Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive382

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

Noticeboard archives


Reverts and page protection at bot approval page[edit]

Ok, I'm closing this... What about spending this time writing some fair use rationales? -- lucasbfr talk 21:38, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Reflexively: articles? I heard of them. El_C 00:59, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I agree with the closure of this thread (Hammersoft was dragging it off-topic), but for the record would like to point out new evidence that has emerged that I think is relevant to this - namely that there was off-wiki discussion to force this bot request through as quickly as possible: "I had conducted a lot of private discussion to line things up [...] In an attempt to actually improve the encyclopedia Prior discussion with all involved parties, from me, BAG, and the Bcrat were conducted. Bot clones are normally processed fairly quickly. this was forced through to avoid trolls." - Betacommand [1]. I still support the bot, but I still object to this blatant abuse of process and use of off-wiki discussion in an attempt to avoid on-wiki discussion. If, in light of this, anyone wishes to reopen this thread, or start a new one, please feel free to do so. I have also used this diff at the Betacommand request for arbitration. Carcharoth (talk) 09:20, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

This got lost in the above discussion, so bringing it out here. User:ST47 protected Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Non-Free Content Compliance Bot. ST47 is one of the named operators of that bot. Prior to the protection ST47 carried out this revert. ST47 had previously been engaged in the following reverting sequence: ST47 reverted (calling Bellwether a troll); then Bellwether restored and MZMcBride reverted (saying take it to the talk page or dev/null). Given this, was the page protection by ST47 appropriate? Should it be unprotected? Do WP:BAG own the bot approval pages? I don't want a long discussion, just a clear answer either way. I'll notify ST47, Bellwether and MZMcBride of this new section. Carcharoth (talk) 11:18, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

See also User talk:ST47#Misuse of tools. Carcharoth (talk) 11:22, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
I think it was reasonable. Bellwether was trying to reopen a closed discussion, which was closed partially because it was attracting disruption like this from MickMacNee. Technically, probably not completely correct, but I wouldn't say it was worth pursuing. Some editors - notably the two mentioned above - will no doubt disagree. Black Kite 11:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
ST47 was involved in reverts of the content of that page. How can it be appropriate that he reverted discussion, protected the page and then warned Bellwether? How is this different than the ownership that was displayed at, say, Wikipedia:IRC channels/wikipedia-en-admins? I realise this was a closed and archived discussion, but AfD and other places have clear places to contest such closures. Places like RfA and BRFA don't have ways to contest closed discussions. Should they? Carcharoth (talk) 11:53, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
I would assume, that WP:BOWN or WT:BAG would probably be appropriate places to contest. You're right however, there should be a clear place to do so. As far as ownership goes.... What do you think the result would be, if you tried monkeying with closed discussions at WP:AFD? WP:RFA? I dare say, if you kept up, in those places, the result would likely be the same, if not worse. So, yes, I think the protection was completely appropriate. SQLQuery me! 12:11, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
It should be noted here that I asked the initial closer of the request to reopen it, and he did so. This involves a later closure of the same request. As for the other examples, would be appropriate for the person nominated at RfA to protect their RfA? Or for the nominator of an article at AfD to protect the AfD? Or for an admin who had been involved in reverting content (before the closure of the discussion) to protect that page? Other admins and editors, maybe, but can we agree that ST47 was involved here (one of the bot operators and disputing what should be discussed at the page), and thus the protection was inappropriate? Carcharoth (talk) 12:22, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
In those examples it would seem the answer is no, but I think we all agree a bureacrat can revert comments added to an RfA after they have closed it, and protect it to prevent further such comments being added. Similarly I would say a checkuser can remove information from a checkuser request they find unhelpful and protect the page to prevent further such comments being added. Its a little hard to work out where the line is drawn on these "purpose pages" where the community has asked a particular group to administer them. It goes against the "anyone can edit" principle but can sometimes be necessary to keeping things working. WjBscribe 13:27, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. This has been the most useful answer so far. Carcharoth (talk) 13:30, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
  • No one was "monkeying with" anything. The archival box clearly stated that further discussion should be started in a new section. Since I felt the close was completely unreasonable, and the OWNers of the page were being quite over-the-top with their accusations of trolling and quick reversions, I followed the instructions in the archive box, and opened a new section. I did nothing wrong there. The wrong actions came in the misuse of tools to preclude discussion participation by a non-admin, and the inappropriate speedy close of a very active discussion. Bellwether BC 12:17, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
  • My ammendment was made to accurately reflect the ongoing situation with bcb and NFCC10c, and again has been supported by others, so again, I am not on some one man crusade to pick on betacommand. ST47's comment above, This is a clone of an existing bot. The only reason people even care about it is because BetacommandBot is the cool thing to pick on and block nowadays. Which is pretty stupid. And is also pretty much the cause of this bot request, makes it clear and plain why this bot exists and was approved so quickly, and it has nothing to do with improving the NFCC10c enforcement process. This new bot merely exists to deflect all comment about the bot away from betacommand, reflected in his own comments about the approval, without actualy giving the community any better way of improving the way the bot works. It is an unnecessary step and disengenuous measure, when merely separating the code into two betacommand controlled bots achieves the exact same result, and does not cloud the accountability issue. MickMacNee (talk) 12:27, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
    • My take on it would be that the subpage created by MickMacNee linked above showed quite clearly that he is not particularly interested in the bot itself, but was merely pursuing some sort of personal gripe with Betacommand. I don't see any particular reason why that type of irrelevancy should be allowed to continue on what is after all a bot approval page. As I said, technically not correct, but I'd defend it. I'd also note that I suggested after MickMacNee was blocked last night, that he and Betacommand should stay away from each other, which neither has taken any notice of. Black Kite 12:30, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
      • You do realise that I made similar objections to MickMacNee, but on the actual approval page itself? Why are MickMacNee's objections disruption and mine are not? Since when was it acceptable to put the following divisive language and disputed statements on official request pages and documentation?
        • "Betacommand and his bot are vilified for the work they do tagging images."
        • "People will find it much harder to demonize or blame..."
        • "Anti-fair-use people would be shielded from attacks."
          • Maybe the answer comes from a statement on ST47's user page? I quote: DEATH TO FAIR USE. Is that acceptable? Fair use (in the more restrictive form of our non-free content policy) is accepted on en-Wikipedia. If someone wrote "death to reliable sources", would that be acceptable? Carcharoth (talk) 12:42, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Seriously, it's starting to look like a vendetta. ST's views about Fair use are known, and I find it hard to see why these are brought here. I don't think ST47 is willing to use the bot to remove fair use from Wikipedia, and if you have proof of the contrary, please don't hesitate to contact us... Can we please allow the NFC tasks to be split from BCBot, as many people (from both sides) wish, and move on? -- lucasbfr talk 12:49, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
So you approve of the language used and the process used to approve the bot? I support the bot and the splitting of NFC tasks from BCBot, but not the process used to approve the new bot or its name. I disapprove of successful attempts to jump on discussion of it and cry "enough!", speedily approving the bot and protecting the request page. I have supported Betacommand in the past, I have urged those considering filing an arbitration case to not do so before 23 March (the WMF deadline concerning non-free images), and I will continue to support Betacommand and his Bot where he needs support, but the uncritical support, and the overly defensive attitude to legitimate criticism and suggestions, is really, really not helpful. Carcharoth (talk) 13:22, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
I disagree with the behavior from both sides of the stormcup dispute. I did not discuss anything with the BAG members lately, and I am kind of an outsider. But this seems like a procedural listing, in order to record how things are going to be done. The wording, the name of the bot, are silly disputes. You can all discuss these for months, that will not change the bot's behavior, and BCBot would continue to work meanwhile. There's a moment where the discussion is indeed fruitless (and the roll account thingie is lame wikilawering) -- lucasbfr talk 13:56, 7 March 2008 (UTC)The section was archived while I was typing, I leave my comment anyway (if an admin wishes to revert, feel free), you can reply on my talk if you wish
  • The bot approval page is where users are obliged to go to find out the reason for the bot (which is the bare minimum of the bot information policy, which is shown by bc's minimalist 8 links to approvals as his explanation of what they do. Hence, weasel words and innacuracies in the approval remain on record for all time. And I have issues with the bot, which are who controls it and why it exists, which are relevant to an approval. MickMacNee (talk) 12:50, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

This is yet another example of disruption. Carcharoth, you said you didn't want a lengthy discussion, you just wanted an answer one way or another. You got an answer, not the one you wanted, so you keep talking, making points, and asking questions in an attempt to get the answer you wanted, which is an uproar from admins at ST47's action. Now, not only are you failing to let it go after you got what you claim to have come here for, but you posting more links to draw more attention to the same stuff already linked above. It's an endless cycle of repetition. Keep the discussions on their own pages and stop running here every day with every event. The discussion was archived, that means it was over. If there was concern with that, it should have been taken to the talk page. Speaking of archived discussions, like I said, you got what you claim to have come for. This is over. LaraLove 13:49, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Please don't use "archival" as a weapon to enforce your views, and to shut down active discussion. Just because you think something is "disruption" doesn't mean it is. As such, I've removed your inappropriate archive tags. Bellwether BC 14:08, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
  • One more thing: you don't get to unilaterally declare discussions "over", just because you want them to be. Bellwether BC 14:11, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
    • I am not going to re-archive, but i would point out that the converse also applies - conversations don't get re-opened purely because you want them to. However, since you unarchived, have you something constructive to add? Black Kite 14:25, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
      • This thread was about ST47's misuse of tools yesterday. That has yet to be dealt with at any length. This is an adminstrator issue, whether or not Lara believes it is or not. And her attacks on Carch and his motives are so far beyond the pale that they barely merit addressing. Carch has been a "voice of reason" throughout the problems relating to BC that precipitated ST47's rash actions. To berate him for bringing too many issues to administrator attention is just a bit silly, in my opinion. There have been many users who have acted badly during these problems. Carch is not one of them. Bellwether BC 14:45, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Lara, premature archiving is also a form of disruption. I was in the process of undoing the archiving but edit conflicted with Bellwether. I won't undo the archiving again if you or others really truly think this is resolved, but I hope what I have to say may persuade you or others that the thread should remain open. I accept that I have been responding too much in this thread, and I apologise for that (and I hope you and others will accept my apology), but please leave this thread unarchived to allow others to comment if they want. ST47 at the least should be given a chance to say something. I will step away now and not comment here for the next few hours. Carcharoth (talk) 14:13, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
The archive function is to close discussions that no longer need commenting on. This request is not merely a question looking only for a simple answer one way or another (if it were, it would still be archived now because you got what you claimed to have come here for. If you're just waitin for ST47's response, he has a talk page). It is, however, another in many topics started on this noticeboard to draw attention to other discussions in other venues. Carcharoth, it's not about your many replies here when you've not gotten the desired response, it's the sheer volume of topics started on this board over the past few days. It's getting ridiculous. AN/I isn't the current events notice board. You come here for one lone reason: to draw attention to those pages. This is evident by the repetitive linking to them. LaraLove 14:27, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree completely with Lara on all accounts here. Can we archive this now please. Woody (talk) 14:55, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I have just posted in a thread elsewhere on this page about the huge gap between yesterday's events and the assurances of the primacy of community involvement which were made repeatedly at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Bots/Approvals group last April. It seems to me that something has changed since last April, and it would be helpful to have an explanation from BAG members of why they no longer appear to be following the position outlined at MfD that "BAG lives off community consensus, and will only approve a bot on the basis of such consensus".[2] (from Martinp23, a current BAG member). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:26, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

You know, I've heard less noise from noisy avian rookeries. It never ceases to amaze me how much noise gets generated over fair use issues. Just as I predicted, if someone were to go create a bot that did BCB's fair use work, there'd be just as much noise generated over that bot. The core issue isn't Betacommand. It's fair use, and God help anyone who supports work that enforces our fair use policies. Hell, this new bot hasn't even performed a *single* edit yet, and already there's an insane amount of feather stirring going on. I cringe at what is going to happen when it actually makes edits. The screaming will never end. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:47, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Sadly, yeah. Not one edit, and there are already what, 3 ANI threads? SQLQuery me! 15:05, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Part of the problem is with the uncivil language used in the very proposal to create this bot. It presented BC as clean-handed, and painted those who challenged him as villains. And sadly, you were a part of drafting that proposal. As for BC, I do see the core issue (or at least one of the core issues) as being his blatant incivility. We don't need a user to act in such a way when they're running a bot that's going to cause (fairly or unfairly) a maelstorm of bad feelings just for what it does. A bot operator for such a bot needs to be nearly a paragon of civility and helpfulness. This, BC is not. Bellwether BC 15:23, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I think the only way to appease the people who have been arguing against this bot (whether it be BC or otherwise) is for everyone that has been disagreeing with them to stand up and proclaim for all the heavens to hear that BC is the second coming of the antichrist, that fair use needs to be allowed liberally, anywhere and everywhere, and have BC turn in several pounds of flesh with a heaping side order of abject apologies all around. You know what? At this point I don't care if Betacommand is the most incivil person that's ever walked the planet. The huff and puff that keeps getting generated over these debates is badly disrupting the project and leading to nothing productive. Ok fine, you think Betacommand is an ass. I think everyone acknowledges you and certain others feel this way. Can we PLEASE move on now? PLEASE?????? --Hammersoft (talk) 15:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
  • What do you say to that? I mean "the second coming of the antichrist"? "Several pounds of flesh"? These type of "defenses" of BC's incivility (he called an administrator "dumbass" and a "dick" yesterday, amongst other pleasantries), are enabling the problem, instead of working toward a solution. All it would take is for BC to stop being incivil, and at least attempt to be more receptive to requests/comments/issues people might have. Your over-the-top, hyperbolic attack on those of us who take issue with the chronic incivility BC displays is extremely unhelpful. Bellwether BC 15:38, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
  • And five bazillion threads about how much of an ass he is has somehow saved the project? Enough already. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:49, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Why so much vitriol and hyperbole? No one's starting threads "about how much of an ass he is." We've started some threads on various issues, many which have something to do with BC. These have included his chronic incivility. You are the one who is trying to push it over the top by setting up a strawman of what people who disagree with you believe. Bellwether BC 17:35, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
That's misleading, in all fairness. The threads aren't actually all about the bot, some of them are about BAG's handling of the situation. - Philippe | Talk 15:20, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Technically, yes... It's all the same basic tarpit, however, IMO. SQLQuery me! 15:31, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Interesting, SQL, that you view it that way. I'm not trying to start yet another tangent, but I see the two as clear and distinct issues.... issue one is BC, civility, and BCB; issue two is the way that BAG handled the approval of the new bot. Not trying to argue, just to point out what may be a significant difference in worldview. For me, the BAG issue is far more concerning, long term, because it's about a PROCESS (which may be repeated or repeatable) as opposed to a USER. User issues are a dime a dozen (not trying to minimize it, but let's face it, it's a civility issue) but process issues have - to me - a much greater consequence for the project. I basically would like to stay out of the user issue, but the process issue concerns me. - Philippe | Talk 17:24, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
The bot request was closed because people were using what was supposed to be a technical evaluation of a new bot (which as a clone of an existing bot is not really needed) but people were trying to turn it into yet another forum on BC's conduct. Mr.Z-man 18:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Lara that we don't need thread after thread on the same subject. The point seems to be trying to increase the noise level, rather than actually leading to a resolution. Look - we got what everyone wanted, new non-Betacommand BCBots. The request for approval demonstrates the opinion of the folks who made it, but it isn't some official document that represents the community version of reality. Starting multiple threads to get it changed, or to review the action of a BAG member protecting a BRfA after it was closed/unclosed/closed/unclosed/closed or whichever is a pointless exercise and not meant for AN/I. If you think he abused his sysop tools, find out if he is open to recall. Start an RfC. Unprotect the page yourself. There are other options aside from starting yet another thread because this one gut 'buried' by people who disagree with you. Avruch T 16:36, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

  • The reason why these discussions are endless is comments like this: "we got what everyone wanted, new non-Betacommand BCBots", this statement is basically wrong, the new bot is still bcbot, and is still closed to modification. Even the one good part about its creation that now at least the "but operation xyz will be blocked too" can no longer be used, but this is cancelled out by the weasel words that are found every time someone looks at the operating manual of this bot, linked as part of the bot information policy. Anyone encountering this bot who has dealt with betacommand before will basically not bother to interact with it as it is clear what the motives behind its creation were. MickMacNee (talk) 17:27, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Mick is right here. This page is an "official document" inasmuch as it's the official record of the approval for use of a split of BCBot, that is still controlled by BC. That record should not contain personal attacks and red herrings lobbed against those who have challenged BC in the past. Bellwether BC 17:31, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
      • Maybe if the birds were painted a different color from your side of the fence things might actually progress? All I see is the same arguments trotted out over and over and over again. It's dull, repetitive, and leading to nothing productive. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:36, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
        • Nope, same color birds. Incivility is what it is. What the creators of that proposal wrote is objectively incivil, and doesn't belong on anything like an official record of a bot's approval. Bellwether BC 17:39, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
            • And you won't be satisified until...? What exactly do you want? --Hammersoft (talk) 17:41, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
              • Quite simply, discuss the proposed ammendment and indicate consensus to accept or reject based on policy, and not reply 'this is irrelevant' and protect the page MickMacNee (talk) 17:51, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
                • quite simply it was a bot clone. thus you have no grounds for an amendment. The original bot has been operating for 10 months now. if you wanted to propose changes you have/had two options. bring them up during the original bot request or take you request to the bot operators. a this BRFA was for a clone, nothing more. Had there been changes a full BRFA would have been needed. that was not the case and you now know your options. or of course you could write your own bot. βcommand 18:00, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
                  • The ammendment is not about the bot, it is an ammendment of the language of the approval and the proposed arrangements for operation, i.e. your restrictions, nothing to do with the bot itself. MickMacNee (talk) 18:23, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
                    • No one has control over my restrictions. dont like it? tough. the users in question all understand them and agree to them. your point is moot. βcommand 18:27, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
                      • How is this type of response appropriate? Why could you have not just restated politely the same basic thing, sans "don't like it? tough."?!? Bellwether BC 18:33, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
                • Agreed with Betacommand. Approving the new bot should be rubber stamp style stuff. After 10 months of operation, BCB's been through enough to call it a seasoned bot. I don't see the need to procedurelawyer this to death. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:03, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
          • Please go have some tea and biscuits and when you can productively contribute to a conversation please do so, instead of trying to stir up non-existent problems. βcommand 17:42, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
            • Your incivility is not a "non-existent problem." It's well-demonstrated by your response here. Bellwether BC 17:48, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
              • So? As I noted above, we already know you think he's an ass. You don't need to repeat yourself a few million times for us to understand this. Honest, we're not that stupid. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:06, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
                • Stop baiting me. I've never said he was "an ass." I've said he's "chronically incivil." This is completely different, and objectively true. Bellwether BC 18:15, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
                  • I'm not trying to get you to say he's an ass and then have someone block you for saying he's an ass. Look, the reality is everyone knows you DISLIKE him (better?). You don't need to repeat that a few million times for us to get it. We got it already. Barring some outbreak of incivility on his part with him being directly insulting to someone, nothing is going to happen about it. So enough already, ok? Enough. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:31, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
                    • See, that's the thing. I don't even dislike him. That's not a distinction without difference. There are several users which I very much like that are often incivil. With BC, I hold no opinion as to him personally. All I want to see happen is that the incivility cease. Bellwether BC 18:56, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Not for the first time, it's lucky my assumption of good faith extends to two fairly new accounts who sport a surprising amount of knowledge of Wikipedia policy and appear to be spending most of their time agitating on BCBot issues. Black Kite 17:58, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
    • I have recently wondered if bc and hs are not alter egos of the same person. MickMacNee (talk) 18:28, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
      • This is highly inappropriate, and not helpful. Accusations of sockpuppetry are very serious. And if you weren't serious, then were you just trolling? I agree with a lot of what you write, but I can't support accusations such as this. Bellwether BC 18:30, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
        • Ah let him make the accusation if he wants. I don't care. It's patently false anyways. Betacommand is pretty routinely accused of having various unannounced sockpuppets. I think he was even accused of being ST47 at one point. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:33, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
        • Just to disprove it, I created User:Hammersoft/Yawn. Summary of it at [3]. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:57, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
          • No need for that. It never crossed my mind that you two were the same person. I've made it known I think you sometimes take positions reflexively in support of BC, but that's not an accuastion as much as an opinion, and it's nothing so serious as an allegation of sockpuppetry. Not everyone on the opposite side of the discussion makes such allegations. Bellwether BC 19:25, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
        • Of course, now MickMacNee is accusing me of having split personality and operating two PCs at the same time. Rather funny :) [4] --Hammersoft (talk) 19:04, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Indeed, indeed. If you two are snarkily referring to me, I've made no secret (to those who have asked) that this is not my first account. I had some fairly significant RL concerns that necessitated some shifting about on WP. So, yes, I'm a pretty experienced editor, if it was me you were referring to. Bellwether BC 18:10, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Is it can be archive tiem now, plz? LaraLove 21:19, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

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

User:Pixelface: Disruptive & Pointy[edit]

Pixelface (talk · contribs) has been making a raft of disruptive and pointy edits. Apparently unhappy with the ongoing debate about fictional topics, he has decided to make a passive-agressive demonstration of this unhappiness by slapping a merge tag on every single one of the articles we have on Symphonies by Joseph Haydn. He then informed three "involved" editors of what he had done and peevishly suggested I might be canvassing when I put up notices at the relevant projects (Classical music and Composers). Needless to say, the merge proposal has been unanimously rejected. But I would ask an admin to consider a block against User:Pixelface for this point-laden disruption. And I would also ask that he be encouraged to rollback the 60 or so merge tags he has needlessly slathered across the articles in question. Finally, I would ask whether this kind of behaviour violates the spirit of the recent arbcom ruling. Eusebeus (talk) 15:17, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

How about you let the merge discussion take a few days? --Pixelface (talk) 15:36, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
And I actually notified 6 of the editors who have edited those articles of the merge discussion[5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] --Pixelface (talk) 15:39, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I can't say I'm especially surprised, given the vehemence of Pixelface's opposition to removal of spoiler warnings, and I would entirely agree that this is an egregious violation of WP:POINT. I'd suggest that Pixelface has a nice cup of tea and a sit down. Guy (Help!) 15:48, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

It is content dispute. There is nothing to flag in administrator's noticeboard. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 15:51, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

    • First, no, there is something to flag for WP:AN to take a look at, and I have to agree with Guy, Pixelface, please throttle back a bit, it's obvious to all that you have been frustrated with the way the episodes and characters discussions have been going over the last few months, and this is a clear-cut violation of WP:POINT. SirFozzie (talk) 15:52, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Yep, WP:POINT is a good reason to come to ANI. Pixelface can stop wasting other editors' time. I'd suggest it would be better to end this non-debate now and "rollback the 60 or so merge tags he has needlessly slathered across the articles in question". --Folantin (talk) 15:56, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Feel free to discuss the merge on the talk page. If the articles are merged they can't be {{prod}}ed into oblivion. --Pixelface (talk) 15:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Well now, a POINT on top of the POINT, Pixelface, I'll say it again, you need to calm down here. SirFozzie (talk) 16:12, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I've wasted a good 10 minutes of my life rolling back Pixelface's edits. This is the problem with pointy actions - someone else always winds up clearing up the shit. He does that again and a block is completely in order. Moreschi (talk) 16:19, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Why did you roll them back? --Pixelface (talk) 16:22, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Because consensus believes they're disruptive, bad-faith efforts to make a WP:POINT? SirFozzie (talk) 16:24, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
In fact, because they were disruptive, bad-faith efforts to make a point. Do not revert me: you will be blocked. Moreschi (talk) 16:25, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
I didn't propose to merge those articles out of bad faith. Do you think the articles Symphony No. 57 (Haydn), Symphony No. 66 (Haydn), Symphony No. 67 (Haydn), Symphony No. 68 (Haydn), Symphony No. 71 (Haydn), Symphony No. 72 (Haydn), Symphony No. 75 (Haydn), Symphony No. 77 (Haydn), Symphony No. 78 (Haydn), Symphony No. 79 (Haydn), and Symphony No. 81 (Haydn) comply with WP:N? --Pixelface (talk) 16:27, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I do. People have written in reliable sources about Haydn's symphonies, as individual symphonies as well as a collective. No, they are not analagous to character articles that get deleted or episode articles that get redirected. Moreschi (talk) 16:31, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Citation needed. Catchpole (talk) 16:35, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
The articles don't show that. A merge discussion is a valid course of action. --Pixelface (talk) 16:34, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I have already pointed on Pixelface's talk page and elsewhere the sources for Haydn symphonies and why they were likely to be considered notable. Moreover, Pixelface selected Haydn symphonies because, in perusing my contribution record, he noticed that I had authorship of several of these articles. If I had instead been working on Mozart Piano Sonatas, they would no doubt have been the target of Pixel's merge suggestion. This IS a bad faith nomination and as pointy as they come. How is a block not in order, particularly after having wasted people's time in this childish display and subsequent churlish reaction? Also, I think this is a violation of the arbcom ruling, insofar as it seeks to inflame through a disruptive and point-ridden counter-demonstration. Eusebeus (talk) 16:39, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
[ecx2] Pixelface, when you are in a hole, it's best to stop digging. The music of Haydn is a subject of musical scholarship and has been for a long time, with musicologists debating similarities and contrasts between individual works and between Haydn's individual works and those of Beethoven and others. There are whole books on the subject of the classical symphony which include lengthy treatments of each. But that is beside the point: what you did was quite clearly a violation in spirit and intent of the temporary injunction in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2. The correct response when called on it is not defiance. Guy (Help!) 16:45, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Would the similarities and contrasts be more clear to the reader in one article or spread out over 104 articles? --Pixelface (talk) 16:56, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Separately, for the most part, as each has its own distinct influences. And do remember that we don't have articles on all of them. If we restricted ourselves in every case to subjects which have substantial coverage in reliable independent sources then we'd lose probably none of the Haydn symphonies and almost all episodes of the majority of TV series. Guy (Help!) 17:10, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
"we'd lose probably none of the Haydn symphonies and almost all episodes of the majority of TV series."
The ultimate aim, I think, of this crowd. And next comes the works of short fiction by Poe and Twain that don't assert notability on their own, and then the species that don't speak for themselves, and then the Biblical and religious figures... Lawrence § t/e 17:13, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
{{fact}}. As far as I can tell it's about removing content written form personal observation of primary sources rather than being drawn form reliable independent secondary sources. I find it hard to believe that we will ever actually need an article on each episode of Powerpuff Girls, since each episode has no independent cultural significance. Guy (Help!) 17:36, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

<out> And thinking about it, Pixel's statement, The articles don't show that. A merge discussion is a valid course of action. is the very defintition of pointiness. But at the same time, he's exactly right -- they DON'T show that they are notable, especially in light of the fact that the /very same arguments/ are constantly being used on many articles, but a lot of people dismiss them for the fact they are fiction. I said it before, I like having articles on Haydn symhponies and I'm sure plenty of RSs can be found...but just because I know that, doesn't mean that others do. The exact same logic can be applied in reverse. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 17:15, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I must confess to puzzlement at what exactly Pixel was arguing for and how he thought WP:Music justified the merger. Also what he was arguing for seemed to me to shift quite rapidly with no suggestion of his withdrawing his proposal until he had rethought things fully. My reaction was to WP:AGF, but I do fing WP:POINT helps explain a lot, especially his demand to keep things open when so many editors have piled in against.--Peter cohen (talk) 17:46, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
WP:MUSIC does not mention symphonies, but it does mention songs. I asked about symphonies on WT:MUSIC and the reply I got was notability is not inherited. Many of the articles still fail WP:N — so a merge discussion is perfectly acceptable. I assume so many editors expressed their opposition because I notified several editors who had worked on the articles. And someone else notified a WikiProject (which is often considered canvassing). If WikiProject Notability had been contacted, I predict the merge discussion would have been much different. The merge discussion is open to all editors, not just members of WikiProjects. --Pixelface (talk) 18:14, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
What you got was the opinion of one editor - something different from the guideline itself. All the 104 numbered symphonies have been recorded by Antal Dorati - the notable former chief conductor/music director of several notable orchestras who was rewarded a knighthood -and by Adam Fischer the notable winner of a major classical music award. So they would meet the WP:MUSIC song heading under that criterion. In any case the whole guideline shows Systemic bias in talking about songs and albums in assuming a world that post-dates the invention of the LP. It is therefore inappropriate to not only the Western classical tradition but the classical traditions of the resst of the world and other musical genres invented before selling discs of plastic was the primary aim of thousands of musicians until people remove the bias.--Peter cohen (talk) 20:33, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Probation - time for this, to stop the troublemakers?[edit]

These constant disruptions in relation to these fiction articles are getting just absurd now. How about we put a general probation on all these users barring them from doing these things? If they're here for wikipedia and not their own aims they'll find other things to contribute with and to. It's a big encyclopedia. There has to be some way to leash these disruptive actions. All these various warriors on all these various and frankly stupid little agendas are wasting our collective time. It's time we just starting putting our collective feet down much, much faster on this crap. The AC is too slow and unwieldy an avenue to deal with this in an agile enough manner for the community Lawrence § t/e 16:41, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

You see, this is the problem. Everyone's attacking TTN for his wholesale merges, but when it comes to this where it actually is undeniably disruption, people pussyfoot around. If Pixelface disrupts Wikipedia one more time this month, he should be banned - too much drama (this is, I think, the third time in two weeks where he's been on AN) Will (talk) 16:49, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Definitely, if we go in that direction going forward, at least Pixelface, who seems to have a long history with this kind of thing, (the Spoiler wars, the episode/characters battles that led to TWO ArbCom cases, and now this..) needs to be under any such terms. SirFozzie (talk) 16:47, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
I didn't edit war over spoiler warnings and I wasn't an involved party in the first episodes and characters case. I discussed both of those things. Is that the "long history" you're referring to? --Pixelface (talk) 17:07, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm advocating a hard probation for Pixelface, and for the community to tell EVERYONE that does these widescale things with aggressive force to "STFU", as some may say. We dick around for too long and far too tolerantly of this sort of thing--that goes for all the aggressive parties in the spoiler wars, the merge wars, whatever wars. We don't need small groups running around telling us they know what is best for us--they can do that, but if they don't get traction, and then force the issue, we should bluntly tell them to stop disrupting. Do we need these stupid pointless discussions every 72-96 hours for the same usual suspects again and again and again? TTN, Pixelface, homeopathy, Betacommand, all of them--it's time to just put the foot down. Lawrence § t/e 16:55, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Um, the times I've appeared at ANI, I asked about the mass removal of templates that was discussed off Wikipedia on the mailing list. Then I was brought here by Corvus cornix who falsely said I was reverting all of TTN's edits. Then Nandesuka brought me here after I removed a prod tag from an article while I was tired. And now I'm here because I made a merge proposal for articles that didn't assert their notability. To see my name mentioned along with TTN and Betacommand is ridiculous. --Pixelface (talk) 17:01, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Hear hear, Lawrence. Will (talk) 17:04, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Maybe I'm very wrong, but it sounds like your saying that fiction article editors don't belong here because they happen to have that as their interest. That's elitism in its purest form, and is just as bad as what Pixel is doing. And it's not like all of us who enjoy fiction stuff ONLY care about that. I'm listening to Bloch's Suite Hébraïque right now (there's something that could use an article, it's got a decent number of recordings as far as viola and orchestra pieces go, along with the Jewish influence), but yet on Sunday after I watched it, I went right to Play it Again, Brian to check out what people had to say about a couple things. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 16:51, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't think anyone has suggested anything remotely like that. Eusebeus (talk) 16:53, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
general probation on all these users is a very broad term that can be interpreted as all fiction editors. That's how it appeared when I first read it. May not be how it was intended.--Cube lurker (talk) 16:57, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
I'd start with everyone that was in the RFAR. We can take more firm measures than the AC if we want to. We don't need their OK to supercede their previous decisions or alter it's aims. Lawrence § t/e 17:00, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
That's absolutely NOT what I said. I'm specifically saying that these same groups of people that keep showing up here, in pointless and fruitless discusions, again and again, for trying to force THEIR limited views on others of what Wikipedia should be, should be locked down to protect us. If they can't get their way, crap like we're seeing here is either the equivalent of childish and immature pouting--do we need that? Or, worse, if they continue negative behaviors that they've been chided for by the community and can't seem to stop, they can be made to stop. We have far too much patience for things like this. It's time that stopped. Lawrence § t/e 17:00, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
The problem is when the editors within a walled garden refuse to engage with editors outside of that walled garden, and refuse to accept anything other than 100% compliance with their POV. The fiction editors in particular seem to have entirely forgotten that Wikipedia is supposed to be a tertiary source and that notability is not inherited; most of the articles on episodes and characters are laden down with unfree images, comprised almost entirely of personal observations from the primary sources, lack any reliable independent sources at all, and rely for their supposed significance on the fact that the parent series has an article. It's been a source of conflict for a long time, but we've solved similar problems before with Pokémon and by helping to transwiki excessively detailed fancruft to more appropriate places. Guy (Help!) 17:01, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
You solved the Pokémon problem? Better tell Bulbasaur.Kww (talk) 20:43, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
And that's the RIGHT way to fix things like this--collaboration, agreement. If one side doesn't like the way things are heading, get support to change policy outright. Forcing your way down others' throats as everyone seems to be trying with the fiction stuff is the wrong way, as it was the wrong way with the spoiler templates. Breeds ill will if not outright anger, and empowers other fools to think they can get their way by being loudest. We need to cut all that off by the balls. Lawrence § t/e 17:04, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
  • It is good for editors to work in multiple subject areas and to try multiple perspectives because this encourages consensus-building. In other words, walking in someone else's shoes. I, for example, am usually an inclusionist but lately have been trying the opposite position and tomorrow I plan to take the article Dude to AFD for being no more than an extended dictionary definition. In the case in question, Pixelface's motives are naturally suspect but we ought to AGF and look first at the merits of the proposal. It does not seem obvious to me that lots of stubby articles on Hadyn symphonies are the best way of treating that topic and there is merit in challenging the current treatment. I've noticed that some topics such as mathematics and astronomy get a free pass because of their academic respectability. One unfortunate result is that their articles are consequently of poor quality and often have fewer sources than a pop culture topic which has had to survive repeated challenges. To raise quality in all subject areas, it seems useful to spread the love. :) Colonel Warden (talk) 11:01, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

In other news...[edit]

Whose hand is inside this particular sock? Pops Culture (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) Guy (Help!) 17:41, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know. Could be someone near Dartmouth though. --Pixelface (talk) 17:42, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
There is something very odd going on with Pops Culture, but it's not Pixelface, if that's what you were thinking. Thatcher 18:15, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
No I wasn't (I didn't think Pixelface would be that daft). Guy (Help!) 18:45, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Anyone else amused that Pixelface is Pointy? Relata refero (talk) 23:04, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
heh. Clever, RR. Horologium (talk) 23:07, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Probable abuse by Jersyko (talk · contribs)[edit]

Abusive editors after being dealt with by Jersyko

See also: user's talk page and unblock discussion

Jersyko is absolutely bloodthirsty - which I couldn't figure out why until I located two edits (wording disputes, aka content disputes) which Jersyko had previously been involved in with the user. diff1 diff2.

Additionally, this is a user I'd tried to adopt and work with, but aside from a couple users, all they're getting for feedback is continual beatings and abuse. It's not helpful and "the beatings will continue until morale improves" is no way to teach someone to be a good editor, especially when they're already being hit by people who have POV and WP:OWN issues themselves. M1rth (talk) 18:35, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Having looked at this user's edits, I believe ForeverFreeSpeech (talk · contribs) was very likely a sockpuppet of CltFn (talk · contribs), who was banned following this discussion (in which I participated) here on WP AN/I. I see that ForeverFreeSpeech appeared almost exactly a month after CltFn was banned. The area of editing, the aggressive POV and the use of language are all strikingly similar. Has anyone done a checkuser to verify this? -- ChrisO (talk) 19:38, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Hadn't made that connection, but this DOES match ctlfn rather well... Perhaps a CU is in order here... 19:44, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
It was already done recently here and declined as fishing. Wildthing61476 (talk) 19:48, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Hmm. Not sure that M1rth is a sock puppet - the area of editing doesn't seem to have much in common with CltFn - but a sock check might have been useful with regard to ForeverFreeSpeech. However, I see that FFS has been indefinitely blocked so a CU would be rather pointless at this stage. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:00, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm "bloodthirsty"?!?!?? · jersyko talk 21:21, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Sure you are. I found evidence, too - see the picture. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:30, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
LOL! Must admit the accusation gave me a laugh. Orderinchaos 08:59, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I really must protest what has been done: ChrisO tried to blank the page to hide the talk, and then JzG locked it and redirected it. This is not in keeping with openness. In fact, this is directly opposed and seems to be directly in opposition to the user's right to file an appeal. M1rth (talk) 22:07, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

  • He can email ArbCom if he wants, and I don't mind if the talk page is unprotected as long as the silliness there stops, but the identification of this as an abusive account and probably a sockpuppet of another abuser looks to me to be pretty solid. Guy (Help!) 22:15, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I am confused as to what you mean by "silliness." I am the one who identified the definite abuse by Jersyko, and I presented that in good faith in support of a user who was given a completely unreasonable block length (please note that I do support a limited-time block of 72 hours or so). I highly doubt that the user will know how to get in touch with arbcom as a noob. It seems like you are deliberately trying to put roadblocks into a user filing appeals, which makes no sense to me. I strongly suggest that the page be unprotected and returned to its former status, especially as Jayron32 stated on IRC that he felt the user was free to file a second unblock request showing that he would actually edit within policy. I have stated why I feel the issue is being unjustly conducted, and I stand by my analysis despite the entirely unreasonable and incivil behavior by people like ChrisO, who posts a derisive picture above rather than discuss the issue evenly and openly. M1rth (talk) 22:25, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

If FFS was a sock/reincarnation of CltFn, which I see as highly likely, s/he has no right of appeal whatsoever - CltFn was banned. That means all editing privileges were revoked permanently. Indefinitely blocked users may be rehabilitated eventually (that's why we don't call them "permanently blocked users") but banned users are out for good. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:29, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
That's because using terms like "bloodthirsty" is rather derisive as well, wouldn't you think? This person, coming off a block continually throws around edit summaries like (rvt per it's there in the article dumbass), or I doubt Abbasshole was speaking hebrew) and other brilliant summaries like.. (undo hizbullshit) and (undo hamasshole). Plain and simple, I see no problem with the action taken and explicitly endorse this indefblock SirFozzie (talk) 22:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

There isn't any proof of the CltFn accusation, and it looks more to me like it's being now being used as an excuse to justify bad behavior. In addition, all but one of the things SirFozzie cites were BEFORE the previous 24-hour block... making me wonder how much research SF actually did into the matter. Meanwhile, Jersyko appears to have a number of (content, non-vandalism reversion) edits at Barack Obama political position page and talk page. There is enough of an appearance of conflict of interest here to give me pause, as well as consistent maltreatment of a user rather than trying to teach them how to properly edit even while they're regularly being attacked and accused of "vandalism" in what clearly aren't vandalism, but content dispute, cases.

After reviewing the edits, it looks to me like a typical WP:BITE pattern. New user comes along, crosses existing POV users with WP:OWN] problems; POV users try to get reaction from new user to protect "their" article; POV users then seek ban claiming "hey it's a sockpuppet." I'll note the rather poisonous Israel/Palestine POV editor Eleland was the first to trot out this "CltFn" nonsense.

If anything, the edits from the user today show an improvement from before. Instead of continuing to improve the editor, though, you're all willing to WP:BITE quite freely? Wikipedia should be ashamed.

I also see why the user feels threatened. I now feel threatened for even bringing this up, with SirFozzie's message on my talk page.M1rth (talk) 22:46, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Definition of the word irony: Claiming that other users are not assuming good faith of a sockpuppet of a banned user, then claims he's being threatened by being warned that running to multiple admins in an attempt to forum shop his way into getting what he wants violates rules on WP:CANVASsing. SirFozzie (talk) 22:52, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, if two editors independently identify FFS as a sockpuppet of the same banned user, that's got to tell you something. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:54, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
  • And in my view this [11] qualifies for a timeout for M1rth. There really is no call to go calling Alison a liar and accusing admins of hiding evidence. I am blocking for 24h. Guy (Help!) 22:57, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
  • (ec) Oookay, just a few points here. M1rth wasn't calling me a liar there, that was Foz he was referring to. I'd not commented on the substantive issue at that point. Regarding FFS and CltFn: checkuser shows that as being  Unlikely here, though checkuser cannot prove innocence. Likewise, that M1rth is unlikely to be related to either of them, based on location. IMO, FFS was being quite abusive of late, from the edits I briefly checked over, and IMO, definitely deserved a block, though indef might be a bit much - Alison 23:23, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
He's posted an unblock request now. Any uninvolved admins care to review it? -- ChrisO (talk) 23:21, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm involved, so I won't. However, it's obvious that the guy is angry and frustrated here by what he sees as an injustice and "admin cover-up". I disagree with his position, but how and ever. Unfortunately, blocking him won't really defuse the situation and will only re-inforce what he's already feeling here. I'm not averse to unblocking, on condition that he tone it down on the wild accusations. Over to someone else ... - Alison 23:26, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
He can be unblocked as soon as he calms down. If that means a night's sleep first, then so be it. He's picked the wrong fight and I told him so. Guy (Help!) 23:29, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
I see AGK has unblocked him. Kudos to AGK; I thought he handled it rather well . -- ChrisO (talk) 00:16, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Aye, talked him down from the Reichstag very well. Guy (Help!) 00:39, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

As per my discussion with User:AGK I am no longer a part of this investigation. M1rth (talk) 00:00, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:OWN -- User:Ultramarine continuing to edit war despite the repeated protests of muiltiple editors on multiple pages.[edit]

Please see the discussion and edit history of these two pages:

On the Sandinista page, Ultramarine is insisting upon the inclusion of content that is clearly outdated and superceded by more recent, thorough, neutral, and accurate material. Some of the material he wishes to draw from include a poorly sourced self-published article from a self-published journal from a non-accredited school (since then, the journal has undergone major changes in staff and the school has become accredited, but at the time the article was published all of the above was true. Others include thirty year old articles from Time magazine which are directly contradicted by later articles from human rights groups and academic sources. The content in question has been re-worked several times to present an appropriately neutral point of view, but each time he has rejected the changes and seeks to revert the material. This has been going on, now, for over seven months, with Ultramarine as the only long-term editor on the page who has defended the edits. During that time, all other long-term editors on the page -- some six or seven people -- have rejected his arguments with carefully reasoned appeals to wikipedia policy and guidelines; even so, he insists upon reverting the changes and including his content.

On the State Terrorism and U.S. page, the title has been changed with the explicit aim of giving him a broader space to include material. Unfortunately, as one can see with only a quick glance at the discussion page, Ultramarine has presented virtually no new material and is instead continuing to insist upon highly questionable deletions, the introduction of obviously irrelevant material whose sole intended aim is to use obviously skewed, unencyclopedic (and often ungrammatical) language to cast aspersions upon the material already posted to the page, and to demand the removal of vast numbers of sources based upon specious appeals to WP:SYN and WP:OR.

Only a quick glance at the latter will reveal that, for the last two weeks, the page has been engaged in an Ultramarine-against-all debate where the same few points have been rejected with the every conceivable appeal to wikipedia guidelines and policy. It has gotten to the point where a few editors (myself included) have openly stated that they question whether Ultramarine is maintaining good faith in his activity. The simple truth is that no editor acting in good faith for the betterment of the article could have so many people make so many of the same arguments for so long without concluding that they themselves may indeed be transgressing policy and guidelines.

I would like to emphasize two things: in both cases, the editors in question have, perforce, gone to great lengths to reason and negotiate with Ultramarine. These entreaties have all been rejected in favor of an edit war; similarly, in the State Terrorism... article, the title was changed specifically to address the objections he is raising (inclusion of more material arguing in support of U.S. Gov't, etc).

The editors on this page are truly stymied: on the State Terrorism page it is now impossible for anyone to move forward with the development of the page solely because of Ultramarine's disruptive activity. On the Sandinista page, editors there are forced to daily police the page for Ultramarine's reverts.

All of this seems an unfortunate development for the articles in question. Both could stand some improvement, but the editorial energies are now all being wasted on circular arguments that are repeated, ad infinitum, regardless of their validity or relevance, and used to support threats to delete masses of material that would violate even the least controversial of Wikipedia norms. Stone put to sky (talk) 05:24, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

This wouldn't have anything to do with User:Ultramarine filing a checkuser on you, would it? - ALLSTAR echo 05:28, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
No, actually. I would rather suggest that the reverse is true: User:Ultramarine filed a checkuser on me because it is clear that his arguments aren't succeeding. Stone put to sky (talk) 05:46, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
I will just point out that Stone put to sky was recently blocked for 3RR violations, using multiple sockpuppets, personal attacks against me, and violating WP:Username by making attack accounts on my name.[12] He was warned again for personal attacks against me just two days ago.[13]Ultramarine (talk) 05:49, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
As a note here, Stone put to sky repeatedly displays civility issues and WP:OWN issues when people disagree with him (as can be seen from both the above and from the talk page of State terrorism and the US). Ultramarine is trying to do some long-overdue cleanup and getting significant flak for it from people who are determined that certain pages maintain a certain POV. Jtrainor (talk) 06:25, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I find it disappointing that editors here seem more intent on airing Stone's faults instead of addressing the issue itself. --clpo13(talk) 06:29, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Except that in multiple people's opinions, the problem is Stone. If there are ownership problems, this needs to be taken to dispute resolution and not to the administrators noticeboard. Shell babelfish 06:33, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
When Stone has created multiple usernames meant to attack Ultramarine, it's pretty difficult to take this complaint seriously. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 06:35, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
But that doesn't necessarily mean there isn't a problem. A person can be a sockpuppeteer and still report a legitimate issue. That's all I'm saying. --clpo13(talk) 06:37, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
I understand. I just don't feel bad for Stone if people just brush this complaint off. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 06:39, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Yeah. There already is a case on Stone's behaviour; it would be better if this section was used to take a look at Ultra's. For my part, as one of the "multiple editors" in question, I'm stuck in the middle, having problems with both sides, and I'm not sure this is the right place for any it, but since it has been brought up, I'd welcome an outsider's input. — the Sidhekin (talk) 06:44, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
After skimming the contributions and the talk pages, I don't think that there's been much disruptive behavior. I think dispute resolution is the way to go. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 07:06, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
It will take some investment of energy into the content of the discussions to reveal the real disruptive nature of Ultramarine's participation on the article page. Much of it revolves around really artificially creating disputes that go around in endless arguments, arresting progress. I think it falls under tendentatious editing or POINT violations. Let me give you a reoccuring example: Ultramarine argues that abortion is State Terrorism and should be in the article. He cites a religious source of a someones personal opinion from some religious right website that says abortion is "terrorism against the unborn" to make his case.[14] He says if Chomsky can call the foreign policy actions of the United States against Nicaragua "international terrorism" then he can include the abortion material, and failure to so is a double standard:[15] Of course the abortion issue is not related in any way to the concept of State Terrorism, the abortion material does not talk about or ever mention State Terrorism. Yet, Ultramarine pretends not to understand this, and we go around in endless circles repeating why this is not allowed, and how its completely different than how we use the Chomsky source on State terrorism. I don't know if anything can be done but this kind of behavior is disruptive to meaningful progress on the article, and I have to believe that Ultramarine is smart enough to know really believe the line of reasoning he frequently employs. The other thing that he repeating does is make claims about what the sources say or don't say that are simply false. Then I go and read the source and find out that out, and he moves on, repeating the pattern. There are many examples of this, if anyone is interested. Again, could this pattern be a reason to assume bad faith editing?Giovanni33 (talk) 16:49, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
False presentation. I am just demonstrating the misuse of sources in this article. Most of the sources do not mention terrorism or state terrorism at all. The article is just a dumping ground for all kinds of criticisms against the US (or allied governments with sources often not even mentioning the US at all). Just pointing out that according to their own standard, someone could, for example add, this view[16] by a high Catholic Church official in charge of Catholic doctrine that abortion is terrorism and then start adding sources criticizing abortion but not mentioning terrorism or state terrorism. Or someone could add that militia groups argue that for example the Waco Siege is terrorism by the US government [17] and then start adding sources criticizing policy against militia groups but not mentioning terrorism or state terrorism. That is the method used in most of this article.Ultramarine (talk) 17:16, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Actually your presentation/claims are false here. As I and other editors showed, all of the claims are supported by sources which do mention State Terrorism, and accuse the US govt. of supporting State Terrorism. Some of the sources use alternate wordings such as international terror a terror campaign, etc.--but all are anchored in multiple reliable sources based on the claim of State Terrorism. Clearly this is about State Terrorism, whereas your Abortion argument is not. But you and all sensible people know the difference, and that is my point: you keep arguing around and around, ignoring consensus, and this is in fact disrupting wikipedia in order to make a point. Also, do you deny that several times you make claims that the source does not mention state terror, and that this claim has been proven false? Yet you keep claiming it? I recall one editor commenting that your control F key must be broken.Giovanni33 (talk) 19:26, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Simply false. Here is one of your sources quoted in the article. The Amnesty report[18] does not mention the US at all, only the Philippine government, so it cannot be accusing the US of anything. The word "terrorism" is not in the report anywhere.Ultramarine (talk) 19:34, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
For what it's worth, the US is mentioned ten times in this report, and while the word "terrorism" does not occur, the words "terrorist" and "terror" occur six, sorry, eight times all told. — the Sidhekin (talk) 19:52, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Does not mention the US at all? Like I said, your Control F key must be broken, and you must not be reading the source before making up the claim. Also, I will point out that the claim tying this action to one of being State Terrorism, using that exact term, is anchored in other sources, as it is with all the contents of this article. Thus your claims of SYN/OR have always been proven false, whereas your intention to add abortion as state terrorism, is in fact SYN and OR, as with other attempts to add information that you think belongs but is in fact not supported by the sources. Anyway, this is not the place to argue these points. I bring it up because you are disruptive, and it seems to be motivated by your desire to make a point. This is because you continue non-stop, seemingly in bad faith, while ignoring consensus on the issues.Giovanni33 (talk) 20:06, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Hm. I searched on "terrorism" and "United States". "terrorist" is another term of course. "US" does give some hits. Not anything accusing the US of terrorism. The quote actually used in the article only accused the Philippine government, not the US.Ultramarine (talk) 20:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
You are better off reading the article than looking for just specific key words, but even then you get it wrong most of the time. You make blanket claims, and unless someone fact checks for you, they assume you are telling the truth. Unfortunately, repeatedly you are not. This is just one small case in point. Also, the US is implicated, and other sources make the claim directly, that its State Terrorism that the US is implicated in by supporting the Phillipines counter insurgency efforts against its civillian population. This is just two excerpts from this AI paper on the point, which is used to provide background information on the conflict:
  • "Major Points in the tit for tat struggle against the US-directed war of terror, Ang Bayan, 29 July 2006. The CPP also continued to call for a resumption of peace negotiations and implemention of the CARHRIHL and other agreements."
  • "US-led global "war on terror", within which the Philippines is seen an important US regional ally, influenced the government’s anti-insurgency approach. In January 2002 a new five-year anti-insurgency plan, Operation Bantay-Laya (Freedom Watch) took effect. In August 2002 President Arroyo issued a "Nine Point Guideline on the CPP" which emphasised the "terrorist" acts of the CPP-NPA and welcomed the US terrorist listing. Following an August 2002 order for a redeployment of the AFP against the NPA, the government appeared increasingly to place military counter-insurgency operations over the peace process. This approach became explicit during and after the 2006 State of Emergency. In June 2006 President Arroyo and other officials called for "all-out war" to crush the CPP-NPA within two years."Giovanni33 (talk) 20:42, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Those are not the material quoted in the article which only mention the Philippine government. These new quotes do not accuse the US government of possible crimes done by some by persons employed by the Philippine government.Ultramarine (talk) 21:08, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
You are changing your argument, Ultramarine. Before you suggested it be deleted because it "doesn't even mention the United States." Now that we have shown that to be false, you are changing your argument to "I don't like the way it's used in the article because the portion used in the article is only dealing with the Philippine Government." Which, besides being untrue (as has just been clearly demonstrated, above), neglects the simple fact that these points dealt with in the AI report are fundamental, cited portions of the articles which make the claim of U.S.-sponsored State Terrorism. As we have pointed out on the article -- repeatedly, and by this time i would estimate that tens of thousands of words have already been typed solely in refutation of this objection of yours -- the AI report is included to show that the factual points openly claimed (but not sourced) in the articles which accuse the U.S. of complicity/sponsorship/participation in the Philippines' State Terror have been validated by neutral, reliable, third-party sources. The editors have not "introduced" any sort of artificial synthesis, here. The only thing that has been done is to show that the factual claims made by the commentators who accuse the U.S. of state terror are, indeed, widely acknowledged to be true and uncontroversial.
Now, as i have already stated: all of this has been pointed out to you, repeatedly, many many times. In fact, you have been using this particular objection to argue for the deletion of material for at least one full year (and you know i have already shown the diffs on the discussion page). So what this means is that for a full year and maybe as many as two, editors on this page have been patiently rejecting these objections of yours without so much as a peep here on AN/I. We have given rejoinder after rejoinder to your insistent objections. We have shown in every conceivable way -- multiple examples from other Wikipedia pages, analogy to scientific articles, appeals to logical principle, phrase-by-phrase analysis and breakdown of the quoted guidelines and policies, symbolic, logical re-iteration of the arguments, examples culled from the page itself -- but instead of simply acknowledging that your objections have no meaningful foundation you have simply, in each case, abandoned the argument and shifted its logic into a circular, repetitive loop.
It seems clear, therefore, that the principles and policies themselves have no effect upon your reasoning. You clearly have made an a priori decision to get the material deleted and are simply using whatever means you can to guarantee that you get your way. And then, when you don't, you provoke an edit war.
I have no idea what precise guidelines and policies this sort of behavior falls under, but it seems clear that it is antithetical to building a properly neutral, effective encyclopedia. Stone put to sky (talk) 10:18, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I cannot say whether Ultramarine is editing in good faith or not, but the fact other editors don't like him isn't material in my view. The "long-term editors" as Sky mentions are pretty much a group with a narrow set of political views and editorial objectives. They want/wanted the page to be a certain way and about a certain focus, that the US was "a very naughty country that supported state terrorism", or the like. Some room was allowed for dissenting views towards that but more as a token gesture than a real objective to make the page balanced.

I don't think this group welcomes new editors with conflicting views, whatever they may say or even believe themselves, and instinctively band together to drive off any new arrivals. I had similar treatment, though not as bad because I didn't edit the page myself only expressed views on the Talk page. I have also seen/read about others driven away/leave because they were tired of trying to deal with people who they saw as being stubborn and inflexible. So of course the "established editors" would be united against Ultramarine because they push others way time and time again. If it was a group of people with conflicting ideas and agenda, maybe the point would be valid, but that is not what the situation is here.

As for bias, I raised queries about questionable sources in the past such as the propaganda Cuban publication "Gramna", yet such sources were routintely defended. Yet sources like Heritage produce complaints if they are suggested, despite the fact that organisation is more objective and neutral than Gramna and similar publications. It seems like the older editors apply two sets of rules, namely that almost anything can be used if it is critical of the US/pro an anti-US group, but only very reputable sources can be used for the opposite and they can veto any addition. If there is an issue of "OWN" it is from the long-term editors and not Ultramarine. John Smith's (talk) 14:10, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I dispute this completely. First, John Smith is only a very recent entry onto the page: he has no idea what has gone before, these last three years.
Second, a glance at the diffs from those many months gone by (which it appears John Smith hasn't bothered with) will find that i have argued -- passionately, at the expense of my influence with supposedly "sympathetic" editors -- that the page should be renamed expressly to accommodate the opposing views. In fact, at this very moment i am involved in what i, at least, consider a constructive discussion about how to introduce the opinions of the "other side" (according to this "john smith" and "jtrainor") and allow them the proper space for development.
Up until now, the page has been plagued by limitations which were set in stone and enforced by Ultramarine. This limitation has always been that all sources must use some direct derivative of the phrase "state terrorism by the U.S." Obviously, this was undertaken in an effort to reduce the content to "POV" status and then get it deleted (witness: seven AfDs). By changing the title i have pushed for a change to the page that will allow both sides proper space for development.
John Smith and jtrainor badly misrepresent my own perspective and efforts. Frankly, i expected as much. Regardless, i think it is undeniable that it is i -- over and above virtually every editor -- who has protested most prevalently for the current name and pushed most constantly for the current debate on a more NPOV structure. With that in mind, i think it's rather undeniable that i am not interested in "skewing" the content, but rather in opening it up to both sides in order to allow a more proper, NPOV development.
Insofar as most of the other editors there have gone along with my suggestions -- for the first time in a few years, i might add -- i would suggest that this attempt to cast our efforts in a questionable light is, itself, quite questionable. Stone put to sky (talk) 18:49, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
The last three years is not relevant to whether or not the "established editors" as you describe them generally conform to particular POV/attitude in regards to the subject of the article.
Your comment that John Smith and jtrainor badly misrepresent my own perspective and efforts. Frankly, i expected as much is not in good-faith and doesn't help your case. I was making a general point about the way the long-term editors have interacted, rather than a specific criticism of you. You are more flexible than the others, but that doesn't mean the group does not as a whole discourage people with conflicting views to stay. Indeed I did not mention you, I mentioned the people you described - which would reasonably not include you, unless you are prone to talking about yourself.
I think you are still far too stressed and unable to deal with honest criticism/criticism not directed towards yourself, for some reason taking everything personally - an example of your taking things personally is your comment that the reason you were blocked was that someone in the administration was abusing their authority. Don't quarrel with people who aren't out to get you, which would be most of us. John Smith's (talk) 23:29, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Personal Attacks on the State Terrorism Discussion Page[edit]

Shortly after filing my AN/I request for a review of Ultramarine's behavior, he began an attempt to discredit my appeals by casting aspersions upon my person.

There can be no clearer example of a "personal attack" than this.

I would respectfully remind the administrators here that i protested the block mentioned to the fullest possible extent and continue to deny the description of those events. Regardless, none of this has any bearing upon the validity of my current requests for action. Stone put to sky (talk) 06:35, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

That's not a personal attack. All he said was, "Yes. I have also noted that it is you who have been blocked for edit warring, personal attacks, sockpuppets, and attack accounts. Not I.". Nothing attacking in there at all. - ALLSTAR echo 06:47, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Are you making a mountain out of a molehill? Please have some tea. Igor Berger (talk) 06:53, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
I disagree. This was not a response to the complaint. It was a clear attempt to cast aspersions upon the legitimacy of the complaint with an ad hominem argument. There is no more egregious type of ad hominem than this sort. Stone put to sky (talk) 06:56, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
If you don't like comments like that, then don't make attack accounts. It's that easy. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 06:59, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Looking at that revision history, I suggest it would be a good idea if both sides stepped away from the article for a while. Black Kite 07:04, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
That seems like a clear double-standard. Ultramarine began editing this article about two weeks ago -- maybe a little before -- after a rest from it of some many months. Oddly enough, the very day before was when i had returned to the Sandinista article on the FSLN and deleted some material that many editors had questioned over the course of some seven months. The deletion was undertaken per "reliable sources" and "maintain a Neutral point of view". The material was replaced with a section that maintains a far more neutral point of view relative to the issue while including the most substantially recognized points of the original post; what was rejected were extremist claims that virtually no current, reliable sources accept as valid. The sources that had been used to shore up these claims were either very old or highly suspect, and in each case these wildly extreme claims were supported by a single, questionable source.
Now what we had on the Sandinista page was a situation where a single editor had forced the inclusion of several highly suspect sources making wildly extremist claims that were not backed up by reliable documentation. This situation had continued for some months with at least seven or eight long-time editors protesting at the situation and this one editor basically saying that if anyone tried to remove it he would provoke an edit-war. Then i come in, remove the material, and voila! The next day Ultramarine pops in to the State Terrorism article and begins provoking an edit war.
On both pages the core group of editors have been extremely patient with Ultramarine, responding to his challenges with measured, reasoned discourse and sensible appeals to Wikipedia policy and guidelines. Wen he's not there we can all get along and start to make meaningful, NPOV headway upon them and bolster up the articles into a proper NPOV, encyclopedic treatment. Yet the moment Ultramarine shows up edit wars begin, editing ceases, and suddenly all talk on the discussion page begins going in circles.
Now, your suggestion is apparently that "both sides" need to take a break. What i'm asking is this: what do you exactly mean by "both sides"? From what i can tell, on both pages we basically have a core group of editors who engage in consensual development of the pages towards a neutral, encyclopedic end-point. Then we have Ultramarine -- a person who insists on patently absurd and unrealistic interpretations of policy and guidelines, who strives to include extremist, unreliable sources clearly aimed at promoting a singular, politically-skewed point of view, and who provokes an edit war any time he doesn't get his way. Then, when community attention is brought to bear on the case, people who are otherwise rarely present (if ever) --- people like Jtrainor and IceColdBeer -- begin to pop up on the page and "show their support" by reverting changes that Ultramarine has introduced (changes that are often ungrammatical, irrelevant to the topic, original research, or even all three).
So what "sides" do you see at work here? Do you mean me and Ultramarine? Because most of my arguments and protests in this case are largely supported by most of the other editors on this page. So in that light, do you mean Ultramarine and everyone else? Because then it seems like you're supporting a particularly disruptive editor over and against the larger editing community. Do you mean Ultramarine, Jtrainor, et al and everyone else? Because you are essentially arguing, then, that the page be allowed to languish in an editorial vacuum, opened up to the whimsy of whatever ill-informed and (likely) ill-intentioned editor might wish to do. So what, exactly, do you mean by "both sides"? Stone put to sky (talk) 10:00, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Most of the other editors on that article are on your side of the content dispute. That doesn't make them right. Jtrainor (talk) 14:40, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

That's a very interesting perspective you've got there. Are you saying that the unified opinion of multiple experienced editors should simply be disregarded in favor of a lone, circular, unexamined argument? Stone put to sky (talk) 18:53, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

No, we don't play these games here. What you're doing is called 'begging the question'. The fact of the matter is, you, and those editors, violently react to anyone who tries to clean up State terrorism and the US, or, as it was under it's old title, Allegations of state terrorism by the US. Jtrainor (talk) 21:05, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry by Stone put to sky[edit]

Please see [19]. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 04:36, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Goth and Throbb99 again[edit]

See this thread for previous on this. This was suspected to be a clueless user who would just barrel along, causing multiple problems with their editing style, and giving no sign of being willing to communicate over any of the problems. After it was figured out that the user had never communicated on any talk page even once, I blocked them indefinitely in an attempt to get them to start communicating. (They were welcome to be unblocked as soon as they started to communicate.)

The result has been different. The user now appears to be jumping from sock to sock, continuing their edit style and still showing no sign of communication. User:The Reptoid Cryptozoologist and User:Reptoid333 so far that I have been able to spot.

Edits like this, however, show that this is far from a totally clueless user. They seem fairly adept at template code. Not something a clueless newcomer would generally be adept at.

So I'm starting to wonder just who/what I am dealing with here. Clueless user? Determined vandal? Sock(s)/role accounts of some other user? No idea. But my AGF is starting to run thin here. And then there is the question of how to handle the user in general. They simply will not communicate with anyone, and now blocking them just brings out new socks. I'm reluctant to protect out his regular articles, but short of that, I'm not sure what else to do. - TexasAndroid (talk) 14:29, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Vandalising Disney TV program articles? That rings a bell, somewhere... I suggest popping over to WP:SSP to see if any current cases are familiar. If nothing, you could always make a request yourself. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:15, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
LHvU, you're thinking of [20] zees guy, I think.Gladys J Cortez 23:33, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. It seems unlikely, though, on the face of it, as being the same individual as in the past it has been via ip's only. Oh, well, if TexasAndroid needs to waste a weekend... LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:14, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Reporting Niranjandeshmukh.[edit]


This user has been using abusive language on my talk page. Read this. The issue started when above user had today put back Major localities section back on Nagpur page. I reverted the edit & informed the user that such an information is non encyclopedic. I got harsh reply back from him and he put back the content second time. I reverted edit second time & directed the user to WP:WQT. In response I got a terribly abusive reply. I request admins to take some action here. gppande «talk» 17:14, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I have warned the user to remain civil and refrain from personal attacks. Further such comments from this user could well result in a block, but - in the absence of previous warnings - no block is in order as yet. Further, I note that the user later indicated his intent to quit editing, which would also obviate the need for a block. I would add, too, that your interactions with this user could have been a little more civil, though I concur that the talk page comments you note were unreasonable. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 18:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
This[21] was an inappropriate and provocational edit summary of yours in the first place, and merits a warning as well. Given that Nir. alter actually reverted himself and indicated that he quits[22], restoring his inappropriate comment[23] and bringing it here, is like chasing another car after an exchange of insults between drivers.--Tikiwont (talk) 09:05, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your support and understanding. In my first message to the user, I just wanted to show him that doing changes to article is invited but not by making article poor. He had put back information of the major localities of Nagpur without any prior notice or discussion on talk page. Since no city page article (of FA category) has such information, addition of such information makes it poor. I also directed him to visit talk page. But he again did a revert of my changes - i.e. second addition within a span of less than 2 hours without any discussion. This time I left a stern warning on his talk page not to do such changes. It looked like naughty boy is trying to do things which he is told not to do. But I was totally shocked to see his abusive response. This made me to report him. Later on I left a report on this page and visited my page back I found the message removed by him totally and said his quiting. Since I had reported him and he was just trying to clean up his terrible note trying to leave no evidence I restored it. I never want to chase anyone and believe me - I am stern believer of forgiveness. I will be surely removing this ugly conversation from my talk page as I do not want my talk page to be rated A. gppande «talk» 13:32, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok then, let's tick this off. He has been warned in case he returns, and you have some feedback to ponder and also realized that for better or worse all 'evidence' is kept here in diffs and edit summaries, the latter being sometimes the only thing that remains behind. --Tikiwont (talk) 19:23, 8 March 2008 (UTC)


I would like to draw attention to page Irredentism. user:VartanM who under parole was removing sourced information without justification [24]. I produced three well-known reliable sources, one from the expert in the field of Irredentism. Now, anon user stepped forward to remove this information [25]. --Dacy69 (talk) 18:07, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

It's likely that the two users are the same, or meatpuppets, however, he/she/they are willing to discuss the changes on the talk page. However, the sources shouldn't have been removed with a quick POV comment in the edit summary. I'll drop the user a note. Wisdom89 (T / C) 20:45, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

The suggestion is awfully ridiculous. I haven't achieved my revert limit and my prior revert on that article was more than justified. I don't know who those Ips are, probably a strawpuppet for all I know, but I have presented more then enough reasons for my revert. And this without needing anyone to do that in my place. Dacy previously referred to one single source and now he has found his way by quoting. The claim that Armenia has annexed 15% of Azerbaijan is simply wrong. The claim is not supported by the UN, by the CIA, US department of States, by no one actually. Everyone can find one single source and present it as if it was established. Now he is quoting it, but this is clearly undue weight. NK declared it's independence and is not advocating annexation to any other states. By the definition of the word NK can not go there. One website, one paper and a work which is the only thing you can find to support the claim does't justify adding this when the definition of the word itself would require total exclusion. If it is annexed by Armenia, why those territories aren't even included by Armenia as being part of itself? VartanM (talk) 17:56, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Unless Vartan's really, really stupid, which he isn't, that IP isn't him. Anyway, without commenting too much on the material in question, I've cleaned up the grammar and spelling and made it just a little less POV. Citing your sources is wonderful, Dacy, but please remember that NPOV and our verifiability policy are complementary and not separate. Moreschi (talk) 21:27, 8 March 2008 (UTC)


Dacy's conduct is also a lot to be desired. He is on revert parole, one revert per week. He was blocked 5 times under the remedies, which extend the possibility of his block to as much as a year. And see what he does. After his last block and his unsuccessful attempt to be unblocked, he come back more than a month later for the sole purpose of reverting that article. He is reverted, he returned a week later (for the same purpose), two days later he reverts. Then again a little more than a week later he returns again for the same thing. His presence on Wikipedia for the last two months is to reappear after his week restrictions have expired to revert. Isn't it basically to game the system? VartanM (talk) 17:56, 8 March 2008 (UTC)


Can someone else have a look at the contribs of BruceGrubb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) please. Since his arrival I have found him to be disputatious, aggressive, opinionated, and inclined to apply WP:TRUTH over WP:V. He does not always log in (see (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and Jesus myth hypothesis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for example), but he very often gets reverted, and is engaged in fierce arguments on the talk page of just about every page he edits, as far as I can tell. Certainly he got off to a very inauspicious star at Christianity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) where he argued long and hard that Christianity can be polytheistic based on some pretty tenuous WP:OR. People can live and learn on WP, that's fine, but I don't see much evidence he's learning. Guy (Help!) 12:50, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

His last few edits to Jesus myth hypothesis have been based on a severely flawed notion of original research--he claims that one of the secondary sources cited in the article is violating the OR policy! [26] [27] The substance and tone of his contributions to the talk page is, to put it mildly, annoying. If BruceGrubb is here just to get into arguments, and isn't interested in understanding the basics of the content policies, he might be better off finding somewhere else to expend his energy. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:34, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Asia (band)[edit]

Other than tl;dr and removing the message from your own talkpage, what action are you looking for here Anthony? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:02, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I thought that I better keep the other admins up to date as to what is happening. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 17:17, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Prior drama
I've had to range block this person twice[28][29] for disruption. "Asia Fan Club President" (under multiple IP's) has actively disrupted wikipedia for well over a month now. There has been extreme disruption caused by this situation. Multiple spam attacks, edit warring, sneaky attempts to subvert wikipedia policy, creating False consensus through use of mutiple IP's, attempting to circumvent blacklisting by creating and worst of all the legal threats made by "Asia Fan Club President". This is a clear case where wikipedia is being terrorized in an attempt to advance a site owners agenda. I've applied another range block [30]. --Hu12 (talk) 17:46, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, that answers my question. Support Hu12's dissection of the underlying and long standing problem. Support Hu12's block. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:49, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
I trust Hu12's judgment in sorting out this issue. Disclosure: I am old enough to have been a fan of Asia (band). Bearian (talk) 19:33, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Two more rangeblocks[31][32] applied. "Asia Fan Club President" Refuses to 'get the point'. This realy is getting old.--Hu12 (talk) 23:30, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
The Asia fan club president seems to have delusions that he is Confucius, if one reads the talk page. Orderinchaos 02:40, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Off by one error on this page[edit]

Some edit links and the related content are out of sync by one section on this page. Somewhere there's probably an unterminated tag of some kind. --John Nagle (talk) 18:21, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Somebody just fixed it. Thanks. --John Nagle (talk) 18:23, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
That can also be a cache problem. I usually just refresh and it goes away. --Haemo (talk) 22:19, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism to Sonic The Hedgehog related articles.[edit]

These ISPNs have contributed a lot of vandalism to acticles related to Sonic the Hedgehog:,,,,, as well as others in the 90.202.89.??? range. Is there anything that can be done about ISPN 90.202.89.???? Thank you for any help in this matter (more details on this matter is at WikiProject Sega)!  Doktor  Wilhelm  18:57, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Add to the list:,,,,,,, . Only checked until .50, but the vandalism are recent and very similar and I did not found any constructive edit between .1 and .50. They are relate to Sonic the Hedgehog, SEGA, actors pages and List of Pokémon. I think we can have a temporary range block here. Carlosguitar (ready and willing) 01:06, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
They have done it again, this time it's as (talk · contribs) Vandlism (the Rocky kind) to the Chao page [33] and vandalism to Sonic the Hedgehog (character)‎ [34] [35] & Johnny Yong Bosch‎ [36], about fake voice acting!  Doktor  Wilhelm  21:20, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

OverlordQBot keeps reverting sandbox[edit]

Resolved: No admin action required. —Travistalk 00:00, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I edited the sandbox twice, and every single time after I refreshed my edit was gone. Both times it was OverlordQBot in the history.

Here is an example diff.

'FLaRN'(talk) 23:43, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

  • I think perhaps you shouldn't have edited the header comment. Try editing below it instead. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 23:51, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, per User:OverlordQBot#Bot Request, the bot always reverts edits made to the header. —Travistalk 00:00, 9 March 2008 (UTC)


SirLogic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) has created many new stubs for Christian software in the past 2 days. This may be a spammer. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 01:10, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

  • They mostly seem to be made by different companies. I'd WP:AGF here and leave him a message asking him what his intent is. JuJube (talk) 03:15, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

IP Blanking their talk page[edit]

Shorty ago a difference of opinion occurred about the content of User talk: the IP wanted to blank the page and a respected vandal fighter User:Momusufan believed that blanking your user talk page was a right only available to registered users. A series of edits of occurred with blanking and vandalism warnings flying on both user talk pages. The result was the the IP was blocked. I beleive both of these editors were acting in a manor that believed was correct and as each thought the other a vandal so WP:RRR would not apply. I have had some discussion with involved editors/adimins on this subject tonight begining on my talk page User talk:Jeepday#User: and through the next 2 sections.

The end result being two opions that are copied from my talk page to Below. I am requesting wider input on this topic. An editor has been blocked for violation of policy that is not written anyplace. Jeepday (talk) 03:14, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

The whole thing is that user talk pages are meant to communicate with a person. With an IP address, the person removing the comments may not be the person to whom they were intended. Since there is no guarantee that the person removing the comments is the same person for whom they were left, it is common sense that such practice should be restricted. If you are looking for a specific policy stating so you are not going to find one. However, edits made to IP talk pages, like everything else at Wikipedia, is adjudged on a case-by-case basis. If an IP user blanks or otherwise modifies their own talk page in a disruptive manner, they may be blocked for disruption for doing so. If they continue to be disruptive, the talk page may be protected. Removing info in one case may be allowed, and in another case may be seen as disruptive, based on the specifics of each case. The user in this case was clearly being disruptive, and was dealt with appropriately. 02:50, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Ok ,we disagree. I will make a post at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents and see if a consensus exists that I am not aware of. If the editor was the same person then they are allowed to remove their own warnings, per Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines if they are not the same person then the warnings do not apply to them as the new "owner" of the IP an they can remove them per Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines Jeepday (talk) 02:56, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Editors are allowed to maintain their user talk pages. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 03:16, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

  • As far as I know, the prevailing consensus is that registered users can blank warnings, but IP editors can not. In this case the IP was not only blanking their warnings, but also the IP information box at the top, which I would definitely consider disallowed. That particular IP infobox was manually added by a user rather than a bot, however, and seems a little more detailed than it needs to be. VegaDark (talk) 03:22, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict x 3) Based on the above, this IP user is asking to be blocked. He/she removed warnings from his/her page after three vandalism warnings in a short amount of time. Jonneroo (talk) 03:28, 9 March 2008 (UTC) Corrected typo in link. Jonneroo (talk) 03:35, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
But hasn't edited in two hours, by which time the IP could have been assigned to another user. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 03:32, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Jonneroo is speaking of a different IP then this one, but the point is is there policy that prohibits and IP from blanking their talk page? 03:39, 9 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeepday (talkcontribs)

Before all this happened, it all started here with a personal attack on someones userpage. even before that, according to his contributions, he vandalised articles and was warned. Momusufan (talk) 03:30, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

No, I think started here. I think its User:Youruorumomma after s/he was blocked when you reported him/her and got blocked for the message they left. Antonio Lopez (talk) 04:50, 9 March 2008 (UTC)


This article is not yet at an official "incident" stage, but it's headed that direction, and also raises some interesting questions: There is a small, potential edit-war starting over the warning tags on the page. I put a bunch of warning tags on the page, and someone keeps deleting half of them. His reasons for deleting them are variously that he doesn't agree with them, and (just recently) that they are redundant. What I find interesting about this is his idea that warning tags should undergo the same editing/consensus process as article content. It seems to me one of the purposes of warnings is to express a minority view. For example, several (but not a majority) of editors wanted the article deleted. So I put up a warning that says "An editor has expressed concern that this article is unencyclopedic and should be deleted." He keeps deleting the warning, on the grounds that people voted not to delete the article. It seems to me warning tags don't belong to the same consensus process as article content: the warning doesn't say "This article is unencyclopedic" it says that concern has been expressed. Am I supposed to work toward consensus on whether I (and others) actually have that concern? The Talk needs some clarification, before an edit war breaks out. Bsharvy (talk) 22:54, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

You are always expected to work towards consensus. Adding tags does not usually require consensus, but they should not stay on against consensus, and they require reasonable explanation on talk. The tag about deletion should go after a failed AfD. No, tags are not there to express minority views. Relevant minority views should be integrated into the article. Fringe views deserve no representation at all. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:17, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Not quite true that fringe views deserve no representation at all. A few fringe views are notable enough to be discussed, although that is rather unusual. Natalie (talk) 01:51, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, but in that case do not report the fringe views ("The Earth is flat"), but on the fringe views ("George Bush believes the Earth is flat"). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:51, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

A second editor has just deleted all the warning tags. I am not sure what to do. The standard mantra on Wikipedia is "There is no excuse for edit warring." but in my experience this is generally unaccompanied by any helpful alternative. The alternatives that do exist often are ignored, e.g RfC (when I request, nobody answers....). But even that doesn't really apply to warning tags. Warning tags are not encyclopedia content. The other editors working on the article seem to think that the placement of warning tags should follow the same procedure as editing content: if there is no consensus that the article has weasel words (for example), then the warning for weasel words should be deleted.... Bsharvy (talk) 04:07, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Are there any other "Anti-[substitute nation or ethnic group here]" articles, or is this the only one? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 12:29, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
There are plenty of others. See Category:Anti-national sentiment - 52 Pickup (deal) 12:33, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
I see. And all of it looks like a POV mine field. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 12:36, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
It's an absolute POV minefield. Even this description, from Category:Anti-national sentiment is not so good: "This category contains articles about criticism of or unfavorable sentiment directed at a particular nationality" According to some usages, it also includes criticism of policy, not just "nationality." So anti-war protests are anti-Americanism. In theory, then, being pro-life is anti-American (hostility to American policy), but try writing that and people will scream. To some, the term denotes prejudice (like anti-semitism) to others it doesn't. There is no way to put all these different ideas in one article, which is why there are so many appropriate warnings regarding POV, neutrality, unencyclopedic content, etc. But, now, they being immediately deleted.... Anyway, I am going to restore them. Somebody will probably accuse me of edit-warring.... Bsharvy (talk) 12:47, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
"POV minefield"? Is this a joke? Whether you want to admit it, there is definite feelings of hostility towards America around the world. Seriously... do a quick search. Here's a Gallup poll that shows three-out-of-five Lebanese have negative feelings towards the United States. Search "anti American" in the NY Times or Washington Post sites and you'll find hundreds of articles. It's definitely worth inclusion. The purpose of the article is to help understand where these ideas may come from. And it should be written in a manner that takes all sides into account, and it certainly doesn't benefit from Bsharvy's heavy-handedness. Njfuller (talk) 18:08, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
So, are there any pro-American citations in the article. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 00:39, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Find some pro-America sources that discuss anti-Americansim and include it. Look, I'm an American who recognizes that anti-Americanism exists in the world. There are many Americans who no doubt would like to learn more about anti-Americanism. Where does it come from? It it perceptual or genuine? Does it involve conflicting ideologies? Does it have a basis in reality? Is it part of foreign propaganda? Who knows. The point I was trying to make is that anti-Americanism is notable and that people may come to Wikipedia to learn more about it. Censorship doesn't solve the problem. Deletion of the page or cluttering it with unsightly warning templates, which Bsharvy has been doing, doesn't solve the problem. And it isn't constructive. There's a way to do it that doesn't make it POV -- it just involves being mature about it. Njfuller (talk) 03:13, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Agreed with this advice, for what it's worth. Anti-Americanism is alive and well in many parts of the world, even mine (Australia) and Canada where it can be unexpectedly hostile. The whole phenomenon has been subjected to numerous academic studies so some of the questions Njfuller raises above can be answered with reliable sources that have been peer-reviewed. I think creating a dog's breakfast of tags creates more problems than it solves. Orderinchaos 06:56, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Now, all the warning templates are being blanked on a regular basis. No editor is allowed to express the opinion that the article is unbalanced or contains OR, etc. The fact that the article is not a work of consensus is being hidden. There really need to be some guidelines about how warning templates are supposed to work. At the moment, this is just an edit war. Bsharvy (talk) 10:50, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Templates aren't generally intended as a propetual expression of differing opinion. If the article doesn't represent consensus, edit the article. You should at least be able to add the occasional sentence that "Some People Don't Believe This." At least after you clean up the weasel words to describe who Some People are. Loren.wilton (talk) 07:03, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Can somebody PLEASE do something about this???? A group of editors in this article has decided that they are not going to allow the use of any templates. They delete ALL templates no matter what is tried. The number of warning templates has been reduced, the redundnats ones removed, and all these editors do is BLANK all the templates no matter what. Nobody has said ANYTHING about a propetual expression of a different opinion. Its just a question of whether the templates are allowed to be used AT ALL. Rachel63 (talk) 12:45, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Rubbish! The editors putting tags on the article, when asked to be specific about the problems they are reporting with the tags refuse to do so. They spend so much time arguing for their inclusion but bugger all time deciding on what the actual problems are. The tags shown are particularly non-specific, generic and subjective so further explanation is necessary as to what they are there for. For example there's a tag accusing of original research, yet none of the taggers will say what they thinks is original research and why they think it's original research. So in my books under those circumstances the tag goes. Getting this point through to these editors is like nailing a jelly (jello for you yanks)to a wall! --WebHamster 13:59, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
There is endless discussion on that talk page about issues with the article. However, I am inclined to agree that the posters of those tags need to first write a section on the talk page that specifically refers to the issues raised, and then post the tags. I have often run across such tags with no followup comments, and my usual practice is to delete them, because they constitute groundless pot-shots. In this case, that may not apply. But the complainants need to first write the specific complaint, then post its tag. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 14:07, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
All of the issues in the tags have been discussed ad nauseum. I've probably written 1,000 words on why the article is unencyclopedic. It was just nominated for deletion, and several editors expressed their concerns about its validity as a topic. Even those who didn't vote to delete specified problems. The idea that the "unencyclopedic" tag hasn't been addressed is pure garbage. I've written several paragraphs on why the article lacks neutrality. As another editor said, the only objective statement you can make about this topic is a dictionary definition, and even that is inadequate since it logically includes things like pro-life activism, yet people don't usually call that anti-American. The suggestion that no reasons have been given for the concerns is dishonest obstruction. The only response we get from WebHamster and his cronies to these points is to announce that "we just don't like it" followed by deletion of warning tags to express the concerns we've described over and over and over again. Bsharvy (talk) 15:14, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
You're right. But if you have a section in the talk page that specifically answers his complaint, then you've got him. He would then have to invent another reason for deleting it, and help further the case for eventually blocking him due to disruption. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 16:08, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
There are four sections on the page that deal with the problems I've mentioned:
  • 21 This Article Is Really Bad ....discusses reasons it is unencyclopedic
  • 22 Copied from AfD ....discusses reasons it is unencyclopedic again
  • 23 The First Step to Improvement ....I set out a basic task to make the article encyclopedic and neutral
Also, in...
  • 4 Intro reverts ...I go into more detail about neutrality problems with the lead.
The only response is to assert I haven't "expanded" enough and to announce "I just don't like it." Note, these are just my objections. Other editors have voiced concerns as well.
--Bsharvy (talk) 23:01, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. The article was nominated for deletion. There is a whole page explaining why some people think it isn't encyclopeadic. Saying there isn't even a section just isn't right. Deleting templates because nobody has said why they want the templates isn't fair either. People have said what they think is wrong many times. There is a whole page about it, not just a section: Rachel63 (talk) 08:44, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I have removed sections that primarily violate WP:OR as unreferenced and the WP:MOS for being quotefarms. I also removed parts which implied that opposition to U.S. policies, politics, wars etc constitute anti-Americanism. I saw a shitty article and am trying to improve it, there's no sinister motives at all. --SABEREXCALIBUR! 09:53, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
The editor claims he knows what he is doing but I do not see his name on the article's talk page even once. I feel he is working his POV without fisrt getting a consesus from other editors who are envolved in editing the article. He claims WP:BOLD but I think BOLD does not imply WP:OWN Igor Berger (talk) 10:12, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, because edits like [37] are POV pushing ... --SABEREXCALIBUR! 10:15, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
I did not know being pro-life is Anti-American! Is that something new? Keep on hacking it to bring home NPOV..:) Igor Berger (talk) 10:24, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Bsharvy has just commented on the Talk page: "Some problems are systemic and can't be fixed by simple editing". As editing is the way articles are improved on the wikipedia this must mean he wants the tags to remain on the article forever - as his POV message to all users of the wikipedia and as his way of discrediting it since his attempt to delete it was outvoted. He also makes vague statements that he has discussed the issues elsewhere but doesn't go into any details. The point is to discuss the issues on the Talk page now, not vaguely genuflect to some indeterminate 'elsewhere' to which other editors have no input. Contra Saber's POV the article is very good and well referenced. It is one of the best articles on the wikipedia IMHO. And for the record the absurd edit [38] to which Saber objected IS something new. It was a contribution from Bsharvy and was almost immediately reverted. A startling demonstration of his grasp of the issues here. Colin4C (talk) 17:14, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree, being that Bsharvy put the warning tags on the article by his own admission, after the article went through an AfD and was a keep, he should just step on a side and let other editors improve the article, and not just keep protesting about the article's encyclopedic value. That has been determined by AfD already! Can the article be improved? Yes! But edit waring about the warning tags detract from improvement of the article. I have no objection to the tags, the editors involved with the article can continue editing it even with the tags. But Bsharvy needs to stop protesting the article! Igor Berger (talk) 11:56, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

"The tag about deletion should go after a failed AfD." --Stephan Schulz —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rachel63 (talkcontribs) 11:55, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Who the hell is Stepan Schulz and from what grounds does he derive his authority? Is he some great leader and master of men? Does he even exist? Colin4C (talk) 12:11, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

IP vandal blanking posts by TenOfAllTrades[edit] (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

This IP has been selectively blanking posts by TenOfAllTrades. I've rolled back and replaced Ten's posts. Looks like someone holds a grudge, so reporting here instead of AIV.