Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive456

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

Personal abuse and disruptive behaviour by Tenmei[edit]

Post re closure moved to bottom of thread to preserve chronological order. EyeSerenetalk 10:26, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Complaint frames issues and context?[edit]

Tenmei (talk · contribs) has been engaging in personal abuse and disruptive behaviour on the Hyūga class helicopter destroyer article and I would appreciate it if an uninvolved admin could please review this issue and take appropriate action. To summarise a long story, he has inserted text which describes these ships as aircraft carriers and is disrupting efforts to replace this with text which captures the ambiguity over the ships' classification (the Japanese government and some sources says that they are destroyers, other sources say they are helicopter carriers and other sources say they're aircraft carriers). As is shown on Talk:Hyūga class helicopter destroyer, he has not explained the rationale for his opposition to including this text despite repeated requests from other editors, but has instead responded with a string of personal attacks on pretty much all the involved editors (for instance: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5] (note also the rejection of the process which used to develop the consensus text in this diff and the statement that he stood aside and waited for the discussion to be complete so he could restart the discussion again, along with further personal attacks), [6] and [7]). He has been warned about making personnal attacks several times ([8], [9], [10] and [11]) but they are continuing. As is clear on the talk page Tenmei was invited to explain his opposition to calling the ships anything other than carriers, but did not do so, and was invited to participate in drafting a consensus paragraph which discusses the disagreement over the ships' classification but did not participate in this discussion. Instead, a week after the discussion was completed and shortly after I added the consensus text to the article he is now demanding that the consensus on the need to discuss the ambiguity over the ships' classification be overturned and the discussion be restarted from square one (I would be happy to provide diffs for this, but it's probably easier and more meaningful to review the article's talk page directly to get a flavour for the discussion). He is still declining to provide a reason for this, however, and is continuing to make personal attacks. I believe that this behaviour is in violation of WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF and WP:POINT and would appreciate it if an admin could please issue an appropriate sanction. Thank you. Nick Dowling (talk) 10:47, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

It certainly doesn't help that Tenmei uses strong language, but I don't see it as being grossly uncivil. Until he goes around throwing insults at editors, I doubt a civility block would be in order. However, I have fully protected Hyūga class helicopter destroyer due to the dispute, and issues should be worked out on the talk page now. Cheers. --lifebaka (talk - contribs) 11:54, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't see Tenmei's comments as particularly uncivil, though if he's causing offence, he needs to rethink the way he expresses himself. Not just for that reason though... I gave up reading eventually. Talk about wading through treacle - strongly recommend he reads WP:TLDR. EyeSerenetalk 12:15, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for the responses, including protecting the page. As the edit war there is pretty slow paced and the smallish number of edits have been spread across several editors, I think that it is the nature of the discussion on the talk page which most requires intervention. I consider the comments which I've posted diffs to above to be highly rude and constitute personal attacks given the consistant complete lack of any assumption of good faith - instead there appears to be an assumption that everyone has an agenda which they're pushing other than a desire to improve the article. All requests to Tenmai that he explain his concerns and participate in resolving the dispute have been met with uncivil responses, and warnings against his behavior have had no effect. As such, I don't see how it's possible to work out the issues on the talk page as Tenmai is not willing to discuss them. Given that the behaviour has been continuing for over a week now (including a very lengthy cool down period while I waited to see if he had any comments on the consensus text before inserting it in the article) I think that external intervention is required. Nick Dowling (talk) 12:29, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
I would recommend the dispute resolution process. Stifle (talk) 14:16, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for that response. Most of the points on that process have now been tried, however. I will continue to discuss this dispute on the article's talk page, where hopefully this can be resolved. Nick Dowling (talk) 11:35, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
I do sympathise with your difficulties there - there's no doubt that he's disputing the consensus reached on the talk page, although I don't really understand what he's continuing to argue against, since you've mentioned the naming issues in the article. He's been warned over the reverting; that's currently not a problem now the page is protected, and if it continues once protection is lifted then a block from an uninvolved admin should follow. Maybe just ignoring him might be the best option for now? EyeSerenetalk 11:55, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

More examples of "Personal Abuse"?[edit]

Please stop editing other editor's talk page posts

Tenmei, I have noticed that you frequently change other editors' posts on talk pages by bolding or changing the colour of some or all of their message. The talk page guidelines states that making these kind of changes is unacceptable behaviour. Nick Dowling (talk) 07:42, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

If you have a complaint, make it specific. I don't know what you're complaining about. It is your burden to make yourself plain, clear, understood. Vague isn't helpful in this or any other context. --Tenmei (talk) 07:48, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
I've got no problems with you removing my warning from your talk page (it's perfectly OK to do so, though the act of removing them is considered to be acknowledgment that the warning was read) but will re-post my response here.
I'm talking about stuff like this: [12] and fiddling with my almost two-week old posts today for no good reason: [13], [14] and [15] (it's perfectly normal to link to article titles in notifications, and even if it wasn't there's no reason to edit such old posts). Nick Dowling (talk) 08:01, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Please note that I posted the above warning on Tenmai's talk page, and he moved it here. Nick Dowling (talk) 22:47, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
And this is another example of changing the formatting of someone's post: [16] Nick Dowling (talk) 08:17, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
It seems constructive to replicate this exchange which was copied from User talk:Nick Dowling. This is potentially helpful in at least two ways: (1) The gesture responds acknowledges whatever it is that so vexes Nick Dowling in this obscure "problem"(?); and (2) it convenient;y brings forward a phrase which helps tidy-up a lingering question I'd been wondering about:
  • "...the act of removing them is considered to be acknowledgment that the warning was read ...." -- Nick Dowling
In my view, what at first seemed to be merely odd or pointlessly petty is here converted into something potentially helpful. --Tenmei (talk) 13:03, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Purple prose equals "problem"?[edit]

The term purple prose can be construed as describing words which are seen as over-the-top, over-reaching, over-done ... too much. Stretching a point ... in a sense, it could be said that a complaint in this venue about "personal abuse" is about a kind of purple prose. For emphasis, it may be seen helpful to change the font color to purple in this expository paragraph and in illustrative text below. Arguably, it could be potentially constructive if the words which constitute personal abuse at Talk:Hyūga class helicopter destroyer were similarly modified as purple prose. As far as I can tell, this is a novel suggestion; but clearly, some will agree that this is only reasonable -- my just deserts, as it were.

The Wikipedia community has already developed other useful orthographic conventions which are attractive because the consequences are meaningful. For example: As a way of illustrating recanted views, and editor need only strike out the text from which he or she withdraws. If, in this venue or elsewhere, I could come to understand that my words deserved this orthographic modification, I would do it without hesitation. Thus far, the constructive engagement of participants in this venue has done nothing to assist me in understanding why anything whatsoever posted at Talk:Hyūga class helicopter destroyer should be re-visited and modified by striking out. The following block of text demonstrates my willingness to invest time and serious thought in learning from whatever opportunity this venue might be able to provide. Except for the comment posted by EyeSerene on my talk page, that proof of my willingness to engage these issues with sincerity, diligence, and frankness has not appeared to inspired any congruent investments. I deserve better, if not in this venue -- where? when?

I have here presented proofs of my willingness to mend the errors of my ways if convinced that I've done something I should not have done; but thus far, my open-handed approach has not served me well. Perhaps this becomes one of those times when it is best to try something new?

I'm proposing an orthographic device which I would want to be understood as crying in the wilderness. By minimizing the bulk of the following text, the words which remain in a conventionally-sized print are inevitably emphasized. For our purposes, please consider this as if I were re-reading these words aloud -- with a raised voice, with an insistent, on-edge, alarmed tone; but do not spin this gesture to mean that I withdraw from any part of what is here made small. I parsed my words before posting them, and I have parsed the sentences by grouping them together below. This sign of cautious, thoughtful and intentional draftsmanship would more conventionally seem at odds with the tenor of complaints put forward here. --Tenmei (talk) 19:20, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Re-framing record of "Personal Abuse"?[edit]

The meritless claim of "personal abuse" can only be evaluated in the context created by the incontrovertible record. Just to clarify the complaint, am I supposed to understand that the following represents eggregious "personal abuse"? --Tenmei (talk) 22:00, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Controversial sentence[edit]

This edit was controversial -- not for any reason articulated above; but nevertheless, it was suspect for a number of eminently valid, important, and arguable factors I expected to discuss here with interested, thoughtful and better-informed editors than me. That hasn't happened yet, but I have no doubt that it will. Moreover, this essential dispute would have arisen in due course without my input. This was and remains the gravamen of my carefully considered decision to post one sentence and one sentence only as a crisp addition to this article's content.

However, the exchange which has played out above never reached this high ground. Instead, I found that I'm forced to argue -- in words demonstrably consistent with Assume good faith -- that BillCJ and Nick Dowling seem to insist that the beginning and end of all issues to do with JDS Hyūga lies in maritime architecture ....

Expressed in these stark terms, can you begin to see how I might feel unmoved, adamant and puzzled? --Tenmei (talk) 16:22, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

This is basically a discussion over the relative merits of references.
No -- with all due respect: wrong --Tenmei (talk) 03:26, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
The website supporting the PBS documentary is, simply put, not a good reference. PBS is not an authority on ship classifications and it does not cite any sources which support this classification.
No -- with all due respect: we're not here yet --Tenmei (talk) 03:26, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Jane's Fighting Ships is often considered the best reference on warship classifications and statistics, and it states that these ships are helicopter carriers.
No -- with all due respect: potentially valid, but unavailing --Tenmei (talk) 03:26, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
The very reliable Globalsecurity.org discusses the ships' classification and concludes that while they are "similar in design to a small aircraft carrier" and the 'destroyer' classification is a bit dubious it ends up consistently labeling them "helicopter-carrying destroyers".
No -- with all due respect: potentially valid, but unavailing --Tenmei (talk) 03:26, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
These references have been mentioned earlier, so I don't understand why you are accusing Bill and I of ""original research" or un-"verifiable" personal opinions". Nick Dowling (talk) 00:26, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
No -- with all due respect: wrong --Tenmei (talk) 03:26, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Is this "Personal Abuse"? Nick Dowling -- No -- with all due respect: My responses to your sentences are folded into your text so as to be emphatic and clear. Please construe the green font as yet another attempt to be very clear, comprehensible, constructive. I've replied No ad nauseam to each distinct element of your paragraph posting -- not because I want to be difficult, but rather because of the depth of disagreement you've compelled me to parse again and again and again .... --Tenmei (talk) 03:26, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Is this "Personal Abuse"? Nick Dowling frames a issue which might have been posed by someone else at some other time. His summary is not a fair characterization of the issues at hand or the questions raised. --Tenmei (talk) 06:49, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Could you please explain your concern then? If this isn't a discussion about the reliability of different references, what is it? Nick Dowling (talk) 06:56, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Is this "Personal Abuse"? Aha, I see. In the context Nick Dowling creates, the question above is disingenuous, disquieting in causing offense -- a bad faith gesture which heedlessly diminishes credibility.

Is this "Personal Abuse"? The otherwise unremarkable note below clarifies the gambit and the context, but candidly does nothing to demonstrate any willingness to grapple with the issues on this page. --Tenmei (talk) 10:57, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Please note that I've sought comments at WP:SHIP and on the Japanese and maritime history task forces of the Military History wikiprojects. Nick Dowling (talk) 10:31, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Given that you've sought comments on this dispute on three different policy noticeboards, it was appropriate to also notify the relevant Wikiprojects. I genuinely don't understand what your concern is if it isn't the reliability of the references and I would appreciate it if you could explain this. Please note that I've now cited the entire article using the external links and am removing the refimprove tag. Nick Dowling (talk) 11:14, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Is this "Personal Abuse"? Nick Dowling -- I've crossed out "with all due respect" above. I avoid personal attack by focusing on your words. You repeat a disingenuous question and your words have garnered my full attention. --Tenmei (talk) 12:17, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Turning lemons into lemonade[edit]

INTERPRETATION: Parsecboy 13:09, 13 July 2008

  • (a) "... commenting on the editor, instead of the issue...."
  • (b) "... allegations that Nick Dowling is intentionally mischaracterizing the issue to an uninvolved editor ..."UTC)

Is this "Personal Abuse"? ...my thought precisely: "intentionally mischaracterizing the issues." Thanks. Not to put too fine a point on it, yes -- disingenuous is a polite word which implies more left unsaid in an effort to maintain a mild tone. --Tenmei 13:52, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Is this "Personal Abuse"? " ... timeline which informed my modest decision to cross out "with all do respect". What you construed as unsupportable allegations were simply a matter of record. Some questions are disingenuous -- regrettable sure, but there you have it. This gambit affected my assessment of Nick Dowling's credibility, which becomes relevant in this context. In the face of a difficult reality, my words have been seemly, appropriate, correct. --Tenmei (talk) 15:23, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

INTERPRETATION: Tenmei, I consider your above comments on me to be both uncivil and offensive and request that they cease. Nick Dowling (talk) 02:16, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Is this "Personal Abuse"? Uncivil and offensive are here converted into badges of honor. --Tenmei (talk) 14:36, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Click on show to view the contents of this section

The meritless claim of "personal abuse" can only be evaluated in the context created by the incontrovertible record. Included in that evaluation are two relevant facts which are external to this record: (1) Nick Dowling is an administrator; and (2) Nick Dowling is Assistant Coordinator of the Military history Wikiproject, February 2008 — August 2008.

WP:AGF or alternately, WP:AGFNick Dowling
This record, consistent with WP:AGF, demonstrates my continuing efforts to bridge an identified gap. Moreover, this record shows the repeated identification of Nick Dowling as non-responsive.
12 July

  • Responding to 2nd deletion of the same sentence, ...[t]he exchange-of-views on this page focuses on demonstrably germane issues, but each contributor overlooks crucial factors which are conventionally outside-the-box in an analysis which parses engineering specs, functional prospects, etc. If outside-the-box, why? .... --Tenmei (talk) 06:48, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
  • This is going nowhere unless and until these legitimate a priori concerns are addressed. Then, maybe, we can begin to move forward constructively. If this appears to represent a perceived obstacle, Wikipedia has a range of methods in place for dealing with otherwise intractable disputes. In this context, perhaps it's time to consider seeking mediation or some other intervention. -- Tenmei (talk) 10:51, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Perhaps the following outline from Wikipedia:Dispute resolution can assist us in moving forward:
  • 1 Focus on content
  • 2 Stay cool
  • 3 Discussing with the other party
  • 4 Truce <========== Easily achievable?
  • 5 Turn to others for help
    • 5.1 Editor assistance
    • 5.2 Ask for a third opinion
    • 5.3 Ask about the subject
    • 5.4 Ask about a policy <========== A good strategic gesture?
    • 5.5 Ask for help at a relevant noticeboard
    • 5.6 For incivility
    • 5.7 Request a comment
    • 5.8 Informal mediation
    • 5.9 Formal mediation
    • 5.10 Conduct a survey
  • 6 If the situation is urgent <========== Not relevant?
  • 7 Last resort: Arbitration
... Expressed in these stark terms, can you begin to see how I might feel unmoved, adamant and puzzled? --Tenmei (talk) 16:22, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

13 July
To his credit, only Bellhalla showed any willingness to grasp that I was trying vainly to focus on something non-trivial, as evidenced at Talk:Hyūga class helicopter destroyer#Hyūga an aircraft carrier? How else is it possible to construe the following?

Nick Dowling -- No -- with all due respect: My responses to your sentences are folded into your text so as to be emphatic and clear. Please construe the green font as yet another attempt to be very clear, comprehensible, constructive. I've replied No ad nauseam to each distinct element of your paragraph posting -- not because I want to be difficult, but rather because of the depth of disagreement you've compelled me to parse again and again and again.... --Tenmei (talk) 03:26, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
My patience was frayed by this point, but I was still proceeding under
the assumption that this impasse was the result of a difficult-to-pierce
veil of cognitive dissonance and confirmation bias.

WP:AGF or alternately, WP:AGFNick Dowling
Disingenuous is a polite word for lying, for fraud -- dishonesty. What did I do when confronted with clear, specific, and astonishing evidence of Nick Dowling's lying, fraud, dishonesty? My words remained seemly, appropriate, correct.

Nick Dowling -- I've crossed out "with all due respect" above. I avoid personal attack by focusing on your words. You repeat a disingenuous question and your words have garnered my full attention. --Tenmei (talk) 12:17, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:AGF offered scant guidance, but I had studied its exposition language carefully, and I was quite proper in being guided accordingly.
:Accusing others of bad faith. Making accusations of bad faith ... can be seen as a personal attack if bad faith motives are alleged without clear evidence .... Although in was ineffective, I did attempt to present the evidence which informed my changed strategy: Please, I encourage you to review the timeline which informed my modest decision to cross out "with all do respect". What you construed as unsupportable allegations were simply a matter of record. Some questions are disingenuous -- regrettable sure, but there you have it. This gambit affected my assessment of Nick Dowling's credibility, which becomes relevant in this context. In the face of a difficult reality, my words have been seemly, appropriate, correct. --Tenmei (talk) 15:23, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Tenmei, I consider your above comments on me to be both uncivil and offensive and request that they cease. Nick Dowling (talk) 02:16, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Uncivil and offensive are here converted into badges of honor --Tenmei (talk) 14:36, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal
I also sought help from the WP:Mediation Cabal ....

__________________________
AND YET, these not inconsiderable efforts to stay focused were not met by congruent words or actions .. and Nick Dowling instead chose to make a complaint about my "personal abuse" in this WP:AN/I venue.

It doesn't bode well, nor augur well. In the context of this record and WP:CIV#Should established users be treated different?,

If this were not a pointless kangaroo court, how can I become better informed about what WP:AN/I is intended to be? --Tenmei (talk) 21:04, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Can I please submit the above claims that I have been commiting "lying, fraud, dishonesty" as being clear-cut personal abuse? Again, please note the repeated warnings Tenmei has recieved for the rude comments he's posted on the talk page of the article in question (reposted from above, these warnings include: [17], [18], [19] and [20]]). Nick Dowling (talk) 10:10, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Comment: Along with Trout Ice Cream, I left a note for Tenmai on his talk page regarding this thread. Looking at the various diffs and talk pages, I hoped that a polite warning would suffice to alert Tenmai to the disruptive effect his editing was having, and the possible consequences of refusing to let up. This was interpreted as a threat ([21]) - if I've stepped out of line, I'd welcome any clue adjustment ;)</small However, as this seems to be partly a content dispute and partly a civility issue, perhaps if Tenmai could just apologise for those comments Nick found offensive we could all move on? The article is protected, and with consensus apparently established on the talk page, further argument doesn't require a response. EyeSerenetalk 10:51, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Per Eyeserene. Tenmai's edits are indeed having a disruptive effect, and letting him know of that (and what will be done to prevent it if it doesn't cease) requires no clue adjustment. If the disruptive edits continue, I fully support the use of tools. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:31, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
In the context created by the purple prose above, EyeSerene makes four constructive, on-point observations which I would rearrange in what I consider to be an interwoven, ascending order of importance:
  • 4. "The article is protected ..." -- No, not really, no. Except for the word "political" in the first sentence, the current state of Hyūga class helicopter destroyer needs no protection from me. At the first opportunity, I would substitute the more precise NPOV term, "constitutional," in place of a non-NPOV term which has been shown to have unduly trivializing, dismissive connotations; but otherwise, I would do nothing pending further published developments. However, the moment any change is made to the final sentence in the second paragraph, the WP:NPOV problem re-surfaces anew.
  • 3. "... consensus apparently established on the talk page ...." -- No, not really, no. The tag-team ownership charade which played itself out at Talk:Hyūga class helicopter destroyer has certainly not escaped my notice -- but it remains naught but a re-telling of the old story of the Blind Men and an Elephant, naught but the sound of one hand clapping.
  • 2. "... if Tenmai could just apologise for those comments Nick found offensive we could all move on ..." -- No, not really, no. Empty words would serve no purpose here because, in addition to the fact that I'm not sorry, the fact-of-the-matter is that this tedious whatever-it-is has produced practical, measurable results which were plainly unachievable by any other means -- see third paragraph of Nick Dowling's most recent edit at Talk:Hyūga class helicopter destroyer#Complaint lodged at WP:AN/I
  • 1. "... as this seems to be partly a content dispute and partly a civility issue ...." No, not really no. YES. In this unique context, it is conceptually awkward to conflate "content dispute" and "civility issue" but this Gordian knot formulation is somewhat congruent with Wikipedia Talk:Civility#Should established users be treated different?
Click on show to view the contents of this section

, e.g.,

'Balancing civility with the needs of the encyclopedia
  • ... civility is a tool, but a tool to be used towards what? - obviously, the goal of building a neutrally worded, reliably sourced encyclopedia. To break it down further, the specific purpose of civility is to enable the smooth functioning of the community that works to build that encyclopedia. It's a means to an end, not an end in itself - an element in the scaffolding that supports the structure, not part of the structure itself. Fundamentally, we are not here to build a community; we're here to build an encyclopedia, and civility is merely one of the tools we use to do that. When we deal with civility issues, therefore, we have to focus on what's best for the encyclopedia, not simply on what's best for the community.
It's thus essential that we strike a proper balance between the community goal of civility and the fundamental encyclopedic goals of NPOV, reliable sourcing etc. Focusing on civility to the exclusion of the encyclopedic goals actively harms the encyclopedia ....
  • Civility problems shouldn't be dealt with in isolation while other problems aren't tackled, as that will only send the message to editors that tendentious conduct is fine as long as it doesn't involve civility violations - seek to tackle the causes as well as the symptoms,
  • Civility is a means to an end, not an end in itself - don't prioritise it above the encyclopedia's goals. -- ChrisO (talk) 17:51, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
I like where you're going with this. What I think I'm seeing is that we are in a position to develop a strategy for how the community deals with incivility. There's material on the page about how an individual can respond to incivility, but in the type of situations you're talking about, a more holistic approach is indeed required. The approach of enforcing civility as a rule — like a law, with clearly defined "violations" and consequences — isn't the best. It leads to the perception that civility is being prioritized above encyclopedic considerations. That perception is a problem, regardless of how accurate it may be .... Perhaps identifying a problem as an "incivility problem" is not helpful. Perhaps we should embrace the idea that each act of incivility takes place in the context of a larger conflict; perhaps our approach should reflect that idea. The goal would be to identify a conflict, describe its features, and choose appropriate strategies accordingly, right? How can we get better at doing that, instead of enforcing isolated "violations" of some real or imagined rule? -GTBacchus(talk) 19:17, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I think you've put it well. We need to look at an approach that deals with the causes of conflict, not just the symptoms. Incivility can be both a cause and a symptom - if an editor is constantly incivil that will obviously lead to other problems .... On other occasions, it can be a symptom of frustration or aggravation at tendentious tactics being used by others. In both cases, it seems to me, the root issue is the problematic conduct on someone's part that invariably accompanies incivility. In effect, incivility is a warning flag that normal editing or talk page participation has broken down for some reason. The tactical challenge is therefore to diagnose what has gone wrong and fix it - not just by giving civility warnings (which may be totally appropriate) but also by dealing with the larger conflict. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:52, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
We seem to be largely on the same page. I'm not too sure about civility warnings; I don't know if they're ever appropriate. They are often not. I'm also leery of strategies that involve identifying and neutralizing "bad guys". I tend to think that the best solutions will be article-based, or conflict-based, rather than editor-based. That said, I'd certainly support trying out just about any strategy, as long as it's done in a mindful and deliberate way. Doing that will at least generate data, and then we can re-assess strategies as to how well they worked. Simply making a conscious effort to identify and apply specific strategies is already a huge step, which should teach us a lot. -GTBacchus(talk) 22:06, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Re-framing record of "Disruptive Behaviour"?[edit]

The meritless claim of "disruptive behaviour" can only be evaluated in the context created by the incontrovertible record. Included in that evaluation are two relevant facts which are external to this record:

  • 1. Nick Dowling is an administrator; and
  • 2. Nick Dowling is Assistant Coordinator of the Military history Wikiproject, February 2008 — August 2008.

The only thing "disruptive" is the fact that I persisted in the only way possible -- no other option being available as a practical matter. In the face of an unseemly tag-team ownership game, I attacked the logical fallacy implicit in the way this game was framed.

Yes, of course, I did disrupt "a" game, I suppose... yes. The tag-team ownership "game" was parsed under closer scrutiny than was within the regular players' comfort zone ... yes. But this quickly seems to beg the question - two related questions really:

  • Was that irrelevant consensus-building exercise based on the wrong "game"? By this, I mean to say in part, "Was the state of play adequately informed when Jane's Fighting Ships and Global Security.org comprise the only "gold standard" against which all else is measured?"
  • When did the task of creating a Wikipedia article become a matter of mere gamesmanship? --Tenmei (talk) 19:20, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm reluctant to post more, since I think we're going beyond the scope of this forum. Your views on civility might be best taken up somewhere else (the Village Pump perhaps?), as they relate to a general issue rather than this specific one... other than the fact that it doesn't appear you intend do a fellow editor the courtesy of assuming his good faith and retracting your personal comments. We should also not be attempting to resolve a content dispute here. The disruption, however, is pertinent, so (leaving the aspersions aside) as I understand the situation:
  • You contest the vessel's current designation as a "helicopter destroyer", preferring the term "aircraft carrier". "Helicopter destroyer" apparently comes from a number of highly respected sources (including Jane's, widely regarded as one of the top sources in the field). "Aircraft carrier" is based on a TV documentary and some newspaper reports, and is argued by other editors to be a loose description for mass-market consumption to enable viewers/readers to picture the ship.
    • You failed to gain support for your alteration on the article talk page, but repeatedly inserted it into the article anyway. Your edits have been consistently reverted by the article's other editors.
  • A discussion was opened to gauge consensus on the talk page, and recognising that there was some weight to your assertion (but taking WP:UNDUE into account), a brief sourced explanation was added to the article detailing the apparent naming confusion for the vessel class. However, you decided not to participate in the discussion because you didn't recognise this as a legitimate way of settling the issue.
    • Consensus having been established against your edit, you then resumed agitating for it (in your words, performed a "reset"), seemingly under the impression that, because of Nick's position as both an admin and a MilHist coordinator, the article's other editors had blindly followed where he led.
Spin it how you like, this is a textbook example of disruptive editing. There's absolutely zero evidence that Nick has behaved with anything less than complete propriety throughout, and your refusal to accept the verdict of your peers is digging you into an ever-deeper hole. Perhaps you're the innocent victim of a Nick Dowling-led MilHist conspiracy... or perhaps your proposal is wrong. I've no real desire to keep this unproductive thread alive by posting here again, but please take some advice: don't be a fanatic, stop disrupting this article, and find something else to work on. EyeSerenetalk 08:46, 25 July 2008 (UTC) [emphasis added by Tenmei, 26 July]

Uhm, guys? I'm looking at the Jane's article linked in the article itself now, and it refers to the ship as a "CVHG," which translates as "Aircraft Carrier, Helicopter, Guided Missile." What's more, it then lists the section as being "Helicopter Carriers." Given that JFS says they're carriers, and a certain line from the GlobalSecurity.org article points out that "Having a displacement of about 20,000 tons... they essentially can be classified as light aircraft carriers. It is temporizing to refer to this type of vessel as a DD (destroyer). There has never been a destroyer that exceeded 10,000 tons," I think we can safely say that the "helicopter destroyer" term does NOT come from either of these two sources.

No, this fight doesn't belong on here, but it certainly doesn't appear to be as cut-and-dried as EyeSerene is showing it to be. (Full disclosure: While I was completely unaware of these ships until this thread hit, I do personally lean towards the "helicopter/STOVL carrier" designation based on application of Justice Potter Stewart's definition of pornography to the pictures of the ships. It's as silly as if there was a slapfight on Invincible-class aircraft carrier over whether to call them CVHs or "through-deck cruisers," the original politically-motivated designation...) Rdfox 76 (talk) 13:27, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Rdfox 76 -- You make two very, very helpful points. Thank you.
1. Justice Potter Stewart's definition of pornography is a pirori more elegant than The Emperor's New Clothes, which served as the core of an alternate approach I've been trying to bring out of the sandbox. Your implied simile seems more likely to inspire a willingness to re-visit some of the otherwise unexamined assumptions which are so strongly held that they block access to the threshold I can't quite reach yet.
2. Your language is superb -- better than I could have imagined. It captures the ridiculous with humour and sly derision - yes, good:
It's as silly as if there was a slapfight on Invincible-class aircraft carrier over whether to call them CVHs or "through-deck cruisers," the original politically-motivated designation...)
3. You're on the right wave-length. This is helpful.
I will have to think about this some more. --Tenmei (talk) 19:04, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


I do apologise if it seems like I'm endorsing or promoting one interpretation of the sources over another in my post above. That certainly wasn't my intent; I was trying to set out the course of events rather than comment on the actual content. Whatever content issue Tenmei has (and I'm not saying he has no case) is between him and the other editors. However, a clear effort has been made to compromise, and I think the article currently does a pretty good job of explaining the whys and wherefores of this peculiar designation. There appears to be no corresponding movement on his position though, and editing disruptively and insulting other editors is absolutely not the way to get a consensus overturned - especially when one's stated intent was to disregard the discussion process and any decision reached. That's the cut-and-dried part in my view ;) EyeSerenetalk 14:46, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
EyeSerene -- 1. Thank you for re-framing the "disruptive" issue in a way that allows me to see how it could appear that my conduct was improper. This was helpful. I need to think about it before I respond further, but this appears to be a template which will help me figure out (1) what I could have done differently AND, (2) what I need to figure out so that I don't make a similar avoidable error in future. For the moment, please consider the hypothesis that you have not made a mistake in investing the time and thought which can help me become a more effective and valued contributor to this Wikipedia project.
2. Please believe me when I assure you that it wouldn't matter whether you endorsed or promoted one interpretation or another because we haven't even arrived at the threshold of the argument yet. Also, believe me when I assure you that I'm not trying to be perverse ... nor do I think that entirely plausible "fanatic" label is something we have to worry about.
I will have to think about this some more. --Tenmei (talk) 19:04, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
EyeSerene -- I have added bold emphasis to one of your sentences above: Spin it how you like, this is a textbook example of disruptive editing. I have studied the bullets in your summarized understanding of the situation. As I read what you wrote, I tick off each element -- yes, yes, yes, yes. This is helpful. Thank you. I need to figure out how to "spin" your text, so that your second and fourth bullets are understood as sub-sets; and then I can more comfortably respond -- no, no. What I need to do is to revisit the record in hopes that it becomes possible to isolate pivotal opportunities for me to have averted the thread which informs each of your four bullets; and maybe at some point in the process, I'll begin to figure out how to do better in future.
Two aspects of my "spin" are easily stated, but this remains an unavailing step forward for now.
  • NO, I do not contest the vessel's current designation as a "helicopter destroyer", preferring the term "aircraft carrier" -- not an issue, never was except in Nick Dowling's repeated re-framing. The premises inherent the the re-framed proposition inexorably lead only to a reaffirmation of the status quo ante. In this context, cognitive dissonance and [confirmation bias]] converted every edit -- first to last -- into something merely disruptive, hence rejected as irrelevant or worse.
  • NO, there was no discussion ...opened to gauge consensus on the talk page. The consensus-building exercise was focused on the wrong question. After the consensus was achieved on the proposition as framed by Nick Dowling, then I thought I was learning from a Bellhalla-inspired "reset" which could approach a new question with the newly confirmed consensus as a foundation from which to build.
This has been an exercise in which I learned more than I expected about metastasis. Make no mistake -- I did devote close attention to every step of this evolving charade, and I'm prepared to invest more time in parsing what could have been done to mitigate the damage. I didn't understand well enough then, and I don't understand well enough now -- but we'll see if I can't figure out how to do better. If nothing else, this tentative analysis indicates that I am seriously engaged in trying to reach towards a constructive resolution to the complaint Nick Dowling lodged in this venue.
It is frustrating to read Nick has behaved with anything less than complete propriety throughout; but it is even more galling to discover that I'm beginning to fathom how and why your opinion has been informed by reason and experience. This is helpful -- not dispositive, but helpful none-the-less. Thank you.
As for your worry that I might be a fanatic, that's probably not a problem here because I'm persuaded that a fanatic is someone who wants to achieve something more than just opening a closed door. My goals are not defined by resolving any issues which surround JDS Hyūga save one, changing its tenor from that of a dogma which is questioned only at the questioner's great peril .... --Tenmei (talk) 17:24, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Note Taken to my talk page. EyeSerenetalk 08:30, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Following post moved from top of thread to preserve chronological order EyeSerenetalk 10:26, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Please assume that all-caps is conventionally assumed to be shouting:

  • WHAT IS HAPPENING HERE?
  • I OPPOSE CLOSING THIS THREAD UNTIL I UNDERSTAND WHAT THE COMPLAINT WAS REALLY ALL ABOUT.
  • I NEED TO LEARN WHY (or if) I WAS CORRECT IN INVESTING TIME IN THIS PROCESS AND WHAT THE ULTIMATE OUTCOMES WERE. Who's kidding who? Was this nothing more than a gambit designed solely to alarm and distract me -- and to waste my time in purposeless pursuits while the complainants who initiated this charade sit back and laugh at my naivité? NON, whose joke is this really?

Let those who understand the context and everything else now stand forward and take credit for the whole array of things I don't understand. Just because I was too mild-mannered to ask questions yesterday doesn't mean that I haven't "found my voice" on this day. --Tenmei (talk) 09:44, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

No-one has closed this thread. However, the reasons it was opened were:
  • Personal abuse - Nick was insulted by your comments. You believe they were justified and don't regret them, but have nevertheless been reminded of Wikipedia's civility policy and the possible consequences of violating it again. I think this is about as much resolution as we'll achieve on this point.
  • Disruptive editing - a number of editors have pointed out why your edits were disruptive, and the article has been protected. You have been reminded of the eventual consequences of disruption, and without calls for further sanctions (which no-one seems to be agitating for) this, too, would appear to be resolved within the limits of ANI's remit.
Further argument - ie that you attest that you acted in good faith because your actions were the only way you could get attention for your content amendment, which you believe was being misrepresented by others - is really a continuance of the content dispute that started all this, and ANI is probably not the best place for this. Other dispute resolution forums exist (see WP:DISPUTE), and since you posted to my talk page I assumed you were expressing a desire to take this discussion elsewhere. I'm happy for my talk page to serve. However, the thread remains open ;) EyeSerenetalk 10:33, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Tenmei, does EyeSerene's reply (above) address your concerns? Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:52, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Ncmvocalist -- Your open-ended question is excellent -- elegantly phrased. My response for now is both "yes" and "no."
  • Yes, if by that you're asking whether EyeSerene calmed my worries that this thread would be closed prematurely. No, if you're asking if the thread should be closed today or tomorrow.
  • Yes, if by that you're asking whether EyeSerene helped me in the process of teasing out as much as I can hope to gain from this Gordian knot. No, if you're asking whether I do "get it" at last.
In Wikipedia, as in life, it is sometimes axiomatic that you reap what you sow ... and sometimes the harvest is meager. I can grasp the intended meaning and familiar wisdom of this old saying; and I appreciate something of its computerese counterpart -- "Garbage In, Garbage Out" (GIGO). Although this complaint is just one among many illustrations of things not working out as I would have wanted or expected, I am persuaded that, broadly speaking, there is a rough balance in terms of what I put into Wikipedia and what I take away from the experience.
In this WP:AN/I thread, I've put in a lot, and I'm intending to take out value-added dividends comparable or greater than I've invested.
In this exercise, I'm fortunate in at least two ways -- first, that I seem to have missed the point to begin with; and second, that EyeSerene seems to have guessed that I was focused on tying to achieve an uncommon "win-win" alchemy in this forum. For me, the number of hours I have invested here is oddly uncharacteristic in the sense that the focus is unrelated to pre-Meiji Japan, and I would guess that this level of time-investment is unconventional across the span of archived threads in this forum. That said, it is only seemly that I express some minimal level of thanks for EyeSerene's apparent success in helping me figure out how to begin parsing the crucial issues; and EyeSerene helped me convert the question/answer format into a more finely-tuned instrument.
In the end, EyeSerene also addressed an important concern which was only vaguely understood until I had time to mull over the paragraph he posted above. The over-arching question soon becomes one of moving some issues beyond this forum to another which is better suited. A corollary has to do with allowing some trivial matters simply to fall by the wayside. For other participants in whatever happens at WP:AN/I, this necessary realization would have come much more quickly -- but for me ..., well, let's just say that I'm still en route. --Tenmei (talk) 15:01, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Contrived Complaint[edit]

This complaint was and is contrived. Writers at the beginning of this thread commented that my writing can be be harsh. If I could think of weasel words to soften the effect, I would have used them -- I may find them in a day or so; but it won't effect the substance, nor would that superficial edit do much to help move towards a way for me to contrive something better than the confused array of problems I see today.

This complaint was contrived in the way it evolved -- in its chronological history, in it genesis, and in the thoughtful planning and artifice which preceded its posting in this venue. See wiktionary: "Contrive", verb

This complaint is contrived, forced, made-up -- as the product of a guiding mind, as an intentional creation of knowing design, as artifice. See wiktionary: "Contrived", adjective

I would feel soiled for having been associated in any way with this venue if it were not for those participants in this thread who invested time and mindful attention to the onerous task of helping me come to understand what I did not understand at the beginning.

Nick Dowling's short-term purpose in bringing this complaint to this forum was to cause me harm -- me personally. At a minimum, his intention was to ensure that metaphorically I had my hand slapped a ruler, or at best, to have me barred, blocked, excluded from further participation in Wikipedia. To be redundantly clear, this should not be interpreted as more "personal abuse." The record of this thread identifies a problem and suggests solutions; and this produces consequence I ignore at my further peril. This is not a complaint; it's just the way it is.

Nick Dowling's mid-term purpose in this complaint was to so intimidate me and others so that none would have the temerity to cross him again. In this, it doesn't feel good to learn that I'm not really alone here. This, too, should not be interpreted as "personal abuse." I've identified a valid consequence; it's just the way it is.

Nick Dowling's short-term and long-term purposes were married in this complaint as part of an intentional plan to ensure the Tenmei-username would be discredited a priori in any future talk page discussions at [User talk:Hyūga class helicopter destroyer]] and elsewhere. This is isn't "personal abuse"; it's just the way it is.

Fortuitously, what began as a disingenuous exercise has been mitigated in the most important way -- that is, EyeSerene and others have helped me begin to see how this awkward scenario appears from a neutral perspective. The best of the helpful sentences in this thread explains to me: Spin it how you like, this is a textbook example of disruptive editing. With regret, I have to admit that I still can't make the needed connections between this appearance of doing something wrong and specific instances when I can see for myself that I made a poor choice amongst a number of options when I did or did not do something specific. This should not diminish one unassailable fact: it was no mean accomplishment for EyeSerene and others to have been brought along this far.

In the process of investigating the record in an effort to come to grips with what I'd done in a sequence of words and actions which went so terribly awry, I discovered rather more than what I thought I was looking for. Forunately, I still have succient good sense to try not to allow myself to be too distracted from the constructive path EyeSerene has pointed out.

There remains more to this difficult problem than figuring out what I could have done differently in the past; and preparing a future in which I'll be likely to handle new issues differently because of what hard lessons learned in 2008. In due course, this worm will turn, but not today. --Tenmei (talk) 17:52, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

87.196.144.26 (talk · contribs) AKA 87.196.216.116 (talk · contribs)[edit]

87.196.144.26 (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks) The person using this IP is being really disruptive. S/he keeps making undiscussed genre changes on a lot of pages about pop singers and their albums. According to Realist2,this IP address has actually been doing this genre thing for months. This is really disruptive. If the IP has been "doing it for months",s/he has probaby been blocked before and they keep changing their IP. If this IP has been blocked before,please block it again. XxJoshuaxX (talk) 20:32, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to hear what he has to say. Of course, if someone feels that his editor is a lost cause, he can have his say using the unblock template. Beam 21:02, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
This seems like the first step in proper bold/revert/discuss editing. If there is evidence of edit waring please bring it back here, but I don't see any blockable offenses through my cursory look at the edit history. Also be aware of WP:OWN. There is no rule that edits need to be cleared first. --Selket Talk 21:10, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Gee, another content dispute unnecessarily brought to ANI by this editor? Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 22:39, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Well,the IP is clearly being disruptive. XxJoshuaxX (talk) 23:55, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
What the...? This IP still hasn't been blocked? What are you sysops waiting for,an invitation? XxJoshuaxX (talk) 15:28, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Blocks are not punitive, the IP had stopped editing half an hour before you made this thread, and hasn't edited since. And please watch your tone. –xeno (talk) 15:31, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Well,if the IP starts being disruptive again,will s/he be blocked? XxJoshuaxX (talk) 15:32, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
As someone mentioned above, changes to articles do not need to be discussed before hand. This flows from WP:BE BOLD. Just because the editor is an IP does not make his suggested changes to the articles any less worthy of being properly considered within the Bold, revert, discuss cycle. Since you only talked to him twice about it, I'd like to see some further discourse with them about it, but if they edit-war to put their changes through, then I could see them being blocked. –xeno (talk) 15:41, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Usually,changes don't need to be discussed,but genre changes always do. XxJoshuaxX (talk) 15:45, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Where does it say that? (sincere question, don't work in music much) –xeno (talk) 15:52, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Well,I used to get reverted for making undiscussed genre changes,but when I discuss them,I never get reverted,so I assume it works like that for everyone. XxJoshuaxX (talk) 15:55, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
UPDATE: As I added to the title,this IP has changed their IP once again (to 87.196.216.116),and is making undiscussed genre changes to Good Girl Gone Bad again. XxJoshuaxX (talk) 17:09, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

← If it's not a guideline then I don't see how we can hold making seemingly good faith tweaks to genres over an IPs head as a blockable offense. I never really considered Rihanna to be "hip hop" either On further consideration, Jay-Z's parts of "Umbrella" could be considered hip-hop - nonetheless - talking with the IP should be your first step. –xeno (talk) 17:43, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Anna Quist (talk · contribs · logs) and The Anarchist International[edit]

Anarchist International was AfD'd to death and re-created more than once (similarly, but differently), and salted. (I was completely uninvolved, as far as I recall.) It recently popped up as The Anarchist International, which to me smells like a wrong title at best. It had already been userfied so I deleted it. I didn't salt it, and while I was writing my reasoning for deleting it, it was re-created. I don't have any strong feelings about it, and I have to say that everybody involved is being polite; there's no big drama (yet). Another unrelated admin should take a look. -- Hoary (talk) 08:32, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

HI. I recreated whilst trying to remove the CSD#G4. This appears to be a substantially different article from the AfD and may not be G4. WP:DRV does not apply. The original AfD is NOT CONTESTED. Instead the editor has tried to improve. I am also neutral (but I did CSD the last version). A number of experienced editors have been involved in guiding this editor (User:Delldot, User:Maxim). I think more discussion should take place. See the chat at User talk:Anna Quist. --triwbe (talk) 08:48, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
(Edit conflicted with the above) Interesting case here. Anarchist International, written by User:Anna Quist was deleted as unverifiable/possible hoax as a result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anarchist International, and subsequently deleted twice more as a repost when she tried to reintroduce it. It was userfied to User:Anna Quist/Anarchist International where Anna partially rewrote it, adding many external links such that admin User:Maxim granted her permission to publish it, which she has at The Anarchist International. The article has a decided lack of claim to notability or reliable sources. A person using the same pseudonym was banned from Anarchism.net for trolling, and I strongly suspect our blocked editor User:74.208.16.12 to be the same individual behind the Anna Quist identity (cf. search for "ochlarchical").
In the meantime, Anna has been adding comments to anarchism-related articles with absurd claims about the following supposed groups: "The probaly largest anarchist organization in the world today is the Anarchist International", "The probably largest anarcha-feminist organization in the world is the Anarchafeminist International", "The probably larges green anarchist organization in the world is the The Green Anarchist International Association (GAIA) ", who all, strangely enough for such prominent organizations, all link to the same website. A possible explanation from the actual International Federation of Anarchists which Anna's group appears to impersonate is here (denial here). The picture that emerge is that this is a group of a handful of people who have been operating for decades now, inventing fronts for themselves to appear as a prominent organization, and spamming themselves everywhere in sight.
(Some optional additional context: "Nobel Peace Prize 2006 and Anarchy.no" and "anarchy.no" from Libcom.org;"Wow, you folks are amazing!", and "AI on Wikipedia"/"In case you've been wondering what the AI-lings have been up to" by our very own Zazaban (talk · contribs) on Anarchism.net. When the anarchist communists and anarcho-capitalists are in agreement, it really must be something.)
So what is to be done here? WP:AGF and take this to deletion review, with a caution to Anna to be more careful adding unreliably sourced content from a conflict of interest to articles? Or cut to the chase with a block? Disclaimer: I am a participant in the Anarchism task force and misguidedly tried to make sense of the Anarchist International article. Notifying Anna of this thread. Skomorokh 09:03, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
I think one more AfD should do the trick. Documenting all of this, and the past AfD's, and notifying the admins who have deleted or otherwise salted it, and anyone else who has a connection. Synergy 09:18, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
As I have been posting on anarchism.net and if Anna Quist's behaviour on that forum is any indication on how she it(we on anarchism.net is not sure if Anna is actually a woman or even if it is only one individual posting under the login Anna Quist) will behave here. It will ignore any warnings and it will keep posting the same thing over and over no matter what. Per Bylund the owner of anarchism.net has a strong policy of not banning for any reason but was forced to ban Anna Quist for a week which didn't work in the end as other alleged Norwegian people such as Jorgen V. likewise allegedly involved in Anarchism International(though we think it is the same person or persons as in Anna Quist just on another account and computer) came and haunted the forum. I see no other remedy other than a block. If User:Anarcho-capitalism deserved to be banned(a solution that seem to have solved a lot of conflict). Anna Quist definitely deserves a block at first sight of distress. Lord Metroid (talk) 17:26, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Can we get some more input on this? The article is currently back at Anarchist International; should it go to AfD or DRV? I'll take Synergy's advice barring dissent. Skomorokh 13:42, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I have asked Anna if she would prefer the article to be speedily deleted #G7 so that she may try to improve it and recreate it later. A 2nd AfD, the other choice, if it gave a del decision, would be the final death of this article. Can we give her time to respond ? --triwbe (talk) 14:39, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Certainly, but I would like to see some action against her other behaviour, specifically copypasting heaps of text in irrelevant locations (see the section immediately below this, WP:ATF), and the obvious falsehoods she has introduced about the supposedly most popular anarcho-whatever groups as shown above. I think we need to ask whether she is an asset to the project as things stand. Skomorokh 14:46, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I moved The Anarchist International to the very salty title Anarchist International, because I'm sure that if the article is to exist the latter is the right title for it. (I tried to say this earlier but couldn't get a connection to WP.) -- Hoary (talk) 14:48, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

If there is no response to the CSD/AfD question in 24 hours I will ask for CSD so that Anna can have another chance and save it from a risky AfD. --triwbe (talk) 17:29, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

That seems reasonable. It's being torn to shreds in the mainspace. Skomorokh 18:14, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Enough time has already been wasted on this. I don't think that the article should have been allowed to reemerge; but since it was allowed to do so, let it go to AfD again, and sooner rather than later. -- Hoary (talk) 23:30, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
And off to AfD it has gone. -- Hoary (talk) 00:38, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

The so called "anorg-warning" is entirely false[edit]

The reason for the deletion of the first AI-wiki-page was the so called "anorg-warning": This document is entirely false, quoting from my talk pags: "[edit] Anarchist International Anarchist International (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log) De-prodded, posting on behalf of Zazaban. Prod summary was "Per WP:HOAX; http://flag.blackened.net/liberty/anorg-warning.html and WP:NOTABILITY, WP:OR" delldot talk 02:01, 28 June 2008


The http://flag.blackened.net/liberty/anorg-warning.html is a total hoax, the stuff on this link is about 100% rejected and turned down at " The so called "Anorg-warnig is false" at http://www.anarchy.no/anorgwarning.html . (Anna Quist (talk) 22:39, 25 July 2008 (UTC)) (UTC)

Strong Delete Per above. There is strong reason to believe this organization consists of only User:Anna Quist and at most 2 or 3 others. No evidence has ever been offered up of otherwise. Zazaban (talk) 02:03, 28 June 2008 (UTC) delete in favor or anarchy, lets delete it!Myheartinchile (talk) 04:25, 28 June 2008 (UTC) Strong Delete: No verifiable evidence of the existence, let alone notability of AI. Significant amounts of the material on the anarchy.no site have been shown to be plagiarized, and other material simply copied from Wikipedia itself. Libertatia (talk) 08:09, 28 June 2008 (UTC) Vanity/COI issues as well. History page shows that two primary editors are self-proclaimed members of the "International." Libertatia (talk) 08:11, 28 June 2008 (UTC) This is also false and rejected and turned down at " The so called "Anorg-warnig is false" at http://www.anarchy.no/anorgwarning.html .(Anna Quist (talk) 22:41, 25 July 2008 (UTC))"

---

If you have any questions about AI I will answer

(Anna Quist (talk) 14:02, 27 July 2008 (UTC))

Please block this editor User:Shannonvanity[edit]

Resolved: Indefinitely blocked as a vandalism-only account, User page deleted per WP:CSD#G10. –xeno (talk) 01:33, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't see why I have to put up with this [22]. Also their actual user page looks suspect also - references to rape? Exxolon (talk) 01:11, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree, this is inappropriate, and this user should be blocked immediately. -- iMatthew T.C. 01:23, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't know this guy but, you're trying to block a user ecause he's gay, and admits to it? That's discrimintory, and serves no place on Wiki! Some of you people are pathetic! Skeletal S.L.J.C.O.A.A.A.T.R. 01:26, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Oh really? Pray tell why he was using MY userpage to announce it? Exxolon (talk) 01:31, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
(ec) Look a bit closer, Skeletal. It was vandalism to the reporting user's page. –xeno (talk) 01:33, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Exactly, the vandalism refers to the vandal accusing the reporting user of being such, and making it seem as if the reporting user placed that on their userpage. -- iMatthew T.C. 01:34, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Whoops! Didn't notice that! Would've been nice if you had said that... Skeletal S.L.J.C.O.A.A.A.T.R. 01:35, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
What are you talking about? The link clearly show's the editor (Shannonvanity) and the page edited (My Userpage) - if you can't even work that out then you've got a real problem. Exxolon (talk) 01:40, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Please AGF, Exxolon. It was obviously a mistake, and Skeleton SLJCOAATR is sorry. —Mizu onna sango15Hello! 01:45, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
My AGF goes a little when I'm accused of being a "pathetic" homophobe. However I've accepted SLJ's apology on my talkpage and consider this matter resolved. Exxolon (talk) 01:51, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Template:Sexual orientation edit warring[edit]

Resolved: CoolJuno blocked for 48 hours (block later extended for incivility on talk page)

Could someone please look at this. I would hope we could have full protection of the template on the version without all the references and contested content. Regardless I've reverted twice so will hold off for now. There is concerns of OR as well. Banjeboi 01:56, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

So glad to see the talk page was respected. Looks like "Cooljuno" is at it again, ignoring consensus and the rules. Wasn't CoolJuno just here for the same behavior? ThuranX (talk) 02:13, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Answer: Yes. See there for more on this same problem. ThuranX (talk) 02:15, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Apparently they've been blocked for editing-warring on this template before but I don't know if it's just them or not. As far as I'm aware there should be consensus before adding material and the footnotes on templates seems like a terrible idea. Banjeboi 02:18, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
FYI, before I even saw this, I just blocked him for 2 days for edit-warring on this template. CIreland (talk) 02:16, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Could someone consider reverting the template back to the uncontested version? Banjeboi 02:34, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Done. CIreland, could you please review the history here and on that page and reevaluate if your block should be longer, given the lengthy build up and prior issues? ThuranX (talk) 02:36, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
And this comment by the blocked user: [23] Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 02:41, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Just by the way, is it acceptable for Cooljuno's sig to look like this --Cooljuno411 (talk)? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 04:53, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Not sure about that, But I reccomend extending the block to 72hrs for the last message he left on his talkpage. Chafford (talk) 09:20, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Since the system lets him do it, then it's implicitly "acceptable". And they already doubled his suspension. He'll be back in action on the 1st, with plenty of time in the interim to get himself re-oriented. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 12:15, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
"Since the system lets him do it, then it's implicitly "acceptable". " Actually, no. Take a read through WP:SIG, and you will see that there are many things that the systems allows us to do, that are completely unacceptable in signatures. Considerably larger text, which effects surrounding text, is one of the things that is not acceptable. He needs to change it. - auburnpilot talk 15:01, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
If wikipedia doesn't want oversized signatures, then it shouldn't allow them to be created in the first place. But given that guy's friendly attitude, I'm sure you'll have no trouble convincing him to shrink it. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 15:10, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Block review for User:Lenerd[edit]

Lenerd (talk · contribs) has been editing here for just about a month (with a single edit from one year ago) and has been indefinitely blocked for some minor mistakes, and without any warning. Confusion is understandable, since he did things such as blanking a number of categories from an article, [24] giving a user warning to the editor who reverted this, [25] and making the redirect Pig Empire. He has, however, explained all of these things, [26] [27] and none of them appear to be vandalism.

The first admin to review his unblock request does so pretty blindly, and doesn't even seem to look at his edit history or his unblock request. [28]. The user puts up another unblock request, around the time I was looking at the unblock request category. I leave a note for the original blocking admin User:Sandstein at User talk:Sandstein#User:Lenerd. In this time User:Ultraexactzz asks for a further explanation and Lenerd provides one.

Sandstein reviews, more discussion goes on, and to me it's pretty clear that this editor is not here to cause disruption and understands the basic gist of our rules. See User talk:Lenerd#You are indefinitely blocked for full discussion.

However, for some reason Sandstein has not unblocked this editor, whom shouldn't have been blocked like this in the first place.

So I'm bringing it here for review. -- Ned Scott 05:28, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm interested to hear what others think. Lenerd is not your typical vandal, that much is clear; he has made productive (if generally automated) edits and mostly seems to be here with the intention to do good. However, he's engaged in blatantly disruptive conduct in a number of areas in a relatively short span of time, which is why I have blocked him for the reasons given on his talk page. I've made clear at the outset that I don't mean this to be an infinite block. I have stated that I will unblock him if he convinces me that he understands what he's done wrong and that he won't do it again. That has not happened so far. The gist of his responses on his talk page is that, while he may have been excessively zealous in some areas, in general he feels entitled to do as he pleases. I've also made clear at the outset that I won't object if another admin unblocks him if they feel that he is not or no longer a problem. But in that case, I would expect that admin to continue to watch his conduct and to intervene in the event of continued disruption.  Sandstein  06:36, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
  • I support an unblock, but only after Lenerd promises to strictly avoid disruptive editing, and familiarise him/herself with our copyright policy. Also, his TWINKLE access should be disabled for a long time due to[29], which is way too close to outright trolling. MaxSem(Han shot first!) 10:18, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Over-reaction. I've seen admins leave warnings like this to established users when frustrated. We have no evidence that this is actually an issue. He's been warned, so lets see how he does. -- Ned Scott 07:45, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
  • No objection to an unblock, here. I very specifically declined the second unblock request, because it looked like a double-post of the first one - repeatedly making the same request for unblock is forum-shopping-ish. I noted the decline as procedural, in order to avoid prejudicing a future request. I also asked for more detail on the edits that caused the block, as ntoed, and I'm reasonably satisfied with Lenerd's response. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 13:07, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
I add, in reference to Sandstein's analysis, that a mentor for Lenerd might not be a bad idea. This sort of thing is indeed disruptive, and Lenerd needs to be aware of what is acceptable and what is not. Having an experienced user to assist with that would be of value, I think. I think it's a good block, but can be lifted under the conditions that Sandstein cites. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 13:09, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
I also support an unblock. This user has been far from perfect but indef blocking an editor who seems to be acting in good faith without a single warning seems entirely like overkill to me. Oren0 (talk) 01:51, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
For the reasons outlined at the user's talk page, I do not believe that most of the edits I blocked the user for were done in good faith. Even if they were, they were still disruptive, and I think we should have some reassurance that the user does not intend to continue to disrupt Wikipedia if unblocked. As I said above, under these conditions, I'm not opposed to an unblock.  Sandstein  06:49, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
They were mildly disruptive, at best, and he wasn't warned before being blocked. I see no evidence of malicious intent, and it's obvious he understands you now. You're just asking him to jump through hoops at this point. -- Ned Scott 07:45, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I am asking him to jump through hoops. The hoop I am asking him to jump through is labeled: "I understand that I did X, Y, and Z wrong. In the future, I will not do it again, but I will instead do A, B and C." That's because he still seems to think he's mostly done all right.  Sandstein  09:10, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
I can understand the blocked user's frustration - ideally, the entire problem is that there is no prerequisite to read all policies and guidelines (indeed, some users are totally full-bottle on some, while totally clueless on the existence on others, even if it's been over a year since the user commenced editing on Wikipedia). For this reason, more education and counselling is needed when problems like this are spotted, preferrably prior to blocks. To that extent, I'm not comfortable with an indefinite block being imposed as a first resort.
More recently, the blocked user stated on his talk page, "I stand by my claim that I had done nothing wrong." This does nothing to indicate whether he will stop making those edits that are considered disruptive or will continue, and whether he actually does get it. (Ideally, this would be so much easier if Lenerd explicitly stated that he will stop making those problematic edits specified.) But one thing is certain; we've never forced users to make assurances unless (1) they want to be unblocked before their block expires, or unless (2) they've been blocked several times and still continue with the same misconduct (to the point they're blocked indefinitely). In this case, the block should've fallen in the first category, but currently, cannot expire (so there is no way of determining if the misconduct will stop). This is why I think we can give him the benefit of the doubt and the block should be changed to a definite period (like a week) - the user could then still be unblocked the usual way too. But if the problems continued, the next block being indefinite under the current terms (could legitimately fall under the second category due to the variety of issues) and would not not have any legitimate opposition, and there'd need to be a lot more education/counselling - even through mentoring. My view anyway. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:46, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I could have issued warnings and/or limited blocks first, and that's what we ordinarily do. I chose to approach this problem editor differently because I believed that such an approach would not have been effective, and his conduct after the block appears to bear me out. However, I'll not involve myself further in this matter if Lenerd does not want to address the concerns raised by his conduct. As mentioned above, I'm fine with any administrator taking whatever action they deem necessary in this case, but I do expect that administrator to attend to any problems that may result from an unblock.  Sandstein  22:44, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
It certainly does seem to be the only effective way of talking to the user and stopping him from making those edits, given that he maintains that he's done nothing wrong, despite counselling during the block to the contrary. To this extent, I can appreciate the action taken here, and therefore, the enthusiasm I have for pushing for modifying the block is quite limited. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:18, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
  • If you take a look at his most recent edits to his talkpage, he still refuses to admit that he did anything wrong. Until that happens, he should remain blocked, in my view. S. Dean Jameson 20:56, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Technically speaking, he didn't do anything wrong. If the only risk here is that he might give someone an accidental warning, then that's further proof that blocking here is entirely inappropriate. -- Ned Scott 09:48, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't think he did much wrong. I feel it's a bad block based on reading the diffs in this thread. If there is something else I'm missing please illuminate me. I think he should be unblocked immediately. With a dose of Good Faith intevenously I feel he shouldn't have been blocked at all. Just some lessons about templates and reverting, even if you are right, should be given. Unblock asap, imo. Beam 21:53, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
    Check out the diffs Sandstein provided in his initial rationale for the block at Lenerd's talkpage. They may change your mind about Lenerd's "good faith" in this instance. S. Dean Jameson 02:52, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
I did. Here's the rationale for the record. Yes all those edits suck in their own way, but with some intravenous faith, about 50cc, I think an informational warning or dialog would have been preferred. Beam 04:12, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Well, after reviewing the situation at hand, including some of this user's contributions, I'm dubious of his intentions. On one hand, he has made several good contributions and overall appears to want to help the encyclopedia. The removal of the categories, while indeed was not a constructive contribution, was probably done in good faith, or was simply a misunderstanding. However, after close examination of his contributions, I found a few that left me concerned. For instance, edits like these leave me to question what ultimately motivated him to do that - regardless, it wasn't acceptable. But one thing is clear, regardless of his intentions on Wikipedia, he should not have been indefinitely blocked without any form of warning. Therefore, I endorse an unblock on condition that we make sure he understands why his edits were wrong and with his assurance that he will not do it again (despite the appearance of denial for his wrongdoings, I believe it to be a misunderstanding - that should easily be cleared up, for better or for worse). Valtoras (talk) 07:30, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

We do not hold unblocks ransom for apologies. Jesus people, we should never block anyone for simply leaving a warning template alone. I've probably left someone a vandalism template in the heat of a dispute in my earlier days. Like I said above, if the only risk here is he might leave a mistaken warning on someone's talk page, we'll be able to deal with it. He's a little prideful, so you'll have to excuse him for not wanting to kiss your asses. -- Ned Scott 09:48, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

It's not about an "apology" (at least not to me), it's about the user at least saying "I won't continue doing the things that caused me to get blocked." If you see that as asking for an apology, then that's what I'm doing. Blocks are used to prevent disruption. Lenerd not only doesn't admit what he did was wrong, he won't even say that he'll stop doing it if he's unblocked. He needs to stay blocked (to prevent disruption) until that happens. S. Dean Jameson 15:40, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: It looks like a lot of editors are falling into the trap of trying to figure out whether or not this user is contributing in good faith. As I understand it, editors can be blocked for disruption whether they are deliberately vandalising or unintentionally causing disruption. To me, it looks like vandalism at first, then after reading some of the talk page it seems that Lenerd felt justified, which leads me to conclude that this is all good faith disruption. Since blocks are preventative, lifting a block should correspond to some indication that the risk of disruption has lessened. Is there any sign of that? SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 14:38, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Likely ban-evading sockpuppet of Ideogram[edit]

Resolved: Blocked indef by Blnguyen

.

User:Slashem is a likely sockpuppet of User:Ideogram. Slashem earliest edit was [30] (attacking Giano) and his experience in his earliest edits strong suggest that it's not a new account [31]. User:Ideogram was community banned for 1 year last August [32] after a series of policy violation. His longtime grudge toward Giano and his friends (Geogre, Bishonen, etc) are long-documented. see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Certified.Gangsta-Ideogram/Evidence#Reply_to_Bishonen for example. (full disclosure: I was a named party in that arbCom case, but I'm being completely objective. see User:Bishonen/ArbCom_appeal_for_Certified.Gangsta for background) I urge admins to look at this matter carefully. I think ban-evading sockpuppetry is very evident.--Certified.Gangsta (talk) 06:21, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Possible, but I don't see proof. On objectivity: You certainly profited greatly from Ideogram, as his poor behavior and trolling during the ArbCom case drew attention away from your own egregious edit-warring, which you appear to have resumed. I consider your edit warring to be a more urgent problem than whether Ideogram has returned. Kusma (talk) 06:29, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Please try our best not to shift the topic. All people are entitled to their opinions and you are obviously more pro-China than pro-Taiwan. (On objectivity: we had a history on that, didn’t we?, Kusma. which article was it?) I have been working productively with other editors on baseball related articles and have been engaging in active discussions regarding name changes and categories. Consider these edit warring is frankly WP:BITE. The evidence is nearly a slam-dunk if we understand the history between Giano and Ideogram. It would be great if Giano himself can come forward to inspect and comment on this issue.--Certified.Gangsta (talk) 06:38, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
You are obviously wrong on my views on cross-straits issues. And you're not a newbie that I could bite. Kusma (talk) 06:49, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
I hate to point out that you were in a pretty big edit war in Chinese a few years ago. Again, that has nothing to do with the issue at hand. I hope objective admins who has no opnion on Taiwan vs. China and have knowledge on Ideogram's tactics and behaviors can step forward.--Certified.Gangsta (talk) 06:54, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

(undent) Notified Slashem so he can respond if he wants. Kusma, if you want to talk about Certified, either made a subheading or just a new topic. This is not the place right now; he's right about not mudding the waters. No opinion either way, but has anyone at least tried a checkuser? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:06, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I am of the opinion that "I'm being completely objective" could not stand without a correction. I agree that a checkuser might help clarify things. Kusma (talk) 07:11, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
I already made my history with him clear. I see no point in your correction other than implying that since Ideogram's POV pushing and edit warring endeavors please you while my edits don't, you rather see me banned than him even though the arbCom and other admins have determined that he maliciously scheming ran me out of the project for over half a year.--Certified.Gangsta (talk) 07:42, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
To declare my political bias, I support the self-determination and the current independence of Taiwan and oppose Chinese and Taiwanese nationalism. Your China-related edits displeased me because they were mostly uninformed, not so much for their political content. Ideogram seemd to think that scheming was the only way to "deal with the CG problem", which backfired on him. The scheming was bad, and probably it was right to ban him. But being a victim of his schemes does not make you an angel. Kusma (talk) 07:51, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
This has nothing to do with his current ban-evasion. You also commented on the very arbCom case supporting Ideogram. My edits were not "uninformed". I strongly believe ethnic Taiwanese have the right to self-identify as only Taiwanese without the ugly name-tag of "Han-Chinese", which is itself a very vague concept with no unifying DNA. (in fact, some Koreans are closer to Chinese genetically than Taiwanese) Culturally, I support Taiwanization and to roll back the forced-brainwashing (forbid to speak Taiwanese, suppressed Taiwanese culture, and forced to learn Chinese language/culture/history) that Chiang Kai-Shek imposed on ethnic Taiwanese. Lastly, I believe the ultimate goal of ethnic Taiwanese is to rectify the name of the nation to Republic of Taiwan or Republic of Formosa because the Republic of China is a slave name that signifies foreign occupation and suppression during the Chiang dictatorship and fail to represent the majority of the country's population. I resent Chinese editors who like to classify Taiwan Vs. China a "political situation", I see it as a cultural, political, and racial clash. These views enjoy widespread support in Taiwan and are not in anyway uninformed. I tried to stay objective when writing encyclopedia but Ideogram pushed the pro-Chinese expansionists view a bit too far. And I don't think we had a "CG problem", but we certainly had a "Ideogram problem." I’ve been carefully avoiding Taiwan vs. China articles as best I can since the arbCom case. And to make partial statements such as Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Certified.Gangsta-Ideogram/Evidence#Evidence_presented_by_Kusma doesn't make you an angel either. Again, what I stated here has nothing to do with the issue of Ideogram’s ban-evading sockpuppetry.--Certified.Gangsta (talk) 08:12, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Just dropping by to let you know that the people of Taiwan have voted overwhelmingly for the foreign occupation Kuomintang party in the 2008 presidential and legislative elections. Blueshirts (talk) 09:03, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
There are 3 fundamental reasons for this lamentable outcome. 1. The successful brainwashing of ethnic Taiwanese during Chiang Kai-Shek and Chiang Ching-kuo's regime from 1949-1988. And the subsequent failed attempts to eliminate China-centric history, language, and geography curriculum in the last 8 years. This causes certain confusion is personal identity among ethnic Taiwanese who were born in the '50s, '60s, '70s, and '80s, especially in Taipei where descendants of Chinese nationalists veterans account for 40% of the population. Schoolchildren nowadays are not also given adequate coverage on 228 Incident, Formosa Incident, Chiang's White Terror campaign against ethnic Taiwanese, Wang Sing-nan, Shih Ming-teh, assassination attempt made on Chiang Ching-Kuo, and other Taiwanese patriots. 2. The lack of a strong Taiwanese-oriented policitical party that could supplant the foreign occupation Kuomintang under the current two-party system. When Democratic Progressive Party flounders, Taiwanese is left with no alternatives other than Kuomintang as of now. 3. Resistance from the Chinese nationalists/colonizers old guards, a low percentage of descendants who fail to embrace mainstream Taiwanese culture, and brainwashed sample of ethnic Taiwanese to fully "Taiwanized" (ie. culturally-independent, politically-independent/soverign, ethnically-distinct) Lastly, since it was called the election of the "Republic of China", it was a "slave" election. Until Chinese nationalists go back to China, where they rightfully belong, such election results are not surprising. Again this is not a forum, so please return to the issue of Ideogram's ban-evading sockpuppetry.--Certified.Gangsta (talk) 09:18, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't think even the DPP and TSU themselves would buy these delusional excuses. And I agree that wikipedia is not a forum for vast conspiracy theories, so I suggest you troll somewhere else. Blueshirts (talk) 09:38, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
If you haven't noticed, I have repeatedly made plea for experienced admins to take a look. If anyone is trolling, I suggest you look the mirror. Frankly speaking, your input in this matter is counterproductive. Since one of Taiwan's biggest parties is committed to sell Taiwan out to the enemy and commit treason/terrorism against the very people who elect them, my reason is definitely not delusional.--Certified.Gangsta (talk) 09:55, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I strongly urge admins familiar with Ideogram's antics to step forward and further investigate this matter. Given my less-than optimal record, I could not do this by myself.--Certified.Gangsta (talk) 08:19, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Has there been an SSP or RFCU anywhere? I'm looking, I don't seem to find it. NonvocalScream (talk) 10:12, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't see one yet either. This user obviously does have a history under a different name, though. His first edit under this name was to this noticeboard, relating to Giano, and showed familiarity with long-running issues. And the style reminds me of Ideogram. Jonathunder (talk) 17:46, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
I suggest marking as resolved for losing control and letting someone start a new thread that stays focused on the point. Given the current size, this section isn't going to be read by most admins anyways. What was the purpose of telling everyone about the elections and the commentary therein? If the concern is really about the block-evader, focus and stay focused on that. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:41, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Agree, Ricky, except rather than starting a new thread here, a SSP or RFCU would perhaps be more fruitful. Ideogram does have a history of running socks, and this does look like one to me on first examination. Jonathunder (talk) 21:39, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Betacommand and newbie-biting[edit]

Can I get one of those mythical uninvolved admins to review Betacommand's recent interactions with a newbie? I find them to be a clear violation of his civility parole.

It began when he reverted an edit of Hexhand's that was well-meaning but against NFCC as "vandalism". [33] Hexhand had been making a gallery of his uploaded images in his userspace, but the gallery included some non-free images. Removing the images (or converting them to links) with a helpful explanation would have been appropriate, but Betacommand's response was not.

At User talk:Betacommand/20081201#Excuse_me, Hexhand asked politely for an explanation and kept a remarkable amount of cool. Betacommand responded with gems like this: "how about get a clue and read the linked policy. Non-free content is not allowed in userspace. it was clearly removed TWICE under policy. your actions are clear vandalism and ignoring the non-free content policy. Further breaches will result in a block. As for BITE its a strawman argument." [34]

This is the exact kind of behavior that Betacommand has been asked so many times to stop, sometimes being blocked for it, but with some admin always unblocking him because he "wouldn't do it again".

I believe this merits a block under Betacommand's arbitration enforcement. I would place the block myself, but I am as "involved" as anyone who has watched Betacommand's behavior over the last several months. His previous block was for 72 hours, incidentally.

rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 06:41, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I was watching this by way of my watchlist but didn't have the time to deal with it - I agree that that is exactly what he has been told repeatedly not to do. ViridaeTalk 06:49, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
if 72 hours didn't get it through, go for a week. Its become extremely clear after all this time he is not learning to work well within the community. There is no amount of good or usefulness that can outweigh that.--Crossmr (talk) 07:39, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Someone block him. He could easily have explained his actions without using the word "vandalism", and that's just the tip of the iceberg. —Giggy 08:01, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
This edit is a grossly, and I mean grossly inappropriate response to a reasonable, polite request from another user who called him to task about his response. I would endorse any 72+ hours block on that edit alone, but since it's really late (going to bed soon), I won't implement the block myself. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 08:14, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Note I informed Betacommand. Enigma message 08:16, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I personally feel that this user has been allowed to get away with too much, and should have been indefinitly banned months ago. Chafford (talk) 08:37, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I've left a message on Betacommand's talk page. It's nothing that hasn't been done before, but I just don't see what the "block for an increasingly long time" strategy will do. If we start going to week-long blocks, we're one tiny step away from giving up on him entirely. -- SCZenz (talk) 08:58, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

That's exactly what I was trying to get at, I just worded it badly, it's like groundhog day, he's blocked, he comes back and continues behavior that got him blocked in the first place, he gets blocked... Something needs to be done, and fast. Chafford (talk) 09:13, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
In view of that talk page thread and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand 2#Remedies, I have blocked Betacommand for a week. We do not (or should not) accept conduct of this sort, particularly by someone who has apparently been cautioned innumerable times about it.  Sandstein  09:06, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Uh-oh, another Betacommand thread. Can we just move this to a subpage now? —Wknight94 (talk) 11:12, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Maybe a dozen or so people could get together and volunteer to answer questions FOR him? I mean, we probably spend more time dealing with the WAY he answers questions than it would take to answer them ourselves. Other than that the only possible outcomes would seem to be that Betacommand develops a calm and forgiving demeanor OR he eventually gets himself indefinitely banned. --CBD 12:31, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
That masks the root cause however. Whilst Betacommand does good work re: images for wiki, there are numerous issues where experienced editors have had conflicts. Some over the whole legalese, some over his bot. If even experienced editors can sometimes get excused over the legal niceties, then so too can new editors. Biting them, as he's done in this case cannot be allowed to continue, a line in the sand has to be drawn. He received zero abuse in this instance to trigger retaliation, the editor was fairly polite, clearly needing the arcane rules explained simply. Beta instead came out with the usual snarky comments, aimed at making someone feel stupid for not being as clever as beta. People are not making unreasonable requests of Beta, in terms of moderating his language and comments. Minkythecat (talk) 13:24, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Since Betacommand does good work and has a bad attitude, maybe another bot is needed, to automatically block Betacommond for a day or so, whenever he bites someone too hard. That would save a lot of time and space here. There will still be plenty of things left to delete when he gets off his once-a-week-or-so suspension. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 13:31, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
I've said it before and I'll say it again. Absolutely no amount of good cancels out an unwillingness to change inappropriate behaviour. If someone does a lot of good and they slip up, I'm all for second chances. If they instead response by repeating the same behaviour or becoming worse, they've burned any good faith they earned. Especially when we're on to the nth chance.--Crossmr (talk) 14:40, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Oh, the never-ending "Betacommand's doing good work" trope. Betacommand's not doing good work, he's doing copyright paranoia. Good work would involve helping people follow our policies. What Betacommand does these days consists of flipping out (it used to consist of flipping out and going on image-deleting rampages, but we said he couldn't do the second part anymore). rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 15:20, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
He's under stress from saving wikipedia... and from being blocked frequently. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 15:26, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
"Saving Wikipedia"? Please. Wikipedia is not going to shut down because a newbie creates an image gallery. That would be a textbook example of copyright paranoia if it had anything to do with copyright -- it's really EDP paranoia, which is even sillier. Wikipedia does not need to be "saved" from minor violations of Wikipedia rules that were written by Wikipedians, nearly as much as it needs to be "saved" from people who shrink our community by making it suck to be a newbie. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 16:14, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
I used to be one of Betacommand's biggest critics. Now I'm one of his biggest supporters. There are countless pending lawsuits against wikipedia due to attempts to post postage-stamp sized photos that are also available on thousands of other websites. If it weren't for Betacommand and others like him, we'd be shut down by now. Wikipedia thrives due to free content. Why get something attractive when a snapshot will do? Consider this photo of Carmen Electra, which was the article's main photo for a long time. If they'd had an attractive photo, think of the suits that would have been filed. Aim-and-shoot snapshots are the lifeblood of wikipedia. P.S. What is it that Charlie Brown says to Lucy every year in A Charlie Brown Christmas? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 16:52, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
I imagine the lawsuits are for actual copyright violations, not how good we are at enforcing our own EDP. Also, Betacommand's actions don't encourage free content, they just make the non-free content policy look unreasonable. Both free content and fair use have a place on Wikipedia. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 17:00, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
The Foundation has given us a rather wide open playground to play in but have only asked for a small number of very specific rules to be followed to the letter, one being how non-free content is dealt with. We have to be aggressive about how non-free media is handled - not to the level of incivility that Beta often gives, but we do need to be rather blunt as there's no exceptions to the EDP. --MASEM 17:06, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
If you're trying to make it look like I'm saying the EDP shouldn't be followed, don't. I'm saying that enforcing the EDP the way Betacommand does -- with "gotcha!"s and angry rants -- does not constitute "saving Wikipedia" or "doing good work" and has nothing to do with preventing lawsuits. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 17:34, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Once again, User:Anthere, chairperson of the WMF board at the time the resolution was adopted, already commented on this extensively over at wikinews about the invocation of foundation resolution as a means to prevent discussion and compromise. The foundation does not set the restrictions, the home wiki does. For one thing, trying to set policy from the foundation level brings the foundation into troubled waters WRT the safe harbour provisions that are granted to it as a 503.1c non-profit. So, it is absurd for image specialists to point and scream foundation resolution whenever they are annoyed that they aren't getting their way. No, it is the English Wikipedia community decides what our EDP should be and no you can't say that reasonable discussion is off the table due to foundation resolution. As to the issue at hand, I think we are just addressing the symptom of a largely WP:CREEP instigated by hysterical copyright paranoia. The fact of the matter is that non-free content in the User: namespace is no different in the eyes of the law than non-free content displayed in main namespace. So someone wants to decorate their user page with fair use? Who cares? Does it really do any harm? It doesn't seem like an urgent problem and certainly not one which requires the nastiness of BC proportions. It seems to me that incidents such as this could just as easily be avoided if we got rid of overly-paranoid rules such as this. I still believe, and continue to believe, that there are legitimate encyclopedic building purposes for transcluding fair use into User: namespace - namely sandbox article construction and formatting - which alone make this policy absurd. If we get a complaint, then remove it, but just biting people over this nonsense is really pathetic. --Dragon695 (talk) 18:09, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Bingo. If you're looking for a one-word description of this situation "pathetic" does as well as anything. Although "paranoia" works too. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 18:20, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Oh, I get it. Your satire was a bit hard to follow back there. Well, I suppose I made a good straight man for you to play off of. I'd believe anything at this point -- there really are people out there who think that by blowing one policy out of proportion they are "saving Wikipedia". rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 00:48, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
My fault, I forgot to include the satire smiley. >:) But at least now I don't have to quote Charlie Brown to you. 0:) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 01:48, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Backlog at WP:SSP[edit]

Not an admin, but I wanted to let you all know that there's a serious backlog at WP:SSP right now, something close to 50 open cases at the moment. Wildthing61476 (talk) 12:38, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

This kinda stuff really belongs at WP:AN, and there's already a thread there: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Can_anyone_help_at_WP:SSP.3Fxeno (talk) 12:40, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
My mistake, should have checked there first. Wildthing61476 (talk) 12:48, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
No problem. Guess it can't hurt =) –xeno (talk) 12:49, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, the sad part was a bunch of myopic editors felt the need to really dig into Shalom during his most RFA to the extent that he quit. Sad, really. Well maybe you'd appreciate Shalom more now that he's gone? --Dragon695 (talk) 17:40, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Template deleted[edit]

Resolved

It appears that the template {{Average and record temperatures}} was deleted, despite the fact that several articles (e.g. Flagstaff, Arizona) are using it. I noticed that MJCDetroit added a new template {{Infobox weather}} to Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania and Richmond, Virginia this morning, but I still see that there are issues with the infobox, and deleting the older one without replacing it in all affected articles is not the way to do things. If it's possible, I think the older template should be recreated, at least until the articles that were affected can be changed. Dr. Cash (talk) 14:26, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

It was deleted per Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 July 18#Template:Average and record temperatures. I do agree, however, with its apparent restoration until all articles are converted to use the other template. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:41, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Appears to have been fixed already. So, nothing for admins to do here. Cheers, guys. lifebaka (talk - contribs) 15:24, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Possible legal threat in BLP case[edit]

Resolved: IP clarifies that this is not a threat.Jehochman Talk 18:19, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

IANAL, but this sounds to me like it might be a legal threat. In addition, the context is in a BLP case which needs some eyes on. Note also the mention of Google news on the talkpage— a quick search finds evidence of off-wiki activity to IMO violoate BLP policy no now someone posted the (factually challenged) nonsense on the talkpage.

Some eyes and/or action may be prudent over there. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 15:43, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

"You're making Wikipedia look the fool because you'll allow in the Larry Craig accusations, but not this. I understand your lawyer training has you all up in arms about the "letter of the law" but come ON man...I'm about to file a 12(b)(6) motion and get this over with. " Not sure about this. Have you asked for clarification on what was meant by it? Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:48, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It's a legal threat. However, I've never dealt with one from an IP before. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:50, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

FYI [[35]] the 12(b)(6) term is a motion to get a lawsuit dismissed not start one. I don't think it's a threat.--Cube lurker (talk) 15:52, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Thankfully someone has some insight around here. It's a motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a valid claim. Here I'm saying that I want /Blaxthos' claim about NPOV and BLP to be dismissed because he fails to state a valid claim about why the Edwards controversy shouldn't be reported but the Lenny Craig controversy should. It's not a legal threat, I'm, parodying the absurdity of the Wikilawyering going on here. Don't get so freaked out. 72.72.203.224 (talk) 18:15, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
The Larry Craig story was all over the news, and he was a sitting Senator (pardon the metaphor). He also pleaded guilty to a crime. Has Edwards been charged with anything? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 23:32, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Plagiarism or copyvio?[edit]

An editor has alert me to a "similarity between [[36]] and [[37]] and would you consider it plagarism from wikipedia?" Bearian (talk) 15:50, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Lacking authorship information, it is a violation of GFDL, so, yes it is a copyvio, and, yes, it is also plagiarism. :) I'll make sure attribution is properly handled. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:56, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
I dug out my old log-in for Wikia (created to transwiki following an AfD) and recorded GFDL attribution at the Wikia article, in its edit summary and at its talk. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:22, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Persistent IP jumper vandalism at Talk:Harry Potter[edit]

Is there anyone familiar with range blocks that could look into the history of this talk page? There's been fairly consistent IP vandalism from the 62.158.xxx.xxx range since May. Would a range block be overkill? --OnoremDil 18:23, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

A range block is overkill. Try the single IPs first. Bearian (talk) 21:48, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
I've semi-protected until 31 July. Bearian (talk) 21:51, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Threatened in email[edit]

Resolved: No admin intervention needed

Someone went to my profile and from there, visited my website and threatened me in email. Where can I forward this email? RainbowOfLight Talk 08:59, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:ARBCOM would be best. MBisanz talk 09:00, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Nowhere. If they didn't do it on-wiki (or via-wiki, such as Special:EmailUser, there's nothing Wikipedia can (or should) do. ^demon[omg plz] 13:53, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
^demon is right. RainbowOfLight, it is not a right thing to display your website on your user page. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 14:48, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
There's nothing wrong with linking your website from your userpage. It's a common practice. WilyD 14:51, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
I advise everyone to be very careful about what kinds of links to personal contact information they put up. Best to remain anonymous here. Chillum 14:54, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. Just in case the community is unaware, User:Jbmurray has also been counselling Rainbow and the anon (who is the subject of this complaint). Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:00, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Put it this way, if you don't want to be contacted off-wiki, don't give anyone the means to do it, which also goes for your identity and Wikipedia username: If it's trackable elsewhere on the Internet and you do any meaningful editing here, you could have some nettlesome contacts and references about yourself elsewhere online. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:45, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I just want to add my two cents into this. Expect threatening emails from people, it is a general problem for those who are working in the area of anti-vandalism and for admins. So just ignore it, they are just trying to get you out of the way. It is a sign that what you are doing is working. So just ignore them and do not let it deter you. RgoodermoteNot an admin  20:36, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
P.S. Do not even bother mentioning emails you get here, it is only serving the vandals purpose of getting attention. RgoodermoteNot an admin  20:39, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


Interpersonal issues with Editors[edit]

Being basically new to Wikipedia's and the maze of "where to go", but also needing help in addressing open hostility by editors, I'm posting this here (hopefully it's the right section). I've monitored some infighting over topics over the months more because the arguments than whatever content they're arguing about, as I'm a stickler to "facts and figures" and the presentation of it as a body of knowledge (so third parties, like myself, can actually read and enjoy it!). That said, when I followed links to here [38] I found the sausage making more than tedious, and posted my view accordingly. The result is one faction is accusing me of being sympathetic or even being in the other faction, and using the page to duke it out as some "fact". [39] [40] The examples are nitpicking, and now it's even escalated into accusing me of making legal threats (the definition of libel is false accusations in print, and pigeon-holing me into whatever camp, and publicly stating so, based on personal bias, is indeed libel). Because Wikipedia is a working environment of 1000001 editors, this bad faith effort by now three editors has gotten too far, and needs to be addressed before it turns into a bloodbath. I'm not a party to whoever their ghosts are, and at this rate will probably join both warring camp societies in a good faith gesture to prove it, but I'm an third party more interested in "facts and figures" and "readability" than whatever they're into. I would like to request help in finding a 'living' guide who can help me navigate this site's many Wikisms, as reading half the food fights I'm lost to the terms (and god, if this is the response of being a third party, will need help on creating a better userpage!). Help and advice? FResearcher (talk) 12:43, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

If you're looking for someone to show you the ropes (which is what I think you requested), you can check out Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user. If you're just having trouble with the slew of new terminology, Wikipedia:Glossary might be appropriate.-Wafulz (talk) 13:52, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, Wafulz, for the link. Main problem I'm having is navigation, as the site has many links going in 8 different directions, and with formatting styles (never thought this would be like programming itself!). Will need a human's help on the work flow. Again, thanks! FResearcher (talk) 14:24, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Good faith is a two-way street. Your first edit in 9 months was a lengthy diatribe against certain editors, which showed a significant familiarity with them, well in excess of your limited edit history. You went on to ascribe a variety of nefarious motivations to these certain editors in your second post, followed up by accusing people of libel. You then repeated your accusations of bad faith and offered to hold the "fort" for a longtime warrior in this particular WP:BATTLEground. You're clearly familiar enough to cite RfC's, AGF, criticize block lengths, and so forth, so you're certainly experienced enough to realize that accusing others of assuming bad faith while manifestly doing so yourself is a red flag to many editors here. MastCell Talk 17:46, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
And good faith is to know that 1. This wasn't necessary (as he's following my posts) [41] and notice I posted here to discuss it; 2. Nor your false accusation. I think this really needs an admin's attention, because now even you are accusing me of knowing anyone on Wikipedia. You need to stop thinking ghosts are under every bed, Mastcell, as it's looking very paranoid in that world, especially when you have to really DIG for something, and something that doesn't show anything at that! lol FResearcher (talk) 18:50, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Actually, this situation already has an admin's attention - mine - though I suspect you'd like a second opinion. MastCell Talk 19:54, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Checking the time...19:54...One question for you "admin": can you check IPs? Yes or no? FResearcher (talk) 20:03, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
No, I cannot access IP logs or check IPs of registered users. Only a small number of users have that ability; the relevant policy is at Wikipedia:CheckUser, and there's a list there of users who can do so. MastCell Talk 20:41, 28 July 2008 (UTC)




Indefinite block of Craigkeefner‎[edit]

Would someone review the block of Craigkeefner (talk · contribs)? (I'd ask Hu12, who did this on June 12th, but he/she is on a wikibreak and his/her user talk page says "Talk page messages will not receive a response".)

From what I can tell, the "spamming" involved here is to an industry website (on kiosks) and to the editor's own website; the latter in the context of providing a source (a page on the history of kiosks) for some text that the editor added to an article. It's clear that the editor doesn't understand when it's proper to add an external link, nor our conflict of interest guideline (the latter of which has never been pointed out), but it also seems clear that this is a well-meaning, knowledgeable guy whose had a first posting to his user talk page of an incorrect accusation (as far as I can tell) that he had posted a link to kiosk.com (but he says, and what I saw, is that he posted links to kiosk.net, something completely different).

In short, I think shorter block would have been more appropriate; and I note that when the individual returned (yes, in violation of policy) under a new username Ckeefner (talk · contribs), he apparently didn't spam. While it may be too late to get this individual back (he said he's leaving), unblocking the first account would be at least a gesture that says that sometimes we do overreact to what looks like spam but is just a lack of understanding of the rules. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 16:23, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

The first account Craigkeefner, has requested on his Talk page that the account be deleted. So I don't see a lot of point in unblocking it, unless he files a formal unblock request. The second account, Ckeefner, is still able to edit. Not sure what we can do here, unless an individual editor wants to leave a message for him to encourage him to return. Since the Ckeefner account has email enabled, anyone could write to him there. EdJohnston (talk) 20:31, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Stalking (- and trollism)[edit]

Hi there, I am afraid there is an editor with a special interest in me who seems to care much about my badges and wikistars. Here is the history of it [42] and here [43]. The facts have been explained in the edit history given above but he seems to have a (political?) agenda and I don't know how to treat him (or her). Please advise on my talk page here [44] to keep it as private as possible. Thank you in advance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.116.242.209 (talk) 18:08, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I restored the badge. The dispute seems to be that SSZ is counting edits he has made from IPs in his edit count when tallying whether he "qualifies" for the badge, and the IP that removed it isn't counting that. However, the whole thing is moot because in my experience people are allowed to p