Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:38, 11 December 2011

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7

This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

I do not use "talkback" templates, and it rarely if ever makes sense to leave me such templates.
I could never see the point of the stickers I sometimes got in elementary school. Please do not embarrass me with "awards" or "barnstars" or the like.
I do not fancy non-consensual templated "WikiLove".

New Page Patrol survey

New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello Hans Adler! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you. If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only. If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it. Please click HERE to take part. Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback. You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey

Accusing living people of torture

You are continuing on with your attacking accusatory comments , please take this as a last warning - if you continue I will be forced to report you to the noticeboard - I suggest, as others have requested that you cease the torture allegations and strike the multiple ones you have made already. Off2riorob (talk) 23:33, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I notice another user has removed them from the BLPn - I sincerely hope you won't replace them and that you remove them from the article talkpage before someone else has to. Off2riorob (talk) 23:45, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

This is completely ridiculous. I am currently watching the videos posted by an IP to the talk page with claims that they somehow justify the behaviour. So far it appears that that was a hoax. I will respond to you when I am finished with them. Hans Adler 23:52, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Just stop it with your posting torture allegations against this person. Off2riorob (talk) 01:01, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Going to bed now. Just stop defending the honour of an obvious criminal. Hans Adler 01:04, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

You will stop, or you will be blocked. That is all. Rklawton (talk) 03:11, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

In this particular case, although our articles cannot say "torture" until that is the consensus of many reliable sources, there is no reason for editors commenting on talk pages from limiting themselves in that way. Although reasonable people can disagree, it is not in any way unreasonable for some to describe Pike's actions as torture. Whether that would help convince anyone else about anything is more questionable. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:16, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

For comparison, we do not require editors to say "allegedly" when they say on a talk page that Jerry Sandusky committed sexual assault, but we are more circumspect in the actual text of our article. There is actual footage of Pike's actions, unlike Sandusky's. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:20, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

CBM - read this: Rklawton (talk) 04:44, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

"Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced and not related to making content choices, should be removed, deleted, or oversighted as appropriate." The material wasn't unsourced or poorly sourced. It was all over television everywhere and can be watched at leisure on YouTube from many angles, even if you just use the videos uploaded by official news sources and ignore the private uploads. It was clearly related to a content choice. And, frankly, the mere fact that a number of editors here appear to consider the question contentious was absolutely shocking to me. Although of course as a German, familiar with the concept of banality of evil, it should not have been. Hans Adler 08:37, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Contrary to Hans' assertions that a crime was committed, there are no sources that indicate the officers committed a crime, and we won't see any unless and until they are convicted. Thus we simply can't say they have committed a crime - not in main space, not on talk pages, not anywhere on Misplaced Pages. This isn't about indifference, this is about protecting people's legal rights to due process. As a result, it should be no surprise that many editors here take this position, and that violating these rights is an offense that will result in blocking. Given your history here, simple words of warning, advice, and a pointer to policy should suffice. Rklawton (talk) 17:25, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Of course we can't say in article space that a crime was committed. Did anyone claim otherwise? And of course it's fair comment to say in talk and project spaces that a crime was committed, and perfectly appropriate to do so when related to editorial decisions about placement, prominence etc. Hans Adler 19:07, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

It is not ok, and if you do it, you will be blocked. Please read policy here: Rklawton (talk) 19:23, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I can read texts in context. Can you? The key words are: "that is unsourced or poorly sourced and not related to making content choices". These words make it clear that the (absurd) interpretation of "BLP applies to all material about living persons anywhere on Misplaced Pages, including talk pages", according to which the rules of BLP are the same on talk pages as in articles, is not the intended one. Hans Adler 19:28, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and I don't think blocking me is a good idea given that it's pretty clear on ANI how divided the community is on this matter. There is an on-going discussion, and it does not look at all as I am about to lose it. I don't think Arbcom will be particularly happy if they are bothered with yet another case of an admin knowingly making an untenable block. Hans Adler 19:31, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

When policy is clear and when there is a clear violation of policy, I will block you. Rklawton (talk) 19:34, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying that you are not, after all, planning to block me. Hans Adler 19:37, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

If I was planning to block you, you would be blocked. I am, however, prepared to block you violate BLP after having been duly warned. Rklawton (talk) 19:40, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Your second sentence is ungrammatical. It is not clear from it whether, as you seemed to imply in your previous post, you intend to only block me in case I clearly violate BLP (which has not happened and will not happen), or whether you are going to block me based on your faulty interpretation of it. Hans Adler 19:54, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Revised: I am, however, prepared to block you if you violate BLP after having been duly warned. Rklawton (talk) 01:39, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Speaking of warnings: I was not previously familiar with you and so had a quick look at your editing history. A sudden but persistent drop in your activity on first glance suggested to me the creation of a (presumably legitimate) sock account and led me to your talk page of the time. Now I cannot help noticing a common theme connecting your impertinence in this case and your only passive block experience so far: Overreactions in the attempt to protect the honour of uniformed Americans. Maybe you can somehow manage to reign in your personal feelings. Hans Adler 17:17, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

PS, after some further research: The above was in no way meant as a threat, but you are welcome to interpret it as such in case it helps you to focus your attention in a way that reason cannot. Hans Adler 17:39, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

You can be blocked for incivility, too. Rklawton (talk) 18:17, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Unlike you? Hans Adler 18:18, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Anyone can be blocked for incivility. But you'll have a hard time making a case against an admin doing his best to explain policy and warn against inappropriate behavior. Rklawton (talk) 20:13, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Rklawton, you appear to by trying to redefine or dispute policy. You object to the terms "criminal" and "torture" on the grounds that in some societies such actions are apparently legal. From a report today I note the term "brutality". That seems both reasonable and incontestable. Less threats and more collegiate agreement will improve the editing environment, and I hope we can agree on this as a way forward. I look forward to getting your full support the next time I notice accusations of criminality before a trial has concluded, and redact the offending terms. Thanks, dave souza, talk 20:28, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I fail to see how I'm redefining what is spelled out in simple English on the BLP policy page. We can not label people or their actions as criminal without qualification unless they have been convicted. We can certainly refer to other people's (or media's) accusations, but we can not make the accusation or apply the label ourselves. Hans has done this, and I have taken great pains to explain the problem to him and the consequences for failing to follow policy. Rklawton (talk) 21:22, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

To the extent that these discussions are sourced and are related to improving articles, they comply with BLP. Interestingly, the grammar of WP:BLPTALK "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced and not related to making content choices" implies that material related to making content choices does not have that sourcing requirement: this may simply be a poor choice of wording in the policy. My advice to Hans is to ensure that such descriptions are properly sourced, my advice to you is to avoid chilling appropriate discussion related to making content choices. It's certainly an interesting situation so I can see why concerns about the banality of evil would arise, but that does not override the normal requirement for good quality sources. There are clearly strong opinions about this, which should be considered in careful accordance with policies. . . dave souza, talk 21:41, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I have not seen the current skirmish (just the drama at ANI), but I can imagine the progression that has led to this situation. The first thing I noticed was the attempt by others to argue that something associated with ghosts was a pseudoscience. Then there were attempts by others to use NOTCENSORED and other dubious logic to justify possibly undue images. Now we have what looks like a pretty clear cut case of an out-of-control cop, and attempts to stifle associated discussion—discussion that would be standard in many other locations. Nevertheless, no page at Misplaced Pages should be used to call a particular individual a criminal unless certain legal processes have been completed (and even then, editors do not have a right to use Misplaced Pages to vent about anything). Our opinions on what someone did are not relevant, and to express them is violating NOTFORUM—and that's before any consideration of BLP, and the beauty of BLP is that it protects morons as well as saints because Misplaced Pages should not be used for any noble cause (other than writing an encyclopedia). Hans and Carl each have excellent reputations that are well deserved—however this case shows that no one is correct all the time. No doubt the merits of the situation will be debated for some time to come, but the simple statements made by Rklawton above are an accurate representation of how this sort of incident is handled. Johnuniq (talk) 07:22, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Hans's initial comments were possibly of some use in article development (deciding how to interpret sources etc.) but after a few repetitions they became not-very-helpful and perhaps pointy editorialization/FORUM-like discussion. O2RR's posts here though were ridiculously hostile and seemed to indicate battleground editing on his part. Not having kept a scorecard during the ghost thing, I wasn't aware of a previous dispute between O2RR and Hans; if there was one, I guess it explains things somewhat. I'm glad Hans is getting some sleep, since waking up refreshed is a good way to regain perspective in this type of conflict. 67.117.144.140 (talk) 10:37, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your perspective. I certainly mentioned certain verifiable facts more often than I would have done without Off2riorob's behaviour. You can safely put that down to reactance. Regarding my previous interactions with Off2riorob, they have usually been constructive and we have often agreed, as in this case. I do not have any recollection of an involvement of Off2riorob in the ghosts thing, generally do not hold grudges and was not aware that Off2riorob does so. (Which is why I am not actually taking this seriously.) I think that's a red herring. Hans Adler 12:18, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Hans, please cool it with the word "criminal" since it's causing more drama than it's accomplishing anything useful, even if you're right. FWIW, I see that some (not all) news outlets are reporting Pike as having "allegedly" pepper-sprayed those people (even though his role in the actual spraying is not under any dispute at all), so that's the type of environment we're operating in. FWIW, the Yolo County district attorney has a "not criminal" investigation open that "may" result in criminal charges, whatever that means. 67.117.144.140 (talk) 01:38, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I am not going to jump through the "allegedly pepper-sprayed" rabbit hole of American media's pseudo-neutrality just because I am debating with Americans on an American topic. These editors will have to get used to discussing with people who have a functioning moral compass and live in countries where free speech has narrow legal bounds but conversely is burdened with few implicit taboos that protect the power structure. As you may have noticed, I have significantly reduced the frequency of my use of the words criminal and torture. That's about as far as I can go without defeating the purpose of the discussion. Hans Adler 01:46, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

From what I've seen, the constable concerned clearly and very casually inflicted pain on helpless individuals who were kneeling passively in front of him. That certainly looks like torture, perhaps those defending this officer's reputation could propose their preferred terminology, taking care to avoid weasel wording? I'm inclined to accept that editors should not use the term "criminal" for someone who has not been convicted, and will be bolder about redacting such comments in future. While "climategate 2.0" appears to have flopped, no doubt someone will fling such accusations about sooner or later. . dave souza, talk 04:23, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't think zero tolerance for such comments in any area is a good idea, except perhaps as a somewhat pointy tool to expedite the swinging of the pendula in the opposite direction. I am not saying it's not legitimate to think that way. I have the impression that the current talk space BLP extremists are applying a double standard (in the same way that the NOTCENSORED are applying a double standard and are happily censoring whatever they personally don't like), so this could theoretically go on forever with a sizable group just asymmetrically censoring what they don't like and the others getting more and more angry but unable to get a sufficiently strong consensus to fix the problem. Hans Adler 09:58, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

When I say "should not use the term" that's an ideal rather than an absolute, as discussed at ANI there's always been some leeway in talk page discussions and deleting the comments of other editors tends to cause disruption. However, it was very striking during the initial CRU email arguments that slurs were being cast by accusing eminent scientists of being criminals. My recollection is that the BLP implications were raised with the editors, though in a less heavy-handed way. So, in summary, zero tolerance is a bad idea, but it's worthwhile trying to get editors to avoid such slurs where accusations are unproven. There is still the opportunity to discuss sources making the accusations.. . dave souza, talk 12:51, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Trying to turn this drama into something constructive

Rklawton has not been editing much since he chose to got involved in the dispute with me , so it's easy to list all his relevant edits so far:

• "I feel it's important that we refrain from characterizing any living person's behavior as criminal or as a crime. It's fine to state facts regarding the criminal justice process such as "suspected", "suspended", "indicted", "charged", "on trial", "convicted", "found guilty", etc. But it's not OK to call someone a rapist, torturer, or child molester, etc, who hasn't been convicted. This applies to any page in Misplaced Pages. While we tend to think of our articles as our "public face" - the reality is everything we write anywhere on Misplaced Pages is every bit as public as our articles, as a result BLP (or liable) applies in every wiki-space. Rklawton (talk) 03:09, 24 November 2011 (UTC)"

  -- Personal opinion, and marked as such. Clear failure to understand the difference between article space (Misplaced Pages says with its authority that things are so) and an internet discussion. Failure to understand that a conviction is an unreasonable standard for an international project, due to huge variety of jurisdictions.

• "You will stop, or you will be blocked. That is all. Rklawton (talk) 03:11, 24 November 2011 (UTC)"

  -- No comment.

• "CBM - read this: Rklawton (talk) 04:44, 24 November 2011 (UTC)"

  -- Points to the part of policy that shows he is wrong. To wit: "BLP applies to all material about living persons anywhere on Misplaced Pages, including talk pages Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced and not related to making content choices, should be removed, deleted, or oversighted as appropriate." (my italics) I immediately pointed this out to him, but he ignored the fact.

• "Contrary to Hans' assertions that a crime was committed, there are no sources that indicate the officers committed a crime, and we won't see any unless and until they are convicted. Thus we simply can't say they have committed a crime - not in main space, not on talk pages, not anywhere on Misplaced Pages. This isn't about indifference, this is about protecting people's legal rights to due process. As a result, it should be no surprise that many editors here take this position, and that violating these rights is an offense that will result in blocking. Given your history here, simple words of warning, advice, and a pointer to policy should suffice. Rklawton (talk) 17:25, 24 November 2011 (UTC)"

  -- This is of course ludicrous in several respects. (1) The sources indicating that John Pike committed a crime have been broadcast on television all over the world and are readily available on YouTube for inspection. (Lundgren vs. Humboldt County established that police applying pepper spray to the eyes of protesters with Q-tips is torture and awarded nominal damages to the victims. So far there has been no similar case on behaviour exactly like that of John Pike's, simply because there have been no other similarly clear cases before. That does not make it any less obvious that this was a crime, although of course the laws in California may be so fucked up that it is technically legal and the power structures may be such that prosecution is not desired.) (2) I never talked about more than one officer. Only John Pike can be seen in the video committing the crime in question. The others did not prevent him. I am in no position to judge whether that was criminal and did not try. (3) I never claimed that we can say in main space that John Pike committed a crime, and he has not given any reason other than his opinion why I can't say it in talk space. (4) Discussions in an internet forum have nothing to do with due process unless they disseminate secret information. What John Pike did can hardly be called secret at this point.

• "It is not ok, and if you do it, you will be blocked. Please read policy here: Rklawton (talk) 19:23, 24 November 2011 (UTC)"

  -- See comment above about his posting of the same link.

• "Hans has been duly warned several times. I've posted the link to policy on his talk page twice. Hans' reply to this directly contradicted policy stating it was OK to state people committed crimes on talk pages as part of the editorial process even though policy says it isn't. There's nothing more we can do at this point. If Hans violates BLP again, I will immediately block him from editing. Rklawton (talk) 19:33, 24 November 2011 (UTC)"

  -- Claims without evidence that my interpretation of policy is incorrect.

• "When policy is clear and when there is a clear violation of policy, I will block you. Rklawton (talk) 19:34, 24 November 2011 (UTC)"
• "If I was planning to block you, you would be blocked. I am, however, prepared to block you violate BLP after having been duly warned. Rklawton (talk) 19:40, 24 November 2011 (UTC)"
• "Revised: I am, however, prepared to block you if you violate BLP after having been duly warned. Rklawton (talk) 01:39, 25 November 2011 (UTC)"
• "You can be blocked for incivility, too. Rklawton (talk) 18:17, 25 November 2011 (UTC)"
• "Anyone can be blocked for incivility. But you'll have a hard time making a case against an admin doing his best to explain policy and warn against inappropriate behavior. Rklawton (talk) 20:13, 25 November 2011 (UTC)"

I doubt that Rklawton is open to any form of voluntary recall, and he has made it abundantly clear that the following are his idea of "an admin doing his best to explain policy and warn against inappropriate behavior":

• coming up with an eccentric interpretation of policy that is not concordant with our common practice, is far removed from both its purpose and its clear wording, and is bound to cause massive disruption if implemented;
• based on that faulty interpretation, attacking another user and threatening blocks while a discussion on that interpretation is underway at ANI;
• authoritarian posturing in lieu of any serious attempts at defending his interpretation.

This behaviour is the Misplaced Pages equivalent to the people who can sometimes be seen harassing travelers at airport security because they are totally unqualified for their jobs and are struggling to follow rules they don't understand to the letter, under constant supervision of superiors who have the same problem. Seen from a different angle, it is an example of the Peter Principle.

I think the best way forward would be Rklawton blocking me for calling him an incompetent legacy admin, so that we can go to Arbcom together for a quick bitectomy. But of course I cannot force him to cooperate. Any other constructive ideas from talk page watchers? Hans Adler 21:28, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Or we ("we" being a fellow admin) simply block you for incivility. Rklawton (talk) 21:31, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

We note your appeal to civil POV pushing, as Hans points out discussions based on sources and related to improving articles comply with WP:BLPTALK. Your heavy handed approach is disruptive, please be more collegiate and try to work towards article improvement rather than raising an unnecessary dispute. . dave souza, talk 21:45, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

BLP does not support this or this or this and a warning by me, an uninvolved administrator, was fully appropriate pretty much exactly how we do things here. Hans' responses, however, have ranged from unhelpful to uncivil. Rklawton (talk) 21:53, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

You got the chronology wrong. You came here to support Off2riorob. Then CBM, another admin, told you that you were wrong. Then you pointed to WP:BLPTALK. Then I pointed out that it says the opposite of what you believed it says. Then, instead of responding, you switched to WP:IDHT mode and continued the threats. And then I got increasingly irritated. If you have now lost your face it's entirely your own fault. Don't behave like a fool and you won't look like one. Hans Adler 22:14, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Your chronology is more detailed, but it doesn't make my chronology wrong. Your edits linked above violated BLP. I pointed out the relevant section, and though you claimed they meant the opposite, you're clearly mistaken, and I warned you again accordingly. While I haven't checked all your subsequent edits, my warnings appear have had the desired effect and you seem to be taking appropriate care not to repeat your mistake. As for the incivility issue, since I'm the victim, the best I can do is promise to report you should it continue. Rklawton (talk) 22:27, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

If you say one more time without credible evidence that any of my edits violated BLP, then I will open a new ANI report. You have had ample warning by now. Stop your personal attacks. From WP:NPA#WHATIS: "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence." What is not said there because it is understood is that you must in good faith believe that the diffs support the accusations. At this point this is impossible unless you are completely incompetent. Incompetence is not a valid excuse, and especially not for an admin. Hans Adler 22:40, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I have provided links to your edits and a link to the relevant BLP section - Res ipsa loquitur. Take it to ANI if you think you've got a case. Just keep in mind that many of your edits contain personal attacks against me, and they'll be available for review as well. Rklawton (talk) 22:43, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

See, that's what I mean by IDHT. Nobody denies that you provided links, and nobody denies that you pointed to the relevant BLP section. But the relevant BLP section does not imply that anything about the links is wrong. In fact, it says the opposite. You keep repeating what everybody agrees on and do not address the core of the matter, no matter how often I try to get you on topic.

You started with the personal attacks and never stopped (except in this last post, which you have formulated so as to avoid an explicit repetition), so it's no wonder I got irritated. If you point me to any comments I made about you that are not fair criticism, or that are fair criticism phrased inappropriately, then I will of course redact them. Hans Adler 22:56, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

The core of the matter is that you are not permitted to say on a talk page that "this person is a criminal" unless they have been convicted. You can discuss the views of various sources and authorities on the matter - that's not a problem, but you can not decide for yourself (by watching YouTube videos) and then use Misplaced Pages's talk pages to announce your opinion that someone is a criminal. Misplaced Pages is not a forum, and we respect individual's rights to due process. As far as incivility goes, I'm not interested in redaction - simply discontinue it. Rklawton (talk) 23:04, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

You just keep repeating yourself. "Look, this is not an argument. It's just contradiction." The fact that John Pike is a criminal is obvious to every normal member of a modern society, just from watching the videos. (I am saying "normal" here to exclude certain unusual circumstances such as someone having undergone a dehumanisation process during military service in a foreign country, or psychological deformations due to being beaten by a parent. The former may actually well account for John Pike's odd behaviour, which he clearly thought he could get away with.) Asking for anything beyond that is completely ridiculous and not grounded in policy. You are not even making an earnest effort to make a policy-based argument that it is. "This is futile. I came here for a good argument. An argument is not the same as contradiction. Arguing is an intellectual process, contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of everything the other person says." And once more, what people say in discussions has nothing whatsoever to do with due process. Hans Adler 23:22, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

...and yet most editors on ANI have opposed your edits in this matter. When faced with such a consensus, your really should reevaluate your position. Also note that I've started a new thread regarding your lack of civility. Rklawton (talk) 23:33, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Voting is evil, and consensus isn't a simple head count of the few editors contributing to a discussion. . . dave souza, talk 23:38, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

A nuance here: while the action of applying torture to sitting peaceful protestors may be viewed as criminal in a broad sense by international opinion or even by international legal standards, that action may be legal under certain jurisdictions. Indeed, where I live people have been tortured for refusing to comply with the state religion. If John Pike has been trained and authorised to do what he did, which cited sources describe as torture, blame for this rests with those who gave that instruction. In that case his action would only be criminal in terms of internationally agreed obligations, which are unlikely to reach court. So, I'll agree it's premature to call him a criminal. . . dave souza, talk 23:38, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree that voting is evil. The reason I raised the point was Hans' insinuation while back that there was somehow not a consensus. I also wanted to point out the experience level of those opposing his edits v. the one editor who supported it also serve as a strong indication that Hans needs to change his approach. Rklawton (talk) 23:46, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Put a banner on your talk page making a Wiki-politically incorrect statement, similar to what I did. I made a statement for which I was blocked for a short time, Sandstein overturned the block. I decided to put that statement prominently on my talk page to ensure that this won't happen again. You could try to find a better example than John Pike, maybe someone involved in the Kent State shootings would be better. Count Iblis (talk) 21:47, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood me. I am looking for ways to solve the Rklawton problem. I have found in my quick research that this is not the first time that he has misbehaved on an epic scale. He is approaching the editing of an encyclopedia as if it were some kind of military organisation, and he quite clearly believes that he can give commands to others based on his eccentric interpretation of policy. This might even be something we can live with, if he had reached stage 3 of the four stages of competence regarding policy interpretation. But he is quite obiously stuck at stage 1. Hans Adler 22:23, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I closed the AN/I thread; I mean, nothing much productive seemed to be going on there - except for circular argument... perhaps everyone could disengage and find something else to do for a bit... Hans; on the specifics of the BLP issue, when I read your comments my first feeling was that you were overstepping the bounds of what could be construed as reasonable comment - taking every opportunity to attack the actions of the individual rather than dispassionately discussing that topic. (I'm not threatening to block you for it, or anything silly, just offering you a viewpoint from the perspective of someone who views the actual act in much the same way) With that said - the others in the conversation did much the same thing, arguing the semantics of the act based on their own views. Unfortunately your "side" was the one with the contentious terminology... I think the takeaway for everyone involved should be; step away from those personal grievances/views and the BLP issue goes away :) As I read it, very little of the BLP/N discussion thread seemed to be about "what to do with the material" as much as about arguing with each other. --Errant 00:10, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Could you explain who "the last person to go on such a crusade was indeffed, for example" refers to in your closing comment? If I have judged the community's position on such matters fundamentally wrong, then I need to know it. And if the comparison is unfair I will ask you to remove it. But it's impossible to say when a statement is so vague. Hans Adler 00:46, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

It was just to highlight the example; Mindbunny was the person I had in mind. They were otherwise disruptive (which is largely why the block has stuck) but the block originated from them trying to press the issue that they could comment widely about living people when discussing the article. The community view at that time was that there was a certain point at which you go from simply discussing sourced material to throwing around one's own opinion. I'd suggest you probably crossed that line at some point in the BLP/N thread. I tweaked my close notice just to clarify that I meant MB went on a crusade to prove they could do such things, not that you were similar to them (sorry, late night :)) --Errant 00:52, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

(I'm going to bed; if there is still an issue then I'll be happy to fix it later :)) --Errant 01:03, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

• Just like clockwork! . . . dave souza, talk 23:08, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Unwanted decorations

See notice at top of my page
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The Special Barnstar This is just because, reading your comments here and elsewhere, I realize that you are just a very special person, and Misplaced Pages is very fortunate to have you here. 74.178.230.234 (talk) 21:15, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Image use

Hi Hans. I'm trying to get a feel for what is the problem with our curation of controversial images. Would you mind giving me a very brief summary of what you think is the problem here? We can discuss solutions later, if you want. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 10:21, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Line of succession to the french throne

Is there anyway that you would stop deleting the article????? Lefairh (talk) 21:16, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

This discussion belongs on the article's talk page. Hans Adler 21:18, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

WP: No Personal Attacks

Under WP: NPA, personal attacks like those could be removed. I have read the messages, and I shall attempt to follow them. However, the continued existence of those messages would hurt my reputation in the community. If you have any objections on this, tell me immediately. I shall delete them again soon.Emerson 07 (talk) 14:15, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

fundementalism

This is excellent. A similar analysis should be done for some of the other policies/guidelines. WP:CANVASS is worth looking into, though you have start at WP:SPAM since that's all that that guideline originally was - a prohibition against UNWANTED mass notifications, rather than informing others of discussions of interest. Volunteer Marek  16:44, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

re Horasis wiki

I have just managed to get/find to your site and now wish to search for a solution to this odd mess - if mess is what one might call it.

Basically I am the author of the ‘Horasis’ Wiki… Global Business Meetings and the Horasis meeting. I am guided by the CEO as he lacks time to make these edits. Both I and the CEO of Horasis have wondered who Dewritech was but I did not investigate deeply as his/her changes to these Wiki were benevolent. However a more serious conflict has arisen – Deletion, as well as Sockpuppetry.

I have pleaded against deletion elsewhere (UKexpat); and the Sock xxx I am guilty of. Sorry.

But what now can I do to rescue these entries that are not under any paid regime, but merely reflect on-going meetings that ought to have been seen as factual reporting, not advertising? Johnbkidd (talk) 17:30, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages articles on people and organisations are not normally supposed to be written by those who are related to them in real life. They almost always lack the required neutrality and wider perspective. (See here for the details.) Also, when persons or organisations must start their own articles rather than someone from the general public doing it, then it is typically an indication that they are not what we call notable, i.e. do not deserve an article. As you have seen, editing alternatingly under several accounts is also not a good idea. We consider this the wiki equivalent of faking a signature, or of severe plagiarism in academia: Both are relatively easy to do and one may get away with them for quite some time, but they undermine the very foundations on which a society is built.

It seems entirely possible that the articles you created really should not exist, simply because independent third-party sources have had nothing, or nothing interesting, to say about the topics. It is also quite possible that they are borderline cases. In that case, they have a chance, but only if you tread very carefully after having seriously broken some of our norms. It's not supposed to make a difference for the notability of any article, but you can imagine that in any discussion that must come to a consensus it does make a difference what the participants think of you. Don't expect immediate results and be open to compromise. Before you try something that you think might cause a backlash, ask someone clueful if it's a good idea. Hans Adler 19:53, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Hans, I deleted those articles, and the user left me a note on my talk page as well. I had earlier left a note on User talk:Alexandria, but Alexandria hasn't responded yet. A cursory glance suggests that an SPI is proper, if only to get some objective evidence, but I will leave that to the three of you, since you apparently have prior experience with this account. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 20:26, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

For the SPI, see WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Dundswk. Checkuser has already been endorsed. Hans Adler 20:51, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Excellent. Drmies (talk) 20:57, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Integrating portals and Wikiprojects

Please see the retitled section Integrate portals with WikiProjects at your convenience. Tabs between portals and Wikiprojects is functional, useful and is an improvement to the Misplaced Pages project. Northamerica1000 08:15, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

RFA thankspam

Thank you for your partcipation at my recent successful RFA. In addressing your concerns, I will do my best to live up to the confidence shown in me by others, will move slowly and carefully when using the mop, will seek input from others before any action of which I might be unsure, and will try not to break anything beyond repair. Best, Schmidt, 22:19, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations. I tend to make up my mind independently and usually don't change it unless someone finds the right words to convince me. That's why I sometimes swim against a huge stream. And sometimes the stream is right and I am wrong. I am looking forward to learning that this is one such case. Hans Adler 22:24, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

ADB

I saw your comment at the Germany wikiproject. It made me wonder whether you'd looked at letter A, which is more complete than the rest of the alphabet for well-known reasons! Just searching quickly on deWS, I saw for example that Karl Heinrich Gräffe of Graeffe's method is in the ADB but not here. In any case my current reasons for being interested are mainly not mathematical. Charles Matthews (talk) 10:17, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

"Coincidental" IP edits after Saturnian block

Hi! Can I run this by you before I consider doing anything about it? Just after Saturnian got his block, the article Protochronism, which has been a subject of permanent irritation for the more active POV-pushers at WikiProject Dacia, came under attack from an IP. Please have a look over the recent comments on Talk:Protochronism, and note, beyond the cherry-picking and BLP issues, the IP's immediate labeling of me as a "fan" of "another side". Nothing of what he "cites" is about Protochronism, but his is merely a (quite serious) vendetta-like denigration attempt against the professional historians whose works were used in sourcing the article (mainly Boia and Verdery). One of the "sources" he uses is, interestingly enough, a blog post in which the author quarrels with Boia about... Cuza.

Is it just too coincidental, or am I getting paranoid? I'm taking the precaution of asking because the guy edits with his raw IP, and I don't really know how to elegantly approach possible sockpuppets that expose themselves in this way. Just because they expose their personal details, I don't actually want to publicize them any further. If you think there's grounds for an investigation, could you perhaps add to the existing sockpuppetry case? Dahn (talk) 00:28, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I know what you mean about getting paranoid. I think it's a pretty good case. The material was previously added to the article by 79.116.208.252 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 79.116.236.209 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) on 30th July. The editing times and weekdays for all three accounts are consistent with, though not strongly suggestive of, Saturnian. (Given Saturnian's low edit count this doesn't tell us much, though.) As to dates: 30th July was a day on which Saturnian did not edit, but which falls between 28th July (when he started editing after a long absence) and 31st July - 9th August, his most active period so far. The IP appears to have roughly the same IQ as Saturnian, and in connection with the Cuza thing this pushes me to reporting it. I will do so publicly, as the IP range is from Bucarest and so really doesn't give much information on Saturnian even if connected to him. Hans Adler 00:52, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Hilfe

Hallo Hans, I am stuck on a couple of words--please help me translate on Judith Beheading Holofernes... Drmies (talk) 03:43, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Done. Funny sentence, and quoted from my former local newspaper... Hans Adler 10:21, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Excellent work--thank you! Yeah, that was a bit more than I could handle..."the epitome of depraved seduction"...I want her! Thanks again, Drmies (talk) 15:24, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Hans, I could do with some more German advice. I don't buy this edit, for instance--it strikes me as a particularly North-American POV. Also, I created a terrible stub, for the hell of it: Ordnung Muss Sein. Your advice is, as always, appreciated. Drmies (talk) 18:37, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the Hindenburg edit looks wrong. When I hear the word, I see a specific face before me, and the airship was named after the owner of that face. North-American POV sounds about right. I think this should simply be reverted.

Ordnung muss sein is a fantastic idea for an article topic. This has even more potential than egg slicer! Hans Adler 18:52, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I wanted to link to Kehrwoche, but we don't have an article on that yet. Hans Adler 19:54, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

WP:V

Could you please explain why you think "gaming the system" was going on? Cla68 (talk) 22:50, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Because you cannot possibly have done what you did in good faith. Hans Adler 22:52, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Do you see any evidence of bad faith in the page I drafted? If so, could you point it out? If I'm acting in bad faith, then you need to show some evidence, otherwise it's just a personal attack. Cla68 (talk) 22:55, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Not in the page, because I have never examined the page beyond the list of people allowed to edit it. The evidence of bad faith is in the way in which you jumped on the opportunity to grab this position of honour despite your obvious lack of qualification. The page was obviously an attempt to create a fait accompli. Hans Adler 23:05, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

You nominated the page for deletion and made personal, disparaging remarks about me without even reading the page? That sounds like the definition of prejudice. If I understand correctly, you are asserting that I jumped in, not with the intention of helping get things moving, but in pursuit of personal glory? Could you please point to the evidence of how you know what my motivation was? If you can't point to any evidence, then all it is is a personal attack based on prejudice. If isn't, then please, show us the evidence. Cla68 (talk) 23:11, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Also, you said that I committed "a BLP violation" in 2007. Could you please point to the violation? If you can't, then I'm going to have to ask you to withdraw that accusation. Cla68 (talk) 23:17, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Wow. You see, the audacity of this comment is the best proof that you are not fit to take up any position requiring honour, anywhere, ever. You must know at least as well as I do (now) that I cannot point to the original of the violation because Jimbo has deleted the page, and that I cannot link to the offline copy of the page, which someone has put up on a hate site, because that would be a BLP violation itself. But I made an earlier comment based on my earlier, incomplete knowledge, and that made you believe you could corner me. That was a miscalculation. Hans Adler 23:24, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

OK, so you can't back up the accusation of a BLP violation. So, could you at least back up your accusation that I was acting in pursuit of personal glory? If you can't, then would you admit that it was a personal attack? Cla68 (talk) 23:28, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I can back up the accusation of a BLP violation, only I can't put it on-wiki, and for part of it I will require the assistance of someone with advanced permissions or a very good memory. I was perfectly clear and there is no chance that you misunderstood me. If you think you will have any luck with some bizarre wikilawyering about accusations being personal attacks when the evidence has been oversighted, then I invite you to report me and expect a nasty surprise. Hans Adler 23:47, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

You are ignoring my request that you back up your knowledge of my motivation with evidence. Can you point to your evidence that my motivation for getting involved was vainglorious? If you can't, then why wouldn't it be accurate for me to characterize your statement as a personal attack? Cla68 (talk) 23:58, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I take it you are aware that you have just moved the goalpost. Let's continue this discussion when you are interested in proper communication. Hans Adler 00:34, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Why you don't you, then, just answer my original question? Here is what you said, "The evidence of bad faith is in the way in which you jumped on the opportunity to grab this position of honour despite your obvious lack of qualification. The page was obviously an attempt to create a fait accompli." Now, can you show evidence as to how you knew that this is what I was doing? How did you know that my motivation was to "grab this position of honor" and that I wanted to "create a fait accompli"? Please link to the evidence or otherwise explain why this is not a simple personal attack. Cla68 (talk) 00:41, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Your (1) demonstrably dishonourable character, (2) lack of adminship, (3) previous participation in an RfC on precisely the same sentence, (4) active Arbcom sanctions for battlefield conduct, (5) relatively recent Arbcom finding of inappropriate use of sources, and (6) recent open agitation against Wikimedia UK, when taken together, left absolutely no doubt that you are completely and totally unfit for the job of determining consensus in a contentious RfC in such a way as to minimise disruption. Which of these points were you not aware of? Hans Adler 01:10, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Evolution

Just so you know, the Talk:Evolutionary biology is now a soft redirect to the Talk:Evolution page. If you have comments about the merger that you would like to share, please feel free to post them at Talk:Evolution. Thanks. danielkueh (talk) 01:22, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I responded there and reverted the 'merge'. There is clearly no consensus for it. Temporary votestacking by creationists can't delete an academic subject. Hans Adler 01:44, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't know what you are trying to prove with your recent reversions. There was already a consensus and the issue appears to be resolved. If you want to start a discussion, please take it to Talk:Evolution.

Accusing me and/or others of "votestacking," "vandalism," or being "creationists" is outlandish. You have not basis for making those statements. I have reverted your reversions. I suggest you read WP:AGF before making such ridiculous and insulting comments again. danielkueh (talk) 01:58, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring on Evolutionary biology

Your recent editing history shows that you are in danger of breaking the three-revert rule, or that you may have already broken it. An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Breaking the three-revert rule often leads to a block.

If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. You may still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates that you intend to continue to revert repeatedly. danielkueh (talk) 02:08, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Straw poll on fate of Evolutionary Biology article

Hi, this is to notify you that I have started a more indept discussion about whether the Evolutionary Biology article should be restored and in what form exactly. Please see Talk:Evolutionary_biology#Restoration_of_Evolutionary_biology for the discussion. -- Kim van der Linde 03:41, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Muhammad to FA

I think that's a really good idea, but you have to sort out the image situation first - at least temporarily to meet the stability requirement. You can't argue that the current situation is stable. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 10:09, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Yup. Like all good ideas this one is of course not original. I was thinking of Evolution, where this strategy seems to have been very successful. I think once we all stop discussing the images and start thinking about what else needs to be done before FAC, things will calm down anyway. Then we can ask a few FA experts what they think needs to be done about the pictures before the nomination. Hans Adler 10:15, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I've taken a brief look through the history of that article from the FAQ and you're right that there was a lot of controversy, however most of that controversy appeared to end in around December 2006, which was a good six months before Evolution became an FA in May 2007, giving six months of stability to start with - which is a starting point we don't currently have. That its an FA probably has helped going forward, but the stability was reached first (at least temporarily)

Secondly the other difference with evolution is that it isn't scientifically controversial, nor is it socially controversial among our editors from outside the United States. This means if you frame the discussion in a scientific fashion it becomes much more difficult to argue against and any attempt to twist the debate will be considered ridiculous by our non-US editors.

Alan makes a strong point here - which I'm not sure I agree with as I think that a religious figures illustration should largely follow that religion as they have the most interest in them. However it is a strong point, and the difference between our positions is merely shades of grey. On evolution it would be near impossible to construct a coherent argument on that article's bias without some kind of mass scientific conspiracy theory which is patently absurd. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 12:58, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I think if we simply start working on the topic of the article itself and get some kind of moratorium on the image question, this will sort itself. Preparing an article for FAC is a group experience that removes a lot of tensions. The resulting core group then has a strong socially stabilising effect. I have observed this in the case of homeopathy. The nomination failed, but the atmosphere was vastly improved anyway. There is a huge and excellent German scholarly book on the history of the Arabic world. I think that armed with that I can easily start serious improvements towards FA quality. Over Christmas I am meeting someone who has the book and almost certainly doesn't need it. I will try to borrow it. Hans Adler 13:18, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree. But I think that to get the moratorium on the image question we need to take a case to the arbitration committee. -- Eraserhead1 <talk>

• The FAC idea has merit, Hans. I'd be on board. By the way, have you seen de:Diskussion:Mohammed? Your most recent post mentioning Jesus reminded me of it. The German article's text is quite well researched, and I've been meaning to do a comparison between ours and theirs, to discover differences and similarities, as well as get an overview of anything that might be missing in either of them. --JN466 18:05, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

  I have seen that talk page – 20 months ago. See de:Diskussion:Mohammed/Archiv/2010#Illustration. The article's owner seems to be pretty hopeless. It appears that none of the severe problems with the article that I mentioned has been adressed, and I doubt rather strongly that he would let anyone do so. If you want to do anything there, I propose that you start with one of these things that are not related to images, as that will avoid conflicts along the usual lines, and he will be obviously wrong if he tries to completely prevent content related to Muhammad reception in Islam and 20th century Muhammad reception in the rest of the world. Hans Adler 18:19, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

  Yes, just found that as you were writing. And you're spot-on. --JN466 18:28, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

  This gives further information, and at least according to en standards, it's even a reliable source on Misplaced Pages (though not for BLP purposes). After reading de:Diskussion:Ignaz Goldziher, I am even more strongly reminded of Ottava Rima. Hans Adler 18:52, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I still don't like you but....

You are honorable. Your comments in the ANI thread were spot on. Captain Occam and Jmclemens comments were off-the-chart uncivil, way beyond a scatological reference or ten. I never forget these things. Otherwise, hope all is well with you. While sitting in a hospital bed in the USA, made me wish I were European, our health care system borders on barbaric. Got to read a lot about WWII history, though I doubt I'll edit any of those articles. Of course, they have got to be easier.OrangeMarlin 23:18, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I am glad you are back and appear to be in a much better mood than before. When I first became aware of you I honestly thought you were stupid, but I later understood that it must have been stress or lack of time or something, as I have now seen your other side.

The articles about WWII aren't as easy as one would think, although the typical battle lines don't run where one might naively expect them, i.e. not between Germans/Austrians/Italians and the rest of the world, but mostly between the various East European nationalists and to a limited extent also Jews and Sinti and Roma. (In case you have missed the "Eastern European Mailing List" thing, I believe that was mostly a battle between Polish and Russian editors. The Poles lost, because the archive of the mailing list which they used for inappropriate offline coordination was leaked to Arbcom.) You may be interested in my article on Hans Schwerte. I promise you it's not boring at all, and it's just as typical for a generation as it is surprising. American post-war propaganda in Germany was extremely effective. I stumbled over similar things while working on Schieder commission, an (unfinished) article that I started improving after a group of Polish editors were somewhat unfairly accused of giving it an anti-German slant. Hans Adler 23:58, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Stupid? I saw the mailing list Arbcom thing. Honestly, I read only part of it, because it was kind of funny how many individuals were involved. I tried to edit some minor battle in Estonia, years ago, and it was so frustrating. Everyone had an opinion, and of course, RS were few and far between. I gave up. I actually removed it from my watch list.

I'm annoyed by Captain Occam right now. Accusing me of not understanding a source or something is one thing. I try not to get wound up by that now. But he called me a liar, and that sets off a matter of pride. I know that's bad. OrangeMarlin 00:38, 11 December 2011 (UTC)