Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive199

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

Huge amount of vandalism[edit]

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

This looks like a content dispute to me, at least at first glance. Perhaps you might find helpful to first discuss these edits on the talk page? -- Deville (Talk) 02:56, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
There is no dispute. Those sentences are from Nahj al-Balagha. These people systematically delete whatever they fear shows the true face of Islam. This is only sheer vandalism!--Breathing Dead (talk) 03:00, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't think you're in a position to "demand" anything. None of us are, we're all in this together. If you are involved in an edit war, it's best to discuss the subject civilly on the article's talk page. I'm not convinced you are interpreting the source correctly either. Please try and assume good faith about your fellow editors, and do not assume they are trying to censor the page. [mad pierrot][t c] 03:03, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict) See WP:Vandalism. Even if the edits are wholly mistaken and unsupported by reliable sources (not saying they are or aren't), if they're made in good faith, they're not taken as vandalism on en.Wikipedia. For more about the notion of good faith on this website, please see WP:AGF. Gwen Gale (talk) 03:04, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
As an involved editor (see 1st diff), I feel I should explain why I reverted the edit. It looked like an unsourced (or poorly sourced with unreliable sources) edit. I reverted using the judgment of previous users and per the edit summary of 3rd diff (in other words, WP:RS & WP:OR). Griffinofwales (talk) 03:09, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Are you sure that those sentences are poorly sources or came rom unreliable sources? Please read the article carefully. Nearly all the contents of that article came from the same source which is Nahj al-Balagha! How come didn't you delete the rest?--Breathing Dead (talk) 03:18, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
As a side note, I'm not Muslim. Griffinofwales (talk) 03:12, 18 July 2009 (UTC)


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


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

  • O' ye peoples! Women are deficient in Faith, deficient in shares and deficient in intelligence. As regards the deficiency in their Faith, it is their abstention from prayers and fasting during their menstrual period. As regards deficiency in their intelligence it is because the evidence of two women is equal to that of one man. As for the deficiency of their shares that is because of their share in inheritance being half of men. So beware of the evils of women. Be on your guard even from those of them who are (reportedly) good. Do not obey them even in good things so that they may not attract you to evils.Nahj al-Balagha - Sermon 79
  • Daily prayers are the best medium through which one can Seek the nearness to Allah. Hajj is Jihad (Holy War) for every weak person. For everything that you own there is Zakat, and Zakat of your body is fasting. The Jihad of a woman is to afford pleasant company to her husband.Nahj al-Balagha - Saying 135
  • Your society will pass through a period when cunning and crafty intriguers will be favoured by status, when profligates will be considered as well-bred, well-behaved and elegant elites of the society, when just and honest persons will be considered as weaklings, when charity will be considered as a loss to wealth and property, when support and help to each other will be considered as favour and benevolence and when prayers and worship to Allah will be taken up for the sake of show to gain popularity and higher status, at such times regimes will be run under the advice of women and the youngsters will be the rulers and counselors of the State.Nahj al-Balagha - Saying 102
  • Beasts are concerned with their bellies. Carnivores are concerned with assaulting others. Women are concerned with the adornments of this ignoble life and the creation of mischief herein. (On the other hand) believers are humble, believers are admonishers and believers are afraid (of Allah).Nahj al-Balagha - Sermon 152
  • Do not seek the advice of women, their verdicts are often immature and incorrect and their determinations are not firm. You must guard and defend them and act as a shelter to protect them from impious and injurious surroundings and infamous sights, this kind of shelter will keep them well-protected from every harm. Their contact with a vicious and sinful atmosphere (even with all the shelter that you can provide) is going to prove more harmful than being left with protection. Do not let them interfere with affairs where you cannot personally guide or protect them. Do not let them aspire for things which are beyond their capacities. They are more like decoration to humanity and are not made to rule and govern humanity. Exhibit reasonable interest in things which they desire and give importance to them, but do not let them influence your opinions and do not let them impel you to go against your sane views.Nahj al-Balagha - Letter 31
If anyone who doesn't like a context, simply deletes it, there will be no article left in wikipedia! Now tell me are the above senteces unsourced or whatever? It is obvious that muslims don't like them and will delete them immediately. It is Admins' job to protect Wikipedia from those incidents. Aint it?--Breathing Dead (talk) 03:13, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
This is pretty textbook OR and cherry picking quotes to present a POV. Making the unsupported assertion that "Ali's views on women were quite abusive and humiliating. He has described all women with very disgraceful words on several occasions and mostly he has defined the role of women as only sex tools who are created to please men." based on a selective reading of a primary source and then presenting those cherry-picked quotes as summarizing "his views on women". And it was suggested to Breathing Dead to bring this up in talk instead of continuing to revert. Suggestion rejected as nonsense. nableezy - 03:20, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
I have removed that conclusion and left only the sentences from Nahj al-Balagha, then you insisted to delete the reliable material! If you believe everything in Nahj al-Balagha and Qoran are true, then why don't you let people put some of the phrases in the article?--Breathing Dead (talk) 03:28, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
First, to try and summarize Ali's views on women you need a reliable secondary, preferably scholarly, source doing so. You can't just pick out some quotes and say that summarizes his views on women. Second, who said I believe everything in the Nahj al-Balagha is true? And why are inquiring as to my beliefs anyway? You are right though, I am a Muslim, but I also am a pothead and I am too high to care about this right now. Bye, nableezy - 03:34, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Please read this.... "His views on women are stated in Nahj al-Balagha, which is the most famous book about Ali and is regarded as the second Qoran by lots of Muslims. The followings are some examples which can be found in Nahj al-Balagha". you see I didn't summerize anything. If you believe his views on women were different why don't you put your own facts on the article. You are not allowed to simply delete your opposite views.--Breathing Dead (talk) 03:41, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
I've warned BD. Gwen Gale (talk) 03:21, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
He's read the warning. Gwen Gale (talk) 03:23, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't see any need to add all those (selective or not) to the article in the first place. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a collection of quotes. ≈ Chamal talk 03:24, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
To prove something in an encyclopedia you need some reliable sources and those quotes are the most reliable sources available to the world to judge the views of Ali on women.--Breathing Dead (talk) 03:34, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia isn't meant to prove anything. As for raw quotes, see Wikipedia:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_directory. Moreover, WP is not an outlet for your own take on published quotations. Gwen Gale (talk) 03:47, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Sound like a good idea. The quotes probably shouldn't go in the main article anyway, and too much cut and paste, maybe a link at the bottom instead. But these are my final comments, I became involved through anti-vandalism work and this no longer involves vandalism, so my work here is done. Griffinofwales (talk) 03:26, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
according to the Wikipedia article, no Sunni scholar, and even some Shi'a ones, do not attribute the book to Ali. The authenticity of these views is therefore a matter of dispute among Muslims. If they are included, they must be given in context, it is possible that these particular sayings are regarded by all Muslims as authentic, but there would need to be some information about that. We can't put for the views of one of the sects as The Truth--not in Wikipedia. This disagreement has been going on for many centuries & we will not settle it here. DGG (talk) 03:32, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Muslim can put their own views on that article too but they are not allowed to delete the facts. Are they?Breathing Dead (talk) 03:34, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Muslims are not allowed to put their own views in an article, nobody is allowed that on this website. Editors can only cite reliable sources and write text which steadfastly follows those sources. Anything else can be removed in good faith. Gwen Gale (talk) 03:38, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
I didn't actually mean their own views. What I say that they can also put their facts in the article. The facts I put there, are from a very very reliable source. If you delete them then you should delete the whole article, because nearly the whole article is based on Nahj al-Balagha.--Breathing Dead (talk) 03:47, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
You can't skirt the policies of this website with bare assertions as to how you think things should be done here. Please have a look at them. Gwen Gale (talk) 03:51, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
It seems that you are trying to chase and harass me. I should warn you that what you do is personal attack! I have read all those rules and what I put in that article comply with all 5 sections. Why don't you be precise and tell which rule did I break to put those sentences in Ali's article?--Breathing Dead (talk) 03:55, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
You've already been told. Gwen Gale (talk) 03:57, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Yeah? Why don't you show me again? I can't remember.--Breathing Dead (talk) 04:02, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Here you go. And then you removed it. Ring a bell? ≈ Chamal talk 04:07, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
It's been made quite clear that it is unacceptable to add these fringe views to the article, but you're going ahead and doing it anyway? --LP talk 04:12, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Who has made it quite clear? You have been involved in the edit war. Could you show me who has said that adding those material is unacceptable?talk —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.198.7.205 (talk) 04:25, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
See. Gwen Gale (talk) 04:27, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Any reason why the IP should not be blocked too? It's obviously being used to evade the block. ≈ Chamal talk 04:35, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
See what? you are quite clearly abusing your admin rights to take revenge.Breathing Dead (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.198.7.205 (talk) 04:31, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Abusing Administrator's power by User:Gwen Gale[edit]

Resolved: Part of #Huge_amount_of_vandalism

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

It looks like you totally deserved it, especially now that you're casting aspersions that Gwen Gale is at fault for that edit made by someone entirely different.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:30, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Yeah it is obvious that you back up your friend! It is ridiculous! I didn't know taking revenge is also included in those 5 pillars of wikipedia.:)))) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.198.7.205 (talk) 04:34, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Please don't taunt Gwen or Ryulong. What you did is wrong here. Please accept that and don't continue to insult people. We're happy to educate you on Wikipedia's goals and policies - but if you continue to insult people, you are not welcome here, and we'll do what we have to in order to keep you from doing that in the future.
If you want to participate here - be an adult about it, communicate in a mature and responsible manner, and work with us rather than attacking people.
Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:07, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
When you're subject to administrative sanction, it is very much in your own interest to be on your best behavior and look like an asset to the community. Nonsense like this edit will do nothing but convince people that helping you is a waste of time. – Luna Santin (talk) 11:29, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

(Topic) ban of Interestedinfairness[edit]

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

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

Another ridiculous attempt to silence me by a user who cannot use the talk pages to rebuttal. As soon as I start challenging the status-quo of articles which do not conform to the NPOV policy I have a case opened against me. But just like the past case here and the sock puppet investigation launched here, there is only a vendetta against me, no real evidence. I am not even going to bother to respond to your "examples" of my "unlawful" behavior. The edits speak for them selves. (Interestedinfairness (talk) 08:12, 15 July 2009 (UTC)).
I feel I had to break a lance in favor of Int here:
  • I don't find a WP:TE on Serbia: [7] by Int. If it is stated that the Greeks colonized the southern area IV BC Romans north area II AD so natural question is what did they colonized?Were there any people etc Everyone accepts the fact that Illyrians laid in Serb territory at that time and their history on that area, what kind of WP:TE is here?! Romans and Greeks are mentioned, but the Illyrians the people who really lived and inhabited the areas should not be mentioned?! And if they are mentioned this is tendentious?!Why?It is the opposite standing that could look tendentious. Everyone mentioned except Illyrians, the people who inhabited the area?! SO no WP:TE here.
  • As for the cn tags I agree that it is wrong to put them behind ref, but I must stress the fact that Int didn't remove anything from the text, he was pointing to the POV standing of the author(maybe in wrong way with his cn tags) and when he discussed in the talk page here [8] none tried to discuss according to WP:NPOV WP:RS WP:R etc wiki rules, the result was a personal attack and a topic ban proposal.
  • For the previous accusations of sock and etc there has been much said before, Int wasn't guilty I don't know why it was brought up here again. Aigest (talk) 08:41, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

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

Please take this to dispute resolution. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 09:51, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Edit-warring: [9] [10] [11] [12], edit-warring and POINTy behavior [13] [14], examples of tendentious editing [15] [16] [17], edit-warring on Illyrians (72 hour block) [18] [19] [20] [21], assumptions of bad faith [22] (opening a bogus sockpuppet investigation), [23] [24] (anyone who disagrees with him is "colluding"), [25] ("an administrator acting in a cavalier way) [26] ("I'm 100% more neutrak), incivility: [27]. He has also cluttered Talk:Illyrians and Talk:Kosovo with countless inane clueless rants for the past two months now, the examples are too many to list. This is an nationalist POV advocacy SPA of the kind we don't need on this encyclopedia. I'm amazed he has gotten away with as much as he's had already. I've seen users get topic banned per ARBMAC for a lot less. I also recommend relocating this section to WP:AE, where it is more appropriate. --Athenean (talk) 17:03, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

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

I'm a previously uninvolved editor, who is even 'on his side' (in as much as I support the independence of Kosovo), yet I still seem to be on the reciving end of this user. Two examples in the last couple of days seem indicative of the general manner in which IIF approaches these topics:
He placed a {{neutrality}} tag on Slavic peoples - we eventually worked out that the sole reason was that one of the maps didn't show Kosovo as a disputed region. The map was so small you couldn't make it out, but cue a large section of soapboxing, disrupting to make a point and some wikilawyering for good measure. Even after being asked to get down from the Reichstag, he still continued trying to make some kind of point, and followed up with a snide comment on my talk page.
In addition, a similar incident at Talk:Kosovo#Neuatrality_tags showed all the same hallmarks - disruption, attempts at wikilawyering etc. To conclude, taking into account his other contribs, IIF does not appear to be able to make wholly constructive edits, and his patter of editing is indeed tendentious. I would concur with a topic ban. ninety:one 23:14, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
So your opinion is more relevant and correct than mine. This seems to be the general line of argumentation followed in this discussion. Heed the administrators advice and take your requests to dispute resolution. dispute resolution. Interestedinfairness (talk) 03:00, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
This is not about a dispute, but rather a topic ban. ninety:one 21:34, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
There is a consensus to ban or topic ban Interestedinfairness on Wikipedia. I ask the administrators to take action now. --Cinéma C 22:12, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

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

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

There is consensus to (topic) ban Interestedinfairness (talk · contribs) from Kosovo related articles. I ask an administrator to take action now. --Cinéma C 21:45, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Edit notice makin'[edit]

Resolved: lifebaka++ 15:12, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

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

Move[edit]

I just noticed that a user just copied and pasted information from the 131st Fighter Wing onto the 131st Bomb Wing. This move obviously violates the move rule. I was wondering if someone could sort this out for me. I know that the information currently on the page is current, but there is now an incredibly short history for the page. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:41, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't have a lot of experience at this, but wouldn't Wikipedia:How_to_fix_cut-and-paste_moves#Instructions_for_tagging_a_page_for_history_merging be the way to go? If not, someone please educate me. :) --Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:01, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
True, and you've inadvertantly educated me in the process. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:48, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Mediation needed[edit]

I've been giving some suggestions on article development and trying to mediate amongst a group of editors. Unfortunately I am rather busy in Another Place at the moment. Please help to keep this discussion calm, on track, and productive. Uncle G (talk) 03:18, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Creating a Page[edit]

There's a topic, a YouTube video specifically, that I believe has received significant coverage to deserve its own page. However, I'm uncertain if it's truly enough, and am not sure how a page for such a subject would be organized, formatted, etc. Would someone be willing to judge if the video deserves a page (I have links of its extensive coverage by third-party sources), and how to create a page for it? The Clawed One (talk) 03:24, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

The Administrators' noticeboard is not a place to make these requests/questions. Thank you. —Mythdon (talkcontribs) 03:27, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Then where would I make the request, oh-so unhelpful one? Considering that if I do this wrong the page could be deleted, I wanted to ask an Admin's opinion. The Clawed One (talk) 03:29, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
WP:HD or WP:EA. Algebraist 03:32, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. The Clawed One (talk) 03:32, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Template:Illustrator-stub[edit]

Hey, something's going on with this. —Noisalt (talk) 04:11, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Someone edited the template to replace its contents with an article, and then moved it onto the article title, rather than creating a new article properly. I've done the history split to put the new article edits in their proper place, John Shelley (illustrator). The article itself still needs help, but at least the template should be ok now. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:38, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Disputes with moving "Bagram Air Base" to "Bagram Airfield" (Talk Page)[edit]

It seems a great bit of confusion has persisted when it comes to the naming of the Bagram Air Base article. Bagram Air Base (or as I'll refer to it from this point, Airfield) is an Army installation. Following military naming convention Army installations that involve aircraft movement are called Airfields. Airforce installations are called Air Bases (outside of the US) or Air Force Base (inside the US).

I have official websites supporting information referring to Bagram Airfield as the official name for the installation[28][29]. One of these is run by the 455 AEW (USAF), the other is operated by the 82nd which is an Army outfit.

Some editors (mainly one specifically which I'll reference later) believe because "Bagram Air Base" has more hits on Google it qualifies it as the most common name for the installation. Being as I am deployed here I have yet to meet a person who considers it that name -- regardless if it is civilian or military. Furthermore, being as this is an Army installation, I would like to point out how many Army installations call themselves a base[30] (beyond FOB which is a generic term.) Bagram Airfield is even shortened to "BAF" by most personnel here. It is on walls, signs, and official leaderheads. Coins have it, medals, everything references it to Bagram Airfield. Why we're willing to use the wrong name because it might have more hits on Google compounds my confusion.

What I'm finding out now after years of browsing and lightly editing Wikipedia is that misinformation seems OK if it is commonly considered that way. The article reads as if it is informing me that Bagram Airfield is actually called an Air Base. I know from experience as when I was leaving to come here I thought it was Bagram Air Base because of the article. This isn't the first confusing article though; NYT has it listed as "Bagram Air Base" too, which is a misconception. The misconception goes deep enough that some News websites refer to BAF as "Bagram Air Force Base", or Bagram AFB. Entirely wrong and probably accidentally gathered due to finding incorrect references to the name.

Finally I feel an editor (User:MickMacNee) here seems to spend more time arguing why something must be done in accordance with rules then for being factual. A quick poke around his User talk:MickMacNee shows many people disagree with his demeanor and short sighted views on articles. If you take a look at the Talk page for the article in question MickMacNee has repeatedly ignored many other editors who support such a move to the point of almost being disrespectful. Even my edits to the article to specify that BAF is actually Bagram Airfield were reverted by the editor -- quoting another reference to a rule that is making this article inaccurate.

I simply feel that factual information must take precedence over naming; this being a very small naming issue but considerably important when conveying facts. I'll even reference WP:Ignore_all_rules as a point here. Why should people be mislead into thinking BAF is actually Bagram Air Base when it can be as simple as a quick move and edit.

This almost makes me question how much is accurate on a Wikipedia article -- not because of vandalism; but rules or overzealous editors. I hope you, an Administrator, can understand and see the issue that others and myself see when it comes to this article. I'm sorry if I'm wasting your time but I don't really see any other direction to take this. -JE (Let's talk) (My contribs) 16:06, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Anybody who frequents ANI and is not on this daft Drama Holiday is as ever free to verify this user's claims for themselves, seeing as he has such a low opinion of me, because he seems to get enough free time from doing whatever he does in Bagram Air Base to keep bringing this up despite multiple explanations from multiple people. The recent revert he refers to was not to remove the official explanation, but to actualy restore the name used in the majority of the article to match the title, which has been the subject of three failed move requests so far, after he went so far as to not only change the name in the text, but to also to change the title of a reference, and to create an unnecessary article redirect. MickMacNee (talk) 16:24, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Perception is everything, my views are based off of a look into your editing behavior and commenting. With that, this is the second time you've made a reference to my workload or schedule. Your attempt at another subtle insult is actually a bit twisted -- I'm willing to take a small fraction of the few hours I have off to support Wikipedia. Ultimately I'm not concerned about your views or mine, but about facts and conveying them completely, not obscurely. -JE (Let's talk) (My contribs) 16:40, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
The lede makes it clear which name is official. Which title it's at probably doesn't matter much. So, with that in mind, you two just need to cool out and someone needs to decide that which title has the article and which is a redirect doesn't matter. Cheers, guys. lifebaka++ 16:44, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Agreed, the article is clear about which is the official name, so what is the problem? Anyone clicking on Bagram Airfield will get the right page and most users will not even notice what the actual URL of the article is. -- Deville (Talk) 19:10, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Well, standard policy is that the proper name is where any article belongs, pointless flapdoodle about what's in the lede aside. The US DOD naming conventions are well-known and the reliable official sources agree with that, the ignorance of civilians and the pouting of veteran dramamongers like MickMacNee aside. --Calton | Talk 20:16, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
(repeating myself) Calton, save your bullshit about 'veterans' for times when you actually know who you are talking to. MickMacNee (talk) 23:35, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
I know what I'm talking about. You, as usual, don't. Spouting off like a petulant child when challenged and doing your Internet Tough Guy act from safely behind your keyboard is par for the course, sadly. You ought to be thoroughly ashamed of yourself, but given that have never seemed capable of self-reflection, my pointing this out was pointless, I suppose. I can understood why a Dramaout would be anathema to you, depriving you of the attention you crave. --Calton | Talk 02:56, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I will quote myself here from Talk:Bagram_Air_Base#Requested_Move: Articles are named by most common usage. That is why the article Cat Stevens is not called Yusuf Islam (which is his actual name) and why the article Rhode Island is not called State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations (which is the State's official name). Read Wikipedia:Naming conventions for more information."

Wikipedia standard is to go with the more commonly used title. While as recently as Nov 2008, "Bagram Air Base" was by far the more common of the two terms, today it has changed. A simple google search reveals this data: "Bagram Air Base" -wikipedia = about 116,000; "Bagram Air Field" -wikipedia = about 882,000. Therefore, quite simply, the article now should be called Bagram Air Field. Kingturtle (talk) 20:25, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

So Google is the end-all and be-all of use for Wikipedia? Sergey Brin would be proud, I guess. Cat Stevens was Cat Stevens and famous as such long before he changed his name, so that logic doesn't apply: Bagram Air Field has always been Bagram Air Field. The Rhode Island example is so extreme as to be almost unique, so I can't see how it really applies, especially since "Rhode Island" is the short form of the official name, not, you know, factually incorrect.
WP:IAR to deal with reality seems to apply -- especially since it's not even a goddamned rule in the first place, and being used to(rather petulantly) cling to a factually incorrect title. --Calton | Talk 02:56, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Speaking as someone knowledgeable, the proper name is indeed Bagram Air Field, a usage even AFCENT observes. Colloquial use of Bagram Air Base, including by reporters (and sometimes offhand by military personnel), simply reflects a commonplace lack of knowledge of the difference between an air field and an air base in US military parlance (or a failure to be precise). That said, this debate is more a matter for an RfC than AN/I. Askari Mark (Talk) 20:48, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
If you can find me a single post on the talk page that has ever disputed this, then this 'brand new' information might have been usefull. But as it is, it isn't. MickMacNee (talk) 23:48, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Why not just accept that consensus has gone against you, live with it and move on? Askari Mark (Talk) 01:34, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
The name was Air Base when I arrived, I told it how it was in the three failed move requests, and all I have done is maintain the article per the Maual of Style, unless or until the title gets changed by consensus. This guy's reading of who is doing what is totally false, and you seem to have bought it. MickMacNee (talk) 10:10, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I've blocked ClueBot III for malfunction[edit]

Resolved

I've notice for my talk page, that ClueBot III (talk · contribs) went rampage with following edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:ClueBot_III/Indices/User_talk:AzaToth&diff=302790668&oldid=302781497 thus I've blocked it (which means AN/ANI wont be archived atm). AzaToth 00:56, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

It's already been unblocked. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:21, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Query regarding off-wiki harassment[edit]

What is our current position with regards to on-wiki responses to harassment of Wikipedians conducted via off-wiki sites? Dragons flight (talk) 05:14, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

  • Like, what kind of "harassment"? Someone dogging your comments on /. because of an on-wiki dispute probably isn't very actionable. But I would block/ban a person who was seriously (and verifiably) harassing another user, even if that harassment was conducted 'on-line', rather than over the phone or in person. Protonk (talk) 07:08, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
    • As an addendum, I should note that obviously blocking someone on-wiki wouldn't "stop" harassment off wiki. The justification for the block would be less to literally present disruption than to excuse someone from the community for violating norms (i.e. how we respond to harassment over the phones or in person). Protonk (talk) 07:10, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Election notice: please distribute widely[edit]

Please forgive the cross post: Because of the nature of this announcement, I hope that you will understand why we are posting this in as many high visibility locations as possible.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

As you may be aware, there is concern that the sitenotices regarding submission of candidacy for the Board of Trustees election were not seen anywhere but Meta after the 11th of this month. Because of the potentially massive consequence of this, and to encourage a full and active election, the election committee has determined that:

- Candidacies will be accepted through July 27th at 23:59 (UTC)

- The period for questioning candidates begins immediately. Candidates that are "late to the party" will, no doubt, be scrutinized by the community. The Committee hopes that the community will work to actively ensure that all candidates receive equivalent questioning.

- The dates of election will not change. The election will begin on 28 July and end on 10 August.


Please know that we recognize the radical nature of altering the schedule in the midst of the election and would not do it if we did not absolutely believe that there was a possibility that others may be interested and qualified and may not have known about the key dates.

For the committee, - Philippe 09:14, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Suicide threat[edit]

I just received a suicide threat on my talk page from MURachel12 (talk · contribs) and their friend Agm22219990 (talk · contribs). However, I am beginning to doubt its veracity. I already emailed functionaries-en asking for a CU to identify the account. However, is anybody else around that can locate a CU now via IRC or other means to identify the location and contact the appropriate authorities? Thanks. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 06:59, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

It's not really much of a threat, per se. If I read that right, they're claiming it already happened. Regardless, I've warned MURachel12 about the attacks. Cheers. lifebaka++ 07:17, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, looking at their follow-on edits and a more careful reading of the deleted articles, I think it is a bad joke. A very bad joke. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 07:27, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
In addition to trying to hunt down a checkuser via IRC, it also would be helpful to post a quick request at the SPI page. Icestorm815Talk 16:39, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Protected titles[edit]

This page is marked as "superseded." For a long time, it was protected. I noted unexplained edits to it by a new account, User:Overbuljongterningpakkmesterassistent and reverted them back to a version from May 2009. The user did not respond to a question on his talk page for an explanation of the changes to the page. Should this page be protected, deleted, or left for anyone to edit? Do we need a list, apparently of historic interest only, of titles that no one could create? If we do need it for reference, is it a suitable place for new accounts to edit, and were these edits helpful or not, since I'm not sure what the effect of the changes was. Edison (talk) 15:55, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I highly doubt the edits were constructive, given the user's previous edit to Midnight. I might guess the user is frustrated, which would be kind of understandable, given that an article the user created was inappropriately labelled "patent nonsense" within two minutes of creation [31], and that constructive content the user added was inexplicably (inadvertantly?) deleted [32]. Adrian J. Hunter(talkcontribs) 16:16, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Update: the content deletion was indeed inadvertant (User_talk:Beemer69#Patent_nonsense). Adrian J. Hunter(talkcontribs) 16:31, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

(Topic) ban of Interestedinfairness[edit]

Note: This page has been moved from the archive as the issue has not been resolved

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

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

Another ridiculous attempt to silence me by a user who cannot use the talk pages to rebuttal. As soon as I start challenging the status-quo of articles which do not conform to the NPOV policy I have a case opened against me. But just like the past case here and the sock puppet investigation launched here, there is only a vendetta against me, no real evidence. I am not even going to bother to respond to your "examples" of my "unlawful" behavior. The edits speak for them selves. (Interestedinfairness (talk) 08:12, 15 July 2009 (UTC)).
I feel I had to break a lance in favor of Int here:
  • I don't find a WP:TE on Serbia: [39] by Int. If it is stated that the Greeks colonized the southern area IV BC Romans north area II AD so natural question is what did they colonized?Were there any people etc Everyone accepts the fact that Illyrians laid in Serb territory at that time and their history on that area, what kind of WP:TE is here?! Romans and Greeks are mentioned, but the Illyrians the people who really lived and inhabited the areas should not be mentioned?! And if they are mentioned this is tendentious?!Why?It is the opposite standing that could look tendentious. Everyone mentioned except Illyrians, the people who inhabited the area?! SO no WP:TE here.
  • As for the cn tags I agree that it is wrong to put them behind ref, but I must stress the fact that Int didn't remove anything from the text, he was pointing to the POV standing of the author(maybe in wrong way with his cn tags) and when he discussed in the talk page here [40] none tried to discuss according to WP:NPOV WP:RS WP:R etc wiki rules, the result was a personal attack and a topic ban proposal.
  • For the previous accusations of sock and etc there has been much said before, Int wasn't guilty I don't know why it was brought up here again. Aigest (talk) 08:41, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

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

Please take this to dispute resolution. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 09:51, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Edit-warring: [41] [42] [43] [44], edit-warring and POINTy behavior [45] [46], examples of tendentious editing [47] [48] [49], edit-warring on Illyrians (72 hour block) [50] [51] [52] [53], assumptions of bad faith [54] (opening a bogus sockpuppet investigation), [55] [56] (anyone who disagrees with him is "colluding"), [57] ("an administrator acting in a cavalier way) [58] ("I'm 100% more neutrak), incivility: [59]. He has also cluttered Talk:Illyrians and Talk:Kosovo with countless inane clueless rants for the past two months now, the examples are too many to list. This is an nationalist POV advocacy SPA of the kind we don't need on this encyclopedia. I'm amazed he has gotten away with as much as he's had already. I've seen users get topic banned per ARBMAC for a lot less. I also recommend relocating this section to WP:AE, where it is more appropriate. --Athenean (talk) 17:03, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

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

I'm a previously uninvolved editor, who is even 'on his side' (in as much as I support the independence of Kosovo), yet I still seem to be on the reciving end of this user. Two examples in the last couple of days seem indicative of the general manner in which IIF approaches these topics:
He placed a {{neutrality}} tag on Slavic peoples - we eventually worked out that the sole reason was that one of the maps didn't show Kosovo as a disputed region. The map was so small you couldn't make it out, but cue a large section of soapboxing, disrupting to make a point and some wikilawyering for good measure. Even after being asked to get down from the Reichstag, he still continued trying to make some kind of point, and followed up with a snide comment on my talk page.
In addition, a similar incident at Talk:Kosovo#Neuatrality_tags showed all the same hallmarks - disruption, attempts at wikilawyering etc. To conclude, taking into account his other contribs, IIF does not appear to be able to make wholly constructive edits, and his patter of editing is indeed tendentious. I would concur with a topic ban. ninety:one 23:14, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
So your opinion is more relevant and correct than mine. This seems to be the general line of argumentation followed in this discussion. Heed the administrators advice and take your requests to dispute resolution. dispute resolution. Interestedinfairness (talk) 03:00, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
This is not about a dispute, but rather a topic ban. ninety:one 21:34, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
There is a consensus to ban or topic ban Interestedinfairness on Wikipedia. I ask the administrators to take action now. --Cinéma C 22:12, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

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

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

There is consensus to (topic) ban Interestedinfairness (talk · contribs) from Kosovo related articles. I ask an administrator to take action now. --Cinéma C 21:45, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Extreme abuse surveys[edit]

Resolved

Hi all,

Banned User:ResearchEditor has been steadily recreating a series of pages - extreme abuse survey, extreme abuse surveys, Extreme Abuse Survey, the comically-bad misspelled Ex-treme Abuse Survey and the latest Extreme Abuse Surveys - with a series of socks (see here, here). Could the pages be protected from recreation? I'm guessing a series of ludicrous misspellings will ensue, but at least these pages will be dealt with. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 21:48, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Extreme Abuse Surveys is now deleted and salted.. someone more familiar might want to add variations to the MediaWiki:Titleblacklist? . --Hu12 (talk) 21:53, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Anything with ritualabuse.us or ra-info, or endritualabuse.org as urls in the EL or refs section would work. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 22:08, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Request Urls {such as extreme-abuse-survey.net, endritualabuse.org or ritualabuse.us)at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist. link to evidence ect. ;)--Hu12 (talk) 22:27, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
I've added a report and blacklisted the offending URL's. MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist#Extreme_abuse_surveys--Hu12 (talk) 00:39, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
I've taken the liberty of resetting ResearchEditor's one-year block--this is the third reset since his original ban. Blueboy96 00:48, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
FWIW I had thought it was an indef block because of the sockpuppeting.
Ra-info could still be possibly added, I remember that one being a problem but don't remember seeing it specifically. I'll keep an eye out and flag it if I notice it being a problem.
Ra-info is used legitimately once on satanic ritual abuse ([60]).
Thanks very much to Hu12 for all the work! WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 00:55, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Another Sock account? Ellenlacter (talk · contribs) see MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist#endritualabuse.org.2C_etal..hmmm--Hu12 (talk) 04:54, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Ancient Egyptian race controversy[edit]

Editor user:Panehesy has broken her ban at the above article can an admin step in here thank you--Wikiscribe (talk) 20:32, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

For any admin who looks at the request, the "credential of the ban" has been seriously questioned, so the whole matter has been dealt with the ongoing WP:AE and ArbCom clarification appeal. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Ancient Egyptian race controversy and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification#Request_for_clarification:_Ancient_Egyptian_race_controversy. Of course, Wikiscribe clearly knows it.--Caspian blue 20:52, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

They are still currently banned and actually panehesy ban is not much of a disbute,but any who panhesy is still currently banned,challeneging a ban does not lift it--Wikiscribe (talk) 20:58, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I think I said you should've gone to AE instead, not here. That is what I'm talking about.--Caspian blue 21:04, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

User has been blocked by admin, thanks for your input caspian blue :)--Wikiscribe (talk) 22:11, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Ethnic and religious conflicts[edit]

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Geopolitical ethnic and religious conflicts could probably use a few more responses, and eyes. Thanks! ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 06:03, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Proposed anti homophobic terminology policy[edit]

I have created Wikipedia:QUEER and its attendant talkpage. Please contribute, publicise, annote, and all that other funky stuff - I am off to bed. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:18, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

BAG nomination[edit]

Hello there. Just to let you know that I (Kingpin13) have been nominated for BAG membership. Per the requirements, I'm "spamming" a number of noticeboards, to request input at my nomination, which can be found at Wikipedia:Bot Approvals Group/nominations/Kingpin13. Thanks - Kingpin13 (talk) 08:01, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Editors Promoting Somali Towns[edit]

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

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

I try to watch over the Somali-related articles because the country is related to my area of focus (Ethiopia), but for the most part that topic area is a swamp needing a lot of work to bring up to standards. (Surf thru the articles in Category: Somali clans sometime, & see if you don't agree with me they share the worst features of the articles related to Micronations & High schools.) Unfortunately, that amount of clean-up would require the full-time attention of at least one person, & I have my hands full as it is. I can offer some pointers, but unless you want to take on this challenge, maybe the best solution would be to leave this subject area as clearly a mess in order to warn readers that the material is more unreliable than usual for Wikipedia. -- llywrch (talk) 18:18, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
I prowl over the ones I've edited before every now and then as it is. I don't know exactly what "full time" is but I put an awful lot of effort into it already. But I am nowhere near an expert on anything Somalia; and only got into the mess in the first place because I casually stumbled on the offending articles. I'll try and work on it a bit more. Pointers would be very useful. --Nogburt (talk) 04:36, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Oh, and is there any way I can quickly search for the term "smart" in a set of articles? The phrase "smartest people in..." is very common in these problem articles. --Nogburt (talk) 04:40, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
I could use some help with the Bardera article. I feel like I'm going postal on the thing. Hopefully I'm not overdoing it but the article is a massive mess of POV and style issues. --Nogburt (talk) 05:06, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I have a lot of Somalia-related articles on my watchlist; my involvement with them is basically for the same reason that Llywrch gave. Along the lines of his "leave this subject area as clearly a mess" suggestion, I use cleanup tags a lot (example: the sub-clan listing on pretty much any article about a Somali clan is unwieldy, at best, so I've slapped {{Cleanup-laundry}} on a lot of them). -- Gyrofrog (talk) 05:56, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Is there a Somalia project relevant to these towns that I should be joining? Surely there must be one... --Nogburt (talk) 07:23, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

No, sad to report, there isn't. Most of the country-specific groups are being slowly transformed into task forces of Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa. I know user:Middayexpress works in that area so you might want to contact her/him. But this matter appears to be something Admins are unable to help you with their additional rights; we should take this to either your talk page or mine. -- llywrch (talk) 16:52, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

In light of the recent discussions...[edit]

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

  • Why does this belong on AN? Protonk (talk) 16:41, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Because I'm directing the question generally to the admin corps, since we're the ones called upon to "enforce" behavior policies. This is a question about how that kind of enforcement works, but it's not necessarily a call for action, because it's a situation that seems to have largely passed. What's a better forum for that? -GTBacchus(talk) 16:45, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
I haven't followed the civility "poll", is there an actual outcome? If I had the time and energy, what I would do is this: Imagine we are all encyclopedia editors sitting around a conference table in an office building somewhere. If the discussion between a couple people got too heated over some controversial point, the other people at the table might ask one or both of them to step outside until they calm down, so that the rest of the people could continue their business. Have a cup of coffee, or a walk around the block, or play some foosball in the break room, whatever. Then come back and rejoin the conversation with a cool head. Applying this analogy, I would start liberally handing out 3 hour blocks to editors who can't treat each other with decency and respect, even when they disagree. And I would keep it up for as long as it took to get the message across. But, I fear such an approach would be much too controversial. Better to let people treat each other like dirt, it seems. Thatcher 16:57, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
(non-admin comment) Foosball? I'm not sure I'd like to work somewhere where the type of behaviour shown by the editor in question would be anything other than a disciplinary matter. --FormerIP (talk) 17:35, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
An actual outcome? There's a lot of material generated, and by scanning the topics and the volume of responses, you can get some ideas. It could probably use a lot more input, too. -GTBacchus(talk) 17:11, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
We come from very diverse backgrounds where standards of respect and professionalism can (perhaps unfortunately) vary significantly. (This would less likely to be an issue where people are usually interviewed or have some sort of check before they sit at the conference table - this doesn't happen here). Before a fair number of people are ready to ask them to leave (for even a short time), sometimes they'd rather the person be shown ways to address the underlying problem, and that they be warned adequately. Just as blocks are used to prevent harm, even short blocks can have harmful effects on the individuals who can otherwise help make this encyclopedia what it is. Perhaps more thought and consideration to these factors would take care of the controversial elements. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:22, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes and no. Many people would benefit from calm advice on how to edit collaboratively. However, anyone capable of putting two fingers on a keyboard and editing should know that "fuck off wanker" is not an appropriate way to address a colleague. Want one warning? OK, one warning. Then blocks until they get the message. However, I don't want to be dragged out back and shot myself, so I'll leave this one alone. Got better things to do. Thatcher 17:26, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
That's why I posted here. I'd like to hear from those who would drag you out and shoot you. Why would they do that? Is there a way we can get a bit more on the same page? Are the admins who would take a stand for civility cowed by some other faction? What's up with that? -GTBacchus(talk) 17:32, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Likewise, I don't understand it myself. — Ched :  ?  17:36, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
I agree; there's no doubt about it in such a scenario. But controversy can come from a number of situations. For example, a lot of people advocate (or are under the impression) that the sole purpose of this encyclopedia is to "make a free high quality encyclopedia" (aka content contributions - some believe that such contributions are the only quality contributions that are made to wiki). Some such individuals also believe that the part about "in a camraderie of mutual respect among contributors" is not applicable (particularly to those who generate a lot of content contributions). Another example is where people do not care for civility if they don't treat words directed to them or said about them seriously (because we are merely online) - they are ready to be frank and dish it out because they expect others to be like them. Perceived or actual injustices can obviously also contribute to the problem. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:01, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I am cowed. [61] If the blocking admin had been anyone other than Jimbo, the admin would be sharing a cement block with Jimmy Hoffa in the foundation of Giant's Stadium, or wherever he is supposed to be. Maybe one day I'll paint that big ol' target on my shirt, but not today. Thatcher 17:43, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
If it gets to the point where there seems to be support for a community ban of this user, I'll push the button. I won't call him names while doing it, either. I don't see WebHamster and Bishonen to be similar at all, so I'm not sure about the relevance of that situation. -GTBacchus(talk) 17:53, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
All editors are equal, but some editors are more equal than others is not an ideal that I would be willing to uphold. If I can't block one editor for calling another editor a "little shit", I don't feel comfortable blocking another editor for telling someone to "go fuck yourself". And at least now, I;m not talking about banning, I'm talking about a series of targeted brief blocks when an editor forgets that this is a collaboration built on mutual respect. It might eventually lead to banning if the blocks don't work, of course. Thatcher 18:02, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
  • (multi-ec) I agree that the situation needs to be addressed. I attempted to "suggest" that the level of tone be dialed down on WebHamsters talk page, but it appears that this is not getting better. I certainly do not believe that telling another editor to "go fuck yourself" is acceptable; and I simply can not buy the idea that "fuck off troll" is "Britspeak [...for] "Go away, there's a good chap..." (ref). I think this needs to be looked at, and some sort of resolution developed. — Ched :  ?  17:12, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
    • I'm more inclined to believe that "Go away, there's a good chap..." is Britspeak for "fuck off Troll". I wouldn't address anyone at Wikipedia with either. "There's a good chap"? Get you shot around here... -GTBacchus(talk) 17:15, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Not judging the situation as a whole, but I'm going to have to assume that the statement was made with tongue firmly in cheek – clearly telling anyone to "fuck off" would be considered extremely rude over here. Unless between close friends, its certainly not "Britspeak" for anything other than "fuck off". – Toon 17:23, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
    • "Go away there's a good chap" is almost as insulting as "go fuck yourself". ALSO there seems to be a reluctance to do anything about unacceptable behaviour from established experienced editors. I have sympathy for that point of view, but I strongly support the various essays about not giving experienced eds a get out of jail free card. 87.113.86.207 (talk) 17:54, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

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

If telling trolls to "fuck off" works, then do it. However, if it blows up in your face, or if you ever hit a false positive, then stop. Right? -GTBacchus(talk) 18:31, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
CoM, do you really think I'm playing the "civility police" and "dissecting every word"? Huh? Considering your extremely generous readings of other editors' posts, you don't seem to have any of that to spare for someone who dares to say, "why don't we respect each other?" Don't just be a critic; help us. Answer the question with which I opened the thread.

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

Quite. Until the civility police start looking at the whole picture, not just the use of one word like "fuck", and begin to adopt a more even-handed approach to whatever it is they perceive to be the problem, then nothing's about to change. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:07, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
I would like to hear more about this, so that I can apply a more even-handed approach. That's why I started this thread the way I did. See that?

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

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

You may be surprised to find that I somewhat agree with you. My point is that jumping down the throat of one editor driven by the behaviour of another to the point of saying "fuck off" reinforces the equally uncivil behaviour of the other. Nothing good can come of that approach. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:47, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
PS. I'll complain whenever and wherever I choose, about whatever I disagree with, and in particular here about the hypocrisy surrounding the application of the absurd civility policy. It is not my job to teach, it is yours to learn. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:51, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
"Help" is a word for doing useful things, even when they're not your job. I'm not telling you your job; I'm asking you for help. As you are doubtless aware, you may refuse. As for my "job", I get paid for doing that. It's not Wikipedia. -GTBacchus(talk) 18:56, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm not too surprised; you seem to be a reasonable person. I certainly don't think of you as "bad" or "wrong". Perhaps that surprises you!

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

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

I was speaking generally. I don't consider that you've jumped down anyone's throat, no, but I can see a few of the usual suspects preparing their run-up. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:03, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
In light of all of this, I think this is an oportune time to direct people to WP:NODRAMA, an initiative that started on this page... --Jayron32.talk.say no to drama 18:23, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm actually trying to look at the whole picture, which is why I didn't post this thread as "let's block WebHamster". However, I've seen that he's had issues in the past, and when I think of chronically uncivil Wikipedians, I think of him. Anyone who is unable to maintain civility in the face of some baiting is not prepared to work here. There are people who work in very toxic settings, and never tell anyone to "fuck off", nor say "go away, there's a good chap". There are people who actually employ diplomacy, and do it well. If someone can show me that some other approach is better, then sign me up. -GTBacchus(talk) 18:32, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
(ec) I can agree that the behavior was not the best on several sides; but, I think it's rather hypocritical to suggest that just because one person acts improperly, that it's acceptable for another person to follow suit. If you feel that WebHamster was "baited", then it's open to any editor to offer advice or warnings. Respect has to start somewhere, and sometimes it's best to start with the most offensive items first. I don't think anyone is complaining about a little "bluntness" here. I think that many folks feel that it has reached the stage of an outright violation of WP:NPA. — Ched :  ?  18:27, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
You and several others have mischaracterised some of the points being made here as in some way "excusing" behaviour some may find unacceptable, or as a childish "he started it" kind of argument, but nothing could be further from the truth. GTBacchus's point above where he writes "Anyone who is unable to maintain civility in the face of some baiting is not prepared to work here" is a very good example of what's going wrong here. It's too difficult to tackle the problem at source, so let's give the trolls a get-out-of-jail-free card and go after their targets. In what world does that seem like a rational approach? --Malleus Fatuorum 18:58, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Is this where the misunderstanding is: If I say "people should react better to trolling", it doesn't mean I condone trolling. Analogy: there are fires around, and we're firemen. Most of us use water, but a few seem to be using gasoline instead. If I ask that person to stop using gasoline, does that put me on the fire's side? My only point about incivility is that it's stupid because it makes situations worse. I don't care if you're civil; be smart.

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

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

Not quite. I'm not "going after" anyone, either Peter or Paul, and I don't see that CoM is either. What I do see though is a mob forming both here and at the associated RfC for Peter to be sacrificed on the holy altar of civility while Paul looks on in glee. Adults ought to be allowed to sort their own relationships out themselves, without being put on the naughty step. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:14, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Well, I'm not here to put anyone on the "naughty step" (that's a new one). I'm here to learn how we can minimize the incidence and fallout of situations such as this. That's why that was the question I asked. I agree that you're not going after Peter or Paul.

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

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

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

Ched said something about personal attacks: "I don't think anyone is complaining about a little "bluntness" here. I think that many folks feel that it has reached the stage of an outright violation of WP:NPA."
Thank you for communicating in a language I can understand. I think we agree. Editors shouldn't tell each other to fuck off. And editors who go around looking for trouble should fuck off. I think this is resolved. Thanks everyone. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:18, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

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

CoM, no. That's just the problem. It's not true that "everyone" agrees that it's not okay to tell another editor to fuck off. People are arguing that it is ok. Again, I don't give a shit about foul language here. I give a shit about collaboration (which WebHamster is on record as saying he's not here to participate in), and about how stupid, stupid behavior like his fucks up the atmosphere for collaboration. So does the stupid, stupid behavior of the person who was provoking him. Both parties acted like little bitty morons. That's a shame, because I'd bet good money they're not morons at all, when you get right down to it. -GTBacchus(talk) 19:11, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
I challenge you to find anywhere that anyone has said it's "okay" to tell other editors to fuck off. What I believe has been said is that if an editor continues to post where they're not welcome they're likely to be told to fuck off. It's a subtle, but important difference. Rest assured that it's not okay to tell anyone to fuck off, but that such a reaction is to be expected when more subtle clues, like go away and please stop posting here are missed. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:21, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
CoM, I would accept your challenge, and either find such a post or not, but the Dramaout has begun! I'll see you in article-space... -GTBacchus(talk) 16:03, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

arbitrary break[edit]

(multi-ec) OK, first, I'm not "excusing" anyone for "trolling". Yes, I think that is improper as well. In response to "Where's the personal attack?" ... Well, if someone can't see that telling anyone, anywhere, to "Go fuck yourself" is a personal attack - well, I'm just not equipped to answer that. It seems obvious to me. You're "real life" analogy might have one other consequence as well, the person who punched someone, in many parts of the world, could be looking at legal ramifications for assault. As I said, I don't think it's right "troll" or "bait" - but I think anyone who's got the tenure that WebHamster does, would be better served by pointing the editor to WP:TROLL and WP:DENY. — Ched :  ?  19:18, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
I think that you have to bear in mind that this incident had its roots in an article's content dispute, something that most administrators seem to have little experience of. Articles, that is. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:26, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Is this another excuse? It doesn't matter whether the dispute revolves around content or policy or something else. Editors should treat each other with the same level of mutual respect as if they worked in the same office building and had to share a copier, conference room, toilet, etc. Baiting should not be tolerated but baiting does not excuse reciprocal bad behavior. (I wonder what really would happen if I decided to try and enforce the simple rule that people treat each other with respect. Best not to think about it.) Thatcher 19:42, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't see anything particularly objectionable, so I'm not offering excuses for what doesn't really need to be excused. Sure, I agree that "fuck" off is probably a sub-optimal way to end a discussion with a troll, but if it works ... If you're looking to enforce "rules", then I'd suggest that you take WP:NPA a little more to heart and ignore WP:CIV. That way you might feel able to tackle the trolls as well as their victims. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:51, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

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

Oh, the pursed lips. The soul-searching. The hand-wringing, the sanctimonious twaddle, the moron-calling. And all because? A needled B. B told A to fuck off. The upshot: B gave A what he was very clearly asking for.
For heaven's sake. It. Just. Doesn't. Matter. And really, the "atmosphere for collaboration" can survive the odd person acting like a jerk and another calling him on it without sysops getting their knickers in a twist and going all UN Security Council Emergency Meeting. There's no threat to the project here. Mountains and molehills come to mind. And pot-stirring. And storms in teacups. This should have been left to blow over at the pathetic RfC/U. Writegeist (talk) 20:03, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
It's the tragedy of the commons. Everyone thinks their one little bit of poison being released into the environment is by itself no big deal, but pretty soon you get a toxic atmosphere. If the community can somehow be tipped over into a different mindset, that converting the vitriol into constructive energy is better for everyone than venting it, the atmosphere will start to clear. alanyst /talk/ 20:15, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Collapse of off topic fork - Ched

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

Where did Malleus attack anyone? — Ched :  ?  21:09, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Ha! Where didn't he? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 21:11, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Has the irony of you using this discussion to personally attack me entirely escaped you? --Malleus Fatuorum 21:18, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
You've been blocked four times for incivility, and not nearly enough considering the number of times you let the vitriol fly. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 21:22, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
If you're not going to contribute to the discussion in a helpful way, please walk away. People here, including Malleus, seem to be working, against long odds, to do some productive brainstorming/thinking. It may not work, but so far they might even be partially succeeding, and you are not helping. Indeed, based on your own words, you appear to be trying to derail it. Please don't do that. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:28, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Really? Giano just got blocked. Doesn't look like he was "working ... to do some productive brainstorming". And what productivity is Malleus providing? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 21:34, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Do you really regard your contributions here as helpful, or constructive? Or is it simply your intention to provoke me into a response that will justify you calling for me to be blocked? --Malleus Fatuorum 21:38, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Well, let me tell you what I think, which is that you, "gentleman", haven't been blocked nearly often enough for your repeated personal attacks against me and others. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:33, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I collapsed several posts because they were not on the topic currently being discussed. If there is something specific to warrant a discussion of another editor or another topic, please start a new thread (perhaps at AN/I). Thank you. — Ched :  ?  22:10, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
  • It seems that the rules are not quite as often stated. Established editors, as well as being on a much shorter leash than trolls, are supposed to sit quietly by while being repeatedly insulted. No wonder some occasionally snap with a "fuck off". --Malleus Fatuorum 22:37, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
    False dichotomy. They're not supposed to sit quietly by or to say "fuck off". Nobody has said they are. They're supposed to respond intelligently. Nobody should sit quietly by, and nobody should say "fuck off". There are much better options than those two. They're supposed to put out the fire without using gasoline. -GTBacchus(talk) 16:07, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

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

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

There's some serious distortion of the situation with WebHamster. His incivility is not confined to his Talk page. After a a Third Opinion was solicited (by moi), he commented on my "stupid comments" and "inane questions" and lack of "a clue." [62]. We were editing an article together, and the comments on his Talk page came from the need to work together. The idea that I shouldn't be posting on his Talk page neglects the fact that he is reverting edits on an article. The idea that he has been provoked by trolling is undocumented and laughable, unless you consider requests for civility to be trolling. The only comment I made that I consider provocative was about his "Nero complex". This was after, oh, six or seven instances being insulted and told to fuck off. I find it incredibly bizarre that his repeated abuse is supposed to be partly excused by "trolling," but my frustration isn't excused by being called stupid, inane, etc. over and over--while having my edit reverted.

WebHamster's incivility isn't a case of a reasonable person just losing his temper, or trolling. WebHamster has flatly stated that he has no commitment to civility: "So you have the choice of no expectation of civility or fucking off and doing what you came here for, ie editing an encyclopaedia." [63] He has flatly stated that telling people to fuck off isn't a personal attack. He has flatly stated he is not going to respect Wikipedia's civility policy. As far as I can tell, admins don't care.

  • I have proposed that the civility policy be modified to reflect the rule that is actually practiced, namely, that you can call editors idiots and tell them to fuck off, and there is no consequence. [64] Noloop (talk) 00:45, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Another point. I find myself feeling (maybe wrongly) entitled to edit-war, because of the lack of enforcement of the civility rules. Nobody deserves to be insulted. If trying to talk to WebHamster results in abuse, you are entitled to not talk to WebHamster. But, you are also entitled to edit articles when he disagrees with you.... Noloop (talk) 00:55, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Just take a moment to think about your position Noloop. Many here have said that "he started it" isn't a valid excuse for bad behaviour, and it isn't. Yet here are you, apparently the Defender of the Wiki, arguing that you may now be entitled to edit-war, because nobody has yet blocked an editor you have fallen out of love with. I see that you can type, but I have serious doubts that you can read, or fully understand what all of those little black squiggles actually mean. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:51, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
re: to Noloop statement. Only one provocative statement you say? That is an interesting, if not unique, counting I would think. I also believe your take that "admins don't care" to be in error - and feel that this thread alone is a testament to that, and have left a closing comment on your talk page as well. As to your entitlement to edit war, I believe that would be an error in judgment also. Best to all — Ched :  ?  12:46, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
At the risk of derailing the thread into being about me--you suggested I trolled, and gave no examples. So I speculate. I made one comment I intended flippantly. I didn't say I am entitled to edit war, I described the feeling this situation creates. Meanwhile, Malleus is now suggesting I can't read....incivility in a discussion on the importance of civility. Isn't that special? It's clear that civility isn't valued around here. Please continue the topic specific to me on my Talk page--I think this thread should be more general. Noloop (talk) 15:19, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
As you specifically request this, I will attempt to volunteer even more of my time to provide you with the diffs. you are requesting. The issues of civility have indeed been discussed a great deal lately, GTB indeed started the entire thread with a link to the Poll in question. While that poll has not been closed at this point, and no clearly defined "consensus" has been stated by any person who will be closing the poll, I believe that it is apparent that there are a wide range of views on this topic. Personally, I try to adhere to the WP:CIV guideline to the best of my abilities, and I would hope that others would do the same. Like Thatcher, I am not eager to be taken out back and shot either; however, when I see something that I believe to be a violation of WP:NPA policy - I intend to warn first, and block second. My efforts will be geared at minimizing disruption in regards to those "adminy" actions. Getting back to the direct topic of this thread: I believe that there is enough support here that "fuck off troll", and "go fuck yourself" are unacceptable personal attacks. Two wrongs do not make a right, but there is also evidence here that suggests that "baiting", "trolling", "harassment", and "badgering" need to be addressed as well. At least that is my understanding at the moment. Hopefully all those who have shown an interest in this thread, will not attempt to say WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. As I also have a life outside of WP, it may take a day or two to provide the specific "examples" that you are requesting; but I will attempt to do so when time permits. — Ched :  ?  16:39, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
How would you propose that I should be dealt with Noloop? A week's block for upsetting you perhaps? --Malleus Fatuorum 18:23, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

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

A point well made Llywrch; I hope others are listening. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:43, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
To steal an epigram from usenet, Llywrch wins the thread. Exactly spot on. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:45, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
I disagree. In the Bishonen example, the issue is that he called another editor a "little shit". That needed to be dealt with. No context justifies it, and if he wasn't happy with serving time for it, then too bad. --FormerIP (talk) 22:57, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Saying the rules should be enforced isn't the same as saying "the banhammer solves all behavior problems." Do you think all laws should be ignored, because, hey, even when enforced people still break laws? Why use the "banhammer" on vandals? Edit warring? A wiki is collaboration, period. There is no collaboration where there are insults and abuse, period. As for asking WebHamster "why are you acting that way," it was done and his response was that he doesn't give a "fuck" about civility. Now what? Finally, why does blocking have to exclude talking to the person? Wikipedia has rules on civility. Enforce them or drop them. Noloop (talk) 16:49, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
It's not quite "enforce them or drop them". It's more like, "model them", and block to prevent disruption as necessary. If the "enforcers" don't model the behaviors they claim to enforce, that's no good. -GTBacchus(talk) 19:49, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure I can add anything to GTB's comments that are as sensible as what he wrote. (Or Noloop's pithy statement, "The banhammer does not solve all behavior problems.") the point wasn't to imply that anyone in that incident had a free pass to be offensive. It was that a personal touch would have made more of an impact on the matter than just another block. And we need to remember that -- llywrch (talk) 05:21, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
It seems to me, the question is how to follow up the personal touch. Ched tried the personal touch (excessively, in my view). WebHamster's response to the attempt was that he "doesn't give a fuck". What next????? I don't think there is an issue with well-meaning people who lose their tempers from time to time. The problem is systemic contempt for civility. For what it's worth, WebHamster's comments toward me just today include "What the fuck are you on about?....As it happens I don't have to address anything you say...Please get over yourself" and "Because I can read English, you obviously can't." Talk:Anti-Americanism#Edit_Warring How can you expect someone to work toward consensus when it means being the target of personal attacks, systemically? Noloop (talk) 16:55, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
It sounds to me that your question, Noloop, is "What do I do in this instance?" My answer to that is to post the problem here -- or at WP:WQA. No, it won't be a guarranteed quick solution to the problem, but whne we encounter this problem in Real Life(tm), the problem doesn't always get solved promptly. I think we all can remember the incident where one public official told another public official "Fuck yourself" in public & in a professinal atmosphere, & after several years the first has yet to apologize for his behavior. (Maybe the best solution here is to remind our anti-American friend that he is behaving like a well-known US politician. ;-) -- llywrch (talk) 17:23, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Removing noise[edit]

This is something I have been doing lately. If I see a harsh back-and-forth in progress, and it is not constructive nor relevant, I simply remove it from the conversation. I haven't measured how effective this actually is, but I think it's good to stem word wars while they are still young. —harej (talk) (cool!) 01:15, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Vorarephilia Article[edit]

The article on Vorarephilia was reduced to a couple of sentences some time ago and there has been several large discussions on its talk page with back-and-forth involving the verifiability policy. One side says that because the content was unverifiable it had to be removed (and if u check the article u can see just how bare-bones it is), the other side has been trying to argue for information to be allowed in the article under WP:IAR. I haven't yet looked at old versions of it, but there has to be some reliable (and hopefully verifiable) information more than what the article looks like today. Sorry for not logging in, I started this unaware that I wasn't logged in (normally handled for me by browsers that remember my passwords and such.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.144.233.38 (talk) 20:54, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I must say I'm a bit confused as to what you're asking me (or anyone else) to do here. -- Deville (Talk) 23:40, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Have u looked at that article? It's been stripped down to almost nothing. Also I havn't read the full (very very very very long) discussion but what I have read on it shows conflicting views of verifiability and ignore all rules, what in the opinion of all u admins would be correct to do in that case? The article for it on Wikifur is significantly better and is similar to older versions of the wikipedia article. Basically I'm saying that reducing over 11,000 bytes to over 2,000 looks very much like vandalism, which a huge discussion hasn't been able to undo. I was hoping to get an actual verdict about whether to add back in all that removed content. I will do my best to improve the article with verifiable sources in the meantime.Scotty Zebulon (talk) 16:10, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
The problem is that the article is about (to put it mildly) a very unusual -- if not unbelievable -- sexual fetish. Examining the change these two users appear to be concerned about diff, this seems to be the central point of dispute; there's a sub-dispute over whether to include an external link to some "Furry" websites. While I agree with you that this article is "bare-bones", I wouldn't expand it more than a sentence or two from its current form (specifically, adding something along the lines of "This is a theme or obsession for certain members of furry fandom.<ref>Here add a link to a random relevant website &/or discussion thread as an example people talk/are fascinated about it</ref>") but not much more. Unless someone can find a reliable source for the additional information. (For example, am I to understand that this has never been mentioned in any FAQ for a Usenet group?) There's an old maxim on Wikipedia about NPOV: write the article in a way that your opponent will accept; find the kind of sources that would prove to an incredulous reader that this is not a hoax, & further details are relevant. -- llywrch (talk) 16:39, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Berne/Bern[edit]

I closed Talk:Bern#Requested_move as "moved to Bern", however, a user disagrees with my closure. Outside input is desired at User talk:Aervanath#Berne. Thank you.--Aervanath (talk) 04:26, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

This "outside input" has included
  • a flat statement that "Bern" is the English name, which is an absurdity (if there were not two, the discussion would not have lasted for five years),
  • a declaration that WP:ENGVAR is not guidance because (supposedly) it conflicts with WP:CN (by an editor who thinks Common name trumps everything)
  • a declaration that WP:ENGVAR is not guidance because (supposedly) it conflicts with WP:V.
Fortunately, only one of these commenters is an admin, and therefore in a position to do real harm to Wikipedia; but can Aervanath have some higher quality of advice? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:21, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

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

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

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ryulong#Mythdon restricted and placed under mentorship is vacated and replaced with the following:

Mythdon is placed under conduct probabtion

Mythdon is placed under conduct probation for one year, in relation to WikiProject Tokusatsu and Ryulong, broadly construed. This includes, but is not limited to, edit warring and failing to appropriately pursue dispute resolution and to show better communication skills. Mythdon will still be restricted from making edits such as unnecessary questions and abusive warnings to users' talk pages.

Conduct probation enforcement

Any uninvolved administrator may utilize discretionary sanctions, including topic bans and blocks, to enforce this probation. Acting administrators are encouraged to apply sanctions tailored to the circumstances and context. For the purposes of enforcing this measure, any administrator approached directly by Ryulong for enforcement should not act directly. In such a situation, raise both Ryulong's and Mythdon's conduct in normal venues for review.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Tiptoety talk 19:25, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Discuss this

Huh, could have used this information about Mythdon yesterday... Tan | 39 19:27, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Delete old revisions[edit]