Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive160

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Noticeboard archives

Contents

Today's Featured Article - Yao Ming[edit]

Resolved

Yao Ming, which is Today's Featured Article was semi-protected for one month on July 19. Right now, it is [edit=autoconfirmed:move=sysop]. Should someone change it to [move=sysop]? Or was there some discussion somewhere that I didn't see? J.delanoygabsadds 00:08, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, two months. I've notified the protecting admin of this question. Chick Bowen 01:19, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Not too sure why this thread was started seeing as this is pretty run of the mill. If you see a article that was previously protected and then was placed on the mainpage (unless there is something in the logs for that day stating it has been temporally protected for some reason) you just set the protection level to [move=syop]. Take a look at the protection log, that will help explain a few things. Cheers, Tiptoety talk 17:10, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits[edit]

Is it possible that someone could update te Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits page. It hasn't been updated since May 23 and there have been a lot of requests for it to be updated. I would do it myself but I am not an admin so I doubt I have the access to do it.--Kumioko (talk) 10:38, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be any admin flag requirement to do this. Stifle (talk) 11:56, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits/How to generate the lists.
OK, after reviewing these instructions this process requires someone with tools (like access to the tools server) that I do not have.--Kumioko (talk) 15:55, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Eh, no. It seems to require Java and a database dump. I'll see if I can set up a run early next week, but I need to go update all my Java stuffs. lifebaka++ 16:21, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Mrg3105[edit]

I have encountered an editor who (having failed to gain consensus, or indeed support, at a move discussion, is now declaring that consensus has nothing to do with editing or naming decisions. Could someone else have a word with him? I've had several tries at it, and do not think further discussion from me will serve any useful purpose. On the other hand, dispute resolution seems excessive for now. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 13:40, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I have reverted his latest message on that discussion page as it was rife with insults and I've left him a warning. ScarianCall me Pat! 14:17, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. However, could somebody also explain to him that WP:NAME and WP:CONSENSUS are both policy and work together? Mrg's refusal to admit this that appears to be the reason for the incivility. Like many of us, he gets uncivil when frustrated. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:29, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh no, Mrg again? Wasn't he at WP:AE or some such just the other day for similar behaviour and narrowly escaped a topic ban or something? Fut.Perf. 14:36, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

He's also under an editing restriction. Leithp 14:40, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Yep, that's actually what I meant, thanks for digging it out. Original discussion was here. He can be banned from individual pages if he is disruptive, and that applies particularly to making exaggerated amounts of fuss over lame naming and article moving discussions. Fut.Perf. 14:43, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

If he fails to respond positively to the warning then we may have to step in and ban him from that article too. *Sighs* - Hopefully he will though. ScarianCall me Pat! 14:49, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, to be fair, he hasn't been editing the article; he's just been discussing the move interminably (to my mind unreasonably). The editing restriction could stand being rephrased to include talk space; it's clear from the discussion that that was intended, but it's not stated. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:33, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

CSD Refusal[edit]

NawlinWiki rejected my proposal for the speedy deletion of Société_à_responsabilité_limitée. Sadly his/her talk page is semi-protected, and so I am unable to talk to him about it. This page appears to be a direct translation from the French version of the article (CSD A2). However, it was rejected without entering into any discussion on the talk page. The CSD article clearly states that articles that are translations from foreign language WIKIs are to be deleted. The edit history shows that all this content appeared in one edit, showing evidence of a translation. So I am disappointed that NawlinWiki rejected the proposal so out of hand. Explanation please. --Spaceinput120 (talk) 15:50, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

You have misunderstood the criteria. WP:CSD#A2 is for articles written in a language other than English but created on en.wikipedia. The article in question may, however, require attribution to fr.wiki. CIreland (talk) 15:58, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict) First, the topic is highly notable and second, the article would only be a CSD if it was still in a foreign language and had been copied to en.Wikipedia as such. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:00, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Jim Jones/People's Temple editing on Harvey Milk (again)[edit]

Mosedschurte (talk · contribs) is again edit warring to insert content on Harvey Milk, consensus, discounting SPA's, was pretty clear that additional content about Jim Jones/ People's Temple was undue. During the last ANI thread Wikidemo boldly started Political Alliances of the People's Temple which now has become a repository for similar sections from other articles. I've looked into only the Milk content but that section itself seems somewhat cherry-picked (to quote another editor who looked at this). Per advice from ScienceApologist I posted to WP:NPOV Noticeboard, although that board seems less active. I feel the content as it was on the Harvey Milk article, (last protected version), was fine, neutral and RS'd. As soon as the article came off full-protection Mosedschurte reinserted a new-and-improved section that again violates exacted what has been pointed out over the past 2.5 months. I reverted twice already but it's now back in. I'm sick of this and am taking a break. If someone else would look at this I would appreciate it. Banjeboi 17:38, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I've tried to be a neutral third party in this. While I generally support Benjiboi's views, and think he is an excellent editor, I think he is as culpable as Mosedschurte in the edit warring on Harvey Milk. While I believe that the consensus on the talk page agreed that having a huge section on the People's Temple issue was undue weight, it was at one point reduced to a well-sourced three sentence sub-section of the "Public office" section of the article, and really, I don't see how anyone could object to that. As reluctant as I am to say, it seems to be that Benjiboi has consistently tried to sanitize the article and eliminate any mention (except the most general and vague) of the relationship between Milk and Jim Jones/People's Temple, which, for better or worse, is very well documented and was widely noted and discussed in the media at the time and later. Harvey Milk was indeed a great man, and one of my heroes, but it does no service to his memory to try to suppress notable, documented, widely-discussed, historical facts about his political life from his Wikipedia article.
The article was protected (not by me) in an attempt to end the edit war; I had hoped that would work, but the back-and-forth appears to continue. A good compromise was the three-sentence subsection, which I think everyone can live with, and is certainly unassailably sourced. I propose to revert to that version, and hope that both Benjiboi and Mosedschurte, and others, will accept that as a good encyclopedic solution, and move on. --MCB (talk) 18:05, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
MCB, you are mischaracterizing this; I wrote those "well-sourced three sentences" and support its inclusion. I have never suggested that content about Jones/People's Temple be scrubbed, not even close. I am opposed to an undue separate section which implies this was a big chapter in Milk's life/career. This is what the RfC was addressing - was an entire section undue? Minus the SPA comments there was no consensus to keep it. There wasn't much, if any "relationship" between Milk and Jones, I support exactly what you and other editors have stated is the way to go - three NPOV sentences in context. This is Milk's bio not anyone else's. 71.139.38.121 (talk) 02:44, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
There is some simple confusion between the sections and events I can clear up here. I don't think MCB is referring to your three sentences on Jones supporting Milk in 1975. He's referrnig to the three well sourced sentences in the "Peoples Temple investigation" section.
Your three sentences were of Jones support of Milk in the 1975 election. That's a separate matter from Milk's support of Jones during the investigation and attack of the leader of the Concerned Relatives. The latter was in the :Peoples Temple investigation" section.
Incidentally, the three sentences earlier on the Jones support of Milk in 1975 have also been entirely deleted. Mosedschurte (talk) 03:28, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Correct, I was talking about the three sentences in a sub-section called "Peoples Temple investigation", regarding events in 1978, not the 1975 election (which should also be mentioned in a sentence or two, in passing). --MCB (talk) 04:32, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

First, someone else told me about this thread. I was given no notice at all someone had started some Administrator's notice thread naming me. I'd have never known this was started about me. It is in response to a section of the Harvey Milk article that Benjiboi began repeatedly deleting in its entirety weeks ago.

Second, as MCB stated, most editors had agreed that a 3 sentence (actually a bit larger then) section on the Milk's support for the Peoples Temple during the investigations should NOT be deleted. In fact, these comments were mostly in response to an Rfc started by Benjiboi himself after repeatedly deleting every single mention of Milk's support for Jones or the Peoples Temple from the article.. Here were some comments:

Third, if I can step back for a moment, I understand the repulsion by some to any inclusion of support for Jones or attacking the Concerned Relatives, though it is clearly sourced and NPOV phrased. Jim Jones was one of the most notorious figures in American history and Jonestown was the largest American civilian loss of life in a non-natural disaster until 9-11 came around. I won't requote Bejiboi's text, but much of it appeared to be concerned with Milk's character and negative implications one could draw from support for Jones and the Temple. However, keep in mind that it is entirely factually correct, properly sourced, phrased in the most neutral manner possible at this point and VERY TINY section of the overall article. Absolutely no implication could be made that Milk wanted anyone to die.

Fourth, I have REPEATEDLY edited even the short section of the article in response to Benjiboi's comments. Every time,, he simply wholesale deleted the entire section, when it was 7 sentences, 3 sentences and now just 1 sentence.

Fifth, after frankly being tired of resisting the deletions of every word every time, it was reduced to ONE SINGLE SENTENCE. However, Benjiboi even deleted this one sentence, claiming even this sentence's inclusion amounted to "Undue Weight."

I apologize for the long post, but I felt I had to respond as this thread was started about me. I encourage anyone interested to examine the Milk Talk Page and/or Milk Edit History. Incidentally, with Wikidemo's starting of a new PT political alliances page, I have no problem with including the details of support for Jones and the PT there as simply a practical matter of not having to fight some edit war. However, this obviously does not mean that the mere mention of support for Jones and attacking the Concerned Relatives should be scoured from the articles in their entirety. This was the point of the one sentence summary and link to the other article. Mosedschurte (talk) 03:22, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Mosedschurte keeps inserting POV content and seems incapable of adhering to policy and writing this material neutrally. For instance, Milk wrote a letter of support is neutral - "supported the controversial Peoples Temple during investigations of criminal wrongdoings" is not. It misinterprets this letter which this entire content fork relies upon. 71.139.44.169 (talk) 18:02, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
The above editor has made all of two edits to the project both disagreeing with Mosedschurte. --70.109.223.188 (talk) 18:50, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Could I please get some help or at least some impartial advice on this? I again tried to neutralize this content; it doesn't merit it's own section, it's no big deal a politician spoke at a political rally and Mosedschurte is misrepresenting what this primary source is about and cherry-picks information seemingly in an effort to post-humously scandalize the subject of this bio. They've simply reinstalled the same content again.[1] They have also inserted the same content on other articles like Jonestown. In an effort to clean up the 75k of discussion devoted to this user/issue from six down to one I archived the oldest threads, most of them stale and no longer relevant. Mosedschurte simply reverts again.[2] I explain archive and explain why I did what I did[3] and they again simply revert.[4]

I remain unconvinced that this editor is willing to remain civil and neutral and would appreciate some eyes on this. Banjeboi 00:41, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Confirmed sockpuppet[edit]

As per User:Alison's (the checkuser) suggestion, I'm asking an uninvolved administrator to review the results of this checkuser and take an admin action (if needed). Considering the user's disruptive sockpuppeting, which started in January and is still ongoing (edit warring on Maria Sharapova, threats to the checkuser etc), I think an indef block for the sockpuppet account may be appropriate. Cheers. BanRay 10:03, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Also see comments here and here, as well as Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Musiclover565 for further background - Alison 10:08, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Looking into it now. Neıl 10:29, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Okay, as best I can tell, Musiclover565 (talk · contribs) (the "sockmaster" account) has not edited since February 2008. I'm not seeing any evidence of abusive socking here - either there hasn't been any, or the evidence has not been provided. A couple of IP edits which could (WP:AGF) have been made whilst inadvertently logged out, but no proven multiple accounts. Where is this threat to the checkuser? Is there a diff?
Edit-warring, yes, but nothing that breaches 3RR, and I can't justifiably block Whitenoise123 (talk · contribs) (the "sock") for edits which I agree with myself. The Sharapova article really did go into a disproportionate amount of detail on her 2008 season than all previous seasons. If I have missed something, feel free to let me know. Neıl 10:40, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Folks, can we have more eyes on this, please? Since the above commentary by Neil, User:Whitenoise123 has been indefblocked while the master account has been left unblocked, per the checkuser clerk. There are clearly some issues regarding the solution to this problem. Note that Whitenoise123 has taken issue with the checkuser case and is intent on making a complaint. This should be viewed impartially and not as "threats to the checkuser", as stated above; they may have genuine grievances. I'm involved so I'm standing clear on any judgement. They have requested unblock once already and have been declined. They are now requesting unblock again. At this point, I'd like to see some more folks review the matter and come to some consensus here. Thanks - Alison 00:49, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
His unblock requests is so weaselly, I don't know why we shouldn't block the master account indef as well. Clearly this sort of user should not be permitted alternate accounts, under whatever interpretation they may have. MBisanz talk 00:54, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
After looking this over I've declined the 2nd request. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:20, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

no consensus at AfD?[edit]

If I'm in the wrong place to ask this than please forgive me and transfer the discussion to the appropriate place. I'm looking for administrator input on what exactly constitutes "no consensus" in AfD. I've recently been involved in two AfDs which were closed as "no consensus" and cannot help but, be confused. For openness I was on the delete side in both (and the nom in one of them). In neither case did the keep side discuss the policies and guidelines of the project (as far as I could tell). I'm under the impression that "no consensus" is meant to be used where both sides discuss the merits and/or lack there of from a policy and guideline standpoint but, consensus is not reached through that process. Is this wrong in someway? I can't seem to find the information at the deletion guides (though I may have simply overlooked it). I can reveal the actual discussions if you guys/girls feel they are needed but, don't want to use this noticeboard as a way "around" deletion review or other process. Thanks. Jasynnash2 (talk) 13:24, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

You'd have to specify which deletions to get really useful feedback. The closing admins should weigh the arguments on both sides; presumably they have. You might ask them what keep arguments they felt had weight; if that doesn't satisfy you, DRV is always an option. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 13:40, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm in the process of asking the specific admins but, am really wondering where the policy/guideline on "no consensus" is and/or what it says. My understanding of DRV is that is for process review and such and I don't feel I can go there unless I know what the process is meant to be in the first place. I also think the admin's in both cases had the best of intentions and don't want to make it about them (if that makes any sense). Jasynnash2 (talk) 13:55, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
The status of arguments is at WP:Deletion policy#Deletion discussions; the nature of consensus at WP:CONSENSUS. WP:ATA is an essay, but widely respected. I must assume that the admins found more force in the keep arguments than you do. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:13, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
So there isn't a policy/guideline specific to admins which helps in these cases? Only the general ones you link to above? Is DRV just for policy/process errors? Jasynnash2 (talk) 14:17, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
What AFDs are you referring to, for context? Neıl 14:21, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't know any more specific pages; admins don't have a namespace of their own.
  • DRV is for policy/process errors, but misreading the balance of argument is a process error. (Uninvolved editors are less likely to feel that any individual case is a misreading, so such requests are often denied; it is also civil to tell the admins you have appealled to DRV.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:25, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) this is one. I figured giving it a rest for a couple of months with a clear-cut directive to improve refs was the most time-effective way to go rather than continuing. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:37, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

  • this is the other one. I'm still awaiting a response from the admin on this one. As stated above I didn't want to make my basic question about the specific articles or admins but, since people more experienced than I think it is important. Like I siad I don't want to make this into a replacement for DRV or other places so please don't let others do that with this question. Thanks. Jasynnash2 (talk) 14:52, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
    • It depends on what the Keep arguments actually were; as it happens, I would have !voted to keep one and delete the other.
  • On Casliber's close, the keep votes claimed notability, which is certainly an appeal to policy; he could have chosen to look behind them to see if there was more here than a resume, but we can also get back to the issue in a couple of months.
  • On King of Heart's close, one issue is whether we need an article on every Wikipedia. The fact that we don't have one, and have actually deleted some, was not brought out till half-way through; if it had been, a consensus might have emerged. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:43, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
This is going to sound bad probably but, that is exactly what I didn't want this section to turn into. It's why I was asking about general policy and guidelines. I don't want this to turn into an actual DRV discussion of the particular articles. Jasynnash2 (talk) 15:58, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Then let me summmarize. The admins clearly chose not to discount the keep arguments entirely. This was a judgment call, defensible in both cases; other admins might have chosen differently, and that would have been defensible too. Once that's done, our vague definition of consensus comes in. We can have consensus despite one or two objections (it depends on how many the supports are, and how reasonable); but not this many. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:21, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
There's an essay at WP:NOCONSENSUS, but I don't know how helpful it'll be. And I think the DRV part is wrong, usually no consensus there results in endorsing. Cheers. lifebaka++ 02:29, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
yes,at present DRV usually endorses a no-consensus close and just suggests another AfD in a few months--it doesn't prejudice matters and provides a chance to see if consensus has changed, or for other similar articles to be discussed. Seems just like common sense to me. To keep says "we agreed!" when others say we didn't, is a little pointless most of the time. I'd strongly encourage the use of such closes when the situation remains in doubt. DGG (talk) 04:10, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Fclass again[edit]

I'd like input on this chat I had with indef blocked User:Fclass. Thanks. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:26, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I always find it odd when people insist they have to be unblocked NOW. He says he's willing to follow the rules and regulations. Part of our regulations are that consensus is king. The consensus in the previous discussion decided that no action would be taken until August 20 at the earliest. If he wants to show he's willing to abide by our policies, he should be willing to wait until then. Consensus can change, yes, but continually pestering people isn't going to get the change he's looking for. As you told him yourself back in July, he's not helping himself with this. If he wants to be unblocked, he needs to show some self-control that hasn't been witnessed yet. Hersfold (t/a/c) 20:29, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Agree with Hersfold here, impatience shows immaturity, and immaturity usually causes problems. He was already advised that only time will decide his fate and yet here he is not much longer. Tiptoety talk 20:33, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Not yet, and now I have doubts about August 20th. It's a Zen[1] thing; he should remain blocked until he is no longer desperate to be unblocked; once it is no longer vital to him, then it's safe to unblock. --barneca (talk) 20:41, 8 August 2008 (UTC) [1] Probably should note that I don't actually know anything about Zen Buddhism, so it's quite possible it isn't a Zen thing at all; it might be irony or something, although that's a tricky concept too.

Nedra Pickler[edit]

Resolved

Could an admin please let me know who edited the Nedra Pickler before it was deleted for the reason CSD G10. Thanks. CENSEI (talk) 20:17, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Why do you need to know? That page was deleted back in 2006. Hersfold (t/a/c) 20:21, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
If the same user was responsible for the mess both times, someone should say soemthing to them. CENSEI (talk) 21:37, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
The person who created the original Nedra Pickler article, the one deleted as a G10, has not edited the new one. The old article was extremely short, only five lines, and it really *was* an attack page. The current one is much more balanced. If you are still concerned about the current article's neutrality, you could raise the matter on the article's Talk page. You could also open a complaint at WP:BLP/N if you think the article violates our rules on Biographies of Living Persons. EdJohnston (talk) 22:39, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Will do, thanks. CENSEI (talk) 23:14, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

John Edwards, AFD, and you[edit]

Loathe though I am to short-circuit normal processes, I note that John Edwards appears to have confirmed the allegations currently discussed at John Edwards extramarital affair, currently under AFD at its former title of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Edwards paternity allegations. Given that confirmation, given in an ABC interview (certainly a Reliable Source), and given that the deletion rationale was based largely on the dearth of confrimation and reliable sourcing, I'm wondering if a procedural close would be appropriate. I note that this article will be getting a lot of traffic shortly, if it is not already, and will be seeing a lot of edits adding confirmed and reliable information - and, of course, some of the usual "cocksdickslol". Thoughts? I add, as a caveat, that I recommended strong keep once the news broke, and did not comment before - though I added the AFD to the society category. Thanks, UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 21:05, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Seems like closing is the sensible thing to do, with the proviso that it could be relisted without prejudice if there is a valid reason to do so. I have no time at the moment myself, though. Sorry. Thatcher 21:08, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Closed. Keeper ǀ 76 21:15, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I absolutely agree that it should be re-nominated if it ends up being the BLP nigthmare it could be. But it's impossible to have reasonable debate if the facts of the matter are changing so rapidly. One could argue, though, that it's impossible to have a reasonable debate where politics are involved, but there you go. Thanks for the quick responses, all. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 22:14, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Jim Jones/People's Temple editing on Harvey Milk (again)[edit]

Mosedschurte (talk · contribs) is again edit warring to insert content on Harvey Milk, consensus, discounting SPA's, was pretty clear that additional content about Jim Jones/ People's Temple was undue. During the last ANI thread Wikidemo boldly started Political Alliances of the People's Temple which now has become a repository for similar sections from other articles. I've looked into only the Milk content but that section itself seems somewhat cherry-picked (to quote another editor who looked at this). Per advice from ScienceApologist I posted to WP:NPOV Noticeboard, although that board seems less active. I feel the content as it was on the Harvey Milk article, (last protected version), was fine, neutral and RS'd. As soon as the article came off full-protection Mosedschurte reinserted a new-and-improved section that again violates exacted what has been pointed out over the past 2.5 months. I reverted twice already but it's now back in. I'm sick of this and am taking a break. If someone else would look at this I would appreciate it. Banjeboi 17:38, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I've tried to be a neutral third party in this. While I generally support Benjiboi's views, and think he is an excellent editor, I think he is as culpable as Mosedschurte in the edit warring on Harvey Milk. While I believe that the consensus on the talk page agreed that having a huge section on the People's Temple issue was undue weight, it was at one point reduced to a well-sourced three sentence sub-section of the "Public office" section of the article, and really, I don't see how anyone could object to that. As reluctant as I am to say, it seems to be that Benjiboi has consistently tried to sanitize the article and eliminate any mention (except the most general and vague) of the relationship between Milk and Jim Jones/People's Temple, which, for better or worse, is very well documented and was widely noted and discussed in the media at the time and later. Harvey Milk was indeed a great man, and one of my heroes, but it does no service to his memory to try to suppress notable, documented, widely-discussed, historical facts about his political life from his Wikipedia article.
The article was protected (not by me) in an attempt to end the edit war; I had hoped that would work, but the back-and-forth appears to continue. A good compromise was the three-sentence subsection, which I think everyone can live with, and is certainly unassailably sourced. I propose to revert to that version, and hope that both Benjiboi and Mosedschurte, and others, will accept that as a good encyclopedic solution, and move on. --MCB (talk) 18:05, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
MCB, you are mischaracterizing this; I wrote those "well-sourced three sentences" and support its inclusion. I have never suggested that content about Jones/People's Temple be scrubbed, not even close. I am opposed to an undue separate section which implies this was a big chapter in Milk's life/career. This is what the RfC was addressing - was an entire section undue? Minus the SPA comments there was no consensus to keep it. There wasn't much, if any "relationship" between Milk and Jones, I support exactly what you and other editors have stated is the way to go - three NPOV sentences in context. This is Milk's bio not anyone else's. 71.139.38.121 (talk) 02:44, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
There is some simple confusion between the sections and events I can clear up here. I don't think MCB is referring to your three sentences on Jones supporting Milk in 1975. He's referrnig to the three well sourced sentences in the "Peoples Temple investigation" section.
Your three sentences were of Jones support of Milk in the 1975 election. That's a separate matter from Milk's support of Jones during the investigation and attack of the leader of the Concerned Relatives. The latter was in the :Peoples Temple investigation" section.
Incidentally, the three sentences earlier on the Jones support of Milk in 1975 have also been entirely deleted. Mosedschurte (talk) 03:28, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Correct, I was talking about the three sentences in a sub-section called "Peoples Temple investigation", regarding events in 1978, not the 1975 election (which should also be mentioned in a sentence or two, in passing). --MCB (talk) 04:32, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

First, someone else told me about this thread. I was given no notice at all someone had started some Administrator's notice thread naming me. I'd have never known this was started about me. It is in response to a section of the Harvey Milk article that Benjiboi began repeatedly deleting in its entirety weeks ago.

Second, as MCB stated, most editors had agreed that a 3 sentence (actually a bit larger then) section on the Milk's support for the Peoples Temple during the investigations should NOT be deleted. In fact, these comments were mostly in response to an Rfc started by Benjiboi himself after repeatedly deleting every single mention of Milk's support for Jones or the Peoples Temple from the article.. Here were some comments:

Third, if I can step back for a moment, I understand the repulsion by some to any inclusion of support for Jones or attacking the Concerned Relatives, though it is clearly sourced and NPOV phrased. Jim Jones was one of the most notorious figures in American history and Jonestown was the largest American civilian loss of life in a non-natural disaster until 9-11 came around. I won't requote Bejiboi's text, but much of it appeared to be concerned with Milk's character and negative implications one could draw from support for Jones and the Temple. However, keep in mind that it is entirely factually correct, properly sourced, phrased in the most neutral manner possible at this point and VERY TINY section of the overall article. Absolutely no implication could be made that Milk wanted anyone to die.

Fourth, I have REPEATEDLY edited even the short section of the article in response to Benjiboi's comments. Every time,, he simply wholesale deleted the entire section, when it was 7 sentences, 3 sentences and now just 1 sentence.

Fifth, after frankly being tired of resisting the deletions of every word every time, it was reduced to ONE SINGLE SENTENCE. However, Benjiboi even deleted this one sentence, claiming even this sentence's inclusion amounted to "Undue Weight."

I apologize for the long post, but I felt I had to respond as this thread was started about me. I encourage anyone interested to examine the Milk Talk Page and/or Milk Edit History. Incidentally, with Wikidemo's starting of a new PT political alliances page, I have no problem with including the details of support for Jones and the PT there as simply a practical matter of not having to fight some edit war. However, this obviously does not mean that the mere mention of support for Jones and attacking the Concerned Relatives should be scoured from the articles in their entirety. This was the point of the one sentence summary and link to the other article. Mosedschurte (talk) 03:22, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Mosedschurte keeps inserting POV content and seems incapable of adhering to policy and writing this material neutrally. For instance, Milk wrote a letter of support is neutral - "supported the controversial Peoples Temple during investigations of criminal wrongdoings" is not. It misinterprets this letter which this entire content fork relies upon. 71.139.44.169 (talk) 18:02, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
The above editor has made all of two edits to the project both disagreeing with Mosedschurte. --70.109.223.188 (talk) 18:50, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Could I please get some help or at least some impartial advice on this? I again tried to neutralize this content; it doesn't merit it's own section, it's no big deal a politician spoke at a political rally and Mosedschurte is misrepresenting what this primary source is about and cherry-picks information seemingly in an effort to post-humously scandalize the subject of this bio. They've simply reinstalled the same content again.[5] They have also inserted the same content on other articles like Jonestown. In an effort to clean up the 75k of discussion devoted to this user/issue from six down to one I archived the oldest threads, most of them stale and no longer relevant. Mosedschurte simply reverts again.[6] I explain archive and explain why I did what I did[7] and they again simply revert.[8]

I remain unconvinced that this editor is willing to remain civil and neutral and would appreciate some eyes on this. Banjeboi 00:41, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Confirmed sockpuppet[edit]

As per User:Alison's (the checkuser) suggestion, I'm asking an uninvolved administrator to review the results of this checkuser and take an admin action (if needed). Considering the user's disruptive sockpuppeting, which started in January and is still ongoing (edit warring on Maria Sharapova, threats to the checkuser etc), I think an indef block for the sockpuppet account may be appropriate. Cheers. BanRay 10:03, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Also see comments here and here, as well as Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Musiclover565 for further background - Alison 10:08, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Looking into it now. Neıl 10:29, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Okay, as best I can tell, Musiclover565 (talk · contribs) (the "sockmaster" account) has not edited since February 2008. I'm not seeing any evidence of abusive socking here - either there hasn't been any, or the evidence has not been provided. A couple of IP edits which could (WP:AGF) have been made whilst inadvertently logged out, but no proven multiple accounts. Where is this threat to the checkuser? Is there a diff?
Edit-warring, yes, but nothing that breaches 3RR, and I can't justifiably block Whitenoise123 (talk · contribs) (the "sock") for edits which I agree with myself. The Sharapova article really did go into a disproportionate amount of detail on her 2008 season than all previous seasons. If I have missed something, feel free to let me know. Neıl 10:40, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Folks, can we have more eyes on this, please? Since the above commentary by Neil, User:Whitenoise123 has been indefblocked while the master account has been left unblocked, per the checkuser clerk. There are clearly some issues regarding the solution to this problem. Note that Whitenoise123 has taken issue with the checkuser case and is intent on making a complaint. This should be viewed impartially and not as "threats to the checkuser", as stated above; they may have genuine grievances. I'm involved so I'm standing clear on any judgement. They have requested unblock once already and have been declined. They are now requesting unblock again. At this point, I'd like to see some more folks review the matter and come to some consensus here. Thanks - Alison 00:49, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
His unblock requests is so weaselly, I don't know why we shouldn't block the master account indef as well. Clearly this sort of user should not be permitted alternate accounts, under whatever interpretation they may have. MBisanz talk 00:54, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
After looking this over I've declined the 2nd request. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:20, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

no consensus at AfD?[edit]

If I'm in the wrong place to ask this than please forgive me and transfer the discussion to the appropriate place. I'm looking for administrator input on what exactly constitutes "no consensus" in AfD. I've recently been involved in two AfDs which were closed as "no consensus" and cannot help but, be confused. For openness I was on the delete side in both (and the nom in one of them). In neither case did the keep side discuss the policies and guidelines of the project (as far as I could tell). I'm under the impression that "no consensus" is meant to be used where both sides discuss the merits and/or lack there of from a policy and guideline standpoint but, consensus is not reached through that process. Is this wrong in someway? I can't seem to find the information at the deletion guides (though I may have simply overlooked it). I can reveal the actual discussions if you guys/girls feel they are needed but, don't want to use this noticeboard as a way "around" deletion review or other process. Thanks. Jasynnash2 (talk) 13:24, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

You'd have to specify which deletions to get really useful feedback. The closing admins should weigh the arguments on both sides; presumably they have. You might ask them what keep arguments they felt had weight; if that doesn't satisfy you, DRV is always an option. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 13:40, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm in the process of asking the specific admins but, am really wondering where the policy/guideline on "no consensus" is and/or what it says. My understanding of DRV is that is for process review and such and I don't feel I can go there unless I know what the process is meant to be in the first place. I also think the admin's in both cases had the best of intentions and don't want to make it about them (if that makes any sense). Jasynnash2 (talk) 13:55, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
The status of arguments is at WP:Deletion policy#Deletion discussions; the nature of consensus at WP:CONSENSUS. WP:ATA is an essay, but widely respected. I must assume that the admins found more force in the keep arguments than you do. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:13, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
So there isn't a policy/guideline specific to admins which helps in these cases? Only the general ones you link to above? Is DRV just for policy/process errors? Jasynnash2 (talk) 14:17, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
What AFDs are you referring to, for context? Neıl 14:21, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't know any more specific pages; admins don't have a namespace of their own.
  • DRV is for policy/process errors, but misreading the balance of argument is a process error. (Uninvolved editors are less likely to feel that any individual case is a misreading, so such requests are often denied; it is also civil to tell the admins you have appealled to DRV.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:25, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) this is one. I figured giving it a rest for a couple of months with a clear-cut directive to improve refs was the most time-effective way to go rather than continuing. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:37, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

  • this is the other one. I'm still awaiting a response from the admin on this one. As stated above I didn't want to make my basic question about the specific articles or admins but, since people more experienced than I think it is important. Like I siad I don't want to make this into a replacement for DRV or other places so please don't let others do that with this question. Thanks. Jasynnash2 (talk) 14:52, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
    • It depends on what the Keep arguments actually were; as it happens, I would have !voted to keep one and delete the other.
  • On Casliber's close, the keep votes claimed notability, which is certainly an appeal to policy; he could have chosen to look behind them to see if there was more here than a resume, but we can also get back to the issue in a couple of months.
  • On King of Heart's close, one issue is whether we need an article on every Wikipedia. The fact that we don't have one, and have actually deleted some, was not brought out till half-way through; if it had been, a consensus might have emerged. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:43, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
This is going to sound bad probably but, that is exactly what I didn't want this section to turn into. It's why I was asking about general policy and guidelines. I don't want this to turn into an actual DRV discussion of the particular articles. Jasynnash2 (talk) 15:58, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Then let me summmarize. The admins clearly chose not to discount the keep arguments entirely. This was a judgment call, defensible in both cases; other admins might have chosen differently, and that would have been defensible too. Once that's done, our vague definition of consensus comes in. We can have consensus despite one or two objections (it depends on how many the supports are, and how reasonable); but not this many. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:21, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
There's an essay at WP:NOCONSENSUS, but I don't know how helpful it'll be. And I think the DRV part is wrong, usually no consensus there results in endorsing. Cheers. lifebaka++ 02:29, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
yes,at present DRV usually endorses a no-consensus close and just suggests another AfD in a few months--it doesn't prejudice matters and provides a chance to see if consensus has changed, or for other similar articles to be discussed. Seems just like common sense to me. To keep says "we agreed!" when others say we didn't, is a little pointless most of the time. I'd strongly encourage the use of such closes when the situation remains in doubt. DGG (talk) 04:10, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Fclass again[edit]

I'd like input on this chat I had with indef blocked User:Fclass. Thanks. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:26, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I always find it odd when people insist they have to be unblocked NOW. He says he's willing to follow the rules and regulations. Part of our regulations are that consensus is king. The consensus in the previous discussion decided that no action would be taken until August 20 at the earliest. If he wants to show he's willing to abide by our policies, he should be willing to wait until then. Consensus can change, yes, but continually pestering people isn't going to get the change he's looking for. As you told him yourself back in July, he's not helping himself with this. If he wants to be unblocked, he needs to show some self-control that hasn't been witnessed yet. Hersfold (t/a/c) 20:29, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Agree with Hersfold here, impatience shows immaturity, and immaturity usually causes problems. He was already advised that only time will decide his fate and yet here he is not much longer. Tiptoety talk 20:33, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Not yet, and now I have doubts about August 20th. It's a Zen[1] thing; he should remain blocked until he is no longer desperate to be unblocked; once it is no longer vital to him, then it's safe to unblock. --barneca (talk) 20:41, 8 August 2008 (UTC) [1] Probably should note that I don't actually know anything about Zen Buddhism, so it's quite possible it isn't a Zen thing at all; it might be irony or something, although that's a tricky concept too.

Nedra Pickler[edit]

Resolved

Could an admin please let me know who edited the Nedra Pickler before it was deleted for the reason CSD G10. Thanks. CENSEI (talk) 20:17, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Why do you need to know? That page was deleted back in 2006. Hersfold (t/a/c) 20:21, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
If the same user was responsible for the mess both times, someone should say soemthing to them. CENSEI (talk) 21:37, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
The person who created the original Nedra Pickler article, the one deleted as a G10, has not edited the new one. The old article was extremely short, only five lines, and it really *was* an attack page. The current one is much more balanced. If you are still concerned about the current article's neutrality, you could raise the matter on the article's Talk page. You could also open a complaint at WP:BLP/N if you think the article violates our rules on Biographies of Living Persons. EdJohnston (talk) 22:39, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Will do, thanks. CENSEI (talk) 23:14, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

John Edwards, AFD, and you[edit]

Loathe though I am to short-circuit normal processes, I note that John Edwards appears to have confirmed the allegations currently discussed at John Edwards extramarital affair, currently under AFD at its former title of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Edwards paternity allegations. Given that confirmation, given in an ABC interview (certainly a Reliable Source), and given that the deletion rationale was based largely on the dearth of confrimation and reliable sourcing, I'm wondering if a procedural close would be appropriate. I note that this article will be getting a lot of traffic shortly, if it is not already, and will be seeing a lot of edits adding confirmed and reliable information - and, of course, some of the usual "cocksdickslol". Thoughts? I add, as a caveat, that I recommended strong keep once the news broke, and did not comment before - though I added the AFD to the society category. Thanks, UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 21:05, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Seems like closing is the sensible thing to do, with the proviso that it could be relisted without prejudice if there is a valid reason to do so. I have no time at the moment myself, though. Sorry. Thatcher 21:08, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Closed. Keeper ǀ 76 21:15, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I absolutely agree that it should be re-nominated if it ends up being the BLP nigthmare it could be. But it's impossible to have reasonable debate if the facts of the matter are changing so rapidly. One could argue, though, that it's impossible to have a reasonable debate where politics are involved, but there you go. Thanks for the quick responses, all. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 22:14, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Padillo[edit]

This user, which was brought up at the WP:PW talk page appears to have a chronic problem with copyright images under GFDL licenses. His talk page looked like this before he blanked it. Despite all of this he has continued to upload many many questionable images under GFDL such as Image:Wwfedge&christian.jpg (which I recall seeing in a news article for The Sun several years back) and Image:Wedding22.jpg (promo image). Some of his images, such as Image:Mercuryandnitro.jpg have been moved to commons but given the incredible amount of blatant image violations should a purge be necessary and the user blocked? –– Lid(Talk) 23:26, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Since the user was warned several times, but did not pay attention to the warnings, I think a last warning should be given to the user that if he upload any more image like those he previously uploaded, his account will be blocked indefinitely. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 11:21, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
And what about the images currently uploaded? Considering there is absolutely no way to tell which have been uploaded correctly, and some which blatantly are not correct, should all his image uploads simply be deleted outright? –– Lid(Talk) 13:45, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Tracked down where I had seen Image:Wwfedge&christian.jpg before - on this article here. –– Lid(Talk) 13:55, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, Image:Dlsjbc gate.jpg has no information about copyright. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 14:18, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Deacon of Pndapetzim[edit]

Recently appointed admin who barely squeaked by his RfA is editing abusively again. He keeps reverting List of Roman Catholic dioceses in Great Britain without discussing his reversions, over and over again. I have continually asked him to explain his actions on the talk page, and he has declined. Previously, he speedy deleted the page without discussing it with the other editors, which was later restored. He insists the category should be turned into a disambig because in his words "Great Britain does not exist".

As you can see from my talk page, talk he has harassed me previously, accusing me of being a meatpuppet, among other things. I was willing to give him the doubt provided he shaped up. He has reverted to his old pattern of reverting and refusing to discuss reverts on the talk page. I would like to request that he be put under admin review for reverting without discussing his reverts against the consensus. This is absolutely unacceptable behaviour for an administrator on wikipedia. Benkenobi18 (talk) 02:50, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Dearie me ... welcome back to the crazed world of wiki! Since he has posted here, yes, can someone please sort this guy out. Puts me off coming to wikipedia when I know I have to waste my limited wikitime with this kind of tendentious nonsense. Most of the above is, as one would expect, fiction, and I have already had this argument with him many times. Essentially, the Catholic church in the British Isles is organized into 1) England and Wales, 2) Ireland and 3) Scotland, based on late medieval/early modern political boundaries and ignoring the boundaries of the modern United Kingdom. Ben created the article List of Roman Catholic dioceses in Great Britain (as well as a bunch of duplicate templates and categories) duplicating the previous wikipedia articles, for no good reason. Great Britain is neither a political entity nor an administrative sub-division of the Roman Catholic church. I've pointed this out to him already, but his only response was to tell me to wait for consensus while he forumshopped users and admins who largely ignored him or agreed with me. Maybe it's something ideological for him, who knows. His usual approach is to turn up every 5-10 tens, revert, and every other time subsequently leave a message to me ordering me not to revert him. Great big yawn. And incidentally I've never deleted any of his pages, though I have successfully nominated some for speedy (which is what he means by "he speedy deleted the page without discussing it with the other editors"). Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 03:33, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
"Ben created the article List of Roman Catholic dioceses in Great Britain (as well as a bunch of duplicate templates and categories) duplicating the previous wikipedia articles."

-Every single category in the Catholic dioceses has a list associated with it, including the Category of Great Britain. Why don't you nominate the article for A:FD again if you hate it so much? List of Roman Catholic dioceses in Balkanic Europe, List of Roman Catholic Dioceses in the Caribbean. These are all lists to help categorise the 3000 Catholic diocese articles. Why do you just want to disambig Great Britain, and not deal with the others?

"but his only response was to tell me to wait for consensus while he forumshopped users and admins who largely ignored him or agreed with me."

-So why is an adminstrator calling other users a meatpuppet without grounds for the accusation? I requested an admin who was uninvolved to assist, who was recommended from another editor. How is that forumshopping?

"And incidentally I've never deleted any of his pages, though I have successfully nominated some for speedy (which is what he means by "he speedy deleted the page without discussing it with the other editors")."

-As you can see he did it twice. It was restored, and rather then discussing the page, he speedied again, after I had argued for it's inclusion. It's all on my talk page. Again, if you want to delete it go ahead and nominate it again.Benkenobi18 (talk) 03:43, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

  • This is a content dispute, and it seems that it should be resolved at this point, since you indicated here that you would abide by the decision of any uninvolved admin, and the admin whose opinion you sought has now given his opinion. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:04, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
No, it's not a content dispute. I want Deacon to post on the talk pages when he reverts, rather then just reverting at will. He's an admin, and should behave according to WP policy. He's reverted again without discussion. Benkenobi18 (talk) 02:38, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Main Page[edit]

Resolved: seems to be fixed Papa November (talk) 11:13, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Seems like someone broke it. Now it displays "<pagetitle-view-mainpage>" OhanaUnitedTalk page 23:38, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Works for me. --MZMcBride (talk) 00:14, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Same, everything appears to be in order. Tiptoety talk 00:24, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Ok, now it doesn't say "Main Page" anymore in the header. But now it says "Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia". Did someone change the header setting? OhanaUnitedTalk page 03:09, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes, that was changed a while after your post. See Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 110#Main Page pagetitle. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:27, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
I'll bet there was a slight synchronization problem when the new version of MediaWiki went up. At any rate, it looks like it's working now. —Remember the dot (talk) 04:08, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeago[edit]

Resolved: Both editors blocked for edit warring at Nedra Pickler. Papa November (talk) 11:12, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

User Yeago has been following me through my edits and undoing them [9], [10], [11]. I think this has something to do with an comment I left on BenBurch's talk page [12] that he has taken some kind of offens to. Now he continues to remove a POV tag on an article [13], even though he knows there is a debate over the article, and it has been posted on the BLP board for comment [14]. CENSEI (talk) 02:27, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I took no offense whatsoever to your comment at Ben Burche's page. A simple comparison will show you and I expressed the same sentiment there. Please remember to assume good faith in the motives of other editors, as they may not necessarily be driven by vengeance, irrationality, or neuroticism. The BLP board is for administrative comment, not for general POV issues. My reversion of your tag is simply due to your misunderstanding of its application.Yeago (talk) 07:51, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Revision history of Nedra Pickler[edit]

  • [15] Yeago reverts CENSEI's content removal (1st revert)
  • [16] CENSEI removes content again (1st revert)
  • [17] Yeago restores again (2nd revert)
  • [18] CENSEI removes again (2nd revert)
  • [19] Gamaliel restores again (1st revert)
  • [20] CENSEI removes again (3rd revert)
  • [21] Gamaliel restores (2nd revert)
  • [22] CENSEI adds POV tag
  • [23] Yeago removes tag (3rd revert)
  • [24] CENSEI adds POV tag (4th revert)
  • [25] Yeago removes (4th revert)
  • [26] CENSEI adds (5th revert)
  • [27] Yeago removes (5th revert)
  • [28] CENSEI adds (6th revert)

I don't see any personal vendettas here, just a disagreement over article content. It's clear that there's a revert war going on between the two editors. I'm blocking both for 24 hours to prevent further disruption to the article. Please discuss content disputes on the article talk page rather than reverting each other. If you can't agree, then please seek dispute resolution. Papa November (talk) 11:12, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Eucharist[edit]

Unresolved: Content dispute - administrators can't act as referees here. Papa November (talk) 10:44, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Looks like some intervention may be needed at that article. There is an editor (user:Eschoir) who has been on a rampage of adding poorly written unsourced content, looks like out of frustration at being thwarted in similar behavior on a related article, and another editor (user:Lima) who has been trying to defend the article but isn't able to. (I am an uninvolved observer.) Looie496 (talk) 04:11, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

This appears to be a content dispute, and admins can't act as referees. Please consider asking for a third opinion to help resolve the dispute. Papa November (talk) 10:44, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Changing the Time zone in the timestamp[edit]

Good Evening,

I am from the te.wiki. I just noticed that fr.wiki uses the CEST time zone in their timestamp. I was just wondering if it possible for us to use the IST.

Σαι ( Talk) 13:40, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

This isn't a matter for the Wikipedia administrators. It obviously is possible for the default timezone to be changed -- you'll need to get consensus on te.wikipedia first and then file a bug request at bugzilla. Sam Korn (smoddy) 18:04, 9 August 2008 (UTC)


Reichstag Climbing in Progress[edit]

Resolved: No admins needed, article has been deleted but can be restarted if an encyclopedic editor wishes to do so

Hi Administrators. Apologies if I have posted this in the wrong place, but I think we may have a case of Reichstag Climbing underway on Hythiam - 2 IP Editors seem to have been going at it hammer and tongs for the last several hours, with interruptions from other editors. The Edit History seems to be getting rather heated, and some pretty strong and incivil comments too in the edit summaries. Can I get some advice as to how to let this proceed, or indeed, whether to let it proceed at all? If so, please advise where to report this. Thanks. Thor Malmjursson (talk) 17:27, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Speedied the article under WP:CSD#G15: total trainwreck. Somebody else beat me to downing the worse one of the reichstag climbers; I guess they'll get the other one too. Fut.Perf. 17:43, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your help Administrators. Future Perfect has now deleted the offending article stating that "This article is a trainwreck." No more Reichstag Climbing on this one... Thor Malmjursson (talk) 17:47, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Note: Something related is going on at Terren Peizer, with Inshiningarmor (talk · contribs), TimeForYourRealityCheck (talk · contribs) and some BLP tomfoolery. Fut.Perf. 17:48, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Misuse of IAR here, I think. I've just been doing some Google research on this company (which I had never heard of), and in my judgement, it is notable enough to deserve an article, which should be written about halfway between what the two writers were trying to do, in a more neutral tone. This went from speedied to actually deleted in about two minutes. Protecting and directing them to the talk page would perhaps have been more appropriate. Looie496 (talk) 17:54, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
I partly agree, partly disagree. I certainly agree there could be a legitimate article. But these two guys are not the ones who can write it. Those two were a hopeless pair of COI warriors with dozens of real-life axes to grind, that much was obvious. Fut.Perf. 18:01, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Having read the deleted content, I can say yes, it was wholly unhelpful to readers. If someone wants to take the lift, ok, but this was indeed beyond the pale. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:19, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Ceedjee keepts deleting the name war of Independence at Wars of Israel[edit]

He keeps dleting the name "war of independence to 1948 Palestine War. For NPOV I included both names. He also keeps deleting Siege of Jerusalem (1948), to some newlly invented name. it is unaccpetble to delete history, just because you don't like it. someboy must take care of it, or refer this to someone responsible. thank you. --Shevashalosh (talk) 21:09, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi Shevashalosh, I'll have a look. By the way, in future consider making similar posts to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration.--PhilKnight (talk) 21:20, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
thank you, PhilKnight. --Shevashalosh (talk) 21:45, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi,
Just for your information :
  • the title issue has already been discussed on the IPCOLL project members : here. The question was to chose between 1948 Arab-Israeli War and 1948 Palestine War (Of course certainly not 1948 Independence War). The result of the discussion was to keep 1948 Palestine War;
  • There is not a single source in the article Siege of Jerusalem (1948) talking about this that way. The only one refers to the 1948 Battle(s) for Jerusalem : ((he)) Levi, Ytzhak, Nine Measures: The Battles for Jerusalem in the War of Independence, Ma'arachot, 1986.
Note I justified my modifications and corrections in the articles talk page and in the diff. several times.
I also warned the projet:Israel of Shevashalosh attitude in Blood Libel at Deir Yassin and he will soon come back in a former attitude problem of edit warring to move Deir Yassin Massacre to Deir Yassin Battle.
Finally, he keeps removing wp:rs sources and references from Operation Nachshon.
To get a problem on wp, it is clear there needs to be at least two editors (so two problems...) but that is also a little bit short as a conclusion.
Ceedjee (talk) 22:27, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Could someone just ask him to be aware of what he does : [29]... Please, please, please... :-( Ceedjee (talk) 22:52, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Argh... I assume I must not be on the right page ??? Or I don't know what... If somebody could tell me (on my talk page) how we are expected to do to deal this... He doesn't discuss and if I revert him, I will go on / start / perpetue the edit war. Ceedjee (talk) 23:34, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Contacted by the subject of an article[edit]

I was recently called, at home, by the subject of an article I've been editing from time to time. Fortunately, he thinks I'm the only neutral editor in the bunch....but I was wondering what I should do. I should add that he's not pressuring me for specific edits, and he knows I cannot include statements he sends me, unless published, in the article. I'd also like to contact somebody (probably ArbComm), so I can let them know who it is and what he did ask me to do (which is consistent with Wikipedia policies, IMHO). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:29, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

How did this person get your phone number? What article are you talking about? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:37, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Contact ArbCom directly. If this matter is confidential, it should go straight to them. PeterSymonds (talk) 00:35, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
I didn't ask how he got my phone number, but I have an idea, and it doesn't require a genius. The fact that I still live in the Los Angeles Times delivery area (see Arthur Rubin) and that I consider myself a southern Californian and a mathematician (see my userboxen) should give clues enough for anyone. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:54, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Sent to ArbCom. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:19, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

MOS and company names in all-capital letters[edit]

Resolved: Situation being actively monitored. –xeno (talk) 17:46, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

This is a followup subject to the above ABN AMRO naming dispute as the subject is now in the Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (capital letters) under the subject line Companies which officially use all-capital letters in their name. One of my more fanatical adversaries in the naming dispute is User talk:Croctotheface. The following statements are pasted from the above MOS talk page:

Another example is ARCO, an oil company whose name was derived from Atlantic Richfield Company. Please do not start an edit war in the ARCO article. Steelbeard1 (talk) 10:52, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I've mentioned civility to you before. These kinds of snide remarks do not help anyone. Croctotheface (talk) 13:24, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Everyone reading this section will note that my above statement about ARCO was a polite plea not to make major changes to the ARCO article which could start an edit war with the ARCO article editors. Croctotheface considered that statement uncivil. I should pass this note along to the administrators. Steelbeard1 (talk) 15:04, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

So I'm doing that. Steelbeard1 (talk) 15:15, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

What action do you want us to take? This is a content dispute. –xeno (talk) 15:19, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes, but the ABN AMRO content dispute developed into an edit war which developed into a renaming war which led an administrator who's familar with ABN AMRO to protect that article. Steelbeard1 (talk) 16:48, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I am with Xenocidic here ... and am not very sure what you are looking for. --Kralizec! (talk) 16:56, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Just monitor the above MOS capital letters talk page and add your input. Steelbeard1 (talk) 17:44, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Capitalization of company names is an interesting issue. US trademarks are forced to upper case by the USPTO, unless you trademark a graphic rather than a name. The Securities and Exchange Commission also converts all company names to upper case. So the only authority for capitalization is the company itself. --John Nagle (talk) 05:49, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Please issue warnings for improper reverts to 9/11[edit]

This should be a very simple matter but it isn't. I summarized 6 versions of the introductory sentence to the talk page of September 11, 2001 attacks and added a 7th at the suggestion of another editor (Peter Grey). This was left 2 weeks ago and no opposition was registered.

A few others are constantly reverting WITHOUT discussion or compromise. Others object to their version. (see comma discussion).

I have written to one of those editors to ask for compromise and alternative versions. Their response is that the insist and no compromises will be allowed. diff is http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AIce_Cold_Beer&diff=230933647&oldid=230927211 referring to a false consensus.

I think administrators should attempt to defuse the issue and to issue a block to Ice Cold Beer IF that editor refuses to discuss and compromise. If that user agrees to discuss as I have, I think the problem is solved. Presumptive (talk) 06:08, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

IceColdBeer has refused to discuss and reverted back to her/his non-consensus version. Bullies always win because I am letting it go. However, I did put a template warning on there which will probably be removed also. Do administrators support IceColdBeer's aggressive style? If so, should I copy it even though I favor discussion?

I went to WP:RFPP earlier and requested full-protection due to continued edit-warring over the lead. Enigma message 06:40, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't think that I've done anything wrong here. Presumptive's changes are being made without consensus, so I've been reverting him/her. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 07:58, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Note: Presumptive has been blocked for 3RR, as his preferred version has been reverted by 4 distinct editors. (I didn't do it.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:02, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Please watchlist a discussion at Talk:John Howard[edit]

This has been a long drawn out discussion, with a few back and forths of the ad hominem nature, however, User:Skyring, who has dished a few personal attacks out on the page, and acted generally poorly regarding own and talk, in his latest act has overstepped the mark in my opinion. In response to his post here, I made this request that he clarify the meaning of the last part or strike it out, as another veiled personal attack on his opponents in general. His chosen reply was not to do either, but to bold the text instead. I think this is a clear indication that this user has no respect for anybody on that page that does not agree with the consensus he thinks is present and is enforcing, whereas incidentally by this survey there is clearly none to enforce. I would have warned first before coming here, but the nature of the response and his talk page/other actions in general make me think that would be a waste of my time. I will of course notify him of this request though. MickMacNee (talk) 18:05, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Additional instances: here he calls an user User:Matilda's contribution "farce" and here he gives wikilink to make a point against me. Though it may not be a serious breach of WP:TALK guidelines, it does not help much in a tensely debated talk page. DockuHi 18:48, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
I suggest a neutral admin mark this resolved with nothing for admins to do. MickMacNee has been strongly pushing a POV which is unsustainable on the sources on the article, together with one or two other editors. Skyring, who I don't usually find myself defending, has been defending NPOV and RS on that article. Orderinchaos 00:18, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
    • I would like to support User:Skyring in this instance. He is merely responding to strong POV from MickMacNee. User:Matilda's actions in this edit war have been uncharacteristically dubious. --Surturz (talk) 01:36, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
I am not so sure. The issue is not yet resolved. So, we still dont know who is pushing for POV. Anybody who make a decision should do so after reading the talk page in detail. In my feeling, we are about to rech a consensus. Finally even if one assumes MickMacNee is pushing for POV, it does not justify personal attacks. DockuHi 01:41, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
This is an admin noticeboard. Things are posted here if there is something that admins are needed to do. In this case, it's a petty content dispute on a talk page. Orderinchaos 02:15, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I would really appreciate the views of non-involved (and probably non Australian) admins. I note quite a few people (not just Surturz) have referred to my actions in this edit war have been uncharacteristically dubious (actually the uncharacteristically is an uncharacteristic positive touch :-) ). I would observe however that Orderinchaos is an involved admin/editor in this case. I think it inappropriate that he call for a neutral admin mark this resolved with nothing for admins to do. --Matilda talk 02:17, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
If I was trying to imply I was neutral, I would have closed it myself. Matilda's own actions in adding a policy-violating piece of text to a high-visibility article with an already problematic editing environment, then edit warring over it, then reporting her opponents for a block - all of which has created major drama and managed to unite large sections of the two usually opposing factions on the article against such inexplicable behaviour, have (and I note somewhat sadly) significantly reduced my opinion of someone who I have historically held in very high esteem indeed. I am disappointed to have to criticise her in a public place, especially since I suggested to an RfC on the topic recently that no further censure of her actions was required or helpful, but her sheer persistence and her refusal to accept she was wrong and her support of pure trolls on the article talk page makes it necessary. Orderinchaos 02:29, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
It is not yet decided whether the text violates any policy. We are currently working on a non-violating text. User:Orderinchaos has stated himself that it is not a violation of BLP issue. You can see that here. I accidentally entered the article and was appalled by how badly some editors including Matilda were treated. You could see the evidences above. The issues are being discussed in detail in the talk page and we are about to reach a consensus. We are trying to reach consensus edit which does not violate any wikipedia policy. I really support Matilda's idea of a non-Australian editor. DockuHi 02:44, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Agreed - I never suggested this particular text violated BLP. Please stop wikilawyering. Orderinchaos 02:46, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Then, what is the problem if Matilda says the same? How do you justify personal attacks against her and other editors? I will wait for a neutral admin. DockuHi 02:49, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
I have not personally attacked anyone. I think sometimes AGF is misunderstood - it certainly does not mean we are not allowed to call people out when they act against the interests of the encyclopaedia (whether that be their intention or not) - at the end of the day we are expected at all times to do whatever it takes to improve the encyclopaedia. Otherwise we would never be able to block vandals because we would be accused of not be assuming good faith of them. Another very good example is conflict of interest, where we basically say that someone is either unable or severely limited in their ability to approach the topic or edit with the detachment required by an academically rigorous process, due to either an investment in the topic or a strong ideological commitment to a particular point of view. Orderinchaos 03:05, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
I think what might be best is to put this page under community probation. The poor behaviour on that page has been going on for way too long and creeps out onto other pages and it's just too time-consuming for the community to constantly have to deal with these disputes which are always basically the same just over different content. Despite warnings and various users being blocked over the last year the page has not improved but rather got worse if anything. I tried previously to help on this page as an administrator but I gave up like most others due to the never ending partisan POV-pushing and disgraceful behaviour all round. So I have not been involved with these content disputes but I have been watching it and unfortunately I share Orderinchaos's concerns about some of Matilda's actions on this page. In addition to what OIC has outlined, in a blatant conflict of interest, Matilda blocked an alternate account being being used to write an RFC about herself, rather than reporting it and allowing another administrator to do it for her. I have a lot of respect for Matilda but I am quite concerned that she has become so involved that she has compromised herself and should not be using her tools at all in regard to this page or any of these users. I am also concerned about the general activities going on on the John Howard page and I really think it's time to do what some of us have been discussing for some time now and either take it to arbitration or put it under community sanctions. Sarah 03:53, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Sarah: You may be right. I dont know about Matilda's past actions. But as of now, I couldnt find anything disputable. Therefore, as an editor already involved in the article and as an Australian, I guess you shouldnt have commented. Your comment will now prevent other uninvolved administrators from commenting because they might not want to differ with you. This is despite the plea she made for a non-Australian admin. I am quite disappointed. But, what is your opinion on the personal attacks anyway. I guess no action good or bad should justify personal attacks? DockuHi 04:01, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
The personal attacks are not confined to one direction or one person. I largely agree with Barneca's comment on his/her talk page. Orderinchaos 04:30, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm not involved with the article. I haven't touched the article since early December last year and I haven't touched the article's talk page for months. I am not and have not been involved in any of these content disputes. I am only aware of what has been happening because of various complaints made to this noticeboard and ANI and other pages on my watchlist. Other administrators will feel free to comment as they so desire and if they don't feel they can comment because I have commented then they shouldn't be administrators. Anyone can comment, including Australians. Sarah 04:39, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Sorry Sarah for assuming you were involved. My sincere apologies.DockuHi 04:42, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, there is no conflict of interest in my case. I am not from Australia and I dont live there and I dont belong to any parties in Australia. Maybe it will be helpful if the ones who belong to parties stay away due to WP:COI. DockuHi 03:26, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
I have no problems with people from parties editing so long as they edit encyclopaedically. As I told a newspaper a few weeks ago when they asked me, we view editing as the problem, not editors - although inevitably, some editors will be more problematic than others, but in terms of who they are in the real world, we're not terribly particular as long as they edit appropriately. This particular issue, as an aside, actually has very little to do with party politics in Australia, as supporters of all four major parties on the article have opposed its inclusion, and as the media isn't talking about it (given that it's only of marginal activist interest) comments from Labor and Liberal identities are not to be found anywhere. Orderinchaos 03:39, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
I am impressed to know that you know who belongs to which party. I would be curious to know if there is no privacy issues. I however cant hide my surprise to learn that wikipedia is really politicised. Again, editors oppose the edit as it was initially suggested to be included. Let me be honest with you, I have no confidence whatsoever that the edit will get the consensus as it was initially included. Well, Isnt that why we are trying to get a consensus edit which everyone will approve of! I hope you have no problem in doing that. DockuHi 03:45, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
One year and more of ongoing disputes on that article tends to bring out who follows which, also some state it openly on their userpages/userboxes. I originally entered the situation as an uninvolved administrator, but noone ends up uninvolved there for long. Also, David Hicks (an article subject to similar levels of intense dispute over a prolonged period, with many of the same people involved) and John Howard disputes tend to interplay into each other - it's the Australian politics project's only serious problem area - most are ignored for the most part, such as the Western Australian political topics I'm trying to whip into shape before the coming election which just got announced yesterday for a month's time, including eliminating copyvio in over 50 articles. My attitude to this dispute is - I am not going to forego Wikipedia policies just to keep someone happy. We are not going to add crap to articles. If, however, something is reliably sourced and does not require any synthesis, then I will support it so long as it does not distort the article (which is already doing things that would be beyond most gymnasts as it is). Orderinchaos 03:55, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Docku, I don't mean to be rude at all and you're welcome to discuss partisanship and such with orderinchaos on your talk page but can I ask that you post elsewhere about anything that does not require administrative attention. By filling up this section you are making it increasingly unlikely that uninvolved administrators will be willing to wade through all this and then investigate the opening complaint. Sarah 04:55, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
I was going to suggest it myself. Somehow got lost in discussion. Need to sleep anyway. I hope you will remind Orderinchaos as well.:) DockuHi 04:58, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Please watchlist a discussion at Talk:John Howard : reply from Matilda[edit]

As my name has been mentioned several times above in this discussion I have chosen to respond. The article talk page has a current RfC which mainly deals with my conduct. I think calling for uninvolved admins has merit - particularly because there are significant wikiquette issues on that page.

I made no admin actions in relation to Skyring and the edits at John Howard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) that I am aware of, other than the blocks of no longer necessary (in his view and my view) sockpuppet accounts which I discuss further below. I reported Skyring for 3RR reversion - I did not block - I am not sure why my report is considered inappropriate I have stated elsewhere I will report any violation of 3RR promptly - and have done so in the past. I am also not sure why I am being judged for Ed Johnston's decision (not in this thread but elsewhere) - his decision not mine and I don't believe I mislead him with any information in my report.

Gnangarra and others object to my two times reversion of Skyring and it has been alleged that I "goaded" Skyring into a 3RR breach. Firstly they (OiC and Gnangarra) have very strongly failed to assume good faith - I will assert again that I had no intention of goading Skyring. Gnangarra seeks to for all to abide by WP:1RR - in particular in relation to the John Howard article. While I think the idea has merit - he spoke to me about that after my two time reversion and I was operating on <3RR - I don't see two times reversion as edit warring - I am not trying to be a wikilawyer - that is what the policy says and to assert otherwise as Skyring (supported by OiC, Gnangarra and others) is not in my view justified.

I observed Skyring was using sock puppets to disguise his editing. I raised the matter with him [30] - as I see it I had a legitimate interest in seeing whether he was drafting his RfC (and to call that interest stalking is in my view inappropriate) but in fact I didn't search for it, I found his editing quite by accident and it gave me a very nasty turn to find my username linked to his sandbox when I knew he hadn't edited there in the last week or so. He responded - not in my view satisfactorily - but I left him to it. Once he had completed the RfC I tagged the accounts as sockpuppets - he has used sockpuppets quite frequently in the apst and they have not under any circumstances been regarded as compliant with policy. I noted the tag said "and blocked indefinitely" and I blocked them. I did not escalate to an uninvolved admin as I did not wish to escalate the issue at all. Inadvertently on my part the autoblock function blocked one of the IP addresses he used - but not the other. Skyring raised the matter at WP:ANI. I note that others thought the sockpuppetry on Skyring's part was not a breach of policy - though I cannot see the allowance of it at WP:Sock. Moreover the admin who made that comment said to Skyring I don't think the accounts violated policy, but I meant what I said on the ANI thread; I think it would have been wiser not to have created them, due to your past issues. I noted also advice from Shotinfo Matilda, in all honesty, you should have taken this to AN/I to have an uninvolved admin act on the information rather than unilaterally act on it yourself. . Sarah said at ANI (and I didn't see until today because her comment was more than 10 hours after I had left my comment) Matilda, can I suggest that perhaps it might be best to ask someone else to block the accounts in this sort of situation in future? You blocking an account being used to build an RFC against yourself could be seen to be a tremendous COI and thus a misuse of the tools. She has reiterated that statement in this thread again above, and it is in part in reponse to her that I have decided to reply here. As far as I was concerned the account was no longer in use as the RfC had been lodged. Skyring had been warned that I regarded his account as an illegitimate sockpuppet account and as far as I understand he had no difficulty with the block, merely the inadvertant and unintended consequences of the block. I had chosen not to report him for sockpuppetry - after all the message I received was reporting Skyring was not OK - as I saw it at the time I was damned if I did and damned if I didn't. I note and will follow in future the advice to the contrary.

I am very concerned that Orderinchaos repeatedly suggests (including suggesting in this discussion) that editors not previously involved should not / need not be participating in the discussion [31] [32], or those that are recently arrived have some improper motive [33] - I disagree strongly that limiting the number of editors involved will help. Specifically outside editors have in effect been invited to the page and to give their views by the BLP notice and the RfC.

Wikipedia:Administrators states while correct use of the tools and appropriate conduct is considered very important, the title of "administrator" is not a big deal . Wikipedia:Administrators#Administrator conduct gives some quite specific guidelines - including the prefacing caveat Administrators, like all users, are not perfect beings. However, in general, they are role models within the community, and must have a good general standard of civility, fairness, and general conduct both to users and in content matters . The RfC on Talk:John Howard raised by Skyring is allegedly about policy - in reality it is about my conduct. Gnangarra and Orderinchaos by endorsing Skyring's RfC have called into question my conduct as an admin - and moreover they have done so elsewhere (for example OIC has repeated that assertion in this discussion above).

At Wikipedia:Harassment#Assistance for administrators being harassed it states In case of problems administrators have the exact same right as any other user to decline or withdraw from a situation that is escalating or uncomfortable, without giving a reason ... I thought by taking a wikibreak I would allow the situation to de-escalate - it didn't :[34] - or at least not in a way I found acceptable. Following the advice on WP:Harass , I have emailed OTRS for confidential advice - that email was more than two days ago and as at this morning (in Australia) I had not heard back :-( (Note I only have intermittent access to my email)

In conclusion then - I am seeking advice - I undertake to heed any guidance offered. I would really appreciate univolved non-Australian admins reviewing the situation - there is an outstanding policy RfC to focus on if nothing else and also the article has been raised at the BLP noticeboard. Why non-Australian - because the Australians have all worked with all of us before and have been watching and therefore do not come without prejudice notwithstanding their lack of editing of the article or on the talk page. I am looking for somebody who has not looked at it before to come and see.

Just for the record I have no political allegiance (Orderinchaos infers above that many regular editors on the page do but does not clarify who and what allegiance). --Matilda talk 07:09, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

As I've been named above - I don't need to clarify who has what allegiances, as firstly it's well known amongst the editors on that page (and FTR I never suggested you had one), secondly just because I know doesn't necessarily mean they want me to spill it all over the page in one place, and thirdly it may just fuel the trolling which is taking place there right now. I have no problem with your conduct generally - like I've said on at least three occasions now, I think you're one of the better admins on the Australian project, and it saddens me to end up on the other side from you, but your actions and choices have left me with no choice. Thirdly, as an admin I have a duty, as do all admins, of upholding and enforcing policy. When a group of clearly organised editors arrive on the page out of nowhere on the day a dispute arises which did not arise by natural means on the page, and engage in far-left activism, and on investigating a couple of the editors I find serious problems with their history which I have had to make other admins aware of (anyone who wants to know more about that is free to contact me for details), I would not be doing my job if I did not oppose it in the strongest terms and stick up for core Wikipedia policy. Orderinchaos 07:25, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, Orderinchaos, if you are talking about my history being questionable. I would like to have a copy of the report you are willing to share with anyone? DockuHi 16:14, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
I have no idea where these clearly organised editors have arrived from - I did not solicit their presence, I am unaware of any problems with them and I have taken their comments and conduct at face value - I have not investigated further. I believe it has confused the talk page discussion that OiC has had those discussions with them on that page (at least in part)instead of on their respective talk pages. If the article talk page focussed lss on conduct and more on content we would be much better off.
A user has made a suggestion concerning formatting of comments on the talk page (opt in) which I thought was very useful - unfortunately using <small>...</small> tags makes it unreadable for some so that bright idea will have to be reconfigured somehow. The principle however of concentrating on content not conduct would limit the personal attacks, whether real or perceived and probably lead to faster article improvement.--Matilda talk 07:35, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
I think the main problem we have is noone there is actually looking to improve the article. The vast majority of editors are protecting it from one incidence of irresponsible conduct after another, which does not promote improvement as it reinforces a current deficient form of it simply because it does not contain the relevant addition, and of course the users engaging in that conduct are not at all interested in the article and more whatever trivial point or grievance they wish to have aired within it. In the end it's the article that suffers, not whichever side loses. This has been going on for more than a year, I even wrote an essay about it a month or so ago but haven't had time to post it in my userspace yet. Orderinchaos 10:31, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
I came to the article after adding the 9/11 evac section, thuis putting it on my watchlist, where I watched this edit war unfold with some dodgy reasoning being made to justify removal of sourced content. If orderinchaos wants to use that fact as a reason to make all sorts of accusations and insinuations about me because of it, well he clearly will. MickMacNee (talk) 19:45, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Matilda, I'm not sure what you're looking for at OTRS as I haven't looked up your email, but OTRS generally does not get involved in on-Wiki content disputes, instead referring users back to traditional dispute resolution and it is likely for this reason that you have not yet had a reply. Further, you should probably be aware that OIC, Gnangarra, myself, and many other Australians are on the OTRS team. Sarah 08:23, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
I would expect that Australians would proabably recognise my email address and would stay away. At Wikipedia:Harass#Assistance_for_administrators_being_harassed it states contact the Arbitration Committee or OTRS if needed. I chose to do that and am disappointed not to have had the support I was seeking, notwithstanding I acknowledge the support is given by volunteers who are not obliged to do anything. --Matilda talk 08:54, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough. It just seemed fair and right to tell you that we work there. Sarah 08:59, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm not trying to be obtuse so apologies if it seems that way, but can I ask who is harassing you and where? With regards to the RFC you mentioned in the above extended statement, I don't think the RFC really belongs there on the John Howard talk page. The stuff about you should be moved to user conduct RFC or a user talk page or someplace but the issue of content is okay there. I'm assuming Peter posted it though because you kept asking him to do so. I didn't really get the impression it was something he was otherwise all that keen on doing. Sarah 10:21, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
  • response to Matilda since I have been specifically mentioned, in endorsing the RFC I said that I endorse Skyrings reasonings as laid out, the BLP issues are justified and his action were within the guidelines of BLP. The admin that blocked him for[3RR] 24 hours should have applied that to all edit warring parties equally[ie Matilda 2 reverts]...Matilda as an admin should never have reverted Skyring twice she has experience(community trust) to realise that it was inflamming the situation. The correct course of action would have been to request the article be protected until the issue was resolved on the talk page, WP:RFPP not WP:3RR.diff. After the block occurred I contacted Matilda directly via email and made some comments there over her actions as an editor, noting that as "an admin with her experience" she should have realised that her actions in reverting were inflamming the situation. A couple of days later I was also approached on my talk to comment about two edits made by Skyring and explain BLP and UNDUE concerns, one I was asked if it was a PA the other whether it was inline with WP:TALK. In response to the PA I said I presume your talking about the specific comment on Matilda's editing(Matilda has made herself scarce, so there's probably little point pursuing her for starting and mismanaging this farce.), in short that to me wasnt a personal attack its more an olive branch to move the discussion along. Matilda did make a couple of questionable admin actions in relation to Skyring these should have been left to outside parties to addressdiff the action was in relation to the blocking of the alternative account and calling it a sock, again the action wasnt helping to defuse the situation.
    The discussion has since moved on the original text and source that was the point contention are not being used because of the BLP/UNDUE concerns raised. As I said when endorsing the RFC I think the best result for the article is for all editors to be restricted to 1R for 12 months, which is the normal ARBCOM ruling for similar contentious subjects. Gnangarra 13:02, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
I would support 1RR and a civility parole. Something like the Obama probation would probably be very helpful. Sarah 16:22, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
I support Sarah's suggestion wholeheartedly. DockuHi 16:54, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Summary I agree that Matilda should not have unilaterally blocked the sockpuppets of User:Skyring but rather sought the advice of some uninvolved editors. Everyone makes mistakes and I am sure every wikipedian here must have made some type of mistake at some point of time during their wikipedia career, it is only natural as human beings. I guess Matilda was reminded of her actions and to refer to that one instance over and over again and blow it out of proportions only embarass her and is not going to be helpful. I feel like she is being pushed to the wall and we all know that people have difficulty responding positively when they feel that way. We all need to forget the past, forgive her and move on. Now, none of Matilda's past actions justify any of the personal attacks by anyone and therefore I hope some neutral administrator (preferably a non-Australian as Matilda requested) will look at the personal attack complaint noted in the first paragraph in this thread and will respond in an appropriate way. Thanks. DockuHi 15:00, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

While personal attacks are never justified, reasonable questioning of actions is expected and not to be discouraged at all. It's only in questioning actions that in some cases one becomes aware that what one has done is not in accordance with community norms. As an administrator of 17 months standing myself, I've been questioned plenty of times, and on some of those occasions have realised from the vantage point of what amounts to a third opinion that I was wrong and conceded or made some effort to rectify my actions. In my opinion, wantonly lighting a fire in a flammable area then denying all responsibility while the inferno burns is very serious behaviour, and so out of character in my long experience of the individual's behaviour that, as I said to one of their uninvolved supporters by email, I really hope this proves to be an isolated incident. Orderinchaos 20:15, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Response from Skyring[edit]

I'll endorse the charges of trolling already raised. This incident has long since consumed more space and more words and more individuals than the whole of the world's media devoted to it. Consensus amongst long-standing editors on the page was quickly found, which, considering the often long and heated disagreements in the past is truly remarkable. I think admin Matilda made some serious errors, not least edit-warring over contentious material after a WP:BLP notification had been raised with discussion ongoing. The effect of her actions, beginning with adding the contentious material, has been continued disruption. Over recent days trolling from previously unheard-of editors, including the raising of this section, has been blatant. There was never a consensus for inclusion, and the continued wikilawyering and petty personal attacks did nothing to generate any move in that direction.

I'd be interested to see some high-level scrutiny on this incident. I'll add my voice to others calling for some change to the way things are done in Australian political articles. 1RR limits will help, but they won't be needed if we can enforce a policy of requiring consensus for inclusion of contentious material.

As for me, I know I've got a history of being snarky and snakey when attacked, but I've pulled my fingers back from the keyboard dozens of times over the past few days. Not wanting to feed the trolls. --Pete (talk) 14:21, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Here is a demonstration of what we are talking about. When you say you resisted feeding the trolls, you intend to mean that someone was trolling. As far as I remember, I was one of the persons involved in talk page discussion in the past few days and that makes me assume that you call me a troll. Anybody who can have a cursory look at the talk page can find out that I am trying to get a consensus. In fact I am very happy that both Orderinchaos and Surtuz have agreed that including Mahathir's comments are acceptable to them. You can see that here and here. While I am genuinely trying to get a consensus, calling me a troll is not helpful. DockuHi 17:08, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
To reply specificaly to this post from Skring,
"I'll endorse the charges of trolling already raised. This incident has long since consumed more space and more words and more individuals than the whole of the world's media devoted to it." - i.e. others are not listening to your political viewpoint that the contested edit is a political stunt from Howrad's enemies, and as such should not be allowed in the article. End of discussion apparently.
"Consensus amongst long-standing editors on the page was quickly found, which, considering the often long and heated disagreements in the past is truly remarkable." - i.e. agreement was reached by less than 5 editors, who by virtue of having had disputes between themselves in the past, and being 'regulars' on the article, their decision trumps any other 'new' (i.e. automatically suspicious) opinion. There was a quite irrevelant discussion about everbody's stated political affiliation and comments over external factors and who thought what about Howard/the action group in question, but frankly, precious little attempt to defend the other side as the recognised way to test their reasoning about the specific text with regards neutrality, objectivity, relevance and meeting BLP,RS etc.
"I think admin Matilda made some serious errors" - and you have not let up on the personal attacks against her to show it, in addition to launch what was supposed to be a content Rfc but was essentially, a user Rfc, placed on an article talk page (that everyone had to suspend discussion to wait for you while it was prepared offline in your own time)
"not least edit-warring over contentious material after a WP:BLP notification had been raised with discussion ongoing." A BLP notification at which you persistently ignored repeated posts that is was not a BLP issue subject to ignoring 3RR. You were subsequently blocked.
"The effect of her actions, beginning with adding the contentious material, has been continued disruption." - discussion is not disruption. Asking you to stop personal attacks is not disruption. Talking on the talk page after the issue is resolved in your miond is not disruption.
"Over recent days trolling from previously unheard-of editors, including the raising of this section, has been blatant." - as has your personal attacks and insinuations against them. With your posts you are attemtping to deter new editors by owning the article.
"There was never a consensus for inclusion, and the continued wikilawyering and petty personal attacks did nothing to generate any move in that direction." - Your continued statement of having consensus is untrue, see the survey (currently 4-5 in your favour). This is not consensus. Your only response to this was to attack the taking of a survey, and repeat that there is consensus.
"I'd be interested to see some high-level scrutiny on this incident. I'll add my voice to others calling for some change to the way things are done in Australian political articles. 1RR limits will help, but they won't be needed if we can enforce a policy of requiring consensus for inclusion of contentious material." - Your suggestion of 1RR was almost universally rejected, showing just how far out your assesment of the situation is.
"As for me, I know I've got a history of being snarky and snakey when attacked, but I've pulled my fingers back from the keyboard dozens of times over the past few days. Not wanting to feed the trolls." - there does seem to be a background issue with australian articles affecting your conduct at this article, frankly, that's no excuse, and of no interest to the people on that page. (until you use it as a blanket justification to act as described in the original complaint here) MickMacNee (talk) 19:40, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
See what I mean? misrepresentation the whole way, in the hopes that I or someone else will bite. I don't know how my accurate comments that "there was never a consensus for inclusion" could genuinely be understood to read "your continued statement of having consensus is untrue". Ooops. I bit. --Pete (talk) 22:02, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Can you just not count or not read? Is this the basic problem here? MickMacNee (talk) 23:04, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Looking further at the comments above, I find that I am continually misrepresented. For example, I am accused of calling User:Matilda's contribution "farce".[35] The link given shows nothing of the sort. I said "Matilda has made herself scarce, so there's probably little point pursuing her for starting and mismanaging this farce."[36] This whole thing is a farce, a battle over trivia, and I hope that I am not alone in wishing that the admins involved could have worked together to find an earlier and more satisfactory solution. --Pete (talk) 15:34, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

We are writing an encyclopaedia. When editors do not tell the truth, and then fail to acknowledge this when it is pointed out in a remarkably public arena, I wonder just how suited they are for this project. Do we want to give our readers useful information? Or untruths, evasions and waffle? --Pete (talk) 21:35, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

More personal attacks, but without the bravery to name who is being attacked. You want to give readers the information you agree with, nothing more, nothing less. This is useful information: legal papers re. Howard were filed to the ICC<reliable source> Here is an untruth: There exists consensus/this is a BLP issue/the inclusionists are cranks/a cabal/there is support for 1RR/I am the only one who is being constructive here/there is nobody in the world that has called Howard a war criminal. Here is an evasion: I am going to write an article Rfc on the material which will show the source to be unreliable (followed by a user Rfc which shows nothing of the sort mixed with more personal attacks) / we can't allow material that calls Howard a war criminal / we can't accuse Australian soldiers of being rapists / if xyz happens then it can be added / we didn't write about xyz so this shouldn't be included etc etc etc. MickMacNee (talk) 23:04, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
The ICC is not being cited as a source, as their site contains no information about this claim (or the other two allegedly made against the Australian government over the last two years). Orderinchaos 01:05, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Back to the original issue[edit]

I don't think this was a particularly edifying spectacle on the part of any of the editors involved - nothing below (either by myself or others) adds anything to the debate or gets us anywhere closer to resolving the issues which exist, and merely serves to reinforce existing divisions. As one of the parties is presently unable to respond, it seems this would be a good time to end it and let it go to the archives. Orderinchaos 13:13, 10 August 2008 (UTC)