumstances are derelict in the guidelines that this community has set up. If there were problems with the articles, they could be addressed. This is a very problematic trend for people to enact WP:SNOW, often not even citing it, to close off debate. Censorship, indeed. -->David Shankbone 17:18, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
- Yes it should have run the full period, and yes it was, in my view at least, a mistake to cut it off after one day, and yes it is annoying when we don't deliberate thoughtfully. Jehochman could have handled this better. But crying "censorship" is a major failure to assume good faith and is not really borne out by the facts. In both AFDs Jehochman cited BLP enforcement as his rationale and I see no reason to not take him at his word on that (i.e. I think he had good intentions here), particularly as the article subject requested deletion (twice actually, counting four years ago). We do do, or at least have done, deletions of marginal BLPs when subjects request them, and I think the real issue here is whether or not that was appropriate in this case. If you want thoughtful deliberation, let's stick to that rather than making unfounded accusations of censorship.
- Also, there's a very related AfD still running and I have a feeling the Boothroyd issue will be resolved over there eventually. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 17:38, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
- The article was userfied to User:JoshuaZ/David Boothroyd. —EncMstr (talk) 17:38, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
- Nobody cares that Boothroyd asked for his article to be deleted, just like we don't care that Don Murphy wants his deleted (also for BLP concerns). It's irrelevant. As far as I'm concerned, this is Wikipedia self-censorship, removing articles about incidents that cause us embarrassment. The article existed for four years after a seven-day long deletion discussion. The last two AFDs are completely illegitimate. They weren't open for one day. They were open for less than two hours. There is no possible way that we gained any consensus in that time frame, especially given that there was consensus reached to KEEP when the process was done properly. Admins have to follow the guidelines we set up, and not go around deleting articles based upon their own judgment. I take extreme issue with Jehochman over how he has conducted himself with these AFDs. There is no AGF when our governing policies and guidelines are shirked so heinously. -->David Shankbone 17:43, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
- I concur that the two last AFDs were closed too soon. AdmiralKolchak (talk) 17:51, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Deletion Review is that way. I don't think getting worked up about "censorship" issues is very constructive at this point; if these closures were outside of process or otherwise erroneous, then they should be reviewed by the normal process, not at this noticeboard. Shereth 17:48, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
- Wrong - this is an admin issue about not following guidelines, procedures and policies. DRV is separate. -->David Shankbone 17:51, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
- I agree that the larger issue of percieved malfeasance by one editor is a seperate issue from the deletions themselves, but the above statements seem to be conflating them. The closure of these discussions has already been mentioned in the deliberation about the larger issue at hand; I'm not sure what this new subsection is adding to the argument. It reads more like a request to review the closures rather than contribute to the discussion about a user's behavior. Shereth 17:55, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
- Like you David I don't agree with the last two AFDs, as I already said. But also bear in mind that Boothroyd asked that the article be deleted back in 2005 in the first AFD, well before any of this stuff went down. At the very least, there is a split in the community about whether we do courtesy deletions of BLPs when the subject requests it, and when the subject is of marginal notability. Don Murphy is not marginal because he produced a massively successful Hollywood film and someone wrote a book significantly about him, Boothroyd is marginal because he is a local politician who has recently achieved some (at this point) minor notoriety for one incident. We can debate about whether we should take the subject's wishes into account in the latter circumstance or not, and we can agree that Jehochman did not handle the AFDs well (though I'm less concerned by that than you are apparently), but don't pretend that "nobody cares that Boothroyd asked for his article to be deleted" because some people clearly do, and because we have done subject-requested deletions before (though I don't have an example at hand). There is a larger BLP debate here which remains unresolved, but things like WP:BLPBAN and the Badlydrawnjeff ArbCom suggest that Jehochman's actions were not completely off-the-wall. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 17:57, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
- There was a lengthy discussion at WP:DRV, at least a week, and the deletion was sustained. How many more discussions are needed? Why don't we just let the matter lie for a few weeks and then see if there are enough sources to write a proper article? What's the rush? Wikipedia is not news, and if you want to write news, try WikiNews. Jehochman Talk 17:58, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
- Why are WP:SNOW closures even permitted? What is the point of establishing policy if nobody is required to follow them, or even remarked on when they don't? ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 17:59, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
- I've tried Wikinews; an article that was around for four years after a KEEP AFD, and whose subject only became more notable recently, is a problem for you to delete in under two hours, Jehochman. I don't see how you could possibly defend your actions here. It's a slap in the face to the community that has given you trust to follow how we write how things will happen. -->David Shankbone 18:03, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
- If you feel that way than take this to another level of dispute resolution, but please have a bit of respect for the BLP issue, which is clearly present, and by which these actions are at least somewhat defensible. You seem to be plowing right past that (along with some others). This is a fairly complex situation (particularly as its literally still unfolding in the news and in an active AfD), and I'm skeptical of anyone who tries to make it sound simple. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 18:09, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
- Bigtime, I see no BLP issues mentioned in this thread that would excuse this behavior. If I want to discuss article content, I will do so at DRV or on the article Talk page. Yes, I think it's irrelevant that the subject wants their article deleted (or doesn't want the New York Times to write that story about them, etc.), and I always have (but I also think FlaggedRevs is long overdue). Here, the issue is with Jehochman deleting, twice, in under two hours, an article that was previously kept--strongly--by consensus. This is not the way we do things. -->David Shankbone 18:15, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
- If you feel that way than take this to another level of dispute resolution, but please have a bit of respect for the BLP issue, which is clearly present, and by which these actions are at least somewhat defensible. You seem to be plowing right past that (along with some others). This is a fairly complex situation (particularly as its literally still unfolding in the news and in an active AfD), and I'm skeptical of anyone who tries to make it sound simple. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 18:09, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
- Why are WP:SNOW closures even permitted? What is the point of establishing policy if nobody is required to follow them, or even remarked on when they don't? ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 17:59, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
- I agree that the larger issue of percieved malfeasance by one editor is a seperate issue from the deletions themselves, but the above statements seem to be conflating them. The closure of these discussions has already been mentioned in the deliberation about the larger issue at hand; I'm not sure what this new subsection is adding to the argument. It reads more like a request to review the closures rather than contribute to the discussion about a user's behavior. Shereth 17:55, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
- That first RfD, 4 years ago, was hardly a ringing endorsement. Notability questions arose even then. After that, the article skated mostly under the radar for nearly 4 years, with only about 80 or 85 edits during that interval. Once the user got himself in trouble and that became public knowledge, then there was a revived move to delete it. You can claim wikipedia is protecting itself, but it's actually that guy who is shamed, not wikipedia, and making a big thing out of it in his article raises questions of BLP violations; undue weight; coatracking; and, frankly, wikipedian narcissim. Unfortunately, the quick closure of the RfD's looks fishy. But the DRV was open for a week, so there was ample opportunity to defend the article. It did not, and does not, belong here. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 18:12, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
- There are several highly problematic deleted edits to that article by Grawp. The situation here is more complex than meets the eye. I've got a checkuser working on this. Jehochman Talk 18:14, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
- Jehochman has asked me to inform the community that he and I have had prior conflict. That said, questions about the above comment: were the edits to that article substantially more problematic than edits to other borderline notability BLPs that get a spurt of negative attention in the press? DurovaCharge! 18:28, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
- There are edits in the history that are as problematic as edits can get. As in, worst I've seen on Wikipedia. This article is a very high risk of doing serious harm to the subject. You've seen the sloppy reporting at The Register and the Daily Mail. Do you want to pick up one of those papers tomorrow and see them repeating an unsubstantiated allegation of pedophilia or bestiality? I know for absolute certainty that Grawp has edited this article at least twice, and there are a bunch of other edits that appear to be coming from his sock puppets or friends. Jehochman Talk 18:59, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
- The normal way of handling AFD vandalism is semiprotect, watchlist, and ask for assistance at ANI to deal with remaining vandalism. Isn't that true? BTW there's a question at my user talk also. DurovaCharge! 19:10, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
- So...you close two AFDs when they've barely been opened instead of asking for oversight? -->David Shankbone 19:13, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
- There are edits in the history that are as problematic as edits can get. As in, worst I've seen on Wikipedia. This article is a very high risk of doing serious harm to the subject. You've seen the sloppy reporting at The Register and the Daily Mail. Do you want to pick up one of those papers tomorrow and see them repeating an unsubstantiated allegation of pedophilia or bestiality? I know for absolute certainty that Grawp has edited this article at least twice, and there are a bunch of other edits that appear to be coming from his sock puppets or friends. Jehochman Talk 18:59, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
- Jehochman has asked me to inform the community that he and I have had prior conflict. That said, questions about the above comment: were the edits to that article substantially more problematic than edits to other borderline notability BLPs that get a spurt of negative attention in the press? DurovaCharge! 18:28, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
- There are several highly problematic deleted edits to that article by Grawp. The situation here is more complex than meets the eye. I've got a checkuser working on this. Jehochman Talk 18:14, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
By the way, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sam Blacketer controversy is ongoing in case people want to debate whether the content should be in Wikipedia and where it should go. I don't think WP:ANI is the correct venue to resolve content disputes. Thank you. Jehochman Talk 18:21, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
- JE, even if there were BLP problems, you could have removed those problems and allowed the AFDs to proceed. Do you or do you not see why your closing two AFDs, in the midst of recent news events, is a problem that violated your responsibilities as an admin, when you should have followed the guidelines and just removed problematic material from the article? -->David Shankbone 18:27, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
- I think the whole point of closing the third AFD according the WP:STEAM was done to force a DRV which by default deletes where an AFD keeps. On a whole this is a matter of admin conduct and not anymore about if DB should have an article or not. Agathoclea (talk) 18:55, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
- Agathoclea has hit the nail on the head with this comment. A 50-50 no consensus AfD defaults to keep, but the same at DRV defers to the deleting administrator. Why can we not have a normal, 7-day AfD discussion on a public figure who has and continues to be covered extensively in the press? TAway (talk) 20:17, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
- I think the whole point of closing the third AFD according the WP:STEAM was done to force a DRV which by default deletes where an AFD keeps. On a whole this is a matter of admin conduct and not anymore about if DB should have an article or not. Agathoclea (talk) 18:55, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
- This is not about a content dispute, Jehochman. This is about your involvement in manipulating the encyclopedia via
- speedily deleting out of process twice in a row
- incorrectly blocking with false rationale
- threatening editors with blocks
- selectively restoring versions without certain reliably sourced content
- wiki-lawyering editors out of a real AfD by throwing DRV in their faces
- trying to change the BLP and Speedy deletion policies to accommodate and validate your actions
- to (by our own admission as a search engine optimization expert) obscure search engine results. You were approached by other uninvolved editors (including another sysop) over these past several days and ignored them, so it is now here where it cannot be ignored. TAway (talk) 20:17, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
- The purpose of this thread needs to be clarified. Expressions of concern about Hockman's conduct belong at certain forums, and debate over the articles' existence or non-existence belongs at certain other forums. As of now, this discussion is an unproductive amalgamation of the two. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 09:01, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
- No, they belong together. Because if there was no debate over the article's existence, there would be no debate over its allegedly too-rapid deletion. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 09:11, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
- No, I still disagree. We have AfD for a reason. And we have <a large number of abuse forums> for allegations of administrator abuse (not that I'm asserting this has happened here, but it's the fact of the matter). To assert there should be unnecessary and encouraged cross-over is not tackling the situation properly. Of course, the problems with Jehockman's response to the content might be referenced in some discussion about Jehockman's conduct, but we should separate talk of the content itself where possible. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 15:23, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
- Agreeing with Anonymous Dissident. The opening poster raised admin conduct issues, and it was necessary to ask questions about process and policy in order to explore that. Was a bit hard to keep that on-focus. DurovaCharge! 18:46, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
- I sometimes feel that Durova has a longstanding grudge against me.
I'd really appreciate if she stopped engaging in dispute intensification.Durova, how about you stop commenting on me. There are plenty of other editors who can provide useful feedback, when needed. Jehochman Talk 19:32, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
- I sometimes feel that Durova has a longstanding grudge against me.
- Agreeing with Anonymous Dissident. The opening poster raised admin conduct issues, and it was necessary to ask questions about process and policy in order to explore that. Was a bit hard to keep that on-focus. DurovaCharge! 18:46, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
- No, I still disagree. We have AfD for a reason. And we have <a large number of abuse forums> for allegations of administrator abuse (not that I'm asserting this has happened here, but it's the fact of the matter). To assert there should be unnecessary and encouraged cross-over is not tackling the situation properly. Of course, the problems with Jehockman's response to the content might be referenced in some discussion about Jehockman's conduct, but we should separate talk of the content itself where possible. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 15:23, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
- No, they belong together. Because if there was no debate over the article's existence, there would be no debate over its allegedly too-rapid deletion. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 09:11, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
- The purpose of this thread needs to be clarified. Expressions of concern about Hockman's conduct belong at certain forums, and debate over the articles' existence or non-existence belongs at certain other forums. As of now, this discussion is an unproductive amalgamation of the two. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 09:01, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
- My initial reasons for starting this thread were 1) to express extreme dissatisfaction with Jehochman's premature closures of the AfDs; 2) to express discontent that our rules of governance were not followed with a "hot" issue; and 3) to raise the larger problem of way, way too many WP:SNOW closures on AFD. On Durova's talk page, Jehochman expressed regret over how he handled the early closures, and it's my opinion that he did so with only good, if misguided, intentions. He would not repeat these actions. That he had good intentions, and would not repeat, is good enough for me to feel that continuing the pile-on is WP:STICK. -->David Shankbone 20:50, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry, David, I just discovered this thread and feel like I should pile on. This happens when admins don't follow process. I'm really annoyed with those of us, like Jehochman, who occasionally believe that they don't have to follow process because they know better. (Although I may have been guilty of this once or twice, too.) Seriously, AfDs are supposed to run for seven days. If the first or even the second one had been allowed to, or if DRV contributors had remembered that it is DRV's job to examine violations of process exclusively and restarted the AfD, we would not have this drama. What we should consider is a rule, similar to WP:DP#NAC, whereby any premature AfD closure can be undone and the AfD relisted by any other administrator. Sandstein 18:15, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
A reminder
While it may be fun to devote time to drama about Jehochman's actions, editors who wish there to be a Boothroyd article are better served trying to work on actually improving the draft. I'm not at all convinced there should be an article but every pair of hands helps make it better. There are now roughly 6 days remaining until this is going to go to the community for some form of decision. Effort should be made into allowing the community to make that decision with the best possible version of an article on Boothroyd, not in bickering. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:05, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
- I'd be happy to, but I've been told by Jehochman that he will block me again if I "restore this content anywhere on Wikipedia." It is not "drama" when a user has been blocked for developing content and told they will be blocked again for continuing anywhere else on the project. Will he rescind his threat and agree to recuse himself from taking actions against editors working on the Boothroyd article? TAway (talk) 20:23, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
- I've already said that I'm not going to involve myself further in this matter. I am happy to let others deal with it. Please mind WP:BLP and other relevant policies. Before moving that article into mainspace, get some sort of community consensus to do so. Jehochman Talk 20:36, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
- Your recusal is too late. The damage is already done. The draft you thought could not possibly exist won't now get the same attention in obscure user-space for improvement as a proper AFD'd article would have, and due to the massive amounts of half-truths and smoke and mirrors already put out there over this article and its previous histories and 'precedents' at AFD/DRV, any future attempt at resurrection (presumably at DRV?), is just going to resemble nothing more than a procession, fed by ignorance. Too late. Far too late. The job is well and truly done and dusted. MickMacNee (talk) 21:01, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
- I've already said that I'm not going to involve myself further in this matter. I am happy to let others deal with it. Please mind WP:BLP and other relevant policies. Before moving that article into mainspace, get some sort of community consensus to do so. Jehochman Talk 20:36, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Recreated article
See User:JoshuaZ/David Boothroyd. Is that a WP:BLP violation due to WP:UNDUE weight given to the controversy? Jehochman Talk 15:42, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
- In spite of being apparently asked to review this I hadn't paid attention to it the past couple days and began gutting that section. He's plainly notable, but for whatever reason Joshua is homing in on the WMF stuff which is a tiny fraction of the work and press this guy has gotten. The event is obviously notable as an event in the context of his life and should get a due course mention, but not 1/4 of the page's real estate. rootology (C)(T) 15:55, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
- Not the intention. I'm simply filling out the article as I get sources. That matter has the most easily accessible sources so it is getting addressed first. Pairing it down is of course reasonable. I don't know why Jehochman thinks that a draft article can have an UNDUE weight problem (it is after all a draft). That's a matter for its talk page, not for ANI. And it presumably isn't a serious BLP violation if the separate Sam Blacketer controversy article(currently up for AfD) isn't by itself a BLP problem. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:11, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
- I posted so people would be aware of the issue. We seem to be having the same debate over and over again in multiple venues. Let's not do that. Let's leave pointers so everybody comes to the same place and we can generate a lasting consensus. Jehochman Talk 22:13, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
- Just a side comment since Joshua mentioned Sam Blacketer controversy: if that article is kept at the close of the AfD (and it's going to be one helluva an AfD close, however it turns out) I would strongly recommend that we not have an article on Boothroyd. Said controversy is likely the thing that has received the most coverage, and we'll have an article on that. We also have an article on his book which itself is probably notable. Otherwise he's a local politician, of whom there are literally hundreds of thousands, and he's asked to not have a bio article, which for figures of peripheral notability is, I think, a request we can honor. So if we end up with two articles covering notable aspects of Boothroyd's life, I would hope that JoshuaZ and others who are interested in re-creating the bio would think about whether that's really necessary for our encyclopedic coverage, and if instead we could not do what we have already done for other un-famous BLP subjects and keep the bio article deleted. I think it's a good compromise. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:26, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
- The thing is, a lot of the coverage about him is about his work as a politician and political analysis. His books may make him meet WP:AUTHOR by itself. Indeed, it would seem BLP problematic to me if we keep the main article on the controversy to only keep that. It would be unfair in the extreme in portraying what we all agree is only a small part of his activity. He's really quite accomplished. Such a decision would almost make a BLP problem in the other direction (if one believes that he is notable. I'm not convinced of that myself yet. We'll see). JoshuaZ (talk) 22:31, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
- I feel having an article about the person is better than the article about the event. This would address the problem of WP:UNDUE as there are far more items available about DB than just his Wikipedia life. If the book is notable so is the author who has gotten more mention than the book. Agathoclea (talk) 23:53, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
- Those are not unreasonable arguments, but the subject had previously asked that his bio be deleted, and it's also quite reasonable to consider that fact, which neither of you mention. I don't know if that request still holds in a situation where an article on the controversy exists (assuming it is not deleted) and it might be worth asking DB once the AfD closes. If he still wants the bio deleted, then JoshuaZ's comment above has the (no doubt unintended) effect of essentially telling the article subject that he's better off having a bio article, and that JoshuaZ knows more about what's fair for the article subject than the article subject himself. That would be odd, but as I said it's possible Boothroyd will feel differently about his bio if we decide to keep an article on the controversy. If he still wants it deleted, we need to address the question about how much we take the wishes of the article subject into account. This is not a trivial question, and we have done these kind of deletions before for persons of marginal notability.
- I feel having an article about the person is better than the article about the event. This would address the problem of WP:UNDUE as there are far more items available about DB than just his Wikipedia life. If the book is notable so is the author who has gotten more mention than the book. Agathoclea (talk) 23:53, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
- The thing is, a lot of the coverage about him is about his work as a politician and political analysis. His books may make him meet WP:AUTHOR by itself. Indeed, it would seem BLP problematic to me if we keep the main article on the controversy to only keep that. It would be unfair in the extreme in portraying what we all agree is only a small part of his activity. He's really quite accomplished. Such a decision would almost make a BLP problem in the other direction (if one believes that he is notable. I'm not convinced of that myself yet. We'll see). JoshuaZ (talk) 22:31, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
- Just a side comment since Joshua mentioned Sam Blacketer controversy: if that article is kept at the close of the AfD (and it's going to be one helluva an AfD close, however it turns out) I would strongly recommend that we not have an article on Boothroyd. Said controversy is likely the thing that has received the most coverage, and we'll have an article on that. We also have an article on his book which itself is probably notable. Otherwise he's a local politician, of whom there are literally hundreds of thousands, and he's asked to not have a bio article, which for figures of peripheral notability is, I think, a request we can honor. So if we end up with two articles covering notable aspects of Boothroyd's life, I would hope that JoshuaZ and others who are interested in re-creating the bio would think about whether that's really necessary for our encyclopedic coverage, and if instead we could not do what we have already done for other un-famous BLP subjects and keep the bio article deleted. I think it's a good compromise. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:26, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
- I posted so people would be aware of the issue. We seem to be having the same debate over and over again in multiple venues. Let's not do that. Let's leave pointers so everybody comes to the same place and we can generate a lasting consensus. Jehochman Talk 22:13, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
- Not the intention. I'm simply filling out the article as I get sources. That matter has the most easily accessible sources so it is getting addressed first. Pairing it down is of course reasonable. I don't know why Jehochman thinks that a draft article can have an UNDUE weight problem (it is after all a draft). That's a matter for its talk page, not for ANI. And it presumably isn't a serious BLP violation if the separate Sam Blacketer controversy article(currently up for AfD) isn't by itself a BLP problem. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:11, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
- It should also be admitted—and I really defy anyone to argue otherwise—that we would never, ever be going into this level of detail about this were it not something related to Wikipedia. I think that's undeniable. So we're currently going down a road where we might have as many as three articles relating to someone of marginal notability who has asked that his bio be deleted, and the only reason we have so many articles and so much detail is because Wikipedia is involved (if the controversy involved Facebook somehow, we simply are not having this conversation). Again I think it's pretty hard to honestly argue otherwise (e.g., there's no way the article ends up userfied in JoshuaZ's userspace if he wasn't who he was), and I think the BLP issues that result from that fact are pretty obvious. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:34, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
- Can you provide links to where the subject requested deletion of the article? I didn't see any objections when it was kept in 2005 and there has been much improved notability since then. And I don't think it sets a very good precedent if we delete articles whenever there's a controversy, especially not when we have a COI regarding the controversy. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:03, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
- The subject started the first AfD. --Enric Naval (talk) 05:09, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
- And he recently requested deletion again. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:59, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
- Bigtime, what you say is almost completely reasonable except that a) I don't think in any final accounting anyone is going to be in favor of having three articles on this subject. Obviously, much merging would occur if any or all of them are accepted. Also, the problem regarding this having to do with Wikipedia can be run in the other direction: We would likely have just had the article kept and not be having this discussion if it weren't for it having to do with Wikipedia. In that regard, the best thing we can do is to treat the article like it has nothing at all to do with the project and make our judgments either way independent of that. JoshuaZ (talk)05:28, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
- You're probably right (I hope) that merging would happen once this is all settled, but the fact remains that we're creating a lot more content than we normally would were this is a non-Wiki related situation. I fully agree with your last point about treating the article like it has nothing to do with the project (and that's definitely how I'm trying to think about it), but in a hypothetical situation where that was actually the case I think the article would have been deleted, not kept. If we were speaking of a similar figure (local pol, wrote a book and has been quoted in the media, we had a small bio on them for years) who received some embarrassing press about some actions she took on MySpace (nothing illegal, just embarrassing), and if said person then came to us and asked for a courtesy deletion, I think the odds are very good (though not guaranteed) that we would have done just that and that little more would have been said. I think that's quite analogous to the situation here, except the website in question is not MySpace but rather ThisPlaceTM, and that has made all the difference, to coin a phrase. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:59, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
- The subject started the first AfD. --Enric Naval (talk) 05:09, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
- Can you provide links to where the subject requested deletion of the article? I didn't see any objections when it was kept in 2005 and there has been much improved notability since then. And I don't think it sets a very good precedent if we delete articles whenever there's a controversy, especially not when we have a COI regarding the controversy. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:03, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
- It should also be admitted—and I really defy anyone to argue otherwise—that we would never, ever be going into this level of detail about this were it not something related to Wikipedia. I think that's undeniable. So we're currently going down a road where we might have as many as three articles relating to someone of marginal notability who has asked that his bio be deleted, and the only reason we have so many articles and so much detail is because Wikipedia is involved (if the controversy involved Facebook somehow, we simply are not having this conversation). Again I think it's pretty hard to honestly argue otherwise (e.g., there's no way the article ends up userfied in JoshuaZ's userspace if he wasn't who he was), and I think the BLP issues that result from that fact are pretty obvious. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:34, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
- Well well, surprise surprise, Sam Blacketer controversy has been deleted, the whitewash continues. I assume that's because it would be... inconvenient to have such an article around for people to link to on Sam Blacketer's RfA reconfirmation on Monday...? Snarfies (talk) 13:20, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
- ...because, as we all know, that linking to the various ArbCom statement, Jimbo and ANI talkpage comments etc. cannot give a fair indication of what happened and what other people have said about it. Or do you not trust people to be able to make up their own minds from such sources? LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:28, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
- Sam Blacketer controversy is still there, still tagged. I just clicked on the link. Finell (Talk) 23:44, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
- ...because, as we all know, that linking to the various ArbCom statement, Jimbo and ANI talkpage comments etc. cannot give a fair indication of what happened and what other people have said about it. Or do you not trust people to be able to make up their own minds from such sources? LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:28, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Only one MfD remaining, for User:ChildofMidnight/David Boothroyd
This is now the only remaining issue for this: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:ChildofMidnight/David Boothroyd. rootology (C)(T) 13:30, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
User:Bobak's block messages
Bobak (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has designed some custom-made block templates that he uses after blocking vandals, and I believe they are not constructive. Here are some examples: [12][13][14][15] These sorts of templates go against our guideline of RBI and not feeding the trolls—everyone knows that a large number of vandals do it because they like to see if they can get us Wikipedia nerds riled up, and responding to them in this fashion just encourages more disruption. Furthermore, they reflect badly on Wikipedia, giving people the impression that Wikipedia is ruled by all-powerful admins who are rude and dismissive like this.
A couple weeks ago User:GnarlyLikeWhoa raised this concern with Bobak (see the discussion here), and Bobak was not very receptive. I also chimed in just today, and Bobak responded by archiving the talk page. Is there any way the community can ask him not to use these kinds of block templates and messages? rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 23:58, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
- Hi there. I use the more humorous blocks in two cases: specific (not range) IP blocks and blatant vandals. I keep all my blocked pages on my watchlist, and I have not seen any uptick in post-ban problems --at least no different than when I used the sterile templates: I receive the same number of personal email insults and talk page vandals (if not a little less). GnarlyLikeWhoa was slightly different, and claimed that I was out of place to note that the IP address of a military base shouldn't be used to vandalize wikipedia (which is wasting tax payer dollars... gee I wonder how he found out the IP was blocked?), and included a veiled e-thug threat (which I tend to see in web forums, not here). It is not the responsibility of an admin to please everyone they ban --as WP:RBI notes, there are opposing views to Rjanag's. As such, there are fans of my templates (Rjanag isn't one of them, but I respect that). Honestly, an ANI like this reflects badly on how Wikipedia can be used to punish creativity and put undue pressure where it is not required. To think, this was all started because I nominated an article for DYK! :-) --Bobak (talk) 00:28, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
- aside I didn't notice this before, but particularly disturbing is this block, which happened 5 days after the user had last edited and the user had never been warned. Because the user's offense was spamming, rather than vandalism, it's also possible that the user just didn't understand Wikipedia's spam and EL guidelines, and Bobak's block message may well have driven away a potentially constructive user. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 00:03, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
- Did you look at his contribution history? The ability to request an unblock is still available. I haven't seen an attempt yet. Or perhaps I could've used the also-popular method of simply not notifying him of the block or doing massive collateral damage with sloppy IP-range blocks (which I think is are much greater problems). I make a lot of blocks, so if this one is so terrible, you're an Admin, go ahead and unblock --I'm not saying I'm the ultimate authority on that. Will this negatively affect my DYK nomination? :-p --Bobak (talk) 00:28, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
- Regardless of the user's contribution history, there's no reason for blocking him with a message like this. Yes, he's a commercial spammer who will probably never make any constructive edits, but the sarcasm is still unnecessary. That goes for your blocking templates, too...I think they're funny, but I doubt the blocked users do, and blocking and joking don't mix very well. --Akhilleus (talk) 00:37, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
- Neither does lawyering and humor, but god knows we try. I can see how the block on Matthewkbaldwin was perhaps too much, so I've lifted it (hurray? Is that a victory?). I got curious so I checked myself: I've instituted somewhere in the range of 700+ blocks, and about half were with the funny templates, and half weren't. I can say, without hesitation (and a user page history to back it) that I have seen no extra uptick in anything since I started letting vandals know that we have the ability to block now and often. Honestly, I can respect that some of you, like Rjanag, can find this stuff not to your own particular style, but that doesn't mean that those of use who are a bit WP:ROUGE are causing any serious harm to the project --especially without any serious evidence. As for the blocked users not finding the templates funny... did they before? Here's an aside: Rjanag, I noticed you've blocked 29 times since you joined the project 9 months ago. Did you know that if you block 1000 people you get a free toaster? Get cracking. --Bobak (talk) 00:51, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
- Hey, no fair. Non-admins can't get free toasters? The Toaster Cabal must be stopped! --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:30, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
- Neither does lawyering and humor, but god knows we try. I can see how the block on Matthewkbaldwin was perhaps too much, so I've lifted it (hurray? Is that a victory?). I got curious so I checked myself: I've instituted somewhere in the range of 700+ blocks, and about half were with the funny templates, and half weren't. I can say, without hesitation (and a user page history to back it) that I have seen no extra uptick in anything since I started letting vandals know that we have the ability to block now and often. Honestly, I can respect that some of you, like Rjanag, can find this stuff not to your own particular style, but that doesn't mean that those of use who are a bit WP:ROUGE are causing any serious harm to the project --especially without any serious evidence. As for the blocked users not finding the templates funny... did they before? Here's an aside: Rjanag, I noticed you've blocked 29 times since you joined the project 9 months ago. Did you know that if you block 1000 people you get a free toaster? Get cracking. --Bobak (talk) 00:51, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
- Non-admin view? This is clearly inappropriate. What is the policy basis for a block on the grounds of idiocy? Look, I fight this stuff every day too, and I think a lot of it is pretty funny - but that's an inside joke, not something a professional organisation presents as its outward face. Laughing at misguided fools should only be done behind the curtain - lord knows we could all make the exact same comments in orange boxes on quite a few admin talk pages...
- Blocking is srs biznes - please keep it that way and use proper templates. Adminship is not a platform for dispensation of ridicule, it's a crappy job. Save the humour for the lunch-room. And idiotic editors need even more love than the normal ones. :) Franamax (talk) 01:55, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah, I understand the sentiment here by Bobak, but I would caution against continuing this level of sarcastic commenting at blocks. Sarcasm is a skill that is hard to pull off well when speaking; it is impossible to do so when typing. In the course of blocking users, there is no need to be rude and insulting. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:10, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
- Endorse the above comments. Think it if you must - most of us have - but Wikipedia is a highly public site closely watched by the press (amongst others). If you feel tempted in future, I'd recommend a spot of self-flagellation ;) EyeSerenetalk 08:03, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah, I understand the sentiment here by Bobak, but I would caution against continuing this level of sarcastic commenting at blocks. Sarcasm is a skill that is hard to pull off well when speaking; it is impossible to do so when typing. In the course of blocking users, there is no need to be rude and insulting. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:10, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
- I would have to agree that Bobak's block messages are highly inappropriate. To me they don't come across as sarcastic, but rather as simple childishness. Wikipedia already has somewhat of a reputation as a place run by kids, and if hundreds of people are being blocked with Bobak's messages, that bad reputation is just being reinforced. We need mature admins, not apparently childish ones. Deli nk (talk) 10:46, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
- One thing should be beyond dispute here, I think, is that these messages should never be used on IP talk pages, where an innocent user may be on the receiving end. Personally I feel that they're also inappropriate for registered users. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 13:29, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
- The community have said plainly more than once that block log entries and user talk notifications of blocks should, except under special circumstances (which don't seem to apply here), be serious, and especially should not mock affected users. One may think that injunction to be unnecessarily rigid, but it is plain that it is one for which a consensus exists, and inasmuch as no encyclopedic purpose is served by the jocularity, there is no reason to act in a fashion inconsistent with it. Joe 17:10, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
- Looking at this just a tiny bit further:
- Bobak is basically accusing GLW of "wasting taxpayer dollars", implying above that GLW is the vandal associated with usage from a US military IP address. I believe this is the reference ABF from an admin, that's great. I'm unable to find the SPI/CU case establishing the linkage.
- You know what? None of my taxpayer dollars were wasted, I live in Canada. Why are administrators of an international project pursuing their own notions of waste using the bully pulpit?
- ArbCom has previously considered this notion of "you're using an American military IP connection, I must expose you!" and arrived at a definition of good-faith concerns. I see no such good-faith in the message to the IP talk page linked above. "Stop wasting taxpayer dollars" is not a valid leadin to a block message. Discussion at the time of the cited AC case was relatively clear that US military personnel have wide latitude, despite the written regulations, to use the Internet (note the exception for "when authorised"). I don't find it acceptable for an administrator of a supposedly international project to bring their own personal view of what constitutes "waste" within their own government onto en:wiki, much less under the official guise of admin status. Besides, use of an IP connection in an idle moment, even if it's for vandalism, costs far-far-far less than a dollar. Far less, micro-pennies maybe.
- And I've just removed Bobak's year-old "VANDAL IDENTIFICATION" message from the IP talk page in question. [16] If anyone wishes to replace it with a proper template, please do so, but hopefully avoid using the term "vandalicious".
- I have the uncomfortable feeling that this admin has somehow discovered the golden sword with which to smite their enemies. This is not conduct becoming of a site administrator, it looks more like having fun blasting down the next monster who shows up in the corridor. Franamax (talk) 20:36, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
- As an outsider looking in, these blocking templates come across to me as childish and mean-spirited. Humor may be subjective, but I don't see why anyone should be subjected to such puerility. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:10, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Focusing on the wrong problem
Extended content
|
---|
Hey everyone! This crap has been going on for ages and you only notice it now! Here's a message for you, courtesy of a long-time admin: ![]() He delivered this message to four IP users in 2007. Ergo, it is allowed. 129.49.7.125 (talk) 15:25, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
|
Replace them?
There seems to be a clear consensus that these block messages are completely inappropriate. According to statements above, they have been used on hundreds of pages. Since these messages may be doing harm to the project, should they be removed or replaced with a more appropriate standard block template? Can a bot do this, perhaps (if necessary)? Deli nk (talk) 12:57, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
- I'd have to agree, both with the above that these shouldn't be used and the above suggestion to replace them. Anyone object? –xenotalk 13:46, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
- I said above that I imagined cleaning them up would not be workable (since they're all copy-paste versions of regular block templates, modified by hand; there's not transcluded, subst'ed, or in any way identifiable to a bot...although I suppose a bot might be able to comb through all of Bobak's user talk contribs) and that I figured it would be enough if Bobak just agrees to stop using them. But if you know a way to replace all of them, be my guest! rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 15:33, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Doing... I find the use of sarcasm in these templates disgraceful, antagonistic, and an embarrassment to the project. They do nothing to rehabilitate vandals and encourage them to return to vandalism after the block expires. I'm amending them as we speak. –xenotalk 15:53, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
- That criticism is largely true of the standard templates also. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 16:36, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
- I said above that I imagined cleaning them up would not be workable (since they're all copy-paste versions of regular block templates, modified by hand; there's not transcluded, subst'ed, or in any way identifiable to a bot...although I suppose a bot might be able to comb through all of Bobak's user talk contribs) and that I figured it would be enough if Bobak just agrees to stop using them. But if you know a way to replace all of them, be my guest! rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 15:33, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
- Some of the messages are not 100% horrible, and could perhaps be made more appropriate. The one about being blocked due to Wikipedia's policy on idiocy is atrocious, however. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:41, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
- You're onto it. Some of them are cute and funny, some are over the line. And every one of the long-term abusers would have gotten the standard block messages, so Xeno's argument is fallacious. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 16:43, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
- An administrators' remit is not to be "cute and funny" when blocking vandals. It certainly isn't to be snarky and condescending. We didn't give him the mop so he could moonlight as a comedian. –xenotalk 16:47, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
- So you prefer the "serious" way, which spawns the likes of Grawp. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 18:10, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
- An administrators' remit is not to be "cute and funny" when blocking vandals. It certainly isn't to be snarky and condescending. We didn't give him the mop so he could moonlight as a comedian. –xenotalk 16:47, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
- You're onto it. Some of them are cute and funny, some are over the line. And every one of the long-term abusers would have gotten the standard block messages, so Xeno's argument is fallacious. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 16:43, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
- Some of the messages are not 100% horrible, and could perhaps be made more appropriate. The one about being blocked due to Wikipedia's policy on idiocy is atrocious, however. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:41, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
I partially agree with Bugs here: some of the standard templates are not great. "Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions." is patronizing. But I'm not in favor of Bobak's messages (even though I do find some of them funny). --Akhilleus (talk) 02:01, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Wrap-up after replacements
I've gone and amended most or all of the templates. [17] Here are some examples of the text the was removed or replaced with more appropriate language and tone.
- "Congratulations! You have been blocked from editing with a (length) time-out :-)"
- Congratulations to Bank of America!
- Congratulations, a special block for "special people"!
- Congratulations, non-UC students!
- Congratulations, users at the online "University of Phoenix":
- Congratulations, your spat of stupidity has landed this ramblin' wreck of an IP address into Blocksville.
- Congratulations, you've been "pwn3d"!
- Congratulations, you've now got the attention of the wrong person!
- "Lucky for you I give out blocks like they're going out of style"
- "If/when you continue your vandalism (if/when you return), we'll be more than happy to grant you another vacation, this time for a longer period --at no extra cost-- guaranteed!"
- ...Now get back to "studying" at the "university"; maybe you can to to the student union or library?
- ...*Next time, you'll probably get at least a month off.
- Welcome to Blocksville, population: You.
- Duration: ????
- Duration: Too short? We shall see.
- Duration: You'll figure it out (pwn3d).
- I guess it should be called Block Haven... Population: You.
- Block Haven RETURNS!
- "Haha" blocked for three months.
- "Stay in school, kids."
- 1 whole week :-)
- 3 whole months, kids.
- 6 month time out for the kids "studying" at the University of Phoenix.
- All this over an Italian chain restaurant. LOL.
- and general stupidity
- Back to studying, LOL.
- Cinnamon Toast Block!
- earned a 2 week vacation.
- FLUSH!
- for rampant blanking, cry me a river, etc. etc..
- Have a nice vacation, LOL...
- I guess they don't raise them as smart down there.
- idiocy
- Corndog... You have been blocked indefinitely from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for idiocy.
- If you're having girl problems, I feel bad for you son/You've got 99 problems and this block is one...
- You got 99 problems and this block is one!
- You've got 10,000 problems and this block is one!
- You've got 2191 problems and a block is one...
- Is this the first of many? We shall see...
- LOL.
- LOL... see you next semester.
- loooooong length
- Maybe its you who should "get a life". LOL.
- Na Na Na Na, Na Na Na Na, Hey Hey-ey, Goodbye!
- Oh, and stay in school kids, you need it...
- Playtime's over, you get to go back to work! Lucky you
- See you in 1 week, kiddies. We'll be happy make the next one longer. Until then, read a book or something.
- See you in 2014.
- see you in three months, kiddies, where the blocks get longer.
- See you next semester, kiddies.
- Shouldn't you guys be solving those two wars we're in?
- Since we clearly haven't been paying enough attention to your vandalism habits, I promise to keep and eye on you ;-)
- So long, farewell, Auf wiedersehen, good night/I hate to go and leave this pretty sight/So long, farewell, Auf wiedersehen, adieu/Adieu, adieu, to yieu and yieu and yieu!
- Sorry, we're allergic to crazy
- Stay in school.
- Top o'the mornin' to ya, lassie!
- with a loooong length
- You have a problem with listening, so why not take several months off, and we'll even grant the option to extend the break!
- You kids were blocked for 6 months, unfortunately I didn't get the opportunity to make the move --but have a great time in the far north.
- The above protracted display of behaviour unbecoming of an administrator goes back to May 2008. Bobak was approached in October 2008 over the templates, but brushed aside the concerns. I've half a mind to ask Bobak to step down, but since he has actually received encouragements from several users over these which must have spurred him on ( User talk:Bobak/June 2008 - December 2008#Hello there, User talk:Bobak/June 2008 - December 2008#November 2025, User talk:Bobak/June 2008 - December 2008#teh block, User talk:Bobak/January 2009 - June 2009#LOVE your template! ), I'll just point him to the above consensus not to use this type of tone in his blocking endeavours and use standard blocking templates without additional colour commentary. –xenotalk 18:19, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
- I agree that nothing needs to be done just yet. Since this discussion started he hasn't blocked anyone and hasn't done anything unsavory, and so far I'm taking that as tacit acknowledgement that he understands the consensus here. If he starts using the block messages again I'm sure we can do something more formal about it, but I'm sure he's smart enough not to do that, and as long as he doesn't do it again I don't think there's any need for special action. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 18:37, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Fixing something that's not a problem
- Congratualations on fixing something that's not a problem. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 18:23, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
- I am now under orders from Xeno to stop watching ANI. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 18:28, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
- You're under no such orders, but it would certainly be appreciated. –xenotalk 18:35, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
- (ec)To be honest, it's not a bad idea. Bugs, you're a good guy and I've even got one of your funny posts linked from my userpage, but as far as I can tell all you're accomplishing at ANI is stirring up or prolonging drama. Surely there is a more productive and fulfilling use of your time. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 18:37, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
- I raise questions that some people don't want to hear. They label it "drama". I've been told that the most infuriating thing about the issues I raise is that I'm usually right. That's the best kind of compliment I can imagine. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 18:43, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
- You are probably right about that. However, my experience has shown that spending too much time on WP:AN & WP:AN/I warps one's sense of what Wikipedia is about, as well as proving to be, in the long run, not all that productive. Take a break from here, Bugs, & find another part of Wikipedia to contribute to. WP:AN/I will still be here when you come back, with the same troublemakers & jerk Admins; they'll just have different user names. -- llywrch (talk) 20:11, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
- I raise questions that some people don't want to hear. They label it "drama". I've been told that the most infuriating thing about the issues I raise is that I'm usually right. That's the best kind of compliment I can imagine. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 18:43, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
- I am now under orders from Xeno to stop watching ANI. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 18:28, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
- Congratualations on fixing something that's not a problem. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 18:23, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Let me be clear that I'm not going to fight any of this ("consensus" of a half-dozen editors reigns supreme), but this ANI is obviously a group of editors with the same opinions, and I do point out that there are a lot of people who feel the way I do: that so-called "fixes" like this are ultimately pointless (storms in a teacup) that do more to harm to productive (non-bureaucratic) editors than any alleged "embarrassment" they save for those unable to have a sense of humor. But carry on... just don't forget that this is a project about compiling information, not silly little crusades. I am not going to take the time to look up the various contribution histories in this discussion, but I hope some of you have done remotely the same amount of work people like Baseball Bugs and I have done --otherwise why participate? --Bobak (talk) 19:26, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
I can't comment on appropriateness of the blocks as I'm unfamiliar with the cases, but I don't think it's appropriate to condemn the funny messages. I don't know for sure if they're up to par for a Good Humour Barnstar, but they're certainly useful in countertroll situations. After all, Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy; our templates need not take the form of a triplicate form letter together with an OMB tracking number. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 21:24, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
- There's a time and a place for humour. And not all vandals are trolls, some might even become positive contributors with a little coaxing. It's not entirely out of the question. A sarcastic block template isn't likely to bring about that end-result, and is more likely to encourage further vandalism. –xenotalk 21:29, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
The use of sarcasm is absolutely and completely inappropriate in a block message. We should all act like adults (even if we may not be) and administrators especially are expected to always act in a professional manner, acting otherwise reflects badly on our encyclopedia, this project and all of us, and can be grounds for having admin privileges withdrawn. Paul August ☎ 04:09, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
- Calm down --MZMcBride (talk) 04:14, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
- MZ, I think you are reading too much into what I've written here. And perhaps I did not express myself well. I seem to have come off in your eyes as upset, but I'm not. Not that I think my internal state matters all that much, but I'd describe it as serious, placid and firm. Paul August ☎ 18:42, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
- Paul: Blanket bans on humorous or sarcastic ("playful") edit and log summaries really isn't effective or productive. Should administrators be professional? Yes. However, they are also allowed some degree of latitude when dealing with monotonous administrative affairs, esp. as some of these users do dozens or hundreds of actions per month. Like nearly all things, moderation is key. Bobak seems to be too far to one side, but you seem to be too far to the other. There's a healthy balance in between—with or without italics, adverbs, and threats to remove rights. ;-) --MZMcBride (talk) 19:38, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
- As pointed out below, humor is one thing sarcasm is another. Perhaps our definitions of sarcasm differ. Mine: statements involving scorn, contempt, ridicule, jibes, insults, cutting jests, etc. presented in a witty manner. At any rate that's what I'm talking about. That's what I'm describing as inappropriate behavior, especially for administrators. Perhaps we should talk in specifics. Which of the quotes in my reply to Unitanode just below, do you think are appropriate.? Paul August ☎ 20:01, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
- Paul: Blanket bans on humorous or sarcastic ("playful") edit and log summaries really isn't effective or productive. Should administrators be professional? Yes. However, they are also allowed some degree of latitude when dealing with monotonous administrative affairs, esp. as some of these users do dozens or hundreds of actions per month. Like nearly all things, moderation is key. Bobak seems to be too far to one side, but you seem to be too far to the other. There's a healthy balance in between—with or without italics, adverbs, and threats to remove rights. ;-) --MZMcBride (talk) 19:38, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
- MZ, I think you are reading too much into what I've written here. And perhaps I did not express myself well. I seem to have come off in your eyes as upset, but I'm not. Not that I think my internal state matters all that much, but I'd describe it as serious, placid and firm. Paul August ☎ 18:42, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
- I really think I need to leave ANI for awhile. This nonsense that treating vandals with some kind of faux politesse will help them see the light and become valued contributors seems silly to me. If anything, a spot of humor might do the trick better than some form letter-style block template. Bobak is blocking vandals, so Paul August feels the need to issue a veiled threat of removal of administrator status? Who's running this place anyway? Unitanode 04:26, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
- We hold as an ideal that Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. It is one of our most noble ideals. It is why many of us are here, and why we have been so successful. But unfortunately it is only an ideal — not a reality. The fact of the matter is, we sometimes find it necessary to block some from editing. But blocking is an admission of failure — our failure in being able to fully realize one of our most cherished goals. Hence blocking is a sad thing, it is a serious thing, and it should not be done lightly. Humor has its place (a sock puppet, a meat puppet and Jimbo walk into a bar ...[1]) but not when it comes to blocking. And I find little humor in: "Congratulations! You have been blocked", "Lucky for you I give out blocks like they're going out of style", "You've been put out of your spamming misery" and "You have been blocked indefinitely ... for idiocy." What I do find is sarcasm, insults and ridicule — these things have no place at all, especially not from administrators.
- When delivering the last meal to a person on death row, it is simply not on to throw the food in their face.
- As for my remarks being a "veiled threat", there is nothing veiled about them, and I'm not threatening anything or anyone. What I am trying to do is raise the level of administrative conduct. To remind us all that when we take administrative action we are representing the encyclopedia and this project. That we should all act professionally and with maturity. And to remind us all that everything we do, we do in public, anyone anywhere, now and in the future can view what we are doing. Please try to imagine how this might look say in a New York Times article about Wikipedia: Wikipedia's administrators routinely block people from editing for reasons like "idiocy" and with messages like "Congratulations! You have been blocked!"
- Paul August ☎ 18:53, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
- I don't particularly like any of the custom block templates ("congratulations, you've been blocked," etc.). The standard ones exist for a reason and should be used primarily unless there's a specific reason not to. (You shouldn't template longtime users, for example.) My comments above mainly concern block reasons left in the logs. Personally, I usually use the tactic of making the log summaries exceptionally vague ("inappropriate behavior," etc.), however I don't have a particular problem with, for example, blocking a "poop" vandal with the reason "THE PLUMBER HAS ARRIVED!" Obviously we shouldn't feed the trolls, but a spot of humor occasionally isn't inappropriate. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:05, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
- Now that's funny ;-) and I think we are in agreement. Paul August ☎ 20:27, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
- To be clear, I did not find the custom block templates in question wildly hilarious or anything like that. The biggest problem I had with Paul's response was with what I considered a threat of removal of tools simply for TRYING to be funny in a block template, which I think is all Bobak was doing. It seemed an overreaction to me, that's all. Unitanode 15:33, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
- I don't particularly like any of the custom block templates ("congratulations, you've been blocked," etc.). The standard ones exist for a reason and should be used primarily unless there's a specific reason not to. (You shouldn't template longtime users, for example.) My comments above mainly concern block reasons left in the logs. Personally, I usually use the tactic of making the log summaries exceptionally vague ("inappropriate behavior," etc.), however I don't have a particular problem with, for example, blocking a "poop" vandal with the reason "THE PLUMBER HAS ARRIVED!" Obviously we shouldn't feed the trolls, but a spot of humor occasionally isn't inappropriate. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:05, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Admins often have to act as bouncers. Any club owner will tell you that the best bouncers aren't the muscle-bound types who beat people up like in the movies, but instead are those who usher troublemakers to the exit with so little fuss that the paying customers don't even notice. Unfortunately many of our admins try to act like the big burly types, and many of the rest argue with the paying customers that they should be more tolerant and supportive of the troublemakers. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:40, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
- Excellent analysis. Дигвурен ДигвуровичАллё? 15:03, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
- It sounds like the ideal solution, then, is to post no notice at all. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 15:06, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
- Barring that, here's what you should do: First, lose the big red in-your-face symbol. Wrap the message in robin's-egg-blue if you want to both highlight it and soften it. Lose the patronizing comment about coming back when you're ready to contribute usefully. Make the message simple and straightforward: "You're blocked until [date-time]" or "You're blocked indefinitely", followed by a link to where the decision was made, and then "If you would like to appeal this block" followed by the normal unblock-template instructions. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 15:39, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
- That'll never work. It's too sensible. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 18:59, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
- Barring that, here's what you should do: First, lose the big red in-your-face symbol. Wrap the message in robin's-egg-blue if you want to both highlight it and soften it. Lose the patronizing comment about coming back when you're ready to contribute usefully. Make the message simple and straightforward: "You're blocked until [date-time]" or "You're blocked indefinitely", followed by a link to where the decision was made, and then "If you would like to appeal this block" followed by the normal unblock-template instructions. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 15:39, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
- It sounds like the ideal solution, then, is to post no notice at all. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 15:06, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
- Jackiestud (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
User has been repeatedly adding the exact same stuff about Adam and Eve on several articles related to Feminism and is at 3RR on the Feminism article itself (see contribs). MuZemike 20:24, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
- See user's additions to Feminist theology, Goddess movement, Christian feminism, Goddess, and more. She's adding the same thing to multiple articles, creating real undue weight issues; no attempt is being made to seek consensus, she is replacing the text even after other users have reverted her and tried to initiate discussions. It seems like POV pushing, maybe OR or original synthesis, not to mention the etiquette problems. Dawn Bard (talk) 20:37, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
- Well, I tried many times to show that WP already cites Campbell and this very same chapter (see feminism_and_neopaganism), there no orginal synthesis, only etimology, pre historical goddess and teh Bible. No original research at all. Jackiestud (talk) 20:53, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
- And I've been trying to discuss this (including the OR issue) with her on my talk page [18]. She's added it to Women in the Bible, adding Goddess as a see also for Dolmen because she read something on the web that mentioned Dolmen and Goddess although our Goddess article won't help readers learn more about Dolmen, etc. There were problems like this in April that led to a short block. Dougweller (talk) 20:59, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
- If I may borrow a metaphor, the problem here isn't as much OR but a sort of tunnel vision. An encyclopædia is about a particularly wide field of vision -- to horizon and beyond. Your edits have concentrated on certain small issues, which you apparently consider particularly important. It is against the Tao for me to try and convince you that you should neglect these issues, but at the same time, the Tao of Wikipedia is clear about WP:UNDUE, too. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 21:49, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
- Well, I tried many times to show that WP already cites Campbell and this very same chapter (see feminism_and_neopaganism), there no orginal synthesis, only etimology, pre historical goddess and teh Bible. No original research at all. Jackiestud (talk) 20:53, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
(ec) I'm still AGFing that jackie is working in good faith and may just be a little inexperienced, but I don't know how any of us can make things clearer than we already have. The information is ok (not prooperly cited but ok) it's just being given too much emphasis and is being placed in the wrong articles. The issue we all have with the edits is based on the core policies of WP:V and WP:NPOV (specifically WP:UNDUE). I'm sure if Jackie goes through the policy they'll understand our objections --Cailil talk 21:03, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
- Hi, Callil. Thank you very much for your words. No doubt about my good faith. Iam jut trying to make it avaiblable in some of these articles because the are related to the text. So, no maybe not all of these but one or two... Adam and Eve is the correct one, as much as feminism. And I would thank if someone can help me with a better english instead of deletion. Jackiestud (talk) 21:07, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
- I dont knwo if you have Campbell´s book, but my text only cites him: Adam was born out of a red clay (and the etimology of his name is red clay, or blood (dam)); a such respected scholar like Campbell is only saying that pre historic religion( and art) worshiped the so called Mother Goddess and this goddess is still there in the Bible. Adam comes from, was born, from this Goddess myth. The Hebrew Goddess book says esaclty the same thing. Jackiestud (talk) 21:18, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Having found the Truth is all fine and dandy, but this sort of proselytism does not really go well with encyclopædia-building. Dear Jackiestud, please don't do it. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 21:44, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
- I made a statement on User talk:Awadewit about this. The individual uses a poor quality reference, has bad grammar, and insists on repeating it without discussion with others. How to handle? I don't know. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:16, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
- Perhaps some sort of block to prevent further article disruption? :O—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:18, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
- Iam sorry if I disappointed you. I don´t know why does WP offer a whole life abt Joseph Campbell (since this is poor quality reference (sic!), why would Adam ´s etimology (copied from WP) be also of such a poor quality...And by the way, as for my bad grammar, I coudl very easily improve the text...but anyway, since english is not my mother language, I´d love to see your grammar in portuguese, french (which is my third language)... Jackiestud (talk) 00:24, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
- Perhaps you should be primarily editing the Wikipedia of your mother tongue instead of the English Wikipedia. I'm sure you'll be more help to the French and Portuguese projects.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:41, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
- You know what's interesting Jackiestud? You were blocked for similar reasons at the Portuguese Wikipedia. Edit warring at their articles for chaos theory and mother goddess only over two months ago.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:44, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
- Iam sorry if I disappointed you. I don´t know why does WP offer a whole life abt Joseph Campbell (since this is poor quality reference (sic!), why would Adam ´s etimology (copied from WP) be also of such a poor quality...And by the way, as for my bad grammar, I coudl very easily improve the text...but anyway, since english is not my mother language, I´d love to see your grammar in portuguese, french (which is my third language)... Jackiestud (talk) 00:24, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
- Perhaps some sort of block to prevent further article disruption? :O—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:18, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
- LOL, Yes...see above? Maybe I was blocked for the same "REASON" (!!) I could now be blocked here (as you suggested)... You see, lots of "reasons". Feel free to block me... What kind of human being are you? Go read some Campbell...Why do ~you waste yr time with a freak like me...?? Jackiestud (talk) 00:58, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Jackie that isn't helpful. We've pointed you towards the policies and guidelines that govern how articles are written and what material is included in them. Please read them. And yes I have read Campbell along with many other works hence I see how little weight it deserves in the context of a global overview of the whole subject of feminism, or indeed an article on feminist theology. I've advised you a number of times taht a smaller better sourced version of the material you added would be useful in another article like Feminism and Religion. Also please redact your comment to Ryulong as it is both incivil and a personal attack which against our rules for talk page communication--Cailil talk 01:16, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
- See this? These are the many refused, deleted actions of this editor at the WP-PT (loads of admins expressing their perplexity with your "requirements": http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usu%C3%A1rio_Discuss%C3%A3o:Ryulong. Campbell is cited in MANY feminism related articles all over WP-en (as I offered many links). End of talk for me. Bye, bye. Jackiestud (talk) 01:22, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
- Ottava?? Are you there?? You would love to see his gramar back there on the WP-PT...All admins and denials; you can check for yr self on the oage I linked above (his "talk" page!!!!). See the last msg, the adin says: "Iam sorry, Id didn´t knwo you don´t speak potuguese" (LOL). See?? Can you imagine his grammar?? LOL. What was he doing there? editing??Jackiestud (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:26, 13 June 2009 (UTC).
- Jackiestud, stop now. My actions at the Portuguese Wikipedia are of no importance here (because I really don't do anything there unless I've found vandalism here that poured over to the other language projects, which happens every now and then). Your actions here are at question. If you continue to edit war on the English Wikipedia you will be blocked from editing the English Wikipedia. If you cannot act accordingly here, you should stay on the Portuguese Wikipedia.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:07, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
- Ottava?? Are you there?? You would love to see his gramar back there on the WP-PT...All admins and denials; you can check for yr self on the oage I linked above (his "talk" page!!!!). See the last msg, the adin says: "Iam sorry, Id didn´t knwo you don´t speak potuguese" (LOL). See?? Can you imagine his grammar?? LOL. What was he doing there? editing??Jackiestud (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:26, 13 June 2009 (UTC).
- Wow, got nervous? Very bad and histerical words words (horrible and disuptive agressive, unethical, rude, unpolite summaries). You should be blocked for personal attacks! I have many articles here on the Wp-en. Many. As for the Wp-pt (since 2006) there are hundreds of articles and NOT A SINGLE COMPLAINT. All of yr requirements there were denied!! All of it. Jackiestud (talk) 02:25, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
- (Warning on ANI and user talk page)
- Jackiestud - you are clearly being too rude in responding to your critics here and elsewhere. This is not appropriate behavior on the english language Wikipedia. Please review WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, WP:AGF, and edit in a more collaborative and friendly way moving forwards.
- Regarding your content edits, you appear to be repeatedly reinserting material which a consensus of other editors believes is fringe material, not mainstream, and you are trying to give undue weight to it. This is against policy. You are also conducting a widespread edit war over that material. Once you were made aware that many other editors (all of them, on those pages, apparently) do not agree with you including it, you are required to stop reposting it over and over again and to discuss the issue on article talk pages. You appear instead to primarily be fighting in other venues.
- This all is very disruptive, taken as a whole.
- I am assuming good faith and giving you some credit for not having english as your first language. But you are pushing too hard here, and this is not ok. I or other administrators will block you if you continue this behavior. You need to calm down your edit tone and respond more politely, and discuss your edits in good faith on article talk pages.
- This is an encyclopedia, and a project dedicated to building one. Please participate here in an adult and constructive manner. We expect positive collaboration from all participants.
- Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:45, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
- She has also put this [19] into a number of articles. Most of the Adam & Eve stuff, if not all, is hers, but the rest is clearly copy and paste from another article without attribution (the writing, the different forms of citation, and the fact tags point to it being from one of our articles and not written by the editor) - and this breaches our GFDL licence of course. I've asked her about it on her talk page after failing to find the source. Dougweller (talk) 04:59, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
- And her response was to blank the page. Her right, of course, but not very constructive. I hope she will reply here about the licence issue. Dougweller (talk) 05:26, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
- Should we remove that material as a precaution Doug or is that an over-reaction?--Cailil talk 17:28, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
- I don't know, it's a breach of the licence, she says she doesn't know where she got it from. Now she's editing Ochre saying that her stuff comes from another article so it's ok, and citing a mirror (AbsoluteAstronomy) and a couple of websites. Maybe anything goes on some Wikis, but she clearly doesn't undertand ours. Dougweller (talk) 16:32, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
- Hmmm yeah. So basically even if the info stays the material has to be rewritten to avoid license breach - just great *sigh*. Ok on a constructive note: it was only added to 3 articles: Goddess, Goddess movement and Feminism (i did a link search on the website ref for the Campbell stuff to confirm this). So I suggest we can salvage and prune what's relevant and verifiable (per WP:DUE and WP:V) and expunge what's breaching the license and any other policy. Any thoughts?--Cailil talk 21:32, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
- I don't know, it's a breach of the licence, she says she doesn't know where she got it from. Now she's editing Ochre saying that her stuff comes from another article so it's ok, and citing a mirror (AbsoluteAstronomy) and a couple of websites. Maybe anything goes on some Wikis, but she clearly doesn't undertand ours. Dougweller (talk) 16:32, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
- Should we remove that material as a precaution Doug or is that an over-reaction?--Cailil talk 17:28, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
- And her response was to blank the page. Her right, of course, but not very constructive. I hope she will reply here about the licence issue. Dougweller (talk) 05:26, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
- She has also put this [19] into a number of articles. Most of the Adam & Eve stuff, if not all, is hers, but the rest is clearly copy and paste from another article without attribution (the writing, the different forms of citation, and the fact tags point to it being from one of our articles and not written by the editor) - and this breaches our GFDL licence of course. I've asked her about it on her talk page after failing to find the source. Dougweller (talk) 04:59, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Allstarecho is Requesting an Unblock
- Allstarecho (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
After stating he will not copyvio any other pages (which is what got him blocked in the first place) and that his previous "retirement" is a moot point, ASE is requesting to be unblocked or would like a path to be unblocked. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:32, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
- Can you put in a pointer to the recently archived discussion? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:52, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
- Sure, please see here. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:58, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
- The difficulty is that Allstarecho's comments after he was blocked have tended to suggest that he does not recognize that his copyright violations are wrong; for this reason, his protestations that he will not continue to disregard copyright have not been wholly credible. He could begin to restore this credibility by starting to go through his past contributions and identifying all edits which used stolen text; this, at a bare minimum, would be an essential component of any path to eventual unblocking. CIreland (talk) 03:16, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
- This seems a bit pointless - he's identifying himself as "retired", so why the heck is an unblock needed? Ironholds (talk) 03:22, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
- Because a retired user can un-retire themselves at any time. CIreland (talk) 03:25, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
- Is everyone stuck on retirement? ASE has stated before and I have above that retirement is a "moot point". He wishes to come back, which would mean he isn't retired. Let's focus on the unblock and not on a retirement that the user has said is "moot". - NeutralHomer • Talk • 03:26, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
- Because a retired user can un-retire themselves at any time. CIreland (talk) 03:25, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
- This seems a bit pointless - he's identifying himself as "retired", so why the heck is an unblock needed? Ironholds (talk) 03:22, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
- support unblock At this point, I don't think it is imperative that he is kept blocked, given that he has expressed clearly that he understands why he was blocked, and has promised to change his behavior. Blocking him again would be trivial at this point, and he should know he is being closely watched. Making him jump through some arbitrary hoops to get the unblock seems pointless given the ease with which any admin could block him again if he screws up the copyright thing any further. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:30, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
- User:Akhilleus has unblocked ASE. He left a lengthy post on ASE's talk page as well. Shall we call this resolved? - NeutralHomer • Talk • 03:32, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict x2) I've unblocked him. The declines seemed excessively wiki-lawyerish to me; Allstarecho wants to edit and promised not to violate copyright anymore. I trust that his contributions will be closely watched, and if anything even smells like a copyright violation, he will be indef blocked again. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:33, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
- Hmmm. I still think he has an ethical obligation to assist in cleaning up the mess, simply because it's far easier for him than anyone else to identify which edits amongst his very many otherwise excellent contributions were theft. I don't think that's at all an "arbitrary hoop" since someone else is going to have to jump through it if ASE is unwilling. CIreland (talk) 03:44, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
- I agree that he has an ethical obligation to assist in cleaning up the mess. I also note that ethical obligations are often unmet on Wikipedia. Since I unblocked him, I'll ask him on his talkpage to help us clean up the copyvios. Since I unblocked him, it's only fair that I help in doing so also. Please give me some pointers--is there an organized effort towards fixing the problem? --Akhilleus (talk) 03:49, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:WikiProject Copyright Cleanup/Contributor surveys has some details. CIreland (talk) 03:56, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Based upon the massive disruption he made to Wikipedia (knowingly adding copyright violations for years because he disagrees with copyright laws), and especially with his completely unapologetic tone after his block, he needs to stay blocked for a good long while to realize that this kind of behavior is unacceptable. A couple of months minimum is reasonable, or at the very least until all the damage he caused is undone. Akhiklleus should have waited for more input before unblocking, because jumping ahead to do it before there was real discussion or any way to gauge consensus just puts everyone in a bad spot. People have been permanently banned for less than what ASE did. DreamGuy (talk) 03:41, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
- If what you are suggesting is done, that would be punishment and that is not what blocks are meant to do. They are preventive not punishment. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 03:45, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
- DreamGuy: maybe you're right. If so, discussion here should establish a consensus against my unblock, and I won't stand in its way. Until then, I hope that community scrutiny will stop further copyvios by Allstarecho, or lead to his block. I don't really care if he apologizes, expresses remorse, or so forth--forced apologies don't strike me as useful. The important thing is that he stops the objectionable behavior. If he doesn't, then he gets blocked again. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:52, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
- I agree that Akhilleus should have waited for more community input and especially for the opinion of the blocking admin, Moonriddengirl. I find unilateral unblocks of this sort rather uncollegial, I am sorry to say. Sandstein 05:33, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
- I have notified Moonriddengirl of this post. I apologize, I should have done that first, as she was the blocking admin...that is my mistake. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 05:41, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
- This unblock was a bad call - there was no need to rush and I'm not certain Akhilleus is actually familiar with the situation and how these matters are typically handled. I think that Allstarecho has been the one splitting hairs and wikilawyering since this problem was noticed - quite a few editors have tried to get a straight answer and his responses have been petulant and unhelpful. This issue was so widespread that it required not the usual one, but three pages at the copyvio project for tracking. While I agree that forced apologies are useless, if a contributor shows no remorse and has to be forced to admit they were wrong, isn't that just a useless? I have zero confidence in this unblock and I resent the fact that the unblocking admin's solution is that someone (other than themselves of course) should closely babysit Allstarecho. Shell babelfish 05:42, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
- I have already said, I will be happy (even as a non-admin) to mentor ASE as necessary and to make sure that his edits are within the letter of the rule and that no copyvio edits are brought in, but I think we need to give ASE a chance to edit first. It is 3:29AM EST, so he isn't online, probably asleep. Let's let him edit first before going all "bad block" "let's reblock him" on the whole thing. Remember, AGF. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 07:30, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
- I'm going to guess you're not aware that I assume good faith, usually till my eyes bleed :) Even so, there's a point where it stops being an assumption of good faith and instead becomes turning a blind eye to a problem; that's where I have to get off the bus. If you're aware of this case, surely you're aware that this wasn't just limited to article space, included difficult to detect copying of just sentences or phrases and that the only response has been "yeah, so what?" until an indef block was in place? I don't see anything in ASE's response that would make me comfortable that he won't continue the same behavior, maybe not at first, maybe not while he's being watched but I'm confident he would have no qualms repeating the behavior if he thought he could get away with it. I don't even see anything about him being interested in contributing further, only that he'd rather not be blocked. I would consider this an excellent example of a block intended to prevent further damage and disruption to the project and the unblock before allowing some semblance of discussion here was unwise. Shell babelfish 08:33, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
- WP:AGF says, "Unless there is strong evidence to the contrary, assume that people who work on the project are trying to help it, not hurt it." The cleanup of this offers plenty of evidence to the contrary. Just yesterday I came upon this edit from April of 2009 while evaluating contributions, pasting several paragraphs of material by Dr. Carl Edwin Lindgren (material which archives to 2004). There can be no question that much of the language was the same; origin seems clear. Keep in mind that Allstarecho was notified of copyright policy several years ago and one of his responses on noting these concerns was to indicate that "Most of these g'damn articles were done in my wiki-infancy. Any newer ones which may be in question, I don't agree that statistical facts (dates, percentages, times and related words to explain such facts) is copyrightable"[20]. His primary interest during the whole of this clean-up is arguing about whether the copyright infringements removed from articles were actually placed by him. While he's very vocal when he thinks somebody has removed something in error, I've yet to see him say, "Oh, yes, that one was mine. My bad." Does he still believe that material like this and this, also from April of this year, are not copyrightable? Copyright infringement is a grave misuse of the project, one which can put it in legal jeopardy, and whoever is watching him, Neutralhomer, needs to do so not so much with an assumption of good faith, but from a position of objective scrutiny. Akhilleus, I hope you plan to keep an eye on the situation. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:29, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
- I have already said, I will be happy (even as a non-admin) to mentor ASE as necessary and to make sure that his edits are within the letter of the rule and that no copyvio edits are brought in, but I think we need to give ASE a chance to edit first. It is 3:29AM EST, so he isn't online, probably asleep. Let's let him edit first before going all "bad block" "let's reblock him" on the whole thing. Remember, AGF. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 07:30, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose unblock, bad call, particularly without bringing the initial blocking admin into it. I support a reblock - he's never made any statement to indicate what he did was wrong, and has been particularly offensive to those users like Moonriddengirl who take the time and effort to chase people like him. An offensive, disruptive serial copyright violator who now expects us to trust him? By this point good faith has been thrown out the window, and I see no reason to believe he's truly changed - rather I see his apology as not "sorry I violated copyright" but more "sorry I was blocked for violating copyright". Ironholds (talk) 11:14, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose unblock. Three pages of copyvio's? What's next, unblock User:Primetime? For me this block is not punitive, this block is to protect the encyclopedia. From reading his talk page I am not convinced he will not eventually continue the same behaviour as before. Garion96 (talk) 11:28, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
- Glow in the dark bad unblock. This user causes major harm to the project. He doesn't grasp the concept of Intellectual property, nor Copyright, thus demonstrating no respect for authors nor the law. What makes anyone think he gives a damn about this project? He wants back in for his own addictive needs, and for the ego buff he gets from publishing stuff. Unless and until such time as he provides fro us a clear, lengthy essay about his 'awakening' to the rights of authors to have their works protected, and the value of copyright laws in protecting the creative impulse for the larger betterment of society, I see no value in AGF'ing. He's made clear his commitment to actively refuting and ignoring Copyright laws and Wikipedia's policies on the same, and his desperate 'i won't do it again, I swear' is simply insufficient. ThuranX (talk) 12:10, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
- Spectacularly wrong unblock, per Moonriddengirl. In April this year he copied literally from one source while citing another. [21][22] And then he claimed that all copyvios were in the distant past, and that anything more recent is just numbers? Wow. I don't think we need this type of user. --Hans Adler (talk) 12:33, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
- While the unblock may or may not have been ill-judged, it has been done. The result is that Allstarecho is under severe scrutiny for copyright (and likely any other) violations in his editing - his last chance has been and gone, and the next time he puts principle in these matters before WP policy he is gone permanently. I doubt that Allstarecho would have been allowed to return to editing under any more stringent conditions so, despite it being perhaps a little premature, I think we can close this matter as resolved. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:57, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
- I disagree with this assessment. It's his duty to clean up the mess he created and it's not formally part of his conditions that he does so. Instead, he can edit away and keep responsible editors occupied trying to spot his new copyvios. That's a denial of service attack on Wikipedia. --Hans Adler (talk) 13:05, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
- I'm sorry but I completely disagree that the matter is resolved. One doesn't set loose the wolf in the hen house and then throw up your hands because its already been done. Shell babelfish 13:09, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
- Comment - I've AGFed until my eyes not only bled but fell out of my head, and I have to agree that this isn't a good idea at this time. As a very involved admin, I either am biased or appear biased, so I won't argue the point strongly. Since I know where many of the proverbial bodies are buried, I will make a few points that should be considered (and I wish had been considered before an unblock):
- Let's keep in mind that at least two blatant copyvios remain: Old Mississippi State Capitol and Ole Miss Rebels football. There may be more. Frank | talk 13:11, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
- Further, keep in mind that many more copyvios were found and removed during the course of this investigation, including, for example, Frank Frost and Pearl, Mississippi, and some were even deleted, such as Alamo Theater (Mississippi) and the article that put us on this path when I found it at Template talk:DYK, Lazy Magnolia Brewing Company.
- It should be noted that User:Neutralhomer is an unapologetic cheerleader for ASE, given this sarcastic comment shortly after the initial block. I have no problem with liking and supporting a contributor; what I disapproved of in that comment was that either there was no attempt to look at the facts of the matter, or the facts were ignored. To his credit, NH did actually look a bit later and allowed as how he must agree with the community on this one. Now he's back on the other side of the fence. (Sorry if this seems like I'm commenting on the contributor rather than the content; I'm merely pointing out that this is a highly-involved user and providing some context.) Also, it should be revealed that we subsequently discovered a content disagreement we have, but again - I'm confining this to ASE, nothing more. I just think that if it is agreed that mentoring is the right way to go, perhaps a better choice would be someone other than a cheerleader.
- I think it would be wise to consider the length and severity of these violations, which would require an RfC to fully document, but a short summary can be found in this comment I made at User talk:Moonriddengirl.
- It's been pointed out that ASE doesn't display what most of us would call a solid understanding of copyright, or what we'd call a desire to comply with policy. Here are just a few diffs in support of that: You can't copyright facts, as usual, facts can't be copyrighted but whatever, you can't copyright fact..., and this one from 2007: While I don't feel text about a public educational institution, especially one my tax dollars help pay for, is copyrighted, I made changes..
- So, having said all that, if we are allowing the unblock to stand, a whole bunch of editors need to keep careful watch. ASE has repeatedly and forcefully resisted comments that characterize his edits as copyvios, instead choosing to point out that the text is elsewhere also, that someone else put it there, or that it isn't copyrightable. He has not participated even one edit's worth in cleaning up copyright violations since he was blocked, despite requests to do so, and has hampered others' efforts to do so because some of us have been willing to AGF and pay attention. Frank | talk 13:11, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Hmph. Well, as I said, it's entirely possible I made a mistake, and if there is consensus to reverse my unblock (as it appears there might be), I won't stand in its way. I'd just like to note, though, that the discussion on Allstarecho's talk page involved apparent technicalities such as whether he was retired or not, and also whether he was adopting the proper abject attitute of contrition. If the discussion had clearly communicated "your copyvios are so bad there's no way I'll unblock you" then of course I wouldn't have unblocked. I'm glad to see that people are taking copyvios seriously, though--when I've reported blatant plagiarism from copyrighted sources before, I've gotten no response or a shrug. --Akhilleus (talk) 13:16, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
- It might have been appropriate, as a condition of unblocking, and in light of his promise not to violate copyright again, to explain whether he still agrees with these sentiments that he had posted on his talk page shortly after being blocked: [23][24] Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 13:28, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
First, I'll say it's never been said by me that copyvios were perfectly ok. What I have said is that apparently statistical facts, close paraphrasing and quoting is considered as copyvios, unbeknownst to me. I guess that is my fault for not finding out. However, I have seen many a "copyvio" removed from articles that have been attributed to me when in fact they weren't. Numerous copyvios that have been attributed to me, were nothing more than copyvio content that was already present in an article or in an article that I split to another (see Ole Miss Rebels and Ole Miss Rebels football as an excellent example). I had no idea that I had to go through each and every article I ever came across to make sure it didn't contain copyvio content. Do you do that on every article you've ever come across? I'm sure one or 2 of you do but I'd bet my house that most of you do not. Additionally, during vandalism patrol, yes, I may have reverted vandalism that also included reverting an article back to a "copyvio included" state, but how am I to know that? Seriously? Regardless, any continued block is nothing but punishment, which is whole-heartedly not in line with WP:BLOCK. As I have promised not to add copyvio content anymore, and as I know many an eye is on my edits, continued blocking can be viewed as nothing but punishment from this point. I'm not asking for your respect or your approval of me as a person as that really means nothing to me. I'm just asking that people be fair here. Thanks. - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here @ 14:43, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
- Ugh. more waffling. now it's 'i didn't know', when he clearly did, and 'I didn't meant to', even though he was repeating old mistakes. He's not sorry, and clearly will do it again. He simply doesn't understand the concept of copyright. ThuranX (talk) 14:50, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
- Speaking of keeping a close watch, may I direct your attention to a thead on the Commons AN from last year. It would be prudent to review his image contributions again to see if there's been any relapse there. I am at work now or I would. HiDrNick! 14:56, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
- Allstarecho, with all due respect, I think your final response in that discussion (claiming that other people stole your work) is plenty relevant here. — Gavia immer (talk) 15:33, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
- I started that mess? You were the one who uploaded those pictures in violation of our policies in the first place, and then lied over and over again about them, attempting to smear the character of those who worked to bring your transgressions to light. I offered you an explicit opportunity to clean up your own mess; when you declined to do so, I had to spend my own free time scouring the whole damn internet to find enough copyvio sources to convince the Commons admins to delete most of the non-free pictures you uploaded and lied about. I had to watch videos of Chris Crocker, for crying out loud, because of your flippant attitude toward our copyright policies. Even now, other editors are slogging though your “contributions”, trying to clean up your mess, and your attitude is not one of contrition, but arrogance. You have given no indication that you will not continue to be a net negative to the project. I am astounded that the unblocking administrator has not yet reversed himself. HiDrNick! 17:31, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
This is a Biedermann und die Brandstifter scenario
Apparently the English name for this play by Max Frisch is The Fire Raisers.
- (It's also been produced as The Firebugs Ed Fitzgerald t / c 18:03, 13 June 2009 (UTC))
When someone uploads a large number of photos and many of them are found to be copyvios, then of course the rest needs to be deleted as well unless there is strong evidence that they are not copyvios. When someone is caught adding large amounts of copyrighted text to Wikipedia, then of course every substantial addition of text by that editor needs to be deleted unless there is strong evidence it's not a copyvio. After all, there are still books and magazines that are not available online.
What I have not seen, and what is absolutely necessary for this unblock to be at all reasonable is:
- An unequivocal demonstration (as opposed to a mere affirmation) by ASE that he now understands how copyright works.
- A binding commitment to help clean up his copyvios.
- A prohibition of any substantial article space edits other than his clean-up work for the time being.
Before he can be allowed to add more than, say, half a sentence per month to any article:
- The clean-up work must have been finished.
- He must demonstrate (rather than just assert) that he can add text to articles through methods other than plagiarism. One way to demonstrate this would be a series of assignments in which he has to develop an article on a prescribed obscure topic using a prescribed set of sources, in a short amount of time.
Anything less would be in contradiction to the core principle that Wikipedia is first and foremost an encyclopedia. Seeing that it can take several man-hours to properly identify and clean up the damage done in ten minutes by some quick copy-paste operation, and that this thankless work must be done by qualified volunteers – many of whom would prefer to write content for articles of their own choosing – this kind of generous unblock on the whim of an administrator is simply not acceptable. --Hans Adler (talk) 16:55, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
- I've begun to help on the cleanup as can be seen by my contribs - and that's enough as far as "binding". Actions, not words - which has been asked of me and which I am doing.
- A prohibition from article space edits is unacceptable. What's the point of being on Wikipedia if you can't edit articles. I'm not to be treated like some toddler confined to his playpen.
- Again, as I had promised not to engage in the activity anymore, which in itself acknowledges the copyvios and that there was a problem, continued blocking only serves as punishment. - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here @ 17:04, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
- AllStar, you have earned the perspective that you are a toddler to be supervised everywhere. You got caught breaking a major, bedrock policy built to match the laws of most nations on the planet. Instead of immediately apologizing, you continued for over a year doing it. When you were finally caught again and blocked, you threw a tanrum, took your ball and left. Then you came back, 'unretiring' after the heat was off, a tactic you knew would reduce the actions against you, and then, when confronted, you've done nothing but make empty promises and blame others.
- You have yet to explain, in your own words, what you did wrong, why it was wrong, why you won't do it again. An Open apology letter to the community would go a long way; taking responsibility for reversing every single copyvio addition you ever made would help too. However, all we get are condescending dismissals of our concerns 'I already SAID i wouldn't do it anymore' is meaningless. It's meaningless because you've made clear that you do not accept the idea of copyright - that the very principles of it aren't valid, they don't apply to you. This can easily be seen in your attitude that 'facts cannot have copyright'. However, they can and do. It's up to you to explain to us why, as part of that open apology.
- I continue to oppose any unblocking of your account until such time as you give us that, and then commit to making no edits which are not repair, until the entire repair task is completed. ThuranX (talk) 17:13, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
- Shouldn't someone reblock him first? Consensus that the unblock was a bad idea seems quite clear. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 18:06, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Since people can't seem to accept my promise not to add copyvio content to articles anymore, and since people can't seem to understand that my promise is also acknowledgement that copyvios are unacceptable, and since people can't seem to understand that my promise is also acknowledgment that I understand copyvios will not be tolerated, I hereby once again, promise not to add copyvios to any article. I also hereby promise to help work on said articles even though I've already said once that I'm already doing that as can be seen by my contribs history. I also apologize to anyone that feels I must go to greater links than a promise: I don't know what else to do to make it right with you but you have my promise. Continued "off with his head" calls are, however, unproductive. Tell me what you want instead of degrading me. Thanks. - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here @ 19:21, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
- If you'd take your fingers out of yoru ears, and stop shouting 'LalalalaIcanthearyoulalalala', you'd see I was absolutely clear about what I want; it's quite similar to what a few others have asked for. You again make clear that you won't do what's needed to satisfy the community, so I call for an immediate reinstatement of a bad unblock where community consensus supports reinstituting it. ThuranX (talk) 19:54, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
- As to "actions, not words", I must say I am not too thrilled by this: [25][26][27]. I would really like to hear the opinion of an expert whether a gradual process from literal copying to excessively close rephrasing makes the copyvio go away. In any case it's still plagiarism. --Hans Adler (talk) 20:32, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
- That last diff isn't mine. And also, related to that, see here where it's obvious I have sought input from an involved administrator on the issue. I mean geez, at least ask me. - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here @ 21:02, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
- My point was that you made a slight rephrasing, someone else made a further slight rephrasing, and it's still blatant plagiarism. My understanding of US copyright law is that this kind of rephrasing is not enough, and basically these are merely typical steps to cover up a copyvio. The only thing I am not sure about is whether lifting two sentences literally is OK. It might be below some threshold. As to your post on Frank's talk page – that one puzzled me, and I am still puzzled that it came before your rephrasing. --Hans Adler (talk) 21:13, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
- It came before my rephrasing because I wanted him to look at it before my rephrasing. Then after asking him about it, I realized even in the state it was in it could be considered as close paraphrasing so I went on and made changes to it. He apparently looked at it after my change or the 2 changes and feels its acceptable via his reply to me. - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here @ 21:41, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
- Let's look at a proper diff. I am not even sure that "rephrasing" is an appropriate word for this:
- It came before my rephrasing because I wanted him to look at it before my rephrasing. Then after asking him about it, I realized even in the state it was in it could be considered as close paraphrasing so I went on and made changes to it. He apparently looked at it after my change or the 2 changes and feels its acceptable via his reply to me. - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here @ 21:41, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
- My point was that you made a slight rephrasing, someone else made a further slight rephrasing, and it's still blatant plagiarism. My understanding of US copyright law is that this kind of rephrasing is not enough, and basically these are merely typical steps to cover up a copyvio. The only thing I am not sure about is whether lifting two sentences literally is OK. It might be below some threshold. As to your post on Frank's talk page – that one puzzled me, and I am still puzzled that it came before your rephrasing. --Hans Adler (talk) 21:13, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
- That last diff isn't mine. And also, related to that, see here where it's obvious I have sought input from an involved administrator on the issue. I mean geez, at least ask me. - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here @ 21:02, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
- As to "actions, not words", I must say I am not too thrilled by this: [25][26][27]. I would really like to hear the opinion of an expert whether a gradual process from literal copying to excessively close rephrasing makes the copyvio go away. In any case it's still plagiarism. --Hans Adler (talk) 20:32, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Long chart of evidence | |||
---|---|---|---|
Source [28] | ASE version 1 [29] | ASE version 2 [30] | Gavia immer version [31] |
The FBI report | |||
, which measures major crimes in cities with populations of 100,000 or more around the nation, | |||
showed violent crime increased | |||
in the city | by | by | by |
9.3 percent and property crime | |||
rose | increased by | increased by | increased by |
4.6 percent. | |||
The city rates buck a trend of lowering crime rates nationwide where | In contrast, | In contrast, | In contrast, |
violent crime fell 2.5 percent | |||
nationwide | nationwide | nationwide | |
and | as did | as did | and |
property crime | |||
dropped | fell | ||
by 1.6 percent. | |||
The city's | Jackson's | Jackson's | Jackson's |
rate of 36 murders per 100,000 residents | |||
caused the city to be | |||
ranked | |||
the city | |||
fourth in the nation behind | |||
the cities of | only | ||
New Orleans, | |||
Louisiana, | Louisiana, | ||
St. Louis | |||
Missouri | Missouri | ||
and Baltimore | |||
. | . | , Maryland. | , Maryland. |
Jackson's | |||
[sic!] also has a | |||
burglary rate of 248 per 100,000 residents | |||
ranked | ranked | which ranks it | ranks it |
second only to Flint, | |||
Mich. | Michigan. | Michigan. | Michigan. |
- I have no idea how anybody can think this is acceptable. --Hans Adler (talk) 00:26, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
- In fairness to ASE, he specifically asked me about that rewrite and I responded that it looked OK to me. I would rather he work on the two copyvios that remain blanked (listed above), but I felt the rewrite was better than what it replaced. I might have been wrong, but let's give ASE a little room on this one since I'm one of the protagonisists here. Frank | talk 21:01, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
- Which 2 blanked Frank? I don't see them link above. I've just been working off of Wikipedia:WikiProject Copyright Cleanup/Contributor surveys. Thanks. - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here @ 21:06, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
- In fairness to ASE, he specifically asked me about that rewrite and I responded that it looked OK to me. I would rather he work on the two copyvios that remain blanked (listed above), but I felt the rewrite was better than what it replaced. I might have been wrong, but let's give ASE a little room on this one since I'm one of the protagonisists here. Frank | talk 21:01, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm the admin who originally blocked Allstarecho for copyright problems. I didn't know about this thread until just now. I approve of the unblock.
On the one hand, ASE has handled this whole situation quite badly, being defensive and sarcastic and unacceptably rude in at least one case. He hasn't said anything like "I know this was wrong, and I'm sorry." But he has clearly and repeatedly said that he won't do anything else that might violate copyright, and I believe him. (And if I'm wrong, it's not hard to reblock.) Should he own up and apologize? Yeah, I think so, but it's really none of my business. Would it have been easier on everyone if he had? Absolutely. Would I get some satisfaction on seeing him forced to apologize? Perhaps, I mean I'm only human, but that's not a valid use of a block. The preventative block is no longer needed; So long as he isn't copying and pasting questionable content -- and he's not -- he's welcome to contribute constructively. – Quadell (talk) 04:31, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
- We now have a much more clear statement from Allstarecho that he will not repeat the problem and even that he will assist in any cleanup. While I still think some level of supervision is appropriate, that clears up my concerns about leaving the block in place. Shell babelfish 09:34, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
- I do not believe him. We do not have a case here of ignorance, but of outright refusal. He's made it his position on copyright clear; it's a matter of principle to him that copyright should not exist or be respected, therefore, I find it hard to believe that he's suddenly converted to a great understanding of the value of protecting the works done by others. I think that what we're going to see, six months to a year out, is an editor who persists in copyright violations via plagiarism, but now does it more subtly, rephrasing half a sentence into the article in one edit, then the other half, then linking them up. He will become a better, more subtle thief of others efforts, not someone truly able to write independently. ThuranX (talk) 14:40, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
- I see what you're saying, but I suspect you're wrong, and I'd be willing to put money on it. I guess we'll find out in six months or a year. – Quadell (talk) 15:02, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
An update on relevant policies and guidelines
Over the past few months Wikipedia's policy and guideline structure has strengthened with regard to copyright and related issues. Part of the reason was to prevent dramas like the present one. It appears that some of our administrators might not be fully aware of the changes, so highlighting relevant passages. First, Wikipedia:Plagiarism has been promoted to guideline. Also please note the following passages. DurovaCharge! 17:43, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
From Wikipedia:Copyright violations:
- Dealing with copyright violations
- In extreme cases administrators may impose special conditions before unblocking, such as requiring assistance with cleanup by disclosing which sources were used.
From Wikipedia:Assume good faith:
- Good faith and copyright
- When dealing with possible copyright violations, good faith means assuming that editors intend to comply with site policy and the law. That is different from assuming they have actually complied with either. Editors have a proactive obligation to document image uploads, etc. and material may be deleted if the documentation is incorrect or inadequate. Good faith corrective action includes informing editors of problems and helping them improve their practices.
- Documentation is in the contribs history, no? - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here @ 18:09, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
- Please refrain from posting within the middle of another editor's post. Allstarecho has not complied with a relevant request that I made within the previous thread, yet am not opposing the unblock. Thanks go to Allstarecho for his cooperation in correcting the problem. A year ago, similar situations used to cause large amounts of both drama and frustration--as a few editors worked hard to clean up problems without sufficient support from the community. That's changed now, but since the change is relatively recent it may be possible that not all administrators are aware that our policies have become more robust in this area. DurovaCharge! 18:27, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
- I believe "documentation" refers to the sourcing given when you upload the images as to who made them, where they came from, so on. And AGF pretty much flies out the window at this stage in proceedings. AGF is for a new user who's been caught uploading things. AGF is for a new user who made a mistake. AGF is not for a user who was caught, continued doing it because of his own beliefs on copyright law and was then caught again over a year later. Ironholds (talk) 23:32, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
- Please refrain from posting within the middle of another editor's post. Allstarecho has not complied with a relevant request that I made within the previous thread, yet am not opposing the unblock. Thanks go to Allstarecho for his cooperation in correcting the problem. A year ago, similar situations used to cause large amounts of both drama and frustration--as a few editors worked hard to clean up problems without sufficient support from the community. That's changed now, but since the change is relatively recent it may be possible that not all administrators are aware that our policies have become more robust in this area. DurovaCharge! 18:27, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
- Documentation is in the contribs history, no? - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here @ 18:09, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
- Good faith doesn't apply here; ASE made clear he doesn't believe in the principles behind the laws, that the ideas themselves aren't right. I'm with Ironholds here. The cleanup clause needs to be made explicit in it's application here, ASE's word is not enough for me. Further, I note that ASE refuses to explain the value of copyright, that he's yet to show any contrition, instead acting more like an addict, saying whatever will get his wiki-fix back. I don't have any faith that he's actually changed. ThuranX (talk) 00:06, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
- All I'm hearing is the same blah, blah, blah from you. The "off with his head" is getting old from you. Take a deep breath, look at the cleanup work I've been doing, and then go find something constructive to do with an article that could use your attention. Thanks. - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here @ 02:23, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for displaying the sort of attitude we like on Wikipedia - that's really going to swing community consensus in your direction. AGF does not apply in this situation, you've provided no evidence that you've changed and no evidence that you understand why what do you did was wrong - indeed, every statement by you I've seen seems to be designed to avoid saying that violating copyright is actually wrong, instead simply saying that we have a problem with it. If you want us to assume good faith in this situation you have to give something to show you've changed and this is a novel situation, rather than (as Thuran put it) another attempt to claw back a fix. Ironholds (talk) 06:12, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
- Which only further says either you and Thuran haven't been paying attention or just aren't listening... I've said many a time that I promise not to do it again. I've also said many a time that my promise acknowledges the problem. I've also said many a time that my promise acknowledges that copyvios are wrong. I don't know how else to put it so I'm done addressing it. I have been active in helping cleanup the articles and I have said over and over and over and over I promise not to do it again. And I assure you that continued belittling of me won't get you whatever it is you're seeking above and beyond what I've already said and done in terms of my actions to correct this matter. - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here @ 07:11, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for displaying the sort of attitude we like on Wikipedia - that's really going to swing community consensus in your direction. AGF does not apply in this situation, you've provided no evidence that you've changed and no evidence that you understand why what do you did was wrong - indeed, every statement by you I've seen seems to be designed to avoid saying that violating copyright is actually wrong, instead simply saying that we have a problem with it. If you want us to assume good faith in this situation you have to give something to show you've changed and this is a novel situation, rather than (as Thuran put it) another attempt to claw back a fix. Ironholds (talk) 06:12, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
- All I'm hearing is the same blah, blah, blah from you. The "off with his head" is getting old from you. Take a deep breath, look at the cleanup work I've been doing, and then go find something constructive to do with an article that could use your attention. Thanks. - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here @ 02:23, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
- Good faith doesn't apply here; ASE made clear he doesn't believe in the principles behind the laws, that the ideas themselves aren't right. I'm with Ironholds here. The cleanup clause needs to be made explicit in it's application here, ASE's word is not enough for me. Further, I note that ASE refuses to explain the value of copyright, that he's yet to show any contrition, instead acting more like an addict, saying whatever will get his wiki-fix back. I don't have any faith that he's actually changed. ThuranX (talk) 00:06, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
←I suppose that most people reading this thread (at least if they read the last one) know that I take copyright situations seriously. Just for the record, I have been impressed with User:Allstarecho's contributions to cleanup since his unblocking, which so far seem to be very much on the up and up (I have double-checked some, but not yet all) and which have gone a long way towards increasing my willingness to assume good faith from this point forward. Although I have seen multiple-article infringers blocked and unblocked before, I have never seen one of them actually apply himself to helping out with cleanup. Given his past, it is a good idea that a check be done in the future to be sure that infringement has not resumed (courts of law don't care about WP:AGF; Wikipedia needs to exercise some responsible due diligence with identified problem contributors), but at this point I'm willing to cast my lot with User:Quadell in believing that there may be no future problems here. I would encourage Allstarecho to seek feedback from somebody experienced with these issues if at any point he is unsure about a copyright situation. Better safe than sorry, since the likelihood that future inadvertent infringement could be misconstrued as intentional is high. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:16, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
How come this page is fully protected? I was browsing around court tv and found this. Just Curious. M.H.True Romance iS Dead 20:51, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
- Oh, and noticed some oversighted edits, is this uhh some Grawp/Hagger related thing? since the joker is included. M.H.True Romance iS Dead 20:55, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
- See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive542#Catherine Crier and the edit summary used by Deskana when protecting it [32] --Patar knight - chat/contributions 21:17, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
- Oh, and noticed some oversighted edits, is this uhh some Grawp/Hagger related thing? since the joker is included. M.H.True Romance iS Dead 20:55, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Given the massive and horrendous amounts of BLP violations lobbed at this article, to the point that people are being aggressively litigated in real life for having done bad things to this article, I strongly encourage no one to unprotect it. rootology (C)(T) 05:46, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah, I'd recommend consulting the protecting admin before doing anything. Cirt (talk) 05:47, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
- And I would strongly suggest, in the strongest terms, that such consultation be in public, on-wiki. rootology (C)(T) 05:48, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
- Agreed. –Juliancolton | Talk 05:51, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
- And I would strongly suggest, in the strongest terms, that such consultation be in public, on-wiki. rootology (C)(T) 05:48, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
I strongly doubt that you saw the content of the removed edits. They were not "personal" information. They were pure libel. Hipocrite (talk) 10:39, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
- Agree with Hipocrite. The insertion of libelous content was the problem. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:26, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
- I have seen the content elsewhere, yes. That is exactly why I mentioned "strictly speaking this isn't [a case of adding personal information]", that is simply the most comment reason for someone with oversight to have to protect a page (outside normal protections of course). In this case, simply substitute libel for personal information, and be on your way. If you doubt I have been at all involved with the Catherine Crier issue, I suggest you take a look at abuse filter 178, which I revamped 12 days ago to catch libel about Ms. Crier. It is not identical to the edits to her Wikipedia entry, but nevertheless, I do actually know what I am talking about. Prodego talk 01:56, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
- The vandalism that was recently inserted is not related to the original content that is the subject of Ms. Crier's legal action. Rather, a vandal decided to take advantage of the media coverage to try and get attention for himself, by adding a different libel. There is really no need to muddy the waters here, and no reason to give the vandal any more attention. If you are concerned that Deskana's protection summary is overly dramatic, you should be discussing that with him before bringing it here. Thatcher 11:39, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
76.16.176.166 talk
The aforementioned anonymous editor has been disruptively editing a number of articles, namely
- Multiregional origin of modern humans where the ip inserted whole paragraphs of gibberish here
- Recent African origin of modern humans
There is a discussion about the IPs disruptive edits here and other users have expressed concern about the state of the articles at the human genetics project. Subsequent to reverting one of the user's edits, the user has since started reverting my edits from other articles which the user had never edited before and posting more gibberish on talk pages. Wapondaponda (talk) 21:57, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
- Basic vandalism, such as the insertion of gibberish, can be reported after appropriate warnings to WP:AIV for blocking. Hersfold (t/a/c) 23:22, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
- They're not a vandal as such, they're pushing a POV - the multiregional hypothesis - in a disruptive manner and making personal attacks. Fences and windows (talk) 01:26, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
I removed the "resolved" tag (sorry if I'm not supposed to do that) because the issue is not suitable for WP:AIV (it was correctly removed 30 minutes after notification with edit summary "content dispute"). I don't know what can be expected on this page, but what 76.16.176.166 needs is a firm and somewhat pointy administrative notification that whatever the merits of the edits being performed, the frequency, style of edit summaries, and communication on talk pages are inappropriate for Wikipedia. I'm not very optimistic because the editing is not nearly as bad as occurs on some topics, but it is particularly irritating in a serious scientific topic where other editors are contributing from interest (not some POV passion). However I ask that an admin advise what might be done to restore suitable decorum. Examples of inappropriate edits (article is about a modern scienctific topic; references to religious texts are used to ridicule other editors): pointy and unintelligible edit summary and debate in an edit summary and removal of my not-overly pointy comment and mysterious and out-of-place rant. Johnuniq (talk) 04:26, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
I agree with the complainant that this IP is causing disruption to the page with major edits promoting ideas with UNDUE relevance in a poorly constructed format with broken English. He has repeatedly edited against consensus and is not interested in seeking such. He even reverts edits from native English speakers that correct his syntax. It's become a major headache. Auntie E (talk) 14:43, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
- Can an admin please review the contributions of this IP on the talk page from here on: Talk:Multiregional_origin_of_modern_humans#Clean-up? Some of their contributions are becoming offensive, e.g. characterising Out of Africa as the "persistence of scientific Marxist to impose false Jewish dreams eg. walking on water on eg. Chinese people who my have own heroes". Also "you're talking about the "origin of" as the racial resourcers who always point to 'others' (like the 3 papers you want to use to politically pollute scientific otherwise debate)." and "I do not think the sources talk like 'you'. Perhaps those who have to get research grants from politically influenced agendas. I do not finding intellectually independent researcher who before publishing got to carefully consider compatibility of his thesis to post WW2 trauma, Israeli separation barriers, biblical origin and walking o water."; Explaining a problematic edit, "But mitochondrial DNA has only 0.0005% of genome DNA and the mtDNA come from captured bacteria" the IP editors said to "(treat it as a jock [joke] 'be bold' for those kids who spoofing melodramatic PR of mtEve and yAdam in love but 100,000 years apart) You flogging dead horse with the aDNA of thousand year dead neanderthal." The whole approach is very disruptive. Fences and windows (talk) 16:48, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
User PasswordUsername and Crime in Estonia
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/fb/Yes_check.svg/20px-Yes_check.svg.png)
PasswordUsername (talk · contribs) is on a spree at Crime in Estonia. He is mass-inserting random sub-sections and unrelated sentences to Varia section (which by itself is completely unneeded), perhaps most telling of these is "Molestation" with a single sentence Children are often molested. and no source: [33]
- [34] Source has no claim that prostitution is widespread; also prostitution is not illegal (intermediation and child prostitution are, naturally) and source is from ten years ago, yet represented as current.
- [35] highly controversial claim is from unknown "Finnish newspapers", quoted through third-party source and Web Archive. Again, source from 2003 is presented as current.
- [36] Illegal alcohol: straight copy-paste from BBC (note ..began killing people early last month), BBC has no claim about "deaths of enormous proportions" (ie. unsourced POV). Afterwards PasswordUsername added "in an unprecedented pandemic" [37]
- [38] - war criminals are completely unrelated to Crime in Estonia; also extremely one-sided view (see the end of the [39], for example)
- -- Sander Säde 08:05, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
- I am trying to write an article about crime in Estonia that discusses the history of the phenomenon and gives an overview of the situation now. I have discussed this at Talk: in Estonia. I myself have not reverted, as my task right now is to find the pertinent data, statements, and statistics adequate to accomplish this. WP:AGF is, I think, a clear part of Wikipedia. This should be saved for the Talk discussion.
- As for the diffs:
- [40] Source has no claim that prostitution is widespread; also prostitution is not illegal (intermediation and child prostitution are, naturally) and source is from ten years ago, yet represented as current.
- Sander Sade is wrong. The source does claim that prostitution is widespread.
- [41] highly controversial claim is from unknown "Finnish newspapers", quoted through third-party source and Web Archive. Again, source from 2003 is presented as current.
- I presented the Estonian government's response to these charges. Note also that the Finnish newspapers are not the primary source I cited.
- [42] Illegal alcohol: straight copy-paste from BBC (note ..began killing people early last month), BBC has no claim about "deaths of enormous proportions" (ie. unsourced POV). Afterwards PasswordUsername added "in an unprecedented pandemic" [43]
- I meant to include "began killing people in early October 2001." Being tired, I instinctively repeated "early this month." (This was from the article.) A correction would have been in order.
- [44] - war criminals are completely unrelated to Crime in Estonia; also extremely one-sided view (see the end of the [45], for example)
- My edit summary notes that this is a beginning of the criticism of the judicial system. Please read it. Also read the edit summaries and my comments on Talk. And any administrators willing to look into this should take a glance at the changes made to the edit history of the article–the organized deletionism campaign there speaks for itself. Pretty hard to even begin building a well-referenced article under conditions in which references are being deleted for one undiscussed "I don't like it" or trivial reason or other. Perhaps assuming good faith rather than deleting everything you don't like being said might go a longer way? I certainly cannot believe that content disputes are to be handled like this.
PasswordUsername (talk) 08:21, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
The main point is that an article like Crime in Estonia should cover general crime trends, law enforcement issues, judicial procedures and the like - see Crime in the United States and Crime in Canada for a good example of what this sort of article should look like. Instead PasswordUsername wants to use this article as a coat rack for everything that s/he thinks is wrong with Estonia and basically present a biased, inaccurate picture of Estonia as a crime ridden country for ... well, for some purposes of her/his own (can't speak to the motivations here). It's as if the article on Crime in the United States included every sensationalist story from every single small city newspaper in the US. The main issues here are POV but also UNDUE weight as, for example, the fact that some people somewhere in Estonia made some moonshine is not notable (this kind of thing happens in Alabamy where I'm from all the time). Likewise edits like "Children are often molested." [46](no sources, no context, no nothing) are pretty much vandalism and illustrate very well the bad faith and lack of seriousness that PasswordUsername is approaching this article with.radek (talk) 08:44, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
- I've already explained my point. Your accusations are very untoward, and you seem to be having a problem with my edits on multiple articles you haven't touched before. If you want me to produce an article like Crime in the United States in under a few hours, I am sorry to disappoint. PasswordUsername (talk) 08:53, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
- My accusations amount to the fact that edits like these [47] "Children are often molested" are for all intents and purposes indistinguishable from the random variety vandalism that I revert multiple times a day. Not having enough time to write the article is a silly excuse. Questioning my motives is a goofy attempt to divert attention from the focus on your own edits.radek (talk) 09:02, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
- It constitutes vandalism–or so you say? Do you even know how many children are molested in Estonia? Are you even aware how many children are forced into prostitution or pimped out to foreign customers in Tallinn and across the great Baltic water in far-away Helsinki? It's a tad bit hard to find every one of your sources when you're dedicating yourself to reconstruct the article after multiple iterations of sheer deletionism–of cited sourced, mind you, Radek–and to have oneself called a vandal for providing assessments of the situation is a bit uncalled for. PasswordUsername (talk) 10:01, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
- My accusations amount to the fact that edits like these [47] "Children are often molested" are for all intents and purposes indistinguishable from the random variety vandalism that I revert multiple times a day. Not having enough time to write the article is a silly excuse. Questioning my motives is a goofy attempt to divert attention from the focus on your own edits.radek (talk) 09:02, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
- Sander Spade, be very, very careful in using this forum to accuse others of misdeeds, for you and other Estonian editors have been on your own spree of censorship on the Kaitsepolitsei article, as this diff (and others) can prove. And after having looked at the diffs shown by PasswordUsername, it is yourself who is editing articles and removing materials that you don't like, and as far as I am concerned, that is much, much worse than the ridiculous accusations that you are flinging at an obvious content opponent. So perhaps admins should be looking at your edits instead. --Russavia Dialogue 08:31, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
- Who is that "Sander Spade" you are talking about? However, you might want to read the discussion about that in article talk page, here, before going to claim censorship. This issue was thoroughly discussed and suitable consensus found; I believe it is still there in the article. -- Sander Säde 08:52, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
- I've already explained my point. Your accusations are very untoward, and you seem to be having a problem with my edits on multiple articles you haven't touched before. If you want me to produce an article like Crime in the United States in under a few hours, I am sorry to disappoint. PasswordUsername (talk) 08:53, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
- It's so refreshing -- in a nostalgic sense -- to see that the ethic of And you are lynching Negroes! is still alive and well. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 08:48, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
- What does the article on Kaitsepolitsei have to do with anything, even ignoring the false accusations? Why exactly are you even bringing this up? This is completely unrelated.radek (talk) 08:33, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
- No, it means that something is clearly up. Note how many separate times factual content is being revert (these reverts being mostly one edit after the other, so as not to go up higher on the RR meter for a few editors). It seems that there are editors (including you know who) simply deleting material they did not like. Including patently false claims being made about my edits in the edit summaries and the removal of the entire prostitution and narcotics sections on the grounds that these were WP:UNDUE in an article about crime in Estonia. The two sections had five sentences total. [48] Who is accusing whom, Radek? PasswordUsername (talk) 08:50, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
- Ok. If something is "clearly up" then can you explain what exactly, clearly, is "up"? Because you've lost me here. I have no idea what most of what you wrote above is about. Insinuations like "you know who" ... uhhh, ok, I give, ... who? Me? Elvis? No? The bottom line is you're making ridiculous edits to an article which border on vandalism and when called on it resort to ... well, since I can't quite understand the above, you resort to something, anyway.radek (talk) 09:02, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
- Calm down, Radek. My edits constitute vandalism? According to what grounds?
- Dear Radek, you're not making any sense. PasswordUsername (talk) 10:01, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
- Ummm, the above does not make enough sense for to be able to understand it, hence reply.radek (talk) 08:46, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
- Well, as I pointed out in Talk:Crime in Estonia#Disruption without reverting, PasswordUsername has chosen the tactic of inserting *different* spurious threads into the article, one after another. When his poorly conceived additions such as [49] were reverted in one area, he went for another, in the hope that *he* would then be seen as genuinely improving the article while the people cleaning up this lofasz would be seen as censorship-minded vandals bent on edit domination. In this sentence, he appears to be trying to convince AN/I regulars of this "censorship-minded vandals" part. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 08:55, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
- I fixed it up a bit. Tired, as I said. PasswordUsername (talk) 08:50, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
- And here we have yet another editor (radek) who is also engaging on the most tedious censorship on the same article, as this diff and this diff demonstrates, and he asking what does this have to do with anything? It's not a falsification as you make out. Well, it demonstrates that there is a multitude of editors, including yourself and Sander Spade who are acting like complete WP:DICKS on that article, yet we don't see people running like children to the school principal for that tedious editing. How about sorting out problems on ones own without acting like children over what is an obvious editorial dispute. And need I even mention the worst of the Estonian nationalist editors not currently banned (User:Digwuren) who on the same article talk page referred to myself and Offliner as neo-Nazis, (and in other places referring to editors as pigs) without apology and without sanction? Of course, someone will take issue with my characterising one as the "worst of the Estonian nationalist editors" as uncivil, but if it is good enough for User:Moreschi to fling around without sanction, then what's good for the goose and all that, particularly when there are obvious gang-ups on "editorial adversaries" (as the banning of User:Petri Krohn proves, without a single sanction to any of his opponents). Anyway, I'm back off to do other things. --Russavia Dialogue 08:54, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
- Accusing others of tedious censorship, and being the nationalist editors is well beyong the line of CIV/NPA (and "somebody else said so" is hardly an excuse). Please consider yourself formally warned to respect those policies (again...?). Perhaps a civility parole could be considered here? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 16:34, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
- And here we have yet another editor (radek) who is also engaging on the most tedious censorship on the same article, as this diff and this diff demonstrates, and he asking what does this have to do with anything? It's not a falsification as you make out. Well, it demonstrates that there is a multitude of editors, including yourself and Sander Spade who are acting like complete WP:DICKS on that article, yet we don't see people running like children to the school principal for that tedious editing. How about sorting out problems on ones own without acting like children over what is an obvious editorial dispute. And need I even mention the worst of the Estonian nationalist editors not currently banned (User:Digwuren) who on the same article talk page referred to myself and Offliner as neo-Nazis, (and in other places referring to editors as pigs) without apology and without sanction? Of course, someone will take issue with my characterising one as the "worst of the Estonian nationalist editors" as uncivil, but if it is good enough for User:Moreschi to fling around without sanction, then what's good for the goose and all that, particularly when there are obvious gang-ups on "editorial adversaries" (as the banning of User:Petri Krohn proves, without a single sanction to any of his opponents). Anyway, I'm back off to do other things. --Russavia Dialogue 08:54, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
- Ok. If something is "clearly up" then can you explain what exactly, clearly, is "up"? Because you've lost me here. I have no idea what most of what you wrote above is about. Insinuations like "you know who" ... uhhh, ok, I give, ... who? Me? Elvis? No? The bottom line is you're making ridiculous edits to an article which border on vandalism and when called on it resort to ... well, since I can't quite understand the above, you resort to something, anyway.radek (talk) 09:02, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
- No, it means that something is clearly up. Note how many separate times factual content is being revert (these reverts being mostly one edit after the other, so as not to go up higher on the RR meter for a few editors). It seems that there are editors (including you know who) simply deleting material they did not like. Including patently false claims being made about my edits in the edit summaries and the removal of the entire prostitution and narcotics sections on the grounds that these were WP:UNDUE in an article about crime in Estonia. The two sections had five sentences total. [48] Who is accusing whom, Radek? PasswordUsername (talk) 08:50, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
- What does the article on Kaitsepolitsei have to do with anything, even ignoring the false accusations? Why exactly are you even bringing this up? This is completely unrelated.radek (talk) 08:33, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
<-- Uh, Russavia, you realize that you're portraying basic copy editing (yes, it should be "for short" rather than "in short", as I changed it) as "tendentious censorship"? I think this is the first time I've been called a "DICK" for correcting someone's grammar in such a trivial manner and I guess it was bound to happen sooner or later, but bringing this up as some kind of gross injustice is just ... plain ... pathetic. The rest of your comment ... I, uh, don't know what you're talking about.radek (talk) 09:11, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
- He's not talking about your minor grammar correction, he's talking about the paragraphs you chopped out. Whether that chopping was justified is a content dispute. But be careful about making false or misleading accusations. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 10:13, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
- This is intolerable. I have never called Russavia or Offliner neo-Nazis, nor have I called a Wikipedia editor a pig. Yet, Russavia is repeatedly making such baseless claims in obvious attempt to mar my reputation. This is blatant violation of WP:CIV, and since mud sticks, I can not just ignore it. I must insist that Russavia stop making such accusations, if not voluntarily then under enforcement of policy. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 09:06, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
- I have pesonally seen you say things to that same effect. Of course, you didn't intend to have this diff [50] come off looking that way. PasswordUsername (talk) 10:07, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
- I'm also insisting that Russavia stop misspelling Sander Säde's name as a sneaky reference to WP:SPADE. Once might be a mistake, but twice clearly isn't.
ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 09:13, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
- Explain what the insinuation is. It sounds an awful bit trollish to make these claims otherwise. PasswordUsername (talk) 10:30, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
- What insinuation are you talking about? Do you mean "spade"? That's an offensive term for a black person - as in "black as the ace of spades". Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 11:46, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
- Everyone involved should calm down, stop being nasty to each other and use dispute resolution. There are productive ways to resolve your differences about content - this isn't one of them. Any more name calling or other snide remarks about people being a "DICK" will likely result in a time-out. Shell babelfish 09:39, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
- There is no justification for this kind of editing. How is that distinguishable from vandalism? Note PasswordUsername has also been violating BLP in another Estonia related article Jaak Aaviksoo, misrepresentation of a source by inserting a claim that this person appeared dressed in Nazi symbols. Another editor was recently topic banned for similar BLP violations. --Martintg (talk) 12:40, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
- I have to concur that inserting unsourced content asserting "children are often molested" claiming a work in progress can only be intepreted as an attack and is inexcusable. There is no room for WP:AGF that this was just working on an article, you can't create one on this topic in one day. This really turns my stomach. Arguing about political views of history is one thing. Asserting widespread child abuse in a country steps way over the line. There is no stepping back from this or rationalizing after the fact. PetersV TALK 15:28, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
- P.S. And I request Russavia cease and desist from personal attacks such as "And need I even mention the worst of the Estonian nationalist editors not currently banned". This is defamatory and such slurs cannot be tolerated. If Russavia has an issue, there are formal means of addressing it. This incendiary commentary is nothing more than character assassination. PetersV TALK 15:37, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
- P.P.S. As for "I have pesonally seen you say things to that same effect. Of course, you didn't intend to have this diff [51] come off looking that way. PasswordUsername (talk) 10:07, 14 June 2009 (UTC)" this is sheer innuendo, Teinonen has in fact been stripped of honors awarded to him by the Estonian government. Just to be perfectly clear about it, Tienonen republished wartime Nazi propaganda translated into Estonian. PetersV TALK 15:48, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
- Sigh. This (and similar edits) violate enough policies (UNDUE, V, BLP, DIGWUREN's Arbcom sanction on battleground creation in EE topics...) that I'd suggest a topic ban for PU on all Estonia-related topics. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 16:31, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Need help dealing with Wang Dan article
First of all, I am sorry I don't know which noticeboard I should be using. I'm not sure whether this falls under vandalism, BLP, disruptive editing, edit warring...or some other category.
This concerns the article Wang Dan, which is currently under attack by persistent anonymous-IP editors. Despite coming from different IPs, they seem to be the same person or else have the same agenda. I have been attempting to address repeated attempts to use an offensive label for Wang Dan, add unsourced material, edit existing material to satisfy a POV, and remove material that disagrees with POV. Specific examples:
- Use of an epithet to refer to Wang Dan and adding commentary to cast Wang Dan in a bad light, make fun of him, etc. The beginning of the article has been frequently changed to refer to Wang Dan as "Wang BaDan". According to a quick Google search, the phrase "Wang Ba Dan" apparently means a person without character, morals, etc.
- Adding of unsourced POV material under the heading "Taiwan News" which takes the tone of an editorial and attack on Wang Dan, asking rhetorical questions, trying to convince the reader of a POV that Wang Dan is bad
- Deletion of sourced material without explanation except to say that it is "Wiki propaganda"
- Apparent refusal to engage in dialog on the talk pages
- Diffs (oldest first):
- [52] (editing to remove phrase "visiting scholar", added copious amounts of "Taiwan News" stuff)
- [53] (more Taiwan News cut-and-paste)
- [54] (cut-and-paste from previously added "Taiwan News" stuff)
- [55] (removal of existing material without explanation)
- [56] (cut-and-paste previously added "Taiwan News" content)
- [57] (trying to make Wang Dan seem pathetic, or haughty)
- [58] (using article to make assertions about "Wiki propaganda")
... it just goes on and on. At this point I don't know what I should do. I have made attempts to contact the users via their IP talk pages, and just now via the article's talk page:
Please help! I think I am out of my element here, as I don't think I am very good at applying Wikipedia policy and dealing with this sort of issue. I do not see any other editors of this article who can help. These edits keep happening, from multiple IPs, about every couple hours. Please, someone with experience address this problem - I am afraid I don't know what to do. I think it might be a good idea for an administrator to semi-protect the article so that only registered users can edit it, and hopefully this would stop. Please forgive me if my own attempts to address this have caused any problem. Thanks,
Joren (talk) 13:20, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
- To clarify - this has apparently been going on since around June 3. I have been involved since June 11.Joren (talk) 13:24, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
- As I've already mentioned on your talk, you might want to go to WP:RFPP and ask for semi-protection on this. Exxolon (talk) 13:52, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for the help. It turns out that the anonymous IP user visited the discussion page and....posted the cut-and-paste Taiwan News content again, without explanation. *sigh*. Oh well, better the discussion page than the article, I suppose... I'm going to wait and see what they do...if they are willing to talk about it, great. But if they keep adding this stuff to the article, I will request protection. Thanks for giving me the URL to do that! Joren (talk) 13:56, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
- Joren has lead an editor to the Talk already, correctly. I did one revert and a reaction to the material on Talk, meanwhile. The talk boils down to a small number of new facts to be verified in/out. Those editors wo do not join the Talk, are in for a WP:3RR-watch and -block I suggest. -DePiep (talk) 14:22, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
- As I've already mentioned on your talk, you might want to go to WP:RFPP and ask for semi-protection on this. Exxolon (talk) 13:52, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Requesting semi-protection
The anonymous IPs have resumed the aforementioned edits:
- [[59]] More of the same "Taiwan News" edits
I once again asked them to stop:
I will now ask for the page to be semi-protected, using the suggested link earlier. Thanks, Joren (talk) 10:50, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Nonfree content at User:Rms125a@hotmail.com
The user User:Rms125a@hotmail.com has this non-free image File:C-bob.png on his userpage, which I'm pretty sure is a no-no.--Blargh29 (talk) 16:48, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
- Someone removed the image. Next time be bold. Remove the image yourself, and talk to the user. For future reference, it is common courtesy to inform users when you initiate a thread on them on this page (I just informed them). Killiondude (talk) 17:53, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Note: I was refered here from Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts, see this advise.
You may remember a Wikiquette alert now archived at Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts/archive64#User:William_Allen_Simpson. The issues with WAS have not ended. We regularly intersect and often disagree at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion. WAS seems uninclined to disagree with me without adding some personal attacks. He has become a bit more careful in these attacks. I'd like to show some examples from after the 3rd-level warning he received here:
"you were chastized at WP:ANI and elsewhere" (which I was not, rather he was) and "A foolish consistency.." (which was part of the wp:wqa discussion resulting in his 3rd-level warning) in the text and the edit summary [60]
"You were roundly excoriated at WP:ANI, WT:CFD, and elsewhere" (which I was not, rather he was) and "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds...." in the text (bold from the original and a similar edit summary [61]
"Obviously, you are having some English as a second language issues here" and "That is currently in the process of being rejected" (referring to another proposal of mine) [62]
"Your failure to understand is not the responsibility of others. Read the policies. Look at recent discussion. Pay attention" to my request "Perhaps you could specify which naming convention you are referring to and why" [63]
These remarks, when viewed each in their own right, might seem minor or even partially justified (which I assure you they are not). Taken together, they form a pattern of a personal attack aimed at making any intersection with WAS a miserable experience, with the likely purpose of removing my opposition to various of his edits and proposals.
Character witnesses against WAS as an editor with a longstanding tradition of making personal attacks I have gathered previously in this edit. Please also note a very recent block for violating the wp:3rr rule in edit warring [64].
Likewise his edits have raised concerns for pushing points in unacceptable ways (that is, without consensus), as expressed by various editors in the following edits [65], [66], [67].
The following quote might be illustrative "Just because you are technically correct does not justify your attitude. You don't own this project, we are all working together. Misunderstandings can be handled in a civilized manner, with both parties being treated respectfully. You don't seem to have much respect for anyone other than yourself." [68] Nothing has changed for the better since 2006...
In general, I think this user is an unbalancing factor in Wikipedia. In short term I would like to ask for some measures ensuring WAS will stop attacking me personally with all kinds of baseless accusations and derogatory comments. Debresser (talk) 21:44, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
This new editor continues to vandalise British Empire & ignore my reversions of his/her vandalism, by adding more vandalism. GoodDay (talk) 21:54, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
- You might've tried talking to the user a bit more before coming here. One talk page message before this is hardly much. I'm dropping a welcome message on the user's talk page. lifebaka++ 22:07, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Attention to List of coups d'état and coup attempts
Could an admin please protect this article. Several IP-adresses as well as SPAs keep adding the recent events in Iran to this article despite it not qualifying as a coup. I have RPPed it, but normal channels seem to be too slow for this. --Saddhiyama (talk) 22:53, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
- I put 3 days semi on it, let's see how it goes. RxS (talk) 23:01, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks. There is a similar problem brewing at List of successful coups d'état, however not yet to the same degree as urgent as on the first article. --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:23, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
User:Wasserman
This user has been made aware at least once previously that a number of editors take issue with his aggressive communication style. Personally I feel like some editors are far too thin-skinned about supposed incivility and have no particular opinion about the previous incident; I provide it only for informational purposes. Recently the editor has decided that there is an insidious conspiracy to eliminate the categorization of Jewish people as Jewish. Here he accuses User:William Allen Simpson of "rampant" and "blatant" censorship because that editor has nominated a number of "Jews by occupation" categories for deletion recently. In five CFDs from June 11 he copies and pastes substantially identical comments in which he accuses WASimpson of engaging in a "pathetic attempt to justify the continued censorship and eradication of ... Jewish categories" along with accusations that WASimpson and I are engaged in a conspiracy against Jewish-related categories. Wasserman has crossed a line here and while I don't know if a short chill-out block is in order here, at the very least the editor needs to be put on notice that hyperbolic and unsubstantiated allegations of conspiracies constitute a failure to assume good faith and constitute incivility. Otto4711 (talk) 23:07, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
- In accessing the editor's page to advise him of this notice, I found this. User has a history of crying "censorship". Otto4711 (talk) 23:12, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
- Comment I have been a participant to those discussions and as such have been able to form an opinion about Wassermann. He seems genuinly distressed by certain nominations for deletion connected with "Jewish". And it is true that quite a number of these have been tagged for deletion lately. And it may even be that William Allen Simpson (with whom I have an issue here on wp:ani) is trying to tag as many ethnicity related categories as he can, in accordance with what he thinks is the right thing to do. But accusing editors of conspiracy, in the way Wassermann does, that is a little out of line. Nevertheless, in view of the emotional issue involved and in view of the fact that we all have been created by G-d with a different way of expressing ourselves, and for some that way is more emotionally loaden than for others, I hope we can suffice with a verbal explanation to Wassermann of the proper way to behave in discussions. Debresser (talk) 23:27, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
- Is there any proof of validity of this users claim of "censorship"? Triplestop (talk) 00:41, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Insults
On the talk page for Paroxetine user literaturegeek, who has ownership issues on the article, has engaged in insults "What a rude dick ThuranX is." This is not constructive.Ddave2425 (talk) 01:15, 15 June 2009 (UTC)ddave2425
- You may want to check out Dispute resolution.--Rockfang (talk) 02:00, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
66.190.29.150 (talk · contribs) is edit-warring on several articles & the talk pages of those are full of PAs from him, mainly him accusing others of British POV pusshing. (The funniest one is on Slick tyre where rather than try to get the article's title changed he keeps changing 'tyre' to 'tire' within the article). His talk page is littered with warnings. He hasn't actually gone over 3RR yet, and I'm involved in one of the articles. Dougweller (talk) 01:35, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Ddave2425
Ddave2425 has persistently tried to alter the content of Paroxetine, despite discussions and warnings not to do so. The user's attempts are based on claims that a singular study supersedes FDA, manufacturer, and ACOG recommendations, largely on the basis that it was conducted more recently than the aforementioned recommendations; in essence, the user insists that a single primary source overturns several secondary sources, violating WP:MEDRS. Furthermore, the study the user cites is related to all SSRIs as a class, of which Paroxetine has a small representation in the sampling. He has been warned several times on his talk page about these revisions [69] [70] [71] [72] [73] [74] [75] [76] [77], which are bordering on edit warring as the user has made the same, persistent edit now without attempt to reconcile his own belief with other reliable secondary sources, nor to adhere to WP:MEDRS. User also seems to be bordering on a single-purpose account as 18 of 35 edits on his behalf (over 50%) regard the Paroxetine article, its talk page, or garnering support for his POV by various means. DKqwerty (talk) 02:30, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
- At this point he/she has not continued to edit war past their most recent warning so I am going to hold off on a block. That said, I am pretty sure they are a sockpuppet and have opened an SPI case here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mwalla. Tiptoety talk 02:54, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
COI
Help needed explaining COI to ACE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.4.145.44 (talk) 11:45, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
- It appears you do need help explaining it to him, since you start by saying "Vanity to the max Dude", and go on to be accusatory, condescending, sarcastic, and vaguely threatening. I'd suggest you step away from the conflict and let others deal with it. – Quadell (talk) 12:20, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
- (For those following along at home, the issue boils down to whether AllStarEcho's edits to Equality Mississippi are appropriate, given that he is the founder. It's become rather personal, probably due to the political issues involved and the recent drama concerning AllStarEcho's block and unblock.) – Quadell (talk) 12:27, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
- Kind of makes me wonder who the IP is, since their 'only' edit is here. Syrthiss (talk) 12:46, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
- For the record, a TrustedSource check shows it is registered out of Keyport, New Jersey. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 12:52, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
- Kind of makes me wonder who the IP is, since their 'only' edit is here. Syrthiss (talk) 12:46, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
- As the editor who raised the COI issue on Allstarecho's talk page, let me state that it is neither personally nor politically motivated. The timing in unfortunate, but I felt it better to deal with the issue now rather than let it lie unacknowledged for any longer. I don't believe any admin action is required here. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:01, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
User:Damiens.rf's conflict with User:Allstarecho becoming disruptive
So User:Damiens.rf doesn't seem to like User:Allstarecho, and it's spilling into a number of forums, and, I believe, becoming terribly disruptive. ASE wrote an article on Equality Mississippi, with potential COI problems as noted above, and Damiens.rf has been attacking that article -- I can't think of a more accurate term -- by adding a ridiculous number of fact tags (despite it already having Refimprove), removing the names of convicted murderers of ASE's friend, spuriously citing BLP, removing several sources because they mention "Mississippi Gay Lobby", not "Equality Mississippi" (despite the fact that the article says "The organization's original name was Mississippi Gay Lobby"), repeatedly removing information on offline sources (therefore making the copied PD text into plagiarism), adding {{pov-statement}} in many places (such as the word "historic" referring to a Supreme Court ruling), and many similar edits. Note that this is entirely tendentious editing; none of his many edits have actually improved the article. His few comments on the talk page have been brief and mainly sarcastic. Yes, there are legitimate COI problems in the article, and the sourcing can indeed be improved, but I don't believe Damiens.rf's edits have been good faith attempts to improve things. I believe they have been disruptive attempts to attack ASE.
Meanwhile, Damiens.rf has nominated Wikipedia:ASE and Wikipedia:ASTAR for deletion, and I am doubtful these were made in good faith. I strongly suspect the uncivil IP edit here and the notice here at ANI were done by Damiens.rf as well. Discussions like this one show Damiens.rf has had problems with stalking before, and has responded dismissively and sarcastically when asked about it. I have had unpleasant interactions with both Damiens.rf and AllStarEcho in the past, so it would be inappropriate for me to use (or threaten to use) admin abilities in this situation, but I wanted to bring the issue here to see what others think. – Quadell (talk) 14:14, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Abuse of Wikipedia:Guidelines
User:Ironholds and User:Tryde repeatedly abused our guidelines because they redirected clearly notable people and stalk me. User:Jazeking baits me again and again.Max Mux (talk) 14:52, 15 June 2009 (UTC)