Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive195

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

Noticeboard archives


Edit war on Caldor[edit]

A couple of IPs, along with User:Caldorwards4 and myself, seem to be involved in a four-way edit war over Caldor. The IPs keep adding the lyrics to a jingle that the chain used, both in violation of WP:LYRICS and WP:IINFO. One even added an Urban Planet forum as a "source". I don't want to violate WP:3RR so I could use some help in stopping this edit war. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many ottersOne batOne hammer) 19:08, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Paid Editing[edit]

This is overdue, probably: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Paid Editing. Given that this (and related WP:COI issues) seem to be coming up more and more, I've launched this basic RFC. We've never had an actual community discussion or mandate about this. Please review the statements, leave yours, endorse as you see fit. Should make for an interesting and enlightening discussion. rootology (C)(T) 19:33, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Edit war on Ostrich page[edit]

On the June 8 Late Late Show, Craig Ferguson provoked an edit war on the Ostrich page by claiming "Wikipedia says the Ostrich can run at 85 miles per hour". Since then, multiple edits to the page have been made adding that (false) detail. All are being reverted by various users, but this is likely to continue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rcunniff (talkcontribs) 20:07, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I've semi-protected it for 3 days to allow the meme to run its course. That's probably quite harsh for only minor vandalism that has been quickly reverted so far, so other admins should reduce/overturn if they disagree. ➲ redvers throwing my arms around Paris 20:13, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks - I tried parsing through the various warning / vandalism templates but could not figure out the right thing to do (I'm a relative newbie at official Wikipedia culture, sorry...) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rcunniff (talkcontribs) 20:17, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
They're hard going when you're new at it, so asking for help is the best thing. Thanks for doing so! I've dropped you a generic welcome template with some useful links that may help in future. ➲ redvers throwing my arms around Paris 20:20, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Far better than simply having your head stuck in the sand, and not asking. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:40, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Easy speedy AfD close please[edit]


I'm involved so would someone please visit and close Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ -- Banjeboi 20:54, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


(Undoing "resolution") no admin action needed. //roux   19:05, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

  • Please do not close this sort of thing anymore, Roux. Fifteen minutes, for pity's sake. Whether or not you think Shoemaker's Holiday has a point, he deserves to be treated with a bit of dignity and respect. Each administrator or editor may determine personally whether or not they wish to respond here, but a peremptory close by a non-admin on the Administrators' noticeboard is not called for at all. Risker (talk) 19:15, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Could you show me what admin action is needed here? //roux   19:20, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
      • It may not need any admin action at all; however, this dismissive "don't let the door hit you on the way out" closing of the thread is not an acceptable response to a longtime contributor's expressions of concern. Perhaps the appropriate action would be for administrators not previously involved to review the incidents described below and determine if there is a better resolution. Whether it changes Shoemaker's Holiday's mind about leaving, I won't venture to guess. It is, however, a sign that there may be issues beyond this noticeboard that warrant attention. Risker (talk) 19:28, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Indeed. And not one of them referenced with the intended close. This thread is hardly a dramafest, compared to any number of other threads on this page and on ANI; on seeing it, most people chose to respond by going to Shoemaker's Holiday's user talk page. If the thread had simply been closed instead of collapsed, with a reference to one or more of the other discussions, there would have been some sense to it. But a thread titled "Goodbye" and almost immediately collapsed with a "nothing to see here folks, move along" message is more likely to attract attention than one that is pointedly ignored by those who spend a lot of time on the messageboard. Risker (talk) 03:43, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm leaving Wikipedia. It's more and more clear that even when policy is on your side, the general adminship will do nothing. Wadester16 modifies my posts, puts them under an inflammatory edit summary, and edit-wars to keep his version up? AGF. Nothing to see here. Someone invalidly non-admin-closes Plot of Les Misérables' discussion, then an admin claims that The changes to WP:PLOT made after a majority of people sid it shouldn't exist at all in WP:NOT were probably forced through without consensus because they watered the old, no-consensus policy down. So he protects the redirect. I complain, I get attacked.

Every time I state my concerns, I get attacked for raisingthem. Durova even often states they havee merit, but urges people to ignore me anyway.

Arbcom have been promising to deal with the Matthew Hoffman case for two months now. Kirril Has twice been asked for progress reports, and told me a statement was being prepared. No statement has ever been forthcoming.

I turn 30 today. That's too old to put up with this shit any more.

I'm out of here.

Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 18:50, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I wish you'd reconsider. Your contributions here are highly valued and appreciated. If there's anything I or anyone here can do to help you, please let us know. And happy birthday. 30 is the new 30. Kingturtle (talk) 19:29, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Uh, can someone explain in a little more detail just what happened here? Comparing the edit history of Shoemaker's Holiday & Wadester16 sheds no light on this. And the AfD for Plot of Les Misérables was closed a little hastily for my taste, but hardly enough by itself to make one shake the dust from one's sandals & leave Wikipedia. This sounds like another case of WikiBurnout -- in which case, sorry to see you go SH, but the best of luck to you. (And if 30 is too old for Wikipedia, then what is yours truly, a 51-year-old, doing here?) -- llywrch (talk) 19:50, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Since you ask, Shoemaker made a more detailed statement at a talk page shortly before announcing his retirement. And in that he made specific accusations of misconduct regarding a dispute in featured pictures, but didn't back any of the claims with diffs. It's a bit awkward: Shoemaker's Holiday names me in the post as someone who agrees with him (which I mostly do), and I do confirm that he was in a conflict with a specific individual there, but I don't recall any of the particular actions he describes (edit warring, altering another editor's posts, etc.). Posted a query to Shoemaker's talk a few hours ago to ask for details. Awaiting reply. DurovaCharge! 23:19, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
SH, fortunately there is no "general adminship" --there are almost 1000 active admins who are a very assorted lot of people, not many of whom are likely tamely submit to domination by any attempted cabal. it takes some amount of time and effort to get things moving among them all, just as among WPedians in general. that's why actions like that of Roux who closed the discussion are totally wrong-- we need some time to consider things. And, as durova said, if there are multiple issues, we need to consider them separately. The first-level treatment for Wikiburnout is communal support & if necessary a change of concentration here--experience is too valuable to be just discarded. I'm even older than Llywrch, and I would hate to think the young people here did not have our stamina. DGG (talk) 03:43, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
It is indeed baffling that "not plot" would exist given the clear lack of consensus behind it, but hey when it is clear something lacks legitimate support, then WP:IAR anyway. But look, do not allow one incident to bully you away from here. I see things that baffle and disgust me frequently on this site and frequently wonder why sometimes I am even arguing with non-experts on certain things (I tend to avoid discussions concerning content of which I am largely ignorant) and yet, I still find Wikipedia useful and worth volunteering my time for, although I am increasingly thinking some kind of reform may be needed, i.e. we had the model that we have had and seen its flaws. I realize the whole appeal of "anybody can edit," but I do not think some of that is working, and the fiction and bilateral relations discussions are really showing me the downfalls of having certain blocks of accounts wanting to deletes specific kinds of articles for which they just do not like them, but clearly have no real, even amateur knowledge of the topics, they just do not like them (and no, I am not saying "everyone" who says to delete them, but a disconcerting number nonetheless). Perhaps even now to be qualified to say comment in AfDs on fictional characters, you have had to have created at least one DYK worthy fictional character article or something? The same for bilateral relations articles. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 04:57, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Shoemaker's Holiday has quit wikipedia before. This is not something new. Not everyone has the necessary patience, skills and temperament for editing online. --Kleinzach 06:59, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Sure, but a tolerance for getting #(@*-ed over by ArbCom really shouldn't be a requirement to edit here. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:23, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Only two Wikipedia arbitrations have ever been vacated and Shoemaker's Holiday was the target of one of them. Kleinzach, please consider withdrawing that post. DurovaCharge! 18:33, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Paul R. Traub[edit]

Paul R. Traub (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) was created by Furtive admirer (talk · contribs) on 6 June. It uses this site as a source, as well as court documents, and was entirely written by Furtive admirer. Less than 3 days later, the article was given a prominent link on the same site. His writing style and the one on are practically identical. The article, in my opinion, is original research, and is not even close to neutral.

I am concerned that Furtive admirer (talk · contribs) runs, or at least has a conflict of interest. In this discussion, initially regarding an employee of Mr Traub whitewashing the article, Furtive sees himself as "superman", believing in "truth, justice, and the american way". He's quite adamant about 'outing' the alleged crimes commited by several people, leading to to believe he's not exactly neutral himself, even though he may have no link to the people involved. I'm very close to removing the page from mainspace, or possibly deleting it, unless/until it can be scrutinised for BLP problems.

Can someone provide me with a second opinion here?

Thanks, Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 14:15, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Sourcing of the BLP is terrible, the way the article is written draws a line between someone who has been accused of a crime and someone who as far as i can tell has not been accused of a crime, which should be gotten rid of immediately, and i don't see how "" could be considered a reliable source, it's an attack page of some sort (says so right on the front page, i.e. "The plan is to GET TRAUB for his crimes and roque DOJ for Cover UP" (sic).Bali ultimate (talk) 14:24, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
This still needs work but it's looking better thanks in large part to Bali's efforts. As for Furtive admirer, I have no idea if he has a COI, but he is clearly editing with an agenda and trying to publish original research on Wikipedia, and in a BLP no less. Also, Furtive's claims need to be checked carefully: I found one that said that Traub's firm was ordered to refund $750K worth of legal fees; in fact, that was what a plaintiff's motion had requested and the judge had denied that motion. Traub does have a PR person on Wikipedia (User:W Cwir from Saylor) but W Cwir was just unblocked after agreeing to religiously follow WP:BESTCOI so I hope that part will go away. Mangojuicetalk 19:49, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Furtive admirer (talk · contribs) also introduced, more or less word for word, the same sort of original research attacks (much of it demonstrably innacurate, much more of it simply not supported by reliable sources so it's difficult to prove or disprove) in the article on with this series of edits.[1]. I've since reverted most of it. More eyes are needed on this, and we should really no tolerate more of this from an editor who's been around for a year, long enough to know better. I'm taking a look at a bit more of his contributions.Bali ultimate (talk) 20:12, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

--removed diatribe by Furtive admirer that consisted mainly of personal attacks and BLP problems--Shell babelfish 23:10, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Much of that above diatribe MUST be deleted as a violation of WP:BLP. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:57, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't think this is the appropriate forum for this matter. I support a BLP review and am willing to work with Furtive Admirer and Ms. Cwir to perform one. There is no need for the escalation of a simple content dispute to this forum at this time. While both parties have a POV, I suspect that they are rational individuals who both want a functional and coherent article. I therefore offer my services as an independent reviewer who has no interest in the subject, to work with both parties to scrub the pages. Geoff Plourde (talk) 23:03, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I consider my commentary, a narrative, not a diatribe. Since you gentlemen exhibit a default negative POV and experience a catharsis when deleting, do whatever feels good. I have touched up and tweaked the traub page a bit, and it is satisfactory to me. there is no need for Geoff at this time, but i will save you for future issues. thanx in advance.

Furtive admirer (talk) 23:19, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Could one the editors familiar with this incident take a look at the comments Furtive left on my talk page? I would like to remove them, but given my COI I am wary of editing any material about Paul Traub, even if it is on my own talk page. I think the comment content might not conform to BLP rules, but I would like a second opinion on that. Weronix (talk) 01:33, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Any user is free to remove whatever content they do not want from their user talk page.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:04, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

My block of User:Diete003[edit]


Diete003 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

I just did this in response to this. The user has a history of incivility, eg this edit summary and this comment, and therefore I felt my block was appropriate to prevent further disruption. I brought it here in case anyone felt otherwise, and I will not consider any reduction of the block a wheel war, though I'd hope that any reduction will be held off unless and until the user has a chance to make a comment. However as I was typing this I changed the block to prevent editing of the talk page as he restored the text in question. Nja247 09:40, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Hrm - looks like they recently had a dispute over content that got out of hand and ended up blocked for edit warring. It seems likely that the rant is probably a bit of blowing off steam after all that; I didn't notice anything in the post that prompted your bock was particularly shocking. It does look like they might have had some snippiness in their history, especially during that edit war but I'm not seeing anything here that warrants an indef block. Unless I'm missing something, I don't think I would have have blocked for that at all. Shell babelfish 09:49, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Well, the text in question referred to Wikipedians as a bunch of amateur pricks. But most importantly he called a specific editor (who he named in 2nd paragraph and called his enemy WP:BATTLE) a capricious son of a bitch and a crook. And five days ago "Yankee sonabitch you die!". Nja247 10:04, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
This text is unacceptable, as was the restoration of it. That being said, I've re-enabled the talk page privileges so that the editor can request unblocking if he wishes and asked him not to restore the text in question. If he does, the talk page privileges should be revoked again. Indefinite =/= infinite and I hope that this user might issue an unblock request after calming down. –xenotalk 14:50, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
He restored it again... Talk page priveleges disabled, block endorsed. –xenotalk 16:55, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

general watch for Gabon articles[edit]

The entire country of Gabon has suffered an internet blackout since Sunday. This may be related to the death of the President Omar Bongo or a optical fibre problem, depending on the source. Some of the articles seem to be written by Gabonese (who now have no internet access) so a watch on these articles for vandalism is in order. Thank you. User F203 (talk) 14:54, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

neo-Nazi activist at work on White People article[edit]

Apparently endorsing Adolph Hitler's "the Jews aren't white" theory, Arjacent (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) is trying remove all images of Jewish people from the White People article [2], as well as censoring information that might make Nazi Germany appear anti-quantum physics; see my talk page comments for further elaboration. Since Wikipedia isn't an appropriate forum for blatant antisemitic activism, I am requesting administrative assistance in stopping this nonsense. Erik9 (talk) 04:36, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

The account only has two edits and nothing but a welcome template on their talk page. Maybe try discussing it first and make sure its not a misunderstanding? If it turns out they're aware of policy and intend to ignore it, I'm all for taking action. Shell babelfish 09:54, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Maybe I've lost it, but could someone explain why we prominently discuss Nazi Germany's attitude toward quantum physics in our article on white people? MastCell Talk 16:32, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
You mean the caption to the photo of Heisenberg? That is something that does not clearly tie into the rest of the article. (It seems to be a remnant from an earlier, less NPOV draft.) I have some other criticisms of this article in general -- for example recorded European racial opinions of the people of Ethiopia & how they have changed -- but seeing how I might get my toe bitten for dipping it into this controversial topic, I'll decline. -- llywrch (talk) 21:14, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Redirect into userspace[edit]

Just a heads up here. I just discovered a link from this catgeory leading to a userspace article. He appears to be fairly new here (may 5). As far as I know, such links aren't permitted (linking from main article space into userspace). I'll remove it for now with a polite note on their page about this . I'm posting here to give notice, and, should anyone (admin or not) find fault, feel free to revert me, and if a trout needs to be applied, feel free!

--Naluboutes, Nalubotes Aeria gloris, Aeria gloris 21:01, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Mainspace categories should not be used on anything apart from articles and, occasionally, portals. I was just about to remove it, but someone beat me there. In future, removal/dewikifying and a note to the user would be best. J Milburn (talk) 21:11, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
You can always just put nowiki tags around the categories in the article until such time as the user is ready to move it into article space. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 21:18, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Requesting user ban[edit]

Resolved: User has been blocked. --Vivio TestarossaTalk 00:26, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi there,

I reported about up to 30 days ago the user Shedarian who was posting on my talk page asking for me to illegeal copy material and send it to them. a admin advbise them nto to do it and left at that. however the user has again today asked me to send them illegeal recording please cna they be blocked?--Andy Chat c 18:19, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I've blocked them, because that was all they were using Wikipedia for. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 19:25, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. I aint one for reporting people but they are goign beyond what is acceptabel even in my books.--Andy Chat c 19:26, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Request for outside review of my action[edit]

Hi, I'd like some feedback on a move request I closed, moving Military history of the peoples of the British Islands to Military history of Britain. It's a big mess, but here are the relevant sections: Talk:Military_history_of_Britain#Poll_on_Article_Name, the discussion I closed. There's lots of discussion above and below it, but I'd primarily like a review of my evaluation of that discussion. My close of it is being challenged on my talk page, at User_talk:Aervanath#Vote_rigging_at_Military_History_of_British_Islands, with allegations of canvassing, although I did take the canvassing into account when I made the close. This is a controversial area, with lots of nationalistic fervor on both sides, and I'd like some other uninvolved admins to come along and give me an unbiased view. Thanks, --Aervanath (talk) 22:01, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Why don't you suggest Military history of the British Islands as a compromise? Drawn Some (talk) 22:26, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
That would have been no better. No offense, but I can tell you haven't read the talk page; if you had, it'd be clear why that name wouldn't fly. The term "British Isles" is controversial among the British and Irish nationalist factions, and both sides hated the term "British Islands". Actually, the issue is kind of moot, now; the article has now been turned into a disambiguation page, and discussion has gone off in another direction altogether. What I'm hoping is that other editors/admins will go through and critique my close of the discussion. E.g., was it the correct decision, could I have worded my rationale differently, were there better ways to respond to editors on my talk page, etc. There's no actual need for emergency action, I'm just hoping for some constructive criticism. Thanks, --Aervanath (talk) 22:38, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Not an admin here but since I already stuck my unwanted foot in I went and read it. As a reasonable editor who normally doesn't question admin actions made in good faith even if I disagree with them let me point out that no matter what decision you made a majority of the editors would be unhappy. The argument there will go on long after both you and I are dead. The decision you made was a good one and you explained it well. Drawn Some (talk) 23:19, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Indeed. Having looked this over, the source of the conflict is not the article itself, its the same old tired English/Welsh/Irish/Scottish/Cornish/Rutlandish/Whatever ethnic conflict and you can't be asked to solve that. You acted fine within bounds as an admin. 03:45, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Someone stalking me[edit]

I believe this IP has been Stalking me, since it has removed several of my news items. --Chuck Marean 03:55, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, (talk · contribs) has only 2 edits, one of which is a revert of your news item (a revert that I support, btw). --ZimZalaBim talk 04:05, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't support it because the increase in oil was more global than some of those current events. Most of those other current events don't sound to me like an article was updated either, and the current events page says nothing about updating an article. I wonder if it should.--Chuck Marean 05:23, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Chuck, that's a conversation to have on the talk page of that article, not here. --ZimZalaBim talk 05:46, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Disruptive, edit-warring editor[edit]


In early July 2007, User:Peterdjones did his first beer article edit here: The information he added was generally inaccurate and seemed to reflect the POV of Beer Advocate or another beer fan website. He edit-warred with knowledgable editors ( and by 21 August 2007, he was gone. All the articles that he had inaccurately written and protected with edit-warring had to be rewritten.

A few weeks ago (25 May), he returned. The edit-warring is back: Plus endless and pointless discussions:

His lack of knowledge about Dutch/Belgian beer is enough of a problem. His edit-warring and pointless discussions prevent editors from working since we need to spend time undoing the damage he caused and trying to explain to him why he is wrong.

I have reverted many of his edits because I: a. hoped/expected he would soon go away, as he had before, and b. it was quicker than having to go through his history to collect diffs to file this notice. Please ban him from the beer article so that we can improve instead of defending the status quo. Mikebe (talk) 11:55, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

As an independant third party, I have to say that Mikebe is as much to blame as Peterdjones. Pay no attention to this post.Beakerboy (talk) 19:43, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Two points Beakerboy. One is that you haven't provided any diffs to back up that assertion. Two is that in posting here, Mikebe is also inviting scrutiny of his actions in regards to this dispute. Administrators will look at all actions by all editors when formulating a response. Suggesting they ignore this post is ill-considered. Exxolon (talk) 22:40, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
What I thought I was doing is making some small and uncontentious amendments to some articles. It seems to have blown up into a huge battle that I don't really have the time to take part it. I find it odd that I can amend the article reality without comment, as I recently did, but the minutiae of Belgian beer have to be argued out exhaustively. If anyone wishes to pursue this

matter (and I can't think why they should) further, I can provide examples of mikebe making misleading edit summaries and getting facts wrong. 1Z (talk)

Peterdjones, you don't help yourself when you refactor the comments of others to remove a diff (see here) at the same time as stating your case. I have reinserted it, you should note I spotted this and am not even involved in your dispute. Mine's a Leffe Tripel ;-) Bigger digger (talk) 00:20, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
That was accidental. 1Z (talk) 09:36, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Could you please explain how you accidentally removed a specific piece of text, that just happened to show the reason you were brought here, without disturbing any surrounding text, when your response was some paragraphs away from the link you accidentally removed? //roux   17:22, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
If it was an accident, why didn't you undo it?
It's occurred to me that it might be useful to explain why I say his edits are inaccurate since not everyone is familiar with the subject. In the first diff I posted above, he calls Trappist "styles". Trappist is a designation of origin, not a style. Secondly, enkel he has confused with patersbier. Thirdly, tripels are not "usually golden". And fourth, no Trappist make a quadrupel (however, one makes a beer with the brand name Quadrupel). His description of dubbel, however, is generally correct. Mikebe (talk) 16:00, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
The 'first diff' is two years old.
The recent edits mikebe has been reverting do not mention styles, so his grounds are spurious.
Mikebe's claims about trappist beer styles are his own POV. Many authorities disagree. I am unable to get mikebe to edit according to WP:V.
Mikebe's claim that La trappe Quadrupel somehow is not a quadrupel defies all logic.
Mikebe is reluctant to admit the existence of non-Trappist and non-Belgian Quadrupels since it spoils his POV theory that quad is not a style.
There are verifiable sources that can be quoted on quad's status as a style, but mikebe appears to prefer censorship.
The use of Enkel as a 'Patersbier' (for consumption by the monks) is verifiable.
1Z (talk) 09:42, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Here ( we've got Peterdjones declaring that authorities like Tim Webb recognise Trappist beer styles. That would come as a big suprise to Mr. Webb because on page 52 of his "Good Beer Guide to Belgium and Holland" (ISBN 1-85249-174-4) he wrote: "There is no beer style called Trappist. The term 'Trappist beer' is a designation of the brewery of origin."

The difference between 'style' and 'styles' is key. There is no one Trappist style, but Webb and others do recognise Dubbel and Tripel as styles. 1Z (talk) 08:03, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes, but not specifically Trappist styles.Patto1ro (talk) 08:40, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
So what? None of the material I want to add says anything at all about styles. Mikebe's POV-pushing of his styles-don't-exist theory has reached the extent where he deletes completely neutral material.1Z (talk) 08:57, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

And here ( is PeterDJones again playing the POV card against an editor trying to correct the Trappist beer article against the edit warring of Mr. Jones. This anonymous editor, by the way, is [...] one of the foremost European authorities on the Trappists and Trappist beer [...]. Mikebe (talk) 13:40, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Here again we have something dug up from years ago. 08:03, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

While I am not up to speed with this latest dispute and Mikebe may well be warranted in filing a complaint about this other editor's actions, Mikebe has been known to push his own POV too. He has sytematically worked his way through beer articles over the last couple of years removing all links to the BJCP organisation to the chagrin of many editors and sparking off several edit wars in the process. So if someone looks into this I advise they look over the complete edit history of the article extensively because this other editor may be just restoring something that Mikebe removed at some point without consensus. Betty Logan (talk) 13:58, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

There was a consnsus about those links until you came in and ignored it. Having shown no interest in the beer articles before you suddenly arrived and started reverting all of mikebe's edits. That couldn't possibly be connected with the fact that he'd removed irrelevant details about vegetarian beer you had added to some article, could it?Patto1ro (talk) 08:40, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
I have asked for information about standing consensus. In the only case where it was supplied, it was in favour of my edits. Mikebe has misrepresented consensus before. I have no recollection of the vegetarian beer incident. 1Z (talk) 08:51, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

From the Talk:Tripel

"Since two of my quotes are being used in this discussion, I'll chime in here. My thinking is most in line with 1Z. If a specific brand of beer is noteworthy enough to be called out as an important representative of a particular "style", a sentence or two should be written within the article about that particular beer. In effect, working the notable examples into the body of the article. I've been pretty hands off on these articles for a while, and I'll continue to be for the foreseeable future.Beakerboy (talk) 14:46, 5 June 2009 (UTC)"

1Z (talk) 08:54, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

The above post by Mikebe might contain an unintentional outing of an IP editor. Unomi (talk) 18:15, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Refactored. If the anonymity is important to the editor, should the intervening revisions be oversighted? user:J aka justen (talk) 18:19, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I was indeed restoring one of mikebe's deletions with one edit: Here is a diff showing mikebe removing some material -- which is in fact verifiable--with the misleading edit summary of 'cleanup'. [3]

Assuming that is Peter just above, here is a later diff showing what he claims is "verfiable fact" was, in fact, not:

Peter has chosen to defend himself here mostly by attacking me. I hope you will agree his reactions in this notice have given a good example of why I said he was disruptive and edit-warring. In defending himself above, for example, he uses phrases like "Many authorities disagree" and "There are verifiable sources..." But has he posted a single one? That is exactly why I brought this request. Mikebe (talk) 11:05, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Clutching at straws. My source is ambiguous on the issue of the use of Blonde as Patersbier. That is a small detail. Patto1ro was wrong to delete the whole passage over one word, and now seems to have accepted that he is. I amended the passage to remove the reference to Blonde as it is not unequivocally supported by the source, and mikebe deleted it anyway, as this diff shows: [4].Mikebe is still wrong to say that I am "confusing" enkel and Patersbier. I still have verification for that claim. Mikbe is still deleting verifiable material and arguing from self-declared authority.1Z (talk) 19:43, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

There is a grand total of one. And that IS a fact. Mikebe (talk) 05:51, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

And here are some of the references I have been using (I put them on the talk page to protect them from mikbes deletions). A glance at talk:quadrupel will show that it is mikebe who is making unverifiable claims:-

Here's one that brews a Tripeland a quad: Weyerbacher Brewing Company
here's another Boulevard Brewing Comapny
And another Midnight Sun 'Venus'

1Z (talk) 08:30, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

And once again, proof of Peter's lack of knowledge and understanding of beer. Here, for example, are five other breweries:

All of these breweries brew a beer called "George." According to Peter's logic, this "proves" that "George" is now a beer style. One of these breweries even produces a "tripel". This, according to Peter, would "prove" a connection between a George and a tripel. Clearly this logic is flawed and the claims are untrue. Should Wikipedia continue publishing fiction about beer? Mikebe (talk) 06:02, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

The status of quadrupel as a style is doubtful, and I have reference [1], and I am happy to mention it in the article, and I haver already told mikebe that I am. Mikebe thinks it isn't a style and that there are in fact no beer styles at all. He has no evidence for any of that, it just his personal theory. Mikebe must stop removing verifiable material, and start editing according to the guidelines and not according to his personal theories. 1Z (talk) 07:58, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Wow! Peter writes: "Mikebe's claim that La trappe Quadrupel somehow is not a quadrupel defies all logic. Mikebe is reluctant to admit the existence of non-Trappist and non-Belgian Quadrupels since it spoils his POV theory that quad is not a style." (These quotes are taken from his posts above.) And now, suddenly, "quadrupel as a style is doubtful." Who is writing this? One person says it is a style, then says its not? Peter writes/edits ONLY without sources, and when sources are requested, he either uses flawed sources . He wrotes ONLY his POV, then turns around and says that information that contradicts his are "personal theories." Likewise, he criticises editors for "reflexive reverting" ( but, look at his history and what does one find? Why HE's the "reflexive reverter" (e.g.: Have we somehow slipped into an alternative reality? And finally, as I have already said above: Peter tries to defend himself by attacking me (again).Mikebe (talk) 08:34, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
The verifiable claim about quadrupel's status is specific, and not part of an all-encompassing theory about the non-existence of beer styles. Moreover, it is not conclusive, although mikebe's very strong prejudices on the subject naturally make him read it that way.
I have sources for everything I want to say, and I have demonstrated I do repeatedly despite mikebe's false accusations to the contrary.
Mikebe has still provided no sources for his no-style theory.
I cannot continue editing beer articles until mikebe is prevented from making spurious deletions, hence I must criticise his approach, just as he is attempting to criticise mine by starting this investigation.

08:59, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Typical post: 1. claim evidence, but don't provide any, 2. make baseless accusations against someone, but don't provide any evidence, 3. claim it is possible to prove a negative. If Peter actually knew anything about beer instead of just claiming to, he would provide evidence. But he doesn't, which proves the point of this notice. Mikebe (talk) 10:08, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
On wikipedia,negatives are "proved" the same way as positives: you find a notable source saying "there is no X". If you can 1Z (talk) 21:04, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Uuuuuuuugh. How about a pair of topicbans from the entire subject of beer? Anyone object? //roux   16:23, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Welcome to my world! It's not fun, is it? Isn't there enough evidence here of what I said at the outset? - Unfamiliar with the subject, argumentative (edit-warring), disruptive. I say end it. Mikebe (talk) 08:28, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

This is not a matter for this noticeboard. Content disputes are a matter for Wikipedia:Dispute resolution or Wikipedia:Third opinion. As the content is specialised, and the dispute is deep, I suggest Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal. Further discussion on this matter should continue on the talkpage of the articles concerned, and/or at Mediation Cabal. SilkTork *YES! 11:28, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Please delete an article I created[edit]


As the page's creator, I don't feel right doing this myself, as other people have made contributions to the article itself. I thought Adam London was notable for inclusion, but for reasons I was unaware, he is not, as yet.

Could someone please delete this article for me? Thank you. Bobo. 12:58, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Why don't you just place a prod tag on the article to have it deleted? If no one objects, it will be deleted in a few days. The Seeker 4 Talk 13:13, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
It's gone. Thank you for the advice — I've never before used PROD tags on my own articles before — but if such a situation arises in the future, I will be sure to do so. Bobo. 13:18, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Macedonia ArbCom Case[edit]

This is absurd, and I strongly encourage others who feel the same way to stand up and say so. Hiberniantears (talk) 02:59, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I second this encouragement. While I know many will sneer, I do belief this judgment is dreadfully punitive and threatens to undermine Wikipedia's core content values; it gives one-purpose CoI tendentious nationalist users a victory over one of the few admins who has put his neck on the line to stand up to them; it punishes a user who has given so much to maintain wikipedia's first two pillars, "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia" and "Wikipedia has a neutral point of view". It is a judgment which sends a message to all Wikipedians and to those outside that our leadership care less about our first two pillars than they do about attempts to subvert them in pursuit on anti-encyclopedic ideological goals. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 03:12, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Endorse. Kafka Liz (talk) 03:18, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Absolutely. We have a serious problem with 'no go areas' already, and recent actions are likely to make this worse. Bottom line, is this going to have an effect on Admin involvement in these problem areas? I think it will and that effect will hurt Wikipedia. Dougweller (talk) 05:36, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
This isn't an encyclopaedia any more, it's a social-networking site. Conduct is more important than content. The information in our articles may be biased, tendentious nonsense but - hey - at least it was written by polite pushers of biased, tendentious nonsense. Britannica must be kicking themselves they never used this way of compiling a reference book. --Folantin (talk) 11:45, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
I also endorse the comments above. - Ev (talk) 15:32, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
So it's OK for admins to return incivility for incivility without restriction, as long as they don't use their tools to block people? That's what I'm gathering from a brief reading of that set of rants. Jclemens (talk) 17:52, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
"Rants"? Very civil. --Folantin (talk) 17:54, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
I find this a bit ironic with your post a few lines up. Also, compared to some of the stuff we see daily, the comment is relatively civil. Icestorm815Talk 18:04, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I was using irony. Well spotted. No, I don't care about "civility" as much as editing a decent encyclopaedia. --Folantin (talk) 18:08, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Ok. :P Tone just doesn't pop out as well on the internet as well as in rl conversation. ;) Icestorm815Talk 18:23, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll just post here what I posted there: FutPerf is a one-purpose admin, the best kind; his purpose is to disallow nationalist bullshit to disrupt the project. More people, Arbcom especially, should be lauding him for doing the right thing. This... well, I have to call it a 'proposal' as any of the more accurate words would get me blocked... this proposal is an utter travesty, and a complete betrayal of everything this project stands for. I call on every admin to resign the bit en masse, and request that Arbcom deal with all admin-attention-needed problems from here on out. They are unequivocally stating that they know better than a hard-working admin how to handle the relentless nationalistic idiocy that infests large chunks of the project, not to mention the other excellent work FutPerf does. So I say to you, admins: let them. Show them exactly how shortsighted this ridiculous proposal is by either resigning or going on strike. Wikipedia should be cheering the admins who are brave enough to stick their faces in these blenders, not removing the very tools they need to enforce one of our core principles. //roux   17:55, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

First, there are two good reasons why a lot of Admins stay away from these cat-fights: few of us have the patience to handle the grief that comes from groups who are only a few steps away from shooting at each other, & even fewer know enough about the disputes to know when the individuals involved are BSing. That said, if the ArbCom is correct about FPaS, I would be very surprised; he/she has always struck me as level-headed. Maybe FPaS did lose patience & wrote something incivil -- but considering the type of people who day after day push their nationalist POV over all other POVs on a topic, often using language which is hardly civil, I'd be inclined to cut him/her some slack for it & do no more than issue a warning. The ArbCom is going to need to provide a very detailed defense for removing the bit from FPaS if they don't want another round of "vote out the bums". -- llywrch (talk) 20:40, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I see arb com is currently backing off from the sanctions, and, without any personal feeling against any of those involved, I hope they have not yielded to the pressure expressed above and on the talk page linked to. Admins operate in a setting of almost complete freedom to conduct arbitrary action, and this is only tolerable to the extent that all of them retain the trust of the community. this trust is endangered by two things: appearance of non-neutrality, and rudeness. No matter how difficult the issue, someone who can not act calmly in it should not act in it, nor should someone whose neutrality is even subject to challenge. It is admittedly as I too have found difficult to continue involvement in a matter without acquiring a POV in some direct, and probably the only way to handle it is to take it in relays and act independently. Once one feels frustrated at something, one must step back from it as an admin. There reaslly should be no exceptions due to friendship or expertise or even overall quality of editing or adminiship-- but perhaps we need to be slow in transitioning to better expectations, to avoid the appearance of unfairness to individuals. The discussions above and on the talk page have an uncomfortable appearance of admins gathered to protect each other. DGG (talk) 04:05, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Hmm. I see now that my comment wasn't as clear as it should be, so let me try again. These subject areas -- those touching on ethnic/nationalistic hot buttons are difficult to moderate well, & few people (Admins & non-Admins) try. And Nietzsche's warning about battling monsters also applies here: mediators in these conflicts will eventually lose their patience & cool. (It's not a question of if, but when; even handling relatively uncontroversial topics eventually & unavoidably leads to a potential WikiBurnout event.) And if a mediator has totally lost it -- say, banning all parties & letting the ArbCom sort it out -- that individual deserves sanctions. However, when a person takes on a difficult task -- like moderating these ethnic/nationalistic conflicts -- & does do something unacceptable, then the ArbCom needs to explain very carefully & in sufficient detail the reasons for the sanctions. Because otherwise potential mediators will avoid these topics if it appears that the ArbCom doesn't have their backs, & there will be a backlash against the ArbCom. And I don't think anyone who cares about Wikipedia wants to see that happen. -- llywrch (talk) 17:58, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
It's already happening. As a direct result of this case, one admin (myself) has resigned; a long-term editor and another admin have retired in protest. Other admins are saying that they never want to have anything to do with nationalist conflicts ever again. The message from this case is that ArbCom does not have admins' backs and there is already a backlash against the ArbCom - the strongest I've ever seen, in fact. FloNight has already explicitly summarised the ArbCom's attitude: "The topic ... needs all editors and admins that make provocative edits to be removed so that the article can include stable NPOV content." Note the criteria being applied here - "provocative" edits are declared unacceptable regardless of context. In nationalist conflicts especially, simply insisting on NPOV and reliable verifiable sources is provocative, because the nationalists do not accept anything that contradicts their fixed view of "the truth". The message from ArbCom appears to be that not being "provocative" is a higher priority than ensuring encyclopedic quality, which of course defeats the basic purpose of Wikipedia. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:05, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
When it gets to a stage like this, people involved with the article have to pass it into other hands. The question of when one is too involved to continue cannot be left to the individual to decide for himself. DGG (talk) 00:53, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
It's not an article, it's a broad topic area. Lots of articles touch on the Republic of Macedonia, and even more touch on the Balkans. And no one has shown much sustained interested in dealing with the problems in this area except Moreschi, Fut. Perf., and ChrisO. Most admins who have commented at the voluminous talk page of the Macedonia 2 case have said that they're not that interested in getting involved in the topic area, because it's difficult, unrewarding, and seemingly futile...and the arbitration case gives me and many other editors the feeling that the ArbCom doesn't have much sympathy for admins who take on the task. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:01, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
I'd like to take Akhilleus' statement even further. It's beyond just a broad topic area, as the revert war over the name of Macedonia/Republic of Macedonia/Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia extends almost everywhere in the project (including such odd areas as a Colombian telenovela and an American musician), and I have no doubt that some of the participants in this long-term war will scream for enforcement the first time one of the parties to the case reverts an edit which changes "Macedonia" to "FYROM". Horologium (talk) 14:46, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
@DGG: I will rush to the defence of anyone working to protect neutrality, admin or otherwise, and I'm pretty sure others involved in defending FutPerf will do the same. Furthermore, the notion that this is admins defending admins is clearly mistaken because a number of those defending FutPerf are not admins. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 15:38, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Please remove Egyptian Language from Wikipedia[edit]

Resolved: This is the English Wikipedia which does not have any authority over other language projects.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 13:47, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Dear Administrators,

We are a group of Arabs including many Egyptians, who are not satisfied with the existence of an Egyptian Language in Wikipedia.

We benefit from Wikipedia and we appreciate the Wikipedia Project and consider it as a useful source of knowledge، which comes from the community to the community.

As a part of this community we would like to share our opinion, in order to improve the way people receive this knowledge.

We would like you to remove the so called Egyptian language from Wikipedia under the link:

There are a lot of reasons:

1. There is not an Egyptian language as it is claimed to be. There is an Arabic language and in Egypt there are a lot of dialects which derive from the original Arabic language, but none of them can be defined as a Language, as they have no grammar, no dictionaries and even there is not a common pronunciation of words. Every one would write a certain word in different ways.

2. The expressions used on the Egyptian Wikipedia site are mostly the exact English expressions, just written in Arabic letters. like "IP, Login, Save, etc." They have no Arabic or Egyptian origin. It is English in Arabic letters. This doesn't deserve to be a language.

3. Arabic is the language taught at schoolsin Egypt, and the language of many important literature and knowledge sources. By claiming the Egyptian dialect to be a Language, people will neglect Arabic language and by time they will forget it and lose access and understanding of their culture.

4. In Egypt there are different dialects; each city has its own dialect, from the north in Alexandria, till the far south at Aswan and from Sinai at the East till Libya. There are a lot of dialects. Why is the Egyptian Language on Wikipedia the true and official Egyptian language? Then instead of calling it Egyptian, call it "Egyptian, Cairo, followed by the name of district where the dialect is spoken".

5. We don't think it is your aim to add all dialects in each country and all dialects of each language. Think what it means 23 Arab countries, each of them, has many dialects!

6. If your aim is to let people understand the information on wikipedia, then let them learn their own language correctly. This is easier and more helpful than inventing a new language.

Our Suggestion:

If the above reasons still don't convince you, we suggest you to make a voting, to see the percentage of people for or against the claimed language.

We hope you can cooperate as soon as possible. Thanks for your understanding. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:30, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello, this is not something we here on the English Wikipedia can decide. Each language edition of Wikipedia is its own separate and independent project. The creation of the Egyptian-Arabic Wikipedia was decided on the Meta-Wiki ( [5]), the central coordination place for all projects. Any closure discussion will have to take place there. Fut.Perf. 13:37, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
The Administrator above beat me to it. That's absolutely correct, this is a separate Wikipedia and we don't have the power to make the change you are asking for. Dougweller (talk) 13:44, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm aware that it probably does not mean anything within a global community, but the IP that posted this request geolocates to Darmstadt, a significant distance from the Nile Delta.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 13:50, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I started the same discussion on the Egyptian Wikipedia and the admins deleted it. Because they don't want to listen to any critic. Being in Darmstadt, still doesn't mean that I'm not Egyptian. I do care about my language wherever I am. Please lead me to the correct admin. I sent an email to wikimedia admins. They said I have to join the discussion board. Now here you tell me this is the english wiki and it is different. So now who can I talk to??? Who is responsible for adding and removiong languages? Thanks for your help —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:20, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

If you want something done and believe it is a real problem, the only thing you can do is contact the Foundation itself. Even if people here "voted" to delete the entire Egyptian language wikipedia, the vote would have absolutely no influence as nothing decided here, on the English language wikipedia has any effect on any other language's wikipedias. Sorry if you feel like you are getting the run-around, but there is nothing anyone here can do. The Seeker 4 Talk 16:03, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
This discussion should take place at the same venue where the request for its establishment was made. Please follow the link provided above by Future Perfect at Sunshine. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 17:36, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


I noticed the article on Pre-Columbian Maya dance had a red link for a reference to Xilbabans. However, there is an existing article called Xibalba. But when I went to create the redirect, I was led here with a message that the title was restricted or possibly on a blacklist. I see no reason why this simple and helpful redirect could not be done. An alternative, of course, would be to edit the Pre Colombian Maya Dance article so it cites correctly. I may do that...unless that is blacklisted too...sigh.... just trying to be helpful. Natcolley (talk) 16:09, 11 June 2009 (UTC) Ok, done. Natcolley (talk) 16:33, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Tried to get the blacklist warning, but was successfully able to create the redir at Xibalbans (NB spelling: Your section here is called Xilbabans). Not quite sure whether Xilbabans would work, or whether it's a desirable redirect. Gonzonoir (talk) 16:35, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Please restore deleted featured picture[edit]

Would an administrator please restore File:Military aviary2.jpg? The file was inappropriately transferred to Commons (where it cannot be hosted due to Commons policy), and then deleted locally. As a result, no WMF site currently has a copy of it. DurovaCharge! 17:27, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. :) BTW as a reminder to the admin community, when a featured picture is hosted locally it is always a good idea to check with the uploader before deleting it. Due to variances in policy and copyright law a small number of featured pictures must be hosted locally, and local deletion risks losing them entirely. DurovaCharge! 17:31, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Okay, that was weird. It let me see the deleted picture, but when I tried to restore it, it threw an error. J.delanoygabsadds 17:37, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Well, it's back and running now. Much obliged. Illustrates a silly little article that just made GA. Would love to get it to FA for a chance at next year's April Fool's main page. :) Cheers! DurovaCharge! 17:39, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

In case any devs happen to see this, here's the error I got:

Undelete failed; someone else may have undeleted the page first.
Error undeleting file: Could not find file "deleted/p/9/w/p9w061e3t8al312qgmd6r5v0lj5ba1g.jpg".

But I could still view the deleted file by clicking the link to the version. I ended up just downloading the image, and then uploading it manually myself. J.delanoygabsadds 17:37, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Vintagekits and Kittybrewster[edit]

Vintagekits (talk · contribs) and Kittybrewster (talk · contribs) were given some sort of topic ban by the community a while back, which was confirmed by ArbCom without ArbCom taking the case. The motion they passed is here. From my reading of that motion it seems clear to me that they are not banned from article editing on Knights and Baronets, only from page moves (plus pointy AFD noms). However, ArbCom also says that the community enacted topic ban is recognized and confirmed, and in that discussion, it was definitely not clear that the ban applied to moves only; in fact, at least one admin requested Kittybrewster be blocked for article edits: [6]. Both Vintagekits and Kittybrewster seem to believe they are banned from article edits as well. If that's the case, it's due to the community, not ArbCom. I'd like the community to follow ArbCom's lead and agree that the topic ban applies only to page moves related to knights and baronets, not to article edits. Mangojuicetalk 12:35, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Community topic bans normally include article editing. Got the link to the community ban so we can read it? RlevseTalk 20:45, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
No. It's the constant fighting over the entire topic of nobility that causes this, and my understanding at the close of that latest AN/I discussion was that both were banned from the topic, writ large. ThuranX (talk) 20:50, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
The (lengthy) thread is here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive536#Vintagekits, Kittybrewster, and BrownHairedGirlxenotalk 20:52, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
I would support this motion. I am of the opinion that the community consensus was somewhat shaky, especially considering a good number of the community who commented were hardly neutral observers, having long histories of animosity with one or other of the subjects. There was no evidence presented for a history of problematic editing, which leaves a complete topic ban without much justification. I suggest both editors are given indefinite community page-move bans on the subject, with a strong message that any further issues on this topic will result on it being expanded to a full topic ban. Rockpocket 20:56, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Let me also add that ArbCom actually rejected other motions that were unambiguous about the ban applying to article edits. And, furthermore, the proposal to ban, from Tznkai, was originally worded as a temporary measure until arbitration can be pursued, and some people (like me) supported it on that basis. And while we're on it, is the community ban temporary? It was originally proposed that way. Mangojuicetalk 21:57, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
That thread is extremely hard to follow. I suggest the community start a new discussion with a precisely worded proposal. RlevseTalk 01:35, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Without going into personal details, I am very busy in meatspace, and that takes priority, but I will clarify briefly, and hopefully be back onwiki tomorrow. The wording on the community ban was rather specific "I think the amount of energy spent here shows quite clearly that all three disputing users are too passionate to remain suitably objective for writing on the topic. That, and there is obviously disruption, so I suggest a community topic ban on the the topic of Baronets (edits, articles, and policy pages inclusive) on Vintagekits, Brownhairedgirl, and KittyBrewster until disposed of by Arbcom or six months time, whichever comes first.'--Tznkai (talk) 03:44, 3 May 2009 (UTC)" I found sufficient consensus to enact that ban on Vintagekits and Kittybrewster both, that ban was in fact confirmed by ArbCom. The subsequent discussion is confusing, especially on the matter of time, but I think there is definite consensus for the topic ban to go far beyond pagemoves, but is in fact a complete vacation from the topic area. Statements on the request for arbitration should be illuminating as well as to the reasoning involved. The motion passed confirmed that ban, and then restricted page moves indefinitely as a separate clause.
I am of the opinion that the record shows that the Committee avoided arbitration because they thought a topic ban + moveban was sufficient and reasonable, and that actual arbitration was unnecessary. If we want to argue this all on the merits, I think the committee should be invited back into the discussion. --Tznkai (talk) 02:47, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
The problem with a community ban (in practice, someone proposes and a sufficient proportion of those who comment - often those with axe in hand, ready to grind - agree) is that there it is difficult to interpret and enforce. As we found with Vk's all-but-boxing ban last year, community bans are ripe for lawyering and exploitation, even if the terms are carefully stated, because all it takes is a small cohort of like-minded editors to artificially sway the community consensus one way or the other. This one, quite frankly, it is going to lead to nothing but more problems. For example, Kb recently got in trouble for moving an article on someone who was not a Baronet, but, partly because the subject's father and brother were Baronets, it was considered justifiably within the topic ban. So Kb quite rightly would like to know where the line is drawn. Are they banned from editing bios about people who have brothers who are Baronets? How about fathers? Grandfathers? Husbands? Cousins? Who decides and how do we know that was how "the community" interpreted the ban at the time it supported it? Unless someone - and as proposer I guess it falls to you, Tznkai - is able to define what the ban to those affected and demonstrate those limits are what the community agreed on, I don't see much point with continuing it. Because as it stands only Tznkai seems sure about what the terms of it are. Rockpocket 03:16, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
And furthermore, I wish I had a better idea of what exactly Kittybrewster was doing wrong this time around, apart from the inappropriate AfD nomination. As for inviting ArbCom in, I think their solution was poor and they should have taken the case. Mangojuicetalk 04:11, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
The long and short of it is that Kittybrewster's has a known/suspected (depending on who you ask) significant conflict of interest in the area of Baronets, in addition to a flare up in a known user interaction problem (the AfD nomination the latest in a series of failures). Kittybrewster and Vintagekits do not get along at all well, and both have demonstrated an inability to write neutrally and without causing trouble in the topic area. I'd ask Fozzie, Giano, and Alison to back me up on this, but I believe they've all left with their hands thrown into the air.
As for the topic ban itself, I generally make pains to define my proposed bans as widely as possible, and I believe most supporters understood that. Now, we can argue whether or not Arbcom was wise or not to do something, but the fact is, they did confirm the ban, wise or not. You may want to ask them to clarify what they thought the ban was on WP:Arb/R or whatever the shortcut is now, and you can argue that I called the consensus wrong the first time around, but I think thats going too far down the Wikipedia as a game path of problem solving. Instead, I invite those who have a problem with what I've done to come up with a better solution, take some time (a few days) and forge a new consensus. I however, remain adamant that whatever solution is found, the Baronetcy area needs to be quarantined from these two for everyone's good, and that the efforts by one or both parties to edit nearby should evoke more concern than sympathy.--Tznkai (talk) 06:45, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
First, can you explain the Conflict of Interest allegation? As far as I remember it was that Kittybrewster is titled and thus has a seeming interest in titles being respected? Because that is not really a WP:COI, just a viewpoint. Second, at least one commenter (me) supported the ban only as a temporary measure until ArbCom ruled. In fact, that wording is there in your ban: ArbCom has now ruled, doesn't that mean the ban has expired? Mangojuicetalk 11:10, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
The COI issue has been "cold" for well over 18 months. It was in relation to Kittybrewster writing articles on his own family members. It was raised (somewhere) and addressed - Kb was told not to do it again and has refrained from doing so. There is one "exception" I'm aware of, where he edited an article on a geographical feature named after (I think) one of his family. So I don't know why it was raised again.
In addition, I am not aware of problems in the area prior to this issue blowing up last time. Kb had been working away in the area without any issues being raised, here or elsewhere. Vintagekits year-long topic ban ran out, and within hours he was moving baronet articles. Kb reported it here. And, somehow, bizarrely, ended up with a topic ban from his area of interest. Apart from his ill-advised and pointy AfD nomination of a Vk boxer article, Kittybrewster had done nothing wrong apart from follow procedure. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 11:52, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
I dont know if you are saying all that out of blind hatred for me or you've had a wee bout of amnesia! I think you need to go back and read the ANI reports if you think that Kitty did nothing wrong except stupidly AfD Ben Flores.--Vintagekits (talk) 12:10, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Vintagekits year-long topic ban ran out, and within hours he was moving baronet articles. - the flip side of that is - Members of the Peerage Project ignored that articles were systematically titled incorrectly and it was not until Vintagekits topic ban ended that this issue was hightlight - said members of said project didnt like that because they owned these articles and created a shit storm as a smoke screen to stop it happening.--Vintagekits (talk) 13:53, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
The CoI cannot be discussed without risking an WP:OUTING violation, so I recommend that stop. We all know he's got one, so we should move on from there. This went through the community once, as I read it, it was clear that there was a topic ban from the community, but at the last second a couple people swooped in and sent it to arbcom, hoping to derail the topic ban. It seems to have worked. If people would knock it off on the asinine infinite good faith with obvious problem editors who continue to war and POV push, we could get more done around here. The topic ban clearly has great support for KB and VK, and a not as much for BHG. I see no reason to show up over here on a different AN, to restart this entire process after the events have cooled again, to see if a new consensus from different editors can be found which is kinder to VK and KB. Block them both for a year, let them actually go write articles that don't push their personal agendas or buttons, and get on with things. ThuranX (talk) 11:58, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
I dont think it would be an "outing" as Kitty had on his user page who his is and a link to the page which had details about who he is.--Vintagekits (talk) 12:12, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Entirely agree with VK here. It's not "outing", given that Kittybrewster (to his credit) has always been scrupulous about making his COI as regards the Arbuthnot family clear – see here. – iridescent 13:59, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

(undent)The big deal part COI issue is discussed above, but my concern is mostly with the little deal portion of it - in my opinion KB has demonstrated that his viewpoint is held strongly enough that he cannot keep his cool in editing disputes on the topic - black and white thinking, behavior in ANI threads, so on and so forth. VK is the same way, and more than a few administrators felt this was a long extant baiting/escalation cycle between the two. As to the temporary nature of the ban (Answering mangojuice's question directly) it was specifically worded as a topic ban that would last for six months, OR until disposed of by Arbitration, whichever came first. Since ArbCom has not seen fit to overturn the ban, that condition has not happened. It is still feasible that ArbCom may still get involved, at which point they will get another chance to dispose of the ban. As far as I'm concerned, that means ArbCom agrees with the ban as it stands, but has pawned off responsibility back to the community for changing it through normal means.--Tznkai (talk) 16:49, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

The disputes between these two have been extremely disruptive. The topic ban seems to have worked and I don't see any need to alter or lift it. If the topic ban on these two users is lifted then I'd support proposal to replace it with a community ban.   Will Beback  talk  18:32, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
It takes two to have a dispute. Vintagekits' topic ban had already been reimposed on an indefinite basis before the temporary three-way topic ban was proposed. If we go back to that solution, we are still preventing them from fighting over these topics. In carefully rereading the discussion, here is everything that has been pointed out about KB's actions. (1) He created Arbuthnot Lake, and included a link to his personal website in describing it as named after a specific Arbuthnot (this is the point you raised.) KB is right that this is not exactly the issue he got in big trouble with in 2007, but at the same time, the link to his own website was not good and this is a topic he should have steered clear of. That said, I don't see how the topic ban prevents a similar situation from arising again: if it's Arbuthnots or WP:EL we're concerned about, that should be the issue in the ban. And in any case, KB has steered clear of trouble relating to Arbuthnot bios for 2 years. (2) Some of his actions were baiting, including his support for VK's topic ban, some personal comments about him, and the WP:POINT violation. This is handled by the ArbCom motion separately: they are restricted from nominating pages created by the other for deletion and generally warned to keep away from each other. Finally, (3) he is the other party in some of the page-move reverts, but not many compared to BHG. Again, this issue is handled by the ArbCom ruling in that he is restricted indefinitely from page moves in the area. So I think we should just lift the article ban for KB, or at least open that part up for discussion again. Mangojuicetalk 18:53, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Did you really open with "It takes two to have a dispute.", then spend the entire rest absolving KittyBrewster of his actions while insisting that only VintageKits be topic banned? That's rich hypocrisy. Both should be banned, as it DOES take two to tango, Mango. ThuranX (talk) 21:18, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
All we have to do to stop the disruption is to keep them separated. The ban on Vintagekits, which has very clear support and for good cause, accomplishes that. Kittybrewster has been largely behaving himself for two years; he got defensive when Vintagekits' ban expired and he went on his ill-advised rampage. His behavior does not justify this. Mangojuicetalk 13:20, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
"Kittybrewster has been largely behaving himself for two years" - poppy cock! "when Vintagekits' ban expired and he went on his ill-advised rampage" - extreme poppy cock!--Vintagekits (talk) 13:23, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't accept the COI argument. I have a PhD, but does that mean I have a COI when editing an article about anyone else with a PhD? Of course not. Banning Kb from editing all Baronets because has happens to be one is ridiculous. Fine, ban him from editing articles about his own family on that basis, but not just because they share a post-nomial. But that notwithstanding, no-one has yet addressed what is and is not covered by this topic ban. If we - as a community - are going to restrict an editor from a topic on threat of blocking, we should at least have the courtesy to explain to them what the scope of it is. Are they permitted to edit articles of relatives of Baronets? Rockpocket 00:35, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
If you edited every PhD you found by adding "Dr. so and so PhD" at every instance of a name (for example) then yes, you would have an unacceptable editing pattern relating to a conflict of interest. And Mangojuice, I your willingness to slice and dice the ArbCom ruling a bit disconcerting they addressed the situation as they did, by confirming a community ban and then adding a separate clause about page moves.
As to the details of the topic ban, to requote my original proposal "edits, articles, and policy pages inclusive". I would also point to the wording I used in Vintagekits' topicban worked well: "anything that related substantially to Baronets, Baronets by name, a group of them, or the actions thereof". Inevitably, there will be some administrator discretion involved (as their always is) but yes, I would include family members - this is a topic involving heredity.--Tznkai (talk) 03:32, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Is it suggested I have edited every knight I have found by adding something? Where have I done that? Kittybrewster 11:31, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Firstly, no-one has provided evidence that there is an ongoing problem with Kb editing in such a manner. Where is the record of problematic edits to the relevant articles leading up to this ban? Secondly, that is not a COI issue whatsoever. If anyone went around adding "Dr. so and so PhD" to every article on an academic it would be a problem, solely because it runs counter to our MOS. Whether I have a PhD seems entirely irrelevant. These two accusations - COI and problematic editing - are being linked as a justification for a topic ban, but I have yet to see any significant evidence that either is an ongoing issue, never mind both. Therein lies the problem of a community enforced decision, the burden of proof is very low (or in this case nonexistent). Rockpocket 17:22, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Hilariously, Vintagekits insisted that his pagemoves were enforcing the MOS by stripping the title from the pagename, bringing this argument full circle. But really, my example above on PhDs and conflicts of interest was just that, an example, not any clever insinuation. It goes to the point however, that if we bring who we are in meatspace, onto wiki, we tend to have problems.
As for significant evidence, I point you at the above linked arbitration request and ANI thread. You may not agree with it, and feel free to argue against it, but the fact is, many of the rest of us are convinced that Kittybrewster is unable to separate his personal feelings/stakes on Baronetcy and his editing.
Perhaps more significant, is that I, and others, is unwilling to consider Vintagekits the sole problem in any of these incidents, and one does not solve the abuse of Wikipedia as a battleground by letting one side carry the field.
I am more than a little tired of the moving goalposts. First it was what arbcom said or did, then it was what consensus was clear or not, then what the definition of of a community ban are, then a demand for particular evidence, then whether community enforced decisions are valid at all! These are my contentions, and I stand by them, and believe the record supports me. 1. It was a valid community ban. Reading the comments, and I'm not willing to dismiss them all on a blanket charge that "too many people had axes to grind" 2. The supporters, by and large, were convinced by and/or have submitted evidence and testimony that the problem is behavioral and cyclical. 3. KB has an established personal stake in the honoring, or lack therof, of Baronets as a whole, and of one family in particular. 4. The community ban was confirmed and then supplemented by the Arbitration Committee. 5. The community ban is easy enough to understand. KB and VK stay away from Baronetcy and Baronets as a topic, giving it a wide berth.
Finally, and most importantly, whatever difficulties, dislikes, and criticisms there are of me, Vintagekits, ArbCom, and the processes done, the proper course of action for those who wish for change, is to gather new consensus - over time and gathering wide participation and discussion, instead of just myself, Rockpocket, Mangojuice, the and principles - instead of trying to undermine the old one.--Tznkai (talk) 21:29, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I added some relevant information regarding Vintagekits and the Charlie Zelenoff article at the bottom of the page. I believe his recent behavior may warrant disciplinary action. (see below). Lordvolton (talk) 04:15, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Allow the guys to edit those articles-in-question. Just don't allow 'em to move articles. GoodDay (talk) 14:48, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

However, I am extremely interested in seeing them moved!--Vintagekits (talk) 15:17, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps they will be moved 'someday'. GoodDay (talk) 15:45, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
SPI case resolved; excess accounts closed. -- Avi (talk) 19:52, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Resolved: per the SPI--Doug.(talk contribs) 19:26, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Can someone please take a look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tajik and take care of established sock accounts? Thanks. Grandmaster 11:55, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

There hasn't been any violation of WP:sock to "take care of". I am nobody's sock account, the accounts listed as "related" to me, are merely my alternative accounts used on different topics, which should not have been revealed by the CU in the first place (the CU was filed by an obvious sock puppet of the banned editor User:NisarKand fishing), since I am neither a banned user nor have used my alternative accounts to evade 3RR or vote-stack. I've already raised the issue with the admin who conducted the CU. --Kurdo777 (talk) 12:52, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Given that at least one of the sock accounts was used for edit-warring to re-introduce some rather blatant WP:BLP violations here, and that the whole scheme of half a dozen accounts was clearly used to "cover your tracks" over your total editing pattern, the story of "legitimate alternate account use" is not very convincing. Fut.Perf. 12:51, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
And why do you need so many accounts to edit the articles that are mostly Iran/Afghanistan related? From what I see, you use multiple accounts to edit war on various topics, and 3 of your accounts have been blocked for edit warring/3RR: [7] [8] [9] It is so convenient to jump from one account to another to edit war on different topics. Grandmaster 12:55, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

[To Future Perfect at Sunrise] That was an honest mistake, I was merely rolling back an IP removing sourced material, and did not pay enough attention to the content. Regardless, I am neither a sock, nor a banned user. My active alternative accounts were used for four different topics, namely politics, geography, history, and film. The accounts should not have been revealed in the first place, because it's an infringement of my privacy. Furthermore, the the person who filed the CU, is actually a banned user (User:NisarKand), who was clearly fishing after I reverted the edits of his latest confirmed sockpuppet User:Mullaji , per WP:Ban#Enforcement_by_reverting_edits. --Kurdo777 (talk) 13:05, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

[To Grandmaster] You have 9 blocks for edit-warring yourself [10]. My 3 blocks were on completely different topics (sport, politics, history) in the span of 3 months, and I have not had a block in the last 6 months. Fact remains, I am neither a banned user, nor have used alternative accounts for evading 3RR or vote-staking. In fact, I have tried my best to be an exploratory editor lately, and have been rigidly following policy --Kurdo777 (talk) 13:26, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't know Kurdo very well but he has been perfectly reasonable in the interactions I have had with him on Iranian topics (I don't really edit Afghan stuff except in so far as it relates to the Safavids). It's a shame if he turns out to be a sock account. --Folantin (talk) 14:25, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Bluemarine[edit]

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

The topic ban placed on Benjiboi (talk · contribs) in relation to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Bluemarine is rescinded.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Tiptoety talk 18:59, 11 June 2009 (UTC)'

Discuss this

Possible COI editing by Microsoft[edit]


Closer at WP:COIN thread recommended taking directly to arbitration. Nothing more to do at AN. DurovaCharge! 00:59, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Extended content

There are some quite serious COI problems being discussed at COIN here that I think admins should know about. Smartse (talk) 22:05, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I resent the title you are using here as this is definitly not the case. The only COI actions shown are those of IBM and Groklaw making publications on Wikipedia article to get their readers to "improve" the article on OpenDocument and an OASIS OpenDocument committee involved person making false COI claims about editors on a competing format to OpenDocument namely Office Open XML. hAl (talk) 22:58, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
While I agree that user HA1 should be blocked from editing pages related to Microsoft or its competitors (the quality of his frequent edits in regard to ODF and OOXML has stood in the way of NPOV for a very long time), it should be noticed that the basis for the Weir/Groklaw criticism leveled at Wikipedia has been debunked and that Weir has confessed that he silently edited his prior article that stated exactly what he had labeled as Microsoft FUD. See No one supports ISO ODF today? and Weir's admission in the comments there. Marbux (talk) 00:38, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
It appears that HAl will never learn, he has had a clear COI problem for a long time. There is a clear subverting of Wikipedia policy on almost every page HAl edits. There is an oganized pro microsoft agenda at play with multiple editors. He even had the gall to have OpenDocument locked. Thats like the fox locking the dog out of the henhouse.AlbinoFerret (talk) 04:46, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
How exactly has this been resolved? I don't see the explanation. Verbal chat
I've re-opened this issue which was closed without comment because there are clearly some very serious issues here that need to be investigated. The fact that I contributed to a charter for an interoperability working group a year ago (I'm active in various standards bodies including OASIS, W3C and OGF) is by no means reason to close the issue and I am certainly not alone in wanting action to be taken. My identity as well as all of my work in the standards community is open to public scrutiny. This is more than can be said for hAl who has been successful in bringing a lot of negative attention to Wikipedia while promoting Microsoft and repressing opinions of other editors who aren't so committed to his cause (for whatever reason). -- samj inout 13:02, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
I agree that action needs to be taken against hAI and any other problematic editors in this area, for the good of the project and the editing environment. Verbal chat 13:07, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
FWIW I'm committed to open standards of all kinds (and open process behind those standards) but nobody is *that* committed that they would devote so much energy over such a long period of time to subverting the process (at least not without some significant incentive). Virtually all of this users' edits are problematic and the benefits of requiring them to contribute via talk pages for certain articles far outweighs the costs of permitting continued disruption. -- samj inout 13:48, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Sam, what you're doing here is a pretty serious violation of WP:AGF. The contention that HAl works for Microsoft is not provable through anything this editor has said and done on Wikipedia; it's all conjecture. You could look at my body of 20,000 edits, much of which are on Windows-related articles, especially in the area of stopping Wikipedia from becoming an anti-Microsoft trollfest, and probably conclude that I must work for Microsoft in some fashion because "nobody is that commited". I don't work for Microsoft -- it's just an area of personal interest for me. A hobby, if you will. Maybe HAl does work for Microsoft, but what you absolutely are not welcome to do here on Wikipedia is accuse editors of working for an organization without any kind of conclusive proof, and attempt to take actions against that editor based on heresy and conjecture.
You and I both know that the only reason that you're here, today, contending this is because you read Groklaw and Slashdot, and decided "hey, I'm an editor on Wikipedia, I can do something about this!" .... that's why your WP:COIN filing was closed. That, and the fact that you are an active supporter of one of the two sides in this discussion -- You have a personal, invested interest in promoting OpenDocument, which is easily identifiable from your creating related projects and participating in discussion groups related to OASIS and OpenDocument. You probably aren't the right person to go around accusing other Wikipedia editors of having a conflict of interest when it comes to document forms. Warren -talk- 14:00, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm not promoting "actions against that editor based on heresy(sic) and conjecture" - I've spent some time gathering hard evidence of their indiscretions which speaks for itself. Others supported the proposed topic ban at WP:COIN and it is quite clearly justified. -- samj inout 14:16, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
What you call hard evidence is actually just a bunch of nonsense. It would just about serve to show I am probalby a bit of a fan of MS Office 2007 and IE8 which is nothing to be ashamed of. However what is clearly proven is that you are closely related to the OASIS OpenDocument committees (activly doing work for those committees) and are trying to file (false) complaints on people who edit the wikipedia article on the competing formats Office Open XML article. That certainly is a clear COI. hAl (talk) 16:02, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
You've collected a series of links that show you don't like HAl's edits because they promulgate a point of view you disagree with. That's fine that you disagree with his edits, and there's certainly a valid case to be made that HAl has serious difficulty following Wikipedia's policies on edit warring..... but that doesn't constitute a COI violation. The notion that HAl's edits over the last few years show a generally favourable view of Office Open XML doesn't automatically entitle you to try to get him banned for being an "apparent Microsoft shill", as you so succinctly put it when you went to Slashdot to brag about how you're trying to get this editor banned. Again, I need to stress the point that calling a Wikipedian a shill violates our WP:AGF policy; it would serve you well to drop this behaviour, as it reflects poorly on you and your intentions towards the project.
Also, we don't ban editors on the basis that they have a favourable view of a topic, even if they're paid to have that view, so long as they follow Wikipedia's policies and guidelines while editing. An RFC on this very topic was opened a couple of days ago — Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Paid editing — which you may be interested in participating in if you feel that this practice needs to change. Warren -talk- 16:18, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

To spare others the tedium: User:Bjweeks closed this [11]. The closure [12] on COIN offers some clues as to his thinking there William M. Connolley (talk) 18:21, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Can't download PDF of Uniforms of the United States Marine Corps.[edit]

I can't download a PDF File for printageTM. Here's what I get (word for word):

The POST request to failed (connect() timed out!).

Anyone else getting an issue like this? Glacier Wolf 20:35, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I can't find that URL, or anything that resembles it, in either that article's wikitext or its generated HTML. There doesn't appear to be a link to a wikimedia hosted PDF file at all on that article (there are links to several others, all hosted elsewhere). is a valid machine, but it does not appear to host an httpd on port 8080. Perhaps if you say which specific link you clicked on that article we might be able to look further at the issue. (talk) 21:24, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
This appears to be a problem when trying to get a "PDF version" of any page (I've tried on half a dozen so far). Someone else has posted at the Help Desk regarding this. Perhaps someone there or at the technical village pump (where I can't see it mentioned so far) would have some ideas? --Kateshortforbob 22:57, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Now mentioned at WP:VPT --Kateshortforbob 23:12, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Bug submitted as bug 19167 Glacier Wolf 00:21, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Need an admin to restore a merged article[edit]

Resolved: article restored & redirected. KrakatoaKatie 03:29, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Striking "resolved" as the article was hastily redeleted. user:J aka justen (talk) 05:17, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bugbears in popular culture was closed by Rjanag (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) as Delete and merge, which I believe violates GFDL licensing requirements. Rjanag declined to restore the file and redirect to the merge target, so I'm asking here for an admin who can do so. Powers T 21:35, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

  • It does, both because of the deletion of the origin but also because of the failure to follow Wikipedia:MERGE#Performing the merger, which notes the GFDL implications of not leaving clear edit summaries with mergers and gives a model. The options at an AFD include Deleting and merging but not both. The deletion and the cut paste merge should both be undone and the merge redone in accordance with WP:MERGE.--Doug.(talk contribs) 22:30, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
    • I'll take care of it. Back in a moment. KrakatoaKatie 03:14, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
      • And done. Marking resolved. KrakatoaKatie 03:29, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
        • You'll find that it was just undone again by Casliber, whose edits merging content can be found here, and who also participated in the AFD discussion. It seems that at least two administrators need a refresher course in the requirements of the GFDL. Uncle G (talk) 05:04, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Seriously, what's going on here? The response from Rjanag is underwhelming (to say the least), and the immediate redeletion by Casliber (without discussion?) is a bit bizarre. user:J aka justen (talk) 05:16, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Underwhelming? I told LtPowers that he could ask an admin to restore the deleted edits if they wanted, and that was done right here. As for Casliber's redeletion, I agree with it. If you leave a useless redirect like people are suggesting, there's just going to be an RFD later when people realize we have a redirect for a search term no one is ever going to use. And, in case anyone missed it, I did tag the Bugbear talkpage with a notification that content was merged, and Casliber added a link to the AfD, so I don't really see why there are serious attribution issues. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 05:54, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Rjanag, that's a bit defensive and snippy. Tagging the talk page is not a GFDL compliant way to note a Merger. Admins of all people, need to be familiar with GFDL and with the requirements of WP:MERGE. This is nothing personal Rjanag, but I'm very concerned when I see an Admin respond after deleting a page: "I'm not familiar with the GDFL issues". --Doug.(talk contribs) 06:03, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
(ec) I just looked at WP:MERGE and noticed "Merging should always leave a redirect", which I was not aware of, so for the record I guess I was wrong there. Although, for what it's worth, I think that's a bit of a silly rule to have if the redirect is useless (I've seen redirects like that come up at RfD, and if I had left Bugbears in popular culture as a redirect I have no doubt someone would nominate it, who knows when, maybe several months from now after everyone has forgotten about its AfD) and the entire article history is still visible to admins and linked from the tag on the talk page. Anyway, this is not the place to argue over what the merging rules should be, so I'll just leave it at that for now; you guys can come in and do whatever you want with the article, I just wanted to explain why I deleted it. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 06:07, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
The issue isn't preserving the redirect so much as it is preserving the specific edit history of the content that is being copied over elsewhere. Attribution is a key issue for the project, and without that edit history, we're violating the license under which the contributors donated their work. (I think you might also have previously highlighted that administrators can still see the revisions, which doesn't satisfy GFDL.) user:J aka justen (talk) 06:11, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Exactly, and it's the edit summaries that provide the necessary link back to the history. If a redirect comes up at RFD a closing admin should be checking the redirect's (and target's) edit history for the "merged to" language given at WP:MERGE before deleting, among other things. Without the edit summary the history may be somewhere on Wikipedia but we'll never find it and that doesn't satisfy the GFDL either.--Doug.(talk contribs) 06:19, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
In addition, the redirect should be tagged with {{R from merge}} to make it more obvious. Flatscan (talk) 04:04, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Like I said, feel free to do what you need to do to restore the attribution the way Wikipedia wants it. I understand the arguments and I don't see a need for anything more to be discussed (with me, at least). rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 06:30, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
I agree, you've been sufficiently trouted. I don't think we can resolve the specific page problem though without Casliber though. --Doug.(talk contribs) 06:38, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi all, been offline. I am not fussed either way, I deleted as I couldn't see it being a valid search term. As far as history, the individual edits adding the bits of the IPC were added when they were part of the bugbear article before being hived off (I think). I am happy to restore if someone wants to do a history merge. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:57, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I'll take a look at the history but generally a full-history merge is not a good idea for an ordinary merger as it mixes the history of two different articles. Of course, now it's all confused, I'll see what the situation looks like.--Doug.(talk contribs) 11:01, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
OK, just let me know what you need me to do, if I can help. Sorry to have contributed to the confusion. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:19, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
For my own future trouting, when I restored and redirected, did I do it correctly, or did I screw it up? KrakatoaKatie 21:29, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
I believe you handled it correctly. Unfortunately, as of right now, the article remains (re)deleted (twice over), and the content remains unattributed to its original authors... ??? :) user:J aka justen (talk) 22:20, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I took responsibility for this and then didn't have time to fix it yet. I am just on for a minute and then off again. It needs to be undeleted then merged in accordance with Wikipedia:MERGE#Full-content_paste_merger. The important steps are: 3. Edit summary with "merge content from article name" and 4. replace source with "#REDIRECT [[PAGENAME]] {{R from merge}}", note the merger (including the page name) in the edit summary. These seem to keep getting missed, people keep saying just "merged" or "merged per AFD xyz" which aren't enough. The only thing keeping me from doing that right now, is I wanted to take a closer look at the mess of a history that everyone (including me - I goofed and forgot what tab I was on and accidentally posted a message to Casliber on the deleted article) has made. A history merge is NOT required normally for mergers but the history may be dorked up now and I wanted to check.--Doug.(talk contribs) 19:39, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
I broke the transclusion using nowiki tags. If anyone thinks the directions should be rewritten, let me know – I've been planning to do so for a while. Flatscan (talk) 05:17, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, I noticed that but was in a huge rush (BTW, I just moved the first nowiki tag back to cover the "article name"). What are you thinking about rewriting? Do you think they just need clarification or is there some point on which they are wrong? I think they are fairly straight forward, they've changed little in the past couple years and I learned to merge by following them, but I'm sure they can be improved on.--Doug.(talk contribs) 18:16, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
I started Help talk:Merging and moving pages#Rewriting merge instructions with some small ideas a few months ago, but never went back to it. Alan Liefting has started splitting the page, which seems like a fine idea. Flatscan (talk) 04:37, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
I'll try to take a closer look at all this again tonight. I think the pages that merged just need a selective undelete and a corrective edit summary, if that hasn't already been taken care of by someone who hasn't been commenting here. I'm very interested in possible changes to the instructions and will take a look there too.--Doug.(talk contribs) 04:50, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I finally got a chance to go over it all and I think it's all set now, I restored the redirect and noted the merger and this discussion in the reason for the restore, I added the {{R from merge}} and I added a null edit to the target page with a "merged from" comment referring back to the [Help:Page_history#Linking_to_a_specific_version_of_a_page|permalink] for the pasting in of the text. Any issues regarding what merged content should be kept in the target should be dealt with on that article's talk page. I think the GFDL issue is effectively and fairly simply fixed now. I'd appreciate a check by J or anyone else who understands exactly why this was necessary before this is marked resolved. Thanks and sorry for the delay in making the fixes.--Doug.(talk contribs) 17:41, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Appalling abuse by User:Sander Säde and User:Digwuren[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
This is going nowhere useful. Editors who believe that another editor, despite being warned, repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process in articles related to Eastern Europe are invited to file a well-documented arbitration enforcement request in order to request sanctions pursuant to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren#Discretionary sanctions. No invectives or personal attacks, please, just the diffs. Sandstein  09:04, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Sander Säde accuses me of removing sourced material ([13]) by modifying the article Erna long-range recce group to what I consider a NPOV version.

My version: [14] – I did not remove any sourced material. This claim is in bad faith and plainly wrong. This does not in any way stop Digwuren from coming back with this: [15].

Sander Säde subsequently (or – to be precise – right before Digwuren's revert) accuses me of making a Nazi attack (!) at the – get this – Wikipedia:WikiProject Estonia/Nazi attack noticeboard against Estonia, on a very tendentious noticeboard created by his friend Digwuren just a day earlier: [16], a subsection of WikiProject Estonia specifically designed to recruit Estonian nationalist editors to whitewash any negative historical or current facts about the Republic of Estonia. (Digwuren was previously banned for a year for taking part in meatpuppet-related nationalist revert wars involving the Estonian Bronze Soldier controvery in 2007. See the landmark case WP:DIGWUREN.)

User:Digwuren's entire editing history here at Wikipedia is essentially a serious of POV-pushing attacks (see [17]), and this sort of little project is in very bad faith and merely serves to recruit editors for multisided edit-warring, which is hardly conducive to our aims as Wikipedians. Digwuren already regularly reverts any political article he touches twice or thrice, thereby continuously gaming the system and escaping under the radar without violating the 3RR rule. He's already been recommended for a block by Admin. Hiberniantears: [18].

On practically every Estonia-, Russia-, or Communism-related article Digwuren stalks around in packs: this is plainly documented at [19] – note that this is a partial list, the best idea of Digwuren's tendentious editing is to be gleaned by looking at his actual edit history. It takes only a brief look at the sum total of his contributions to see the apparent POV pushing that he is here for. Although what he considers to be sticking to NPOV is an amusing case in its own right: [20].

Being Jewish, I indeed care about issues like the resurgence of far-right sentiment in Europe and anti-Semitism. I take the pattern of Digwuren's editing and setting up a "Nazi attacks noticeboard" because I must have some kind of agenda to be deeply insulting. Note that this Estonian user has created an Anti-Estonian sentiment article where he portrays any semblance of an idea of bringing up Nazi sentiment in Estonia as anti-Estonian bigotry. (Anti-Estonian sentiment#Accusations of sympathies with Nazism)

I believe that this user should be warned. It not the first time that issues of this nature have arisen in regard to his editing and style of interaction.

As far as the "Nazi attacks noticeboard" – that is an unbearably insulting and prejudicial attack, certainly trivializing to the work of legitimate editors. This, simply, should be taken care of. I would appreciate seeing some kind of action from our administrators here as far as seriously approaching this. This is an abuse of Wikipedia's editing priveleges and of all those interested in making use of good-faith, productive editing.

PasswordUsername (talk) 17:32, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I've not reviewed the substance of the above, but a glance at his contributions leads me to believe that PasswordUsername seems to have some issues of his own. Anyway, we have a relevant arbitration case, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren#Discretionary sanctions, and a well-documented WP:AE request for such sanctions – with respect to any editor – would probably result in swift action. This is hardly the forum for it, though.  Sandstein  17:50, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Indeed, if you check my edit history you'll see that I had no interactions with this user (and a bunch of friends) prior to his attacks on me on May 10th. There have been major issues since then. I beg you to specify how listing "Putinjugend" – an entire article devoted to comparing the Nashi youth organization tot he Hitler Youth – as an attack page is an instance of my troublesome work here. PasswordUsername (talk) 17:55, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
(Sorry for that digression. This discussion continues here).  Sandstein  18:43, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
PasswordUsername, I do not really know what the problem is here. Hasn't it occured to you that Digwuren and Sander Sade might simply be interested in Estonia-, Russia-, or Communism-related article(s)? Is this an offence to be interested in these topics, and to disagree over certain issues? After all, this is what democracy is all about. Tymek (talk) 18:32, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
I have no problem in their interest in the topic. I have a problem with the manner they have behaved in these instances. (And as far as a good number of other ones are concerned as well – well, no one can say that I am the first one to point to this, am I?)
Thankfully, the tendentious "noticeboard" has already been deleted by an administrator, so I'm not the only one here who's finding it troubling. Thank you to the administrators here, and to Garden who has taken care of this. PasswordUsername (talk) 18:53, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
PaswordUsername, with all due respect, you shouldn't present things in different light from what they were. First was the Bronze Soldier real life, then the Bronze Soldier disputes in WP, then WP:DIGWUREN, when the community did its best to issue sanctions in order to prevent such things derailing in the future. Digwuren was blocked for edit warring, i.e. for reverting too many times. And now look what you write: "Digwuren was previously banned for a year for taking part in meatpuppet-related nationalist revert wars involving the Estonian Bronze Soldier controvery in 2007." Your comment shows that you have a lot of inner load when talking about these issues, and consider ok to exagerate things into "meatpuppet nationalist". I recall that the edit war then involved two sides, and that both behaved like true warriors, and both were punished with blocks. You present things as if it was just Digwuren. Now, let's consider what happened afterwards: Petri Krohn, etc have not improved, while in the case of Digwuren I see a total change of behavior, which suggests that he/she was caught in the heat of Bronze solders dispute and regrets that now.
But, what seems to me to be the problem now, is a content dispute on a number of articles. Why don't all parties sit down and try to resolve that in a civilized manner. Step 1: make a list of such articles and start a Request for Comment. The community can get involved and help you sort things out. Content disputes should not be ignored, especially if they tend to degenerate. I believe that over the last year there has been a slight change of heart among the community in the sense that now the community (and admins in particular) are more willing to get involved in sorting out content disputes at an early stage, including admins learning about the content matter, which is very important, in order to avoid (if you don't help resolve the content dispute before it degenerates) having to sort out pointless blames of misbehavior when such blames come from all sides and it is exceptionally difficult to see who and when misuses the system, and who and when has genuine grievances. Please, make an effort to help sorting things out, and not to increase the snowball. Good faith efforts are duly appreciated. Dc76\talk 19:57, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Now, let's consider what happened afterwards: Petri Krohn, etc have not improved, while in the case of Digwuren I see a total change of behavior, which suggests that he/she was caught in the heat of Bronze solders dispute and regrets that now. - I think this is not correct. User:Petri Krohn did not edit war after his block. His only crime was to make an unfortunate commment which was misunderstood as a threat, and that he did not apologise strongly enough afterwards. User:Digwuren has continued to edit war, although now he has been more careful and has avoided breaking 3RR. Today, Digwuren was blocked for disruptive editing. So I think your view that "Digwuren has totally changed his behaviour" is not correct. Just wanted to point this out. Offliner (talk) 20:16, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
And where is edit warring mentioned as the sole rationale for blocking Digwuren in WP:DIGWUREN?

"Digwuren (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) has engaged in a variety of disruptive behavior, including sustained edit-warring ([21], [22], [23], [24],