Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:08, 4 September 2009

• WP:ANI
• WP:AN/I

This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

• Before posting:
  • Consider other means of dispute resolution first
  • Read these tips for dealing with incivility
  • If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page
  • If the issue concerns use of admins tools or other advanced permissions, request an administrative action review
  • Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
• Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem
• Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight.

When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.
You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)

• AI-generated images depicting living people
• Blocks for promotional activity outside of mainspace
• Voluntary RfAs after resignation
• Proposed rewrite of WP:BITE
• LLM/chatbot comments in discussions

Tendentious discussion at Talk:Speed of light

A bunch of us are (at the least, I am) getting rather annoyed by one editor who makes a series of bizarre claims such as that the speed of light is not defined as 299 792 458 m/s, that the speed of light ceased to be meaningful after the 1983 definition of the BIPM as being exactly 299 792 458 m/s, that the speed of light defined by the BIPM is not the "actual" speed of light but rather some "unrelated" conversion factor between lenghts and time, and so on. For scale, the long talk page you'll see is the result of 9 days of these discussion, which are now simply repetitions of old ones (which are now archived, even if they are 2-3 weeks old at best). This is related, although different, to the recent topic ban of User:David Tombe. Looking for advice (wheter admin action is necessary, I'll leave up to the admins to decide). Headbomb {_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 16:11, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Sometimes things around here travel at the Speed of Smell. Anyway, WP:Consensus is key - and article content disputes are rarely actionable 'round here. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:50, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Having encountered him on these pages a few days ago, you certainly have my sympathy. Jehochman told him that he was from that Talk page back on 19 August, so if he continued to edit it after that date he should be sanctioned per WP:ARBPS -- unless a later discussion on that page reversed Jehochman's ruling. (I stopped following the matter a couple of days ago, so I don't know what the situation is with him currently -- beyond the fact he is contributing under borrowed time.) -- llywrch (talk) 19:01, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the complaint concerns Brews ohare (talk · contribs), who seems to be continuing User:David_Tombe's fringe arguments and has made close to a 1000 edits on the talk page over the last 45 days. Abecedare (talk) 03:31, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Abecedare Your assessment of the situation is incorrect. I have pushed absolutely no fringe viewpoints unless you consider NIST BIPM and J Wheeler as radical. In serious discussions like this one, it behooves you to get your facts straight. Brews ohare (talk) 13:57, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Shortly after posting the above, I had a look at the actual discussion, in disbelief that David Thombe would so brazenly ignore that ban -- only to find what Abecedare described: David Thombe had not posted to the thread since Jehochman's page ban, & Headbomb had confused Brews ohare with him. (Or else he knows something about the two that none of the rest of us do; if so, I suggest he share it for the rest of us to evaluate -- or admit his mistake.) On the other hand, these accusations below of a "lynch mob" orchestrated by a Misplaced Pages cabal reminds me of the first corollary to Extreme Unction's first law. -- llywrch (talk) 05:14, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

llywrch: Veiled implications that a sloppy editor's confusion between D Tombe and myself indicates some subtle connection does not reflect well upon you. As for assessing whether there is in fact a lynch mob at work, or at least a bunch of editors that refuse to follow the rules of normal WP discourse, these matters are not settled by cute aphorisms or Aesop's fables, but by looking at the facts. I do not believe a lynch mob is normally considered to be a conspiracy (a feeding frenzy is more like it), so Extreme Unction's first law is not pertinent here. Brews ohare (talk) 13:57, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

So how would you explain his confusion while assuming good faith? If it was a mistake, he should have apologized before now. As for my link above, it was simply a gentle way to let you know that just because a large group of people are opposed to your view, it does not mean there is a lynch mob, either metaphorically or physically. But we are growing weary of your repeated insinuations of its existence. -- llywrch (talk) 20:05, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

The issue here is your behavior, not someone else's. And, call it a lynch mob, or a gang, or a gaggle, or a crowd, there are a bunch of hectoring, haranguing editors that are impolite, make denigrating sneers, and who do not try to address the issues at all. Whether they are in cahoots, or feed off of each other's horrible behavior, the result is the same: no attempt to deal with substantive issues, just more harangue. Brews ohare (talk) 22:42, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

A proposed lead to speed of light by User:Abtract found here is technically correct and yet conveys all that other editors wish to say. However, under the leadership of Martin Hogbin no attempt is being made to discuss this proposal, but instead Martin Hogbin is calling for a lynch mob to railroad his own incorrect wording into the article. Numerous explanations and reputable sources challenging Martin's wording have been presented and quoted on Talk:Speed of light, and Martin and his colleagues simply refuse to deal with them. Headbomb should have a better understanding than he indicates following a recent (brief) technical exchange with me at Talk:Speed of light concerning a different subsection.

The point for Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents is not this argument over content, but that there is no argument over content. I have repeatedly tried to get some consideration for my opinion that the present wording is contrary to published experts, and provided sources, and no discussion of sources takes place. What happens is hectoring and attempt to impose majority rule (majority of editors, that is). My repeated attempts to get consideration of sourced opinion is being steamrollered by a lynch mob that cannot deal with it. What is needed is enforcement of WP protocol to address published sources, and to avoid repeated hectoring as a method to squelch ideas.

Discussion of the lead proposed by User:Abtract found here should be mandated. The excitement of mob rule should be squelched. Brews ohare (talk) 14:54, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Once again, here we see a malicious allegation in an attempt to get another player sent off the field. Until a few weeks ago, I didn't even know what Brews was arguing about. So I decided to investigate the matter. The first hint I got that Brews was right and that Martin Hogbin was wrong, came when Brews was eager to explain his position to me, whereas Martin refused to discuss the matter with me. Martin clearly didn't want to reveal his agenda. It took a while for me to work out the subtlety of the argument, but I eventually realized that Brews is absolutely right. The 1983 definition of the metre has had a significant impact on physics, and that needs to be elaborated on in the speed of light article. Brews is not pushing any fringe theories. Rather, those who are trying to prevent Brews from clarifying a very delicate point, are actually engaged in trying to hide the history of the subject. It's time that the editors who bring these malicious allegations to AN/I are themselves subjected to closer scrutiny. David Tombe (talk) 19:28, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

This seems to be another attempt to create an imposed consensus by eliminating the dissent. That isnt what a consensus is about. Frankly, I never would have thought to examine the speed of light article except for the fact that the lynch mob seems to think it is in danger of being overthrown. Then after seeing what they are protecting, I understand the need to squelch any dissention. It is a gigantic mess. So, instead of looking for new people to behead, I suggest that you fellows take a close look at yourselves and get busy fixing the article that at present is a morass of confusion.72.64.63.243 (talk) 21:52, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

You guys are such experts, let me ask you this: If I were driving my car at the speed of light, and turned on the headlights, would anything happen? Baseball Bugs carrots 14:11, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Baseball Bugs: With the lights on, you might see the error of your ways?? Brews ohare (talk) 16:01, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Aha, so you don't know the answer. I thunk so. :) Baseball Bugs carrots 19:58, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

We can only take action against Brews, if we first have a consensus on the talk page that the discussion on the revant issues are closed and that any further discussions would be reverted on the talk page. If Brews were to start a new discussion that is very similar then we could revert that. If he were to revert that change or keep kicking off new discussions that we would ahve to revert again and again, then we could come here and raise this issue.

But the current situation on the talk page is not like that at all. In fact, other editors are still starting discussions on related issues, see e.g. here Count Iblis (talk) 14:16, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

This is not an issue about content, but behavior. After being admonished a couple weeks ago by an uninvolved admin for "a blatant violation" of WP:OWN, Brews ohare has increased his level of tendentious editing and incivility, plus created a content fork of the article outside of consensus or prior discussion. As for myself, who has contributed minimally to the article or discussion page, his opinion is that I am disqualified to contribute to the page. My response to this personal attack is here, as I saw no need to add to the toxic environment at the article talk page. Tim Shuba (talk) 16:45, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Tim Shuba's claims that "Brews ohare has increased his level of tendentious editing and incivility" is unsupported, and his frivolous attitude is well described in his own words, quoted here. Brews ohare (talk) 17:23, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

The only people that come running to AN/I to get their opponents blocked from a debate on the talk pages are those who are not confident about their own arguments. It is gross cowardice to try and win an argument by getting the opponents blocked on the basis of empty allegations such as 'incivilities', 'disruption', and of course the all time favourite 'assumption of bad faith'. This thread is yet another case of it. Unfortunately a precedent has already been set that demonstrates that this shameful tactic can be successful. Tim Shuba has now entered the debate, and he has already demonstrated that he knows very little about the topic in question. His major contribution so far has been to delete a paragraph in the history section which deals which the convergence of the directly measured speed of light with the speed of light as determined indirectly from the measured values of the electric and magnetic constants. This was perhaps the most significant fact in the entire article, because it dealt with how James Clerk-Maxwell concluded that light is an electromagnetic wave. That is easily the most important historical landmark in the history of the speed of light, and it has now been deleted by Tim Shuba who is posturing as a poor innocent victim who has only contributed minimally to the article. David Tombe (talk) 19:44, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

• I have upgraded David Tombe's page ban to a topic ban covering anything related to the speed of light article. If there is any further gaming of the rules, disruption, or advocacy of theories about the 1983 redefinition of the meter, blocks should follow. Jehochman 06:53, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Despite my lack of sympathy for David Tombe, I'd like to point out that this is misdirected. Except for his posts here & on user talk pages he hasn't been contributing to anything related to the speed of light -- & there only because because he can't defend himself unless he mentions it was for his edits to his topics -- for his last 100 edits. Except for a few edits to luminiferous aether, they've all been to articles on Canadian currency. He has been staying away from the topic. And as for editting user talk pages, unless he's been posting to them after being told not to, I can't see how that's become an issue. -- llywrch (talk) 20:05, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

• • • Jehochman should be censured for this unwarranted act of a topic ban on D Tombe which has absolutely no justification whatsoever. Brews ohare (talk) 21:15, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
      • I don't know if my opinion on this matters. I pointed out here that an editor was violating an ArbCom ruling, & was brushed off with the same reasoning that would allow David Tombe to make these edits on Talk pages. Maybe my ability to reason is defective, maybe I need more sleep, or maybe Misplaced Pages policy is enforced more rigorously for some than for others. -- llywrch (talk) 23:48, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Brews ohare

• Brews ohare (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Speed of light (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Talk:Speed of light (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs)

There are suggestions above that Brews ohare has engaged in tendentious editing at Talk:Speed of light. Can anybody present a selection of diffs to substantiate that claim? Brews ohare, why is your editing any different from David Tombe's? Why would you expect different treatment if you commence editing in the same style? Jehochman 06:53, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Jehochman, You clearly haven't investigated this issue at all. David Tombe (talk) 10:13, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't doubt that Brews ohare is in good faith, that he (like Tombe) believes that what he is saying is correct. However, he keeps repeating the same argument over and over on Talk:Speed of light, and it is getting beyond tiresome to keep dealing with him, although I just made another attempt here. I count 16 talk page edits by Brews on 31 August (UTC) which isn't over yet, 32 on 30 August, and 25 on 29 August. He edited the talk page 578 times in all of August, which puts him in first place by a comfortable margin (Martin Hogbin is in second place with 225). Scanning the Talk page, with all the back and forth, would give you a better idea of the character of his participation than diffs; I added the talk page info as the third item under this section's heading. —Finell (Talk) 18:31, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I warned Brews ohare about his behaviour here: responses can be seen in this talk page section. Physchim62 (talk) 20:00, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I am surprised you wish to advertise your attachment to me of sentences you have fabricated all by yourself. Very sloppy, at best, actionable at worst. Brews ohare (talk) 21:03, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

His comment about your username was uncalled for. -- llywrch (talk) 20:09, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, right. Fabrication of fake evidence is more acceptable. Brews ohare (talk) 21:03, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I wonder why I am singled out as "keeps repeating the same argument over and over", instead of those that respond over and over (in effect, not their exact words) "We don't have to agree with sources Wheeler; Jespersen;Sydenham; we don't have to support OUR views; we are RIGHT."? I have written a carefully sourced presentation of my views in the subsection of speed of light - Speed of light by definition - which has not been accused of being "crackpot science" or "fringe viewpoint" (and various other complimentary terms) even though it proposes exactly the same viewpoint contested. This group of editors out for blood is interested only in getting a particular wording for the lead, come what may, whatever its merits. I have explained sufficiently to them that their proposed lead is poorly conceived, and very readily understood to contradict the subsection Speed of light by definition. These editors don't care about that.

As far as I am concerned, these editors are free to mangle the introduction as they wish. I will not address this subject on my own initiative any longer. If I am asked about it however, I will state why I don't like it. That is not "pollution of the Talk page" (another complimentary term), it is just being polite. Brews ohare (talk) 20:58, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Well Brews' is quite welcome to take a voluntary wikibreak from Speed of light whenever he/she likes.

I hardly need to look through thousands of contributions: after all, Brews has made more than 500 contributions to Talk:Speed of light in the last month . It is sufficiant to look at the arguments that he/she makes at each occasion. The proposed lead is not in contradiction with the section on "Speed of light by definition"; Jesperson is in favour of fixing measurement units to fundamental physical phenomena, just after the passage that Brews decides to quote; "This group of editors out for blood is interested only in getting a particular wording for the lead" is hardly the case, given the length and depth of the discussions.

Brews' editing statistics alone support the case of contentious editing; anyone who wishes to look further (brave as they would be) need only look at the pages to which this editor has attached his/her attention. Physchim62 (talk) 21:40, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

And thank you so much Physchim62 for your apologies regarding fabrication of evidence. Your theory that statistics can demonstrate contentious editing is pure nonsense, and your reading of Jespersen is illiterate. Brews ohare (talk) 22:04, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Erm, 583 edits by Brews to Talk:Speed of light during the months of August 2009… 428 edits by Brews to Talk:Speed of light 15–31 July 2009… It's interesting that I have to go back from 15 July to June 10 to find Brews' previous comment (the last of 37 comments he/she made on the page in just over two days). Anyone else wishing to contribute to these pages must read through tens if not hundreds of kilobytes of Brews' comments (often very repetitive, but you can't know until you've read them) before then can hope to add to the discussion. This manner of editing is obviously not constructive, it is simply spamming, the Misplaced Pages equivalent of a filibuster.

I said that I found the gap before 15 July in Brews' comments quite interesting: what happend on 14 July? This complaint was raised at WP:AN/I, concerning a separate article but similar behaviour (I quote: "The talk page sometimes sees 100 edits in a day, from only three or four users!") and also concerning Brews ohare. The gain for the editors at Talk:Centrifugal force seems to have been the loss for those interested in Talk:Speed of light!

I think it is time to call time on Brews' disruptive editing. If it can't be done here, I shall take the matter to a forum where it can be done, and I shall not be so indulgent as to limit my request to articles related to the speed of light. Physchim62 (talk) 23:14, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you'd care to present a little more than the number of edits as evidence of my causing trouble? Please don't invent them. Brews ohare (talk) 00:08, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

The number of edits *are* evidence of causing trouble ... not automatically actionable, but the article talk page is clearly being subjected to unusually high activity from a small set of users. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:28, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

So I should not correct grammatical errors, punctuation or add second thoughts to a response because that increases my count? I should limit myself to one edit a day, and respond to all and sundry in a listed sequence within one edit. That would fix things, eh? OK, if that works for you. Brews ohare (talk) 03:53, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

More comments from Headbomb

Ilywrch: First, I did not confuse Brews Ohare and David Tombe, as you claimed. In fact, I specifically mentioned that this was not the same case, see my words: "This is related, although different, to the recent topic ban of User:David Tombe". Please don't put words in my mouth. If you hadn't, a lot less drama would have ensued. I came here looking for advice, not heads to be chopped.
Brews/David: I am not a "Example text", nor a "Example text" and do mind WP:NPA. I'll leave it at that. Headbomb {_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 21:11, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Then mention the person you are complaining about, not who that person behaves like. Your sloppy writing caused any Wikidrama here, & if didn't understand what you wrote you need to accept at least part of the responsibility for that. And I only responded after it appeared that no one else would offer advice -- so kindly turn down the attitude when my only motivation was trying to help. -- llywrch (talk) 23:16, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I didn't mentioned Brews because I wanted a neutral look at what was going on. I take no responsibility for people reading something else than what I actually wrote. There's no need for personnal attacks, so please refrain from making them. Headbomb {_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 01:36, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Headbomb - Perhaps you will take responsibility for removal of sourced material composed at some labor by me without any related comment on the Talk page, and only the uncivil one-line edit summary "This does not belong here, or anywhere, for what matters." ?? Is that how things are best done? Brews ohare (talk) 03:26, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes. The material is simply there to push your POV that a wavelength-based definition of a meter is superior than the fixed value definition. Stating that this does not belong in the speed of light, or anywhere for what matter, hardly consists of incivility. Headbomb {_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 16:56, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Headbomb: I do not have and never have expressed the POV that a wavelength-based definition of a meter is superior to the fixed value definition. Please re-read my remarks. What was said was the the pre-1983 definition was an example of a definition that allowed the measurement of the physical speed of light because the metre was based upon wavelength. The 1983 definition allows more accurate length comparisons, but makes the speed of light an exact conversion factor beyond reach of measurement. Your interpretation of my statements is a non sequitor of the first rank; please learn to distinguish between what is said and what you want to believe. You create the impression of deliberate distortion to enable wild accusations.

That out of the way, I propose that you apologize for removal of sourced material composed at some labor by me without any related comment on the Talk page, and making the uncivil one-line edit summary "This does not belong here, or anywhere, for what matters." ?? Brews ohare (talk) 18:05, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Headbomb, If you wanted a neutral look to your complaint, then why did you drag my name into it when I haven't edited the speed of light article since 12th August? David Tombe (talk) 11:41, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Edit war

• Speed of light (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

It has degenerated into a full blown edit war over the Speed of light article again. This article and its talk page are an object lesson in how not to Misplaced Pages. —Finell (Talk) 01:58, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

There is no edit war: there is a simple hijacking of the page by an unruly mob that does not use the Talk page, removes sourced material without comment, makes nasty pejorative comments to get the temperature up, and insists upon a narrow stance contrary to sources. Very professional, very understandable, if you are a hit man. I hope this example is useful in getting WP to adopt a process with appointed editors that can eject those that behave this way. Brews ohare (talk) 03:20, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not just referring to you, Brews. The Talk page is very much in use, but not in productive use. The same people who are arguing about everything on the Talk page are reverting each other's article edits and substituting their own singular visions without any semblance of consensus at to many issues. That is what I understand to be an edit war. No one has hijacked the page any more than anyone else; it's a free-for-all. One issue on which there is broad consensus, though, is that your contributions to the article and the Talk page are misinformed and are not supported by the sources that you cite over and over, and that your behavior is tendentious. —Finell (Talk) 04:40, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Finell, The blame for this mess lies squarely at the feet of administrator Jehochman. Administrator Jehochman likes to voice his opposition to 'gaming the system'. But he has gamed the system himself in this case, by imposing sanctions on only one side in the dispute. That has given encouragement to the other side, and hence we are seeing bold warnings coming from the likes of Physchim62. This biased action from administrator Jehochman, which I understand was carried out arbitrarily against the wikipedia rules, has given the likes of Physchim62 an unwarranted sense of righteousness which makes him assume that everybody is going to believe that his side in the dispute is correct, without any doubt about it whatsoever. An impartial administrator attempting to end this edit war would either have dished out sanctions equally on both sides of the dispute, or else protected the page from editing until things cooled down. David Tombe (talk) 11:49, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I will look into the edit war. It would help if editors on both sides posted diffs as evidence. David Tombe, you are violating your topic ban when you comment on a dispute about speed of light. Next time you do so, you will be blocked. Attacking the administrator who sanctions you is a common tactic, one we understand how to deal with. Please understand that I'm not a robot. There's an actual person behind the screen name. Imaging that you're sitting at a coffee table with the person when you post and try to speak as you would in that situation. It will help you get along better. Jehochman 12:35, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I may not always agree with what has done Jehochman (see above for an example), but I will support him on this point: you never get positive results by attacking an Administrator. Instead, you will end up like a player who argues with the ref: thrown out of the game. -- llywrch (talk) 20:13, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

That may be in fact what happens; but one hopes that justice can be seen to happen, that decisions are balanced, that appeals are possible, and that decisions will be supported by even handed argument and evidence. Brews ohare (talk) 20:39, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Proposed solution

I also posted this on the wikiproject physics talk page:

"I think it would be helpful to discuss this with Brews again (he asked me to get involved on my talk page a few days ago, but I was too busy then), but this time with one new rule: Citing from sources is not allowed. So, we have to discuss from first principles and explain everything when challenged from first principles. This removes the freedom to interpret what some source says in some arbitrary way. Because most contributors are experts in physics, this can work. If someone is not an expert and makes mistakes he/she will be disqualified more easily (precisely because you can't hide behind sources)."

So, this means that we can see some very lengthy discussons with Brews again, hopefully more productive this time. Count Iblis (talk) 20:43, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I have placed an argument at User:Brews ohare/Speed of light (Example). It does have sources, but I believe they can be ignored for the purposes of this discussion, because all that is needed is velocity = distance/time. The key sources are to the original definitions from the BIPM and NIST. If there is a sourced point that requires some first-principles support, that certainly can be looked at. That discussion page can be used to present comments. Brews ohare (talk) 21:44, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Why don't you submit speed of light to WP:FAR and get feedback from uninvolved editors how to improve the article? That might be a good path forward. Jehochman 04:17, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh for crying out loud, how many times to these two have to wind up causing massive WP:TLDR situations all over physics article talk pages and ANI? I can't believe these two are here again, and no doubt will once again jam up this page with so much blah blah blahing that they will once again succeed in paralyzing the conversation. Please guys, don't reply to me as I won't be checking back here and don't want you all over my talk page again, I just thought that needed saying. Beeblebrox (talk) 07:20, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Dear Jehochman: Speed of light in no longer an FA, so it is not eligible for WP:FAR. Furthermore, WP:PEER usually doesn't work well with technical science articles. And regardless of what any outside review concludes, Brews would continue his harangue that everyone else is wrong, or doesn't understand the issues, or is following the party line of the cabal of mainstream physics.

So, to all of you, what is the solution for dealing with someone like Brews ohare (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who continues to push his WP:FRINGE POV, though he denies that characterization; who filibusters at Talk:Speed of light, with 506 edits to that talk page since 1 August,; who repeats the same argument again and again, despite near-unanimous consensus that his point is fallacious and that the sources he cites do not support his position; who harangues other editors who disagree with him on their talk pages—including mine at User talk:Dicklyon (under several headings; Brews started 6 discussion topics on Dick's talk page); who refuses to listen to reason and will not respond directly to others' arguments or questions, except by repeating his own thesis; and who will not desist despite overwhelming consensus against his position, which he dismisses on the ground that nobody else understands or has the "courage" to speak out against mainstream physics. And Speed of light is a replay of Brews's and Tombe's performance at Centrifugal force. Count Iblis's proposal to have even more "very lengthy discussions with Brews again" is, in my opinion, π radians from the correct direction. Isn't more than enough enough? Isn't a topic ban in order, as it was for Tombe? —Finell (Talk) 12:21, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Well had someone explained the problem above as directly & succinctly as you just did, Finell, maybe Brews ohare would have been topic banned by now. (I'm just a lowly Admin, so I don't know if I have the power to do it & since I'm involved it might be best if I don't try.) Until someone who has that power & is uninvolved comes along & topic bans him, tell him to stay off of your Talk page. I think you have the right to limit your exposure to an editor who is behaving in that manner -- as does any Wikipedian in good standing. -- llywrch (talk) 18:52, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

My 2c: I am a completely uninvolved editor w.r.t. the page and Physics wikiproject, but did happen to take a look at the discussion at Talk:Speed of light a few days back. In my opinion, Finell's description of the situation is exactly correct. The problem, is not that Brew's take on the speed of light is incorrect, rather it is a idiosyncratic reading (none of the sources he cites, actually support his position) and he is insisting that it be given (undue) weight in the article, including the lede sentence. Here is the gist of the problem as I see it:

Consider an editor insisting that we need to replace all uses of the term velocity on physics pages by "speed in a given direction" - the replacement wouldn't be wrong, just undesirable, non-standard and, ahem, plain crazy. Analogously, Brew has argued ad nauseam that c = 299 792 458 m/s is not the real speed of light in SI units, it is just the "SI conversion factor" and that this viewpoint should underly the writing of the Speed of light article. Again unjustified, non-standard, and plain crazy.

There is a bit more but hopefully you get the idea. IMO a topic ban or (at a minimum) restriction on talk page posts are long overdue. Abecedare (talk) 13:08, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I think so far my proposed soluton is working ok. On the physics project talk page we have had some excellent input. Unfortunately, I still didn't have too much time yesterday (I'll try to give my own input later today). What we need are more first principles arguments like the one by BenRG, TimothyRias etc. see here.

What we do not need are comments like by Dicklyon saying that:

"Arguing from first principles has no place in wikipedia; we're about reliable sources. What's not OK is for Brews to push an interpretation that he has no source for; he has sources for bits and pieces of info, all of which is acceptable content, I think, but not for his idiosyncratic synthesis from those sources."

Because clearly that doesn't work. You don't get to the bottom of the conflict this way, as I explained here. Count Iblis (talk) 14:52, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Disruptive behavior of User:HarryAlffa

This user is engaged in a slow edit war on the Trans-Neptunian_object article against consensus reached on the talk page. He is trying to insert a questionable line into the lead of this article (see diffs , , , , , , , and the last one .) Despite being told multiple times by multiple editors that he is wrong, he obviously decided to push the desired change by edit-warring. I want also to point at the uncivil behavior of HarryAlfa on the talk page, which has made any further discussion with him all but impossible (see , , ). I am asking an (uninvolved) administrator to take necessary measures. Thanks. Ruslik_Zero 18:27, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

As you may see from the talk page, it is quite clear that Policy dictates the inclusion of the alternative name. Really it shouldn't be this difficult to explain simple reasoning to people, but some people! Yes multiple members of the same group have told me, certainly, but none has offered counter-reasons to my reasoned debate! WP:Concensus, "we work to a system of good reasons", not by counting votes. If anything the other editors should be chastised for their unreasonable behaviour - which is disruptive. HarryAlffa (talk) 18:53, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

This is the discussion of your behavior not of content issues. Ruslik_Zero 19:02, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

tag-team reverted by User:Serendipodous, User:Ruslik0 & User:Ckatz

The sectionTrans-Neptunian_versus_trans-Neptune on the talk page was started by me, 20:36, 5 June 2009. User:Ruslik0 never took part in the discussion. I ended that section on 14 August 2009 by starting an RfC on the subject.

User:Serendipodous, User:Ruslik0 & User:Ckatz tag-team reverted the 'alternative name' from 17 June to, well present.

Reversions with no attempt at communication on the talk page;

• Serendipodous
• Ruslik
• Ckatz
• Ruslik
• Ruslik

Further reversion with no attempt at communication on the RfC;

• Serendipodous
• (With simple nay-saying on talk page RfC) Ckatz

Reasoning wins out over democracy. The inclusion of the alternative achieves concensus. Policy.

I have also been accused of personal attacks. I have attempted to bring reason and intelligence to the fore. Who objects to reason and intelligence? Charles Dickens was accused of libel over Oliver Twist, because some men believed the book was about them - which said more about them than they realised. HarryAlffa (talk) 19:41, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

When a single editor gets into an edit war against multiple editors, the single editor always loses. Unless you can persuade them that you're right, you aren't going to get anywhere, and won't accomplish anything except eventually being blocked for disruption. Looie496 (talk) 02:43, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Blocked YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 03:53, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I, however, think that 1 week is too short, taking into account that two previous blocks failed to prevent further disruption. Ruslik_Zero 09:40, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Sometimes "Plaxico" can get extraordinarily fixated on a single word. Baseball Bugs carrots 10:12, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Let me allude to an edit by the editor: I'm saddened to see Misplaced Pages editors apparently still unaware that the number of hits reported in Google searches is a quite useless number, despite Google making no secret of the fact that it estimates the number and uses several mechanisms that throw it off. It is a fallacy — one that has been recognized by experts in several fields, including linguistics, for several years — to use that number when deciding anything at all about the usage of a word or phrase. Wiktionary editors, in comparison, have long since switched away from counting Google hits to using linguistic corpora (which are what some of those mystery abbreviations that one might see in the Beer Parlour, Tea Room, or RFD are all about) — and, of course, using concrete quotations, doing actual research rather than counting Google hits. Uncle G (talk) 12:22, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree, Google is generally a poor measure of significance. HarryAlffa tried to insert "Trans-Neptune" on the basic of a Google search. After it was explained to him that his search results were wrong he still continued to insist on inclusion of this very rarely used term. Ruslik_Zero 12:46, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Further action?

I suggest that it may be time to consider a community ban for HarryAlffa. He has a long history of disruptive editing and insulting everyone around him who doesn't agree with his views. His unblock request actually summarizes his behavior quite nicely—in it, he insults everyone who was involved in this row, calling them stupid and claiming they lack the intellect to understand his views. He was doing this on WP:LINKING previously, which caused his previous block. He clearly doesn't like the way WP works in practice, and isn't interested in playing nice with other editors. I'm not sure why we should continue to accommodate such an individual. --Andy Walsh (talk) 20:59, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

• Support. I fully support the community ban of HarryAlffa. I want to provide a brief excursus into the recent history. HarryAlffa began his disruption of the Solar System article back in the May (or even in August-September last year). He started FAR, which was soon closed as keep. In the course of it he made a lot of uncivil remarks about mental abilities of other editors. You can see them by reading the page or in the history. I want only to provide one diff. After that FAR the relations between HarryAlffa and other editors were, of course, poisoned, and I generally stop assuming good faith on behave of this editor. AGF is a great policy, but not a suicide pact. However I expected that HarryAlffa would at least back out of that discussion. I was mistaken: he instead started an RFC, where he tried to get what he had not got in FAR. Insults followed as usual, but RFC produced no results. In the June HarryAlffa was blocked for one week, partly because of problems with Solar System article, but mainly because of his behavior here. Since then he lay low for some time, but recently resumed his activities. He edit-warred against consensus on Trans-Neptunian object and again was uncivil on the talk page (and was blocked as a result). He also disruptively edited the Solar System article. So, I think, the case is clear: HarryAlffa is not here to productively collaborate with other editors. He only likes to get what he wants, I when he does not, he insults those who disagree with him. I am afraid, but the ban is only option left, in my opinion. A topic ban will not help—it will only serve to export the problems to another area. Ruslik_Zero 07:55, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
• In his current unblock request he managed to insult everybody, even MediaWiki developers. Ruslik_Zero 08:08, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
• I've declined that request; the core of the issue is that he edited disruptively, and he does nothing to refute or mitigate that. The broader issue, as I note to the editor, is that he shows no intention to edit within policy; he continues to discount the opinions of "stupid editors" and editors of "average intelligence", and sees no issue with that. I'm hesitant to community ban just yet, but I don't see much of an alternative at this time. Every further unblock request digs a deeper hole. UltraExactZZ ~ Evidence 20:25, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

• I hear you, UltraExactZZ. I only consider a community ban as a last resort. As you said, he shows no sign of slowing or stopping. A topic ban will not work because he's been in other areas of WP with this behavior (and been blocked for it). After he was blocked for insulting editors who disagreed with him about self-linking, he left WP:LINK and went into article space with the same behavior. He proposes or does something that he firmly believes there is good reason to do, but then ignores consensus if it is against him. His M.O. is to insinuate that people who don't see his point lack the intelligence to do so. Where does it end? --Andy Walsh (talk) 21:16, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

There is a step before a community ban (several in fact). I note he's only ever been blocked for a week at a time. Why not just indef block him (or a lengthy block) until such time as he shows comprehension of what got him indeffed, and you believe he won't do it again.Elen of the Roads (talk) 09:22, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

This, of course, is possible, but in the present circumstances it will not be much different from a formal ban. Ruslik_Zero 16:10, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

If this use is not dealt with now, the history will repeat itself. Ruslik_Zero 12:12, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Sarah777

Sarah777 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

I'd like to draw attention to this series of edits. We're used to all kinds of behavior from this editor but I think this goes beyond the pale to WP:Hound. Note the pointy use of edit summaries, , on the intervening edits. Toddst1 (talk) 01:26, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I should just point out that I fixed the formatting error when responding to the question, but in doing so I do not endorse the content (my opinion is that it is somewhat childish, but ignoring it probably serves the project better than taking the bait). Rockpocket 01:46, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

this seems too trivial to concern us. DGG ( talk ) 03:14, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes with the recent conflict around this user, what is one more? This is clearly disruptive, clearly a violation of civil, and clearly a continuation of counter-productive behaviour by this user.--Crossmr (talk) 03:41, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Chillium has left a peaceful POINT warning. I don't know if more is justified - but am not going to take any action on my own beyond a metoo on Chillium's note. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:02, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Chillium has left a comment on Sarah777's talkpage, I think that's enough. Sarah should protest peacefully, admins shouldn't take any action against Sarah777. AdjustShift (talk) 17:17, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Ever? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:42, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Admins shouldn't take any action against Sarah777 on this issue. I guess anyone with half a brain can understand that. AdjustShift (talk) 14:44, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the nasty comment. Care to retract it? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 20:19, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

My comment wasn't nasty. I've never indicated in this thread or anywhere else that no admin should ever take any action against Sarah777. AdjustShift (talk) 13:24, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

My bad. Apparently I misunderstood I guess anyone with half a brain can understand that. In what way is that not nasty? Please let me know so that the next time someone says that, I'll be sure to understand that it wasn't nasty. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 17:53, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

• In looking into this a bit the context seems to be an admin's repeated use of the F-Bomb in a very pointy and confrontational manner. I haven't seen any of the outrage expressed in comments here directed towards the admin. What gives? Is she on the wrong side of the thin blue wall? ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:54, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

  Two wrongs don't make a right, and no one has provided any diffs on the admin.--Crossmr (talk) 01:04, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Mathsci and User:Slrubenstein

This complaint cover several issues. If this is not the appropriate place to file this complaint, please direct me to the proper venue - thanks. Dinkytown (talk) 02:30, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Background On August 27 I saw a tag on the European identity and culture section of the Ethnic groups in Europe article stating that it was unsourced and that the date was from July 2008 - well over a year. Upon looking at the history of the section, there had been no work on it since then with the tag still in place. I removed the tagged section in question under WP:RS, WP:OR and other reasons, and described my actions on the talk page, believing that it detracted from the article.

On August 28, Slrubenstein reverted my edit claiming that it was not POV and that I (Dinkytown) should do the research on the subject. I did not revert his edit but again explained my reasoning as to why it should be removed. After some discussion, I told them of my concerns that the section was POV, but most importantly this section had no sources and had been tagged as such for over a year. Mathsci stated that "...and people have real life commitments outside this internet site, there is no rush".

I told them that I would give them 48 hours for them to start bringing some sources to the section before I would move it to the talk page, as per WP:HANDLE. I told them throughout the entire discussion that this was not personal and that we all should just be concern with getting sources. I told them that no debate can occur until there were sources to talk about, therefore, we need to have sources for this statements.

They admitted that they did not have the sources. "I do not have them, but I know that these are the majore (sic), verifiable, and significant sources on..." and "I do not have the time to do the research..." A year has past and no one has found the time to do the research.

Instead of working on the section, both Mathsci and Slrubenstein carried out personal attacks on the talk page against myself and anyone else that disagreed with them. "Yalens remark is silly." and "Yalens, you have Misplaced Pages backwards. What do you think facts are, anyway? Do you think they are the truth?"

I told them that this section should be moved off the article and worked on in the talk page and get the sources which supports the claims here. I was threated that if I did that "...if you did that, you could in principle be blocked for disruption."

After 24 hours, I informed them that I will be moving the section to the talk , under WP:HANDLE to work page because of the abuse that has been going on. .

Mathsci reverted the material claiming that “…this editor is being disruptive” and threatened... "...You are likely to be blocked if you continue edit warring and making threats..." and threatened using different words: "This was advice, a mild warning: it was not a threat." and notified Slrubenstein, an administrator to consider this action, to which he agreed and supported the threat. "I agree and share your hope!" He also notified other people of this threat against myself. As of August 31st, he has threatened other people with the same unjustified statement: "I'm afraid you will be blocked if you continue arguing like this..."

This dispute had been tagged with POV and no source tags for over a year and still no sources attached to them. Mathsci and Slrubenstein were also involved in the previous debates that occured over a year ago.

To date I have not done any editing on that page or made any communications to the other parties because of the real potential threat of being blocked due to Slrubenstein's administrator status.

Additional threats

Mathsci has drawn attention to my ethnicity (Sami) as I describe on my homepage, something that had nothing to do with the page or the section in question.

"BTW this was the article at its weirdest (citation his) - Dinkytown's userpage reminded me of the ill-fated gallery :)"

When asked what he meant, he up-loaded the attached photo of a Sami woman on the talk page with this statement:

"This was the picture in the gallery BTW - a woman, marital status unknown :)" Photo here

Mathsci described negitively a photo of a Sami woman which had no relavence to the article. I can only assume that this statement was used to describe my ethnicity in a derogatory way, and therefore a personal attack on my ethnic background, which had nothing to do with the article in question.

Mathsci’s also stated that I was "edit warring and making threats...". In the two days of editing the section, I made only two edits, both for two different, good faith and stated reasons. I was not edit “warring” as Mathsci describes. I have never made any threats to anyone on any Wikipage.

Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter. Dinkytown (talk) 02:30, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Humor me; can I have the Cliff's Notes version? Tan | 39 02:50, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll try to cut it down now. Dinkytown (talk) 03:00, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Better? Dinkytown (talk) 03:01, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

So Mathsci mocked you with the hilarious image on the right? If you want seriousness, please just "link" it, not "show it".--Caspian blue 03:07, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

It appears to me that Mathsci and Sirubenstein both agree that Dinkytown has a valid concern, but object to setting a rigid 48 hour deadline. I think they would both like to handle this cooperatively but object to being shoved: if you shove people, they automatically shove back, even if you are shoving them in the right direction. It also appears to me that Sirubenstein is trying to put the onus of doing the necessary research on Dinkytown, which is improper -- the onus of sourcing is on people who want to maintain material, not on people who question it -- but I still feel that it would be better to try to handle this less aggressively. Looie496 (talk) 03:11, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

While I'm not too concerned with sussing out a personal attack by Mathsci (and maybe I am wrong in this), I am concerned that unsourced information is being shoved back in after a year of being tagged. From my perspective of WP:V, a core policy of our project, this information should indeed be removed until valid reliable sources can be found. Anyone agree? Tan | 39 03:13, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I told them that as long as there is progress,that fine. But they said the same thing a year ago until people just gave up, and then the disputed section remained with no sources. It then becomes their personal blog. I suggested to move it to the talk page, but they refused. Dinkytown (talk) 03:17, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I see that; I suggest the next step be to let these two editors respond on this thread. Slrubenstein states, "What matters is significant views from verifiable sources." How he can argue to replace this material without refs and state that is puzzling. However, like everything, there's two sides - I assume you've invited them to this thread? Tan | 39 03:19, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes I did. I could wait. Thanks for your opinions. Dinkytown (talk) 03:24, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

There is in fact no deadline for improving an article, and pushing people to do it by a fixed time is not constructive. We are already too much oriented towards immediate action and immediate replies. Everyone has the responsibility to help find material. There are hundreds of thousands of unsourced or inadequately sourced sections at Misplaced Pages. We should first deal with the actually questionable material, of which there is plenty. I could easily challenge 100 of them an hour, and it would take about 50 times that work for people to fix them. Using good policies indiscriminately is an effective way to harm the encyclopedia Is there some reason why this particular section is particularly problematic ? After one year without sources to ask for 48 hours?! Pushing this way -- & then coming here when they rightly object -- seems a little POINTy. DGG ( talk ) 03:55, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Completely disagree, as I tend to do with you, David - no offense intended by that, more of a wry comment. Well, a tiny bit of offense intended because sometimes I think you are the fly in the ointment simply because you like to be the fly in the ointment. I'm probably wrong there. Anyway, what's pointy is pushing to keep this stuff on Misplaced Pages after a year of being tagged. Policies back up Dinky's edits; they don't back up keeping the material. You say, "after one year without sources to ask for 48 hours?" I say, the 48 hours is lenient - hell, this should have been removed ten months ago. WP:V is a core policy and allowing material to stay on without sources is wrong. Also, what's wrong with Dinky's way of going about this - removing it to the talk page to be discussed, etc until valid sources can be found? This is exactly the sort of thing we should be doing with virtually all challenged unsourced material - especially after a year of opportunity. The fact that there are hundreds of thousands of other articles with this problem - well, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS? Invalid argument. That you could easily challenge 100 in an hour? Invalid argument. Tan | 39 04:02, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

As mentioned below these kinds of pointy interventions are quite common both on Europe and Ethnic groups in Europe. I'm not quite sure that Tan has actually examined the content, which is more or less common to both articles (not thousands of others as he suggests). The article on Europe is more carefully sourced; the rate at which sources are added to EGE is slower and more sporadic, because of the huge number of ethnic groups. It often happens as a result of people making complaints on the talk page. The material was unsourced but neutral and sourceable. Patience is all that is required. WP has no WP:DEADLINE. Mathsci (talk) 08:32, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Tan, I can confirm DGG's claim: there is a lot of material in Misplaced Pages which needs to be sourced. I know this because I wrote some of this ...years ago, when we didn't have a sourcing policy, & when I stumble across these articles & am surprised to find them much as I left them -- & still without any sources. (I hope that's because someone knowledgeable has reviewed the content & decided it was accurate.) To try to force this material to be properly sourced (as Dinkytown was doing in this case) now would only end with a lot of otherwise uncontroversial & reliable material being deleted, & Misplaced Pages becoming less useful for a long while. While there are good grounds for deleting unsourced material which has been flagged & unfixed for so long, perhaps a more prudent step would be to be lenient on any flagged content which sounds plausible, & only act on content which triggers one's innate BS meter. (Even better would be to fix the problem, but I know that only happens rarely.) -- llywrch (talk) 16:57, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Dinkytown, if other editors want to try and save a major section of an article from deletion, then giving them more than 48-hours is probably a more productive approach. That said, SLRubestein's and Mathsci's threats of a block are worrying. Dinkytown does have policy on his side. Moving uncited text to the talk page is not a blockable offense. Cla68 (talk) 05:45, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean, Cla68, that my threats of a block are worrying? Whom have I threatened? Where? Do you have any evidence? Slrubenstein | Talk 08:40, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) To be clear Dbachmann (talk · contribs) intends to rewrite the section in the article, as can be read on the talk page. Cla68 is wrong (not the first time ): there have been no treats of a block -just advice and warnings. So far several editors have entered the discussion there - Dbachmann, Slrubenstein, AnwarSadatFan, Varoon Arya and me are for sourcing/rewriting the material. Similar problems have arisen in the lede of Europe, where some of the same sources were mentioned. In that case the persistent complaint was by TheThankful (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), later identified by admins as a sockpuppet of Gregory Clegg. Similarly the definition section was carefully written with sources following persistent attempts by another user to express a point of view about transcontinental country. Dinkytown, without naming sources, just removed the section with these comments. . Instead of collegial discussion, he started a subsection setting a 48 hour deadline for improvement. The material has been there since early 2007 (written by A.J.Chesswas (talk · contribs)) when the article was called European people, before it was renamed European ethnic groups and extensively rewritten by Dbachmann. Similar material appears in Europe, in that case very carefully sourced. The other user who has taken Dinkytown's point of view is Yalens (talk · contribs) who has been unreasonable in discussions when presented with lists of sources. Here is his latest reply to Slrubenstein, who has been extremely patient.

So, wait, its NPOV by definition if it states a source. Ahoy, let's all state the Mein Kampf as Neutral Point of View then! I love the logic here! (and seriously... I really fail to see how... ah, well, this is pointless, nobody is going to read this trash of a page anyways). Any fool can say that whether its published or not doesn't determine its neutrality. I find it funny you go by such illogical criteria. The fact is that this is SUPPOSED to be a factual encyclopedia, not one based on imaginary things by a long list of authors with their own Pan-European-nationalistic-and-heavily-opinionated-point of views that are anything BUT Neutral Point of View. If you're going to say it as "some people say", with references, that's fine, but the whole page proclaims these things as verified, universal truth, which it isn't. And further more, the page is full of things like "the culture of Europe is influenced by Central and Eastern European romanticism"... Central and Eastern Europe ARE Europe, are they not now? And it goes onto things like the Rennaissance, which was a Western European phenomenon, somehow being generalized to a whole continent. Not even your pan-European nationalist authors can verify that, yet its right there anyways! The whole section is a bunch of generalizations and non-Neutral Point of View. I don't care about things like PhDs, plenty of ridiculous fascists had PhDs. What matters it that this is CLEARLY nothing but opinion, no matter who says it.--Yalens (talk) 22:28, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I asked Yalens to refactor these comments and hat he risked being taken here if he continued using the talk page as a WP:soapbox. That I presume gave Dinkytown the idea of starting this section. Both he and Yalens have not discussed sources in any shape or form. Interventions like this appear every few months on Ethnic groups in Europe and with slightly lesser frequency on Europe itself, probably because it is on more watchlists. Incidentally Dinkytown mentioned the picture of Sami people in the current article after I mentioned the old picture in the gallery. He wrote:

"You" made a reference to my user page. I never threated anyone. I just stated my intention to what I will do and the reasons why. There actually is a time limit: see here. Everyone will agree that a year is way too long, if he or anyone else has the sources on hand, then 48 hours should be enough. The time should be short as the content is disputed. If more time is needed, then they should state so, otherwise it should be moved off and worked on there. If you are talking about this photo? Yea, I like it too. There is only one question that will never be answered: Does he have two wives? Dinkytown (talk) 02:36, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Note the last remark. I pointed him to the right image, saying I knew nothing of the marital status of the woman. Dinkytown brought up my response here: as far as I'm aware, his own remark could be offensive to native Lapps reading wikipedia. He clearly was making a joke, but that is far from evident in the statement at the start of his flimsy complaint here. Mathsci (talk) 07:30, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

User: Slrubenstein's response

This situation is being misrepresented, and I am being misrepresented.

• Dink presents this as a simple problem: she removed material that had been tagged a long time ago, and MathSci and I have been after her ever since. It is not that simple. In fact, Dink deleted a great deal of material that had not been tagged; indeed, she removed and entire section of the artile. I restored it because a good deal of the work in the section, while unsourced, does reflect significant, verifiable views. I posted the names of several historians, anthropologists, sociologists, and political scientists who have written on the themes of the section and who can be looked to as verifiable sources. Dink's response was to declare the section "white supremist" propaganda, and asserted that she does not need to do any research to know that the material does not belong in Misplaced Pages. I provided more citations that could be drawn on to develop the section. I personally do not have the time to write more content for the article, but I know of verifiable sources and am glad to help other editors working on the article. But Yalens response (with no indication that has read any of the sources) is that "these are all POV." In short, what we have here are two POV warriors, Dinkytown and Yalen, both of whom reject our core policy, NPOV, which insists that we include all significant mainstream views fom verifiable sources. But Dink and Yalen reject actual research, and simply reject anything they do not like as "POV." Aryaman has since begun participating, suggesting other sources we can use. That is the example of the Wiki way - a collaborative spirit. Quite far from Dinkytown's delete, deny, and denounce attitude towards improving an article! Slrubenstein | Talk 12:06, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

That is the real character of the conflict. Now, as for how I have been misrepresented:

• I am not a deletionist, when possible. I reverted after dab registered a complaint on the talk page about the deletion. In my revert I said that while I personally agreed that the material tagged for a year could go, I did not consider the material as a whole to be controversial. I provided a list of possible sources, and encouraged both both Dink and dab to consider revising the material to improve it.
• I made no personal attacks against Ylens. I did however ridicule what Ylens said. That is because Yalens was proposing to violate NPOV. He stated what he wanted opinions removed from the article, to be replaced by facts. NPOV is premised on "not truth, but verifiability" and including all significant views from reliable sources. I provided a list of mainstream verifiable sources that expressed these and similar views. But any campaign to remove all views from an article is indeed ridiculous. Yalens is no newbie. s/he has been around long enough to know our NPOV policy. Instead s/he wishes to push her own POV, claiming it is a fact and all others are just opinions. This kind of approach is precisely hwy we have an NPOV policy.
• Immediately after lumping me and Mathsci together, Dink states that he proposed to move the contested material to the talk page and was threatened with a block. By naming names in the preceeding sentence, and not naming names in this sentence, Dink is implying that mathsci nd I threatened a block. This is false. I never threatened a block.
• According to Dink, MathSci threatened a block, and in regard to the threat, I wrote to MathSci that I shared his hope. At this point I feel Dink is abusing AN/I. Dink is hoping you will read his summary but not check the links. if you check the link, you will discover that there is only one statement made by MatchSci to which I expressed sharing his hope. I will quote it in full, here: MathSci wrote, "I think Dinkytown probably has to learn to be more patient, that's all. No need for extra drama on ANI at this point" and I wrote that I agree and share his hope. It is obvious that I share his hope that Dink be more patient. I continue to share this hope. Is this clear to all other administrators? I share MathSci's hope that Dink be more patient. If i am wrong to express this hope, well, sue me.
• Dink blames me for not allowing him to edit the article. This is a damned lie and scurrilous. Dink write, "To date I have not done any editing on that page or made any communications to the other parties because of the real potential threat of being blocked due to Slrubenstein's administrator status." I defy Dink to provide any evidence that i have threatened to block him. So I am an admin. So sue me. Because i m an admin I am no longer allowed to edit articles? That is screwy! You may as well say that because I am an admin there is a very real potential threat that i will delete Dink's user page, that I will delete this page, that I will delete all of Misplaced Pages. Nyah nyah nyah, I am Snidely Whiplash!!! Really people. An incident is when something happens. Now I think is a good time for me to state again that I continue to share MathSci's hope that Dink be more patient.

Here is what happened: an editor deleted several paragraphs of an article. dab pointed out that there is some real value in these articles. Many of you know that there is little love lost between me and dab, but when someone is right, someone is right. dab was right - there is value in that material. I restored the deleted material and I immediately provided a half-dozen sources or more that address the major points in the section. Now, up to thi point I see no problem. Indeed, in my view, so far this is how Misplaced Pages is supposed to work - we are collaborative, if at times contentous, process. Someone pointed out problems in a section; someone else pointed out value in a section; a third editor named sources that would be worth consulting. Isn't each person doing their part to help make the encyclopedia better? Well yes, if everyone assumes good faith. I didn't doubt Dink's concerns are sincere, I just think that they do not justify deletion and that the section can be improved. Why can't dink assume good faith on my part, that I actually do know something about ethnic groups in Europe, and European culture, and that the sources I provided are verifiable, reliable, and significant, and meant to help start moving things forward if more editors wish as I would hope to get involved ... with editing the article. Alas, dink seems only to want to increase the drama here. Slrubenstein | Talk 08:06, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I wish to reply to other editors' good faith concerns. I did not mean to be ordering Dink to edit the article all by himself. But I will encourage any editor to add rather than delete, and above all, to do research. My providing a list of potential sources was made in good faith. If i had time to read through all of them now and fix up the article I would - believe it or not, I have added my fair share of content to this encyclopedia and I intend to continue to do so. But I have a job and cannot always put a lot of time into this. I am being sincere: I have the sources written down but i do not have the time to do the writing ... I figured that i could help by sharing the sources; i assumed anyone who wants to work on the article might appreciate that. So, I happen to know good sources on the points that concern Dink, so i provided them. I fail to see how there can be anything wrong with this. I encouraged Dink to do some research if he wanted to make a real contribution to the article and this was a good faith gesture, assuming Dink wants to help research and write an encyclopedia. Moreover, I directed the same invitation to dab, who has expressed a desire to research and write the article. And like just about veryone else, he simply asked of Dink, patience. In the following discussion, other editors mentioned verifiable sources supporting the material Dink wanted to delete. The fact is, we have views in this article that are supported by verifiable and significant sources. The proper citations have not yet been put in, but several knowledgable editors - I include myself - consider the views so clearly significant and verifiable that all that really is called for here is patience. But there are two editors who not only seem to lack patience but who seem to which to delete views that well darn it they just don't like. Welllllllll.... we have all seen this before, no? Slrubenstein | Talk 08:20, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Just a note that this disussion concerns the seven editors on the talk page of Ethnic groups in Europe. All aspects of this are being discussed, including content and the active search for sources, which is currently happening. For that reason the title of this thread was changed. I understand that some users are drawn to create drama on wikipedia, but in this case the humdrum gathering of sources for the rejigging is the most profitable direction. Mathsci (talk) 12:16, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

• Mathsci's repeated edit warring Mathsci, you've warned many times that you're not allowed to alter or remove other people's comments. in general, only third and neutral people can change the thread title, not the subject of the complaint does that. Since the report is about your personal attacks and threats to the reporter not about the article itself (if that case, Content noticeboard separately exists for the purpose), you would much better refrain from engaging in such disruptive edit warring. Your another edit warring and incivility have been the subject of the ongoing ArbCom case even though you technically had nothing to do Cold fusion. So please be constructive. Thanks.--Caspian blue 12:48, 1 September 2009 (UTC)--Caspian blue 12:48, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks Caspian. The original title is an accurate description of the complaint.

The whole complaint here is not about any disagreements of sources or content. It’s about threats made by Mathsci and Slrubenstein against myself by, and their conflicts with basic Wiki policies.

There can be no debate on the European identity and culture section, since there were no sources cited to do a counter retort. Of all the thousands of words that were created from that debate of that section – it was all opinion, nothing was cited. Show me any page number, any citation that supports anything on that section. There isn’t any, yet Sir… was asking me to do research on material that I personally disagree with! I could say on the Sky page that “sky is falling”, provide no sources, tell other people to do the research on that statement, and then threaten anyone who tries to remove it as unsourced material. That is exactly what happened with this section. Wiki policy states that: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." Can't get more basic than that. It's up to Mathsci and Sir... to get the citations. I offered to move this section to the talk page to discuss it further, as Wiki policy dictates. Yet I was reverted and then accused of edit warring several times, threatened to be blocked, with Sir… backing up that threat.

Mathsci, why did you contact Slrubenstein , Dbachmann , the talk page, and myself with the word “block”? You could have said “Dinkytown should be more patient…” and end it with that, but instead you chose to use the word “block” – that is a threat, even by Wiki policy.

Sir…. When Mathsci came to you regarding possibly blocking me, you could have said “...hang on, he has quoted basic Wiki policy here”, or “No, blocking would not be approperate now”, or “No, his edits were in good faith. Lets see where this goes…” or anything even more neutral than that as any good administrator could see - but you didn’t. You chose not to counter Mathsci’s blocking threats, and ended your statement (with his ‘patience’ statement included) with “I agree and share your hope!” You even reverted my removal of the section. Willingly or not, you were backing up Mathsci’s threat and using that power to gain advantage in the ‘debate’.

It’s not about my patience towards the section. Other people have debated this same issue over a year ago. I will not - and don’t have to wait, another year to remove either one of yours’ personal blog of this section. Wiki policy backs this up.

Mathsci states above that several people came forward to offer work on citations, great! Then move it over to the talk page as per WP:HANDLE. Keeping it on the main page assumes that its factual – which it’s not.

I gave you 48 hours to provide some citations. That was never fixed in stone, as long as there was some progress towards X, I was willing to cooperate and debate any issue. Instead, Sir… and Mathsci chose to invest the time in personal attacks and defending their POV opinions on the section. This proved to me that you were not serious about sourcing or citations. That’s why I cut the time short and moved it to the talk page – with solid policies behind me. Your reverting my move (in conflict with policy) proves that neither one of you were serious about a discussion. Following that up, I was accused of edit warring, and threatened with blocking.

It's not about content, it's about people actions. Dinkytown (talk) 20:13, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused. Last time I checked, there wasn't policy that supports decreeing a 48 hour limit to improve a section. I've also noticed that there is a large bibliography on the article; I assume you checked each of these to determine that the section was unreferenced? Is there a reason that you're not mentioning the entire section about sourcing on the talk page or the attempts to improve the section by other editors? Did those not count for some reason?

But honestly, after reading the talk page, it does seem like sources have very little to do with this issue. If we're going to look at actions here, lets take a look a what really happened at the same time. Far from being concerned over sourcing, you've made more than five different arguments for why the entire section should be removed ranging from original research to POV and everything in between. More than one editor (in fact, three more than you mention here) has tried to answer your concerns and failing that, advise you that this approach was unlikely to achieve deletion of the section in question. In short, this is a dispute over content, not conduct and your claims to the contrary are not backed up by the evidence. Shell 20:33, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I never said that there was a 48 hour policy. I put that limit there to limit myself in moving the material to avoid a potential edit war and as Tan put it accurately, I was "lenient". I could have removed it immediately, but I told them that “I would be a gentleman” about this and gave them some time. If they needed more, okay... But they chose to spend their efforts on attacks. I then chose to enforce the policy.

Those arguments you cite were brought out early on in the conversation, are still open, and can be addressed at a later time off of ANI. This issue however, is about how unsourced material can remain for over a year and maintained by abusive behavior. Sir… suggested before that I use those and any other sources to cite his statements in the section. I didn’t agree with the statements then and stated those reasons early on. Why should I defend his comments?

Shell, you said that this is about content. You’ve been on the project longer than I have and I don’t have to tell you that sources are everything on this project to avoid WP:OR. “Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked.” What part of this is so confusing?

Read my statement above regarding “the sky is falling.” That is the exact scenario that is happening here. I gave you several solid Wiki policies that support my actions. The burden of proof is on those who want to maintain the section. Maintaining unsourced material by threats is what's the issue. Dinkytown (talk) 23:39, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I noticed you didn't answer any of my questions. You didn't mention whether you believe the section is completely unsupported by the large Biobliography and whether or not the sources given on talk were also unacceptable. If you contention is only that there were no inline citations, then you're grossly misunderstanding what it means for something to be verifiable. I did not see this issue addressed on the talk page at any point, which was why I was asking for clarification. Lets try to stick to one issue for the time being since the "threats" you keep claiming seem an awful lot like editors who got a bit fed up when you continued to insist that your interpretation of how policy related to the article mattered more than the other editors involved in the discussion. If you are the only one insisting that material violates policy and you find everyone else disagreeing with you, its time to take a step back and consider that you might be mistaken. P.S. I'm a Ma'am, not a Sir Shell 02:03, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

It's worth noting that, as I suggested, Varoon Arya has produced a very nice sourced first draft of the short section under discussion. Material from the book already used for Europe, Lewis & Wigen, will probably also be incorporated. This is the normal way a neutral and anodyne article is fine tuned and sourced. Now that this preliminary version is sourced, a reasonable and constructive discussion can continue. As Shell writes, this complaint was essentially a content dispute with little or no justification except WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Not that uncommon on this particular article unfortunately. Mathsci (talk) 22:35, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Content issue? Rather than "WP:IDONTLIKEIT," what part of WP:OR, WP:V and WP:CS do you not understand? If your above statement is correct, then we can remove the disputed section off the main page under WP:HANDLE and work on Varoon Arya's section on the talk page, correct? Dinkytown (talk) 00:35, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

For the record, I'm retracting the allegation that SLRubenstein threatened DinkyTown with a block . Cla68 (talk) 23:29, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I've read your correspondence with him , and although I understand your reasoning, I stand by my complaint. Take care... Dinkytown (talk) 00:35, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

It was certainly unwise of Matsci to edit war to try to remove his name from the complaint, particularly since he is very likely to be admonished by Arb Comm for precisely the same actions to remove himself from an Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William_M._Connolley arbitration case. He has not scrupled to name his opponents in this way in his numerous WP:AN/I complaints.

More importantly,I wonder wether he actually read Dinkytown's complaint against him. Instead of dismissing it all as a content dispute, he should have noticed that it includes accusations by Dinkytown against him of personal attacks, threats, and ethnic slurs. Are these accusations perhaps content disputes in Matsci's mind? Perhaps he regards such accusations as beneath his notice? Perhaps he has no answer to them? Intromission (talk) 03:02, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Recently arrived Intromission (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is undoubtedly some kind of sockpuppet account. When he moved a comma in Handel organ concertos Op.4 in his seventh edit two days ago, I was wondering when he would next reappear. There have been numerous sockpuppets around the current ArbCom case. It's interesting that Intromission is giving us his running commentary on the ArbCom case, even if it is completely incorrect. Incidentally, just for context, back in December 2007, Dinkytown made a failed RfAr about another content dispute. It is standard to warn people about the possibility of a block if they are editing unreasonably on an article or its talk page, e.g. making unsubstantiated demands with deadlines. Since the rewriting with sources, Dinkytown has not commented on the material he was contesting so aggressively before. Mathsci (talk) 07:30, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Reiterating the Complaint

Mathsci just doesn’t seem to get it. The complaint is about his well documented behavior, not about “another content dispute.” I placed the deadline on myself. I could have moved/removed it immediately per policy, but I chose to give you time to get your act together and get the sources. Now you try to use my generosity for a defense. Show me a policy that allows threatening someone for editing in good faith and policy. That section would have been unsourced for another year, if it wasn’t for this complaint.

What possible ‘context’ can there be with a two year old RfAr case? You were wrong about the case. We settled off-line. Like the edit-warring over the title of this complaint, Mathsci keeps trying to change the subject to avoid examining his well documented behavour.

I have been seeing good progress on the new section. I will comment on there. No need to comment here until needed. Dinkytown (talk) 04:18, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I've suggested it on the talk page, and now it's been suggested here. Going against my better judgment, I'm going to be bold and change out the old, unsourced section with the one I wrote yesterday in the hope that we can end this dispute and get back to editing the section. Thanks, Aryaman (talk) 10:06, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I've been watching it and you did a good job. I made a comment there - thanks... Dinkytown (talk) 04:18, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

What is clear to me is that we desperately needd to draw into the discussion more people who have researched European history, ethnology, and sociology. As you know I still think there are other sources that should be cited and the core problem here as in much of Misplaced Pages is a lack of editors who have the time, skill or interest in researching (and too great a percentage of newbies, starting from when Misplaced Pages became famous, were people who lacked the knowledge skill or interest). But we also just need more knowledgable people brought into the discussion, it can't just be the three or four of us. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:15, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

(noindent) Dinkytown's edits to the article are still problematic. Varoon Arya added verbatim a list of five points made in Jan Berting's book with a precise citation. Dinkytown moved the citation and tagged Berting's last point as "dubious". This is really not acceptable behaviour, although it is an improvement on what he was doing before. Mathsci (talk) 07:53, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

User:dreamshit blocked for username violation - review please

Hi there. I considered taking this to WP:RFCN but two admins (jpgordon (talk · contribs) and billinghurst (talk · contribs)) have already reviewed this block, so this it more of a question of appropriate admin action. As this was reviewed twice already, I cannot ask the blocking admin, Cirt (talk · contribs), to reverse his actions, so I brought it here. I feel that this is a prime example of treating a new editor too brief and not explaining procedures and reasoning. The first review was declined with a simple "declined", no explanation. The second one was declined saying that the name is blatantly inappropriate, although the user explains the choice had nothing to do with the negative connotations. I share the user's sentiments and I do not think this was a case where an immediate block was needed and I do not think it violates our username policy, so I would have unblocked them but given the previous 3 admin decisions, I think further consensus would be needed to do so. So here I am, asking for review. Please note also the user's statements at User talk:dreamshit. Regards SoWhy 11:09, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

• I somewhat agree that the username isn't so bad, but at the same time, this is clearly not some brand new editor. Evidence the modified talk page title (I wouldn't know how to do that and I've been here almost 4 years), the formatted signature, the UAA template usage... No, I would not have blocked (in fact I saw it on UAA and found it borderline enough to pass the buck), but let's not couch this as WP:BITE. Wknight94 11:20, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Nevermind the BITE part (although I think noone should be bitten, no matter if they are experieced or not), I am more interested in determining whether I the block can be lifted. Regards SoWhy 11:36, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Very clearly not a new user. Maybe you could say it's borderline, but it's on the wrong side of the border. What I see is an experienced editor who may not have been surprised to have his/her new usename blocked. He is trying to claim he is new - " This is your welcome to the encyclopedia" -- SoWhy, do you still believe this to be the case? By the way, where does the article on his talk page come from? I've tried to find it and can't, have I missed something? Dougweller (talk) 11:44, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
      • You do realize that people who worked years as IPs may create accounts only after becoming experienced, like this user, to publish a new article? The article you are referring to is, as the talk pages says, what he wanted to publish with this username. I do not say they are inexperienced, they clearly are not, but they are a new user nonetheless. And the question is not whether they are new or not but whether the block was appropriate. That no user should be treated like that, no matter how experienced, is a different problem. There is nothing in our policies that says "experienced users may be treated worse than new users". Regards SoWhy 11:55, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
        • Personally, I'm not sure a block was warranted in this case - I wouldn't have performed a block myself, but it's definitely a close one, and I would hesitate before unblocking also. Whilst it's probably not intended as such, usernames containing profanity are offensive to many users, which is what the username policy aims to prevent. I really suggest that the user just changes their username, but an unblock might be possible, I suppose. Ale_Jrb 12:02, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
• (outdent)To me it seems an unnecessarily provocative username, and the argument for its adoption and retention was not convincing, especially not convincing enough to create a precedent or an exception to the policy (which is there and stronger than a guideline). I checked MediaWiki:Titleblacklist here and other wikis, it appears as a keyword, so one should demonstrate the need for its use. I gave base reasons for my action, and it wasn't my place to explain the means of previous admins' actions. billinghurst (talk) 12:09, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
• (ECx")I endorse the block. Any username containing shit is going to be offensive - especially one where that portion is highlighted in the signature. Its clearly and experienced user who should know better. If they already have an account they should use that and if its a former ip editor they are welcome to choose another name immediately. Far too much drama for a clearly unacceptable name. I generally take the view that if it would offend my granny which this would then its not acceptable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spartaz (talk • contribs) 2009-09-01 12:14:02 (UTC)
  • The "highlighting" in the signature is an artifact of MediaWiki, which boldfaces internal links that are to the same page. On any other page, the signature would comprise two links, one to the user page and one to the talk page — just like your signature normally does. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 13:06, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Yes, I know the bolding is from the interface but didn't you think it significant that the portion of the name they chose to highlight for their talk page was the "shit" bit? Its clearly a name intended to be read as Dream Shit not Dreamshit and it fails the saintly old granny test by miles. I'm by no means prudish, I swear like a navvy in real life but our username policy is predicated on a wider audience that could find the term shit offensive. Spartaz 15:10, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
      • Once again: Xe did not "choose to highlight for xyr talk page" anything, any more than you "choose to highlight" the "Humbug!" part of your signature for your talk page, or User:Rodhullandemu, whose similarly coloured and divided signature is below, "chooses to highlight" the "andemu" for xyr talk page. It's simply what MediaWiki does. Were you or xem to put the signature on your user pages, MediaWiki would highlights the other part.

        Moreover, having the user page link precede the talk page link is hardly unusual, and not an indication of a special and deliberate choice, here. You do exactly that. So do Rodhullandemu, SoWhy, Jpgordon, and Baseball Bugs in this very discussion. Indeed, pay closer attention to the wikitext of xyr signature. It's the "dream" that xe actually "chose to highlight". Uncle G (talk) 15:21, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

• My only question would be is the name really that bad that it deserved automatic blocking without even an attempt at discussing the name. Maybe the name is not acceptable, period, and must be changed, but is blocking the user before they edit, then refusing to discuss or explain the decision appropriate? The Seeker 4 Talk 12:34, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
• Comment: I agree with the two administrators that reviewed the unblock requests: admins Jpgordon (talk · contribs) and Billinghurst (talk · contribs), as well as above comments by Wknight94 (talk · contribs), Spartaz (talk · contribs) and Dougweller (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 13:07, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
• I would not have blocked immediately, but it seems reasonable. If the user agrees to cooperate, they can request an unblock and change their username. –Juliancolton |  13:56, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
• I agree with Julian, blocking the user before they edit, then refusing to discuss or explain the decision is not appropriate. The user seems cooperative. Unblock him and allow him to change his username. Off2riorob (talk) 14:07, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
  • All he needs to do is start a new account; he has no contributions. --jpgordon 14:10, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
    • I didn't know it works like that, so the ip isn't blocked? Off2riorob (talk) 14:25, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
    • I have left him this ] note, and recommended that as his best solution. On a side issue, he doesn't look like a new user to me either. Off2riorob (talk) 14:33, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
• I'm leaning toward unblock at the moment, personally -- yes, it's offensive, no, I probably wouldn't feel comfortable seeing my daughter interacting with DS on a talkpage, but given that it's straight out of Perdido Street Station (which I now have to go get from the library, thanks so much), I think it's acceptable. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:45, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
• Comment on content. Leaving aside the username issue, and admitting that this is apparently an experienced user, which could mean any number of things, the person in question is obviously quite sharp, and it would be nice if they contributed here. As has only been mentioned in passing, they have worked up a serviceable article on the very important Immanuel Kant essay Idea for a Universal History with a Cosmopolitan Purpose (my translation titles it "Idea for a Universal History with a Cosmopolitan Intent," but no matter). I have not studied this essay since my undergraduate years which were about a decade ago, but from what I remember the stuff on the user's talk page is a decent summary of Kant's piece, which is great since we currently do not have an article on it and should. Rather than simply stealing the text off the user's talk page and starting the article ourselves (though we should do that if necessary!), let's figure out how to get them an acceptable account name (either by a username change request or starting over with a completely different accoun, who cares which one?) so they can start contributing. If it turns out this is a formerly banned user or something similar just trying to wind us up I'm sure we'll figure that out in good time, but there aren't many people around here who want to help us improve our coverage of Kant. Sorry for getting off topic here and bringing up an issue related to the encyclopedia. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 14:47, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
• Yeesh. At first, I thought it was going to be a matter of capitalization (perhaps it was dreams hit and not dream shit), but no. The user's sophistry makes me suspicious of his future at Misplaced Pages. JuJube (talk) 14:52, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
  • And I of his past. Subject matter and language makes me think "User:Peter Damian", but I am open to persuasion. Rodhullandemu 14:59, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Maybe, but he's not the only person interested in philosophy. I'm not familiar enough with his style to recognize quirks in his writing, but since Damian is a Brit who claims to have received his doctorate in the 1970s, I'd be a bit surprised at him dropping a casual reference to G.G. Allin as he does on his talk page, but maybe he loves crazy-insane American punk rock. Also the Kant essay in question does not seem to fall squarely within Damian's philosophical wheelhouse, for what it's worth. So you could be right, but I'd need to see more evidence before this goes out the window. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 15:17, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
      • WP:DUCK trumps WP:AGF IMO. JuJube (talk) 05:14, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
• Do you people know how many "poo" names are blocked in a day? Yes it can be read as "dreams hit" but it can also, and more likely be read as "dream shit". The person can request a name change to put a space in there or just create a new account. The fact that it can be read another way means nothing, imagine the gaming that would occur if we thought that way. Chillum 14:56, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Well, my point was more, if he did mean it to be "DreamsHit", he could just change the caps, but he explicitly says in his unblock request that not only is it meant to be "shit", but that "shit" is somehow not a curse word anymore. I'm in despair... intellectual mockery of language has left me in despair! JuJube (talk) 15:08, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
  • There's no dispute as to how the editor intended the name to be read. Not only did xe state outright that it was "dream" + "shit", but xe signed xyrself "dreamshit". Notice the linking. Uncle G (talk) 15:12, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
• Good block. Baseball Bugs carrots 15:06, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
• Certainly, this username isn't so bad, but it's still a over the line of what we consider appropriate, so I think that the indef blocking was called for. I really would have liked to have seen it executed quite a bit more gracefully, however. Honestly, there's simply no reason to be this brusque, and flatly refuse to discuss calls for appeal. – – ClockworkSoul 15:14, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

No need for review: "shit" is "shit". If I had the username "Banffuckley", do you see the City of Banff, and the common last name "Uckley"??? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:50, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I think everyone agrees the username is inappropriate, even editors way up in Banff (notorious username pranksters that they are!). Personally I'd be willing to unblock if the user said they wanted to change their username and promised that their next edit would be to make a request at WP:RENAME, and I've posted a note about this possibility on their talk page. Of course they could also simply start a new account, but ultimately it makes little difference so either one is fine with me.

But as I said above they have written an article and posted it to their talk page, so unless we find this to be a banned user or a sock account of an existing user (either of which are certainly possible, but there's no real evidence as yet), we should be focused on figuring out how to get this person to get to work editing with a new account name, rather than focusing on the propriety (or lack thereof) of the word shit. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 16:05, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

"How many social workers does it take to change a lightbulb? One - but the lightbulb has to want to change". So far, dreamshit is a lightbulb. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:26, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Lightbulbs don't write articles about Immanuel Kant essays, and I'm guessing you don't either. I know a lot of people around here don't actually believe in WP:AGF, but I do, and without concrete evidence to the contrary, I'll assume that "dreamshit" is someone who wants to contribute and who simply chose a shitty user name, rather than a lightbulb who needs help from a social worker (or something). Bad username or no, I think anyone who is willing to contribute an article on a difficult subject deserves some measure of thanks, not simply disdainful jokes likening them to inanimate objects. I only stress this point because it seems likely that we are having trouble recruiting new editors to the project, and whether or not "dreamshit" is just here to make good contributions or rather is a returning user who wants to start drama with their user name, I think some of the attitudes expressed in this thread make it all too clear why Misplaced Pages is not always so inviting to newbies. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 16:48, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

...and therein you missed the point. Dreamshit will only change their username when they decide that they want to change it. Up until now, they're arguing that they should be allowed to keep it. Their writing abilities are not the point of my post, nor were they compared to an inanimate object. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:08, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I understand that the fact that they wrote an article was not the point of your post, and the simple fact that that was the point of your post (combined with some other similar points) was precisely the point of my post. Amid all the hubbub about the username, no one bothered to say to the editor, "that looks like a decent article, thanks for being willing to contribute that," and indeed seemingly failed to notice that they had written an article. Regardless of the particulars of this user and their situation, I think that's indicative of an unfortunate trend on Misplaced Pages whereby we are not always particularly welcoming (and, yes, I fully understand the user in question does not seem to be "new"). But we're kind of talking past each other here and I've said my piece so I'll let it go at that. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:37, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

The main problem I have this this user is the apparent attempt to claim they are new (have I misread that?). I believe in AGF but also that there are limits to it. Dougweller (talk) 18:06, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse block. Clear violation. Exploding Boy (talk) 15:59, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
• Seems fine to me. Protonk (talk) 16:14, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
• Looks like a good block. WP:NOTCENSORED does not equate to WP:NEEDLESSLYOFFENSIVE. An experienced editor – or reasonable adult – knows this. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:32, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
  • It would have been a good block if he had been asked to change his user name and refused to do so. He did defend the name, and his defense was not replied to, just rejected. There are some names so bad we wouldn't even ask first, such as racist insults, but this is not in that category. I don't defend the name, and I agree with insisting he change it, but this is not the way to treat contributors. DGG ( talk ) 13:02, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Thanks for that DGG, and obviously I concur. The editor with the poopy name seems to have left the building so I went ahead and created Idea for a Universal History with a Cosmopolitan Purpose using the text posted on their talk page (plus a few small adjustments). Kant was, you know, wrong and stuff in general, but at least a lot of his stuff is pretty damn hard to read. Wait, that's not good either. Anyhow I think we can sum up this thread now in quantitative terms: -1 new user account, +1 article. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:34, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Lambiam and Milomedes

In an ironically fitting attempt at wikilawyering, Lambiam has now filed a grievance over Milomedes' block for making legal threats, despite the fact that Milomedes himself has gone away. I wonder what Lambiam's personal interest is in this, and why he thinks it's OK to use legal threats to try to intimidate other users. Baseball Bugs carrots 11:48, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I seriously doubt it will be accepted; one ANI thread --> ArbCom is not usually kosher. Tan | 39 12:38, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I also doubt the case will be accepted, but please do not needlessly indict Lambiam for starting the Arbitration request. I don't see it as either vexatious or frivilous. He has a legitimate concern over the application of our NLT policy. I disagree with his assessment of the Milomedes situation, but I also think he has the right to ask for a further review. He may not actually get any further review, but he has the right to ask, which is all he has done. Let's WP:AGF on this. It is entirely possible to disagree with others in a civil manner, and that is all I think is happening here. Yes, I was the one that issued the block that Lambiam is objecting to, but I still defend Lambiam's right to object... --Jayron32 14:33, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Well said, Jayron. Bugs, I think jumping in quickly to ask what people's interest in a matter is... is somewhat counterproductive. One could as easily (and with approximately the same amount of good faith assumed, give or take) ask why you asked about motives at the RFAR/C page, and then brought the matter here. In future please consider not doing that. Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 01:17, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I raised that question here first and posted it there as an afterthought. I am baffled as to why Lamb I Am jumped in here right after Milo Medes went silent. They both raised the same point, dissecting selected wording from the NLT writeup to try to "prove" it's not a legal threat, and ignoring the general point about intimidation. And why is he defending someone who has displayed no interest in defending himself? There's something fishy going on. Baseball Bugs carrots 01:23, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Regarding AGF, I always assume good faith - that is, I assume that a given editor is doing what he thinks is right. That don't make it right, though. And in general, I raise questions that I have that I don't see others raising. It's better to raise a question and have it disputed than to never raise the question at all. Baseball Bugs carrots 01:28, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, but I still think you may be jumping at shadows. ++Lar: t/c 02:28, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

RepublicanJacobite

Yesterday, I objected to the opening line of the article on The Waste Land, believing the claims it made were unattributed and a little POV ("The Waste Land is a revolutionary, highly influential poem..."). I appreciate RepublicanJacobite (talk · contribs) may disagree. And he is entitled to revert me. However, I do object to having my good faith edit reverted twice without comment and marked as minor. It seems at least half this user's edits involve using the WP:ROLLBACK feature to revert edits that were obviously meant in good faith. Rollback is for reverting vanadalism and nonsense. It is not for removing people's attempts to be helpful without any explanation. As I understand it, this rule is quite strictly enforced. I'm not asking for this user to be blocked or to have this permission revoked but I do think he might benefit from a polite note from a registered user.--81.108.130.124 (talk) 19:23, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

• I'm inclined to remove rollback from the account, but the last time I did so (for a different user) my action was unilaterally reversed. So I'll wait for some comment from the editor in question before doing so. Perusing the last 100 contributions for rollback reverts without an edit summary I found >50% of them to be good faith edits reverted as vandalism. This is totally unacceptable. Protonk (talk) 19:39, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

• The use of rollback to twice revert legitimate edits alone, with a single talkpage posting, is problematic. The fact that many of RepublicanJacobite's Rollback reverts are of edits that could be considered good-faith shows clear abuse of the feature. The Seeker 4 Talk 19:52, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

• I agree, I've removed rollback from this account. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:21, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

• • Endorse removal of rollback, with the note that if he continues to use the "undo" function availible to all users without explanation, it should be viewed as continued problematic editing. Where a good-faith edit is reverted by ANY method, a reasonable attempt to explain why should be undertaken, regardless of the mouseclicks used to cause the revert to happen. --Jayron32 20:58, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Looking at his response to Tim Vickers I think he may continue to have problems, as his view appears to be that non/dub-consensus edit = vandalism.Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:24, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

And another one bites the dust thanks to Misplaced Pages's administrator culture. How difficult is it to understand that when you have a non-emergency legitimate concern with an editor, you raise the matter with them first personally and in a sympathetic manner before escalating it? Do you realise what deficiency in emotional intelligence is shown when a volunteer returns to the project after a day or two to find a note saying "Hey, we didn't like some of the things you were doing, so in your absence we held a public meeting to criticise you and decided that you were wrong and needed to be taken down a peg or two. :D"? We act like a mob of socially stunted twelve year old boys so routinely that the above request for pitchforks looks like normal practice. And then wonder where our reputation for being insular disagreeable autistic obsessives comes from. Fucking hell.  Skomorokh  07:35, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Whatever, I've changed what you put in 'resolved' as I don't want people thinking your comment reflects anyone's opinion. It was his choice not to join in this discussion, he was around at the time. Dougweller (talk) 08:01, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

As I understand it, rollback is a privilege that can be revoked at any time if it's misused. Asking about it might be a courtesy, but I don't know that it's required. The rules for rollback usage are very clear. Baseball Bugs carrots 09:37, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I truly regard this as a waste of time and energy, but I want to be clear about the facts, at least. You are wrong, Doug, when you claim that I "was around at the time" and chose "not to join in this discussion." As you can bloody damn well see from my contributions, my last edit was to the Johnny Cash article at 17:31, and the ANI message was left at 19:29, nearly two hours later. I was not in my office or near a computer at that time. My next edit was not 'til 22:41, when I left the (admittedly angry) message on Tim Vickers' talk page. Less than an hour passed between the original ANI message and Tim's message stating the rollback privileges had been revoked. That is one hell of a discussion period. I did not choose not to take part in the discussion, Doug, the discussion, such as it was, occurred, and the decision was made before I ever said my piece. I think it is telling that you regard the matter settled because I decided to retire, and feel no need to consider any of the points made by Skomorokh. The irony of all this, at least to me, is that, given the tone of the message the anonymous user left on Vickers' talk page, I believe that he and I could have worked this out quite easily had we discussed it. C'est la vie. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 13:34, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I meant you were around before you retired, I'm sorry if I wrote that in a way that was ambiguous. As for saying the matter was settled, what I actually did was change a 'resolve' template from Skomorokh which said (obviously ironically) "The miscreant has been run off. Hallelujah. " to a factual message. Perhaps I should just have removed it, but you said you'd retired and therefore no Admin intervention was necessary. I'll remove it Dougweller (talk) 14:45, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

RepublicanJacobite, I really am sorry if I caused you to retire. I think there was a problem with the way you were editing. Not so much for me but uncommented reversion discourages all but established users from editing. You're one of many, many others, including admins who've used rollback at inappropriate times. Yesterday I felt I was probably too much of an interested party to say anything more than I'd said. Besides, I wasn't able to leave a message on your talk page because of the semi protection.

This page will be archived in a few days and the whole thing will be forgotten. Unlike with a block there's not, as far as I know, a permanent record of rollback rights being revoked and I imagine you can have them back if you ask again in a few months' time. I really would encourage you to reconsider and stay. --86.25.237.87 (talk) 17:48, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

• I was afraid this was going to happen, but I didn't expect someone to come in here flaming about admin culture. Rollback is a priviledge. The folks who use it are our ambassadors to the world. No one reads or much cares about the signpost, VPP, policy talk pages and what-not, so we can be as newbie friendly as we want there. But they do make edits to the encyclopedia, tens of thousands of people do every day. Each time WP comes up on a site like /. or ars the forum complaints (I know, take it w/ a grain of salt) are invariably focused around admins and hugglers reverting good, sourced edits as vandalism. Each time we revert one of those edits we lose a potential contributor. More importantly, that potential contributor goes off to bad mouth us to their circle of friends. Literally more than 50% of this editors recent edit summary free reverts were improper. More than half the time that he implicitly rejected a contribution as vandalism it came from a good faith editor or potential editor. More to the point, we never would have known about it had someone not come here to complain, because there isn't a lot of energy or willingness to watch the watchers. So no, I don't think this was an abuse of admin power or a reflection on admin culture. I think this was a case where someone was misusing the tool and the tool got taken away. Period. It's not the end of the world, even after a stormy retirement and (seemingly) return. As for your hyperbolic personal attacks and EQ-mumbo-jumbo, I'll let them speak for themselves. Protonk (talk) 18:26, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

If this is directed at me, Protonk, you miss your target entirely. I did not object to rollback being removed in this case – the concerns were justifiable, and speak to the same issues I highlight, namely deterring potentially good contributors and fueling an adversarial editing environment. Nor did I claim that any actions taken were an "abuse of admin power" – the actions taken in this case were, as far as I see it, in line with community norms. It's those norms that are the problem. I haven't personally attacked anyone, because no-one is personally to blame – the clueless, self-defeating and project-damaging ways we react to issues with individual contributors are widespread and are our collective fault for failing to reflect and consider the optimal outcome rather than what punitive measures are allowed in a given instance. And no, alienating yet another dedicated contributor is not the end of the world, or even remarkable – it happens around the wiki constantly, the cost of consistently failing to relate to the person behind the other username.  Skomorokh  19:07, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it was directed at you. And with respect, "Do you realise what deficiency in emotional intelligence is shown when a volunteer returns to the project after a day or two to find a note saying "Hey, we didn't like some of the things you were doing, so in your absence we held a public meeting to criticise you and decided that you were wrong and needed to be taken down a peg or two. :D"? We act like a mob of socially stunted twelve year old boys so routinely that the above request for pitchforks looks like normal practice. And then wonder where our reputation for being insular disagreeable autistic obsessives comes from." is out to lunch. The entire content of the discussion up until RJB's reply to tim vicker's was calm assent to the claim that someone was misusing a tool, followed by removal of that tool. A tool with a policy page littered with warnings that it will be removed immediately for even accidental misuse. You chose to characterize this process and this discussion as some sort of adolescent/autistic failing of the admin corps. I take deep issue with that characterization and so I pointed out its failings. Walking back the accusation is a welcome step, but you brought it to the table. Protonk (talk) 20:47, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

From my perspective, it is a bit odd to try to focus on the hurt feelings of somebody who routinely used a tool to falsely accuse other editors of vandalism. Surely this misses the point? Tim Vickers (talk) 21:24, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Tim, who said anything about anybody's hurt feelings? I never said anything about my feelings being hurt, because whether they are or not is beside the point, and it was never mentioned by Skomorokh either. So, what is the point of your bringing it up? I did, however, make specific responses, in the message I left on your talk page, to your accusations, and you have not seen fit to respond. Why is that? ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 23:51, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

As Elen of the Roads has already pointed out, an edit that you do not feel has consensus is not a "blatantly unproductive edit" and that if you are arguing that you were justified in using rollback to edit war in this fashion it would only reinforce my view that you should not have access to this tool. I hadn't pointed this out before since I thought it did not need commenting on further and that you'd seen this yourself, since you described that comment as just an angry response. I'm sorry if my talking this tool away before you'd had a chance to respond did annoy you, that was not my intention and I'm sorry if it did, but all I was doing was applying the rules - if you use the tool for reverts apart from vandalism it will be removed. Tim Vickers (talk) 00:13, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Tim, let's apologize for removing the tool in a non-emergency situation. We should have waited for the user to respond. That's common courtesy. Jehochman 13:47, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Skomorokh; basic courtesy would have been to afford RJ the chance to tell his side of the story before acting. If we don't have enough respect for an editor to want to hear from them in this sort of situation, that editor was not a good candidate for rollback. In Tim's defense, RJ had been notified of the ANI posting and not responded within five hours, but people are sometimes busy in IRL and no harm would have come from a little patience.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 13:21, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Looks like edit warring with rollback to me. I'm neutral as to how this was handled, though. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:54, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Completely uninvolved editor checking in here; but my observation was that RJ was a competent and committed wiki editor who should at least have been afforded the courtesy of a response before actions were taken unilaterally. Rollback is a privilege and in deciding how to use it, sometimes there is a "snap" decision as to whether an AGF edit or vandalism is involved, given there are instances of "sneaky submissions" that appear to be legitimate. That an edit war resulted is unfortunate but more unfortunate is that a good editor is gone. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:14, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, this is spot on why I'm staying neutral, other than to say, maybe it could bear more talking about. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:19, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, I think in retrospect, although I stand by my decision, I could have handled it more sensitively. I apologise for acting so quickly but at the time it looked like a pretty clear-cut case. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:59, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Although it is rather belated, I've left him an apology. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:11, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Constant disruption by user Z.K. HAL at Talk:List of best-selling music artists

We've been experiencing a heavy dispute at Talk:List of best-selling music artists since August 11th 2009 over Michael Jackson's total record sales figures. So far, we haven't been able to come to consensus on the issue. Since August 23rd I've made an attempt twice to come up with an idea so it would possibly suite both sides and end the dispute. I first suggested the first example on August 23rd , which was received positively by almost all editors who commented on the model, the user Z.K. HAL began to find pointless excuses; however. Another editor and I tried to explain and clear things up for him which only resulted in poorly constructed arguments stated by Z.K. HAL. I made another attempt on August 30th, wherein I demonstrated another similar model with detailed footnotes and asked the users to post their votes which would possibly lead us to consensus once and for all. The same user, Z.K. HAL, immediately jumped in with his/her disruptive and long arguments here, even though, I have stated at the top of the section to comment very briefly. And today, in another section of the same dispute, he not only disagreed (as usual) with everything that anybody has to suggest, but he also left uncivil remarks addressing to me here.

I can't seem to find a way to lead this dispute to consensus with Z.K. HAL constantly interrupting the flow of all the discussions that are taking place at Talk:List of best-selling music artists.--Harout72 (talk) 22:10, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Reliable sources trump almost everything. At WP:GOODCHARTS there is a list of sources which have been found to be acceptable for use here (and some not), and anything else should be debated on its merits. We have to avoid original research and synthesis, but as long as a coherent approach can reach consensus, that should prevail. Meanwhile, precedent requires that the editor proposing the change must support it. I also suggest you notify Z.K. HAL of this discussion and invite him to contribute here. Rodhullandemu 22:21, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Please not that I am not suggesting to include original research within the table. The table's sources come from IFPI databases, in some cases I have to convert the gold/platinum awards into figures to make them clearer for readers. And in some cases I don't have to convert them because databases themselves indicate figures for record-sales. As for inviting Z.K. HAL here, I'd like to avoid doing that as I have a feeling that he might begin filling this area with very much like what he's done at the talk page of List of best-selling music artists--Harout72 (talk) 23:01, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but notifying editors of discussion here is regarded as basic courtesy. {{ANI-notice}} should be used for this. We do not run kangaroo courts here; he's entitled to respond. Rodhullandemu 23:10, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I've notified the chap(ess). Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:14, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

The user Z.K. HAL has been notified of this posting; however it doesn't look like he has intentions of sharing thoughts here, instead he keeps being uncivil at Talk:List of best-selling music artists and certainly ignores what anybody has to say.--Harout72 (talk) 07:52, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I am really sorry, I noticed few minutes ago that there is discussion... First of all, I reject all Harout72's claim that I insulted him, quiet contrary he (and few other editors) insulted me but anyway if he was offended by any of my statements during temperament discussion I APOLOGIZE. All my objections in Talk:List of best-selling music artists were based on well constructed arguments (sometimes 2 long 2 read) but Harout72 and few other editors simply ignore them. Also I accapted his suggestion regarding final model here but with one condition - I pointed out that final table needs very important note regarding under-certified records here and here and he rejected that with some kind of insult (insinuation). Also very important, Harout72 are counting total certified sales around the world but without defined consistent counting method(ology) - in one country he counts 2-cd record as 2 copy and in other countries he counts same 2-cd record as 1 sold copy here (I explained that with example but if is it neccesary I will prove that with figures used in final table.) Regarding Swedish certifications, Harout72 use in table wrong history of gold/platinum certifications changes. His figures are not based on any reliable source and I provided official document (pdf) - history of gold/platinum certifications changes in Sweden. I got it via official e-mail from Swedish IFPI here. However he ignored my source and his intention is to use own wrong, without source Swedish figures here. Anyway if my source is not reliable (ok!) than we must delete Sweden from table (because we don't have other web source). ... Regards! --Z.K. HAL (talk) 12:38, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Z.K. HAL, you have already been explained in this edit of mine how the multi-disc cds are counted by RIAA. It's all in here. As for the e-mail which you supposedly got from Sweden's IFPI, the document here that you have uploaded, I personally can't open it for some reason. Another editor who was able to do so; however, stated that it does not look anything official in this edit.--Harout72 (talk) 15:25, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Harout72 read again this edit. I know everything about how the multi-disc are counted by RIAA, I wrote that 2 times before you. You simply don't understand my objection. Take for example The Beatles' album Anthology Volume 1 (2-cd record). It was certified 8×Platinum by RIAA and that represents 4 million sold records, but album got 8×Platinum award because there are 2 discs in it (8 million units/discs). In UK same album got 2×Platinum award and that represents 600,000 sold records but in those 600,000 sold records there are 1.2 million units/discs. At the end total certified sale of that album in UK+US is 4.6 million records or 9.2 million discs/units but in table you are using 8.6 million figure because you are counting units/discs from US (8m) and records from UK (600k). That is irrefutably wrong. You must count everywhere 2-cd records like 1 copy (record) or like 2 copies (units/discs). Regarding

...and that would be the ultimate form of original research, and therefore disallowed. If they publish it clearly on an official website, you're golden. If they e-mail you a document that doesn't appear elsewhere, it's OR. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:30, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I accept/understand that of course :) but as I mentioned before Harout72 has wrong (swedish) figures without (reliable) source and other editors agree with that!? I can't do anything regarding that issue. --Z.K. HAL (talk) 18:46, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Z.K. HAL, it's impossible to get anywhere with you. I'm quite tired of writing speeches to explain to you simple things in different ways. This is not the place for it, but I will do it again here briefly. RIAA does not count CD-cases, they count each unit within the case as one unit towards the certification. In other words, if a Double-CD material has been certified 8 x platinum, that means they've sold 4 million cases of it (this is where you get confused), each case contains; however, two discs (for example). You don't take 8 x platinum which is 8 million units in US and divide it by 2 as you are suggesting. If what you're saying was true, then 4 million cases of a Double-CD materials would simply mean 4 x platinum. And RIAA explains this in the criteria, Multi-Disc Set: Each unit within set counts as one unit toward certification, Minimum running time 100 minutes. Meaning that they would only count those Double-CDs as one unit if the play-time of both CDs combined is under 100 minutes (as stated in Criteria). And that would be 8 x platinum=8 million cases (not the units within cases). It's very simple. Cheers.--Harout72 (talk) 21:35, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

OMG, everything you wrote here regarding RIAA certification is true and that is exactly what I wrote countless times. But again you are missing the point... Problem is when you count US and UK figures together. You take units-figure from US and then records (cd-cases) figure from UK and that is wrong. Apples & oranges. The Beatles' 2-cd album Anthology Volume 1 was sold in 4m copies in US, so 4m people bought that album. Album recieved 8×platinum status (8m) by RIAA because there are 8m discs/units in those 4m sold records and RIAA give awards for units in this case. OK? Now, in UK same album was sold in 600k copies, so 600k people bought that album. Album recieved 2×Platinum status (600k). In UK you recieve certification award for sold albums (records) not sold units like in US but in those 600k sold albums there is 1,2m discs/units. Now, when you are counting total certified sales (US+UK) you take 8m figure from US and that represents units/discs and then you take 600k figure from UK and that represents albums (not units) and you get 8.6m figure. That is wrong. Apples & oranges. If you take units-figure from US - 8m then you also must take units-figure from UK and that is 1.2m. Other possibility is to take total amount of sold albums (records) and that is 4 million in US and 600k in UK. So total certified sale in UK+US is 4.6m albums or 9.2m discs/units. --Z.K. HAL (talk) 23:42, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to all administrators here because you lost some time regarding this issue. I give up. Harout72 do whatever you want in that article. I will not bother you anymore. More than 20 years I am connected with this subject so I tried to improve article with suggestion(s) and well-meaning objection(s) but unfortunatelly everything was rejected by default without proper reading. I was constantly misinterpreted, attacked... and at the end I am accused of being main problem! Whole discussion is full of endless rhetoric and nobody will read anything there. I simply lost time & nerves. IMO article will be biased but... Regards! --Z.K. HAL (talk) 23:57, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Spammer, or newbie not knowing how to write about a company's turnaround

I am not sure how to treat Mark.franken (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). He looks either like a spammer looking to spam up Spansion, or a newbie who does not know how to write about a company's turnaround. He replaces the well-sourced article that shows that Spansion has become morally bankrupt with the appalling way it treated its workers while it jacked up executive pay, with a rather spammy and somewhat poorly-sourced article that shows a company with a lot of potential but fails to mention the company's sins that were documented in previous versions of the article. The situation looks like it is turning into an edit war, which is scaring me. I have written a note on his talk page that what he is doing is wrong and could lead to a block, and how to do this correctly. He then reverts my reversions on Spansion, which again destroys the well-sourced information about Spansion's past moral bankruptcy which coincided with its financial bankruptcy. Can an uninvolved administrator help? I feel like that if I continue, I will get involved too deeply in an edit war to stay rational. I am in the middle of moving, so I am currently under a lot of stress and do not think that I can take any further rational direct action on this issue. Jesse Viviano (talk) 03:55, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Um, we are not a soapbox. The article shouldn't be there to show that "Spansion has become morally bankrupt with the appalling way it treated its workers while it jacked up executive pay" but something a bit more neutral. The company seems to be heading out of bankruptcy and more articles focus on possible patent violations over what seems to me an undue focus on its conduct going into bankruptcy. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:41, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, when you are leaving edit summaries like "which went financially and morally bankrupt", then it is time to step back from an article. --Cameron Scott (talk) 08:02, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

And there isn't a word of discussion on the article talk page....when there's clearly a discussion to be had about how much weight to give to the bankruptcy period vs earlier or later history. Elen of the Roads (talk) 09:51, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I left a note on Mark.franken's own talk page about what is correct because I figured that if he is a newbie, he might not know about an article's talk page. Jesse Viviano (talk) 12:13, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Also, I was thoroughly disgusted when I read the source article in the pre-Mark.franken versions of Spansion about the nearly simultaneous layoffs and executive pay raises. This made it difficult for me to accept any version of the article that did not include this vital information and made impartiality a difficult task. In my opinion, the article was made incomplete and spammed up by these edits. Jesse Viviano (talk) 12:26, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

And yet, layoffs and executive pay rises are common - LloydsTSB/Halifax being only the latest example. To pillory this one company for a common - if lamentable and morally dubious - industry practice falls foul of WP:UNDUE Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:26, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

• Just for the record, the editor in question appears to be the company's corporate communications manager. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:02, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I see this as an argument between two biased editors trying to edit the article in violation of WP:NPOV, one positive, one negative. Seriously, Jesse was it necessary to restore "fate=bankrupt" to the infobox? I would suggest that both of you stay away, one of you has a conflict of interest and the other has an admitted grudge against the company. -- Atama頭 20:05, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I was not the author of the "fate=bankrupt" thing. That was Kingofdawild166 (talk · contribs) who did that. Please see this diff for the first diff that included that, which is not my edit. I would have written "fate=Chapter 11 bankruptcy" if I had done that, because there is a big difference between different chapters of bankruptcy. See the other articles on bankrupt companies I have tagged as bankrupt for evidence that "fate=bankrupt" is not my style. Jesse Viviano (talk) 01:22, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if you were the author of it or not, you chose to reinsert it which implies that you endorse it. The entire "fate=" is not a legitimate infobox entry, it smacks of both WP:POINT and WP:CRYSTAL. Again, it doesn't matter if you had originally put that into the article, you chose to restore it, which at the very least shows that you were inattentive in your reverts. You've said yourself that you are stressed and don't want to deal with the article any more, so set yourself at ease; the article is receiving the attention it deserves and you can get back to your moving (which I empathize with, I just moved last year and I still don't think the stress of that is totally gone, I still have things in boxes). -- Atama頭 18:38, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Also, it's mandatory for you to inform someone of a report that you brought up here. I've done it for you. -- Atama頭 20:08, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I think JV's description of his personal feelings about the company is overshadowing the legitimacy of his complaint in this case. The current version of the article (apparently the version that "shows that Spansion has become morally bankrupt") obviously needs expansion and development, but the brief paragraph about the executive pay controversy appears to be factual, reasonable, and fully-referenced, far from the blatantly biased screed that I was expecting. Meanwhile, Mark.franken's version is just awful (sample: "Spansion expects to successfully emerge from Chapter 11 protection with a sustainable business model aimed at maximizing return on investment for creditors, and generating positive free cash flow and profitability"). Propaniac (talk) 17:56, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, no wonder it's awful; virtually every word added by Mark.franken is copied from some part of spansion's website, mostly . Propaniac (talk) 18:01, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Catholic Church again

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Farsight001 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has restored an unsourced sentence in a dispute that has gone on for over a year, after being warned that it is a violation of WP:Verifiability. I'm not seeking a block for Farsight001 at this time, but I would like an uninvolved admin to review the situation here and issue an appropriate warning. See Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive561#Xandar for more background. Gimmetrow 11:33, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

If you don't seek a block, what good would a warning from an admin do over merely warning them yourself? Admins don't carry any extra weight in their warnings... It is not safe for him to edit tendentiously after receiving a warning from anyone; having an admin give the warning neither insures he will obey it, nor does it make any response more severe should he violate it. Why not just issue the warning yourself? --Jayron32 14:25, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Farsight already was warned (on the article talk page). Consider it independent review. Gimmetrow 18:02, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

It stands to reason the Roman Catholic Church would call themselves just plain Catholic Church, as they believe they are the one true "universal" (catholic) church. Misplaced Pages is playing into their hands with this misleading title. Baseball Bugs carrots 23:56, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Gimmetyrow is the one edit-warring here. The whole passage concerned was agreed line-by-line in mediation. It contains two statements of fact, allowably used from Primary sources. One goes Gimmetrow's way. The other doesn't. It was the one that goes against Gimmetrow that he was trying to remove.

PS Baseball. Catholic Church is the name of the Church, and used in full conformity with WP naming policies. Xandar 00:01, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

No, its name is the Roman Catholic Church, to distinguish from other "Catholic" churches such as Byzantine Catholic. The Roman Catholic church is often called just plain "Catholic Church" for short because its so much larger of a church than the others (than any other, in fact). And don't give me this "common name" stuff. I look for "Edelweiss" and it redirects me to Leontopodium alpinum. Yeh, they wrote a song about that: "Leontopodium alpinum, Leontopodium alpinum, every morning you greet me..." Baseball Bugs carrots 00:13, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

The problem here is a sentence which 1) make a controversial claim, 2) is likely wrong, 3) is explicitly disputed, 4) does not have source and 5) editors have failed to provide sources or clarify the sentence for months. Enough is enough. Gimmetrow 00:34, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

What "controversial" claim? That they call themselves the Catholic Church? They probably call themselves just plain The Church. Baseball Bugs carrots 00:41, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

No, that "they call themselves the Catholic Church more frequently than any other term - even 'the Church'". This should be a simple issue and shouldn't take months to resolve. Gimmetrow 00:51, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Wow alittle sanity. We Orthodox Catholics don't call the Roman Catholic Church the Catholic Church. Gimmetrow is right.LoveMonkey (talk) 03:24, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate the support, LM, but that's a different content issue. Gimmetrow 04:52, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

The point being that the article has the wrong name. "Catholic Church" is incorrect. It used to have the right name, "Roman Catholic Church", but apparently some editors with some kind of agenda got it changed. That's one of the negatives of wikipedia - that a small block of persistent editors can force incorrect information into an article and keep it there. Baseball Bugs carrots 12:14, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually the problem is one of labelling. On one hand "catholic" has the meaning of "pure, correct, orthodox"; to refer to the Roman Catholic Church as simply "the Catholic Church" can be seen as implying all other traditions of Christianity are heretical (some Roman Catholics do believe this, but that is not relevant here). On the other, almost every existing tradition of Christianity considers itself "catholic", especially if they recite the Nicean creed as part of their worship (it contains the passage, "I believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church") -- even Protestant Christians find themselves professing to believe in a "catholic church". In brief, "Roman Catholicism" is less offensive & more precise than any other alternative. -- llywrch (talk) 19:10, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, naming policy supports the use of "Catholic Church", which is the more commonly-used term. And Baseball Bugs is just plain wrong -- the article is about the entire Catholic Church, including the Eastern Catholic Churches. Majoreditor (talk) 23:51, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Admin button misuse in edit war.

Over here, things have gotten hot. Asgardian and Nightscream have been in conflict article edit history regarding some dating and issue numbering matters, and it has escalated into an edit war. NightScream protected the page, despite being involved. Both I and Peregrine Fisher spoke out against this page lock. I left a note at NightScream's page, asking him to undo and report the matter, since he was a highly involved editor as well as admin, and since the edit warring issues were clear. I commented that since Asgardian, who in that section linked above, admitted to a recent previous edit war to prove a point, taking this problem to the Edit War noticeboard would've gotten an easy solution. In response, Asgardian accuses me of being the other party complicit in the edit war. While I made a few edits, all mine were to try to find a compromise, based on the talk page, and not a reverting war of edits, as a review of the diffs will show. Most of this is edit war focuses on an introductory phrase, and the use of issue numbers and or dates to tie to the published events. I'd have taken this to the EW board myself, had I realized it would this rapidly turn into this debacle, but given that an admin's use of buttons is in question, and the underhanded implication that I'm to blame for this, I've brought it here. ThuranX (talk) 13:50, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Wow...that is a pretty blatant misuse of the admin tools. Revert to the version you want in an article you are clearly involved in editing...and then full-protect it? And looking at the article history...it's not the first time he's done it. --Smashville 14:11, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)It seems at a cursory review that Nightscream was involved in the content dispute, reverted and then protected the article, which is inappropriate. That said, the article probably should have been protected, and if Nightscream agrees not to act as an administrator and engage in discussion, things should be able to proceed without the need for intervention. Have all relevant parties been notified of this thread?  Skomorokh  14:12, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

On a separate note, it might be helpful to refactor some of your language on the talkpage, ThuranX – I appreciate it was in the heat of the moment and you were responding to what you saw as unfair accusations, but that kind of tone is unlikely to contribute to a more productive discussion.  Skomorokh  14:16, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I considered that, Skomorokh, but tonight ,he that I was involved in the edit war, with yet another "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?" tactic. The manner of both of his attacks pon me is in the form of 'I'm not saying he beats his wife, in fact, I'd like to publicly state here, in a discussion about me beating MY wife, that, in fact, he, who is sitting among us judging me, does not beat his wife.' It's a distraction technique, and i'm actually offended that he'd repeat it in the context of 'I'm apologizing for saying he beats his wife, I can say now that he does not beat his wife....(stuff)... and in conclusion, He does not beat hiswife'. It's a cheap, tawdry tactic for which he was amply warned. As a result, I see absolutely NO reason to redact or refactor anything, as it's clear he's intentionally engaging in this tactic for the drama. In fact, I request a block against him for repeating personal attacks during an edit war after warnings.ThuranX (talk) 03:22, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I unprotected the article without reverting. There was absolutely no reason to protect it so that he could be the only one to edit it. Content disputes are to be resolved on the talk page, not with admin tools. --Smashville 14:21, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

So...now, I guess, should the page actually be protected is the question, here? --Smashville 18:13, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the "wife" example means, but ThuranX needs to take the advice given above and cool down. The actual issue - a question of formatting - is being discussed between myself and Nightscream, as discussed here: . There were no false accusations. I even stated on said Talk Page that ThuranX was not involved in an edit war. What ThuranX did do was misconscrue a statement I made, and has tried to place words in my mouth. I corrected him : , and also advised that he be civil, something he has been warned about before on a number of occasions:  ; . He has also continued to be uncivil when blocked for edit warring: .

Again, the real issue is under discussion, and an administrator has stated I am not at fault. ThuranX is most welcome to contribute, but just needs to be less emotive. Refraining from the use of caps lock, using exclaimations and profanities would be a good start. Let's just move on. Asgardian (talk) 04:14, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Twice Asgardian has, with no reasonable nor just cause, injected into the problem between him and NightScream comments that imply that I am the cause of the edit war. I'm not going to stand for being falsely accused. He needs to be blocked. ThuranX (talk) 04:26, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm confused as how you interpret that from "ThuranX was not involved in an edit war". I think you need to step back from this because quite honestly, it does look like you need to calm down and look at it with more rational eyes. --Smashville 13:55, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Students A and B get into a fight, C goes for the teacher. B, to defend himself keeps saying C had nothing t o do with it over and over, you start looking for why the denials keep occurring. It's a way of deflecting attention from himself. YOU may not see it that way, but I see it as an intentional distraction from his involvement with the bonus of getting me into trouble if he can. Since I was clearly uninvolved, there's no reason to deny my involvement other than to try to bring attention to my edits. ThuranX (talk) 14:03, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Page move cleanup requested

Most of the history for The Bubble Boy (Seinfeld episode) is here; history merge requested. Mike R (talk) 16:16, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I've merged all the history of the disambiguation page from before July 2008 to The Bubble Boy (Seinfeld episode), and moved the history that was at "The Bubble Boy (disambiguation)" to The Bubble Boy, without the redirect, because "The Bubble Boy (disambiguation)" is a bad redirect target. The history was a big mess, and there were duplicate articles about the Seinfeld episode for about a year, so I couldn't clean it up properly. However it's better than how it was before and most of the attribution is at the title of the current article. Graham87 01:34, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Lots of improper image uploads

Djjesse123 (talk · contribs) has been warned multiple times in the recent past for things like vandalism, edit warring, adding copyrighted text to articles and uploading a multitude of copyrigted images without an yof the necessary information. This user keeps uploading images of DVD covers, but does not include any copyright/licensing information, source information, or fair use rationales . He even wiped out another, unrelated image by uploading a new one over it, messing up an article about a comic book character (which I have now reverted). He did these last two uploads after I explicitly warned him on his talk page to stop uploading images improperly. He has ignored all warnings and notices on his talk page. I recommend he be blocked as he refuses to communicate or acknowledge warnings and continues to upload copyrighted images without the necessary information. <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 17:10, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

As a note, quickly checking his article creations, all are pure copyvio stolen from other sites with an infobox tacked on. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 17:23, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

All of his image uploads are tagged for various failures, or fixed. Not that this stops the problem, but at least so far everything's been processed. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:44, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

His unsourced POV edits are also an issue. I gave him a final warning a couple days ago but the behaviour continues. --NeilN 20:13, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

• I suspect English is not this editor's first language. Look at this diff. "Steven segal is offer a role in" Wow. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:46, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Very worrisome, but he hasn't edited meaningfully since the warning. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:53, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Defence

English Misplaced Pages does not govern practices at other WMF projects. Durova 00:14, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Dear Administers and Editors, I have lately been informed that was made here some days ago regarding a barnstar posted by me. I have been addressed in that post many times and some untrue and misleading judgements has been made about me. Because of this I should have the right to defend myself and explain briefly what happened. In Farsi wikipedia We had a weekly collaboration about swastika, a sign which has been histirically used by nations having Aryan roots such as Iran, Tajikestan, India, etc. . A user had contributed so much in developing the article, when that week ended I decided to thank him by giving him sth related to that issue. What picture would have been better than that Sign itself? I searched for a sign which could have been distinctly seen. Some Aryan swastikas like were also present, but the sign was small and could not be seen well. It is not true that a 45 degree sign belongs to Nazis. See indian sign e.g. . I should also express my deep regret for attack, accusations without evidence. It is an evidently an ad hominom means of dismissing or discrediting my views. I merely expressed my idea politely. I should be rehabiliated. sicaspi 21:38, 2 September 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sicaspi (talk • contribs)

• The discussion was closed (by me, if I recall) because we on the english wikipedia have no power over any other language nor do we have any real cause to discuss what goes on there. Whatever defense you wish to make you may make it on the Farsi wikipedia. Protonk (talk) 22:22, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

yes, but I am also a user of en wiki and my name has been mentioned here and some wrong information has been said about me, You should apologize me. Sicaspi (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:32, 3 September 2009 (UTC).

No, nothing that needs any form of apology was said - someone asked the advice of English Misplaced Pages - advice was given, but non-transferable. No actions were taken on English Misplaced Pages. Besides, we stopped expecting apologies at age 8. You were never subject to a personal attack nor incivility. Please remember to sign all of your posts with ~~~~, as all members of English Misplaced Pages already know :-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:50, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Here in English wiki, I was accused of maliciousness and antisemitism, it is an attack. Furtheremore Please help me! I sign all of my posts with ~~~~ but it seems as if it doesn't work. --sicaspi 10:38, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Nobody accused you of antisemitism. They were discussing the use of the symbol and its potential meanings. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:46, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

O.K. Whould you please answer my 2nd question? and would you please also check Talk:Persian Socialist Soviet Republic, nobody answers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sicaspi (talk • contribs) 10:52, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok, well ... your previous posting on this page, you used the 4 tildes and your signature worked fine. This last one, you didn't do it again. As for as the talkpage you noted, as this forum has nothing to do with content of articles, you will likely need to use request for comment to get some assistance. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:24, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

User:DBZfan29 unblock request

This editor has been blocked, again, for edit warring and is now requesting that he be unblocked, under the false claim that no one investigated the issue. As he has cleared the lengthy discussions multiple administrators have had with him, would like to be sure that any reviewing admin for his unblock request make note of his talk page history and the full story before deciding whether to unblock him. Also good to note that he continues to deny he ever reverted despite proving he did so in his own "story" and his second round of retaliatory AIV reporting before he was blocked again - he did the same the first time around, as well as make personal attacks against PMDrive)-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:28, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I never said they didn't investigate. I said that my report against you was denied because we need to resolve the dispute ourselves, but you weren't. And you make me seem like I'm bad in your sent notice, like I'm lying about all this. DBZfan29 (talk) 03:36, 3 September 2009 (UTC) I never made a personal attack against the admin. I even pointed that out. I was just requesting that he not be a part of this since he said he had your back and even threatened to talk me to me again a while back. DBZfan29 (talk) 03:50, 3 September 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Acme Plumbing (talk • contribs)

"threatened to talk with you"? How is talking wrong? I also know what happened too because I was involved in it for a second. But then I just watched. Abce2|From the top now!Arggggg! 04:21, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm smelling something fishy. Another account speaks for the user? Strange. Abce2|From the top now!Arggggg! 04:23, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh, wow! I knew he was using an IP to edit, but this? Acme Plumbing seems to be a new account and possible been used in disputes before. One could AGF that he jumped in to copy/paste DBFan's responses from his talk page, but of course that begs the question of why? Hmm.... -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:35, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeppers, and a word of thanks is due for kindly disclosing the sock and block evasion at a main admin board. Everyone should be so courteous. :) Durova 04:42, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Is anybody going to block Acme Plumbing? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 06:31, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I've posted on Acme Plumbing's talk page saying there is a discussion here and asking him/her to explain the edit. Dougweller (talk) 10:59, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Startling, their contribs seem to share no topics at all, but it's very likely a sock. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:03, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

• wonders if this is perhaps a PinkgirlXXX sock instead* Syrthiss (talk) 13:07, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

• Acme Plumbing is  Unrelated, just someone trying to be helpful by cross-posting DBZF's talk page comments. However, someone should ask DBZF about edit warring while logged out and the other two accounts operating from his home. Thatcher 20:42, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
  • "...the other two accounts..."? Well, well! Or as Alex would say... Baseball Bugs carrots 20:48, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Since DBZF shows the maturity level of a young child, the other accounts could easily be his/her parents, hence (presumably) the hesitancy in naming them. Looie496 (talk) 22:59, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

DBZF has said that both accounts belong to his brother, agreeing with the first part of Looie's comment. Abce2|From the top now!Arggggg! 23:42, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Because the contributions of the accounts are fairly different, that's a plausible explanation for now. Thatcher 00:52, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Mass external linking

Don't know if it counts as obvious spam, but it does seem wildly inappropriate, an external link Massive Fail.

While looking up some British peer, I saw an external link for http://www.leighrayment.com/. It turns out to be the top page for some amateur's personal page on peerages, with no direct connection to the subject of the article. Fine, I'll remove it. Except that it turns out that that exact, essentially useless and unreliable link is on 4,520 pages. Equally useless subpages (like this) are on thousands more, with the total number of links for that domain topping out at 10,170. This needs to be cleaned up, and automated tools are what's needed. --Calton | Talk 15:58, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

It appears WP:PEERAGE is treating that site as a reliable source, rather than an "amateur's personal page". Before mass deletion starts, discussion at WP:PEERAGE, WP:RSN, or somewhere similar might be a good idea. ANI doesn't seem the best place to determine the reliability of the source. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:09, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

No different than the hundred or so pages this is on. There seems to be a somewhat more lax standard for those kinds of sites. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 16:46, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

We have a Wikipedian by that name (kittybrewster) who primarily edits in the peerage area. Nathan 16:52, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Depends if it's used as a source or simply an external link. It seems to be the former; for instance the first revision of Frederick John Howard includes it as a reference. Does it violate our external linking guidelines? No, since it's being used as a source. Is it a reliable source? That's not for this noticeboard to decide. --NE2 16:50, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I see well over 4500 links to the root domain of the site. Obviously the root of a site is not for verifying article content and smacks of linkfarming. also {{Rayment}}. Looks to be a personal site. --Hu12 (talk) 17:06, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

That's not obvious to me - if I get some information from Amtrak's website, I might link to the main page in the references section rather than the subpage I got it from. It's not best practice, but it's not necessarily evidence of anything bad. The only thing that matters is whether it's a reliable source, which I admit is questionable. --NE2 17:21, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Point being, that its strange for a site with 295 pages to have in excess of 4,524 links to the root of the site and a grand total of 10,180 links on wikipedia. I do however agree that reiability is the key issue, however to overlook the sheer number of links 'not linking to specific content in order to verify article content, would render any claim of reiability impotent. --Hu12 (talk) 22:28, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

There is no inherent reason a personal site can't be a reliable source. As it so turns out, Rayment is actually more accurate (on average) than the published sources coverage the same material. (Or at least that is my understanding of the situation from reading past posts on the Peerage WikiProject and otehr related areas.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:27, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, there is. Per WP:V#Self-published_sources_.28online_and_paper.29: "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media, whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, Internet forum postings, tweets etc., are largely not acceptable.

"Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. However, caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so." A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:43, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

This TfD might also be useful reading. Nathan 17:28, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I concur that this is a matter for WP:PEERAGE to decide, and if editors are unhappy with that decision, it should go to WP:TfD or WP:RSN.  Skomorokh  17:39, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

RFC bot emergency stop

RFC bot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) needs to be emergency stopped. Harej (talk · contribs) apparently isn't around at the moment, and it doesn't appear to have a stop function, so... I don't know what else to do other then to come here and ask someone to block it for now. Sucks, but we shouldn't let it continue like this.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 17:13, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll block, but what exactly is the problem with its edits? I confess I'm not familiar enough with it to see the issue outright. Since I'm the one who'll have to explain it to Harej, I'd like to know what sort of teakettle I'm boiling... Thanks, UltraExactZZ ~ Evidence 17:30, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I see it - You're getting edits like this and this, where the bot is posting blank moveheaders on inappropriate pages. Agree that we need some sorting out here, and I've blocked the bot. Please revert me if I've erred. UltraExactZZ ~ Evidence 17:36, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Take a look at Misplaced Pages:Requested moves/current. There's also been some talk on Harej's talk page, here: User talk:Harej#Removing unpaired moveheader because it looks like it blanked Talk:London Paddington station. Anyway, I think I know what started it, and Harej should be able to fix it fairly quick, but like I said he doesn't seem to be around at the moment.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 17:39, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh my, yes - this is a doozy. What caused it, do you think? UltraExactZZ ~ Evidence 17:45, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

this edit is what started it.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 17:47, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

...or not. I just noticed the time stamp on the Talk:London Paddington station edit, which is odd. It kept working fine for several more hours after that. Weird. Anyway, it should be fine once Harej has some time to reset it and take a look at what really happened.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 18:10, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Why are editors allowed to do this kind of thing? If we did something like this at work, we'd be shot. Baseball Bugs carrots 18:24, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

*confused* Why are editors allowed to do... what, exactly?
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 18:27, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I think he's referring to editors being allowed to run bots that blank talk pages and create other shenanigans, to which I'd reply that it isn't always the bot operator's fault that something screws up. In this case, for example, the bot uses a lot of templates - if someone tinkers with one, it might throw the bot's coding off and send it into tailspin of ZOMG vandalism. If a bot operator is notified of flaws with a bot, and disregards the problem or fails to adequately address it, then they can be sanctioned - and there is precedent for that. But that's not the case here; Interestingly, the bot has only been blocked once before for a malfunction - on 4 September 2008. UltraExactZZ ~ Evidence 18:44, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) (speaking of edit conflicts...lol) I think that you're correct, but I was trying not to assume anything. There is a rather extensive WP:BOT policy/procedure to handle this sort of thing, so I don't see anything to really be concerned about (other then the somewhat Byzantine bot approvals process, but that's a different subject). You can't fix what you don't know is actually broken, regardless. Anyway, I noticed the last block as well, but it's got to be nothing more then a minor coincidence.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 18:52, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Darn edit conflicts. That's precisely what happened. The page blankings happen as a result of presumably API errors — stuff which I sadly have not accounted for yet in the code. It's not that big of a deal; when a page is blanked, rollback and move on. On top of this, I was asleep during the events of the tailspin, having been sleeping after a long night of working on Misplaced Pages and coding. I guess the least I could do is configure the bot to not throw up (or lack thereof, I suppose) whenever there's an API error and the markup of a page cannot be retrieved. @harej 18:50, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Interesting... and thanks for sharing. I'd be interested to know what you may end up doing to avoid this in the future, if you ever feel like sharing. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page about it, or I'll ping you at some later date. Of course, you're using PHP and I'm a C# type, but the principles still carry over.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 18:55, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

The fallout from this is massive. In the meantime, I've shut off requestedmoves.php. @harej 19:17, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Anything we can do to help cleanup? UltraExactZZ ~ Evidence 19:25, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I did all the clean-up, but thank you. The bot, to the best of my knowledge, should not be blanking pages anymore, as I now have it check for a blank variable where page contents should be. Everything has been fixed, the universe has been restored to order, the princess has been rescued and I'm off to lunch. @harej 19:28, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, the princess is in another castle. Shell 19:37, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Stilltim has moved about a 100 articles to rather unique types of titles

I am very reluctant to post this issue here, because I know that there should be quite a bit of discussion with the user concerned to try to resolve my worry before resolving to ANI. However, to be honest, I'm not sure how to approach this particular situation, and I think the issue is somewhat urgent to address by people more experienced than I. I do not believe User:Stilltim is trying to be disruptive, and I feel is heart is completely in the right place. However, my concern is that within the space of a few hours he has moved near a 100 articles from conventional titles to rather unique and certainly not community-supported formats: . From what I have gathered on his talk page, he has been spoken to about this type of thing before. Otumba (talk) 20:26, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Warned, and asked for an explanation.DJ Clayworth (talk) 20:35, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Lighteningluster

I am concerned that the username in question may be an obvious sockpuppet of banned user Bambifan101 for the following reasons. First, this username was created by the very same person who recently created a bunch of accounts that were indefinitely blocked as abusive sockpuppets, most of which were identified as belonging to Bambifan101 (see relevant entries in the user creation log). Second, a look at the user's contribution history reveals that the user has edited at least one article that is clearly related to a Disney animated film. SoCalSuperEagle (talk) 22:38, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

It wouldn't surprise me....I think a fresh checkuser would be good to identify the underlying IP range and do some range blocking (or redo an expired one) and find anymore sleepers since one of the newest socks went through and helpfully tagged a bunch that had been missed. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 22:46, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Mary and Jesus = NPOV or POV?

I am engaged in a dispute with some users. I am trying to improve neutrality of the articles Mary (mother of Jesus) and Jesus, but they oppose it. I am sure every administrator is tired of problems such as this one, but your hep would really be appreciated. Thank you! Surtsicna (talk) 22:45, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

This isn't the proper place for this. Soxwon (talk) 22:48, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Could you direct me to a proper place? Surtsicna (talk) 22:51, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

For help with this go to either WP:NPOVN or WT:WikiProject Christianity. Looie496 (talk) 22:53, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I think he would prefer the former... Soxwon (talk) 22:55, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Part of the problem is that Surtsicna is claiming that Muslims call Mary "Umm Isa", although he's not providing a source for that, I don't think, which might be the reason those reverting him are calling it "vandalism". Baseball Bugs carrots 22:59, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Nobody has raised that issue, Baseball Bugs. The fact that she is called Umm Isa has been part of the article Mary in Islam for a long time. The users who are reverting me are also reverting my attempts to improve grammar and they call that vandalism too. Please see the Jesus article as well; while I am trying to achieve neutrality by either mentioning both Christian and Islamic views or removing both, other users want to keep Christian view only. I can understand one's religious passion as long as it is not part of an encyclopaedia. Surtsicna (talk) 23:13, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Looie, thank you for help. I have moved my request and Baseball Bug's comment (as it is relevant) to WP:NPOVN. Surtsicna (talk) 23:19, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

216.246.164.118

Discuss. Enigma 00:06, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

• Discuss? Nah. Seen this one before. Black Kite 00:15, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

GabrielVelasquez

Although this relates to civility/communication issues and I'm uninvolved in this matter, it would not be right to subject another party to go through an earlier step in dispute resolution, when it already went through a later step for similar issues (RfC/U - see Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment/GabrielVelasquez#Summary). Therefore, I've brought it here for admins to decide how to handle it. The report made at WQA is pasted below. Also, some other comments/edit-summaries made in general which may warrant attention . Ncmvocalist (talk) 00:53, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Below text copied from WQA.

I am requesting a neutral, third party to intervene in a wikiquette regarding this editor. He has placed a personal attack against me in an article talk page and failed to assume good faith on my part. The origins of this incident are at the Survivorman article.

• An anonymous IP added content that I felt was unsourced and a personal opinion/review of the show
• I reverted the addition using the edit summary "Rv, unsourced and personal opinion"
• GabrielVelasquez undid my removal
• GabrielVelasquez then added a comment to the article talk page calling me arrogant and my edit and edit summary stupid. A confrontational tone was used to regarding verifibility and my apparent lack of perfect memory
• A note about my edit was left on my talk page that I feel was needlessly confrontational
• I requested that GabrielVelasquez retract and strike the comment about me left on that article talk page and reminded him about WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF
• I received this reply stating that I did not AGF to the anonymous IP

The paragraph that I felt was an opinion was subsequently removed by another editor.

On a side note, there appears to be additional incidents of GabrielVelasquez not AGF on Talk:Planetary habitability. I am not involved in this dispute and have no further comment or opinion upon the matter.

If a neutral, third party can intervene in this issue, I would appreciate it. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 00:29, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

• "The paragraph that I felt was an opinion was subsequently removed by another editor."
  - This a deception, that paragraph has nothing to do with the removed and returned-with-source comments.
  This is a desperated attempt to save face rather than admit error. GabrielVelasquez (talk) 00:38, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

NOW that I look at the entire, three-in-one edit I see the other paragraph. I meant to return the single top sentence mid-paragraph and didn't see the full paragraph much lower down in the multi-edit. I would not have return that commentary and was going to reword it or delete it but didn't give it enough thought to do either. As I said on your talkpage Dodo I am not your enemy and asked you not to judge me by that one edit. GabrielVelasquez (talk) 00:48, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

• Also the fresh-IP edit ("removed by another editor") Special:Contributions/207.42.152.210 appears very sock-ish. GabrielVelasquez (talk) 01:07, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Above copied from WQA.

Ncmvocalist, why is this here? Dispute resolution appears to be ongoing between these two users and absolutely does not belong on this noticeboard at this stage. The fact that there was an RfC involving GabrielVelasquez a year ago is completely immaterial to resolving this situation, and does not require that any dispute involving that editor must automatically be escalated to...well, the next step from a WQA is an RfC, so I am still unclear why it is on this noticeboard. Risker (talk) 01:04, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Concur - this looks like a simple misunderstanding and overlooking parts of edits and reverts. A little more AGF and a little less aggressiveness in the edit sequence and talk posts would have been nice but this isn't a ANI worthy problem yet. Exxolon (talk) 01:07, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards