Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive165

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Resolved

 – No administrator action or further discussion is required. — Satori Son 21:19, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

The content issue : There are two college societies with the same name, "Mystical Seven". They both have articles, that's not a problem. One society uses Mystical 7 as its name, and that is actually the proper form of the name for that society. Not so for the other. There is a disambiguation page for both Mystical Seven articles, and the redirect page for "Mystical 7" should go to the society that uses that as it's name, not to both societies. As one poster said, "a redirect from 'Coke' as a name should go to 'Coca-cola', not a cola disambiguation page for Coca-Cola and Pepsi."

The editor issue : There is a user who can't apparently understand this. He wants to have the redirect for Mystical 7 go to the disambiguation page for both societies. (He's given no reason why.) It went back and forth a bit. HE then asked for comment. The comments he got supported the 'it should go to the one society that uses the name, not the other' side of the argument. He still reverted to his view. I changed it back and he STILL reverts it back to his view. I have a hard time accepting that this is good faith anymore, since it has all the appearance of a profound and sullen stolidity.

So the question is this : what do you do with an editor who can't accept his own request for comment?Thaïs Alexandrina (talk) 00:29, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Where is this RFC? If you mean the question he asked on the secret societies talk page, that's not exactly something official and binding that can be enforced. Not only that, but there was no consensus either way in it, in the four comments I saw. (Personally, I agree with him) --Golbez (talk) 00:35, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Hang on. Ok, these are secret societies? I've never understood how we can have Wikipedia pages on secret societies. If they're secret, then we don't know about them. If they're not secret, then they're something like "private membership" or "confidential membership." However, that violation of fundamental logic aside, we do redirects for misspellings. It's routine. Therefore, it's safe to assume that a person who has only heard the name (after all, it's secret) will type "7" sometimes and "seven" sometimes, so it would be logical to have the redirect serve as the landing point for any query. The "7" people lose nothing. After all, they're secret, so presumably they don't want people to find them quickly. Geogre (talk) 14:29, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree as well. This is hardly a Coke and Pepsi issue, and it's extremely misleading for you to use that analogy, Thaïs. These societies have the exact same name, and people who are unfamiliar with the particular form of the word seven should not be penalized by having to dig around, looking for whichever of the two they're trying to find. Mystical Seven and Mystical 7 should both stay as they are currently. GlassCobra 14:37, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. These so-called secret societies can't have articles without reliable sources, so it hardly makes them secret, does it? Corvus cornix_talk 18:09, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

"I've never understood how we can have Wikipedia pages on secret societies." Then don't comment on the articles...

"we do redirects for misspellings." That's the point, it's not a mispelling. The phrases are distinctly different.

"These societies have the exact same name" it's not the exact same name. The connotation of "Mystical 7" and "Mystical Seven" are quite distinct. Did you read the two names before making your comment?

"These so-called secret societies can't have articles without reliable sources" These societes have very reliable sources, and several of the articles are better referenced than 90% of the articles in wikipedia. Why would you make an arbitrarily dismissive comment about these articles if you understood the subject matter? Thaïs Alexandrina (talk) 02:28, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Just to concur that I think the current setup is correct: "Mystical 7" and "Mystical Seven" are both plausible search terms, so it's good that both should lead to a dismbiguation page. Each article has a hatnote directing any mis-led reader to the other page, which is also good. This all seems to be straightforward, and I don't think any specialist knowledge of the subject is needed to form an opinion on the matter. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 23:42, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

"Mystical 7" and "Mystical Seven" may both be plausible search terms, but they are different phrases, and mean different things; --you have not addressed that at all. BUT, that isn't even the point. This already went to a discussion, and user geniac refused to accept that comments went against him, and is still pursuing this. He is not following wikipedia policy, and for that matter, is not constructively contributing to the process. Why should articles be sacrificed to the endless quibbling of someone who does not understand what he is doing? Thaïs Alexandrina (talk) 00:12, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

The only other dscussion I've seen is at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Secret_Societies#Mystical_7 and I certainly wouldn't say that there was a consensus to change Mystical 7 to point away from the dab page. There's been a discussion here too, for what it's worth. The two terms are essentially interchangeable, from the perspective of someone who does not know that much about the societies and is searching for information - which is the person we want to help.

As an aside, you might want to dial down the rhetoric a little. No article is going to get "sacrificed", and this really isn't that big a deal. edited to add I just read the intro to Mystical_Seven_(Wesleyan) again, and noticed this: Properly written as "Mystical 7".^{[citation needed]} So... you're arguing and slow-edit-warring in favour of something you don't have a source for. um. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 00:26, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

"Mystical 7" and "Mystical Seven" may both be plausible search terms, but they are different phrases, and mean different things; --you have not addressed that at all.Thaïs Alexandrina (talk) 02:02, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

From the perspective of the typical Wikipedia reader, and even the author of this paper, "Mystical 7" and "Mystical Seven" are the same phrase and mean the same thing. This really isn't an issue for the admins' noticeboard any longer though. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 03:24, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

That's because you've made it a question of whether you agree with one side or the other, and not the actual issue, which is one user's relentless pursuit of his own agenda, wikipedia policy, or common courtesy be dammned. ---And how can you possibly say that ""Mystical 7" and "Mystical Seven" are the same phrase and mean the same thing"? They clearly do not. (talk) 00:02, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you don't realize that the number 7 is spelled "seven". --NE2 08:49, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

This isn't about what I think; it's about what the sources think. The link I posted is to www.wesleyan.edu, and you'd think they would know if anyone would. Either provide a

reliable source saying "the proper name of the Wesleyan society is 'Mystical 7' and not 'Mystical Seven'" or give it up or risk being snactioned for tendentious editingOkay, nobody is going to be "snactioned" just yet. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK

19:21, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

This is a clear case where a disambiguation page is needed. Since both names sound the same, and since both names, as names if not as societies, mean the same thing, a dab page absolutely needed. We use dab pages when there is potential for confusion because, for example, two different articles have similar or essentially the same name, or because spellings are very similar, and so on. A user who searches for Mystical 7, but is looking for Mystical Seven, will be confused; this is exactly why we have dab pages. Please review

WP:DAB Exploding Boy (talk

) 19:30, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Totally agree with Exploding Boy and my fellow new admin, SheffieldSteel; this is a clearcut instance where a dab page and hatnotes are appropriate. JGHowes ^talk - 21:03, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, Sheffield Steele has decided to resort to threats, and has given up discussing the content, I'll give up. The fact that he can get two other people to gang up with him is surely a testament to the cogency of his argument. For the record, "7" is a natural and rational number, and "Seven" is a collective noun; — Geniac, Sheffield Steele, NE2, and Exploding Boy are wrong. The distinction is not observed at Missouri, (it would not even be an appropriate distinction there). But I am not going to keep arguing this, I don't really care if wikipedia is accurate or not. Thanks for the threats, but I'll pass. Thaïs Alexandrina (talk) 21:41, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

That's a shame. I was hoping Thaïs Alexandrina would reply to the large text and ignore the small, not the other way around. I'm striking the "threat" since it may have been a bit

Wikipedia:Neutral Point of View says that we have to represent the material in our sources fairly, neutrally and without bias. I'm not aware of any source which says 'the name of the Wesleyan society is properly written "Mystical 7"', and in the absence of such, we should not include that material in the article on it. Further, to say that Mystical 7 must redirect only to one of the two societies under discussion (again in the absence of sourced information that only one uses the name) would show a distinct bias towards one of them (in addition to the arguments based on usability already mentioned). SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK

23:26, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I would add that Thaïs Alexandrina needs to take it down a notch. Nobody ganged up on anybody; you posted here to get input from admins, and you got it. It may not have been the input you wanted, but that's the risk you take. Exploding Boy (talk) 02:00, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that being an admin included the prerogative of threatening. For a final note, I see neither of you have challenged my contention that the phrases are not the same, and that the four of you have been wrong. To have the page redirect to one society and not the other makes perfect sense if it is not used by the other, no favoritism, just plain sense; however for people who could not distinguish between the two phrases, it might have seemed an unnecessary distinction. Thaïs Alexandrina (talk) 03:57, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

What threats? Please be specific. As to your "contention," it's frankly nonsensical. 7 is seven is 7 is seven. That's the point: the number seven can also be written as 7. When we have two identical-sounding names, the only difference between them being that one is written with a number and one with the number spelled out, we need a dab page to avoid confusion. What exactly is your problem with that? Exploding Boy (talk) 04:35, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Regarding your contention that the phrases are not the same, I have already cited an academic source using the two terms interchangeably when referring to the Wesleyan society - that's the group that you say must be written "Mystical 7". If the source behaves as if there is no difference between the phrases, and if no source has been provided saying that there is a difference, Wikipedia's content should treat the two equivalently. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 04:58, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. Do any secret societies need articles? I think this is making a mountain out of a molehill, just a bit. Come on, did you have to bring this to AIV? A simple conversation could have taken care of it. --

Sunday

14:49, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

You would think that this would not be such an issue, but it seems that neither Geniac or Shefford Steele are willing to even entertain a discussion. The distinction I've noted has not been contested, --there has been no argument by Geniac at all, just reversion after reversion. And Shefford Steele has NOT offered an "academic source" he offered what was originally a college newspaper article. This is pointless. I say, let it be wrong, it's only wikipedia.Thaïs Alexandrina (talk) 16:30, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

It should be noted that Thaïs Alexandrina is continuing her campaign regarding naming. Please see the Talk:Mystical Seven (Wesleyan) and Mystical Seven (Wesleyan) pages. Exploding Boy (talk) 16:44, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Exploding Boy editing

I invite any administrator to go to the Talk:Mystical Seven (Wesleyan) page, Exploding Boy is hostile and out of control. I brought up a legitimate issue on this page. I discussed it here at length. I did prove my initial point that two phrases were not identical. No one has challenged that. From that point, Exploding Boy went to the original page and took out one statement that referenced the dispute. (That is, he eliminated the reference, rather than finding some way of addressiung this content issue.) That statement did have a "fact" tag, but just from this month. It was brand new. So I put it back, saying that the dispute should NOT be hidden, and that the fact tag was new. he's now gone off, reverted again, and is again making hostile threats across the board at me. The fact that he has buddies claiming that they are a new consensus, (on an article none of them have ever posied on until this hour), should not count for anything. This is just hostility and ganging up on people. I see no other explanation for why they are making an edit war out of this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thaïs Alexandrina (talk • contribs) 17:51, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Interested parties may refer to Talk:Mystical Seven (Wesleyan)#Article name and Revision history of Mystical Seven (Wesleyan). as well as the section immediately above. Exploding Boy (talk) 18:00, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

If anyone is out of control, it's Thaïs Alexandrina. This editor is deaf to discussion, ignoring consensus, policy, hints, and all other means of communication that have been tried. They insist not only that they are correct, but that it's the other editors who have been disproven in the above discussion. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:09, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Um, well, you were.... the phrases are not the same. You said they were. That would be wrong. Get over it. Go out and pet a cat or something.Thaïs Alexandrina (talk) 18:14, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Thaïs, I'm going to offer you some friendly advice here. If you want to stick around and contribute to Wikipedia, chill out a little bit, review our policies and guidelines, and maybe expand your selection of articles you work on to get some more experience. The way you're going, you're headed for a block. Exploding Boy (talk) 18:18, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I have had no previous interaction with Exploding boy or the article in question. I merely found his arguments on this page compelling and yours not, so I posted on the article's talk page [1] voicing my support of his position (i.e., building consensus). Calling us a gang is hardly

WP:V. That change shouldn't be there, end of story. justinfr (talk

) 18:19, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd also point out that removing the statement from the article doesn't "hide" the controversy, it merely removes it to the article's talk page, where such issues belong. justinfr (talk) 18:23, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Justinfr, you recommended a change based on a "scholarly source" which was not, in fact, a scholarly source, it was a college newspaper article. So this shows that you evaluated the issue... how? Thaïs Alexandrina (talk) 20:47, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

And can some editor suggest that Exploding Boy post something that does not include a threat? Anyone can look at the talk page for that article and see that rather than addressing any content questions, he only insists on correctness of his actions and adds threats of retribution. I do not see the productiveness of any of his actions or posts. Thaïs Alexandrina (talk) 20:47, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I've been reading through the different discussions Thais A., and I'm having a really hard time finding a post of your own that isn't filled with hostile language and "threats". Just saying. On the surface, to argue that "Mystical Seven" and "Mystical 7" are different is rather farcical. I support having Mystical 7 be a redirect page to both "secret" fraternities. How many different editors need to be against you before you stop railing on about "everyone is threatening me" and just understand that you don't have a case here? You are drawing unnecessary attention to yourself, I'd hate to see any sanctions against you or anyone else over such a triviality. You do good work here, and I hope you stay. Keeper ǀ 76 20:50, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

If there is a { { fact|date= } } tag, how long do most people leave for that citation to be provided? I assume that since it is dated by the month, that one should allow at least a month before removing the challenged data. I usually let it go for three or four, just to be safe. ... But then again, I'm patient with people. Thaïs Alexandrina (talk) 20:51, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

The policy was quoted to you already on the Mystic 7 talk page, but I'll summarize it for you here anyway: "It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced." As for what you "usually" do (ie: allowing unsourced material to remain for 3-4 months), I can't see how that's possible, given that your first edit here was at 03:58 on July 16, 2008, according to your contribution history. At any rate, it's immaterial if that's what you've been doing, perhaps while editing under a different name; now you know the policy.

The Administrators' noticeboard is not the place to hash out content disputes, and it's not a place for you to fling around unfounded accusations either. I'm going to request that someone close this conversation now, and I'm again going to caution you regarding your incivility. I also strongly suggest you review the following policies:

• WP:CIVIL
• W:RS
• WP:POINT
• WP:SOURCE
• WP:TEND

Thank you. Exploding Boy (talk) 21:03, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

We have an adminstrator among us who is a serial image copyright offender. I'm talking not about occasional errors in judgment or the usual dodgy fair use claims, but about a sustained, fraudulent series of uploads claimed as self-made when they were clearly collages of copyrighted elements. What makes it worse, he has been deliberately and systematically lying about these images to defend them, and he is still doing so. If this was not an admin but a normal editor, he'd be blocked for a couple months for this.

I'm talking about

• Image:2001question.jpg (March 2008, with earlier versions at Image:2001questionwd1.JPG, Image:2001question.JPG, Image:2001questionColorHAL.JPG)
• Image:DSSword.jpg (March 2008 version on en-wiki, equally dubious replacement created on commons in August 2008)

Evidence in form of graphical comparison is here: Image:Dreadstar comparison.jpg (my upload, deleted to make it admin-only, since it's not formally NFCC-compliant)

Dreadstar's repeated lying can be seen here: [2], [3], PUI, [4], [5], with further talk at User talk:Dreadstar#Image closure.

What makes this even more serious is that this abusive editor has also been taking admin action in image-related matters. Oddly, all his (quite infrequent) image actions seem to consist of unexpectedly popping up at IfD to close some of the most hotly contested borderline NFCC cases, always as "keep" ([6], [7], [8], [9]). In at least two of these cases, he was keep-closing controversial IfDs where the uploaders/defenders were his wiki friends.

Disclosure: Two of these IfDs were my nominations, and before anybody now shouts I'm doing this in retaliation: yes, of course this move comes in reaction to his. If it hadn't been for these closures and I had just come across his abusive uploads by chance, I would have done what I do to all such recalcitrant copyright offenders: block them or topic-ban them from all image uploads. But seeing highly controversial and high-profile admin decisions being taken by somebody like this is just something I can't put up with. This person has been systematically subverting and sabotaging our policies, he can't be trusted to be an adminstrator. He must be desysoped, or at least make a binding commitment he'll never again take admin action about images. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:34, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Without even looking at the IFD closures, I find Fut.Perf's arguments at [10] quite convincing. (FP, do you have any objections to reproducing the text here and the image offsite?) If the problematic actions at IFD are as serious as you describe, there is a real concern here: one that needs to be addressed by the community at the proper dispute resolution forum, not just here. east718 // talk // email // 06:54, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

To be fair about the IfDs, none of them was really obviously abusive in the sense that some other admin might not also have taken them. I challenged one of them at DRV and it was upheld, so, well. It's just the pattern that struck me, together with what I consider rather poor arguing in closing them, and the combingation with the very obvious copyvio offenses. – Technically, I'm not very good with hosting images off-wiki. If people want it fully accessible, could somebody else please lend a technically-challenged person a hand? Thanks. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:58, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Fut.Perf's post is in the box below; the relevant image is here. east718 // talk // email // 07:04, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Updated a link within the above to point to a now deleted Commons image. —Giggy 09:10, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I think some question should be raised here of why FutPer finds it acceptable to call other admin liars and trawl through the history of people who disagree with him to find something to attack them with. He follows a system of engagement and browbeating (that can be seen at the recent closure of HMS Conqueror, that caused FutPer to check through Dreadstar's history, where after people disagree he then trawls through peoples image upload history to find any faults). While following a deletionist agenda is not a bad thing, the zeal and delight with wich FutPer seems to engage in it is unsettling at the very least. FutPer should, at the very least, be encouraged to seek annother admin's input immediatly after a disagreement with someone, rather than deleting things on his lonesome with an editor he is already in conflict with. I understand that FutPer may be getting the right results, and I do commend him for the work he does in keeping the copyright violations down, but I do think that process is just as important as the result, and the way he goes about things is unnerving at best. (For what it is worth I am out of the country starting this afternoon, so if I do not respond to any questions about my decision to speak here or such, I apologise in advance.)Narson (talk) 09:41, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Let's not get distracted. While I agree that FuturePerfect's language is immoderate, that should be dealt with elsewhere. What is significant here is that the core accusation seems to be correct: the elements of these images are, essentially, identical on the per-pixel level, which makes the claim of multiple independent drawings not credible. Nandesuka (talk) 12:05, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually I would disagree, there are multiple issues to be look at here. Not being an admin I can't see the evidence against

User:Dreadstar for one thing; he doesn't get a full community hearing as he should for one. I don't think the behaviour of one party in a dispute should be swept under the carpet just because they've apparently uncovered a juicy piece of dirt on the other. There are multiple issues at hand here. Justin talk

12:14, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the fact that Future Perfect trawls through the upload logs of those with whom he is in active dispute, and unilaterally deletes images he feels fail the CSD over the reasoned objections of the uploader, does belong here - even if the images meet the criteria. Even if it's not just retaliation it's always going to look like it. It only seems to me to be good practice to allow another admin to delete any image he tags, where deletion has been opposed and where he is in an active dispute with the uploader or those who object to deletion on another matter. Pfainuk talk 12:49, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Images failing NFCC are not the issue here. There were a few of those too, and Dreadstar didn't raise objections against their deletion. (Those weren't in bad faith, although I note in passing that their existence is in fact another piece of evidence against his competence as an admin.) The deletions in the copyvio cases were absolutely straightforward. As for not acting unilaterally any further, that is of course the exact reason I brought this here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:59, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I find the assertion that "Future Perfect trawls through the upload logs of those with whom he is in active dispute" unfounded and unnecessarily inflammatory. FutPerf identified a number of image copyright issues, and as any administrator should when any apparent systematic abuse is detected, he reviewed the other editor's contributions. He then (rightly) chose to bring it here rather than take action himself. The image comparison inked above is compelling, and if FutPerf's analysis is correct then this is both systematic abuse and quite deceitful behaviour. To ignore it would be wrong. Guy (Help!) 16:28, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

And yet he deleted all the images several hours before he posted here. And yet he acknowledged that the reason he went through Dreadstar's upload log was because he objected to the IFD closes.[15] He's even used the word "trawl".[16] Perhaps the tone of my comment was a little off, fair enough, I'll apologise for that, but contentwise I believe it says no more than what Future Perfect has accepted.

In the interests of full disclosure, I should point that I was involved in the IFD whose closure brought this on and in the discussion surrounding his speedy deletion of Image:FalklandsWarMontage.jpg, an image uploaded and defended by a user arguing the other side in that IFD, part way through that IFD. If nothing else, both that case and the one being discussed - particularly when put together - create the impression that these actions are retaliatory. And this creates a very bad atmosphere.

Should we be keeping copyvios? Of course not. Is it an issue if an admin uploads copyvios? Of course. But I think Future Perfect does need to be rather more careful than he has been in cases where he is already in dispute with someone - and if a case is as obvious as he says (and it may well be) then there should be no issue with allowing one of the other 1600-odd admins to handle the deletion. Pfainuk talk 17:42, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

First my apologies to everyone for this problem, had I not just given a knee-jerk reaction to Future Perfect's first post and truly examined the images, this whole thing may have been nipped in the bud. Can't make too many excuses, but we were having the full effects of a tropical storm and I admit that my patience, attention span, and electricity were short yesterday. No pun intended. However, after taking the time to more fully review the images and consider their circumstances, FP is correct, they're not what I remembered them being.

As I've already admitted, the 2001 image version I ultimately posted wasn't my all-original one I thought it was, but it was a different one that contained copyrighted images. I did a bunch of different versions, and emailed them around for opinions, and that was the one everyone liked - they were all very similar, and I thought it was the one of my own "creation" (though it's still derivative, which I didn't fully understand at the time). My mistake. It certainly wasn't a "sustained, systematic effort at deception", just a simple misunderstanding. Basicallly, I uploaded the wrong image, thinking it was one that I created – and never re-examined it, even when it was tagged in May, until FP deleted it. Heck, I was moving at the time, packing boxes everywhere, so my attention wasn't fully on the task at hand.

As for the sword, I was pretty sure the one I originally posted for use on my user subpage was the one I drew years ago, but I was fiddling around with a bunch of different images and it may actually be one that I modified from the original. Looking at it, it looked like one of the copies I drew, but on closer examinination, it does appear to be just be a photoshopped copy of the original. Hard to tell, as I said, it was purposely made to look as much like the original as possible. I went through a phase in the early '80s, not only collecting comics (over 4k of them!), but seeing if I could actually draw the things. Didn't work out, but I do have a stack of copies that came out...well..interestingly... :)

So, no I'm not lying. If I were going to lie about it, I'd have just said I was wrong about all the images, they weren't what I initially remembered having posted.

I did not object to FP’s deletions of these images, once he brought them to my attention, I recognized the copyright problems with them, whether I created them from scratch or not. I’ve learned a lot about image policy since that time, heck I’m still learning.

I can make the following promises, not to upload any further self-created or modified images without approval from other image admins; and if my Conqueror IFD closing is found to be faulty, I will not close any contested IFD’s for one year - until I've had lots more experience at IFD. I have no objection to Conqueror being taken to DRV, I welcome it.

Beyond that, I can only humbly apologize for my error with the sword and 2001 images, I truly thought what I was saying at the time was true. I certainly hope the community hasn't lost faith in me over this mistake, I feel terrible about it.

I've responded at Dreadstar's talk page [17]. Short version, I have strong reasons to believe this is still not the truth. The timing doesn't add up. Dreadstar uploaded the final 2001 version at a time he must have known it was a copied version. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:56, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Let's assume for the sake of argument that Dreadstar made multiple versions, some with copyrighted elements and some without, and he uploaded the wrong one. At some point the error was called to his attention. Did he defend his images as free even after the error was pointed out to him, and has he done this on more than just these two images? Thatcher 17:08, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

He certainly repeated the assertion that they were his own free work several times after being pointed to the self-evident fact that these were photographs/screenshots. [18], [[[Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images/2008 March 7#Image:2001question.JPG|PUI]], etc., and he also repeatedly defended his sword image on commons after being asked about its source. (On that one, I can't point to the actual source, which might actually be a free one, but I find it suspicious that he has never so much as acknowledged that there's something to be explained about it, as it very obviously contains photographic material.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:31, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

There are two issues here: compliance with our policy concerning images, and Dreadstar's character. I am not an expert on images (as is the person who womments in the section below) but I am satisfied by Dreadstar's comment here, on 13:37, 21 August 2008, that he respects our policies and understands he made mistakes and regrets them. What more can we want? Everyone makes mistakes, and editors in good faith can easily, and thus often do, get involved in prolonged misunderstandings. I see Dreadstar trying to clear this up and people who have a good grasp on our image policies can obviously work with him in reaching a quick resolution. But FP is taking an aggressive and hostile stance that seems unwarrented based on the evidence - I do not see a larger pattern of subversion of our policies. I have had encounters with Dreadstar a number of times and he has always struck me as a serious, well-intentioned, hard-working editor. I am certain he acted in good faith and will in the future. I see no need to impugn his character and find it unnecessary and sad. Let's just tone down the histrionics and maybe people can accept Dreadstar's acknowledgment of his own mistakes, and move forward. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:59, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Slrubenstein stated this very well, and I concur with his comment in full. After reviewing this thread, the linked user talk page and IFDs, there is no indication that Dreadstar did anything wrong other than making a couple mistakes that could happen to anyone. He's acknowledged and apologized for the mistakes and has offered a strong plan for avoiding similar errors in the future. I've seen Dreadstar's actions and words in various areas and always found him to be an excellent contributor and in his admin roles, a positive influence on the process of collaboration. There does not appear to be any continuing problem here at all. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 20:23, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Well spoken, Slrubenstein. Dreadstar made a mistake, fessed up to it, and is agreeing to stay away from controversial image closings for a year. I think that is more than acceptable in this case for Dreadstar. As for FPAS, see comment in the section Olive started. Sumoeagle179 (talk) 00:06, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

He did not "fess up". His very apology here contained a continuation of his lies. And I haven't seen him make a binding commitment to stay away from image-related admin work. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:19, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment from Olive regarding Dreadstar

I came upon FP accusations yesterday and find this offensive and inappropriate for any editor let alone an admin. [19]. "Serial" in the title of this discussion has obvious, highly inappropriate connotations. His continued comments could be construed as harassment and lead me to question FP’s motives in dealing with this issue. I have no reason to judge FP on any other issues so want to make clear this comment is about this issue alone.

• Background: I have a terminal degree in fine art, (MFA), in painting and drawing and have taught art to university students at both the graduate and undergraduate level

• I’m not sure what FP’s issues are with the images he is comparing. A quick visual scan of the “fetus” images (Examine the lips closely. They are quite different), indicates they are not the same, although the layouts used in the overall images are very similar. There are other differences. The two swords pictured are also not the same, although quite similar. One visually scans the shapes around the objects rather than the objects themselves to create accurate representational work. Note that the white shapes below the sword are different in size. There are also other more subtle differences here in terms of shape/space relationships. The circular “Hal’s eyes” images would seem to be identical.

• Could Dreadstar have drawn some of this. Sure. Non-artists are often astounded by what can be drawn. Drawing is a fundamental technical skill that can be developed, and of course many people are genetically endowed with the ability to draw what they see, easily even if they aren’t practicing artists. I am always astounded by someone saying, oh that can’t be done, or so and so couldn’t have done that. As well drawings by even high school students can look more real than photographs. In the art world this kind of art is called Photorealism or Super realism. I have no idea what Dreadstar’s skill level is, and neither does anyone else. Further he is not required to somehow prove his drawing skill. Good grief!

• As a general comment, I can draw just about anything, but my ability to manipulate a computer and collage in an elegant way is just about zero. Those skills do not overlap, but are largely technical and require practice. So someone could easily draw very well, especially if they’ve been doing it for a long time but could be somewhat more awkward in manipulating images on a computer. And of course drawing on a computer is more difficult than drawing be hand.

• More to the point: What is this about. Dreadstar seems unclear about what happened, fair enough. He, without argument, advised deletion of the images, the appropriate response under the circumstances. and has apologized for the situation. Anyone who has watched the creation of, or themselves created computer collaged images knows that multiple images are created that can combine multiple techniques. What happened in which image is pretty hard to remember unless one is specifically trying to create a process that can be repeated and especially if one is emailing images back and forth. Art as well has been copied since the beginning of time. It’s a legitimate way of creating art and of learning certain skills. I am surprised to learn that copyright on Wikipedia seems different than in the art world itself. It’s a cloudy issue. That is, what’s a copyright violation and where are the boundaries between what is original, and what is a violation are not intuitive, but have to be learned probably through experience. Dreadstar is an admin with an excellent reputation among editors, large number of contributions, of being helpful beyond the call of duty, evenness of temper, clear thinking, a sense of humor and guess what? No instances at all of lying in any of his other admin duties. Why would that kind of person decide to lie here?

This is a place where good faith must come into play. Ultimately, we can’t prove or disprove any of the things being said. We have to take Dreadstar’s word on this issue, an act of good faith based on his past. His well-established reputation as an admin and editor deserves nothing less than that.(olive (talk) 17:51, 21 August 2008 (UTC))

• Said well (far better than I could have), and should be the last word on this issue. Fut Per should assume good faith, retract the accusations of seriality, and move on with working on the project. Dreadstar has indicated his remorse for the mistake he made, and I doubt (given his character) that he will make the same mistake again. ^S._D.D.J.Jameson 19:36, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Olive, your defense of Dreadstar would have gained a lot in credibility if you hadn't attempted to defend the indefensible by trying to deny the obvious fact of the copying. All the high-faluting art jargon you mix in there cannot hide the fact that your arguments here are just specious. The lips of the baby are different? No, they are not, they are identical down to the tiniest, single-pixel sized details of contours and shades, except for colouring and contrast artefacts that are due to the fact that his immediate source may well have been a slightly different electronic web copy of the same movie poster than the one I found, plus the fact that obviously the lower lips together with everything else at the left margin was just mechanically cut off and replaced by a rectangle of dark blue background. "The white shapes below the sword are different in size"? Nothing that's not the result of crude electronic retouching, or an artifact of separate jpg rastering after an act of mechanical copying in the electronic medium. There are "more subtle differences here in terms of shape/space relationships"? No, there are not, you can overlay the two images one over the other and they match down to single pixels, everywhere. Don't bullshit us.

The fact remains, Dreadstar didn't make a "mistake"; he knew exactly that he wasn't supposed to copy those elements, but he copied them, and he spent a lot of energy thinking up lies to cover the fact. For several months, again and again, until and including today. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:35, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

FP. My comments are and were honest.Using the simplest language in my field to try and explain what I am seeing is not high- faluting langauge, and no I wasn't "bull shitting" you. Just doing my best to be honest as I see it. Sorry you see it otherwise. I stick by my "specious" arguments.(olive (talk) 22:16, 21 August 2008 (UTC))

Ignoring tone for a moment, FP's point was that the images in question are clearly Photoshopped versions of copyrighted originals. The 2001 pic contains repeated patterns of stars in the extreme right and lower right (compare to this, for example) where the "2001" was covered and the picture was extended. The sword has the same pixel patterns as the original. Both pictures are modified from the original, yes, but were not redrawn from whole cloth as you suggest is possible. And, in any case, Dreadstar seems to have admitted the Photoshopping. Andrew Jameson (talk) 01:23, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

he knew exactly that, so when did psychic abilities become part of the administrators toolset?

Whilst Dreadstar may or may not have consciously uploaded images and came up with an elaborate series of explanations, the fact remains that you cannot determine what his thought processes may or may not have been either at the time or in dialogue about them.

By the same token I can't determine if this is a witch-hunt based on the decision to close a hotly contested IFD in a way which contradicted your initial raising of the image.

fwiw I see no reason from a review of input to artificially constrain Dreadstar, the same cannot be said of others involved in this issue.

ALR (talk) 21:55, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

"He knew exactly that"? Yes, of course he did. Because he said so himself at the time, as you would know had you read the evidence. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:58, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

That's an issue of interpretation of the statement made. We can choose to disagree, feel free to hound me now as well if you wish, for daring to disagree with you (a second time).

ALR (talk) 22:02, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I pretty much agree with Olive. Dreadstar has admitted his error (see my post in above section). I think desyssoped and a total ban from image closing is excessive. I'm ok with his commitment. However, let's not forget the other side of this issue, FPAS's behavior in the area of images. Others have already alluded to this here in this thread. FPAS seems to have a genuine problem in dealing with those who disagree with him in image cases. I'll admit he knows policy well, but his following people around, rigid inability to accept dissenting opinion, lack of AGF, and obnoxious behavior are unacceptable in an admin. Just from looking at FPAS's current talk page and July 31 image delete logs, I found these threads (note he often doesn't respond or dismisses concerns, and there's much more similar behavior in image debates): User_talk:Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise#Falklands_War_Montage, User_talk:Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise#Image:CrystalCityGirlScoutsDrama.png, User_talk:Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise#Bouboulina, User_talk:Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise#Image:SanJuanPotters.jpeg, User_talk:Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise#My_new_Project, User_talk:Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise#Himar.C3.AB, User_talk:Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise#Comment, User_talk:Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise#Your_comments, User_talk:Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise#Gian_Maria_Volont.C3.A8, User_talk:Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise#Epirus_map, and from the image delete page on Jul 31: calling an opposed a vandal, disruptive, and having bad faith-which someone called “shocking”, accuses people of lazy writing-which someone called snarky and a ""heads you win, tells I lose"" and "a game whereby no one could possibly satisfy your interpretation of that NFCC languag" situation by FPAS. This is just from two pages. It even appears he follows them around to check their images--would this be stalking? I feel an RFC on admin conduct is in order for FPAS as many users are concerned about his behavior and treatment of others. Sumoeagle179 (talk) 00:39, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I've looked over Dreadstar's image past, he has 32 uploads total according to the edit counter and not much experience in image work. Even as someone who has over 6,000 image edits, I still seek guidance from others and mess up on occasion. AFAIK, the other images Dreadstar uploaded included proper non-free licenses, etc, so I would be surprised that he would pick this single image to lie on and certainly do not see it as a long term (serial) pattern of behavior. Since he has admitted fault and agreed to stay away from IfDs and seek guidance from others on images, I think we can wrap this one up as good faith random variance.

As to FutPerf, just looking at his last several edits I see some things that strongly concern me, for instance:

Also, your English is too poor. This is the English-speaking Wikipedia and it is really only for people who have some good working knowledge of English. You cannot really participate on such a difficult topic if you can't write well.

What ever happened to not biting the newbies and open editing for all? I agree with Sumo that this needs further investigation. MBisanz ^talk 01:36, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

MBisanz, I explained that one to you yesterday on IRC. Bringing this up here again in the context of an entirely unrelated matter is, well, just low. This posting to the newbie was a good-faith attempt at communicating with a person who evidently knew so little English anything more complex or more polite would likely not have been understood. And Sumoeagle with his list of talk page links above is evidently already practicing for the favourite sport of abusive RFC/U and Arbcom accusers: filling "evidence" sections with quantities of unrelated material in the hope that some dirt will stick. Guys, if you want my head, go straight to Arbcom, you won't get it any cheaper than that. With these "evidence" pieces here you have already shown the intellectual level of the attacks. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:07, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I think someone needs to remember that people in glass houses should not start burning witches. Or something. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 05:21, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

• This has to stop. My own personal interactions with FP have been mixed, at best. I've tried to always be civil to him, but there are times when he makes that extremely difficult. Anyone who disagrees with his views on image policy is, well, harangued and belittled. It really does have to stop. I don't know if I support an RfC or not, but this is certainly not a non-issue. I've severely curtailed my activity on IfDs, mainly because of the tack that FP (as well as a couple other regulars who nearly always recommend deletion) have taken. Wikipedia is a hobby to me--a source of pleasure and relaxation at the end of a day. I work hard at it, but I don't need the grief, and as such I've cut back on IfD work, which is an areas that I greatly enjoy. The always found the investigation that I put into my recommendations quite interesting. Anyways, I apologize for my wordiness, I just felt that someone needed to point out that FP's behavior problems are not a non-issue. ^S._D.D.J.Jameson 05:54, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

  See here for a diff that illustrates my concern. He reverts two good-faith users' attempts to communicate with him as "badgering." ^S._D.D.J.Jameson 05:57, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I have to say that having butted heads with FuturePerfect, I have concerns that some of his behaviours cast doubt upon his suitability to be an admin. I have no doubt that his intentions are for the benefit of Wikipedia as a project, however, his attitude to fellow editors that disagree with him leaves a lot to be desired and some of the tactics that he employs I find questionable.

I first became aware of his actions when I checked my watchlist and noticed changes to the article British naval forces in the Falklands War, to remove the image Image:HMS Conqueror (S48).jpg see [20]. Assuming that this was a good faith edit of someone not familiar with the history of the conflict I edited with a comment "rs iconic image of RN". FuturePerfect immediately reverts [21]. Again I revert "rv see talk page, an iconic image of the only nuclear submarine to sink a warship in a conflict, in a well know incident adds to understanding see talk page". I make a post on the talk page [22] inviting to discuss. Instead of engaging on the talk page to discuss a content dispute, FuturePerfect immediately reverts [23]. What concerned me at the time was the comment "rv, image *will* be deleted". Not wanting to persist in an edit war, I place a comment on the Talk Page indicating my intention to do no further reverts [24].

My first concern, an administrator should not be initiating an edit war, which is effectively what FuturePerfect did. If an edit war was initiated an admin should have been the one bringing it to an end not an editor. Finally, when an effort to head off an edit war is made an a Talk Page it should have been an admin making that move first. None of this occurred here.

There are other things troubling me about this. FuturePerfect removed this image Image:HMS Conqueror (S48).jpg from a number of pages:

• British naval forces in the Falklands War,
• Royal Navy Submarine Service
• Churchill class submarine
• HMS Conqueror (S48)

He then declares the image to be an orphan [25] and a candidate for speedy deletion. This seems to be an abuse of process to me, deliberately orphaning an image to then delete it via a speed deletion process. It seems deliberately designed to avoid going through an

The comments on the talk page to me indicated that FuturePerfect intended to go through a speedy deletion process despite strong objections from 3 editors. It is my belief that the only reason an

Several editors mention the fact that FuturePerfect appears to be browbeating editors on the

I'll repeat this until people finally understand it: Saying so don't make it so. You wont't get away that easily: I'll repeat this until you finally understand it: Oh, and please, spare yourself the ad-homs and personal attacks, I'm rather tired of those and they do get boring after a while. Yet another voter who doesn't get the difference between the notability of an event and the usefulness of a picture of that event. If you can't see that, you have a reading problem

I could go on but these are only a sample.

His conduct thereafter does smack of retaliation, proceeding to go through my image uploads. He picked up on Image:FalklandsWarMontage.jpg in which I'd used a Fair Use image and recommended it for speedy deletion disputing the fair use rationale. Now when I created the montage, I was careful to seek advice about the use of the image in question, the consensus at the time was it was OK. It would appear that the advice I was given was wrong but I politely asked that a non-involved admin look at the speedy [26]. However, that suggestion was dismissed out of sight with the comment that heI was trying to shut him out of his turf. As a tangent, FuturePerfect indicated he would allow me time to make a replacement but went on to delete the image before I could upload it.

I have a few articles in preparation on my user page, I will freely admit that the idea for the new article

Not only did he go through my image uploads but other editors who voted keep in the deletion review.

Once the deletion review was complete, he then appears to have continued browbeating other editors involved. He posted on Dreadstar's page [27] with a posting that is not only uncivil but seriously lacking in

As with other comments here, I'm not the only to have noticed a pattern of incivility. Here, [28] Rlevse comments on insulting comments. FuturePerfect responds with more incivility.

So in summary of my comments, I have noticed:

• FuturePerfect has some serious issues with incivility.
  
• FuturePerfect is an admin and should not be initiating edit wars.
  
• FuturePerfect has circumvented policies by deliberately orphaning images to then use a speedy deletion process rather than IFD.
  
• FuturePerfect has browbeat and retaliated against editors that disagree with him.

My own personal interpretation of this is that FuturePerfect feels he is working for the good of the project. However, his methods are counterproductive and leading him into conflict with other editors. I have a serious concern that he just simply doesn't see that he is at fault here and that his confrontational attitude is causing friction. I do believe that he has become mission-orientated and is not treating cases on an individual basis but feels he has a mission to expunge none free images from wikipedia.

For the record I don't see my own conduct as beyond reproach, I know I can be a cantankerous old git and I can be very mission-orientated myself. I know I can be confrontational and in your face but I do try to stop those tendencies and I will listen to others. Justin talk 14:33, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I would also had that i hope Dreadstar does not recuse himself from deletion decisions, none of the deletion decisions above are a bad call. He made a mistake, he admitted it, he's apologised that should be the end of ot. I don't think deletion decisions should be limited to those with a very narrow interpretation of policy and more importantly we should back up admins making those calls. If it is a mistake that is why we have

WP:DRV. Justin talk

A minor correction, it was User:Ryan4314 who initiated the RFC, not me. I can see how it looks like that from the talk page though.

To my mind it was not so much the removal of the Conqueror image from all articles and then tagging as orphaned that was an issue as much as the edit warring to keep the image off any articles, coupled with the declarations that the "image *will* be deleted". Given that he didn't use any admin tools to do this, and that admins are supposed to be just editors with extra tools, I just wonder how you guys would have reacted to me if I'd done that. Not well, I would imagine. If there is dispute as to whether the image should be included on a page (as to whether it meets the NFCC) then surely speedy deletion as orphaned is inappropriate. It seems also perhaps fair to say that, while it's the obvious conclusion when you look at

User:Dreadstar, and at this point, Future Perfect went to Dreadstar's talk page to demand

a retraction and bring up the issue that brought us here.

I've mentioned the Falklands War Montage deletion earlier but I might as well say again that Future Perfect, the nominator of the IFD, unilaterally speedy deleted an image uploaded and defended (on policy grounds) by one of those actively disputing Future Perfect's position in that IFD. He had to be persuaded to tell us which speedy criterion he was contending it met (see Talk:Falklands War). I think this is not the sort of conduct one expects of an admin. If the case was clear-cut enough for CSD, then another admin could have reviewed the case and pushed the delete button just as easily as Future Perfect. That's basically all that was requested of him.

On Dreadstar, he's admitted and apologised his mistake, and I don't think he'll make it again. I think that issue is basically done. Pfainuk talk 15:43, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

As a final remark in a larger context: I wanted to say that the issue here isn't whether the images I looked at are identical or not. Visually scanning them they aren't. A machine maybe shows something different. Nor is the issue whether someone can draw well or not, or if these images could have been drawn. They could have. My comments from the perspective of my field were a neutral response to accusations. The real issue is, whether on Wikipedia do we "hang" people for mistakes, or do we attempt to provide an environment where editors can function at an optimal level, a consideration at the heart of Wikipedia as a collaborative community. If an editor demonstrates consistent patterns of high quality work, honesty, evenness, maturity, and at some point this kind mistake is made, support, not should be, but must given, consistent with the very nature of what Wikipedia is. As others have said, a clear apology for whatever happened, and none of us knows what that is, demonstrates good faith, and a responsibly mature editor, behaviour consistent with his history. Our response must be a good faith one as well. That is the essence of Wikipedia. Sorry if I sound preachy . Maybe I've been working too long on the Civility Policy article.(olive (talk) 17:29, 22 August 2008 (UTC))

Here's another choice one from FPAS: User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise/Archive 13#IFD discussion concern. His reply to Olive at here in this thread furnishes further proof against himself of his general attitude of incivility and failure to observe AGF. As Dreadstar has banned himself from controversial IFDs for a year and apologized, I consider that closed. But for FPAS, he shows no limits in his ill behavior at IFD and it's been long term and involved multiple cases and users; plus he refuses to acknowledge the issues with himself, so I think he should be banned from IFDs until an RFC and/or arbcom is completed.Sumoeagle179 (talk) 20:37, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

See ANI detailing other instances. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 20:11, 24 August 2008 (UTC).

As closure, I concur with Sumoeagle179's proposed acceptance of Dreadstar's 1-yr. self-ban at IFD. This essentially meets Fut.Perf's call for Dreadstar's recusal from admin actions at IFD. But Fut.Perf's repeated abrasiveness and his consistently displayed holier-than-thou approach with fellow editors is out of line and also needs to be addressed. The fact that he didn't even deign to reply to my gentle suggestion here, regarding his outrageous remarks vented at IFD towards another editor, is telling. He should also be banned at IFD pending a RFC/U JGHowes ^talk - 21:41, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed that both incivility and lack of appropriate communication are becoming an issue. I'm willing to assume it is simply a case of "admin burnout" where someone has been doing admin tasks too consistently and develops an insular view of being on a crusade against evil which must be stopped at *all* costs, even if it means violating policy to do so. Yes, it sounds terrible, but it does happen. Not only have I seen signs of an early stage of it within myself at various times but also within friends who usually find the need to take a wikibreak to regain their perspective. However, good faith only goes so far and, especially with the bitey responses to newbies and the galling accusations made in the heading of this thread towards a good faith admin who apparently made a few (non-systematic) mistakes with image uploads, it is getting to a point where some sort of action may well be needed. I would say if it hits AN or AN/I one more time there would be grounds for an RfC/U on conduct. For now I support any bid to temporarily evacuate them from IfD so the damage cannot persist. Orderinchaos 18:47, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Dreadstar only banned if Conquereor was overturned. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:01, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Further clarification: "and if my Conqueror IFD closing is found to be faulty, I will not close any contested IFD’s for one year - until I've had lots more experience at IFD. I have no objection to Conqueror being taken to DRV, I welcome it." Quote Dreadstar. (olive (talk) 15:34, 26 August 2008 (UTC))

As I commented earlier I don't think you should be recusing yourself at all, we have DRV to allow mistakes to be rectified. We shouldn't allow a situation to develop where admins are reluctant to make difficult decisions. The only time there should be action taken is when an egregiously outrageous decision is made in clear contravention of consensus. Justin talk 17:26, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

 – down considerably.

a/c

) 19:07, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Please have a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Public Service Announcement 2000. I was just wondering how did the closing editor come to the conclusion that the result of the discussion was to redirect when no one even mentioned it. Unless I missed something, the logic doesn't really make much sense, at least to me. (Yes, I know that Wikipedia is not a democracy.) Please note that I'm not looking for any kind of deletion review, rather opinions from admins, usually involved in closing AfDs. Thanks, Do U(knome)? ^yes..._{or no} 05:36, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

You should have brought this to the closing admins talk page first, if you wanted to know. Synergy 05:42, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Because it's the usual thing to do when faced with a NN song which has a parent article. Yes, we could delete them, but someone might type in the title and why not redirect them to the album? Redirects are cheap. Still, If anyone wants to delete them instead, feel free. Black Kite 10:43, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, this would normally a delete-and-redirect - the article is removed, as consensus in the AfD called for, then a redirect is created to assist people searching for the term in finding what they're looking for. In this case it was just redirected without actually deleting the history, but I don't see a problem with it as the overall outcome is basically the same. ~ mazca ^{t | c} 13:00, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to all that took the time to respond. As I said, I wasn't interested in this specific case, as the eventual outcome is practically the same, but rather just for self-knowledge. Do U(knome)? ^yes..._{or no} 00:13, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

 – once again, hopefully (but probably not) for the last time)Keeper ǀ 76 22:41, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

The indef. blocked User OuijaBoardOuijaBoard has turned out to be a troll. He's now trolling the Help Desk as OuijaBorn (talk · contribs), OuijaBland (talk · contribs) and LateKernelAmsterdam (talk · contribs). Just for future reference, or if anybody should happen to want to do an IP check ... Corvus cornix_talk 20:02, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Already done Woody (talk) 22:27, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I have a question. Isn't indiscriminate copy-pasting of non-English material ([29][30][31] and dozens of other examples), on talk pages a violation of

I don't know if I'd call it spam, but I wouldn't call it a correct use of the talk page either. If Piotrus (talk · contribs) wants to translate information for an article, I'd suggest using a subpage within his/her userspace. - auburnpilot talk 18:44, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

As explained by

By sharing I think it is meant, sharing links, references etc, and not copy pasting entire sections of non-English books, that look like simple gibberish to most en-wiki users. Anyway AFAIK

M0RD00R (talk

) 19:59, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

The policy you cite is related to mainspace, not talkspace; I cited the relevant policy for that. We allow non-English sources, and requests for translation are a part of our normal working process. Instead of accusing others of spamming and removing useful info and suggestions from the talk, why won't you move the text from talkpages to wikisource, leaving a link to its new location on them? There already is a good start here.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:07, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

How long should we wait for translation? In this case this stuff was cluttering talk pages for almost 4 years I think. So how many more years should we wait - 10, 20, 100? And IMHO

We will wait as long as it takes for a volunteer to translate this PD text. And it will be a longer wait if you remove the text without leaving any trace.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 03:22, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

If community consensus will allow it, sure we can wait for another 5 or 10 or whatever more years. But so far you've been the only one who insists on keeping this clutter against

M0RD00R (talk

) 07:45, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd suggest just removing the text and add a link to the stored version of the talk page, like I did at Talk:Poznań Voivodeship. Also suggest actually using Wikipedia:Translation and letting people know about what you want done. You should at least explain what is going on, Piotrus. People aren't psychic. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:27, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

My apologies, Piotrus. It was someone else who put the text up. I changed the talk page to reflect this. Actually, how do you know it is something worth translating? It could just be spam. If you know what the text actually is, then you should help explain it or translate it. If you don't, what's the point of keeping of text that could be something that we could translate and use? If nothing else, why not make a note at WP:Translation so that people who do this stuff actually know about the articles? -- 05:34, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

After having done this a few times, I realized that it may be a good idea to ask whether it should be done. If a user moves his/her user page, talk page, or a user subpage, is it proper, after moving the page back, to move-protect the page? The alternative may end up being a user moving it again. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:54, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I do this usually, when a page is move-vandalized. SQL^{Query me!} 11:38, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

This particular case is not vandalism but a mistaken user who thinks moving the user page will rename the account (incidentally they forgot the "User:" namespace prefix). Best to direct them to Wikipedia:Changing username and let the bureaucrats handle this. — CharlotteWebb 18:29, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

There've also been cases of users moving their userpages into the mainspace. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 04:38, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Move along. Nothing to see here. :) —

^talk

02:59, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

---

Resolved

 –

^talk

23:57, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I am appaulled that this user block Kevin J indefinately. I know the guy personally, and he is very intelligent and very reliable. What Keeper 76 did was a clear violation of the good faith policies and was a form of abuse for disagreeing. Wikipedia is not a place were abuse of authority should take place. I also suggest you don't show any bias in favor Keeper76 for being an administrator.BACKINPACT (talk) 22:45, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Do my eyes deceive me? Am I having déjà vu? Does anyone remember who this is, so he can get the appropriate sock tag? J.delanoy^gabs_adds 22:48, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I've never blocked Kevin j. The blocklogs will prove it. I do, however, support the indef block of Kevin j, so be it...Keeper ǀ 76 22:49, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

banning? — Scientizzle

22:50, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

By all means, please do. Although, I'm rather biased. I left a very civil message on User talk:Kevin j, explaining his options. Apparently, I'm the bad guy here. Whatever. Do what you will, you'll never see my name in a blocklog or otherwise for any user "defending" Kevin j. Keeper ǀ 76 22:52, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Saw the message, and you're a poor liar Keeper76. The user is very reliable, and even once received a Barnstar. He didn't even intend to scream by capitalizing his letters. He just didn't use italics, like this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BACKINPACT (talk • contribs) 22:54, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

sigh. and buh-bye...Keeper ǀ 76 22:56, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked BACKINPACT as a sock. You can take a breath now, Keeper. bibliomaniac15 23:00, 26 August 2008 (UTC)::I've blocked BACKINPACT as a sock.

No worries Biblio (and J.del), I didn't miss a heartbeat (or breath) about this section. Thanks for your assistnace, all the same :-) Keeper ǀ 76 23:05, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Endorse ban. No reason Keeper should have to put up with this. Also, would any checkuser in the area care to take a peek or two? J.delanoy^gabs_adds 22:58, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Did we forget to ask you the block vs. ban question in your RfA?

Tan ǀ 39

23:20, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Given this thread (above) and then this thread (above), in which 75.72.233.213 (talk · contribs) was used for similar stumping, it's apparent that Kevin j has had a rocky 24 hours... — Scientizzle 23:08, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

“

I'm not exactly Kevin J. I even used a different email address. He has a Yahoo address, I have a Google. -- BACKINPACT (talk) 22:59, 26 August 2008 (UTC)'

”

Hello? Lance Hunt wears glasses. Captain Amazing doesn't wear glasses. -- plushpuffin (talk) 23:13, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

you just won the internet. Protonk (talk) 23:17, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Which means what, that he's approximately Kevin J.?  :-) — Coren ^(talk) 23:19, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I support the two blocks, one of Kevin J, for gross incivility, repeated, and one of BACKINPACT as a probable sock, but, in any case, harmless as a block because the account only has a day invested in it. BACKINPACT, if a different user, can easily create a new account, and with the library IP, not an enduring problem for him or her. Protecting the user page was justified, again, because of gross incivility in discussing the block. Disagreement is one thing, personal accusations of racism -- or the equivalent -- are another. --

talk

) 23:33, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, somewhere I read that every average family has something like 2.47 kids. Maybe his family truly is average, and he's the 0.47 of a kid, and he just uses the same name as his brother. :D J.delanoy^gabs_adds 23:32, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

The Phantom Tollbooth. bibliomaniac15 02:21, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Unblock request declined at User talk:Kevin j... — Scientizzle 23:28, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Ummm -  Confirmed as a sock of Kevin J. I know - I was surprised, too - Alison ^❤ 23:29, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

But they have different email addresses! Wha?! — Scientizzle 23:30, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Hah. Well, wonders never cease. Did you nuke his IP address? J.delanoy^gabs_adds 23:32, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

No. Too much collateral damage. It actually is a public library and there are a number of other users on there (using different computers, as it happens). If he comes back again, I'll softblock for a while. See how it goes ... - Alison ^❤ 23:35, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Alison, once again you've proven to me how vital you are to Wikipedia. May you never leave us! Keeper ǀ 76 23:42, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, just asking... I really like how all these people think, "Crap. I'm blocked. Wait, I'll just create another account and ask for my first one to be unblocked and for the admin who blocked me to be blocked. They'll be amazed that someone was willing to defend my first account, and there is no way that they will ever find me out. OMG, I must be a genius. How could anyone be as smart and original as me?" No one ever considers the fact that we've seen this about a bazillion times, and far more subtle ones, too. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 23:39, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Man, don't they know we should be deleting Keeper, not blocking him? ;-)  Frank  |  talk  01:44, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Endorse block of Keeper 76 =) –

talk

) 02:24, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Keep. The name says it all. :) bibliomaniac15 02:27, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Does this archiving mean I can't block Keeper76 now? — Scientizzle 04:15, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I just feel bad that I wasn't harsher on him a month ago when he was harassing User:Plushpuffin. I told him again about AGF which is his biggest problem. The truth is, he's been here since June 2006 and has been warned numerous times about his behavior. I'm just sorry that it took this long for his first block. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:50, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I have a question. Isn't indiscriminate copy-pasting of non-English material ([32][33][34] and dozens of other examples), on talk pages a violation of

I don't know if I'd call it spam, but I wouldn't call it a correct use of the talk page either. If Piotrus (talk · contribs) wants to translate information for an article, I'd suggest using a subpage within his/her userspace. - auburnpilot talk 18:44, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

As explained by

By sharing I think it is meant, sharing links, references etc, and not copy pasting entire sections of non-English books, that look like simple gibberish to most en-wiki users. Anyway AFAIK

M0RD00R (talk

) 19:59, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

The policy you cite is related to mainspace, not talkspace; I cited the relevant policy for that. We allow non-English sources, and requests for translation are a part of our normal working process. Instead of accusing others of spamming and removing useful info and suggestions from the talk, why won't you move the text from talkpages to wikisource, leaving a link to its new location on them? There already is a good start here.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:07, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

How long should we wait for translation? In this case this stuff was cluttering talk pages for almost 4 years I think. So how many more years should we wait - 10, 20, 100? And IMHO

We will wait as long as it takes for a volunteer to translate this PD text. And it will be a longer wait if you remove the text without leaving any trace.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 03:22, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

If community consensus will allow it, sure we can wait for another 5 or 10 or whatever more years. But so far you've been the only one who insists on keeping this clutter against

M0RD00R (talk

) 07:45, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd suggest just removing the text and add a link to the stored version of the talk page, like I did at Talk:Poznań Voivodeship. Also suggest actually using Wikipedia:Translation and letting people know about what you want done. You should at least explain what is going on, Piotrus. People aren't psychic. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:27, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

My apologies, Piotrus. It was someone else who put the text up. I changed the talk page to reflect this. Actually, how do you know it is something worth translating? It could just be spam. If you know what the text actually is, then you should help explain it or translate it. If you don't, what's the point of keeping of text that could be something that we could translate and use? If nothing else, why not make a note at WP:Translation so that people who do this stuff actually know about the articles? -- 05:34, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

After having done this a few times, I realized that it may be a good idea to ask whether it should be done. If a user moves his/her user page, talk page, or a user subpage, is it proper, after moving the page back, to move-protect the page? The alternative may end up being a user moving it again. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:54, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I do this usually, when a page is move-vandalized. SQL^{Query me!} 11:38, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

This particular case is not vandalism but a mistaken user who thinks moving the user page will rename the account (incidentally they forgot the "User:" namespace prefix). Best to direct them to Wikipedia:Changing username and let the bureaucrats handle this. — CharlotteWebb 18:29, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

There've also been cases of users moving their userpages into the mainspace. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 04:38, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Move along. Nothing to see here. :) —

^talk

02:59, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

---

Resolved

 –

^talk

23:57, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I am appaulled that this user block Kevin J indefinately. I know the guy personally, and he is very intelligent and very reliable. What Keeper 76 did was a clear violation of the good faith policies and was a form of abuse for disagreeing. Wikipedia is not a place were abuse of authority should take place. I also suggest you don't show any bias in favor Keeper76 for being an administrator.BACKINPACT (talk) 22:45, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Do my eyes deceive me? Am I having déjà vu? Does anyone remember who this is, so he can get the appropriate sock tag? J.delanoy^gabs_adds 22:48, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I've never blocked Kevin j. The blocklogs will prove it. I do, however, support the indef block of Kevin j, so be it...Keeper ǀ 76 22:49, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

banning? — Scientizzle

22:50, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

By all means, please do. Although, I'm rather biased. I left a very civil message on User talk:Kevin j, explaining his options. Apparently, I'm the bad guy here. Whatever. Do what you will, you'll never see my name in a blocklog or otherwise for any user "defending" Kevin j. Keeper ǀ 76 22:52, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Saw the message, and you're a poor liar Keeper76. The user is very reliable, and even once received a Barnstar. He didn't even intend to scream by capitalizing his letters. He just didn't use italics, like this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BACKINPACT (talk • contribs) 22:54, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

sigh. and buh-bye...Keeper ǀ 76 22:56, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked BACKINPACT as a sock. You can take a breath now, Keeper. bibliomaniac15 23:00, 26 August 2008 (UTC)::I've blocked BACKINPACT as a sock.

No worries Biblio (and J.del), I didn't miss a heartbeat (or breath) about this section. Thanks for your assistnace, all the same :-) Keeper ǀ 76 23:05, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Endorse ban. No reason Keeper should have to put up with this. Also, would any checkuser in the area care to take a peek or two? J.delanoy^gabs_adds 22:58, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Did we forget to ask you the block vs. ban question in your RfA?

Tan ǀ 39

23:20, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Given this thread (above) and then this thread (above), in which 75.72.233.213 (talk · contribs) was used for similar stumping, it's apparent that Kevin j has had a rocky 24 hours... — Scientizzle 23:08, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

“

I'm not exactly Kevin J. I even used a different email address. He has a Yahoo address, I have a Google. -- BACKINPACT (talk) 22:59, 26 August 2008 (UTC)'

”

Hello? Lance Hunt wears glasses. Captain Amazing doesn't wear glasses. -- plushpuffin (talk) 23:13, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

you just won the internet. Protonk (talk) 23:17, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Which means what, that he's approximately Kevin J.?  :-) — Coren ^(talk) 23:19, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I support the two blocks, one of Kevin J, for gross incivility, repeated, and one of BACKINPACT as a probable sock, but, in any case, harmless as a block because the account only has a day invested in it. BACKINPACT, if a different user, can easily create a new account, and with the library IP, not an enduring problem for him or her. Protecting the user page was justified, again, because of gross incivility in discussing the block. Disagreement is one thing, personal accusations of racism -- or the equivalent -- are another. --

talk

) 23:33, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, somewhere I read that every average family has something like 2.47 kids. Maybe his family truly is average, and he's the 0.47 of a kid, and he just uses the same name as his brother. :D J.delanoy^gabs_adds 23:32, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

The Phantom Tollbooth. bibliomaniac15 02:21, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Unblock request declined at User talk:Kevin j... — Scientizzle 23:28, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Ummm -  Confirmed as a sock of Kevin J. I know - I was surprised, too - Alison ^❤ 23:29, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

But they have different email addresses! Wha?! — Scientizzle 23:30, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Hah. Well, wonders never cease. Did you nuke his IP address? J.delanoy^gabs_adds 23:32, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

No. Too much collateral damage. It actually is a public library and there are a number of other users on there (using different computers, as it happens). If he comes back again, I'll softblock for a while. See how it goes ... - Alison ^❤ 23:35, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Alison, once again you've proven to me how vital you are to Wikipedia. May you never leave us! Keeper ǀ 76 23:42, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, just asking... I really like how all these people think, "Crap. I'm blocked. Wait, I'll just create another account and ask for my first one to be unblocked and for the admin who blocked me to be blocked. They'll be amazed that someone was willing to defend my first account, and there is no way that they will ever find me out. OMG, I must be a genius. How could anyone be as smart and original as me?" No one ever considers the fact that we've seen this about a bazillion times, and far more subtle ones, too. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 23:39, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Man, don't they know we should be deleting Keeper, not blocking him? ;-)  Frank  |  talk  01:44, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Endorse block of Keeper 76 =) –

talk

) 02:24, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Keep. The name says it all. :) bibliomaniac15 02:27, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Does this archiving mean I can't block Keeper76 now? — Scientizzle 04:15, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I just feel bad that I wasn't harsher on him a month ago when he was harassing User:Plushpuffin. I told him again about AGF which is his biggest problem. The truth is, he's been here since June 2006 and has been warned numerous times about his behavior. I'm just sorry that it took this long for his first block. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:50, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

He hasn't violated 3RR yet, but apparently that rule doesn't apply any more anyway. Tegwarrior (talk) 02:16, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

You both are at the limit of 3RR, are you courting a block of yourself as well?

Talk

02:30, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Tegwarrior - Per

WP:BRD, you should have gone to the talk page to discuss the recent addition after the first revert. Whilst you're both at 3RR, if someone objects to an edit and reverts it, you shouldn't reinsert the edit without discussion. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter}

02:35, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

The onus is on the editor seeking to include disputed content, to achieve consensus for its inclusion (

WP:ONUS). I think we're done here, unless there's another revert. Guy (Help!

) 08:14, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:King,_Don_(2007).jpg

So, basically image description has red link to Don King. Because image is on commons I presume. Therefore can someone fix it (w:Don King (boxing promoter) perhaps?)

Cheers 81.149.250.228 (talk) 10:03, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but is this normal admin behaviour? That she doesn't agree with me, fine, but saying I'm clueless, prejudiced, warped, and abusing the RfA process... I can do without personal attacks.    SIS  02:36, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Majorly is always like that. Jumping on people once in a while. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 02:38, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I actually don't think it was too bad at all - it was a strong comment in a discussion. He didn't say anything that crossed the line into incivilty. Certainly no more than most other comments in that venue. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 02:40, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

This is totally normal stuff. She's always been on that side of the argument over age and adminship.--Xp54321 ^{(Hello! • Contribs)} 02:42, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh jeez. Move along, nothing to see here.

Tan ǀ 39

02:44, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Very helpful. Thanks.    SIS  03:53, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

There is no crisp line between personal attack, mere incivility, and legitimate criticism. However, had Majorly, in a single comment, said, about the editor, "clueless, prejudiced, warped, and abusing the RfA process," I'd say that it would have been uncivil, for sure, and "clueless" could cross the line into personal attack. However, in context the comments were legitimate criticism, my judgment. --

talk

) 16:03, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

You're overreacting. It is rather ironic that you are opposing a candidate for "immaturity" when you can't take genuine (if forceful) criticism of your opinion. The best way to respond to criticism of that nature is to address it, rather than running away at the first sign of negativity. — Werdna • talk 02:45, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem with Majorly disagreeing with my opinion. And I'd say I addressed virtually everything she said, so I'm not running away at first sign either. It's the insults I find offensive. Unless 'prejudiced' and 'warped' aren't insults in your universe.    SIS  02:59, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Well opposing someone based on age can be considered prejudice. Simply being young doesn't mean they are not qualified for adminship Alexfusco⁵ 03:04, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Let's not start that discussion here as well.    SIS  03:53, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

We must distinguish adjectives that say things we don't like about our opinions, and adjectives which are offensive. "Prejudicial" is an adjective which describes an opinion. "Warped" is a synonym for "wrong", and can be legitimately used to describe an opinion. Majorly is quite correctly addressing your opinion, and not you as a person. — Werdna • talk 03:31, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you look again. Oh and I specifically stated I did NOT oppose for immaturity in the first place.    SIS  03:53, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies. All I can say is that in my opinion it's high time that

Bye then. If you can't take the heat, then stay out of the kitchen. seicer | talk | contribs 04:00, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

See now, I find Seicer's comment above to be needlessly rude. But Majorly's comments I don't see as particularly problematic. Heated, yes. But rude and aggressive? They don't strike me that way. Exploding Boy (talk) 04:02, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

That's too bad. There is not a day that goes by without someone complaining about an administrator's actions or behaviors or comments in a way that is entirely distorted or overly-exaggerated. It either ends with the following: "I'm taking my ball and going elsewhere," or "I want this administrator de-sysoped." People that cry foul over comments like Majorly's may have a valid point, but when the OP goes all Emo on us and states that he'll quit the project because he didn't get the response he wanted, then that's a failure on his part, not mine, not Majorly's, not the other editors and administrators who commented. seicer | talk | contribs 04:22, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't care about all that, frankly. What I do care about was that your comment was bloody unhelpful and downright rude to someone not being particularly uncivil or tendentious. --Relata refero (disp.) 18:57, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

This discussion is a ridiculous waste of time. This account is an obvious sockpuppet, who for whatever reason has tried to impose their controversial views on RfA. He or she couldn't even last three weeks before announcing they're leaving. Good riddance in my opinion. Majorly ^talk 04:52, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

And now an accusation of sockpuppetry as well. Obvious, even. That's ridiculous. Good riddance? Thanks a lot, guys. Glad you appreciated my work on WP. I'm not leaving because I don't get my way, I'm leaving because I don't like the aggressive atmosphere here. My opinion, my view. No need for the backstabbing.    SIS  10:15, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Wow, this thread is not a shining example of the Wikipedia community we wished we had. RfA should not be an adversarial process, and truly the uninvolved people who've posted to this thread could've done with a less aggressive tone. Majorly's defense of his nominee is also overly aggressive. We could do with a little more respect for differing opinions, and somewhat less derisive dismissal of people with legitimate complaints.

Looking at the RfA, [35] I think Majorly has indeed been badgering multiple editors, and has responded to criticism with "Please don't ask me not to "badger" you." There are similar complaints on the admins talk page about behavior during an ongoing RfB. The comment at the start of this discussion by OhanaUnited says it all " Majorly is always like that. Jumping on people once in a while. " That may have been intended as a defense of that admin. I regard it a cause for further action. Jumping on people every once in a while is improper admin behavior, and I do not think the long tenure of this admin should provide immunity--rather the opposite. DGG (talk) 15:11, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

If people make questionable votes, they can expect to get questions asked to them. If I'm such a problem, where is my RFC? Where is my RfAr? Perhaps one needs to be started. Majorly ^talk 21:27, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

One editor's badgering is another's "spirited discussion". People have strong feelings on RFA. We should try to have a thick skin. Friday (talk) 16:05, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I strongly agree. While we should certainly insist that RFA discussion remain civil and avoid lapsing into ad hominem, we should also not discourage conversation and exchange of ideas. Firm but polite challenging of someone else's position is in fact the best way of respecting that position. Confrontational challenging of a position -- in a provocative style, without presenting clear counter-arguments or questions to be answered -- probably qualifies as 'badgering'. This is a subtle distinction, but I think it is vital to the success of the RFA process. If we begin to censure people for 'badgering', without first patiently encouraging them to make clear arguments and present them more civilly, then we will only confirm in the community consciousness the ridiculous idea that, no matter how indefensible your RFA standards might be, you have the right to hold on to them as dogma, and have everyone else leave you alone. — Dan | talk 16:26, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

read the RfA. Candidates should have a thick skin, but people without should be able to comment there without being attacked for it--and then attacked here when they complain. Whatever happens at RfA, no admin who is criticized here should be arrogant here. Its they who need to show tolerance. DGG (talk) 17:12, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

And what "attack" is that? I see no such attack. seicer | talk | contribs 17:33, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Majorly has been a bit belligerent, in particular with User:SandyGeorgia. But the punishment for this kind of immaturity is automatic, not something that needs to be imposed externally. This isn't the first time that Majorly's behavior at RfA has generated de novo opposition to his nominees. Either he'll recognize that pattern and behave better, or people will stop accepting his noms because of the negative baggage he's bringing to every RfA. MastCell ^Talk 18:13, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Possibly. However, responses in RfA are based on the strength of your argument, much like XfD. If your argument for holding a particular opinion is strong, you are much less likely to be challenged for it. If your argument is weak, you are much more likely to be challenged for holding an opinion based on it. In addition, I would not be surprised to find that heavily challenged arguments garner a lower than normal weighting when analysed by the closing bureacrat. While I agree that some of the challenges constructed can be more clinical in their approach, the overall concept is sound. Many thanks, Gazimoff 17:39, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. If opposers made their reasoning clear, with sound reasoning for their votes, then they wouldn't need challenging. Until they do, they will continued to be questioned (badger is such a nasty word, I much prefer question) Majorly ^talk 21:27, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Majorly has been involved in a number of contretemps in recent months. I have even seen discussions where he claimed that no one should be allowed to oppose people at RfA, and that each "oppose" is equivalent to harassment. Of course, he stated that this is only true if he "supports" the candidate; if he also opposes the candidate, then opposition is appropriate since it would meet with his approval. I detect an increasing difficulty in associating with others in a communal consensual environment on the part of Majorly. I do not understand what is driving this increasing hostility towards his fellow editors on Wikipedia. Majorly, I would invite you again to meet me for private voice discussions on Skype to see if some of this aggressive behavior can be understood and hopefully decreased.--Filll (talk | wpc) 17:51, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

The last time you tried to talk to me you were incredibly rude and I felt very uncomfortable talking. I'll be happy to chat if you can keep yourself civil. Majorly ^talk 21:27, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

• WP:BITE Protonk (talk
  ) 18:11, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Avruch, Dan, Filll, and Avruch. Well said. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:39, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

So you agree with Avruch twice as much as the others? Or are you saying that Avruch is sockpuppeting?

talk

) 01:58, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

It's my opinion that Wikipedia structure, such as it is, encourages editor burnout; some editors become increasingly cynical and ready to assume that newcomers or others are trolls and vandals and out to damage the project; as this increases, incivility increases and the editor encounters more confrontations, confirming the opinion, etc. I'm not familiar enough with Majorly to have much of an opinion about this specific editor; but comments here could indicate burnout. The original comments at the RfA were fairly mild, as such things go, but, as I noted above, I can also understand why a relative newcomer -- if the editor in question is such -- could take them as uncivil. Here, it got worse. I was recently blocked for expressing a milder suspicion of sock puppetry. The suspicion here was reasonable, but stating it as a conclusion, and tacking "good riddance" on was not. It's that impatience is characteristic of the burnout I'm talking about. It's not the individual editor so much as it is an abusive system. It might not be nearly as difficult to fix as we think, if we start looking at the situation with new eyes. The old ways of looking at it will simply reproduce what already doesn't work, long-term. --

talk

) 22:54, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Gee, you were blocked, Abd? Given you apologised - of sorts - for your unfounded accusation, bringing it up here is totally irrelevant. Minkythecat (talk) 09:54, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Unhelpful, Minky. (1) I had more grounds for suspicion than Majorly had for SS. (2) I never actually "accused," but noted the suspicion and speculated about it. (3) I had no intention of pursuing it and did not threaten nor actually file SSP or RFCU. (3) I partially apologized before the block (because evidence was pointed out to me that the major cause of suspicion was weaker than it seemed to me at first). (4) There was an actual suspected puppet master who later apologized for causing the suspicion -- i.e., he understood that what he'd done caused suspicion. The mention of suspicion was always accompanied by simultaneous speculation that the whole thing was a false impression created by that puppet master. And (5) I'd stopped and had said I'd stopped. And I was still blocked. It's just a comparison. If admins had treated Majorly like I was treated, he'd have been blocked. That's the point. Beyond that, when, as I had said would probably be necessary to clear the air of suspicion, a checkuser did check anyway (not at my request), and cleared the admin in question, I apologized fully. (Except I didn't apologize for the suspicion itself, which was reasonable, same as with Majorly. But Majorly hasn't apologized. I didn't do it for that reason, but apology was somewhat of a condition for my unblock.) Now, I mentioned the block in passing, one short sentence. It was relevant. And Minky's comment? --

talk

) 12:21, 27 August 2008 (UTC)