Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive497

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

Noticeboard archives


Discussion that needs to be speedily closed[edit]

As indicated by multiple editors in this discussion, please note that deletion "is not (my italics) a legal option" as the nominator merged some of that article's content that other editors other than the nominator had originally written prior to the nomination (see [1] and [2] for the merge of content written by myself and others and here for the GFDL regarding such merges}. Thus, technically, because the discussion can only legally close as "keep," "merge", "redirect", or "no consensus", i.e. anything other than "delete", it should be speedily closed without prejudice for a talk page discussion on the merits of the merge done by the nominator a few weeks back. I did ask the nominator to withdraw the nomination prior to posting here, but was rebuffed as seen here, which seems to suggest that the purpose of the nomination is to have some kind of forced redirect, while in that edit he indicates he is not opposed to a redirect with the edit history kept. It doesn't seem right to thus start a deletion discussion if the article cannot be legally deleted when the nominator had merged the content a few weeks prior and in effect is not really after deletion anyway. If it was called "articles for confirming merges and redirects" okay, but it is not. I am also somewhat concerned that the merge did not acknowledge the page it was clearly merged from something an admin had also cautioned the user about as seen here. In any event, I am not requesting any action against the nominator, but as the discussion cannot end in "delete" there is no purpose for the discussion to continue in under the auspices of an articles for deletion discussion. Incidentally, the two main characters of Tyris and Ax are actually reasonably notable (obviously not on par with Mario and Sonic, but recognizable to pretty much anybody familiar with video games) and covered in numerous reliable sources in multiple languages around the world (see for example, this and this) as well as in various magazines that I have seen without necessarily having online archives. Thank you for your time and help! Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 01:17, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Any article can be deleted at AfD if those at AfD make a consensus for it. There's no such thing as an article that must legally (lol) be kept or merged as far as I know. I know admins sometimes do a 'history merge' of some articles, but I don't think that's often necessary. If he says where he merged the info from in the edit summary (if that's really the case) that's usually all that's needed. Sticky Parkin 02:25, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately, he doesn't say in the edit summary, but given that "merge" edit coincided with this redirect, it is obvious where it was merged from; however, if the other edit, i.e. the redirect is also deleted, then that would not be clear. Moreover, based on the comment on his talk page, he seems really after the merge and redirect and hopes that a deletion discussion, which is not what AfDs are for, will somehow be a means of bypassing a proper talk page merge discussion. And per the GFDL, we have to keep the contribution histories in tact as I have seen argued many times. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 02:29, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
I think A Nobody's point is that since the nominator merged some of the information already, the proper (as per guidelines) outcome would be a merge and not a delete so the edit history won't be lost. "Legal" was an unfortunate choice of words. I don't know if this is true or not as I haven't looked into it, and I'm not sure ANI is the place for this discussion, but maybe someone with the appropriate expertise can offer an opinion on whether the edit history should be kept (effectively resulting in a merge) if the nominator of an AfD has merged parts of the article without merging the edit history? ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:32, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
The relevant section of the GFDL license is "In the combination, you must combine any sections Entitled "History" in the various original documents, forming one section Entitled "History"; likewise combine any sections Entitled "Acknowledgements", and any sections Entitled "Dedications". You must delete all sections Entitled "Endorsements." So a full history merge would be required. RMHED (talk) 02:36, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I was quoting someone from the discussion. I cut a finger on my right hand pretty good (I'm right handed) and so my typing and all is a bit off tonight. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 02:39, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
While it's correct that the article history mustn't be deleted, the deletion discussion about having an article of that topic is still a valid and at the right place. A history merge is not recommendable in this particular case since the page histories overlap, WP:HISTMERGE recommends moving it into a subpage into Talk space. --Amalthea 02:58, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
If the article's history can't be deleted as a result of the merge, then Articles for Deletion really isn't the right venue. A discussion should have taken place on the article's talk page to build consensus for the merge and redirect. Or it needs to be made clear that the only acceptable/appropriate closes of the discussion in question are "keep," "no consensus," or "merge and redirect." Best, --A NobodyMy talk 03:10, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
A possible result is still to remove it from article space, as I said above, and AfD is the proper place to discuss that. I personally agree that a redirect is the "worst" outcome in this discussion, but it doesn't call for a procedural speedy closure. Cheers, Amalthea 03:49, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Wouldn't ignoring the rules make sense in this case? It's very understandable to assert that this is Articles for deletion and not Articles for discussion, and I would certainly agree, but to bring a lot of users in the wrong (i.e. those straight siding for deletion) because what in my opinion is nothing more than a technicality seem to accomplish little besides getting in the way of maintaining the encyclopedia; a speedy close and proposed move of the discussion would accomplish just that. MuZemike (talk) 03:56, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
IAR applies to community-created policies. It's not an valid argument to ignore the site license.--chaser - t 04:07, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Maybe we should have an "articles for discussion"? Also, the two main characters Ax and Tyris are mentioned in international newspaper and magazine reviews, previews, etc. of the games they appear in and in some of these reviews at decent length. These reviews, previews, etc. verify much of the information in the article, which means significant coverage in reliable secondary or third-party sources and thus unoriginal research. See, for example, David Choquet, "Golden Axe," 1000 Game Heroes (Taschen, 2002), 331-334. I do see and agree that the article should have better citations, but a quick glance on Google News and in some of my video game magazines shows that the characters are integral parts of the series and do receive enough out of universe coverage to justify their coverage. With that said, I wouldn't be opposed to a merge and redirect that maintains the edit history so that editors can use the vast multitude of sources available to improve the content when they have the sources to work from rather than having to start over, but in any event, my concern is that content I and others had been working on was merged unilaterally a few weeks back by the nominator to another article without attributing it to us in the edit summary followed by a challenge of the redirect by IPs (see here), and then instead of discussing the validity of the redirects on a talk page just nominated the article with our contributions for deletion thereby making it (if deleted) so that those of who actually wrote that content would not be acknowledged. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 04:35, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
I wondered where this new meme had come from. As far as I can tell, this standard has not been applied in the past on any wide scale - it only gets a single line in Wikipedia:Deletion policy, which then points to an essay for clarification. If this is going to be used extensively (and frankly I'd bet my house that it'll be used in every fictional-content AfD from now until Armageddon now) then it really needs to be made clearer on the policy page exactly what outcomes are acceptable for AfDs. If we're now saying that a conclusion of "delete because all material has been merged" now explicitly requires a history merge in all cases it should be made clear - I'd rather that than have hundreds of protected redirects. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:19, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Would you please clarify which meme, single line, and essay you mean? I have an interest in the general discussion, but I'm unclear on this specific thread. Thanks. Flatscan (talk) 05:17, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
The meme is "deletion of articles which have been merged is illegal", the single line is "Note that an outcome of "merge and delete" may potentially cause GFDL problems if attribution for contributed content is lost in the process. The essay merge and delete discusses this" in Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Merging, and the essay is WP:MAD. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:59, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Regarding this, please note that he is still unilaterally "merging" without discussion and without indicating where the information is being merged from. See this and this. I don't get what is so hard about indicating where the content was merged from as I indicate as much when I merge. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 15:57, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
  • I shouldn't have used the word legal. After reading this discussion, I suggest moving the page to a talk subpage for merging to retain attribution. That allows for both deletion of this specific page and retention of the edit history. - Mgm|(talk) 13:18, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
    • By the way, they did apparently also make a toy of the character as well. Moreover, because the characters appear in multiple games, this article serves as a sort of gateway to those other articles. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 16:55, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Moulton again is after me[edit]


This time on Wikipedia:Editor review/Rootology. I don't know if we can do anything beyond an extreme thing like a range block, but that would be overkill. Would someone mind semi-protecting that page to keep him off it? He's indefinitely banned here, on Meta, on Wikiversity, and from WMF IRC channels for repeatedly harassing, trolling, and outing people. His IPs today are listed here. rootology (C)(T) 19:49, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Rangeblocking I'm told would take out a quarter of Boston - which I am not opposed to, but I hate Massachusetts and all it stands for. IPs blocked.--Tznkai (talk) 19:57, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
I've sprotected the page. I agree on the blocks - there isn't anything to do other than deprive a ton of innocent Verizon users of access. --B (talk) 20:00, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks guys. rootology (C)(T) 20:06, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
And what do you have against Massachusetts, Tznkai? :P SirFozzie (talk) 20:13, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Dunno what his damage with you all is, but having grown up just south of there, I have a problem with your accents. Oh, and your speed traps, but your evil pales in comparison to the living hell that is I-95 in Rhode Island. rootology (C)(T) 20:41, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Massachusetts competes with Maryland for worst possible drivers fer starters.--Tznkai (talk) 21:06, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Bah! Most of the nation think driving is a non contact sport. Massachusetts drivers know it's a contact sport. Boston drivers know the real truth. It's a combat sport. (Anyway, enough off-topic drivel) :D SirFozzie (talk) 21:09, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Have you driven on Pennsylvania roads recently? I95 through PA is like competing on The Running Man. – ukexpat (talk) 21:27, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't like their fireworks laws. :) Protonk (talk) 21:32, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

More Moulton[edit] rootology (C)(T) 02:28, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Blocked already. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 16:57, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Blocked user returns as IP[edit]

Blocked user Fnr Kllrb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) has returned as User: to continue edit-waring at Azerbaijani people and Chuvash people. A quick look at the history of the latter article will make the connection between the two plain. Could some one please give him a timeout. Aramgar (talk) 20:38, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I've semi-protected Chuvash people. Edit history shows that this is not the only POV-warring IP who keeps on reverting there. See also Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Fnr Kllrb. EdJohnston (talk) 16:08, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

National Revival of Poland article again[edit]


Just as one disruptive editor (User:Krzyzowiec got 1 year ban, another newly created account User:Pedro Alfonso de Cule stepped in to continue his traditions - tagging article with POV template and flaming talk page with offensive slurs [3]"i think that person whose wrote this shit is probably fag and left wing shit" and his hate philosophy about who should be eliminated from society "i hate this people and i want to eliminates this type of persons form a society".M0RD00R (talk) 14:50, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd file a SSP report but I'm not sure how and I'm a bit busy, should probably be blocked for abuse anyway, and their comment removed by an admin. Verbal chat 14:56, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
I can file RFCU, but I think it is of secondary importance whether it is socking, meat-puppetry or off-wiki canvassing. Hate speeches should not be tolerated. M0RD00R (talk) 15:05, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
I agree having read the rant in full. Indef block and something done about the IP. Verbal chat 15:10, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
I concur. The edit[4] is far beyond the pale and I would have no problem with an immediate indef block. Nsk92 (talk) 16:04, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Indefinitely blocked for disruptive editing. Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 16:44, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

IP threat[edit]

Resolved: Prompt action has managed any issues.

Threat from school IP; reported to administrative and technical contacts for school. Reported here to document fact of report. Kablammo (talk) 22:24, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Blocked for three hours due to recency of the edit. Good work on your efforts to report this. Thank you. Pedro :  Chat  22:27, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Can you confirm the school knows of this vs an email sent to an address which might never be checked? Bstone (talk) 22:29, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
I suggest that if you can't find an administrative telephone number, ring one of these and ask for one. neuro(talk) 22:32, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
I called and spoke to Mike, their IT guy. He says he will be contacting authorities and taking the appropriate steps. Case closed. Bstone (talk) 22:56, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Good call and response. Thanks all! Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:02, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Image uploads by Kourosh ziabari[edit]

Just came across Kourosh ziabari (talk · contribs), who has uploaded a large number of photographs, most or all of which seem to be copyvios. I identified sources for three of them and speedied those; I think it is safe to assume all the others are copyvios of the same type (widely different sizes, web resolution, heterogeneous or missing camera data, all the usual signs). Could somebody help deleting? It's a bunch, and it's late here. Fut.Perf. 23:00, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

No way an image like Image:Iran-cement.jpg is not a copyvio. What did he do, rent a helicopter to make the photography so he could upload it for free to wikipedia? As for web resolution, EXIF info says that Image:Rasht-square.jpg was originally 2304x1728 image, why on hell has he uploaded a 288x216 version? If he is the real photographer, then he has to be told that Real Photographers™ upload to Commons, and they do it on full resolution. He needs to provide higher resolutions and desist from using Photoshop to reduce photographies to smallish proportions. The thumbnailing work is already done by the wikimedia software. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:40, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
And yet no one has done anything about it as of yet. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 02:36, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Image:Rasht-museum.gif is copyvio from [5] (it's a cropped version). Nothing else to say here. Please speedy delete also the rest of his images as blatant copyvio, as they share the same characteristics mentioned by FutPerf:
and give him a Formal Warning™ about ever uploading again any low-res photo from a website. He's welcome to re-upload photos at full resolution directly from digital camera. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:09, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

The Dangers of Wikipedia and Facebook, in regards to WP:OUTING[edit]

I recently requested oversight, as an IP has left a note on my editor review(which I have deleted all links to, as it should have been archived, but even more so because of concern that I have regarding the matter I am posting about) which is in regards to my FaceBook account. The message was detailed enough in my opinion that it warrants extreme concern. I do not know how this IP found my facebook account, but he/her did, and that means that many other editors are in danger of being outed by malicious and obsessive vandals.— dαlus Contribs 06:21, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

How is this an incident that administrators should be notified about?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:29, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
This is a largely unavoidable problem (Assuming that both the facebook page and your habits here remain unchanged). The researchers working with the Netflix Prize discovered that individuals could reliably be identified from aggregate data due to idiosyncrasies in preferences. In other words, a lot of people liked Titanic, but not a lot of people liked both King of Hearts and Hot Fuzz. If you have sufficient identifying information on your facebook page that can be linked to your userpage or your editing habits, google can do the rest. My general suggestion is not to overshare, but I know that doesn't help you in your specific position. Protonk (talk) 06:45, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
I do not know how this user found my facebook account, as I have no information on either pertaining to either.— dαlus Contribs 06:54, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
I don't either. Barring a name or college being dropped, what I listed was where I would start if I was looking. Protonk (talk) 06:56, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
I found what is probably your facebook after about 5 seconds of googling. John Reaves 08:28, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
But there are probably a good number of people with the last name "daedalus" so it may or may not be his. The IP might have just gotten lucky with their guess. In any event, incidents like these are bound to happen, even with measures taken, and can only really be dealt with when they come around (and dealt with ASAP). Master&Expert (Talk) 09:01, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Well, awhile back, and by awhile, I mean a few hours ago, I got a confirmation from oversight that the offending diff has been deleted. As to google, I tried that, and it turned up no links to facebook that could be used to find my profile, so I'm at a loss as to how it did.— dαlus Contribs 10:53, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
I mailed you a few minutes after you posted this, when I saw it here on ANI, via your WP account. The problem is that using the fairly unique username here, if it is tied to you "IRL" elsewhere with information you revealed, is a give-away and a half. Like mentioned above it's easy to find with <1 minute of Google, Yahoo, or whatever else. It's not a WP security issue specifically, unfortunately; it's a case of having given away a lot of personal info tied to a unique phrase that isn't shared by others in public. :( rootology (C)(T) 14:18, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

(Breaks cover) The following has been posted elsewhere Someone ought to also tell Daedalus that he meant "born yesterday," not "borne yesterday" in his Wiki post. Also that when you respond to a private email threatening to "make a note of it," (LOL) it also has that unfortunate by-product of revealing your email and name when you send it. For certain reasons I can't post the link to this elsewhere though other readers will be able to confirm its existence.--Peter cohen (talk) 11:13, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Emailing using the wiki system does reveal the email you've specified. Make an email account you can use specially for wiki, such as a hotmail etc, if you don't use it on other sites it's not as easy for people to find you by googling the email. Don't use the default (or what were the default) privacy settings on facebook! Change it so only your friends can view it. That's how most people have it nowadays. Then don't friend people you don't know well and trust not to be likely to fall out with you.:) That way outsiders can see hardly any of your info or even see who you have friended on there.. Sticky Parkin 13:30, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Or just, like, get over it. I use my real name here. I can be e-researched in excruciating detail. Life goes on. I say that as a long-term professional online privacy activist. If you are super-squeamish about your identity, then hide it better. If you are simply protective of your secrets, keep offline those things you are not comfortable with being public. If you don't care about privacy at all, just don't be dirt-stupid and enable identity thieves and blackmailers. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 13:52, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. Says it all really. --ROGER DAVIES talk 14:07, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Some people genuinely don't realise stuff like how much can be googled from their email addy or whatever or that it's shown by the WP email system. That's not necessarily their fault- no-one knows everything. Then it's just a matter of making sure it doesn't matter again, if you're concerned. I imagine it's a bit creepy for an IP to say they know stuff about you you didn't think was common knowledge or realise was as discoverable as that. A lot of people aren't so concerned about privacy issues unless or until they have some sort of intimidation or attempt to creep you out through it. Unless you have experienced it you can't really know what it's like- it's a shock more than anything. I suppose whether you experience it or not depends on whether you have the bad luck to annoy the wrong person. Sticky Parkin 14:26, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
After a pair of "learning experiences", I just decided to just use my real name on the internet. After all, anyone willing to hurt you will eventually find your real name with relative ease whether you like or not, and it's not much of a protection in case of a lawsuit. On hindsight, I should have chosen a cool pseudonym for wikipedia and then made clear who is the real person behind it, as its identity would have been discovered anyways and then I would have been accused of hiding stuff or something. Of course, I reserve the right to use un-associated aliases for fun-related stuff that I don't want or need to see associated to my name like characters on online games :3 , but for serious stuff I simply use my real name. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:20, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia, whereto now, or the psychosomatic mafia[edit]

Within just a few days, several things happened to make me conclude that Wikipedia has dropped down the ladder of humanity the last final steps. I always knew that it would eventually happen, but didn't expect it to go so fast. Maybe I am just fortunate to be in a section that is at the frontier, but from what I have seen certainly not by much, so keep reading: this concerns you, too; if not today, then tomorrow.

When I temporarily returned to editing about a week ago, on the specific request of a number of good users, I found the articles I was interested in, in a more sorry state than ever before. They were full of own research and synthesis of editors, false attribution to sources, heavy weight attached to fringe theories and outlier research, etcetera, and with all kinds of quality research and sources that we had collectively gathered the year before removed.

I started to improve the texts, by dealing with the issues one by one. A few other users helped. Then, a number of things happened in quick succession.

  1. Every single one of our edits, some two dozen in total, got reverted, without explanation.
  2. The two users responsible for the reverts refused to discuss their actions.
  3. When I protested against their massive reverting, my protest was called frivolous and it was forbidden to me to protest again.
  4. From then on, our edits - mostly different ones, the articles grew new issues faster than we could keep up with - got removed every day, and every day I saw the articles transformed further.
  5. When I attempted to initiate dispute resolution on one of the talk pages, my comments were modified. When I protested against this, all - mind, you: all admins, and there were many that got themselves involved, declared that it was alright for people to modify my comments if they didn't agree with them, as often as they wished, while my restoring them was blatant editwarring. The regular expert on the vandalism policy talk page said different, but he got ignored.

This is not about me though, I couldn't care less if it was not for the following. It merely illustrates how things work now, and I am far from the only user with such experiences.

The real issue is this.

A year ago, a bunch of well-meaning users - including myself, patient, but also a published scientist and recognized experience expert - were happily at work to improve articles such as chronic fatigue syndrome. We found and added a lot of material, and got awarded for our work with a B-status, quite high for such a difficult topic. We even had so much material, that it was decided to create a number of sub-articles, and work was started on those. Sure, there was an editor who occasionally added his pet personal theory to the text, but we patiently dealt with that each time it happened, and the articles kept correctly indicating that CFS is a case definition for a genuine, biomedical disorder, formally known by the diagnosis of myalgic encephalomyelitis, with all the reliable sources to support so.

The situation, and the articles, changed dramatically when two new users started to edit them. In rapid succession, the articles got renamed, stripped from all biomedical sources, and rewritten. If someone protested, they got intimidated. Between the two of them they declared to always have consensus and ignored any other voice, and several medical admins protected their edits if the need arose.

Although the transformation is not yet complete, the current articles now suggest that CFS is not so much a known medical disorder, but more of an unknown behavioural issue, one that can be cured if patients didn't stubbornly refuse to take cognitive behavioural therapy.

It is furthermore stated that, if this is changed back, we purposely hurt patients, and that I am probably getting paid for trying to get biomedical information back in.

No, I do not get paid. In fact, I have no income whatsoever, and expect not to survive this winter because of it; I barely survived the last because of the severity of my illness.

So this is where we are now, and CFS is not the only topic where this has happened either.

The project, that was started to freely spread knowledge, is now spreading propaganda.

Of the users attending the topic of CFS who saw this coming earlier, half a dozen have been permabanned, some on the specific request of Jimbo Wales. The rest have simply been scared off. A whole lot of medical pages is now dominated by a few users who are rewording them to suggest that they are psychosomatic, by falsely attributing conclusions to sources that do not support them, by leaving out the sources (the vast majority, and the highest quality) that say the opposite.

I post this here, in part because Wikipedia offers no better place, but also because it is also an admin issue. You, admins, were made aware of the problem often enough, and you stood by, not idly, but actively supporting what is happening, applying a set of randomly liberal rules to one side, and another set of randomly strict rules to the other.

It is time to make up your mind, because there will not be another opportunity for you. Decide if you want Wikipedia to be the world's best propaganda machine, or to stay true to its original purpose. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 02:48, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

For anybody with the time and inclination, I would suggest a patient read through Guido's talk page history. Pay close attention to any diff where the byte count drops significantly. Read the text in the left column of the diff. Draw your own conclusion. WLU (t) (c) (rules - simple rules) 02:56, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
^ yeah, that. neuro(talk) 03:02, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
I am very sorry about Guido's medical problems, I wish him all best. I hope he takes more care about him self, less about how to change Wikipedia policies like wp:medrs. RetroS1mone talk 04:05, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
If Guido's block log wasn't as long as my arm, his opinion might have a bit more weight. HalfShadow 04:19, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I have not looked into the nature of this complaint, but I feel very uneasy seeing comments focusing on the user instead of content. It is called ad hominem, and is a logical fallacy. Please don't do that. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:13, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

WP is about consensus. When you have 10 simpletons and 1 doctor/engineer/scientist, the simpletons view always wins. My advice would be to give up - wikipedia is about general info for the yokels, it will never be a 'proper' encylopedia for more technical issues.--Dacium (talk) 04:19, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
that's an overly insulting appraisal of this situation. I went and looked at the article back in April, and now. there are massive changes, I agree. However, I saw neither the spin that Guido alleges (the 'it's all in your head'), nor the brutal ignorance of all other comers, in fact, Guido has multiple edits in the last week. It also looks like one line 'sections', like Insecticide, have been combined with others, or removed if fairly orphaned by their sectioning. All of it looks like it cleaned up a bloated article, shepherded by an editor with an obvious POV (see Guido's talk page), and inflated by editors of the opposing stripe to those cleaning it up. Combine that with guido's block log, and I'm left thinking this is all for the best for Wikipedia, and if we lose Guido, then so be it. ThuranX (talk) 04:36, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm not a Yokel. Why don't you drop by WP:MED and tell them your theory on how wikipedia works. In my opinion if a scientist or expert on a subject can only rely on their credentials in a discussion, it isn't the fault of the community that it doesn't go their way. Just because someone can't work with other editors or can't present views in proper context doesn't mean that the rest of wikipedia is broken. Protonk (talk) 04:48, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Among the contributors to the page - RetroS1mone, who relies heavily on pubmed results and believes The Lancet and Journal of the American Medical Association are highly reliable, more so than the now-unpublished, not medline indexed Journal of Chronic Fatigue (see this RSN discussion). User:Jfdwolff, according to his userpage a doctor and certainly an admin who has managed to not be de-sysopped, suggesting a certain degree of trust. User:Davidruben, another doctor and another admin, also not de-sysopped. User:Sciencewatcher consistently cites reliable sources. User:Tekaphor has been contributing from a CFS-patient position and manages to be quite fruitful in my experience. The page is heavily sourced, to highly reliable journals. That doesn't seem the work of yokels. WLU (t) (c) (rules - simple rules) 12:21, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Our self-declared expert Guido den Broeder has just indicated that all this was just an experiment to test the behaviour of human beings... [6]. Is there any reason to let this continuous source of disruption edit Wikipedia any longer? HE considers it a health hazard anyway... Fram (talk) 14:29, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Ignore it. If he wants to test-drive his results, he can take it to WP:FAIL. It doesn't actually impact the project in any way, it's not a blockable offence, why stir the drama? WLU (t) (c) (rules - simple rules) 15:11, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Not a blocklable offence? Assuming that the statement on his userpage is truthful (the purpose, not the results), he has been disrupting Wikipedia for nearly two years just to prove a point... The small hope I still had that he was a well-intentioned but misguided editor has been vaporized, and the chance of him ever changing his editing behavior is actually subzero. Oh well, I'll shut up now :-) Fram (talk) 15:24, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
I support long term ban or indef ban for continual disruption, legal threats, edit warring, incivility, advocating against NPOV, for assorted actions against policy, and for general actions not of benefit to the project, as evidenced by his post above and the "experiment" on his user page. His complete failure to understand the reasons for his previous block, and the implication on his talk page that he would continue to act in this way, while stating a conspiracy against him, all go to show that he needs an enforced wikibreak. Verbal chat 15:20, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Agreed, with the caveat that the did come up with some valid results. Many of the points he raised are well worth pondering. // roux   editor review 15:29, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Experts should demonstrate their expertise through their ability to cite the literature. They'll generally have the knowledge of the key articles, access to a far superior library than most wikipedians, both electronic and paper, and can type out a decent sentence. I've never seen reason to let them rule a page and ignore our processes simply because of purported expertise.
Much of the disruption caused by Guido should vanish now, since apparently he's no longer posting on talk pages. If disruption occurs again, that's the point at which I would suggest the final step of an indef block/ban be discussed. This experiment post has no real affect on anything or anyone if we don't let it, so why bother making a big deal about it? That's how wikipedia ends up on the news - '"Free" encyclopedia editable by "anyone" blocks sufferers of chronic conditions' - I don't think the headline would in any way accurately capture the situation, but I'd rather not see it. Though I'll live to regret it, if a block/ban is supported I would suggest one final "if you screw up, you're permablocked" warning. It's probably a futile gesture since I've never seen any evidence of remorse, change or suggestion he was going to take the advice, but what can I say I'm a slave to optimism. WLU (t) (c) (rules - simple rules) 15:48, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Having recently wandered into this mess after declining Guido's unblock request, I have read through his entire talk page history on a diff by diff basis as well as picked through a month of history. What I have seen is a complete disinterest in getting along with others in a way that makes him a net negative to the project. I had originally suggested to them that they might need mediation to fix the problems on the CFS article, but after fully exploring the issue, I think that the best thing for the article would be an indef block on Guido. I would fully support such a block. Trusilver 15:52, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

strongly support block I'd just like to say that in the UK this is often pretty much treated by doctors and government as a psychosomatic condition, so if someone was trying to make this perception of it clear when the article had previously excessively leant towards other theories, the 'psychosomatic mafia' are on the other side of the debate.:) I hope other editors exist who could keep an article WP:NPOV about a physical illness which is treated with anti-depressants, sometimes sleeping tablets, counselling and light exercise, :) and that they aren't threatened with being blocked by a 'psychosomatic mafia'. The person bringing this complaint clearly has a Point of View that this is a physical illness, perhaps to the extent of having a WP:COI, and we must avoid chasing off in general or having a chilling effect on editors who are less personally emotionally involved and so more able to bring about WP:NPOV.Sticky Parkin 16:38, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Sticky Parkin, thanks for reacting to the content of my post. The treatments you mention are, of all treatments, precisely the ones with the poorest results in practice, with exercise in fact hurting more patients than they help. Such treatments are indeed based on a psychosomatic model of the disease, but that model is not the mainstream view internationally, and in fact the UK have been ordered by the WHO to adjust their deviant classification, to which they complied. Treatments based on the biomedical nature of the disease (diet, balance, rest, vitamine B12, painkillers, carnitine, melatonine, etc.) produce far better results. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 14:54, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
ANI isn't the place to discuss content. The talk page is the place for that. Regards the substance of the post, anything that's well believed should be easy to demonstrate. WLU (t) (c) (rules - simple rules) 17:09, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
As someone who understands the passions of Guido about their illness and wanting the artilce to show the truth of the disease to save others from the same pitfalls, I have to say that Guido cannot edit these articles. He is very passionate about the articles and I understand where he is coming from which is why I tried to see if I could help with some of the tensions arising. Unfortunately I don't think I did help stop anything, this I am sad to say. Guido is a good knowledgable editor but he takes others editing very personal and this doesn't work well here for the well of the project. There are a lot of active editors at CFS so I think that Guido not being one of them would be the best for the project. I don't know what to make of some of his recent comments like his talk page notice or his examples of what the policy of 3RR is. I think for the health of this editor and the best of project, that maybe Guido should either edit for awhile in non-medical related areas of his choice or he be blocked from editing. I say all of this with a heavy heart and a strong understanding of how he feels. --CrohnieGalTalk 17:03, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
@ Malcolm - sometimes the editor is the problem. That's why we have blocks, bans, RFC/U, arbitration and WP:SOCK. Have a look through even the Dec. 1-3rd portion of Guido's talk page, then decide if we are being unfair. The content portion of the [[chronic fatigue syndrome article has been settled or is working its way through. The issue is in part the resurrection of previously-settled content issues by the same editor, with no new reasoning beyond "I want it" and no new sources to start a dialogue around. But we have ANI for a reason - to get outside input. Perhaps we're being overzealous. Please, review and let us know. I'm pretty certain it's not a tiny cabal forcing out a good editor. Virtually all admins that have tried to help Guido have enventually turned away. The way Guido responds to this ([7] and [8] in response to this) kinda speaks for itself. WLU (t) (c) (rules - simple rules) 17:26, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Certainly, the user may be a problem. But even if that is true beyond a shadow of a doubt, all the more reason not to use ad hominems. I know that I can just shrug them off -- as can most healthy people -- but, if someone is known to be ill, an attack on his/her person could have serious negative consequences. Please do not do that. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 20:14, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
That is a good thought, we should all be nice w/ each other, but how do you stop abuse, if I say I am sick do i get to attack everyone, be abusing people, edit warring?? Is it good idea treating editors different based from if they say they have a medical condition?? RetroS1mone talk 03:54, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
@Malcom, just because I have a serious medical condition I would not expect anyone ever anywhere to treat me differently. If I am unpleasant and disruptive I deserve to be treated just like any other editor. If I get sick because someone is calling a spade a spade then it's time for me to take a long wiki break. Please do not use health issues as a reason for anything here. I take responsibility for my own behavior and my own health, no one else does. Thanks, --CrohnieGalTalk 12:13, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Ultimately it doesn't matter why someone is disruptive. If they're consistently disruptive, fail to improve, don't listen to other editors despite many chances and many blocks, is it appropriate to say "it's not their fault, feel free to keep it up, here's a barnstar for trying?" Disruptive is disruptive, irrespective of cause, and if a POV is too strong to work with other editors then the usual outcome is a topic ban. WLU (t) (c) (rules - simple rules) 17:09, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately, the consensus outside the small group of advocates is not that CFS is a biological disease. The consensus is that it is a disorder with no known aetiology. That is what we have to reflect, and using Wikipedia to fix the real-world "problem" that most sources do not identify CFS as a conventional disease at this time, is a violation of policy. Just like Pcarbonn and his advocacy of cold fusion, and many other related topics. We all know that Wikipedia is the number one most important place for activists to put their point across, and we know that they wear down those who support the mainstream view because the advocates are obsessive and the mainstream editors generally aren't. And sooner or later we are going to have to find a way to document this, before the article on alien abduction is rewritten from the abductee standpoint. Because that's the way it's heading. It's more of a surprise to see Guido stooping to accuse everyone else of being in the pay of the "psychosomatic Mafia", though; he's normally a civil POV-pusher. I guess the young-earth creationists think we're a creationist Mafia, but the fact is that if you are an obsessive on one wing of a subject you have to think long and hard where the true midpoint is. Guido has lost sight of this. Guy (Help!) 22:49, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
  • WLU has stated above that "Virtually all admins that have tried to help Guido have eventually turned away", and then quotes from my talk page and Guido's responses to my replies. I can confirm that I did try to help Guido, and it seems to have resulted in abject failure, for which I apologise. There was another response that Guido made as well (concerning a little matter that has been taking up a lot of my time recently), but that is neither here nor there, as I knew it was part and parcel of getting involved the way I did. The point I want to make here is that I somehow missed the post Guido made to his user page until recently, and was rather shocked by it. As WLU rightly notes, I had already been rebuffed by Guido and I was already stepping away from this, and Guido's post to his user page has only confirmed that for me. Some people say I give people too many chances, but I do have a breaking point and it has been reached in this case. I'm not going to support any block (as I think Guido's post is effectively a "departure essay"), but if he returns then the "breaching experiment" considerations would come into play and I wouldn't be able to defend Guido in any shape or form simply because there is no way of knowing whether or not he is starting another "experiment". If anyone feels that there is a danger of Guido conducting similar experiments in future with this or other accounts, and that this would be disruptive, a community ban may be needed. Carcharoth (talk) 02:16, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Apparent vandalism only account[edit]

Resolved: indeffed, no apparent intention to do anything but WP:BLP violations --Rodhullandemu 18:04, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Tru5balla appears to be a low intensity vandalism only account. Made a bunch of vandalism edits over a day or two in october, got template warned at the time, then returned today and made this [[9]] edit to the pedophilia article. I'd support an indef block this point, but leave the decision to do something or nothing to the wise.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:56, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Have requested oversight for the offending edit. --Rodhullandemu 18:10, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:29, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
There's WP:AIV too for things like this, just so you know.ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 01:12, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Editing of Comments on Talk Page[edit]

Resolved: The contending parties have resolved their dispute. EdJohnston (talk) 23:28, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Arcayne continues to edit and alter my comments on Talk:Gordon Ramsay. The first one was to remove my bolding of policy here, my restoration and link to policy on editing other comments here, the reverting here, readdition, revert, and damage caused by editing my comments. I request assistance as my comments are within guidelines and editing them is against wp:Talk_page_guidelines. Knowledgeum :  Talk  21:38, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Ugh. Arcayne has been talked to before, multiple times, about his refactoring of others' comments to fit his agenda and his sensibilities. He knows better. block him for it. ThuranX (talk) 21:44, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Hello. Ah yes, Thuran X's comment - hello pot, meet kettle from volcano. Please. Respectfully, is there any ANI discussion about me you won't involve yourself in? You don't like me, I get it. We don't edit anywhere together. Might you be persuaded to address the log in your eye before complaining about the splinter in mine? Do you actually even read any of the background of the ANIs you post in, or just assume I am the bad guy? Jeez, ThuranX; maybe even avoid contributing years-old resentment and stop posting your ire? It's getting old.
Now, that unpleasantness aside, the complaint addressed by Knowlegeum has a little bit to it. I did in fact remove bold-text from his/her post of a paragraph-long post from RS or BLP; I figured they might be new, and unaware that bold text is like shouting (and said as much in my edit summary). However, I think I was correct to move the comments, as they were inserted within discussion threads that orphaned my responses, rendering them useless. I did not change the text, intent or content of the posts; I only moved them into their chronological order. Am I wrong to do so? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 22:22, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi there fellas! It seems as if this may just be a simple misunderstanding. It appears as if Arcayne was just trying to format the talk page in a more readable manner, and may have inadvertently removed some of Knowledgeum's comments. I think it's best if we leave posts in Article talk pages "unformatted"; that is, we should leave them how the original user posted them. Using bold text does not automatically equate to "shouting" either; it may simply just be a way to highlight the important part of one's post, and can be a useful tool in doing so. If you guys get together on your respective user talk pages or on the article talk pages, I'm sure you'll be able to clear this up, as it really does appear to be nothing but a good-faith simple misunderstanding gaillimhConas tá tú? 22:38, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Bolding amounts to shouting in this case; quoting large sections from policy is inappropriate - thats what we have links for. But edit warring over it is wrong, on both sides William M. Connolley (talk) 22:40, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Gaillimh and WMC, thanks for your input. You are both right; I should have headed to the user's talk space to ask them to move their comment into chronological order. Had I done that, the newer user might have been inclined to also listen to my comments regarding the usage of bold text for emphasis, and not just automatically revert. I just didn't want my own comments orphaned by the insertion of Knowledgeum's later post. In retrospect it appears (aside from ThuranX' inappropriate commentary) that this was a good faith mistake. I'll link up again with the user, and see if we can reboot the interaction. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 22:52, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Sounds good! Thanks a lot for your willingness to work with the other fellow on this issue! Cheers gaillimhConas tá tú? 23:00, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
  • I've never had a big beef with moving an entire comment to allow the conversation to flow better. Bstone (talk) 23:09, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you all for your comments and insight, Arcayne and I have managed to reconnect and I believe we have worked through the dispute with common understanding, I believe the issue to be fully resolved. Knowledgeum :  Talk  23:18, 4 December 2008 (UTC)


Seramagi (talk · contribs) just added highly unsavoury content to the infobox of the Magibon article, as well as the unsourced real name of the subject of the article. The history of the article is rife with socks and slander (see the most recent AfD). I gave the editor an only warning but perhaps A'd a little to much GF. Eyes and banhammer-readiness requested. Skomorokh 15:39, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

It looks like it was a throw-away single-purpose account. Based on the large number of reverted edits [10], the lack of discussion on talk page [11], and shooing away warnings [12], WP:DUCK seems to apply. The troll that initiated the AfD exhibited similar behavior (first added insulting statements to the infobox). Pcap ping 10:20, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Also, this recent prodding from an IP user seems eerily familiar. Pcap ping 10:30, 5 December 2008 (UTC)


This user was blocked indefinitely for vandalising Azerbaijan-related pages, specifically for redirecting them under non-appropriate headings. He made dozens of edits starting November 24. Please revert these pages back, as it is time-consuming for a user to revert them manually. Thank you in advance. Parishan (talk) 00:58, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, that was annoying.  Done Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 04:53, 5 December 2008 (UTC)


Just to let you know, there are some requests at AIV that have been sitting there for 10-20 minutes with no response, including one IP who is being very active right now and has vandalized 6 or 7 times since he was reported. —Politizer talk/contribs 09:36, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Ncmvocalist Incivilty[edit]

some one please helpme here

User:Ncmvocalist is adding sock template to my page without proof - (talk) 10:20, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Looks like this the IP sock of Srkris (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) .

See also Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive496#User_Srkris -- Tinu Cherian - 10:35, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

The Pee Wee Herman is God Users/Socks[edit]

A user, who has several socks under "Pee Wee Herman is God", and then a Roman numeral, has repeatedly returned and vandalised. I ask for an account-creation removal in order to stop him. So far, he is at number four five six, and counting. Cheers. Sincerely, Imperat§ r(Talk) 00:23, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

The target article Pee Wee Herman has been semi-protected. Whether that will prevent further disruption or just deflect it remains to be seen. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 01:32, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Relevant request at WP:RFCU/IP. – Luna Santin (talk) 04:15, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
He appears to have cooled down at number seven after a few blocks, warnings, and acts of vandalism/personal attack. Would it be possible to ban the create-name of Pee Wee is God VIII, Pee Wee is God XI, et cetera? Cheers. Imperat§ r(Talk) 14:18, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

vandalism against Israel[edit]

Unfortunately, the page is semi-protected, which gives the vandal the right to edit and prevents me from correcting. The last correct version seems to be 23:55, 4 December 2008 Flatterworld. Oyp (talk) 12:53, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

The vandalism was reverted shortly after. If you are still seeing the vandalism, click here to purge the page. ➨ ЯEDVERS a sweet and tender hooligan 12:58, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Couldnt think where to put this so ...[edit]

My concern regards Henry VIII and the common misconception that he was married six times. However, according to the book of general ignorance, when asked "How many wives did Henry VIII have" they have to say:

We make it two. Or four, if your a Catholic. Henry's fourth marriage to Anne of Cleves was annulled. This is very different from divorce. Legally, it means the marriage never took place. There were two grounds for the annulment. Anne and Henry never consummated their marriage; that is, they never had intercourse. Refusal or inability to consummate is still grounds for an annulment today. In addition, Anne was already betrothed to Francis I, Duke of Lorraine when she married Henry. At that time, the formal act of betrothal was a legal bar to marrying someone else. All parties agreed no legal marriage had taken place. So that leaves five. The Pope declared Henry's second marriage to Anne Boleyn was illegal, because the king was still married to his first wife, Catherine of Aragon. Henry, as head of the new Church of England, declared in turn that his first marriage was invalid on the legal ground that a man could not sleep with his brothers widow. The King cited the Old Testament, which he claimed as 'God's law', whether the Pope liked it or not. Depending on whether you believe the pope or the king that brings it down to either three or four marriages. Henry anulled his marriage to Anne Boleyn just before he had her executed for adultery. This was somewhat illogical: if the marriage had never existed, Anne could hardly be accused of betraying it. He did the same with his fifth wife, Catherine Howard. All the evidence suggests she unfaithful to him before and during their marriage. This time, Henry passed a special act making it treasonable for a queen to commit adultery. Once again, he also had the marriage. So that makes four annulments, and only two incontestably legal marriages.

I have referred to the relevant talk page but nobody appears to be taking me seriously so I thought I'd come here and ask for guidance. One person said that it would confuse people letting them know that he only had 2 or 4 wives, however as wiki is an encyclopedia I thought the truth was more important. Evidently the people who work on the article disagree --Thanks, Hadseys 02:24, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, I've got a question. He married (verb) six times, right? He was only legally married (noun) twice though. DARTH PANDAduel 02:36, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
This may not be a good thing to have in the body text (in full), but it seems like a perfect candidate for explanatory notes. Protonk (talk) 03:08, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't know how to do that could somebody help --Thanks, Hadseys 03:30, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
  • sure thing. Firs things first, make sure that you rewrite this aside in a less meandering fashion. Present it factually and clearly. Make sure that sourcing (specific to Henry VIII) exists and can be cited on this exact subject. Then you can follow the instructions in the link I gave you above. You make a separate section for the explanatory notes (distinct from the references), place a named references tag below<references group="your name here" /> then tag your "note" in a manner similar to how you would tag a normal reference: <ref group="your name here">...note goes here</ref>. If you are worried about messing it up, try it out on a sandbox or your userpage first. Protonk (talk) 04:03, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Oh, and in the future questions like this can go to the Wikipedia:Help desk. They should be able to answer them pretty well. Protonk (talk) 05:20, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Henry married 6 times and used whatever means he could think of to shed 5 of them. The 6th outlived him. Using that one author's opinion as to whether he was actually married 6 times or not, could be worth a sentence or two, but Henry did exactly what he wanted. Maybe we should also cite Richard Armour or Will Cuppy, whichever it was, who pointed out that while Henry had a couple of his wives executed, he let the others live, because "it was the age of chivalry, when knighthood was in flower." Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 04:36, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Couldnt think where to put this

Talk:Henry_VIII_of_England, perhaps? Deltwalrus (talk) 17:43, 5 December 2008 (UTC) *Gulp*, missed the bit about that above. Deltwalrus (talk) 17:44, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism and violation of WP:USERNAME[edit]

Resolved: taken care of by Ioeth (talk · contribs) –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 15:55, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Grekos malakas‎ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) Vandal and violation of WP:UN. Dr.K. (logos) 14:58, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Blocked. In the future, you can report these incidents to Usernames for Administrator Attention. Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 15:06, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
I should have known. Wrong department. Thank you very much Ioeth for your very swift action. Take care. Dr.K. (logos) 15:10, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Strange talk page behaviour[edit]

At Talk:Army correspondence course program there's some very odd things being said about censorship and claims that the text from the article will be disseminated throughout Wikipedia to avoid deletion (that's a new one for me, I gotta say). It has the faint whiff of sockpuppetry about it (or the meat variety at the least), but I don't wish to accuse anybody of anything on such flimsy evidence. Might need some looking into. Ta. --Closedmouth (talk) 15:55, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I think some one or group of people are very worried about that being deleted and have resorted to making very odd claims. It's odd though because I believe that article would stand a strong chance of surviving an AfD were it nominated. Try providing an explanation to them on the page that shows how making wild claims doesn't really help anything in this context, and better time could be spent improving the article, and they shouldn't be so worried about any sort of censorship crusade. If they continue it may warrant another look. --Banime (talk) 16:05, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
It looks like they are in the army and have been tasked to create a page on it? --Cameron Scott (talk) 17:00, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
I wouldn't make that sort of assumption, there's a lot of things it could be.--Banime (talk) 17:17, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
This looks a lot like a behavioral case regarding claiming ownership of articles, not assuming good faith, and what I call "activist delusion" on top of what may be COI and disruption. I also think this article meets standards for inclusion here, so AFD wouldn't help anything at all. MuZemike (talk) 17:39, 5 December 2008 (UTC)


[13] and [14] and [15]. Obviously the same IP, but, as each one has less than 4, they can't be blocked. As I don't think it's enough to post for a WP:RFCU, I posted it here instead. Cheers. Imperat§ r(Talk) 17:23, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I've semi-protected the article for 3 days - the IPs are all in a school district ( Washtenaw ISD, - 191.255 range ). We could schoolblock the whole IP range, but that might be excessive given the relatively limited focused damage. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 17:39, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Revisiting Srkris[edit]

Following up from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive496#User Srkris, it now appears that Srkris is evading their block anonymously:

That last IP in particular made a fair number of edits before I blocked it (they're currently requesting unblocking, all comments welcome). Regardless of whether this is Srkris, it seems worth a few eyes. Bringing this up for community attention and review, as needed. – Luna Santin (talk) 10:36, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

And a direct link to the thread directly above too ... BMW 10:39, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
It is very evident from the contribs that it is Srkris (talk · contribs) , see also above, for a report by the IP sock -- Tinu Cherian - 10:41, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Guess who's back with a renewed DHCP lease...
-Kgasso (talk) 10:42, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
And blocked. Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:03, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Ncm ... I'm not sure if you blocked him (didn't take the time to check) but I'd personally recommend you stay away from actions against the socks of Srkris at the moment, seeing as you're a very involved editor ... it starts to look too much like a crusade, and we all know they don't end well. BMW 11:54, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Luna got him. ➨ ЯEDVERS a sweet and tender hooligan 11:55, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
I really wonder why you guys saying i'm sock of "Srkris"...who is he?? i didn't harm anyone here, did i?? i just made a small comment here [16] is this wrong??? how can one judge I'm sock of someone??? is doing comment itself wrong??? or please do announce in wiki mainpage as "IP's shouldn't comment in anywhere in wikipedia" so that in future other ip's will don't face this kind of strange problem. i am toooooo much depressed.

one final request if you all very much sure, why cant you CHECKUSER me???? it is an ultimate solution. - (talk) 13:33, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Howard? Daffy? Donald? // roux   13:36, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Launchpad? Webby? Mrs Beakley? // roux   15:57, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

This is Srkris, I merely wanted to record here that I have no need or intention to evade any blocks. You can do a checkuser on this IP as well as the other IP who is accused of being my sock above. I have only edited my talk page after I have been blocked, apart from this message here now. (talk) 19:16, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Now that is the most humourous, misguided, and obvious attempt at a good old magicians trick. "I'm not going to fall for no banana in the tailpipe" BMW 19:26, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

To me its quite obvious someone is trying to get me banned once and for all by pretending to be me, and all these conspiracy theories are seeming to take me there. (talk) 19:32, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I do think it's important to bear that possibility in mind, but even after running a few checks, I have no other plausible suspects, which throws a bit of a monkey wrench into that idea. Any suggestions? – Luna Santin (talk) 20:55, 5 December 2008 (UTC)


I think this is quite straightforward and there's no reason to accept any unblock request. His block in 2006 was increased due to sockpuppetry - he clearly is not receptive to community feedback, whether it's back then, or now, or any time in the near future. I believe there is sufficient evidence to justify a ban (and a significant increase in the duration of the block). Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:03, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

false accusations against me[edit]

I have been accused of being a vandal and a sockpuppeteer by users here, and it has happened behind my back without informing me! I am deeply disturbed by this! Some innocent edits all done in good faith by me have been adressed as vandalism by Fran - such as removing inappriotately added templates on statements already covered in an articles givensources. Jouke Bersma Contributions 11:48, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

We'll need to see some diff's where these activities occurred please. BMW 11:51, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry to tell you but I am not very much familiar with that. I have been here for almost two months now, I guess, and longer as an IP but merely as a reader of articles at first. I haven't got much knowledge on how to give a diff. (and my english is far from perfect) Jouke Bersma Contributions 11:54, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

As a minimum, can you at least tell us the exact name of the articles (with the [[ ]] around them) so we can view the history. BMW 11:56, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Help:Diff. ➨ ЯEDVERS a sweet and tender hooligan 11:57, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Chang and Eng Bunker, Touch the Clouds. Oh, and these are the editors they tried to link me to: Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Kermanshahi. (i tried to answer here quicker but I got a editing conflict twice). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jouke Bersma (talkcontribs) 12:00, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I keep getting in "editing conflict"... Jouke Bersma Contributions 12:03, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

The accusations of vandalism are made here. The RfCU is Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Kermanshahi. Fram (talk) 12:05, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I already told them and gave them the link, Fram. Jouke Bersma Contributions 12:06, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Quack, quack. // roux   12:11, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
If these accusations are false, please explain the following: Where did you get this piece of information from? And, why did you remove this request for a citation with a false edit summary? ➨ ЯEDVERS a sweet and tender hooligan 12:12, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
As I said, the citation request was pointless because as i said: I read the sources to the article and saw that it was mentioned in the article - the request was inappropriate. And about Andre van Duin - if they can say he is married to a man without referencing, I thought I could just aswell say he is married to a women - they did not give references in the first place! Jouke Bersma Contributions 12:18, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
So why did you use a false edit summary? And why did you think it was acceptable to add completely made-up stuff about a living person just because the truth was not cited to your standards? And why did you make this change? ➨ ЯEDVERS a sweet and tender hooligan 12:22, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

The thing is, I thought that what I did would not be seen in the first place... I just wondered how long some small changes (false) would take to be detected. Now I know, no fun in it. Won't happen again I can assure you. But then the false edit summary was not done on purpose - I alsways use edit summaries and when I click on the box to put one in there is a list of previously used edit summaries by me. I picked the wrong one and that was not something I did on purpose. These are small mistakes, no reason at all for Fram to give me a "Final warning", this user was overreacting! Jouke Bersma Contributions 12:27, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Whoa whoa whoa there! You admit that you introduced INVALID information into an article because you didn't think it would be seen in the first place??? *sniff sniff* I smell Vandalism...Disruption?? BMW 12:37, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
And this change? ➨ ЯEDVERS a sweet and tender hooligan 12:28, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I thought that a "alternative page" meant that it was freely editable. I was just expirimenting, seeing how it would look. Jouke Bersma Contributions 12:31, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Right. So none of these allegations are false. They're all true - you have been making unconstructive edits, inserting false information and generally causing problems in several places and you've admitted to it. So Fram's warning to you - that you'd been rumbled and should stop - was entirely justified. And in the light of that, the request to see if you are actually another editor in disguise seems entirely reasonable. I would've done the same. ➨ ЯEDVERS a sweet and tender hooligan 12:35, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
It's probably worth mentioning that this is pretty much the same MO as Last king of Frisia - hence the CU. - Bilby (talk) 12:42, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, everyone. Looking back at Jouke's contributions, the editor was quite proud of deleting the article Sheikh Mohiuddin Ahmed as a hoax ([[17]]). However, he is repeatedly shown and named here[18] and is explicitly named as their chairman here[19] on their homepage: so is this webpage is a hoax as well? Oh, and this page is probably in on it as well[20]. He may or may not be notable enough (I presume he is, but that we can't search the Bangladeshi sources adequately), but it is not a hoax, as a simple search indicates. Another mistake? Or more vandalism? Fram (talk) 12:57, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Looking further into this deleted "hoax", it listed a book he had written: surprise, the book is available through Amazon[21]. Still not evidence of notability, but definitely not a hoax... Fram (talk) 13:01, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
It was speedied for A7 on the back of JB's AfD for being a hoax. Personally, I wouldn't've speedied it as leader of a political party with representation is an assertion of notability. But hoax it certainly wasn't. I'll ask the deleting admin to review. ➨ ЯEDVERS a sweet and tender hooligan 13:06, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
I raised this at the time, which is part of why I've been watching the editor. However, while not a hoax, it was nevertheless somewhat questionable, and based on the lack of usable, it seemed to me that to restore the article (which was deleted in good faith) would be to stand on process. This may well have been a bad call on my part, but I've since found nothing to suggest any notability for the subject, even after researching his party. A review wouldn't hurt, though. - Bilby (talk) 13:18, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
(Plus it can always just go to AfD). - Bilby (talk) 13:19, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Well, considering that he used that AfD to then nominate Liberal Party Bangladesh for deletion [22] (the article still exists, luckily), and to remove mention of it from e.g. List of political parties in Bangladesh[23] and here[24] (both edits still to be undone), his actions did have a serious effect. Fram (talk) 13:38, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Mgm, who deleted Sheikh Mohiuddin Ahmed, will review the deletion when they have more time. They've requested input from any Bangladeshi editors/admins who may be able to help. ➨ ЯEDVERS a sweet and tender hooligan 13:48, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
By that stage I was aware of the problem, and Soman and I both demonstrated that Liberal Party Bangladesh wasn't a hoax. I've reverted the two edits you mentioned - thanks. :) - Bilby (talk) 13:52, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Mgm has said they're happy for Sheikh Mohiuddin Ahmed to be undeleted, so I have. People are welcome to add the sources Fram mentions to the article. ➨ ЯEDVERS a sweet and tender hooligan 14:09, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
I'll do what I can with it - I don't think I've got enough to show notability, but it's worth a shot, and I probably should have argued more originally. Hindsight is a fine thing. :) - Bilby (talk) 14:21, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Not my intention to blame either you or Mgm, you were both assuming good faith, and the person may indeed not be notable. It is just that the subject of this section rather vehemently claimed it was a hoax, and that a lengthy Google search according to him or her yielded nothing, which is patently false. I am not going to block Jouke, as being to involved by now, but will someone else do it now or do we wait for the CU? Fram (talk) 14:35, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't think it's a good idea, barring any CU evidence. At the time I did extensive checking on the subject before deleting and when I checked, the sources now provided were not found. - Mgm|(talk) 16:35, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
    • I think it would be quite appropriate to block immediately, for deliberately editing with the intention of disrupting Wikipedia as admitted earlier on the thread & to prevent more of the same. The length, though, might well depend on CU results. DGG (talk) 17:26, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Jouke, you say you have been accused of being a vandal and a sockpuppet. Indeed, some of your edits have been vandalism, whether you intended them to be vandalism or not. Please read Wikipedia:Vandalism and never make edits like that again. As for the accusations of you being a sockpuppet, don't stress over it. Soon enough an editor with CheckUser powers will compare your edits and your IPs with other usernames involved in the User:Kermanshahi incidents, and if no evidence is discovered, you'll be absolved. We take Wikipedia very seriously. Please take it seriously too. No more vandalism, ok? Kingturtle (talk) 19:19, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring at The List (South Park)[edit]


An edit war has erupted at The List (South Park). User:2008Olympian has uploaded a series of character images which were removed from List of students at South Park Elementary for violating our guideline on the use of such images in list articles. He subsequently added a section regarding these characters to the one episode they appeared in, The List (South Park). This was removed and the user was informed] about proper practices regarding writing about fiction. He warned the editor he is engaged in an edit war with, and was warned back by the same editor. The revert war continues apace. See article history. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:38, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

This belongs at WP:AN3, no? // roux   17:39, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Strictly speaking, that hasn't been violated. There are also fair use violation considerations at play. Thus why I posted here. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:40, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
  • I meant this; forgot name had changed. // roux   17:44, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
  • I removed all the fair-use violations and left a note. The orphaned images will be deleted in due course. It's up to the user whether they take heed of the note, of course. For now, this is resolved, I think. Black Kite 21:41, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Ireland page moves[edit]

  1. More than a week ago, several different polls were opened on Ireland (disambiguation), Ireland and Republic of Ireland, and another at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(Ireland-related_articles)/Ireland_disambiguation_task_force. A veritable mess. The issue is a recurring one. Proponents wanted Republic of Ireland to be at Ireland (state) or a variation . Some of the proponents exhibit an Irish republican POV, which holds that Ireland being qualified by "Republic of" undermines its credibility as the only legitimate government in Ireland. Though support for the move was broader than this, it could therefore be taken into the orbit of Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/The_Troubles.
  2. Today, these polls were closed by Tariqabjotu (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) [congratulations for his bravery!] .
  3. Later today, Srnec (talk · contribs) reverted the move of Republic of Ireland to Ireland (state) (Ireland (island), which was salted by the new dab page Ireland )
  4. Even later today, Matt Lewis (talk · contribs) copy-pasted Republic of Ireland into Ireland (state) (a redirect at that occasion), and vice-versa [25][26]
  5. Polaron (talk · contribs) reverted the copy and paste move[27]

This could well be a big drama fest, but no heads have to roll just yet and no passions need be inflamed. To put it mildly, it is probably unlikely that review of this move close will lead to agreement that the moves had consensus, but in fairness the poll at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(Ireland-related_articles)/Ireland_disambiguation_task_force is more strongly in favour of the move than the article pages. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:03, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Tariqabjotu (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) is currently working on this. Please lets wait for him to comment before adding yet more voices to the cacophony. Rockpocket 20:09, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Not to mention that there's a separate thread open at AN. This needs exactly one cook to prevent broth spoilage. Oh, and "could well be a big drama fest" passed a long time ago. Essentially anything related to the word "Ireland" needs to be handled with care. Gavia immer (talk) 20:19, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Anyone want to be the brave person to decide whether AN or ANI is the right place for this and so unify discussion? --Narson ~ Talk 20:36, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Done it already. AN/I is really the appropriate place anyway. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:38, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
My response is User talk:Tariqabjotu#My response. No further comment at this point. -- tariqabjotu 20:46, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Unable to comment at User talk:Tariqabjotu#My response as the page is locked for IP's, but it strikes me that Tariqabjotu decision to keep his move is based on his opinion on the matter rather than consensus or the mountains of discussion that has taken place on the matter (much of which cited alternative reasons based on policy for keeping things as they were). -- (talk) 20:51, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
I will also add that it has a ring of making a faulty decision in good faith then justifying it retrospectively. -- (talk) 20:57, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
No, it's based on the consensus that you all clearly can't decide. Hence, disambiguation. -- tariqabjotu 21:01, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
There was no consensus to move Ireland -> Ireland (island), so you moved Ireland -> Ireland (island)? You are clearly operating on a wholly different level, Tariqabjotu. -- (talk) 21:52, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I can't say I'm very impressed with admin revert warring each other over a page move and then using protection powers to make their version stick. Whatever happened to Bold Revert Discuss? The admin closed and was bold in applying local consensus elsewhere onto a page, and was reverted. Shouldn't he then have engaged in discussion at the local where the dispute was? --Narson ~ Talk 20:54, 30 November 2008 (UTC) (edit conflict)

Administrator Tariqabjotu's conduct is in good faith. He's done no wrong. GoodDay (talk) 20:57, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Yes, and when I say "then justifying it retrospectively" - I mean only that that kind of decision-making is fault prone. I don't meant any implication of bad faith on the part of Tariqabjotu, just one mistaken decision followed by a fault-prone one. Wheel warring is not pretty though. -- (talk) 21:03, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
And in good faith I criticise the process he decided to use. I think applying local consensus to other locals is most definatly wrong GD. Even RM points you towards the talk page of an article for moves rather than gaining the consensus on the RM page. --Narson ~ Talk 21:04, 30 November 2008 (UTC) (ec)
My move wasn't part of the Bold-Revert-Discuss cycle. It was based on an analysis of a move request discussion. Even with the evidence I missed initially, I am staying with my position, for reasons I explained in my response. The editor reverted the result of a move discussion – that's out of process. If (s)he disagrees with the discussion, this type of forum is the appropriate place to go. -- tariqabjotu 21:01, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm still looking for that move discussion at Talk:Ireland (state)... Srnec (talk) 21:05, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
It was discussed as recently as September. The decision was to NOT MOVE the page. -- (talk) 21:12, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
There was no move discussion as I would view it, there was a small clique discussing this in a remote location. Can WP:F1 now conduct move requests on its talk page? Certainly consensus can be developed on those pages, but it must always go back to the talk page of the article in question to achieve consensus among all editors. By taking this behind doors, so to speak, we disenfranchise casual editors and IP editors who are unlikely to delve that many layers beyond the article talk page. --Narson ~ Talk 21:08, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Is a clique like a cabal, but with disparate people in it? I would be happy with that. It has taken a stern will to battle at times. I set up the WP:IDTF taskforce on Ireland (being WP:bold), and boy the diffs I could show of the same-face aggressive opposition to it! But sense survived the AfD, and sense will service this. Wikipedia is a work in progress, and you simply cannot stop progress forever. --Matt Lewis (talk) 23:04, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
I have no desire to stop progress, Matt. However, I do not view the method you used to be progress. I know it was an attempt to avoid the fight that have dogged the pages for years, but I don't think that small groups deciding consensus away from the pages is the answer. Especially when such a well thought out solution had been reached. You skipped a step that validates the decision you reached. --Narson ~ Talk 00:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Tariqabjotu, would you be willing to expand a little on what you meant when you wrote, "Now, I'm done... you are welcome to open a WP:AN or WP:ANI post, but I'm sticking with this position regardless." Do you think that such a statement could be interpreted as meaning that you are unwilling to discuss mistakes you may have made in haste? Do you think that this is a constructive statement to make on an issue that you know to be contentious? -- (talk) 21:08, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
"Do you think that such a statement could be interpreted as meaning that you are unwilling to discuss mistakes you may have made in haste?" Yes, it might be interpreted as that. Either way, in my response, I addressed the mistake many people pointed out. I explained why I think, despite that, this is still the best solution. You all are trying to drag me into this debate; I'm not falling for it. This is your debate; I am just here to look at the evidence and decide whether a move is warranted. I did that, so my job is done. You are free to launch an appeal. You are free to continue to bicker about this -- but without me. I have stated my position -- and that's it. Me repeating my reasoning interminably is unproductive. You repeating yours interminably is unproductive.
"Do you think that this is a constructive statement to make on an issue that you know to be contentious?" Yes. -- tariqabjotu 21:27, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
You say this is "our debate" and that we are trying to "drag you into it" but that you won't "fall for it" - yet your final decision was based on your opinion, not ours. Can you reconcile this contradiction?
(Incidentally, while not asking you for your opinion on it or on the issue itself, here was my contribution to this round of polling on the requested move, simply as an FYI. I think that there is more to policy on articles moves to consider than you give credit for in your response. Many of these were discussed in the pages and archives that you ignored.) -- (talk) 21:41, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
You seem to acknowledge there are differing cases for each of the moves on your talk page. I'd suggest the solution is, at the very least, reverting Ireland (State) to Republic of Ireland and engaging for a local discussion on that page. Though as some people suggest this likely needs mediation or arbitration, I do think out of process move procedures do need to be reversed before such things can occur so as not to present a fait accompli. Though, I do hope that if a move procedure is begun on the talk page that a convincing consensus is reached. --Narson ~ Talk 22:08, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
As a noninvolved party, I applaud Tariqabjotu for taking on an contentious issue and making a decision. No matter the decision, someone was going to be unhappy. Moving to a disambiguation, given the confusion that clearly exists, was only proper (if in doubt, disambiguate). Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:39, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
That was only half the move though. As Tariq himself says, there was no need to disambiguate RoI. There are also the issues to do with the process which wa pretty obviously a bit unorthodox. --Narson ~ Talk 22:47, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

⬅ Appeal it and let it go to Arbcom, its bound to end up there anyway and the two factions will never reach agreement. It needs some objectivity. --Snowded TALK 22:40, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Or someone could file a RM on the RoI page and present a good argument, as been done elsewhere, and so acctually try to build consensus? It may end up at ArbCom if people continue to believe this assbackwards method of remote page moves is acctually valid, but lets give it a chance to acctually do it properly. Revert the move, put up a RM. --Narson ~ Talk 10:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

The name of the state is Ireland, and I wanted primary use for the Ireland article to go to the sovereign state of Ireland, but unfortunately that did not happen. I strongly disagree with Narson. PurpleA (talk) 11:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Over what? You think this was a totally proper way to perform a move? --Narson ~ Talk 12:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

An RfC on the recent multi-page move has been opened at Talk:Ireland#RfC: controversial multi-page move. -- (talk) 12:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Compliments to Tariq for trying to sort this out. His solution must be the right one, becuase neither side is happy about it. IT looks like the best solution to me, removing either 'right' answer with one that gives access to the new reader to choose which 'Ireland' they are asking about. For the record, the 89.101 IP which is so abusive to Tariq (Above asking if he's stopped beating his wife yet) is from Ireland, and thus an obvious and plain POV pusher. ThuranX (talk) 12:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I cannot help replying to your remarks above. Many of the editors involved in this dispute are actually British, some like yourself are from Scotland. It would not be very civil of me to say that because you're from Scotland you are a POV-pusher. I think you should withdraw your last remarks. PurpleA (talk) 12:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict) "For the record, the 89.101 IP ... is from Ireland, and thus an obvious and plain POV pusher." Thus? Gosh. Racism. Nice. At least you're good enough to put it on the record. -- (talk) 12:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Alright, let's try this: The IP who refuses to register is from Ireland, which explains why he's such a loud POV Pusher. How's that? I haven't associated you with one view or another, and your own agitation makes it plain you're pushing a POV. As for the Brits and Scots involved, they're all POV pushers as well, here for nationalistic, jingoistic reasons, and not arguing on logical principles, but for political and emotional ones, as are the Irish POV pushers. I further note that neither of you addressed the substance of my post, which is that since no one's happy, he did the right thing. I'll assume that's because you know I'm right. I'm also interested in why the IP wont' register. Sock? Banned User? Someone with a Real Life conflict of interests here? ThuranX (talk) 21:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
So basically we're all POV pushers. Looks like AGF went out the window. --Cameron* 21:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I must say I am very disappointed by these moves, especially as it was retrospectively justified. I saw quite a discussion going on on the what is now Ireland (island) article that was well and truly ignored. In my eyes, this was not a case of being bold, but rather an abuse of administrative powers, in an attempt to get this thing over with. TheChrisD RantsEdits 13:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

The articles have been moved and protected despite consensus tending toward keeping the status quo. Bearing this in mind, we now need neutral admins to help us move forward. We are at your mercy! :) Please help! --Cameron* 15:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

With every respect to the admin involved, and remaining concious that I do not want to stray from "comment on actions, not editor", I am also more than a little dismayed by the manner in which this change occurred. Per Cameron and TheChrisD, it looks to me like the admin (in good faith) only wandered in to one part of a complex discussion, failed to notice that the issue was WAY more complex than the simple "straw poll" he happened to read, and took premature action as a result. Per TheChrisD, these actions were then retro-actively justified. It seems to me that, in the course of making these changes:

  • Due consideration was not given to the points raised in other areas of the discussion page (namely that the task force remit was to confirm a set of guidelines around "how to refer to the 2 Irelands within articles". And was NOT just about article names. As such, a move in the absence of a guideline change was premature)
  • Not enough time was taken to familiarise himself/herself with the issues involved before acting (Admin appears to have arrived on the taskforce project page - after several weeks of absence from the project - took a look at just ONE discussion (in a page with 5 or more open discussions), and acting based on inferred "consensus". Where no consensus existed.)
  • Not enough notice was given to the parties involved in the task force before making the changes. (In fact, I can see no notice of intent of any kind. The least I would have expected was a one liner that said: "OK, looks like CON to me, here's what I'm going to do...")

Beyond the issues involved in the manner in which the move itself occured, I have serious reservations about the result. The new naming scheme addresses one of the issues raised by the taskforce, but does not represent a complete solution in terms of COMMONNAME (parens suffix have no standing in common use), DAB (Ireland (state) is not a clear label), ease of use (every single derived link will need a pipe), etc. At the VERY least, the "Ireland (state)" article should be moved back to "Republic of Ireland". Until a more complete set of guidelines can be agreed around when/where/how to use and link. Guliolopez (talk) 16:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

  • Cannot agree to that alone. All articles must be moved back to what was the status quo only two days ago. My contention is that "Ireland" was a primary article. Only an article in that format could give the 9,000 years of history in Ireland, and it was universally accepted, contrary to what some editors have said, by almost all. Please return all the articles to what they were two days ago. Thank you. PurpleA (talk) 16:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
We cannot return all the articles because per WP:COMMONNAME "Ireland" must be a dab page, as for example "America" is. The closing Admin made what is a vital first step in making Ireland-related articles adhere to normal Wiki policies and conventions. The most damning example of the mess current and past editors have made in this area is that they have achieved a situation where the province of Northern Ireland is defined as a country on Wiki while the most common meaning of the word "Ireland" in modern usage, the country with the capital city Dublin, cannot be described as a country in its title article. This was an excellent, courageous and long-overdue application of WP:NPOV in this area. Sarah777 (talk) 21:34, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
btw, by my count this is now the tenth forum actively discussing this issue. It seems that the first thing anyone who thinks that there is forum-shopping going on does is to start the argument in a new place. Sarah777 (talk) 21:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

This 'multiple conversations in multiple locations' behavior is a serious problem. Centralized discussions help, fractured ones do not. By maintaining multiple conversations, the combatants in this, and other disagreements, effectively insulate themselves from outside adjudications. These conversations often start as Forks or forum shopping by a side which is currently losing. Because each side in turn loses ground, each side starts up the argument anew in new places, seeking more consensus for their side. They then justify their decision and consensus in whatever way they can - 'More people weighed in here, thus a bigger consensus', 'This group is specialized in this area and know it better than you', 'This was actually the right place to do this', 'this editor/admin has more authority to decide this', and so on. Each justification 'trumps' the other side in the combatants' minds. When an admin steps in they can point to the other discussions and say, you need to read this one, or that one, or many others, intimidating admins into not messing with it, or into reversing decisions. Each side can suddenly point to the other side for this effect as well: "You ignored these arguments we used on their fork to counter this idea or that one of yours..." and so it goes.

We had an admin come in on a large one of these fractured parts, evaluate it, and BOLDly solve it. He sliced the Gordian knot, halved the baby, and so on. Now the sword he swung is being hoist high over his head. The simple fact is that years of dancing and dodging on this are over, and both sides are angry they didn't get their way, and that the fight is over. These are two separate issues, and both need to be mentioned here. One, Neither side got its way. The article Ireland is now a disambig, not about the Island nor the Political entity, and both sides are incensed that their article didn't get the coveted place. Second,both sides see this argument as an extension of their political leanings, and to have this forum for their grievances removed feels like a personal insult to them. This, they need to ma