Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive561

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

Noticeboard archives



Resolved: Neurofish indef block as sockpuppet of Mwalla Toddst1 (talk) 18:28, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

This user placed a template on my talk page that does not apply to me. I view this as an unpovoked attack. I do not know this user nor has he ever contacted me directly. I would like this user to be blocked from editing my user page. Neurofish (talk) 18:00, 28 August 2009 (UTC)Neurofish

It is funny a brand new member knows all about administration noticeboard and the wiki projects. Some admmins will here will recall another episode where I accused a sock puppet of mwalla, a permanently banned user they created an admin noticeboard notification. Please see this page, User_talk:Tiptoety#Mwalla_is_back_on_3_socks_in_as_many_days and also this page.Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Mwalla/Archive--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 18:18, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

How would you know what other editors know? I guess you are the judge. Neurofish (talk) 18:23, 28 August 2009 (UTC)Neurofish

I know what quacks. Toddst1 (talk) 18:28, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Well. That was quick and painless. (For us, anyway) So, the first thing sockpuppets do now is commit suicide? I think I like it. It's pointless, but I like it. HalfShadow 18:31, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Two in a row...the section above was another PLAXICO (does that have a wikipage yet?). It's so convenient when they come straight here to be dealt with... Auntie E. 16:30, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Aye, it does. -Jeremy (v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!) 06:24, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Not sure if it is resolved[edit]


Thanks Toddstq for blocking. There are two other accounts. User:Abcdohrayme and User:Punctuallylate If you review the ip address blocks Tiptoey only blocked them for 3 months so mwalla is now back mass producing sockpuppets again now that the 3 month ip block has expired. See bottom of Mwalla sock investigation archive. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Mwalla/Archive Toddstq, did you just block the username or the ip addresses as well? It might be worth reinstating blocks on the ip addresses in the Mwalla archive. But will leave the decision up to you. Thanks. :-)--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 18:47, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I would feel a little more comfortable if somebody would run a CU on the Neurofish account. I usually turn out to be wrong about these things, but there are enough differences from the usual behavior that this doesn't quite quack for me. Looie496 (talk) 19:02, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
A checkuser would be great Looie, I have requested one on WP:SPI. Maybe Looie it is this edit, where one sockpuppet reverted another sockpuppet,[1], this was done only after I had added templates to all 3 accounts accusing them of being sockpuppets, so they were just trying to divert suspicion in my view.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 19:07, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

An SPI has been filed by myself here.Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Mwalla--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 19:26, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

What exactly did I access?[edit]

I was trying to get to Lupin III, but found myself redirected to Lupine for some reason and a very jumbled mess of a page. Anyone can figure out what just happened, if anyone can humor me? (talk) 07:55, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Lupin III does not redirect to Lupine. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 08:01, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
But it did for me. So I wanna know is, what the hell did I just access? (talk) 08:41, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
No, it didn't for you.
It doesn't.
You must have made a typing error, or something. And what you just accessed was our page on Lupine.
What's complicated? ╟─TreasuryTagwithout portfolio─╢ 08:46, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
I typed in Lupin III, and "something/someone/some link" redirected me to Lupine and the mess of the page instead. No Mistyping as TreasuryTag has wrongfully assumed. TreasuryTag, Wikipedia:Assume good faith (talk) 05:29, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Click on the Lupin III link that you just created, and it takes you to the right page. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 05:42, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Thinking someone made a typo is ABF??? Face-confused.svg Anyway, Lupin III has never been a redirect to Lupine as far as I can see from the page history. You can check for yourself. Did you follow a link from another article? If so, the problem may be with that link. ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 05:37, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
The Lupine article is meant to be a disambig, but recently someone copied the contents of an article about lupin the plant to it. There was some confusion about what was meant to be there, but I've reverted it back to being a disambig again. The page was definitely a mess. - Bilby (talk) 08:50, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Bret Hart[edit]

Dear All,

I would like to bring to your attention the page of wrestler Bret Hart. Over the last few days (and indeed the same incidents occured months earlier, through posters who are now banned - using the exact same language) the accepted, and time tested page has been edited to hide / buffer certain incidents. The editors in question are content in leaving the page to look like a fan page for this wrestler.

The Bloodstained Memoirs section seems to be the focal editing point. Although the facts originaly listed are accurate, and cited, (and can be looked up independently) they are constantly trying to be changed to infactual accounts, or altered to be "pro Hart".

The same goes for the Greg Oliver incident. I cited evidence which paints the incident in a far more unbiased fasion, and this was labbled "vandilism" by the trouble editors. I also took down uneccasary and very one sided information from the article lead to the same response.

The entire article is written in a "Bret hart Favoured" tint which is obviously against Wiki policy, and the majority of the information does not even contain cites for what is stated. Its all very one sided.

The editors in question are constantly being foul in discussion, and reverting things to name calling, and trolling etc. The article has gone untested for far too long, dispite myself, and others giving multiple warnings for this to stop. It seems they have no regard for the policies here, and are content for things to go around in circles. I even tried to compromise with this editor, but they wanted it all their way, and again reverted my edits to his/her version of events.

I would appreciate immediate action, from somebody who is unbiased, and not even into wrestling, to see things as they are for Wiki policy.

Thank You. Commoncase (talk) 14:56, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

It should also be worth noting, that a long standing "controversy" section was removed, and its content fit into other sections of the article. This was nothing more than a clever way to phase sections out as "not fitting under the new heading", and these claims are now starting to take on effect. Commoncase (talk) 15:01, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Note that this was transferred here after originally being posted to WP:AIV [2].Kralizec! (talk) 15:14, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Article fully protected for three days due to edit warring. Tan | 39 16:48, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Having looked at the situation on the article, it appears that the problem editor involved is very much Commoncase - the one who reported this. Commoncase has...
  • Logged in and out of his IP address to edit [3]
  • Engaged in POV-pushing
    • Adds negative info [4]
    • Removes positive info [5] [6]
  • General incivility [7] [8]
  • Accusing another editor of being "Bret's manager" [9] [10] [11]
  • There's more tendentiousness if you go back a few months further, but Wikipedia is very slow for me and I'm tired of diff-hunting.
Furthermore, a glance at his contribution history seems to show that Commoncase is probably involved with the documentary Bloodstained Memoirs. He has become a borderline Single Purpose Account since the film was released, has an obvious negative view of Hart, and claims familiarity with Hart's manager, "Marcy Engelstein".
Suggesting that scrutiny be directed towards Commoncase. McJEFF (talk) 03:46, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Commoncase's problem simply stems from the fact that his pro-Bloodstained Memoirs, anti-Bret Hart agenda is being challenged. The producer's comments were PROFANE (third-and only reliable-cite fully supports this: "THE FOLLOWING BLOG CONTAINS PROFANE LANGUAGE"), they were sourced from a MySpace blog (where's the debate?) and there is no "strong" conflict (major NPOV vio - no reputable third-party sources supporting a "strong" conflict). Quite frankly, this whole thing was started by Commoncase, and now that his biased agenda is being challenged (relentlessly promoting Bloodstained Memoirs and criticizing Bret Hart), he's reporting OTHER editors. What a joke. (talk) 10:31, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Is this spam?[edit]


I'm not sure what to do about this (if anything). The last time JIB830 (talk · contribs) added a link to his blog to a number of articles I explained to him why in my opinion he shouldn't be doing this. He's done it again this month, to over 20 articles. I think this meets our definition of spam, but I'm not sure. So, report this as spam? Warn the user and revert his edits and block him next time? Ignore it? I'd like some guidance from others with knowledge of what is spam and what is just a disagreement about a link. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 10:53, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

  • *scratches head* he's manually adding his blog to a navbox full of blogs? The whole "Commentaries on Parshah Matot" navbox looks like spam, to me. I have no clue what (or who, I guess ) "Parshah Matot" is though, and to be honest little desire to know. Shouldn't the target really be the removal of the navbox? That seems to be the lure that is attracting this user to add his links.
    V = I * R (talk to Ω) 11:02, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
    Why should the navbox be removed? It seems to be a warped solution. Blocking (or preferably counseling) the spammer should work better. Aditya (talk) 11:06, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
    It's a navbox full of external links, though. If that doesn't break WP:EL... I'll grant yuo that I don't know what is on the other side of those links, but if what is there should be in a navbox, then it really should be able to use internal links regardless (along with an actual navbox, designed for the purpose, rather then a generic {{Navbox}}).
    V = I * R (talk to Ω) 11:11, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
    I think that navs boxes were purely for internal wikilinks? I've never seen it used this way. The problem with using a navbox in this fashion is that it obscures where the reader is being taken and I think many people (and I am one of them) would assume it would be taking them to an article here rather than an external site. This is why article have external links sections, no? --Cameron Scott (talk) 11:20, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
    V = I * R (talk to Ω) 11:23, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
(ec)Yes, it's spam. The "Warning spammers" section should answer your queries. Aditya (talk) 11:04, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Since he's done this before, I've blocked him until he promises to stop doing it. I'm looking at the navbox now, though. Black Kite 11:14, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
  • It's spam. Much of the navbox looks like spam. Moreover, the navbox isn't tied to a template, but seems to have been copy-pasted into each article (hence the edits to each article made to add the link). Gwen Gale (talk) 11:23, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Moreover, now that I'm up to speed on this, yes, the navbox shouldn't carry ELs at all. I'd say it should be deleted from all the articles forthwith. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:28, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Attack page or something violating BLP[edit]

Hi, Chris Cunningham (disambiguation) was created solely to out a BLPs supposed real name - they get death threats all the time so we have insisted on strong reliable sourcing before revealing identifying information. The same user has be edit-warring on the article itself sourcing this "fact" to fake YouTube videos. Could someone please delete Chris Cunningham (disambiguation) immediately? Thank you. -- Banjeboi 02:38, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

  • Dunno anything about whether or not the name belongs in the article, but I deleted it as a dab page w/ two targets. I'll look into the rest of the stuff shortly. Protonk (talk) 02:49, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Thank you, he also added a bit on a Tennessee article but that was deleted. This same issue s flares up every few months but this was by far the most creative. -- Banjeboi 02:54, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
      • Well, the connection is still visible in the deletion log (which is also visible on the Chris Cunningham (disambiguation) page). Is that a problem? Jafeluv (talk) 03:07, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
        • It's been there for two years. So my guess is that removal isn't too urgent. Protonk (talk) 03:19, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
          • Ok. And I guess the connection will soon be available for anyone searching ANI archives for "chris crocker", anyway. Jafeluv (talk) 03:28, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
          • Or a google search for it. Protonk (talk) 03:39, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Outdent. Yes, it is a problem, can it be oversighted at the deletion log of Chris Cunningham (disambiguation)? There are a couple of issues here, one is that we have to avoid outing people, if reliable sources do so then we can follow their lead. Talk page comments and blog posts on otherwise reliable sources still don't count as evidence; and, btw, we're talking about death threats. Now even if you don't care for the guy consider that the last thing we want to do besides accidentally outing him and getting him killed ... is accidentally outing someone else who is then killed. -- Banjeboi 05:29, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

  • You can email oversight if you like. I won't, because it's two years old and information about the guy exists in plain sight on google. I'm all for refusing to 'out' him on the talk page or the article, per WP:NPF, but the horse is out of the barn on that dab page deletion log. Protonk (talk) 05:42, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
    • I'll see if I can get it addressed, just because it's been sitting in a form there for a while doesn't mean it's acceptable. And let's not confuse Google with reality, there is no reliable sourcing to assert his birth name - that's the point so it could be Cunningham or something else entirely; would the mistaken identity murder of someone named Chris Cunningham sit that much better? -- Banjeboi 06:38, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
      • I realize that I'm butting in here, but... I wouldn't bother. Leaving the history there actually advertises the fact that "we" (the Wikipedia community, not even just the admins) simply won't condone this type of disruption. You'll never completely dissuade people from doing this sort of thing, no matter what you do. Perversely, the more that you try to prevent in anticipation of enforcement, the worse the problem becomes. Just let sleeping dogs lay.
        V = I * R (talk to Ω) 07:00, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
      • I would no more blame a 2 year old dab page for the murder of a human being than I would blame Jodie Foster for Ronald Reagan's shooting. People receive death threats from sociopaths. Conflating (even implicitly) refusal to jump all over a problem that you have advertised inadvertently with murder is an ugly method of persuasion. Protonk (talk) 07:08, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to apologize for some misunderstanding I may have contributed to this situation. I deleted the original edits because they were completely unsourced (and in the case of his alleged home town, wrong). The other editor asked if he could add his real name, and I gave a quick response that if he had a good source, he could. In my defense, it was well past my bedtime and I qualified it with an "if", but in hindsight I wish I had given a better definition of what Wikipedia considers a good source, actually looked at his source (which turns out to be a YouTube vid, but also had something about 20/20 in the name which my sleep-deprived name thought was related to the ABC News program) and clearly told him not to re-add the name to the article -- Foetusized (talk) 15:54, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Bobbygt92 continues to upload images without licenses[edit]

Bobbygt92 (talk · contribs) continues to upload images without any licenses despite a final warning. Time for some admin intervention. — Σxplicit 02:56, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

  • Not done Try talking to them using words rather than templates. Also, what they are doing is not as disruptive as most uploaders, who claim an image as free when it is non-free. The user appears to have uploaded only have uploaded 5 images, all of the same subject. Let's try and involve them in the project before we hit them with the banhammer. Protonk (talk) 03:25, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
    • I was about to block myself for 48 hours, but Protonk is probably right here. I quickly undid my original block. A user should take the time to craft an explanation of the problem before jumping straight to the block. Crypticly worded templates can be hard for new users to parse. --Jayron32 03:29, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
      • To be fair, even if they are templated, the template clearly explains that the images the user uploaded don't have licenses. The purpose of a block is the stop disruption, and in this case, it would be the continuous uploading of unlicensed images (granted, the user has ceased editing for now, but the point remains). It may not be as bad as blatant copyright violations, but that doesn't make it any better. Various warnings, including my own and the ones included in images like this one, should be clear indicators that the uploader has taken no time to address the problem or read our guidelines and policies. — Σxplicit 03:45, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
        • If it's not as bad as "blatant copyright violations", how is it also not any better? It's clearly better than uploading non-free media as free, simply because they get sorted into a pseudo-speedy deletion queue if they are orphaned. Also the F3 upload suggests to me that the user is trying to figure out how to avoid getting the templates and warnings. The next step for them (should they not get the point) is to lie and say that an image is free content. The purpose of human to human contact is to interrupt that chain. Sit down, write a note explaining why their uploads aren't free (most people assume "on the internet" or "for public display" == free), and tell them where to go from there. It's entirely possible that they will never understand or care about our policies, but nowhere is it required that they read them prior to editing and I'm not about to block or recommend blocking a user on so little evidence of wrongdoing. I'm also aware of the purpose of a block and when/if I see incipient disruption coming from that account, I'll change my mind. Until then do not bite the newcomers. Protonk (talk) 03:55, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
          • It's not any better because it's still not the correct thing to do. Trying to get around warnings by choosing different licenses is still wrong. You're correct when you say they aren't required to read policies and guidelines, but that doesn't mean they're free to breach them. If they don't take the time to read the template, or at least contact and ask me or any other editor to ask what they're doing wrong when a template explains it to them, I don't see the point of typing out a personal message saying the same thing in different, personal words. And for the record, I'm not biting the newbies. There's only an amount of good faith I'm able to assume. — Σxplicit 04:17, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
            • Well, you asked for some admin intervention and you got some. I'm sorry you didn't like it. If you aren't interested in writing a personal message, don't. But I won't block the user and (as I said above) I will recommend against a block unless they continue to upload copyvio material. Protonk (talk) 05:56, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

While I'm not completely against Protonk's suggestion, I would like to comment on this. I do not think the template in question here is cryptic; it says exactly what should be said and what the problem is. Before we had this template, we had to manually tell people to stop uploading images and not attaching a license. Someone finally said, "hey, that's a lot of extra work, let's create a template". Templates are not inherently bad or bitey; they are merely convenient. Templating the regulars is another story, obviously - but for a new editor, this is exactly why we have these templates. If we can't template the regulars, and we shouldn't template the newbies, what are they there for? Is your entire argument that we shouldn't be using any templates? I don't want or have to "sit down" and craft a note; someone already did. Reinventing the wheel. If the editor can't understand the template, they should ask questions. If they can't figure out how to ask questions, they shouldn't be uploading pictures anyway. Secondly - a short block here would have been appropriate. Blocks are not meant to be punitive, and here we would be preventing further uploads from happening before the editor could educate themselves on our policies. Tan | 39 04:31, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

  • "Templates are not inherently bad or bitey; they are merely convenient. Templating the regulars is another story, obviously - but for a new editor, this is exactly why we have these templates. If we can't template the regulars, and we shouldn't template the newbies, what are they there for?" I'm of the opinion that they represent a method of communication with very little efficacy. In practice they mostly serve as a wicket to get through before we can block someone. We should explore why we don't template the regulars before determining that templates serve as an appropriate stand in for personal communication. We don't template the regulars because we can presume they know the rules...and because most of the templates are pretty bristly. {{Uw-sofixit}} is a hell of a lot worse than "here are sources X, Y, and Z, you can help me fix the problems w/ the page". We don't template the regulars because we recognize that people ignore impersonal warnings but cue in to personal suggestions. We don't extend this courtesy to new and IP users for a mix of good and bad reasons--the obvious good reason being that there are a shitload of new/IP users. Protonk (talk) 05:56, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
    • A block wasn't probably the immediate thing here, but I have deleted the images because they are clearly non-free images of a living person and would never be able to be used. Black Kite 10:55, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Actually, I don't template the regulars because I assume they're somewhat familiar with Wikipedia guidelines. Thus, the edit triggering the template was probably a mistake or something more subtle that requires a personal response. And I still use some templates with experienced editors such as 3RR and NPA as that seems to get their attention. The template themselves are fine. Level 1's assume good faith, explain in general terms why the edit was reverted/changed, and give pointers to the relevant guidelines. If a customized message is needed, there's space for that too. As someone up above noted, there's only so many ways to say, for example, "Don't delete valid material without filling out the edit summary". --NeilN talkcontribs 14:49, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Harassment by anon IP[edit]

Resolved: Blocked for using open proxy and as possible sock

I don't know who this is but they have been clearly wikihounding me and have caused at least one semi-outing problem (now resolved). I think there might be a possibility that this is an open-proxy operated by Google, but I cannot verify it. I also see some peculiar similarities between that account and User:Landed little marsdon. Could an administrator look into this, and maybe give an opinion as to whether a CU might be appropriate?

ScienceApologist (talk) 16:58, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I am missing the "clear wikihounding". A post to your talk page and a comment to Lar a month ago? Tan | 39 17:05, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Content is what is important here. The incredible level of snarkiness is indicative of User:Davkal, for example. In my experience, users acting like this are some of the most destructive around here. I already lost a mentor in part because of this kind of thing. In the past I would have confronted the IP on their talkpage, but now I think it wiser to get outsiders to handle this instead. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:09, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Well, unrelated to the actual editing, I blocked this IP as an open proxy; it is used by the Google translator service. Tan | 39 17:25, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
ScienceApologist is right. Any administrator who needs proof of that is welcome to contact me offsite. This is the tip of a nasty iceberg. Durova306 17:27, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Is there a reason off-wiki discussion is needed? Those two diffs (only one of which is on SA's talk page) don't seem especially helpful to building article content, but I can't see how they amount to a campaign of harassment. Many of us are sarcastic at times. Is there more to this, and if it can't be discussed on wiki then I think soem explanation for that should be provided for those of us not in the loop. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:52, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
There is a reason that Durova's story needs to be left off-wiki. There is a difference, CoM, between accounts that engage in tongue-and-cheek ribbing and accounts that hide behind proxies and anon IPs to attempt to cause people grief. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:04, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
I hear you SA. But transparency is also important. Maybe I just don't have the level of trust in off-wiki conferencing that you do. ;) ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:08, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
CoM, this is real enough. Surely you realize that for some things, the less attention paid here the better? DGG ( talk ) 20:33, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Okay, well then close the thread. All I see are two diffs that don't amount to much and a comment by Durova whose track record on secret investigations comes well short of being perfect. But I'm willing to take the word of you and SA on faith. Is there a policy page on how these military tribunals are conducted or is it classified? ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:47, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
ChildofMidnight's slur is entirely uncalled-for. If that user had wanted to see what I had to show s/he might have emailed and put it to the test, or at least have contacted user talk before slamming my character at a public board. Do the words severe offsite harassment lack sufficient meaning? I've referred to this repeatedly and consistently since it happened, although somewhat quietly because I have no desire to be revictimized. One would hope, if such a thing had to happen, it would be at the hands of banned trolls rather than by people who have editing rights and ought to know better. For shame. Durova306 21:03, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
All I said was that your track record on secret investigations isn't perfect. I understand you may be sensitive over that issue, but I think my concerns are reasonable. A lot of decision making goes on behind closed doors which causes a lot of problems. And as far as my comment goes, it could have been much worse. I could have called you darling. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:08, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
ChildofMidnight isn't really talking about you per say Durova, oddly enough, he's angry about this and lashing out on ANI threads as a result. At least that's how I read it, as he has engaged in this exact same kind of behavior before when sanctioned by ArbCom, blocked by an admin, or even warned for something. The best bet is to ignore him, because his gibes are not really about the purported topic of the thread, but rather about the great injustice the Arbs have done him by clarifying the scope of his previously instituted topic ban. I know that's a failure to AGF on my part, but I'm afraid that's the reality. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:18, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
  • <outdent> I have tried to be circumspect. But if others feel it would be helpful to go into more detail on the history of secret tribunals and black op type operations conducted on and off Wikipedia I am happy to do so. If there is a reason why something can't be discussed on-wiki it is entirely fair and reasonable to expect as clear as possible an explanation as to why that is the case. The attacks and smears engaged in by Bigtimepeace are part of a pattern of abuse engaged in by that administrator, but I have a pretty thick skin having survived this long on Wikipedia while refusing to kowtow to the abusive admins and POV pushers. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:37, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Let me see if I understand what you're saying, CoM. Are you threatening to reveal personal information that was discussed off-wiki just to make a point and to scare people off from discussing something which doesn't involve you? If that is not what you're threatening to do, then I apologize for misunderstanding you, but would request a clarification. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:14, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
I think my concerns over transparency and process are reasonable and appropriate. I haven't attempted to intimidate or threaten anyone. I tried to discretely note that our history for secret campaigns is not a good one. This issue has come up before and I hope we don't repeat the same mistakes. My question is pretty simple: when do use secret processes and what protections are in place to make sure that there is really a need for secrecy and that those processes are not abused? That is all. The original report seems to have been resolved. My concerns over off-wiki discussions and procedures that aren't transparent remain. I've answered your questions, but no one has answered mine. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:36, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Let me get this straight. You're asking for transparency in sock puppet investigations? And you don't see why this might not be such a good idea? Correct me if I'm mistaken. Auntie E. 19:28, 30 August 2009 (UTC)


Resolved: death threats aren't allowed, even when made in hidden text

User:Dungfreak made a general death threat here. Singularity42 (talk) 18:51, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

The username and the contributions are no good either. I'm pressed for time; could someone please indef, and delete all the nonsense? Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:54, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
The quicker the better. The guy won't stop removing speedy deletion templates... Singularity42 (talk) 18:56, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
I saw this and circled back to block, but Tanthalus already got him. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:04, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Done. Tan | 39 19:05, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Legal threat[edit]


Please see [[14]]. I'm going to have lawyers sicced on me, apparently. I've warned them that they'll be blocked unless they withdraw the legal threat. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 20:36, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Help please[edit]

Resolved: Moves accomplished. Horologium (talk) 16:17, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

A thread archived before these three articles were moved, I moved all the other ones I was able. If someone would be so kind to migrate them to more MOS compliant titles I would appreciate it. -- Banjeboi 20:28, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Just for some background context, could you please link to the discussion involving these pages? –Juliancolton | Talk 21:25, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, here is the original thread. -- Banjeboi 00:38, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Pretty pretty please!?! I know this is boring but we really do need to move these. -- Banjeboi 22:06, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

 Done. I used "Pornographic actor" for all three, as Mark Davis (actor) already existed as a redirect to the porn star's bio. Horologium (talk) 16:16, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Thank you! -- Banjeboi 02:14, 31 August 2009 (UTC)


I managed to step in this when I swung by the vandalism-in-progress page and saw that an established user had been reported there as retaliation over content dispute. User:Collectonian, who this user was in dispute with, pointed out that this young man's userpage contained a great deal of personal information, perhaps too much. I deleted it for his protection, but sure enough, I'm now in the middle of a hassle over it. Would someone else please review User:DBZfan29? If he limited his personal info as claimed on the talk page, please feel free to restore it. IMO, he's listed too much and this is way too visible a site for such sensitive info. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 19:53, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I think it was probably too much info, even though the user claims "It's just a copy of my FanCorps profile and it gives info that any fanboy/fangirl would write on their page.". There wasn't a ton of personal info, but enough that I would feel uncomfortable leaving it up. TNXMan 19:58, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Exactly what I felt. He pulled up just short of using his last name, but I agree that leaving it up is not in his best interest. I'm still trying to get him to calm down after the userpage deletion and the edit warring. Here's hoping he will. Gotta run...thanks for the opinion. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 20:02, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Especially given that DBZfan29 says the information is copied from profile pages elsewhere, this may be a copyvio anyway. Chunks of the userpage (which is too Facebooky to fit the WP:UP guildelines in any case) are from a profile. says (under "Intellectual Property Rights") "…you agree that you will not copy, reproduce, alter, modify or create derivative works from the Service." Does this include profile content a member has put there themselves? Tonywalton Talk 23:31, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
As a side note, I was curious when I saw that mentioned on DBFan's talk page since I have a friend who uses Blogger. Looking a bit further down, Google firmly states that you own all copyrights to your blog posts, profile, etc, so I presume they are referring only to the Blogger service itself and its trappings/domain specific language. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:25, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for that - I'd missed it. Tonywalton Talk 23:23, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism by 66.4.233.x IP range[edit]

66.4.233.x is a range of IP addresses registered to the State of Tennessee Department of Education. After noticing a recent spate of vandalism by, I looked into the contribution history of to The following IPs have been engaged in regular or periodic vandalism:


I added {{SharedIPEDU}} to these pages and started an abuse report, but the activity histories seem to warrant a soft block of all IPs within the 66.4.233.x range. Also, there may be additional ranges within 66.4.x.x or 66.5.x.x (all owned by the TN Dept of Education per their whois) that have similar problems, but I'm not knowledgeable enough about Wikipedia to check contributions for these by any method other than manual. --Zach425 talk/contribs 01:17, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

For anyone that has the correct gadget installed, here is the editing history of the range noted above: [15] It does not appear that a rangeblock would result in ANY collateral damage, since checking 20 random edits from about 10 random IPs from that range turned up ZERO non-vandalism edits. I will be enacting a /24 soft rangeblock (anon only, account creation allowed) on this range unless someone can come up with a reasonable objection. --Jayron32 02:12, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 Done. [16]. 3 month soft block (anon only, account creation allowed) should minimize the high level of hit-and-run type vandalism found from this range. --Jayron32 02:15, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Go to your preferences, gadgets and click the button next to "Allow /16 and /24 – /32 CIDR ranges on Special:Contributions forms (uses API), as well as wildcard prefix searches, e.g., "Splark*". (Please report any issues here.)". that should allow you to check range contributions. Protonk (talk) 02:23, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
I think a further improvement over the CIDR gadget is the Soxred93 tool, which has the advantage of listing all the contributions from the range in order by date, with the most recent ones first. (This helps focus your attention on vandals who are currently active). See an example here. The CIDR gadget presents the same data, but sorted first by IP and only then by date, which is tolerable for a /24 but cumbersome for a /16. EdJohnston (talk) 04:40, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Cool. LEarn something new every day. Protonk (talk) 05:58, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for taking action and for all the information - very helpful! --Zach425 talk/contribs 22:40, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

User LineofWisdom[edit]

Resolved: Indefblocked by Tan.— dαlus Contribs 18:52, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

This is an open request for a serious action against the above user for my constant pestering by him for the past two weeks.

  • Firstly he started unnecessary edits in the form of inserting the names of his clan members in an article Marwat co-created by me. When I responded to his vandalism and POV entries then he placed an AFD tag on this wonderful article through one of his confirmed sockpuppet. Obviously the result was a Speedy Keep.
  • Secondly then he indulged into an Edit War on the same article with me and as a result I unintentionally violated 3RR and was banned for 24 hours but upon my appeal this user was also banned for a week for Edit Warring as well as using yet another sockpuppet. Article Marwat was also protected upon my request by Jeremy so that he couldn’t do his vanity edits in it. Needless to mention that while appealing against his week long ban he became personal to me and Jeremy who eventually brought a case against him at Administrators Board. He however, got away due to the tolerance policy of Wikipedia.
  • Now as a matter of fact he has been vandalizing all the articles related to the parent article on Marwat or created/started by me and the latest example is his placing an absolutely unnecessary AFD at Khayal Muhammad which would prove to be a waste of time for all of us. My other articles which he has disturbed can be found through his user contributions and can be confirmed from my user page.
  • I leave it to the administrators to decide the fate of this person whose edits are not at all helpful and who is just here to vandalize Pashto related articles. I am positive that he is a reincarnation of an earlier vandal A M. Khan with whom I had a long tussle of removing his vanity entries in the parent article of Marwat. I am saying this because their style of writing and vandalism targets are exactly the same.
  • I expect justice from you. PLEASE HELP ME OUT HERE. -- MARWAT  07:05, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
you're back here already? In my opinion, the two of you just need to disengage for a while. There are over 3 million articles on Wikipedia now, surely something else can keep your editorial interest for a few days. Let him have his way for a while, and then come back to the issue that the two of you have when things have cooled down a little.
V = I * R (talk to Ω) 07:22, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Your comments are a little disheartening. What do you mean i am back already? This is my first time I brought this issue into your notice. If you are referring to Jeremy's report then I had nothing to do with it. I don't have any problem with him being around but what bothers me is that he is religiously following me around and is pestering me. Now my specific complain needs to be addressed separately. And besides, leaving aside your comment of 3 million articles, should we leave him to have his way with decent articles by placing bad faith AFD's? -- MARWAT  08:03, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
First, full disclosure: I am not, and don't actually want to be, an admin. Therefore, regardless of my personal opinions here, nothing substantive will come of them. Still, I have some experience with this type of thing, and I'm telling you that coming here so soon after the last incident involving the two of you just doesn't bode well, regardless of if you had anything to do with filing it or not. I stand by my earlier statement, that the best move is simply to let go for some short period of time (a week or two would be good, but even 24-48 hours would help) and come back to it fresh. I know how frustrating this sort of thing can be, believe me, especially when you feel that you're in the right. The thing is, if you really are right, then you should be able to stay cool, and therefore weather any reports that the other party may make. Coming running to AN/I isn't really going to resolve anything anyway, even if someone does "give you justice" and bans the other party in the dispute. They'll just be back, so it's a hollow victory even if you achieve it.
V = I * R (talk to Ω) 09:01, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Point taken but the frustrating thing is that I am really tired of this. I am ready to let it go but he is stuck to me like a skunk's smell. And you will see that the moment he re-logs on he will taint this discussion as well. -- MARWAT  09:12, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
WP:STALKing is a real problem, and is taken seriously, so if that is what is occurring then you should limit your report here specifically to supporting a case that you're being "hounded". In other words, don't bother bringing up the background and whatnot, at least not until asked. Limit your evidence to actual "wikihounding" incidents by providing diffs showing how the other user has been harassing you.
V = I * R (talk to Ω) 09:25, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
In the prior thread (which was mainly involving me, and not Marwatt, Ohms law) part of my complaint was that LineofWisdom specifically made reference to mine and Marwatt's families ([17], [18], [19]), an act which I rebuked him for and which led me to order him to stop posting on my talk page, which he refused to do; he repeatedly reverted my removals of further comments from that thread until it was pointed out to him (by another user) that I was not only permitted to do so, but that defying my request was tantamount to harassment. -Jeremy (v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!) 15:10, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
  • In my defence 1) It has never confirmed that I have been using sock, despite my open and voiceferous challenges. 2) I have always been attacked by this gentleman personally, instead of commenting as per subject, wether it is AfD page, Page Protection / Unprotection requests or what ever. 3) I never chased him but chased the articles which seems Un-Wikipedian to me. 4) You could see, in past, he nominated the articles i) of Ex-Chairman Senate, Chief Minister, Justice, Interior Minister and acting President of Pakistan for deletion ii) of Ex-Chief Justice iii) of Member Parliament and Minsiter, regardless of knowing it too clearly that those are too much notable people and posiiton holders, just because they belonged to his rival clan. This is also the reason that led him to edit 90% of his editings at Marwat, as he never wants to have references o his rival clan. Infact, he is full of venom against those who are / is against is tribe. He, on vatarious ocassions has disobeyed decissions of the administrators / operators and advocates who decided or mediated any disputes. He has been to abusive, for this you could see the talk /discussiegardon page of Marwat, where he in Pashto, as translated to me by one of the fellow, has openly challenged and abused his oppoent that ""At any case, I won't allow insertion of the name of that ****** )he is refering to an oppoent of rival clan). Now, the ball is your court, wether to ban or block me or kick him for atleast one month so he must know the price of engaging in personalism and rivalry here on this prestigious site. Regards LineofWisdom (talk) 12:10, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
    so... basically, both of you have brought your real world tribal conflict here to Wikipedia? Do I really have to spell out how that's bad? Wikipedia isn't a battle ground. I honestly think that both of you should just walk away from anything having to do with this conflict. I'm sure that you're contributions would be welcomed elsewhere, but you should really both avoid anything having to do with Pakistan. It seems obvious that you each have personal biases which prevent you from having a clear view on these subjects.
    V = I * R (talk to Ω) 12:30, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
    Agreed. Maybe an admin should consider a topic ban, at the very least? And LineOfWisdom, when CU comes back as  Likely, as it did in your case, that's very strong evidence. Don't try to argue a technicality. It's about as convincing as "the dog ate my homework". Tim Song (talk) 14:41, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Note - Relevant recent AfDs: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Khayal Muhammad and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rafiq Shinwari. Plus this DRV. this edit summary also seems rather problematic. Tim Song (talk) 14:41, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
  • No, I am not fighting our tribal fight here. I am Punjabi and my fellow and brother Marwatt is a Pashtun. I could assure that I was never biased and wouldn't be biased. I would love to contribute here with good-faith but I am not chased by him. As far as user Tim song's comments are concerned, let me once again make it clear that I have not used the Sock Puppets and my ban is somewhat itself a biased opinion. My fellow, without gettin against me for no reason, I humbly request you to see the User's (who is alleged as my sock) contribution and you will come to know that infact he voted and commented against me. He was using sock, no doubt, as we was the author of the page and wanted to strenghten the tally. I am sorry, if some of my contributions shows I am biased or am in a race of revenge or fight. It is may be I couldn't express myself as infact I am. I am heartly sorry to wikipedia, for being harsh in the past. But now, having nothing in my heart again anyone, I would request to have a check on me which may be placed for my contributions I made since being unblocked, after I was blocked -- so far unjustified - for false allegations. LineofWisdom (talk) 15:11, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I note that those two AFDs are on articles Marwatt started, LineofWisdom, so you might wanna come up with a defense for that. Also, it's not unheard of for a sock to evade scrutiny by !voting in opposition to the main account. Finally, I will say this again since you do not seem to be getting it: Checkuser results in the positive (Possible, Likely, Confirmed) that lead to a block are enough evidence to block. -Jeremy (v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!) 15:15, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Threat received on my talk page Although apropos the above points raised by Jeremy and Tim Song the guy has left me a threatening challenge in our national language written on my talk page (translation in brief = you have messed with the wrong guy so face the music). Where I am going to raise the issue as WP:STALK too I hope that someone will put some sense in this guy now for sure. Don't you think all the above and this latest threat is enough evidence to incriminate him? I rest my case. -- MARWAT  15:55, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
I blocked LineofWisdom indefinitely, and am slightly amazed this didn't happen earlier. Yes, we are supposed to assume good faith - but only up to a point; we should not be fools about it. This guy was here to push multiple agendas, had abused multiple accounts, and had civility issues. Blocked indefinitely per WP:COMPETENCE - QED. Tan | 39 16:05, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks everyone especially Jeremy and Tim Song for being so vigilant. Jeremy I would have left you a thank note on your talk page but its semi-protected hence i am doing it over here. -- MARWAT  16:35, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Null persp. As an aside, semiprotection only prevents anon users and new accounts (<10 edits and <4 days) from editing (Not surprisingly, NawlinWiki's recent incidents are why I have it semi'd). I don't think you'd be affected by it. -Jeremy (v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!) 23:01, 30 August 2009 (UTC)


Another strange case I stumbled upon during new page patrol. This is a brand-new user with a well-honed sense of wiki markup who is going absolutely bonkers posting new articles on the kid's TV show "Arthur." Trouble is, a lot of the plot synopses are copyvios and I'm unsure of the images. I'd left word with her (I assume she's a "she" based on the username), but she went ahead and did another copyvio. No edits to any talk page, no creation of a userpage. The thing that really gets me is that I think I've seen this before. Is this a returning blocked user, perhaps? No shortage of weird on Wikipedia! Thanks. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 23:38, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

User Angiex3 notified about this thread. Notification is required. Exxolon (talk) 23:46, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Looks like bambiefan. Send a message to Kww or Collectonian to doublecheck. If one of them says it matches I'll indef the account. Protonk (talk) 23:51, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

You are SO correct regarding the warning. I got involved in editing another article and I forgot to post one. Thanks for pointing that out. It doesn't look like Bambifan, but if it is...whammo. I'll send a note right now. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 00:20, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

You sure? Then I must be confusing another sock who deals heavily in the Arthur show, introducing fake episodes, credits etc. Protonk (talk) 00:30, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
I was wrong. See Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/The_Chubby_Brother and this AN/I post. This stuff makes me wish that we kept a more up to date LTA. Protonk (talk) 00:33, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I believe we have a winner. Off to do some blocking and housecleaning. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 00:36, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Bagged and tagged. I have to log off, but I'll add this little wiggler to the LTA page when I get back. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 00:54, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Navbox used for external links - (continuing discussion above[edit]

Now that this has come up here, can we continue discussing it? I reverted a few of these once, or converted them to ELs, and was reverted by Dauster (talk · contribs). I started a discussion here and invited Dauster, who didn't respond.. I'll invite him to this discussion. Dougweller (talk) 11:39, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I've deleted all those I could find, they're hiding spots for spam and not even templates. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:45, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Yea, I kind of hate to say it, but this doesn't really need any discussion. Those navboxes are currently simply unacceptably malformed, and they should go.
V = I * R (talk to Ω) 11:49, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
I must say, they may be worse than malformed but rather, could have been faked to look like templates. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:51, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
It's just really hard for me to admit that something should be deleted, is all. They should go. There's plenty of support to do so in the above linked discussion, regardless.
V = I * R (talk to Ω) 11:55, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
I have deleted the lot. --Cameron Scott (talk) 11:56, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I think they're all gone now. Some of them had been there for 20 months. Won't go so far as to say they were meant to be faked, Dauster's edit summaries whilst putting them up were straightforward enough, but they wound up as tidy looking and misleading "cans of spam." Gwen Gale (talk) 12:12, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks everyone. I hadn't thought of the possible spam issue. Dougweller (talk) 12:46, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Sorry to have offended the four of you. No deception is intended, merely a more elegant lsiting of commentaries on the subjects of the articles. Would you be comfortable with a box of the sort that tops this page? I'm happy to make the changes. Dauster (talk) 16:12, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
I think everyone was considering possible deception, not that you intended any. However, we have guidelines on external links concerning their placement, what should be linked and what should not be linked, and the number of links, and those should be followed. So, no, not the sort of box that tops this page which is for an entirely different purpose. Dougweller (talk) 16:59, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, the concern here wasn't with your actions (which are clearly good faith) but rather with the wider implications of using a navbox in that way. --Cameron Scott (talk) 21:55, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
I wanted to add a note here in support of the fact that the concern here wasn't the obviously good faith efforts to improve the articles, it was simply an issue with implementation.
V = I * R (talk to Ω) 01:57, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Wanting to see what all the hubbub was about, I looked at some of the articles in question. They are full of external links in the article body. It is my understanding that the only place where an external link is allowed to appear is in an external links section, is that an accurate interpretation of current policy? These articles also contain external links sections that seem rather bloated. Should these be cleaned out? Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 17:12, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes, you're correct that external links shouldn't appear in the article body. Be careful with simply trimming them, though, since they might be being used for inline references; that sort of thing needs to be converted to use <ref> tags instead, which is luckily fairly easy. As for bloated external links sections - feel free to trim anything that seems unneeded. We aren't primarily a link directory, and no external link has a "right" to be there. Gavia immer (talk) 17:47, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Only chiming in with Gavia here, watch out for something meant as an inline citation but otherwise, unless there's overwhelming helpfulness to be had with more, cutting external links down to 2-4 is very ok. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:24, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Many of the links in the article body seem to be cites to biblical passages, often the same 2 or 3, repeated throughout. I'll work on converting the refs this week but I don't feel my knowledge of the topic is sufficient to address the EL sections. The attention of editors more familiar with Hebraic studies/Judaism would be most welcome. Thanks for the advice everybody. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 20:52, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm no expert but a lot of those articles look like they are being used for the study of Judaism rather than being studies of Judaism? --Cameron Scott (talk) 22:01, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

After reading through the first 21 of the weekly Torah reading articles I must confess to feeling overwhelmed. All of them contain dozens, if not hundreds, of external links (usually as duplicative refs to a particular passage or reading) followed by massive sections of links to external commentary and they are all written in an in-universe style that provides precious little context for a reader unfamiliar with the subject. There is good content here (also great illustrations) but there are quite a few articles and they all need some attention. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 23:52, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
As much as possible, external links should be converted to internal links. Even if that converts some links to red links, that's not an issue (see WP:REDDEAL). Obviously, the inline reference issue is slightly different of course, and those should be converted to use REF. Religious document references are slightly different... I know that most religious texts are available on Wikisource, and I'm almost certain that there are some templates for linking to them. Either that, or a named and grouped reference could be used to an external source for the text, and those references could be put into a different section. The point being, EL's really shouldn't be in the body of the text. It can take some creativity to adjust them, but it's doable.
V = I * R (talk to Ω) 01:57, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
FYI:Wikisource has a whole category of content for Torah: s:Category:Torah
V = I * R (talk to Ω) 02:21, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
It appears that it is Dauster again who is the main editor for these Weekly Torah articles. Do these belong on Wikpedia at all? Certainly not in this form, where they appear more instructional than encyclopedic Dougweller (talk) 06:07, 31 August 2009 (UTC)


Can anyone help me out here? I'm in an edit war on my own talk page and am starting to be tempted to misuse my admin tools (for protection of my page). Admonish me for losing my temper with an editor who didn't bother to familiarize themselves with AIV and talk page processes before accusing people of things, but I want this editor OFF my talk page, and per WP:BLANKING, I have every right to remove his comments - especially since that thread was properly archived. Thank you. Tan | 39 22:51, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Already reported the user to AIV. Others may wish to comment on the irony. → ROUX  22:52, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
It's your own page. Why not semi-protect it until the interloper goes away? I don't think anyone would find fault with that (except maybe the interloper). Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 22:53, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
I would have to fully protect it, and that's most likely a breach of policy (and, really, I don't want to involve admin tools in this). Tan | 39 22:54, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
I warned him, twice actually. He seems to have stopped, or at least paused. Dayewalker (talk) 22:55, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Again, I don't think it's abuse of admin tools to protect yourself from lunatics. But he'll probably be put on ice at AIV anyway, and if not, you've got several folks watching your page now, so he'll get tired of the ping-pong after awhile. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 23:00, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Seems to be under control now, with repeated citation of WP:Blanking; and another revert would be the 4th. Rd232 talk 23:03, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
My take on it is that many of you are good at helping and supporting yourselves but when an ordinary guy asks for help you can be pretty dismissive and rude. I was the user who raised the vandalism alerts earlier and the user you are now referring to came along and offered some welcome support. I have also asked him to stop but that's up to him. leaky_caldron (talk) 23:06, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Come again? Protonk (talk) 23:19, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
He has appeared to continue his notion of talk page behavior. –túrianpatois 23:51, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Just noting that any further disruption from Declan Davis will likely result in a temporary block. –Juliancolton | Talk 23:59, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

And all this because Salix alba wrote something erroneous back in 2008. Uncle G (talk) 23:54, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

According to his talk page, he has us all over a barrel, whatever that is supposed to imply. Thanks for the eyes. Tan | 39 23:58, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
But why so many of you? Between here and his talk page at least 7 admins. have piled in. Maybe if the "eyes" had been willing to consider the original issue of vandalism, raised in good faith, but apparently in, what was the expression, an incorrectly formatted way, there would have been no need for so much wasted effort this evening. Swarming like beas becuase one admin. has an issue if a rather immature way to do business, if you think about it. Goodnight. leaky_caldron (talk) 00:54, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Eh, you can't be serious? When someone does something wrong, you are saying it is immature for multiple people who see what was done wrong to act upon it? There is no logic behind that. He got mad because Tan removed the note (which always is done by admins) and then decided to vandalize his page. I think you are pointing the finger at the wrong people. –túrianpatois 00:57, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes I think 7 onto 1 is excessive in any circumstances. There were not many useful contributions and all that happend is that he is feeling more backed into a corner. I'm sure there is a policy somewhere about this sort of excessive, group behaviour. Anyway, moving on - while I have your attention I see you have contributed to the Big Brother harmonisation project. I have rasied an issue over there [[20]] and would welcome your thoughts if you have time please. leaky_caldron (talk) 01:12, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
7 on 1 is not excessive, there is no reason it is. He didn't listen to those who tried helping him out, so more were needed. If he had just listened instead of acting insulting and incivil, we wouldn't be in this mess.— dαlus Contribs 01:50, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Well, as an opening message from an uninvolved admin to his talk page I think you will agree that "If his ultimate goal is to get indef'd, then he's making good progress in that direction. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 23:34, 30 August 2009 (UTC)" is not especially helpful. We should all try to move on. leaky_caldron (talk) 02:02, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Later I tried to help. Oh, and thanks for the promotion. :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 03:45, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

General warning to all participants issued. Uncle G (talk) 02:55, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me, but shouldn't someone have brought this thread to my attention? I seem to have stumbled across it by reading user contributions. Whay exactly have I done wrong? What disruption have I caused? Are the admins all powerful, unquestionable beings? Someone wasn't doing their job properly and I told him! As far as I recall, I re-instated by own comments two or three times on another user's talk page. Once I realised that that wasn't taking me anywhere I gave up. The hypocracy of most of these editors is unbelievable. Uncle G had to warn Daedalus and Bugs about doing a much worse crime: editing other people's comments on other people's talk pages (not even their own comments). I think the comments above, like "thanks for the eyes" just serve to prove a point. I reported a genuine act of vandalism, I was treaded with curtness and a lack of respect. I pressed the rude admin about his behaviour and we can now see the aftermath. It's a joke really. It seems that Uncle G is the only admin with a shred of common sense. ~~ Dr Dec (Talk) ~~ 02:58, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I did bring this thread to your attention. But, like most of the other comments given to you, you chose not to pay attention to it. Tan | 39 03:22, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Enough means you, too. Let the matter be until at least tomorrow morning, your local time. The admonition about not having an escalating back and forth conflict applies to this page, too. Uncle G (talk) 03:10, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Just based on what I've read from this thread and the talkpages involved, you: Jumped in where you didn't know what you were doing, decided your way was better regardless of how things were normally done, refused to consider that there might be sound reasoning for the normal practice, lectured administrators of long experience as though they were children, threatened to have said administrators desysopped, edit warred with someone on his own talk page and then refused to acknowledge any potential error when it was pointed out by numerous people.

    Now of course, Tanthalas' replies could have explained in more detail - it's no sin being unaware of normal practice at something as carefully governed by protocol as AIV. You probably should have made that point one time and stopped there. Nathan T 03:13, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

    • This isn't helping, Nathan. Leave it be until at least 2009-08-31 08:00 UTC. If there is further discussion to be had, it can be had when editors are calmer, and have had some sleep. Uncle G (talk) 03:18, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
      • It doesn't seem that heated, at least as discussions here go, but perhaps there is stuff going on elsewhere that I haven't seen. I have no particular stake in the matter, so I'm happy to leave that as my only comment on the subject. Nathan T 03:23, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
        • You haven't seen the edit history of User talk:Declan Davis. Things were melting down over there, helped in no little part by a disruptive vandal who decided to come along and stir the pot a bit. Things will be calmer in Declan Davis's morning. Uncle G (talk) 03:26, 31 August 2009 (UTC)



I was told on WP:WQA to bring this here if it continued. Thuran X has been uncivil and downright impossible to work with on the Glenn Beck talkpage and doesn't seem to be able to WP:AGF at all. This behavior has also taken place at the Carly Fiorina page, as was brought up at WQA. In the initial WQA report I included the following examples: [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], Carly Fiorina talkpage,Carly Fiorina the last of which earned him a warning. His reply to the warning: shows that he learned nothing, and has been supported by his edits to the Glenn Beck page after the WQA was put up (he was notified on his talkpage of it being there): [26] [27] [28] (With reply: [29]), [30], [31], [32]. Finally one editor snapped, and ThuranX continues to accuse everyone of having an agenda. I ask that something be done so that civil editing can be resumed. Soxwon (talk) 22:29, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Minor, but there also appears to be a clear-cut instance of WP:CANVASS: [33]. Soxwon (talk) 22:35, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm leaving the canvassing thing to the side because I see that as minor and not relevant to the main point. I've been monitoring the Glenn Beck page for a little while now, and did recently have to warn ThuranX about civility (it's not the first time I've done that unfortunately). Obviously his block log points to an ongoing problem there (I have blocked him, recently, for a 3RR violation but not for incivility), and I believe there was a recent ANI thread about this very issue though I'd have to check. ThuranX arrived at the Glenn Beck article angry about the content, which I think was understandable since there were/are serious problems, but his editing style has not done him any favors there, and indeed has proven a significant hindrance to collaborative editing.
From what I've seen, ThuranX is a conscientious editor who has made a lot of good contributions to the project. But he (I believe "he" is correct) is also often a bit of a bull in a china shop, and tends to inflame situations unnecessarily.
History has shown that we simply do not deal with these situations, and I think we can all think of any number of examples where a good contributor is disruptively uncivil, repeatedly so, and we simply cannot come up with a good way to handle it. I don't think ThuranX will appreciate this thread or care much what is said here, but I'm wondering if there are suggestions (assuming others agree in seeing this as a long term problem) for how to proceed. A user-conduct RFC would be a logical step at some point, but I'm not sure we're there yet. If Thuran would simply agree to chill out/tone it down there would not be a problem, but I don't think it's likely that will happen given past interactions I've had with him. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 23:18, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
In the general sense of what do we do with good contributors who are too abrasive, we do the same thing we would do with a so-so contributor who is too abrasive. There is no provision in any of the policies that say "If you contribute X good edits, you get a free pass on Y civility or personal attack violations". Editors who feel that way absolutely boggle me. a single incident of incivility might be enough to drive 1 or more contributors from the project. This concept of "net benefit" is also ridiculous. Because the moment they make another editor unhappy with editing here, I don't care how many good contributions they've made, they are not a "net benefit". This is a huge problem on wikipedia. I've seen editors complain about this before, and I've seen news stories and other social media stories pick up on this as well and the complaints it generates there. There is a general perception that some editors are protected no matter what they do, and it has a grain of truth. Think about some of the wheel wars and drama we've had over certain users. In pretty much all of those cases they were in clear violation of policies, yet they were coddled, snuggled and given cookies by some editors for months or years before they were finally (if ever) cut off. Yet another user doing 1/10th of what they did was indef, the key was thrown away, and unblock requests or appeals were quickly shot down and everyone carried on with their day. Wikipedia is a big project and if people can't work with the project and discuss things civilly then the community needs to do something about that. There are lots of existing editors and new editors everyday to do the job. The project doesn't live and die on a single editor but it does live and die on how the community feels.--Crossmr (talk) 01:44, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure it's time for an RfC so much as it is for an indef block, or maybe a six month timeout contigent on this user firmly agreeing to mend his ways. His block log shows many instacnes of incivility but, as far as I know, he has apologized for few -- if any -- of them. That other users annoy him is reason enough to write (as a mild example) "Drop dead and keep the fuck away from me, you smug jerk." [34] Alternatively, as ThuranX has been complained about again and again and again and nothing is ever really done, perhaps it could be made clear that he has special dispensation to act as he does without consequence. IronDuke 02:06, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Maybe we should start WP:Protectedusers so people can refer to it before they file a complaint to see if there is any point? It might cut the drama down significantly. It would also be a handy one stop for news organizations. In all seriousness, if short blocks don't do the trick, do we have an admin who can make the hard block and take the next appropriate step?--Crossmr (talk) 02:16, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure ThuranX falls under the "protected" editor category. He's been blocked eight times by my count and unblocked twice, with neither of those being drama-inducing "wheel war" blocks from what I can gather. Editors who are "protected" generally get away with incivility without being blocked, or if they are blocked someone swoops in and unblocks. I don't think that's really the case with ThuranX, and I'm not sure he has any particular protectors. The fact that he is not an admin removes one possible layer of protection, since administrators are (regardless of protestations to the contrary) far more protected from blocks or other sanctions then are non-admin editors.
I don't think general comments about "protected editors" are particularly helpful to this thread. I fully agree, and said above, that we have a problem dealing with veteran editors who also have issues with civility and the like. The problem stems largely from the fact that people disagree about how to proceed in those kind of situations. I'm afraid I can't do anything about that. I have no idea if someone has brought ThuranX to ANI before and said generally, "what do we do about this behavior?," rather than specifically complaining about one incident. If a previous general complaint did not result in any sort of attempted solution, perhaps it will be different this time, but that would require us to discuss the specific issue before us. IronDuke puts forward the possibility of an indef or otherwise lengthy block, and that would be one option. If others have specific suggestions that would be great, but if there are general complaints about our ability to deal with long-term editors who don't abide by certain guidelines then I'm not sure this is the place for that. For example complaining about the "net benefit" argument does little good when no one here has invoked it, implicitly much less explicitly. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 03:43, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
FWIW, there are many previous AN/I threads regarding this user (with whom, I should say, I have interacted negatively in the past). A sampling of the complaints: [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43]... There's more, I think, but, well, nuff said. IronDuke 04:11, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, that's very helpful, and obviously the notion of giving ThuranX a long term block or starting an RFC or ArbCom case has been broached before. I'd like to hear from other (particularly uninvolved) editors and admins on this, and also of course from ThuranX, as to what can be done about this long-term problem. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:34, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
I have just read through the August part of the Glen Beck Talk Page--I try not to get involved in these topics, but I couldn't escape knowing. It seems clear that Thuranox , while trying [to bring some degree of NPOV to a previously biased article, has gotten overinvolved. I'm not sure I blame him--the POV pushing done by most notably BigTimepeace Bytebear is some of the most outrageously biased article editing I've seen here. I think we can deal appropriately with this issue by banning BTP Bytebear from this article & talk p. and all other articles and talk pages related to GB) indefinitely --or, if indef is out of fashion, 6 months, I generally think than an angry response to provocation is as wrong as the provocation, but in this case, the provocation is so great that I think I'd be prepared to say that any reasonable person might have gotten upset in dealing with it. But the language Thuranox used was out of control, and I don't know any way of impressing this upon him that would be effective. If BTP Bytebear is gone from the article, that'll certainly help things. There will still be some fighting there, and if Thuranox continues editing there, he'll have to do it with more restraint. If not ,we should take the preventative action of having him stay away from the articles also. DGG ( talk ) 06:38, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

That's a pretty strong accusation DGG. — Ched :  ?  06:48, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Apologies for the interruption. Upon clarification I strike my comment. — Ched :  ?  15:01, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I have a feeling, indeed I very much hope, that DGG (whom I quite respect) is confusing me with another editor whose handle also begins with a "B," namely User:Bytebear. ThuranX and that editor have gone toe to toe at the Beck article, and Bytebear's editing has indeed been very problematic, as I have pointed out on the article talk page and on that editor's user talk page (I also blocked them for edit warring). I have only been acting in an "adminly" (as opposed to editorial) fashion at Glenn Beck (trying to put a stop to the edit warring and calm the waters a bit), and while I have the article watchlisted and have made a number of edits there in the past I have not edited the article since March. So I think this is just a case of mistaken identity and if so then no worries at all, but I would hope DGG could clarify that, because I certainly don't think "outrageously biased article editing" remotely applies to anything I've done over there.
Operating on the assumption that DGG meant to refer to Bytebear (right-DGG) , I would also be willing to consider some sort of topic ban. Indeed I was working on a formal proposal along those lines a week or so ago (gathering a bunch of diffs to show what I took to be a seriously problematic pattern) but decided to shelve it to see if Bytebear's editing improved. If we are having a conversation about a possible topic ban I can present the diffs I put together (no one else should bother gathering them, what I put together is pretty comprehensive), though personally I'd like to see if progress can be made on the article talk page first.
I don't think Bytebear's problematic editing means ThuranX gets a free pass, and as mentioned that editor's civility is a longer term issue, though a recent comment by Thuran is, to me at least, encouraging. If we our going to talk about Bytebear (or about me!) we might want to start a subthread just so this doesn't turn into a complete muddle, as Old Stephen would say. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 08:00, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
sorry, I did indeed mean Bytebear. I apologize for the confusion. DGG ( talk ) 08:21, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

To BTP, since we've out dented already, Actually I got that impression from the mention of how many times its been brought up at AN/I and nothing really being done. This is the second thread on this page dealing with a long-term editor who has civility issues that no one seems to want to do anything about. See the bungie section up above as another example. While no one has wheel-warred over him, no one has rushed to deal with him because he's a veteran. DGG suggests excusing it because there was apparent POV pushing, but I still fail to see that exception in the policy. When we get into that thinking, where do we draw the line? This user was really really really annoying so it was okay for me to chew him out. How many "really"s makes it okay?Do we need 3? how about 2? what if its only 1? We get down to a subjective interpretation of how annoying some user was and who thinks the other user was justified in snapping. Sorry no. This is exactly the kind of behaviour that poisons this community. It will always be the people with the buddies who gets the pass because the other guy was more annoying. Subjective application of these policies doesn't help a single person on wikipedia. There is a reason those kinds of exceptions aren't in the policy. I don't care if the other party is talking about what he did with your dead relative's corpse last night, its the internet. Report them and move on. If someone is supposedly POV pushing, start DR, get third opinion, report it to the relevant projects, and move on. There are millions of articles out there. Conduct the debate civilly, though passionately if you want, or don't be involved in it.--Crossmr (talk) 07:16, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

normally I'd agree with you, Crossmr, and very strongly. I think this case is an exception. the initial state of that article was so much of a panegyric that the subject would have been unrecognizable. Bytebear wasn't the only person getting it that way, but he as a major and continuing and very persistent influence. A number of people tried, and I think it actually took Thuranx's intervention to get things going sensibly. Strong medicine, in this case needed. Maybe a little too strong, but the only other way of handing it would have been to topicban Bytebear at an earlier state--and we didn't do it. I think that ThuranX should take great care he doesn't do this again, when they probably will not be so well deserved. DGG ( talk ) 08:21, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes, but a majority of the comments have been directed at myself and Morphh who have tried to be cooperative and act for the good of the article. There's also the matter of his comments at Carly Fiorina as well, which seem totally unjustified. If Bytebear was the problem, he certainly missed the target. Soxwon (talk) 08:26, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunately I can't see that at all. There still aren't any exceptions, regardless of what he thought he was trying to accomplish. The ends doesn't justify the means when it comes to civility. In addition his comments at Carly Fiorina completely invalidate that argument. If this was a one time issue with no priors and no other issues on other articles, you _might_ (in the smallest sense of the word) have a case. But this is clearly not a problem restricted to this article in this case.--Crossmr (talk) 12:05, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm embarrassed to say that I'm the editor that snapped (not my proudest moment, but I did redact the profanity and clarify it). I've been personally labeled by ThuranX as "disingenuous", a "fanboy", "whitewasher", "pov pusher", "pretender", bad faith editor, and essentially Bytebear's meatpuppet. I don't think I've deserved any of the labels, but that's beside the point to this discussion. The uncivil behavior was unacceptable and created a hostile environment. I don't agree with DGG that he really helped this article move along, in fact, I think his discussions have been disruptive and created more conflicts and issues than needed to move the article forward. I got there a couple weeks before ThuranX, who arrived on August 15th[44] and at that point we were already moving toward some good progress in including the criticism.[45][46][47] I think it was primarily the work of civil editors working together that moved things along. I think these changes would have happened with or without ThuranX, and likely faster without. I'm conflicted as I would like his perspective and opinion, but we can't get there if he's always leveling attacks and avoiding the policy discussion. Morphh (talk) 16:11, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Give ThuranX and Bytebear ultimatums: Any further incivility (broadly construed -- in fact, so broadly that it would be safer not to comment on editors at all, just on edits, and comment carefully on them) or edit warring at Glenn Beck/ Talk:Glenn Beck will result in both a one-week block and a six-month topic ban on the article. If BigTimePeace wants some kind of different solution, it would probably be a good idea to give it to him. If Bytebear is POV-pushing, too bad for Wikipedia, because AN/I has no tools to address that, but sanctions on incivility and edit warring can be ratcheted up. This is a "solution" in that it makes the admin's job easier, but it is no solution for the article or the editors: they are allowed to game the system by baiting the other side into edit warring or an incivility violation. The editor who blows his top first loses the game. It's a sport, not a solution. There is no solution, and I started a section below to start groping for an answer. But in the meantime, without a solution, let's make BigTimePeace's job easier: Give 'em ultimatums. -- Noroton (talk) 16:39, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Just to clarify, since you're considering equal punishment, I don't know that I've seen Bytebear be uncivil or issue a personal attack (could be wrong). He's just been very strict with policy interpretation, so it makes adding content more difficult. ThuranX calls it the Civil POV Push. On the opposite end, ThuranX has been very loose with policy. So aside from politics, you can see where we get the huge clash between these two editors. I don't know what the best course of action would be, but I thought I would clarify what I'm seeing. Morphh (talk) 17:27, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi all. I really didn't intend to cause such a stir. I have apparently been to strict with my interpretation of WP:BPL relying on the exception for 3RR on such articles, thinking my reverts were in compliance with the rules applied. Rather than applying the rules to facts, I applied them to POV. The edit war in question was an issue of WP:SYNTH where two facts were presented side by side and a direct conclusion was heavily implied. I reverted in the hopes that someone would reapply the information more fairly avoiding POV, but it didn't happen, so I continued to revert assuming the 3RR did not apply under the rules of BLP, and eventually modified the text to a more fair version, which was promptly reverted. I think I have edited in good faith, if not misguided. Since my ban, which I take full responsibility, I have been discussing the issue at length trying to gain a more complete understanding of how BLP applies in this case. I still disagree with some of the assessments by Bigtimepeace, but I am willing to discuss them. ThuranX on the other hand dismisses every suggestion and comment I make with accusations of conspiracy and protectionism, even when other editors agree with me. I think my points are valid, and I admit to having strong convictions about them, but I don't think I have demonstrated a inability to discuss and work with other editors, other than the unfortunate butting heads with ThuranX. Bytebear (talk) 17:33, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
For the record, ThuranX is by no means the only person who takes Bytebear's editing behavior to be protectionism. Sometimes this seems to take the form of a WP:TAGTEAM with other like-minded users who, like Bytebear, have received warnings and bans related to Glenn Beck and/or other US Politics topics. This obviously does not excuse any of ThuranX's behavior, but it is certainly a frustrating experience trying to improve this article. There is a larger problem here. MichaelLNorth (talk) 21:10, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Going back to the original post in this thread: As the admin. who issued the "warning" to ThuranX I suppose I should say something here. Yes, I saw his reply. No, I didn't feel a need to respond and inflame the issue. I know the rules fairly well thank you, and I suspect that ThuranX does too. American political articles are going to elicit emotions here, everyone has their own POV. I suggest that all parties simply stick to the facts, the reliable sources, and address the topics and not the editors. All ya'all just need to cool it. — Ched :  ?  17:43, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I haven't seen any provide any diffs of Bytebear being uncivil. If they have been, someone should provide those diffs, if they haven't, then why put this odd restriction on them? Thuranx's behaviour extends beyond this article.--Crossmr (talk) 00:29, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't think Bytebear has really been all that uncivil, or if so only somewhat. The issue with that editor is POV editing, not incivility, and that was not why the thread was opened which is probably part of the confusion..
This thread has gone pretty far afield from where it started, jumping over to the editing behavior of another editor, and moving into a general discussion below. I doubt anything will come of it now, but that's fine. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 17:50, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Wider picture: a new set of rules is needed for this widespread problem[edit]

I've said this before and I'll risk sounding a bit like a broken record and say it again: Wikipedia has a problem with its Wild West atmosphere on articles with controversial content (mostly politics, nationalism, probably religion, I think). We treat them like we treat any article in terms of what guidelines and policies editors are supposed to follow, but our rules are inadequate. POV pushers are attracted to these articles and inevitably offend editors who also have strong views on a subject, and there are plenty of these editors when a subject is very controversial out there in the world beyond Wikipedia. There simply aren't enough BigTimePeaces to try to keep the peace, or enough admins like DGG to even recognize that there may be more than one problem. As a result, Wikipedia articles on controversial subjects are, frankly, a disgrace. And that's after many editors have wasted their time on them and many admins have wasted their time dealing with the problems.

We'd lose a lot of good editors if we ban all of the ones who have a difficult time with civility, but who mostly keep it to a minimum. It's extremely hard to identify a POV-pushing editor unless you are also well-acquainted with the issue, and it takes not just you but a consensus to do it. That's hardly ever gonna happen. Article probations are complicated to set up, involve too much work to maintain and can be gamed by POV pushers.

What needs to be done is to have some kind of different set of policies and guidelines for editing on articles & talk pages where we find we have excessive fighting and a lack of constructive consensus-building. The rules should involve how editors treat each other and how consensus is formed, they should encourage calm, rational, cordial discussion and encourage more editors to participate (overwhelming POV pushers with reasonable editors from the broader community who are interested in thoughtful participation that actually improves an article in an NPOV way -- this is not really too much to ask: it's what we're asking now), and the rules should be very easy and clear for any admin to enforce or editor to understand (unlike the rat's nest of an explanation we have for WP:CONSENSUS and related pages and WP:CIVIL and related pages).

AN/I threads are fingers in a very leaky dyke. Instead of this problem coming back to AN/I over and over, with different editors at different articles, the dyke needs to be fixed. -- Noroton (talk) 15:52, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

You raise good points here, but I worry it's impractical. And you'd get a lot of pushback from editors about two sets of rules, how we determine which article goes in what cat, etc. I also think we lose more editors due to the toxically uncivil environment that prevails here than the few who would storm off in a huff after being told no, they really can't tell other editors to "fuck off." I'd also note the editor in question has made no move at all to suggest that there's any kind of problem with his approach, and it bothers me when people take a sort of "Hey, let's move on" attitude as if the person in question had actually said he was sorry and promised to be better in the future. IronDuke 19:00, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
AN/I already decides on article probation, as does Arbcom, so we could let them decide whether to put a contentious article into this probation-like status. You'll get no more pushback than we get now, another avenue would be to let a consensus of editors decide at an RfC. All three avenues should be available, just as we would do now for article probation. You don't set up the new rules for any particular article until we see problems with the article and get complaints. This isn't a plan or even a proposal, of course, just an idea of the type of thing that might be done. The real point is that some different kind of set of rules is needed. I would think admins would be happier with an easier system. IronDuke, if you scroll up to my proposal for this particular case, you'll see that I'm not excusing any conduct. POV pushing does not excuse incivility, but solving the incivility problem does nothing to solve the POV problem (by removing editors you may make the POV problem worse). I think the real trick is to channel discussions into calm, reflective, civil exchanges that won't be distracted by comments on editors and where editors will decide on content and decide what to say based on what they really think a neutral article would look like. That's the hardest environment for a POV pusher to succeed, for edit warring to succeed and for incivility to seem right. It's the kind of atmosphere that happens in civil, even cordial discussions, but even in hot, contentious discussions when there is some force or authority, understood by all and seen as fair. You get that kind of atmosphere when you have rules and enforce them consistently, Wikipedia doesn't do that and doesn't get that atmosphere. Editors know that POV pushing and edit warring can succeed, and incivility may or may not result in sanctions. If we can attract more editors to take part in civil, focused discussions, POV pushing will be much harder, and we're more likely to get better articles. -- Noroton (talk) 01:02, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Noroton, we have loads of guidelines on how to behave, and an escalation policy. The lack of structure on this particular page makes this problem a recurring one. I am not thrilled about the layout of RfC but it is a logical next step. One can also make a community proposal here, or refer to the arbitration committee. We did have a good run of getting through cases in a timely manner for part of the year, and hope to be timely later on :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:17, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
And what we don't have is effective enforcement. Who the hell wants to spend a month (or two, or more) in front of Arbcom until all else has failed, unless the editor is already stark, raving mad and the case is no longer about saving the article but has instead turned into a feud in which the goal really is to get the other side punished? By the time something gets to Arbcom, Wikipedia has already failed, often in numerous ways. The articles are what this website is supposed to be about, and they need much more than some Arbcom judging. AN/I is inconsistent. RfC is an enormous investment in time and effort. None of these avenues provide editors clear, consistently enforced regulations for conduct in contentious-article discussions, nor do they encourage good conduct -- they just discourage bad conduct in the sanctioned editors you're watching. Really, Casliber, this system sucks. An analogy: At a busy downtown intersection the authorities have set up four stop signs. But the intersection is so busy, and enforcement is so light and inconsistent, that plenty of people ignore the signs, plenty of accidents result and good drivers come to understand that using the intersection is dangerous or maybe a waste of time, so they use other intersections. Drivers seldom call the cops, sometimes even after an accident, because they see little good coming from that. Should the judges say "we have loads of stop signs telling drivers what to do, and laws in place to sanction traffic violators. We did have a good run of getting through cases in a timely manner ..." I have a personal metric (I think it's an easy example to understand): On Wikipedia, Bill Ayers can't be even said to have been called a terrorist -- the thing he's famous for -- despite his being called a terrorist by every reliable source in creation (New York Times, Encyclopaedia Brittanica, dozens of scholarly and other sources, in fact, just about every source, regardless of political outlook and going back decades -- I've got the proof). The only time "terrorist" or "terrorism" appears in the Ayers article is when we quote him denying it. And it's not as if we didn't have an RfC, an AN/I report and have it brought up in front of ArbCom. I should not have had to go through Wikipedia's clunky dispute resolution system to enforce a 2/3 consensus. Nor is it my fault that after months of effort, followed by weeks of anguish, I gave up. It's only one among many, many POV problems where Wikipedia has failed. We don't need any more guidelines in how to behave, and it's not just a problem of whether authorities will enforce -- it's a system that runs off the rails because it doesn't now have the means to encourage good discussions and effectively, quickly discourage bad behavior on discussions that are inevitably contentious: something like a closing admin, perhaps a better definition of consensus (and possibly a lower bar for consensus), an easier way to canvass more editors, stronger incentives to propose compromises. That's a pretty long list of changes, but they're essentially based on what we already do and tweaking it. Just don't tell me we don't have a problem when we have articles looking like Bill Ayers does, even after the contentious discussion and 2/3 majority. This is just one failure of the system, which has resulted in widespread POV-related failures. -- Noroton (talk) 01:02, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
You're right, we don't have effective enforcement. Far too often are veteran editors allowed to insult people willy nilly because they think they're "right". They have a group of friends who will back/unblock them if anyone questions them, or have found the admins to be indifferent to their antics. We really need a page which describes how many edits it takes to trade in for a pass on the various policies.--Crossmr (talk) 04:28, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Civility applies to all articles. There are many editors who can edit controversial articles without becoming uncivil. If an editor can't do that, then they should go do something else. If they persist in putting themselves in situations where they become uncivil, then they damage the project. Uncivil editors push away other editors and at times cause some editors to leave the project. I don't care what they think justifies the behaviour, nothing does. We don't need another set of guidelines. Use dispute resolution, get third opinions, ask for a wider consensus. if you can't do that, go to other articles. If you still can't calm down on other articles, go do something else entirely.--Crossmr (talk) 00:29, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Some article topics will be more contentious than others. This often results in lousy, biased articles on Wikipedia. In fact, bad discussions go hand in hand with biased articles, which should not be the case when numerous editors have been involved in editing and discussing an article. Civility enforcement does not always apply to each article. There are not many editors who can edit controversial articles without becoming uncivil if they are constantly confronted with POV pushers. You want the most committed editors, the ones who have a passion for explaining a topic in an intelligent, neutral way, to be productive, but they are precisely the editors who will be most driven away by POV pushers or who will turn to bad behavior because they are the ones who care the most about a particular topic -- along with the POV pushers. Drive away the good, passionate editors and you're left with the passionate POV pushers. It happens a lot. It happens because Wikipedia's set of rules and enforcement of them encourage it. It's systemic. You should not be complacent about it because it hurts the encyclopedia enormously. (I know, this is really not the place for this thread. I need a blog.) -- Noroton (talk) 01:17, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
There seems to be some confusion here, perhaps this clip from scrubs can clear it up [48]. Civility not only applies to every article but it applies to every single page on wikipedia. Why is it that passionate POV pushers can be civil and passionate "good" editors cannot? If POV pushers are being uncivil, deal with them equally. If they're not being uncivil, why can they argue their side without that? There are many people who are good editors who can argue their point without resorting to personal attacks and incivility. There is nothing wrong with passion. There is a problem when passion degenerates into personal attacks and insults. If "good" editors can't explain their side of the debate without using insults, they have a problem. that isn't systemic. They need to walk away and form a larger consensus and deal with it appropriate. Incivility is never acceptable just because you think you're right. Right is very subjective and we don't apply rules like civility subjectively.--Crossmr (talk) 04:26, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Having a civility policy on a Wikipedia page doesn't work by itself. And it isn't just a problem of inconsistent enforcement (although admins have found by experience that the policy can't be enforced with absolute consistency -- an unwritten policy that Wikipedians can only know through familiarity). For you to say that we should simply deal with POV pushers the way we would with anyone else is fine by itself, but you've ignored the fact that POV pushing is one of the prime instigators of incivility. It also happens to be the prime instigator of biased articles. Much of this is concentrated on contentious articles (often on very prominent subjects), which also happen to generate a large number of complaints at AN/I and ArbCom, although the problem goes far beyond administrator/Arbcom workload. With our current set of policies, contentious articles generate a huge amount of problems and at the same time the huge amount of time and effort that goes into them generates incredibly little good content. The waste is simply enormous. So is the stress.
In the real world beyond Wikipedia, there is a reason why some people have had a longstanding ban on conversation about sex, politics and religion in dinnertable talk they want to keep polite. There is a reason why certain spots on the Internet are notorious for their toxic manners, and a reason why we have Internet-era words like "flame wars" and "trolls". The reason is that when you combine a lack of clear rules and inconsistent enforcement even of them with contentious topics, you get nastiness and a breakdown in necessary consensus building. It is simply not true that we have an unlimited supply of editors for any topic who are capable of long-term civility in the face of constant POV pushing. (And don't forget that even editors who can remain civil are put under quite a bit of strain by having to put up with POV pushing.) The good editors not only find that their facts and reasoning falls on deaf ears among POV pushing editors who are simply determined to bias an article, but they find that Wikipedia puts up roadblocks to dealing with POV pushing: WP:CANVASS makes it difficult to recruit non-POV pushers to discussions; discussions can go on forever and be difficult to read for newcomers; there is no clear, bright line showing editors when consensus has been reached (or exactly what the consensus is) or where civility is breached or where edit warring begins and ends or where discussions should end -- this informality is fine for noncontentious articles (it usually works best), but it is toxic for contentious articles. Think about it: a casual lack of rules is never the case outside Wikipedia when there is no hierarchy of people (who have the power to enforce ad-hoc order) and where the goal is to get something done regarding a contentious issue. Instead, we appoint chairmen, secretaries, etc., and adopt Roberts Rules of Order (not that I'm proposing any of this). At Wikipedia, enforcement of what few rules we have is often left up to the editors on the page who are already debating the substance, so one editor's citing of a policy like WP:CIV or WP:BLP isn't trusted by the editors he is arguing with (and it's often a strained application of those policies anyway). We have a few areas of Wikipedia where discussions are more structured: deletion discussions (XfD), ArbCom cases, Requests for Adminship and elections. They all have their creaky faults, but they all work better than our more contentious articles. Something similar should be set up for articles identified as so contentious that normal talk-page regulations and other policies aren't enough to keep them orderly and productive. This would improve the articles, make editing an happier experience (or at least avoid some of our sadder experiences) and, overall, be easier on admins. This discussion has gotten too long for AN/I, and I think I'm straining the good will of people who come to this page for its main purpose, so this will be may last comment. At some point I suppose I should come up with a proposal, or at least an essay, or maybe find another place to discuss this. -- Noroton (talk) 13:29, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
POV pushing is one of the prime instigators of incivility Here is your problem. You are responsible for your behaviour. Not POV pushers. You control how you react to them. If you feel so out of control that you cannot control what words you type on a screen, then wikipedia isn't for you. The rules are very clear. Discuss the content, not the editors. Don't resort to personal attacks and insults in an attempt to make your point. There are plenty of steps to DR, and none of those are disallowed by CANVASS. You can use third opinion, posting on relevant projects also shouldn't be an issue for CANVASS. Posting on individual talk pages, coming to AN/I for content disputes, going to the village pump, help desk, other article talk pages, etc. may be. The problem here is that you seem to find fault with the POV for making you or anyone else uncivil. They don't make you do anything.--Crossmr (talk) 14:48, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
You are responsible for your behaviour. Not POV pushers. You control how you react to them. That's not what we're disagreeing about. Obviously, many people are baited and many take the bait. POV pushing acts like baiting to anyone who cares about an article. I've said repeatedly, including repeatedly here, that it isn't an excuse for somebody else being uncivil. When the same problem crops up again and again, it's time for Wikipedians to look into the causes and try to do something about it. Your position is simply to let certain editors get into tangles that could be avoided. But of course, reducing the temptation to incivility is not the only reason to try to make Wikipedia more difficult for POV pushers to influence. There is that other concern we have, the actual articles. I've explained all that, and you've ignored all that while personalizing the discussion, and even described my position as the exact opposite of my position, even after I've pointed out the difference, so it's time to stop replying to you. -- Noroton (talk) 00:28, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
My solution is to let them seek DR. If there is a problem with the DR process deal with that appropriately. A problem with DR doesn't excuse civility. Whether POV pushing is the cause, a cause, or some cause all boils down to the same thing, it isn't a cause at all. The only cause of incivility is the user failing to control themselves. In a brand new user we issue warnings and work with them. An editor who has never before been warned for a problem also gets a warning. like baiting to anyone who cares about an article it comes down 100% to personal responsibility. If someone is baiting you, don't take the bait. If you agree there isn't an excuse for incivility then there is no reason for Thuranx to get a pass on this. This is a long term problem he should be well aware of the issues he's had in the past and stayed out of those situations.--Crossmr (talk) 00:40, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Crossmr - POV is not the cause. Everyone is POV pushing somehow whether they realize it or not - in the above for example you certainly have stated your POV about Bill Ayers and that you are sorry that consensus didn't allow it to be represented in the article. No one can say - my POV is the neutral point of view and you people are all biased. That is why we have policies to determine as objectively as possible how to weigh viewpoints in articles. However one can argue in favour of a point of view without being incivil, and that is what we all have the responsibility of doing. PArt of being civil is standing back when one sees that the majority does not agree with one's arguments, and to recognize when better arguments are being made. I don't mind people with agendas as long as they engage in civil discussion, try to reach a compromise and do not stubbornly stick with one particular way that they want things to be.·Maunus·ƛ· 15:00, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
POV pushing is not the cause, but it is a cause. Isn't there a definition of POV pusher somewhere on Wikipedia? Maybe in an essay? You're confusing having a POV with pushing one. Of course I have a POV, but what we're supposed to want in articles is an accurate reflection of what the reliable sources say on a subject. That's the difference. Is my estimation of that affected by my own POV? Sure, but it has a limited effect, especially since I try to keep the two things separate in my mind. It isn't that difficult to deal with an editor with a different POV and also different idea of what a neutral article would be. For one thing, both of us will want just about the same thing, usually. We can also direct the discussion toward the facts (that is: What do the best sources and the "consensus" among the reliable sources say?). Discussions about facts can generally reach a consensus. After a while of assuming good faith, you know whether or not the other party is looking for a neutral article or pushing a POV. If the other party is a POV pusher, that should offend the rest of us. And that's a temptation to incivility, and it's more of a temptation when the good editors often don't have effective means to counteract that POV pushing. What matters in the Bill Ayers article is what the sources say, not what I personally think. It's a good example because it's very clear, it seems to me, whether or not the WP article reflects what the reliable sources say. (Having a goal different from pushing one's own POV allows an edditor to add positive information about a subject the editor generally has negative feeligns about. I've been able to do that with Bill Ayers, his wife and Obama in Wikipedia articles -- I want that information in the articles if it helps the readers understand the subjects better.) -- Noroton (talk) 00:28, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I think Noroton & Crossmr both have parts of the answer. First, there are people who can't be reasoned with effectively: although they may come across as polite & willing to work towards a consensus, they still are pushing for content which does not accurately reflect the subject in a manner which is useful to the average reader. (One case I recently encountered was an anon IP who objected to my adding some text to the article on Ethiopian Christanity which incidentally mentioned local pagan influences -- although various pagan [or non-Christian] influences have been identified & are commonly accepted in almost every branch of Christianity, & the material in question was taken form the Library of Congress website. His POV was that Ethiopian Christianity had no paganism in it, QED. The conflict was resolved simply by outlasting him -- not an optimal solution.) Sometimes article parole is the right answer.

Then there is the problem of dealing with POV-pushers for too long a time; Nietzsche's words about "beware fighting monsters, for you may become on" is appropos here: deal with too many people who are clearly editting in bad faith, & you start to assume everyone is -- or are naive to the fact many are. WikiBurnout then affects for the person, which can be uglier in some cases than others -- but is almost never pretty. This is not a healthy solution in the long run.

On the other hand, I don't think the problem is so much civility, but respect: it is not that hard to learn how to be disrespectful without be incivil, so only the newbies & the careless get caught up in civility problems. And many volunteers here are not confident enough about being "real" Wikipedians to no never see sarcasm or condescension where none is meant. And we can respect other Wikipedians without agreeing with them, or even liking them: part of the secret is to disagree with an attempt at politeness, not being by being snide (even though that can be a lot more enjoyable & fun to read). Yet to talk about civility, assuming good faith, & respect, one has to acknowledge that there are some who do not deserve it.

(Crap. I tried to explain this as a polar situation, with Noroton's & Crossmr's statements as the two opposing points, but I fear I am rambling here. I only hope something of my intent came across. I'm not going to post here until I've had a couple of nights where I average much more than 5 hours of sleep.) -- llywrch (talk) 18:11, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I'm sure people who argue with people they don't like for too long will sometimes end up being uncivil. However annoying they are, that still is no pass on civility. No one made them do that. It should be clear to many people fairly early if one side is going to compromise or not. If not the good editor needs to step back and engage DR and other editors. If someone is trying to push a non-legitimate POV giving the discussion a larger audience should solve that problem. We may understand why the user became uncivil in that situation. If it is the first or second time, a strong warning may be warranted, but if the user has a history of getting in debates and becoming uncivil then they no longer get a pass. I would never call for a block on the first civil offense, but if its a 3 year old problem with many warnings, a reasonable editor should have realized he has trouble in certain situations and stay out of them before he gets too hot under the collar to apparently control himself. The editor is responsible for his or her actions. We may understand them in the situation of a new editor who is learning or an editor who has never made that kind of mistake before, and offer guidance, but when faced with a long term problem, we can't chalk it up to inexperience at dealing with those situations.--Crossmr (talk) 00:32, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Good points. -- Noroton (talk) 00:28, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
The solution for controversial subjects is to insist on verifiability and reliable sources. This has the effect of producing quote-heavy articles with huge numbers of footnotes. The Israel-related articles are a good example of this. That's where our policies take us, and it works, more or less. In the footnote-heavy articles, there are disputes, but they're over things like whether some reporter at the Manchester Guardian or a book by a pot dealer in LA should be considered a reliable source. Those get resolved eventually. Editors should be encouraged to edit along those lines. --John Nagle (talk) 18:33, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Been there, done that (example, and elsewhere on that page there's much more). Doesn't always work. Conclusion: Wikipedia allows its many POV-pushed articles to suck, articles be damned, readers be damned, editors be damned. If the only solutions are to look the other way or ignore the facts in order to worship consensus or walk away, then there is no solution. Wikipedia: We Make The Internet Suck a Little Less. Except When We Make It Suck Just As Much, If Not More. Not even a mountain of quotes, and various foothills elsewhere on the page I just cited, nor a 2/3 consensus could overcome Wikipedia POV pushing. It isn't the POV pushers mostly at fault, it's the system that empowers them. It's Wikipedia. What type of person would be satisfied with an encyclopedia that, essentially, lies? How much discomfort with a lying encyclopedia can you handle and still want to participate? At what point do the lies subvert the morale of the whole project? The editors spouting uncivilly at POV pushers are your coalmine canaries -- you won't see the editors who decide not to contribute to an article or who get disgusted and leave entirely. -- Noroton (talk) 08:38, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Bad requested move close[edit]

I believe the the recent close of this move discussion is a bad close and needs to be changed. Clearly from the discussion there is no primary topic and following the Wikipedia:Disambiguation guideline that the extended discussion shows that there is no primary topic. Based on WP:PRIMARYTOPIC this should have been closed to move Durham (disambiguation) to Durham. This action would in fact be supported by the no consensus close. Since there is no consensus for a primary topic, there is no clearly accepted primary topic. The only case made for keeping the current settlement as the main name space was that it is the oldest. That is simply a fact and does not by default make it the primary topic. I'll note that I could not find the closer listed as an admin. If that is in fact the case, then that editor should not have closed a discussion like this. The closer also participated in the discussion. No consensus on moves does not equate to leaving pages were they are when how to handle that case is clearly covered by a guideline. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:16, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

The purpose of a requested move discussion is to assess consensus for the proposed move; clearly there was no consensus in that discussion. It wasn't really appropriate for Ohm's law to close it after having participated significantly in the discussion, but its unlikely anyone else would have come to a different conclusion. Nathan T 22:20, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
So it is acceptable to ignore WP:PRIMARYTOPIC? Vegaswikian (talk) 22:24, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Apparently. Procedural problems aside, there really seems to be no consensus to change the status quo there... ultimately, the local consensus is what really matters in a disambiguation issue. I personally agree with you that there is no primary topic and hence a change needs to be made - but the consensus there does not seem to exist. ~ mazca talk 22:32, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
We need to either rewrite WP:PRIMARYTOPIC or enforce it. We are at the point where if dedicated supporters of an article don't want the dab page where it belongs, they win. What should be there based on the guidelines and what is best for the encyclopedia are not valid considerations. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:05, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
nah, we don't need to rewrite anything. Let's not turn into what the folks arguing over the name of the Catholic Church article have created. All that needs to happen is that we keep talking to people.
V = I * R (talk to Ω) 01:38, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
And, actually, the history shows that it was originally closed by Chzz. Also not an admin, but oh well. Ohm's law changed the archiving method and then signed the close message. Nathan T 22:23, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
  • First things first: I didn't close it. Nathan is correct about my involvement in the discussion there, so I wouldn't have closed it regardless. All I did do is clean up after... Chzz, who closed it and tried hiding it or something. The funny thing is that my opinion is that the page should be moved! The whole BS about Una Smith occurring probably destroyed the whole process, that time around. Personally, I wouldn't have any problem with starting another discussion. Since this one closed without consensus, we could keep goig until there is consensus. There are several people who are involved who seem to clearly misunderstand exactly what is being proposed, anyway (Ii seems soe think we're trying to rename the town, or something!)
    V = I * R (talk to Ω) 01:33, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
    I agree that the incident with Una probably scuppered the discussion (it disc