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

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

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

Can I please submit the above claims that I have been commiting "lying, fraud, dishonesty" as being clear-cut personal abuse? Again, please note the repeated warnings Tenmei has recieved for the rude comments he's posted on the talk page of the article in question (reposted from above, these warnings include: [15], [16], [17] and [18]]). Nick Dowling (talk) 10:10, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Along with Trout Ice Cream, I left a note for Tenmai on his talk page regarding this thread. Looking at the various diffs and talk pages, I hoped that a polite warning would suffice to alert Tenmai to the disruptive effect his editing was having, and the possible consequences of refusing to let up. This was interpreted as a threat ([19]) - if I've stepped out of line, I'd welcome any clue adjustment ;)</small However, as this seems to be partly a content dispute and partly a civility issue, perhaps if Tenmai could just apologise for those comments Nick found offensive we could all move on? The article is protected, and with consensus apparently established on the talk page, further argument doesn't require a response. EyeSerene^talk 10:51, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Per Eyeserene. Tenmai's edits are indeed having a disruptive effect, and letting him know of that (and what will be done to prevent it if it doesn't cease) requires no clue adjustment. If the disruptive edits continue, I fully support the use of tools. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:31, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the context created by the purple prose above, EyeSerene makes four constructive, on-point observations which I would rearrange in what I consider to be an interwoven, ascending order of importance:

• 4. "The article is protected ..." -- No, not really, no. Except for the word "political" in the first sentence, the current state of Hyūga class helicopter destroyer needs no protection from me. At the first opportunity, I would substitute the more precise NPOV term, "constitutional," in place of a non-NPOV term which has been shown to have unduly trivializing, dismissive connotations; but otherwise, I would do nothing pending further published developments. However, the moment any change is made to the final sentence in the second paragraph, the WP:NPOV problem re-surfaces anew.
• 3. "... consensus apparently established on the talk page ...." -- No, not really, no. The tag-team ownership charade which played itself out at Talk:Hyūga class helicopter destroyer has certainly not escaped my notice -- but it remains naught but a re-telling of the old story of the Blind Men and an Elephant, naught but the sound of one hand clapping.
• 2. "... if Tenmai could just apologise for those comments Nick found offensive we could all move on ..." -- No, not really, no. Empty words would serve no purpose here because, in addition to the fact that I'm not sorry, the fact-of-the-matter is that this tedious whatever-it-is has produced practical, measurable results which were plainly unachievable by any other means -- see third paragraph of Nick Dowling's most recent edit at Talk:Hyūga class helicopter destroyer#Complaint lodged at WP:AN/I
• 1. "... as this seems to be partly a content dispute and partly a civility issue ...." No, not really no. YES. In this unique context, it is conceptually awkward to conflate "content dispute" and "civility issue" but this Gordian knot formulation is somewhat congruent with Wikipedia Talk:Civility#Should established users be treated different?, e.g.,

'Balancing civility with the needs of the encyclopedia

• ... civility is a tool, but a tool to be used towards what? - obviously, the goal of building a neutrally worded, reliably sourced encyclopedia. To break it down further, the specific purpose of civility is to enable the smooth functioning of the community that works to build that encyclopedia. It's a means to an end, not an end in itself - an element in the scaffolding that supports the structure, not part of the structure itself. Fundamentally, we are not here to build a community; we're here to build an encyclopedia, and civility is merely one of the tools we use to do that. When we deal with civility issues, therefore, we have to focus on what's best for the encyclopedia, not simply on what's best for the community.

It's thus essential that we strike a proper balance between the community goal of civility and the fundamental encyclopedic goals of NPOV, reliable sourcing etc. Focusing on civility to the exclusion of the encyclopedic goals actively harms the encyclopedia ....

• Civility problems shouldn't be dealt with in isolation while other problems aren't tackled, as that will only send the message to editors that tendentious conduct is fine as long as it doesn't involve civility violations - seek to tackle the causes as well as the symptoms,
• Civility is a means to an end, not an end in itself - don't prioritise it above the encyclopedia's goals. -- ChrisO (talk) 17:51, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I like where you're going with this. What I think I'm seeing is that we are in a position to develop a strategy for how the community deals with incivility. There's material on the page about how an individual can respond to incivility, but in the type of situations you're talking about, a more holistic approach is indeed required. The approach of enforcing civility as a rule — like a law, with clearly defined "violations" and consequences — isn't the best. It leads to the perception that civility is being prioritized above encyclopedic considerations. That perception is a problem, regardless of how accurate it may be .... Perhaps identifying a problem as an "incivility problem" is not helpful. Perhaps we should embrace the idea that each act of incivility takes place in the context of a larger conflict; perhaps our approach should reflect that idea. The goal would be to identify a conflict, describe its features, and choose appropriate strategies accordingly, right? How can we get better at doing that, instead of enforcing isolated "violations" of some real or imagined rule? -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:17, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think you've put it well. We need to look at an approach that deals with the causes of conflict, not just the symptoms. Incivility can be both a cause and a symptom - if an editor is constantly incivil that will obviously lead to other problems .... On other occasions, it can be a symptom of frustration or aggravation at tendentious tactics being used by others. In both cases, it seems to me, the root issue is the problematic conduct on someone's part that invariably accompanies incivility. In effect, incivility is a warning flag that normal editing or talk page participation has broken down for some reason. The tactical challenge is therefore to diagnose what has gone wrong and fix it - not just by giving civility warnings (which may be totally appropriate) but also by dealing with the larger conflict. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:52, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We seem to be largely on the same page. I'm not too sure about civility warnings; I don't know if they're ever appropriate. They are often not. I'm also leery of strategies that involve identifying and neutralizing "bad guys". I tend to think that the best solutions will be article-based, or conflict-based, rather than editor-based. That said, I'd certainly support trying out just about any strategy, as long as it's done in a mindful and deliberate way. Doing that will at least generate data, and then we can re-assess strategies as to how well they worked. Simply making a conscious effort to identify and apply specific strategies is already a huge step, which should teach us a lot. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:06, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re-framing record of "Disruptive Behaviour"?

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

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

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

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

• Was that irrelevant consensus-building exercise based on the wrong "game"? By this, I mean to say in part, "Was the state of play adequately informed when Jane's Fighting Ships and Global Security.org comprise the only "gold standard" against which all else is measured?"
• When did the task of creating a Wikipedia article become a matter of mere gamesmanship? --Tenmei (talk) 19:20, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm reluctant to post more, since I think we're going beyond the scope of this forum. Your views on civility might be best taken up somewhere else (the Village Pump perhaps?), as they relate to a general issue rather than this specific one... other than the fact that it doesn't appear you intend do a fellow editor the courtesy of assuming his good faith and retracting your personal comments. We should also not be attempting to resolve a content dispute here. The disruption, however, is pertinent, so (leaving the aspersions aside) as I understand the situation:

• You contest the vessel's current designation as a "helicopter destroyer", preferring the term "aircraft carrier". "Helicopter destroyer" apparently comes from a number of highly respected sources (including Jane's, widely regarded as one of the top sources in the field). "Aircraft carrier" is based on a TV documentary and some newspaper reports, and is argued by other editors to be a loose description for mass-market consumption to enable viewers/readers to picture the ship.
  • You failed to gain support for your alteration on the article talk page, but repeatedly inserted it into the article anyway. Your edits have been consistently reverted by the article's other editors.
• A discussion was opened to gauge consensus on the talk page, and recognising that there was some weight to your assertion (but taking WP:UNDUE into account), a brief sourced explanation was added to the article detailing the apparent naming confusion for the vessel class. However, you decided not to participate in the discussion because you didn't recognise this as a legitimate way of settling the issue.
  • Consensus having been established against your edit, you then resumed agitating for it (in your words, performed a "reset"), seemingly under the impression that, because of Nick's position as both an admin and a MilHist coordinator, the article's other editors had blindly followed where he led.

Spin it how you like, this is a textbook example of disruptive editing. There's absolutely zero evidence that Nick has behaved with anything less than complete propriety throughout, and your refusal to accept the verdict of your peers is digging you into an ever-deeper hole. Perhaps you're the innocent victim of a Nick Dowling-led MilHist conspiracy... or perhaps your proposal is wrong. I've no real desire to keep this unproductive thread alive by posting here again, but please take some advice: don't be a fanatic, stop disrupting this article, and find something else to work on. EyeSerene^talk 08:46, 25 July 2008 (UTC) [emphasis added by Tenmei, 26 July][reply]

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

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

Rdfox 76 -- You make two very, very helpful points. Thank you.

1. Justice Potter Stewart's definition of pornography is a pirori more elegant than The Emperor's New Clothes, which served as the core of an alternate approach I've been trying to bring out of the sandbox. Your implied simile seems more likely to inspire a willingness to re-visit some of the otherwise unexamined assumptions which are so strongly held that they block access to the threshold I can't quite reach yet.

2. Your language is superb -- better than I could have imagined. It captures the ridiculous with humour and sly derision - yes, good:

It's as silly as if there was a slapfight on Invincible-class aircraft carrier over whether to call them CVHs or "through-deck cruisers," the original politically-motivated designation...)

3. You're on the right wave-length. This is helpful.

I will have to think about this some more. --Tenmei (talk) 19:04, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do apologise if it seems like I'm endorsing or promoting one interpretation of the sources over another in my post above. That certainly wasn't my intent; I was trying to set out the course of events rather than comment on the actual content. Whatever content issue Tenmei has (and I'm not saying he has no case) is between him and the other editors. However, a clear effort has been made to compromise, and I think the article currently does a pretty good job of explaining the whys and wherefores of this peculiar designation. There appears to be no corresponding movement on his position though, and editing disruptively and insulting other editors is absolutely not the way to get a consensus overturned - especially when one's stated intent was to disregard the discussion process and any decision reached. That's the cut-and-dried part in my view ;) EyeSerene^talk 14:46, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

EyeSerene -- 1. Thank you for re-framing the "disruptive" issue in a way that allows me to see how it could appear that my conduct was improper. This was helpful. I need to think about it before I respond further, but this appears to be a template which will help me figure out (1) what I could have done differently AND, (2) what I need to figure out so that I don't make a similar avoidable error in future. For the moment, please consider the hypothesis that you have not made a mistake in investing the time and thought which can help me become a more effective and valued contributor to this Wikipedia project.

2. Please believe me when I assure you that it wouldn't matter whether you endorsed or promoted one interpretation or another because we haven't even arrived at the threshold of the argument yet. Also, believe me when I assure you that I'm not trying to be perverse ... nor do I think that entirely plausible "fanatic" label is something we have to worry about.

I will have to think about this some more. --Tenmei (talk) 19:04, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

EyeSerene -- I have added bold emphasis to one of your sentences above: Spin it how you like, this is a textbook example of disruptive editing. I have studied the bullets in your summarized understanding of the situation. As I read what you wrote, I tick off each element -- yes, yes, yes, yes. This is helpful. Thank you. I need to figure out how to "spin" your text, so that your second and fourth bullets are understood as sub-sets; and then I can more comfortably respond -- no, no. What I need to do is to revisit the record in hopes that it becomes possible to isolate pivotal opportunities for me to have averted the thread which informs each of your four bullets; and maybe at some point in the process, I'll begin to figure out how to do better in future.

Two aspects of my "spin" are easily stated, but this remains an unavailing step forward for now.

• NO, I do not contest the vessel's current designation as a "helicopter destroyer", preferring the term "aircraft carrier" -- not an issue, never was except in Nick Dowling's repeated re-framing. The premises inherent the the re-framed proposition inexorably lead only to a reaffirmation of the status quo ante. In this context, cognitive dissonance and [confirmation bias]] converted every edit -- first to last -- into something merely disruptive, hence rejected as irrelevant or worse.
• NO, there was no discussion ...opened to gauge consensus on the talk page. The consensus-building exercise was focused on the wrong question. After the consensus was achieved on the proposition as framed by Nick Dowling, then I thought I was learning from a Bellhalla-inspired "reset" which could approach a new question with the newly confirmed consensus as a foundation from which to build.

This has been an exercise in which I learned more than I expected about metastasis. Make no mistake -- I did devote close attention to every step of this evolving charade, and I'm prepared to invest more time in parsing what could have been done to mitigate the damage. I didn't understand well enough then, and I don't understand well enough now -- but we'll see if I can't figure out how to do better. If nothing else, this tentative analysis indicates that I am seriously engaged in trying to reach towards a constructive resolution to the complaint Nick Dowling lodged in this venue.

It is frustrating to read Nick has behaved with anything less than complete propriety throughout; but it is even more galling to discover that I'm beginning to fathom how and why your opinion has been informed by reason and experience. This is helpful -- not dispositive, but helpful none-the-less. Thank you.

As for your worry that I might be a fanatic, that's probably not a problem here because I'm persuaded that a fanatic is someone who wants to achieve something more than just opening a closed door. My goals are not defined by resolving any issues which surround JDS Hyūga save one, changing its tenor from that of a dogma which is questioned only at the questioner's great peril .... --Tenmei (talk) 17:24, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've fully protected Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) following edit warring over what to tag the page as. I suggest uninvolved admins look over the talk page. -Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 19:50, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. From 2005 to late 2007, it was a "guideline". After some disputes, it was marked as a "proposed guideline". Currently it's marked as an "essay". So what's current policy in this area? RC patrollers await an answer. We need to know what fancruft to mark for deletion. --John Nagle (talk) 05:18, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FICT is mostly a summary of WP:NOT#PLOT and WP:IINFO. Though, really, it should have the "historical" tag. Sceptre ^(talk) 21:17, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why aren't major changes like that brought to the community's attention? FICT ought to be a guideline or flat out 'crap isn't notable' policy. ThuranX (talk) 21:36, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lol that would make a good policy. In the end, we really don't need so many policies though, notability is about whether something's been mentioned in reliable sources, so there don't need to be different policies for different subjects- why should some be treated differently to others? Sticky Parkin 01:03, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because the quality of 'reliable sources' seems to change by subject area, and according to the various projects, and according to the standards of Inclusionists or Deletionists, or those just plain sensible and serious. Asserting it's 'so easy' is oversimplifying. Get an inclusionist Pokemon fan and we wind up with 2500 articles detailing each pokemon because 'not only does it appear on the card but in all the 'how to play pokemon' books. thus it's notable'. and so on. That sort of incestuous sourcing needs to be stopped in all subject areas. ThuranX (talk) 02:34, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why does it need to be stopped? m:Wikipedia is not paper. To quote: "There is no reason why there shouldn't be a page for every Simpsons character, and even a table listing every episode, all neatly cross-linked and introduced by a shorter central page. Every episode name in the list could link to a separate page for each of those episodes, with links to reviews and trivia. Each of the 100+ poker games can have its own page with rules, history, and strategy. Jimbo Wales has agreed: Hard disks are cheap."

What exactly do we gain by REMOVING verifiable information on notable topics? The satisfaction of having declared that sub-portion of the topic 'not notable'? I'd rather Wikipedia be the comprehensive encyclopedia it was intended to be. --CBD 11:10, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To ThuranX's question: the proposed version was brought to a large-scale RFC back during June to get input on it (after the 2006-ish version was contested in part to TTN's actions and the ArbCom cases) - the RFC failed to show consensus, 50% for, 25% against it due to being too harsh on fiction, 25% against it due to being too lax on fiction. Analyzing the results, its been determined that FICT can't really be resolved until we answer questions (via another large scale RFC) on notability in general. --MASEM 11:20, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We gain the priceless guarantee that Wikipedia treats all subjects equally and from the same real-world perspective. We ensure that the article on Homer Simpson devotes more time to examining how the cartoon character has influenced the rest of the world than to the cartoon character's daily routine and favourite pastimes. Have a look at how Memory Alpha treats Star Trek articles compared to here. If you were a disinterested third party who happened to want to know something about a Star Trek episode, which wiki is more useful to you? "Comprehensive encyclopedia" does not mean "limitless database of everything ever". Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:26, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So, we want to concentrate on being useful only to people who AREN'T interested in the topic they are reading about? :]

You state that we have to choose between two types of information... but we don't. There is no reason not to have BOTH the 'real world analysis' and the detailed documentation. Seriously, what does it hurt? Why is it better to limit our coverage of notable topics to the lowest common denominator? We can't cover things which a disproportionate number of people obsess about in any greater detail than things which only a few people obsess about because... that would go too far towards giving readers what they want? --CBD 11:40, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The reason not to have both is that by its very nature there's always going to be massively more fictional information than real-world on many fictional entities. Homer Simpson would have a longer biography than almost any living person were WP:N to be thrown out for fictional characters (which is basically what those opposing WP:FICTION advocate). It means uneven coverage and is usually going to result in decreased readability. Dedicated external wikis with different policies on fictional content are always going to be much better for this, and I don't see why Wikipedia should try to be a superset of them. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:44, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why are three hour old threads being archived? ThuranX (talk) 20:13, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe some answers may be found at User talk:Ncmvocalist#ANI archiving. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:17, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. I can't say I agree with the argument that posts should be archived quickly if they seem resolved (ones with an actual {{resolved}} template are ok). It's not over, until it's over. People may wish to respond to those discussions. --.:Alex:. 20:20, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Ncmv's idea of manual archiving before the bot's 24 period to get the page size down, but think archiving 2 hour old threads might be over-reaching. People don't check ANI every 2 hours; they should be able to see how long, complicated threads have turned out without wading thru the archives, or (more important) they may disagree with the fact that it's resolved. Surely there's a compromise lurking in there somewhere; say if it's had a {{resolved}} tag or an {{archive}} tag of some kind on it for (say) 8-12 hours, maybe? Some number greater than 4 and less than 24. --barneca (talk) 20:30, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As the planet spins at very slightly over 24hours per day, I feel (and have suggested) that the minimum needs to be 12 hours to give every chance of a section being seen by most of the English speaking inhabitants. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:34, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that's a valid point. I could go to sleep and find several threads created and archived during the night when I awaken. Maybe a little longer than 12 hours though. --.:Alex:. 20:42, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've been manually archiving threads that have been sputtering (a couple folks leaving sporadic light-hearted throwaway comments can cause a huge thread to sit essentially stale for days and days) but I'll admit I don't do it unless the latest date is yesterday - preferably early yesterday. —Wknight94 (talk) 20:49, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that's a much better idea; I have no problem at all with manual archiving after even two hours, if the last remotely serious comment was 18-24 hours previous. Most of those undead, zombie threads that stagger on for days could then be put out of their misery. Of course, ANI will get slightly longer with all the "Wknight94 didn't take my comment seriously! Desysop him now!" threads. --barneca (talk) 21:00, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Yes, I've already had a nicer version of that on my talk page...) —Wknight94 (talk) 21:03, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick comment here.. ANI is not the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, so we really don't need to hear from 100% of the voices 100% of the time. In my mind, if a thread appears, is resolved, and archived all while I sleep, that's probably a good thing most of the time ;) I understand the concern that something might got resolved incorrectly, but for me it's about priorities. Right now, I think the "OMFG moar drahmaz!" problem on ANI is much more crushing than the occasional minor injustice. --Jaysweet (talk) 21:25, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nod. But so far I've not ever heard anyone complaining about Ncmvocalist archiving things too late. Always it seems to be more about "too soon" or "too vigorously". ++Lar: t/c 23:17, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'is resolved' is the key element there. The world won't end if a thread isn't archived and there is even the remotest hint that its not satisfactorily resolved.--Crossmr (talk) 08:58, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) I agree with archiving some threads that are obviously finished, but I'd rather they at least be given 12 hours since last activity. A few of the threads were archived too quickly, IMO. I was away from the computer due to personal obligations, and by the time I come back (8 hours later or so), a bunch of replies are in the thread but it's archived so I can't respond. Enigma ^message 23:19, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have any real problem with sections being archived a few hours after the last comment when the discussion is clearly resolved, but I do have a problem with edits like this one, where sections are wrapped in those pretty little archival templates 2 minutes after the last comment. That...I hate. - auburnpilot talk 23:50, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Phew, wasn't me :D Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:14, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think filing parties are capable of looking at their thread in an archive - a lot of them end up having to do so because they might not login for several days. Between the time I logged off and now, there's been an increase of 16 threads (within 12 hours) if that's anything to go by. If people prioritized on responding to unresolved threads (like the one above this one that has 0 replies, or the thread right at the top of the page that has been open for days), there'd be less of a problem. Instead, with the rate of ANIs being opened, and how big this page becomes, I really don't see the issue with going to the archive to read how it was considered resolved. From time to time, of course mistakes can happen (just like the bot) and things might get prematurely archived, just as things might be left lying around, but bear in mind I have read or skim-read through the thread (unlike a bot) to know if it's resolved - if the bare essential admin action has been taken or admin attention been given, there's no reason to prolong it anymore. If I think there is a chance that more attention is needed on an action, I won't archive it straight way. Certainly some people are going to think it hasn't been resolved - it was very recently I had to deal with 1 individual who proclaimed the dispute is unresolved unless their 'restraining order' is imposed. I don't think we need a full thread to repeatedly tell them, this is not possible as it's punitive or inappropriate or...etc. etc. If there's an issue, contacting the person who dealt with the complaint is probably going to be much more effective. But, if there's major opposition to my archiving with a basis we can agree to, I'll gladly stop or modify my approach. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:14, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd prefer you not archive so vigorously. You seem to be saying your judgement of whether something is resolved is adequate and that the archive should be referred to. I'm not sure I agree. We have a bot, let the bot do the work. ++Lar: t/c 20:57, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with that. The bot is on a timer for a reason. Unless everyone involved in the thread has whole-heartedly agreed that the thread is resolved there is zero reason to archive it early.--Crossmr (talk) 00:52, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I feel the same way. -- Ned Scott 04:45, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree as well. -- Aunt Entropy (talk) 13:27, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree also, let the bot do its work. And certainly, don't edit war when another editor reverts your premature archiving. [20] [21] If someone else wants to comment, please be civil and give them the courtesy of doing so. Dayewalker (talk) 23:53, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would some uninvolved administrator please review the 3rr edit warring situation regarding User:Hillock65 and User:Kuban kazak? It was reported here and ended up with only one block despite the fact that they were both edit warring. Note that the other party is just coming off a block for edit warring three weeks ago. This really appears unfair, and it would make sense that either they should both get blocked or both only get warned. The discussion can be found here at Hillock65 talk page. Ostap 03:18, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You neglected to mention that User:Hillock65 violated the 3RR rule, User:Kuban kazak did not, ("The rule is breached when an editor makes more than three reverts.") so don't try to present it as the same thing. While there is a provision that says, "Editors may still be blocked even if they have made three or fewer reverts in a 24 hour period, if their behavior is clearly disruptive.", this is up to an administrator's discretion, and I see no problem with the blocking admin treating them differently because their actions were indeed different, User:Hillock65 was the only one who crossed the 3RR line. Also, check their contributions, User:Hillock65 is primarily a revert warrior while User:Kuban kazak is primarily a content writer. And why are you asking for an "uninvolved administrator", the blocking admin was an uninvolved administrator.
Furthermore, an uninvolved administrator has already reviewed this decision. User:Hillock65 has already asked for an administrator to review this decision, and another uninvolved admin (User:Mangojuice) declined his demand to unblock him/block the other user, saying, "You made your point about the other editor's behavior on WP:AN3. While there is a compelling reason to review decisions to block users, the same does not hold for decisions not to block users. If you don't like the way it was handled, you can take it up with Scarian afterwards, but neither I nor any other admin is likely to reverse Scarian's decision to issue a warning"[22]--Miyokan (talk) 05:41, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've reviewd this and the complainer's complaint seems valid on the surface: The other person (Kk) did three reverts *bangbangbang* and rewarding them for that is inappropiate. Kk has recently been blocked for blind reverting, and the message that "three a day" is not an entitlement clearly needs to be driven home. Heck, the person who was blocked said "please use the talk page" in every edit summary, which Kk chose not to do. No one is lily-white here. - brenneman 07:38, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lets see then:

1. 15:55, 23 July 2008 I change a blatant mistake
2. 16:39, 23 July 2008 Hillock reverts without any talk page comment (1st revert for Hillock)
3. 13:18, 24 July 2008 I revert the disruption, citing wiki policies under which I did that per WP:1RR (1st revert for me)
4. 14:02, 24 July 2008 Hillock reverts my statement and offers me, with WP:CIVIL to "discuss my grievences on the talk" (2 reverts for Hillock)
5. 14:06, 24 July 2008 I revert and point out the extensive discussion on the talk page (2 reverts for me)
6. 14:09, 24 July 2008 Hillock remembering WP:OWN tells me to literally bugger off (again WP:CIVIL) (3 reverts for Hillock)
7. 14:35, 24 July 2008 I do a complete copyedit of the article, correct many grammatical mistakes BUT DO NOT TOUCH THAT PARTICULAR SECTION THAT HAS BEEN THE SOURCE OF DEBATE (so still 2 reverts for me)
8. 14:43, 24 July 2008 Hillock however does not bother to check the diff, and reverts w/o any though still with the same WP:unCIVIL comment (4th revert for which he was blocked!)

• I recommend to Ostap, who has been Hillock's WP:MEATpuppet since he arrived on wikipedia (check the edit pattern for this and many other articles) to leave it per WP:STICK, otherwise feel free to voice your complaints on my RfC which was started a year ago, but got nowhere then, since I don't even watch that page. --Kuban Cossack (По-балакаем?) 08:02, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You respond in your usual fashion, throwing around baseless accusations. If you continue to do this, I will report it here also. Ostap 16:19, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't make threats that you won't follow through with.--Miyokan (talk) 02:52, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Previous AN/I thread

User:Theserialcomma's tenditious editing continues unabated since the last AN/I I filed a little under two weeks ago. He continues to wikilawyer points into the ground. Occasionally he is right, generally he is not - see Talk:Tucker Max and note that most discussions have been instigated by Theserialcomma.

User also demonstrates ownership issues - his talk page edits and edit summaries frequently contain things such as "will be removed" [23] [24] [25] [26].

However, the real problem with this user is his unwillingness to refrain from personal attacks against me. Even if the personal attacks are not strictly "flames", they definitely violate the policy of discuss the argument, not the person.

These difs are not in chronological order, sorry. [27] [28] [29] [30].

When I requested that the user refrain from personal attacks [31], he ignored [32], prompting me to perhaps inappropriately lash out at him [33], however, I stand by every last word of the "lash out". Speaking frankly, what I've tolerated from this user would test the patience of anyone.

User also failed to follow the RfC directions and write a neutral statement in the RfC, instead stating his PoV on the disagreement as the RfC summary. I don't have a dif for this as the RfC has ended.

As a concluding note, although there is no policy called WP:DONTBEAHYPOCRITE, Theserialcomma has engaged in hypocritical behavior. Here is a (correct) statement that discussion of individual users does not belong on article talk pages [34], yet, even in the diffs which while antagonistic, I didn't think warrented inclusion in an AN/I writeup, are alway addressed directly to, and about, individual users.

McJeff (talk) 06:54, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New dif, posted while I was writing this - manages to hit both incivil and OWN at the same time. [35] McJeff (talk) 07:01, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if people are allowed to agree on here, but I figured I would give it a shot. It's almost farcical difficult he has been and it's a shame that he's using Wikipedia's own rules against itself. McJeff has been more than patient on this and the article is suffering. He's fighting to have decent sources removed simply out of malice and attempting to drive people away from creating a quality article by making it a frustrating experience - so he can use it to say as he pleases. If something can't be done about him, I think it needs to be locked down. TheRegicider (talk) 07:06, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone? McJeff (talk) 04:14, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Briefly, Kossack4Truth (talk · contribs) is an agenda-driven single-purpose account on Barack Obama. He has been blocked 3 times in just over a month for edit-warring and disruption on those pages. After his most recent block, there was AN/I discussion which, I believe, supported a 4-6 month topic ban. Kossack4Truth promptly "retired", so I dropped the issue as moot.

As in the past when he's briefly laid low, his "retirement" was brief and he reactivated the account today by filing an iffy 3RR report, shopping the same complaint at AN/I. Not to mention rather odd comments: [36] and claiming to other admins that he was never officially topic-banned ([37], [38]).

I believe there was and is ample justification and support for a 4-6 month topic ban, and was prepared to implement one after the prior discussion. Kossack4Truth evaded this by retiring. Since he is now active again, I've imposed the topic ban. I'm bringing it here for review and to see if there are substantial objections to the topic ban. Given that these threads uniformly deteriorate into a steel cage match between involved editors, I'd ask that editors actively editing the Obama page refrain from comment here to allow for potentially more objective input. MastCell ^Talk 17:06, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Talk about arrogance. Unbelievable. First you try to get me banned. Then, rather than address the real source of the problem, you topic ban K4T and Then come here soliciting support, rather than even looking like you might consider taking action against the real source of the problem: the editors who keep baiting and provoking us. K4T did what he was supposed to do when he saw a problem. He gave an abusive editor awarning and was blocked three days for it. Now he comes to ANI and he gets a topic ban for it? Unbelievable. WorkerBee74 (talk) 17:31, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll allow my recent posts at Talk:Barack Obama to speak for themselves without MastCell's spin. I've been completely cordial at Talk:Barack Obama, I've discussed the edits rather than the editors, and I haven't edit warred. I wasn't topic banned in the previous attempt. It's not just a claim. It's a fact. I notice your campaign to get community support for an indef block of WorkerBee74 was a miserable failure, and now you've turned your attention to me. MastCell, stop throwing your weight around in this direction and start paying attention to the ceaseless baiting and badgering coming from certain other editors. Show everyone the edit I've made on Barack Obama or Talk:Barack Obama since reactivating my account that justifies this unilateral action or revoke your topic ban. Go ahead, pick the one edit at Barack Obama or Talk:Barack Obama since reactivating my account that you find most offensive, post the whole edit here, and let uninvolved and truly neutral admins judge for themselves without your spin. Furthermore, I'm not a single purpose account. That accusation used to have some legs, but not any more. I've edited dozens of articles and welcomed dozens of new users.

Other admins are encouraged to take a very close look at my recent behavior and try to figure out how MastCell could possibly be justified in doing this. Kossack4Truth (talk) 17:13, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support a topic ban of at least three months based upon the disruptive editing practices exhibited by K4T. "Retirement" is no excuse to dismiss earlier conversations and a consensus for such a sanction. Coming out of "retirement" to file a frivolous AN3 report, which was dismissed by four administrators (sorry to bust your bubble ThuranX), and then shop it around at ANI on an old thread indicates that you haven't given up your old habits a bit.

As evidenced in a prior ANI case, I voiced my support then for a topic ban as an uninvolved administrator, and I am voicing my support for it now. seicer | talk | contribs 17:18, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fully support a topic ban; "retiring" to avoid sanctions does not magically undo the behavior that lead to the sanctions. A topic ban was appropriate then, it is still appropriate now. — Coren ^(talk) 17:28, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No objections. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 17:29, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IF K4T will sign on to the attempt to give clean slates, forget old feuds, and work as an honest broker for consensus that we spoke of above,, then I vote for a clean slate and let bygones be bygones. If he can't do that, then let the community impose whatever sanctions consensus seems fit to met out. Others who have engaged in misbehavior. Lots of editors could use a fresher start there, and he deserves no less. The atmosphere seems to be changing, and if he wants to be a part of that process, now that he is aware of it, great. If he does not, then I imagine your eagle eyes will be on him and he will quickly hang himself.Die4Dixie (talk) 17:43, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse the topic ban. As far as I was concerned the result of the last K4T topic-ban discussion was that he was placed under restriction. K4T's apparent attempt at evading sanctions by "retiring" makes matters worse in my view. I'd also like to remind involved users that MastCell asked for "editors actively editing the Obama page [to] refrain from comment here." If you want wider input please allow those for us who are uninvolved to review this--Cailil ^talk 18:23, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• This is a continuing battleground, and it needs to be cooled off. From what I've seen, K4T is a prime instigator in the battles; I'd support a topic ban through the elections. K4T notes above that he has been working on other articles and broadening his spectrum - this is a good opportunity to keep up that effort. Tony Fox (arf!) 18:35, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support until after the election. Good editors are spending too much time fighting over the same issue rather than being able to work on the rest of the article. At least one other WP:SPA needs to step back and take on other topics as well to broaden his Wiki horizons. Another editor has taken a recent interest. Please people, do not get hung up in one place only. --StuffOfInterest (talk) 18:50, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

:: I resent your characterization as unhealthy. Which part of civil is the inference. I request that you retract that statement, and I will assume that some momentary lapse has provoked it and charitably forget that it was made. Senseless provocation like that is gratuitous and can't possibly be a part of building an encyclopedia.Die4Dixie (talk) 18:57, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For reference, Die4Dixie (talk · contribs) has just edited my comment up above. The context of the statement has been changed because of this. --StuffOfInterest (talk) 19:21, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And they've just warned via a template for it[39]--Cailil ^talk 19:28, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And I responded to you there. As a new adminstrator, you should know better than to cleverly template an editor with my longevity .19:31, 25 July 2008 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Die4Dixie (talk • contribs)

His reply is pretty poor and assumes bad faith. seicer | talk | contribs 19:33, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see that my good faith efforts to work towards a consensus and peace making efforts on the page have been reduced to an "unhealthy interest". Pages that one chooses to edit are chosen by a principle of free association. I have no obligation to edit anything other than what I choose. there appears to be a bandwagon here. I removed an attack here, was templated, and the band wagon was cranked up. This behavior by three administrators, one recent, can only serve to elevate the level of wiki-drama that I and other editors have tried to dissipate on matters related to Obama.Die4Dixie (talk) 19:41, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. I've noticed a recent trend to defend the Obama article against any incursion of criticism. There are/were at least 3 threads in the last ten days or so here on AN/I, plus who-knows-how-many elsewhere. (I didn't count every WP page to check.) WOrkerbee and K4T both have issues, but so does Lulu of the Lotus eaters, and she got off scott-free. There's a lot of bias showing on AN/I and at the Obama pages. Frankly, it really seems like the liberal bias we're so often accused of having is really showing. So many of these conflicts on the Obama page are because there's nothing negative there. I've looked, and EVERY single item of contention has been shrunk to a minimum. The more I look at it, the more I realize any criticism is white-washed or marginalized. A few editors are opposed to that, but they get constantly shouted down because Obama's got tons of internet savvy supporters, who are pushing criticism off the page. It's hard to see how this is defended when the major offense is INCIVIL behavior in light of the POV swaying going on. They may need a CIVILITY PROBATION, but to topic ban people who offer balance and dissenting opinions specifically during the election period, to 'keep the page quiet' shows an agenda is being pushed. Obama looks good against McCain without Wikipedians pushing things. If this were the other way around, a glistening McCain article, I have to say, I believe we'd be seeing a different result here. It may be societal, but when we see such a push going on, silencing the voices that speak out entirely is a black eye for Wikipedia. ThuranX (talk) 06:11, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse topic ban for K4T, as before. No need for the ongoing disruption. R. Baley (talk) 06:23, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• As suggested by myself back on 13 June 2008 [40], my position has not changed and I agree that a longer duration (of 4-6 months is warranted). Endorse topic ban. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:30, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ABSOLUTELY NOT RESOLVED. MCMVOCALIST is the same HIGHLY involved admin in all of these Obama related threads. He closed out the last one, above on this page, in which K4T and others were accused of shit. He dismissed all the pro-Obama editor problems as not problems, then again sanctions those editors seeking to bring balanced criticism to the page. NCMVocalist is absolutely unqualified to neutrally close this section, Especially since his actions were to wait just two hours after a lengthy objection and close it in the position he has previously advocated. Neutral, previously uninvolved editors and admins are needed to review this material. Obama's page is not neutral, and the editors seeking to include balanced criticism are unable to do anything because the pro-Obama editors seek to whitewash all criticism. This is one of the most viewed pages on the project right now, and we are not meeting our responsibilities by keeping fair criticism off the page. I request, formally, that NCMVocalist not touch this thread again. He's got a conflict of interest and, at this point, an apparent vendetta against numerous editors seeking to include balanced criticism. It's a shame that some of Obama's supporters are out to make the rest of us look like partisans, when his good qualities will shien through anyway. but POV pushing needs to cease there. ThuranX (talk) 16:56, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your request is denied. Please refrain from smearing me with any part of the title, 'highly involved admin' (a meritless accusation) - you need to take a break and become familiar with (or refamiliarise yourself with) WP:UNINVOLVED, first and foremost.

The ban has been imposed with the overall consensus of the community, with full endorsement by 8 uninvolved administrators. Kossack4Truth is welcome to appeal the topic ban in the future. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:22, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ThuranX, you are incorrect. Ncmvocalist is not an administrator. Ncmvocalist, please stop archiving threads. Thank you. Risker (talk) 19:14, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That IP address User:128.197.130.249 who just kept mass-adding a sentence to a lot of biographies claiming that that person's papers were at the Howard Gotlieb Archival Research Center was blocked after attempts to get him/her to stop and discuss it has gone back to just readding them all again after the block expired. Still no response on the talk page. I don't know if this is just a bot or a stubborn person ignoring us or a person who somehow doesn't see the notice that there's a message waiting for them. They may need stronger blocking, and a roll back of edits or something. Most of all some sort of two way communication to get them to understand why this isn't appropriate would be nice. DreamGuy (talk) 19:14, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted the current edits -- I believe the old ones have already been reverted by various editors.

I've had some luck in the past, when some BU IPs were vandalizing my user page, in contacting the SysOp at BU. They never responded, but the vandalism stopped. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 19:27, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am an administrator in the office in question, and this controversy has just been brought to my attention. Would someone please direct me on how to initiate the process for opening a dialogue on these problems and concerns? Thank you. Sdnoel (talk) 19:49, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You should probably look at this for beginners. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 20:08, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And this Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 20:15, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for that information. I will confer with the Director on this matter. We are, in fact, attempting to inform researchers that the archival collections of these individuals are housed at Boston University. We report our holdings to the National Union Catalog of Manuscript Collections, but not all researchers go first to the Library of Congress; many of them come to Wikipedia. We are a resource for researchers, and our goal is simply to help them to find us. Boston University may not be the first place a researcher would look for the papers of, say, David Halberstam or Oriana Fallaci because neither attended Boston University. Neither did Gene Kelly, Fred Astaire or Bette Davis, but we hold those collections as well! Our only goal is to assist researchers in their work, but apparently those who manage these pages find the simple edit we seek to add is not sufficiently detailed. We wanted to direct researchers to Boston University without adding incredibly detailed listings and overwhelming each entry. Isaac Asmiov’s collection is several hundred boxes large, and the inventory is several hundred pages, for example. UltraExactZZ made use of our “Notable Figures” database to check facts. This database contains information on important correspondence found throughout the various collections, but is not an inventory of each specific collection. For example, we do not have a Tennessee Williams Collection, but there are several collections which do contain TW correspondence, and the Notable Figures database will help a researcher to discover which collections they are contained in. The two or three letters he finds under “Michael Denison” are only those listed in other collections; Denison’s collection is far larger. Another admin, J.delanoy, indicates that it would be physically impossible for us to house all of these collections. It is very possible; we hold the papers of nearly 2000 individuals in over 7 miles of storage space (as calculated by linear feet). These are “good faith” edits, but I understand the community does not find them sufficiently detailed. We appreciate the work involved with maintaining the standards of Wikipedia, and will have to consider how to move forward. Any suggestions would be welcome. With nearly 2000 collections, adding detailed listings is simply not an option considering the resources we have to make such entries. Perhaps, as suggested above, adding HGARC as an “external link” might be the most appropriate way to proceed. I appreciate your time. The volunteer who was adding these listings for us was in no way attempting anything malicious. Thank again for taking the time to educate me in this medium. I hope we can find a way to make this work and get the information on our holdings to the people who need it.Sdnoel (talk) 15:23, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Wikipedia isn't a place to advertise your paper storage company. You should try the yellow pages. Beam 18:32, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is an extraordinarily rude comment. The person is asking for assistance, it should be offered, within what our guidelines and policies allow. Responses like this are part of the reason I find, talking with academics and others, that Wikipedia sometimes has an extraordinarily poor reputation. --Abd (talk) 19:34, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry you took it that way. Just for you, here goes:

Mr Sdnoel: Although it may be helpful to hardcore researches that you house the papers on a specific topic, that alone does not allow for it to be included in these articles. If an article on someone already discusses these papers you house (whether specifically the papers being in your facility or not) than adding that "These papers (or a copy of) are currently stored/available at *****." may be appropriate. But it can't be a wholesale addition of that info to every article. I recommend bringing this fact to the talk pages of each article respectively, and seeing if such an inclusion would be accepted by consensus. Beam 19:39, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"paper storage company"?? Yikes. I mean, everyone makes mistakes, but that shouldn't have been an "I'm sorry you took it that way" as ANYONE reading it would take it that way. That didn't even come close to meeting WP:CIVIL, WP:BITE and all that. Geez. Unrepetent spammers are one thing, people trying to find out how to follow policy deserve more respect, especially ones from major academic groups who had every best intention.DreamGuy (talk) 22:22, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Whatever is going on here, it doesn't look like vandalism. There may be, indeed, material appropriate for inclusion in some articles, and the problem was that material was being mass-added, by an IP editor, which looked like vandalism or spamming. For starters, a registered account should be used, and a few references added initially, to work out what is acceptable and what is not. Then, once that is done, and assuming that appropriate standards are developed, mass-adding could become possible, probably not by someone affiliated with the Center, to avoid conflict of interest. Beam, that was better, and, in fact, the solution Beam suggests is similar to mine. I.e., at least, it starts with single edits and a finding of consensus. --Abd (talk) 19:45, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is another possibility. I see that we have a section on this Center: Mugar Memorial Library#Howard Gotlieb Archival Research Center. A category could be created for persons whose papers are archived there, and this category could indeed be mass added. Something like Category:Papers archived at Howard Gotlieb Archival Research Center. This would, in fact, be the most efficient way of noting this in a biography. And the same could be done for other archives. None of this requires administrative action, this incident report should be closed.--Abd (talk) 19:53, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I came back here to see if anyone else got an email from the Boston University contact, and I see he found this page. I was originally going to see if someone else who was semi-official ad hoc spokesperson (instead of an unofficial one) wanted to explain to him what policy was, but after Beam's response above and so forth I think I owe the guy an email myself, being the one who wrote the warnings on the talk page and who placed this notice here. DreamGuy (talk) 22:22, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You know, sorry for the post again, but the more I think about this, the more I think that some official consensus-approved standard template way of alerting people to where papers or other research material about specific authors (or etc.) are stored is exactly the sort of information that could be useful. People who want to do new research beyond the standard published sources may not be anywhere near a majority of our users, but they ought to be encouraged and assisted if we can. The original complaint I saw was not that the info that papers were available at Gotlieb was there but that it was misleading in context because papers were also available elsewhere... the quasi-bot-spam-whatever concerns came later. I don't know that a category alone will be helpful, because those should only document things in the article itself (those are for sorting purposes, not information circulating) and are very easy to miss. It seems to me that we ought to consider a more official way of handling this information in the articles themselves. Anyone want to suggest a better place for discussing this? DreamGuy (talk) 22:40, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An adequate mention of this Archival Research Center could be a short list (5-10 names) of famous people whose papers are housed there. This could be included at Mugar Memorial Library#Howard Gotlieb Archival Research Center. I don't see the need for a category of people whose papers are stored there. Wikipedia is not a directory. These papers are not published, they are not an online resource, and they can probably be consulted only by qualified researchers anyway. EdJohnston (talk) 22:56, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if anyone would care to step in and examine Special:Contributions/FalconPunch2? The user has been involved in edit wars in the fairly recent past, but no warnings or actions were taken. At this point, all of his additions have been reverted as simply WP:OR or not WP:V. I've placed a note on the users talk page, and need to step back, and unfortunately there's no other place for me to bring this up. The 3RR notice board won't work, since I'm not risking an edit war myself, so we won't even get to that point. Advice? Intervention? Yngvarr (t) (c) 20:23, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notify him of this ANi. Beam 03:04, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yngvarr, have you notified him of your personal complaints that you lobbied in front of this notice board? Beam 19:41, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Having had some involvement with the editor in question I have notified them of this discussion. Also would like to extend some concerns about Falcon's edits as some are POV pushing. treelo _radda 23:20, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:Lundeunge.jpg - apparently a vandalised template, though I'm having trouble working out where the vandalism has been done. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:33, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, it seems to have been fixed now. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:34, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a persistent and consistent vandalism; I've seen it maybe half-a-dozen times in the month or so I've been patrolling. is it the same vandal? also, would it be possible to write a bot to watch for it and snip it (and the IP that posts it) as soon as it pops in? --Ludwigs2 23:54, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm starting to suspect that some of these moves are being done by copycats, some are targeting specific targets more than once, Grawp constantly jumps to different topics. - Caribbean~H.Q. 00:31, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

well, the Grawp thing usually aims at templates (which would limit its range of targets), and it's a very elaborate bit of code, so it must be pre-fab and might be passed around between different vandals... it would be nice if we had some data on how often and where it pops up, and maybe from where, to see if we can localize the region it comes from. any admins bored enough to want to do the grunt work?  :-D --Ludwigs2 04:25, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

well, it's tough to say where all these trolls are coming from. nevertheless, Each of us should Deny them recognition. –xeno (talk) 14:29, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Comment removed) -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Mrrph-mph!)} 18:37, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Paranoid much? Sounds like Grawp has already won if this is the mentality that you all revert to. Chunkiermunky (talk) 18:47, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Denying him recognition, or throwing accusations towards a known troll site that has a running beef with us (I have spake with Xeno since; it's not who I thought it was vandalizing Commons; thus, comment above removed)? In either case, we are understandably paranoid - he's recently taken to email bombing people, hoping he hasn't found someone who's heard of a spam filter. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Mrrph-mph!)} 18:59, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Lawrence Solomon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• William M. Connolley (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Lawrence Solomon has criticized, in the press, the actions of User:William M. Connolley in regards to articles on the subject of global warming.[52][53] (The argument has echoed to other places, including the media blog of the American CBS network. Connelley Connolley has nonetheless continued to edit the biographical article on Solomon, despite being asked to leave it to others because of the obvious conflict of interest.[54] Request outside opinions. Kelly ^hi! 23:43, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - apparently a similar issue regarding this user has been discussed here before. Kelly ^hi! 23:47, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can't spell my name. Have another go William M. Connolley (talk) 23:48, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

<undent>I've moved the conversation here due to the possibility of damage to Wikipedia's reputation. We don't need overt battles with the press over ownership of critics' articles by the Wikipedians they are criticizing. I'm just looking for consensus that WMC shouldn't be the person editing Solomon's article. Kelly ^hi! 23:58, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've checked the last few edits (and there are only a few in the last several weeks), and see no sign of problematic editing. In particular, with such a low number of edits the claim of "ownership" is absurd. Moreover, if we allow any journalist to simply get rid of critical voices on Wikipedia by writing an article on the critics, we will run into problems with WP:NPOV immediately. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:06, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Um, doesn't this open up the possibility of people who have articles about them being able to control, to a certain extent, who edits the article? Mr. X doesn't like what Editor Y has written about him, and would prefer Editor Z, so he criticizes Editor Y to the press and all of a sudden Editor Z's input is no longer balanced by Editor Y. Why Wikipedia want to hand over that kind of influence? Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 00:15, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The edits that Connolley has made to that article so far seem fair and uncontroversial. As long as it stays that way there shouldn't be much of a problem. Lawrence Solomon may think differently about it, but that's up to him. Cla68 (talk) 00:51, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - By way of full disclosure I will point out up front that WMC and I have had our differences of opinion in the past which had become heated. Given that, I would merely point out the following:

• [55] and [56] have already been reverted, the first by me and the second by User:Oren0.
• My reversion of his first edit merely brought the Lawrence Solomon article into conformance with the The Deniers: The world-renowned scientists who stood up against global warming hysteria, political persecution, and fraud article where we had extensive discussion, [57], and had already worked out a consensus wording, [58].
• WMC's response was to try and start up the same discussion in the Lawrence Solomon article on the same issue as he had in the deniers article.
• I would hope that WMC would see fit to refrain from editing either of the above two articles given the criticism he has received in the press on this very topic, i.e. using the BLPs of his enemies as a forum. I would submit that whether or not that is even true, if he wishes to avoid even the hint of impropriety this particular BLP would be one to avoid for what should be obvious reasons, lest he prove that criticism correct.
• As you are all aware WMC has many friends and there are many editors who share his views in these areas. Those editors will be more than capable of defending those viewpoints without the obvious entanglements that WMC faces or the potential damage that might result to Wikipedia.

Take these observations for what they are worth and decide for yourself whether WMC is being controversial in his editing of these articles and whether he has a WP:COI in this case. --GoRight (talk) 02:06, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Having just reviewed WP:COI in some detail, the opening sentence provides a reasonable summary: "COI editing involves contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote your own interests or those of other individuals, companies, or groups." So, if we are to decide whether a WP:COI exists in this case the first question to answer would be, does WMC have any self interests with respect to editing the BLP for Solomon and/or The Deniers? I think that the allegation of WP:COI here boils done to the following:

1. Lawrence Solomon, rightly or wrongly, has publicly written about the conduct of WMC here at Wikipedia in a strongly negative manner, see [59].
2. It is, therefore, in WMC's own self-interest for Lawrence Solomon and his works to be discredited because this will cast doubt on his accusations regarding WMC.
3. WMC has on several occasions made disparaging remarks regarding Lawrence Solomon's credibility here on wikipedia, see [60], [61], [62], [63] as well as on his personal blog, see [64] and [65].

I will not offer any opinion here. I leave it to others to weigh this information accordingly and determine whether these issues and WMC's conduct rise to the level of WP:COI. --GoRight (talk) 04:46, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will offer an opinion here. This is not a correct application of policy. What if someone notable makes a public statement abusing collectively everyone who edits Wikipedia: can none of us then edit their article? You propose anyone with a blog can CHOOSE who is eligible to edit the article about them just by attacking everyone else. Why don't we stop this sort of silly time waste and get on with what matters, like the vandalism problems etc.?--BozMo talk 06:55, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your question: If I beat the shit out of him for his comments about us 'pedians than yes, I should not edit his article. Beam 19:44, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not weighing in one way or the other. I am only offering up evidence for consideration by others who can be more objective than myself. If this evidence amounts to nothing then simply ignore it.

On the narrow issue of this having an effect on Wikipedia's ability to offer objective criticism, if the criticism in question is only supportable by one individual (or a small handful) I would question whether that criticism belongs in the encyclopedia in the first place. At that point it begins to look very much like someone (or a small group) using the encyclopedia as a forum (basically Solomon's point) rather than it being truly objective criticism. The encyclopedia has many voices and we should rely on them all, not just a few. I very much doubt that those supporting the consensus view are so limited in number as to worry that the elimination of a single voice on a couple of pages is going to cripple their ability to offer criticism. They are, after all, the overwhelming majority as we keep hearing. --GoRight (talk) 18:56, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:COI is simply a guideline for editors who have just arrived at wikipedia, who are not yet familiar with the wiki rules who may have a conflict of interest to stick to, in order to make sure they don't violate the usual wiki rules like NPOV when editing wikipedia. If WMC is violating NPOV or does something else which is objectionable, then that should be discussed. WMC is, of course, a very experienced wiki editor, and WP:COI doesn't apply to him. Arguably, WP:COI is redundant and should be deleted. Most editors edit anonymously anyway... Count Iblis (talk) 21:11, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Count Iblis is correct that WP:COI does not apply, or, rather, that it does not apply directly. However, editors with very strong feelings about a topic are generally advised to exercise caution with regard to it. The situation which is raised by this report is a serious one, and there is an appearance, rather easily seen, of a cabal supporting Connolley. I am not claiming that there is a literal cabal, but it became clear to me when I came across Wikipedia:Requests for comment/GoRight that there was a troubling pattern of what appeared to be tag-team reverts, uncivil edit summaries from the beginning, all the way up to improper blocking by an involved administrator. Attempts to bring this to the attention of involved administrators, on my part, were met with incivility and what I can only describe as arrogant dismissal. I have avoided, so far, forcing any issue, hoping that these editors will recognize the damage that is done to Wikipedia when a group of editors, and especially if it includes administrators, become attached to some POV as being NPOV, with any new editor with a contrary POV being, then, a "POV-pusher." NPOV, actually, is not in opposition to any POV, but transcends them; another way of putting it is that it includes them, though, because of WP:UNDUE, it isn't quite that simple. In any case, I'd highly recommend Connolley avoid editing, in way likely to appear controversial, articles on his critics! While it is not literally a COI, as described in WP:COI, it is, in substance, and it could come back to haunt him. --Abd (talk) 23:29, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The thing to look at is conduct. If he does anything, then deal with it, but until then, let it ride. WMC is generally a pretty cool guy, or at least he has been in my interactions with him. Jtrainor (talk) 01:22, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This morning, after I created the article about the Open Web Foundation, I was surprised that seven (yes 7) minutes later the article was already nominated for speedy deletion for an alleged, unverified, copyright violation. This despite a clear guideline in the criteria for speedy deletion stating that "Before nominating an article for speedy deletion, consider whether it could be improved, ...". No attempt was made by the administrator to check if the article could be improved as he acted mechanically over a bot indication that their MAY contain a copyright violation.

I then had to engage in a race to avoid the speedy deletion by tagging the article with a "hangon" tag, editing the article and providing proper explanation in the talk page.

Two hours later, another administrator changed the speedy deletion tag for another one, still calling for speedy deletion but for another reason. This time because the article did not "indicate the importance or significance of the subject". If this second administrator had spent less than a minute checking the relevance of the subject, they would have found lots of reliable sources. Therefore this second nomination was also violating Wikipedia guidelines.

Finally after other edits from myself and another generous contributor who added some references, a third administrator accepted to remove the speedy deletion tag entirely.

My point here is that at no time did the first two administrators consider they were violating their own guidelines of considering whether the article could be improved before nominating it for speedy deletion.

During this process we have exchanged a lot of messages on the discussion page of the article instead of improving the content of the article. A big waste of time for nothing because the cops@wikipedia won't consider they could have been violating their own guidelines and nobody will blame them for that. Uiteoi (talk) 00:20, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If an organization fails our notability guidelines for inclusion, it will be deleted after a discussion about whether it should be deleted. The fast track to being deleted, which you have experienced, involves summarily deleting an article when it doesn't state why it's important. The simple way to avoid this is to state why the organization is important. Simply existing is insufficient rationale for notability. If you want to contest a deletion, please consider taking your concerns to deletion review. --slakr^\ talk / 00:31, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that no administrator is willing to consider whether the article could have been improved per the guidelines for speedy deletion. So either change the guidelines or notify administrators to not be overzealous and check if the article can be improved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Uiteoi (talk • contribs) 00:34, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a short article about a new org and it was speedy deleted once as blatant advertising (Wikipedia gets a lot of org spam). I wouldn't assume the admin was thoughtless. If there is no meaningful assertion of importance, an experienced editor is likely to think there is nothing to improve. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:41, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly is your point? There is no pending deletion now that the problems seem to have been fixed. The article wasn't deleted, no harm done, we can't unspill the milk. Deletion taggings can be frustrating... but it's a necessary system to make sure the stuff that needs to be deleted does get deleted. --Rividian (talk) 00:42, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, to correct your misunderstanding, the first two people you mention were not administrators - administrators have the ability to delete articles, so would not have needed to tag them. Fritzpoll (talk) 00:45, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Admins should not delete things on sight. They should tag them and let someone else look at it before it goes, just like everyone else. The more eyes the better. --Masamage ♫ 00:48, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Admins will add speedy tags so that another admin can concur with the suggestion. Admins are not perfect. We don't always delete on sight. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:49, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I know, I mostly wanted to point out that if they were admins, this would have been a more obvious violation of policy, but I didn't word it well. The important correction is that the taggers were not admins. Fritzpoll (talk) 00:52, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Understandable complaints. The trouble is there's a lot of work to do on improving the encyclopedia, and so people frequently do hurry with stuff like this when they believe it to be uncontroversial. The good news is that a deletion of an article can be undone just as easily as anything else--it only takes two or three clicks. So even when people are wrongfully cavalier, you can always get a deletion review as Slakr stated and discuss the article's merits even when it's gone. Meanwhile, no harm seems to have been done; we just all need to be patient with each other.

The next thing to do, as Slakr said, is to add something to the article about the Foundation's notability. As the article's creator, this burden lies with you, and if you don't do it soon, someone else will probably try to speedy it. I would help, but I don't know anything about the subject matter, and a brief google search doesn't reveal a lot of notability. It's of course possible that I'm missing it, but I'm leaving the house soon and don't want to put too much time in. So please add what you know, or if you like, we can move it into your user-space to work it up to speed before putting it back in the encyclopedia-proper. --Masamage ♫ 00:48, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• This has been talked to death at the article talkpage. There's really no administrator action necessary here, that I can see. He's assuming terrible faith of the both the initial tagger and the deleting admin. This has also been explained to him at the talkpage. I don't know what else can be done for this user. He seems to be wanting to extract a pound of flesh from the tagger and the deleting admin, but I just don't see any actionable mistakes on their part. S. Dean Jameson 00:53, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The harm done is that we are now spending more time defending edits rather that contributing. This is happening more than ever. I am really tired of this. If these users were not administrators I don't understand why administrators can't consider that nonetheless there was indeed a violation of the guidelines for speedy deletion. Feel free to delete the article, or improve it yourself, I will no longer contribute to this bureaucracy. Uiteoi (talk) 00:59, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So long! Tan ǀ 39 01:02, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are the one who brought this to this noticeboard... the deletion tags were already gone and resolved. Sometimes articles get tagged for deletion... it seems as if you wanted to sanction everyone involved. That's just not practical... people tag articles, sometimes the tagging ends up being unwarranted... but really it's just water under the bridge in the long run of Wikipedia. We do not really sanction people based on one incident that didn't do any actual harm. --Rividian (talk) 01:23, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

-undent-

This form of behaviour is what I refer to as 'shit and run'; unless used on an article that obviously have no merits, it is extremely rude, especially when done to a new article. People who hang over recent changes like vultures so they can quickly slap speedy or prod tags on any articles that do not spring fully grown from the forehead of Athena are the worst type of editor. Jtrainor (talk) 04:12, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, the first speedy tag was perfectly fine. It was for G12, blatant copyright infringement, as CorenSearchBot (talk · contribs) correctly detected the article to substantially be a copy of content from [66]. Notability or the lack of an assertion of it has nothing to do with it. It is you, Jtrainor, who are rude in labeling routine attention to copyright issues as "shit and run". The copyvio is still in the article, which should be speedily deleted by the administrator closing this discussion as resolved. The second speedy tag was also correct under A7 for lack of assertion of notability, although the tagging admin might just as well have deleted the article. We are not a blog; people who write articles must expect them to be speedily deleted if the articles are not much more than a few sentences copied from teh interwebz.  Sandstein  07:09, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What an appalling example of bad faith. I am referring to Jtrainor's comments above. Corvus cornix_talk 07:23, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What needs to happen is that wikipedia administrators, and would be administrators, need to be less hasty at slamming these tags in violation of Wikipedia guidelines. It is way too easy to slam these tags while someone is actually working on a new edit or article. As for the so-called copyright violation, it was maybe an improper citation of an extract of the charter of a public non-profit organization. Instead of slamming these tags, there are other ways, which in many case would be more appropriate, such as writing on the discussion page or to the (non-anonymous) user. You, the administrators, need to work on facilitating the work of contributors, while helping them provide content complying with wikipedia guidelines. Uiteoi (talk) 08:30, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that as the editor (not administrator) who originally tagged the article for speedy deletion, I would have appreciated being informed of this action taking place. I originally raised the speedy deletion as the material was a direct copy of text on this site. It also read as advertising, and for a day old organisation I felt that it would be difficult to prove notability (I'm constantly reminded that we don't report news). I considered the merits of the article, as I do with all before tagging them for speedy deletion. I then attempted to engage with the editor concerned, both on my talkpage and the article's talkpage. I am concerned that the original article creator seems to be fixated upon process failings when the process worked as intended, and instead disregards the fact that he introduced copyrighted material. I am also concerned that he has ignored good-faith attempts by myself and ohers to help him create better articles, and instead has focused on this singular purpose. If my action was incorrect, please let me know, however I feel I acted carefully and in good faith. Many thanks, Gazimoff_{(mentor/review)} 09:14, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked carefully, and I agree with Gazimoff's statement above. It is true that editors and admins should always act in good faith, but it is clear that Gazimoff followed this during the talk page discussion. There are no grounds for admin action here. PeterSymonds (talk) 09:32, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did not want retaliation against any specific user and I fully understand that we all make mistakes, and I certainly did make some mistakes. Maybe this was not the right place to voice my complaint but I did not find any other place and was directed here by an administrator. What I would have liked was 1) an acknowledgment by administrators that the guidelines for nomination of speedy deletions had been violated and 2) to study in good faith, how we could make wikipedia a better place for helping and rewarding contributors contribute instead of hastily slamming tags at them. --Uiteoi (talk) 09:55, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the problem here is that they weren't violated. None of the list of actions suggested by the policy as being preferable to deletion could be performed here, and since there was no earlier, non-copyright violating article to restore, deletion via the same guidelines you are talking about was an appropriate suggestion. Once you had made some corrections, presumably removing the copyright violation, another editor reviewed the article and found that there were further guidelines to be followed - given that you had corrected the article, it would not be unreasonable to assume that an assertion to notability would have already been made. All you had to do was add the assertion to notability, then ask the tagging editor to remove it, or rely on the administrator who would have read the article and removed the tag after reading the assertion.

So, as far as I can see, no guidelines were violated. For your other suggestion, perhaps going and talking to the folks over at new page patrol would be worthwhile, or amending the policy on speedy deletion by talking to editors on that page to add some kind of rule on allowing time for articles to be built. I hope this helps Fritzpoll (talk) 10:10, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding, following the review of this matter and a brief look at the article in question, is that someone created an article that was in violation of several Wikipedia tenets - and is complaining that instead of acting within the guidelines (which they did, since a bot recognised the same text as being on a site with a copyright logo at the bottom), the reviewers should have "improved" the content? I am frankly amazed at such a condescending attitude. It is the writer/creators responsibility to provide content that falls within the encyclopedia's guidelines, to be familiar with the rules and guidelines, and to only copy material that is subject to public domain status. All these requirements are indeed listed in the editing window (and from memory, is even more apparent when creating an article), so the author has no ground to complain - and to wikilawyer over the wording of the deletion tagging guideline when no regard has been taken of the editing rules surpasses even arrogance. All this for an article for a day (or so) old company. Now, if I was an abusive sysop I would hike over the article and delete it as non-notable, as the basis of notability is not "potential" but effect, but I shall allow other contributors make that value judgement. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:57, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to a friend of mine from college who works on the Report, Steven Colbert has discovered that any article he mentions on Wikipedia is immediately locked. Consequently, they are going to do a bit on Monday where he reads a list of articles to see how many viewers can get to them before they are locked. Appearently the joke is to say that each thing is not really that thing, but really something else. For example, aardvark is not really an animal, its a hard coating on the outside of a tree. They continue revising the script right up until they tape the show so the list may change by Monday evening, but as of now it is as follows:

• Aardvark
• Bulgaria
• Charlie Chaplan
• Don King
• Elephants (yes we've seen this one before)
• Frank Lloyd Wright
• Gilgamesh
• Hoisin sauce
• Italy
• John McCain
• Kremlin
• Leopold Kronecker
• Marrakesh
• Niigata
• Orcas
• Polo
• Quebec
• Randolph Carter
• Silver
• Tarantella
• Uganda
• Victor Victoria
• Winnipeg
• Xenon
• Yellow Sea -- I can only imagine what this one is
• Zwide

Just thought you guys should have a heads up. -Anon colbert watcher (talk) 01:33, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Funny guy. Tony Fox (arf!) 02:25, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the list--we don't protect articles preemptively, but we'll keep an eye on the Report. --jonny-mt 03:14, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We have protected articles pre-emptively for Colbert in the past. I fielded a specific request from Jimbo prior to one of his appearances to lock a few. [67] for instance. Phil Sandifer (talk) 03:52, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ya get the feeling Colbert is not taking wikipedia seriously? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:04, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Phil, while I think your preemptive protection back then was right, I also have to agree with Jonny now. While this anon's warning is good to have, any action before "air" (that is to say, taping) could be used against us. It's kind of a live grenade, in fact. Anything we do or do not do proactively, as well as anything vandals might do proactively, could rebound. I think letting it go and keeping our eyes open is not only the safest, but least show-worthy thing we could do. --InkSplotch (talk) 04:20, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is the wikipedia policy, if any, regarding action to take, if any, when there is knowledge of impending vandalism? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:23, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:IAR? I suggest someone watch the show and report back here. John Reaves 05:11, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

maybe we should bite back. whatever words Colbert ends up using on his show, let's work them into his article - for instance, if he mentions 'aardvark', I think we should edit in some scandalous information about his pet aardvark Humphrey. that'll teach him to mess with wikipedia...  ;-) --Ludwigs2 04:34, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

lol I completey agre. The only way to fight and exortation of violence is to vgiorously violate WP:BLP as oftne as we can :D

w/re: Bugs's quesiton, if there is soid proof of impending vadliams, (as opposed to a threat by a user or forum), i think that an admin might watch out for that article. we dont want to wind up locking down a whole article just because omeone MIGHT mention it and oter people MIGHT come and vandalism it; we want to respond to actual evidnece of malfeasance force. Smith Jones (talk) 04:37, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fuck that guy is funny. I suggest we let the articles go haywire for a couple days till they get bored, then we revert back to the good version and carry on. Lets not feed the really funny trolls. And to the fella who suggested Colbert was not taking Wikipedia seriously, I suggest that he only mocks serious subjects. Chillum 04:38, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure there are enough administrators who are also Colbert fans that they will react accordingly when they have to. Gary King (talk) 05:25, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And subjects that take themselves seriously while having major failings that he can use to show hypocrisy. Like Wikipedia. ThuranX (talk) 05:29, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the show is taped ahead of time, I doubt there's much to worry about. -- Ned Scott 05:32, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, to float an idea that popped into mind: why not use this opportunity to give reversion flagging a trial run? All we need is the devs to turn it on temporarily (it's already installed and in use on the German Wikipedia), and then an admin to go flag the current versions as stable, and set stable versions to display for those articles. Then people can vandalize to their hearts' content, and it won't show up to the general public. --Slowking Man (talk) 07:47, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now there's a nice idea. Enable it as a trial run for a couple of days, then turn it off again. It would be a nice test in any case, but timing it to coincide with a predictable vandalism burst would be icing on the cake. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 11:59, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of days? The Harding thing went on for like 2 weeks. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:24, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Turning on a major mediawiki extension because a new user's friend might work for Colbert and they might do a bit about Wikipedia on Monday is over doing it. A trial run of flagrev may be warranted but not because there might be vandalism in the future, that's already a given. —[DeadEyeArrow – Talk – Contribs] 13:07, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think semi-protecting these at around 11pm on Monday, and leaving the protection for 24 hours would not be unreasonable. Phil Sandifer (talk) 12:56, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly think that the vandal-patrol is up to the task regardless of how much he dishes out. If we semi-protect preemptively, Colbert wins. What we should do is keep an eye on the articles, and only semi-protect if it gets bad, just like any other page. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 13:09, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely. Because then he'll say, "Look, we got them to react just on rumors!" Leave the pages alone until or if something actually happens. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:00, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Colbert is not our enemy. He is not encouraged by how successful vandalism is. He's encouraged by whether people laugh. Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:28, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And if any Colbert-driven vandalisms are dispassionately reverted just like they were any other vandalism, then there's a good chance the humor factor goes away... and so does Colbert. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:48, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why... would... we... want that? Phil Sandifer (talk) 20:11, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, my mistake. We love Colbert. We welcome his vandalisms. It will help reinforce the wikipedia motto, "any moron can edit". He could be our poster child for that motto. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:38, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do love Colbert. He's funny. The vast majority of his viewers get the joke, and recognize that nothing he says "in character" is seriously intended. I have no doubt that he does not support vandalizing Wikipedia. My understanding is that he loves us and thinks we're a great resource. And he draws lots of attention to us. That he does it on his own terms - as a comedian who plays a specific role - is not a problem, nor is it his fault that a tiny minority of his viewers are either oblivious to the joke or complete assholes who want to cause trouble. Phil Sandifer (talk) 22:52, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, the only page I see in that list that would be a huge problem is John McCain, and that has been semi-ed since March. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 13:11, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't underestimate how far-reaching our article on Hoisin sauce is. —[DeadEyeArrow – Talk – Contribs] 13:25, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Um has no one thought to question whether the anonymous friend of a supposed Colbert employee is really a reliable source here? This could just be a joke to make us protect a bunch of pages out of paranoia. --Rividian (talk) 13:18, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]