Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive454

User:Moldopodo
has been mentioning the words "defamation" and "slander" a lot in the last few while since the end of his one month AE block. He has been also accusing editors of defaming and slandering him. IMO, this is in someway an attempt at legal posturing and as such a violation of WP:LEGAL. As a result of this, I call for a indefinite block and ban of Moldopodo due to (1) his past and current disruptive attitude to the project, and (2) his consistent use of the words "defamation" and "slander" as an attempt to get his way (WP:LEGAL violation). These sysop actions, if approved through consensus, will be preventive as it will prevent Moldopodo from creating further disruption. nat.utoronto 02:51, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

This is borderline....I'm leaning towards a warning, an explaining of WP:LEGAL and why comments like those aren't acceptable. But... I don't know, I'm going to think a bit more about it, this is just my initial reaction. Beam 02:57, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Saying someone is slandering you is not a legal threat. Saying you're going to sue someone for slandering you is a legal threat.  I'm making no other comment on Moldopodo's behavior, as I haven't looked into it and you haven't provided diffs.  If he's being incivil, or disruptive, or something, make your case based on that.  But a block (or even a warning) per WP:LEGAL won't fly, IMHO. --barneca (talk) 03:00, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * My suggestion of a warning would be discussing civillity and how accusing other editors repeatedly of attacking his character does him no favors. And the explaining of WP:Legal just so he knows it, and he knows that "slander" and "defamation" are used in legal ways some times, and although accusations of defamation and slander, although not a violation of WP:Legal, aren't good anyway. Beam 03:14, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh, FFS. "No legal threats" != "no legal terms", period. This histronic hyper-sensitivity really doesn't help matters any. And your proposed explanation just comes off as condescending, even in theory, and won't defuse the matter in the least. --Badger Drink (talk) 03:17, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah you're right, any time we try to educate newer users and give them knowledge of policy is a fucking retarded waste of time. Beam 03:22, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Beam, that was inappropriate. Please calm down and try to remain civil yourself. A comment about civility may be in order, considering the user's past history. However, a block for legal threats would be excessive and probably overturned. Hers fold  non-admin (t/a/c) 03:29, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Excuse me? Sarcasm and the phrase fucking retarded aren't uncivil. And I suggested a personal warning, no template as well as an informational explanation about what WP:Legal is just to inform. And I definitely did not suggest a block, far from it. I agree with you on that point. :) Beam 04:12, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Please understand that when you use the term "fucking retarded", it may be misconstrued as an incivil personal attack. Even if it's not actually in violation of WP:CIVIL or WP:NPA, it's still not good anyway. We also have a policy against adding unsourced material, which you may wish to read. See what I mean? I agree that this editor could use some sort of talking-to, but I doubt dragging random bits of policy into said talking-to is going to win the talker-to'er any respect - and with an editor of this sort, it basically boils down to whether or not they respect the community and the project, or not. If you win their respect, things clear up. Make a fool of yourself in their eyes, and it just means further headaches and (likely) an eventual block. --Badger Drink (talk) 03:35, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Meh, I was trying to give a way for Nat to feel that he got his point across while being helpful and nice to the user in question. And you're right, my sarcasm wasn't in violation of anything. Beam 04:12, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Haha, the edit conflict with Hersfold kinda killed the heavy-handed irony I was going for, but anyway! --Badger Drink (talk) 05:51, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Tossing around legal terms, while not the best way to get around here, aren't violations of WP:NLT. There's a reason why it's called "no legal threats" (emphasis mine). By the way, you can't slander anyone on Wikipedia. — Kurykh  03:45, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You could with an .ogg file... --barneca (talk) 03:50, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, licensing that file is going to be hard. Oh wait, no...you can release it in the public domain. :) — Kurykh  03:52, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * An .ogg file uploaded here would be regarded as in permanent form and therefore constitute a libel rather than a slander, and thus harder to defend. -- Rodhull andemu  10:58, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, after I wrote that last night, I actually read the defamation article, and realized I misunderstood the difference (it's not spoken vs. written, it appears to be permanent vs. transient). I was kind of hoping no one would notice, but of course there are too many eyeballs here.  Why, oh why, couldn't NCMV have speedily archived this sooner, before Rod could see it? --barneca (talk) 12:00, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, there's never one around when you need one is there, then three turn up at once? Not intending to be critical, just getting things right. -- Rodhull andemu  12:50, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Marvin Diode
As per this diff. User:Marvin Diode deleted my thread here for no apparent reason. I'm going to repost, but that is highly inappropriate behavior. MSJapan (talk) 23:39, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It was almost certainly accidental. Depending on which link one clicks to edit, it's possible for other editors to make intervening changes that are lost when ones own edits are saved. Sloppy, perhaps, but not malicious or intentional. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 19:30, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It was indeed unintentional, and I left an apology on MSJapan's talk page. --Marvin Diode (talk) 20:43, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I need help.
I don't know how to report user User_talk:SesquipedalianVerbiage for vandalism. He is deleting sourced statements at Solar Cycle without explanation, and is deleting warnings from his talk page. Lakinekaki (talk) 10:05, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * First, editors are welcome to remove warnings from their talk pages. Doing so is an indication that they have been read. Second, you are engaged in a content dispute, not a case of vandalism. Third, in his edit summaries, SV has repeatedly directed you to Talk:Solar cycle where another editor has tried to open a discussion there regarding the disputed text. Please go there and discuss it to resolve this content dispute. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 10:16, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I added different text, and much better sourced. Lakinekaki (talk) 10:18, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The point is that if the editors who disagree with you are attempting to engage you in discussion on the talk page and you're not responding, you're in the wrong until you go there and make an effort. If that fails, your next step is dispute resolution, not this noticeboard. (Full disclosure: I am not an administrator.)--Steven J. Anderson (talk) 10:27, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * So, you're admitting that rather than talk, you'd prefer to keep trying to shove in an edit other editors have asked for discussion on? That's an admission of edit warring.
 * I request a block for Lakinekaki, who admits above to edit warring. ThuranX (talk) 14:56, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think it's warranted... yet. Contribs are concerning but not indicative of an all-out edit war yet; the article's talk page is being used and dicussion may go forward. Tan      39  15:00, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Eplgleplcl and User:Vria reported by Ohconfucius (talk)
Moved from WP:AIV. ➨ ЯEDVEЯS has wasted eight of nine lives 11:10, 25 July 2008 (UTC) Time reported: 11:08, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Single purpose accounts Eplgleplcl and Vria have been persisting in disrupting the article and associated talk page in concert, with flagrant attacks against people living or dead, and in violation of WP:A, WP:RS, WP:BLP, WP:Coatrack.


 * 1st incident: 00:36, 2 July 2008
 * 2nd incident: 12:02, 19 July 2008
 * 3rd incident: 01:57, 20 July 2008


 * Related talk page vandalism
 * 1st incident: 01:58, 20 July 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 12:17, 19 July 2008

Related vandalism by suspected sockpuppet User:Vria

 * 1st incident: 7 June 2008
 * 2nd incident: 00:13, 8 June 2008
 * 3rd incident: 12:11, 14 June 2008
 * 4th incident:12:54, 18 June 2008
 * 5th incident:07:44, 7 July 2008
 * 6th incident: 11:28, 15 July 2008


 * Related talk page vandalism
 * 1st incident: 12:12, 14 June 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 12:49, 15 July 2008

Related vandalism by suspected sockpuppet User:Iuqdropgl

 * 1st incident: 00:50, 25 July 2008
 * Related talk page vandalism
 * 1st incident: 00:49, 25 July 2008

Ohconfucius (talk) 11:08, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Diff of vandalism warning: 18:55, 25 July 2008


 * User:Eplgleplcl and User:Vria indefblocked as blatant SPAs, for persistently adding unsourced defamatory material despite being warned. User:Iuqdropgl looks suspiciously like a sock, but I've just left a warning for now. EyeSerene talk 13:47, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Plaintiff in lawsuit against Disney
New user appears to be Royce Mathew, the plaintiff in a lawsuit against Disney over the origins of the Pirates of the Caribbean films. All of Disneysuit's first-day edits appear designed to blanket Wikipedia articles with information about the suit and its targets. While the suit has attracted some media attention, Mathew's tactics and Wikipedia edits suggest he's a gadfly who wants to try the case in the media and is unwilling to follow the encyclopedia's guidelines and policies. Disneysuit also created an autobiography of (surprise!) Royce Mathew that was speedily deleted, then created it again with similar content at Royce mathew. There's no evidence that this user understands concerns raised about WP:COI and WP:AUTOBIO, among others. He's now posting rants that include "I DEMAND THAT YOU PROVIDE A SUPERVISOR" when his edits and behavior are challenged. &#151;Whoville (talk) 22:57, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * If all his edits so far have been disruptive, give him a stern final warning saying "Look, we're not here to promote any side or lawsuit. Stop it or else you WILL be blocked."  Seriously, that talk page just reads like a three-year-old throwing a temper tantrum because his daddy took away his I.G. Joe. I also deleted another page he created (User talk:BlackPearl14/Desk) as an attack page. -Jéské  (v^_^v Mrrph-mph!) 23:11, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Already done. We'll see if he continues. Toddst1 (talk) 23:17, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I've also issued a warning of my own warning him that if he keeps up assuming bad faith or trying to push the lawsuit onto us, he'll be blocked, though I'm not sure if he'll heed it. I tried to be as outright and civil as I could. -Jéské  (v^_^v Mrrph-mph!) 23:27, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, then we are done here? one more COI breaching edit and we send this account to Davy Jones' Locker. -  Ca ri bb e a  n ~ H. Q.  23:56, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Davy Jones' Locker? Why not the World that Never Was? -Jéské  (v^_^v Mrrph-mph!) 00:00, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I would like to thank you for removing that page. I wrote that page to showcase my works and then he came along and vandalised it. I apologized already to him for being rude, but I think that about cuts it. He called me "corrupted" and "meritless" and then attacked me verbally. I am very, very hurt and shocked by this sort of behaviour. This man is an adult and yet he cannot see reason. I agree with you: Davy Jones's Locker is the best solution :) Aparna BlackPearl14 00:45, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

You have hypocritical standards. You list other artists and lawsuits etc.., yet you pick and choose only the facts that favor a business notably the Walt disney Company ,and then you make you issues about lower case "m" and make false claims. Clearly you justify a concocted reason to shut down this account. I am notifying that you are in breach of your company/business guidelines. I am seeking to file formal complaints. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Disneysuit (talk • contribs) 00:13, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * This smells like a legal threat. Blocking indef. -Jéské  (v^_^v Mrrph-mph!) 00:22, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * He's requesting an unblock and a meeting with Wikipedia's "owner". -Jéské (v^_^v Mrrph-mph!) 00:46, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * He's also claimed false things at me such as that I speak with a small group of editors who work alongside me and accept my every move. I do not. I was just telling him that it isn't write to write something in his own POV and then expect us to accept it. I understand if I get blocked, and I accept it, but I wish he would stop hurting my feelings so much. I am a mature adult and I am really quite astonished to see this sort of behaviour. And Jeske: thank you for deleting that page for me. I don't want to have to tread upon it again. Aparna BlackPearl14 00:49, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Null persp, Aparna. -<font color="32CD32">Jéské <font color="4682B4">(v^_^v Mrrph-mph!) 00:51, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Denied and page protected. SirFozzie (talk) 00:52, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm a bit thickheaded: what does null persp mean? Null perspective? On what? I'm sorry if I'm only adding fuel to the fire :( <font color="#CC5555" >Aparna <font color="#667722">BlackPearl14 00:56, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You know, null perspiration. No sweat. -<font color="32CD32">Jéské  <font color="4682B4">(v^_^v Mrrph-mph!) 00:58, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Gotcha - thanks! :) <font color="#CC5555" >Aparna <font color="#667722">BlackPearl14 00:59, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * He sent me a legal threat thru the email system. As such, I've also revoked his email privileges. -<font color="32CD32">Jéské <font color="4682B4">(v^_^v Mrrph-mph!) 02:06, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

If anyone gets tired of this I am ready to take up the hand holding. Leave me a message if needed. --mboverload @ 06:29, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think we need to worry any more about him unless he comes back as another user and continues the behavior that led to his block (i.e. vague legal threats, accusations of cooperating with Disney to suppress info on his lawsuit, and repeated assumptions of bad faith on those who revert his peacockery). He's blocked, his talk page is protected, and his email privileges have been revoked. -<font color="32CD32">Jéské <font color="4682B4">(v^_^v Mrrph-mph!) 09:13, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Seems to me that I recently read an article about how major corporations, like Disney, (it was specifically mentioned), have hried peopel just to watch the Disney related pages. We should be careful of that side of the edit war as well. ThuranX (talk) 00:42, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

A public apology for my stupidity 3 years ago...
I would like to make a public apology for my stupidity 3 years ago, when I was logged in as User:The Bad Tax Man. I did sock a bit, with some sockpuppets tagged by Golbez, but now I've grown up and realized my stupidity. I was only 19 back then and in uni, but now I've grown up. I'm posting this from a public PC right now because I'm on the move. Sorry if I'm evading my indefinite block, but I want to apologise if I upset everyone. I was stupid, but now I've moved on. --217.36.218.31 (talk) 19:33, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Nobody's going to string you up for evading a block if you're making a legitimate attempt to reconcile things. If you want to (positively) contribute, you can post an template at User talk:The Bad Tax Man, with a link here. Cheers,  caknuck  <sub style="color:black;">°  is back from his wikisiesta  20:44, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism at Abdul Ahad (disambiguation)
The vanity biography of a non-notable astronomer was deleted via an AFD, and later attempts were made to recreate it 4 times. However,, who I suspect to be a sock of keeps restoring a link to the talk page, without any clear logical reason to do so.

The user has repeatedly restored link to the talk page in the disambiguation page, despite being told not to do so. I have reverted his edits 3 times, and would be happy if someone else can take a look and possibly undo this.

Diffs: this, this and this. --Ragib (talk) 16:14, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not an administrator, but I have some interest and training in astronomy, so let me chip in. I hadn't heard of this guy before, but he seems notable enough for a biography, so I support recreation; he's been in a few newspapers, including the Guardian, apparently, and on TV and BBC radio.  Being given an Honorary Membership in the Bangladesh Astronomical Society is an achievement too.  I'm not saying he's the next Hubble, but he's at least worth a short article.
 * However, I strongly disagree with User:Uranometria's reversions given above; a link from article space into Talk space is never appropriate, and he needs to settle disputes instead of just uselessly thrashing the page ("BRD)". -- tiny plastic Grey Knight &#x2296; 16:29, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * For exactly that reason (no links to talk from mainspace) I've reverted again. Unless further reverts happen it should be fine. I'm watchlisting the page, just in case. <i style="color:green;">lifebaka</i> (talk - contribs) 17:06, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Me too. There is now a talkpage discussion about if it's appropriate to recreate or not; please use it, guys!  -- tiny plastic Grey Knight &#x2296; 17:14, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

FYI
Enemies of me have been having a gay-old-time attacking me at WT:FRINGE. Of course, this is not the place to do it. So I removed the discussion of me (which was extremely personal and offensive) with this diff. Just giving you all a heads-up for the eventual brouhaha. ScienceApologist (talk) 13:59, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The material wasn't that bad, and looked to me to be well on track towards being a great linkable archived discussion of 'why is this fringe thing so mean to me and my wacky ideas?' each time a new editor asks. I agree that it opened with some shots at you, but the more you obscure things like that, the more Ludwigs2 and others will attack you for it. I'm going to publicly ask you to restore that section. You're welcome to ignore it now, the focus has shifted to why those two are in the wrong, so hiding it now, after hours of discussion, isn't a sensible way to handle it. had you blanked it after the first four or five comments, I'd support you 100%, but the conversation's grown and changed course. ThuranX (talk) 14:51, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

WorkerBee74 on Obama page again
has returned from a one-week block for incivility and wikigaming on Barack Obama-related articles to wikigame again and provoke yet more dissent and rancor. I hope not to have to rehash the disruptive history that got us here, or to respond to personal attacks made against me for trying to deal with this disruption.Wikidemo (talk) 20:45, 19 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I support Wikidemo's post here. Tvoz / talk 20:59, 19 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Uninvolved editors and admins are encouraged to carefully review the diffs Wikidemo has posted. WorkerBee74 returns to the page, olive branch in hand, and requests mediation. He's told in semi-polite terms to f--k off, and generally treated with barely concealed contempt, and he gets a little annoyed. The memorable phrases "disagree/ provoke/ report" and "whining exaggerated report" were coined in this content dispute with good reason. 74.94.99.17 (talk) 21:24, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The foregoing message is by one of WorkerBee74's likely IP WP:SOCKs. See Suspected sock puppets/WorkerBee74.  "Whining exaggerated report" and "disagree / provoke / report" are phrases this and and some other disruptive editors coined to attack me for dealing with their misbehavior.  This report is not about me.  Wikidemo (talk) 21:33, 19 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I coined that phrase and other editors and administrators have warned you that you attack me by using such dismissive language as disruptive. Your action of reporting people here does not give you license to attack people. Your previous bleating behaviour about me and shrill attacks are unacceptable, as well as your psuedo-officious talkpage warnings are passive agressive behaviour. Her is one for you: Continue to engage in your antisocial behaviour, and it will be you who will be blocked. Consider yourself warned and nough of your meritless gaming the AN/I system to attack user as you did me.Die4Dixie (talk) 15:23, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * What does the "demo" in "Wikidemo" stand for, by the way? Are you a Democratic Party operative? Now regarding this "likely socks" nonsense, a Checkuser has been performed and has proven that we are unrelated. Otherwise, I'm sure you would have seen to it that WorkerBee74 was indefinitely blocked, Wikidemo. So please stop making these false accusations. 74.94.99.17 (talk) 21:38, 19 July 2008 (UTC)


 * If you read the sockpuppet report, the conclusion was that WorkerBee74 socks at 74.94.99.17 - he's certainly acting like WorkerBee74 again here. Socking on his own AN/I report to taunt and make accusations... Wikidemo (talk) 21:57, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

As a user who has edited this page, and has actually supported workerbee's POV: he indeed appears to have many socks. Now, if only an administrator would close out the one month old case on him at WP:SSP (and if Suspected sock puppets/Kossack4Truth had been taken seriously, for that matter), then we might be able to move forward. The Evil Spartan (talk) 22:46, 19 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Continued wikigaming (attacks me a second time for rejecting mediation - which seems to be the ploy). - —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikidemo (talk • contribs)
 * As the last blocking admin, and being someone with absolutely no affiliation with the Barack Obama article or US political topics, I also support Wikidemo's post here. It seems there's a lot of end-run gaming going on. Orderinchaos 13:33, 20 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Looking at the suspected sock reports and other links, I have to say that a block should be immediate. To me it looks like Gaming the system and socking.  I think it time to stop this esp. because of the showing of so many socks being utilized.  I endorse a block at this time which includes any socks that are active.-- Crohnie Gal  Talk  16:32, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Can we please do something about him, now? By taunting me again (about the ninth or tenth time) for discussing his conduct here he's throwing down a gauntlet.  Since my last report above he's insulted me again while accusing other editors on the Obama article of "ownership", "flippancy", and plotting, misconduct and bad faith over the events that got him blocked before, and accusing a nominator of an improper AfD nomination.  He's basically taken over the discussion again on the Obama article with a point that isn't going to go anywhere. Wikidemo (talk) 22:30, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

It's really time to put this to rest for good. Gaming the system should be more than enough to draw the line; proven use of sock-puppets tops it of. Maybe I'm the stupid one not to use such disgraceful "tools" to get my way? I might consider it in the future if it works that well and screw my principles of honesty. Best regards from a somehow mad user, --Floridianed (talk) 12:16, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Consider starting an RFC on user conduct asap. Remember to provide diffs, and clearly mark recent evidence of misconduct between the previous block and when the RFC has been certified. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:47, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Do we have to make the case from scratch again? We've been through this a dozen times now.  That's extremely time consuming given the extensive history here, and always acrimonious - I get personally attacked every time by this editor and cohorts and scolded by well-intentioned administrators new to the situation that it's just two sides fighting, only a content dispute, I should put up with it, etc.  Why can't we just implement the topic ban that everyone keeps proposing? Wikidemo (talk) 16:13, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think that'll be effective enough, and, I don't think admins are going to give the all clear for it. If you do the RFC, you can take it to ArbCom if it becomes a problem again. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:17, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That doesn't leave many good options. I'm not sure I want to invest that kind of time right now or be subjected to the inevitable backlash.  At an RfC people will judge the most recent behavior in isolation as a fresh issue without considering the history of the article, escalating sanctions, sockpuppetry, etc.  He has thrown the gauntlet as I said - by attacking me again, and taunting me for coming here, if you guys do nothing he's emboldened and he can do it again and blame me for "whining", deliberately provoking people so I can have them blocked, etc.  If no admins are willing to stick with it we may just end up in a free for all again on the article.  Maybe I should just start striking or deleting his comments when he attacks me.  Wikidemo (talk) 16:30, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I distinctly remember a certain Bigtimepeace saying he'd be looking at the article in response to my suggestions of individual sanctions (which got enacted later down the track anyway!) - what happened to his 'watch' over the article? Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:03, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The editor is continuing, so at this point I have deleted part of his comment and asked him to stop. I don't know what else to do.  Wikidemo (talk) 17:22, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Time out
I would like the opinion of uninvolved admins and experienced users here. WorkerBee74 is a single-purpose agenda account, one of a handful on pages related to Obama. He has been blocked 4 times in the ~50 days since his account was created. There is a strong suspicion that he's logging out to support himself with IP edits. I propose to indefinitely block this account and move on. On the other hand, an argument could be made that essentially all he does is argue at Talk:Barack Obama - note 227 edits to the talk page and only 11 to the article. A case could be made to just ignore him unless he either has a cogent, civilly expressed content point or starts edit-warring on the article. I would like some feedback before implementing anything. MastCell Talk 17:38, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * My only agenda is to make this WP biography about a famous politician more similar to other WP biographies about famous politicians. Noroton's comments at the AfD on Bill Ayers election controversy describe this group of editors accurately. Such biographies as George W. Bush (Good Article, 16 conjugations of the word "criticism") and Tony Blair (loaded with criticism on the day it attained Featured Article status) say a lot about this group of editors and their single purpose and their agenda. Trying to keep it civil here but their constant baiting, obstruction and provocation have been repeatedly rewarded, MastCell. WorkerBee74 (talk) 20:02, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * He may have a single interest here, but if he's advocating for his side using the talk page and not edit warring, then tough shit. That's the point of this. In fact, he's painted himself into a corner now ,because should he invoke WP:BOLD and add what he wants to to the page, there's every chance he'll be attacked for edit warring fast. I see no big problem with letting him continue to advocate via our approved and encouraged means, the talk page. As to the incivility, that's a big problem, as are the false accusations. However, the first example above ,where he warns another editor to not get baited and instead pursue the recourses Wikipedia, is fine by me. On hot topic pages, running a game on the new guy is common; one starts something, revs up the new guy, then others swoop in for the block requests and so on. Preventing that isn't bad, it's good and helps level the playing field. Finally ,I note that Workerbee's assessment is correct. there isn't any criticism of Obama anywhere on that page. The closest thing is the National Journal's listing of him as the most liberal senator; given they always call the Democratic candidate the most liberal (fill in the blank), that's hardly a balanced article. No block, warning and incivility probation. ThuranX (talk) 20:15, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you, ThuranX. Thank you very, very much. Zero criticism in a biography about a major party's presumptive nominee? With FA status? For any reasonable person, that alone should be setting off some alarms. Add to it Noroton and his patient documentation of these editors' relentless baiting (ask him, he'll show you). Mother Teresa would blow her cool at some of these people. WorkerBee74 (talk) 21:00, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think you're correct. There's no substantial criticism of John McCain in his article. Nor do I think any should be added; it's not a coatrack for the presidential campaign. McCain's article looks quite good to me. No alarm bells. On reading it, I don't get the sense that editors are manipulating McCain's Wikipedia article to reflect the opposing party's talking points. (OK, it does have a crappy "McCain in popular culture" section). A review of the last couple weeks of editing there looks reasonably calm. Agenda-driven single purpose accounts are quickly handled. I think something similar can be achieved on the Obama article, though I have to say I view Workerbee74 as much more part of the problem than of the solution based on the issues I've outlined above. Thanks to ThuranX for commenting; again, further uninvolved commentary is invited. MastCell Talk 21:30, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * MastCell, if you can't find any criticism at John McCain, try running a search on the page using the word "Keating." McCain was completely cleared by a Democrat controlled committee in that investigation but it gets a mention in the article lead, one or two paragraphs in the body of the article and if I recall correctly, until very recently, it had a bold section header. Try to find anything comparable in Barack Obama. WorkerBee74 (talk • contribs) 22:14, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't want to argue this here, but the Keating Five were subjects of a massive investigation by the Senate Ethics Committee. That's a slightly different level of notability than Obama's relationship with Bill Ayers, though perhaps only "Obama campaign volunteers" are able to perceive it. And McCain's article scrupulously notes that he was cleared of all wrongdoing, that the event led to his interest in campaign finance reform (one of his signature issues), and that it has never been an issue in his numerous campaigns since. As the article should. But since you seem to be trying to find an angle of hypocrisy here, I'll agree that if Obama is or has been investigated by the Senate Ethics Committee or similarly substantive body, then it belongs in his article, maybe even in the lead. Uninvolved editors? MastCell Talk 22:31, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Not so fast, MastCell. I was just getting warmed up. Take a look at Hillary Clinton. Two sections with bold section headers on "Lewinsky scandal" (where Hillary wasn't even investigated and in fact was a victim) and "Whitewater and other investigations" (where, like McCain, Hillary was exonerated). Then take a look at the October 2004 version of George W. Bush. Sixteen separate conjugations of the word "criticism." Looks like it was written by Josh Marshall. But you don't want to argue this here because it's mitigating evidence, right? WorkerBee74 (talk) 23:09, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You are correct insofar as I don't want to argue this here. MastCell Talk 23:35, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Probably because you were losing the argument in rather spectacular fashion and you knew it was only going to get worse. WorkerBee74 (talk) 12:46, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Not sure why mastcell had to put emphasis on uninvolved right after 'thanking' me. If you don't want comments, don't ask for them. fatuous thanks and snide italics? go to hell. ThuranX (talk) 22:39, 21 July 2008 (UTC) All due apologies. ThuranX (talk) 00:25, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry for the misunderstanding - I did not mean to dismiss your comments in any way, only to solicit more uninvolved input in addition to yours, rather than more argumentation from involved parties. I apologize for the misunderstanding. MastCell Talk 23:27, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Mention the article devoted to this controversy briefly in the body of Obama's article, with a mention of the fact that despite all the "controversy", Obama has nothing in his past to suggest this sort of thing, and has condemned Ayers' past actions. This is a non-issue, but the fact that it is a non-issue can be documented, and should be. II  | (t - c) 22:43, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Article probation
The several previous ANI discussions about editorial conduct on the Obama page clearly do not resonate enough, and problems have still not ceased. I think we as a community have had enough of this drama. I propose the following restriction be enacted:

The Obama related-pages (broadly construed) are subject to the following terms of article probation. Any editor may be sanctioned by an uninvolved administrator for disruptive edits, including, but not limited to, edit warring, personal attacks, incivility and assumptions of bad faith. Sanctions imposed may include restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors, bans from editing the Obama pages and/or closely related topics, blocks of up to 1 year in length, or any other measures the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project. For the purpose of imposing sanctions under this provision, an administrator will be considered "uninvolved" if he or she is not engaged in a current, direct, personal conflict on the topic with the user receiving sanctions (note: enforcing this provision will not be considered to be participation in a dispute). Sanctions imposed under this provision may be appealed to the imposing administrator, the appropriate administrators' noticeboard or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators are not to reverse such sanctions without either (1) approval by the imposing administrator, or without (2) community consensus or Committee approval to do so. All sanctions imposed are to be logged at Talk:Obama/Article_probation.

Need community consensus to impose this. If it needs any tweaking, let me know. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:33, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The terms and conditions of article probation are already in effect. Admins Gamaliel and Rick Block are participating on a regular basis now; they're "involved" but they can call for other admins very quickly. What we have here, NMCV, is a group of editors who have developed marvelous expertise in what Die4Dixie accurately describes as "disagree/ provoke/ report" and what ThuranX described as one editor "revving up" the newbie so that others can report him. They engage in a constant stream of low-level provocation and baiting. False accusations are being used as substitute for a discussion of a proposed edit on its merits. Every trick and stratagem in the book is being used to block anything negative about Obama, and get rid of any editor who seeks to introduce it.


 * Don't reward this behavior.


 * One of them gave up an account of several years because he was afraid he was about to be outed as a Democratic Party operative. I suspect there are others who differ from him only in being more careful about concealing their Democratic Party links. WorkerBee74 (talk) 13:21, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * This is completely inappropriate behavior for Wikipedia. You don't get to level accusation after accusation against other editors based on nothing but your own imaginings.  If your present behavior is any indication, your previous problems were entirely because of your reaction to normal Wikipedia interaction.  If you want to be a positive presence on Wikipedia, you must learn to play well with others, even if, especially if, they disagree with you. Gamaliel (talk) 15:06, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong support --Clubjuggle <font color="#0047AB">T /<font color="#0047AB"> C 16:03, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I heartily welcome such attention to the article. As someone who has been repeatedly berated by the involved editors as a "whiner", liar, etc., for participating on this noticeboard in a non-administrative capacity, I ask that we clarify that good-faith, plausible reports of editor misbehavior, SSP and checkuser requests, and other  are not impermissible assumptions of bad faith, but that taunting editors for their good faith participation in administrative discussions is considered disruptive.  Non-admins can be honest dealers too.  Thanks, Wikidemo (talk) 16:12, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, casting aspersions (assumptions of bad faith) has been, and continues to be a major problem in this area. It is unacceptable for editors to continually make accusations in an attempt to besmirch another's reputation. Engaging in tendentious argument is also futile. Any concerns should be raised in the appropriate forums, if at all. (Eg; sock-puppetry accusations go as a checkuser request or to WP:SSP) If users have concerns about the continual filing of reports against an individual (should that happen) as if it were an act of harassment or something else, then they should pursue WP:DR. Accusations, attacks and the like are not to be scattered through article talk page discussions, as it further contributes to a toxic environment. The proposed article probation is intended (in spirit, if not by the letter) to tackle these sorts of issues as well. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:10, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I support any measure that encourages users to play nice, but I'm wondering why we need probation for the article and why we don't just impose it on the particular troublesome user. Gamaliel (talk) 17:14, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not the first user who has been troublesome there, and been subject to lengthy ANI discussions, blocks etc., and for some time to come at least, won't be the last one either. I think the proposed/new scheme should be more effective in dealing with any other problems/problem-users, both now and in the future. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:27, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * In that case, I support this suggestion. Gamaliel (talk) 18:43, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I support this suggestion as well, although how it differs from current practice will clearly need to be explained on the talk pages. I suggest we apply this to both the McCain and Obama pages.  There don't seem to be quite as many problems on the McCain pages at this point but applying this to only the Obama pages would no doubt be characterized by some as evidence of a pro-Obama slant.  -- Rick Block (talk) 21:42, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * What previously required constant community consensus for each individual editing restriction can now be imposed at the discretion of an administrator. I'm not sure it can be extended to McCain pages in the absence of any major problems, like the Obama pages have encountered in the last 3 months. It's primarily intended to deal with editorial misconduct; an important BLP should not be subject to a toxic environment, especially for that long. But if the community wants to deal with both issues at the same time, I certainly do not have a problem with it. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:52, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Support. About time. Please give a warning first, except in egregious cases. I hope that at least several administrators get involved in this. Editors should understand that baiting/taunting/goading by someone else will not be considered an excuse for their own behavior. As FT2 has been saying recently, we're each responsible for our own behavior. I expect monitoring administrators to set a good example in their own communications and follow procedures to the letter -- otherwise you may start repelling good editors from the articles. Noroton (talk) 02:57, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I support (as noted, I'm not an admin). Gathering up thoughts from the above discussion could we include some or all of the following?  "Except in egregious cases editors should receive at least one warning, or must otherwise be clearly aware (1) of the terms of this article probation, and (2) that their specific conduct is deemed problematic, before any administrative sanctions apply.  A heightened standard of civility applies: editors should not on the talk page post comments that disparage or make accusations regarding each other's alleged biases, veracity, editing ability, conflicts of interest, status as legitimate editors, and so on, whether directly or indirectly, by name or by reference to groups or edit history.  All commentary about editor behavior should be directed to appropriate dispute resolution forums, or a sub-page created to discuss edits on the talk page, which reports if made reasonably and in good faith are not considered to be in violation of the article probation." - Wikidemo (talk) 04:03, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Probably not; the standard wording I've used for this remedy is sufficient. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:43, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree the attention would be welcomed;however, the standard practices of civility etc. are more than adequate. I would suggest one warning from an uninvolved administrator to the talk page of a truly offending editor and than true sanctions starting with 24 hour topic blocks and escalating thereafter. I think most editors could use a clean slate there. I do think that the "friendly" warnings often do not serve to calm a situation, but rather to inflame. if we can get someone uninvolved in editing to watch, it would be warmly welcomed.Die4Dixie (talk) 05:06, 24 July 2008 (UTC)05:05, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The clean slate is okay, if only people will take advantage of it to get a fresh start. I think the concern isn't the occasional isolated lapse of temper but long-term low tension that's developed among editors.  At the risk of too many rules we could ask that any official warnings under the probation system be left to uninvolved administrators.   Wikidemo (talk) 05:54, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I'm done here unless there are more suggestions.--Die4Dixie (talk) 06:06, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment. This idea is on the right track, but before officially supporting I'd like to see some input from admins who have experience with enforcing Arbcom sanctions, for example, admins who have logged any blocks or bans under Arbcom cases. The above proposal, though it does not come from Arbcom, has the flavor of those kind of sanctions. Also, whoever is going to impose those kind of restrictions will need to follow the Obama page night and day. Do we have admins willing to volunteer for such hazardous duty? EdJohnston (talk) 18:54, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I think (I might be corrected if I'm wrong) there are 2 admins, Gamaliel and Rick Block, who are regularly looking at it (although, I don't think any admin in the world will want to do it as exhaustively as you've suggested :) nuh uh). Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:51, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Since both Gamaliel and Rick Block are active in participating in the discussions on that page, neither is likely to be in a position to do anything more than report problematic edits and comments -- just as any other editor would. Given Rick Block's statements to me on my talk page, I have no faith in his ability to step back from someone he disagrees with and give a fair assessment to an uninvolved admin. What we need are multiple, uninvolved admins who get a sense of what individual editors have been doing on those pages because they've been watching them regularly. MastCell has done some of that, but I haven't seen that admin comment on this section of the thread. In the past, some other admins have said they'd watch those pages, but I haven't seen evidence of that. This proposal of Ncmvocalist's will not work until we get what we've always needed: multiple, uninvolved, admin eyes aware of the context and attached to fingers willing to warn and block for clear misbehavior. Noroton (talk) 21:04, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * There's a rub. Any administrator moderating the Obama pages will get drawn into content - and probably they should.  We need moderation to handle POV pushing, accusations of bias or imbalance, reliable sourcing, weight issues, BLP vios, dealing with perennial proposals, keeping discussions on track, declaring a discussion closed or an edit to be with or without consensus, etc.  Otherwise we don't solve the process problems that keep the article in an indefinite stasis while generating long heated talk page fights.  Such a person can be fair and unbiased, but as soon as they tell an editor that their praise or derogatory comments about Obama are out of line, or issue a warning or administrative action, they're likely to be accused of taking sides or having an agenda.  They end up in a war of words with the offending editor, trying just to justify their own actions, and  so their neutrality is not accepted by everyone anymore.  That's what seems to have happened with Gamaliel, Rick Block, and perhaps other administrators on the page.  Noroton is clearly a serious, capable editor, and I think his questioning of Rick Block's neutrality and fairness is a fair, good faith concern - not that I agree necessarily, just that it's a fair question.  I'll let people form their own opinions on the recent dispute between Gamaliel and WorkerBee74 on WB74's talk page.  How can one draw a distinction?  Wikidemo (talk) 22:06, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Gaming the system by User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters
At Barack Obama, User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters has engaged in low-level edit warring and provocation for the past 48 hours. 

LotLE is fully aware of the 3RR rule and all of its components. He/she has successfully had other editors blocked under this rule, not for four reverts in a 24-hour period, but for violating the spirit of the rule. He/she is attempting to remove any mention of controversial Catholic priest Michael Pfleger, and a photo of Obama with Gen. David Petraeus.

This is low-level edit warring coupled with low-level provocation. Please notice the edit summaries. He/she directs other users to the article Talk page where there is nothing to support him/her. He/she accuses one user of being a "contentious SPA," and notes that another has an "interesting focus" (user's focus appears to be gay rights). See also this diff on the article Talk page, where he/she encourages others to "start ignoring the provocations and sophistry of the SPA."

LotLE has a long and turbulent history of combative and provocative behavior that resulted in several blocks and countless warnings that he/she has deleted from his/her User Talk page. This is gaming the system. Both Barack Obama and Talk:Barack Obama are already semi-protected, and the article is on the verge of community probation at WP:ANI, due to such edit warring and continued provocation. LotLE is a significant part of the problem. Please take action, since it is necessary here.

I suggest a 48-hour block and a topic ban until after the election. Kossack4Truth (talk) 14:34, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry, there was no consensus for a block at AN3. Let's not forum shop for a block here. As a side note, is Kossack4Truth topic banned from any Obama-related page? <font color="#CC0000">seicer &#x007C; <font color="#669900">talk  &#x007C; <font color="#669900">contribs  14:51, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * No, I am not. And while the WP:3RR administrators are unprepared to take action on a combination of low-level edit warring and low-level provocation (focusing only on the low-level edit warring and ignoring the low-level provocation, which has an exponential effect), others here at WP:ANI who are more familiar with the turbulent histories of both the article and the user may be prepared to do so. I know for a fact that if I had engaged in such misconduct, I would be blocked in a New York minute and it would last for at least a week. Also, I would get the topic ban you thought I had. Kossack4Truth (talk) 15:00, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I've asked MastCell to clarify whether Kossack4Truth is indeed topic-banned. My understanding from the old ANI thread was that they were placed under restriction - I might be wrong.  Whether or not that is the case, as Seicer points out, Kossack4Truth is forum shopping with this--<font color="#999999" size="2">Cailil   <font color="#999999">talk 15:17, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

LotLE is definitely skating thin ice, and probably should've been blocked. Too bad we lack proactive, courageous admins who will pre-empt such behaviors with a few prominent blocks like this could've been. ThuranX (talk) 15:20, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree, it's most unfortunate. The people on one side who do the baiting and badgering get a free pass and, when the people on the other side react, they're blocked in a New York minute. Kossack4Truth (talk) 15:35, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Although Scarian and myself thought it was essential for Kossack4Truth to be topic-banned for 3 months...MastCell, Bigtimepeace and Ed Johnston were reluctant on handing out individual topic bans or editing restrictions at the time, so unfortunately, he's not. He was blocked for misconduct at a later date (just like the other individual users who I proposed be topic-banned at Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents/Barack_Obama_pages). Rather than say I told you so, I think the time is ripe for article probation as suggested in the above section. Nevertheless, I agree - Kossack4Truth is forum shopping here, so I'm closing this section. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:37, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't see this as FORUM, i see it as not getting any response at AN3, because it's rare to see admins do the big digging there. I've had reports there bounced for not including all the diffs, or for linking to the page history, not the diffs. Further, looking at that page you linked, it's clear that LotLE has as long history of edit warring. This should be fully examined here, not swept under the rug again. ThuranX (talk) 16:06, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * More than 3 admins have looked at the 3RR report, and 2 are aware of the history. Blocks are not punitive, and there has been full attention given. This type of forumshopping by Kossack4Truth is unacceptable. The page I've given is not an evidence page - it's an archived discussion, and nothing is being swept under the rug. Unless a sysop wishes to use tools or give it more attention (in which case they're welcome to reopen the thread), this should stay closed. The consensus is clear. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:19, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * So, now admins are above the rest of us? I don't see that consensus. What I see is a long slow edit warring and revert pattern on the part of LotLE. I see involved editors/admins protecting her, and blaming everyone else, instead of working to solve the problem and prevent further edit warring on the page. I think this needs more attention, and given the long-time belief that admins are no different than editors, just a coupel new buttons, I'm reopening this for wider community consensus and action. ThuranX (talk) 19:50, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Request for review: Consistant misattribution of cited sources

 * Pointers here left at Pederasty and User_talk:Haiduc

I'll attempt to present only the facts here. I'd ask for a review of the source, of the material added, and of the comments that I've left in both places. brenneman 05:12, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 02:38, 23 July 2008 Aaron Brenneman (Talk | contribs | block) (77,173 bytes) (→Post-classical and modern forms: removed sections without references: Australasia, Central America, Europe) (undo)
 * 03:50, 23 July 2008 Haiduc (Talk | contribs | block) (81,803 bytes) (restored removed sections and added refs) (rollback | undo)
 * Upon reviewing the cited source here I am unable to find support for the majority of the material.
 * I was under the impression that editing disputes did not belong on ANI. Am I missing something, here, or are you just trying to keep Haiduc so tied up he cannot edit properly? Jeffpw (talk) 05:20, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * This is not a content dispute. When an editor consistantly has problems with interpretation of sources (see Jules Verne talk as well) then this is an appropiate place to raise the concern. -  brenneman  05:31, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I've also just issued a warning to Jeffpw.  In my opinion he's been ratcheting up the heat across several venues, and is bordering on disruption.  I'd welcome a opinions on this as well. -  brenneman  05:57, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * This is difficult. Editors who give even the appearance of advancing a pro-paedophilia POV have, historically, been given very little slack, for good reason.  There has in the past been determined and wholly unacceptable abuse of Wikipedia for advocacy, and ArbCom has historically fast-tracked consideration of any such issues, and debated cases in private.  I don't think Jeffpw is here predominantly to advocate paedophilia, but some of what he is doing has the strong appearance of militant activism, and he should be aware that this is one area where militant activism is particularly problematic, due to the potential impact on the reputation of the project.  I think Jeffpw and Haiduc need to turn the heat down at least two notches and respect the fact that the default for disputed content is to keep it out of mainspace until there is agreement from all sides as to whether, and how, it should be included.  The onus is always on the editor seeking to include disputed content, to achieve consensus for its inclusion - anythign else would be a POV-pusher's charter.  In this case it is especially important to remember that consensus IS NOT agreement of a small group of like-minded users, it requires broad agreement from all sides, and additional input must be solicited if there are not enough eyes on the dispute. Guy (Help!) 09:24, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Brenneman, you could not have found a more unsuitable instance to support your contention. The citation was applicable to the text, it was from an article that discussed the extinction of the very practices discussed in the paragraph (which, as you might notice, I modified to reflect this more recent report). It is an initial citation for a totally non-controversial section. Australasian pederasty is well known and documented, there is nothing to argue about there.
 * Guy, if I was a litigious fellow I would have you strung up by the authorities here for your slur of "pro-paedophilia POV." How do you permit yourself to cast ugly innuendoes on my work on homosexual history? Is this what administrators are supposed to spend their time doing??? Haiduc (talk) 11:15, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Read it again with more care. I said even the appearance. Guy (Help!) 12:21, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think Jeffpw is here predominantly to advocate paedophilia, but some of what he is doing has the strong appearance of militant activism. Excuse me? I am not here to advocate for pedophilia at all, and I strongly resent the insuination that I am in any way doing so. If you look at my approx 10,000 edits, including one FA and 2 GAs, you'll see a minuscule percentage relating in any to pedophilism. I am anti-pedophilia, though I should not have to be forced to state this for the record.I have monitored the NAMBLA article against both pro and anti-pedo edits, to revert vandalism, and have dome the same on the Pederasty related articles. Brenneman has now threatened to block me for disruption if I continue to participate in what I see has been a civil manner. I feel threatened and intimidated by this post. And I feel besmirched by Guys quote above about my participation here. The atmosphere regarding this area of articles has become poisonous, indeed, and I do not think it is my doing at all. Is this what Wikipedia has come to? Jeffpw (talk) 12:20, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I said militant activism, I meant militant LGBT activism, not pro-paedophilia activism. There is a small overlap at the margins, and this is a key part of the problem. Guy (Help!) 12:22, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * [edit - no ec warning but post appeared here for some reason] I don't think that's what was meant by turning down the heat ;) Haiduc, I see nothing in the above post that accuses you of a pro-pedophilia bias. Guy was making a general observation about the need to be extra careful not to even give that impression when editing such controversial subjects. EyeSerene talk 12:26, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * To be sure, I think worrying about appearences rather than content isn't a great way to edit. If Jeff gets militant sometimes, well, maybe sometimes we need that. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 12:34, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Appearances are very sensitive on this subject. Very sensitive. Guy (Help!) 12:35, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * What 'we', Dev920? Wikipedia is not the place for advocacy. The notion that anyone is here to push an agenda makes me extremely uncomfortable (and, while I'm sure you weren't serious, your post does illustrate Guy's point about giving the impression of soapboxing, even unintentionally). EyeSerene talk 12:42, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Why have you linked to my name? (genuine question) And I get that people do get all icky over pederasty, but it's not pedophilia. And neither Haiduc or Jeff is a pedophile, they are long, long established editors with an interest in editing pederasty. They really shouldn't have to worry about being accused of a pro-pedo slant, their cumulative efforts here surely show that this isn't the case. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 12:55, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Heh, I just copy/pasted it from your post in edit view (now you've pointed it out though, I've realised I do that pretty much at random - I didn't, for example, with Guy. No idea why!). However, I think the point being made was not relating to pedophilia so much as militancy in other areas, to the point where it becomes difficult to accept edits in good faith because they give the impression of being decided by a personal agenda. This can be true of any group: LGBT, animal rights, nationalist, religious... the list is endless. I think appearances do matter because of this, and it's difficult to claim neutrality if we aren't seen to be behaving that way. EyeSerene talk 13:11, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Because emotions run high in editing the Historical pederastic couples article, it's difficult to pinpoint the fault of a single editor. One the one hand, I agree that the citations need to be immaculate and notes should be extensive. However, editors who are either unhappy with the outcome of the AfD or eager to see the article make vast improvements in a small amount of time, are removing content and claiming the sources do not back up the claims when I doubt they have read the sources. Then it rather dissolves into arguing over actions rather than content. I know I have not read the sources, so I am unable to make commentary on them. I have been questioned about content in other articles I have written, though, and when that happens I find my source and copy the passage I used verbatim on the talk page and discuss it there. What might help is if Haiduc posts a timeline or an estimate of how far he thinks he will get in improving the article in a reasonable amount of time. --Moni3 (talk) 12:48, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I just want to state clearly here that, due to the level of intimidation I am feeling (On Haiduc's talk page, Brenneman actually implies that I will be banned if I continue participating), and the threat of blockage for supporting another Wikipedia under attack from all sides, I am now withdrawing myself entirely from any of these debates. Call me a coward, but I am under enough stress without adding to is by trying to help a disputed article. I shall now confine my edits to Mary Poppins or The Sound Of Music....oh wait, they involve children too. Damn. OK, I'll just try to tidy Angie Dickinson's bio. That shouldn't provoke any storms of controversy. If it does, I'll just give wiki smiles to all and sundry. Wiki cheer promotes a collegial environment, no? Jeffpw (talk) 12:59, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I think we all need to take a deep breath and step back for a while. Take the disputed content out of the article, leave it on the talk page, and all just do something else for 48 hours.  There's an essay jsut created at WP:TABOO which makes a lot of sense in this context. Guy (Help!) 14:33, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * There is no reason to stop now, and I think the solution is to focus our attention more closely on what is really going on. It is not pedophilia that neeeds to be exposed here, but intimidation. I feel bullied by Brenneman's behaviour, and while my feelings are between me and my analyst, unfortunately there are objective reasons for my reaction. His gutting of the Hpc article and his belligerent response to my restoration of the Tilden entry are ample evidence, as is his even more troubling equivocation and sparring over my exposure of his behavior. The "appearance of pedophilia" accusation above was more fuel on that particular fire. It is a particularly insidious attack in that there is no defense against it, like Bush's assuring the American public that there is nothing to worry about at Guantanamo because they are all bad guys. Truthiness, welcome to Wikipedia. I am not good at chapter-and-verse polemics, so I will leave it at that. I do want to add that it seems that the suite of pederasty articles is like some sort of glue trap for sub-standard administrators (FCYTravis and Brenneman are just some of the more egregious examples) who come in and act abusively. I can only ask you people to monitor yourselves, and each other. Haiduc (talk) 15:04, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

PedCpl cite prob arb break 0
Apropos of this conversation, please note Talk:Historical_pederastic_couples, discussing Haiduc's mischaracterization of Frank DeFord's book "The Triumphs and the Tragedy", and this talk page, where Haiduc triumphantly cites Cocteau being "devastated" at the death of his friend as strong evidence that he must have been having a sexual relationship with him. This editor has a problem accurately summarizing sources, and it is negatively affecting many, many articles. Nandesuka (talk) 14:42, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Jeez, that smells of WP:OR for sure. But I return to my point above: disputed text out of mainspace and onto talk, and everybody step back for 48 hours.  If necessary we should lock down talk for a while, just to make it happen, I believe.  There are too many trees for the wood to be evident, and I think some space is required. Guy (Help!) 14:55, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Don't put words in my mouth, Nandesuka. You have a problem with objectivity and the mischaracterization ofmy edits. Haiduc (talk) 15:04, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You say? I don't see any evidence of Nandesuka having an agenda here.  You've been open about yours, which is much appreciated, but your expressed agenda means that you need to be especially sensitive to the concerns of other editors who do not share your minority perspective, per WP:NPOV.  Valid concerns have been politely expressed by editors in good standing, regarding your interpretation of sources.  In this case I strongly recommend that you present your sources on talk, and wait to see whether there is consensus to support your interpretation.  Agitating for what looks to a number of people like a novel synthesis is likely to cause you trouble. Guy (Help!) 16:03, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Y'know, I think that Guy has got it exactly right? What we are seeing here, once the clouds of suspicion, accusation and counter accusation regarding pederasty/homophobia is lifted, is a classic case of WP:BRD. We are at the stage where discussion, and therefore consensus, is required before the bold (which is another persons "controversial") content can be included. While we are taking the simple route to dispute resolution, can I just remind participants of the nutshell of WP:NPA; "Comment on content, and not contibutors."? It may be wise, as suggested earlier, to commence the discussion after a suitable period to allow all parties to engage civilly. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:12, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm mostly surprised that so much on the topic is on here at all. Most of the 'sources' attribute a modern label to ancient social behaviors, allowing both sides to push and pull on the articles to validate either 124th trimester abortions for all offenders, or to validate their molestations. Few editors seem able to keep the articles balanced, but it's fairly uniform that a modern perspective on this mess is the perspective. We would have a lot less hassle of the articles were restricted to using only sources contemporary to any part which use the term pederasty, thus placing emphasis on the modern issue, not on allegations that it's all normal because it's been going on for years (despite ancient cultures being very different than ours), or that it's all deviant because some tragedy befell the culture as divine punishment.(and good luck sourcing that shit.) Tighten up what's permitted on those articles, and you'd have a lot less trouble. I'm not sure the Egyptians had a hieroglyph for pederast, much less a body of scholarship on the matter. ThuranX (talk) 21:41, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * You keep assuming that pederasty = molestation though, and that it follows that an article detailing specific pederastic relationships thus justfies molestation - and it doesn't... it merely offers instances of pederastic relationships...
 * As to terminology, the Anglo-saxons didn't have words for cornea, the appendix, or nephrons, but if there were an ardicle listing the timeline of appendectomy including instances from before it was commonly called the appendix, we'd still be saying that it was the appendix and the operation an appendectomy. Crimsone (talk) 00:21, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * So there are Greek and Egyptian writings on the molestation and predatory behaviors of pederasty in those cultures? Great. Please cite those sources. And no, have you read the list? It's all about the glorious and eternal love blah blah blah between a molester and his victim in some cases, and turning some other "normal" relationships INTO pederasties to augment the size and scope of the perversion. ThuranX (talk) 01:04, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * No... I've not read the list... however, pedastry is niether molestation or predatory by definition. Pedastry, by definition, refers to romantic/erotic involvement regardless of whether it involves sexual contact or not. It also primarily refers to and is defined by the emotional context of a relationship, not the physical context. It's a perfectly valid term, and a perfectly encyclopedic subject. How about you "getting real" per your edit summary comment (not the most civil of comments)... suggesting some manner of delusion or fantasy land on the part of another editor is hardly becoming of you (or so I would hope). As to ancient writings, I don't know about the Egyptians, but I do know that it's a historical fact that man/boy relationships were commonplace in ancient Greece, and prior to that, the neighboring Spartans legally sanctioned and required them as part of a boy's development. They weren't always sexual (some were), though many involved a romantic bond. You're welcome to dismiss that, but to tell the truth, I can't be bothered to go looking for sources for a commonly known historical fact in order to satisfy someone who's already demonstrated and inclination to dismiss quite civil and reasoned articles based on actual definition and complete neutrality with such offensive remarks as "get real". Chances are, given your current style of communication, whatever the source it won't be good enough for you. Especially if it doesn't use the term pederasty precisely, in spite of my prior logical argument of analogy. I don't need to read the article to see it being attacked in its entireity from a POV that ignores the definition of the articles subject in favour of calling the subject something it isn't. Crimsone (talk) 01:46, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, thanks for not reading my comment clearly. If you have copies of the Spartan decrees requiring such, then you could use that in the Pederasty article, perhaps. However, if it was required, that sounds like an apprenticeship than a true romantic connection. You keep missing my point. Pederasty is a modern label for a behavior which in some cultures is not pederasty, but the normal course of behavior. Pederasty is specifically NOT normal behavior. If it was, we wouldn't need a list of such relationships. IF you can find ancient greek writings about the cultural behavior, you could cite those. You could cite the Spartan law. But you should NOT be using modern assignments of value, 'pederasty', to describe ancient cutlures' takes on relationships. ThuranX (talk) 02:11, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I missed no point, nor do I do so regularly, Pederasty is not a value term... it's a word with a definition... ie, it gives a name to a very specific object/subject. To quote myself, having said it once already... "As to terminology, the Anglo-saxons didn't have words for cornea, the appendix, or nephrons, but if there were an ardicle listing the timeline of appendectomy including instances from before it was commonly called the appendix, we'd still be saying that it was the appendix and the operation an appendectomy" Crimsone (talk) 10:33, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * No, there's a difference. And you keep missing it. However, I get tired of arguing with POV pushers, especiallty those who push the worst behaviors as normal. So I'm done debating with you, you keep arguing that child molestation is normal, and good luck with that. ThuranX (talk) 19:59, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * No, there's not a difference. The difference in it's discussion is merely that you are ascribing a negative value to a defined term that the term in itself does not carry. Actually, I'm not the one throwing around offensive and charged terms and accusations, and so before you continue do do so, I rather think it might be wise to look at the typical symptoms of POV pushing. Civility isn't one of them. Incivility most certainly is. I have said or done nothing to suggest that I either believe that child molestation is normal, or that I advocate in favour of that view. Put simply, I don't. Crimsone (talk) 20:50, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * First, read up on the 'Civil POV Push'. the essay link's around somewhere. Second, assigning a modern value to ancient cultures to validate touching kids isn't how things should be done here. Unfortunately, Civil POV pushers have pushed too many of our articles into validations of child rape and other criminal acts. ThuranX (talk) 21:10, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

(undent) *Sigh* perhaps it is... it doesn't alter the fact that my approach is from an entirely NPOV standpoint though. Pederasty isn't a value... like Appendix, it's a term with a definition. Events and occurances of the ancient world fit that definition, thus are namd by that term... a tree is a tree in whaetever century. Aditionally, it validates nothing. It merely says that it happened, which it did. Once again, Pederaty does not equate to, nor is it defined by molestation. No physical contact has to occur in a relationship, and it can still be legitimately defined as pederastic. The only way to NOT push a POV on this subject, is to view the term for what it is and how it's actually defined. Nor can it be equated to pedophilia by it's definition. If I saw a man of 30 touching up a boy of 12, whther pederastic or not, I'd call the police because it's not acceptable in today's society, and I'd find it disgusting... However, I wouldn't protest a university for holding an academic seminar on "perderasty through time - from ancient greece to the modern western world". To describe a man-boy relationship as perderastic, regardless of whether sex (consentual or otherwise) or not, in any century or culture, is correct per the definition of the word. The POV here is not on my part, but on your assignment of a negative value judgement to a defined and legitimate term, which by nature of being nothing other than a term is inherently neutral apart from the value assignments people such as you seem to believe the term automatically holds. It's a noun, and not even a pejorative at that - as such, it cannot hold or relate to such values.

I've answered every point you have served and refuted it with clear logic and neutrality. The point you seem to think I've missed is related to the value judgement that you are making on the basis of the term pederasty itself. I've addressed that here, though no doubt you'll once again say "but it's about molesting kids!" or some such thing, which you've done fairly consistently so far. In terms of incivility, you could only really go one step further which would mean a personal attack, such is your level of misconduct. The fact is, language changes, and academia claimes and defines new terms all the time - and being as they are, just words of language - descriptors of type, they apply centuries ago just as they do in the modern day - they are how we now name things, and it's really that simple. Crimsone (talk) 21:26, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * No, it's a simple as what I said. Using modern lenses to examine and judge ancient things to promote a modern agenda. It's a lame way to write an encyclopedia, and using simple object nouns to refute the use of a word which has an inherent value judgment to it, one diffused by your own 'Sparta' example, in which it's an obligation not a romantic behavior, is disingenuous. This article's got massive problems, and assigning a modern value judgment, like Pederasty, to ancient cultural norms, is manipulative agenda pushing. ThuranX (talk) 23:34, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * As I'm not familiar with the subject, I have no idea what's a reliable source, but there seem to be enough books that apply the word to ancient Greece, and the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language shows that the etymology of the word is Greek: Whether or not the ancient Greeks used the word "paiderastes", it seems verifiable enough that it can be applied to their behavior. --NE2 00:19, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Alright, NE2, I thank you for being clear and direct. That accounts for one situation, now on to all the other value judgments assigning a modern concept to ancient behaviors. One down, dozens to go. ThuranX (talk) 03:29, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you have a citation for it being a modern concept? --NE2 03:48, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * This is clearly a modern word, circa 1736, merriam-webster. While this is hardly a definative source, this example appears to indicate the level of scholarship taking place here: We shouldn't be trying to score points with cheap shots that take less than five minutes research to disprove.  No amount of retconning will change the fact that the term is a new one, even if it encompases behaviours that have been going on since day dot.  more to the point, it's a word that comes with an incredible amount of baggage, in the vein of terrorist/rebel/freedom fighter. -  brenneman  03:53, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * So the English word is from 1736, but that says nothing about the concept or the Greek word "paiderastes". Again, I have no idea if this is a reliable source, but there's a translation of a writing by Philo in, in which the word "pederasty" is used. --NE2 04:37, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * This appears to be the original text by Philo, with παιδεραστής (paiderastes) highlighted. (But, since I don't know Greek, I can't confirm that it's not a modern recipe for calamari.) --NE2 04:49, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm willing to and in this case, do AGF and all that, but language changes over time, and as a book travels through history, it's likely, in most cases, to be... adapted? mutated? changed? however you like it, but I can only think of one documented case where a modern copy exhibited almost zero change when compared to the most ancient copies. ThuranX (talk) 06:08, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't understand what your argument here is. You stated that people are "assigning a modern value to ancient cultures", but here it's clearly (assuming the sources are reliable) an ancient concept. --NE2 15:47, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Brenneman gets it, and so do you, but you won't admit it. A word invented less that 300 years ago to discuss 3000 year old behaviors isn't appropriate. Unfortunately, Brenneman's source trumps yours, because yours could have been adulterated inthe last 2000+ years. This isn't like 'apple' for a fruit the greeks ate, but we use 'apple' cause it's the english language equivalent. There's a fat stack of SYNTh and OR to assume that a social obligation in Sparta is the same as a 'voluntary romantic relationship', and you've yet to demonstrate that the social obligation of the Spartans was called Pederasty by the Spartans. EVEN if you could, you'd still ahve to demonstrate that the Spartans were able to 'romance on command', and that pederasty in the modern sense, and the spartan pederasty, IF that's what it was equal to, really were the same thing; a duty to train young men and a desire to bone them are different. ThuranX (talk) 16:27, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Did you read the sources I gave? Philo, writing at the time of the birth of Christ, talks about the "evil [that] has crept into society, namely, pederasty". He uses the Greek word παιδεραστής (paiderastes). I don't know how you can look at that and say that the concept of "pederasty" is a new one. --NE2 19:06, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * No Thuran... my Sparta example diffuses nothing... The history shows it to have been an obligation, and it also shows the relationships to have more often than not to have been or have become romantic in nature. Pederasty is not a value jusdgement. Pederast is a noun, and pederasty is applied form of the noun. Niether are value jusdgements, and that's just the way the English language works. It's a legitimate term in academic study with a specific meaning. NE2 above has gone to the level which I had not the time for, and has actually even gone so far as to offer the ancient greek etymology of the term, describing the relationships at the time in the language of the ancient greeks themselves. Crimsone (talk) 00:45, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Problem with sources re pedarasty, break 1
I'd like to refocus discussion by re-iterating the claims made in the section and comparing them to what is found in the source cited.


 * Melanesian cultures employed insemination rites source covers Gebusi of Papua New Guinea, but on this point as it is non-contentious there is some leeway
 * Sperm essence of strength ''surprisingly this seemingly straight-forward claim is not supported by the citation.
 * Not spontaneous but must be introduced unsupported by reference
 * 20% Papua-New Guinean of cultures had these rites unsupported by reference
 * Mentoring
 * Father, mother's young adult brother choose unsupported by reference
 * Educating, guiding into manhood unsupported by reference
 * Fatherhood
 * First two kids ok to "mentor" unsupported by reference
 * After that had to quit it unsupported by reference
 * Casual relationships existed this is supported by the reference, however
 * Boy had to be recipient (?) I don't even know what this means. Is this a euphemism?
 * Growth could be damaged specifically refuted by reference
 * Homo/Bi/Hetero cycle unsupported by reference

I've seen H's referencing described as “careless and garbled.” I'd say that is as generous an interpretation as it is possible to make. In the example given, even the least contentious claim is mostly unsupported by the citation, and at least one claim is directly refuted by it.

H's creative use of sourcing, combined with abject unwillingness to accept any other interpretation of sources, is damaging the encyclopaedia. Frankly, had I come across this situation "fresh" I'd have blocked him outright to prevent any further damage. I'd support a topical ban (at the very least) until H can be made to understand why his novel sourcing is a problem and some way can be found to allow him to contribute positively.

brenneman 02:26, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Brenneman, you are doing far more damage to this encyclopedia than I ever could. The density of citations that you are suggesting is found in what percentage of the articles??? And why are you so focused on the bizarre practices of an extinct society of what have been described as "homicidal banana farmers?" The material is there to illustrate the gamut of homosexual/pederastic constructions, not to recommend the practice to present-day do-it-yourselfers. To my eye your contrived "denunciation" coupled with your previous belligerent behavior are indicative of one thing and one thing only: you do not like pederasty and are out to make it as hard as possible to cover the topic. I think you should be subjected to a topical ban, you have given ample proof of an inability to be impartial. Haiduc (talk) 03:32, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you understand the problems that Aaron has highlighted with your sourcing with respect to this particular example? Do you have any explanation for those discrepencies? Nandesuka (talk) 03:52, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The "problems" are blown out of all proportion, this is a case of lese majeste made out of whole cloth. The paragraph in question was written by me in May 2005, when we did not yet focus as strongly on citations as we do now, or at least I was not aware of it. If this was the only uncited paragraph in all Wikipedia I would feel a lot more contrite about it. As it is not, I simply have to lump it with the other several million uncited paragraphs, and certainly it needs references. It would be a lot more useful to the readers if it did. At some point it will. This very instant in time I seem to be spending more time talking to other editors then doing useful work, not a good situation. However, the material as presented is essentially correct and legitimate. It is based mainly on the work of Gilbert Herdt, of whom you have certainly heard, seeing your familiarity with the topic. The material is utterly uncontroversial in the academic sense. So why is everybody getting so agitated? Do you think I made it up? Do you think I prettied it up? Do you think I added it with prescriptive intentions? I'll offer you a challenge, both of you: If the material does not prove to be largely as I have written, I leave Wikipedia for a year. If, on the other hand, it is largely as I have said, you both leave Wikipedia for a year. Deal? Haiduc (talk) 04:51, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The density of citation is what is required of Featured Articles. Furthermore, just about all of the sentences are highly controversial statements and need to be verified. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:41, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Haiduc, it seems to me that the mature solution would be to remove the material yourself, stick it on a userspace sub-page for now, then add it back in when you've tracked down the references. Does it really matter if a few days or weeks pass by without it in the article? And of course, if you don't manage to reference it, it should never have been there in the first place. EyeSerene talk 07:32, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * While I've been attempting to be a politic as possible here, the direct question has been been asked: "Do you [brenneman] think I [Haiduc] prettied it up?" Well, in a word, yes.  I've been unable to locate a copy of the particular Herdt work I beleive that you're caliming this material is based upon.  I have however found a large number of other papers that cite that paper, and they consistanly quote Herdt as saying that "from 10 to 20 percent" of cultures practiced RH.  "Ten to twenty percent of all tribes in Melanesia -- an Oceania region stretching 3,000 miles from Irian Jaya to Fiji -- have mandatory "boy-inseminating" practices, claims Herdt." That it was chosen instead to be a bald 20% in the article is, if we may be frank, "pretty-ing up."  I have been methodically examining the citations added by this user and in almost every case they are selective, misrepresentative, or simply wrong.  (As in the case above where the source directly contradicted the claim in the article.)  All material that's all material, added by this user should be removed from articles until such citations as there are can be confirmed. -  brenneman  07:47, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Located a direct source "Sambia Sexual Culture: Essays from the Field By Gilbert H. Herdt" where as predicted it says "...age-structured homoeroticism occurs in approximately 10 to 20 percent of Melanesian societies." - brenneman  07:53, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Aaron, I looked through that reference and I don't see any sort of deception here. I see a reference which supports a good portion of the text it was added to. Do you disagree that there were statements in the removed text, not included in your list above, which clearly WERE supported by the reference? Do you disagree that the reference clearly does describe youths having homosexual relationships and then transitioning to purely heterosexual relationships... essentially the 'Homo/Bi/Hetero cycle' which you call unsupported?
 * It seems like you are saying Haiduc needs to immediately bring everything he has ever written on Wikipedia, going back to 2004, up to the level of citations required for featured articles... or it should all be removed. Because he wrote 20% and you found other sources which had '10 to 20 percent'? It isn't possible that he originally (when he wrote it a couple of years ago) got that from some source which DID say 20%?
 * As I understand it, most of the statements in that passage aren't even controversial. Nobody is denying that it is largely correct... it just needs more references and a few wording adjustments to note estimates and differences of opinion in the field (e.g. growth stunting or not). Right? --CBD 08:39, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I do not believe that it is a good idea to indulge improper behavior. It does not go away on its own, but if unchecked it becomes more widespread and serious as time goes on. It also corrupts the environment in which we work here. For my part I certainly do not want to function as an enabler. Brenneman's statement that "the citations added by this user and in almost every case they are selective, misrepresentative, or simply wrong" [emphasis mine], taken in the context of his previous behavior and statements to date, amounts to defamation and harassment. I request that the matter be investigated (take my last 100 citations, for example) and if they are largely not as described by this gentlemen, that he be formally disciplined. Haiduc (talk) 11:29, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * CBD, the problem is that this is an ongoing and continuing behavior. It's aggravated by Haiduc often preferring fringe over mainstream sources.  See the discussion on Talk:Jean Cocteau for one good example of this, where he completely ignores the authoritative biographies on Cocteau.   But even when he cites a mainstream source, he tends to mischaracterize -- as in his selective quoting of Frank DeFord's book Big Bill Tilden, where through cut-and-paste he manages to construct a paragraph suggesting an ongoing relationship and a sympathetic defendant by selecting disparate sentences from a chapter where DeFord unambiguously paints a picture of a squalid assignationm and a legal case that can only be described as a horrific train-wreck. When discussing this on article talk pages, instead of  coming clean, Haiduc tends to double his bets down.  In the DeFord case, for example, he suggests that he and I "just have different readings" of DeFord.  In fact, absolutely no one who comprehends English could possibly read DeFord and then claim that DeFord suggests that Tilden had "long term loving relationships"; the author devotes an entire chapter to demonstrating the exact opposite.  If we were only talking about a few old citations that would be one thing.  But this is a continuing pattern of behavior, and I see no signs of improvement over time.  Nandesuka (talk) 12:25, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * A sterling example of straw man argumentation. My reply must await the end of the business day. Haiduc (talk) 12:47, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * CBD, it seems to me that Brenneman makes clear that he checked the source Haiduc DID use, and the source Haiduc used said something other than what Haiduc represented it to say. Given that, and given the highly controversial topic here, any statement not supported completely transparently by a source should be immediately removed. Any statement for which the source is questioned should be removed to the talk page until it can be sorted out, and in any case where a problem continues, it should be held off the article page until settled. ThuranX (talk) 23:43, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * ThuranX, you seem not to understand that I also checked the source Haiduc used and disagree with the claim that it was deceptive. Indeed, my first concern on comparing the source to the article text was that it might stray close to plagiarism, given the presence of some exactly matched phrasing. That source DOES support the text it was added to. More sources are needed, but sourcing being incomplete is completely different than sourcing being 'deceptive'. Removing contested statements without sufficient sources to the talk page IS, as you say, the proper course. But then... most of these statements AREN'T contested (just '20%' instead of '10 to 20 percent' so far as I know) and they weren't moved to the talk page for discussion. Just removed. (confused this with one of the other complaints) --CBD 00:46, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * No, I did understand. Haiduc is playing games with the statistics. Would you rather pay 10% or 20% of your earnings in taxes? When the source says 10-20%, and Haiduc selectively reports the higher end only, it's damn close to a POV push, and a certain misrepresentation of the source material. It's the sort of statistical pick-and-choosing one sees in polemics, editorials, and other persuasive essays and opinion pieces. Haiduc should either report what he finds only, without editing to his agenda or POV, and nothing else. ThuranX (talk) 03:35, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

(undent) I haven't investigated the incidents that Aaron Brenneman and Nandesuka are talking about, but I've seen Haiduc's contributions in many articles dealing with classical antiquity, and his work there is fine--both the quality of sources and the representations of them. So statements such as "the citations added by this user and in almost every case they are selective, misrepresentative, or simply wrong" are overblown, and calls to remove all of Haiduc's contributions a bit on the hysterical side. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:27, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Problem with sources re pedarasty, break 2
I cannot believe that this is an any way difficult: We have a serious problem with a prolific editor who is chronically unable to attribute material correctly. And this is not someone making up things for articles on profesional wrestling or sea turtles: This is a highly contentious, hot button issue. While I am unaffected, there is signifigant reputational risk here if we do not correct the problem now that it has been identified.
 * 1) My original statement was "I have been methodically examining the citations added by this user and in almost every case they are selective, misrepresentative, or simply wrong." That statement is correct: In every case where I have been able to actually locate the source, the information bears little or no resemblance.  I'm happy for a workshop page to be created somewhere and a working party go through them with me.
 * 2) The "FAC" line of reasoning was created from whole cloth, and was never in any suggestion that I made. I'm not a member of the "every phrase cited" brigade.  I'm happy with a single citation per paragraph (or even less) as long as there is accurate representation.

I'm dumbfounded by CBDunkerson's claim that the citation supports "mostly" the claims. I made some effort to show that it did not, and in places that it directly refuted what was claimed. I'd ask CBD to re-read my comments above: I did not find "another source," I found the source that H claims supports the statement. It, like literally every other time I have attempted to verify his claims, was a misrepresentation. If, as Akhilleus suggests, this author has done acceptable work elsewhere let him return to that, per the topical ban I initially suggested. brenneman 00:01, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Hear hear! I'm a bit more strict about it than Aaron, apparently, because I'm advocating that ANY contentious statment be pulled till separately sourced, but Aaron has provided examples of the disingenuous sourcing occurring, and there should be a topic ban for that editor, and any like him (her/it). ThuranX (talk) 00:27, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Aaron, when putting something in quotation marks (e.g. "mostly") and attributing it to someone... it is generally good for that to be something the person has actually said. Which... I didn't. What I said was that the source supports a 'good portion' of the text in question. I didn't do a mathematical analysis of the paragraphs preceding and following the reference to determine the percentage supported (presumably would need over 50% for 'mostly'). Should I accuse you of 'deceptive sourcing'? Seems more like minor sloppiness not worth making much of a fuss over... which is also how I see the examples of Haiduc's 'crimes'. He said 20% instead of 10 to 20? You say he cited the source you found... but I didn't see that source attached to the text in the article. Are you sure that was his source? The source I DID see him citing actually matched part of the article text word for word... which isn't good either, but certainly doesn't jive with it NOT supporting the text. In another 'case' he said that two people had a sexual relationship because they went to dinner, played tennis together, met at one's school, and oh yeah fondled each other's privates a few times... 'sexual relationship'? Completely insupportable on that evidence. It was just a relationship, which happened to include sex (unless we're going to get Clintonesque on the definition). Or the other one where it was completely unjustified to cite a source as claiming a relationship JUST because that source said one person was devastated over the death of the other... except that the source didn't say JUST that... it also said that they had a "romantic relationship". My take on the 'case' as I've seen it is that Haiduc's citations are not perfect in covering every clause of every sentence with no possibility of dispute or alternate interpretation... but they also don't seem like the nefarious deceits which seem to be being claimed. --CBD 01:12, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Quotation_marks. Barring that tangent, I'm confused by your claims.  While this is a trivial example, chosen from an extensive list of incorrect citations:
 * The text said "about 20%" with no citation
 * I removed it
 * H added it back, with a citation
 * I looked at that citation, it said nothing of the sort
 * H claimed here that that figure was from another source
 * I found that source, and it says "from 10% to 20%"
 * Fine, let us characterise this as simple "sloppiness." (Your choice of polarising language like 'crimes' is unhelpful as well, but I digress.) It's not a single instance of "sloppiness" it's a continuing series of misattributions or misreadings.  Let's move on to your "relationship" example, Tilden and Bobby.
 * Per the source:
 * One dinner together,
 * Played tennis together once,
 * One hand-job in the car that got them arrested.
 * Per H: He was clearly Tilden's boyfriend, even if of recent vintage. Tilden had a number of long term loving relationships with boys and there is no reason to suspect that, had these two not been busted, this might not have evolved in a similar direction.
 * I've been very careful to provide evidence for every statement I've made, and attempted to break down the problem here very carefully. Please be specific when making counter claims.  And moving on to one of your claims, that it "matched part of the article text word for word."
 * From the text H added: "...some native tribes (about 20% at the end of the twentieth century, a proportion that has since been reduced to vestigial and moribund remnants as contacts with foreigners caused western morals to become prevalent)..."
 * From the actual source: "A case study of striking change among the Gebusi of Papua New Guinea suggests that ritualized homosexuality and insemination of boys have become behaviorally vestigial or moribund and that characterizing sexual practices in these terms has been difficult to begin with (as the original proponent of these terms has himself suggested)."
 * It's clear that, as Nandesuke makes refernce to, a cut-and-pastiche approach has been taken, using the highest figure from one source combined with a snippet of text from another, and leaving out utterly the caveat that I've emboldened. I'd encourage anyone wishing to weigh in to this debate to actually take the time to look over the talk pages of these various articles to familiarise themselves with the issues at greater depth.  brenneman  02:12, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Problem with sources re pedarasty, break 7246
Sigh, what happened to the usual procedures like editing the article, discussing things on the talk page, RFC in case of problems and using this page only for vandalism, using AFDs only for AFD discusions and DRV only for DRV discussions? Currently we have discussions at a DRV and here that belong in the talk page. :( Count Iblis (talk) 00:23, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * No, this is about preventing deceptive sourcing, which is an AN/I issue. On contentious articles, it needs to be stopped fast. ThuranX (talk) 00:27, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Count Iblis, I'd welcome additional editors on the talk pages of these articles. - brenneman  00:50, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Why not open an RFC on either the article or on the involved editor(s)? Compare e.g. Requests for comment/GoRight Count Iblis (talk) 00:47, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * It is apparent to me that the admins pursuing this attack have repeatedly compromised themselves and should be disciplined for taking advantage of their position in order to pursue a personal agenda. It is not the sourcing of my writing here that is deceptive, but rather the tissue of fabrications which these people are weaving. As I have said, take my last hundred citations and prove your claim. I will not be reading this page any further, please find me at my talk page. Haiduc (talk) 01:20, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * No problem. We'll develop a consensus here about what constitutes some responsible sourcing, and let you know the new rules when we're done. Don't let the door hit you on the way out. ThuranX (talk) 02:29, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

This issue with Haiduc has also surfaced at Jules Verne... see here for details. --Ckatz <sup style="color:green;">chat <sub style="color:red;">spy  09:21, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment I've found the whole level of discourse on this subject, from admins, sadly enough, who would presumably know better, alarming. I'm sure I too can expect to be labeled a "pro-pedophilia activist" or similar nonsense and painted as advocating agendas. Throughout the AfD, the DRV and now spreading to related articles and admin boards is a level of unpleasantness that has made editing there and constructive discourse more than a bit toxic. That admins have concerns is fine, that they creep onto and even cross civility lines is not. I know that this is a sensitive area for many dealing with multiple cultural and social taboos but we can certainly deal with the subject without demonizing editors. Personally, I've had to walk away from the article as I didn't appreciate the treatment Haiduc was getting there and on these admin boards. Essentially disparaging their work, all of it. Those of us who have a depth of understanding in taboo arenas of the human experience don't need special treatment but neither do we deserve pillorying at multiple public forums in addition to the more juicy talkpage and offline arenas. Editors face enough challenges without having their reputations smeared. <u style="text-decoration:none;font-family: papyrus;color:#CC00CC">Banj<font color="#FF4400">e <u style="font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:#8000FF">b<font color="#FF4400">oi  19:06, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

The trickeries of Troy 07
It seems that the administrators have closed their eyes to the abuses of Troy 07. This user, by all sort of trickeries, has been systematically undoing or vandalizing all my edits. In the most absurd cases, he uses his "sock puppets" 66.183.101.6, 66.183.98.107 and 66.183.111.222 (and maybe others). Although some of the articles have been temporarily protected, I will not desist from restoring my edits. I hope that some administrator will prevent him from insisting on his edit war. Ausonia (talk) 14:01, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * These two editors;
 * and
 * have recently shown up at WP:AN3 (three cases will be found by searching for 'Ausonia'). There was also a sockpuppet report WP:Suspected sock puppets/200.215.40.3 claiming that Ausonia is a sock. No RFCU has been yet run, though a request could be filed. Ausonia's most recent activity has been insisting on changing technical descriptions of various Roman Catholic cardinals and sees to other titles that he prefers. Troy07 argues that the original titles are correct, and in many cases are required by WP:MOS. Pontiff and pope were semi-protected to stop editing by what seemed to be IP socks of Ausonia.
 * Re-opening Ausonia's closed sockpuppet report to impose more sanctions is one option. Ausonia's behavior does seem sockish; this is an account newly-created on July 2nd as a single-purpose account that  edit-wars on one issue acoss a range of articles. I haven't looked into whether Troy07 could be running any socks. Troy07 is also very interested in naming issues, but his account is open for a year longer, and he seems to listen to feedback. EdJohnston (talk) 15:07, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I have not edited various, but only two pages about Cardinals: Dean of the College of Cardinals and Odoardo Farnese (cardinal). My edits on the Suburbicarian Sees are perfectly correct. The prior version, however, was not correct. Troy 07 has never argued anything. How and where WP:MOS requires the "original" titles? If you look into them, you will see that those IP are sock puppets of Troy 07. There is no doubt. Ausonia (talk) 17:44, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I have not edited various, but only two pages about Cardinals: Dean of the College of Cardinals and Odoardo Farnese (cardinal). My edits on the Suburbicarian Sees are perfectly correct. The prior version, however, was not correct. Troy 07 has never argued anything. How and where WP:MOS requires the "original" titles? If you look into them, you will see that those IP are sock puppets of Troy 07. There is no doubt. Ausonia (talk) 17:44, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Note Also see    Enigma  message 20:25, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * These two have been at each others' throats for the last several weeks. Neither seems to wants to give any ground. I think this should go to an RFC, with a temporary moratorium prohibiting either of them editing articles dealing with the Catholic Church until they can come to some common ground.  caknuck <sub style="color:black;">°  is back from his wikisiesta  20:49, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I should like to comment, as an administrator, that the sure fire guaranteed way of getting sysop help for whatever problems you are having is not commencing your comment as did User:Ausonia. I read that sentence, wrote this and am now moving onto the next section to see if anyone needs any help... LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:11, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I do not insist on continuing the edit war. It's hard for me to imagine you making claims like that as you have evidently done so today. Please discuss the issue with me instead of ignoring the issue.
 * I deeply, deeply regret my part in this and feel terribly sorry for wasting the time of several administrators over such an issue, however, I kindly ask you to discontinue negative comments. I really could do without the insults, and would suggest that you use constructive criticism instead. For the most part, though, I will leave these articles for the administrators to deal with.
 * I have neither the time nor the desire to keep up with what has been going on surrounding the issue. Please don't assume that I enjoy such ridiculous revert-warring. ~ Troy (talk) 21:23, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Sehend1
I recently blocked Sehend1 for a week for his endless battleground-style edit warring without discussion. You will notice from looking at his contributions that 90% of his edits are reverts, while he has only made a total of three comments to a talk page (ever). I initially warned him but he responded by continuing his reverting campaign and making personal attacks on his talk page in which he said "Some user worried why i monitor Azerbaijani-related articles and revert destructive changes specially two enemies of Azeris: Kurds whom without knowing anything about history of Azerbaijan and Atropatane tries to force people that everywhere is Kurdistan." I explained to him here that he should read up on several of Wikipedia's policies most notably WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND. Instead, he left a message on my talk page with an IP titlted "KhoiKhoi is a Kurd", in which he said:

I don't say this story to you as i am sure you are brain washed kurd and will not affect you. i am saying this to open mind users. you can call me whatever you like, editing war, POV etc. simply i don't care. if you have power to block one IP i will come with another one. I am very very serious to defend Azerbaijan in virtual war started by Kurds and Persians againt Azeris and some Europeans or Americans are interested to slightly help them, but who cares from Azeris, we are very strong people with very high self confidence.

In his message to me, he essentially promised to continue his reverting campaign at all costs. Should we tolerate this type of behavior at Wikipedia? I'm wondering if this warrants and indefinite block, as he clearly isn't here to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. What do others think? <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;">Khoikhoi 20:12, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I seem to recall some sort of arbitration-committee restriction on articles in this area? That might be a first step. If it continues, I'd absolutely Concur with a block. UltraExactZZ Claims~ Evidence 20:34, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2. However, I don't know whether the remedies apply only to the Armenia-Azerbaijan articles or if they apply to all articles in the general area (Armenia, Azerbaijan, Iraq (Kurdistan), Iran, Georgia, southern Caucasus). — Kurykh  21:11, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I think it initially included a much broader range of topics, but this was later amended. I could be wrong however. See this for example. The user in question (Sehend1) has been mainly edit warring in Iran-related articles, so I don't think it is covered in this case AFAIK. <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;">Khoikhoi 21:28, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Aside from the comment, it looks like I'm going to have to reset Sehend's block as he's currently evading it. Sigh. <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;">Khoikhoi 22:46, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Hillock65 and User:Kuban kazak
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)


 * 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"--Miyokan (talk) 05:41, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)


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

User:Theserialcomma and Tucker Max, part 2
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".

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. .

When I requested that the user refrain from personal attacks, he ignored , prompting me to perhaps inappropriately lash out at him , 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, 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)


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


 * 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)


 * Anyone? McJeff (talk) 04:14, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

and a legacy of bad contributions
Per this, why in the hell am I still wasting time "contributing" to Wikipedia? Apparently, I'm now Wikipedia's 13th-worst administrator (or user; I'm not sure who's on that list).

I've wasted so much time contributing crappy articles on worthless subjects like grain elevators and sunken ships when it's obvious that we don't need such articles on Wikipedia. Instead, what we need is DYK articles on bra-and-panties wrestling matches.

Furthermore, it's obvious that I have major problems getting along with people on here. Just look at my contributions.

If I'm truly wasting my time here, go ahead and block me forever. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 08:01, 27 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Sigh. This link should prove useful.-- Bedford  <sup style="color:pink;">Pray  08:13, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Why is there an AN/I Thread for this. It seems like there is a hell of a lot going on already and this is just adding to the list. What administrator action is needed here? &lt;3  Tinkleheimer   TALK!!  08:19, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * None. It's a personal dispute spilling over.  Enigma  message 08:27, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Elkman, your contributions are appreciated. Bedford's opinion of you is not shared by the rest of us.  Enigma  message 08:27, 27 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Not sure why this is posted on AN/I, there is nothing here which warrants administrator action. Reads like a pissing match. JBsupreme (talk) 08:29, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Heads up: Notability (fiction)
I've fully protected 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)


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


 * 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)
 * 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? <b style="color:#FF8C00;">Sticky</b> <b style="color:#FF8C00;">Parkin</b> 01:03, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Why does it need to be stopped? 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)
 * 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.  --M ASEM  11:20, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * 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)


 * 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)

User:Fabrice Wilmann
Please vanish my account and any trace of my name 'Fabrice Wilmann.' Thank-you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fabrice Wilmann (talk • contribs) 07:07, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi, please follow the process as explained at WP:RTV. To vanish, you may request an username change to something that is not your real name, then change all links pointing to your old account accordingly, then request deletion of your user page. That's as much as we can do; accounts cannot be deleted outright.  Sandstein   07:15, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Violation of the guidelines for speedy deletion
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)
 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)
 * So long! Tan      39  01:02, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 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)

-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)


 * No, the first speedy tag was perfectly fine. It was for G12, blatant copyright infringement, as correctly detected the article to substantially be a copy of content from . 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)


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


 * 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)

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,  Gazi moff <sub style="color:black;>( mentor / review ) 09:14, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

User:Pavn123
The above user has vandalized Kamma (caste) article by inserting abusive and hateful input. Please take action.Kumarrao (talk) 12:56, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Howard Gotlieb Archival Research Center, yet again
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)


 * 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)

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)


 * You should probably look at this for beginners. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)  (talk / cont)  20:08, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * And this Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)  (talk / cont)  20:15, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * "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)

(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)

There is another possibility. I see that we have a section on this Center: Mugar Memorial Library. 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)

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)

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)
 * 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. 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)

Bedford and misogyny
{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: #f2dfce;" | This discussion has been archived. Please do not modify it.
 * style="text-align:center;" | The following is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. 
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

A bit of backstory: Bedford suggested a rather... titillating... hook at DYK which got accepted. An edit war erupted at with several female admins - who themselves consulted male users - removing it because of its content. However, his objections to the removal are not that pleasant: "feminist objectons is not good enough of a reason to remove this.", "I feel so sorry for you for being so pathetic", accusations of vandalism and censorship to someone who didn't even remove it, and "Besides, mantis was a dupe due to feminazis". Can we have a male admin warn him against such behaviour? I'm very concerned about his temprament, and I think that, sadly, if a female admin warned him, he'd accuse her of feminism too. Sceptre (talk) 17:17, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * So the argument is that DYK can't contain a hook about scantilly clad women? I'm not seeing how that's misogyny. Nothing on the main page should ever be edit warred over, even if one is being censored by evil femenists. Just drop the edit war and discuss it somewhere. --Rividian (talk) 17:23, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Not the edit war, his attitude. Sceptre (talk) 17:25, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The only problem I see here is that he edit warred, especially on this template. That's something that deserves some sort of rebuke. Just having unpopular opinions about feminism really shouldn't be an offense; disrupting Wikipedia over those opinions is a big deal though. --Rividian (talk) 17:31, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * "It was censorship by a bunch of extremists." How is that acceptable? Sceptre (talk) 17:32, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The quote is okay, the actions he's talking about aren't. I don't really think censorship is a good word for it, but Bedford was just making an argument. There's nothing disruptive about that... I don't consider "extremists" to be a personal attack in this context. --Rividian (talk) 17:35, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Extremists blow up office blocks and abortion clinics. I don't any of that happening in the DYK template history, especially from the women. Sceptre (talk) 17:38, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It wasn't censorship and calling an editor an extremist could be taken as a PA (mind, though I think the DYK was dumb I didn't think it was misogynistic). Gwen Gale (talk) 17:39, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * (ec) An extremist is merely someone with an extreme point of view. I don't think the terrorist context was meant, if it was then yes it would be a personal attack. But "extremist" alone doesn't have to be meant that way. Just for good measure I looked up the word in Webster's and it doesn't mention terrorism. This could be clarified by asking if he actually meant to accuse them of being terrorists. --Rividian (talk) 17:43, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The problem is, these individuals don't both discussing things on DYK, and just arbitrarily remove anything they don't personally like from DYK. There were no Wikipedia rules against the hook. There have been things I objected to being on DYK, but I did not remove them. I can diagnose the sentiment against the hook, and call it what it is.-- Bedford <sup style="color:pink;">Pray  17:42, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Edit warring on DYK is a big no-no (the last time it happened, an admin was blocked IIRC). Instead of reinserting the same ole hook into DYK, Bedford should have just written a brand new non-controversial hook. He could have then started discussion regarding the problem with the original hook. That's the sensible way to handle such matters... Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 17:50, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * WP:COMMONSENSE. If at least five users disagree with you, I think you should realise you're on the wrong side. Sceptre (talk) 17:53, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Sigh. Why is a DYK hook such a big deal? A bunch of people disagreed with a hook, a new one could've inserted and no harm would be done. Why wheel-war over it?  Maxim (talk)  17:55, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That's exactly what did happen - Krimpet inserted an alternate hook, but Bedford refused to accept it and edit warred to keep his own hook on the main page. Sarah 00:23, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Point of order: this is about Bedford's attitude, not the DYK hook. Sceptre (talk) 18:00, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * What, that he likes bra and panties matches? It's normal for those of a certain age. Life goes on regardless. All that's demonstrated is that he needs to watch more real porn and has bad taste, because the wrestling in such matches invariably sucks. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 18:04, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * (e/c) Bedford indeed engaged in some edit warring, and calling someone another editor a feminazi could probably be considered uncivil in most any context (no matter what you think about feminism, "anything-nazi" is pretty much name-calling). I don't see a problem with anyone, male or female, admin or non-admin, issuing him a warning and then (assuming the behavior is not ongoing) moving on with our lives.  It's not like there is such a thing as an "official" warning... (except I suppose ArbCom restrictions, heh) --Jaysweet (talk) 18:07, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * His latest outburst I know of was five minutes after I posted this thread. Sceptre (talk) 18:08, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * First off, can I note the sheer insane hilarity of an admin with an attitude that I consider pre-dates the internet lumbering about Main Page-related pages grumbling about uppity women? That said, I think he's demonstrated a total lack of understanding of WHEEL by noting that he stopped short of 3RR in defending his own hook on DYK, stepped well over the line by repeatedly accusing fellow admins who disagree with him of forming a ideological cabal ("bunch of feminists") in gender discriminatory language ("feminazis"), and continues to show a general lack of understanding that he's acting like a total dick.  (I'm willing to put that wording to a vote to demonstrate that most users would find it accurate.)  I especially love his accusation on his talk page that it's a conflict of interest for women to attempt to remove DYK hooks they find bring disrepute to the wiki, which also includes the brilliantly phrased and punctuated, "I feel sorry for you, to be so pathetic".  I figure the only reason there doesn't seem to be a movement to desysop Bedford is because he appears so utterly hapless.  It's like one of those fish out of water movies when the Australian woodsman goes to the big city or the big city lawyer's car breaks down in the countryside. I just keep waiting for Bedford to discover the bidet or try to milk a cow, or whatever the equivalent is here.  - BanyanTree 22:07, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I've left him a civility warning. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:14, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I was recently reading talk page highlights then clicked over here and forgot which page I was reading. Someone should copy this over. --Moni3 (talk) 18:19, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * This happens :) Gwen Gale (talk) 18:20, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I have to admit that this situation really pissed me off and I should have handled this better. I reacted to being called sad, pathetic, feminist etc. What did Bedford think he would achieve by using emotive language like "extremists" and "feminazis" or comments like this, this, and this? That's definitely not how to "win" an argument.

This was way out of line and I'm glad people called him on it. Seraphim&hearts; Whipp  23:08, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I see a bunch of purposeful misunderstandings and self-righteousness. The fact is that a few women decided they should rule what is covered in DYK, even through they do not contribute anything. It has been proven that hooks regarding attractive women are popular, which is why it was used. I can't help but wonder if there was some jealously is some contributors hearts. I stand by my actions. Personally, I'm done with this topic, as I have bigger concerns than this triviality.-- Bedford <sup style="color:pink;">Pray  23:18, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Put away the spade and climb out of that hole, will ya? Sceptre (talk) 23:17, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Dear me. Now you're resorting to calling people jealous? You clearly still have no grasp of what the issue was here. Seraphim&hearts;  Whipp  23:23, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed. This isn't about the DYK topic, it's about how the editor responded to disagreement. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:26, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Bedford please consider refactoring your post. Attributing the issue bad faith assumptions like "purposeful misunderstandings" is not acceptable. The way to clear up any misunderstanding is to comment on the topic of disagreement rather than describing the people you are disagreeing with.  You continue to speculate and comment on other editors in a derogatory way and that is not cool. I realize you must feel under attack right now, and are not likely to be receptive to my critique.  But I hope someone who knows you better will take a moment to email you and reaffirm that my concerns about your reaction to this dispute are valid. I would hate to see you dismiss these concerns and possibly cause yourself more grief in the future because your friends do not care enough to involve themselves and help guide you in this area.-- Birgitte  SB  00:07, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I did not want to get back in this nonsense, but if you insist. Would you prefer the term "personal-worldview misunderstandings", as it reflects the fact that those who are trying to bully me have not opened themselves to the fact that not everyone shares their worldview, and they need to be more tolerant of those differences?  As I said before, I'd rather be spending this time writing new articles, not get mixed into this abyss.-- Bedford  <sup style="color:pink;">Pray  00:15, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I would prefer that you ask a few people whose opinions you respect if they would look at my comments and tell you what they think of my concerns and how the things I pointed out in your edit could cause you problems if you edit in the same vein in future disputes.-- Birgitte SB  01:42, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Could I make a suggestion? Can we put this thread on hold for 24 hours?  I would exhort Bedford especially not to comment further at this time, with the assurances that obviously nobody is going to block him or anything dumb like that.  Let it go for a day, and see how you feel tomorrow.  I can't imagine a normally level-headed editor like Bedford making insinuations like this while calmed down -- even if he feels they are accurate, he must realize how much it will piss some people off?
 * On the other side, too, let's try not bait Bedford here. Not that I see any baiting right now, but let's not have it start.
 * If we can all stop making gender-charged comments, I think underneath it all there's really nothing to see here. Bedford made a DYK suggestion that some people found offensive.  We don't have to agree that it was offensive, nor do we have to agree that it was inoffensive.  We just need to agree to stop hatin' on each other. :D --Jaysweet (talk) 00:17, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Are you really replying to my post cause I don't see any gender charged comments that I would need to stop. I am not into baiting people nor rising to bait I am offered much less "hatin' on" anyone. While I understand your concern about the effects of Bedford's temper on his edits regarding of this issue, frankly I see no reason to put off my thoughts on this issue.  If you have a problem with something I have said, please bring it up explicitly instead making vague accusations that you are concerned I (among others I suppose) am going to begin baiting him, use gender-charged language, or weirdest of all feel the need to assure no blocks are forthcoming (where has anyone mentioned blocking him?) while explaining that underneath it all there is "nothing really to see."  You do realize that last statement only gives Bedford confidence that his behavior is not problematic that his evaluation is correct.  What is needed here is someone like you, who apparently is already acquainted with Bedford, to step-up and say "Bedford that is not cool you really need to comment on content not contributers. By the way don't edit war 3RR isn't an entitlement and it sets a bad example when admins edit war."  Taking such a principled stance about what the actual best practices for editing Wikipedia are, would do loads more to resolve this than all your vague hand-wringing about postponing it.-- Birgitte  SB  01:42, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I found Bedford's comments offensive and I think it makes Wikipedia look incredibly bad having an admin make such derogatory and sexist comments about his colleagues. I also think it's inappropriate for someone to nominate, promote and then edit war to keep their own hook on the front page. Sarah 00:23, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Section break
We seem to have several problems here: "I've long realized I am a magnet for attracting cretins, who think they will, in wrestling parlance, 'get over on me'. Sadly, Wikipedia ia huge website and, as a result, there are a lot of cretins. Just this morning I had to deal with a bunch of PMS from a few feminazis that did not like a hook used on the DYK section of Wikipedia's front page, dealing with a bra & panties match. Not politically correct, so the harpies attack, and then accuse me of bullying when it is they themselves ganging up to bully on me. Is it just a mix of PC and PMS? Is it because they are unattractive and don't like being even slightly reminded of it? Who knows? (Perhaps an attitude like this is why you're 36, single and still in school. - 202.155) The fact they are still moaning over it says I struck too close to home in analyzing the reason fo their being in a frenzy. They are overcome with the belief that their excrement doesn't stink, when it absolutely reeks." This type of combativeness and unseemly behavior is nothing new from Bedford. I suggest a request for user conduct be filed. I am also declining to post this from my account: I am a person of color who edits under my real name, lives close to Bedford and fears harassment or violence. I do not enjoy playing this card, but I grew up in the South and have good reason to fear Confederates and their ilk. 202.155.167.221 (talk) 01:13, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Wheel-warring on the main page.
 * A misunderstanding of edit warring ("the only reason [I stopped] is due to 3RR" ).
 * Personal attacks ("feminazis" ; "I can't help but wonder if there was some jealously is some contributors hearts. I stand by my actions." ).
 * Ascribing motives ("a bunch of feminists decide to censor Wikipedia, as they'd rather do that than actually do something fruitful for Wikipedia. Sad. Oh so sad. Pathetic, too." ).
 * Demeaning behavior ("Then again, those who can't pick good hook are the most likely to critique; it's the way of the world." ; "Thanks for confirming I'm better than you" ).
 * Material on their userpage which brings Wikipedia into disrepute ("The second greatest country ever [is] the United States of America, and the greatest country ever [is] the Confederate States of America.").
 * Absolutely vile offsite harassment: http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=91214440&blogID=418159317, backup in case it's taken down
 * Dear anon, I'm not sure harassment is the adjective for that. I'm not a MySpace member and can't read the full original, but if that's as specific as it gets--suggest replacing with a different adjective.  Vile I agree with, but harassment has a more specific meaning.  Durova Charge! 09:05, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Urgh! What a bigot :( Well, I guess we know exactly what this guy's position on the whole matter is now - *sigh* - A l is o n  ❤ 01:29, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Bedford, if you really wrote that, I ask you to resign your adminship. I have no opinion right now if such a request is legitimate based on policy, or precedent.  I only know you've lost my faith in your ability to act in a reasonable and impartial manner. And if you didn't write it, you need to find out who is impersonating you on myspace, because they're making you look really, really, really bad. --barneca (talk) 01:28, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Urgh indeed. Seraphim&hearts;  Whipp  01:32, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 202.155, if personal attacks are so bad why is it okay for you to say stuff like "Perhaps an attitude like this is why you're 36, single and still in school"? Two wrongs don't make a right. Also, just because he has an unpopular opinion, such as on the CSA, isn't cause for sanctions. We aren't the thought police. It's only a problem if he's POV pushing or otherwise disruptive. Other than that I agree with the points. --Rividian (talk) 01:33, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Tu quoque is not a valid defence. Sceptre (talk) 01:34, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It's just not helpful in the first place to make personal attacks while complaining about someone who made personal personal attacks. I'm not saying Bedford's attacks were okay because the IP did the same thing, but hopefully we can agree personal are attacks are a bad idea even if you don't like the person being insulted. --Rividian (talk) 01:37, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Proof? I did a search on the range. Only two contribs from the entire /16 range I could see this month. One was to a football page. The other to this noticeboard. Though that gadget is buggy. Sceptre (talk) 01:43, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Huh? I can't figure out what this comment means. The IP interrupts his quote of Bedford's (supposed) blog to insult him, see the quote "Perhaps an attitude like this is why you're 36, single and still in school". --Rividian (talk) 01:52, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah. Didn't catch that. Sceptre (talk) 01:56, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Endorse recall. I was going to initiate recall myself, but reneged after realising that, without the category, it would be an excercise in futility. Sceptre (talk) 01:34, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Bedford was asked about recall in his RfA in April and he answered: "AOR is like a pre-nup, assuming trouble on the horizon when it is vastly hoped there will be no problems, and darkening clouds which should remain bright and fluffy. If editors are uneasy about my nom, I can add myself to it; but, if I am a problem admin, I will be removed by my peers in any event." In the spirit of that answer, he should either resign and stand for reconfirmation or add himself to the recall category. Sarah 02:05, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Endorse Barneca's request for resignation. If Bedford really wrote that blog his position is now untenable with all female editors and admins on Wikipedia and a huge slab of males, too, IMO. Sarah 01:55, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree - the community needs to take a good look at Bedford's conduct as an admin, especially given the evidence above that this may not be an isolated incident. I unwittingly set off this fiasco last night by removing a DYK some users found offensive and leaving a polite note with Bedford since I saw he was the one who'd promoted it... but his immediate reaction was to call me "ridiculous" and revert my removal. It really disappoints me that he had to escalate this into an edit war and personal attacks - culminating in gross Limbaughesque insults to several female Wikipedians. We expect better from our administrators.  krimpet ✽  02:53, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed. I see that Bedford's RfA three months ago anticipated him using his bit to work on DYKs, and one opposer raised his inflammatory national language at times as an issue. There are (and not just because of this incident) sufficient questions of judgement that lead me to think that the decision to grant adminship, while supported at the time, was not the correct decision and should be reviewed. Orderinchaos 02:59, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

A 24 hour break sounds reasonable, as there is a need to cool down for everyone. Much of this is due to warring between the two sides of political correctness. But notice that I am the one being threatened, that I must think and act like others think and act. At no time did I abuse my role as an admin; I even took a careful take on POV. Therefore, to say my adminship should be revoked is purposeful intimidation; nothing I said was against females in general. I was not the only admin to think it OK, as I did not initially move it to the main template. Had I not woken up prematurely, this brouhaha would not had occurred, and the censorship would have been successful. It was not my article; I just came up with the hook; a hook that no one had problems with on the Template Talk page, and none of those who removed the hook cared whether or not people there saw no problems with it. It was the third hook proposed, in order to use the article, as those who submit articles would like to see them used. An admin posting a hook he devised but had no hand in the creation of the article has been done before, so no foul there (although a future rule against it could be debated).-- Bedford <sup style="color:pink;">Pray  02:02, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * This is delicious irony - while I definitely bridle about the c-word and the tw-word, nobody seems to care if a male editor is called a "dick". And we're getting righteously upset about PMS jokes now? Please. Come on, ladies - nobody respects a victim. It's better to give as good as you get. Kelly  hi! 02:07, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Jokes are supposed to be funny. I see no humour in his posts. Besides, we're using the word "dick" in the metapedian sense, not the common social sense which is commonly suffixed by "head". Sceptre (talk) 02:10, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Eh, whatever - anything he said, I've heard ten times worse in my workplace. This is political correctness run amok. Talk about a mountain from a molehill. So guys like women in their underwear - everyone knows this from middle school. Yes, he shouldn't have edit-warred about the hook but the reaction is extreme. Bedford, I forgive you - go forth and sin no more. Kelly  hi! 02:13, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Do I need to repeat the point of order? This is not about the DYK hook, this is about his reaction. The language he's used would make Mike cry. Sceptre (talk) 02:18, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think so. If so, then Mike Godwin has lived a pretty sheltered life. Are you talking about the PMS thing? You should hear what women say about PMS amongst themselves. Kelly  hi! 02:21, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Vegetarians are evil because Hitler himself was one. Sceptre (talk) 02:25, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Huh? Kelly  hi! 02:26, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


 * For what it's worth, I also endorse Barneca's request for Bedford to resign the tools. I'm not sure Bedford can maintain an admin position when he's using the tools to enforce personal prejudices. It's fine to think differently, that's something I celebrate, but this is a case of being deliberately offensive and antagonistic without purpose. I find that attitude incompatible in the role of an administrator, a role where you deal with all kinds of people. Seraphim&hearts;  Whipp  02:26, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Did he use the tools? My understanding was that he was just acting as an editor, but maybe I missed something. Kelly  hi! 02:28, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Edit warring on a fully protected page which is subsequently transcluded onto the Main Page?— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙 ) 02:32, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * He promoted his own hook and then edit warred on an admin protected page to keep it there. I'm more concerned that the position of adminship is one of trust. Trust that the editor will use the tools responsibly and for the right reasons. Seraphim&hearts;  Whipp  02:34, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * If he was edit-warring on a fully-protected page, then one or more other admins must have also been edit-warring. Kelly  hi! 02:38, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Separate admins each time. Seraphim&hearts;  Whipp  02:43, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That doesn't make it any better. Kelly  hi! 03:04, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * If you are reverted by different people each time, then you are the one with the problem. There obviously wasn't consensus for the hook otherwise it would never have got taken down. Seraphim&hearts;  Whipp  03:08, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Two problems I see with this incident, the first is DYK itself but for another discussion. The problem this discussion is about is that of Bedford's actions. No editor should have to wheel warred to defend a DYK hook, its no big deal if a hook is removed or altered many suggestion dont even get a run. The choice of language is indefensible whether we agree with an action or not its just not acceptable to vehemently accuse any person of extremist views because their physiology or imply that a person has some condition. When other admins have made unfounded uncivil accusations and acted disruptively using the tools(DYK template is an admin only edit protected page, like all main page templates) they have resigned their admin bits or had them removed by ARBCOM. As for Bedfords off Wiki comment there are a lot of cretins then to into a rant on one supposed group, to me that means he also express that other editors as unidentified are also a problem in his view and he's likely to react the same again when people dont accept his actions. To me this totally unacceptable any actions taken as a sysop by Bedford are now questionable as to whether he was acting based on the community decisions or his own personal opinions. Gnangarra 02:35, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It's been established in numerous forums that we don't sanction people on-wiki for what they do off-wiki. That said, if the only thing that's got people upset is the blog post - yeah, it's not that great, but I've seen way worse. I think an apology would be sufficient, speaking for myself. If someone thinks more is necessary, they should take it to ArbCom. Kelly  hi! 02:41, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Two edits consist edit warring? Look at the Edit history. What were the excuses? That it was "demeaning" and akin to FHM? Not that reasoned a reason. Also, note it was User:PeterSymonds who first placed it on the front page, not me. It should be noted that Ryulong has tried to wipe the history of the hook from both the article's talk page and the Recent Archives page. I think there is a problem with objectivity. If anyone should resign, it is not me. Anything I did was after a consensus of DYK reviewers. I think we need one of those templates used onthe Sri Lanka talk pages here.-- Bedford <sup style="color:pink;">Pray  02:42, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


 * You promoted the hook. Seraphim&hearts;  Whipp  02:45, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, DYK/Next update says the same story. Peter's only fault was cutpasting. Sceptre (talk) 02:47, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It was reviewed by four editors, one of whome was the original writer of the article, none of whom had problems with the hook (sans one rolling of the eyes). The suggestion was up for a day, the hook was expiring, and as I said before, admins that have suggested alternate hooks have in the past elevated them.  If you don't like it, get involved with DYK and let your voices be heard.  I feel you did not respect the DYKers.-- Bedford  <sup style="color:pink;">Pray  02:57, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Sceptre's original over reaction to petty comments led to a further overreaction ion by Bedford. I say everyone go have a cigarette and calm down. While I'm the first person to call admin abuse when I see it, nothing was abused here. "Tough" language and civility is abused by people to get rid of their enemies way too much around here. Beam 02:55, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, exactly - this has escalated beyond all sense. I suggest that if anyone really believes Bedford should be desysopped they take it to dispute resolution. Kelly  hi! 02:58, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah... open an RFC if you feel so inclined. ANI isn't really going to solve anything except cause unproductive drama... maybe he'll dig himself in deeper but that seems like a poor reason to keep the thread going. An RFC would actually be headed somewhere other than dramaland. --Rividian (talk) 03:02, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Putting the wheel warring aside, honestly, who cares? It's just a hook (one that probably gained many views in the time it was up), and while I personally didn't see a reason to remove it, edit-warring to keep it on also makes no sense. This whole thing really reeks of something that has escalated far, far too much. The hooks have come and gone, that's over. I'm disappointed my pretty much all sides in this wheel war, of course some more than others. Wizardman 03:03, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Point of order, point of order, point of order. Sceptre (talk) 03:06, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Bedford's actions may have been very wrong today, but he does bring up a good point above. The hooks stay at T:TDYK for several days. If there were any concerns then why not actually check that page for yourselves to see if anything offends you? This way it saves the drama of removing and adding hooks. I mean, DYK is a hard-ass job for no respect as it is, with people complaining abotu things that could be solved if they spent 5 minutes participating there. Wizardman 03:15, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Moral of the story: the most important item at an RfA is Question #3. If a candidate gives a vague, evasive, or essentially meaningless answer to this question, don't support their candidacy. MastCell Talk 03:21, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Bedford was the one who created this drama. Hooks get moved around and thrown back in all the time. It was his behaviour and the edit warring that was wrong. Seraphim&hearts;  Whipp  03:20, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Not on an active DYK unless there's something really wrong with the hook. Wizardman  03:25, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Which there was! Which is why it was removed in the first place. Seraphim&hearts;  Whipp  03:27, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, but was it bad enough to be re-reverted as many times as it was? I'm not getting into that, that's a question for elsewhere. My point at 3:15 stands though as my main one. Wizardman  03:30, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I am amazed that so many people are not getting this. Forget the hook.  Opinions about the hook are debatable and its appropriateness on the Main Page is a subjective call.  When there is a dispute over something debatable and you find the other people making a different subjective call than you would prefer . . . You do not react by speculating on the motives the editors you disagree with.  You do not label them with derogatory terms.  You do not personalize the dispute.  You comment on content that is in dispute, attract a wider audience, and seek consensus.  This is the issue; not the debatable point of whether that hook was a desirable item for the Main Page.  The behavior displayed after the hook was disputed in real issue here.  Some people will agree that the hook is desirable, some will not and some won't care either way.  But, who can say that they find Bedford reaction to the dispute acceptable and on what basis do they believe it to be so?  I think that inappropriateness of his reaction should be widely agreed on.  The only reason we are still here is not because Bedford got upset and said what he should not have, but because he believes what he said was not problematic.  Now is the part where the admin community says "Hold up. X,Y, and Z was out of line." and then Bedford stops claiming he has done nothing wrong or at least stops posting about it. And we all go our separate ways either hopeful that he has learned a lesson here and this discussion never need be re-visited again at least satisfied that a unified voice reaffirmed how admins are expected to behave. Or I suppose you can all ignore the real issue here talk about how you liked or didn't mind the hook and the real issue will fester into a premature RfC.  Bedford is the only loser in the latter scenario but obviously not many people here care to help guide him out of the hole he has dug himself into.  At least not when is a controversial issue to debate.  Seriously you all should ask yourselves: Have I actually tried to imagine a resolution to the problem brought here?-- Birgitte  SB  04:27, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Interesting timing: as the female editor who recently created this article and got it through DYK, and who is currently running this peer review request, no one can accuse me of being too uptight. Bedford, your action at DYK crossed the line, and your statements since then have been worse. All editors should be able to communicate with administrators without worry that the sysop would screen their words through a filter of perception about the editor's race, color, creed, gender or other external factor. The name for such filters is bigotry and that is incompatible with Wikipedia administratorship. I read this thread hoping a well-meaning misunderstanding had taken place, but your own words condemn you more clearly with each iteration. I respectfully request that you resign the tools, and if you refuse I will endorse every step toward their involuntary removal. Durova Charge! 08:18, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I have to endorse Durova's request here. We have absolutely no room for bigotry within the admin community and an admin who has issues with (arguably) 50% of the population is not going to approach matters dispassionately, IMO - A l is o n  ❤ 08:32, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Resign the tools
So where do we go from here? Seven people are requesting that Bedford resign the tools. Seraphim&hearts; Whipp  13:17, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I have desysopped him. This is not even a close call.  He's so far over the line of the conduct - both onsite and offsite - that I expect from admins that nothing short of a full and complete apology for his behavior and a retraction of his comments will do.  Additionally, he will have to stand for re-election if he dares.  As for me, I would never vote for someone with this kind of behavior in his history.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:39, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * And what have you done to those who also warred with him, over reacted, and honestly escalated the situation leading (but not excusing) his poor choice of actions? Beam 15:46, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I am quite frankly astonished with the kindness and polite reserve that I have seen from those who have tried to help him avoid this outcome. If you can point to anyone else who stooped to vile stereotyping, offensive remarks, and/or offsite attacks, I will gladly deal with that.  I may have overlooked something, to be sure.  I saw no overreactions, and indeed would like very much for good people in the community to feel empowered to be much more firm about this kind of incivility.  It is just not at all acceptable and a casual acceptance of it weakens our moral standing.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:54, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * There were, imho, better ways to handle Bed's actions. I agree that he acted like an asshole eventually but only in response to harsh action and reverts that degraded his opinion. It does not excuse his behavior, as I said, but it does bring into question the actions of others. And honestly Jimbo, you shouldn't be surprised by kindness and polite reserve by some users, we're not all jerks! ;) Beam 16:01, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Beam, before you start shooting Jimbo down without looking at the facts, take a look at his myspace post and tell me that's befitting for an administrator on this site. It's not in the slightest.  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  15:58, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I did not shoot him down, and I agree Bed acted like an asshole. I also believe I never even insinuated or acted as if I was "shooting him down." Beam 16:02, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Your first post looked like it was trying to start a battle when it wasn't needed, that's all.  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  16:04, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I disagree that it looks like that. And I disagree that it wasn't needed. That's all. ;) Beam 16:07, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, please accept my apologies then.  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  16:10, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * NO! I will do no such thing. Beam 16:15, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you Jimbo - quite frankly, his flippency is shocking in this this whole situation. We don't need admins who show such disregard for our communal norms.  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  15:42, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * He's continuing to edit without responding here. User:Durova/Request for comment/Bedford Here's a working space. Durova Charge! 15:07, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, would someone courtesy delete the page in my user space? This seems like enough, and FYI a rumor has come back to me that I requested desysopping from Jimbo.  I didn't even contact him with regard to this.  Durova Charge! 16:22, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Done. If the problem flares up again and you need anything that was on there lemme know and I'll undelete. --CBD 16:25, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much. Durova Charge! 16:25, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Does he need to respond here further? His overall 'position' on the issue seems to have been fairly clear... something about him being a living god casting down the feminazis. I'd think him going off and working on something else for a while would be all for the best at this point. --CBD 16:18, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Jimbo. At least we have some dignity and respect. Sceptre (talk) 16:04, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I feel that your original reactions to the DYK war weren't exactly brimming with respect towards Bedford. However, due to his reactions it seems that you won't be called on it. Beam 16:10, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I fully support this desysop; it saved the community a lot of time and effort. --barneca (talk) 16:14, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


 * As do I. Seraphim&hearts;  Whipp  16:20, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for cutting through the red tape and using your discretion to do what needed done Jimbo. Chillum  16:37, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I might as well put in my two cents, but by all means don't come after me like you did Bedford, I am totally cool with leaving. As I see it, the hook was potentially controversial, but it was removed without consensus and that initiated the edit war - and the blame for that action and the edit war lies almost entirely with the group of female editors. It was they, who without consensus, initiated the events that led us here. And those editors, as has been fairly pointed out, are not particularly large contributors. If they had a problem with the hook it should have been discussed or removed BEFORE the the DYK update, there was adequate time. Their failure to do so was, in my opinion, the same as approval or neutral position to use the hook. They have been purposefully out to get Bedford for reasons I have not yet divined, the reasons may indeed be legitimate - I don't know why. They instead waited, unfairly, until the update was made so that the largest possible disruption would be made, and then began this squabble. They knew what Bedford's reaction would be before they started, though now they feign innocence. Instead of removing the hook without consensus they should have had a quick discussion and let a decision be made rather than take matters into their own hands. No reprimand or action has been laid against them for these improper actions, which I think is terribly unfair in light of Bedford's punishment. That said, I think Bedford was not as polite as he should have been in dealing with this subject, but I think some his comments have been taken out of context - since no real explanation was given as to why the hook should be removed, what other option did he have except to guess that their actions were motivated because of their gender or other reasons? To be honest I would probably have made the same assessment, though I would no have said so... I make no judgments but only bring my point of view, I just believe that only one side of the story has been told here. That's all I have to say! Happy editing. :) Charles Edward 16:54, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That was my issue, the over reaction and poor method of dealing with Bedfor in the original DYK context andin Sceptres posting here is being overlooked and, as a result, condoned. Beam 16:58, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Firstly, you're prescribing rather serious charges without any apparent evidence. Do you have any evidence that editors were out to get Bedford? Do you have any evidence that editors waited until the update to make the largest possible disruption? Do you have any evidence that editors were aware Bedford would behave so poorly? If you have any, then please show it. If not I suggest you withdraw your claims. In all likelihood, what happened here is that no one who has significant concerns really noticed the hook until it was on the main page. Yes it would have been better if they had noticed before it got to the main page, and yes there is ample opportunity to do so before hand, but for something like DYK for which we have a large number per day and it's generally resonable to remove items if they are problematic, it's understandable if editors don't choose to monitor the page constantly. Personally, I agree a centralised discussion may have been best before the removal but DYK hooks only stay for around 6+ hours so there is only limited time for a discussion after one is added. More importantly, there is generally no real reason why a DYK hook has to be on in any particular instance so it's perfectly fine to remove an item for discussion and add it back if consensus is reached it's okay. (Yes the articles for DYK are supposed to be significantly updated or created in the past 5 days but I highly doubt anyone is going to reject a DYK hook simply because there was a discussion on it which pushed it past 5 days, that's a clear case of WP:IAR.) The key thing here which you seem to be missing is that from what I can tell, Bedford was the only one who acted unilaterally. If I read the above discussions write, the first editor who removed the item consulted one or more other admins before removing the hook. The subsequent editors (two different editors) were aware of the previous removals and may have consulted further before removing the items again. Bedford however was the only one who added the item back, and from what I can tell consulted no one who told him it was acceptable to unilaterally edit war the item back when there was disagreement. The simple fact is, when an admin is unable to understand it is inappropriate to unilaterally wheel war against multiple other admins to add something to a highly visible portion of wikipedia (the main page) something which you proposed in the first place, in a case when there isn't even any urgency (as I have already mentioned, discussion could have been held and the item added back at another stage if necessary) then they have no business being an admin. When the same person is further unable to understand that obeying the 3RR doesn't mean you aren't edit warring, that just further proves they are unfit to be an admin. When an admin doesn't understand that it is always necessary to WP:AGF and it is best to ask someone why they have taken an action if you don't understand, rather then making assumptions based on their gender or other personal traits (see WP:NPA) in an extremely offensive manner well then I just don't know what to say. (If you don't understand, that means his option was to initiate a discussion rather then wheel war while posting offensive messages.) Furthermore, anyone who can't understand that editors may legitimately disagree about something, and it may have nothing to do with their gender, or other personal traits (which as I have already mentioned, are rarely the relevant to the discussion per WP:NPA) shouldn't be an admin anyway. (There is no policy covering this one, simply common sense.) Nil Einne (talk) 18:04, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Jimmy, thank you very much for taking this action. I completely support your decision and I strongly believe it was in the best interest of the project and it has saved us from the inevitable drama-filled RfC or RfArb. Thank you. Sarah 17:01, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I question what you, and others thanking Jimbo for this action have to say about the poor and faithless actions of others that led to Bed's outburst and asshole actions? Beam 17:04, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I've got to say, I fully support Jimbo's actions here, and I've already expressed my concern with how Bedford acted, but Beam is right in the respect that he was pushed into a corner. A quick discussion here about the hook, getting a consensus, would stopped any wheelwar that ocurred. I suspect there was discussion, but it looks to have been conducted off site, leading to the situation quickly escalating.  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  17:12, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The suggestion page's viewcount compared to the main page is like comparing a golf ball to the Death Star. Most editors view the main page several times every day. Pages like WP:ERRORS are specifically there to combat that difference. And again, point of order: this is not about the DYK hook at all. Bedford's remarks were unacceptable, even if they were provoked. And Beam, please, stop trolling. You're really getting on people's nerves. Sceptre (talk) 17:09, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I know it's not pleasant to have your actions pointed out as less than great but that doesn't mean it's trolling. I honestly hope that yourself and others consider how they could have acted in a different manner, which may have helped lessen the chance of Bedford reacting so poorly. Beam 17:23, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Sceptre, perception is everything. Someone who disagrees with you is not trolling. And also, I'm sure people could say that you're, likewise, getting on people's nerves. I think you handled the situation very dramatically myself; am I trolling for saying it? Mike H. Fierce! 17:46, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not just this thread he's made a nuisance of himself. He was annoying people in the Tony thread last week. Sceptre (talk) 17:53, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You continue to make ignorant comments, bordering on jerk comments. But I won't take offense, because it seems you're either actually trolling me, or are just unhappy that I have pointed out some truth about you. Beam 18:22, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Support de-sysopping. I am generally not a fan of Jimbo taking direct action, and would have preferred that this was handled through other community mechanisms, but there were many uninvolved voices calling for resignation, so speeding up the process a bit seems fine.  Bedford was way out of line, both for edit-warring on a protected page that was a direct feed into the Wikipedia Main Page, and also for this appalling off-wiki comment. --Elonka 17:15, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Fully endorse the action taken. Good call. And yes, Beam, it's bordering on trolling - the behaviour by Bedford was totally, utterly, completely unacceptable regardless of the circumstances. I'm curious too as to why Sceptre keeps getting named, given his first comments on this matter was a couple of hours after most of the behaviour he's alleged to have provoked. Orderinchaos 17:16, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * No, it's not. Editors like Ryan agree that the actions of others, like Sceptre lead to this outburst. It's no excuse, but if editors that did act poorly and continue to deny that would take a second and think about it, it may lead to the aversion of such suck as seen enacted by Bedford. Beam 17:23, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I can't find any point where Ryan has named the editor concerned. Incidentally, after investigating Bedford's other edits, it seems he's been in at least one other edit war just this week, not even considering the present unrelated situation. Orderinchaos 17:31, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not suggesting that any one editor on the other side to bedford was wrong - I just think there would have been a better way to handle the whole situation and that would have been to bring it to a noticeboard to discuss the hook. I may be wrong, but it looks like discussion took place off wiki here and it might have been better for that discussion to take place on-wiki - a quick on-wiki consensus could have saved a lot of the hassles we've seen later on.  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  18:03, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I endorse this. The behaviour of others had nothing to do with it. As an admin, Bedford said some amazingly snarky and disruptive things (to put it mildly) about editors with whom he had a content disagreement. I would have rathered that the community built up a consensus for this first but I have no meaningful worries about how Jimbo dealt with this and understand why he did it. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:17, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The suggestion that Bedford was pushed into a corner here isn't supported. He made blog posts last September that, to me, reveal a deep (and the next word is not an exageration) misogyny, and a character that makes him unfit to be an admin.  Please see User:Barneca/Sandboxen/Sandbox. The threat to stalk someone in real life, even if that person was (evidently) not on Wikipedia, is too chilling for words.  If people were aware of that post at the time, his RFA would have been snow closed.  The choice of hook was, in my opinion, not insulting but just lame.  The edit warring to restore it was a mistake, but we all make mistakes; the way he responded to the situation was very concerning; the mindset behind this behavior, as seen in his blog posts, is off the wall unacceptable.  To some extent I'm kicking the guy when he's down, so I'll stop now, but the idea that some group of militant feminists (and good lord, people, this is the 21st century, do we really still use this term??) conspired to desysop him is laughable. --barneca (talk) 17:22, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I feel this was an over-reaction based on political correctness. If there was a rule against "bra and panties" matches on Wikipedia DYK, I would not have posted it. Also, I only reverted twice, and both times I did it because I honestly felt it was appropriate. Look at the stereotyping against me in these series of novellas. In the times this took place, I wrote three new articles on Wikipedia; can others say the same. Is there any better term than "militant feminists", as Barneca put it, to describe the overraeaction? If people want to retract all around and apologize all the way around, I'll apologize too. I feel I was the only one to try to use AGF principles. And I never saw User:Durova/Request for comment/Bedford, so that should not be hold against me. A cooling down period was what was needed. If Jimbo does not rtract soon, I will go through Arbcom. And where on My Myspace blog do people get to say I stalk people? No wonder Conservpoedia was founded, if they got hit with the PC ness here.-- Bedford <sup style="color:pink;">Pray  18:08, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The draft RFC was never filled out and existed for only about an hour. I created it at about the same time the desysopping happened, but didn't know about that yet because Jimbo hadn't announced it yet (he did a few minutes afterward).  As soon as I found out I requested courtesy deletion.  I hope things take a turn for the better now.  Durova Charge! 22:15, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I provided a link to the place where you threaten to stalk someone. I'd appreciate it if you would address that, instead of pretending you didn't say something you know you said. --barneca (talk) 18:17, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Political correctness isn't inherently wrong. All power to equality for minorities. It's when we buy African-Americanberries and sing about rainbow sheep that it gets out of hand. We're aiming for the former, not the latter. And please, cool your language. Your personal attacks have dug yourself into a hole, don't go so far that you hit the mantle. Sceptre (talk) 18:35, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Unless the [myspace post] could be shown to be a forgery and inconsistent with the editors other behavior, the editor's continued admin status became utterly untenable, so I fully support the direct action by Jimbo. This, indeed, is what trustees are for, when matters are clear but unnecessary disruption could take place if normal process ensues. I am expressing no opinion about blocking of this editor, beyond urging caution: if there is even grossly inappropriate behavior, clear warning would come first, unless an emergency exists, and the offsite comments, while relevant to admin status, are not normally relevant to editor blocks; I have not, however, been following this issue. As to the behavior of others, we do not punish. Bedford isn't being punished for reverting, nor should others be punished for reverting him. Bedford has the right to appeal to ArbComm, but I'd advise him against it. --Abd (talk) 18:25, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Possibly too dramatic, but IMHO necessary, escalation by Barneca
Having thought about this for a while, in my opinion the scary threats of stalking someone in real life shown in his blog post here, mean that his attitude may be incompatible with participation at all here, sysop or not. And again, I admit this post is likely not Wikipedia-related, but I still think it's valid to consider. I'm 100% behind the desysop; I'm only 95% sure about issuing a block, so I'd like comments from others about enforcing his exit from Wikipedia completely (indef block, ban, whatever mechanism we see fit). --barneca (talk) 18:01, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Let's be really clear about the date: that post is ten months old. Durova Charge! 18:22, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I believe I bolded that fact in the section above. But the mindset behind it seems to be consistent with his behavior over the last day or so. --barneca (talk) 18:47, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I've taken a snapshot of that blog posting into webcitation - you can read it here. Given that this person has vowed to take his on-line activities into the real world, and personally visit people he's had disagreements with to harass them, I'm calling for Bedford to be community banned. This evidence, to me, is chilling in the extreme. To quote; "She would be best to avoid insinuations: I have sworn that anyone who brings up certain slanders about me will get a visit from me, and she's in an area I want to revisit.". While this does not relate directly to Wikipedia, AFAIK, and while I'm loath to consider other people's off-site behaviours on here (I'm a BADSITES regular), this instance is of something else altogether. This guy is a danger, IMO - A l is o n  ❤ 18:13, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with Alison. Stalkers are unwelcome on Wikipedia. I've seen how much the victims hurt. Sceptre (talk) 18:15, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Whoa! Endorse ban! Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:17, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


 * BAN Attempts to coerce actions of users through threats of actions outside the Wikipedia processes, whether onsite or offsite, are grounds for immediate banning. Durova Charge! 18:18, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I oppose this - he's had his punishment for the day here and hopefully he will learn from it. A banning certainly isn't going to help the situation here. I'm not sure we should be suggesting a ban for a blog post from September - maybe Bedford could clarify exactly what he meant by that though, and hopefully retract it. Whilst his recent comments on his blog were seriously attacking, they don't merit a perma ban from this site.  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  18:19, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Err, this isn't about punishment. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:27, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yup, precisely why I oppose this.  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  18:29, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't get it. People usually support such measures that prevent harm - they support measures that are not about punishment. Yet, here you're saying you oppose it because it isn't about punishment. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:37, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * What? I'm saying I don't support this because it's punishment, I don't see it as preventative in the slightest.  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  18:43, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm disturbed that you don't. In any case, Barneca has summed the main crux of it here. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:46, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Point taken. Has he ever retracted it?  Durova Charge! 18:21, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I would hope he would seriously consider it, because it's clearly upset a lot of people here.  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  18:24, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I started reading this thread last night hoping my own DYK from last week had set the wrong tone, and supposing I'd put in a good word for the fellow and quell the drama. The farther I read, the more his own words disappointed. When someone goes this far, is there really an expiration date if it's never been withdrawn? I pose that question seriously; not sure what call to make here--leaning toward caution. Durova Charge! 18:30, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I stand by my point that this was 10 months old, and I strongly believe we shouldn't be banning people for comments they made on a myspace blog such a long time ago.  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  18:44, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I've asked him for a retraction and clarification, and offered to support him if he does. Durova Charge! 18:55, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks Durova - I think this would be the best outcome all round.  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  18:58, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * After reading here along with Bedford's latest post above, I began thinking about blocking him for harassment and disruption. His many editorial contributions don't trump these worries and moreover, a review of those contributions might be worthwhile. I support a community ban. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:21, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Would we ban, say, Jeffrey Dahmer if he had as many DYKs and well-deserved Barnstars as Beford does? I'm assuming we would once we we found out he was Jeffrey Dahmer. I mean, if I were in charge, I might be inclined to allow Dahmer to edit (from prison, of course), as long as he didn't edit disruptively and was stayed away from cannibalism-related articles. Although I don't pretend to be familiar or really have a strong opinion about this lovely character, I find that bad people don't necessarily make bad edits, and vice versa.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 18:25, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * There is precedent for banning stalkers, productive or not. Sceptre (talk) 18:28, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The problem is not whether it's in our best interest to do without his contributions. The problem is the chilling effect this has on others in a collaborative effort.  He has threatened people he disagrees with with a real-life confrontation.  That being the case, no matter how much good content he's contributed, he should not be here.  There are some people who's contributions are so stellar that we (or some of us) overlook their occasional outburst.  But I can't think of anyone else who has threatened to stalk someone in real life who's been given a similar pass because of their good article work. --barneca (talk) 18:42, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Wait, what? Beam 18:30, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Why is it that Bedford has been desysopped for the language he used, but User:JzG has not not been desysopped for blatantly sexist slurs like "cunt" and "twat"? Kelly hi! 18:33, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Wow, you're not doing much to shake my belief that you hold grudges. Those posts are one year old and two year old respectively. If (judging from the lack of more recent evidence) such comments are no longer being made, you seem to be stirring for the sake of it... <strong style="font-variant:small-caps">WJBscribe (talk) 18:37, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know where you got your belief, but how can I be "hold(ing) a grudge" when I wasn't even around back then, and I haven't had a dispute with JzG anyway? The point was that apparently different standards apply to different people. Kelly  hi! 19:08, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * This discussion is in a different league now, Kelly. We're talking about old but never-retracted insinuations of real world stalking and violence. Not to be confused with name calling. Durova Charge! 18:38, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's creepy. Consider me a big fan of the desysopping, based on that. Ugh. Kelly  hi! 18:41, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, but let's stay focussed. This is about Bedford and a proposed ban - not JzG or Kelly Or WJBscribe, or their views on a separate matter. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:40, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Kelly, my dear, the asnwer is that JzG does "a lot of good work" for the encyclopedia. Bedford, clearly, does not. In all seriousness, though, it's not a great comparison. I can't remember the last time Guy went on Chapman Central and suggested that he was going to go to over someone's house and, um, kill them.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 18:41, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Are you for real? It was okay for JzG to use words like "cunt" because "he did good work for the encyclopedia"? Just because there wasn't a death threat in there doesn't make the words any less nasty. I can't believe you are honestly defending such usages of words either. Mike H. Fierce! 19:11, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure Fatty's (is it OK if I call you that?) comment before "In all seriousness" was sarcastic. --NE2 23:32, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I've left a warning for Bedford on his talk page about the stalking threat. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:43, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The comment was grossly inappropriate. Ten months ago. I don't read it as a threat, as such, beyond a kind of threat like this: "You are grossly uncivil, I'd like to see if you'd be this way face-to-face." Problem is, people often avoid incivility face-to-face because it can arouse violent reactions, so there is, in fact, a possible implicit threat there, whether he intended it or not. Is there any ongoing threat? What is the most recent example of what could be considered a threat to stalk? (Again, I don't see that as a threat to stalk, as such, in that stalking represents repeated behavior. A single phone call wouldn't be "stalking," though it could still be wildly inappropriate. But he didn't make that phone call, didn't knock on that door. I see no grounds for emergency action, i.e., immediate block. Were he really inclined to act in a dangerous way, in any case, blocking him would not prevent such, and might actually increase the risk (though if we knew that for sure, I'd say we'd block anyway, but that's another story). The safest thing to do, with all concerned, is to treat Bedford fairly. He's desysopped for very clear reasons, which are not punitive but protective. Blocking him does not follow, and, if based on these old comments, would clearly be punitive. --Abd (talk) 18:45, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, which is why I didn't block him, but rather asked him to let us know what it means. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:50, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That's right. The warning was appropriate, and, given the context and the flap, necessary. --Abd (talk) 19:20, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I absolutely disagree that a block now would be punitive. It would be preventative, in the sense of preventing him from "cautioning" another user about a "visit".  The "preventative, not punitive" card his now been played incorrectly in so many venues that I think it has become, essentially, meaningless.  And if this was an isolated post from 10 months ago, I wouldn't be here.  It's because it is echoed in his posts yesterday and today that I think it's fair game. --barneca (talk) 18:55, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You cannot prevent him from commenting. Period. If he's going to do it, he's going to to it, if he has to go to a public library, or whatever, he will. If the behavior was yesterday, show that, not the ten-months old behavior. Show it all in an RfC, if that is deemed necessary. He's been warned, and he it should really be made clear to him that his comments and actions, on and off-wiki, have taken him to the edge. If he stops, slows down, starts to listen to his friends and those trying to help him, he can keep from jumping off that cliff. Otherwise ... he will join the ranks of those who have refused to listen, who have blamed others for what they brought on themselves. He's an experienced editor, it's a shame about his sysop bit but that was unavoidable for the time being, and I hope he'll listen. What I'm clearly opposed to here is an immediate ban. I think it's worth considering, but not as an emergency. Treating it as an emergency, if there really is any risk of dangerous behavior, could make it worse. So I'm coming at this from two different directions, both protective. --Abd (talk) 19:28, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


 * While I understand how some people feel about the situation given the comment and his recent unfortunate behaviour I am opposed to a long term block at the current time. I just don't think a 10 month old message from outside wikipedia is itself enough to take action so unless he continues to suggest he wants to confront editors IRL it's simply not enough. As for what to do, I would suggest Bedford refrain from editing wikipedia for a few days and would suggest he think very carefully before making any comments, either here or elsewhere. It appears to me he was and perhaps is, in a rather poor mood and so may not be able to put aside the way he current feels which is liable to make things worse for him. Indeed I would even suggest a short block, perhaps 3 days - 7 days to give him time to calm down with the clear message that the block is intended to give him time to cool down, the strong suggestion he does not talk about this on any external sites and the clear understanding no decision will be made on his future on wikipedia without him being given the chance to respond. Nil Einne (talk) 19:21, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Let's wait for Bedford's response
Bedford's most recent post was this, and although it's not all I'd hope for it's a step in the appropriate direction. I've asked him to retract the old blog post, and offered to support the continuation of his editing privileges if he does. Those of you who know certain matters I've gone public about offsite are aware that's no small offer. I'll discuss via e-mail if necessary (with a gmail account it's pretty safe to do so). So let's turn down the heat a bit and see whether Bedford is agreeable; this isn't a minute-by-minute emergency. With respect, Durova Charge! 19:04, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Even if he didn't respond I don't see any need for punishment or banishment. Desysoping is pretty devastating, that's enough for now. Beam 19:32, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

It was not about Wikipedia; its about an issue that started in May 2001, that I have had to deal with ever since. The story is too long to post here, but I will on the blog. Funny, I thought off-Wikipedia comments weren't supposed to be used against others? Anyways, my feelings will become clear shortly on why I would type such a thing, and any reasonable person could understand where I was coming from..-- Bedford <sup style="color:pink;">Pray  19:52, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Oo-kay. None of us here know the back-story to this and we only have your comments to go on. If you could explain a bit, that might go some way towards providing context - A l is o n  ❤ 19:56, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Legal threats may be acted upon whether posted on- or off-wiki, so why would something that (to my eye) is seemingly a threat of physical violence or at the very least an in-person confrontation not be? The same chilling effect against on-wiki action is present. Kylu (talk) 20:08, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * So far as I can tell, I think we're waiting for him to either take it back or say he didn't mean it as stalking. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:22, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Per the coercion clause in the banning policy, which I quoted above, it is bannable. The instance is old and it appears it was never acted upon, so I'm prepared to extend the benefit of the doubt.  Durova Charge! 20:48, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Not directed at a Wikipedian, and although far from an admirable sentiment, not exactly a threat either. Oppose ban.  Durova Charge! 21:15, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Calling Bedford a "misogynist" is a flat-out lie, and Jimbo had no legitimate authority to do what he did here. I don't like black people who dress and act like hooligans&mdash;not because they're black but because they dress and act like hooligans. Them being black has nothing to do with it. Similarly, Bedford doesn't like (and frankly, neither do I) women who get upset about something that's totally stupid to get upset about it&mdash;not because they're women but because they're people who get upset about something that's totally stupid to get upset about it. That they were women had nothing to do it; it just so happens that it was women acting absurdly in this instance. And his comments can only have been directed at those particular types of women, not women in general, and it's totally disingenuous to say they were. And you know what? The DYK was already approved; they had no business removing it just because they personally didn't like it. Their sensitivities do not override consensus. As for his sysop bit, well, the community giveth, and only the community can legitimately taketh away. Neither Mr. Wales nor the illegitimate Arbitrary Committee has any legitimate authority to either de-sysop someone or to dictate the terms under which he can be "allowed" to be re-sysopped. That authority, like all other, rests solely with the community. Kurt Weber ( Go Colts! ) 20:34, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Except, uh, nearly everyone who posted to this thread agreed that he should be desysopped. Sceptre (talk) 21:02, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * So? Just because everyone seems to hold one opinion, it doesn't mean someone voicing the other opinion is wrong. You've done quite a lot of stirring today, Will, perhaps you should step back on this issue for a bit. To be cliche about it; I may not agree with a lot of Kurt's opinions, but I'll defend his right to voice them (in the appropriate places). Chaotic  Reality  21:47, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * From what I've seen, Arbcom might be criticized from time to time, but there's no serious public opposition in this community to its functioning and its place as site policy. Likewise, if the community disliked Jimbo having the tools he has and the respect/authority that the community invests in him, perhaps there would be a serious opposition to this. You seem to be the only one here suggesting that neither Arbcom nor Jimbo are legitimate. Perhaps your assertion is as accurate as you think? Kylu (talk) 21:24, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Kurt's views of Jimbo and the AC are like British republicanism. Sceptre (talk) 21:35, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * And your views on a lot of things are utter horse. Quick, ask for a sysop bit so you can ban me lest I edit your userpage! Chaotic  Reality  21:49, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Jesus. Make an actual accurate non-offensive comparison, and I get trolled? Welcome to Wikipedia, Will. Sceptre (talk) 23:11, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I posted the long novella. I just wished I could have used the typing to build another article for Wikipedia, and not having to defend myself. As I type this, I feel there is something else I must add, so I'll post a supplement to the blog shortly, but the bulk is there.-- Bedford <sup style="color:pink;">Pray  20:45, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comments there Bedford - I was going to say ealier, "was that post even about Wikipedia?" but I suspected from the comments by people in the thread above, it was a little too obvious and I must have been missing something. That solves a lot of the problems.  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  20:51, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Although hardly becoming, the stalking hint was off-wiki, not targeted at a Wikipedia editor and Bedford says it was but a vent. I see no need for a block (much less a ban) over this. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:30, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * To clarify, if it had been a stalking threat against a Wikipedia editor, then on wiki/off wiki would have been irrelevant. Anyway, let's put this incident behind us and move on.  Durova Charge! 21:39, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Given his reasonable explanation, oppose ban. Sceptre (talk) 21:39, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Given the plausible explanation, I'll stop lobbying for a block/ban too, as I admit it is probably unsupported by policy. My remaining concerns about this editor are my problem, I suppose. --barneca (talk) 22:05, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Strange the comment sounded exactly like it was in response to what happened here, typical of what a misogynist would say in response to people's unhappiness with his actions here. Wasn't it posted at around the same time? I doubt it was a coincidence, or that the response of the women here on wiki wasn't at least part of the reason for the blog diatribe. <b style="color:#FF8C00;">Sticky</b> <b style="color:#FF8C00;">Parkin</b> 22:40, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You might want to read through the thread again - his explanation has been about a blog post from last September, because some thought it was a threat to stalk. This is the comment that led to the ban proposal, not so much the latest comments.  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  23:20, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The explanation looks okay to me, and the original issue was 10 months back. Oppose un ban - A l is o n  ❤ 23:37, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


 * }

Brian Peck
A new page, Brian Peck just appeared. It makes accusations of sex offences with no citations; and with a bit of goggling around I cannot find any. Obviously removing them still leaves them in the edit history which worries me. Don't know what can be done; but I presume there's some sort of scrubbing mechanism for this type of thing? --Blowdart | talk 06:51, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe you're looking for WP:OVERSIGHT--Crossmr (talk) 07:27, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Aha. Done. Thank you. --Blowdart | talk 07:43, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The allegations have returned, but this time are correctly cited. The real question here is is this guy sufficiently notable for inclusion? Most of his acting roles have been bit parts and typically work as a dialog coach is not a sufficient claim of notability. Any objections to sending this up for AfD?  caknuck <sub style="color:black;">°  is back from his wikisiesta  18:55, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I have deleted this article. The only sourcing in the article was with relation to the conviction, and did not demonstrate that this person was notable otherwise. Wikipedia is not the place to house reports of non-notable people who are convicted of crimes. My actions, as always, are open to review. Risker (talk) 19:07, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Works for me. Cheers,  caknuck <sub style="color:black;">°  is back from his wikisiesta  19:09, 26 July 2008 (UTC)