Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive577

intentional article degradation

Editor user:off2riorob seems to be trying to degrade the quality of an article 2009 Richmond High School gang rape in order to get it deleted. I don't know why but he seems dead-set on getting the article removed with reversions and all sort of spurious claims about it. This took the cake:

"Actually the worse it is the more chance there is that whoever closes the deletion discussion will be weighted in favour by the poor state of the article when they close. Off2riorob"

Coming from someone trying to improve the article, this sounds innocuous, but he has been conducting a lengthy campaign to delete the article. [1]

He welcomed me to wikipedia but his treatment after that of me and constant reversions has bordered on harrassment (warning me that he'll "report" me) and has really brought editing of the article to a dead halt. Can someone speak to him for me please? I'd just like him to leave me be and let the article develop.

Thank you Richmondian (talk) 18:14, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

ummm....he seems to be actually removing or advocating removal of material you (and others) have added that substantially degrate the 'keepability' of the article. I don't think you want your actions reviewed to closely, as you seem to be pushing material that would be difficult to keep in an article for biography of living persons reasons. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 18:50, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

The claim should be more specific. Removing data may degrade but may also improve an article. If you have a content dispute then you should follow dispute resolution for content. I suggest closing this discussion thread because there is not enough information for editors to provide informed comment. The Four Deuces (talk) 19:00, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

(@Ricmondian) Is this some kind of retaliation for Black Kite threatening to take your actions here?--SKATER ^Speak. 19:02, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

This discussion should serve as a reminder to administrators that notability, not how well written the article is, should determine an AFD result. This board is to alert administrators so it is not too far off to have a discussion here. In short, content disputes shouldn't be on ANI but reminders to admins to decide on AFD based on notability, not how well written or poorly written an article is. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 19:05, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

yes, i agree suomi, otherwise editors trying to push a delete can simply go and damage an article then say "look how bad it is?" Richmondian (talk) 19:58, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

So does that mean notability is de facto policy, then? MuZemike 23:41, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

• In case anyone hadn't noticed, the last revert by User:Off2riorob was of an outrageous BLP violation (i.e. the name of the victim) which has since been oversighted, and the editor warned that any further repetition will result in them being blocked indefinitely. Black Kite 19:11, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

in a sea of reversions that were not BLP violations, Richmondian (talk) 19:58, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

one good revert in a sea of article

Am I supposed to stumble upon these accusations in order to respond? Off2riorob (talk) 20:31, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

The accusation I that seem to be trying to degrade the quality of an article...As I have not added a single word to the article that is a step too far, imo, Richmondian is a recently created single purpose account who is on a mission as regards the article, and as such would benefit from a mentor. Off2riorob (talk) 21:03, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree that you should have been alerted to this thread and if this does come down to mentoring, i'll volunteer.--SKATER ^Speak. 21:06, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

That's a good offer Skater, although he has as yet shown little or no desire to take any advice. Off2riorob (talk) 21:12, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I just also read his talk page...could be my inner /b/tard, but him implying Alison didn't know WP:NOTNEWS at his level of experience seemed odd.--SKATER ^Speak. 21:21, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

With the current account policies that is really by the by. Off2riorob (talk) 21:34, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I haven't taken an exhaustive look at the article's history, but what I have looked at shows Off2riorob doing a fine job enforcing BLP and other core content policies. If claims of his disruption are to continue, I think some diff evidence is in order. – Luna Santin (talk) 07:21, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

A somewhat related question: I haven't closed any AfD discussions lately, but isn't the Talk page of an article supposed to have a link back to the AfD thread that discussed it's deletion? I happened to have a look at the talk page of this article, & found it odd that there wasn't one. (And even if it's not required, I think it would be a sign of good faith to have such a link here.) -- llywrch (talk) 06:30, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

After the discussion is closed, yes -- looks like it was closed by a non-admin, and then re-opened, though, so you might have looked around then. – Luna Santin (talk) 07:19, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I looked between the time it was closed (after Richmondian added his comment about "now we can move on") & the close was re-opened. One reason I was uneasy about the status of this article, & wondered if there was something wrong there. -- llywrch (talk) 20:42, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

070time070 (talk) may be COI problem

Every edit to date made by 070time070 has been to add a reference to a particular domain, http://stilltitled.com/. None of them are particularly reliable (this appears to be some sort of ad-hoc blog with no particular organization or claim to authority), and with the exception of a couple references added to the Lord Palmerston page, none of them are even relevant to the text they are theoretically supporting; at best they mention the topic they are supporting by reference, but they aren't actually supporting the text. At first I thought this was just a new editor not familiar with the rules, but the fact that every edit links to the same site, with the same lack of concern for even basic relevance makes me think this may be a COI problem. I've written a few notes/warnings to the user on their talk page, but an admin with better grasp of the exact COI guidelines may wish to keep an eye on them and make sure they either cease this behavior or ban them. --ShadowRangerRIT (talk) 19:07, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Probably simpler than this - they are trying to advertise their blog. final warning given; if it continues, take to AIV. Tan | 39 20:11, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

User:38.112.210.2 was originally adding the links at Christine Todd Whitman, Network neutrality, and Network neutrality in the United States. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 00:10, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

User Vintagekits again at Audley Harrison

User:Vintagekits is again attempting to reinsert a list of negative poorly cited, not well known derogatory nicknames to the Audley Harrison biography the exact same edit the he was blocked recently for, he has been what looks like WP:FORUMSHOPPING to me at another location here to get what he is claiming to be a consensus to re add these names after there was a strong rejection of his edit at the BLP board and here previous to his block for adding exactly the same thing. The link to the previous discussion at the BNP noticeboard is here . thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 20:44, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

For convenience here's the link to the BLP/N discussion. (By the time I got through the 6xEC's to fix my link it was already added above)--Cube lurker (talk) 20:52, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Multiple discussions over the period of a month show a unanimous support for inclusion. All nicknames are sourced.--Vintagekits (talk) 20:52, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

One columnist using the nickname does not mean we include it here. Also, the "per WP:BOXING" conversation wasn't specifically about this article. Tan | 39 20:56, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

"One columnist using the nickname" - so you would rather check the word of Harrisons brother and managers over an experienced editor and EVERY editor on the Boxing Project that says to include it? This just a case of an couple of editors from the BLP pages with wounded pride, a lack of an argument and serious ownership issues.--Vintagekits (talk) 21:09, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

How is any of the other nicknames gonna become well known, if they're barred from the article. GoodDay (talk) 20:57, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Are you implying that it is our job at en.wiki to make someone's nicknames more popular? Tan | 39 20:58, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Why is it so terrible to add 'atleast' one more nickname. Would it be alright if it's positive? PS: I'm implying that a 'negative' name gives 'balance'. GoodDay (talk) 21:00, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

We don't determine inclusion of material based on whether or not it is "so terrible". We do it based on strength of sourcing and BLP policy. I see no consensus, at any forum, that these particular nicknames should be included. Note I am (now) involved, so my participation here is not admin-related. Tan | 39 21:04, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

If 'such' nicknames were allowed by the BLP, would that sufice? GoodDay (talk) 21:07, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

YOU SEE NO CONCENSUS??? HAVE YOU READ THE MONTH LONG DISCUSSION ON THE BOXING PROJECT OR THE MULTIPLE SOURCES PROVED??--Vintagekits (talk) 21:10, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

It looks like the BLP over-rules WP:BOXING in this incident, Vk. Atleast, that seems to be the case. GoodDay (talk) 21:12, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Vintagekits has again put them back in he is effectively edit warring again over the issue. Here is the recent history. Off2riorob (talk) 21:18, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

There is 100% concensus to include the nickname - there has been a month long discussion to approce it. There is no concensus to remove them - its is sourced information therefore you are edit warring by removing it.--Vintagekits (talk) 21:21, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Has anybody checked into the COI concerns at that article? Such concerns were raised months ago. GoodDay (talk) 21:21, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Of course not - Off2riorobb and his mate Cube lurker are too busy defending "their patch" on the BLP page - dont dare disagree with them!!!!!!--Vintagekits (talk) 21:23, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Another admin needs to look into this ASAP. There is no "100% consensus". Not even close. the WP:BOXING discussion wasn't specifically about this issue. As far as I'm concerned, VK is merely going back to his old IDIDNTHEARTHAT ways. I am too involved to take action. Tan | 39 21:26, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

User Good Day has made a request to get the page protected, I have requested if it is protected that it is done with the disputed edit removed. Off2riorob (talk) 21:29, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

What a loads of balls - everyone on the boxing project agreed to insult both positive and negative nocknames - the Harrison case is specifically referred to. Every nickname is sourced! So what is policy the issue here expcept that we are pandering to the egos of TWO editors that run the BLP page and consider their word law.

Edit within policy and yer fucked - edit outside policy and yer fucked! I suppose it all depends who yer mates are and whos arse ya lick?!--Vintagekits (talk) 21:31, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

NOTE: I've request 'full protection' for the article. I don't wanna see anybody getting blocked. GoodDay (talk) 21:28, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Vintagkits, you are becoming uncivil, please stay calm. Off2riorob (talk) 21:35, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the new content and fully protected the page for 3 days. JamieS93 21:40, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

So you have removed sourced information to satisy two editors POV? Well done!--Vintagekits (talk) 21:47, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

At least that calms the situation, thanks. But the not listening and aggressive repeated reinsertion style of editing in respect of an edit that got Vintagekits a two week block beggars belief. Off2riorob (talk) 21:49, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I want to smash the fucking screen when I read the sdfasdfasdfasdfasdfas that you pass off and the state of events. EVERYTHING I have done is based on FACTS and POLICY and your whole position is based on opinion! This place is a joke.--Vintagekits (talk) 21:53, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

VK, ya got 3-days to work with at BLP (the the article is protected). That appears to be the place to get a consensus for your additions. If it doesn't get passed? it'll be towel throwing time. GoodDay (talk) 21:58, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

• Right, it there actually an issue here or was all of this just shit stirred up by Off2riorob who cant stand the fact that he isnt getting his own way. Is this an issue for ANI? All of the content that was added to the Harrison article is backed by multiple sources which are reliable sources - including boxing trade magazines and national newspapers. So if they common nicknames, backed up by multiple sources and agreed at the Boxing Project that multiple nicknames should go in the infobox then what is the issue. Less than flattering nicknames are used for multiple fighters - the nickname issue is a big one with regards Harrison so why are we allowing Off2riorob dictate what goes on here? --Vintagekits (talk) 09:43, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

You take it too personal, it is not me that is dictating what happens here, it is wikipedia policy and guidelines that is resisting you. Please allow me to suggest you take a little time to calm down over this issue. Off2riorob (talk) 11:37, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Well you are the fuckin one that brought all this too ANI - to me that is shit stirring and making it personal especially when your opening "complaint" doesnt outline an breach of policy. Have you actually got an issue - if so what is it? becuase anytime you are asked a straight question you shift the goal posts. First it was that there werent in common use - I provided multiple sources to prove it was. Then is was because it wasnt in context - I added a paragraph to the article to put it in context (even though the official nickname or no other nickname on wikipedia is explained in the article), then it was because it was derogatory - wikipedia isnt censored so thats a red herring. Then you said there wasnt concensus to use it - the Boxing Project discussed the issue and an overwhelming majority decided that nicknames such as this should be used. What exactly is your issue here? Multiple boxers have nicknames they are commonly known by that they dont like - we arnt here to pander to their emotions, we reflect reality and the sources provided. --Vintagekits (talk) 15:59, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Guidelines overpower WikiProjects. I had to learn & deal with this fact at WP:HOCKEY concerning usage of diacrtics. Guidelines are no fun, when you're in disagreement with them. GoodDay (talk) 15:49, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Which guideline or policy is breached by the inclusion of this sourced material.--Vintagekits (talk) 16:01, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:BLP. See the link right at the top of this discussion. --John (talk) 16:04, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Was wondering when I would see the like of your kind drop in. What part of BLP is breached?--Vintagekits (talk) 17:02, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Request: Can we close this ANI report? it's turning into a discussion, which should be held at either W:BLP or atleast Audley Harrison. -- GoodDay (talk) 16:12, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

User Vintagekits continued aggressive attitude regarding this is starting to upset me, he's shouting around everywhere, his referring to another good faith user as "the likes of your kind" is uncivil in itself. Off2riorob (talk) 17:13, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

What like the way you tried to warn GoodDay from supporting my position! Get a grip of yerself, stop bitching and address to points raised!--Vintagekits (talk) 17:35, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I believe we've reached a 2-editors understanding, at my talkpage. Don King, eat your heart out. GoodDay (talk) 17:50, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

• I have started a new BLP noticeboard thread about this. Please direct any further comments there, including proposals/compromises, so discussion can be centralized. Thanks, JamieS93 20:14, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

user Gilabrand

I have today created a list: Syrian towns and villages destroyed by Israel [2]

User:Gilabrand has repeatedly changed the name of the article although there is a requested move right now at the talkpage that the outcome of is not clear. He has changed it to a name that has no connection with the article content and is not even discussed at the talkpage. He claims at the talkpage that its not a list and he has once again changed the name of it, and added content that has nothing to do with the topic, he has also removed image, categories and templates in direct connection to the article [3]

He has also begun name calling [4] the only reason why he remove it was because he was asked at his talkpage. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:55, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

main namespace article with user talk talkpage

Resolved

Here's an oddity I don't know how to fix. It looks like User:Msilbergeld used his/her User page as a sandbox to write Dylana Jenson. When the article was moved from userspace to article space, [5], it of course dragged the user's talk page User talk:Msilbergeld with it. We now have an article on the violinist Dylana Jenson, whose talk page is the user talk page of the editor Msilbergeld. The move occurred about six weeks ago, and the article has continued to be edited; and is certainly a notable violinist; so I didn't want to attempt to undo the move, even if I could (I'm not an admin, and am guessing I could not undo the move).

I haven't raised it with the editor yet because a) I doubt he/she could fix it, either and b) seeing as the editor talk page redirects to article talk space, there's no user talk page to leave the appropriate message on.

What's the fix? TJRC (talk) 21:26, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Talk page has been moved back and the redirect deleted. Bencherlite^Talk 21:30, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I know that articles are not to contain redirects into the user namespace (per WP:R#DELETE) ... but in this case we have the opposite because of where this was created, the user's main user page (not a subpage) is now a redirect to an article.

I can't find a specific policy or guideline against this; but it can be confusing as anyone who follows a sig to the user's page would be redirected to an article - and if they then try to post to the talk page not realizing it's not the user page, it just results in confusion. Should the user's page also be deleted (or at least the redirect blanked)? --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:37, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Deleting it makes sense to me. It doesn't look like it was purposefully created to link to the article spacee. It's just an artifact of the page move from userspace. I'm not sure why WP:R#DELETE was written not to cover this scenario, too. It seems to me that a user --> main redirect is not ordinarily appropriate any more than a main --> user redirect is (wlthough I can see why the latter is more harmful). TJRC (talk) 21:48, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I fixed the userpage redirect, and have offered some advice on creating a personal sandbox. Mjroots (talk) 22:30, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to all for addressing this. TJRC (talk) 18:22, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Damian Nerd

Resolved

Block and removal of talk page editing rights correct

Clearly not here to contribute constructively. I've indeffed Damian Nerd (talk · contribs) and following this threat I've also denied him access to his talk page. Just notifying here for a second opinion. If it is felt that he should have access to his talk page please feel free to reset. Mjroots (talk) 22:21, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Five contributions, all vandalism. What's not to block :) --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:28, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Obviously an appropriate block. Would have done the same myself. MuZemike 22:32, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks guys, still learning and am happy to be guided by more experienced admins. Mjroots (talk) 22:40, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Go Chuck Yourself Tour

• Go Chuck Yourself Tour (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This page appears to be a recreation of a recreation of a deleted page per an AfD discussion back in August, I would tag for speedy G4 but as I didn't see what the article looked like before it was deleted, I can't tell if it's eligible for deletion under this criterion. I was wondering if an Administrator could have a look at the deleted revisions and see if they differ from the current one. Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 02:37, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

•  Done the article was substantially identical to the deleted version. Someone should maybe start a discussion with the editor who keeps creating it; he seems to have a bit of a problem with creating multiple non-notable pages, and repeatedly creating the same page after AFD. --Jayron32 02:56, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Jayron. Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 03:03, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Another one?

Yeah I'm going to have to have a word with this user. Underclass Hero Tour (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Somebody look into this please and I'll see if this user would like to have a quick chat. Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 03:09, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Deleted; it's a phoenix. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Stop... at a WHAMMY!!)} 07:38, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Pmanderson

Resolved

 – No admin action warranted. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 16:04, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

This is a formal written complaint about on-going unapologetic uncivil behavior by User:Pmanderson. Out of the blue he seems to have some big problem with me. After I politely asked him to justify his tagging of Formal system, not only did he refuse to do so, he intemperately called for banning me from editing the article. I thought that was a little harsh out of the blue like that. My notion of civility is that we don't need to call the authorities over the slightest little thing. If he thinks this is appropriate, I would suggest that is consistent with a very impatient and arrogant person who doesn't belong in a collaborative environment.

He continued his attitude at WT:MATH in discussing the articles theorem and mathematosis (which I did not write with him in mind, however now...). You will notice that at almost every response I invite him to redeem himself and engage in more civil behavior. He only continues with the insults.

What I think is appropriate is for some administrative types to intervene with their moral leadership by telling him to stop. I would love for this to be done by some of his fellow editors in WP:MATH, as this sort of thing works better coming from peers.

Let the record show, that I have done what I need to do as a good faith editor and civil wp editor to deserve to be free from these attacks. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 04:42, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I've notified the user of this thread, on their talk page. Basket of Puppies 04:49, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

This is one of the rare cases of everybody else who has an opinion on a dispute agreeing with Pmanderson, so I see no chance of any fellow editors from WP:MATH telling him to stop. The editor who really needs to stop is Gregbard, who is trying to obfuscate articles related to mathematics and logic. Latest example: According to Gregbard, a theorem is "an idea, concept or abstraction token instances of which are formed using a string of symbols according to both the syntactic rules of a language (also called its grammar) and the transformation rules of a formal system." [6] In case you find this as confusing as I (a logician who knows the meaning of all the words in this gibberish) do: The article previously said, correctly, that a theorem is "a statement proved on the basis of previously accepted or established statements such as axioms."

Since his edit was reverted, he has created two content forks of theorem in order to continue his POV pushing there.

While Gregbard is doing some valuable work categorising and systematising logic related articles, his obfuscationist POV pushing and his ability to seek out and then vigorously push the most eccentric published views on any topic makes him a net negative for Wikipedia. This conflict flares up regularly, and each time he claims it's the experts (usually the mathematicians, since we have only few philosophers in Wikipedia) who are completely wrong and don't understand the topics discussed in the articles he is messing with.

Relevant essays: Primarily WP:COMPETENCE, but also WP:RANDY. Hans Adler 10:19, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

PS: The core of the discussion can be found at WT:WPM#Theorem. Hans Adler 10:35, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Pontiff Greg Bard has also just set up what I consider a WP:POINT essay and template at Template:Mathematosis and Wikipedia:Mathematosis based on his own interpretation of what Quine said about mathematicians. Not the sort of thing I'd have done if I was just going to raise an ANI! Dmcq (talk) 11:18, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree however there has been some incivility towards Pontiff Greg Bard. In particular I noticed a statement 'Greg Bard, knowing neither mathematics or philosophy' by User:Pmanderson in the maths project. We should discuss the subject not the person. A particular edit may show misunderstandings but it's best not to generalize to the person. Dmcq (talk) 11:27, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

It takes a lot of self-restraint, though, not to make such personal statements in the 100th unproductive discussion with the same obsessive Randy. Hans Adler 11:32, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I think that all sides should try to make more of an effort to be civil here. Although, I must say, the existence of the Wikipedia:Mathematosis essay, and the way it seems to be thrown around in an accusatory way by all parties involved, really makes a civil environment more difficult to maintain. I just commented at WT:WPM that I look forward to the day when this essay (as well as the accompanying template) are deleted. Although perhaps it was written with good intentions, its only actual function seems to be to inflame disputes. Le Docteur (talk) 13:01, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

One of the minor problems here is that GregBard gives no signs of noticing that Quine's coinage of mathematosis is a jeu d'esprit, from a book modelled on Voltaire's Philosophical Dictionary.

One major problem is that Greg's proposed text has muddled the distinction, which his source clearly makes, between a natural language, which has grammar, and a "formal language", which has transformation rules. No string is subject to both. This is elementary to the subject, and is my grounds for holding that he falls under WP:RANDY.

The other major problem is that Greg Bard, who goes around signing himself Pontiff, is accusing everyone else of pride, apparently because we will not defer to his pontifical authority. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:39, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

No admin action is needed here. GregBard, your options are WP:DR for content matters and WP:RFC if you want to pursue a complaint about PMAnderson. I see some strong language bandied about on both sides of the table, but certainly nothing warranting even a warning. Suggest disengaging from the article for a while to freshen your perspective. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 16:04, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

user Gilabrand

I have today created a list: Syrian towns and villages destroyed by Israel [7]

User:Gilabrand has repeatedly changed the name of the article although there is a requested move right now at the talkpage that the outcome of is not clear. He has changed it to a name that has no connection with the article content and is not even discussed at the talkpage. He claims at the talkpage that its not a list and he has once again changed the name of it, and added content that has nothing to do with the topic, he has also removed image, categories and templates in direct connection to the article [8]

He has also begun name calling [9] the only reason why he remove it was because he was asked at his talkpage. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:55, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Update, this user is now actively vandalizing the article, can an admin please do something? [10] [11] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 08:54, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Both Gilabrand and Supreme Deliciousness violated WP:EDITWAR (and WP:DISRUPT, WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL, WP:NPOV, WP:BATTLE... ). They're both blocked for 24 hours. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 09:10, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Any warning at all for either? Tan | 39 14:51, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

No warning. However - They've both been blocked for abusive behavior before, they've been warned about it. They know what the expectations are. They walked into it aware of the consequences and chose to butt heads that hard anyways... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 18:31, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Template:GenderChristianity

A small edit war occured on this template early over the inclusion of a 500 year old sketch of a naked Adam and Eve. The user responsible for this edit war is Cajun tiger (talk · contribs). At first I thought this was just a run-of-the-mill "OMG, think of the children!" sort of issue, but on further investigation, I found what appears to be Cajun's website: http://carolinacajun.wordpress.com/ In it, he says: Seems in order to change this I need to get "consensus from the community" that it is offensive (because "what offends you personally is not an issue"). So, if you have a minute, please email info-en-v@wikimedia.org and tell them the picture of the nudes on the Template:GenderChristianity page is offensive to you and would they please remove it. If you have a login to Wikipedia, visit the page (you can search either of the terms below to get there) and post on the "talk" page that you find it offensive... I can confirm that several emails from different individuals have been received at info-en-v, but as I've responded to those, I'm not going to involve myself further on the Wiki side of this. Posting this to let everyone else decide what to do, if anything. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:08, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

What we do is point out that Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED. Mjroots (talk) 09:24, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

This is a case of off-wiki canvassing and WP:Wikilawyering. Toddst1 (talk) 17:09, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the request from my blog and have requested people not send emails any longer. If any particular person that has emailed becomes a problem, please let me know and I will approach that person personally. My desire is to operate withing the framework of the proper process, but I also am very new to that process, so please bear with me as I learn. I understand that there are pages and pages of information about the proper decorum, and, while I generally try to follow norms of etiquitte (netiquitte?) I don't have the time to read the amount of information about how things work around here. If there were a somewhat brief "getting started" version, that may help. However, I believe my actions have shown that I am willing to work in the process and that includes removing the request from my blog and trying to discuss things orderly on the talk page. I apologise for my error in making the off-wiki request.Cajun tiger (talk) 18:05, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I have left you a friendly Welcome menu with a bunch of links to make your life easier. I agree - it's hard to complain that you broke the rules if you don't know the basics. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:36, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

As I said on another thread, I believe I am partially to blame for this. I directed Cajun tiger to get "community support" and consensus for the change. I meant the Wikipedia community but, being a new user, this could have easily been mistaken (especially in the context of our exchanges) as support from the community who find the images offensive. I apologize for this. Wperdue (talk) 20:27, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Attack on User:DragonflySixtyseven

Resolved

 – Not sure what's going on, but it's not an attack on an admin. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:02, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Can someone put a stop to this kind of attack on an admin? None of those articles are even related to the editor badgering. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.125.42.123 (talk) 19:56, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

That's not an attack, and it's 5 days old, and DS has edited the page himself since then.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:02, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Underage users

Resolved

 – Appears to have been dealt with by someone more powerful than I. Frmatt (talk) 21:13, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Can someone please deal with this and this. Users not notified for obvious reasons. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:42, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Appears to have been dealt with, no diffs found upon clicking. Frmatt (talk) 21:11, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Yet another backlog on Special:Newpages

Could some admins and normal editors help clear out the backlog of vandalism here? I swear, some days I'll see articles tagged and deleted in seconds, and other days I'll tag a vandal article and watch it remain up for over 24 hours. A little insignificant ^{Bloated on candy} 21:10, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Hey, we're not supposed to bite the newcomers, are we? :) MuZemike 21:28, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

They're not supposed to bite us, either! MirrorLockup (talk) 22:33, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by User:Neuromancer

User:Neuromancer has a consistent pattern of disruptive editing and talk page-inappropriate discussion, most problematically at HIV and Talk:HIV, and as another editor has stated, has "violated nearly every behavioral policy this site has". This user has repeatedly demonstrated an agenda of disrupting HIV-related articles with fringe viewpoints with no substantiation in RS. Despite extensive policy explanations and warnings from other editors, Neuromancer continues to pursue this course, including creating POV forks (HIV dissent, later re-directed, and Alternative HIV viewpoints, currently at AfD) containing synthesis, BLP violations and other problems. The user has been blocked previously for WP:3RR and given multiple warnings at the user talk page and on article talk pages by a large number of editors.

Neuromancer has also contributed several copyright violations, cutting and pasting from copyrighted sources without quoting or citing. This edit contains nine paragraphs copied verbatim from avert.org and a sentence and references copied from another website without citation. Warnings and explanations (Talk:HIV#Copyright_violations_by_Neuromancer, [12]) were ignored, with the user later performing another unreferenced copy and paste from a copyrighted website.

Neuromancer, after threatening to wikistalk ("However, I will be sure to peruse EVERY edit to EVERY article you have contributed to, just on the off chance you have somehow detracted from those articles as well"), has begun to make good on this threat by becoming engaged at Magnetic water treatment (an article on my watchlist), Cancell (an article contributed to by User:MastCell, [[13]) and Medical uses of silver, following talk page interactions, including an accusation of censorship, with a regular silver editor, User:Hipocrite. Each of these editors has warned Neuromancer about a variety of behaviours in the past, with invariably hostile response. The diversity and scope of Neuromancer's disruptions suggests that intervention could be appropriate. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 19:49, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll add my voice, as an involved editor/admin, to the request for some outside eyes here. Neuromancer (talk · contribs) has been active in pressing an AIDS-denialist agenda across numerous articles (representative edit). Issues include:

• Persistent edit-warring (block log)
• Canvassing potentially sympathetic editors ([14]), [15], [16], [17]).
• Most of his non-HIV-related edits seem to be based on Wikihounding; as Keepcalm points out, they're drawn from the contrib histories of editors with whom Neuromancer has been in conflict (followed Hipocrite (talk · contribs) to Dennis Ketcham ([18]), etc).
• Creation of numerous POV forks, including Alternative HIV viewpoints and HIV dissent.
• This sort of thing - not that I'm fussed about having my IQ questioned - it's probably barely above room temperature anyway - but it's a bit grating coming from someone who's constantly accusing others of personal attacks and failure to assume good faith.
• Constant references to a "WP:HIV cabal", by which Neuromancer presumably means editors who hold the "POV" that HIV causes AIDS.
• Very basic WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT - despite extensive forum-shopping, and hearing a universal rejection of his proposed edits, Neuromancer keeps repeating the same arguments (see the last 5 or 6 threads at Talk:HIV for examples). He's indicated that he's "not going to stop" just because a "cabal" opposes his edits.
• He's cut-and-pasted a long section from an AIDS-denialist website, and then complained of having "hours of research" erased when this was reverted (will find diffs).

I would like some outside eyes on the situation, if anyone's willing. I don't want to be melodramatic, but these are the sorts of challenges that Wikipedia needs to handle effectively if it ever hopes to achieve its goal of becoming a serious, respectable reference work. MastCell ^Talk 21:01, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Having looked at the diffs, talk pages, and assorted miscellany included here, this looks like a case of POV-pushing, with some intransigent statements by Neuromancer. I fear that this is just a continuation of a problem we've seen several times here over the last few weeks (and probably longer) where people with a strong, but minority or fringe POV feel like they are backed into a corner by consensus against them. While I'm not sure that their behaviour is indicative of a block, is there someone who would be willing (and more knowledgeable than I in these particular subjects) to work with Neuromancer to help them understand why their view is fringe and that this isn't personal, its just community consensus that happens to disagree with what they believe? I would also appreciate hearing from both Neuromancer, MastCell, and Hipocrite about their opinions.

On a semi-related note, how do we allow users such as Neuromancer to feel like they have been given an adequate opportunity to have their point of view heard and discussed and not simply swatted out of the air (not that this has happened here...but can happen very easily). While their points of view may be fringe, and not follow community consensus, how do we continue to honour their contributions while maintaining the integrity of WP, and without driving them away?

I'll return to this conversation a little later...its supper time! Frmatt (talk) 21:07, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I would agree that Neuromancer has been resistant to guidance, and has been very confrontational at times. The exchanges on Talk:HIV have been lengthy, but I do think some have been constructive - they've dealt with substantive issues, and resulted in edits that improved the article (only incrementally, though). I have not followed the activity outside Talk:HIV, but those diffs are disheartening. The WP culture takes some getting used to, and plunging into HIV was probably a mistake for a new editor. I'd like to see Neuromancer get some guidance, to understand the difference between disagreement and conspiracy. It's tiring and disruptive when an editor insists that others formally prove numerous well-established concepts that are already supported by reliable sources. -- Scray (talk) 22:18, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

• As someone who's interacted extensively with Neuromancer on Talk:HIV, I agree most with Scray's characterization. Emw (talk) 00:07, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

• As someone who has interacted, discussed, argued, and usually reached something of a consensus with both Scray and Emw (both of whom I have come to admire for their ability to semi effectively deal with me), and whom I have had much more interaction than anyone else involved in this discussion, I would like to to put out there than I am more than open to discourse of policy, disagreement and conspiracy.
• Additionally, I would like to point out that I do not believe there is a conspiracy to get rid of me, or I would already be gone. My references to the HIV cabal are due to this post on my talk page, and is mostly an attempt at humor, not an impassioned belief that "you are all after me..." Thank you for your patience, and I agree, perhaps HIV was not the place to jump into the Wikipedia as I have. But I am here, and trying to make the best of it. Neuromancer (talk) 00:29, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

As the guy who posted that, it was really in response to Mister Hospodar who happened to post some paranoid kind of stuff on Neuro's user talk. It is supposed to be a smidge humorous; it's actually a rather long-standing joke turned wisdom on wiki. However, I chose that link of all the essays on non-existent cabals to highlight that there is no cabal conspiring against you unless you created it. I guess it didn't take the desired effect as Neuro began referring to cabals afterward, rats.

I full well admit that I took and ran, more as humorous jab back at you, and a few others, than anything serious. I don't think there is a cabal, HOWEVER, there are a group of you who very adamantly defend and revert edits on a number of similar pages. After reading your posted words of wisdom, I thought it humorously appropriate to throw it back at you in kind. My references to a cabal have never been more than half-hearted humor in an attempt to lighten the situation. Seeing as how you are the only one who got the joke... Well, crap! Neuromancer (talk) 02:42, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Heh, well, good to know now then! Thanks for clarifying. JoeSmack ^Talk 02:59, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Anyways, here are my words on the subject. Neuro isn't the only fellow who's made himself heard towards AIDS denialism on talk pages over the years. In particular though, there has been a lot of passion from him that is very accusatory, and this more than anything began sparking contention.

I really tried to steer the conversation as much as possible to specific constructive discourse about articles in question [19], but largely this opportunity was not taken advantage of. Instead, in response to his broad debates, there have been several clear, spelled out arguments highlighting the faults in the particular angle he takes on AIDS denialism ([20], [21] to name a couple i did). The AfD for the content fork of AIDS denialism alone should be a pretty clear wake up call.

I think he hears and sees them but is still trying to game policy/guidelines in his favor, such as omitting "although content may be shortened or moved if it gives undue weight to a minor point of view, as explained below." to the WP:YESPOV quote in his response below, etc. There has probably been a bit a wikistalking, and cries of censorship/this must be heard/you can't erase history kind of brew-ha-ha, but I like keeping editors more than loosing them so I would love to see mentoring or fostering of better habits than blocks. JoeSmack ^Talk 02:03, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

It appears in regards to his below YESPOV quote with relevant (e.g. oppositional to his motives) info omitted, his response is this: [22]. A fairly by-the-book WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. It could be that mentoring/fostering isn't an option after all. JoeSmack ^Talk 09:19, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Also, Special:Contributions/24.251.114.169 and probably Special:Contributions/174.17.102.170 are Neuro, but he denies the latter here. Sockpuppety. JoeSmack ^Talk 20:14, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Loudly claims the 24; the 174 geolocates to Phoenix, AZ, where the Fatcat Ballroom & Dance Company is located. - 2/0 (cont.) 00:03, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Is an WP:SPI warranted, perchance? Crafty (talk) 01:50, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Neuro emailed me a protest. If it puts one of these many issues to rest (either way), I think it would be worth it. However, this is right on the line of CheckUser criteria. Up to you. JoeSmack ^Talk 02:43, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I doubt CU would be informative. Neuromancer just posted on their talk page pointing out another IP in another region. CheckUser uses the wrong sort of magic pixie dust to determine whether this is IP spoofing, gaming by ideological opponents, off-wiki canvassing, or just one of those things. RBI any account unwilling to discuss and let the AfD run its course would be my advice. - 2/0 (cont.) 18:15, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Offtopic part, my bad. - JoeSmack

Oh, and I'd like to respond to Frmatt above because I think it is a step we need to discuss too. For one, I would say that there has been so much effort by AIDS denialists over the years to bend NPOV of HIV/AIDS articles that it has left a somewhat bitter taste in the mouth. I've been patrolling for about four years now, and the last conflict that was this big was Special:Contributions/Sci_guy. Every effort since has felt like a rehash that gets a little tired, thus this tends to be my first kind of question towards the reprise - [23]. So, somewhat WP:BITEY, I would say so, at least for me. Can someone not previously involved in this incident maybe provide how they'd deal with it better? JoeSmack ^Talk 03:20, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

(undent) Oooh..."Specious" and "Spurious"...I'm impressed by your vocabulary! lol In all seriousness, though, I will admit that after four years of that type of thing, my response would probably be very similar. In response to your question, I think that you were surprisingly civil, not overly bitey and all in all gave an appropriate response. I wonder if there might be a solution in creating a subpage that is permanently linked to the talk page...something like Talk:HIV/Other Claims with the notation that this page would contain discussion of other claims about HIV that have previously been discussed, and been excluded as a result of consensus...including the appropriate sources that were considered. This would allow users to see the arguments that have already been made, what the consensus was, and how the consensus was achieved. This would also allow users the option of adding new information and sources that may have come to light recently and provide a talking area that wouldn't necessarily clog up the main talk page. I know that as a (relatively) new user, I would appreciate that, especially in some of the articles that I edit which contain some controversial topics. It may also give new users (at least to that page) the knowledge that there is a place for them to express their points of view and to see what the consensus about them is. Frmatt (talk) 03:30, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm no expert on AN/I, but my sense is that we should be focused on the concerns raised here about Neuromancer's editing, rather than a side discussion of how to make it easier for new editors of HIV (even though this is very constructive and well-intentioned). -- Scray (talk) 04:21, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Very true, and I've added it elsewhere.

Brought this offtopic, my bad. Frmatt, that is one idea but i'm wary of having subpages as they tend to get abandoned, and subtalk pages do even more so. I'll look at the username project link you provided, thanks for the feedback. Ok, i'm gonna whisk this into a collapsebox. JoeSmack ^Talk 17:35, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Knowing that ANI is not necessarily the place to propose any type of restrictions, I would like to ask Neuromancer if they would be amenable to having an uninvolved editor work with them to help them understand the policies? Specifically, that when Neuromancer finds themselves in an edit/content conflict, that they would invite their mentor/coach into the conversation as someone who is relatively impartial and working to ensure that they understand the policies about WP:FRINGE, WP:RS, WP:POV, especially when they find themselves in conflict. Frmatt (talk) 04:27, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Email response by Neuromancer posted by 2over0:

I would be most amenable to having an uninvolved editor work with me. I am certainly not trying to cause a disruption to WP. Perhaps an experienced editor/admin, who has not previously been involved in the topics of this debate, would be willing to work with me to fix what appears to be flawed logic. Or at the very least be able to show me a more constructive manner in which to present information that won't be as disruptive as it has been. Who knows... Maybe I'll bring em around to my side? Haha, joking.

end of response by Neuromancer. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:06, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

If an appropriate mentor steps forward, this would be possibly the best solution, and could be implemented in tandem with or in lieu of the sanctions I propose below. Neuromancer is a bit forceful and currently frustrated, but I think could be an asset to the project if given a little time and help to come to grips with the peculiar sourcing and neutrality requirements here. Any takers? - 2/0 (cont.) 20:06, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Response by Neuromancer

I assume that I can weigh in on this conversation?

• First and foremost, I have edited in good faith, with the intent to better the Wikipedia in general.
• Secondly, I am not trying to push a fringe POV. This is my understanding, please correct me if I am mistaken...

• Wikipolicy requires at WP:NPOV that “All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources.” It further requires at WP:YESPOV that “Article content should not be deleted solely on the grounds that it is "POV"" and that "The neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject, nor does it endorse or oppose specific viewpoints.”

That being said, I have also reviewed WP Fringe Theories Noticeboard, which states:

• Alternative theoretical formulations: Alternative theoretical formulations which have a following within the scientific community are not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process.

I fully understand that there are those who think that questioning the science behind HIV is ridiculous and worthy of censoring, however, there are those in the scientific community, who have published peer reviewed papers, questioned many aspects of HIV, AIDS, and the connection between the two. While the cabal[24] currently editing the HIV and AIDS denialism articles claims a NPOV, and that they do not have to give equal eight to fringe POV, a simple review of their resistance to the inclusion of balanced information, whether it be in those articles, or in separate articles, seems very clear that they are not willing to be neutral on the subject.

As far as "Wikistalking" as Hipocrite has accused me of, I cannot even begin to express how petulant that statement is. While I will admit that I have reviewed other editors contributions, and even weighed in on a couple of the articles that they have been involved in, I am not now, nor have I ever, edited an article simply to "frustrate" another editor. This accusation was posted to my talk page by Hipocrite just this morning. While I do tend to have an interest in alternative health treatments, such as HIV, cancer, etc, I have also edited such articles as the Fort hood shooting. I think it is an unfair characterization to say that I am stalking anyone.

When it comes to canvassing... I fail to see how mentioning to another editor that a discussion is taking place that they may be interested in, is somehow a bad thing. I in fact copied this practice from such editors as Verbal and Hipocrite, who routinely post messages on one another's talk pages requesting input regarding a particular topic of debate throughout the Wiki. I have not requested that they take a particular viewpoint, merely that they have expressed interest in the topic in the past, and may be interested in the current conversation. Here is the most recent example I can readily find [25], or Nunh-huh, JoeSmack, TechBear.

I have not cut and pasted long sections from denialist web sites. I did take a list of factors known to cause false positive HIV antibody tests, which had 64 references, and use it in the site, and the original compiler was given credit. The references did not have any DOI or PMID information, let alone being suitable for Wiki formatting. Each and every one of those references was researched, updated, verified to be on point, and formated by me. I would call that hours of research.

As far as the "creation of numerous POV forks... I cannot agree with that. I have created 3 articles here. 2 on the topic of HIV. Initially, I un-forwarded HIV dissent and created article content there. That was nominated for deletion, and reverted back to a forward, the next day, prior to a discussion or consensus being reached. So I then created a new namespace, Alternative HIV viewpoints, where I published relatively the same article, which has also been nominated for deletion. Again, prior to the AfD discussion closing, the article was wiped and forwarded, and for trying to prevent this, I received a 24 hour ban. How is consensus and discussion supposed to take place when there is no article to discuss?

So, salient points:

• Always in good faith...
• Been Bold
• Ignored all rules, except for personal attacks. (Never have I personally attacked an editor)
• Modified behavior as users have brought potential violations to my attention.

Neuromancer (talk) 22:18, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I hope someone realizes that it is highly coincidental that a user who has edited what - 5 mainspace articles has somehow overlapped and edit-warred against people he has disagreements with on 4 of them - and those 4 are in totally disparate subjects, with the note that he has expressed an interest in a 5th, totally disparate subject here. How far does AGF go? Hipocrite (talk) 23:29, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

• Incidentally, I became involved with Dennis the Menace because I was following AfD, not you. When you nominate an article for delete or merge, it is common courtesy to allow the discussion to take place for the requisite 7 days. Blanking and forwarding is just rude, and makes any discussion difficult. Neuromancer (talk) 00:34, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, Colloidal Silver has been used in Alternative HIV and Cancer treatments. It is not, as you say, "disparate." I have not intentionally edit warred with anyone. After it was brought to my attention, I changed my behavior. I have been involved in edit controversy in HIV and Alternative HIV Viewpoints. If there is another article you think is relevant, please list it. Neuromancer (talk) 23:43, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Analysis of Neuromancer's edits: article coincidences

Neuromancer has to date edited 59 unique articles. Comparing edits with the people notified of this discussion by Keepcalmandcarryon indicates that 54 of those have also been edited by at least one person on the list (I am making comparison using different tools and a little inclusion/exclusion counting, so bear with me as they may measure unique article in different ways; also note that I am involved in several places). Subtracting the AIDS-related articles, usertalk, and a few obviously benign cases gives: Aspartame was edited by Keepcalmandcarryon two days before Neuromancer's first edit; Cancell was not edited by anyone on the list in the days preceding Neuromancer's first edit; Fatcat Ballroom & Dance Company was created by Neuromancer; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Denialism (2nd nomination) is clear, though Denialism itself was edited by Verbal the day before; Kristian Ayre and AfD are clear - Nm probably got there from ARS; Talk:Dennis Ketcham was edited by Hipocrite earlier that day; Talk:Medical uses of silver was recently edited by Hipocrite and MastCell; Talk:Magnetic water treatment was recently edited by Keepcalmandcarryon, Someguy1221, and me; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Catbus had been recently edited by me, but had also been tagged for ARS; Fort Hood shooting and talk had been recently edited by JoeSmack, though that article is highly active right now.

Assuming good faith with respect to the AfDs tagged by the Article Rescue Squadron (none of the contributions were particularly combative except at Denialism which is a mess all around), this leaves: Aspartame, Medical uses of silver, Magnetic water treatment, Dennis Ketcham, and Fort Hood shooting. The last I think can be ignored, as everyone else is editing that article too at the moment, and Nm's edits were not obviously antagonistic; although I do think that there is some confusion regarding wikt:duplicitous and wikt:duplicative. The Ketcham very much looks like an attempt to engage with Hipocrite. For the other three, I do not find the assertion that they were selected without reference to editor to be credible, though I am willing to believe that they find such things interesting. This is again based on X!'s namespace counter, which shows an edit to Talk:Fascism as the clear outlier. - 2/0 (cont.) 23:56, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Sanctions

Based on the behaviors outlined by Keepcalmandcarryon, MastCell, and myself, I propose that Neuromancer be indefinitely topic banned from all HIV and AIDS related articles, broadly construed, and their talkpages; I further propose that they be admonished to avoid extending conflict to unrelated articles and to not seek out or harass any of the above mentioned editors. These remedies to be subject to review at AN/I or ArbCom, preferably less frequently than every three months. I would explicitly leave my talkpage open for any discussion, as we have open threads there and I am still willing to discuss with Neuromancer.

Alternatively, given the failure to follow obvious community norms such as engaging productively with other editors and not seeking out confrontation, multiple attempts to add content in an end-run around consensus, and multiple instances of copying without attribution, including from patently unreliable sources including virusmyth.com and IMDB, a full community ban may be in order. Please discuss these proposals below. - 2/0 (cont.) 23:56, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

As Neuromancer has been blocked 48 hours for edit warring, I have volunteered to relay their concerns here if necessary. As always, please refrain from piling on while Nm cannot edit here. - 2/0 (cont.) 00:19, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Email response by Neuromancer posted by 2over0:

I am repeatedly requested to find consensus before edits, which I have done on HIV, AIDS denialism, Fort Hood shooting, etc, etc.

The only real issue regarding disruptive editing has been in regard to Alternative HIV viewpoints. I understand that I do not own the article. I understand that it may very well be deleted in the near future. However, here are the salient issues that I have:

• [26], [27], [28], [29] In these edits, the exact same information has been removed each time. Please review the diffs. The entire chapter is properly referenced to scientific publication such as "Applied Environmental Microbiology," "Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences," US patent #4520113, etc. In this edit, there was no regard for the information. There was no consensus reached, or even discussed on the talk page. There is no synthesis. This is not an article that falls within the purview of Medicine. This is an article entitled "Alternative HIV Viewpoints." As it was created, it is not a POV Fork. The idea was to present the claims of scientists who disagree with the current HIV community. There are films being made about these topics. There are papers being published in peer reviewed journals, such as this one in 2008, which dissent on the currently accepted HIV hypothesis.

• • No consensus was reached before wholesale deleting MASSIVE amounts of information. No attempt was made to clean up language accused of being POV. Rather, it was just deleted. Not one person who has attempted to keep this information off of WP has been able to provide a SINGLE citation discrediting the information in this article. Yes, there is a reference to virusmyth.com. It is to source the quote of what certain dissenters believe was wrong with the current information. It's not synth. It's not there to support a medical claim. The reference is there to show where the idea came from. It is one of MANY ideas.

• Rather than editing the article, it is deleted, forwarded, called synth and POV fork, and unsourced. This is not the case. I have spent hours reading medical journals verifying each of the actual medical claims on this article. Granted, I did start with Christine Johnson's list, which she was credited for. But that is a list. Journal references that were no longer valid, or since debunked, were removed. Each citation was verified and wikified so that others could simply click on the ref and be taken to the article.

• I am being accused of doing EXACTLY what my accusers are doing. Except that if you actually read the article, and the references, you will see that this is not synth, or a POV fork. Compare it to HIV denialism and try to find more that two duplicate references. HIV denialism focuses on a POV that HIV denialists have caused harm, have been debunked, disproved, etc. Yet there are no references to where they have been disproved. I have looked for these references, and have been unable to locate any. I have found NON scientific articles, written by journalists, and judges, but not anything from the scientific community. Yet when I present actual scientific published works, I am POV pushing. This is not the case.

• As far as the mad props I have received for being Superman, please review my talk page.

end of response by Neuromancer. - 2/0 (cont.) 14:19, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Neuromancer indicates above a willingness to work with a mentor to help them contribute within the project's policies. I think that this could be productive, but am myself both too involved and too unskilled in the area. If anyone is interested in the role, please step forward. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:06, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Neuromancer's willingness to accept mentorship is encouraging. However, Neuromancer has yet to recognise their problems with straightforward policies such as copyright violation and sockpuppetry; their insistence that the "other" Arizona IP is not a sock or meatpuppet is, quite frankly, ridiculous. These aren't subtle matters in which a mentor's guidance could help, but I would be pleased to find out otherwise. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 23:21, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:OUTING violations by User:Sir Floyd

Resolved

 – Anyone who participates in deliberate outing in the future will be immediately banned. Spellcast (talk) 07:26, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

The following discussion 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.

---

Frankly I'm tired of some users and their banned IP buddies revealing my personal information, threatening me, and stupidly "mocking" me about my age (I say "stupidly" because if I really am a "kid", then they all think they got banned by a "kid" :). With his edit of 4 November 2009, User:Pantaleone, the latest sock of User:PIO, posted the following on Talk:Republic of Ragusa (addressing me, of course):

• "PIO, Luigi, Bruno, Giovanni, MacLot, Miranovic, Babic, Sir Floyd and.. they can organize a syndacate for you and your compliance admins! Goodbye troll" [30]

He then proceeded to have a chat with User:Sir Floyd, during which they both "mocked" me calling me "Junior" (LoL :) and revealing my identity. I honestly did not want to raise a fuss out of it all, since I'm supposed to be busy with my studies, so I just warned User:Sir Floyd, pointed out that he is in serious violation of WP:HARASS, and advised him to read that policy [31] (even though I was/am absolutely positive he knew about it full well). I assumed he'd stop. He however seems to feel my warning was "insulting" and has decided he shall continue to to patronize me and reveal my name/personal information on his talkpage [32], and I'm not willing to overlook that no matter how busy I may be. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 01:19, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I have left Sir Floyd a courtesy note informing him of this thread. Off2riorob (talk) 02:13, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Off2riorob. I would've done it myself if he didn't feel so passionately about me editing his talkpage. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 02:17, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I was expecting this. If I have offended the Direktor, then I apologise. He himself is no angel and has been giving me grief for a very long time. Please take this into account. Concerning the block editors who frequently visit my talk page, I have no control over them or their comments. Please do an " Ip user check on me". I am from Australia and my IP user number should confirm that. I sincerely hope this is not turning into a witch hunt. Regards Sir Floyd. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sir Floyd (talk • contribs) 02:57, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I'm sorry too, but since I am actually receiving threats against my person, since this is by no means your first such attack, and since I did actually warn you as politely as I could, only an idiot would take your apology seriously. Lets just stay focused on this issue, none of your standard sidetracking of the discussion pls. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 03:04, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

"He himself is no angel" is not a motive for your behaviour, Direktor Sir Floyd. You are the master of your own keyboeard. -DePiep (talk) 03:15, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Direktor you have been very abusive towards me over and over again. What do you expect is going to happen? Does one just lay down and take it. At one stage you threatened to delete everything I wrote. You write in a condescending language and keep coming up with accusations that are way over the top. Maybe we should just agree to a cool off period. Sir Floyd (talk) 03:18, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Corrected angel behavour (see stroke above). Sir Floyd, if there is a problem, please start your own thread. Behaviour X does not allow behaviour Y. -DePiep (talk) 03:31, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

It is not my nature to go around doing Incidents Reports. I really don't see what I have done is so wrong and why I should be punished. Sir Floyd (talk) 03:47, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Case in point, Direktor wrote "Goodbye troll". Now where I come from, that's a huge inslut. You don't go around saying to people "troll" without expecting a reaction. Troll is something used when you really want to hurt someone. So how does one react? Those samples of coverstion that Director provided look innocent to me, compared to troll. I really hope that this is not a witch hunt and that there is good will here. (Editors have been debating over articles on Wikipedia since day one)

What is outing anyway? This is the first time I have seen this on Wikipedia, I guess I will have to research it. Also, I'm thinking that I will just put up a sign for the Block Editors to leave me alone. Sir Floyd (talk) 06:09, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Your attempts at sidetracking this discussion are not gonna work. I obviously never called you a "troll". The transparent "innocent newb" act is also something only an idiot would buy. Not only were you completely aware that it is against policy to reveal personal information, I also warned you and showed you the policy. So please, I know you're clever, but you're not kidding anyone. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 11:05, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

............and your compliance admins! Goodbye troll" please that was about me! I do not know anything about the above. When did you tell me that, please show me? If you did I'll admit that I was wrong, because I have no memory of it "What is outing anyway?". Furthermore your agressiveness towards me is unwarrented. There are a lot worse things to worry about. Time could be spent on more constructive things. Is it because we don't see eye to eye on things. One could be more respectful of other people's differences. Please stop insulting me and I would appreciate you not writiing in a condescending tone. Sir Floyd (talk) 12:13, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd really appreciate it if you'd stop talking about the edit made by User:Pantaleone on Talk:Republic of Ragusa [33], and start talking about your repeated violations of WP:HARASS. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 12:55, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok! Firstly I appreciate the last interaction on Talk:Josip Broz Tito, I'd much rather debate sources & references than what is happening here. I say lets bury the hatchet. Concerning the violations, I apologise (but what did I do?), if you are not happy with my apology could you please present your concerns in point form and I shall address them tomorrow in an orderly academic fashion. This old dog can still learn.Sir Floyd (talk) 14:01, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

A few things are clear just from looking at this thread (which now appears to be another forum for you two to argue so I'm not really sure it's getting anywhere. Basically:

• Sir Floyd, you asked 'does one just lay down and take it' and the answer is yes, absolutely an abusive editor thrives on your rising to their insults, if you don't rise to them they'll stop doing it. Anyone can continue an argument by acting immaturely in response to immature actions but a good editor deals with it correctly, warnings, reports etc. If it's not in your nature to raise reports and deal with issues properly then maybe your nature is incompatible with what is expected on WP and you should consider addressing that?
• From what I can see here neither of you are what I would consider particularly good editors. Even after you requested admin assistance, Direktor, you continue to engage in petty arguments and Sir Floyd you continue to do so even when somebody has raised concerns about your behaviour. Both of these are, in my opinion, signs of editors that are not acting in a way that the WP community expects and therefore maybe you both need admin attention to correct this.
• Finally, the case of posting personal information. Sir Floyd, this is totally unacceptable and I agree with it being raised on this noticeboard (though you can probbably tell not how it has transpired from there) you have absolutely no right to post any personal information about any user on WP, regardless of whether they're the most respected editor or the worst vandal. There's a reason we have strict policies in place governing this and I strongly recommend you stop doing it.

In summary I think you both need to take a long hard look at your actions on WP and the way you relate with other editors, your argument on this board alone should set alarm bells ringing as to your ability to adhere to the norms of this community. Please don't have a go at me, these are just my observations. RaseaC (talk) 13:54, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

RaseaC, pardon me all over the place for not being 100% flowery polite - but I'm getting genuine threats of violence here. And not for the first time, either. How's a guy supposed to behave Wiki-like when these guys get together and chat about how I should be "got rid of". Not that that's some indicator of quality in and of itself, but I have well over 20,000 edits on enWiki, I'm fully committed to this place, and I at all times strive to improve WP, its sources, and its neutrality. I frankly resent being talked down to when I report a person who has twice infringed on Wikimedia privacy policy (in spite of warnings), and that person getting away completely clean in the end because I failed to be 100% polite with threats and mockery being directed against me. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:05, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Direktor, any inaapropriate response by any editor (new or established) is unacceptable. You are an established user, I know that, and therefore was even more surprised that you rose to the bait, if you like. I will happily leave a note on Sir Floyd's talk explaining what the problem is and suggest that further discussion isn't really necessary on account of it just seems to spiral into argument. Off2riorob made a good point in a previous discussion between you two when he said that you both seem to work together when you don't cross tracks so maybe, assuming Sir Floyd understands his mistake, you take Off2riorob's advice and try and avoid eachother? The next time you get a threat of violence get a block request in and remove the text, if you give up acknowledging them they'll give up annoying you. RaseaC (talk) 14:11, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi RaseaC. I'm losing the thread of conversation here. I agree with you RaseaC, almost in total. I can be a bit of a hot head, but I am prepared to learn. Sir Floyd (talk) 14:14, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure this thread is getting anywhere. I think my post on your talk covers the major issues raised by all parties so maybe we're done with discussing it here. How about everyone goes off and does some good work on wiki? The amount of time wasted on this argument is really starting to mount up. RaseaC (talk) 14:21, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I Sir Floyd agree as an act of good faith, to not contact Direktor and not edit any article that Direktor is actively editing for one month. Sir Floyd (talk) 15:13, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

User Sir Floyd is posting this (I have moved it from his talkpage) in an attempt to placate this situation. Would this be acceptable to User Direktor? Off2riorob (talk) 15:23, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I Sir Floyd agree as an act of good faith, to not contact Direktor and not edit any article that Direktor is actively editing for one month. User:Sir Floyd|Sir Floyd 15:08, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm struggling to understand what the OUTING has to do with the talkpage dispute? They're not even in the same place. This is not about User:Sir Floyd's constant "witch hunt" (as he put it) and his disruptive behavior which led him to post some dozen reports over the past months trying to get me banned whichever way he can.

Guys, I've reported a lot of sockpuppeteers, and I often did my best to make sure they don't resurface. I still think my efforts there were something that helped this website. These socks got together in forums such as the blog of banned User:Brunodam (Google "Brunodam blog"), and in itWiki "cafés" [34]. Every now and again my personal information is posted and I receive various threats. User:Sir Floyd appeared and began fighting tooth-and-nail to get me blocked one way or the other, with the socks and IPs of these banned users frequenting his talkpage. Now I've received another threat, and the IP (of User:PIO) and User:Sir Floyd proceeded to chat about my personal information. I did not report the person immediately, but warned him and pointed the policy out. He then continued his behavior.

User:Sir Floyd is an account that's been trying his absolute best to get me banned in every way conceivable. I can imagine his response if the situation was reversed - I'd probably already be blocked. Again if this thread was about the talkpage dispute I could understand why he's proposing this, but what does all this have to do with him staying away? He seemed perfectly capable of OUTING without even addressing me. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 15:21, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

The staying away approach was suggested because both of you seem unable to 'meet' on WP without it quickly becoming an argument. SirFloyd has agreed to this which I think is very noble of him and I must say, despite your experience, established editor status etc. etc. you seem to be carrying this discussion on just for the sake of it. If he is a sockpuppet request a checkuser if he has attempted to out you report him. We all know what he's done, we've all read your posts so far. I suggest that you either take the appropriate action on this matter or you leave it, discussing it on here obviously gets nowhere because if SirFloyd gets involved you guys just argue and if another user gets involved they will just suggest what's already been suggested and you evidently will not pay any attention. I assume you raised a thread on here to get the problem solved, and apparently that's happened because the user has agreed to take action to address your concerns so why keep pushing it? Like I said, if you want further action then raise the relveant investigations, that's your decision, no one elses. RaseaC (talk) 23:37, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Closing thread

We have a situation where a long-time banned POV-pushing user, User:PIO (or possibly User:Brunodam), tried to troll and harass Direktor by addressing his identity on User:Sir Floyd's talk page using 66.21.1.75 (talk · contribs). After I emailed Direktor about the IP, he confirmed he would like those edits deleted, so I made an WP:OVERSIGHT request. PIO and his socks have previously disputed with Direktor, so when PIO saw another user (Sir Floyd) in a content dispute with Direktor, PIO posted Direktor's identity on Sir Floyd's talk page. Sir Floyd obviously has no control over what people post on his talk page, so when he responded to PIO's edit, Floyd's edit naturally got oversighted as well since it contained info that PIO posted. Floyd, you said you didn't know what outing was at the start of this thread. Well, I'm sure you know what it is now and that anyone who does it will be immediately banned, so please keep this in mind in the future. As for the talk page issue on Talk:Josip Broz Tito, this is a different matter. Unless anyone has anything constructive to add, I'll be closing this discussion within a day. Spellcast (talk) 03:12, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Just for the record prior to closing this, 66.21.1.75 (talk · contribs) is most definitely Brunodam, not PIO. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 22:36, 10 November 2009 (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.

96.36.28.60

Resolved

 – IP Editor blocked for 1 week by User:MuZemike

96.36.28.60

Persistent incivility and edit-warring by the above user on Twinking, its talk page and edit summaries. He was taken to task about this some time ago at Wikiquette alerts but the discussion was inconclusive. That discussion details the original instances of incivility and edit warring and itself contains extensive incivility against the uninvolved editors who took up the discussion. While that discussion was taking place, he continued to post uncivil, inflammatory comments towards uninvolved editors on the Twinking talk page: e.g. here. He has again begun edit warring on the Twinking page, reverting with spurious reasons e.g. [35] and trolling the talk page [36]. He also seems to have used a sockpuppet, Stormrider99 in the Wikiquette alerts discussion. Propose a block. bridies (talk) 04:00, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Appears to be an uncivil editor who reacts negatively when someone tries to inform him of the policies in a polite and civil manner. Endorse a block. Frmatt (talk) 04:06, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

This edit [37] would seem to indicate the IP does not understand our WP:OR,WP:NPOV, WP:VERIFY and WP:RS policies. Exxolon (talk) 04:07, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

IP Blocked 1 week for edit-warring, blatant incivility, and sock puppetry. MuZemike 04:15, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Do you suppose this [38] is an unblock request? Can't see it working myself. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:04, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I try and do my best to make sure nobody is trying to take advantage of the system in place here. I'm open to a review of my block by an uninvolved administrator (given that I just recently messed up on one earlier today). Jeez, already. MuZemike 22:47, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Not criticizing you here Mike - nothing wrong with the block here. I just happened to notice it - wasn't sure if it would constitute ranting, talkpage abuse or a request for an unblock (if the last, I wouldn't think it has a snowball's - editor very apparently Hasn,tGotIt) Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:01, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, wasn't directed at you. MuZemike 00:54, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

After reviewing this case, it appears that 96.36.28.60 was in fact the victim of false accusations and the block was in fact unjust. It appears that Bridies holds some kind of personal grudge and is looking for any excuse to eliminate someone who has different views than he does. Bridies's definition of incivility seems to be different than the definition I acquired from www.dictionary.com and I see no proof of sock puppetry in this particular case.

If this matter had not already been resolved, I would have proposed a permanent ban on Bridies for obvious trolling. Not trying to step on your toes, MuZemike, but I would recommend a little deeper research on matters instead of being so quick to act upon a 1-sided story. 205.242.88.119 (talk) 13:10, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Archduke Christoph Franz of Austria-Este AFD and related articles

Hi. I'd appreciate if someone could take a look at the Archduke Christoph Franz of Austria-Este AFD and the edit histories of the nominated articles, Archduke Christoph Franz of Austria-Este. Archduke Fulvio Marco of Austria-Este and Princess Maria Louise of Brunswick-Lüneburg with particular attention to the edits of the IP editor 68.36.205.151 (talk · contribs). I also think that the edits of that IP editor on articles on Hapsburg-related articles, other than those mentioned, would need attention. Putting my head over the parapet here, but the edits are either unsourced or dubiously sourced and (in full realization of what I am saying here) generally dubious.

I have already made my views known on the sources used, in a forthright manner for lack of a better description, and I think that my involvement at the AFD would preclude me from taking any other course of action. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 00:12, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Upon closer inspection, this is a clear case of hoaxing to build a fake royal genealogy for someone. It's also obvious sockpuppetry. I am creating an SPI report so that any additional sockpuppets are identified and we have proper records in case the user tries it again in the future. Hans Adler 19:59, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Bali ultimate has cleaned up most of the affected articles. I just found one or two more, but now the hoax should have been removed except for the three main articles that are currently subject to AfD. Hans Adler 22:33, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Checkuser has confirmed that Chrisco123 is a sockpuppet of Knyphausen56. I don't know why neither account is blocked yet. DoriSmith found out that the related IPs have made suspicious edits related to the topic as early as April 2007. (See AfD or SPI case.) Hans Adler 09:34, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Proposed community ban for invasive hoaxing

By "invasive" I mean that information at other articles was forged to suit the hoax. See WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Knyphausen56 for the details. IMO the user needs to be banned, but I guess blocking him can wait until a checkuser has replied. Hans Adler 20:43, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Support it looks to be a student at a very prestigious american boarding school just embarking on an ambitious hoax project. (unforunately prestigious doesn't equal smart and productive). Let's just nip all this in the bud.Bali ultimate (talk) 23:09, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Support; deliberate hoax or breaching experiment, our volunteers don't need the hassle and shouldn't have to waste their time fixing this nonsense. EyeSerene^talk 23:17, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Support a ban as this limp wristed effort falls waaay below the standard I've come to expect in a Wikipedia hoax. Where are the pictures? Where are the ironic hints? Crafty (talk) 23:21, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the lack of pictures is aggravating. As to ironic hints, at least Knyphausen was a funny choice of username by this student from near the battle site, and the added 56 (as if Wikipedia already had a user of this name) was a nice touch too. Hans Adler 23:49, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Anti-Nationalist, accusations of anti-Semitism

Resolved

 – Anti-Nationalist did not accuse Vecrumba of being an antisemite, and Vecrumba is now blocked for 72 hours. There's no point in continuing this here. Jayjg 01:42, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

The following discussion 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.

---

Here, Anti-Nationalist, formerly PasswordUsername attacks me as an nationalist anti-Semite:

1. "When you start caring about content and stop claiming that "unless you were Jewish, the Soviets were the worse of the two evils in Eastern Europe"";
2. "that "Jewish Bolshevism" is not a standard anti-semitic slur but "an objective observation of the role played by numerous Jews""; and in particular
3. "or insisting that Jewish scholars shouldn't naturally be seen as objective on the Holocaust because they're Jews"

Briefly:

1. The Soviets mass deported and murdered Baltic citizens. Hitler brought the Holocaust to the Baltics and Eastern Europe. Jews suffered far more under Hitler, but most others suffered more under Stalin. This is not an opinion, it is simple numbers. I should also mention that Jews suffered more under Stalin's deportations, proportionally, than any other ethnic group.
2. "Jewish Bolshevism" has its roots in historical events. (Latvians, I should add, were also prominent in the early days of Bolshevism.) In Poland between the wars, Jews (not practicing, of course) were the proselytizers of communism in jails (this per western scholarship, not in any way associated with nationalist sources). To contend it is only a slur with no basis for existing other than to be an anti-Semitic slur is not responsible editing.
3. I regret Anti-Nationalist has seen to paint me as a rabid anti-Semite, citing a conversation on my user talk page as proof. I invite you to read the entire thread. You will note that most of the thread consists of Boodlesthecat insisting I am making anti-Semitic contentions and putting words into my mouth to that effect. (This was the offshoot of an arbitration going on at the time.)

Now Anti-Nationalist is making the same grossly libelous mischaracterizations of my past statements. I find this disturbingly similar to my interchange with Boodlesthecat here where he associates me with "anti-semitic nationalist bigots."

My best friends starting in kindergarten were Jewish (that is, as soon as I started speaking English). I participated in Seder. I held the chuppah at my best friend's wedding. I will not tolerate being smeared as an anti-Semite. PasswordUsername's new attack-moniker was already an open, taunting affront, but I was willing to let that pass. This, however, is way over the line.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk 

I didn't call you an anti-semite (that's a conclusion people can draw for themselves if that's how they interpret your pattern of activities). Nothing like that was said, and you have fabricated this whole case based on your false claims. I simply said that you were a nationalist in response to a relentless pattern of WP:HOUNDING me, now being investigated by the Arbs looking over WP:EEML. Point 1. Ask any number of Poles, Belarusians, Czechs, or Gypsies, about the Third Reich, which you see as the better of two evils in the Baltics, if you really believe that "unless you were Jewish, the Soviets were the worse of the two evils in Eastern Europe." Point 2. It is now sourced that "Jewish Bolshevism" is an anti-semitic slur. Point 3. Better stop. Already addressed. Anti-Nationalist (talk) 00:32, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

You went out of your way to find diffs and to mischaracterize my position and statements in exactly the same manner Boodlesthecat did. You most certainly called me an anti-Semite except for not using the word. Don't split hairs. It was your choice to introduce your complaints on a talk page with accusations, it was your choice to then introduce diffs as to my anti-Semitism in response to my comment to you.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  02:51, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: User:Anti-Nationalist looks like a possible username violation. --William S. Saturn (talk) 00:29, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

This has been brought up several times before. What is the proper venue to address this?radek (talk) 00:56, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Username policy. GiantSnowman 00:58, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

• Seriously? What about usernames like User:Nationalist 555 – and what's the whole deal with the anti-nationalist / nationalist / communist / socialist userboxes? Anti-Nationalist (talk) 00:34, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

• You realize that example you cited is indef blocked, right? — Jake Wartenberg 00:36, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

• Of course: for his sockpuppetry, not the username. I've seen tons of usernames far worse than "Anti-Nationalist", frankly. But if being anti-nationalist is morally horrible, just what's the real deal with userboxes like these? The userbox section for fascism under Userboxes/Politics offers a grey user box with message "this user identifies as a Fascist" (see it right over here and over here, folks) – but I guess the priority is on paying attention to anti-nationalists. (talk) 00:43, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment And my Jewish grandmother would probably spin in her grave if she only saw what "Anti-Nationalist" has to say about me on wikipedia: as a content editor, Termer is an ally of a bunch of hardcore Eastern European nationalists, currently being investigated for their harrassment...--Termer (talk) 00:38, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Very nice story, brosif. Anti-Nationalist (talk) 00:44, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Uh, what's the point of linking to the definition of "brosif" here, except as a form of taunting? Am I missing something?radek (talk) 00:58, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Termer is from a foreign country, mightn't know the meaning, and doesn't assume good faith. That's an explosive mix, Radeksz. Anti-Nationalist (talk) 01:02, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Termer is from a foreign country? That was another interesting thing to know about myself. Please keep it coming, in the end I might find out a lot about myself from you, something that I had no glue about before. So for now I've seen from you that Termer is "from a foreign country and is an ally of a bunch of hardcore Eastern European nationalists, currently being investigated..". have you ever heard of comment on content, not on the contributor? FYI, I'm not investigated by anybody, I don't think I'm from a "foreign country" and I'm an ally of anybody who edits Wikipedia according to WP:RS.--Termer (talk) 01:30, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

"Termer is from a foreign country" - foreign to who exactly? Surely everyone is from a foreign country when compared with everyone else...? GiantSnowman 01:40, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks GiantSnowman for spelling out the self-explanatory. how however anybody being from a "foreign country" is related to editing Wikipedia was what I was talking about.--Termer (talk) 02:29, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I want to note that this isn't the first time that PasswordUsername/Anti-Nationalist has tried to smear his content opponents, and people he doesn't like in such a way. Here he accuses an anon ip of

1. Being a sockpuppet of User:Jacurek
2. and accuses Jacurek of using the anon IP in order to engage in "Holocaust denial", "Holocaust revisionism" and sock puppeting with the ip in order to avoid being "associated with a Polish ultranationalist POV"

He also tried to "associate" me with the anon ip and the supposed "Holocaust revisionism" as well (as can be seen on Jehochman's talk page link above). He continued to insist on this even after denials by Jacurek.

Well, a few days later the anon ip registered as User:Sourcelat0r and explained to PasswordUsername/Anti-Nationalist why his/her edits were not "Holocaust revisionism" or anything of the kind, but just the opposite. PasswordUsername/Anti-Nationalist then apologized to the anon ip/Sourcelat0r but has steadfastly refused to apologize to Jacurek for either 1) accusing him of sock puppetry or for 2) accusing him of engaging in "Holocaust revisionism". This shows that:

1. PU/A-N is very quick to use this tactic to smear people with (when he thought it was Jacurek he jumped to (wrong) conclusions, when he realized it was someone else, he took it back)
2. PU/A-N doesn't see anything wrong with the tactic, as long as it's directed at someone he doesn't like (no apology for Jacurek).radek (talk) 00:53, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

My congratulations to Radeksz for showing up so quickly. This is another member of the nationalist WP:EEML list being investigated for coordinated attacks on content opponents. Interesting how soon before the whole WP:TEAM shows up to oh-so tendentiously support Vecrumba in his false accusation that I called him an "anti-semite" – which I've never done even once. Anti-Nationalist (talk) 00:58, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

The fact that I have AN/I on my watchlist is beside the point. I thought the whole incident with Jacurek, where you tried to smear somebody in a very similar way, then refused to apologize, was relevant. Do you think it isn't? If so, please explain. Or do you deny doing any of the above? Starting with the ad-hominem's against myself doesn't "magically" change the way you've acted, as the diffs show.radek (talk) 01:39, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but this look more like a smearing campaign against Anti-Nationalist... He never called Vecrumba any name, he just pointed out some of his positions that would be characterised as fringe my mainstream Western scholarship, and which Vecrumba himself saw as indicative of anti-Semitism (strangely, only when someone quoted them, not when he first wrote them). If Anti-Nationalist feels that those comments (some of them in mainspace) are adequate to demonstrate to an uninvolved party the less obvious editing POV of Vecrumba, he should be free to do it. After all, he didn't misrepresent Vecrumba opinions, he just quoted him, and Anti-Nationalist can't be blamed if Vecrumba and maybe other editors find those quotes as characteristic to anti-Semites.Anonimu (talk) 01:23, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Way to turn this upside and make it do push ups while standing on its head Anonimu. So apparently smearing people with offensive labels isn't *smearing*, it's when someone complains that they have been smeared that they're doing the smearing. Right, Newspeak much? Wacky wacky world of what Wikipedia has become.radek (talk) 01:59, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

What offensive labels? The only thing close to a label in Vecrumba's diff is "nationalist", which, according to his views, actually is "a term denoting patriotism or love and interest in one's heritage and history" (from his user page). Anti-Nationalist didn't request Vecrumba to consider his own words as conveying anti-Semitism, Vecrumba did it on his own (I'm not saying he was wrong). And yes, requesting administrative action for your personal interpretation of you words, which you attribute to another user, is certainly a form of smearing.Anonimu (talk) 02:33, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

You well know that my definition of "nationalist" is not how it is used on Wikipedia. On WP it is purely a term of derision. Anti-Nationalist did not "quote" me, he misrepresented me. Period.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  02:42, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

But still, you complained here about a non-existent accusation of "anti-Semitism", trying to denigrate Anti-Nationalist. Aren't all the blue fragments part of your edits on WP? Did Anti-Nationalist somehow succeed in hacking the Wikimedia servers and inserting incriminating edits under your name?Anonimu (talk) 03:01, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

How did I "misrepresent" you? All I did was quote your words (and link to WP:EEML at the page of someone you complained to about my supposed POV) in order to get across the point that your comments about me should be considered as part of a long-running nationalist vendetta. (Since you'd attacked me as a POV pusher, following me to a talk page I'd visited for the first time.) In response to that, you came to AN/I just now, Vecrumba, falsely accusing me of calling you an "anti-semite." Aren't you (and your buddies from WP:EEML) really just pursuing the same old battleground mentality against other editors. Anti-Nationalist (talk) 03:23, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I think it's a sad statement on affairs here that when I first started reading this thread, my reaction was not "hmm, who has a convincing argument" nor even "ho hum, more drama at ANI" but "I wonder which side of WP:EEML is represented by which of the participants in this thread". —David Eppstein (talk) 03:26, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Sure, people are going to line up in the way you expect them to. But that's because there's a reason for it. And the reason (PasswordUsername smearing people) stands, regardless of who comments on it.radek (talk) 06:39, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

This is one of the more ridiculous ANI complaints that I have seen. Most well-formed ANI complaints start with diffs that show that the editor complained about has done something wrong. This complaint against Anti-Nationalist starts with an easily missed single diff showing that Anti-Nationalist has drawn attention to three problematic edits by the complainant Vecrumba, followed by commented diffs of the problematic edits. The diffs prove anti-semitic tendencies by the complainant Vecrumba, which would make it plausible that Anti-Nationalist called Vecrumba anti-semitic. But it appears he didn't. (He did use the word "racist", but without a Jewish connection.) Yet Vecrumba seems to be complaining that that's what Anti-Nationalist meant.

Unless there is a longterm pattern of anti-semitic tendentious editing by the complainant that needs examining, it appears that this thread is resolved. Hans Adler 08:31, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

If i might add my two cents, and without having any further opinion on the case : any defense agains accusations of anti-semitism with the argument "some of my best friends are Jewish" (or, in User:Vecrumba's own words: "My best friends starting in kindergarten were Jewish") is bloody akward, to say the least.--RCS (talk) 09:34, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

• Sorry, all of my best friends were Jewish all through my school years and now well beyond. Exactly what is "awkward" about that unless you believe the accusations of "anti-semitic tendentious editing", in which case feel free to open an AN/I on myself so I can defend myself properly. As for not very problematic below, did you read the entire thread referred to (the last diff), which Anti-Nationalist completely misrepresents regarding what I stated? I am not being combative, I am simply tired of accusations and innuendo to make accusations and having that tolerated. If others don't find this offensive, so be it.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  17:39, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

• I am simply tired of accusations and innuendo to make accusations and having that tolerated too, Vecrumba. So when time after time after time, you come to join your friends with the same POV in some talk page smear campaign against me as some kind of POV pusher who should be shut up, don't be at all surprised when your own history of harrassment and POV-pushing edits are presented as part of my argument to the contrary. As I've already made clear, there is an ArbCom case in which all of this is already being investigated. I and others have long petitioned you to put an end to your attempts at harrassing, stalking, and gaming, in spite of which you have only popped up repeatedly with more of the same attacks. If you don't want to interact with me, leave me alone or at least discuss the content I am working on, doing so in a manner that conveys at least a little bit of good faith. If you want to constantly engage in the same old tricks, like engaging in harrassment through a secret mailing list (now not-so secret) and relentlessly throw out ad hominems and related attempts to poison the well wherever I go, as you've done over and over and over again, don't expect me to hold back from discussing such behavior or to simply ignore the context in which said behavior occurs. Anti-Nationalist (talk) 21:11, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Without going into the larger dispute, I agree with Hans that this diff is not very problematic, and that diff in itself does not warrant an ANI. --Soman (talk) 10:20, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree it'd be different if PasswordUsername/Anti-Nationalist didn't have a history of trying to pull these kind of false smears of people he doesn't like in the past. Please see my comment about what happened with Jacurek above. This is just par for the course for PU/AN.radek (talk) 23:04, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

At no point did Anti-nationalist call Vecrumba anti-semitic. By the way, I would avoid the expression "Some of my best friends are Jewish" which is a cliche. Here's a link to an article about it:[39]. The Four Deuces (talk) 18:16, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I haven't looked into either "Anti-Nationalist" called Vecrumba anti-semitic, "Anti-nationalist" however calls other editors "nationalists" for sure: [40], [41].--Termer (talk) 00:25, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

The fact that Vecrumba said that "all of his best friends in school were Jewish" does not imply that he is in point of fact anti-Semitic. When I was a teen living in Los Angeles my best friend was indeed Jewish, now does that make me anti-Semitic as well? Had Vecrumba added that after making overt anti-Semitic comments, then I would question his statement; however his declaration that his school friends were Jewish should not be used against him.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:15, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Anti-Nationalist was accused of having called someone anti-semitic when he didn't actually do so. We seem to have trouble deciding whether the person in question is anti-semitic or not, but I don't think that's something we can legitimately do at ANI anyway, and it's clearly not relevant. I suggest closing this thread as resolved. Hans Adler 11:54, 10 November 2009 (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.

User:IronAngelAlice and Abortion first sentence

IronAngelAlice has participated in the long, detailed consensus on the Abortion first paragraph. IronAngelAlice has consciously gone against that because Halfdome recklessly altered it. It has been a long time since I've used Rollback on the abortion article, now I've used it twice recently. The user was warned for being a possible sock. I don't know what happened with that. - RoyBoy 01:41, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I have notified the user of this thread, on their talk page. Basket of Puppies 04:06, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

My first impression is that you misused rollback. AniMate 04:15, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't have used rollback, but I would have reverted it. The change IAA is making destroys the accuracy of the sentence as well as the long standing compromise.--Tznkai (talk) 19:11, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

IronAngelAlice (talk · contribs) is also reverting changes across multiple Abortion related articles, with no edit summary or explanation, or discussion on the talk pages. This is disruptive. Cirt (talk) 04:33, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I understand, though I had no doubt on the reversions, so I used rollback after a normal reversion. IAA did not add anything to Talk, despite the edit summary saying otherwise. - RoyBoy 03:28, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Pattern of disruptive editing by Pedant17

Pedant17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has persisted in edits degrading the quality of a WP:GA article - despite a completed WP:RfC that did not support his "copyediting" changes. His most recent edit summary acknowledges the archived RfC: copyedit; especially in the light of archived talk-page discussions.

Would appreciate another administrator looking into Pedant17's actions at this particular article - and also this pattern of behavior of slow edit-warring in general, and take action here. Cirt (talk) 05:00, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

---

Archived RfC

Talk:Outrageous_Betrayal/Archive_1#RfC:_Recent_wording_edits_to_article

At the RfC, Pedant17 continued to comment, seemingly ad infinitum, despite unanimous consensus against him that his changes were not productive and degraded the article's quality.

Prior edits by Pedant17 on the article

Here are prior edits on the same article by Pedant17 that are not supported by the RfC (compare with above edit):

• 08:24, 4 June 2009
• 01:40, 24 April 2009
• 04:07, 12 March 2009

These edits show a pattern of slow edit-warring by Pedant17.

Pattern of behavior

• Bogging down talk page discussion at Talk:Alien (film), [42]
• PelleSmith (talk · contribs) described Pedant17's actions as disruptive POV pushing at the article Mind control. In a previous comment, PelleSmith pointed out that Pedant17's edits degraded the quality of the article under the guise of "style" edits.
• PelleSmith agreed that edits by Pedant17 to the article List of groups referred to as cults or sects in government documents were not constructive; these "style" edits were of same nature as above. [43], [44]
• Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Pedant17

---

Thank you for your time, Cirt (talk) 05:00, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Part of the problem seems to be Pedant17's fundamental misunderstanding of WP:SILENCE, which he appears to interpret as "if a disagreement falls silent, the last editor to have spoken has consensus" - I can see how this confusion might seem like a fair rationale for slow-edit-warring, and an incentive to keep posting disagreements at the end of a thread. The reason he rejected the RfC comments on Outrageous Betrayal was that the editors who'd commented hadn't responded to his rebuttals and "evolving consensus there appears (per WP:SILENCE) to support my case". He also tells another editor that "if you do not respond to my arguments, I assume that they have convinced you".

A similar slow-edit war has been going on at Talk:Dell#Lead_sentence_structure, where Pedant17 recently edited the article to his preferred E-Prime version on the basis that the talk page disagreement over E-Prime tailed off with - despite three editors vocally disagreeing with him - nobody responding to his final rebuttal, and that "silence denotes consent". --McGeddon (talk) 12:25, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

No problem exists -- part from fellow-Wikipedians mistaking the shrill repetition of (often unfounded) claims for measured and logical discussion of the merits of a case. That said, an elaboration of WP:SILENCE might help clarify matters. -- Pedant17 (talk) 03:45, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Copyediting an article into E-Prime, having it reverted by multiple editors who feel this degrades the quality of the writing, debating it at great length on the talk page until the editors who disagree with you stop responding, and finally copyediting into E-Prime again because "silence denotes content" - this is a problem. You've been doing this on at least three articles - Alien (film), Dell and Outrageous Betrayal - over an extended period, and other editors are finding it disruptive.

The simple first sentence of WP:SILENCE is key here: "Consensus can be presumed to exist until voiced disagreement becomes evident". You are presuming consensus through silence, even after several other editors have voiced specific disagreement. --McGeddon (talk) 11:32, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Even if my edits consisted solely (they don't) of introducing E-Prime formulations (standard, good English writing), any opposition to that would need justification on grounds of policy and good style in each sentence. What other editors merely "feel" or "find" without explanation counts for little in the face of reasoned argument over individual cases. Repeated bulk-reversion of all my edits on an article on the spurious grounds that some of them may look like E-Prime -- that could well count as disruptive. -- Thank you for pointing to some detail in WP:SILENCE -- a point I made myself on the talk-page. Evidently this doctrine can work both ways. The oversimplified interpretation given to that first sentence implies that we can never reach any WP:CONSENSUS once any person has made or expressed an objection on any side in a discussion: such objections stand for all time. In practice, I observe that detailed support for a stance gets ignored and repeated shrill (yet often groundless and unjustified) objections get touted as "consensus" -- contrary to the policy of WP:CONSENSUS, which states: "Discussions should always be attempts to convince others, using reasons". -- Pedant17 (talk) 04:12, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

No disruptive editing has taken place -- apart from the repeated bulk reversal of any improvements I put forward for (for example) Outrageous Betrayal, despite my reasoned approach and repeated appeal to Wikipedia policy and guidelines. The talk-page archive demonstrates that I have consistently welcomed and incorporated debate: I've returned to bold editing only after a fellow-Wikipedian declared further discussion unproductive and debate ceased. I don't regard WP:GA articles as sacrosanct, nor the WP:RfC on Outrageous Betrayal as necessarily closed -- even though no-one has replied to my points made therein. The archiving of talk-page discussions indicates others' lack of interest in debating rather than endorsement of any viewpoint. -- Objections to alleged "slow edit-warring" and to "bogging down talk-page discussion" have no validity: the measured pattern of many of my edits spread over weeks and months simply allows fellow-editors plenty of time to comment. -- Accusations against me of "disruptive POV pushing" and of non-constructive editing remain unproven and unsubstantiated -- just another meaningless polemical barrage in the the process of building a better encyclopedia. Any perceived resemblance between my recent edits to List of groups referred to as cults or sects in government documents (mainly improving the citations) and my edits to Outrageous Betrayal (mainly tweaking the style without altering the content) needs explanation and justification.-- I suggest returning to the respective talk-pages and addressing any outstanding issues there. -- Pedant17 (talk) 03:45, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Clarification: The debate at Talk:Outrageous Betrayal was closed (post dispute resolution) after I had pointed out that further attempts by Pedant17 to change the style would be seen as disruptive, and would result in action [45]. Cirt (talk) 04:49, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Further clarification: the only dispute resolution process I know of with reference to the Outrageous Betrayal article consisted of a vague and inaccurately presented call for an RfC, which RfC petered out after I accepted some of the comments, countered others and failed to receive the explanations I asked for on the remainder. The referenced foreshadowing of an appeal to WP:ANI made no reference to anything as vague or undefined as "style" or "disruption", but specifically mentioned only continuation of "large scale edits that reduce the quality of the article's text".The declaration of closure happened only after I pointed out that the stated conditions did not apply, commenting: 'I have never made "large scale edits that reduce the quality of the article's text". You have not succeeded in proving that or explaining how I have done what you accuse me of. Rather than appeal for administrator intervention, why not discuss the issues in a grounded manner and work through your objections to my improvements?'. When no response to my appeals for explanation and detail and discussion came, I interpreted the following archival (with the edit-comment "discussion no longer productive = archived. done") as a green light to return to editing the article. I waited for several weeks for further comment from any other interested parties, then proceeded to make improvements to the article in the light of previous discussions. Now instead of productive edits and reasonably focused talk-page discussions we have this frivolous WP:ANI incident-report... -- Pedant17 (talk) 04:12, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Pedant, once an article has reached GA or FA status, any copy editing really has to be an improvement. I've not looked through every edit you've made, but replacing "is a biography of" with "is a book providing a biography of" is a little odd, and there are a few other changes like it, where it's not clear that the writing is being improved. Perhaps you could suggest the changes separately on the talk page instead of restoring them wholesale. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 07:02, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi SlimVirgin. I quite agree: any copyediting should improve things, and this I consistently try to do. -- Your contrast of "is a biography of" with "is a book providing a biography of" may seem "a little odd", but Outrageous Betrayal does not fall entirely into any one genre/category. Hence my attempt to provide more NPOV balance by writing: "Outrageous Betrayal [...], a book written by legal journalist Steven Pressman, presents a biography of Werner Erhard and an account of the practices and organizations associated with Erhard." (Looking at it again, that sentence could do with dates -- the book covers the period to about 1992. No doubt you could offer further stylistic improvments.) -- You'll see from the relevant talk-page -- see for example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Outrageous_Betrayal/Archive_1#Style_edits -- that both User:Cirt and myself repeatedly called for individual/separate discussions on matters of contention (if any) -- but that seldom happened. Many of the edits appear trivial in themselves: see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Outrageous_Betrayal&diff=295304842&oldid=294349636. As for those identified as contentious, whenever I succeeded (in the course of intensive/extensive talk-page discussion) in making my case for improvement, then discussion tended to shift back to objections in terms of vague generalities and hectoring. (To this day I do not know what real objection (if any) User:Cirt has to many of my edits.) So boldly re-presenting and enhancing my recent set of contributions (rather than wholesale restoration) seemed appropriate. -- Pedant17 (talk) 04:12, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Canvassing sanction

There is a clear case of votestacking set out here. I notified the editor responsible, Dalejenkins (talk · contribs), of the canvassing guideline, assuming he wasn't aware of it. As someone pointed out to me that assumption was incorrect. I remedied the votestacking in the current AFD by contacting all the participants in the previous AFD that had not yet been contacted. So the only issue that remains is behavioral: whether a sanction is appropriate, and if so, what. I request that an admin that has not been involved in fiction-related AFD discussions make this call. Thank you.--chaser (talk) 16:25, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

A quick look at this indicates that there should be a more serious look taken. It seems like a clear attempt to game the process.--Crossmr (talk) 21:33, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

If this happened regularly with any user, I'd be pretty concerned; didn't take an exhaustive look, but this doesn't seem to be a habit for Dale. Absent repeat incidents, I'd probably chalk it up more to misunderstanding than maliciousness. With other users notified, and with Dale engaged in conversation about the objections, I think things can probably move ahead smoothly. – Luna Santin (talk) 07:06, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

What engagement? He has blanked his talk page [46] when concern was raised on the 8th & the 9th. Nor has he turned up here. The implication that a user has employ off-wiki canvassing methods more than once and admits to what appears to be a clear infraction of an important guideline is serious. I have both collaborated with and disputed content with DJ in the past so will say no more, other than he did once pull me up about a technical canvassing infraction when I approached a single involved user involved in an article. What goes around comes around! Leaky Caldron 09:37, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

This is probably not the decision I would have made, but the reason I brought it to ANI was to get another administrator's view and decision on the issue, so thank you, Luna. To others in this thread, this comment from Luna Santin helps clarify.--chaser (talk) 20:16, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Because I was unable to find a notification that this was posted in his talk page history I notified Dale [here] Jamesofur (talk) 23:23, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

@Luna, I definitely do not think this is a misunderstanding by Dave, he clearly knows it's against the rules (as he himself said). And shows no sign of planning to stop his canvassing. I very much got the feeling that Dave sees AfD as some kind of a competition, and is more bothered about "winning", then actually make sure we delete and keep the right articles. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 12:29, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I just noticed that Kingpin13 identified an earlier incident at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive558#Offsite_canvassing_at_the_Afd_of_Search_for_Alan_Goulden, which was removed from the talk page. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 21:06, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

There were issues with DaleJenkins here as well [47] (relating to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Big Brother 2009 housemates (UK)) DJ came to AN/I to attempt to get people stopped from !voting Keep, and followed both User:Jeni and myself to our talkpages to argue that our keep !votes should be changed. I thought he'd learned his lesson after that. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:17, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

This evidence does color Dale's actions in a different color. I've left this note on their talk page, again requesting their response here, and notifying them that continued canvassing problems may lead to a block. I would appreciate being informed if this continues to be a problem at any point in the future. – Luna Santin (talk) 01:39, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Another issue in same AfD

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Everyme.--chaser (talk) 21:48, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

sig

Resolved

 – Signature shortened per WP:SIG. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 01:52, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

On my talk page, someone told me to shorten my signature. Why is it necessary? The signature has to be 255 characters at the greatest. Does that include spaces?  Btilm  22:14, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

That "someone" being 69.210.140.216 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). GiantSnowman 22:18, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Correct.  Btilm  22:20, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I have made the IP user aware of this thread. GiantSnowman 22:21, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, interesting that that is the IP's first ever edit...GiantSnowman 22:25, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

It could be an anonymous editor with a dynamic ip.  Btilm  22:27, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Would you please answer my above questions if you didn't see them.  Btilm  22:35, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I assume you're transcluding or substituting a page with your sig on it right now, correct? I was also informed of this issue recently. Please see this: WP:SIG#NT. The only good thing to do is try to shorten the syntax.-- fetchcomms☛ 22:37, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Btilm - your signature is 379 characters (excluding date & time) - read Wikipedia:Signatures#Length for reasons why there is a length limit. Regards. GiantSnowman 22:40, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

• (e/c)The IP is correct; it should be shorter than 255 characters, per Wikipedia:Signatures#Length. As an example, take a look at this thread in edit mode; is difficult to decipher due to your signature formatting. I'm not too thrilled when people try to force conformance on this issue, but it would be a sign of consideration for others if you shortened it/made it less distracting in edit mode. If it can't be done in 255 characters, it probably doesn't need to be done. Btilm is substing User:Btilm/signature, not transcluding it; I note for some reason the sig is fully protected? --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:42, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay. I worked on a sig that is 255 characters long. 260 including spaces. Is that good enough?  Btilm  22:44, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

As I mentioned to you Btilm, excluding the browser specific styles from your signature cuts it down to just below 255 characters. As I also mentioned to you, substituting your signature is discouraged, which I believe is your current method of utilizing your signature. user:J aka justen (talk) 22:43, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

 Btilm 

How does that look? It's considerably shorter now. I've pruned most of the extraneous code; you can re-add the padding code, though the difference looks minute to me. Master of Puppets 23:14, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I have protected User:Btilm/signature per your request, but it is still 260 characters long. Please reduce it to 255 or below. The code of your signature should be able to fit in the box provided for it in your preferences. I suggest you use the one given by Master of Puppets. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 02:44, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I made a few changes to shorten Master of Puppets' revision further. 140 chars:

 Btilm 

Use it if/as you wish. • Anakin ^(talk) 04:07, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Personally I would suggest moving your sig page to User:Btilm/signature.css, and substing that. This would make it so that only you, and administrators can edit your page, eliminating the need for protection of any kind. I use this personally for my signature. Until It Sleeps ^{Happy Thanksgiving} 07:07, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Good grief. Maybe he should attach an illustration to it. A picture of an elephant would be fitting. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:14, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

(←) I'm renaming this page Wikipedia:Helpdesk/Signatures. In the meantime, I feel like I keep saying this but it goes nowhere, so I'll say it again... Is there some reason for the browser specific code? It's showing up fine for me without the WebKit and Mozilla bits:  Btilm  That also happens to fit within the allotted character limit, with two to spare. user:J aka justen (talk) 07:59, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I take that back. Without the Mozilla code, it actually does fail to round the corners of the rectangle in Firefox. Chrome does manage to correctly draw it, although Safari does not (which I suspect will be corrected). All that said, nevermind my suggestion. Unless maybe you want to have the acid test signature... user:J aka justen (talk) 08:04, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

According to this edit, the user has no intent of shortening their signature further (they shortened it once near the top of this discussion, but it's still ~250 characters). Master of Puppets 10:07, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I never said I wouldn't make another shorter signature. I made one that looks exactly the same, and only 167 characters. If anyone wants me to redo their sig, I will be happy to. Btilm 23:25, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Yep, new sig is 167 characters and perfectly ok. Thank you. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 01:52, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Suicide threat

The following discussion 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.

---

Resolved

 – per PeterSymonds. On obvious stuff like this, WP:RBI. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:58, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Just seen this pop up on PSs page - he hasn't edited for 90 minutes so may not be around to report it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:PeterSymonds#Going_to_kill_myself_now.2C_happy_you_irc_douche.3F Leaky Caldron 22:32, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm just posting here to add the permanent link, and save everyone a few extra clicks. Permanent link -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 22:38, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Please dismiss this as trolling resulting from a ban in two of the IRC channels. I can assure you that he's not serious. PeterSymonds (talk) 22:40, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:SUICIDE - "Wikipedians are not as a rule properly trained to determine if such a claim or threat is an immediate harm to someone's well being, and should assume the worst and act accordingly. Treat such claims seriously and as an emergency." GiantSnowman 22:43, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Understand that, but if this is an editor Peter has just banned for trolling, I think we can take it as a variant of "I'm going down the garden to eat worms." Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:03, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Regardless, WP:SUICIDE couldn't be clearer on the matter. RaseaC (talk) 23:58, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:SUICIDE is an essay. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:00, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

...? RaseaC (talk) 00:02, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

It was proposed as policy but rejected. For good reasons. Hans Adler 00:06, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting it was policy, policy is irrelevant when discussing a matter as serious as this (some things are more important than WP) I was reiterating the extract that GiantSnowman left us which effectively says that however awesome we may be on WP we are not, by and large, psychologists and when faced with a potentially serious situation (regardless of our own interpretation of that siuation) we should sit down, shut up and listen to the experts. RaseaC (talk) 00:21, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

• Eh. Policy is (or should be) there to remind people that we are not the first to encounter a situation like this. We aren't experts, but we can also make reasoned judgments about when a threat (suicide or otherwise) is worth investigating. You are welcome to email checkusers about this and suggest that IP info be forwarded to authorities, but be aware that most of these 'threats' are attempts at trolling. Protonk (talk) 03:35, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I know this is resolved, but for those still watching- there are legal ramifications should someone write "I'm going to commit suicide now" and actually does it and no one did anything. Of course the law is vague, we can claim that there was no could know he/she was serious, etc like we've argued here. But as the essay says, it should be treated seriously. I have attempted suicide in the past (reason not related to Wikipedia), and I am lucky that the person who heard me mention it took it serious and the police came to my door. If Wikipedia ever got so bad for me I declared I was going to commit suicide then I hope someone takes me serious and saves me. As bad as life is, and how much I would want to, in the end I know I would be happier that someone took it serious and saved me instead of letting me die. Sometimes all you need is to know someone cared enough to say "please dont leave" and got ahold of the authorities to know that suicide is not the answer.Camelbinky (talk) 04:11, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I fear that when it comes to Wikipedia in situations such as suicide threats a major drawback could be the bystander effect. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 04:41, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Look I understand you. No one is saying "ignore all suicide threats" or "lol policy>suicide". All I'm saying is that people have permission to use their heads. Protonk (talk) 04:48, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, you could always look at a suicide note (sincere or otherwise) as having this potential:

Authorities say that Jones, 17 posted on a popular online encyclopedia site, Wikipedia, that he intended to kill himself, but that his pleas for help went ignored by administrators on the site.

It's not just about possible legal issues; it's also about bad press and bad publicity, and a very negative situation in general. As a suicide survivor (I was stupid, and I'm sorry I tried it) I can only say that if someone says something like that, treat it as serious. Check his ip, verify what city it's in, and notify the police there, giving them the ip address. Whether or not you think he'll do it, this is the right thing to do. If he was sincere, you may just save his life. if he wasn't, it could teach him a lesson about posting crap like that. And ultimately, Wiki doesn't end up looking bad if he does do it. Just my $0.02. YMMV. Deejaye6 (talk) 16:39, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I didn't mention the "possible legal issues", mostly because such broadly worded warnings are normally waved at by non-lawyers and the minute you dismiss them someone comes back and suggest that "we shouldn't only worry about whether or not we are forced to report threats". Lets keep a sense of perspective here. What we are talking about is this comment. Again, if you want to treat that as a real suicide threat, be my guest. But I think wasting time on something like that isn't worth the bother and increases incentive to troll. I also note that the publicity issue is a red herring. I have no faith in the ability of the average news organization (certainly not the news organization most likely to report on wikipedia, The Guardian) to determine whether or not due diligence was undertaken, especially considering that CU actions are normally private and attempts at communication w/ local authorities are often unverifiable. Again, my point isn't that threats be dismissed. My point is that editors should use their heads when assessing threats. Protonk (talk) 22:56, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

The WP:SUICIDE essay is not policy - however, it's considered best practice by admins and users. It's not a policy because there are all sorts of repurcussions of trying to force people to respond in a particular manner, and the community is largely unhappy with having their responses in a real life matter dictated to them. The possible consequences include legal and PR implications ("You mean, you ignored written policy that said you were supposed to report this?"...).

If you see a suicide threat or other threat of violence and believe it is credible or can't dismiss it, we encourage you to follow the process documented in WP:SUICIDE. It's a good idea. We can't make you do it and will not hold you responsible for doing it - but you may save a life, and it's the responsible and ethical thing to do. If you find it and think it's possibly real, report it here, report it to authorities. It may be nothing, but the police don't mind being called out to find out if it's real or not. That's their job.

Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 18:39, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Since when has this sort of recurring joke "suicide" message on Wikipedia become a "plea for help". Surely they should be like any other dubious claim made on Wikipedia, i.e., delete them (unless they come with a proper citation such as a medical opinion about the state of mind of the poster, or a death certificate). Meowy 20:35, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Wow, what a great attitude to have. What will it take for you to pay a bit of attention, someone actually killing themselves?!?! GiantSnowman 20:38, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I can safely say Meowy is tha absolute worse editor I have every come across on WP. Screw content and not contributor, that's downright screwed up right there. RaseaC (talk) 22:12, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

OMG, thank you RaseaC, I've just realised I'm so screwed up i hate my life why dont i just fucking end it all? This is my last go.... if i get banned from this site too it all ends. Meowy 15:30, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

What it comes down to - Meowy is free to ignore such threats. You are free to ignore them, if you think it's purely a joke (and I do not personally respond to every one that I see, some just don't raise to the level of credible IMHO). However - as the essay points out - if you think one IS credible, or can't be sure, we encourage and will support you to report it. The essay gives you a procedure for doing so which is felt to be good practice. Other people ignoring or making fun of the situation is not relevant - if you are concerned, do what you think is right. The essay establishes a support structure and process for doing what's right if you want to do that. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:33, 11 November 2009 (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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pankration (Holiday)

Resolved

 – AFD closed.--chaser (talk) 05:49, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I would appreciate additional eyes at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pankration (Holiday). A number of SPAs/new users are showing up, and some of them are directing comments against me personally at the deletion discussion's talk page, the deletion discussion itself, and my user talk page (which, although the last one doesn't seem directly related, I am including here as part of the pattern since that was the account's only edit, and occured when all the other SPAs started showing up). Frankly, the personal commentary is starting to get frustrating. Singularity42 (talk) 04:31, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

And another one... Maybe I should just send this off to WP:SPI at some point? Singularity42 (talk) 05:50, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I find most of the comments at the AFD pretty mild. I temporarily s-protected, but have since found a different and hopefully more effective way of dealing with it.--chaser (talk) 06:05, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Looks good. As I said, the comments were coming at me from a few places, but seemed to do with the ongoing deletion discussion. I also agree that your revised approach is the fairest way to deal with it - I wouldn't want to drive away new users from the discussion just because of a few bad apples. Singularity42 (talk) 06:09, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Throw out the SPAs and this is more or less heading for a snowball or speedy..--Crossmr (talk) 07:41, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, and Half man half rancor isn't doing himself or his side any favors with his demeanor. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Stop... at a WHAMMY!!)} 20:24, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

And Half man half rancor is still at it with the personal remarks about me. The comments are stupid, I know, but I believe he has been warned about it already, both individually and to all participants generally. Singularity42 (talk) 01:37, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd support a block of half man for at least 24 hours for disruptive editing with all the repeated insults.--Crossmr (talk) 05:15, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Repeated adding of speedy tag

WiZeNgAmOtX (talk · contribs · logs) feels very strongly that William A. Dembski should be deleted so he has nominated it for speedy deletion as an attack page. I declined the speedy (twice) but he has now restored the tag (twice). It may be that there are NPOV issues on the article but it certainly doesn't look like speedy material. Could someone else take a look please? --John (talk) 07:28, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Agree. This clearly doesn't meet speedy deletion criteria. If the issue is neutrality, that can be addressed. But anything negative about the individual has been properly sourced, so this is not an attack page. Singularity42 (talk) 07:33, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

3rr warning given.--chaser (talk) 07:34, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Beaten to declining the speedy again; posted a comment on Wizen's user talk. – Luna Santin (talk) 07:37, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Why has my comment been deleted and removed from history? WiZeNgAmOtX (talk) 07:46, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

What comment? Singularity42 (talk) 07:49, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Maybe you ran into an edit conflict and the comment was never taken by the system. I gave up trying to comment here a little while ago because I was getting bogged down in edit conficts and the slow loading of a very large page. LadyofShalott 07:54, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:NOTPERFECT WiZeNgAmOtX (talk) 07:56, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Some interesting comments a couple of days ago: [48] [49]. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 08:01, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed those. I will follow this editor's career with interest. Thanks for the help. --John (talk) 08:08, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

... and just added a link to a book review [50] of Cavalli-Szorza's 1994 book The History and Geography of Human Genes, which is entirely a reasonable source, but which is hosted here: http://www.prometheism.net/, who are... in the least, not vaguely mainstream or up to RS standards. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 08:57, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I hope that you are not suggesting the source invalid? There are also cited materials, a large list--all "mainstream". This is science. Controversy comes with science. Do not conspire to watch me with prejudice that I am some how a dangerous contributor, based upon allegations of mine that are controversial to your philosophies and opinions. If you do not follow WP, then I will have you banned from the wikipedia. I bid you good day. WiZeNgAmOtX (talk) 10:45, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Probably best not to come to an admin board and make vacuous threats against an admin, WiZeNgAmOtX. Just a tip. ➜ Redvers^{❝It's bona to vada your dolly old eek❞} 10:52, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

The article is more than reasonably well sourced, neutral and stable. WiZeNgAmOtX seems to have some unclear issue with William A. Dembski - he is now added dated prod twice (which was once removed by me and once by Redvers). There is no way this article will pass AfD as anything but speedy keep. So what exactly is the issue? The claim that Dembski is ID proponent? Well sourced. That ID is pseudoscience? Extensively sourced. --Sander Säde 10:59, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

The article is now listed for deletion by WiZeNgAmOtX. --Sander Säde 11:43, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Closed it as speedy keep. No need to open this up at another venue. Regards SoWhy 16:47, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

WiZeNgAmOtX's obstinate WP:COPYVIO on Shawnigan Lake School may also bear attention. (dif of warning) Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 12:03, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I've blocked WiZeNgAmOtX for 24h over the edit warring re the repeated insertion of the copyvio into the Shawnigan Lake School article. Mjroots (talk) 12:25, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Good block. I was considering doing it myself, but having removed the 2nd or 3rd placement of the prod on the Dembski article, I think I'd oddly be counted as "involved". ➜ Redvers^{❝It's bona to vada your dolly old eek❞} 12:35, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

And they've appealed, on the basis that it isn't a copyvio. Thus does the point of a block for edit warring go whizzing over someone's head. Alas. ➜ Redvers^{❝It's bona to vada your dolly old eek❞} 12:38, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Not to mention the legal threat in the unblock request [51] Voceditenore (talk) 12:50, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Indeffed for making a legal threat. Mjroots (talk) 12:58, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

He's still going at it on his talk page. Could a CheckUser, if they have a minute, also make a check here, because I smell something sock-y. I have a hard time believing that this person knows all this WP stuff in short order like this. MuZemike 16:14, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I had his talk page watchlisted out of interest and reading the exchanges between this user threatening to take every admin on and citing various Wikipedia policies. I am in agreement with MuZemike and also smell something socky as well. --(Sb617's talk - contribs ) 16:43, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, someones left the drawer open.--SKATER ^Speak. 04:10, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Update Indef block lifted as legal threat was withdrawn. 24h block reinstated, expires 12:21 UTC. We'll need to keep an eye on WiZeNgAmOtX's editing to see if the copyvio gets reinserted. Suggest an indef if it does. Mjroots (talk) 09:55, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Rotational volating his editing restriction.

The above user was placed on an edit restriction on one of his previous visits to the noticeboard, see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive539#Rotational and User talk:Rotational#Editing restriction. Notably "Do not revert-war to make any article formatting change that is against the guidelines in the Manual of Style; in particular, you must not revert another revert in order to change the level of a heading or the position of an image.".

He has recently returned from an absence and immediately started edit warring at [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] [62] amongst others, not to mention the incivilities found on his talk page and User talk:Euryalus#Header preferences. I feel that its about time that this user is finally blocked, his edits are nothing short of disruptive and he has pushed the boundaries far too long. Jeni ^(talk) 13:01, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

After several years of this, and a range of sanctions achieving nothing whatsoever, I think it is abundantly clear that Rotational is not going to stop edit warring. This is forever. Therefore, either we must cede to Rotational ownership of any and all articles that he chooses to edit, and permit him to maintain them in accordance with his unusual stylistic tastes, regardless of convention and consensus; or we must show him the door. Hesperian 13:35, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

After a quick look these editing restrictions were laid out 6 months ago and he can't seem to follow them with all that time to study them and learn them. I'd support a couple of weeks with nothing to do but study those restrictions for him.--Crossmr (talk) 14:03, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Blocked for 2 weeks. I'm willing to consider that this might not be the correct length, so let me know if you have a problem with it. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:10, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Seems fair enough, we'll find out if it has been effective when he returns! Jeni ^(talk) 15:28, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Jeni is wrong. You are the one who deliberately baited the editor, by disrupting carefully crafted articles, where a stylistic choice had been made to use a lower than standard level of heading. In a small article, where the only header is References, the line across the page is an eyesore. This is a waste of time in a troubled world. You are the weakest link - goodbye. FairFare (talk) 10:42, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Rotational was not blocked for preferring "a lower than standard level of heading". He was blocked for edit-warring over his preference for "lower than standard levels of heading" for nearly three years. You endorse that? Hesperian 13:49, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Collectonian, Ikip, and Dream Focus

An issue has come to my attention, Collectonian is stalking Dream focus. It all started when Collectonian proded and Dream Focus unprodded an article.

Salad Days (manga):

• 19:55, 10 November 2009 Collectonian (2,754 bytes) (Proposing article for deletion per WP:PROD. using TW)[63]
• 20:08, 10 November 2009 Dream Focus (1,957 bytes) (deproded. Spend years in a magazine read by millions, so its common sense notable)[64]

Collectonian's stalking

FIRST Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abattoir (comics)

Collectonian commented. 20:41, 10 November 2009.[65]

After Dream Focus commented. 16:15, 10 November 2009. [66]

SECOND Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fatcat Ballroom & Dance Company

Collectonian commented. 20:40, 10 November 2009.[67]

After Dream Focus commented. 16:20, 10 November 2009.[68]

THIRD Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography

Collectonian brings up Rape in the United States of America that Dream recently created and was working on, at 20:45, 10 November 2009. [69]

When Dream focus accuses Collectonian of stalking, Collection states:

"Says thee who immediately deprodded an article that I had just prodded?"[70] This sounds like retribution to Dream Focus for deprodding the article Salad Days (manga).

When I show the history of this stalking, Collectonian unapologetically accuses me of personal attacks, irrelevantly bringing up her gender:

"Take the personal attacks elsewhere please and allow neutral people to answer my actual legitimate question because god forbid a woman actually have some interest in the topic of rape, and questions the creation of a new article for just the US when no other country has an individual article that I could see."[71]

Ironically, Collectonian herself has been a victim of stalking her first ANI her for this now indefenitely blocked editor had complaints at the same level of stalking.

Comparison of Collectonian accusation of stalking in 2008 and Collectonians stalking today
Collectonian initially accused User:Abtract of stalking her on three pages. Collectonion also stalked Dream Focus today on three.
User:Abtract	User:Collectionian
List of Harry Potter related topics 20:42, 30 May 2008 [72]	Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abattoir (comics) [73]
Aladdin (disambiguation) 23:43, 1 June 2008 [74]	Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fatcat Ballroom & Dance Company[75]
Meerkat Manor 23:49, 1 June 2008 [76] (twice)	Rape in the United States of America [77]

I have no faith that the community will do a damn thing against an admin, but hope dies last. Ikip (talk) 21:55, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

One: Collectonian isn't an admin.

Two: It appears that this is also now at WP:WQA. I don't suppose there's any chance that this could be dealt with in one forum, instead of three?

Three: I don't really think this is stalking. Editor A isn't forbidden from looking at Editor B's contributions if they feel that Editor B is doing something wrong in multiple places. And commenting in AFD's or pointing out what you see as questionable articles on a relevant Wikiproject talk page isn't harassment.

Four: There is no four. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:05, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Stalking is a general persistence of opposing an editor's actions across multiple issues over a relatively extended time period, rather than on several edits related to a single issue. Equazcion (talk) 22:07, 10 Nov 2009 (UTC)

thank you for the correction.Ikip (talk) 22:50, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

• This seems to be at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#Personal_Attacks as well now. Is there any possible way she could've found her way to the two other AFD without stalking me? And since she found my new article and commented on it somewhere just minutes later, seems a bit suspicious as well. Based on her past events, I think she is just out to get even with someone. Her comments do sound like that. Dream Focus 22:09, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

There are half a dozen ways to any article. In the WQA you claim that you learned of the prod by seeing it posted to the deletion sort, but apparently you are the only one allowed to monitor any deletion discussions? Of the two AfDs you note, one is in comics (sister project to AfD), and the other was clearly listed in Category:Relisted AfD debates along with several others I've been commenting on over the last hour or two between dealing with the personal attacks and new Bambifan101 socks. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 22:19, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

(EC) As a note, Ikip did NOT notify me of his report here. I learned of it after he posted about it in the WQA I filed about his and Dream Focus' remarks in the project talk page. It should also be noted that he filed this AFTER receiving the notification that I had filed a WQA about him and DF. I posted my notification at 15:44[78], while posted this and removed that notice at 15:55[79][80]. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 22:10, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

They were filed a few seconds apart weren't they? By the time he finished getting his links and writing it, you had started an article elsewhere. And he did mention this to you over there, knowing you'd see them, so it wasn't like he was hiding anything. Dream Focus 22:12, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

10 MINUTES equal to seconds? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 22:19, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

• Point of order: unless someone objects within 5 minutes, I'm going to move this thread to Wikipedia:WQA#Personal Attacks. Somebody has to decide where to do it, might as well be me? --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:13, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

  This is a stalking issue, not a personal attack issue. Lets wait and get links for the long history of her off and on again attacks on various edits, and discuss the case here. Dream Focus 22:16, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

  Unfortunately it seems neither will allow a venue change, and Ikip is determined to very wrongly and falsely claim that I am stalking it and his daring to compare it to the months of stalking from Abstract is taking this beyond just a civility issue. Anyone who follow that long drama would know that his attempts to compare about are beyond disgusting. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 22:19, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

  • (edit conflict) Either way there isn't going to be any admin intervention in this matter, and as such, the discussion should probably take place at WQA, in my opinion. Equazcion (talk) 22:20, 10 Nov 2009 (UTC)

As per Collectonian's own ANI in 2008, against Abstract, the initial complaint is VERY similar, three complaints of stalking, Collectonian's stalking took place the same day, Abstract's stalking took place over three days. It appears like nothing initially was done in that ANI, but, like the Abstract case, now Collectonian and the community is on notice.

You can't have it both ways Collectian, you can't complain of being a victim of stalking, then clearly stalk other editors. This is a stalking issue, which belongs here.

Equazcion, respectfully, I would hope other admins have a chance to see this post also, they may have other opinions. Ikip (talk) 22:24, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Blocks aren't punitive, so that doesn't seem likely. And respectfully, can we please dispense with the circular arguments? Saying someone shouldn't accuse others of stalking when they're doing it themselves isn't constructive, because it is the very allegation of stalking that is being discussed. Let's stick to arguments that instead back up the claim of stalking. Equazcion (talk) 22:30, 10 Nov 2009 (UTC)

(EC) Again, BS. You are pointing to a specific single ANI in a very long issue and trying to claim any similarity. There is none at all. There is no stalking here at all, only you two taking a chance to try to stir up drama for no other reason that to try to get rid of someone you consider an enemy. Both of you have repeatedly made personal attacks against myself and anyone else you consider a "deletionist" and those veiled and unveiled attacks are well documented and easily locatable, starting at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Dream Focus. He himself started a seemingly personal vendetta because his Gantz equipment list was deleted, by consensus, in January[81], including making both on and offwiki remarks directed at myself and others. His entire user page is a lengthy attack page against "deletionists". -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 22:37, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Notice the obvious slander? I had participated in AFD discussions before the Gantz equipment page thing, we going through this several times already. And the nonsense linked to was a group of people who argued with me in various manga AFD who were in fact going after me for that reason. Nothing came of it, because they clearly had no case. Lets stay on the topic please, and not distract people with unrelated nonsense. Looking at the timeline of the articles that she followed me into, and her words, does it not seem like she was stalking me to get even with someone she thought had wronged her? Dream Focus 22:48, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Stalking is stalking Collectonian. Dream didn't stalk your edits, you stalked his. When we call you on it, you call that a personal attack.

We wouldn't be here if:

1. you wouldn't have stalked him, or
2. if you would have apologized for stalking instead of lashing out at those who question your behavior.

Equazcion has asked me to stop bringing up unrelated incidents, and I will, on your part, I would strongly suggest you stop bringing up counter motives, and focus on the core stalking that happened today. Lets all, including myself, try to stay at the top of the triangle, File:Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement.svg

Dream, please ignore the personal critiques, and off topic comments. Sigh.

Collect, I apologize for not contacting you within 6 to 15 minutes after I finished creating this ANI.[82][83][84] It was my intention too, so that there would be no complaints about not being notified. After I finished this section, I recieved a message on my talk page, and when I went to look at, I saw you opened up a grievance on another page. Ikip (talk) 22:50, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

So that everyone is perfectly clear. You are denouncing retaliatory reports and arguing that pointing out problems with conduct do not constitute personal attacks? Protonk (talk) 23:07, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I do have a bias in this issue and would, if it is ok, to state why, in a way being a character witness against Collectonian, all I am saying is fact and cant be considered a personal attack as it is stating what happened. In a discussion on the Village Pump (policy) Collectonian went off-topic and accused me of not having a valid point based on having created an article "completely unreferenced", this was a personal attack, though not very vicious I believe it was used with the purpose of "discrediting" me. The article was the very first one I ever created from scratch, and it was referenced if you check the talk page it was all referenced from one source and I put it on the talk page, as I was relatively new and was still learning (policy is clear that this is not a violation of the referencing and ignorance of our way of doing things is not a "crime" nor does it illegitimize contributions). She failed to mention the many superior articles I have created, including a GA that I created from scratch and was pretty much the sole author of and implied that others in the discussion had created multiple GAs and FAs and I havent (actually she probably got that one article from the list on my user page, which many of those at the top of my list could be GAs easily if I cared one cent about that title, I intentionally no longer put articles I work on for GA/FA/FL). This actually is relevant towards her character though no stalking occured in my case as it does show what kind of "debater" she is and I do feel it should be taken into consideration regarding her credibility and actions.Camelbinky (talk) 23:34, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Of course, anyone reading these remarks should look at the heated Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#SPOILER_ALERT_disclaimers discussion and make their own opinions on what is and is not a personal attack and on the purpose of this remark. For those feeling tl;dr about it, Camelbinky while arguing that plots should be removed from all artilces unless sourced to a secondary source, he stated specifically "You want me to be "transparent" and consistent then? Ok, no exception, if the plot summary isnt covered anywhere then you cant have one, if no secondary source covers an aspect of your book, movie, etc then it isnt notable and you cant have it; remove it, and that goes for the entire article as well...I cant get away with this crap on the history and geography articles I love to work on". In response, I specifically pointed out an article that he created that had no secondary sources, noting "you claim you don't "get away with it" on articles, yet I see you have created wholly unsourced articles, while several defending fictional articles here have crafted FA and GA level articles on those topics, with a proper plot summary in each". It was not a personal attack, but a refute of his claim that unsourced content was not allowed in article he edits on. He later posted a diatribe claiming he was "gang attacked" and had been attacked.[85] -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:53, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Copy/Pasting content from WP:WQA thread

Boldly moving WQA text to ANI; Collectonian was kind enough to defer to others, Dream Focus wasn't willing to move from ANI, so easier to do it his way. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:30, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
start of content copied from WQA User:Dream Focus and User:Ikip are tag-teaming and making personal attacks against me aand false accusations of stalking at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography#Split from Rape because I dared to response to some AfD four HOURS after DF, while commenting on various other AfDs, and because I questioned the creation of a new article on Rape by DF that he himself advertised on Rape[86], an article I happened to be paying attention to after the whole fiasco over a certain extremely long AfD on the high school homecoming dance rape. He claims I am stalking him, yet somehow magically found my neutrally worded question on a project talk page that he himself states he had was unaware of before. Ask that someone intervene in their highly inappropriate and unsupported accusations. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 21:42, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

• PLEASE, read everything that was said there, and take it in context. She is highly skilled at distorting things. Dream Focus 21:58, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

• 20:45, 10 November 2009 (hist | diff) Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography ‎ (→Split from Rape: new section)
• 20:41, 10 November 2009 (hist | diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abattoir (comics) ‎ (delete)
• 20:40, 10 November 2009 (hist | diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fatcat Ballroom & Dance Company ‎ (delete) (top) [rollback]
• 20:33, 10 November 2009 (hist | diff) Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Anime and manga ‎ (→Anime and manga: add Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Salad Days (manga)) (top) [rollback]
• 20:33, 10 November 2009 (hist | diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Salad Days (manga) ‎ (tweak)
• 20:32, 10 November 2009 (hist | diff) m Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Salad Days (manga) ‎ (tagged as a Anime and manga-related XfD discussion (script-assisted).)
• 20:31, 10 November 2009 (hist | diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 November 10 ‎ (Adding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Salad Days (manga). using TW)
• 20:31, 10 November 2009 (hist | diff) N Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Salad Days (manga) ‎ (Creating deletion discussion page for Salad Days (manga). using TW)
• 20:31, 10 November 2009 (hist | diff) User talk:202.51.230.181 ‎ (AfD nomination of Salad Days (manga). using TW) (top) [rollback]
• 20:31, 10 November 2009 (hist | diff) Salad Days (manga) ‎ (Nominated for deletion; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Salad Days (manga). using TW) (top) [rollback]

• This timeline shows the affected articles. I have the anime and manga deletion list on my watchlist. I have participated in AFD there for about a year now. I was online at the time, and noticed something added, so had a look at it, and deproded it. She then claims I'm out to get her. She goes to two AFD articles I recently said Keep in, and says Delete, she having no interest in those things before, and no possible way of finding them. I noticed her commenting in both of them, find it odd, so check her recent contributions and find that after she did that, she went to the Wikiproject for crime and mentioned a recent article I had created. Dream Focus 21:58, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

since this is an issue of stalking, it is better addressed at WP:ANI, which I created before I was alerted to this page.

As I wrote on the wikiproject page, STOP STALKING DREAM and we will stop accusing you of stalking. Accusing another editor of stalking when they clearly are, is not a personal attack.

you can't have it both ways collectonian, you can't complain about editors stalking you, as you have historically done, and yet stalk other editors with impunity. Ikip (talk) 22:02, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd suggest closing either this or the ANI discussion, rather than carrying on this same discussion simultaneously in two venues. Equazcion (talk) 22:03, 10 Nov 2009 (UTC)

This report came first, with Ikip apparently filing an ANI (without notification to me, as an FYI) after he was given appropriate notice of the thread. He removed my notice and filed his ANI in the same minute. Will leave to others to decide which venue it should now be continued in -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 22:07, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

It depends; there's a 10% chance that this can be handled sans drama here, and a 5% chance that could happen at ANI. Since I don't foresee any admin tools being used at the moment, I suggest here. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:10, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

end content copied from WQA

Edit-warring anon at MigrationWatch UK

There's currently an edit-warring anon consistently removing sourced material at MigrationWatch UK, seemingly to try to "whitewash" the reputation of this group. It's been using the following IPs over the last week or two:

• 87.114.129.140
• 87.115.106.155
• 87.112.16.229
• 87.114.171.211

Myself and a few others have tried to reason with him, to explain to him that legitimate sourced content cannot be removed just because WP:IDONTLIKEIT, but the anon persists. Could someone else please intervene? Thanks!--Ramdrake (talk) 02:46, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Fully protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected.. The article was protected in the state I found it in without preference as to who is right or wrong. Both sides should discuss the matter and arrive at a consensus version of the article at the talk page. --Jayron32 03:30, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

User talk:206.124.6.222

User talk:206.124.6.222 has been making personal attacks (see User talk:206.124.6.222#November 2009) and inflammatory comments on talk pages completely off-topic from improving the article (see [87]). He has been warned and should be blocked. Thanks, Reywas92^Talk 02:50, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I gave a specific warning about the no personal attacks policy.--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail Review} 03:07, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Robert K S

Resolved

 – TenPoundHammer has now filed a case at WP:WQA, which is the more appropriate forum. Discussion can continue there - Alison ^❤ 05:41, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

The following discussion 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.

---

Robert K S (talk · contribs) has blatantly reverted my edits with no logical explanation, calling my edits "controversial." All I did was remove a great deal of unsourced coatrack info and add a {{tooshort}} tag, clearly explaining in my edit summaries why I was removing. This editor has a history of simply plowing through and reverting edits that he doesn't like, including far too many of mine — especially pertaining to Jeopardy! and other game shows. I have no idea why he would think my removal of blatant coatrackery and otherwise unsourced information would be "controversial," and judging from my history with him, a simple discussion will get me nowhere. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 04:24, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Please also see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive569#Disputed removal of rollback - Alison ^❤ 04:34, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Wow, and I thought I was stubborn. Clearly this editor has a long history of edit-warring, and shows no signs of change. That could very well be blockworthy. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 04:38, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Now [he] is putting words in my mouth. In an AFD, he said "TenPoundHammer's here because she was on Jeopardy! once, and TenPoundHammer has made it his mission to pare any Jeopardy!-related content from the encyclopedia. His edit record is becoming more and more littered with this nonsense." This false accusation is only more telling that Robert K S has some sort of vendetta against me. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 04:41, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

With regards to the "no logical explanation", there is an extensive record of explanation on the talk page for that article (see, especially, my remark of September 29). With regards to my history of "plowing through and reverting edits", it's a simple matter of BRD, which TenPoundHammer doesn't follow [88]. TenPoundHammer has myself and others spending extensive time keeping track of his mischief. This mischief has recently included speedying articles and IM'ing administrator buddies of his to deleting the articles within minutes and removing a holdon tag and a talk page notification to a user, then systematically wiping all other links and mentions to the articles from the encyclopedia (see his November 3, 2009 edits) and even going so far as to ask me to remove external links to the speedied articles. And it regularly includes wiping valid content related to Jeopardy! from the encyclopedia, without explanation, or submitting for deletion articles that are tangentially Jeopardy!-related. For example, just today he removed a valid category from John McCain, despite the explanatory code note [89], and nominated for deletion an article on a TV writer whose appearance on the show is a tangential part of her article. His recent participation in the official Jeopardy! message boards has had the effect of annoying the other participants with his complaints about his unfamiliarity with topics that appear on the show and his mentions of his cognitive-behavioral disorder. Obviously, I have no interest in making this personal, but TenPoundHammer's editing activities need to be reigned in. If he doesn't agree with some content, he ought to follow BRD; he should be barred, however, from going on purging sprees. Robert K S (talk) 04:43, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Wow. TL;DR much? You love to rant. Would it bother you to discuss a reverted edit? You're the one who got your rollback rights removed for editwarring, not me. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 04:49, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I got my rollback rights removed because I used them to revert an editor who had an agenda (someone intent on using Wikipedia for ethnic boosterism), and ran up against an administrator disinterested in seeing such reversions as the fighting of vandalism. The record and the timing also show that it wasn't for my edits that she revoked the credential, but rather for my challenging her. Nobody else seemed interested in the case, so I dropped it. It's not relevant here. Robert K S (talk) 05:02, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

The link above says otherwise, but whatev ... - Alison ^❤ 05:06, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

• TPH, what admin action are you looking for? Open an RFC if you like, but all I see here is a bunch of edit warring over game show articles. I see no attempt to discuss the edits you are here complaining about. Bold Revert Discuss. You boldly removed a lot of text; Robert K S reverted you; and instead of discussing at the article talk page, you reverted again. I advise both of you to disengage from the game show articles if you find yourself getting a bit too excited. This is not Dispute Resolution, or the place to carry on bickering about article content. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 04:46, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

• My concern is that Robert K S has a history of edit warring instead of discussing, and past attempts to discuss with him have gotten me absolutely nowhere. He continues to edit war without explaining his changes, and he needs to be stopped. He already had his rollback removed a while back for a reason; if I try to discuss, I just know he'll say something to the effect of "no, keep keep keep it, it's good information" without anything else. He's a vicious editor. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 04:49, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

And you want him blocked, is that it? Crafty (talk) 04:57, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Not unless it escalates. If he continues to edit-war with me even after my discussion of the matter on the talk page (I always stop at three), and if he continues to edit-war on every article he touches (as has been the case in the past), and if he continues to make blatantly false accusations about me and/or other editors, then maybe. It's not just about his edit-warring with me, but about his edit-warring with others in general. He has a history of edit-warring dating back at least a couple years, and all I really want him is to understand that his constant snippy demeanor, blatantly false accusations and blind reversion of content are detrimental. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 05:01, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Bobby, my edits aren't blind reversion of content. I provide edit summaries and extensive explanations where appropriate. You need to cool down on the Jeopardy! topic. You're just making a lot of destructive edits. Robert K S (talk) 05:05, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Well outside of blocking him (which I'm not suggesting should happen or should not happen) what admin action does 10lb want in this case? Crafty (talk) 05:08, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I need someone to explain in a tactful manner that his edits are detrimental, maybe give him a warning. Tact is not something I do well. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 05:13, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I have filed a WP:WQA on this guy. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 05:29, 11 November 2009 (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.

Admin help needed

I had just created a stub article about a former Syrian village. Without even asking User:Chesdovi merged it together with another article, about an Israeli settlement that was built on top of it. Can an admin please revert this? If not, how can I go from here with this complaint? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 12:44, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Content dispute. We can't help. You could try the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle - so far, Chesdovi is at Bold with no further movements - or you could just wait for Chesdovi to reply as you've not given them very long. ➜❝Redvers❞ 12:52, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah, it´s just the sort of thing Chesdovi likes doing ;) ..and you don´t need an admin to revert it; I´ve just done it. Ask Chesdovi to get consensus before he merge again. (He likes "merging" articles...and tagging articles as "non-notable", oh well...) Cheers, Huldra (talk) 12:54, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

It may (or may not) help to point Chesdovi over to WP:POTENTIAL. Viriditas (talk) 14:55, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

People have been building things over other things for about as long as people have been building things. Unless the former village had some particular notability, I don't see any reason for it to have a separate article. Nor do I think this is a content issue or an issue of consensus - if two places occupy the same locations, it is hard to make a legitimate case for having two separate articles. If it were otherwise, there would be multiple articles for every town or village that has ever seen a population change or a name-change. Do you want to open that can of worms, Huldra? Meowy 15:43, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Huh? I´m not sure of what can of worms Meowy is talking about. *We* are talking about villages which have been depopulated from 1948 and after, in some cased villages with centuries of documented history, which Chesdovi does not find notable. For example; two of the Palestinian villages which he recently tagged as non-notable ([90] and [91]).....were later developed into DYKS (see Talk:Dayr_Nakhkhas and Talk:Daliyat_al-Rawha'). Which is why I´m saying, well, what Supreme Deliciousness experienced is just what Chesdovi likes doing... Nothing to worry too much about. ;) Cheers, Huldra (talk) 16:07, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not talking about this insular little region - I'm talking about general principles. I normally edit articles related to Turkey and Armenia, often encountering articles on towns or villages that were 100% Armenian before 1915, which were abandoned for decades after the Genocide, and which are now 100% Kurdish or Turkish and have been given new names. I have never once come across anyone proposing that there should be two articles - one for the pre-1915 village and one for the present-day village. Meowy 16:14, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

In other words, you are talking about *another* insular little region ;) Anyway, when it comes to villages depopulated due to the Arab-Israeli-conflict; this has been discussed ad nauseum. Since there in general is not a one to one relationship (the land of one Arab/Palestinian village is now often used by, say, 2-3-4 different new Israeli settlements) ..the long fought-for consensus is that each depopulated village should/can have its own article, *as long as* there are RS sources for it. A consensus Chesdovi has had some trouble with, it seems. Cheers, Huldra (talk) 16:28, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

You make my case. You claim to have a little insular consensus for "Arab-Israeli-conflict" articles (though there is no such thing as a consensus, only a lull in conflict) and refuse take lessons from the wider world encompassing all Wikipedia articles that could help to resolve the issues permanently. Meowy 17:23, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

MoonHoaxBat

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Moonbatssuck/Archive

MoonHoaxBat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) Although he possibly should have been blocked, the stated reasons are bogus:

1. He shouldn't be blocked as a sock puppet, as he admitted the previous names, which had been blocked for user name violation. He claims to have checked the name with User:Jehochman.
2. Unless there were some deleted contributions, he didn't misuse his talk page. I can't tell if he misused E-mail, but he should certainly be allowed to E-mail ArbCom to appeal.

— Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:20, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I haven't looked at his specific contributions yet, but his previous names were a built-in editorial, and this one also hints at it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:27, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

It appears to be a single-purpose account, that purpose being to demean 350.org. That fact is reinforced by some of his comments on User talk:Jehochman where the current user ID calls opponents of his viewpoint "Moonbats". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:32, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm. Well, I still think he should be given an opportunity to select a proper name. The block reasons given are still only a user name violation, which usually results in a request to select a proper user name. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:46, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

It is a very new account indeed, and he HAS tried in good faith to change names. I'll have more to say in a moment, but Baseball_Bugs, are you sure about the comments? I don't see him using the phrase "moonbat" in that way, but if you have a diff that would help. He has modified his name to suggest a link to the moonbats of the Great Moon Hoax of 1835, and has disavowed an association with "liberals". If you have dif that shows otherwise, I'll certainly reconsider! —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 08:48, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

This edit [92] tells me everything I need to know about this guy's approach. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:52, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

In all sincerity, I do not understand your reaction to that edit. It actually looks very constructive to me. He is saying that his use of "moonbat" was not intended about liberals, and should only be offense to the moonbats of the Great Moon Hoax. That's why he uses MoonHoax-Bat, and had been doing so for a week before that edit. He suggests trying to find compromise. A number of other edits suggests he is completely sincere about the compromise. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 08:59, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

He says anyone who found his previous usernames offensive must be a Moonbat themselves. Hardly a constructive comment. Meanwhile, if he is actually a sock of an indef'd user, he can't be allowed to continue the same stuff, no matter what his ID is. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:12, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Um ... he said that only moonbats of the great moon hoax should be offended. He said this because he has explicitly made his name MoonHoaxBat, not MoonBat, and this is in line with previous comments on his choice of names. I think you have plenty of room to assume good faith here with that edit. I absolutely agree with your point about being a sock of a banned user, but I have so far seen no indication that this is actually the case. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 09:20, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Moonbatssuck (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) appears to be a sock for a banned user based on his initial edits. My guess is RJII. The Four Deuces (talk) 08:50, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

That editor last edited under that name in summer of 2006, but had recent sockpuppets. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:55, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

RJII (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/RJII/Archive

The user MoonHoaxBat (talk · contribs) has been changing their user name on the explicit advice and direction of other administrators. The final name chosen appears to have satisfied Admins working with this user. See the following exchange:

(An extract from this revision of User_talk:MoonHoaxBat at 16:28, 29 October 2009, before blanking:) Tried! User:Loonymonkey beat me to it. Once again, my two previous usernames were banned for being offensive to liberals. There was no way for me to edit again without creating a third name. The admins who blocked my previous name know about this. I could have sockpuppeted and been anonymous, but I took responsibility and was open about my previous names. --MoonHoaxBat (talk) 02:50, 29 October 2009 (UTC) That's an accurate representation, though the issue is not "offensive to liberals" as much as "likely to cause disruption and breach collegiality". It's best not to label editors at all. We're here to write neutral articles. We should all try to check our personal opinions at the door, and pick them up when we leave. Jehochman Talk 03:20, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

This user was previously advised, in an earlier incarnation, that they are abusing multiple accounts: WP:POINT, and they were told to pick an appropriate username, and stop WP:BAITing and WP:BATTLEing. See the block message on User:Idetestlunarbats. They then picked the third and current name, and have been using now for a week. The extract above suggests it was acceptable to Jehochman, who was the one who advised getting a new name. The users edit history is as follows:

1. As Moonbatssuck (talk · contribs), 34 live edits from 20:31, 27 Oct to 20:42, 28 Oct.
2. As Idetestlunarbats (talk · contribs), 11 live edits from 21:03, 28 Oct to 21:42, 28 Oct.
3. As MoonHoaxBat (talk · contribs), 115 live edits from 00:21, 29 Oct to 01:34, 8 Nov.

It seems to me that we have a new user who is in a catch-22 situation. They got off to a bad start, but they did want to start over. They did attempt to pick a new user name when directed. The attempt to start over is going to run into trouble with sock puppet investigations, but it is clear from the dates above that there was no attempt at sockpuppetry here... only an attempt to move to a new user name when directed. I've looked over the history a bit, and the name problem seems to be blown up out of all proportion. (I might be wrong, but that's my current impression.) However, it is always a bad idea to pick a user name that might be perceived by others as trying to make a point. Every edit then becomes also an implicit message about this point, and I think that is disruptive, and in violation of the spirit of WP:POINT. I suggest we try a new username yet again; one that can't be offensive or confused with the epithet moonbat.

1. Try using something that is plainly just a name. "Fred" is available.
2. Try using "Man-Bat". If it makes people think of anything, they'll think Batman; and furthermore the term man-bat was indeed used in the hoax of 1835. See this extract: Further observation of these curious creatures, [...] dubbed the “Vespertilio-homo, or man-bat,” followed., taken from Great Moon Hoax of 1835

—Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 09:27, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't matter. He's using "MoonBats" as a metaphor for liberals. I could use "Nazis" as a metaphor for conservatives, except they might not like that, except maybe the banned user Axmann8 who called himself a conservative but actually was a neo-Nazi and proud of it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:53, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I still haven't seen any diff to indicate that he intended to use moonbats in that way. Again; if there is a dif for this, then I shall reconsider in a heartbeat, but I would like to see evidence. He seems to have been pretty consistent in all incarnations that the moonbats of his username are the man-bats of the Great Moon Hoax of 1835, and not a reference to liberals at all. I have never seen him use "moonbat" in any other way. I'll keep looking, but if you have an actual dif, it would help. Otherwise I still see no reason not to assume good faith in this. I can be persuaded on this, but I do need evidence. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 10:06, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

In all three cases when the administrators refused to unblock they indicated disruptive editing as well as the account name for reasons not to unblock. Editors should not set up new accounts when they are blocked for disruptive editing. Moonbatssuck's first edits show evidence that he is not a "new user". His first edit was creating a new section with internal links and external references that show a level of experience.[93] His second edit was to revert back to his text[94] and his conversation shows an awareness of WP policies. His editing style seems very similar to RJII and his suspected socks. The Four Deuces (talk) 10:37, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Previous discussion is here. Jehochman did approve the name, with some reservations. The stuff about the moon hoax of 1835 is a ridiculous stretch. Moonhoaxbat ("Moonbat hoax") is an expression of global warming denial, insinuating GW as a hoax put over by moonbats.. 69.228.171.150 (talk) 11:58, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

• Broad agreement with the filing statement here: it is true that Jehochman OK'd this username after blocking the other accounts, and that no misuse of talk page privilleges appear to have occurred. At minimum, this suggests talk page access should be unblocked. Even if The Four Deuces suspicions are correct, nothing suggests RJII should be disallowed from on-wiki appeal to ArbCom if preferred. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:22, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I have come round on this issue. I've been looking over his edit history, in all three incarnations, and I believe he is disingenuous. The first reference to the Great Moon Hoax of 1835 that I can see was as "Idetestlunarbats" in this edit where he requests the unblock of that second name choice. He says: "I picked this one to clarify that I dislike the fictional lunar bats of the Great Moon Hoax, not liberals." That fails a basic sanity test; how can you dislike fictions man-bats of a 1835 hoax? This is a clear attempt at plausible deniability, and I withdraw my earlier comments about the name. The current name "MoonHoaxBat" is a better attempt at getting plausible deniability, but not enough. If he is allowed back at all, it should be with a completely new name with absolutely no relation to any variety of moon-bat.

Some of the comments he had made in some places, including WP:WQA where I first got sucked into this, looked very positive at first, such as his offer to withdraw from the page on 350, in this edit. I suspect now this too may have been disingenuous, and made mainly to try and force Ratel into a position of withdrawing as well, which was not appropriate.

His "apology" to Ratel was also insincere. It appears in this edit, as "Idetestlunarbats", in which he claims to be sincere in thinking Ratel would join him in a campaign to deal with "unofficial literature", and then this edit where he objects to be called on it and labeled disingenuous by Tanthalas39.

All told, there is enough circumstantial evidence for me to withdraw any support for the guy. Whether he is a sockpuppet or not, the edit history suggests letting him back will only lead to trouble.

As I said before, the three user names were attempts to change name, not sockpuppetry. I have no view on the suggestion of a link to earlier sockpuppets. Precisely what is appropriate in terms of strict justice, I do not know... but I'm withdrawing since pragmatically I suspect he's better not part of the project and I'm glad you guys are here to deal with this kind of stuff, so I can leave it in your hands. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 14:40, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Duae Quartunciae - we'd simply be asking for trouble by letting this user edit. Apart from that, it looks like moonbat is attempting forum shopping and trying to make threats. Recommend revoking talk page access and email access. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 17:01, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I do not believe that I have ever made any threats. If I did (since this was your basis for disabling my Talk page), please provide a diff.--FredUnavailable (talk) 18:30, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

This was what I saw going on in the SPI case. I saw a user, Moonbatssuck, rightly softblocked to change username. The person then tries to change the username to Idetestlunarbats and later to MoonHoaxBat. Including what was amounting to disruption on the 350.org pages, which as indicated above WP:POINT and WP:BAIT, I had to hardblock all three accounts. IMO, we can split hairs over whether this is considered sock puppetry (besides the fact that it popped up at SPI), but I felt the blocks I made were appropriate. I don't think the user was interested very much at all in being constructive. There's likely another sockmaster here (I don't know of whom), as Moonbatssuck's very first edit [95] indicates some good wiki-knowledge, including adding references, wikilinks, etc. MuZemike 17:56, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Now if the community wants to give the user a good faith attempt to come back (which I will honor if that is achieved, then the user can request unblock with the {{unblock-un}} and request a username change before considering unblocking him. MuZemike 18:02, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Since my talk page was blocked (for nothing), this is the only way I can communicate. I am willing to go with this name instead of anything having to do with the man-bats of the 1835 hoax, which apparently have a very strong lobby here. As a registered Democrat, I find all these insinuations about hating liberals to be laughable. I must be a real lib-hater, having voted for Carter/Mondale! There are no diffs to back any of it up. And then you're accusing me of being someone who last edited in 2006? Seems rather paranoid. It is possible that in the course of three years someone else came a long with a similar editing style. I agreed not to edit the 350.org page and did not do so again. Again, any diffs to the contrary? Then I was blocked. Blocking my user talk page is equivalent to telling a defendant that he can't defend himself. I wasn't even allowed to submit defending comments on the noticeboard in the minutes between the case being opened and closed. I have been constructive under the previous name and edited several articles, not just the 350 one. I was not DISRUPTIVE, anymore than Ratel (a massive POV purveyor)was disruptive. All I am asking is to be allowed to edit again. And before you bite my head off for being a "sockpuppet," ask yourself, how else can I appeal something if you've gagged my other name? I AM in a catch-22. I have offered many attempts at finding compromise at the 350 page, as you can see by my edits. I was the one told that I have Asperger's, was a Jihadist, Mujaheddin, etc. by RATEL. No discipline there? Isn't that kind of comment both more disruptive and offensive to our actual colleagues with Asperger's or of Islamic faith? Doesn't that created a hostile environment for certain users, by describing Muslims as stubborn nihilists and people with Asperger's as "unable to play nice?" I HAVE NEVER insulted liberals, environmentalists, global warming supporters, or any other group. Those are all projections based on a mistaken interpretation of my username. You have no evidence to support your prejudices, but you block me. You have pursued and bitten a newbie who has tried to make right off his earlier mistakes. I want to appeal this to ArbCom. How do I do that? Out of respect for the spirit of the sockpuppet rule, I will not be making edits unrelated to my appeal. I suppose you will all block me again, because there can be no appeals allowed for this Wikipedian. Banishment forever seems to be the preferred method of correction here.--FredUnavailable (talk) 18:05, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, only MoonHoaxBat had talk page access revoked (which I didn't do). Creating new accounts to state your appeal is not the right way to go here, I'm afraid. MuZemike 18:14, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Then forgive me, what IS the right way to state my appeal when my (MoonHoaxBat) user talk page was blocked? That's all I am trying to figure out.--FredUnavailable (talk) 18:18, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, you seemed to have been able to create a username that does not indicate disruption, so I don't think that is a problem. As far as the other issues I saw, I have to defer to what everyone else thinks should happen. MuZemike 18:25, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

That's fine. But I'm still unclear about how I should contact ArbCom. There is something on their page about sending an email, which I did. But I don't know what to send, etc. Is there a form or something that I fill out? I both want to appeal my block and ask for them to remove Ratel's prejudicial and hostile comments about people with Asperger's and Muslims. I am not looking for any discipline on that matter. Thank you,--FredUnavailable (talk) 18:33, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I think you should voluntarily refrain from any edits in any wikipedia articles except your own user space, and this discussion, until this discussion is complete. If you do make other edits, I would recommend a new soft block on your new account; not as punishment, but just as a way of avoiding disruption to the project until this is sorted, as provided in WP:CLEANSTART. You should not edit the encyclopedia while there is a block in place, and your block does legitimately restrict you on the basis of disruption, all consideration of identity aside. I'll comment some more shortly. I think we may be able to get this sorted and help you get a new and more constructive start. But you should be patient. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 21:17, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Understood. As I put earlier on my user page, I won't edit outside here or my user/talk page. I'll participate here (if permitted) and wait for the outcome. Thanks,--FredUnavailable (talk) 21:22, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

(out) This group of accounts shows a lot of similarites with RJII and suspected socks. The following is a summary of behavior that is usually shown by these accounts within the first 100 edits. (Compare for example with recently blocked account Default013). I am able to provide examples of this if required.

• Edit political articles about American liberal/conservative topics.
• Enter highly controversial material likely to draw immediate reaction.
• Edit war including violation of 3RR despite warnings
• Use dispute resolution, e.g., RfA, WQA, 3RR, involving maximum number of outside users.
• Extremely argumentative on talk pages.
• Pointy edits.
• Defend actions with ideosyncratic interpretations of WP policy.
• Defend errors as due to inexperience.
• Numerous appeals of blocks.
• Failure to use "Preview" button resulting in numerous consecutive edits.
• Lobbying of administrators.
• Statements that actions are intended to "avoid edit wars".
• Obvious mistakes rare even for new editors sometimes cited as evidence of inexperience.
• Highly persistent.
• Sometimes creates controversial usernames.

Since these accounts were clearly created by an experienced user and have been disruptive, I think we should determine whether they were created by a banned user. The Four Deuces (talk) 21:33, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Can we get a clear set of events here.

• This user had two names blocked because of the name, then hit on Moonhoaxbats, which Jehochman did indeed say was acceptable. So "abusing multiple accounts is not accurate as a block reason".
• Inappropriate username is not accurate either.
• The user then did do a lot of commenting on Talk:360.org. Was any of this blockable? I can't see any diffs suggesting it was, but maybe there are some and, if so, they should be provided.
• The user does not appear to have edited the 360.org article, as they agreed not to
• The user's talk page at Moonhoaxbats was then locked, for abuse which appears to be attempting to explain this [96]

Unless someone has some more information, this is a terrible block. If any user name containing the words "moon" and "bat" are really that unacceptable, then I would argue that Fred should be allowed to go on editing from the current username.Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:40, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with both the above comments. If this is a return of a banned user, then the ban should stay. The evidence seems a bit circumstantial to me, but the fact that the user is clearly familar with wikipedia should be explained. It is conceivably possible that the user has become familiar by using an IP, although it seems unlikely. A formal checkuser might be appropriate; I do not know the procedures. Can you simply ask the user how he knows so much? Can his answer be trusted? I note that he has been disingenuous under the most recent names so I am not inclined to give much leeway here.

On the other hand I also agree that the most recent ban was dubious. It isn't sockpuppetry with the three accounts actually named. There was a clear declaration of intent to change name, and it was done at the direction and awareness of an administrator. It is definitely not appropriate to block for sockpuppetry simply on the basis of "Moonbatssuck" and "Idetestmoonbats", and the case for a link to earlier accounts is so far rather a bit thin. A short block for disruption might have been legitimate, but this is not how it was recorded.

The user declares that they wish to raise formal complaints about user Ratel. I think the user should be instructed to do no such thing and to leave Ratel severely alone. No complaints, to anyone. Just drop it. Joining up just to pursue disputes is a terrible idea, and thr prior history with Ratel pretty much disqualifies the user from being a person who should make such complaints. Forget it. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 21:54, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I will not file a formal complaint in this case. I have faith that other Wikipedians will take up the issue of getting the offensive comments removed. As I've stated all along, I have no interest in "reporting" Ratel for the purpose of him being punished. I just think it is deeply disruptive to the project to have anti-Asperger's and anti-Muslim slurs left up on a Talk page. But I leave that up to others. I have no interest in engaging Ratel, and since I've withdrawn from the 350 page, I don't anticipate that happening.--FredUnavailable (talk) 22:34, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Unless somebody else comes up with something else that I'm currently unaware of, I'm fine with it. Please accept my apologies, Fred. MuZemike 22:44, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I am lurking on this thread. Could somebody with knowledge of RJII ask a checkuser if FredUnavailable == Moonhoaxbat == Default013 == RJII ? Jehochman ^Talk 22:29, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

If checkuser is run it should be between the recent four accounts and the three most recent suspected socks Introman (blocked Sept. 28), Dupledreux (blocked Oct. 14) and Default013 (blocked Oct. 22). The Four Deuces (talk) 23:27, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I am fine with any sort of Checkuser. I just read up on the process and I'm not really sure what it does beyond comparing IP addresses. I don't know if the user in question has a say in whether a Checkuser is done, but if so, I'm all for it. The only RJ11 I know is the old phone line kind. I just checked out the RJII pages and I'll admit that my Talk style is uncannily similar. The main difference, of course, being that I don't have any plans to start pages on "Jewish conspiracies." Sheesh. This places does attract some crazies. I don't want to be associated with any such user. Now I realize why you are all so concerned about me being him.--FredUnavailable (talk) 04:11, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Arthur Rubin actually commented on RJII four years ago.[97] And here is a lengthy discussion where Arthur Rubin opposed RJII in a lengthy dispute about a template that RJII had created. [98] The Four Deuces (talk) 05:27, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I have made a checkuser request at SPI.[99] The Four Deuces (talk) 06:09, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

The block log of MoonHoaxBat (talk · contribs) will need to be amended - talk page access will need to be granted back either way, while whether the block reason needs to be changed to username block (as opposed to sockpuppetry block) will depend on the results of that SPI. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:23, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

The RJII pages claim that he and his pals are from Philadelphia. I have never been to Philadelphia, so I'm confident that a basic IP comparison will back me up.--FredUnavailable (talk) 15:55, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

If the CU results are inconclusive (and they very well might be), my suggestion is to give Fred enough rope to hang himself, and see if he actually does. If he doesn't, no harm done. Even if the initial username choices were done in an attempt to be deliberately provocative (which might be the case), he seems to have given that up and absent any other actual disruption I don't see how a further block is justified. -- Atama頭 21:06, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)

How long does it take to do checkuser? This has been left hanging now for quite a while, and that is unfair on FredUnavailable (talk · contribs). Effectively he has a longer block than really warranted by the original disruption. Can this either be wrapped up, or the block removed in the time being? I am sure several people will be watching and that a recurrence of problem will get picked up in short order. But in thre meantime, I agree with Atama (talk · contribs) that the ongoing block is no longer justified. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 23:20, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

CU concluded. FredUnavailable has a clean block log. However, the errors on MoonHoaxBat's account, in the meantime, should be fixed so that this can be marked resolved - the block log rationale (socking) is not justified in light of the facts raised in this thread, CU has confirmed Fred Unavailable is not related to RJII, and user talk page access should no longer be disabled. Can an admin sort that out please? Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:16, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I have no official role in this, but I have taken a fairly active unofficial role. I propose to leave a friendly "welcome back" on Fred's talk page and let him know that he can use the account freely again. I will still advise him to forget entirely the disputes he got involved with while using his earlier accounts, and to make a clean start. I'll do this in an hour or two; unless there is a reason given here for not doing this. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 09:55, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

OK. I have posted a message for FredUnavailable. this edit. I have said that I think there is no longer any problem with him using this account, and that it would be a good idea to start with a clean slate, and not worry about old disputes he had under previous accounts. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 12:08, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Andy Scott Harris

Resolved. No administrator intervention is necessary. User is new and needs protocol explained. Karanacs (talk) 21:57, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Andy Scott Harris is an autobiography or a biography created by the subject's mother, SPA Dharris1844. It was properly tagged with the COI template, which the Dharris1844 removed. Dharris1844 then voted twice in AfD to keep the article. I suspect that Dharris1844 does not understand Wikipedia's rules, but her conduct is very disruptive. Please help. Racepacket (talk) 00:03, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Not sure admin intervention is needed at this point. — Jake Wartenberg 00:15, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Tendentious editing?

Could someone please review the recent edits and talk page comments of User:Som123. I am concerned we have an excessively passionate campaigner for The Truth!!! and they have been removing referenced material from articles they don't agree with, [100] and leaving threatening messages on talk pages [101] and [102]. I honestly know nothing about the topic at hand, but had noticed some section blanking while on Recent Changes Patrol, and browsing through this users editing history raised some red flags. He may have valid points, or he may be completely wrong, but either way his behavior is interfering with anyone from working collaboratively on the articles he has been frequenting, and I fear that the articles will suffer from this sort of tendentious editing if it continues. --Jayron32 06:47, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

proof this user has been notified of this discussion --Jayron32 06:47, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Excessively passionate campaigner for The Truth has been page blanking for some time (2 dozen times approx.) in the Nair article. He is actually removing sourced data which he suspects is against his own political orientation (Communist Party). If you cross check the references, you can see that they are unbiased and truthful as per the Wiki policy. Also, please look in to some of his other edits, like this one. I have no idea how an exit poll by a well known and respected news source such as The Hindu (Don't care about the name, the daily is actually a very left-leaning one politically) can be biased as per the Wiki policy. I think we should stick to writing the truth rather than bending it for political correctness. However I am willing to remove any content if it offends anyone. I purposefully left out controversial issues like the forceful circumcission of Nairs by the Muslims in 1789-1791 period just because of this. And finally, the user has been using his IP as a sock with 164.100.1.17. Axxn (talk) 10:33, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Of course a communist raised red flags, what other flags would he raise? In any case, this editor wrote, "Anything which is printed and published as a book is not to be considered the truth. The accepted writings which are authenticated by university-approved research only can be considered as refernces." Making up your own rules in violation of WP:RS is a big no-no. I don't see a bright and happy future for this editor on Wikipedia. -- Atama頭 22:21, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Request for intervention against Hullabaloo Wolfowitz

This is a formal complaint against Hullabaloo Wolfowitz and a a request to have him blocked from the page "Amy Grant" (reasons below). Wolfowitz is a user who has exhibited a longtime pattern of destructive work clearly in violation of the purpose and mission of wikipedia. Specifically, he has recently repeatedly made erratic, destructive changes to my work on a wiki page, "Amy Grant".

His User Discussion page has over 140 sections of complaints against him and his/her work on wikipedia. Yes- over 140. This is a clear, obvious pattern. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Hullaballoo_Wolfowitz

The complaints are too numerous to mention. The user even admits that he has had trouble following wikipedia policy and has been hounded by editors for his erratic and destructive edits to pages. A quote from his User page: "Hullaballoo Wolfowitz is back after a long absence. And after a longer period of silence. I do not know how long I will stay this time. The last time I did what I could to follow policy. But I was regularly hounded by aggressive editors because they did not want to. Perhaps things will go better this time. I have watched discussions and arguments for months."

I request that H. Wolfowitz be blocked from editing the Amy Grant page.

Here is the Amy Grant History page with the latest of the attacks on my work: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Amy_Grant&action=history

I am a professional journalist, and this User is running me away from wikipedia. I feel his work is damaging and destructive to wikipedia, to the fine editors and volunteers who create wikipedia, and to its purpose and mission. He is vandalizing pages and apparently is not even willing to discuss these things. I have asked repeatedly to discuss edits with him to no avail.

Thank you for your assistance. I also edit under the name Relax777 (and if that is a problem, I am glad to delete that account and stick with this account.) Dougmac7 (talk) 07:39, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Right, so I'll address the Wolfowitz situation shortly, but so you don't get yourself into any other trouble, go read WP:SOCK and get your accounts in order. Frmatt (talk) 07:42, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Having taken a look at the accounts and edits in question, I have two comments...First, when I made the comment above, I thought that you had pretty much retired the Relax777 account...but you haven't. Therefore, I would recommend at this point that you be blocked for socking until you figure out which account you want to use and go through the appropriate process to do that. Secondly, I would suggest that you take the content dispute back to the article talk page and sort it out there. If you have concerns about a specific user, you could consider starting a Request for Comment/User (RfC/U). Oh...and I'll notify Wolfowitz for you. Frmatt (talk) 07:57, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

And because you continue to edit under both accounts at the same time, I'm on my way to WP:SPI to report you as you obviously didn't read WP:SOCK or else you don't understand it. Frmatt (talk) 08:01, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to utilise crazy stuff here, like common sense, but is there any evidence Dougmac has actually seen your posts here? His last contributions were before you started posting. Perhaps it would be good to say, give a new user more than twenty minutes to see and become familiar with the socking policy before you start asking for blocks? Honestly, this is WP:BITE to the extreme. Ironholds (talk) 12:23, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

And additional, he hasn't "continued" to edit under both at the same time. His last edit on this one was before your posts, his last edit as Relax was yesterday. Are you seeing something here I'm not? Ironholds (talk) 12:24, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand the sockpuppet accusation here. Frmatt, are you suggesting that simply using more than one account is sockpuppetry? The user has admitted that they control both accounts. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:23, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I've dropped some advice on User talk:Dougmac7#Multiple_accounts. As both his accounts had edited the same talkpage I think an explanation of our sockpuppetry policy was in order. ϢereSpielChequers 15:56, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Let me add a few points. This is not a new user; the Relax777 account has been active for more than two years, and has some unusual editing habits, including creating pages, then nominating them for deletion shortly thereafter; it also maintained an unsourced attack page on a named person in userspace (which was speedied earlier today on my nomination). The Dougmac7 account was created just a few days ago, and has been used as a "bad hand" account (for example, vandalizing my user page) and as a means of exaggerating support for his/her side in an editing dispute at Amy Grant. The use of multiple accounts was not admitted until after other socking issues related to the Dougmac7 account were raised on the Amy Grant talk page.
The edits involved in the Amy Grant dispute generally involve the insertion of unsourced/unreliably sourced promotional claims, sometimes borderline copyvios, into the article. For example, this edit [103] added this sentence to the article's lede: "She is the first Christian artist to have a platinum record, the first to have a #1 pop song and the first to perform at the Grammys. It is sourced only to the artist's promotional bio page, which includes this sentence: "She surely did that, achieving such breakthroughs as being the first Contemporary Christian artist to have a platinum record, the first to hit #1 pop and the first to perform at the Grammys." In fact, one of the earliest edits out of the Relax777 account [104] added unsourced promotional/peacock text to that article: "Grant is considered one of the true pioneers of Gospel and Contemporary Christian music. Her influence on Gospel music and the Christian culture in the United States and beyond is sweeping and pervasive. She is widely considered one of the most important, influential public figures in the Christian world today." If the user is going to make promotionally toned edits like this, he/she should expect to have his edits reverted or heavily revised, as he/she is editing a BLP in violation, if not defiance, of core policies like BLP, NPOV, RS and V. As the little note underneath the "Save page" button says, "f you do not want your writing to be edited, used, and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here" -- a point that's particularly important when the submitted writing ignores key content policies.
The new Dougmac7 should be permanently blocked as a sock. Relax777 should be strongly warned, if not sanctioned/restricted, for both sockpuppetry and for harassing an editor (myself) who was doing no more than implementing mandatory content policies on articles where his/her accounts had violated them. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:26, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Having looked at this again in the morning, I did not read the edit summary properly, and misread the times. That was my fault, and I will freely admit to that. That doesn't excuse the fact that this user is using two accounts to edit the same articles, talk pages, and violating WP:SOCK by using one account to support the other as evidenced here and here. Dougmac7/Rleax777's socking violates three of the first five points about inappropriate sock puppetry. Since this user has been around for two years, and the first accusation of sockpuppetry did not come from me, but from a user on the article talk page two days ago, then I believe they have had more than adequate time to respond to the accusations. Frmatt (talk) 16:43, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

And for the record...thanks to SpielChequer for explaining the socking policy to the user, I was probably a little overzealous in filing the SPI last night...and in my earlier comments this morning. I stand by the content, but not necessarily the tone. If the user can show that they have read and understood the socking policy, then I'll withdraw the SPI. Frmatt (talk) 16:54, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I support the comments of Hullaballoo in this matter. The user Relax777/Dougmac7 has made a frivolous complaint, and does not understand normal wikipedia editing conventions. Their edit comments and discussion at Amy Grant indicate problems with WP:OWN and possibly also WP:COI (see comment with this edit), inappropriately demand all changes (by other people, I presume!) have to be discussed before being enacted (this edit), and inappropriately demand credentials from Hullaballoo to justify his editing of the article at all (this edit). They have artificially inflated their numbers by using the two accounts AND by importing with copy-edit material from another editor out of Hullaballoo's page (from here) and into the Amy Grant page (this edit). Hullaballoo has been working well in the normal WP:BRD cycle, and his edits have helped maintain the quality of the biography as encyclopedic rather than as a puff-piece. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 18:11, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you to those who have responded with constructive input and advice. To those who have an agenda of their own (and not wikipedia's) and those who randomly join in to attack my stance and try to "win", you are spinning your wheels, my friends. Wow, we finally hear from Wolfowitz. The guy who acts like he owns Wikipedia- and runs off people like me (and the numerous other editors he has hounded in violation of the spirit of wikipedia, I might add, which is just as important as the letter.) I will be the first to humble myself. I apologize for my mistakes. I honestly do not spend much time editing on wiki and therefore do not know all the policies. I certainly want the best for wikipedia and all those involved. I have read the sock policy. I have retired the relax777 account. I have invited Wolfowitz to discuss things with me on the Amy Grant talk page. As I hope you can see, I always try to have the right intentions. When someone deliberately hounds my work in a mysterious, erratic fashion (about one week ago, he immediately undid and flagged the only two posts I have done in several weeks- very odd indeed!), and when I see that there are 140 sections of complaints against that volunteer, I defend myself and my work. That reminds me. In all the responses above, no one has addressed the 140 sections of complaints against Wolfowitz (on his user discussion page) and his longtime pattern of erratic actions. IMHO his actions and style are profoundly destructive to wikipedia and the spirit, letter and intent of this outstanding project and movement. Come to think of it, I do not think I will be spending much time on wiki in the future. Life is too short to waste it dealing with the Wolfowitz's of the world. Dougmac7 (talk) 03:51, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

To let everyone know, after looking at this case on SPI, I have indefinitely blocked Relax777 and blocked Dougmac7 for 3 days. Both accounts were used in tandem for disruptive purposes. MuZemike 05:35, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

After having read the entire thread above and the actions taken, I don't think I made a very good block at all and has decided to unblock Dougmac7 in good faith that he won't do this again. I'm going to keep Relax777 blocked, however, just to make sure. MuZemike 06:14, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Sal the Stockbroker (again)

To add to this i have made a complaint against user Wolfowitz and his constant redirecting of articles he claims that are BLP violations. When he does this he will not talk about it at all and takes it upon him slef to revert things that have been fixes as in Sal the Stockbroker so i also 2nd any action done against him 98.117.34.180 (talk) 03:24, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

In this case, I agree. This redirect by Hullaballoo without discussion of a long standing article was completely inappropriate. The redirect goes to a tiny subsection within a completely different article for the Howard Stern show. That's way over the line.

By the way, 98.117.34.180; are you already a party to this discussion under a registered name? If so could you identify yourself so we don't get confused? If not, then welcome to the bun fight and thanks for the input in either case. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 03:39, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I have now looked at this a bit more thoroughly, and made this a subsection for Sal the Stockbroker (again). The account given by 98.117.34.180 (talk) omits some relevant information. He has twice previously brought up this same issue. The archived discussions can be found at:

• WP:BLP/Noticeboard/Archive73 section Sal the Stockbroker; issue raised at 17:13, 23 Oct by 98.117.34.180 (talk)
• WP:AN/IncidentArchive572 section Sal the Stockbroker; issue raised at 17:34, 23 Oct by 98.117.34.180 (talk)

Both discussions show only support for the redirect, and the actions of Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk · contribs); with the proviso that edit warring is never appropriate. There was a specific admonishment for future reference given to 98.117.34.180 which I copy here also:

(Copied from this edit by Nil Einne (talk) at WP:BLP/N, 06:19, 25 Oct) In future, please DO NOT post the same issue in multiple places unless you have waited sufficient time. If you do have to post it in multiple areas make sure you link between both discussions or better keep one place as the primary place for discussion and simply ask people to visit there

I still think that when a long established page is entirely replaced with a redirect to a different page, and then the redirect is reverted, no-one should revert back again to redirect without explicitly discussing the reasons in the talk page. Edit summaries are not sufficient. 98.117.34.180 (talk) had asked for reasons in the talk page as appropriate, and no-one involved ever responded there. That was poorly done, however sensible the redirect.

I have now added a comment at the talk page pointing to these two archive discussions, and would request people to actually use the talk page if this continues at all. Hullaballoo seems to be doing good work, but it would be better he was a bit better at working with people he disagrees with and explaining his actions at a talk page if they have been reverted, in line with WP:BRD. However, this is not a venue for dispute resolution. I don't see any need for administrator intervention here. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 07:30, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

One quick response; I'll try to get back here later, and I apologize in advance for any curtness resulting from my haste. Despite what 98.117.34.180 claims, I did replay to his question, and he never responded. The exchange is on my talk page [105], where I responded to him about fifteen minutes after he posted. He didn't participate in any further dialogue with me. I didn't, and still don't, see any need to crosspost everywhere he posted the same question. The editor is posting out of at least two different IPs, making it difficult to keep track of his posts, so it's not easy for anyone who "came in late" tocatch everything that was going on. I'd also suggest taking a look at the history of this article, Vomiting, which ended up protected for a while because of the 98.-anon's edit warring to insert edits which the protecting admin characterized as vandalism, and which multiple users strongly objected to. Given several other of his typical requests, eg asking for explicit illustrations for Diarrhea[106] and Menstrual cycle [107], I'd say he's got more interest in the scatalogical/cloacal than in improving the encyclopedic aspects of Wikipedia. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:32, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

As I said, after looking over this I think you are doing good work at wikipedia. In line with the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, I think that you should make a brief comment on the talk page of an article if an edit you make has been reverted and you want to continue to work on the problem. For example, at Sal the Stockbroker:

1. Your initial redirect was this edit at 04:17, 17 Oct (bold, by HW)
2. The first revert was this edit at 16:48, 23 Oct (revert, by 98.117.40.154)
3. A revert to redirect was this edit at 16:58, 23 October 2009 (the start of edit warring, by HW, rather than discuss)
4. A discussion at talk page with this edit at 16:59, 23 Oct (by 98.117.40.154, this is what HW should have done himself rather than re-revert)

There IS an issue here with proper wikiquette. The usual procedure, in line with WP:BRD, would have been for you to start the discussion at the talk page yourself, rather than simply make the re-revert at 16:48, 23 Oct. Note that by this time, no alerts had been raised and no discussion joined. AFTER this we had the reverse problem of trying to discuss too much in too many places. Here are the multiple venues at which the issue was raised in rapid succession by 98.117.40.154:

1. at 16:59, 23 Oct, article talk page. (appropriate)
2. at 17:13, 23 Oct, BLP noticeboard. (premature?)
3. at 17:16, 23 Oct, talk page of Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (appropriate)
4. at 17:34, 23 October 2009, Administrators' noticeboard (highly premature!)

The notice given at Hullaballoo's talk page is a cordial and very appropriate request for Hullaballoo to give his reasons for the redirect at the article talkpage, and he should have complied. Hullaballoo, I echo that request, for future reference. I note you have done that now; thanks! But for future reference, when someone reverts changes you have made to an article, and you restore them again, can you please also make it your normal procedure to put a brief comment at the article talk page, rather than rely on edit summaries alone. This is good practice per WP:BRD, and it will also help with dispute resolution if people complain about your edits in future. Give the nature of BLP issues, it is pretty much inevitable you are going to get objections to your work. So please do use the article talk pages when reverts are starting to occur. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 02:54, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

There are too many complaints against this user for the matter to be swept under the carpet. I do not believe that a collaborative approach entails one person undoing other people's work and not doing very much else. This is more dictatorial than working with people (I have pointed this out on his discussion page, but it may be that he sees complaints against him as marks of achievement). At the very least this user's edits should be watched and analyzed. Michaelbarreto (talk) 12:05, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I second that. I started this section, and obviously H. Wolfowitz is causing major problems here on wikipedia. As I mentioned above, no one has addressed the 140 sections of complaints against this Wolfowitz. I request that someone in authority address them and these issues brought up in this section.

William S. Saturn

I was wondering if a level-headed administrator might look into the contributions of William S. Saturn (talk · contribs). William has been relentless in his assertions that the Fort Hood shootings were a terrorist attack and the individual suspected, Nidal Malik Hasan a terrorist. He has been repeatedly warned about WP:BLP and WP:NPOV but has not altered his behavior and has edit-warred to push this opinion. I just ask that somebody look into this and respond accordingly. Grsz¹¹ 23:49, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

For context, William S. Saturn is the same as this guy. I believe (though I stand open to correction) that he started a new account, and after some period of productive editing (six months?) outed himself, and in view of his good editing nobody re-blocked. He generates a lot of good content, but in light of his past socking he should be on a short leash. Steve Smith (talk) 23:54, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Can you provide a diff of the "outing"? --4wajzkd02 (talk)

Here's the thread in which his sock drawer was uncovered. Here's the thread where he outed himself. His story is that the "sockpuppets" were actually another member of his household. I'll leave it to others to evaluate its believability. Steve Smith (talk) 02:41, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

That is not true. There was an AN post on that issue from a few months ago. That was not my account(s). --William S. Saturn (talk) 00:06, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Would you please provide a diff of the AN thread? I ask this, and the above, so that it can be documented as a non-issue. WP:SOCKing is a bad thing, and you shouldn't have to be concerned with such an accusation considering it is, as you state, resolved as not an issue. --4wajzkd02 (talk)

Note that WSS has also been relentless at trying to add the Fort Hood shooting, and Mr. Hasan, to List of terrorist incidents, 2009, which is now protected due to his relentlessness. PhGustaf (talk) 02:33, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah, he's not so bad. I've seen POV-pushers here that could run rings around that guy. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:37, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

And edit-warring, which should have earned a block already. Grsz¹¹ 02:36, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

What is the point of this tread, other than giving an outlet for a few editors to vent? --William S. Saturn (talk) 02:39, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

To explore whether you should be blocked for edit-warring and general disruption. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:44, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not venting, I'm trying to help remove the accusation of WP:SOCKing that's on the table. --4wajzkd02 (talk) 02:46, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

The old "a member of my household" story[108] as noted by Steve Smith above. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:52, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I find this of great concern. WP:My little brother did it is not an excuse for WP:SOCK. Notwithstanding the user's behavior brought forward by this discussion (which is a separate concern), should not the issue raised by brought to WP:SPI? --4wajzkd02 (talk) 03:13, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

There it is. --William S. Saturn (talk) 02:54, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

There what is? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:00, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I'm done with this thread. --William S. Saturn (talk) 03:02, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

As a note, I can't see that he has edited Nidal Malik Hasan. Protonk (talk) 03:21, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

That's a new(er) article. Relevant pages here include:

• List of terrorist incidents, 2009, where William edit-warred to include the event and suspect, forcing full protection.
• Fort Hood shooting, where he has added and readded (most certainly breaking WP:3RR) to include categories labeling the event and suspect as terrorism/terrorist.
• Talk:Political positions of Barack Obama, where he initiated a WP:POINTy discussion basing his position to add something to the article on an OpEd that labeled the event as terrorism.
• Fort Hood terrorist attack, a POV redirect.

Consensus at all of this pages has been against the POV that William has expressed. He is using opinion pieces as the basis of his argument and refuses to comply to or accept the importance of relevant policy such as WP:BLP and WP:NPOV. As far as the socking issue goes, if it is true (I haven't looked into it) then escalating blocks are appropriate. Grsz¹¹ 04:56, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll leave the sock issues to the side as I have not looked into that. I'm involved in the Fort Hood shootings article and debates so cannot act here as an uninvolved administrator, however I think William is editing in an extremely tendentious fashion with respect to this "it was terrorism" idea. There is simply no consensus among involved editors to refer to this shooting as a terrorist incident at this time, and William does not seem to be able to respect that. ANI is not for content disputes, but it would be nice if an admin could talk to William on his talk page and ask him to let go of this issue for awhile since continually pressing it is arguably becoming disruptive at this point. I've previously discussed some problematic editing patterns with William on his talk page (several months ago, on a basically unrelated matter) and he was receptive to the advice, so perhaps a neutral admin could step in here if they are in agreement with the editors above who are seeing a problem. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 08:24, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I've just taken a gander through his recent contributions, and he appears to have ceased (or at least dramatically slowed) making reversions to the articles in question. Without speaking to the sock issues, I think his present behavior has become more productive. I'm not going to go through each talk page post, but he appears to be discussing, rather than edit warring, at the moment. Do we still need admin action here? Jclemens (talk) 17:26, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

William has decreased activity. However, other users (Bachcell (talk · contribs)) have been more active and may need warnings of WP:BLP. Grsz¹¹ 17:29, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

What about the sock issues? Are they actionable? --4wajzkd02 (talk) 18:55, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Khanate of Erevan

Please see page above, it has been the site of edit warring by user Grandmaster, who is apparently on probation from topic editing/reverting on Armenia-Azerbaijan articles per arbitration. Has aggressively reverted and removed cited and justifiable information for POV purposes. Has failed to justify his edits on the topic, and soon after he reverts, anonymous IPS revert to his version or other meatpuppeting Azerbaijani editors. Please look at this page carefully, and recitify. Preferably against user's right to approach topic and protection from anons, as a result of negative language in his edit summaries and essentially vandalism of pages. Fazeri (talk) 19:04, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I have notified Grandmaster (talk · contribs) of this thread. GiantSnowman 19:07, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

The background to this is a far wider conflict caused by uncertainty over the use of alternative names, a conflict and uncertainty made worse by the lack of guidelines about what that section of an article should contain. The arguments are often not really about whether content is valid or not, but whether it is valid to place the content in the "alternative names" section. I would welcome some intelligent administrator advice about how to initiate discussion towards hammering out some guidelines and rules that could be applied to all wikipedia articles, and about what sort of forum that discussion should take place in. Also see this discussion on Grandmaster's talk page: [109] Meowy 20:11, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

It is quite obvious that Fazeri (talk · contribs) is just another sock of User:Hetoum I, who has been involved in massive disruption in arbitration covered area for years. As one can see from the history of Khanate of Erevan, Fazeri reverted the article to the version of Brunotheborat, the known sock of Hetoum, and then reported me here, to mislead people about what is going on. It is funny that he accuses me of using anon IPs to edit war, while all the IPs were in fact socks of Hetoum and reverted the article for him. An admin action is necessary to prevent further disruption by this person. The above report is apparently a retaliation for my report here: [110] As one can see, yesterday Hetoum's ban was extended to 1 year, but since he evaded it again with yet another sock, Fazeri, I think it is time to consider the indefinite ban, since this user is going to defy the arbitration enforcement. Grandmaster 07:15, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it does seem quite suspicious that Fazeri (the suspected sock) reverted to the same version as the confirmed sock. Recommend that a CU check into this case. GlassCobra 02:48, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

The CU confirmed that Fazeri was the banned user Hetoum evading his ban, the sock account is blocked. [111] Grandmaster 05:32, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Valeska Suratt

There's a disagreement between User:Wildhartlivie and myself over the admittance of an External Link in the Valeska Suratt article. The link is from a site Forgetthetalkies.com which is supposed to be a site that is on a 'spamlist'. I have no idea of what the previous site to Forgetthetalkies is, or whether the site was a spam site as Wildhartlivie claims. Wildhartlivie says the owner of the site was called Maggiedane and changed his/her name to LalaPickford. Wildhartlivie does not explain how he knows this. The present site , Forgetthetalkies, offers accurate information on subject of Valeska Suratt. The present site appears as a responsible & researched page and offers useful and helpful information to the film researcher. So I can't figure as to why Wildhartlivie reverts this link which appears as a different site from any previous site full of erroneous info or spam. Wildhartlivie, from what I've observed, picks and chooses 'what he thinks' is permissible or appropriate. That's not acceptable in editing Wikipedia is it not? Personal opinions and grievances must be left off editing Wikipedia. A previous example of Wildhartlivie clashing with information I submitted, was information concerning Jean Harlow and her involvement with Howard Hughes and that she had had an abortion of Hughes's baby. The Harlow info came from a published work but Wildhartlivie declared the published author as unreliable. Who is he to say? Is this 'personal choice' thing by users and editors a new trend in Wikipedia? I couldn't find any reason why the 'new' Forgetthetalkies website link couldn't be added to the Valeska Suratt External Links section regardless of the goings on or irresponsibility of any previous website. Well thank you, Ill appreciate any input to settle matter once and for all. Koplimek (talk) 20:17, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I haven't read the past discussions or looked at the website yet. But for reference for others, here are links to the past discussions that I could find. Additional uses of the link can be found here.

• Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 30#Forget the Talkies
• Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard/Archive 7#Hollywood Babylon/FTT

--- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:27, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the material Barek supplied, & considering that this is about whether to add one external link to an article, I'd say (1) this is not linkspam, & (2) because it is to a list of movies that this actress is believed to have appeared in (all of which no longer exist & which is identical to the list at IMDB), I'm not too concerned whether the intent of WP:NOR is being violated here. Moreover, this is a content dispute which really does not belong here; at the most, someone could inform Wildhartlive that she/he is misusing the term "linkspam", & tell you that Wildhartlive should use the reason "duplicate information" for removing this link. You can pursue a resolution for this thru the steps in Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, but frankly if I were you I'd drop this matter & move on to another article. Life is short & there's a lot of work on Wikipedia in need of being done. -- llywrch (talk) 21:42, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) It would be, at the least, common courtesy if an editor is notified when something is posted here about them. It would also be extremely helpful if someone would stop italicizing my username as if it were something disdainful. I tried to explain clearly that this website, which is a blog, was added to the spamlist after it was repeatedly spammed into multiple articles by the site owner, who uses two different usernames here, User:Maggiedane and User:Thegingerone, and who admitted in the WP:NOR/N and WP:RS/N posts above to being the owner. I also noted that on the blog in question, the same person goes by the username HalaPickford and offered to give him the links that confirm this. Maggiedane also confirmed her ownership of the site which was spammed into dozens of articles on Koplimek's talk page, along with an incivil personal attack to me. I'm really sorry that the site owner finds this personal, but whatever. She was denied both MedCab and ArbCom filings for much the same issue regarding spamming of the website, during which one Arbcom member commented that "From what I can see here, the request for comment should be made on Maggiedane and her edits." Personally published self-researched sites don't fall under WP:RS guidelines, and they specifically fall under WP:ELNO. Calling me a bully and telling me to bite her [112] does not change that. Forgetthetalkies is not a new website, nor did I ever state that, however it is a self-published, non-vetted opinion blog. I also told Koplimek that the identical content, the filmography for Surratt, is available from a reliable source at Moviefone. In short, there is no valid reason to retain a link to a blogspot page that duplicates content available on a site considered a reliable source. That's it in a nutshell. As for the Harlow content, Koplimek made one post to the article, here, which contained controversial content, and did not add a citation to the article, but only in an edit summary, which I reverted here, specifically noting "this sort of content absolutely MUST be sourced *in the article* and not just in an edit summary." Similar uncited content was posted to Marlene Dietrich, Rita Hayworth and Howard Hughes. I also posted to his talk page, including links to learn how to properly cite content, which resulted in a protracted discussion [113] [114] in which he basically dismissed the idea that content about a notable actress having an abortion is controversial because it was published in a source, without citing the source. There was never a discussion about whether a source was reliable, that is simply misrepresentation of the discussion. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:08, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

(ec) I took the liberty of notifying Wildhartlivie after reading this post here. I'm not involved in the dispute on the Valeska Suratt, but I'd like to comment on the Forgetthetalkies link as I have removed it from several different articles myself. As Wildhartlivie has stated above, the link has been the subject of discussions on several different occasions because of its inclusion on various articles here. User:Maggiedane first attempted to use it as a source while also adding it as an external link. Aside from that, Maggiedane has freely admitted that she not a published authority on the topic(s) and has a clear COI regarding the link(s). These actions are what led to the finally being blacklisted. Wildhartlivie certainly is not the only editor to remove the link because it simply does not belong here, she's just the one catching heat for it. Further, the only user making this "personal" is Maggiedane and that is evident from the various personal attacks she has made against Wildhartlivie. Since she comments here so infrequently, I suppose she assumes she can get away with it and has been correct in that assumption so far. That said, I fully agree that this issue doesn't belong on AN/I and proper dispute resolution steps should have been taken first before bringing the matter here. Pinkadelica^♣ 23:53, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Constant unsourced information

Resolved

EddieRox (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - following his last block here this user has shown himself unable to enter into dialogue about his edits, which are entirely and remorselessly adding unsourced information to articles. I've just spent ten minutes clearing up his latest mess; block of at least a fortnight requested, plus a strongly-worded note from an admin. Thanks. ╟─TreasuryTag►Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster─╢ 21:22, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

How weird. This user has never made any edit to any talk space or user space content. It looks minor at first glance, but I can see this must be frustrating. Have a look at the edit count via Soxred93's edit counter tool. There are 111 live edits, with a few in 2007 and al the rest just recently; and all edits are in article space. The edits don't look like vandalism, but they get reverted and he never discusses. Never seen anything like it. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 23:34, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

So... can an administrator respond to this, perhaps? Thanks. ╟─TreasuryTag►ballotbox─╢ 06:52, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Please? ╟─TreasuryTag►Speaker─╢ 17:24, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Hm, since he has been previously blocked for inserting silly unsourced content into articles, has not reacted to this in any way, and now continues to insert silly unsourced content into articles, I've blocked him for a week. Please report to AIV, with reference to this section, or to me should he carry on after his block.  Sandstein  19:39, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I initially did report to AIV, but was told to bring it here :P ╟─TreasuryTag►constabulary─╢ 19:40, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Alex Jones (radio host) and BLP

Could someone explain what's wrong with this redacted version of an edit removed by User:Gwen Gale. I don't want to bring a 3RR violation against Gwen, without understanding his reasoning, but it does seem appropriate. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:52, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I dont see any problem with this at all. talk page comments are considered sacred on wikipedia (too bad the same can't be said about articles) Ikip (talk) 22:55, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

You're mistaken. Unsourced negative content about living persons anywhere on en.Wikipedia is a violation of WP:BLP. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:57, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Gwen, did you notice Arthur redacted the part that could be taken for a BLP violation in his last edit? I have a hard time seeing why the last edit of his was reverted, except that it wasn't immediately clear that he'd redacted the snide comment, and you though he had just reverted you. I assume it isn't this simple to solve... --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:01, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

He did not redact the BLP violation. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:03, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, he redacted the borderline part; I don't think what was left is a BLP violation. Once the "and he sort of is" was removed, the original poster isn't saying Alex Jones is a conspiracy theorist (and worse), he's saying that's what our article is saying at the moment. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:07, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

(ec x3) It's not "contentious" with respect to Alex, it's not negative (which is actually not relevant to WP:BLP), and there are sources. For example www.infowars.com/spooks-infest-marriott-hotel-as-bilderberg-begins/ ^{infowars.com is fringe, does not meet our sourcing guidelines and should not be used} (stating that others refer to him as a nutty conspiracy theorist). I'm sure that we can find a reliable source stating that he states that others refer to him as a nutty conspiracy theorist. In fact, it's likely that one of the 7 5 sources in the article lede for "conspiracy theorist" states that. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:08, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

• "I'm not saying their necessarily needs to be controversial or negative comments about Alex or his program, i'm simply saying that there should be more info on the general topics he discusses on his program as to give readers more examples of what kind of things they can expect to find on his show. And yeah sure get some direct quotes from Alex himself too. Perhaps some info on his criticism of Obama, or the 9/11 truth movement, or the NWO. Because in a whole the wikipedia page for Alex just pretty much states he has a show, makes films, and people regard him as a (which in a way he IS) but I think the page could certainly use some expansion, thats all. And a little more biographical info would be good too. " Point to the BLP violation. Protonk (talk) 23:09, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Unsourced negative commentary (moreover original research) about living persons isn't allowed. Without a source, it's a violation of WP:BLP. If someone can source such a comment to a reliable publicatation and post it on their own, it won't be a violation. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:10, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I've redacted the BLP vio from the above, I'll not be drawn into posting it. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:12, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

It's still not contentious, which is the wording used in WP:BLP. Does anyone doubt that people refer to him as a "nutty conspiracy theorist". Does anyone consider the assertion that people refer to him as a "nutty conspiracy theorist" as potentially libelous? (That's not a requirement for it to be a BLP violation, either, but it's closer to being a requirement than being "negative".) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:18, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think Protonk was trying to trick you into a BLP violation, Gwen, I really don't. I disagree with this interpretation of BLP, and am a little surprised you won't explain yourself more fully than you are. What you removed is a description of the current state of the article. I'm a firm believer in WP:BLP, but removing entire talk page comments when only a portion was borderline, and making people pull teeth to get an explanation, actually hurts the cause; it makes BLP'er look too extreme, and others are less likely to take it seriously. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:22, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

As I said, anyone is welcome to add their own reliably sourced post with negative commentary to the talk page (or the article). Gwen Gale (talk) 23:20, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

If there is a BLP violation on a talk page then the better solution would be to delete only the violation, not the entire posting. Also, If there's a dispute over what part is in violation then the editors should try to communicate off-Wiki. We shouldn't put editors in a situation where we delete their text and then refuse to say what was offensive about it. Personally, the only thing that appears to me to be a potential BLP violation would be the word "nutty". It would have been sufficient to redact that word.   Will Beback  talk  23:27, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say it was offensive. Unsourced negative commentary about living persons isn't allowed. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:30, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Right, but all you had to do was redact that one word, not get into an aedit war over deleting the entire post.   Will Beback  talk  23:35, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Reverting a repeated BLP violation is not edit warring. Redacting a single word may or may not be enough. Talk pages are not forums for individual outlooks on living persons. If someone wants to bring up something negative about a living person, they must cite a reliable source. Start citing sources or drop it. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:38, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

The comment you removed was a description of the state of the article. Please read it again. People have to be able to describe the state of the article on a talk page, or there's no point in having a talk page. If you disagree, could you please, as a favor to me, address this specific point? --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:41, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

The BLP violation was not "a description of the state of the article," it was unsourced negative commentary on a living person, which as I've said many times now, isn't allowed anywhere on en.Wikipedia. One can't use a talk page (or ANI) as a WP:Coatrack or otherwise WP:Wikilawyer for unsourced negative commentary about a living person. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:45, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for addressing that point. Quote: "Because in a whole the wikipedia page for Alex just pretty much states he has a show, makes films, and people regard him as a...". IMHO, that is a description of the state of the article. I have no desire to be accused of wikilawyering, so I guess I'll move on, but I think you're misinterpreting things. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:55, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

There are five sources in the article that describe the subject as a "conspiracy theorist". The idea that editors would also need a citation every time they use the phrase "conspiracy theorist" on the talk page is pushing BLP to an absurd conclusion. Do editors posting to talk:Richard Ramirez need to attach a citation every time they call him a murderer? No, and deleting every uncited comment to that effect would be disruptive without helping the encyclopeia or the biography subjects.   Will Beback  talk  23:48, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

This thread is not about a convicted serial killer. Making the comparison is in itself a borderline BLP violation. Calling a convicted serial killer a murderer on a talk page is most likely not a violation of BLP. This is my last warning: Editors who make unsourced negative commentary about living persons, or restore them, will be blocked from editing. Reliably cited negative commentary is ok. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:52, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

What is the exact phrase that was unsourced? Obviously it wasn't "conspiracy theorist".   Will Beback  talk  00:02, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

The specific phrase in question was not necessary in a discussion on improving the article. Alex Jones a living person, and the article talk page is not a forum. Simply redacting the questionable content might have been more efficient, but the actual burden was on User:Iscream22 to bring his post in line with policy. user:J aka justen (talk) 00:03, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

The phrase "conspiracy theorist" is sourced, and using it does not violate policy.   Will Beback  talk  00:10, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Since when? Hitting "undo" to wipe out a user's entire post over one term is just plain laziness, IMO. There is nothing POV or negative about calling someone a "conspiracy theorist" if that is how said person is referred to by reliable sources. This term is used in the lead of the article and is also the name of a category that the article is in. The only quibble here should have been over the n-word (no, not that n-word) qualifier, which could have easily been redacted by anyone, not just an admin, saving us a pile of drama. Tarc (talk) 00:12, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

(reply to both Will and Tarc) The "conspiracy theorist" part wasn't the entirety of the problem; the term that referred to the person's mental state was the issue. user:J aka justen (talk) 00:16, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

If so then the best solution would have been to redact the word "n___y". Overzealous enforcement of any policy leads to unhelpful consequences, such as this thread.   Will Beback  talk  00:22, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Evidently the phrase in question is "people regard him as a nutty conspiracy theorist (which in a way he IS)". I'll thank Gwen not to refactor my comments any more. I'm still left wondering how this is such an egregious violation of BLP that it required scrubbing not only from a talk page describing the subject but also from a policy board discussing the phrase itself. I think that discussion of Alex Jones is effectively neutered if we are unable to even talk about allegations that he's a conspiracy nut without having comments redacted by admins. Permission granted to apply common sense to the BLP policy. Rather than wiping out a comment, then refusing to justify it, then edit warring over it then redacting it from a discussion about the edit all while refusing to explain its import, couldn't you just have asked the editor to change the phrasing or god forbid, let it slide? Protonk (talk) 02:28, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Now I'm pretty much a BLP hawk, but I don't think the terms of that policy have been properly applied here. As specifically applied to talk pages, the pertinent text reads: "Talk pages are used to make decisions about article contents. Contentious material that is unsourced or poorly sourced and not related or useful to making article content choices should be deleted, and even permanently removed ('oversighted') if especially problematic (telephone number, libel, etc). New material should generally be discussed in order to arrive at a consensus concerning relevance, availability of sources, and reliability of sources." [my italics] This less stringent restriction makes a great deal of sense as applied to talk pages; it encourages discussion and analysis of potentially questionable material, in order to, as BLP says, "get the article right. In terms of BLP's goals, it's much better to air things fully on a talk page than to embed dueling variations on a sensitive topic in the article itself. In this case, the language setting off the dispute isn't any more derisive than can be found in many sources, and is a good faith, reasonably accurate presentation of the subject's reputation in some non-fringe quarters. Here, for example, an opinion piece published recently by a major American newspaper includes the subject in its catalog of "loonies." [115]

Was the comment that set this off poorly phrased? Of course it was, but it was also clearly part of a good faith attempt to determine what the article content should be. The response would have been more effective if the immediate reply was on the order of "Whether he is or not comes down to personal opinion; rather than giving us your opinion on that, because the only content suitable for out article would concern his reputation in the outside world, let's have some examples of published comments that treat him that way." If the editor couldn't back up his/her assessment of the subject's reputation, then it would be time to redact his/her comments and move on.

And of course much of this drama could have been avoided if the comment had originally been presented as, or refactored to, "a proponent of nutty [or perhaps wacky] conspiracy theories," which sidesteps the "mental state" problems. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 04:19, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah. As strict as I am on BLPs, I really don't see the violation here. Calling someone "nutty" in a Talk page is common and not a statement of fact. It's not meant to imply an actual mental health issue. Even then, such a discussion would be better off closed as off-topic, rather than removed as a BLP violation (see Talk:Time Cube). — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:27, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Only the infringing part should have been removed. Unfortunatly the overuse of BLP on this article is a frequent and problomatic concern. No matter how well sourced something that can be construed as negative is on this particular article.. it somehow finds away to be removed due to BLP. the article as it stands is not really an accurate representation of the controversies surrounding this individual. How can you have an article about santa clause without mentioning christmas-Tracer9999 (talk) 19:05, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Concerns about NuclearWarfare and Wikipedia:Newbie treatment at CSD

Resolved

 – Nuke has apologized on the project talk page for naming names, and has indicated it will not happen again. No further action seems warranted at this time. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:32, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

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

(NOTE: Sorry for my previous edit, I'm having some issues with my browser) It seems that the admin NuclearWarfare (talk · contribs) has openly violated WP:POINT (not to mention handful of other policies) and striven to deliberately bait myself and admin RHaworth (talk · contribs) at newpages. Yesterday, an article Matrena Balk was created and repeatedly recreated by what I believed to be a newbie editor with the account Matrena balk (talk · contribs). The article did not credibly assert the notability of the subject and it was tagged A7 as a result, with very readable and pertinent twinkle notices being added to that account's talk page. The article was deleted multiple times by admins and then recreated multiple times by the same account without any real improvement or attempts to assert notability. At one point I redirected it, this was reversed by the ceating account and I redirected it again with somewhat of a rude comment due to my frustration with the "newbie" to read the many notices on their talk page or to ask for help.

Today, I find a note on my talk page taking me here. It seems that all along, the Matrena balk "newbie" account was an unannounced sockpuppet/alternate/role account created by NuclearWarfare in order to make a WP:POINT and to deliberately bait myself and RHaworth. (The Matrena balk account added a notice to their talk page specifying it is an alternate account after all of this nonsense took place). I have never heard of this "Newbie treatment at CSP" Wikiproject but if their regular activity is to create secret role acounts to entrap newpage partollers into certain types of behavior than that project needs to be discontinued post haste. I have a feeling this Wikiproject and this behavior has something to do with the recent negative media reports that new page creation has slowed on Wikipedia. And, shockingly, it appears that ArbCom has given approval of this. Please forgive my Irish temper, but I do not see how violating WP:POINT, WP:SOCK and deliberately entrapping others in such a way that constitutes real harassment is helpful to the project. Rather, I find it massivley disruptive, a blatant violation of WP:AGF, POINT, SOCK, and others. <>Multi'‑'Xfer<> (talk) 18:50, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:NEWT is not about baiting and entrapping anyone (has anyone indeed suggested any kind of sanctions or admonishmnets to you over your actions?) but is designed as a fact-finding experience with the aim of increasing our awareness of issues that newbies may face. In fact the guidance at that project specifically discourages naming anyone as part of these experiments. Unless someone has told you off for your actions or has threatened some kind of "punishment", my advice would simply be to not take it personally as it was not intended as such. Shereth 19:04, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Well that's lovely, because both myself and RHaworth were named openly at the linked discussion and my frustrated questions there were met with snark by User:SoWhy. I do not care WHO "authorized" this, secret role accounts are NOT ACCEPTABLE. And how can ArbCom approve a Wikiproject whose aim is to deliberately violate multiple longstanding policies? It's disgusting and reprehensible. It's a kangaroo court with "special secret powers" and it disgusts me. Once again, how is it ok for editors to create role accounts and entrap fellow editors? And why has ArbCom given approval to this "project"? I do not care about adminishments or sanctions, I care about sneaks, trickery, subterfuge, and public floggings at notice boards. <>Multi'‑'Xfer<> (talk) 19:13, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Could you elaborate how saying "I do not assume that ArbCom would allow any activity that would consist of policy violations of the kind you mentioned" can be considered "snark"? Regards SoWhy 19:19, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Multixfer, a simple quick rule of thumb I have found useful, is that the number of negative words and images in an editors comments usually is a good indicator of the editors willingness to work towards comprimise. The more negative words, the less the editor is willing to work together. "violate" "disgusting" "reprehensible" "kangaroo court" "special secret powers" "disgusts" "sneaks, trickery, subterfuge, and public floggings". Wow. Instead of attacking editors for revealing the way you typically treat new editor contributions, maybe you should reevaluate your potentially negative role in helping wikipedia grow. Ikip (talk) 23:19, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I reject this explanation in its entirety as it assumes the NEWT project is correct in operating secret role accounts. I did nothing wrong and using trickery to find "problems" with "behavior" is not the proper way to go about things. Why should I compromise with someone who seems to have engaged in trolling with sockpuppets to prove a WP:POINT? <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 23:46, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

• As a point of order, ArbCom neither endorses nor specifically approves of this project. Editors have been notifying the committee of alternate accounts created during the project so that they cannot be mistakenly believed to be disruptive socks, but noting the accounts is the extent of the involvement of the committee. — Coren ^(talk) 19:47, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

  I would have thought that using an alternate account to pretend to be a newbie in order to troll admins for responses and waste the time of other good-faith editors meets the definition of "disruptive socks". Just sayin'. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:07, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Without looking at the specifics of this situation and how they handled themselves, one of the first examples given for legitimate sock use at WP:SOCK#LEGIT is for longterm users to create new accounts to experience how the community functions for new users. I am guessing that if this group is deliberately pushing the edges of bad sourcing, bad grammar, bad formatting, and questionably notable subjects, they're very likely to find the response that they're thinking they're going to find. --Onorem♠Dil 20:14, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, they are all attempting to behave like "normal" newbies. I personally think they're being a little to naive in their impersonation but not out in the field: most of the socks have been behaving much like a random well-intended newbie would (and sometimes to a poor welcome indeed). — Coren ^(talk) 20:56, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't put too much stock in that exception. It was added to the policy, without fanfare, just a month ago: [116]. By an unsurprising non-coincidence, WereSpielChequers added this loophole to the policy just two hours before he created a fake-newbie account ( [117]) on the very first reported day of their 'newbie treatment' project. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:04, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, that wording was in the article consistently (as far as I can tell) from February 2004 until it was removed this July by Kingturtle. WereSpielChequers then restored it on the 6th of this october. Olaf Davis (talk) 23:39, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I have notified the user of this thread, something Multixfer should have done. Taking offense to NEWT is a mistake. It shows us a huge problem with the way we have all been handing things (remember that decline in new editors everyone was wondering about?). If you made mistakes, you are in good company. Don't take it personally. We are trying to help the project, not hurt anyone. — Jake Wartenberg 20:38, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Seems like a good-faith attempt to assess our false-positive rate in article tagging. Since all the articles created appear to pass the guidelines, I don't see the problem with doing this with an alternate account. However, trying the same approach to assess our false negative rate (creating articles that don't meet the criteria) would indeed be disruptive. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:53, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Whatever the outcome of this discussion may be, I think it should apply to all members of NEWT. Singling out NuclearWarfare is unfair, unless he was doing something that no one else had done. -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 20:55, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) He was the only one who created the article multiple times since his was the only article deleted multiple times (which is the approach a newbie often takes if the deleting admin ignores them and noone told them about DRV) but apart from that I also see no reason to single him out. Regards SoWhy 21:07, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps the lesson we should be learning is: Be nicer to new people than we clearly have been doing. Instead of finger-pointing by dragging this to the noticeboards, take a look at how situations are conducted, and try to improve on them. This is something everybody can learn from, and I for one am pleased that this problem has been so clearly highlighted. PeterSymonds (talk) 21:02, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

The point of the project (which I am not even a part of) seems to be identifying areas everyone in Wikipedia can improve, by identifying bitey and snarky actions by new page patrollers and admins. It seems that multifxer's main complaint is that he was caught doing something he shouldn't have done (treating an editor he thought was new in a not-so-welcoming way). The entire goal of the project, one which everyone who values contributions should support, is to improve how we treat newbies. It is not to "entrap" or "bait" admins into doing something wrong and then sanctioning them for it. The bottom line is NW, with his "new" account, was treated in a way by multiple editors which clearly violated WP:BITE. Perhaps instead of screaming about entrapment editors should examine their own behavior, and question whether it was appropriate regardless of whether the account was really a new editor. The Seeker 4 Talk 21:05, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

It really concerns me that Multixfer felt the need to bring it here, when in fact he was the one clearly in the wrong biting the newbies! If any sanctions were to be applied, I'd argue they should be against Multixfer if anyone. The behaviour highlighted is completely unacceptable and I am now very concerned that this user is patrolling new pages! Jeni ^(talk) 21:13, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Somebody who uses WP:ROLLBACK to revert a WP:PROD tag removal [118] really ought to think twice about bringing the incident to wider attention. Rd232 ^talk 21:15, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Just for the record, this was the state of the article at the point at which Multixfer redirected it. It was in similar condition when the page was A7 deleted. Durova³⁶² 21:20, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

What an excellent idea. I certainly notice that new users are not treated as well as they should be all of the time. Using Wikipedia "as a new user" is a great way to find such problems. This should be commended. Chillum 21:22, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

On the plus side, this thread reminded me to create the article on HOTHEAD (gene) that I was thinking about writing for some time. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:37, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure this is such a great project. Wikipedia:NEWT#Jake_Wartenberg.27s_experience strikes me as a reasonably likely outcome. This seems like a whole lot of fun (And exposes bad practice pretty efficiently), but we can get overzealous. Protonk (talk) 22:14, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid that reinserting a WP:PROD tag is a violation of the rules, unless the deletion was as part of clear vandalism. Nonetheless, the WP:A7 tagging and deletions were clearly correct. Even the claim of being "Catherine the Great's favorite" doesn't seem to be an indication of importance or notability, although that one is at least marginal.

I don't think anyone has behaved well, other than those who merely tagged and deleted the article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:14, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually the A7 criterion clearly states "The criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source." The stub asserted that the biography subject was a favorite in the Russian imperial court. So a cleanup tag or a request for references would have been appropriate, but the article was not speediable. Durova³⁶² 22:18, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure myself, since it didn't say she was "a favorite", which is almost an official position, but just that she was part of somebody's household and was greatly liked by the Empress. Seems arguable both ways, so probably should have gone to AfD, but I could also see the argument that you could tag this as having no claim of notability (being liked by somebody famous isn't relevant to notability). Tim Vickers (talk) 22:28, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I've started a thread here about calling out users in NEWT. — Jake Wartenberg 22:39, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreeing with Jake that specifically putting individuals out on front street isn't the best solution here. Durova³⁶² 22:41, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I see no harm in adding the names to the detailed experience reports since everyone reviewing the article will find out about those names anyway. I agree that they should not be in the overview (WP:NEWT#Results) though which is what most people will read. Calling out users in such a project may be embarrassing but a detailed discussion on a specific case (i.e. a experience report) requires that we invite those users to it to allow them to reflect on their editing in this situation and as such their names have to be mentioned. Regards SoWhy 22:55, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I've commented some questions and tenative objections to the project at Wikipedia talk:Newbie treatment at CSD. I believe this issue needs a centralized discussion area and some community wide discussion. Shadowjams (talk) 22:48, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

The correct way to study how newbies are treated isn't to play dumb and generate work for other editors and admnistrators. The correct way is to look at the pool of existing, honest, legitimate newbies' experiences. Pull a random sample from the user creation log, and check their article edits, article creations, and deleted edits. (Alternatively, start with the page creation log, and look for pages by new editors.) The data are already available; it isn't necessary to make up fake newbies.

If the objection to that is, 'Well, then we won't know which edits are from legitimate newbies and which are from trolls playing dumb'...then you've learned something very important about the experiment that you chose to conduct over the last month. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:13, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. Properly handled, secret shoppers can offer extraordinarily good evidence about how well or poorly a process functions. We just aren't properly handling it. Protonk (talk) 23:22, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I am beginning agree with TenOfAllTrades the more I see about this project. I find Protonk's argument strange given that all interactions (except for deleted ones) are public (and even the deleted ones are available to admins, of which the majority who seem to be interested are). Shadowjams (talk) 23:24, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Let me attempt to allay that confusion. this paper describes an experiment where economists invented fake names and generated thousands of resumes in order to determine whether or not businesses would respond differently to equally qualified "black sounding" applicants as they would "white sounding" applicants. Obviously if you just measured employment between black and white americans you would get a result which could be muddied by class differences, self selection, macro effects, and so on (i.e. if you just looked at the rate of article creation). If you just asked the companies whether or not they discriminated (i.e. asking admins/taggers if they are nice to newbies), you would get the obvious response. But testing this directly showed that the response differences were large and significant. It would not have been helpful to report the names of the HR employees at the various firms in the paper. It would hard to justify even offering the names of the companies, but the experiment itself is valuable and informative. Likewise, a process like NEWT should generate data like it has been doing, but report in the aggregate, unless some particularly egregious response comes up, where an editor could be poked on his/her talk page (rather than shamed in some more "public" WP page). Protonk (talk) 23:38, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

If you want to make that argument, you're going to have to tell me what data these fake newbies will gather that isn't available through proper spadework involving existing logs of genuine newbiews. Incidentally, the use of 'real' newbies rather than fake ones has the added side benefit that these 'researchers' might actually be able to directly help newbies with genuine problem situations. Of course, all that's more work than just going out admin-baiting. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:34, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) That's easy. Fake newbies can create articles of a relatively uniform nature on a subject they know will meet our inclusion criteria. Real newbies create articles for a variety of reasons and in a wide range of quality (and obviously with little relation to our inclusion criteria). Using fake newbies removes a number of data problems and zeroes in on what really concerns us, false positives. Without using them, all we get is one crowd saying "WP is mean and our numbers are dropping, this is all because of the meanies at CSD" and another crowd saying "most of what gets deleted is shit and we delete tens of thousands of pages per month". Protonk (talk) 23:41, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Pretty much the same difference, isn't it? Chief distinction I see is that doing it the way they've been doing it generally results in new content. Another benefit might be its somewhat inflammatory nature - by being somewhat embarrassing to the folks caught out, it gets the project and the problem more attention than it would receive if it were a dry statistical report posted in a big block on a noticeboard. Nathan ^T 23:28, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

That's a red herring. They're perfectly capable of creating the exact same new content using their primary accounts. And since they wouldn't be pretending to be newbies, they'd do a better job of it, saving hassle for other editors. If, as I note above, they had instead worked on problems encountered by real newbies, they could also be protecting and improving content, and solving real problems instead of fake ones. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:34, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

• Here's what I'm not seeing here: a clear request for administrator intervention in this matter. Although ArbCom did not endorse the project, they were made aware of it. While there may be some issues with the way this was handled, I don't see any need for any blocks or anything, so why is this being discussed here exactly? Beeblebrox (talk) 23:26, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

The OP claimed multiple violations of various policies. Doesn't look like those claims have been substantiated, but there was an initial request for intervention. Nathan ^T 23:28, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

• One issue raised here was my edit to wp:sock, I'd just like to draw people's attention to the thread that I first started on Wikipedia talk:Sock puppetry#restoring an example. I wasn't inventing a new part of that policy - merely restoring a useful example. If people don't think that this sort of thing should be allowed can I suggest we discuss it there? ϢereSpielChequers 23:36, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I am currently busy and unable to comment at length here. Fortunately, my workout this afternoon has helped calm me down significantly. However, I will state the following: 1) I DID NOT bite any newbies. I "bit" a secret role account of an established editor who appeared to me to be behaving in a sneaky, disruptive manner. Therefore, as far as I'm concerned, I've done absolutely nothing wrong. 2) I absolutely reject the claim that this article met guidelines. It was correctly speedied multiple times because it did not assert the notability of the subject. 3) It's true that NuclearWarfare isn't the only problem here, the real problem is this NEWT project. I'm currently debating whether or not to send it to MfD but my RL duties will have to come first, I'm afraid. An interesting point I will make before leaving for a few hours: If this account has been a genuine newbie, and someone had simply come to my talk page and said "you were too hard on this person, be more patient and helpful inthe future" I would have listened and taken the advice to heart. Instead, we have subterfuge and drama. So, consider how valuable a project like NEWT really is. EDIT: My use of undo to reinsert a prod tag was a simple mistake, as you'll see on the very next edit I redirected it. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 23:42, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

You are openly refusing to learn anything from all this, even though you acknowledge you would have learned something if NuclearWarfare was an actual newbie - I don't see the logic in that. Wikipedia is already known by non-editors as a place that is hostile to new people, and I think your reaction to all this is only cementing that stereotype. Rm999 (talk) 00:20, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

This process is a very good idea. The basic mechanism has been endorsed by the WP:SOCK policy for a very long time, and with our shrinking user base, things like this are essential to the future of Wikipedia. Following actual newbies is also a good idea, but a problem I have found when sticking up for actual newbies is that some of them end up being actually disruptive. When this happens, it tends to undermine the point and vindicate the newbie-biters. So doing this with editors who are already known to edit in good faith is useful. rspεεr (talk) 00:05, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, so far wp:newt has resulted in the creation of over thirty articles, and has identified a number of problems at new page patrol, speedy deletion and the welcoming committee. If anyone is concerned about the way it is running please come and discuss your concerns at Wikipedia talk:Newbie_treatment_at_CSD. ϢereSpielChequers 00:23, 12 November 2009 (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.

Block request

Resolved

 – IP blocked - Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:43, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Can some kind admin please re-block 24.109.207.40 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)? It's the main IP of lovable but persistent sockpuppeteer Swamilive (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). It might be a sensible idea to check for any accounts created by that IP since the block expired. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:02, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

1yr hard block applied, only one account was created on it the IP during the time it was unblocked and it's already been blocked. --Versageek 21:06, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Versageek! Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:43, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

User Name Issue

Since going into retirement, I have periodically come back to check on a couple articles that are important to me. I have found on my watchlist today the user Neuralhomer. This is obviously done VERY close to my username. Some of the edits the user has made are vandalism and should be reverted, but I worry more that this copycat account and mine legitiment account will be confused for each other. I would ask that the admins investigate this new account and see if there user is here to be constructive or not. Thank you. - Neutralhomer (talk) 19:08, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Please assume good faith - whether or not any of those edits ought to be reverted is up for discussion but they are clearly not vandalistic in nature. Consider contacting this user and asking if they would be amenable to either a name change or putting a notice on their userpage to make it explicitly clear that they are not you. Currently there are no obviously bad-faith edits by this user nor any obvious intent to impersonate you. Shereth 19:15, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I have made Neuralhomer (talk · contribs) aware of this discussion. GiantSnowman 19:17, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Is he editing pages that you used to edit? If so I would say it's likely not a coincidence. -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 20:57, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Person creates an account today[119] and immediately starts messing with radio station templates, an area Neutralhomer worked in. If vandalism was also involved, I'd say block immediately; otherwise, tell person to choose a new username. Person also somehow managed to create several new templates. I thought this was not possible for an account too new to have been autoconfirmed, but maybe I'm wrong. I just tried creating a template (without being logged in) and couldn't. 69.228.171.150 (talk) 21:33, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I have edited a couple of the templates he did in the past, but not recently. I do feel the name it not a coincidence. It is essentially my username missing a "T". While I normally am not bothered with this, I feel since I am in retirement that it could cause people to think I am socking (to confirm I am not, I would welcome a checkuser...you will find me using an IP account...not the one above...for a couple edits). - Neutralhomer (talk) 22:02, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Again, barring evidence to the contrary we cannot jump to the assumption that there is any nefarious intent in this situation. I can find no evidence that this account intends to confuse editors into thinking that they are you. The simplest course of action (at this point) is to kindly ask the user to rename themselves or clarify the issue on their userpage; there is no need for drastic measures such as administrative intervention or checkuser. Now, if the user had been contacted and had refused to acknowledge the issue while still editing that might call for further action but right now this does not require admin intervention. Shereth 22:11, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

It looks pretty nefarious to me. If the user changes their name promptly to something that's clearly not confusable with another editor, though, it'll be resolved. rspεεr (talk) 23:56, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

This username hardline soapboxer agrees that it's a name that needs to be changed. If there's any crossover between NeutralHomer's and NeuralHomer's editing the new editor may need to e blocked if they don't agree to a change. FWIW NeutralHomer could probably have got a swift, hard, block if theyd reported this at the (out of control trigger happy) username boards. NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 00:22, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Checkuser shows the following are  Confirmed sockpuppets:

1. DelayedBrick (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
2. Yay999 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
3. CP992 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
4. XPL883 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
5. Neuralhomer (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
6. SuitiganBigBoy88 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
7. ProdConn9095 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
8. VeiraMyers9908 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

 Confirmed matches for each other,  Likely matches with the overall group:

1. GoalKeeperGate (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
2. MaxJebel99 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
3. ToughCookie89 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
4. LeFanz882 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

 Confirmed matches for each other,  Likely matches with the overall group:

1. Carry3Over (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
2. SallyRider898 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
3. ProudAmericanAuto (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

 Likely match with the overall group:

1. PlantWaves898 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

That's a lot of sudden activity. Might be useful in evaluating the situation. – Luna Santin (talk) 03:10, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Zermelo's theorem

Resolved

 – No probs. Abecedare (talk) 21:49, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I split out Zermelo's theorem (game theory) from well-ordering theorem, as it clearly doesn't belong there. However, I'd like confirmation that I used the appropriate tags to retain GFDL, per WP:SPLIT. I don't think there's a problem, but … — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:58, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Looks fine as far as licensing goes. Abecedare (talk) 21:49, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Saving Grace (2000 film) edit war

There seems to be an edit war going on over the inclusion of a fan video mention in the article lede. Maybe it should be semi-protected. MotherFerginPrincess (talk) 23:20, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I see about a half-dozen edits from IPs on that article over the last eight months. Usually you'll see that many in a single day before it's considered to be enough disruption to warrant semi-protection. The edit war itself is about the slowest I've ever seen, spread out over months. I really don't think protection is necessary. There isn't even a discussion on the talk page, if there's really a dispute, start up a discussion there. -- Atama頭 01:22, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Ani medjool

Resolved

User is being watched, will be reported if further POV pushing occurs per WP:ARBPIA. Mjroots (talk)

I'm bringing this here because I feel I'm out of my depth with this. The editing of Ani medjool (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been raised with me by two separate editors on two separate occasions. Deborahjay raised an issue with Ani medjool's editing with me on 17 October (further details). The editor was nominating Commons files for speedy deletion. I issued a uw-generic4, which was later removed by Ani medjool as delete lies.

Today, Hertz1888 raised an issue on my talk page about Ani medjool's editing (see most recent contribs of Ani medjool). I do know that Ani medjool is subject to the WP:ARBPIA case and has been notified of this. Therefore I'd like to leave this in the capable hands of more experienced admins than myself to take any action that is felt necessary. I will notify Ani medjool that the issue has been raised here. Mjroots (talk) 09:22, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Notified Mjroots (talk) 09:24, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I have only taken a quick look at Ani medjools editing today at Golan mountains, and as far as I can see, there is nothing wrong with his edits. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:36, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• [ NPA redacted ]

I think the crux of the recent editing issue is whether or not the Golan Heights are considered by the Wikipedia community to be a part of Israel or a part of Syria. Mjroots (talk) 10:54, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

An article on a winery is definitely not the place to discuss an area's political or legal status. The whole purpose of wikilinks is to make it possible to find more information on a linked subject, such as Golan Heights. Tomas e (talk) 12:07, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I've looked at some of the edits in question. While some of the changes made by Ani medjool may be debatable, I do not see them as disruptive. While it is perhaps incorrect to change the category at Petroleum Road, for example, to read simply Category: Roads in Syria, it is perhaps equally incorrect for it read as it did before Ani medjool's changes as simply Category:Roads in Israel. The Golan Heights is considered to be Syrian territory that is Israeli-occupied by most of the world. Israel's annexation of it is not recognized as legal anywhere except Israel. All of these articles need to be reviewed. As a quick neutral fix, I might suggest they be categorized simply as being in the Golan Heights, without designating them as either Syrian or Israeli to avoid taking sides in this territorial dispute. Alternatively, they might be categorized as being in "Israeli-occupied territories" to reflect the majority worldwide POV on the matter. Tiamut^talk 14:03, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I do nothing but correct false information propigate by misinform editors. Golan is Syria not israel. If United State build winery or ski resort or military base in israel or other country we not say it located in United State, we say it located in country it build in. The same be truth in this situation. If jew or israel state choose build winery in SYRIAN territory it do not make it part of israel! I also think the ADMINISTRATOR who instigate personal attack on Supreme Deliciousness should be admonish by wikipedia, because as admin and respect member of wikipedia, the editor should know not to make personal attack and should know difference between personal attack and regular response. I question neutralness of admin because of his personal attack against editor who not share same view has him, and there fore this admin do not belong making decision in this case. Ani medjool (talk)

Comment The redacted comment was not intended as a personal attack on Supreme Deliciousness. It was a statement of fact re SD's POV. It was also made clear that the SPI referred to cleared SD. If it came across as a personal attack to SD the I publicly apologise to him for the remarks. It's not a question of neutrality here; I don't know enough about the Middle East and the background of individual editors in the ARBPIA case to be able to deal with this myself. Which is why I've raised it here and am happy for other admins to deal with the situation. I myself will not be taking any action against you, Ani medjool. Mjroots (talk) 06:19, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment—It is clear that Ani medjool's edits are not simply controversial and disputable, they are pure vandalism. For example, in this revert, he removes a category and insert a controversial statement but also with improper spelling. He has also made a disruptive edit to a template, which is especially problematic. I wouldn't mind participating in a discussion about the content of the edits, but don't feel that User:Ani medjool should be allowed to continue these making edits like this until he has had time to familiarize himself with Wikipedia and its policies. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 00:19, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• • Counter-Comment I haven´t looked at Ani medjool contributions in general; but if someone call the Golan for "Israeli-occupied", (as Ani medjool did), then this simply cannot be labeled "disruptive". After all, it is the internationally recognized position. Reading what the BBC writes about notation might be educating: [120]. Regards, Huldra (talk) 14:18, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

• Counter-Comment - Poor spelling/grammar/capitalization is not vandalism. Don't get me wrong; I'm not stating that he should be allowed to continue editing (he doesn't seem to be cooperating terribly well, which is necessary), but I just should hope that any action taken would be solely for the preservation of wikipedia's article standards, rather than based on any assumptions of vandalism or other malicious intent. (a fine hair to split, perhaps, but I think important) 139.57.101.207 (talk) 00:27, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

English not my first language, I sorry you have problem with my spell and language skill. It not vandalism, the edit I make, because international community recognize Golan Heights be part of Syria that currently under military occupation by israel. This do not change fact that place in article be located in Syria and not Israel. Vandalism be disruptive false insert of material to article, I just attempt to correct false information with truth: that Golan Height is recognize as Syria not Israel and there fore article about thing in Golan Height should be attributed to Syria and not israel. If other editor do not beleive this be Syrian and instead it be part of Israel, i stop making edits. But i request discussion because this important issue that has for long time not be addressed. Ani medjool (talk) 00:31, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment - Ani medjool, you have edit-warred, POV pushed and politicized many non-political articles. For instance, at "Talk:Falafel#Images" you and another editor complained that the falafel photos taken in Israel should be removed because of the fact they were taken in Israel. Furthermore, your comments on that talk page telling me that I should "cease cry and cease play of traditional "poor me. poor jew" wolf call" are not constructive. Those actions, and others, have made it very difficult for editors to Assume Good Faith when dealing with your edits. --nsaum75 ^¡שיחת! 02:37, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment - When looking through his previous edits, it is more than difficult to assume good faith. It's impossible, as it is clear that he is incapable of putting aside his political beliefs and contributing positively to Wikipedia. He isn't here to help the website; he's here to spread propaganda. The best example of his intentions is one of his past reasons for edits: "the picture in ramallah is good enough, its better than the one in jew city". -- 99.253.230.182 (talk) 04:35, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment There is no doubt that this editor has a strong anti-Israeli POV which he regularly pushes. He also has repeatedly made offensive comments against Jews. However, in reference to the specific issue which caused this thread to be raised, there has been collective violation of NPOV by multiple editors which has resulted in the pervasive categorisation of places and properties in part of Syria as Israeli. (Claims of items such as roads and wineries as being Israeli-owned are problematic due to their being constructed on illegally confiscated land and therefore there alleged Israeli ownership would be regarded as in violation of multiple motions of the Security Council and other internaitonal legal bodies.) Ani Medjool's highlighting of this problem is a positive contribution to the project even though some of his behaviour justifies repeated short bans. His conduct problems should not be used to prevent the pro-Israeli npov-violations in Golan-related articles from being addressed.--Peter cohen (talk) 13:17, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment - regardless of the status of the Golan Heights (that's another debate for another time & place), it seems to me that this editor is indeed anti-Israeli and anti-Jewish, and these beliefs are affecting his editing ability; Wikipedia is meant to be neutral! GiantSnowman 17:53, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment Lest there be any doubts remaining as to this editor's blatant bias, this should set them to rest. The Golan categorizations are being dealt with. The question remains as to whether this editor can be trusted to edit articles having anything to do with Israel or Jews with any semblance of neutrality, objectivity and good faith. I think the answer is clear. I suggest a topic ban. Hertz1888 (talk) 05:13, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I think based on all of the above, it is clear this can certainly be invoked to ban this user from I/P articles and topics. If it is not yet at this point, when will that point be reached? The Seeker 4 Talk 19:19, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I have moved this back from the archive, because it is still unresolved and the problem is still continuing. See, for example this edit and this edit. This is starting to get highl anti-Jewish, and becoming offensive (if it isn't there already). Singularity42 (talk) 23:36, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

• This got archived automatically, meaning no one commented on it for 24 hours. At that point it ceases to be an "incident" and becomes a festering problem. Seek other methods of dispute resolution, please. Protonk (talk) 23:43, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. Hopefully the behaviour will improve. Otherwise, I think arbitration enforcement is the only place left (I just reviewed the logs, and it looks like he was cautioned back in December 2008). Singularity42 (talk) 03:47, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Jwesley78

Jwesley78 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Persistent incivility and edit-warring by the above user on Groupon, its talk page, his and my talk pages and edit summaries. He was taken to task about this by Atama apropos the WP:CIVIL and WP:HARASS, and other violations that Atama I or others have alleged, but Jwesley refuses to acknowledge or reform.

Claims that "any non-constructive edit" can be considered vandalism. (But that's absolutely untrue. Reading WP:VAN, it is strongly stated that the edits must be deliberately disruptive, and says, "Even harmful edits that are not explicitly made in bad faith are not vandalism." The policy tries to make it very clear that the edits that the IP were making were not vandalism.)

Seven examples where my edits were falsely called vandalism: (diff - this was the first interaction) (diff) (diff) (diff with misleading edit summary - a delete J marked as an undelete. (diff "Reverting vandal") (diff Second AIV, the result which should have given him pause and/or resulted in an apology (and is mis-marked as a minor edit)) (diff But no, he falsely reports me for vandalism again.)

The user does know how to revert good-faith edits. But labeled my GFEs as vandalism 7 times. If I wasn't 'just' an IP (but, say a non-anonymous editor), I'd be way more pissed off by the unjustified disparagement.

He overrode my edits to my own talk page here : [121] , [122] , [123] and [124]. (Some of these are also edits of mine he tagged as vandalism.)

In contrast, I try to admit when I'm wrong about content or policy (3RR), instead of pretending to go on break.

Insists his vandalism accusations were not uncivil (diff). Needs to be set straight on that, more forcefully than Atama's attempts have done. If we don't enforce policy, the we don't really have policy. --98.248.113.11 (talk) 23:55, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

_{I've informed Jwesley78 about this thread. -- Atama頭 00:05, 12 November 2009 (UTC). Thanks for doing that for me. I was looking for my round tuit. --98.248.113.11 (talk) 00:11, 12 November 2009 (UTC)}

I better chime in here since I'm involved. I've been trying to keep this from escalating. I got involved in this from a posting at WP:COIN, which led me to Talk:Groupon. I cautioned Jwesley78 about inaccurate vandalism accusations made when reverting the IP and when posting a report at WP:AIV. I then cautioned the IP about strong language on Jwesley78's talk page. I've made attempts to settle this matter, because the original reason for this whole dispute (some controversial text at the Groupon article) has already been concluded after discussion. But for whatever reason neither side wants to let this lie. I've let both editors know that at this point they can just walk away; both of them have made mistakes, but there's nothing unforgivable. I don't think this report is necessary, but I guess if it brings in an outside opinion it can't hurt. -- Atama頭 00:13, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what to say here. There are a few of points on which I admit fault:

• I misunderstood Wikipedia policy about IP talk pages. I was under the impression that they were not to be blanked by the IP user. Under this assumption I reverted his edits to the IP talk page.
• I wrongfully called this edit vandalism, but noted on the IP's talk page that my revert was based on a violation of WP:NPOV
• I was too aggressive in reporting this IP to ARV: 1, 2, and 3.

For these actions, I apologize. Other than these three points I feel that my edits have been fair. You can see the discussion on Talk:Groupon has been civil. And even the discussion that occurred on the User Talk:98.248.113.11 have been relatively civil.

I'd also like to point out that 4 times I had to remove the same content of his from my User Talk page (1, 2, 3 and 4).

Jwesley₇₈ 00:25, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

As has been pointed out to Jwesley several times recently (for example, see 3, above), and [[Talk:User:Aatama]] : We actually have a civility policy, WP:CIVIL. It tries to show what is meant by uncivil behavior. Often when people say "uncivil" on Wikipedia, that doesn't mean raging like a maniac (which a lack of civility often equates to in the "real world"), it just means violating what is laid out in that policy and similar behavior. Uncivil behavior can include inappropriate edit summaries (specifically mentioned in the policy) and reverting somebody who is blanking their user talk page. Even though this has been pointed out and is in an official policy, Jwesley does not accept it. I regret that, after Jwesley78 repeatedly added the same content to my talk page (diffs in opening statement), I gave him a taste of his own medicine (not realizing that, in doing so I was doing roughly what he did with respect to 3RR), however I did not add the same content 4 times. I restored and added varying content removed based on unfounded claims of vandalism. I appreciate the (much overdue) apology however. If what Jwesley has done is fair, then WP:CIVIL is not policy, because he just violated it at least 7 times. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.248.113.11 (talk) 02:29, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• I'm detecting some funny business going on. Why was User:CCritic responding as if he was IP:98.248.113.11, and then IP:98.248.113.11 overwrites his signature? Jwesley₇₈ 02:33, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
• Here CCritic refers to the "IP" in the third person, implying that it's someone other than him. Jwesley₇₈ 02:42, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• Honestly, I don't understand how this issue has gotten so big. How could he be so offended by what I've done? I'm really not angry at him or anyone else. Jwesley₇₈ 02:48, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• How is an IP user who's only been actively editing for 2 days already voting in AFDs? There's no rule (that I know of) against it, but it seems obvious this IP was an experienced editor at some point. He seems fully knowledgable of Wikipedia policy of Civility, but didn't understand why his edit violated NPOV? This whole thing smells fishy to me. Jwesley₇₈ 03:00, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

No funny business, other than you trying to attract attention away from the topic of this ANI. One is supposed to be able to open notices on COIN anonymously. That's why it's suggested to sign with 5 <sic> ~ chars, not 4. --98.248.113.11 (talk) 03:56, 12 November 2009 (UTC) Jwesley, I think you need to read WP:Newbie_treatment_at_CSD, espcially the article it links to. Somehow, you need to learn/accept what does and does not constitute vandalism. You called me a vandal about a dozen times* (while violating policies left and right) so I got quite offended. It's hard to characterize your apparent lack of comprehension of that without being rude. --98.248.113.11 (talk) 03:56, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

*Well, you called my edits vandalism, but after the first few accusations, it becomes a distinction without a difference.

Ok. So you thought I had a "Conflict of Interest" with the Groupon article? I had never even heard of that site until recently. Jwesley₇₈ 04:14, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I apologize for calling your edits vandalism. It was a mistake on my part. I will try to be more careful. Jwesley₇₈ 04:24, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Why is nobody else commenting on this? We need a 3rd party to give more perspective on our situation. Jwesley₇₈ 04:37, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I forgot to mention this: User talk:Acalamari#Jwesley78. Jwesley₇₈ 05:30, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• It has been 12 hours now (since submission), and not a single Admin has commented on this issue. If I'm going to be censured for my behavior, then I'd like to receive my punishment. If my behavior has been within the bounds of Wikipedia policy, then I feel that I have been harrassed unnecessarily by this anonymous user (who has an amazing amount of Wikipedia knowledge). This whole issue has been a headache for me, and has made it uncomfortable for me to patrol RC. Jwesley₇₈ 12:13, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

You have been advised to be especially wary of calling edits "vandalism" when they are not - which you had been doing. As such, the complaint was valid. No further comments needed to come forward, and claiming harassment when the issue has been appropriately dealt with is probably the wrong idea. Learn the lesson and move on - the rest of us have. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:18, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Obviously, when I called the anonymous user's edit vandalism, it was not the 3rd time the user had edited an article. He has an amazingly thorough knowledge of Wikipedia. (I didn't even know about WP:Third Opinion until I saw his admitted "puppet" CCritic using it.) In any case, the user has been around long enough to know how to deal with such issues. If he felt that I had improperly labelled his edit, he should have come to me in a civil manner, and we would have talked about it. I think I would have had the decency to apologize for the mislabeling. Instead his first action is to contact a Sysop to ask for my Rollback privileges to be removed. This is not the behavior of a normal IP user! Since this was how he chose to respond before even talking to me, the label of WP:HARRASS is appropriate! Jwesley₇₈ 12:46, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

If mislabeling vandalism is my worst crime, then Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts would be the proper forum for this discussion. I have not misused my Rollback privileges, so the Admin's noticeboard is the wrong forum anyway. Jwesley₇₈ 13:00, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Really, stop begging to have rollback removed ;-) The removal of rollback is something often discussed right here in this forum. You were WP:BITEy, you mislabelled edits as vandalism, you were a little uncivil, and you were a little tenditious about it. You have apologized. The admins have obviously accepted the apology, and unless you keep pushing it, there will not likely be any further actions. Sure, parts of this could have gone to WP:WQA, but the rollback issue belonged here. Really, going after the person who validly reported you is not going to end well ... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:07, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

italictitle template

Is it okay to use {{italictitle}} on an album's article? Btilm 01:19, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you bring this up at the talk page of the template, there in fact is a current discussion that might be relevant. -- Atama頭 01:24, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Btilm, why did you think that this was an incident requiring administrative attention or action? This question could have been asked on the Help Desk, couldn't it? Bencherlite^Talk 16:18, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Dolfrog adding his on-line research collections to articles

A user, Dolfrog (talk · contribs), is adding his on-line research collections to articles. Many on-line databases have options where you can save specific, even sorted, search results and establish a fairly permanent link to them. It's a useful function. This user has a number of such collections, listed on his user page, and is adding them to articles.

Another user has a problem with this:[125] original research, lack of community consensus, non-official external link, etc., etc. Can someone deal with this issue? The other editor is discussing the issue with Dolfrog, but not making any ground. I don't think Dolfrog means poorly, but he's determined and hard to reach.[126][127]

There may be a place in an article to post the stable, notable, research collection of a known and identified expert in the field, but not anonymous, uncredentialed, wikipedia editor's research collections. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 03:34, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with both Ip69 and the other involved editor. The best way to deal with this is probably to simply keep reverting the edits - and to keep gently telling this editor that Wikipedia is not the place to further his personal agenda. At some point, he will either get the point or will be blocked as 3RR/edit warring. Tan | 39 03:50, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Per WP:EL: "Except for a link to an official page of the article's subject, one should avoid: (9) Links to any search results pages, such as links to individual website searches, search engines, search aggregators, or RSS feeds."[128] The Four Deuces (talk) 03:52, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Having read the above rational explanation of how Wikipedia wants to work, then i have no problems complying. The real problem is the initial complaining user who seems unable or unwilling to explain things in a way that I can understand. I have communication disability Auditory Processing Disorder (APD) which causes me to be dyslexic, which the complaining user chooses to ignore. My only agenda is for a greater scientific understanding of the underlying medical causes of dyslexia, to help enable the greater awareness of APD. Due to my own disability I am not really able to actually edit Wikipedia articles, but i can provide the required research to support others who are more able copy editors and paraphrasers. So this was just a way of referring future editors to my research paper collections as a form of reference not as definitive answer to anything. dolfrog (talk) 16:11, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Kmweber's AC candidacy

Resolved

This does nothing but incite unnecessary drama. Re-closing procedurally. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 05:08, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

User conduct RfC is thataway.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
{{resolved}} Durova362 04:57, 12 November 2009 (UTC) Before this dissolves into the "OMG Sceptre's making a thread about Kmweber STALKER!" argument which is bound to come up, I have serious reservations about this candidacy, for several reasons: By rights, Kurt shouldn't even be editing. Once you exercise the right to vanish, you don't come back. Kurt's views on the Arbitration Committee are well known and this is obviously a troll candidacy. Kurt almost got banned 11 months ago, partly because of his candidacy last year (the most opposed in ACE history), personal attacks, disruption, and off-wiki harassment. Technically, his candidacy last year was invalid as he was banned from editing metaspace during the elections. I don't think Kurt has matured enough to warrant a clean slate, and thus I believe that any actions that took part the day he left are treated as though they happened yesterday. I honestly believe that he's returned just to troll Wikipedia during the ArbCom elections. You all know what the best course of action is... Sceptre (talk) 04:52, 12 November 2009 (UTC) With respect to Durova, I don't think sending this to RFC/U would do any good. It's hard to get stuff done there at the best of times. It's harder when the person you're trying to RFC has an ungodly amount of protection from the rules. Sceptre (talk) 04:59, 12 November 2009 (UTC) When it comes to the candidacy, I highly doubt that with that platform he will get elected, so why not let him run? I say we treat it with the "I" in RBI. As for having vanished, I don't see a problem with a return if (and only if) he can keep from behaviors that would get him blocked. Ks0stm (T•C•G) 05:04, 12 November 2009 (UTC) Because even allowing him to edit makes a mockery of the behavioural policies and general rule structure we have in place on Wikipedia. Sceptre (talk) 05:06, 12 November 2009 (UTC) Uh. Who fucking cares. Just don't vote for him. Protonk (talk) 05:12, 12 November 2009 (UTC) Reigniting the ban proposal Support, per above. Sceptre (talk) 04:52, 12 November 2009 (UTC) Oppose, too many bans currently Tan | 39 05:14, 12 November 2009 (UTC) Counter-proposal I propose that Kmweber be banned from the Wikipedia namespace. This will prevent trouble for himself and others and allow him a second chance, since most of the trouble was from the Wikipedia namespace. However sparse, I do see legitimate encyclopedic edits from this account Triplestop x3 05:11, 12 November 2009 (UTC) We tried that. It failed. Sceptre (talk) 05:14, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in SecurePoll feedback and workshop

Interested editors are invited to participate in the SecurePoll feedback and workshop. SecurePoll was recently used in the Audit Subcommittee election, and has been proposed for use for the upcoming Arbitration Committee election at this current request for comment (RFC). Your comments, suggestions and observations are welcome.

For the Arbitration Committee,
Dougweller (talk) 09:32, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Reversal of Complex page moves

Resolved

Can someone advise how best to revert a complex series of page moves that have been carried out against consensus at the Wakefield article. For reference, the debate about the proposal for such moves is here. Your attention is drawn to the final paragraphs of the debate. Thanks, LevenBoy (talk) 12:58, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• Reversed per WP:BRD. As ever, the next step is further discussion. I haven't examined the arguments enough to form an opinion myself, but it is clear that opinion is split on this, with even possibly a majority against the move. Black Kite 15:04, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Potential suicide threat

Resolved

 – User has made these threats before, and been posted here RBI--SKATER ^Speak. 04:30, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

It has been reported at WP:SPI that Eggbaguette (talk · contribs) has made a potential suicide threat in the Sandbox. See this diff. Other editors have expressed concern on the user's talk page. I am reporting this here per WP:SUICIDE. Tckma (talk) 14:42, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Since when has these recurring joke "suicide" messages on Wikipedia become "plea for help" messages? They should be like any other dubious claim made on Wikipedia: delete them unless they come with a proper citation such as a medical opinion about the state of mind of the poster, or a death certificate (and even with proper citations, delete them as non-notable). Meowy 15:25, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

• This is the same user who made a potential suicide threat in the sandbox on 8 Nov (see WP:ANI#Suicide threat (first)). The exact same wording was used - I would not count it as credible. Suitable advice was given on the user's talk page. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 15:34, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Marking as closed, he's made these threats before and I seriously doubt he's gonna do it.--SKATER ^Speak. 15:40, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

It appears as if he/she's playing a prank; however suicide threats should never be given the cavalier treatment as the person who is threatening to kill him/herself is somebody's child, sibling, parent, or friend, and they could be serious.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:09, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah, it's the same wording because it's the same diff/revision ID. (I searched ANI for "suicide" to make sure I wasn't making a duplicate report, guess I fat-fingered it or Firefox is being wonky with text searches.) Tckma (talk) 18:45, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Even though at the end of the day the threat is most likely a prank, etc., I see absolutely nothing wrong with a standard practice of running a Checkuser inquiry and contacting the local authorities. It is perfectly consistent with Checkuser policy, which allows an inquiry to be made "where it is reasonably necessary to protect the rights, property or safety of the Wikimedia Foundation, its users or the public" - in this case, the safety of the person making the threat. And local authorities have repeatedly said they do not consider it a waste of time if we contact them regarding a threat. Either the threat turned out to be something real (either a an actual threat or a cry for help) - in which case contacting the authorities is the right thing to do. Or it turns out to be a prank, in which case the local authorities would still be interested, as they take these type of pranks seriously - in which case contacting the authorities is still the right thing to do (and will hopefully prevent that user who is making the prank from doing it again).

At the end of the day, as per WP:SUICIDE, we should take ALL threats seriously, and leave it for local authorities to make a final judgement call, not us - no matter whether we think the threat is real or an obvious prank. Singularity42 (talk) 18:43, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. The content of all these so-called "suicide threat" messages should be ignored, and they should be removed as off-topic as soon as they are noticed. Meowy 19:27, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Your callous nature is somewhat disturbing. All suicide notes? I know at least one person who has previously made the attempt. Repeated threats are not a joke, they are often indicative of a longterm state of mind problem. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 20:57, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Removed? Yes. Ignored? No. GiantSnowman 19:28, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

And like I said on the other thread, the essay WP:SUICIDE implores you to take such threats seriously. It does not describe a standard practice to use checkuser tools nor does it require editors to respond in a particular way. If you feel that any threat is a credible threat, then you may respond accordingly. Obviously you need to find an equally credulous checkuser to report IP information to what we presume are local authorities, but you are allowed to do that. Protonk (talk) 22:20, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

SUICIDE policy should have two options: a) Do Nothing - don't revert, don't block, just ignore it b) Do Something - contact local authorities, talk to user. This would allow repeat suicide message posters to be blocked / banned. 87.114.7.38 (talk) 20:46, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Editor adding unusual section to Fascism

Resolved

 – User blocked by Golbez for disruption, talk page privileges revoked by Mjroots. Should he continue after the block, report to Golbez, Mjroots or to me for indef.  Sandstein  13:15, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Obviously not resolved. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 09:29, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Franklinbe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Franklinbe continues to insert a section into the Fascism article that is an incoherent conpiracy theory claiming the US government is "Fascist Government #1 Worldwide".[129][130] He has set up an RfC[131] and has applied for mediation[132] despite no support for his section. None of this is constructive. The Four Deuces (talk) 05:08, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

That indeed might not be 50% proven, so not ready for an encyclopedia. If anyone should've told me it was this little detail, I would've let it out.
Beeing raised katholic, with a US Nuke in my backyard and secret forces operating after Hitler Shot himself, I like some Truth. And since it's out here it's time to make some links as Our Wiki Founders wished for. End of the World in 2012? Good or Bad? Belgium is not the one who started talking about Change. --Franklinbe (talk) 05:24, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

A cursory glance at the user's contribution log shows that his sole activity thus far has to constantly insert that one section into Fascism. Additionally, the comment above clearly shows his thought processes, for better or worse. --HubHikari (talk) 05:45, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

[133]. Sceptre ^(talk) 05:55, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Again, I believe you are slowing me down in life. Check the IP adress before you make idiot comments and vandalising someone elses work.--Franklinbe (talk) 06:36, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Asserting yourself will not make you thin, nor pretty. --Franklinbe (talk) 06:36, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Anyne else feel that the editor needs a reminder about no personal attacks for these comments, and others on his talk page? Tony Fox (arf!) 07:07, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Author (Franklinbe) is picking the wrong article. Suggest he takes his efforts to the article on Neo-fascism. Problem solved. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 06:47, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

If Nazism belongs to the article (fascism subgroups), I believe this sub-category belongs there (Fascism) to. --Franklinbe (talk) 07:00, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Hm. It must have occurred to you by now that you are very alone with this belief... no? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 07:02, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Since you're prob 'In' with America. The next Fascist Cunt that deletes an article (stub) on a system that is besad on equal liberties, could get shot in a lot of countries. --Franklinbe (talk) 07:05, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

If I can't say that, what is the use of America anyway? --Franklinbe (talk) 07:07, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh. I see your basic misconception. Wikipedia is not America. In America , you certainly have the freedom to "not give a fuck" as you so eloquently put it on your talkpage. On wikipedia, we do give a fuck, and that fuck is called "consensus." Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 07:11, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Problem is that the 'talk' about fascism and the right to have a 'non-brainwashed' brain from birth, is in fact a discussion that has been going on for over 2009 years.
Some indeed have problems with the fact that most people are wise enough to take the right decissions. But as a former Belgian Politician once said; "Enough is Enough". --Franklinbe (talk) 07:21, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

PS: Please put a little efford into life and look at Gladio. That will shut you up for a year or 100. I hope. Otherwise, I'm always in for an interesting conversation. --Franklinbe (talk) 07:21, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Restating the point: Should you decide to re-insert material to this or any other article without consensus, your edits will be reverted. If you revert more than 3 times in a 24-period, you will be blocked. Issue resolved. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 07:26, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I am aware of that. That's why I will only check this page once in 'a while'. --Franklinbe (talk) 07:32, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Wich means every day for the next couple of days, 'cause I'm having Fun here @ Wikipedia. Keeping an eye on the Timer though. ;) --Franklinbe (talk) 07:32, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Did any of you seen 'InGlorius Basterds' by Quentin Tarantino? --Franklinbe (talk) 07:43, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I did, yesterday. --Franklinbe (talk) 07:43, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

This Song Is Not A Rebel Song This Song Is Called 'Sunday Bloody Sunday'. --Franklinbe (talk) 07:48, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

What is the 'Resolved Part' about? Am I still in highschool? Not aloud to critique or ask 'difficult' Questions? Why do we Vote? --Franklinbe (talk) 07:56, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Why is 85% of the World Laughing AND (Googelisious) all of the Birds Signing (Fascist) Louder Than Ever (bit of Philosophical Wisdom and Poëtic Creativity') before? --Franklinbe (talk) 08:32, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Remember that every edit you make is noted (or to be found). --Franklinbe (talk) 08:32, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I am aware of that. That's why I will only check this page once in 'a while'. --Franklinbe (talk) 07:32, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Wich means every day for the next couple of days, 'cause I'm having Fun here @ Wikipedia. Keeping an eye on the Timer though. ;) --Franklinbe (talk) 07:32, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Those that believe to have the right to ask for Respect, should think about the Responcibility that comes with it. Thereby I give all of you 14 Days to come Up with a Good Explenation why my part of the article should be Deleted. If you believe that this is not acceptable, Please get in touch through my Talk Page or file a complaint with WikiMedia. 10Q --Franklinbe (talk) 09:05, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Every Second I Think about this, is a Second on your Account. That is what I Believe. --Franklinbe (talk) 09:05, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Based on the evidence provided in this section, his contributions as well as this diatribe following his recent 48 hrs block, was it not about time to consider if this user should get an indef? Even with the best of faiths I have a hard time imagining this user being able to contribute anything worthwhile to this encyclopedia. --Saddhiyama (talk) 10:37, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I have to agree with Saddhiyama. He has no concept of neutrality or of what material is encyclopedic. He seems to add incoherent content in the most inappropriate places. He doesn't listen. He doesn't learn. He doesn't take advice. He misinterprets advice as oppression. He gets angry and abusive. Whether or not he is being intentionally disruptive, it is clear that he is highly disruptive to an important and sensitive article (one that has a genuinely important RfC ongoing which we should be giving our attention to, not dealing with this nonsense). I didn't report him myself because he seemed to have moved from adding inappropriate content to articles to arguing on various talk and project pages. This seemed to show some respect, if not understanding, of our policies and processes. My hope was that this was a prelude to him either gaining understanding or else getting bored and going away. I am dismayed to see that he then went back to adding blatantly inappropriate article content and also seriously ramped up the incivility. Once he got blocked he just continued ranting on his talk page. All he wants from us is a place to rant. We are not here to provide him with a free soapbox. There are plenty of other places he can go for that. --DanielRigal (talk) 11:30, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I've revoked his talk page editing privilege. Let's see what happens when the block expires. Support an indef block if he doesn't learn from this. Mjroots (talk) 11:07, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

That seems more than fair. Do you think we should clean up the mess he has made on the various talk pages and project pages, or just leave it as it is? --DanielRigal (talk) 11:34, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd say leave user talk pages to the user concerned, they are free to remove of leave the comments as they see fit. Leave project pages to project members to deal with. Offensive comment tend to say more about the commentor than others. Mjroots (talk) 13:09, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Apt time to point to Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not therapy. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 13:15, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I upped the block to indef, but he'll be able to edit his talk page in a couple days. There's no reason to let him back before he commits to actually doing something constructive. Someguy1221 (talk) 19:25, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Indef sounds entirely appropriate, Wikipedia is not a substitute for therapy. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:43, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppet?

This is continuation of "Admin help needed" above: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Admin_help_needed

User Breein1007 who opened his account today have once again deleted the Jubata Ez-Zeit article. At the Neve Ativ talkpage he says: "as usual you are " [134]

First of all the source is accessible and reliable "Arab Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Golan and co-authored by Declan Gannon, legal researcher Al- Marsad, and Dr. Ray Murphy, senior lecture Irish Center for Human Rights." If he didnt feel it was reliable or wanted to removed the article he should have asked at the talkpage.

The fact that a new account does something like this says something. I am now asking, how do I revert it so the article Jubata Ez-Zeit‎ re appears? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 09:23, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

By the way I reverted Breein1007's Jubata Ez-Zeit redirect to Neve Ativ. That seemed way to bold. The source looks fine and the pdf loads. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:42, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:SPI is over there. Mjroots (talk) 13:13, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

lol supreme deliciousness you must be a lonely guy to spend so much time spreading your rubbish about me. It makes me feel special though :)Breein1007 (talk) 19:07, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Uncivil behavior by Rndxcl

Resolved

 – Blocked. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:50, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Rndxcl (talk · contribs)

Constant uncivil behavior by Rndxcl [135] [136] [137] [138] PRODUCER (talk) 13:05, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

User notified of thread. No attempt at discussion of this behavior appears to have been made on user's talk page.  Frank  |  talk  13:42, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Warned by User:Dougweller.  Frank  |  talk  13:44, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Rndxcl is a single purpose account that, as of this comment's posting, has made 35 edits since June 2007. Rndxcl is a very aggressively political contributor whose contributions are more intended to engage in soapboxing and real-world political debates rather than attempting to improve the encyclopedia. His edits are at times very inflammatory and directed against Muslim people of former Yugoslavia. Either way, they're not helpful. Here's some examples:

• [139] - "wikipedia is the most antiserb tool out there", "were it not for the media markale square massacre would be painted in its true light, being the selfinflicted PR wound that got the serbs bombed to hell", "you think the fucking media is worth sourcing?"
• [140] - "muslims are capable of slaughtering their own fucking people"
• [141] - "This article is in dire need of deislamofication"
• [142] - "You practise beheadings, just like Your child raping prophet", "whiny little protoserbs"
• [143] - "but clearly you are right and the Serbs are the root of all ills in that Bosnian hellhole"
• [144] - "Lol well, you must be very careful of what you say when muslims are around"
• [145], [146] - "Calling this a massacre of 8000 men and boys makes it sound as if the muslims were using child soldiers, which they probably were"
• [147] - "You idiots"
• [148] - "you piece of shit muslim revisionist", "Won't separate the women from the mujahideen. Nuh huh. We'll kill them too! even the kids!", "Srebrenica was amazing by the way"

The project is not helped by letting this editor continue spreading his polemicism in articles of already volatile nature. It's not even an issue of civility, this is an issue that needs to be remedied by employing a decision reached at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia 2. The arbitration case decision for single purpose accounts states:

• "Single purpose accounts are expected to contribute neutrally instead of following their own agenda and, in particular, should take care to avoid creating the impression that their focus on one topic is non-neutral, which could strongly suggest that their editing is not compatible with the goals of this project."

Therefore, this user should be given a specific ARBMAC2 warning that further disruption will result in a topic ban from all ex-Yu related articles with a subsequent project ban if the topic ban is violated. There should be no tolerance for people using Wikipedia as their political or religious battleground which is all this user has done in the last 2 years. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 15:20, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree that WP:AGF is being stretched pretty thin here, but a review of the entire history of the user's talk page shows exactly five edits, and two of them were today. The first of today's edits was an "only warning" regarding personal attacks. Given the diffs, that may be appropriate, but...how is a user (new or otherwise) supposed to understand the community's expectations if no effort is made to explain them? I don't think it's unreasonable to explain what we expect before blocking or banning a user for not meeting those expectations. What will it take, another 3 or 4 edits and a day or two?  Frank  |  talk  16:02, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

The "you piece of shit muslim revisionist" insult occurred four days ago. An only warning is appropriate here. A smidgeon of useful contribution is not an excuse for bigoted abuse that blatant. One doesn't assume good faith in the face of strong evidence to the contrary. Durova³⁶² 16:30, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I hope it didn't appear I was suggesting that it was not appropriate to warn about that edit. What I mean is that if all these diffs exist, why is it that they weren't previously brought up with the user at his talk page rather than here as a venue of first resort? I agree AGF can only go so far, but we do have a process and if everyone assumes someone else has explained it to the user and in fact nobody has...we're not preventing or even reducing disruption. I daresay that it is the very rare edit indeed on this page that has ever done so.  Frank  |  talk  16:41, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

No one has to explain to anyone that this behavior is inappropriate. We are not required to teach users to not say "you piece of shit muslim". Had I arrived on this scene prior to this thread, I would have indefblocked without any process. Tan | 39 16:44, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

The issue of tendentious editing in the area of ex-Yu topics is severe enough to have warranted two arbitration cases in two years. It is waaaaaay beyond the scope of AGF to assume that someone who refers to other editors as "you piece of shit muslim revisionist" and promising to kill children (however sarcastic the comment may have been, it's highly inflammatory) may not know that what he's doing is hot helpful. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of editors of different political affiliations editing ex-Yu articles on a daily basis. Minor skirmishes are impossible to avoid but major disruptions have proven to be cripling to article development as well as being extremely detrimental in advancing a level of civility between the editors of conflicting opinions. Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating a "shoot first, ask questions later" type of indef-blocking anyone and everyone who may remotely be in violation of civility and NPA policies. But the ARBCOM cases have brought forth decisions that allowing openly extreme violators to operate under the guise of AGF while we go through the beaurocratic process of incremental template warnings can create irreperable damage and renewed hostilities between opposing editors. It is not in the best interest of Wikipedia to keep assuming good faith when it's difficult to find a helpful contribution among the many racist examples of inflammatory polemics. It is left to the discretion of any uninvolved administrator to issue warnings and remedies but it's not unheard of to indef-block someone who's here clearly to stir the pot rather than to help us build an encyclopedia. Hankz1982 (talk · contribs) was indef-blocked as a disruptive SPA account with only three prior edits to his talk page. Mihalis (talk · contribs) was indef-blocked as a POV pusher after seven edits to his talk page in a period of three years. Further disruption from Rndxcl should not be tolerated as a simple civiliy issue to be dealt with in the form of incrementally lengthened blocks. A clear warning pointing him to WP:ARBMAC and WP:ARBMAC2 needs to be issued. Additionally to those warnings, if anyone feels up to the task of educating this editor in the policies and guidelines of our project, by all means feel free to do so. But further disruption from him should most certainly not be treated the same as someone like yourself, Frank, losing your temper (hypothetically speaking, of course, I can't say I've ever witnessed this) and telling someone to "f off". You are an asset to this project and such infractions need to be addressed but they are not serious. Someone who spends most of his time on this project spouting off unveiled racist comments is not an asset to the project and his prolonged exposure to the topics at hand can easily jeopardize the relative peace and quiet that exists at the moment. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 16:47, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

This is a silly debate. This user has made more than one edit that should result an instant ban on all editing. These are outlined by PRODUCER at the start of this thread. Then follows a limp discussion about warning notices. This level of abuse and racial hatred should face zero tollerence. We are not talking about a few swear words and some name calling. Polargeo (talk) 17:38, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

The editor has been warned and I fully support immediate indef block if any remotely similar edit comes from the user. I will not object if another admin feels such a block is already warranted. I understand the alternate points of view but further discussion (if anyone cares) is best conducted elsewhere, such as my talk page.  Frank  |  talk  17:34, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Please as Frank mentions can another admin consider blocking this user indef. We should not tollerate this thankyou Polargeo (talk) 17:44, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Indef blocked, racist trolling and abusing other editors with few constructive contributions. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:50, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Interwiki doesn't work

Interwiki in all articles is completely broken! What has happened? Kubek15^{T CS} 18:35, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't know, but all interlanguage and interwiki links are broken across the entire project.--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail Review} 18:41, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Wait, it works now.--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail Review} 18:42, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

No, it doesn't! See [149] for example! Kubek15^{T CS} 18:48, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Purge the page cache and bypass your browser's cache.--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail Review} 18:49, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, it works fine now. Kubek15^{T CS} 19:18, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Redlink

So, under the edit box there's a redlink for Foundation:Terms of Use with the text "You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license. See the Terms of Use for details." Someone should correct that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.89.85 (talk) 18:38, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

See section immediately above this one. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:40, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

UMD vandal strikes again

The UMD vandal has struck again, this time at 129.2.112.111. I've attempted to extend the rangeblock that we placed on 128.8.x.x to the 129.2.x.x range (since it seems that they can and will strike again), but I'm not sure if it worked. Here's the log entry: [150]. Did that block go through, or did I spectacularly fail? (And if I failed, could someone fix it?) SchuminWeb (Talk) 20:10, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Best I can tell, it worked. Toddst1 (talk) 21:19, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by User:Kusamanic and sock puppetry

Resolved

 – As there is already an SPI ongoing, there is no need for this cross-posting. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:26, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Kusamanic is always removing the contributions of other users from articles about Chile: [151];[152];[153];[154];[155].

This user is trying to sell the idea that White people are a majority in Chile. When somebody posts a sourced information claiming the opposite, or post pictures of non-White Chileans, he removes the informations and pictures and accuses other users of vandalism, etc. 190.208.87.126 is probably his sock puppet, that he often uses to remove the informations from other users as well. This IP number is currently blocked for edit-warring. I opened a sock poppet investigation here and I hope some administrator can conffirm the sock poppetry from this user. Opinoso (talk) 20:18, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I have notified Kusamanic of this thread. GiantSnowman 20:25, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi, With this user have been starting had many problems that does not respect the sources (see below) and his obsession with Chile. For this and other similar reasons has been often block also being warned by his constant personal attacks on other users, as we see here[156] [157] aside has been responsible for a "public trial" against me, as we see here. [158] [159] [160] It is why I call it sabotage to my image. Also, I am accused by User:Opinoso the use of puppet accounts, apparently without knowledge of the policies of Wikipedia, which refers to "Sockpuppet", who are the users who have multiple accounts registered to engage in vandalism or to avoid Blocks. This is obviously not my case, I have never been blocked in more than 1 year working for the Wikipedia.

• Disagree: In addition, all started after a consensus achieved by the User: Likeminas and I, which after a few days the User:Opinoso again changed the information that was reversed by the User:190.46.53.155 to a previous edition of consensus. Then the User:Opinoso again changed the main information of the article Chilean people, and adding information without giving the exact page that you can confirm the information. [161]

• Answers burlesque by User:Opinoso: Therefore I leave a message asking the exact source to verify the information you have inserted the articleChilean people and Demographics of Chile [162], User:Opinoso I answered this: ← Pages 334-335 from the book. You have the book at home, since you're asking me to cite the pages. Since you have the book and pages may differ, just go to the part that talks about Chile, the informations are on the first two pages. Didn't you read it yet?! Have a nice reading![163]→ With your answer laughs at me and the political of Wikipedia the verifiability of sources.

• Brief argument about their lack of neutrality: User:Opinoso doesn't act in good faith in each case. It imposes his personal opinion for on the mentioned sources and he has an appreciation preconceived on the population from Chile according to his point of view like we can observe here. ←Of course my personal opinion is not a source, but I have been to Chile myself and there's no way that 60% are Whites. Even in the areas of "German settlement" of Southern Chile, the local population looks more Amerindian than anything else→[164] Without respecting the sources where they write of a white majority in Chile that varies from 52,7% and 90% to the population´s. [165][166] [167][168] finally remarking that Chile is amerindian-mestizo like he writes here in one of its summaries of editions saying this without any source to back it up.Chile is mostly Amerindian-mestizo.--Kusamanic (talk) 22:03, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Forbidden (palhost)

This user is displaying admin icons on their user and user talk pages. They have blanked my advice to remove the icons. I'm leaving notice of this post on their talk. Thanks Tiderolls 08:01, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Indef blocked; obvious vandalism-only account. --Golbez (talk) 08:22, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

• Note: it looks like this is the same user as 70.121.37.111 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) of the preceding section. DVdm (talk) 10:53, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Yep. Also blocked (48 hours). Probably the usual 13-year-old boy with too much time on his hands. Shame, because I wouldn't mind the blow-job he's offered twice [169] [170] but I don't want one enough to commit a felony. ➜❝Redvers❞ 10:59, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

That's not even funny. Consider a refactor, please. Durova³⁶² 22:50, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Gross. Lara 02:42, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

...Redvers, that's warped, chummer. Refactor it. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Stop... at a WHAMMY!!)} 03:08, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Drip by drip, this place gets less and less enjoyable and more and more politically correct every day. ➜❝Redvers❞ 07:34, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

No, consider it another instance where you shouldn't feed the trolls. -- llywrch (talk) 22:42, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Request for block review

Can an uninvolved admin take a look at NathanielDawson (talk · contribs)? I support the block due to the edit warring, and pointy disruptive editing, but would appreciate it if the block were reviewed by non-involved admins. The blocking admin was Spinningspark (talk · contribs), who was involved in an editing dispute with the user at Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests#Submarine cables. The blocking admin did invite a review of the block [171], and is being completely open about the issue ... but I still feel that an uninvolved admin's input on the situation would be beneficial. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:38, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I have notified both NathanielDawson and Spinningspark about this thread. GiantSnowman 20:48, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Please also include a review of the block of user:CasesBased (an admitted sock) user:83.170.113.97 and range block on 83.170.112.0/21 (block evasion). SpinningSpark 20:59, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

It is clear to me that the blocked NathanielDawson is evading the block with numerous socks, so I've protected this page. I'll go on record as saying Spinningspark should have let someone else make this block as s/he is a highly involved admin. I haven't figured out whether the block is warranted. There's a lot to sort through. Toddst1 (talk) 21:05, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

You might start with the history of Submarine communications cable, where there is a 3RR violation, even if you ignore the IP/sock edits. - MrOllie (talk) 21:12, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah it seems like NathanielDawson deserved blocking for a variety of reasons, just not by an involved admin. Toddst1 (talk) 21:14, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

You are right that there was a little bit of knee-jerk involved but in my defence, I had refrained from reverting NathanielDawson again from the moment he began communicating several days ago (at first he would not) and allowed his edits to stand while the they were debated. I only intervened when he began edit warring with other editors, so in no sense was I involved in an edit war with him when I took admin action. The case seemed clear-cut and per WP:SNOW there seemed little point in allowing him another round while a report was constructed. SpinningSpark 22:54, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Peculiar new user

Moin.nabi (talk · contribs) has been blocked for what appears to be move vandalism - and I totally see why - but I'm not 100% convinced. Can anyone determine what s/he was doing? Perhaps copying his stub article to other names? Weird situation. Wknight94 ^talk 22:51, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I have made Moin.nabi aware of this thread. GiantSnowman 22:55, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh. Yeah. He's blocked anyway and I am guessing is trying to figure out how to contact someone, but a link here doesn't hurt. Thanks. Wknight94 ^talk 22:58, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Some of the edits make even less sense. Replacing the contents of the one possibly legit article Mehrdad Shahshahani with "Hello World!". I'd almost think someone was using his account and/or computer and performing vandalism in his name. Note: I've nominated even that article for speedy deletion, as I'm not seeing any indication of notability beyond that of your typical university professor. --ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 23:00, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I removed the db tag from that article. A full Professor of Mathematics at a notable University is notable and the article seems to make enough of a claim of importance. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 00:32, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

personal attacks

Please help. User Ceha has been doing personal attacks on me lately. Example, [172] He has been harasing me very much because I am persuing action to delete a frauduelent map that he has posted on wikipedia. The discussion about his map had a pause, then I restarted it again lately. I suspect that this is the reason for his attacks on me. Please help. (LAz17 (talk) 18:42, 10 November 2009 (UTC)).

I have notified the user of this thread, on their talk page. Basket of Puppies 18:53, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I have also notified the user of this thread, at the exact same time as BoP. Great minds think alike! GiantSnowman 18:55, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I do apologize if user Laz thinks I've offended him in any way. I did not mean to insult him in any way. In this particular case that user have reverted my change without prior discussing it on the talk pages. We are having this discusion for a long time and during that time user Laz showed uncivil and rude behavior (I think that this report unfortunately part of his tactics). Time after time he is calling me a fascist. Last time was 1.November.2009. [173] He was previously reported and warned about insolting persons and calling them names [174].--Čeha (razgovor) 22:19, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

If we can ignore the he said she said, the apology may take us a long way. Can the two of you resolve not to insult each other, regardless of who insulted whom in the past? Also, if you all could speak English on the English wikipedia, it would be helpful, and not just for situations like this.--chaser (talk) 22:27, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I fully agree. I had no intentions of insulting anybody. However I would like that the guy stops calling me a fascist. Unfortunately, I think that is a pretty serious insult. :/ A little bit of civil behavior and we should solve a great deal of our worries. After all this is an encyclopedia :) --Čeha (razgovor) 22:55, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Much of this, like the comments preceding this for example, looks to be in Serbo-Croatian, in which case I guess you'll need to find a neutral translator to help us out. Or an admin that speaks Serbo-Croatian.--chaser (talk) 20:34, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, that line has not nothing with user Laz. As mentioned before, that user is very rude and uncivil from time to time, and is known for using a lot of swear words (if you find a good translator you can read what kind of stuff that guy wrote).--Čeha (razgovor) 22:25, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

LAz is not the only one C has targeted, I happened to stumble across a clearly racial remark that C made about me in the same discussion. [175] PRODUCER (talk) 23:11, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok, this is clearly overdoing. Did I in any way called you some name, or insulted you? I even apologized if you felt insulted. On the other way you threatened to block my account. And user Laz, which is complaing about personal attacks is insulting me, calling me a fascist even if he was previously warned about that. My behaviour is civil, and I do not have nothing to hide. --Čeha (razgovor) 23:28, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Ceha is a person who becomes very rude to whomever disagrees with him in any way. He then goes about making a discussion as pointless as it can possibly be. A case in point - once a source was agreed upon on a map, he goes back as if the other person did not agree, and starts the discussion all from the beginning. So, he firstly does not want to move forth in discussions, and secondly, he starts insulting. This is what is the case here. Further, he goes about insulting and bringing up false acusations. I never called him a fascist. However, his map is contributing to fascist propaganda. The man has made a very controversial map of a region that is very very ethnically mixed. He went about doing this by on purpose excluding countless settlements. The map was a disaster, an ethnically motivated POV propaganda map. This was not my conclusion, but a conclusion of someone else. The bottom line is that he is very angry at me for questioning his work of art. Now that the discussion has moved forth and a consensus has been reached that his map is not good, he has resulted to regularly insulting me and claiming that his map is fine, yet countless mistakes have been pointed out to him. We are dealing with someone who edit wars and who is very uncooperative. I think that a ban would be a very just thing to do in this case. Please contact the user Direktor for more information. (LAz17 (talk) 05:07, 11 November 2009 (UTC)).

Please do.

User Laz: a) repeated accusations about "fascistit propaganda" [176] Fascistic nationalistic propaganda is where it all lies

b)previous warnings by adminstrators [177]

c) blocked indeffinetilly on croatian wiki because of swearing. [178]

If anyone has any suggestion what to do with this user, I'm willing to listen. If need be, I will again apologize, but unfortunately I do not see that would solve anything. --Čeha (razgovor) 14:44, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

This is exactly what I am talking about. I could not have said it better myself. A)Fascistit- notice the use of words. The real word is fascist propaganda, about his map. He is on purpose wrongly interpreting this to mean that he is a fascist- no his map only contributes to that propaganda - if it is intentional or not is the question. Admin warnings? Sure, but look into what they are about. You and I were edit warring. Interesting how you do not mention certain info. I was unblocked on the croatian wikipedia. The user Kubara put on purpose "wrong information". I beat him on the english wiki... it all starts with the source, apparently even he can not make up stuff without a source - though you do that regularly. Lastly, the word "zajebavas" is not messing. In english "nemoj da me zajebavas" means "don't mess around with me". That is what I told him, and with reason - and this is supposed to be swearing? His information was wrong, and if you do not beleive it look at the talk page of the croatian hockey league. (LAz17 (talk) 18:29, 11 November 2009 (UTC)).

I would honestly like that someone sees this because it's like living in a paralel universes. What is a person who spreads fascist propaganda? What do the word fascist has to do with Balkans in the end of 20th century?

The guy was almost blocked by an administrator because of his uncivil behavior, but it just edit warring??

And the translation of "zajebavaš" is wrong. It means to fuck around. That is the language which Laz uzes.

As for croatian wikipedia, Laz can you provide link for us to see your behavior? I'm very interested what they sad to you.--Čeha (razgovor) 22:01, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Moreover, user Laz started attacking another user (Polargeo) [179].--Čeha (razgovor) 22:06, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

1) fascist has to do with the ustashe movement. The movement never died with the end of world war two. It came back in the 1990s. It is at the core of croatian nationalism, especially claims that croatia should gobble up all of bosnia. Your map which shows the croats as overrepresented only fosters that. Granted that your map is not as outrageous as it was when I first started complaining, it is still outrageous. Direktor coming in to mediate the discussion gave you no choice than to fix some of the major mistakes, but there are still dozens of mistakes left. Several people have said that your map is not acceptable. For this you hate me.

2) I have never used or heard the word "zajebavas" as go fuck around. Serbocroatian is a very dirty language. We have words like "jebiga". Jebiga means "oh well". But it can also mean "fuck him". Almost always it is used as "oh well". So, I think you should stop trying to trick our people here in translation.

3) For croatian wikipedia, just go to the ice hockey page. You can see that there is still very much un-sourced fraud information. Kubara has backed down from the fraud on the english wikipedia. Neither of us were completely right, so we came to a comprise halfway inbetween. You on the other hand want all or nothing.

4)Polargeo was not attacked at all. He might have been intimidated with some sources that I posted on his talk page. How can one interpret information as an attack. He made a particular rape in a war article, and I told him why I felt that it was biased, and I gave him some more sources that might help improve the article to a less biased tone. (LAz17 (talk) 05:07, 12 November 2009 (UTC)).

Exactly my point.

a) Calling someone or its work fascist is a grave insult and has no place in any encyclopedia, no matter what you though about or how you cover it up. You should be sanctioned for that.

b) No. "Zajebavaš" comes from "jebati" which means "to fuck" it is always a dirty word, no matter in Croatian, Serbian or some hibrid. It is not a word which is spoken on TV or in public.

c) I do not understand what you think that I want, but is that important? You had problems on Croatian wiki because of your rude behavior.

d) One word. Dictionary. And a lot of swearing. Laz, Polargeo is right. You should watch your manners. --Čeha (razgovor) 16:09, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Your map itself is a grave insult. The mediator of the map problem, Direktor told you very politely and clearly how it is very obvious that many people can easily be offended by such a wrong map. Your map is a grave insult.

Zajebavas has nothing to do with fucking. In my years I have never heard it being used that way. Recently at a soccer game. It's quite sad if you think that people here believe you. But, maybe there is some dialect difference in serbian and croatian. In serbian the word is very common and used all the time.

On the croatian wiki the only problem was that one word. Is that rude behavior? I don't think so. The problem was that the thugs over there do not even want to discuss the problem, and the problem remains there. On the english wiki, the same article has been cleaned up by myself.

I did not swear at all when talking to poligario. (LAz17 (talk) 05:20, 13 November 2009 (UTC)).

User Ceha is now trying to force me into doing something that to me does not appear to be easy. He is almost attacking me. For info see here, Talk:Central Bosnia Canton. Please can someone tell him to stop harassing me on that page? (LAz17 (talk) 05:21, 13 November 2009 (UTC)).

Someone trying to use Wikipedia as a dating service

NOT YET RESOLVED

Special:Contributions/70.121.37.111. --Rschen7754 (T C) 07:21, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

What a brilliant idea. I wonder if there's a good way to limit it by location, gender, and orientation? It wouldn't help me to succeed in getting a date with a straight guy from Guam. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:50, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for the all caps, but I thought someone should note that it was Chaser's page that was turned into an attack page by Special:Contributions/70.121.37.111 at 70.'s user page. In the circumstances, might it not be appropriate to oversight the edits of the now-blocked user? Bielle (talk) 04:13, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Might help Jimmy with his revenue problem. Irvine22 (talk) 06:36, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

User:DinDraithou

This editor is reverting, across a range of articles, any references to the work of popular science writer Stephen Oppenheimer, on the basis that Oppenheimer is "wrong", "unqualified", or "out of date" - [180]. This is debatable, but he seems unwilling to engage in discussion and relies on assertion that his own views are correct. Because this issue applies across a range of articles, centred on Genetic history of the British Isles (an article title which itself has connotations, which may be related to this dispute), it would be useful if an eye or several could be kept on these articles. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:34, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Chaotic situation going on now - articles being redirected all over. I suggest a block is needed, to allow reverts to the status quo ante, and some sensible discussion to take place after a cooling off period. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:50, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Please inform this user about this thread, per ANI instructions. Thanks! Tan | 39 16:56, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Could you not just do it, in future, maybe? I'll do so now. ╟─TreasuryTag►senator─╢ 16:58, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

No. Tan | 39 16:59, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

An example of Wikipedia administrators at their finest! ╟─TreasuryTag►duumvirate─╢ 17:08, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I was joking with the "no". Call me lazy. Thanks for taking care of this. Tan | 39 17:09, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough ;) ╟─TreasuryTag►Tellers' wands─╢ 17:11, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, should have been me. :-( Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:00, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

It takes two to edit-war, and you're surely one of the two, so doesn't everything you say about DinDraithou apply equally to you? If you can't agree between the two of you, and it seems unlikely that you would, try a third opinion or a request for comments. I'm not going to waste anyone's time by commenting as I have prejudged the dispute. (A large degree of genetic continuity is plausible enough, but Oppenheimer's book is laughably bad. I mean that quite literally as I laughed out loud at one point while reading it. That got me funny looks on the underground.) Do we really need Sykes and Oppenheimer fangirls (or boys) adding their opinions, dumbed through the filters of newspapers and magazines, to every possible article, especially when there is no effort to add academic sources or dissenting views? Probably not. But edit-warring won't solve anything. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:02, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

No one used the term "edit warring" above. The issue is redirecting without consensus (in fact, there seems to be consensus against it, although I am not positive about that). The process is be bold, revert, discuss, not be bold, revert, re-revert, erase attempts to discuss at talk page. I don't see where Ghmyrtle has even come close to edit warring. Tan | 39 17:06, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Would here do? BRBR is not quite the same as BRD. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:14, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, okay. I acknowledge your point here. But again, it was Din that broke the BRD cycle. Tan | 39 17:16, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Ghmyrtle is omitting that there has been considerable discussion, for example in Talk:History of Wales. Stephen Oppenheimer is a pediatrician, not a geneticist. DinDraithou (talk) 17:04, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

(edit clash) Also see this warning (16:41 hours) posted to the talk page of User:DinDraithou which User:DinDraithou deleted (16:42) one minute later, without any form of acknowledgement or discussion. -- PBS (talk) 17:08, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

You don't need to acknowledge something on your talkpage before deleting it: the deletion is taken as acknowledgment that you've read it.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:12, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

A point I have already made to User:DinDraithou on User talk:DinDraithou which was also deleted. -- PBS (talk) 17:17, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

(ec)On the other hand his books are bestsellers and seem to be taken at least somewhat seriously. He may be wrong, but he is not a crackpot. That someone is originally trained in a different field is not sufficient grounds to dismiss them completely. You need better arguments. Hans Adler 17:10, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

This in fact started when I was followed around the place by a persistent POV ghost possessing otherwise fine users to revert my actions, which I had explained. DinDraithou (talk) 17:15, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

None of this excuses your moving articles without discussion -- putting 'political concept' in the edit summary is not sufficient, and in light of the other disagreements looks confrontational. Dougweller (talk) 17:23, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

An "explanation" in a talk page of one article some time ago - agreed by some editors, and not by others - does not, in my view, go very far towards justifying today's actions. But moving on... There are two issues here. One is the title of the core article, which was called Genetic history of the British Isles and is now (?) called Genetic history of Britain (even though it contains text on Ireland). In my view this should be discussed at Wikipedia talk:British Isles Terminology task force, which exists to try and resolve these issues. The second issue is over how Oppenheimer's writings should be dealt with. My view (expressed at Talk:History of Wales#Population genetics) is that "that should be discussed at the Genetic history of X article, and whatever is ultimately decided there be rolled out for consistency across other articles including this one. This is clearly a contentious issue and it makes no sense to me for editors on one article to take a different view on that controversy to editors on any other. My own opinion is that Oppenheimer should be referenced, and those with counter-arguments should be referenced - readers should be given sufficient information to make up their own minds." And I didn't edit war. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:26, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the arguments you've made in talk pages on these issues aren't terribly good, supporting of bad articles and bad science, and thus you are difficult to communicate with, like a parent defending a child who has committed an adult criminal act. I feel like I'm the arresting officer. DinDraithou (talk) 17:41, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

(edit clash) The point is not whether the article Genetic history of the British Isles is or is not hog-wash. That should be resolved talk:Genetic history of the British Isles. This is a question of your DinDraithou behaviour in deleting links to the article Genetic history of the British Isles and then re-deleting them when they are restored over a number of articles, and coming close to breaching 3RR on Historical immigration to Great Britain.

without any attempt at consensus (using WP:RM) you have made a controversial move "Genetic history of the British Isles" to "Genetic history of Britain" and then repeated if when it was reversed (After my warning on your talk page). [181]

• 16:43, 12 November 2009 DinDraithou (talk | contribs | block) (40 bytes) (moved Genetic history of the British Isles to Genetic history of Britain over redirect: political concept)
• 16:44, 12 November 2009 Ghmyrtle (rv undiscussed changes) (undo)
• 16:47, 12 November 2009 DinDraithou (moved Genetic history of the British Isles to Genetic history of Great Britain: see talk history where already discussed) (rollback | undo)

--PBS (talk) 17:35, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Well I give up, since the list of ferocious defenders has now grown to three.

But be aware that User:DinDraithou/Genetic history of Ireland will eventually appear and force some critical changes. DinDraithou (talk) 18:30, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, no-one reverted DinDraithou's moves in defence of Oppenheimer's theories. The moves were reverted because they were made without consensus. If DinDraithou has any WP:RSs refuting Oppenheimer's theories, it would help the case immeasurably. Many editors are sympathetic to DinDraithou's viewpoint, myself included, but he needs to cite references. Daicaregos (talk) 19:37, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

The battle here is against "celebrity" being where it shouldn't. "Celebrity" is unfortunately not refutable, and so will simply have to be replaced with the right material, which is a fantastically laborious process. Population genetics 2001-2007 was all about celebrity, and then came Karafet et al in 2008 with properly done dating. I will discuss it in the upcoming article. Some users here I believe are a little bit into celebrity pop genetics, and that influences their editing decisions. DinDraithou (talk) 20:17, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

There is no "battle" - the fact that you think there is may help explain your behaviour. Hopefully you'll be able to provide refs that justify what you think the articles should say, which is fine. But it won't be "your" article (WP:OWN), you won't be able to "force some critical changes" (WP:CIVIL), and you should try not commenting on the motives of other editors (WP:NPA). Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:23, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

DinDraithou, This ANI is about the behaviour of one editor, you. I endorse everything that Daicaregos. I find it strange that you should wish to repeatedly remove links to an article which you disprove of instead of fixing the article. You would do far better to discuss if there should be two articles (one for Great Britain and another for Ireland) before you go writing an Irish article. That decision should depend on the science not the internal politics of Wikipedia editors. If most scientific papers treat the population of the islands as separate research entities, then it is probably worth having two articles providing there is enough information for two none stubby articles; or perhaps if there is not both should be paragraphs in the article Genetic history of Europe. However these decisions should be made by seeking a consensus at talk:Genetic history of the British Isles rather than edit warring about it or creating new pages to make a point. -- PBS (talk) 09:30, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Jimbo Wales disruption

Resolved

 – semi/24h Toddst1 (talk) 08:17, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Jimbo is being disruptive disrupted ;) Someone with a bunch of IPs is loving an edit war over the colour scheme and some formatting nits I fixed. Someone please semi the thing for a bit? Thanks a bunch. I'm bored with the silliness and am off. Cheers, Jack Merridew 08:09, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Jack Merridew 08:19, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Attempted outing

User:H_Debussy-Jones is attempting to "out" User:Sorrywrongnumber in this thread: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Yesterday_Was_a_Lie

User:H_Debussy-Jones provides what he believes to be the editor's real life name, and a link to what he believes is the editor's physical address.

Regardless of whether the accusation is true or not, I believe this is grounds for a permablock on User:H_Debussy-Jones 166.205.130.225 (talk) 02:12, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I would appreciate anyone looking into this reading the entire thread, which deals with the apparent conflict of interest editing of the article about Yesterday Was a Lie, an independent film due for theatrical release in December. Examination of the contributions shows that the major contributors to the article, both named accounts and IPs, are all interconnected, and the probability is that they are connected to the director of the film or a close associate -- and I have suggested exactly as much in that thread. I have also suggested that the problem can be solved without anyone's identity being revealed, if the primary account responsible, User:Sorrywrongnumber, came to the COI board and said "I am connected with the production and I will not edit the articles connected to it anymore." There's no need for anyone to be "outed", and 166's accusation is baseless -- as well as the fifth or sixth major policy violation he or she has accused me of in the course of this discussion. Sach (talk) 02:28, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Posting or even suggesting what you believe might be an editor's real life name and/or address is absolutely forbidden, no exceptions. Trying to demonstrate COI is not a defense for what you did. Not to mention the fact that posting that link adds nothing to your case - it only demonstrates that Helicon is Kerwin's production company, which is public knowledge and adds nothing to the discussion of whether Sorrywrongnumber has a COI. You crossed the line, greatly.166.205.130.225 (talk) 02:38, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Let me reiterate. I have said that User:Sorrywrongnumber, User:Boxcarwillie, User:Filmsnoir and User:Helicon Arts Cooperative, along with a whole bunch of IPs of the 69.23x.xxx.xxx range, appear to working together, and could be sockpuppets or meatpuppets. User:Sorrywrongnumber is the primary account, since all but 9 of their 140 edits are to Yesterday Was a Lie, <name redacted> (the film's director), Chase Masterson (the film's producer and star) or related articles about the rest of the cast and other subjects connected to director Kerwin. I laid out all the evidence for this in this thread on WP:COIN, and came to the conclusion that the probability is that User:Sorrywrongnumber is director <name redacted> or a close associate.

As part of the discussion, the geolocation of the 69.23x IPs was shown to be Los Angeles, which is consistent with someone involved with films doing the editing, and as part of that discussion, I pointed at that "Helicon Arts Cooperative", the production company behind the film, and the apparent entity behind User:Helicon Arts Cooperative is listed by the IRS as having an address in Los Angeles c/o James P. Kerwin. James P. Kerwin's address in Los Angeles is a matter of public record, since it's in the phone book, and anyone can find it (as I did) in 2 seconds.

Now, I've never at any time said that User:Sorrywrongnumber is <name redacted>, I've said that it seems probable that it is <name redacted> or a close associate, so there's been no "outing" and no revelation of a member's address. That would happen only if User:Sorrywrongnumber were to say "I am <name redacted>" -- but there is no necessity for that to happen, since User:Sorrywrongnumber can simply say "I am connected to the production, andI will not edit these articles" for the COI problem to be cleared up.

I look forward to seeing what other Wikipedia policies 166 finds to accuse me of violating in their peculiarly zealous defense of the conflict of interest editors in question. Sach (talk) 03:10, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll make this simple for you. Posting the name and address of who you think an editor MIGHT be or PROBABLY is is still a violation of WP:OUTING and WP:PRIVACY. It does not matter if the address is public record elsewhere. It is DOUBLY a violation because you are linking to the address of the subject of an article. I don't know how much clearer to make this. You are in violation, period. And enough with the "particularly zealous defense" gibberish. You are the one searching tax records for the director's address. That borders on cybersralking and your obsession with these Filmmakers is downright creepy.166.205.130.225 (talk) 03:26, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I think taht everyone understands that you believe this to be the case, but it's really other people's opinions that are important now, so there's no need to continue to repeat your accusation, unless you have additional evidence you'd like to present.

Incidentally, for future reference, you're supposed to notify editors when you bring them up on AN/I -- a third party did the honors for you. (And, no, my request that you not post on my talk page doesn't nullify that -- it's quite allowable to post succinct notices on talk pages despite such requests.) On that subject, I have notified User:Sorrywrongnumber, User:Boxcarwillie and User:Filmsnoir that their names have come up here. User:Helicon Arts Cooperative has been blocked as a username violation. Sach (talk) 03:33, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally, your suggestion that I have an "obsession" with these folks is rather bizarre, considering that I had never even heard of them before last night, and that the whole thing could have been nipped in the bud almost immediately with a simple statement from User:Sorrywrongnumber to have not understood Wikipedia policies and pledge not to edit the articles anymore. (Recall that the first step in this whole thing was that I suggested on the talk pages of these four accounts that they familairize themselves with WP:COI, since I AGF that they didn't know they were doing wrong.) But, instead, SWN blanked my notices away, a number of 69.23x IP's attacked the article and the discussion trying the eliminate it through brute force, and you arrived to (apparently) fight the good fight just for the shear principle of defending people you don't know and have no connection to. Sach (talk) 03:42, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

The IP is right. You aren't allowed to do what you've been doing, please go have a thorough read of WP:OUTING.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 03:44, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I have read it, and I disagree -- but if I'm wrong, then why not have someone oversight the mention of the address on WP:COIN. Seems simple enough.

Unless you believe that there was some intent to cause harm, in which case you'd be mistaken. Sach (talk) 03:50, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally, under the interpretation of policy you're advocating, how does one go about dealing with a conflict of interest problem without in any way speculating on the possible identity of the editors involved? Seems like something of a Catch-22. Sach (talk) 03:53, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

You do so by giving facts about a possible affilation. You do not, under any circumstances, post their possible name or address. It is not an interpretation of the policy that I'm advocating, but the policy itself. You are not allowed to post the real, or possible, real-life name and address of a user unless it is posted by them, on their user talk page, or elsewhere. Directly from the policy page, emphasis mine: Posting another person's personal information is harassment, unless that person voluntarily had posted one's own information, or links to such information, on Wikipedia oneself. Personal information includes legal name, date of birth, identification numbers, home or workplace address, job title and work organisation, telephone number, email address, or other contact information, whether any such information is accurate or not.

The policy is quite clear, I am going to find the diffs in question and request oversight, since such activity is expressly forbidden.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 04:01, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the policy is clear, but your interpretation of it in this case is faulty. "<name redacted> or a close associate" is not a person, "<name redacted> or a close associate" is a class of people.

Good luck with the oversight -- perhaps you might want to contribute to discussion of the underlying problem, the unresolved conflict of interest of the named editors on Yesterday Was a Lie and associated articles? Sach (talk) 04:08, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

LOL! Listen to yourself! You can't get around WP:OUTING by naming a person and linking to his address, but then adding "or his associates" as some type of disclaimer! The admins will see right through that. You named a name and linked to an address, and that's forbidden, period.

As for the "unresolved COI"... as Benjiboi has asked you elsewhere: WHAT content is unresolved? The article has been rewritten, and there is consensus that there is no existing COI information in the articles you mention. As you have been told, past possible COI edits do NOT mean that there is a current "unresolved" COI. Either indicate the material that you think is COI that still remains, or drop it. Whining about the identity of editors who previously edited the article(s) is making you look ridiculous. The matter is closed. The discussion now is your egregious violation of WP:OUTING. Stop changing the topic.166.205.130.225 (talk) 04:24, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Pace your opinion and that of Daedalus969, who has, in good faith, misunderstood the policy, there was no attempted "outing", but there is an ongoing conflict of interest in that User:Sorrywrongnumber and numerous IPS of the 69.23x.xxx.xxx range are clearly associated in some way with the production company for Yesterday Was a Lie, and they were instrumental in editing and shaping its content, in saving it from being deleted, and in contributing to various articles associated with it. The conflict of interest hasn't disappeared simply because someone -- namely me, over your vehement objections and the disruptive editing of the 69.23x IPs -- cleaned up the article, the conflict continues to exist as long as User:Sorrywrongnumber, User:Boxcarwillie, User:Filmsnoir, and the 69.23x crew are able to edit these articles.

Seems pretty simple to me -- I;m surprised you don't get it. Nothing is "closed", at this point, I don't think. Sach (talk) 04:47, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

As I and others have explained to you ad nauseum, a COI DOES NOT exist simply because someone possibly associated with a film is "able" to edit the article, or has done so in the past. A COI is ONLY considered to exist if there is PRESENTLY biased or nonneutral material in the article which was contributed by those people. What part of that do you not understand?166.205.130.225 (talk) 04:54, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I have not misunderstood the policy. You posted the possible name and address of the user. That isn't allowed, period. Posting or one of his associates does not change the fact that you posted a name and an address. I posted an excrept from the policy above, that quite clearly states the same thing. There is nothing to misunderstand. You are in violation of the policy, period. You said wait until others comment, well, others comment, and you were proved wrong. What do you do instead of admitting fault? You say they're wrong. So, is this what you're going to do when others post the same response? Discount their opinion too?— Dædαlus ^Contribs 05:03, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid you're mistaken. But, since you ask, if sufficient others chime in here to say that I'm wrong in my understanding, I will, of course, bow to consensus. But since I've already suggested that the solution is to oversight the mention of the address, there's no particular reason to get bent out of shape about this. If I'm wrong, them I'm wrong, but pointing at the policy more and more vehemently and insisting that I believe what you say simply because you say it isn't going to an effective method of convincing me. Sach (talk) 05:18, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Sach you are wrong. Outing is outing and saying that adding "or a close associate" means it isn't is just wikilawyering. Frankly you are very lucky not to be blocked for severely violating 3RR and outing. P.S. WP:SPI is the appropriate place for accusation of abusing multiple accounts, not the article talk page. --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:28, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)And I'm afraid you are wrong, Sach. I am not mistaken, as this admin clearly states. I don't have the slightest understanding as to why you think I'm wrong. You posted a possible name and address. The excerpt I posted clearly stated that posting a possible name or address is forbidden. Do I need to post it again? What's so hard to understand about this? But go ahead.. Humor me, how am I wrong? As the admin states, Wikilawyering changes nothing, you are still violating policy. In the mean time, I am going to have such diffs removed.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 05:46, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Thaddeus: Thanks for you comment. Let me note that placing a COI tag (or any tag, for that matter) is not supposed to be a hit-and-run affair. Once is suppposed to start a discussion on the article's talk page concerning the issue that tag addresses. In this case, I posted a COI tag, so I was obliged to post something that justified my placing the tag, so that a discussion could occur. Because of that, I believe you are mistaken about the appropriateness of the thread I started there. (Afterwards, I sought relief in the next logical place, the WP:COIN noticeboard, and then 166 posted this thread here, which is why it's spread in this manner.)

You won't be surpised to know that I'm afraid I don't agree with your interpretation that "<name redacted> or a close associate" is "Wikilawyering". To me, it clearly denominates a class of people who are responsible for the conflict of interest editing, and is therefore a legitimate description, and not a case of "outing". Sach (talk) 05:38, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Well, isn't this a surprise. You're doing exactly as I predicted. When another comes in and tells you you are wrong, what do you do? You discount their opinion as well. Anyway, to the point. It does not matter if you think it doesn't violate policy, the cold hard truth is that it does. Now, I'm going to delete the name from your post, and request the diff where you posted it to be deleted, along with this one, as you are wantonly violating policy even when told you are wrong. Any admins looking on this report, I suggest you block the above user, as they have shown they will continue to violate policy even when told that they are violating it.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 05:46, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Right, but you see, he is not interested in actually resolving his imagined COI or sockpuppetry. As Benjiboi pointed out, he is more interested in putting a "badge of shame" on the article and its talk page, due to his obvious association with the film and stalkeresque grudge against the filmmakers. 166.205.130.225 (talk) 05:43, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Considering you are also very lucky not to be blocked for edit warring, legal threats, and now borderline person attacks, you might want to be quiet now. --ThaddeusB (talk) 06:00, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

(out)I note that, rather than seek the efforts of an Oversighter, as he said he was going to do, Daedalus969 has taken it upon himself to redact the name of the director of the film in question from this discussion. That seems rather pointless, but I'm not going to revert his quite unnecessary changes. The conflict of interest concerns remain in effect. Sach (talk) 06:22, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I have sought OS help, and have sent the first in a series of emails. The redaction I made there is part of the process.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 06:25, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, I wasn't aware of that -- thanks for the explanation. I'm interested to see if the Oversighter agrees. Sach (talk) 06:37, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Check out your contributions, and you'll find it plainly clear that the Oversighters do agree. Are you going to admit that you were in the wrong now?— Dædαlus ^Contribs 12:19, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

• Side issue: I think the possibility of Sach being the recreation of a blocked/banned user needs to be seriously looked into. How many truly new users make nearly 500 edits, make a COIN post, and act like they have an intimate understanding of policy within 4 days of joining? Something is very fishy here. --ThaddeusB (talk) 06:00, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Thaddeus: I explained my status here, but I'm more than happy to repeat it for you, since you are interested.

I am not a new user, and never claimed to be, nor I have not tried to hide my "personality" by changing my method or style of editing. I edited under another name in the past, and, for reasons of my own, I don't wish to specify what that name was. However, I can and will positively affirm that I am not the reincarnation of a banned user, I am not editing with this account to avoid a block, I have never edited with multiple accounts at the same time, and this account has never commented on or !voted on anything connected with the previous account. I have never, to my knowledge, violated the multiple accounts policy in any way. I state these things categorically, and I am more than happy to have a checkuser verify them. Please feel free to file an WP:SPI request if my affirmation is not sufficient for you. Sach (talk) 06:14, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

OK then, I'll assume good faith on that issue. Still you need to stop insisting you are right about your interpretation of policy when 3 people have told you that you are wrong. (P.S. Since it hasn't been noted yet, COI editing isn't actually forbidden by policy just strongly discouraged, so you might want to check your zeal a bit.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 06:37, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Thaddeus, there's no particular "zeal" on my part -- stuff just keep happening, and I'm responding to it. As I said in a comment to User:Wildhartlivie on their my talk page sometime last night, I'm not a vindictive person, I'm not out to "get" someone, I simply would like to see the article free of overt outside influence from people connected with the film. A simple pledge from the conflicted editors not to edit the article could have stopped this at the very beginning. Instead, my edits were reverted en masses (despite the decided improvement to the article they brought), the discussion of COI problems I started was attacked by brute force in an attempt to delete it, and I've been accused of violating practically every policy in the book by someone who is supposedly a neutal party, but certainly doesn't act like it. I didn't drag this to AN/I, I tried to deal with it on the article talk page, on the talk pages of the editors involved, and then on COIN, but ran up against this quite concerted effort not to give any quarter. All of this, fortunately or unfortunately, points quite unerringly to an attempt to maintain control over the film's article by the people connected with the film. Everything they've done just tends to confirm that my COi concerns are legitimate. Sach (talk) 06:47, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

ThaddeusB, I agree fully. If a Checkuser is able to look into this issue, that would be greatly appreciated. MuZemike 07:56, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Be my guest. My only request is that, unless the checkuser feels it's absolutely necessary to do so, I would prefer my previous account not be named. Sach (talk) 08:04, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I have quickly checked, and not found any obvious sock policy violation by user:H Debussy-Jones. I'll look more later, as I still reviewing the other aspects of this incident. --John Vandenberg ^(chat) 08:55, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Glad to hear it, thank you, and I look forward to what you have to say. Sach (talk) 09:28, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Possible legal threat

Would someone kindly inform 166.205.130.225 that Wikipedia policy prohibits threats of legal action, which is what this appears to be? Of course, it could also be interpreted as a prediction of the future, rather than a threat, but given 166's overly zealous defense of User:Sorrywrongnumber and other COI editors, it becomes increasing hard for me to see him as a neutral third party, as opposed to someone involved. Sach (talk) 05:14, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

This neutral admin sees it as a pretty clear threat. Blocked WP:NLT. Unblock if statement is retracted. Toddst1 (talk) 06:10, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I made no threat. If Sach had slandered me personally, and I had said "I'm going to sue you," that would be a threat. Nothing of the sort happened. Sach was slandering a film company and some filmmaker(s) associated with the company ( saying that these individuals were inserting "viral marketing" promotional material into articles when there is no evidence of this). I suggested that, if he didn't have proof of his outrageous accusations, the individuals he was slandering could sue him. No reasonable person would interpret that as a "legal threat"; it is nonsense. 166.205.130.187 (talk) 06:50, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

166, one doesn't "insert" viral marketing into an article, the article is viral marketing if it is composed in such a way as to be promotional rather than informational, while having the appearance of neutrality.

Also, you may not be aware that using another IP address to post when one is blocked is prohibited. Sach (talk) 07:01, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

FYI, my previous IP has been unblocked. I cannot control which IP I have because my address is dynamic. In any case, you lecturing me on Wiki violations is really the pot calling the kettle black.

Back to the subject at hand... You have still, after a day, failed to answer me, Benjiboi, or the other admins who keep asking you for SPECIFICS as to WHICH portions of the article were "composed in such as way as to be promotional rather than informational." Since you are still unable to answer this, we have had to come to the conclusion that there was no "viral" marketing ever going on here, and that your bizarre preoccupation with this film (so much so that you look up the director's tax records! LOL) is clearly personally motivated. 166.205.131.52 (talk) 07:46, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Well... as the kids say, "Whatever." You have your ideas, and they seem to be unmovable. Of course, they don't jibe with reality, but ultimately that's your problem, and not mine.

I'll continue to monitor the conversation here, but pending the various possible inquiries, by checkuser and oversighter and, for all I know, itinerant preachers, into the nature of my being and behavior, I think I'll withdraw unless someone asks a direct question. In the meantime, of course, over on WP:COIN, we still haven't heard from User:Sorrywrongnumber about their conflicted editing to Yesterday Was a Lie and its related articles. Perhaps SWN sees 166 carrying his water, and feels there is no need to answer the concerns raised, that 166's attacks on my character and behavior will be sufficient distraction to allow the entire thing to blow over – and perhaps he is right, or perhaps there is another reason why SWN has not spoken, and 166 has, with such vehemence and anger, if without much comprehension. Perhaps time will tell; I await checkusers and oversighters and return to the reason I'm here on Wikipedia in the first place: editing.

Adieu. Sach (talk) 08:18, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

"Until someone asks a direct question"?!?!?! Sir, your ability to smokescreen knows no bounds. A number of us have asked you the same direct question for over 24 hours now, which you continue to avoid. While I praise your ability to change the topic, I will (for probably the tenth time) ask the direct question again:

WHICH portions of the article SPECIFICALLY do you claim were "composed in such a way as to be promotional rather than informational," per your accusation? You may yammer on endlessly about socks and checkusers all you like; but your repeated inability to answer this is quite telling. 166.205.131.52 (talk) 08:42, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

At the risk of being accused of "yammering" I've already answered your question. Seek, and you shall find, my angry friend. Sach (talk) 09:18, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

To save everyone here of looking through hours of text, just tell us, here.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 09:26, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I have redacted parts of WP:COIN, suppressed the block of diffs affected, and started a meta discussion at WT:COIN. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 12:29, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Help needed at Australian Vaccination Network

Resolved

 – Edit war ended & a NPOV article is now in place. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:35, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Would an admin care to wander over to Australian Vaccination Network and have a chat with User:124.171.238.230 (who is probably also User:Corruptioninmedicine or just acting as a meatpuppet). The editwarring is getting rather silly. Shot info (talk) 03:56, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Do you think you can provide some WP:DIFFs for the edit warring? Namely, has anyone violated WP:3RR? Basket of Puppies 04:01, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

History gives Corruptioninmedicine/124.171.238.230 doing over 6 rvv today from a detailed version to this cut down version with some rather agressive unsourced infomation in it. Shot info (talk) 04:07, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

While the history is a good starting point, providing specific diffs would be very helpful. Basket of Puppies 04:11, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Protected for two weeks. Yes I know it is the wrong version. But not as wrong as the version that says "The AVN has an extensive internet site selling merchandise and directly advocating distrust of medicine and science, disparaging both as overly influenced by pharmaceutical companies (see conspiracy theory)." What the fuck? "(see conspiracy theory)"?! The article was a POV coatrack and I can hardly blame that IP for repeatedly culling it. Hesperian 04:15, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah yes, and like most coats here in WP, it attacts attention and then gets edited - discussed and (more than likely) probably deleted (my personal opinion) - you know, what happens with 1000's of new articles per day here in WP. I personally don't really give a stuff about the article and/or it's content but I'm more interested in the behavour of the editor(s). Some support from admins in this regard would've been nice. Shot info (talk) 04:24, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Worse than I thought. The version Shot info has been defending has as its second sentence

"The AVN is at present being investigated by the New South Wales Health Care Complaints Commission for breaches of the Public Health Act of 1993."

What does that mean? It means that a skeptics organisation has made a complaint, and released a press release about that complaint. The claim is sourced to the press release. There's doesn't appear to be any reliable source available for this, and there is no evidence to suggest that the complaint actually has any merit.

You want "support" for this kind of advocacy? I think not. This is Wikipedia. If you want to be a science warrior, bugger off to RationalWiki. Here, we report the facts, neutrally.

Hesperian 04:27, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I think I've been here long enough on WP not to cop a lecture from admins who still seem not to have learned from ArbCom. If you wish to discuss the content of an article you know which way the talkpage is. Shot info (talk) 04:38, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I have blocked Corruptioninmedicine (talk · contribs) for 3RR violation and no attempt to discuss the disputed edits at the talk page, or ven provide an explantory edit-summary for deletions. I see that there are at least three editors on the talk page interested in improving the article, and I'd like to unprotect the article, unless User:Hesperian has some objections. Abecedare (talk) 04:47, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

While I agree with the 3rr block (that's a no brainer), I don't think unprotecting is wise at this point. There might be three editors wanting to work on it, but the version that they (those who've made actual editors so far) actually collectively want to revert back to is very POV pushy. Some discussion (including from Corruption after his block expires) is needed to sort out the issues. The addition of (more) actually neutral editors will, of course, facilitate that discussion. --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:20, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

As far as I know User:Basket of Puppies got involved with the article only after seeing this report, and thus would be a "disinterested" editor. Also Shot info seem to be only undoing Corruptioninmedicine and the IP's unexplained blanking, and was not the one who added any of the article content add originally (User:Exazonk seems to have done that). Is there some past history related to User:Shot info or User:Basket of Puppies that I am missing here and that would make them unworthy of WP:AGF, or of being regarded as neutral editors ? Abecedare (talk) 05:30, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I too think unprotecting is a bad idea. There are plenty of places around here where an acceptable version can be drafted. Meanwhile those who have protected an unacceptably biased article have not indicated their intentions going forward. Hesperian 05:33, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

An IP is now at the talk page requesting a restoration of "the referenced version". I don't think unprotecting will be a step in the right direction. Hesperian 05:37, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

This is the only edit Shot info made to the article before todays reverts, and this is undoubtedly a correct call per BLP. What am I missing here ? Abecedare (talk) 05:35, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Shot info has today repeatedly reverted to an unacceptable version of the article; s/he should know better. Beyond that, I neither know nor care what his/her involvement is. If I have unfairly blamed or demonised Shot info here, I apologise. Unprotecting remains a bad idea right now. Hesperian 05:39, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Repeatedly reverting to a highly biased version is an implicit endorsement of said version, but that is besides the point... Given the amount of edit warring by multiple parties on both sides temporary protection is warranted. The protection (which can easily be lifted at any time when all parties are ready to co-operate) is the best way to force people to calm down and try to work out their differences. --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:41, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Meanwhile someone (unsigned) has stated their intent on the talk page: "I believe that given enough time, that we can provide evidence by debunking the information on [the AVN] site. That is by cross checking all the information on AVN against wikipedia." Hesperian 05:45, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I can't see anything wrong with this reversion of blanking of 10K of sourced content and replacing it with a completely unsourced page, especially since the accompanying edit summary was "Please start discussion on talkpage" (the fact that the version being reverted to was non-ideal would be a concern if there were BLP issues, but that does not seem to be the case). Almost all reverts that I have ever made on wikipedia have taken an article back to an non-ideal state. But since there is genuine opposition to the page being unprotected, I won't do so and let other editors weigh in. Abecedare (talk) 05:49, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

You see nothing wrong with the version being reverted to? Hesperian 05:51, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

(reply to Hesperian after ec) Of course I do! It, like most articles on wikipedia, can and should be improved. But I see nothing wrong with the reversion of unexplained blanking of sourced content. Compare from, my recent revert to Economy of India - the version I reverted to has several problems (including poor sourcing, POV etc), and my reversion simply indicates that the edits were not an improvement, even though the status quo itself was not ideal either. I am betting that any regular editor here has made similar reverts, and usually been praised for undoing vandalism. Abecedare (talk) 06:11, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Which is the more appropriate version? Hesperian 06:19, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I think that ArbCom has quite clearly stated where they think Content disputes lie. If you wish to discuss the content rather than the behaviour, then ArbCom has some recommendations of how you should use your tools. I'm only saying this as your arguements not to lift protection are content driven. Shot info (talk) 06:04, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

That's three times you've referred to "ArbCom" or "desyssoping". Have you got anything to add here other than vague and toothless threats? Hesperian 06:06, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Yep - how about you stop using your admin tools to protect a version of an article you prefer. If you wish to edit the article - edit the article. But don't use your admin powers to force a version that you personally prefer. We have this thing called editing and consensus for that. Shot info (talk) 06:13, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone other than Shot info wish me to defend myself against this bollocks? Hesperian 06:18, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, Shot info seems way over the top here. WP:NPA much? I suggest you (Shot) stop these accusations. WP:TE also comes to mind. I also support full protection of this article until either this calms down or consensus (ha) is reached. Toddst1 (talk) 06:29, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

• Related: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Exazonk --ThaddeusB (talk) 06:33, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Let me see if I can summarize this correctly:

• A new editor changes an article from a blatantly POV version to a version which, whilst lacking sources, is obviously superior to what preceded it.
• Shot info edit wars with the new user to restore the bad version on the basis that it has sources. (Hint: WP:V is not the only content policy).
• Shot info, whilst edit-warring the POV version back into place, admonishes the user in edit-summaries for... edit-warring.
• The article is protected on the version that existed at the time of the ANI report.
• The new user, never having been informed of the existence of the 3-revert-rule, is blocked for violating it on a page that he currently cannot edit anyway. Preventing what, exactly?
• Specious references to sanctions are then made against the protecting administrator who made the only correct decision in the list above.

This is frankly too bizarre to contemplate further. I suggest Shot info drops the matter and walks quietly away. The blocked editor should be unblocked. CIreland (talk) 06:40, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I've unblocked Corruptioninmedicine (talk · contribs) as the edit war is clearly over - page protected, without implying any judgment on the block. Toddst1 (talk) 07:30, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I reblocked on different grounds - the username is an obvious violation of our guidelines. In addition, they came back to add POV padding to a development version of the article. Orderinchaos 17:33, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

---

I have rewritten the AVN article and the new version can be found here. It is based mainly on three sources: Sydney Morning heral article, ABC News article and AVN's own website (i didn't look for other sources, which, if available can be added later). I (of course!) think that this is a neutral write-up, and if others agree the article can be placed in mainspace (it would be best if I do the update, to avoid CC-BY-SA complications) and the article unprotected. I'll wait for feedback before proceeding, but it would be good to replace the current unsourced and POV version as soon as we can. Abecedare (talk) 08:25, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't much like the protected version, but every version is "wrong" from someone's viewpoint. Shot info, your contributions to this (and every other) article have always been welcome, but please lay off the accusations against Hesperian, as they're clearly unfounded and don't lend anything toward improving this article. Abecedare, your new version is a vast improvement, and hopefully we can all add to it during the page protection so we've got something to replace the current version when the protection expires.

And with that (and the lifting of the block against Corruptioninmedicine), are we now at a point where this can be declared a content dispute, to be continued only at the AVN talkpage? Euryalus (talk) 11:49, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I've been a bit bold and instated the talk page version over the existing version - both of the original versions of the article had been pretty dreadful, in different directions, and the editing area had become infested with warring SPAs. Abecedare's version, based on actual reliable sources, is a big improvement. Reduced protection to semi as no Wikipedians were involved in the problems (all were in good faith trying to fix the article, but the haze kind of threw everyone I think...) Semi will also ensure that a range of established editors can work on the article so it can reflect consensus. And agreed with Euryalus's comments. Orderinchaos 17:38, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

"outing" involving personal information.

Resolved

 – promotional pieces deleted, personal info deleted with talk pages, obvious COI editor counceled Toddst1 (talk) 15:40, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

On the talk page of andrew storms an editor felt it necessary to attempt to reveal personal information about my username. As stated in your harassment page I merely edited the page to remove the information and state the harassment policy. I am writing this in hopes that the edit can be stricken from the page completely as it is not something that should have been written in the first place. Please let me know what I need to do to be sure that this editor understands the possible severity of their actions.

The same user has posted the same content on the talk page at tk keanini.Rpelton (talk) 08:20, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

thanks Rpelton (talk) 08:11, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I've deleted the article as blatant advertising along with the talk page. Perhaps you should stop writing puff pieces about your bosses. Toddst1 (talk) 08:23, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Oversight enquiry

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.

Specific matters have been resolved, as Tim says, but people are still commenting on general matters. It is better to discuss the general matters in a new location, and I'm archive tagging the discussion as closed to encourage general discussion to move elsewhere. Carcharoth (talk) 20:19, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

---

Resolved

 – No harm done, but many pixels wasted. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:19, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

If DerHexer wanst to comment here, he is welcome to but until that time there is nothing more that needs said here. The mistake has been undone, so I'm closing this to (hopefully) allow everyone to move on. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:20, 13 November 2009 (UTC)|A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

If DerHexer wanst to comment here, he is welcome to but until that time there is nothing more that needs said here. The mistake has been undone, so I'm closing this to (hopefully) allow everyone to move on. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:20, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

You can close it 1,000,000 times and I will unclose it until the Arbcom confess to what has happened here.  Giano  17:49, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

DON'T PANIC

---

The Wikipedia philosophy can be summed up thusly: "Experts are scum." For some reason people who spend 40 years learning everything they can about, say, the Peloponnesian War -- and indeed, advancing the body of human knowledge -- get all pissy when their contributions are edited away by Randy in Boise who heard somewhere that sword-wielding skeletons were involved. And they get downright irate when asked politely to engage in discourse with Randy until the sword-skeleton theory can be incorporated into the article without passing judgment.

—Lore Sjöberg, from "The Wikipedia FAQK"

I am well aware that Wikipedia loves cencorship, but why are half my edits to this page now oversighted? Explain withing 5 minutes whoever did this and explain it here. I would not bother posting here VK they will only blooduy oversight it and hope you don't notice. Giano  21:03, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

That confused me, too. You were claimed to have made an edit revealing personal information: after it was removed, the diffs between the addition and removal were oversighted. All the content after your first edit is still there, we just can't look at the intervening diffs. (My apologies for stating that as a fact in my initial edit.)--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:06, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

what personal information, I have revealed no personal information on anyone, there is more to this, and I want to know what Giano  21:08, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Beats me, I can't see it either. Whatever you said was replaced by "[removed personal information]" in line 1484 or so.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:12, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

How dare you lie like this to hide the truth of what you lot have done,I have revealed no personal information you bloody appologise at once.  Giano  21:09, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

How dare they lie loike this, I want to know who has oversighted this? who and why  Giano  21:13, 12 November 2009 (UTC) Which edit is missing I demand t know.  Giano  21:15, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm working on finding out what I can about this situation. Please, everyone, let's take a couple steps back while this is getting worked on... SirFozzie (talk) 21:17, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I saw the edit before it was oversighted. Someone was under the impression that the person named in your contribution (as a clearly hypothetical example of a stupid person) was a real person whose privacy you were outing. He is, of course, the same "person" whose name and origin from the capital of the state of Idaho is mentioned in the quotation in italics at the top of your talk page, so of course for consistency the entire history of your various talk pages must now be oversighted. As must this edit. What an over-reaction. The name was removed by DerHexer, but I don't know who oversighted the edits. Bencherlite^Talk 21:17, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, no full edit is actually missing -- it was just one phrase that was replaced in the first diff.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:19, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Whio are they lying and say I out who who these are all lies I demand to know  Giano  21:20, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

You're becoming incoherent. Please calm down. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:21, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

It is not resolved, I want to know who oversighted my edits and why, I don't even know whjere fucking Idaho is.Randy from Boise has been on my page for a year,so why decide to oversight him now .  Giano  21:26, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

If you require more information, please e-mail arbcom-audit-enlists.wikimedia.org with a description of the page involved and when the edits were made, as detailed in Wikipedia:AUSC#Procedure. Thank you. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:29, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Too late for your secret emails nowm, you should have emailed me when you were hiding whater it is that so offended you.  Giano  21:31, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

You're worried you said something to offend me? Please put your mind at rest, I pay you very little attention. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:38, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

You lot are something elese entirely, I have never in all my years here come across such crass stupidity in all my life, who has oversighted this and why - [182] and it had better be good, very good, I am not dropping this that I promise you.  Giano  21:36, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Very curious, indeed! There seem to have been 30 consecutive edits oversighted, from a whole range of editors. They are consecutive, and the time shown when I access the Revision History was between 11:43 and 12:50. Did someone make an error? Bielle (talk) 21:40, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

You copuild say that, and they are all too cowardly to admit it, assuming it was an error, which I strongly doubt.  Giano  21:43, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• I have asked DerHexter on his talk page to justify his use of the oversight tool shown by Giano above [183]. I agree with Giano that this is very disturbing, and seems, on the face, exteremly over zealous (at best). Pedro :  Chat  21:46, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

It was a total abuse of tools in effort to make me look bad as though I out people (or worse) who knows? They hoped I would not notice - well I did, and now I want some answers. I have outed nobody!  Giano  21:49, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Giano - This seems to clearly have been a mistake, based on what people are saying was removed, but a mistake and not some sort of intentional abuse of you. I have not seen DerHexer in conflict with you previously, and a misunderstanding about the content is the most obvious explanation. If you believe DerHexer had some sort of conflict of interest or malign intent please take that up with Arbcom. But not everything that happens to you is an intentional abuse or attempt to bully you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:51, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I wonder what the other 19 editors who were oversighted think? Sarek, Durova, jehochman and Tanthalus are but 4 more of them, Bielle (talk) 21:54, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

The thread was not going the way some people wanted it too clearly, so any excuse and discredit me, well I am not discredited, I have been told the reason, and it is so laughable that were I not so angry I would be rolling on the floor, they insult my intelligence, no one could be stupid enough to beleibe what they are saying.  Giano  21:56, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

This looks like a mistake by DexHexer, with 34 consecutive edits from 21 different editors across 4 or 5 main discussion threads, removed in one broad stroke. I doubt that it is some sort of censorship conspiracy against GiacomoReturned. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 22:01, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

So why are they telling me I tried to out somebody when I did not?  Giano  22:03, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Jesus, it was a mistake, will you calm down? Protonk (talk) 22:04, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think anyone familar with you and Wikipedia would think that oversighting a bunch of your contributions on ANI could possibly contain what you feel about a particular situation, as you have in the past prolifically followed up on mailing lists and other venues when you felt censored on-wiki.

Either DerHexer is completely ignorant of that - and mind-blowingly clumsy - or this was an error.

Again, if he was someone who had been in regular conflict with you there would be more cause for alarm. But the only explanation which makes sense here is a misunderstanding and mistake.

If he's been in conflict with you a lot somewhere that I didn't notice, let me know, but I don't recall any. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:05, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

(multi ec) A mistake is a generous use of words. Can I suggest incompetence? Has anyone with a meta account asked DerHexter to sort this out? This gross misuse (or abuse .... but I AGF) of sensitive tools needs speedy resolution. I agree Giano often percieves actions to be aginst him when they are not in fact against him at all, but this kind of inempt action certainly adds no credence to the functionaries of this, and all, wikimedia projects. Pedro :  Chat  22:06, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

(multiec) I agree that this appears to be a mistake, one that the Wikipedia:Global_rights_policy#Stewards was designed to prevent from happening. I suggest that someone fix the mistake posthaste, before Randy from Boise unleashes his hordes of Greek Skeletons on us, and then we can proceed to solving the problem going forward. Hipocrite (talk) 22:10, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

(ec) There were two apparent mistakes - one, that there was personal info needing oversight, and two, the wide swath of stuff deleted. I am not familiar with the oversight UI - I haven't got the tool here on en.wp and haven't run it on private mediawiki wikis I have run. So I don't know what might explain the specifics for the latter. The former seems to just be a misunderstanding, based on not knowing the origin of Lore's quote etc. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:13, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

So why are they telling me I tried to out somebody when I did not - with no explanation and no apology? They hoped I would not notice.  Giano  22:09, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Because "they" are asleep and less than fluent in engrish. No one informed and reasonable currently thinks you violated anyones privacy. Hipocrite (talk) 22:10, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Giano - who has accused you of trying to "out" someone, and where? GiantSnowman 22:15, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think anyone familiar with en.wp and you could possibly have any expectation that you would not notice, Giano. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:17, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

This may all be a mistake. If DerHexer believed that there was personal information leaked, then every edit in between the posting of that information and his removal would have to be suppressed, as otherwise, someone could look at an individual revision and still see the personal information. If there was no personal information leaked, which I do not know, then DerHexer made a mistake that is easy to fix. Calling his actions clumsy and inept adds nothing to the resolution of the situation and merely criticizes a hard-working steward and local oversighter as of the last February 2009 election. Can we all take a step back please? NW (Talk) 22:13, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• Giano - chill. This is, I feel, a cock-up by DerHexer. A grave one, and an issue we need to take to meta I agree, ideally to remove incompetence like this - however not something aimed at you as an editor by any means. I feel reasonably confident in that. Pedro :  Chat  22:14, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

From where I sit this is a series of misunderstandings that have been made worse at every turn by inflated rhetoric, assumptions of bad faith, accusations of incompetence, and otherwise insulting commentary. --Tznkai (talk) 22:19, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm struggling to see how screwing up use of oversight is anything less than incompetence? Or perhaps you think it's a competent use of the tool Tznkai? Pedro :  Chat  22:24, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

You're begging the question, but the simple answer is that this may well turn out to be a mistake that anyone, and by anyone, I mean you and everyone else here, also would have made.--Tznkai (talk) 22:29, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Yes, let's wait and see what DerHexer has to say first. Given the time difference, he may well be asleep now. Waiting a few hours for a reply isn't going to hurt anyone. The issue has been raised and will be given due consideration in time. Wikipedia is 24/7/365 but people aren't. There is no rush here. Mjroots (talk) 22:22, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

As an addendum, since my comment was possibly misunderstood, I mean the following:

1. I know, more or less for a fact that this was a series of misunderstandings

2. I know, more or less for a fact that it has been repeatedly made worse because of anger, confusion, and nasty words, and is likley to again worse if the peanut gallery here continues to level charges of malice or incompetence in any direction.

3. I am not talking to or about any one editor in particular. If you have any doubt, assume I am talking about you too.--Tznkai (talk) 22:28, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• So let us get this straight. An important editor thinks I have outed him, an oversighter agrees and oversights - right so far? Now what normally happens in that situation? I will tell you - the "outing" editor (me) gets banned for ever (coincidentally just like Vintagekits). Except in this case, I am told I have "outed" only after I notice my edits are oversighted - no one bans me, no one warns me or even emails me before. When I shout, only then am I grudgingly (almost in code, I still cannot beleive I have understood correctly, but am told by an Arb Clerk I have) told my crime - a crime so ludicrous and beyond the realms of possibility, that if I took this to Wikipedia Review (I'm not going to) they would keep me there in free champagne for ever as they laughed without stopping. Co-incidentally the oversighted edits (20odd is it?) concern my views on a very suspicious and dodgy banning by an important editor - then you all say calm down Giano, it was just a silly mistake, they knew you would notice. Not very convincing is it? Perhaps, they were hoping to try me for this outing and have me banned during the night, lock down my talk page and be done with me before I and Europe woke up tomorrow. Unlikely? Well it happened last night to Vintagekits. Giano  22:40, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• Again, who has accused you of trying to "out" someone, and where? GiantSnowman 22:44, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, since everything else follows agreeing with the question "An important editor thinks I have outed him, an oversighter agrees and oversights - right so far?" this is an easy answer: No, that's not what happened. It's simply not, Giano. I don't know you from Adam, we've never interacted, and I have no interest in your political history here, nor the current politics you may be involved in. The oversight was done unrelated to the specific request of the subject. That's just the fact. The issue was being discussed at the time, and it happened completely unrelated to that discussion. Giano, in this specific case, this is not a witch hunt against you. It's really not. This thread needs to die, everything that happened was a perfect storm of circumstance. Whether or not what you posted was "outing" is immaterial for how all this is turning out in far too brief of a timespan.

To reiterate: You were not being targeted in an effort to get rid of you. You are doing far more harm than good to yourself by running here with rampant speculation of abuse. Everyone please take a step back and get back to work, as someone "in the know" all I can do is say that this is a horrible non-issue that went very badly. Keegan (talk) 22:51, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid you are quite wrong. It is in the diffs of this section some where but so coded you can be forgiven for not spotting it, and far more precisely on some frantic emails I am now receiving. I promise you if this ever sees the light of day no-one will be posting because they will be laughing too hard to type, that's assuming unlike me they can beleive it. If I say more than that, I probably will be banned.  Giano  22:55, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree that these attempts to stamp on European editors in the middle of the night is very dangerous and might lead to a disastrous trans-Atlantic rift. The fait accompli that confronted Vk is an appalling example of abuse of power. I feel I should become more involved in these issues. So, could someone please give me a link that would explain what "oversighting" is? Sarah777 (talk) 22:52, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Oversight should help. Basically when an edit is deleted forever. GiantSnowman 22:57, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Sarah, DerHexer is a European editor.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:59, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

That Derhexer had not read the diffs is obvious, the question is who instructed him and why?  Giano  23:01, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• Hey, to be fair, I reopened the Vintagekits topic precisely because I felt it hadn't gotten enough attention, and I'm not even an admin. HalfShadow 22:55, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Sarah, this has nothing to do with VK. Nothing at all. This was not abuse, this was entirely coincidence from every single person involved. Your link request is here, but once again a fault of circumstance. Please, people, we already have enough conspiracy theories on Wikipedia to remember. Keegan (talk) 22:58, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Keegan - I can see it is not connected to Vk. (I'm still not happy with the block-becomes-ban technique; but I accept I'm conflating unrelated things here). Sarah777 (talk) 23:09, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Where did the 'oversight' take place, which page? GoodDay (talk) 23:03, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Edit history. GiantSnowman 23:05, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• If it helps anything to note this, the action was obviously problematic. Diff access to this board got disabled for every post that occurred by anyone over a time frame of more than an hour. I noticed that shortly after it occurred and contacted the subcommittee with the full copy/paste list of posters and time stamps that had been affected. One of them was a post of my own to a totally different thread, and I dislike the impression that gives in my edit history that could lead people to suppose I had posted something inappropriate. Dozens of diffs were affected; far more people than just myself and Giano now have this problem. They're looking into it. So let's be patient. I do have one further complaint to make, though. Several months ago I asked Risker to recuse herself from anything having to do with me. It was Risker who emailed acknowledgement of my request. Risker also posted to my user talk yesterday. She has never attempted to resolve the problems that led to that request for recusal, and the request has never been withdrawn. I consider that inappropriate. Durova³⁶³ 23:08, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Durova, let's get a few things straight here. You posted, quite appropriately, to the AUSC mailing list. As you are aware, the AUSC is in flux right now as we complete the changeover of members. As such, at the time you posted, the only two list admins were John Vandenberg (sound asleep in Australia), and myself. (Dominic has now been added as a listadmin.) I managed to get online to moderate your email, read the gist of it, and agreed with your concerns. I responded to you so that you would know that your message had been received. I immediately emailed the Oversight mailing list and also the Arbitration Committee mailing list pointing out the concern you had identified. Unfortunately, I was not in a position to log into Wikipedia and revert the suppressions; John Vandenberg managed to do that just shortly before I managed to get online. The message on your talk page was a bot-distributed message to all 450 or so editors who participated in the AUSC elections or either of two RFCs related to the use of SecurePoll; it would never occur to me (or the person who created the list or distributed the messages) to deliberately exclude you from a widely distributed message. Risker (talk) 00:26, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

And if it had been merely a mass message no complaint would have occurred, but within less than a day you also took it upon yourself (among all the members of that Subcommittee) to email that response. It would have been better if you had at least acknowledged that the request for recusal had been submitted. It hardly inspires confidence in a watchdog group to see its own members behave in such an in-your-face manner regarding ethical matters. Durova³⁶⁴ 19:03, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

As a point of order, with any suppression or oversight, if an edit introduces some content that later needs to be suppressed, and that content remains on the page for 1, or 5, or 50 subsequent edits before it is removed, then 1, or 5 or 50 edits have to be suppressed. The database records the complete contents of every page, not merely the differences. By way of illustration, if someone wanted to suppress the photograph currently on my user talk page, one would have to make an edit removing it, and then suppress all 12 or so intervening edits, including 2 complete conversations. This is why, especially on a high traffic page, edits that may need to be oversighted should be reverted as soon as possible, before even notifying oversight-L. The suppression of 34 edits to this page was in no way a result of error or incompetence, assuming that the decision to suppress the first edit at issue was correct. Of course, it appears that the decision may not have been correct--my point is that having made the decision to suppress a particular edit, the suppression of a further 30+ edits was the simple consequence of the fact that the edit was on a high traffic page for a relatively long time. If in the future you ever see an edit that needs to be suppressed, revert it immediately, then email the oversight list. Thatcher 02:26, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I've always felt particularly cautious, when a large number of intermediate diffs are involved, but I have to agree: suppressing something "halfway" makes little sense in practice, since the information will still be readily available in numerous other revisions; in a case like this one, especially, you can be sure someone will take five seconds to use an external diff tool. My early impression is that suppression was probably unnecessary and ineffective, here, and of course the steward angle bears looking into, but if I don't think the action was intended maliciously. User privacy is a serious concern for everyone. Thatcher's advice is sound. – Luna Santin (talk) 03:29, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Randy's revenge. Karmarific. MickMacNee (talk) 00:11, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

MickMack - you have a point? Or are you just doing (another) a bit of trolling? Sarah777 (talk) 00:36, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

90% of your posts here a trolling Sarah. I notice yet again this was another situation where you formed an opinion first and went off half cocked with your accusations, and then asked for assistance as to how to figure out what had happened. MickMacNee (talk) 01:01, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

• I have undone the suppression as the rationale for it was found wanting. The audit subcom will continue to review this. Durova, take your unrelated complaints elsewhere; thank you. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 00:13, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

• I support that - clearly an inappropriate use of oversight. I would like to know who performed the oversight. Prodego ^talk 00:20, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

• This whole thing really could have done with less hyperventilating, on all sides. I'm happy to see cooler heads starting to prevail, as time moves forward. It's getting really aggravating to see so many people throwing circular accusations of abuse and priviledge, when you all might actually get something done by talking to each other like adults. If your first thought is to try to figure out who I'm talking about, don't bother: it's everyone. We really act like toddlers, sometimes. – Luna Santin (talk) 02:39, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Defending DerHexer

Right, I'm not an admin or anyone important or anything, but I feel people have been too quick to judge DerHexer over the Oversight issue above. The poor guy hasn't been allowed to defend himself against accusations of abuse of tools or gross incompetence etc. etc. - it's 00:30 here in the UK, which means it's 01:30 (AM!) over in Berlin. The poor guy's probably tucked up in bed, absolutely unaware of the mountain that has been made out of his molehill. So everyone calm down, and please wait for DerHexer's response. That is all. Thanks, GiantSnowman 00:33, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

• Neither am I an admin or anyone important which is why it's not a molehill, if it was you wrongly accused of outing people you woul be angry, Admins can defend themselves, the unimportant cannot.  Giano  00:35, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

• But despite what your e-mail said, there hasn't been any explicit "Giacomo outed X" accusation from any editor, as far as I can see...GiantSnowman 00:42, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

• To be fair, Giano, I think that everyone that's posted since who's understood what went on has pointed out that it was almost certainly a genuine mistake. When they stopped laughing, of course. Black Kite 00:44, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

2nd edit of this section (above) "You were claimed to have made an edit revealing personal information" So how come a almost-non-En-Wikipedian knew what we now all know?  Giano  00:47, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

You'd have to ask SarekOfVulcan why he said that. But do you not think that if you had been deemed to have 'outed' someone, there would have been repercussions? A warning, sanctions, a ban? GiantSnowman 00:49, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

• Stewards should not take action on individual wikis that have their own personnel to manage problems, unless it is an emergency. DerHexer seems to have thought, incorrectly, that this was an emergency and that no enwiki oversighters were available. Fortunately, suppression is reviewable and reversible, and if this had not involved Giano (with all the attendant theatrics) this would have been a 3 entry thread that was closed after review and reversal. I have no reason to think this was anything other than a good faith mistake on DerHexer's part, and it is my understanding that the Audit Subcommittee is reviewing the situation. Thatcher 02:31, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Not so fast Thatcher, wise cracks about the "theatrics" are all very clever, but if all has been restored, where is the "Randy from Boise edit" that I am suposed to have made outing, I don't see it? Are you saying Randy from Boisse is not an Admin, or that the many who told me he was were lying - a simple question? Where is the edit?  Giano  07:46, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Looks to me like it's been restored; I see 34 edits suppressed and 34 edits restored. I'll email you a link to the particular diff I think you're referring to. – Luna Santin (talk) 08:35, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Luna, that was helpful, but if you compare the link you sent me, to what is actually way up there above us, the two are not the same - it still says "personal information removed" as though - I am outing someone - I am not, now I am starting to get really angry about this - what the hell is going on? - we keep being told what is has been done, being done and the matter is resolved - it is not! I am still wrongly accused of outing on this very page by "personal information removed"  Giano  09:09, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah, sorry about that; probably just nobody thought to restore that particular bit, so I've gone ahead and done so. I'll be off to bed in a bit, most likely, but will check back on this tomorrow. – Luna Santin (talk) 09:19, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

(edit/conflict)I dont see where this page says "personal information removed". Could you or Luna (or anyone else?) please fill me in, privately if appropriate. The suppression has been undone, and I have explained that the original suppression was not justified because you did not out anyone. Please tell me what more needs to be done to resolve this? John Vandenberg ^(chat) 09:29, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

At some point or another, a bit of text got replaced with that string. Restoring the suppressed edits puts them back in history, but the displayed text was still mangled by the redaction, which I undid just now. Should be one of my top few contribs, if you're inclined to peek. – Luna Santin (talk) 09:36, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, but Luna has now sorted it [184]. Now, finally, after so much trouble Wikipedia can see what constitutes outing somebody. Like me others may want to know why a checkuse we have never heard of drives by and oversights it, it is even in inverted commas, so there is no excuse. I want to know who told that Oversighter to oversight and I want to know why that oversighter did so, and I want to know why I have had to fight so hard and long to prove I was outing nobody. Then and only then will this thread be archived. Is that quite clear?  Giano  09:39, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

No, actually its not. This is not an appropriate venue for accusations of oversight abuse, there is a committee to handle complaints like that. Frankly though you are unlikely to get the closure you want, because for almost everyone else here it would appear that this is a mistake - poorly handled sure, but still a mistake. Not everyone is out to get you Giano. (myself included) Viridae^Talk 11:31, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

• No, it was not a simple mistake, and I have proof and emails to prove it from some people whose names may surprise you. Yesterday, afternoon, the whole matter was a figment of my imagination, now slowly like drawing teeth fact after fact is being prsented to me. This is very involved matter indeed, and for the good of the project it's needs to be in the open. I am giving those concerned a few hours to come forward and go quietly. For the record FerHexer was just a naive tool and for tht alone certain people should be ashamed of themselves.  Giano  11:39, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

If you have proof of a plot to disrupt, I suggest arbcom the relevant emails or diffs - either wa, this is the most drama filled place you could try to resolve the problem. Viridae^Talk 11:41, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

There is a suprem irony in your advice.  Giano  11:46, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Leaving aside the use of oversight, I was surprised that DerHexer didn't think it necessary to leave a warning on Giano's talk page to chastise him for "revealing" personal information on ANI. Had he done so, of course, he would have seen the quotation at the top of Giano's talk page and immediately realised his mistake, one would hope. Bencherlite^Talk 11:36, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually I have some sympathy for DerHexer (albeit limited) he was used, make no mistake about that, he was used. A young and very naive Oversighter, not one of the regulars misplaced his trust unquestioningly. Simple as that in this case. Someone shopped long and had to find him.  Giano  11:44, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh my god! How many times does Giano want to edit war with admins over the closing of this thread? A mistake was made, the mistake was fixed, there is no longer a problem, so why do you continue to create drama?! It is disruptive, annoying and may lead to a block if you annoy the wrong admin (for which I wouldn't blame anyone for blocking you) Jeni ^(talk) 13:13, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

• "closing" noticeboard threads is a bit of largely irrelevant bookkeeping. People will eventually stop talking about this as a current matter, and it will scroll off the page naturally. In due course I expect the audit subcommittee will make a statement at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Audit Subcommittee/Reports. Thatcher 13:23, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

This is not resolved. I will say when it is resolved and that will be when one particular Arbitrator has the common decency to admit what has gone on, if he does not, then I shall. This is complicated matter and that person had better start explaining.  Giano  17:47, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

(Oh this is gonna go well...) HalfShadow 17:49, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Wowsers, ya'll make it difficult to comment here. It's closed, it ain't closed, it's closed, etc etc. Now, I forgot what I was gonna post. GoodDay (talk) 18:19, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I sympathise, but we are waiting for DerHexer and a statement from the Arbcom, it will be coming, as they struggle to explain to you what exactly has happenned here, and the longer they leave this and hope it will blow away the harser it becomes and the greater their complicity becomes.  Giano  18:26, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Please read that comment. Thanks, —DerHexer (Talk) 18:28, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Let's leave this thread 'open'. Give DerHexer a chance to respond. GoodDay (talk) 18:31, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Statement by DerHexer

At first I have to excuse my late response: I've been at university the whole day, had to read the comments first, had written some parts of my response and had to accept that the browser collapsed once and destroyed all of my text. But even more sad are some of these comments which were raised against the person which has done that oversight action without knowledge about what has really happened; I was also astonished that non-public informations from the suppression log were made public without any need, and disappointed that no one told me about that issue [esp. the undone action] except on my enwiki talk page.
Some information about what happened: I was pinged on IRC by an uninvolved user that one user has added a comment to this frequent site which (possibly) outs another user. It was said that the last one had sent a mail to the oversights on enwiki some hours ago and had not gotten a response until then. Unluckily local oversights were not even online [which is quite frustrating since there are about 40 of them; a fact which I noticed in the past too where I as a crosswiki acting steward needed local oversights on enwiki concerning crosswiki vandals which published unpublished or libellous account names and information (I even recently created a crosswiki oversight channel called #wikimedia-oversights for these issues) … you might understand that I cannot mail dozens of oversight mailing lists daily and check if and when which requests have been taken care of and if they were correctly done (it even happened to enwiki oversights that they haven't done so because it's for them like for other non-native speakers difficult to identify which things were libellous, e. g. in German)]. So I as steward which has to take care of all wikis had to decide what should be done now. I decided to replace the (possibly) problematic information with "removed personal information" and remove for the first time during my steward work directly revisions on one wiki with local oversights the because I was firmly convinced that it was correct and needed what I did. According to the oversight policy published private information have to be removed, and in my humble opinion as fast as possible as it cannot be foreseen who might abuse them (to stalk people in real life etc.; things which happened to Wikimedia users). While with the given information I had to judge the addition as outing and noone was available to react I had to think that this was an emergency situation which allowed me act. Just in the aftermath came out that it all was just a misunderstanding and the user never intended to out the other one; I feel very sorry about that later clarification [sorry, Giano!]. While I cannot clarify the whole situation because I would be forced to out one person, I just can say that the possibly outed person, I and others were firmly convinced that it was intended (accidentally or not) to out the person. That in the aftermath came out that it was just a quotation/comparison/whatever is something neither them nor me can be guilty for [just to not have checked if there could be any meanings than those which came (or had to) to our mind; btw. in German law it is not even allowed to publish information in that way that just a few and not all persons can identify another person (e. g.: "DerHexer is Martin" can be identified by all people; "DerHexer's first name is the same as Mazbln's ones" just by a few … both things would not be allowed)]. So under the given premise I neither abused my rights (as I explained above: the oversight policy allowed me to act in the way I acted) nor have I made a mistake when I did the action. It is definitely not true that I haven't added rationale; I have suppressed these revisions (of course all which included the possibly problematic text, which can be quite a lot since all revisions are completely saved in the history and not just the diff [I'm a bit astonished that this was not known to most Wikipedians here] and would have been even more if I not had acted so quickly as I thought I had to act) with a summary which contained explicitly that I removed them because of OS policy #1 and an emergency situation. I would never had blocked or accused the user which has added the possibly problematic information because I did these actions as steward and not as enwiki user [so enwiki might even be the wrong place to discuss it]; my only goal was to get this possibly outing information be removed as soon as possible to help others to save their privacy. Since neither me nor any other person could be able to verify if that "outing" was done accidentally or not, I would never had blocked that user; if the local ArbCoM members/oversights think they have enough clues to deny an accident they might act to the best of their knowledge and belief; it would not be necessarily according to my will [so I decided to just remove the information and not to do any further action]. If you have any further questions to clarify the situation, do really not hesitate to contact me again [but I won't be all the time at home during the weekend, nor will give any more information about the possibly outing information]. Kind regards and again sorry for all trouble I initiated with no ill intent, —DerHexer (Talk) 18:46, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

• Cmt if i understand, you thought a reference to the en.wiki famous "Randy from Boise," he of the famous sword-wielding skeletons that he believes tipped the balance of the Peloponnesian War, was an actual person who needed some kind of oversight protection? If I've got this right, please refrain from taking any admin/oversight type actions on en.wiki again. Your English skills and local knowledge are insufficient for this task.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:52, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

That's not entirely fair, but I won't say more for now. Perhaps the audit subcommittee with address this. It was not entirely unreasonable to think that the choice of name targeted a specific person. The problem is that the local oversighters had already decided that the link was not a problem, but that the "uninvolved admin" and DerHexer were not subscribed to the oversight list, and so assumed that the lack of action was due to lack of available oversighters, when it was instead due to a decision not to act; compounded by not finding any enwiki oversighters on IRC and assuming that therefore there were no enwiki oversighters available. Thatcher 19:01, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

He didn't think Randy from Boise was a real person? No real harm is done (this time) but it certainly casts his judgement in a poor light and he should definitely refrain from taking any unilateral action in future.Bali ultimate (talk) 19:06, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Apparently, neither the person who made the complaint, the intermediary, nor DerHexer, realized that the comment about "Randy from Boise" was independent of any particular editor. This issue became ten times more dramatic than it had to because Giano made a fuss, and Giano's fuss attracted others who like drama. Most cases of suppression will never be acknowledged publicly, and rightfully so, and the best way to report the suspicion of improper suppression is to email the oversight list or the audit subcommittee. In due course, the suppression was reviewed and reversed. I can point to other cases where edits were suppressed and later restored after review that no one knows or cares about. This is like one of those dead white girl news stories that blows up on CNN when dozens of similar stories go unreported. Thatcher 19:15, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think I would have jumped to an 'outing' conclusion myself, but I've never heard of 'Randy from Boise' either. 'en.wiki famous' would seem to be quite an overstatement, and english skills and local knowledge have nothing to do with it. --Onorem♠Dil 19:30, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

• Thank you DerHexer, that is most informative and helpful for the next stage of this case. IRC? - well that is a huge surprise isn't it. I am sorry that you have been so maliciously duped and used. The duty admin may now close this thread. This matter is now going elsewhere.  Giano  18:55, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

IMHO, editors should keep their participation at IRC & Wikipedia 'seperate'. PS: You're forgiven DerHex. GoodDay (talk) 18:56, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

• A problem here is that there were enwiki oversighters awake and active and discussing the issue on the oversight mailing list. They may not have been online on IRC, but that is a very narrow definition of "active." The oversight mailing list discussion had already pointed out that the essay pre-dated current arguments and the name used in the essay was not chosen with special reference to any particular user, which is why it had not been suppressed by the local oversight team. I understand why DerHexer would not want to be subscribed to the enwiki oversight mailing list, but perhaps there should be a discussion somewhere about stewards and local projects and how to better coordinate and communicate across projects. Thatcher 18:58, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

we have an Arb who received no satisfaction from his own oversighters, so ran off to IRC (or asked someone else to) and then used a young person with no local knowledge or comprehension here. They then watched the oversight take pace and hoped it would all pass unnoticed. It took 18 hours of battling (by me alone) to have it restored and my name cleared, as all Arbs turned their backs. I'm through with this section and disgusted. You can close it now.  Giano  19:13, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

The edits were restored after 6 hours, but whatever... Thatcher 19:17, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

No Thatcher, probably longer than 18, I cannot be bothered to count, this edit finally rectified the matter [185].  Giano  19:24, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

A quibble about details. The suppressed edits, which only someone with oversight permission could restore, were restored about 6 hours after they were hidden. The redaction of the comment, which any editor or admin could have fixed, was not fixed for 18 hours, mostly I think because no one noticed amidst all the other commentary. Thatcher 19:34, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

• • As a general matter, hundreds of other WMF projects have a serious shortage of administrators, bureaucrats, and other volunteers to deal with necessary functions. That is the principal need for steward intervention. Like it or not, en:wiki is the 800 pound gorilla of WMF. I had another qualm recently regarding DerHexer's intervention regarding an Oversight request, and although he did not specifically use the Oversight tool he stepped into a difficult situation in a manner which made it harder to resolve. I filed no formal complaint and attempted to resolve it with him one on one via email. It was several days (and multiple requests) before he responded to the initial query and he has not replied to the followup. Without getting into every detail of that situation, it is a bit worrisome to see another tetchy situation deteriorate so soon afterward, due to the same person's intervention on a more trafficked page. DerHexer's intentions are undoubtedly well meant and sincere, but en:wiki already has many eyes upon it. Perhaps it would be better to leave direct intervention to the people who know this project well, unless one has time on hand for the followup which could be necessary. Durova³⁶⁴ 19:19, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

• There are so many problems with this statement that I started tearing it apart and decided it wasn't even worth my time. I look forward to the full audit comittee report. Hipocrite (talk) 19:18, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll admit one qualm - I can see wanting to redact something quickly on this page because otherwise it propagates through the history, but the actual oversighting should only be done by someone who is very sure of the need, and we can wait for an en.wp oversighter for that. In fact whoever let DerHexer know about the edit should have redacted it first. Wknight94 ^talk 20:07, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

• Given that DerHexer has made a statement here (making such a statement may not have been strictly necessary, but it was one of the reasons given for leaving the thread open), and that Thatcher has explained a few points (which I endorse) and Giano has said his bit (he should have taken his complaints to the audit subcommittee), and the audit subcommittee are indeed looking at this, I am going to close this thread and ask that everyone please wait for the report. If general issues (such as cross-wiki communication) need raising, please link from here to the appropriate place to hold such general discussions. Carcharoth (talk) 20:12, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

You did not leave the thread open - I even had to fight and constantly revert, risking and threatened with being blocked for even that. You lot did not want it open for DerHexer's statement. Now go and consult with the other Arbs on what to do next.  Giano  20:19, 13 November 2009 (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.

Reliefappearance

Resolved

 – blocked 1 week by Tan and a suspected ip sockpuppet identified and tagged. Toddst1 (talk) 17:18, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Reliefappearance has made some unconstructive and disruptive edits to the 9-12 Project page. The user did not take kindly to my reversion or my warnings. Pdcook (talk) 15:53, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I've notified Reliefappearance of this thread. In the event that he is not related to the IP and wishes to make an unblock request, I've indicate that a request will be copied from his talk page to here. Basket of Puppies 20:23, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

User talk:74.223.130.162

Could someone have a look at this users contributions? Posting odd changes to stopzilla related stuff. Another user brought it to my attention, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:4twenty42o#stopzilla, that he may be a stopzilla employee? - 4twenty42o (talk) 20:30, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion, this makes it look more like an angry affiliate as opposed to an employee of the company. Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 21:49, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I the IP address has a long history (back to April of this year ) of deleting any negative information about stopzilla. That edit was a response to his/her attempt to remove the link entirely being reverted. --69.126.0.230 (talk) 22:00, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Review a block?

User_talk:Thewtfchronicles#CS_Independance_of_the_Seas_.28sic.29. Please note that the user has removed my blocking template (I did add one).[186] Regards, —Ed (talk • contribs) 21:26, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

• Fully endorse - User was previously warned on his talk page by Abecedare that a block could used if he did not desist his inappropriate CSD tagging. That warning came after several of us had advised the user his taggings were problematic. He continued. This behaviour is disruptive and off-putting for newby editors. LadyofShalott 21:30, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse, unblock request declined. LadyofShalott said all that needs to be said. Chillum 21:34, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

• (after ec) I am familiar with the users inappropriate CSD taggings and I, and many other users have advised/warned him about it. Given that the user has largely ignored the advice, I completely support the block. My only cavil is that perhaps the block should have been indefinite - with the provision to unblock immediately if the user commits to refrain from CSD tagging for say a month - till he is more familiar with the norms. Abecedare (talk) 21:35, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse. Enough people tried explaining it first, without success.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:38, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse - 4 or 5 warnings plus an extended (ultimately failed) attempt at explaining it to him didn't work.--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail Review} 22:19, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

While a new account, this is evidently very far from a new user. The account was created on the 7th, and within a few dozen edits was welcoming new users, quick-fire undoing, using (and substing) the appropriate vandalism and csd templates, correctly navigating the process of nominating for AfD, and quoting policy on AIV. The reasonable assumption of good faith we afford new users clearly does not apply; this person is not new. Their facility with our procedures and policies shows they're quite familiar with the CSD policy and the rest of deletion - they're so obviously flaunting them because they want to, not because they don't know better. Blocked twice in four days, with a torrent of warnings, I think this shows the person intends disruption. I'd suggest an indef block on the basis of repeated and evidently wilful disruption. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 22:39, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse - Constantly calls Truth or Square an "extended SpongeBob episode" while many people (including me) tell him/her to read the noblility guidlines. See Talk:SpongeBob's Truth or Square. Rowdy the Ant talk to Rowdy 22:51, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

  What does WP:PEERAGE have to do with SpongeBob?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:23, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse and echo what Abecedare stated about the length of the block. I attempted to engage this user in conversation about their CSD nominations, and the fact that their rapid editing was maybe not giving the articles the attention they deserve, but despite my (and several others') best efforts, this user entirely refused to engage in conversation and basically takes a WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT approach whenever someone tries to work with them. Frmatt (talk) 02:36, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse block and would endorse longer term restrictions on CSD activity. Also - agree with Finlay McWalter - this is definitely not a _^new^ user.  7  02:49, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

7, did you mean a "NEW" user? or just a user? I did ask that question on their talk page and they replied that they had edited a few years ago but forgot their password. I took that at face value and didn't take it any further at the time. Maybe it is worth pursuing with the user at this point? Frmatt (talk) 03:01, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes - sorry "new" user - corrected above. I don't think there's enough to take it any further at this point - but worth keeping an eye on.  7  03:17, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

This user has come off of their block, and their first edit was to wipe their talk page and immediately perform the redirect that had gotten them blocked earlier [187] along with a fairly rude comment [188] about the other users on the page who opposed the redirect. I don't think they got the message. Sarek of Vulcan has reverted their redirect, but I think this user is going to end up causing more problems shortly. Frmatt (talk) 04:54, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Civility is no longer applicable on the ToS talk page. I'm having to repeat myself over and over and I'm just getting uber-fans not paying attention to it. Clearly, civility wasn't going to get me anywhere. There's a certain point where that just isn't doable anymore and you've got to get a little aggressive with people to get them to wake up. I'm not the one causing the problems, it's the uber-Spongebob fans clinging onto an extended episode (it's not a TV movie, get over it). I've shown them that other shows of the same notability as Spongebob have had extended episode that are redirects, they just stare blankly and come up with some BS excuse. Also, talk page wiping is perfectly allowed. Thewtfchronicles (talk) 05:01, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Civility is not the issue, your understanding of how consensus works and why that redirect didn't meet consensus because it was deemed notable. You brought it to the talk page and the consensus was against you there. Your choice now is not to redirect unilaterally, but instead to take it to another forum, such as WP:AFD that would allow a larger community conversation about whether this article is appropriate or not. WP works on a consensus model, and unilateral actions go against that model. There are times when consensus works against each of us, and when that is the case, we have to say that even though we disagree, we defer to the wider community. If this bothers you so much, why not just take it to AFD and let the larger community talk about it?

Also, I was simply commenting on wiping your talk page. You are absolutely right that your talk page is yours to do with as you wish (within the guidelines). That being said, wiping your talk page implies that you are trying to hide your past actions. If you appeared to be making a clean start, then I see no problem, but when you immediately go back to places where you have had conflicts before, it looks more like you are trying to hide your past, than trying to make a clean start. So, yes, you are within your rights to wipe your talk page, but it certainly doesn't look very good. Frmatt (talk) 05:08, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

(after ec) Thewtfchronicles:

• Blanking your user talk page is fine.
• Civility is not optional.
• Blanking the SpongeBob's Truth or Square repeatedly is not acceptable. If you do it anymore, you will be blocked again. Take the article to WP:AFD if you think it is not-notable

In general, your editing and conduct on wikipedia has been problematic. Please take some time and review our content and conduct policies, for if you continue in this vein you are heading to an indef. block. Hopefully, you will reconsider before that stage is reached. Abecedare (talk) 05:10, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Civility is no longer an option when it becomes clear that isn't getting anything done. It's like if you get a stain on something, you don't continue to use methods that don't work, you find new solutions. It became clear to me that getting bitchy would be the only way to possibly get the point across.

AFD is not applicable as I'm not proposing a deletion, but a redirect. Consenus is hard do reach when the only other participants are Spongebon fanboys crying and whining and giving BS excuses for why it should stay. Thewtfchronicles (talk) 05:37, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

AFD is an most certainly option if you wish to measure consensus for changing an article to a redirect. AFDs are often closed as merge or redir - not just delete or keep. Civility is the only option we all have, regardless of whether it gets things done.  7  06:09, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

• Additional info: Browsing around, I came across iCarly and evidence of an edit-war with a familiar name involved. I've reblocked Thewtfchronicles, who was still edit-warring on the heels of Abecedare's warning above (72 hours this time), along with a couple of other editors also involved in the edit war (Aoi (talk · contribs) and Ophois (talk · contribs)). EyeSerene^talk 10:30, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
  • I've already left you a notice at User talk:Aoi and only now noticed that this originated here: I think the blocks of Aoi and Ophois were an overreaction. Warnings would have certainly been sufficient, and the situation at iCarly in particular appears to have been stable for several hours with both editors talking on the talk page. You should, in my opinion, lift those blocks. Amalthea 11:13, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Oops, didn't see this sooner. I've posted something to your talkpage - more detail there, but in a nutshell, I agree re Aoi (now unblocked), but not re Ophois. EyeSerene^talk 11:58, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
      • OK, thanks, I hadn't looked beyond the history of iCarly and the contributions of Aoi when I asked the above. --Amalthea 12:03, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Endore block This user has shown a self-guided interest in CSD without any knowledge of the policy. In one case, he says "A normal member removing speedy tags might not be vandalism, but it sure as hell isn't allowed." It infact is allowed. The user was asked several times to read WP:CSD and I even asked him to read WP:WIHSD. I see no evidence he has any interest to improve his tagging. I endorse permenant block as long as this behavior exists. If he changes his behavior to show an interest in WP policies and community consensus, I would endorse unblock with restrictions on CSD tagging or even a mentor. I do not think this user is editting in bad faith, but his lack of interest in correcting his behavior concern me greatly. I've been watching him for a little while and have offered friendly advice that he seems unwilling to take.--TParis00ap (talk) 02:12, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Advice please

I had removed: Proposal for editors to go on strike over the refusal of the Foundation to deal with feedback on "Wikipedia Forever" from the {{Cent}} template as it seemed to be misplaced there. I cited WP:Soapbox but maybe there's some more appropriate way to either word this or remove it altogether. {{Cent}} is intended as a high-profile community-wide brief on subjects usually tied to guidelines and policies but certainly can include other important topics. As a general rule RfC's and discussions attempt to be neutral discussion asking for wider input to make a better decision.

I see two issues here, (i) the "proposal" cited actually seems to simply be a call to strike rather than a NPOV discussion about perceived issues with the campaign, and (ii) the template itself may need to be tweaked in instructions so as to keep the purpose and focus on this template on target from future efforts to seemingly advertise items that likely are best advertised otherwise. Thoughts? -- Banjeboi 00:43, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

what this is made out to be

what it actually is

• If it stays removed from CENT, I say just ignore it. I don't think this sort of abuse of CENT happens very often, and now that I've glanced at the "strike" page I think the less attention/drama around it the better. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:03, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Cent, however should not be used as a soapbox which I believe this is doing. It was created to widely advertise discussions on policies and guidelines and I feel this kind of entry degrades its use and therefore effectiveness. If it is removed I would certainly support it, I posted here as this is one of the most high-profile templates and those wishing to push agendas have venues in which to generally do that with neutral massages. Start an actual NPOV RfC then look if Cent is appropriate. I am not looking for an edit war but more eyes to see if there is some better way to address this besides simply removing it and admonishing an editor. -- Banjeboi 02:20, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree that {{cent}} should remain neutral. As a number of people do want to discuss the issue, I think it's worthwhile to include it, but I really don't think that RfC has a neutral tone. For lack of a better option, I've slipped in a link to the ongoing Village Pump topic, instead. Various proposals can just as well be mentioned there, rather than advertising one above all others. – Luna Santin (talk) 06:52, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I updated the RFC, archiving the clearly unproductive "strike" discussion, and accordingly relinked from Cent. The RFC was always structured with the strike suggestion being just one of the possible ideas, so I really don't get the "neutrality" issues (maybe it was the banner at the top... which OK maybe was a bit much, but it seemed fitting). And BTW as the creator of the RFC in question, shouldn't someone have notified me of this thread? I've only just noticed it, after updating the RFC and Cent. Rd232 ^talk 10:56, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Removed {{cquote}} above as unnecessary and somewhat inappropriate formatting (adding drama), and BTW, what part of WP:SOAPBOX has any relevance to this issue? Rd232 ^talk 11:09, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Removal of that formatting is fine - it was only intended to clarify what was being referenced. As for [WP:Soap]? I'm a bit disappointed that is not more clear, it states, in part, "Therefore, content hosted in Wikipedia is not for ... 1. Propaganda, advocacy, or recruitment of any kind." Can you see that others might see calling for editors to join a protest strike is indeed advocating and recruiting? The main take-away issue is that a NPOV RfC - "Is there sufficient concern that criticisms of the campaign aren't being addressed by the foundation, and if so, what path forward would benefit the project" - would have resulted in less dramahz and more thoughtful participation. Set up a strike page if one must but also create the main NPOV discussion that Cent can be linked to if there actually is to be a community wide discussion. -- Banjeboi 23:38, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Unmaintained user page

Resolved

• User:Runescape (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Can an Administrator please delete this user page? It's been created entirely by other users and IP's and has never been edited by the owner of the page. Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 22:04, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Deleted by Tanthalas39. TNXMan 22:46, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Cheers, Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 22:49, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Hmm...my MfD needs cleaned up then, does an admin have to close it? Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 22:56, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

All tidied up. TNXMan 23:11, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Unsourced content issue

Resolved

 – Both articles semi-protected for two weeks. treelo _radda 03:38, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Currently I have an issue, no idea where to put this seeing as I'm not chummy with any admins around so here it can go. On Foster's Home for Imaginary Friends and List of Foster's Home for Imaginary Friends episodes someone seems hellbent on making sure a unsourced DVD release date remains in the articles even though it's most likely false given it's been removed several times since June. For a while it's been that an unsourced date was on both articles then replaced by an equally unsourced one, recently they were removed due to lack of sourcing. According to the person who routinely readds the offending content their argument is that "Wikipedia has stated months ago that Season 3 will be released at this date" hence why recently a different date was readded from an edit in May. Basically it comes down to someone who figures they're working in the article's best interest by thinking that Wikipedia is completely factual and accurate and old edits are as good as any other source. Now, why I brought it here is because it also involves more factual inaccuracies which doesn't help as it becomes a mini-editwar and talkpage discussion has been attempted but has failed so far so I'm thinking either protection or rangeblocking as this IP editor is useless to warn as they hop onto a new address if any warnings land on the IP's talkpage. A check suggests that they're on a /19 range so it seems doable but not a good idea just yet whilst a semi-prot for the articles concerned seems to be good but I worry the editor will be back immediately after the prot expires and if I had gone to WP:RFPP I'd have been declined so any suggestions or actions to take?

Tl:dr version: anon editor is intent on adding bad release dates to two articles, reverting is becoming too much hassle as it becomes a small scale editwar between anyone who's involved, came here to see what can be done. treelo _radda 19:57, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm assuming you mean the IP 75.125.xxx.xx? Well seeing as he's been warned here against his disruption, I'd suggest going to WP:RFPP and get the two articles semiprotected for a time; reason, continual unsourced edits and editwarring by shifting IP editor. Easier to do that than finding a range to block. Auntie E. 18:00, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Hm, I'll request for semi-protection for both articles but should a semi-prot request fail can I not come here and ask a second opinion as what to do? The range issue isn't that much of a problem as I know what range they're on as mentioned before and would rather take that as a last resort. treelo _radda 20:32, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Looks like it worked, pages are protected for two weeks. Auntie E. 01:37, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I reckon it'll resume once the protection expires but that's a concern when/if it happens, see you in two weeks ANI. treelo _radda 03:38, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Pancho Gonzales. anon editor keeps adding unsourced info

This guy User_talk:67.161.160.59 has been warned many times and I don't know what the next step should be. If he added sources I would have no problems but these names could simply be pulled out of a hat. Now he has changed to anonymous user User_talk:71.197.77.124. Maybe a sockpuppet who doesn't want to show his true name? The article is Pancho Gonzales I could use some help. Maybe if it was page protected for a month to verified members only it would discourage the poster. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:39, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Requests for page protection is over there. Mjroots (talk) 06:12, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

User:AlfonseLaw LLP

Resolved

 – no legal threat found, username soft block issued Toddst1 (talk) 16:10, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

AlfonseLaw LLP (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Not resolved see below.

Could someone have a look at this users contributions? It seems to me that their "Legal firm" name (reported to WP:UAA), in combination with their vaguely threatening edit summaries, could be considered to be a legal threat. They have gone so far as to remove talk page comments containing the allegedly copyrighted material they claim to be protecting On the other hand, they may have a valid complaint, and perhaps should be shown the way to OTRS. Either way, it would take a bit more tact than I have available for lawyers this morning. WuhWuzDat 14:31, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

The relevant diff is here. The editor removed a few formulas from Stochastic oscillator with the claim The formula for stochastics is protected by US copyright law. Wikipedia does not have permission from the author to publish this information and derivative works are prohibited. I'd think that publishing 2 or three formulas would constitute fair use, but IANAL. --Bfigura ^(talk) 14:52, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure formulae are copyrightable, but they should be pointed to info-en-cwikimedia.org. Stifle (talk) 17:00, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

The editor continues to delete materiel claiming copyright: [189] --4wajzkd02 (talk) 17:02, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Reblocked. Toddst1 (talk) 17:31, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure that formulas are not copyrightable. You can only copyright expressions of ideas, not ideas themselves, and if the expression of the idea cannot be separated from the idea, then the whole thing is not copyrightable. --Carnildo (talk) 00:08, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

That was my impression, although so long as the formulas are quoted/attributed properly and briefly, I believe it should fall under fair use (WP:FAIRUSE#Text). I'll restore the content to the page. --Bfigura ^(talk) 02:42, 14 November 2009 (UTC)