Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive684

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

Noticeboard archives


Timeline of events leading to the American Civil War[edit]

Timeline of events leading to the American Civil War (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Rjensen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Donner60 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

I found some instances of WP:SYN on Timeline of events leading to the American Civil War which I tried to address without much success with the editors involved, User:Donner60 and User:Rjensen. In the process I started finding plagerized statements from one source that I happened to be able to read via Google Books, Wagner, Margaret E., Gary W. Gallagher, and Paul Finkelman. The Library of Congress Civil War Desk Reference. (2009) ISBN 978-1-4391-4884-6, page 59-63 google books. I've found nine instances of plagiarism so far which I detailed on the talk page. I haven't researched all of them, but a few were added by Donner60 on February 20th - diff.

While reporting the copyvio, apparently Rjensen decided to simply delete the template and keep editing the article. I documented 7 more instances of plagiarism, including a second source, and today I restored the page to the copyvio version, and I'm reporting this as an incident so the copyvios get 7 days to be researched.

This article contains mostly sources that are only available in print, and there are hundreds of citations to check. Some statements were plagiarized before these two editors were involved, then while they were trying to add citations simply cited the plagiarism making it easy to find - I don't understand why they didn't rewrite the statements at that point. One plagiarized statement is in the oldest edit from 2004. No one wants to blank the article but it would be very complex to remove the individual instances of plagiarism; especially considering the editors involved don't seem to take wikipedia policies seriously. Thank you for your assistance. Kirk (talk) 14:05, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

You may find Wikipedia:Copyright problems a more useful place to post this. (And spelling the word "plagiarism" wouldn't hurt.) -- llywrch (talk) 14:48, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Did you even read his post? He followed the instructions on wp:copyright problems, but ended up in an edit war when trying to place the {{copyvio}} template. I will place the template again and suggest the page is protected and relevant editors warned if it is removed again. Yoenit (talk) 16:58, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Well, spelling things right would have helped, sorry about that! I already reported this & Yoenit understood my request. ThanksKirk (talk) 17:09, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Forever true[edit]

I came across this user (Forever true (talk · contribs)) who seems to be using Wikipedia mainly as a vehicle to promote his book, and as a battleground (insisting on debating either Richard Dawkins or other editors, I can't tell).[1] They've even removed material from Talk:Richard Dawkins and replaced it with debate challenges.[2] Somewhere in their user talk page, which mostly consists of incomprehensible rants, there appears to be what may seem like a veiled legal threat, but I honestly can't tell what is meant. Kansan (talk) 15:09, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

This user has actually made legal threats (I had to warn him on one), and is spamming incomprehensible arguments that, if we get rid of the article on his book (which is at AFD and currently trended deletion as non-notable), he's threating we should get rid of other articles on various topics that surround the science-vs-religion debate. I would at least AGF until the AFD closes, after which if he continues to engage, blocking would be appropriate. --MASEM (t) 15:15, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Book of Pure Logic now speedily deleted as spam. Related user page versions at User:Forever true/Book of Pure Logic and User:Forever true/Pure Logic also tagged for speedy deletion. – ukexpat (talk) 15:49, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

The user's edits as (talk · contribs) are also self-promotional and confrontational. I think there are severe WP:COI and WP:COMPETENCE are some choice edits:[3][4][5][6] I think a block of the account & IP, perhaps with a standard offer, is appropriate. — Scientizzle 16:05, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I've blocked Forever true (talk · contribs) indefinitely and (talk · contribs) for 72 hours. I provided some reading material and suggestion in the block message... — Scientizzle 16:21, 1 April 2011 (UTC) he's Forever Gone, then? HalfShadow 16:26, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Kwamikagami moving ship class articles from XXXX class format to XXX-class format reported by Toddy1 (Result:)[edit]

User being reported: Kwamikagami (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

User:Kwamikagami has a plan to rename all the ship class articles from the format "XXXX class ship" to the format "XXXX-class ship". This contentious move is under discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ships#Bot_request.

At 22:10, 30 March 2011 User:Kwamikagami agreed to stop making these moves at User_talk:Kwamikagami#Stop_moving_ship_class_articles. Nevertheless he is making these moves on 31 March 2011 - showing bad faith.

I know that User:Kwamikagami is an admin. One user has told me that User:Kwamikagami using his admin tools to make these moves (see User_talk:Toddy1#User:Kwamikagami).

Please can User:Kwamikagami be halted in his endeavour until WikiProject_Ships has come to a conclusion on whether these moves should be made.

I do not know whether using his admin tools to make these moves - if he is misusing them, is it appropriate that he have these abilities?--Toddy1 (talk) 11:48, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

This is stupid. We have an eight-year-old consensus on this. I agreed to stop making wholesale changes just to bring articles into line with our naming conventions, and I have. However, when there is other reason to move an article, such as caps, plurals, or omission of the ship type, then I'll hyphenate as well. — kwami (talk) 11:58, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
We do not, as you claim, have an "eight-year-old consensus" on this subject. Indeed we don't have much of a consensus at all and there has been an inconclusive discussion ever since you made the original bot request. You are making a pretty blatant attempt to impose your own view, disregarding the views of others and ignoring repeated requests to wait. The Land (talk) 12:06, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
As a complete outsider to this issue, I'm a bit confused. What was the other reason to move VMV class patrol boat to VMV-class patrol boat? [7] There doesn't seem to be any change except the hyphen. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:09, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
To summarise; Kwami is strongly of the opinion that these articles ought to have hyphens in the titles and requested a bot to do so. Others, myself included, asked for a discussion about whether that was a good idea, which has happened largely here, which has yet to reach a conclusion. There was a previous discussion about this issue last November, which concluded that ship class names should generally have hyphens, but only about 5 editors participated in that conversation. There is only one person who seems to think there is an urgent need to change all of these names with no further debate, which is Kwami. Most ships editors (regardless of their views on hyphens) are happy to let the debate run its course and then, if necessary, have a bot update the titles. The Land (talk) 12:19, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
(ec)Kwami, I am now to this dispute, but I can't see how your statement here is valid when I see moves like VMV class patrol boat to VMV-class patrol boat or TID class tug to TID-class tug: they don't match "when there is other reason to move an article, such as caps, plurals, or omission of the ship type, then I'll hyphenate as well.", but only add the hyphenation. Can you explain how these (which are just the most recent examples) are examples of your agreement above? Fram (talk) 12:10, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
No, Kwami, this is not stupid. That kind of behavior (specifically, trying to shoehorn your change in with other edits) would get you blocked for edit-warring if this was a content dispute. You've been around for far too long (not to mention the fact that you're an admin) to play dumb about this. Let the discussion run its course, then we can move pages if we decide to. This is not time-critical, nor is a fait accompli an acceptable tactic. Parsecboy (talk) 12:16, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Okay, those last couple (Moonriddengirl) were among the remaining few on a short list[8] along with some that needed other fixes. That's a valid complaint. But the hundreds of red links in the main lists[9][10][11][12][13][14] are articles I've left alone. If I'd wanted to shoehorn in my edits, I would have moved or a substantial fraction of them by now. — kwami (talk) 12:29, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Initially I was closely following this debate when it started a week ago. However arguments over using "hyphens" versus "en dashes" and "uses as a noun are not hyphenated" versus "uses as an adjective are hyphenated" quickly put me to sleep. — Kralizec! (talk) 12:44, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

What form is used by sources?
I just had a quick look at two of the classes mentioned above; one was wholly unsourced (surely a more pressing problem) and the other had sources which preferred an unhyphenated name.
It seems unlikely to me that all sources on hundreds of ship classes around the world (different countries, different ship types &c) all use hyphenation in exactly the same way; in which case such mass moves guarantee that some articles will be moved to a new name not used by sources. Just for the sake of consistent use of hyphens between articles even though lay readers would never want to compare a hundred article titles like that. Faithfulness to sources is much more important than lining up hundreds of articles neatly with the same particle of punctuation at the top; I fail to see any overriding benefit that justifies such mass moves. bobrayner (talk) 12:59, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Sources are for facts, not usage. You will find hyphens mis-used by hundreds of sources, and that doesn't make them right or wrong. Wikipedia has its own guidelines on hyphens, which Kwami is following. Personally I don't think Kwami is showing much good sense in antagonising the rest of WP:SHIPS, but what he's doing to the article names per se is not wrong - it is in fact in accordance with both WP:HYPHEN and WP:TITLE, so far as I can see. The original question was whether a bot should be used to mass-move the ship class articles to incorporate (what was at the time considered to be) the consensus. In the meantime we've had some editors questioning the original guidelines and the (apparent) consensus on their use in titles, and Kwami has been busy doing manual moves of these articles. Personally, I'd wait, get consensus and let the bot do the work, but I can't see that his moves are actually wrong as such. Shem (talk) 13:18, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Per WP:COMMONNAME I'd say sources are pretty important in choosing the name as well! (talk) 13:30, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
This is a choice between "XXXX class ship" and "XXXX-class ship" for a range of thousands of articles, not a choice between "Bill Clinton" and "William Jefferson Clinton" (to choose just one example from WP:COMMONNAME). Furthermore, it's got nothing to do with the subject of this discussion, which is about moves conducted by one editor. So, I'd say WP:COMMONNAME is far from "pretty important". Shem (talk) 13:48, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Whether I agree in principle with hyphenation (incidentally, I do) is neither here nor there. We are talking about multiple page moves in the absence of a clear consensus. To start moving pages in huge batches today based on an "8-year consensus" is clearly as poor a show as doing it without consensus at all (WP:CCC). IPs and new users who go around moving pages on a whim get indeffed; and Kwami is an admin who, dare I say, has a less-than-exemplary record of edit warring and abuse of WP:ADMIN (just one example here). Need to start thinking about locking him up and throwing away the key. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 14:26, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
  • I agree with the hyphenation: it is easier for our readers, especially non-experts, who don't see these compound constructions every day and are assisted by the joining of the double adjective. The sources out there are no doubt mixed (= in a mess, as is typical), and the MoS is quite clear about the need for a hyphen. If Kwami is using admin tools to do it, he should at least have posted his intention at WT:MOS and the appropriate WikiProject. There has been at least one recent case in which he used his tools while WP:INVOLVED, at the locked page WP:MOS. He did revert after several warnings, and I am willing to take on trust his explanation that he did not realise the page was still locked. But do be careful, Kwami ... Tony (talk) 16:01, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
  • I've no opinion about hyphens or ship classes, but: Making mass changes, such as by bot, to many articles without prior explicit consensus, is disruptive. But apparently Kwamikagami is now only making these changes manually in conjunction with other useful edits. This does not strike me as disruptive, as long as the change follows WP:MOS, which it is claimed to do.  Sandstein  16:51, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Way too much energy is expended on wikipedia arguing over the names of things. I'd like to hear an explanation as to how the presence or absence of hyphens benefits the readers. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:41, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
No one seems to have answered your comment: "I'd like to hear an explanation as to how the presence or absence of hyphens benefits the readers". Not commenting myself on the merits of hyphenation, but Tony1 seems to clearly explain just above how the hyphen is useful to non-expert readers. Jenks24 (talk) 03:55, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
The argument, then, would be that the "benefit" to the readers is to see it worded "correctly" (or at least "correctly" as far as wikipedia's manual of style is concerned)? There's certainly no benefit when searching, as the search window ignores punctuation anyway. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:41, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
    • Is there another option to using or not using the hyphen?? :) - BilCat (talk) 19:36, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
      • Oh, did I forget to mention the n-dash, or whatever it is? The option that was forgotten here is to leave the bloody thing alone. With or without punctuation, an item can be found in the search box. I'd like to see the hyphen-obsessed editor explain how all his busy-work helps the viewing public. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:39, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
        • That's utterly besides the point of the thread. If I were you I wouldn't draw too much attention to the subject of editors doing things which aren't useful to the encyclopedia while dropping in yet again to add chatter to a random ANI thread, Bugs. FWIW I strongly support a censure here, based on Kwami continuing to move pages after agreeing not to yesterday on the rather flimsy subtext that nobody would presumably mind if the moves in question could be described as copyedits. As others have said, a non-admin who acted like this would have a less than spotless block log by now. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 19:59, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
          • I understand that the primary complaint is about moves without discussion, and it's certainly a legitimate complaint, but it's only a symptom of the real problem. Editors wasting countless hours on the names of things, which is the real problem, is a direct quote from a trusted admin. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:59, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
          • If you want to fix the real problem, lobby for removal of move rights from regular editors like moi, and leave that up to the admins. That would require discussion before moves occur. It would also take away the ability of characters like Grawp to rename articles to something stupid, thus saving even more wasted time. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:03, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Large repetitive actions without prior consensus are disruptive and improper per WP:MEATBOT regardless of whether actual automation is involved. Kwami, please discuss operations like this on the relevant talkpages and wait for discussion to conclude BEFORE starting the operations. Also, the hyphen-vs-endash thing is complicated ad I urge the discussion participants to reach a firm consensus on it before going ahead with any renames, so as to avoid yet another mass-move operation sometime in the future if the first one wasn't decided carefully enough. (talk) 21:27, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Response to Baseball Bugs: certainly not an en dash. It's either hyphen or space between the compounded words. Tony (talk) 09:31, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Biophily does WP:POINT editing to "test" me (reported by User:OpenFuture)[edit]

I'm at a loss about how to handle this, so I'm going here directly. Full story:

The Jacque Fresco article previously contained pretty much only information on The Venus Project. I moved that information over, and what was left was only a unreferenced stub, so I instead redirected it to The Venus Project. Some people took issue with this, including Biophily. However, he was already then working on a new version of the article, which he recently put up. There has been some discussion on what to include there, my main problem is that many of the claims made are sourced indirectly to Jacque Fresco himself, via interviews in papers and in one case some YouTube videos. I've tried to discuss this to build consensus, but I didn't really think we were getting much forward in the discussion, and was planning to take that another level soon, via a Third Opinion as the number of people involved is pretty much me an Biophily.

Yesterday I reverted an addition as the source of the claim was clearly not reliable. A motivational speaker was used as a source about Jaque Fresco's economic ideas. This prompted the following reaction from Biophily: [15] The relevant parts are these:

"When you delete praise which you claim is illegitimate, yet you don't delete clear and obvious libel which I intentionally included to test you, suggests you may have a bias. Beware of the experiment."

That's editing to make a point. It's also a sort if baiting I guess. He is intentionally including information he thinks shouldn't be there, to try to somehow trip me up and prove and point. That seems like a very strange way to behave. How much of this article is now some sort of bait? This one was extremely subtle as he thinks he made a negative claim, while I thought it was positive. Does he do this with other editors? It's going to be very hard to Assume Good Faith with an editor that readily admits that he doesn't do things in good faith. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:32, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

If I may defend myself, I didn't include the information thinking it shouldn't be there. I included it *uncertain* of whether it should be there. I expected editor consensus to determine if it should be there. Despite pointing that out, no one responded to me. The statement I made (you quoted above), I would restate as, "When you delete praise which you claim is contentious, yet you don't delete equally contentious criticism, it suggests you are not fulfilling your duties as an editor, to either change it or discuss it." This is the actual fact of the matter. I didn't create the article with a plan to bait you, it was merely an exagerated whimsical after thought used to make a point in the Elaine Smitha discussion to suggest that you were not being balanced in your editorial conduct. Though I realize the difficulty in redeeming my previous statement that you quoted. It does look bad. But I was BSing. At this time I have not moved on to edit other articles until I am finished with this one. This is the first article to which I have given major contribution. Therefore its impossible for me to have tried to "bait" other editors as you have suggested. I recommend the administrator look at my history of edits to verify this.
Regarding good faith, I did enter with good faith from the very beginning, however I noticed a pattern in your responses to other editors (now archived) that made me wonder about your own good faith towards others. You were very sarcastic and discouraging in some cases, believing that a new Fresco article could not be made.--Biophily (talk) 11:57, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm also unsure if much of it should be there. And I have responded to these things. I've also already said that I don't think that Fresco himself is a good source for the claim that he converted a group of KKK people. It does seem to me to be an acceptable source for the statement that he was involved with the KKK, as that is not a self-serving claim. Your attempt to pin some sort of bias on me therefore rests on entirely fictional grounds.
Indeed, I didn't believe that there would be grounds for a new article, and I was wrong. I didn't think you could do it, because you repeatedly claimed that sources for notability could be found, but yet you refused to produce one such source. As a result I thought you didn't have any. Sarcastic, no. Did I say "So, do it then" a lot, yes I did.
Before you claimed to try to test me. You now claim that you didn't try to test me? One of the statements is obviously false. You lost my trust, and will have to regain it. Sorry. --OpenFuture (talk) 14:31, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
You're right, joining the KKK is not a self-serving claim. However that is only half the claim. To include it would be incomplete and a manipulative attempt to portray Fresco in a libelous light, which I believe is what Sloane may have tried to do when he first introduced the KKK claim.
I realize that I have stupidly jeopardized trust (thanks to my lack of sleep and deterioration of rational judgment), but my initial concern still stands: Why did you delete an opinion of praise, but not delete the KKK claim even though they are both contentious by your judgment? Aren't both unreliably sourced and doesn't the KKK claim defy Wikipedia's policy for libel? From this I suspected bias and tried to pin it on you by claiming to have rigged something to show it. I regret it, but my initial concern still stands as stated above, though I don't know if I have the right to ask why you do and don't do something. But I have the right to wonder.--Biophily (talk) 15:59, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
I believe I have answered this on the talk page now. From my viewpoint this issue has now been handled as best as it could, and the issue is now closed. --OpenFuture (talk) 19:18, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Featured article link on main page reads "Fanny scratching"[edit]

Resolved: read this: April Fools' DayScientizzle 15:41, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

... but links to article on Cock Lane Ghost -- the ghost in question's given name apparently was "Fanny" and she was known as 'Scratching Fanny' but I'm thinking some enterprising vandal inverted the order from "Scratching Fanny" -- it makes it sound like a practice rather than a person. I mention this here b/c it's the main page and is protected -- apologies if this isn't the correct venue. Thanks. BrideOfKripkenstein (talk) 15:33, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

And if that *is* in fact correct then I recognize it's a content issue and doesn't belong here. BrideOfKripkenstein (talk) 15:35, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
*wandering through the page* Buttscratcher! Get yer buttscratcher! *wanders off* --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 15:43, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
It's intentional - it's April Fools Day, remember, and Malleus and Raul654 composed the summary, complete with Fanny Scratching. Acroterion (talk) 15:38, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
This is an example of precisely why we need to end this annual "April Fool's Day" b/s. It consumes more bandwidth than it's worth and most of it isn't even funny. – ukexpat (talk) 15:41, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Where did you get the idea from that April 1 pranks were supposed to be funny? Malleus Fatuorum 15:45, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Actually, Malleus Fatuorum made the most significant start to the blurb. Raul and Malleus hammered the rest out between them. I think the blurb's most preposterous wording was the best. I love April 1 tomfoolery and heartily endorse it. Binksternet (talk) 15:50, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
In American vernacular fanny refers to the buttocks but in the British it refers to the female genitalia. So basically you have an April Fools joke about female masturbation to your British audience. For an international resource that is just classy. Wee Curry Monster talk 15:58, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Coming from someone who's name indicates xe is urinating on the curry monster.--Cube lurker (talk) 18:55, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Cock Lane...*pfffft*... HalfShadow 16:04, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
I assumed that was intentional (...Cock Lane) since I've heard that the UK meaning of fanny is now familiar in the US. DeCausa (talk) 16:26, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
I assume this was especially popular along Gropecunt Lane... The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:37, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

That's actually a real legend, I went on a ghost tour in that area and it's an oft told story. And yes there really is a Cock Lane in London, it's near St Paul's Cathedral --Blackmane (talk) 02:29, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I screwed up a move and made a redirect by mistake[edit]

Resolved: Favonian (talk) 22:47, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Index of ancient Egypt-related articles

Please speedy delete it per G6.

Thank you. The Transhumanist 21:52, 1 April 2011 (UTC)


I am a member of Wikipedia Farsi and English, a few days ago I became target of known vandal in wikipedia farsi after reverting his bad edits and reporting his sockpuppeting accounts. This user attempted to speedy delete topics which I was heavily involved with in Wikipedia Farsi, and then here. which led to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iran Software & Hardware Co. (NOSA) usually this should have been defaulted to speedy keep as the user along with his suckpuppets were banned immediately after the AFD. however User:Wuhwuzdat voted delete in what I can only assume was in good faith.

Wuhwuzdat was the only editor with delete comment on the article, following this I wanted to know how i can improve it up to his standards so I left him the following comment in his talk page,

"Hi, Thanks for your vote in the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iran Software & Hardware Co. (NOSA), I appreciate your honest comment and will attempt to make it a less of a "steaming, stinking, pile of self referential spam" in near future. I would like to argue that while you may have 0 interest in such topic, Wikipedia is a place for information which might prove useful to public, and sharing a search able network of million of records is in the interest of scholars interested in Persian heritage. so is sharing information regarding free open source software and accounting software being used by a thousands of companies. In the article there has been an attempt to be as specific as possible and stick to the facts and the technical side as much as possible. either way I appreciate your honest opinion and will try to improve it.
Please also remember that while you may not care about who put up the article or why, according to Wikipedia, it is wrong to recognize vandalism, the user in question is a very well known abuser of the system in wikipedia Persian with more than 30 closed accounts and ips. Thanks 2:40 pm, Yesterday (UTC−4)"

His response was to flush my edit, and say "you are correct, i have little interest in this subject". So i reflected this in the article for deletion as it seemed like he didn't care and the article was a good candidate for a snowball clause. at which time he decided to make things personal by breaking WP:OUTING rules and linking the article to removed edits by the banned user, also by proposing AFD for other topics edited by me such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pardis Technology Park, editing my user page, and finally by reporting me to intervention against vandalism falsely, which was removed by administrator.

I did notice that he was very good editor when I approached his talk page with good intentions originally but he has so far harassed me and made it very personal, breaking Wikipedia:HARASS and WP:OUTING rules and abusing the intervention against vandalism system. Could you please intervene as you see fit, and also remove the links and history of the personal outing as put forward by banned user and mentioned in Wuhwuzdat's post? also I would highly argue speedy keep at least for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pardis Technology Park based on WP:DENY as it is clearly an important technology park as referenced by United Nations document, and it is clearly a case of personal harassment. Thank you very much  Rmzadeh  ►  20:24, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

  • People are allowed to remove messages from their Talk page if they wish, and you should not use that fact to turn the AfD personal - the AfD will be decided by consensus, without any need to personalise things -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:35, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Oh, and I don't see any evidence of outing - could you please provide a diff? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:37, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
I agree that there is no indication that Wuhwuzdat has done anything even remotely close to a breach of WP:OUTING. (The same may not be able to be said for the original nominator of the AfD or a sockpuppet thereof, but that's not the user under discussion here.) —C.Fred (talk) 20:43, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Of course anyone has the right to do with talk page as they please, that is not why I'm reporting this here, I am reporting him for harassment as outlined by him tagging other articles which clearly do not qualify as afd, and as him outing, and reporting me falsely for vandalism. this is clearly harassment
Isn't sharing a link to outing link the same as outing?!! so if a user wants to share personal information without getting cought all he has to is to make a user and share personal info, get banned and then link to that outing with his main account?! that does not make sense! he has clearly shared personal information by sharing a link to someones else's edit which shared personal information.
he has provided a link to a deleted history of outing in the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iran Software & Hardware Co. (NOSA) in an edit today starting with "In light of a deleted contribution by a sockpuppet, alleging COI"  Rmzadeh  ►  20:49, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
  • That's not outing - there is no personal information disclosed about you. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:51, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
(ec) It's borderline, Boing, but I would say there was one tidbit that falls within the spectrum of possible outing. This would be less messy if Rmzadeh had put it a timely request for oversight rather than airing it here. I have revision deleted the edits in question (including one of my own, which came in between the posting of the information in question and its reversion off of the page and am putting in a request for oversight of the material. I will not comment further via talk page about the material in question (though if Wuhwuzdat or a user who feels (s)he was potentially outed by the edit would like to email me about it, I will respond). —C.Fred (talk) 21:03, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Suppressed now. User:Fred Bauder Talk 21:39, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Hmm, OK. it looked to me more like an unconfirmed question to me -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:10, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
here [16], I had a rollback shortcut in my user page as I was under the impression I could rollback! his edited my user page, and following that reported me to be inspected for vandalism. the edit was removed by admin as it was clearly not a case.
honestly you can't see any harassment in what he is doing? am I to believe him nominating a 2nd article edited by me for afd when it clearly does not fit the category and him reporting me as a vandal and "not" quite outing me by sharing a link with intention to put up personal information is not wrong at all?
Thank you C.Fred for removing the outing history, I was not sure which board to use, I found here to be a good tool. I will use the other board next time.  Rmzadeh  ►  21:10, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
OK, yes, that was kinda pointy - but it was quickly resolved and I see no need for further action about it here. What I'm seeing here is two people getting a bit too heated with each other - and I have to say it looks like it was you who first turned it personal by taking the spat from his Talk page over to the AfD. You should have just ignored that (because he is entitled to remove your messages from his Talk page if he wishes) and not inflamed it further on the AfD. All I think that is needed now is for you to stick to discussing the actual article on the AfD page, and drop the personal arguments. And the second AfD? I'd suggest just letting it run - if the subject is considered notable, it won't be deleted. Both just cool down a bit, because nothing very bad has happened here - and I don't see any need for any admin action at this point -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:17, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Sure, I will drop it here, it is however a little unusual that you are letting the 2nd afd run its course and not closing it due to its personal nature. Thank you both for your assistance in this matter, I will update you if the user makes any more personal attacks and will refrain from any attacks of such nature, as I have so far.  Rmzadeh  ►  21:27, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
  • For the record, I've undone [17] Wuhwuzdat's {{spa}} tagging of Rmzadeh's comments at AfD. Wuhwuzdat's edit summary was "spa tag an editor who has made this article a major part of his wikipedia editing over the last 4 years" [18] which was followed by a comment with the edit summary "is there a COI?" [19]

    This type of tagging is highly inappropriate and is tantamount to using tags and templates as weapons. Such COI claims are also not appropriate and appear to be nothing more than an attempt by Wuhwuzdat to discredit Rmzadeh. From Rmzadeh's contribution history it is readily apparent he has worked on other articles and has been around awhile. While Rmzadeh might have a vested interest in an article he spent a great deal of time editing, that does not necessarily mean that there is a conflict of interest.

    Given Wuhwuzdat's editing patterns and interactions with others, this AfD nomination and other edits such as [20] and this failure to assume good faith [21] this seems to go far beyond simple incivility and begins to appear as though Wuhwuzdat is persecuting Rmzadeh. At the very least, Wuhwuzdat's contribution history seems to indicate a systemic pattern of bullying others. --Tothwolf (talk) 22:09, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

  • I'd agree with the above assertion. Earlier today when I was patrolling new pages I noticed there was several pages where Wuhwuzdat was placing both a CSD and a BLPPROD tag on at least two articles less than 10 minutes after they'd been created, and then tagging them for cleanup. (I can't link to any particular articles since they've all been deleted.) After attempting to explain to him that it's likely best practice to only tag for the most pressing issues (i.e., only the CSD) and leave the less pressing ones for later if they're necessary, he simply deleted my comment on his talk page with a somewhat noncommittal edit summary. Perhaps it's not entirely relevant to the discussion at hand but it speaks to his character. elektrikSHOOS 02:10, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Yes, I also agree with the removal of the {{spa}} tag - there is no reason to suspect Rmzadeh's contributions as being anything other than good faith. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:06, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Wider Implications[edit]

  • Please notice that with my outing history removed, and with both articles on afd in no clear danger of deletion, I consider the personal case between me and Wuhwuzdat resolved, as the user has been online, he has been informed of the proceedings, and there has been no further personal issues. The only reason I approached Wuhwuzdat talk page in the first place was due to the fact that after seeing his user page with the mass of self awards (which i did not know existed btw), I was under the impression that he was a very respectable editor of Wikipedia whose rather sharp and toned opinions must be valued and discussed, at the time which I approached his talk page there was no danger of removal of the topic in question either way.
  • However also please note that in the past few days I have reviewed Wuhwuzdat's contributions in detail and in the spirit of keeping Wikipedia a great place for all parties interested in sharing knowledge, I would like to share my findings and plead for appropriate assistance to new users and articles plagued by his general overzealous behaviour, filtering, and arguably rude tone.
  • Wuhwuzdat 's long editing history is almost entirely made up of patrolling and tagging pages for deletion, while I admire him for his countless hours spent patrolling Wikipedia, an act which is both encouraged, and appreciated, I find his actions to be of bullying nature and against the spirit of creating a growing community interested in sharing useful information. His behaviour as previously discussed in the following archived AN/I cases Amy Fisher reported by Wuhwuzdat (Result: 12h to reporter), User:NE2 reported by User:Wuhwuzdat (Result: Both parties warned), Wuhwuzdat on a CSD spree, User: Wuhwuzdat, and User:Wuhwuzdat could be seen in many of recent edits, not using myself as an example, i invite you to look at an example of his uncalled aggressive approach in dealing with articles such as [22] in which he tags csd, and BLPPROD for an arguably notable article within the same moment of its creation, or the following case in which he has requested csd for user sandbox draft of the article before its formal creation[23]. Imagine the shock of the victims of such action, the dissatisfying feeling that it creates for the new user whose article which they just spent hours writing will have no chance of standing against the force of a seemingly qualified agent of Wikipedia who has in practice told them in different and repeating formats that they have no chance of being useful in here, that we are not going to look at the article in detail, we are not going to help them make it viable, we are not going to give them the chance to do so either, we are just going to delete it because they are a new user creating a page.
  • Is this really the attitude that Wikipedia likes to approach new users with? Do you think they stand a chance against this type of bullish response while not familiar with Wikipedia? Is it unreasonable to think that this will result in either user leaving Wikipedia or trying to get in touch with the editor, at which case as examples in his talk page and records [24] show, often such users get frustrated from his lack of appropriate response, end up using inflammatory language in response to him or even consider creation of more accounts to voice their opinions, at which time he reports them to be banned. While I Conquer that such behaviour is never acceptable, I would argue that new users are really being put in a corner by such aggressive contributions. I have been around long enough that I know the right venues for voicing my opinions against what I consider bad behaviours by editors such as Wuhwuzdat, you have to consider the fact that Wikipedia is a hard place to become familiar with and many will not know of such venues when they are just starting in here. I beg of you to ask this user to relax his treatment of new articles and users so they too may have a chance of creating useful information in their topics of interest within the confines of this great encyclopaedia.
  • I have also found out that Wuhwuzdat's area of interest lies in articles related to railroad transportation, I read these articles and I greatly appreciate his contributions to these articles however I must voice my concern that being an editor who knows the rules very well and deletes topics frequently based of lack of sources and similar issues, much of his own contributions lacks both notability and credible sources as seen in GMD GF6C,Railpower RP14BD, Railpower RP20BD, articles with no references, and his other contributions with geocities as primary source on reference. Even more harmful is the issue with his uploaded images [25] such as this image [26], which in my honest opinion, suffer major copyright issue as they have been taken from Western History Department of the Denver Public Library and published with fair use tag and the claim that the "The department actively encourages fair use of its images for educational purposes" the link provided to the copyright information does not work however upon researching the centres website I found out that based on their updated copyright page here [27], they have clearly stated that "All images from the Denver Public Library collection are copyright © protected and may not be reproduced in any way without permission from the Denver Public Library. Commercial use of images is subject to service fees." not only there is not a clause allowing educational use, there is also a clause specifically prohibiting these purchasable images from being reproduced for any reason without specific consent. I have not tagged or acted on any of these pages as I am not experienced enough to want to edit his pages and I do not wish to flair the fire any more then absolutely necessary, but I do expect an editor to hold himself to at least the same standards and he does a new user with no knowledge of the rules.
  • In closing, let me make this clear that I still believe Wuhwuzdat to be a very accomplished editor and I do not wish to belittle his value in anyway for he has done much for this community, the purpose of this article is not to go after personal vengeance or punitive measures, infect I am very well aware that being a newer editor with fewer friends, I am risking my own standing in this community by going after such veteran editor, and probably should expect some throw backs very soon, but it is just this editors honest opinion that attention of the powers that be must be brought, to what in his mind, equates to an example of an editor with unjust attitude towards new users. I shiver of the day that Wuhwuzdat becomes an administrator before changing his attitude and tone of comments. I'm afraid to do so again, so I ask you, please talk to him and take appropriate action to save new articles and users. Respectfully yours  Rmzadeh  ►  21:55, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
    If you want to seek community opinion on an editor's long-term editing patterns, the best place is probably WP:RFC/U - this ANI forum is for requesting specific admin action in response to specific incidents, and I don't think any admin action is needed at this time. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:18, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
A Requests for comment/Wuhwuzdat was launched last year and it led to no result, with the user User:Amanda.nelson12 leaving due to harsh treatment and inability to get any remedies and Wuhwuzdat taking a break and becoming "semi-retired". Quoting from the RFC/U, it "was summarily and impolitely dismissed by Wuhwuzdat,[28] since he believes that only administrators should be able to question his actions.[29]". A previous Wikiquette Alert was also filled and closed as stuck: [30], concluding that "attempts to resolve this dispute have halted. Seems to be outside the scope of WQA to do any more than it has".
I really think the only people capable of talking to this user are Wikipedia Administrators, there are a dozen cases everywhere regarding him and non have so far led to any change in his behaviour. Hence I think this requires an administrator intervention, be it an admin seriously discussing his behaviour, warning him of such behaviour, or applying stopping measures. If history has anything to teach us, is that users trying to talk to him have not been able accomplish anything.  Rmzadeh  ►  00:21, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
I still don't think ANI is the forum for it, as by its nature ANI is for dealing with individual incidents. Admins don't have any more say than the rest of the community, they just have access to tools with which to enforce the community's policies and decisions, so I think this would really need to go via the various steps in the dispute resolution process if you wish to pursue it. (I'll leave my thoughts at that - others may disagree with me) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:43, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
  • I've noticed that User:Wuhwuzdat often makes poor nominations at AFD. For example, on observing this thread, I checked his contributions and his most recent nomination was Linda Lusardi. She was quite a famous pin-up and so I instantly recognised her name. There are lots of sources out there which confirm this and so it seems clear that no due diligence has been done. In other words, when the nomination asserts that this topic is "not notable", this is a blatant falsehood. This pattern of negligent editing is disruptive and so action here seems appropriate. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:18, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
    Looks like he's been on a spree of nominating lots of articles about models for deletion today, with a cursory "non notable former model" reason - despite a number of them still currently being models, and some having made TV appearances, and there being GNews hits. No apparent WP:BEFORE done on any of these. I agree there's a problem here - just not sure this is the best venue. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:36, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
From my experience in dealing with similar issues with this individual (indef blocked after years of problems), and these two individuals [31] [32] (both accounts abandoned after they were sanctioned) I became painfully aware that we do not have a system in place here on Wikipedia to deal with such individuals. Bullying here on Wikipedia is an extremely widespread problem, but one which has been largely ignored and I'm not really sure how we can fix it.

I also noted "busy-body" tagging and disruption [33] as one of four types of tagging behaviour at WP:VPP in this discussion. It is extremely easy to make massive number of edits using automated or semi-automated tools, so a high edit count is never indicative of how productive an editor someone is. Take for example the User:Mhiji sockpuppet that racked up 28,077 edits in 4 months (October 16, 2010 - January, 16 2011) using automated scripts. --Tothwolf (talk) 07:48, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I know I'm going to get killed for this...[edit]

I'm not totally anti April Fools Day, but can we at least stop nominating the main AFD page for deletion? We are on a recruitment drive, we really need new editors, and the last thing we need to do is confuse new editors. Can we maybe limit it to less visible pages? Kansan (talk) 05:34, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

If it's any consolation, I AfD'ed the AfD page for AfD. But then someone AfD'ed that. Seriously, though, I suspect the new editors can figure out from the "this page is humorous" boxes that this is just some harmless April 1 fun. As long as the articles are kept strictly off-limits for the funnin', I'm not too worried about the project pages containing some temporary levity. 28bytes (talk) 05:47, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
You can have the AFD ... but you don't need a confusing notice at the top of WP:AFD to do it. Just transclude it in the daily AFD list or put a notification on the talk page or something. When you put a banner like that at the top of a major process page, you confuse users. --B (talk) 05:50, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
I think B's compromise seems very sensible. I'm not trying to cause problems here at all; I'm just remembering how confused I was when I was new to Wikipedia and trying to navigate through the site, figuring it out it works. I probably would have seen that and assumed there was a serious community proposal to shutter the AFD process. Kansan (talk) 05:54, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
So... Fanny Scratching doesn't confuse new editors? And since I haven't seen a case yet where someone was actually "confused" by the AFD... I find it ridiculous to think that a new editor would be driven away from the project from a simple tag at the top of a page. Coffee // have a cup // essay // 05:55, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
There's a difference between providing a silly but accurate hook to an article and putting up a statement that is false. Yes, nobody has said they were confused by the AFD, but the type of person who would be confused is a brand new potential editor who would either not know where to bring their concerns or who might just assume it is for real. You may say it is "ridiculous", but I tried to get a friend of mine to edit, and she told me she was too intimidated by the way the site works. While much of our current system is inevitably going to be complicated, in general, the less confusing the better. Kansan (talk) 06:05, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
  • I think you are confusing a relatively harmless (but dumb) prank on a process page which new users rarely see with general UI complexity. I'm also a bit confused about the "we are on a recruitment drive" statement. We always want new editors. Protonk (talk) 06:23, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
    • I'm referring to the new outreach campaigns being initiated by the Foundation in response to declining editor numbers, as well as their attempts to determine what keeps potential editors from staying around. Kansan (talk) 13:29, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
  • It's one day a year. I hear CostCo is doing a special on senses of humour. tfeilS (talk) 08:57, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
    • That assumes that AFD-ing the same pages every year is funny. Surely there's someway to freshen April 1st up? Slapping AFD tags on high profile articles and making odd RFA nominations is kinda old and not all that funny. RxS (talk) 14:05, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Once upon a time, someone did delete AfD.Thread about it from WikiEN-l. Anyone else remember it? -- llywrch (talk) 14:33, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
  • I remember, that was funny.....think it got Uncle G in some hot water. RxS (talk) 15:14, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
    • Me too. But I think you'll find that it was Ed Poor (AKA Uncle Ed), not Uncle G, who got in hot water. Graham87 05:01, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Oh yes, I remember the day. Votes for Deletion was deleted, and replaced with the very-near-identical Articles for Deletion, following much Wikidrama. The Land (talk) 15:18, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

RM closure requested[edit]

Resolved: Discussion closed. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 07:43, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

The move discussion at Talk:Occupation of the Baltic states has gone stale. A heavily involved editor attempted to close debate, but I undid this, as it was a violation of WP:RM/CI. However, I do believe that this discussion has run its course. As such, I kindly request that an admin put this debate properly to rest. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 23:23, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

And while I am here, I would also like to request that an admin merge the page histories of Talk:Székely and Talk:Székelys, as these histories have become rather messed up as a result of overzealous cut-and-paste moves. Thank you. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 23:26, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

And while you are doing this I also request undoing a salted controversial move of Template:Occupation of the Baltic states sidebar, and warn Martintg not to do this again. I believe that he was already warned not to salt controversial moves and deserve a harsher sanction, but I am too busy to search through history of his talk page. (Igny (talk))
I thought it was a requirement to categorise redirects per WP:RCAT. If I misread that guideline then please explain the guideline to me in plain english so I don't err again. Also please clean up this categorisation [34] too if neccesary. --Martin (talk) 20:11, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

This thread has been sitting here for a week now, but it is still somehow languishing in obscurity. I would like to reiterate the requests I made above. The contentious move discussion at Talk: Occupation of the Baltic states has long since fizzled out into no-consensus land. It would be very much appreciated if this were to be resolved with all due haste. It is just taking up space at this point.

Also, the page histories of Talk:Székely and Talk:Székelys have become rather seriously screwed up as a result of disruptive cut-and-paste moves by User:Iaaasi, who is being considered for a community ban below. There is currently a move discussion (proposed by the same user) going on which would risk destroying much of the editing history if it were to be closed without careful examination of page histories. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 19:05, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Messy MOS proposal subpage[edit]

Could someone sort please out this mess? LeadSongDog come howl! 22:11, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

What mess? Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:05, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Islam-related articles)/clergy is a subpage in the Wikipedia namespace, but it contains a discussion. That discussion had been copied to the associated talkpage, but never removed from WP space. It's sat there for years and is even linked to from more mainstream guidelines. There's a circular redirect with Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Islamic clergy). Both are orphans, linked only from talkspaces. Yech! In any case, they're superceded by Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(Islam-related_articles).LeadSongDog come howl! 17:08, 4 April 2011 (UTC)


The account Danielclements (talk · contribs · central auth · count · email) has an obvious singular purpose of promoting the website See brief contribution history, previous warnings,[35] and User_talk:Jeffro77#Nebuchenezzar_Edited_link. The editor has previously made reference to "a clock we have in our collection",[36] indicating that the editor is directly affiliated with the promoted website.--Jeffro77 (talk) 16:20, 1 April 2011 (UTC) (The editor also e-mailed me using Wikipedia's e-mail function, with the same [benign] text as at my Talk page. I have not replied. The editor's e-mail address is the e-mail address on the website promoted by the editor.--Jeffro77 (talk) 16:51, 1 April 2011 (UTC))

Some of the pages at the site to which other Wikipedia articles have previously been linked by the editor have been modified to say the particular page is 'for Wikipedia research only', though the purpose still seems to be to direct traffic to the site. It is my understanding that if the site is notable as an information resource about grandfather clocks then independent editors would be linking to it.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:47, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

After your hurtful comments, I do wonder why I bother. Again I promise you I have never tried to use this site for commercial purposes, even though i know many other dealers do. We provide many hours helping people that have never even met us, valuing and providing info free of charge on their clocks. Like I have said previously my father was editor of the Millers Antiques Price Guide up until 1984. I have been on national tv about clocks. By the way I blanked the page because again someone misunderstood the reason for a link. They see a commercial site yes but do not realize, not everything is based on selling. We do as I have said provide f.o.c. help for people. The link you deleted just ask within the section if they think it would have been useful within that section. I can guarantee they would have had a different view to you. Nevermind. From this time forth, I am not going to bother waste my time trying to provide useful information for this site. It is your loss, I do not need such ridiculous incorrect and hurtful comments as to you and the other editor once provided
Daniel — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danielclements (talkcontribs) 10:43, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Hurtful? There's a policy, and you're not following it. All of your edits to articles have been in relation to adding an external link to your own commercial website. If you were merely concerned about providing information, you would add article content with a reliable source. That's all there is to it.--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:03, 2 April 2011 (UTC)


The editor continues to try and add unsourced information to the Mad episode list. I have asked the editor to stop, but they continue. Even going as far to removed a reliable source and replacing it with an unreliable one. The editor has been reported on this once before. Sarujo (talk) 14:25, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

User:BruceFisher at Talk:Murder of Meredith Kercher[edit]

There is zero possibility that an administrator, including the fabled "uninvolved" one whose status lasts exactly as long as they make no comment, is going to act upon this matter. Take it back to the various dispute resolution boards, or on the article talkpage, or whatever... LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:15, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I am concerned about the conduct at Talk:Murder of Meredith Kercher on the part of BruceFisher (talk · contribs), who has just started a new thread (see base of this diff) with the sole aim of calling for another user to cease editing the talk page's associated article. Without substantiation, he claims that the user in question has "compromised himself by posting on an advocacy site" and has "clearly shown bias", finally ordering that he "recuse himself from editing". This development is merely the latest incident in a catalogue of uncivil behaviour from BruceFisher, who has issued similar demands in earlier edits within the last week and has made attacks on other editors, again without foundation. His most recent actions strike me more for their complete disregard for the purpose of talk pages – namely, that such pages are intended for discussion about the topic of an article as opposed to a user's (alleged, if not improbable) misconduct. In the spirit of discussing content, not contributors, I initially considered blanking the entire section of the talk page as a long, baseless personal attack. However, since I am an involved editor at the Murder of Meredith Kercher article and talk page, I have decided to seek a second opinion at the Administrator's Noticeboard. I feel that this tirade cannot stand, and that a warning on the subject of this kind of behaviour is now firmly warranted. Regards, SuperMarioMan 06:10, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I am concerned with SuperMarioMan's conduct. He seems to be more concerned with policing Wikipedia than he does about helping to create accurate content. He recently went to Candace Dempsey's talk page simply to point out minor infractions. He wasn't there to talk to Candace. In fact the only comment he made to her was in reference to her infractions on her talk page. It is clear that he went there simply looking to see if he could find anything to complain about. I am new to Wikipedia and I understand there are guidelines. I apologize if I have broken any rules. SuperMarioMan has made it very clear that he is not happy with all of the activity on the Meredith Kercher article. It appears to me that he may be using Wikipedia's guidelines as a way to threaten people to be quiet. The Meredith Kercher article has been poorly handled for a long time now. So much in fact that Jimbo Wales felt the need to get involved. I understand that SuperMarioMan may be upset with me because it was my blog that brought the issues of the article to Mr. Wales attention but I don't feel that it is appropriate for SuperMarioMan to devote his efforts to picking apart every word that myself or others that may not agree with him have to say. I would think in the spirit of Wikipedia, the energy should be directed at creating accurate content. BruceFisher (talk) 07:18, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Not being familiar with all these blog sites, I thank Wikid for the clarification and context. Nevertheless, I don't see how initiating a new talk page thread simply to demand that someone stop editing a particular topic falls within the boundaries of good user conduct - that is at the heart of my original post. Bruce, I would respectfully like to point out that as 85% of the 4000+ edits that I have made to Wikipedia since 2006 have been devoted to the article mainspace, your allegation that I serve only to "police" the site seems curious at best, especially given that I have never held administrator status. I also fail to see how CandaceDempsey comes into this particular dispute. SuperMarioMan 08:03, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
I would like to add that I think Bruce is confusing a conduct dispute with a content dispute. For one thing, I'm not aware of actually having expressed any personal opinions on the topic of the article. Hence, I reject the insinuation that I am somehow waging war on particular editors on ideological grounds (e.g. by "using Wikipedia's guidelines as a way to threaten people to be quiet"). What I will not allow to go unchallenged is a section of a talk page created specifically to attack another user. SuperMarioMan 08:33, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Mario, can I ask why you haven't taken action against Hipocrite for this post, which was designed specifically to attack another user (a user who had not been engaged in a long history of personal attacks as FormerIP had? [37]LedRush (talk) 14:22, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
First of all, I should state that I was not originally aware of that particular post from Hipocrite. However, much of it is devoted to discussing general editing at the topic, and in contrast with this scenario, I fail to see Hipocrite demanding that another user refrain from editing the article. That same day bore witness to incivility that was, in my mind, of an even greater degree, exemplified in this offering here. SuperMarioMan 20:56, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
I feel like we are looking at different diffs. Bruce very politely asked that another user which appears to be an advocate (and one who has been quite disruptive in the past) recuse himself from editing the article. Bruce has already outed himself as an advocate and refrained from editing the article. Hipocrite, on the other hand, doesn't point to problematic edits, he instead engages in personal attacks on a specific editor, as an example of why his insults to a general group of editors is destroying the article. It is far worse than Bruce's.LedRush (talk) 23:52, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Hipocrite has contributed to discussions on source reliability, as can be seen here. Is there a personal attack in this particular diff, or is Hipocrite instead pointing out a "problematic edit"? Also, how is the edit in that particular diff an example of Hipocrite being "far worse" in his behaviour than Bruce, who took it upon himself to air his concerns about another user on an article talk page instead of using a more appropriate venue? That doesn't sound like "very polite" conduct to me. SuperMarioMan 07:14, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
A self-identified claim for that post was put under a closed-discussion topic @User_talk:Jimbo: - by FormerIP 02:37, 1 April 2011
The initial message on the blog-page, by a "Gwaendar" username, basically claims Jimbo Wales cannot hope to influence any improvements to the MoMK article, by claiming dire concerns about "prospects for Jimmy Wales if he can indeed have any effect on the editing process - set up so that even he essentially can’t." All of this is just disruptive to the mood of working on the article. So, when User:FormerIP (the editor who has deleted more article text than any other), joins into the negativity, then proudly claims that blog post in User_talk:Jimbo_Wales, the result is unsettling. He has already systematically deleted hundreds of phrases from the article, and now, in a confrontation with the "founder" what will this user do next. -Wikid77 (talk) 07:05, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
What exactly is disruptive from side of FormerIP besides your "flowery" views of what actually happened?TMCk (talk) 07:52, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
You act as if Jimbo's opinion should have greater weight than the rest of us, when it is Jimbo himself that continually states that he should be treated just as a normal editor. Personally, I agree with Gwaendar and that blog post, but that is neither here or there. Article talk pages are for discussing changes to be made to the article in question, not for discussing user conduct even if it is in relation to the article in question. Thus, I have removed the section on the talk page. If Bruce wishes to discuss actions by FormerIP, then he should go through the proper channels of doing so, such as the very place we are at right now. SilverserenC 08:40, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Well, I was thinking that refering to the article's talk-page as "Monkeys Go Crazy" and saying that normal editor User:Jimbo_Wales has hamfisted his way into the article might reveal a, perhaps, slight intense hostility, but whatever. -Wikid77 (talk) 08:59, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
That's true, but my comment wasn't about FormerIP, it was about the subject line on the talk page. Bruce may very well be justified, but he should be reporting it through the proper channels. SilverserenC 09:04, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Well that's not what he said (he quoted someone else) and he didn't say it on wiki and if Jimbo takes offense by the off-wiki "hamfisting" remark he is absolutely capable to defend himself. Still, you seem to see no problem with Bruce's talkpage behavior or do you?TMCk (talk) 09:17, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Just for completing the record, let's also point out that SPA BruceFisher (talk · contribs) runs his own outside advocacy blog, Injustice in Perugia, and that the totality of his actions here are limited to WP:ABF, attacks, insinuation and innuendo against other editors, loud calls for recusal, and attempting to get their own book added into the article. MLauba (Talk) 09:15, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Nice to see you again, MLauba. This article should probably be noted also. SuperMarioMan 09:35, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Well, perhaps one person's view as "insinuation and innuendo against other editors" could be considered another's defense against insults to User:CandaceDempsey and User:Jimbo_Wales, both of whom have shown remarkable restraint in expecting insults to stop, although the current prospects seem grim AFAICT. -Wikid77 (talk) 09:53, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
However, starting a new section on the talk page simply to order another user off the article seems more than just a little heavy-handed as a "defense against (perceived) insults", does it not? SuperMarioMan 10:00, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
It seems like you're looking for excuses for Bruce's behavior though.TMCk (talk) 09:59, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

It's a "foot in mouth" comment (by FormerIP), certainly, but looks fine to me... Bringing it up on the talk page like that is a big no-no. Does BruceFisher have a constructive history at the page? (i.e. in terms of discussing content). If not is an appropriate sanction some form of topic ban? It might resolve some issues if he was restricted from the Kercher topic for a bit (say, 3 months?) --Errant (chat!) 10:08, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm happy to apologise for any offence caused by "Monkeys Go Crazy". It was not meant to be aimed at anyone in particular, but as a comment on the state of things. I think editors on that talkpage in general, not necessarily excluding editors of any rank or faction (or myself), could benefit from reflecting on their conduct. However, I can see, given the climate, how editors who saw that comment might have taken it differently. --FormerIP (talk) 10:19, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Okay, FormerIP, I thank you for that apology because posting to a forum-blog website about the article's talk-page was beginning to seem very extreme. I think if you posted some alternate ideas for the article-editing process, writing ideas somewhere inside enwiki, then that would seem less hostile. -Wikid77 (talk) 15:31, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
According to BruceFisher's contributions page, he is an SPA that has pretty much only edited the talk page of said article for his entire Wiki-life of one week. That doesn't bode well in itself. SilverserenC 10:15, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
I agree with the conclusions of MLauba, who quite rightly states that Bruce's contributions to the project have consisted solely of attacking and barking orders at other Wikipedia editors while pushing to have his own book put in the article. The Murder of Meredith Kercher topic has unfortunately been no stranger to disruptive single-purpose accounts with these kinds of advocacy and agenda issues. SuperMarioMan 10:24, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I am little surprised by this discussion. The MoMK talk page has been a source of contention for a long time. Generally, though, the site has been dominated by a group of editors who seemed to be protecting a specific POV and who engaged in bullying and Wiki-lawyering to prevent other editors from editing. To me, this looks like another example. Bruce's edit was not very helpful, nor, do I think, it was very off base. User Hipocrite basically did the same thing, [38], except it was merely the beginning of a series of personal attacks and disruptive editing. I really hope we don't fall back into the bad old days when one group of editors which seem to have one view on the article/case gain control over the other through means like this.LedRush (talk) 11:18, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Also, User FormerIP has engaged in a binge of personal attacks on the site, making his POV very clear. I believe Bruce's statement asking for FormerIP to recuse himself is also based from that fact. This information is not furnished to either excuse any bad action by Bruce (which I don't think was that bad, BTW) nor to instigate any admin action against Hipocrite or FormerIP - this is merely to present some context for people who may be looking at one post in isolationLedRush (talk) 13:45, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
  • The problem is that like many other contentious topic areas, one "side" feels that NPOV is achieved if both are presented side-by-side equally, even when one rests largely on conjecture and accusations of conspiracy. We have a case here of a dead girl and several people convicted in a court of law for the murder. We unfortunately have a very small and very vocal cheering section for one of the convicted criminals, a section who thinks that every perceived discrepancy and alternate theory for what happens should be worked into the article. Equally unfortunately is Jimbo's recent involvement to insist that the concerns of some advocacy blog's "open letter to Wikipedia" be addressed, which has now made him a part of the story. Tarc (talk) 13:14, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Well, unfortunately, it's the ideas behind this comment which are actually the problem. A small group of editors has decided that despite the incredible amount of controversy surrounding the case, they want to present an article which states only one side of the story. In order to achieve that end, they bully less established editors and engage in endless Wikilawyering (while breaking WP policy in the process).LedRush (talk) 13:45, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, but that is the truth. Fringe conspiracy theories don't get weighted the same as, y'know, facts. Otherwise, the lead of the Barack Obama article would be rife with Muslim/Marxist/Kenya innuendo. Tarc (talk) 19:52, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Observation: Not taking sides here, but this is not a fringe theory. If I understand Italian law correctly, Knox is not convicted and continues to be considered innocent during the appellate process. This is very different from American or British law and we are treading in places where presumptions shouldn't be made. Knox & Sollecito are not considered guilty yet under that system although they would be elsewhere. Fringe theory is not applicable here based on your above arguments. She is not fully convicted yet, correct?
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 20:15, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Convicted but not fully sounds about right although we still haven't found a good source that really explains the details on how it works.TMCk (talk) 20:31, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
This is WP:OR I know, but as I understand it the pair have been found guilty at the trial, but have not been convicted (i.e. no sentence imposed) pending the appeals made by both parties against the verdict. Thus they are not convicted, but neither are they not "not guilty" - the status of innocent is a technicality to ensure they are not sentenced in the meantime... I think. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:42, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

How can Bruce's comment reasonably be described as a 'tirade' or 'uncivil'? It is neither. None of Bruce's posts have been uncivil, unlike the many extremely rude posts I have seen from people like FormerIP and Hipocrite.```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by CodyJoeBibby (talkcontribs) 16:52, 1 April 2011 (UTC) CodyJoeBibby (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

*COUGH!* HalfShadow 16:55, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
It must be slander season for this new (?) user[39].TMCk (talk) 16:57, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
I removed it BTW [40].TMCk (talk) 16:59, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Is it really libel (slander is spoken)? It's just a question. Seeing as many people make claims about what editors who favor a more pro-defendants view (or more NPOV...depending on who you talk to) do in the real world, including the attacks against Bruce above, why is that any different? I don't particularly see it as relevant, but it doesn't seem bad to ask that question. And it seems that there is quite a selective process of going after WP "infractions".LedRush (talk) 22:20, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Well, I hear people talking when I read them so... let's call it defamation. The difference for me lays in "a personal attack can but must not be defamation while defamation is always also a personal attack". Where I draw the line (yes, I do have a thin line that I draw ones in a while) is when one comes from nowhere to a talkpage of an article making wild accusations about an editor's business (and it is the editor's business) outside Wikipedia not only without any proof and links and in the wrong place but also drawing a very unlikely conclusion because of a simple first name. It's like I would ask if Cody if he's the same Cody that's hiding at this real nasty porn-site for perverts and telling him at the same time to recuse himself from editing on a related site. Now would that be appropriate? I don't think so and since this is an example of what that editor basically did the "not appropriate label" fits. BTW, there would've been nothing wrong at all to ask the editor on their talkpage if they are indeed the person in question.TMCk (talk) 02:03, 2 April 2011 (UTC)There is something wrong with this text but I don't get it.TMCk (talk) 02:08, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm new to Wikipedia so I apologise if my comment was made in the wrong place. I don't think my claim was 'wild'.The editor in question has a fairly distinctive username and the odds against a person with that exact name editing almost exclusively the MOMK page on Wikipedia and posting almost exclusively on Amanda knox videos on YouTube seem somewhat high. I'll try to work out how to speak to the editor directly as suggested. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CodyJoeBibby (talkcontribs) 07:28, 2 April 2011 (UTC) CodyJoeBibby (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I don't understand why you say it is a 'wild accusation' when he provided the exact quote found here - And unlikely conclusion that the FormerIP talking about the case on the talk page is the same FormerIP in the comment section?, not unlikely at all. I doubt there is another FormerIP anywhere. Bruce Fisher brought the comment up in the wrong place, this is a simple correction of telling him where the correct place to post is. As far as his statement, well it's true. Adding to that how many editors were blocked by admin Black Kite for Meat Puppetry, it does lead to questions on how fair those blocks were when editors are openly posting on guilt sites about the case. Perhaps now is the time to un-block those editors. Issymo (talk) 04:01, 2 April 2011 (UTC) Issymo (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
I was talking about CodyJoeBibby.TMCk (talk) 05:06, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

FormerIP took full credit for his comments posted on the True Justice site. This information is all available on this page. FormerIP also took time to post a note on Jimbo Wales' talk page that he posted the comments. I did not make a wild accusation. With that information known, it is up to the others here to decide whether or not his comments were appropriate. Keep in mind that FormerIP has recorded the most edits of any editor on the Meredith Kercher page. For the record, FormerIP continues to participate in the conversation at the True Justice site. I am an advocate so therefor I don't edit. FormerIP has shown himself to be an advocate also. BruceFisher (talk) 06:16, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I frankly do not understand what this is all about. I agree with Issymo above. If the post was made in the wrong place, then let's make that clear and be done with it. Mr. Fisher comments are, after all, verifiable. I second Issymo's suggestion that it is time to unblock-editors who were unfairly blocked. We are now in the process of improving a very flawed article. The true remaining injustice is the sheer number of editors who were blocked. When I read Wikipedia's rules, they seem like common sense. It is dismaying to see the amount of wiki-lawyering that goes on some time.PietroLegno (talk) 11:38, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Improving a very flawed article? What I see is that the current version...or at least the version of ~1 week ago...was a fair representation of the case and some reflection on the disagreements and arguments of the "Knox is innocent" side. Since then we've seen timelines, floor plan graphics and detailed forensic rebuttals either in the article already or proposed for addition. All of this is pushed by a handful of editors and a seeming legion of redlink-name single purpose accounts. Anyone who has been banned from the article should remain banned, and the list should be added to, quite honestly. The POV-pushing going on around this topic makes the Obama article area look tame. Tarc (talk) 12:57, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
I concur with Tarc. With all the trouble this article's caused on various noticeboards the last few weeks, I'd be in no hurry to unblock anyone.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:26, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Attempts by some above to present this as an attempt to violate WP:UNDUE by covering both sides equally because one side is WP:FRINGE is exactly why the article has had a huge and still very substantial POV slant. This is not a WP:FRINGE topic in the slightest, as outside experts pretty much are split (with perhaps a greater number favoring the idea that Sollecito and Knox are innocent, at least in recent news coverage). The appeal is not over, and the judge granted the appeal has said the appeal can cover the totality of the original case. There is not a single part that is not currently under active legal dispute, and even if the trial were over this is clearly extremely controverial.

Rather, it is the editing by some editors, as well as a couple of admins who aren't hesitating to throw their admin status weight around in making threats to block (and in the past even outright blocks) based solely on POV, that is pushing one side as if it were the only side that is making this article so incredibly unbalanced that it got User:JimboWales' direct attention.

Let me just point out that the part in the lead even mentioning that the case is controversial was not allowed there until very recently after several editors tried to remove all mention of it. In fact right now the wording there is WP:WEASELly. On top of that we still do not have content supporting the most notable critics of the case, like Douglas Preston, Steve Moore, outside forensics experts, Candace Dempsey and so forth in all but the briefest of mentions. This is a POV stranglehold in the extreme, and it seems to be enforced by rushed, sloppy and slanted actions taken by WP:INVOLVED admins.

Please, can we get admins who are WP:UNINVOLVED to take a look, as some of the comments above are absurdly slanted -- probably not intentionally, but that's why bias is so damaging. DreamGuy (talk) 14:46, 2 April 2011 (UTC) mentioning the religion of my birth with (seeming?) derision[edit]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jacob Barnett (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi. I am engaged in a vigorous editing dispute with another editor (that happens to be a wp:SPA) who seems nice enough, generally, but s/he is just now beginning to edge into something akin to a personal attack referencing my ethno-religious identity. (See diff.) I don't think the offense is too far over the line but am concerned that it may escalate to that and wouldn't want this editor to suffer those kind of consequences. Can a kind, passing-by administrator send him a politely worded caution, on my behalf? I'd really appreciate it. Thanks.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 11:16, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I have NO IDEA what your religion or ethnicity is. You have deliberately fabricated quotes by manipulating a source. I checked your history and saw that your interests included Glenn beck and Mormonism, both of which are interests that obviously might motivate a deliberate fabrication in an area related to Big Bang theory. I wildly guessed that your motivation was based on some allegiance trumping your ability to NOT FABRICATE SOURCES OR LIE. If you are offended, I suggest in the future you do not discredit your "ethno-religious identity" by fabricating sources. (talk) 11:38, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
The IP alleges that I fabricated a source. In fact, I provided a transcript for a statement in a talkpage comment from a YouTube video. I didn't say where the transcript came from however, its ultimate source was apparently a newspaper article. (I got it from a blog essay.) In any case, in my provided transcript for the statement, I changed a comma, which I believed to be in error, to a period, which I believed to be the correct transcription, for meaning and clarity.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 11:44, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Just a comment - whatever other articles an editor edits isn't important. It's borderline Ad Hominem. Exceptions are occasional, for example single purpose accounts should be evaluated a bit more carefully. Zakhalesh (talk) 11:40, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
A poster's transcript of a YouTube video is not a "source" when THE VERY SAME VIDEO is transcribed in AN ACTUAL SOURCE," i.e., a newspaper article -- which, incidentally, was one of only THREE SOURCES ALTOGETHER for the article in question.

Here is what the OP posted, supposedly quoting the source: "The other day I calculated, they have this period where they suppose the hydrogen and helium were created, and I don't care about the hydrogen and helium, but I thought, wouldn't there have to be some sort of carbon? Otherwise, the carbon would have to be coming out of the stars and hence the Earth. Made mostly of carbon, we wouldn't be here."

Here is what the actual source published: "The other day I calculated, they have this period where they suppose the hydrogen and helium were created, and, um, I don't care about the hydrogen and helium, but I thought, wouldn't there have to be some sort of carbon? Otherwise, the carbon would have to be coming out of the stars and hence the Earth, made mostly of carbon, we wouldn't be here."

Do you see the ESSENTIAL difference? The discussion concerned the ignorance of earth's chemical composition -- earth is NOT "made mostly of carbon." The misquotation was clearly a deliberate attempt to cover up the ignorance of the claim by suggesting that "we" (people, not earth) are "made mostly of carbon." There was an agenda at work in this deliberate misquotation, and I attempted to identify its source. But how can I be charged with "a personal attack referencing [someone's] ethno-religious identity" when I had NO IDEA what it was? The OP should be more careful in his her fabrications of sources, not more vigilant in his/her indignation about non-existent insults. (talk) 11:58, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi This forum here is NOT for carrying on the argument from the AFD. This discussion is about your making personal attacks on another editor. I have just been over there to check and I agree that your attacks are unacceptable. You should discuss the topic itself, and the actual content of people's arguments - you should NOT argue by slagging people off personally. If you continue to post personal attacks, you will be blocked from editing -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:05, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
(ec x2)The above is a content dispute, which is not what this page is for. The specific comment by the OP is that you stated (not inferred, suggested, theorized) that they were of a particular religious and political background, and then inferred/suggested/promoted that their views were then inherently inferior. That is not how this project works. Dispute of content is fine, provided that the appropriate resolution solutions are used, but comments upon other editors are not. Please do not do it again. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:13, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

The personal attacks seem to suggest that the user might be a sockpuppet (not necessarily intentional) of User:Negi(afk) who was blocked for making personal attacks on the AfD. I've opened an SPI investigation (see there for links to previous ANI discussion related to personal attacks made on this AfD). —Tom Morris (talk) 12:15, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Just to note, Negi(afk)'s block expired this morning and suddenly personal attacks start appearing in the AfD. That's why I opened the SPI investigation: if I'm right about the sockpuppetry, he's not evading his block (since it has expired), but moving from one account to an IP in order to not get speedily blocked for carrying on the same behaviour. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:17, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Your theory doesn't hold water since I've been logged in to my account all morning. I'm also not afraid of getting speedily blocked. I'll personally attack you right now, if you want, just to prove my point. Negi(afk) (talk) 17:15, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

AFD discussion getting out of hand, need an uninvolved admin to hat some nonsense[edit]

I've already commented, so I am recusing myself, but could an uninvolved admin please check by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jacob Barnett, perhaps "{{hat}}" the irrelevent side discussions going on, and also perhaps drop a clue on those participating in them. Its getting a bit distracting... --Jayron32 06:55, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I've added it to my watchlist, but the discussion has three more days to run. Let's see what happens. -- llywrch (talk) 00:32, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

India vs Pakistan cricket match removal from ITN[edit]

Usually for the first offence I wouldn't take something to ANI as I don't generally think its productive and people do make mistakes.

However I'm making an exception in this case due to it affecting the front page and being a gross misreading of consensus. Prodego (talk · contribs) removed this item from ITN with the claim that there was no consensus for posting it. It might have been a little borderline when it was initially posted - although in my view (as nominator) and the posting admin clearly thought the support arguments were strong enough. Additionally after the item was posted there were several further support !votes with good rationales. The discussion thread is here. Therefore the claim that there was no consensus is highly dubious.

The discussion of [41]'s talk page has been unproductive so far, except to that it seems that the admin in question was "supervoting" which is unacceptable.

I'd like the item to be reposted and for the admin in question to understand consensus better in future - in this case it wasn't even borderline. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:32, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Another reason why "Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents" should be renamed to "Community forum". –MuZemike 07:41, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Why? This is a case of a poor admin action. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:42, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
That's unhelpful, MZm. Strange Passerby (talkcont) 07:43, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Why is it unhelpful? It WAS poor admin action. Admins aren't gods. They can be wrong. HiLo48 (talk) 11:01, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
He wasn't making that point at me ;). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 11:03, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
I read MZm's comment as being negative (I thought he meant the complaint doesn't belong here and would be better suited to a "community forum"), but it might have been a misreading of it, in which case I apologise to MZm. Strange Passerby (talkcont) 11:35, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
A blatant display of WP:IDONTLIKEIT petulance against consensus by an admin, imo. Strange Passerby (talkcont) 07:43, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
It should also be pointed out that the admin in question was WP:INVOLVED as they !voted oppose. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:57, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

FFS the final is over in a few hours. What pointless drama. This whole thing was a mess: ITN gets posted after drive-by supports and 68 failed attempts to draft a simple blurb that passed WP:V. Then essentially a WW on the main page (as much as I agree with the substance of what Prodego did). Sometimes it is helpful to draw a line under things rather than escalate conflict mindlessly. Much like India and Pakistan. --Mkativerata (talk) 09:23, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

"Drive by supports", are you serious? Every single support was well argued and they continued after the story was posted. Just because you don't like it, doesn't mean there wasn't a consensus to post - and then it should stay on the front page. We're actually trying really hard to make ITN work, and admins coming in and removing items which have a clear and strong consensus to be posted is driving the progress backwards. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 10:27, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
I take offence to those accusations of drive-by support. That's not mature debate. HiLo48 (talk) 11:04, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
What are you hoping to achieve here? Having the item back up for, what, five hours? Or just drama-mongering? --Mkativerata (talk) 10:31, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
I want the item to go back up and I want to make it clear that the behaviour from this administrator is unacceptable as they violated a clear consensus. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 10:37, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
That is surely the important point here. The admin's action (and accompanying stupid statements and insults to cricketers and fans all over the world) was unacceptable. That must be acted upon. HiLo48 (talk) 11:17, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
This isn't the first time someone has removed something from ITN like this either and its extremely annoying each time. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 10:38, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
I'll agree with Mkativerata that the path of least resistance here, with the final going on right now is to wait for the conclusion of the final and to post that, assuming there's a suitable update (which is another reason to focus on that). That said, I'd disagree that the India-Pakistan cricket match was posted on the basis of 'drive-by supports'. Still, I suggest we take a pragmatic way forward.--Johnsemlak (talk) 10:45, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
I don't see why reverting a poor admin action - even if only for a limited time - would be a path of high resistance. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 11:07, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Just pointing out that we shouldn't have two hooks on the cricket world cup at the same time and that the final should, I think, take precedence. Cenarium (talk) 11:09, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
    • That seems reasonable - so when the final goes up then this can come down, however the match apparently isn't over, and the update hasn't been made. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 11:10, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Just a thought - how do those who don't consider this a significant story feel about yet another random baseball player image being used as today's 'featured picture'? What does this tell us about Wikipedia's attempt at world-wide coverage? AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:30, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
  • The "worldwide notability" isn't the fact that it was a cricket match. I have only a vague idea what cricket is for pete's sake. My rationale for strong support (after it was already removed from ITN) is that the match led to a warming of relations between two nuclear powers who have nukes specifically for use against each other. Also they now want to work together to investigate the 2008 Mumbai attacks, likely perpetrated by Pakistani extremists against Indian innocents. When was the last time a sporting event did that?
But, seeing as the final is soon to be posted, I propose a compromise: We include the final and a blurb about the India/Pakistan match causing the warming of relations. For example, "X wins the Cricket World Cup, while a semifinal match between India and Pakistan results in a warming of relations between the two rival nuclear powers and a pledge to jointly investigate the 2008 Mumbai attacks." If that isn't worldwide significance, I don't know what is. N419BH 17:31, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Nice idea. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:45, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict)What I get from reading this is that the problem here is not about the cricket match, but about the principle of admins having much more power over ITN than regular voters do. This case is not a lone occurance either as just last week an admin overturned/created a new consensus on the Geraldine Ferraro, stating something along the lines of 'admin X counter argued the opposers therefore it will be posted'-signed admin Y. Passionless -Talk 17:50, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
I do think in that case the consensus wasn't clearly in the direction away from the decision made by the admin and as an opposer I think it was within admin judgment to post Geraldine Ferraro. If there had been 3 post posting opposers and only one supporter in this case I wouldn't have started this thread - even if I thought their arguments were poor. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:10, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Comment about the lack of decisions made[edit]

I have to admit I'm not liking the lack of decision on this item. I'd much rather be told that this case was frivolous and unnecessary than be left in this kind of limbo. Limbo creates drama.

I refuse to believe that no uninvolved administrators haven't seen this section in the getting on for 12 hours since it was originally started. On WP:RUP where I have been fairly heavily involved we usually seem to manage to "solve" protections - even if just to say that it needed to be raised with the admin making the original protection, within 12 hours or so (if not a lot quicker), and usually the issues bought up are long term or indefinite semi-protections, so they don't have the same time pressure that an item like this which is on the main page does. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:45, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I think this may be making mountains of molehills. I obviously strongly disagree with Prodego's analysis of "no consensus", and, even more so, with his rationale for concluding that. But, as was previously stated, the Cricket World Cup final will be on ITN in no time, replacing the original India v. Pakistan match. This ultimately comes down to an issue with Prodego's conduct specifically and the wider, albeit minor, issue of admins usurping obvious consensus. But the latter is a rare issue, usually overturn by another admin, and the former is... frankly... not worth my time unless he does it again. -- tariqabjotu 18:58, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
I agree with you Tariqabjotu when you say that this dispute isn't a massive one, to be clear this isn't the reason I've made this subsection. However this dispute is also simple, either this complaint wasn't worth making or the admin in question had made a mistake - in which case its trivial to put right. There is also probably a reasonable middle ground - and maybe this case falls there, but then comments from uninvolved administrators stating that would still be useful feedback for everyone.
We've lost one of the projects best contributors over not catching administration issues early, if you don't catch them early you might let off some people who make an occasional mistake (such as hopefully in this case) - but if like RUP its low drama then that isn't an issue, and then there is also much less chance of the issues spiralling and becoming big - at which point they are almost impossible to solve well.
Most unprotection requests are when it comes down to it trivial, but we seem to be able solve them productively, quickly and in almost all cases appropriately.

-- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:15, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Anon adding Unsourced Information to Numerous Pages[edit]

The above linked anon has posted unsourced information to numerous television station pages. Normally in the form of station slogans and station branding. This has been going on for probably a year and is found on all television station pages, none of which is sourced. Could an admin look into it and lock down the range (as it is coming from multiple IPs) if necessary. - NeutralhomerTalkCoor. Online Amb'dor • 20:54, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Many of the insertions are national network slogans that quite a few stations didn't bother to use on their air at all or just used in time-filling circumstances when they needed to fill a minute. I would prefer to ditch the slogans entirely myself. Nate (chatter) 21:35, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
I noticed this yesterday when I was on Huggle. I decided against reverting them all, although I don't remember seeing sources, because they weren't vandalism (and it was April 1, so there was plenty of vandalism to deal with elsewhere). I would support getting rid of all of those slogans. Sven Manguard Wha? 23:19, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Notified the anon about the thread. Sven Manguard Wha? 23:20, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
I also support the removal of all those slogans and newscast names. They aren't necessary or sourced. - NeutralhomerTalkCoor. Online Amb'dor • 23:31, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
ooops, forgot about that. Thanks! :) - NeutralhomerTalkCoor. Online Amb'dor • 23:31, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Can you rename an article and completely change the content?[edit]

I hadn't realised that a user without sysop privileges can delete an article, but if you rename an article and completely change the content so that it is in effect a brand new article, you've deleted the old one. See the history of WhosBusiness [42], which was an article about a book (created I think and certainly heavily edited by the book's author) and is now a blatantly promotional article about a new advertising company. I've been in China and am still on Shanghai time and am suffering serious sleep deprivation and my brain has shut down, hence my bringing this here. Dougweller (talk) 20:38, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I've removed the puffery - it is now just a stub. I suspect we'll get some feedback from whoever made the changes that way. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:46, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict)AGF here says this looks like a mistake. The same user made changes to the novel article which shows he clearly knew it was a novel; the move looks like he screwed something up. The best course of action would be to split the history and return to two articles; I wouldn't assume he's trying to do anything nefarious; it looks like an honest and innocent fuckup if you ask me. Lets just fix the problem without recriminating the mistaken newb... --Jayron32 20:49, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Actually, piecing together the history, I have figured out exactly what happened:
  • User:Adam grose creates a userspace draft for the book Cosmogenesis: The Chronicles of Quongo, and when he moves it to the articlespace he leaves the option "leave redirect behind" on. This confuses him, because when he clicks on his username, it now redirects him to the article of the novel.
  • Thinking he is working in his userspace, he starts a new draft (which is actually in the articlespace under the name of the novel above) for WhosBusiness. When he moves this to the new title, we have the unfortunate event where both articles share a history, and the previous article he created gets accidentally deleted.
What we need to do is to split the history of the two articles, restore both to seperate titles, and educate him on how to move an article without leaving a redirect behind, so this doesn't happen again. A clear case of Hanlon's law if I have ever seen one... --Jayron32 20:58, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Someone check my footsteps, but I have reorganized everything so its all back where it was. Other than informing the user in question how not to make this mistake again, I think we are back where we need to be... --Jayron32 21:04, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
That was quite a tricky bit of editing the user managed to moved things around like that. Off2riorob (talk) 21:22, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
I thought moves without redirects were an admin-only option? 28bytes (talk) 21:28, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
From what I saw Jayron's explanation is pretty spot on and all done in the best possible faith. I think he made three move edits and moved his user page to an article that already existed which created some disambiguation issue...he seems a good writer we should show him the Wiki Cup. Off2riorob (talk) 21:22, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Sure, no complaints about that... just wanted to make sure we don't tell him "next time, click the 'move without redirect' option" if there's no such option available for him to click. 28bytes (talk) 21:50, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I don't see that option if I go to move an article - rather better tell him to ask at the WP:Help Desk if he is unsure, its one thing being WP:bold but that was outrageous - Off2riorob (talk) 21:56, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks everyone, I was just too tired to figure out what to do. I'm impressed by the way it's been handled. I didn't think there was any malicious intent by the editor, just lack of understanding. Dougweller (talk) 08:22, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

CANVASS violation at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Organized Labour[edit]

Is [43] an improper CANVASS being phrased in substantially non-neutral terms?

Now an anti-union editor wants to AFD Anti-union violence, so they'll only be left with an article that lists attacks by union members, and no article listing attacks on union members.
Please weigh in. And help to improve both articles, while you're at it.

I rather think it is a very non-neutral CANVASS to be sure. Meanwhile, I would like to note I have some strong family ties to unions, making the charge not only non-neutral, but wrong in the first place. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:37, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

First time in five + years of editing that i've been listed here. My apologies, i will review CANVASS guidelines. Richard Myers (talk) 12:08, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Enforcement of non-free content policy[edit]

I'm being repeatedly reverted while trying to enforce the non-free content policy on Interpretations of 2001: A Space Odyssey, where the non-free image File:2001child2.JPG is being used as a top decoration (see the article's history and the file's history).

The fair use rationale's says the image is necessary because one of the article's sections discusses a certain passage in the movie captured by the image. But not only the discussion is obviously not about the "visual aspect" of the passage, but the image is also not even placed on the mentioned section.

I'm reporting here because I can preview the outcome of being reverted again, being myself reported at 3RR, and being blocked for that. I hope someone with a better reputation than mine could interfere to do the policy enforcement. --Damiens.rf 16:53, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I have no comment on the actual merits of the image, but just saying, you probably should not add speedy tags to an image that has either survived a previous deletion discussion or is currently being discussed. If you still want it deleted, you should start a new FfD with an explanation of why the "keep" !voters in the previous one failed to address your concerns. -- King of ♠ 16:59, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm not asking it to be deleted. I'm just removing it from the article where it's used as a decoration. --Damiens.rf 17:01, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Oh, did somebody hack into your account? --RussNelson (talk) 16:54, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Not that I'm aware of. Why do you ask? I miss the point with the link. --Damiens.rf 16:22, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
You're not misreading that tag on the image, are you? It clearly says "This file has a non-free use rationale that is disputed (..) Unless this concern is addressed (...) the image will be deleted or removed from some uses." Was that your problem? --Damiens.rf 16:27, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Because 1) the image otherwise conforms to the basic requirements of NFCC (has a rationale, licensed, and used in at least one article, in addition to the use you are contesting), and 2) it is a disagreement over whether the image is really needed or not (eg does it meet NFCC#8), it is not a good idea to edit war on image removal. You should try discussing the image inclusion on the talk page, and, failing that, at Non-free content review to discuss that specific usage. --MASEM (t) 17:07, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
I observe that you have not engaged editors on the page about this topic. Please try discussing your objection to the image before outright waring to have it removed. Hasteur (talk) 17:11, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Whether a fair use image is validly used or not in an article is a content dispute that should be resolved through discussion (WP:DR), not by reverting. People may in good faith disagree about this, and edit-warring about this matter is just as disruptive as edit-warring about any other content issue, such as whether any content is original research or has undue weight.  Sandstein  17:20, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Article's editor's will always want to put as much images on "their" article, and nfcc would never be respected. I don't thing enforcing a policy needs to be discussed on talk page, since it's not an editorial decision. I'll try the non-free content review link you posted. Is it really active? --Damiens.rf 17:38, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

  • Perhaps the complaining editor should have discussed the issue on the article's talk page, where other editors were discussing it. Dreadstar 17:33, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
    • Don't try to create an animosity. You know I've discussed the matter with you. --Damiens.rf 17:42, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
      • Considering the nature of the star-child, I doubt very much that someone's attempt to "describe it" is adequate. The visual speaks a thousand words. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:16, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
        • The "visual" is not discussed in the article. --Damiens.rf 18:24, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
          • Why not? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:34, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
            • Probably because no one found a reliable source that does that. --Damiens.rf 20:13, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
              • The image is discussed in the article, check out the lead and the section it's currently in. And if you don't think there are plenty of sources for that most iconic image of the entire movie, then you really haven't looked at the 2001:A Space Odyssey articles at all. Dreadstar 22:14, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
  • WP:Concensus, try it. If several editors are against you in the interpertation of policy, it could be a sign that you're not reading it correctly. Hasteur (