Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive514

User:Mehran Mangrio

Mehran Mangrio (talk · contribs · logs)

This editor has been inactive recently, but created a bunch of images with copyright problems, created questionable articles, restored them multiple times, etc. What should be done? Could an admin (or a few admins) go through his contributions to look for problematic edits/uploads? Thanks very much in advance, Enigma^msg 22:40, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I think I have nominated most/all of his images for deletion previously. A few may remain. Calliopejen1 (talk) 04:21, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Israel Shahak article

Issue:
1. Deletion of other user's posts. I can't find any explicit policies on deleting other users' posts from talk (not his talk, article talk), but it seems like a very bad thing to do. See here.

• edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Talk#Others.27_comments states, "Do not strike out the comments of other editors without their permission."

2. Escalating revert war between User:Jayjg and: myself, User:Dynablaster, User:Nishidani and User:PalestineRemembered at Israel Shahak

a. each and every change we make, he reverts with wikilawyering, and outright dismissal of consensus opinion.

For example, he refuses the consensus opinion of some CAMERA articles aren't appropriate for use in the article due to our acceptance "EI's propaganda spin" - that CAMERA is an absolutely trustworthy WP:RS. Oddly enough, he states that, "CAMERA was attempting to do was to bring some of the more egregiously anti-Israel articles in line with Wikipedia policies" - to which the evidence seems to be directly the opposite.

b. additionally, he seems to dismiss Israel Shahak's writings and readily accepts any criticism on the basis that "Shahak was likely knowledgeable about chemistry, but he was a non-expert when it came to the works for which he is most famous, his polemics on Judaism." - while there is no policy on this, it seems to be disingenuous to involve oneself in an article to which one cannot maintain a neutral stance.

Before this escalates any further, I ask for an administrator to intervene. The chances of a calmly discussed consensus being reached, seems to be nil. GrizzledOldMan (talk) 21:21, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, from my view the wikilawyering seems to be entirely the other way. For example, you keep insisting that you can insert original research into an article because you are simply stating "FACTS AS THEY ARE". I've brought up that very issue on the NOR/N noticeboard (Wikipedia:No_original_research/noticeboard#Shahak_vs._Jackobovits), only to be followed there by PR, who, not content to insert irrelevant soapboxes onto the article talk page, insists on inserting them on the NOR/N board as well. Perhaps you can explain how a two and a half year old discussion which mentions neither Shahak nor Jakcobovits can be, to use PR's words, "on just this topic". I defy anyone, in fact, to explain how PR's comments are actually on the topic of the article, which is Israel Shahak. In addition, I object to your mis-stating my positions on, well, practically everything. I did not, for example, state that CAMERA "is an absolutely trustworthy WP:RS"; rather, I pointed out that EI's spin on CAMERA's motives were not fact. In any event, I'm not seeing where this rather standard type of content dispute has become an administrative issue. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:53, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd rather not personalize this, though there is a problem with the way Jayjg has consistently defended the extensive citation of worthless smear sources against Israel Shahak on that page. I'm not interested in edit-warring, and have advised that each improbable smear be analysed according to standard criteria before we actually work the page. But the page does have a troubled history. We have managed to keep pages on other controversialists in the area, such as Norman Finkelstein, relaqtively clear of poor partisan smears, yet this has invariably failed with this page, and many editors havce given up on it. I understand why the Israel Shahak page is so subject to special treatment: he wrote a critique of totalitarian tendencies in a certain vein of Judaism, and this is sensitive stuff. But the way to handle this is not to trivialize the subject by citing extensively gossipmongers with their lethal rumours, but to look for criticism by competent scholars of where Shahak's scholarship is wrong, if wrong.

There is almost nothing on what he actually thought, but a lot on innuendoes, smears, patent lies, and deliberate misinterpretations of what he thought, by agitprop specialists of mediocre credentials, such as, to cite one example only, Rachel Neuwirth. There is no reliable source I know of which says Shahak was an antisemite. Many critics of antisemitism were his intimate friends. Yet this rubbish is consistently defended. The result is an unbalanced page, thick with suspicion, and short on intelligent NPOV material on his thought. I simply would like clarification from administrators and fellow editors on how much of these 'trashing' polemics by non-notable polemicists without a knowledge of Shahak's life, and without his kind of academic formation, is allowable. That he is hated is obvious. It should be noted. I however fail to see why patent smearing by non-notable people who have a clear agenda to continue a whispering campaign against him should be given more than passing mention, with a few references to the mags that print their hackwork.Nishidani (talk) 21:36, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

It would be helpful if you would actually "not personalize this", rather than claiming you don't wish to, then proceeding to do so. Shahak was controversial in a way that Finkelstein was not, in that Shahak wrote polemical books about Judaism, while having absolutely no expertise in the area. His works on Judaism are comparable to Robert Spencer's on Islam, except for the fact that Spencer has a degree in a relevant field, religion, whereas Shahak did not. It is for precisely this reason that Shahak's views have been considered antisemitic. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:53, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

My not wishing to personalize this meant, in context, that the problem is not immediately 'you' personally, but the fact that the page is a mess of smears from quarterbaked POV warriors in the war over national images and ethnic honour. That you happen to be a longtime defender of this rubbish is secondary. The former is what I should like to be addressed. As to your remark about no expertise, Shahak read Talmudic and rabbinical literature for 40 years, and, secondly, closely followed the development of fundamentalism in Israel. That Shahak is not an authorized authority on Judaism, which you repeat ad nauseam, is wholly immaterial to the issue. Shahak is famous for a book he wrote on one current of Judaism, as Karl Popper is famous also for a book on Plato's thought, though he wasn't a qualified classicist. The page on Shahak therefore must deal with that critique. I'd be more than happy to see good sources from within the academic mainstream on Judaism cited in their deconstructions of his interpretation. We don't have that. We have a ragbag of smears about an ostensible antisemitic attitude by the usual bunch of tabloid warriors in the lowermuddle brow level of the commentariat, skewering him with smears and insinuations that are palpably wrong and trivial. As for your view that 'Shahak's views have been considered antisemitic' because he wrote a polemical book on Judaism, I'd like a source for that.Nishidani (talk) 23:19, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

"That Shahak is not an authorized authority on Judaism, which you repeat ad nauseam, is wholly immaterial to the issue." Wow. And yet you wish to use him in a "Criticism of Judaism" article. Right, then, let's toss out WP:RS altogether. Time to take it to WP:MFD? Jayjg ^(talk) 02:00, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Thankyou, Nishidani, I did not realise that the views and publications of an Israeli professor (and probably one of the very most notable "critics of Judaism" in the world, ever) is excluded from a Criticism of Judaism article - I wonder whether non-specialists such as Ayaan are excluded from Criticism of Islam?

No, I see they're not. There are 4 "approving" mentions of Ayaan and a referenced article of hers. (On top of numerous other such critics). If we go to Ayaan Hirsi Ali's own article, she is (approvingly?) quoted saying "Violence is inherent in Islam — it's a destructive, nihilistic cult of death. It legitimates murder." I wonder why the hate-filled views of this critic of Islam (who has admitted on television to lying even about her own name and date of birth) are considered worthy of inclusion in at least two places, while the views of the respectable Shahak are not considered worthy of inclusion anywhere.

(Before there is another stinging attack on me for daring to comment on Ayaan Hirsi Ali's reliability and interference with this message or a block on me with false claims of BLP, I should state that I respect and appreciate Ayaan, and I think it entirely proper that her views are aired). PR^talk 11:21, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I am one of many, many who has totally given up the Israel Shahak-article. We can only note that no critic is too insignificant to be noted on that page. However, strangely, Israel Shahak´s own views are all apparently "non-notable" on Wikipedia. Have fun. Huldra (talk) 21:50, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Err, yes, Shahak's polemics on Judaism aren't reliable sources about Judaism. Why on earth would you imagine they were? Do you really think, given the hundreds of scholars of Judaism who have written on the topic of Judaism, the thousands of books, and tens of thousands of scholarly articles, that we should be quoting the works of chemists? Jayjg ^(talk) 21:57, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh, rrright, but anybodys polemics on Shahak is a reliable source about Shahak? I recall how hard I had to fight to at least keep neo-nazis like David Duke out from the Shahak -page. As for the "hundreds of scholars of Judaism who have written on the topic of Judaism, the thousands of books, and tens of thousands of scholarly articles" written on Criticism of Judaism; hmm, no, I don´t know about them. They are certainly not in the article. Why don´t you add them, Jayjg? Regards, Huldra (talk) 22:05, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that the quality of sources one will find on Shahak will in any way approach those you will find on Judaism? Are you really suggesting Shahak's writings on Judaism compare in any way to those of the hundreds of actual scholars of the topic who have written about it? Absurd! Jayjg ^(talk) 22:20, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

You are not answering my question: if there are "hundreds of scholars of Judaism who have written on the topic of Judaism, the thousands of books, and tens of thousands of scholarly articles" written on Criticism of Judaism; why don´t you add some of them? And for most of us it is not an absurdity, but a hypocrisy, to demand another standard of notability on Shahak-article -sources, than say, on Criticism of Judaism-sources. Regards, Huldra (talk) 23:10, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, Huldra, it is you who is not answered my question: "Do you really think, given the hundreds of scholars of Judaism who have written on the topic of Judaism, the thousands of books, and tens of thousands of scholarly articles, that we should be quoting the works of chemists?" Jayjg ^(talk) 01:24, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

This TalkPage contribution does not concern the conduct that is the subject of this ANI, it does not concern the article where the conduct is under scrutiny and it does not concern any of the 3 policies (WP:TALK, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV) that the author is accused of breaching. It adds no information concerning the subject of the article, or any peripheral subject. In fact, it concerns a different article entirely - or rather, not even that, but the refusal of another editor (so far) to be dragged into an off-topic discussion. PR^talk 14:27, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

This comment from PalestineRemembered was precisely on-topic, but removed by Jayjg. I fail to see how its removal was justified - he's simply using a previous NOR discussion to communicate that NOR is not a black and white issue. The only reason I can see for Jayjg removing it, is that it presents a strong case that his wikilawyering on NOR isn't as watertight as he makes it sound. Instead of allowing PalestineRemembered's observations to weaken his stance - he summarily deletes them from the discussion.

Or has it suddenly become policy, that it's OK to delete other user's comments just because one doesn't want others to see them?

As for his edit-warring, Jayjg simply reverted a large number of changes - citing only WP:SELFPUB contention in the discussion, but completely ignoring the extensive comments in history, where the changes were justified. It seems Jayjg is far more interested in stonewalling the other editors, than discussing changes and improvements that the article is in dire need of. GrizzledOldMan (talk) 22:19, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

This comment from PalestineRemembered was precisely on-topic, but removed by Jayjg. - and there you have it. A comment by PR referring to a 2 1/2 year old discussion which nowhere mentions Shahak is somehow now "precisely on-topic". As for the material I restored, I explained in a number of different areas on the Talk: page why I disagreed with the various edits. And yes, the removal of Cohn because he was somehow "self-published" in Israel Horizons, a magazine with which he has no apparent affiliation, was one of the more ridiculous of those edits that I reverted. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:24, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I think editors imagined that anything that was worth writing and true 2.5 years ago is still true and valid and useful - and some were startled to discover that messages were being deleted and important information was being concealed from him.

Of course, if the rules have changed since you explained the exact meaning of "Original Research" back then, then it's most fortunate we have you to explain the new system to us. PR^talk 23:04, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Jayg seems to have completely missed PalestineRemembered's quote, "The debate is about whether the disputed edit constitutes "analyzing and arguing with," as some here assert and assume but do not demonstrate; or whether it constitutes "summarizing and paraphrasing," as others here have demonstrated exhaustively" - no, it's not about Shahak, but it's quote precisely on topic for the question of WP:NOR - but Jayjg simply deleted it out of hand. PR didn't try to bring up the Finklestein debate - he simply used it as a reference on the question of interpretation of WP:NOR guidelines. I fail to see how that's completely off topic. I can, however, see how it might threaten Jayjg's position and he'd want to delete it, and hope nobody calls him on it. GrizzledOldMan (talk) 23:08, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

So, you really think that a 2 1/2 year old debate, about an entirely different topic, using entirely different sources, will actually be able to shed light on the discussion here? Or rather, is it another example of an attempt to re-hash an old debate, one which in no way can have an impact on the current issue? The latter, of course, which is why I removed it, as opposed to your insulting assertion that it might "threaten Jayjg's position". The only thing it "threatened" was wasting everyone's time with irrelevant material; no fear, however, you've ensured it has done that anyway. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:24, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes - the 2.5 year old discussion was highly relevant to the removal of "Jakobovits provided no evidence to substantiate his claim, and Shahak did not deign to respond". That's why I brought it up. I'm sorry that you're ashamed of what you were saying 2.5 years ago on the subject of OR, but my bringing it up short-circuited the wiki-lawyering that has been so prevalent at this article. It was valuable to other editors, as indeed were each of my other messages (listed below). Do you have an objection to writing articles to policy? PR^talk 10:45, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

(undent)The whole WP:SELFPUB argument is moot, by the way - the discussion had gone on to WP:WEIGHT - I questioned whether or not such an amateurishly written review, in an obscure little magazine, really has a place in Shahak's article. But Jayjg completely ignored the development of the discussion and arbitrarily reverted the change (and all others). I think this is quite telling that he's edit-warring and not trying to discuss points of contention to reach a consensus. GrizzledOldMan (talk) 23:20, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

The whole "SELFPUB" argument was only "moot" because you were called on it. The only "telling" thing was that when your original rationale for removing the material was utterly refuted, you then moved the goalposts, and suddenly declared that the real issue was "WEIGHT". Jayjg ^(talk) 01:24, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

PR, while I don't think it was a good idea for Jayjg to delete this comment, (i.e. the first diff given by GrizzledOldMan above; see Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Others' comments), I note that he's called it "soapboxing". At the moment I don't know enough about the discussion to know whether it was soapboxing or not. If it was on-topic for that article talk page, it must have had some connection to article content. I would appreciate it if you would explain to me what suggested change to the article that comment was connected with, and how, or give me a diff of a comment that explains that. You might want to use the article talk page or my talk page to avoid taking up too much space on this noticeboard.

I've added the article to my watchlist but am not sure whether I'll have time to get involved in editing it. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 23:58, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how I can respond without again being accused of SOAP-BOXING. Even this ANI is now being interfered with! PR^talk 09:55, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

All honour to Jayjg for trying to keep reasonable perspective in this article. I fail to see any reasonable reason why the edit conflict should be taken to the Administrators' noticeboard... -- Olve Utne (talk) 23:41, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikilawyering, deleting other editors' comments in talk, edit-warring against four other editors? You applaud that? Seriously? GrizzledOldMan (talk) 23:59, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, the first and third clauses there describe your own actions. I note that your edits have been reverted by six editors in whole or in part. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:24, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Without advanced tools enabling others to identify all these reverts as being on edits of GOM then your evidence is worthless. What I'm seeing is insistence on including personal abuse of the subject, such as "Dr. Shahak, whose nose is longer than Pinocchio's in any case, does not tell us the whole story of the incident".

One of your reverts concerns the removal of a qualifying statement "Jakobovits provided no evidence to substantiate his claim, and Shahak did not deign to respond", which is exactly comparable to the discussion that sprawled across 15,000 words here on the inclusion or otherwise of accusation of antisemitism levelled "without specifically citing statements of doubt or denial.".

Now, I can understand why you don't wish the GOM and other editors to read what you were saying about OR 2.5 years ago, but it is totally and completely wrong of you to interfere with messages that inform him of policy. Not content with interfering with the TalkPage, this ANI, concerning your conduct, has been re-titled to make it appear as a content dispute. PR^talk 10:45, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

This is a content dispute, and not appropriate for this board. Take. It. Somewhere. Else. Thanks, all. IronDuke 00:58, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, this is a content dispute and does not belong here. By the way, the fact that Jay is willing to take on four edit-warring editors at the same time is not a bad thing; it shows his dedication to making sure articles comply with Wikipedia policies. 6SJ7 (talk) 02:22, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Totally inappropriate for this forum. This is clearly a conflict dispute. bad faith here seems likely.69.242.115.186 (talk) 04:19, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

"you then moved the goalposts, and suddenly declared that the real issue was "WEIGHT""? Did you bother to check the discussion thread? I didn't move the goalposts - the discussion had moved on from that. The goalposts didn't move - you didn't read. If it doesn't belong here - then

• 1. Where does it belong - since Jayjg is completely refusing to accept consensus, and simply edit-wars hos POV to death?
• 2. Where does the comment removal issue belong, if not here? If it's pretty clearly against policy to remove comments without VERY good reason - where should that behaviour be discussed? GrizzledOldMan (talk) 05:06, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Interference accelerates, even ANI not safe This ANI concerns interference with my messages.
Here were the messages removed, material from me that intimately concern policy (Bogdanor is non-RS and CAMERA is non-RS and Moshe Sharratt quoted by neo-Nazis and 15,000 words on OR and editors defending subversion of WP). All removed as "irrelevant".
Rather than the ANI deal with this blatant interference, the problem has now accelerated to an even more absurd degree - because this ANI, which is entirely about Jayjg innovative style of OWNERSHIP has been re-titled from "Jayjg" to "Israel Shahak article" (by the subject of this complaint in two stages here and here).
I hesitate to offend every administrator in the project, but if you cannot strike down behavior this gross, then what are you doing here, what do you think you're protecting? Does honesty in conduct (and with it, honesty in articles) have any place in the project? PR^talk 09:51, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, I think, as I said on the page, that the page is a disgrace, and it needs some administrative attention. That Jayjg's excessive control of it is problematical is neither here nor there. The page has languished because of edit-battles, evidently stands in need of oversight, and Jayjg, though an administrator, is certainly too taken with his own particular dislike of Shahak and his works to exemplify the neutrality of judgement this troubled page requires. So 'Israel Shahak' rather than 'Jayjg' is a reasonable change, even if Jayjg himself is responsible for the alteration.

I see ref to 4 edit-warring opponents of Jayjg, as if he were cornered by mugs and valiantly holds out in defence of NPOV. Name them, by all means, but check the record to document that they edit-war in each case. Secondly, this is not simply a content dispute. Jayjg has, see above, consistently moved the goalposts by repeating that Shahak is not a reliable source on Judaism, when no one is arguing this. He has arrogated to himself the role of judge in a tribunal on the merits or lack of them, of Shahak's book, and thus in saying implicitly that he, as a wiki editor, is an authority on Judaism, and we must take his word for it that Shahak's book gets things nwrong, is 'a non-notable screed' as he puts it.

Jayjg is entitled to his private opinions. Since many scholars, published by University presses, do cite Shahak's interpretation of one fundamentalist vein of Judaism, and since this is not an article about Judaism, but about Shahak and his interpretation of a variety of rabbinical thought, it is totally inappropriate for Jayjg to hold the page to ransom because he does not like Shahak or his book. The only work he does there is to keep in trashing comments by the usual suspects, virulent kibitzers from the partisan activist commentariat. All efforts over two years to try to bring the article up to snuff, as NPOV, have failed before his obstructive behaviour. That is problematical, though I don't know whether this is the appropriate forum for air the issue. It is certainly appropriate to note here that Jayjg should be asked to drop his endless mantra about Shahak and Judaism. Judaism, like Christianity or Islam, is subject to endless interpretations from many angles. There is, unlike Catholicism, no one given interpretation as to what it is, or isn't, and to come to the article with an animus against one scholar with a Popperian approach to part of that tradition, and declare it 'unreliable' is to assert an authority that is arbitrary as it is in violation of what editors are supposed to do, keep their own views from influencing their decisions as to what is relevant or of qualitative value in describing something or someone to NPOV requirements.Nishidani (talk) 10:00, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Correct me if I am wrong, but usually threads initiated on AN/I involve some sort of violation of WP policy that can be improved by administrative attention. Just what is the problem, aside from you are not happy with the article? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:26, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Isn't it a violation of Wiki policy for an administrator to revert references invariably to a scholar and his work on the single grounds that in his personal opinion, that scholar is unreliable, despite the fact that the said scholar and his books are widely acknowledged. Isn't it a violation of some rule to rule the roost, ride shotgun over an article, and for several years show hostility to the subject of that article, and rigorously defend the inclusion into that article of every piece of slanderous garbage editors can find by trawling for scuttlebutt over the internet?

My problem is that I have an academic background, know nothing of the wiki rulebook, use commonsense and the probative intelligence in editing articles required at a university level. And yet I find that this approach is held hostage by endless wikilawyering on key articles by people who wish to trash Israeli or Jewish intellectuals as liars or antisemites simply because they are exercising their democratic right to dissent. I'm sure were I a practiced pettifogger, that I could annotate the gravamen of my objections to the way that page is edited by an extensive recitation of nuanced passages in the wiki lawbook. Fundamentally my objection however is to the despoiling of the reputation of a scholar by innuendo from poor sources that insinuate he was an antisemite simply because, as Allan Brownfeld of the Jewish Council for America wrote that Israel Shahak was rebuked, spat upon and threatened with death for his defense of human rights in Israel and the Occupied Territories. That this trashing abounds in a certain scurrilous world of scaremongering by second-rate minds can be noted in a line or two ()Ecco. Jayjg's refuses to accept that all this crap on the page violates WP:UNDUE WEIGHT, since it also is gossip that comes from fringe purveyors of sensationalist smears (WP:FRINGE). That it is untrue need not be noted, perhaps, even if the American State Department, Washington think tanks, and organs like the Jewish Council for America would never have extended their hospitality to Shahak had he been, as Werner Cohn, Bogdanor and Rachel Neuwirth assert without a skerrick of proof, an antisemite. But editors like Jayjg should lay off defending undefendable smears on that page. His position there is an attack position. I don't think editors who attack a page should be on them. I dislike Alan Dershowitz, and consider him to be . . . Precisely for this reason, I never edit that page. Call it ethics, even though the extensive wike rulebook has no place for them.Nishidani (talk) 14:03, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

The violations are clearly stated at the top of the thread. Your confusion with this being a content issue is the fault of someone changing the title of the section. The issue which we have been arguing, is Jayjg's behaviour. The connection to the content of article is secondary - sparked by others' attempts to make changes.

Despite Wiki policy against deletion of other users' posts, however, I've yet to see a single administrator criticize the act. If the policy on this has changed recently, please be so kind as to explain it, so that we might at least settle part of the dispute. There's plenty of "soapboxing" posts I could clean up from article chats to help streamline the Wiki project - not to mention simplifying debates where "irrelevant or redundant" comments are posted which I do not feel are worthy of inclusion in the chat. GrizzledOldMan (talk) 13:52, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

See [1], which says "Keep on topic: Talk pages are for discussing the article, not for general conversation about the article's subject (much less other subjects). Keep discussions on the topic of how to improve the associated article. Irrelevant discussions are subject to removal." Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:32, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll say this once more, then hopefully I'm done: people who post here with complaints that are purely content disputes (and therefore frivolous for the purposes of this board) run the real risk that future complaints will be ignored. Try an RfC on the article, for starters. But please take it away from here. IronDuke 15:03, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand how this is a content dispute. It involves deletion of other people's posts - which seems to be a violation of wiki policy. Also, edit-warring between Jayjg and the rest of the editors - which, unless reversion-warring is acceptable practice - once again quite relevant to this thread.

The issue isn't over the content itself - that can be discussed in article chat, if people don't simply go revert-warring when there's a disagreement. The issue is the behavior of Jayjg - which I was led to believe from my limited understanding of wiki policy, were in violation. If edit warring and deleting other user's comments] are not violations of wiki policy, then please confirm so and we can be done with the thread. GrizzledOldMan (talk) 15:15, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Off topic posts can be removed, however removing a post from an editor you're in dispute with is probably a bad idea. PhilKnight (talk) 15:24, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Removing comments does not violate policy. It could theoretically violate a guideline, but in this case probably hasn't. Even if it had, this would not be the place to complain about it. Way too minor. As for edit-warring 1) No, it is not relevant to this board. There is a board for it but since 2) You are certainly one of the edit-warrers in question, you would essentially be asking for someone to block you. Is that what you want? IronDuke 15:21, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Technically there's 4 wanting to change the article, and 1 blocking it - so I am 20% of the problem. Since the that's been answered, then it seems I'm done here - any article talk comments I deem to be spurious - poof. Edit-war and just keep it under 3RR. Righto - gotcha - understood. GrizzledOldMan (talk) 15:48, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I haven't reviewed the entire discussion yet, but just replying to this last comment: you make it sound that when 4 editors edit-war with one, it automatically makes the one editor wrong. This is incorrect, as all five editors are wrong for edit-warring. However, on the one hand we have one editor who has been on Wikipedia for years as an admin, checkuser and arbitrator, while on the other we have several users at least one of whom has a long block history and constantly displays a lack of understanding of Wikipedia policy; so numbers aren't always the most important. If the edit-warring becomes serious enough, I suggest protecting the article temporarily while the disputes are resolved on the talk page, and ask all editors to post short and on-topic messages, with no soapboxing which is so prevalent in I-P articles. I will post more as the issues becomes more clear to me. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 17:15, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I find it rather odd that Jayjg would be accused of going against consensus for disagreeing with four editors who essentially edit as a bloc rather than individuals and likely coordinate with each other off-wiki.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 17:42, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I, too, find myself in disagreement with user Jayjg. Let me say clearly for the record that I have not conversed with any of these editors before today, and certainly not in private. Please consider withdrawing your remark. Dynablaster (talk) 22:24, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I haven't reviewed the entire discussion yet, but just replying to this last comment: you make it sound that when 4 editors edit-war with one, it automatically makes the one editor wrong

Ynhockey. I haven't checked others, but for myself I haven't edit-warred on that page. Grizzly mentioned this, and it was mentioned further that four edit-warred with Jayjg. Whoever asserts this should check and see who is edit-warring, and get their diffs right.Nishidani (talk) 18:28, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I think there should be a very strong presumption against removing talk page comments by generally serious contributors. If anything, one should be more cautious in doing so when the contributor in question is one with whom you have a scholarly or political disagreement. If you think such a comment is irrelevant, it's a lot better to say so than to remove it. - Jmabel | Talk 20:58, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment #2: after reviewing the page history more carefully, I can't help but ask why the original ANI poster made this report. This is clearly a content dispute, and not one editor edit-warring against consensus. In fact, it appears that there are several editors on Jayjg's side, and actually less editors on the other 'side'. But all of that doesn't really matter because disputes like this should be solved in talk. I suggest protecting the page temporarily and addressing the immediate issues on talk, removing any soapboxing which seems to appear here and there. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 21:19, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Ynhockey, several things are worth noting in response to your posts:

1. The "several editors on Jayjg's side" (Malcolm Schosha, Brewcrewer) are all resolutely nationalist editors who arrived there today, after this AN/I report was filed.
2. Jay, who regularly claims he has "won" debates he has actually lost, was indeed edit-warring against consensus here.
3. Jay has an established history of seriously harassing the editor whose comments he inappropriately deleted in this case.
4. The Israel Shahak article appears to be a trainwreck of NPOV-violations, with Jay's familiar talk-page games currently preventing its improvement. Jay, moreover, has an established history of using any negative sources he can find for the subject of that article, no matter how badly they fail WP:RS.

That Jay "has been on Wikipedia for years as an admin, checkuser and arbitrator" is a fact worth reflecting on, but it does not alter these other facts listed above.--G-Dett (talk) 21:59, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, all of the above is either misleading or outright incorrect. It's funny that you accuse certain editor of being 'resolutely nationalist', which is a severe bad faith accusation, and also ironic because the editors appear to be from North America talking about a Polish-Israeli, and I don't have to comment on the nationalism and POV tendencies of the opposing editors. Your personal attacks against Jayjg are also out of place, as there is no evidence that he did any of those things, and if there is, feel free to present it here (if relevant). But again, my suggestion is to protect the article and work out the dispute on talk. I don't think there's any point in arguing with me about the editors involved, or even the content, if my suggestion is not addressed. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 22:19, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm happy to substantiate any of the facts with which Ynhockey is unfamiliar; interested editors should post to my talk page. I don't want to clog up this page with what is generally known.--G-Dett (talk) 00:27, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Motion to close

This is a content dispute that has now spilled onto AN/I. It is not appropriate for this forum and this discussion should be closed and the involved parties should follow the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution process. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 22:47, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Heartily seconded. IronDuke 22:54, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Even if you decide that what's happening on that article is largely an ordinary content dispute rather than systematic disruption, there still remains the issue of Jay inappropriately deleting talk-page posts by another editor. That's an issue even if you don't agree/aren't aware that Jay has a record of seriously harassing the editor in question.--G-Dett (talk) 23:41, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

As I said above, even if Jay had done that inappropriately (and I see no evidence that's true), it would be, at worst, a guideline violation -- not for this board. IronDuke 23:55, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

If you want to report that, then report that. You and nearly everyone else related to this thing have decided that ANI is the appropriate place to debate who did what to whom, despite multiple outside commentators trying to tap you with the cluebat. Due to the complexity of the debate it is extremely difficult to impossible for anyone interested in investigating the propriety of that aspect of Jayjg's behavior to do so.

Anyway, I'm not too interested in having a meta-debate about whether this is appropriate for AN/I. It looks like just about everyone who tried to make heads or tails of this thinks this is the wrong forum for this kind of discussion, so if you have further complaints about Jayjg and you want to see something actually done about them, you should either resubmit the report with the content focused on something that is related to the legitimate purpose of AN/I or take it somewhere else. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 23:50, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

If I want to report that, I should report that? Good G-d, Ryan. Here's a little gentle tap of the cluebat: the first sentence of this AN/I report was "Issue: 1. Deletion of other user's posts." Partisans jumped in with impressive alacrity to obfuscate this, a move you summed up as follows: "just about everyone who tried to make heads or tails of this thinks this is the wrong forum for this kind of discussion." With you at least, they succeeded.--G-Dett (talk) 23:58, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

You can decide if you want to make it easy or hard on the people who might want to help you resolve this. If you make it hard, you will always have your story about how unfairly you are being treated and how unreasonable everyone else is, but you won't get the result you want. That's all I have to say about it. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 03:21, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughts.--G-Dett (talk) 03:35, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Might I ask, since so many people are saying ANI isn't the place for it:

• 1. Where user post deletions should be discussed?
• 2. Continuing edit-war using whatever means - what _IS_ the place for it, then? GrizzledOldMan (talk) 04:26, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring should be reported & discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Let me repeat what IronDuke wrote above - as you are certainly one of the edit-warriors in question, you would essentially be asking for someone to block you. Is that what you want? NoCal100 (talk) 04:41, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

• 1. When you refer to "user post deletions", do you mean these pointy ones?[2] [3] [4]
• 2. When you refer to "Continuing edit-war using whatever means", are you referring to yours and Dynablaster's reflexive reverting of any edit I make to the article? Jayjg ^(talk) 04:36, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

If the admins believe my actions are deserving of a block, then I'd accept that. I did not contest that. So long as the blocks are handed out impartially and in proportion to the number and gravity of the violations - then yes. I'm fine with that.

If I posted in the wrong forum, then I extend my apologies to all involved. GrizzledOldMan (talk) 06:27, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Issue #3, The ultimate layering. As pointed out earlier, the original post was entitled with a user name and one specific talkpage deletion, which he had made. It originally also included a edit warring charge against consensus of other editors, which could be content specific. But, then things really changed[;] when that the same user changed the TITLE of this section, and thus its Framing (social sciences), of the issues for discussion[. As noted by another user[, this appears to have been done] in two stages here and here. This is the worst appears a much worse kind of violation on top of the initial ‘incident’ and [seems] a significant one. The fact that the user is also an admin and that this specific action is was not fully discussed [since it occurred before 'motion to close'] is amazing; absolutely amazing. Does this [or any] user/admin get earn some kind of Teflon shield [with which] to deflect his specific actions of to an article where it originally developed? [T]his [seems an] absolute violation of the intent of AN/I. This is subterfuge getting a free pass, despicable quite appalling, [and with] no [a seemingly limited understanding of] ethics, as noted above by others. Hot Not as cool as when I started. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 06:08, 10 February 2009 (UTC) CasualObserver'48 (talk) 02:14, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Would you be willing to consider refactoring your post and removing some (perhaps even all) of the incivility? It would be appreciated. IronDuke 15:49, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I was willing, and did re-factor the comment, as anyone may see. I note however, that this effort apparently had little positive effect concerning discussion of the removal/editing of talk-comments on AN/I, particularly changing the TITLE. But, I note that as long as I continue to question the 'motion to close', the sweep it under the carpet archiving BOT is ineffectual. If the above-stated 'incident', which I am pursuing is not of import as an 'incident', then tell me so in unambiguous terms with a reasoned wiki-why, and I will sheath my sharpened pen and return to productive editing. Regards, CasualObserver'48 (talk) 12:43, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, CO48, it is much appreciated. To answer your question (which I think I may already have done above), the issues of changing the title and removal of comments, and the merits thereof, would not usually be handled here: neither was a violation of policy -- and indeed, there were strong arguments for both. You might try Wikiquette, that's probably closest for this sort of minor kerfuffle, though I suspect you will find no catharsis there. IronDuke 15:40, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Unacceptable spam on user talk page

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

Resolved

 – Not an issue that requires admin intervention. SoWhy 13:43, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The following appears on the top of this user talk page. Of course I clicked on new messages whereby I was sent to an off-Wikipedia page. Spam.

You have new messages (last change).

I have not tried removing it nor asking for it to be removed, as an earlier request (on another matter) to the same user got no response. I am hoping that an admin who agrees that this is unacceptable will take action. Thank you. - Hordaland (talk) 12:40, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

You got rickrolled. MER-C 12:53, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I get it, thanks. But I still think it's inappropriate here. - Hordaland (talk) 13:03, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I see no evidence that the user has been asked about this message bar before. In fact it looks like he added this bar only a day ago. ^LeaveSleaves 13:10, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I hope by now someone has asked this to be removed. The orange bar brings attention to new messages and thus this will be hit a lot by editors who go to this page. I agree it's totally inappropriate, it needs to be removed. --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:18, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Seems like harmless fun to me. How about asking him to remove it, instead of crying foul of it here, without his knowledge?--Atlan (talk) 13:20, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I have requested the removal of the orange bar here. Let see if action is taken, if not someone needs to take action imho, thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:23, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Oh well, I was bold and removed it while you were posting that. Meh. //roux   13:26, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

A lot of people have this banner on their talk/user pages. I've seen some point to practical joke on WP, other times to other WP pages, YouTube, a personal photo, etc. Don't you think you are getting worked up about something incredibly minor?--Tufacave (talk) 13:24, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but WP:USER is relatively clear about not using simulated MediaWiki messages, for what I think are tolerably obvious reasons. //roux   13:26, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:USER says they are frowned upon, not forbidden...and if there has been consensus either way in the past, it's been to allow them, even if they are incredibly stupid. --Onorem♠Dil 13:29, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:SMI (the direct link to the section) actually says they should be avoided except for testing purposes; you forgot that bit. They're bloody stupid, they serve no purpose except to annoy, they should be removed on sight. The point of the MW system messages is to provide alerts to users. Faking those messages dilutes the utility of the alerts. //roux   13:34, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I didn't forget that bit. I ignored it, since every discussion that's been had about this has led to the same conclusion. They're stupid, but not forbidden. Speaking of bloody stupid...here's a bunch of time wasted discussing what should be a non-issue. --Onorem♠Dil 13:43, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Er, I believe the term for that is cherry picking, and as such does not make for a sound or logical argument. I've removed such nuisances from talk pages before, and would not hesitate to do so again. Tarc (talk) 18:35, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

And exactly what kind of administrator intervention is required here? Lectonar (talk) 13:37, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Well, to quote ThuranX from a couple of years ago: "i'd say that if they lead to a potentially offensive article, or off-site, then there might be grounds for asking for a more appropriate link and then Admin intervention, ..." (found on page linked by Onorem above), and this one led off-site. I hadn't heard of WP:SMI, and am glad to know about it, thanks. - Hordaland (talk) 14:25, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

What a great way to discourage a productive editor who's been here since 2004. Well done, people. yandman 15:09, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I think its just harmless fun. We don't need to be so serious all of the time. Everyone needs to lighten up, and move on.--Jojhutton (talk) 18:19, 11 February 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.

Conflict of interest at The Big Issue

For a long time now (since well before I edited the article), there has been an editor using several IPs (mostly 212.159.25.129 (talk), also 77.101.244.143 (talk), 79.173.141.42 (talk) and 149.254.224.147 (talk)), to repeatedly insert a "response" from The Big Issue's publications department into the Criticisms section of this article. (See, for example, this most recent instance.) Other users and I have left messages on the talk page explaining why this is not appropriate ("Wikipedia is not TBI's soapbox" and such), and I have left COI notices at the editor's main IP, but the editor has continued (I've switched over to leaving vandalism warnings, and he's on level 4 now). I have actually reported two of the IPs just now because they're active, but for the most part these guys are only active at long intervals (every couple weeks or so), so in the long-term I don't know if temporary AIV blocks will be helpful (although, if it's any consolations, these IPs have been SPAs lately; it doesn't appear that anyone else is using them, so maybe a longer block would be warranted). I'm just wondering if there's anything that can be done about this (other than me reverting over and over again). Thanks, rʨanaɢ (formerly Politizer)^talk/_contribs 14:16, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not surprised they are pissed off - the whole section is based on a single article in a student magazine which looks at homelessness in a single city. Needs a re-write and hopefully we can engage with the publication department of that magazine. --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:24, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I've rewritten it. Thanks for the comments. For now I'll just sit back and see if the new section appeases them; if they do continue, though, is there any action that can be taken? rʨanaɢ (formerly Politizer)^talk/_contribs 15:10, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Need uninvolved admin - OR / misinterpretation of sources by User:Uruk2008

I'm having an insertion of factually inaccurate information / original research and novel synthesis / sterile revert problem with Uruk2008 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) on several articles:

• Nuclear weapon design - Uruk2008 inserted factually incorrect information [5] reverted it back in twice [6] [7]
  • Un-responded-to discussion on article talk page with details of what he's interpreting wrong (novel synthesis / NOR) and misstating from what the reference sources actually say Talk:Nuclear_weapon_design#Fourth_generation_weapon_information_-_hypothetical_vs_real
• (same topic on Nuclear weapons) - [8] [9]
• Thermobaric weapon - twice removes a accuracy disclaimer on a claim he inserted [10] [11]
  • Un-responded-to discussion on article talk page with details of the problems in the claim: Talk:Thermobaric_weapon#Extent_of_damage_claim
• 1998 United States embassy bombings - [12] [13]
• All reverts above were after note and then warnings left on user's talk page: User_talk:Uruk2008#I_believe_that_you_mean_well...

See discussion on: Talk:Nuclear_weapon_design#Fourth_generation_weapon_information_-_hypothetical_vs_real Talk:Thermobaric_weapon#Extent_of_damage_claim User_talk:Uruk2008#I_believe_that_you_mean_well...

I AGF but he's inserting information which I know and have sourced as being inaccurate. As I am an involved party I would like to request that an un-involved admin take a look at it. It's not quite completely sterile reverting on his part - he finally left some edit comments - but he's not addressing the factual problems in what he's saying. I believe he has made a whole bunch of factually suspect or outright wrong claims in recent edits and something needs to be done.

Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 10:56, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

User(s) blocked. for 24 hours for edit warring. --Kralizec! (talk) 22:29, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

IP user continually tries to reintroduce band promotion material into Glam Metal

Resolved

 – Sprot 1 week. Guy (Help!) 21:33, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

IP User75.50.127.73 (talk · contribs) Continually tries to re-introduce material on a band called Revlon Red that is of promotion nature [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], and again [22].

The user has been warned [23] and seems either not to understand that Wikipedia is not for advertising or wants to keep on taunting. Would some one do something to stop this otherwise the user will continue to reintroduce the material over and over again. Brothejr (talk) 21:14, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

• One week of semi-protection and the IP is temporarily blocked as well. The fee for this service is to clean it up so some of those tags can come off :-) Guy (Help!) 21:33, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Tom Lennox

Resolved

 – Blocked for 48h, hopefully the user will think about future conduct as some edits are good. Black Kite 18:29, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Please see Tom Lennox (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) ... as you can see from his talkpage and contributions, he is becoming increasingly disruptive. He referred to someone as an "asshole" in an edit summary, and has continued to act in a similar manner since being warned. Users have provided policy to no avail. Your action/assistance is appreciated. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 17:00, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Note: this was originally a WP:WQA incident yesterday. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 17:03, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Well seeing as he is now activly vandalising Wikipedia by blanking pages and not jsut being incivil I think we can block him. For the convinience of anyone who doesn't want to dig through his contribs, here is an edit sumary in which he labelled someone an idiot.--Patton^t/c 17:58, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, whoever is insisting that the Silence of the Lambs is a "horror" film is a bit ridiculous, but that is no excuse for the incivility in his reverts. It does make the decision-making easier when the incivility is so blatant, at least. Tarc (talk) 18:10, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I thought it was a "horror" film... Garycompugeek (talk) 22:47, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

You do a lot of editing on Circumcision ... now that would be a horror film...a real hack and slash. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 00:24, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

[-Unindent-] It appears that Tom lennox is continuing the edit war using an IP address (see here). Should this be escalated to SPI? Should the block be extended? Non Curat Lex (talk) 00:44, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Please. Rules. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 00:52, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Removal of sourced genre on Within Temptation

Resolved

 – discussion to continue on article talk

Please feel free to move this elsewhere/ask me to if it's in the wrong place. I've never been clear on where to actually go with cases like this. It isn't actually breaking 3RR, but I don't want to end up breaking it myself.

1st: [24]

2nd: [25]

3rd: [26]

4th: [27]

User:Ada Kataki continues to remove the "gothic rock" genre from Within Temptation, despite it being sourced. The source in question is allmusic. The user has been told that allmusic is a reliable source, and that if he disputes this he should take it to the noticeboard. The user refuses to accept this and continues to revert. I don't want to get into an edit war over it, but I don't see that there's any need for discussion either: Allmusic -is- a reliable source, that's all there is to it. Note that he doesn't remove allmusic full stop: he only removes it where he doesn't agree with it (see diffs).

Is anyone willing to help in stopping these reverts? Prophaniti (talk) 20:21, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

From a cursory look around various archives, it appears Allmusic is considered to be a reliable source, but when it comes to genres it's generally preferred that it's not the only reliable source. This discussion should really be taking place on the talk page. I suggest you invite Ada to discuss the issue on the talk page and try and find another reliable source listing "Gothic Rock" as a genre - if you can then I can see no reason it can't go back into the infobox. About the only thing administrators can do here is lock the page to stop a potential edit war or issue brief blocks for 3RR violations if applicable - they have limited ability to deal with content disputes. If you have no luck, try dispute resolution. Exxolon (talk) 21:45, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Exxolon. The problem is, I don't see any need for discussion in the first place: Allmusic is considered one of the most reliable sources there is. The only circumstance I could think of where it shouldn't be used is if it's outweighed massively by other sources. In this case it isn't. I doubt discussion would go anywhere, given the user's hostile manner, but I'm willing to give it a shot. Prophaniti (talk) 21:48, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I've posted on the Music Wikiproject asking for assistance (and I've notified Ada explicitly they are being discussed here) - if you get no joy, try mediation or an RFC. Exxolon (talk) 21:55, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Allmusic is all music, a web-based, non-genre-specific music data bank, co-operating with the music industry. It's definitely not a reliable source for genre definitions. Reliable sources are genre-specific publications such as books. Books about Gothic rock. Within Temptation (and also Lacuna Coil) is a METAL band. They've nothing to do with the basically style elements of Gothic rock. Gothic is a POST-PUNK genre and definitely not an outgrowth of METAL music. --Ada Kataki (talk) 00:33, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Please take any further discussion to the talkpage - if you cannot reach agreement, use the WP:DISPUTE processes. Exxolon (talk) 02:19, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

This is the kind of case that lead to the extended Music project discussion about genre fields in infoboxes in September and October (see Music project archives). I have sympathy with both sides here. IMO the solution is to avoid including subjective information in these boxes, and try to agree a form of words in the main text that satisfies individual circumstances. --Kleinzach 02:14, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

IP edit warrior at Illuminati

Resolved

We have a problem at the Illuminati article. An IP editor (using several related IP adresses) keeps removing the same paragraph over and over. I could report this at 3rr, but I think the the problem goes beyond just 3rr... A major concern is the obvious fact that the editor seems to have an extremely poor grasp of English... this makes discussions almost impossible. He does not understand our explanations and it is often very difficult for us to understand his complaints. Blueboar (talk) 21:19, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, the contested content ([28]) does include unsourced information pertaining to possibly living people, and a probably inappropriate external link. What do you want us to do?  Sandstein  21:29, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure what you can do... all I know is that the language problem is more than I can deal with and I need assistance and advice. If this were a normal content dispute, I would be able to at least try to have a reasonable dialogue with the other editor in an attempt to reach a consensus... that isn't possible in this case. The language bar is just too wide. I come here because I don't know where else to get assistance and advice with this. See my attempts at communication at the article talk page. Blueboar (talk) 22:29, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The article has been semi-protected until February 25 independently of this report.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:25, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

New university project or keen undergraduates?

See the following new articles: Computer science at strathclyde and Livingstone Tower (where said department is based), and the following users who have contributed: User:Group5cis, User:CSgroup7, User:Cs104group7, and User:Smilers.

The new users and their names and editing topics are suggestive of a group effort, and it's my view that the department is not notable for an article. Anyway, I thought some people here might like to investigate and take any action they deem appropriate. Thanks, Verbal chat 16:30, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Also University of Strathclyde CIS Department (which may actually be a good article), Strathclyde Personal Interactive Development and Educational Resource and User:CS104Group11, User:Kimscottross. Verbal chat 16:35, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

• If you feel the articles aren't notable you should deal with them in the usual manner. –xeno (talk) 16:42, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
  • That isn't the reason I brought them here, it is due to usernames suggesting group editing as part of a course or project. Verbal chat 16:44, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Hmm, they look like they could be group accounts so a note should be left about our policy on that. Looks like uxepat has left a message to them. –xeno (talk) 16:48, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I didn't mention group accounts though, maybe I should go back and add that. – ukexpat (talk) 16:49, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

 Done  – ukexpat (talk) 17:02, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I just made a complete mess of trying to notify these accounts, so if Ukexpat could continue his sterling work I'd be grateful. Sorry if I wasn't clear in my original notice. Verbal chat 16:52, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I see no reason to disagree with your guesses about this being an improper group efford are correct. On the other hand, even if we assume that this is true and that Smilers is someone actually involved rather than being another editor who happened upon the situation, I don't believe that s/he should be seen in the same light: Smilers' contribution log begins nearly three years ago. Nyttend (talk) 03:09, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Stevewunder

Resolved

 – Blocked for 24 hrs. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:09, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Could someone have a look at this user's contributions. Examples of contributions: [29] and [30]. Contribution history: [Contributions:[31]]. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:29, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

There's also talk page gems like this one:[32] He's had a number of warnings about this type of behavior.[33]Idag (talk) 02:58, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

• The disruptive editing continued even after he had been warned that he was reported here. Blocked for 24 hours. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:07, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

User talk:151.199.197.142 as chat room

It looks like User talk:151.199.197.142 is being used as a chat room by a half-dozen high school students. I would dig into it myself and point all the folks to WP:NOT#CHAT but my electricity is out and I only have about three minutes of juice left in the UPS. If someone else could check it out, I would appreciate it. Thanks, --Kralizec! (talk) 05:31, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I've deleted the inappropriate edits from the talk page and I've blocked three of the four new accounts who edited there. The fourth, Krasilschic (talk · contribs) has actual edits.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:44, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Titian

I've temporarily protected this page, as editing of it has become newsworthy. Discussion welcomed in this section at the Talk page. --Dweller (talk) 16:41, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

194.203.158.97 Titian and the Conservative Party (UK)

194.203.158.97 (talk · contribs · count)

It is being reported by the BBC that Titian has been vandalised by Conservative Party Central Office. I have identified the IP address used. Looking at the talk page there is a warning about an edit to Tosser but that edit does not appear in the account history and the link to the diff is dead. Was deletion, oversight used to remove the edit? In which case why is the warnign still visible on the user talk page I suspect that Wikipedia-literate journalists may already have noticed things. --Peter cohen (talk) 16:42, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

There are three deleted edits to Tosser in that IP's deleted contribution history. Warnings aren't automatically or routinely removed simply because the offending edit has been deleted. Bencherlite^Talk 16:53, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

BBC report here. – ukexpat (talk) 17:35, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

This might explain why David Cameron is under "attack" by numerous IPs, including someone from an IP at the Daily Express changing his date of birth. --Blowdart | ^talk 17:38, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Excellent. Birthdaygate --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:46, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps David Cameron should be semi-protected? If the press is going to vandalize, let them at least sign in :) - Nunh-huh 17:48, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Most of the vandalism is coming from one IP that I've already blocked - if someone were to ask at WP:RFPP I'd be inclined to say User(s) blocked. _Gb^T/c 17:50, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

But then again, what do I know? _Gb^T/c 17:52, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I think 24 hours of semi-protection will probably help, which is why I protected the article—the last thing we need are journalists claiming that we're having a big row with that party because their representatives have acted inappropriately and then dubiously accused us of inaccuracy. {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 17:58, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

When I cleaned up the IPs talk page due to vandalism, I removed the warning about vandalising Tosser, I am sure I checked the IPs edit history before removing this warning, but how can I know it is a valid warning if it is not in the IPs edit history. Martin451 (talk) 00:12, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, it was a valid warning having looked at the deleted edits, but it was rather very stale, so no harm done in removing it now. Bencherlite^Talk 10:16, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

New user spamming articles

Resolved

 – No admin action necessary here. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 11:47, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I've run across a user, Jhalapch, who's spamming articles with links to ClassicGameRoom.net (he links to the main page, not an individual review as his edits claim). It looks like that's all he's done. I don't want to clean up after him, just to have him do it again. Is there a bot that can revert all his changes? Can he be blocked? Thanks. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 22:12, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

You can report him to be blocked at WP:AIV if he has been sufficiantly warned. (It looks like he hasn't been sufficiently warned yet.) As for reverting his changes, anyone with rollback can do it easily; just drop me (or anyone else you know of who has rollback) a message and they can revert everything in a couple seconds. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 22:18, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

User has not been active since before this report was placed; marking this resolved. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 11:47, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Respectfully Request to Repeal 72 Hour Block

Resolved

 – No admin action necessary

To Whom it May Concern:

Today I made a minor edit to the Billy Graham Wikipage. The edit contained a blatant and obvious false fact about Billy Graham. The purpose was to educate one of my co-workers as to why one must carefully choose what they use from Wikipedia as a source because anyone can edit information. When I went to undo my edit, a user had already caught the misinformation and reversed my edit.

When I went to the individual's page to leave a quick apology and explanation I found that my account was blocked.

I would like to respectfully request a repeal of my instated 72 hour block. If not, would an authorized moderator please send along my apologies to the user who reported the abuse. (I would have done the same thing has him.)

Very Respectfully,

205.56.145.36 (talk) 10:29, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

You're not blocked, otherwise you wouldn't have been able to post to this page. None of the users who have edited Billy Graham in the last week are currently blocked. _Gb^T/c 10:33, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

With the continual pattern of unhelpful edits from that US Navy IP address, one would think that due to its high-profile nature, users from that location would create accounts so as to not cause as much embarrassment to their fine organization. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 10:36, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, now I just feel ridiculous. I saw a banner state that I was blocked. Thank you for the correction.

Mr. Wilkins, the point was to show my co-worker that *anyone* could edit Wikipedia; even without an account. I am sorry if you feel this incident constitutes an embarassment. I don't believe I have much of value to contribute to Wikipedia at this time, and so I believe I don't need an account.

Very Respectfully,

205.56.145.36 (talk) 10:45, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:Do not create hoaxes and Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point, which contain the relevant guidelines. --Killing Vector (talk) 10:52, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

What he was probably seeing was a banner left over from a previous block, from last year. Wilkins is right that the various warnings and blocks on that page do not speak well of the Naval personnel that use that IP address. We expect a higher standard from our military than junior high school vandalism. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:06, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

What you saw was a banner left for the user who's talk page you visited, who had been blocked for 72 hours at some earlier point, and no one else had posted to their page subsequently.-gadfium 11:17, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Which user page would that have been? In any case the IP user ID has 2 blocks of 24 hours in the past year [34] and none for 72 hours. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:36, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Presumably User:Mike Doughney, the editor who reverted the anon IP. Mike Doughney was blocked for 72 hours on the 8th of February. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 11:41, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Aha. Yep, that [35] would be it. And obvious, too. Looks like it's time to get my eyes checked again. :( Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:55, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Images used in Intelligent design covered by Non-free content policy?

Unresolved

Moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/ID-NFCC due to size issues. MBisanz ^talk 15:01, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Tag-abuse by Dicklyon of a page for which he is already in formal mediation

This is newly repeated tag-abuse by Dicklyon of a page for which he is already in formal mediation (here).

Dicklyon recently nominated Feminine essence theory of transsexuality for deletion, a nomination which was defeated nearly unanimously [36]. He immediately followed-up by filing an RfC [37], which also failed to provide support for his POV about the page. Apparently displeased with these outcomes, Dicklyon multi-tagged the page [38], with the edit summary “a few tags to point out some of the made-up assertions in this stupid article.” Those apparently being insufficient, he added more: [39][40].

To fast forward a bit, the mediator has referred to the issues about the page as "water under the bridge" (here). Now apparently displeased with that, Dicklyon added to the page another dozen or so dubious-tags, who-tags, and cn-tags (here). (He has inserted more tags than the page has sentences.)

I am posting this at ANI instead of the at the vandalism noticeboard because, in my opinion, tag-abusing a page for which one is already in mediation and for which one has been forum-shopping for opposition is a very different issue from regular vandalism. Dicklyon has a substantial history of blocks [41] and topic banning [42].

Although Dicklyon has every right to disagree with the page and to accuse me of any of many things (and he does), this is not how to participate in dispute resolution.

I have notified our mediator here, and I am making this ANI post because it's not quite appropriate (to my mind) for the mediator to perform anti-vandalism and other admin actions for the same case. Finally, because I am also in the mediation, I don’t think it’s appropriate for me to revert the page on my own.

— James Cantor (talk) 22:20, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, but I reverted it as blatant tag-abuse. LOL^thulu 22:34, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Is there a policy or guideline someone could point me to that defines tag abuse? I ask because of a totally unrelated article, but it may help in could be looked at. Thanks ;) — Ched (talk) 23:47, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

It's described at [[WP::Vandalism#Types_of_vandalism]] — James Cantor (talk) 00:07, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

(EC)

In this case Ched, wp:POINT is exactly what Dicklyon is broadly guilty of. Look at #10 under the 'Gaming the system' for a more specific clause. There may be more guidelines we could cite, but Dicklyon himself said "a few tags to point out some of the made-up assertions in this stupid article." Because of the repetitive nature of this issue, WP:STICK also applies. NJGW (talk) 00:09, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Dicklyon just reverted the vandalism right back onto the page [43].

Thanks anyway, LOLuthan. Dicklyon used the edit summary "That was a complete revert and gave no idea which aspects of my calls for discussion of dubious claims were considered inappropropriate." Personally, I think that's just doing what WP:civility calls "playing dumb" and "Taunting or baiting" to pull you into a dispute with him. I think an admin's look is necessary. (The mediation broke down, by the way.)

— James Cantor (talk) 00:19, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

And yet again. [44]
His edit summary this time: "Reverted 1 edit by NJGW; These tags are not pointy; they are serious; please address on the talk page".
— James Cantor (talk) 01:40, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

He's now at 3rr. I mentioned that on his talk page, and started a talk page section to discuss how to continue. NJGW (talk) 02:00, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I just noticed that Cantor had mentioned this on my talk page; I missed that before, as another item came in after it. My point with the tags was to more specifically point out the assertions that are dubious, in the sense of being made up as opposed to being supported by the sources that Cantor cited. This can also be addressed in mediation, assuming that resumes, but to help the issue along I felt it appropriate to indicate those specific aspects of the language that are dubious, or, in actuality, quite absurd and unsupportable. If there's a better way to do this, someone please let me know. Dicklyon (talk) 03:52, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

At Talk:Feminine essence theory of transsexuality#Dubious I've add three subsections on the first three dubious tags; I want it to be clear that each tag had a serious intent, and that I was not intending this a pointy tag abuse; but I can see why it might have been taken that way by some not familiar with what James Cantor has done with this article. I invite your comments on the talk page. James has also not approved moving forward with the new mediator, after he gave the old one a vote of no confidence, so it's not clear how he thinks this is going to get resolved. Dicklyon (talk) 04:44, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid user:Dicklyon has added another seven tags to the page again. [45] Although he added seven tags, his edit summary is "first three dubious tags, corresponding to the discussion sections that are open on the talk page," bringing his current total number of tags on the page to 12. In addition to the vandalism itself, I don't know if that counts as an official "fourth revert" (being 28 hours from his first revert), but to me personally, this smells like a violation of the spirit.
— James Cantor (talk) 05:22, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Dick made 2 edits in the past 24 hours, only one of which is a revert. He is also discussing this on the talk page. This is a content dispute, not a 3rr issue/Incident. NJGW (talk) 16:22, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

You don't regard adding so many tags, some to already "fact" tagged sentences, as disruptive? It may not break the letter of any rules, but is certainly against fostering a collaborative spirit. The first time may have been good faith, but repeated additions are unecessary/pointy - the points should be discussed one at a time. For a typical editr this would be no big deal, but during a formal mediation it indicates a lack of self-control. (Although i'm not sure why fact tagged sentences are allowed to remain if any editor disputes the sentence, but that is another matter).Yobmod (talk) 14:06, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I had the same reaction. An RfC/U regarding this and other aspects of Dicklyon's problematic user-conduct, where folks may comment located here.

— James Cantor (talk) 15:35, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Disruption by User:Mihai cartoaje at Peter Breggin

A long-standing situation needs to stop. I have had little to do with this article, but I have noticed a pattern usually seen when COI editors or subjects edit their own articles without understanding our rules very well. I don't think this user (MC) actually is Peter Breggin, but the editor is acting like an ill-behaved meatpuppet. Here are some relevant links:

• Mihai cartoaje (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

• Article: Peter Breggin

• A section to start with: Talk:Peter_Breggin#Text_deletion_by_User:Mihai_cartoaje

MC is misusing BLP to delete whole paragraphs of properly sourced material for various reasons. Edit warring and possible 3RR violations are the order of the day. One of MC's most absurd arguments for deleting well-sourced negative material is because some of them are "opinion". Well, that's what we do here, we document opinions and facts using V & RS. Deletionism and removal of all negative material is destructive, and the editors who are doing the editing need help and more eyes on the situation. A large cluestick needs to be wielded, followed by short blocks (2-3 weeks), topic bans, and then banning if necessary. -- Fyslee (talk) 06:24, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

• I would like to add that Mihai cartoaje uses completely inappropriate arguments when interpreting sources, as documented on the talkpage and in the edit history of the Breggin article ("they don't believe what they say",[46] "he was paid by Lilly to find this, otherwise nobody would ever have seen it",[47] etc). --Crusio (talk) 10:48, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

This spat is about a remark made in an article in Forbes which states that Breggin supported children having sexual relations, and that he later changed his position. Breggin himself (as User:Peter Breggin) complained that the Forbes article is misleading on other points. So, this is fairly controversial. If the article on Sarah Palin said something like that, you'd have an army of editors trying to remove the statement as coming from an unreliable source or other WP:BLP reasons. I've edited that statement on Breggin's page to give proper attribution. I have to say that User:Crusio, probably due to his professional bias, attempts to lampoon Breggin a bit too much on Wikipedia. Xasodfuih (talk) 13:41, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

• Really?!? Lampooning?!? For my educational benefit, could you give me an example? And what, exactly, do you think my "professional bias" is? --Crusio (talk) 21:44, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

• Xasodfuih, I'd really appreciate if you could explain yourself. Currently the Breggin article for the most part consists of puffed up stuff, with only parts of the criticisms on him included. As an example, it is proudly mentioned that the journal he founded is published by "Springer Publishing Company". Everybody knows, of course, the prestigious scientific publisher Springer Verlag. So try Googling "Springer Publishing Company" and you may get a surprise. Any attempt to qualify the statements in the article has been rebuffed by a host of POV pushers, so I've given up. Similarly, anybody knowing scientific literature, citations, etc. will see that the lists of articles and multiple mentions of Breggin's publications in "peer-reviewed journals" really are mostly puffery. Yes, I agree, this lampoons Breggin, but I did not put that stuff in there and any attempt to remove it is being prevented by the same POV pushers that want to promote Breggin and his views. Without all the puffery, the article would look more encyclopedic and would in fact also look better for Breggin, IMHO. --Crusio (talk) 11:01, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

• Sorry if I assumed too much. Seeing how proud you are of you own h-index and the discussion on Breggin's page on that I assumed you put that in, as well the citation comparison between Breggin's obscure journal and the top psychiatric journals. It's no great mystery that some peer-reviewed journals are crap; who does the peer-reviewing obviously matters a lot (I'm just writing this for anyone else reading this, you obviously know it).
• I don't agree that Breggin's article is mostly puffed up stuff. There are some WP:SYNT claims that greatly overemphasize his role in SSRI black box labeling (I've tagged them as such), and enumerating the journals he published in is a bit silly. But last 1/3 or so of the article is very critical of him ("Expert witness" and "Mainstream psychiatry exponents' criticism of Breggin"). I agree that more could be said there, but that should preferably come from more credible sources than Steven Milloy/FoxNews. Xasodfuih (talk) 16:19, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

• It's dangerous to assume too much... :-) If I remember correctly (it's a while ago), someone inserted some text on how much Breggin was cited by mainstream psychiatrists (funny how people attacking "mainstream" medicine/physics/astronomy/whatever always yearn for recognition from that same despised mainstream) and I then indeed put in hard data on how much he was cited (or, rather, how little he was being cited, the figures basically mean that he's being ignored by mainstream science). I did not put in the citation comparison between his, as you say, obscure journal and other journals, as I found that not fitting for the article (but I admit not having felt compelled to remove it at the time - must have been irritated by some POV pushing editors - not a good thing, but understandable, I hope). I did prod the article on the journal and it was deleted without contest. It would never survive AfD as a scientific journal anyway. In any case, the article is slowly improving.... As for me being proud of my h, it's really not that high, you need to take the duration of someone's career into account. One of my colleagues has 41, now that is high, I'll probably never reach that in my lifetime ;-) --Crusio (talk) 17:38, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

• PS: you're right about "mostly", there's quite some criticism in there, too. It would have been more correct to say that there's "a lot" of puffery in the article. I have pared down the publicaiton list, trying to be as non-controversial as possible, basically only taking out editorials and letters to the editor. I'd appreciate if you could have a look at it to see if you agree. --Crusio (talk) 17:59, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

The long discussion is about this: [48]. --Mihai cartoaje (talk) 14:04, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

• I think you mean this and this one.--Crusio (talk) 21:52, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I didn't write all that you're attribting to me. Stop twisting facts. --Mihai cartoaje (talk) 13:53, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

(ECx2) On the Peter Breggin article there are users whose only activities at that article are to denigrate him. Since there aren't enough neutral editors willing to spend time keeping out BLP violatins, the article is regularly turned into an attack page with BLP violations. Even the bio subject has complained about it. --Mihai cartoaje (talk) 13:53, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Let's face it, "neutral editors" are rare, and usually neutral because they are ignorant of the deeper details of a controversy. They are sometimes good for cleanup, for refereeing in dispute resolution situations, and for interpretation of policies, but for content they aren't always very good.

Neither you nor any of the other editors at the article are "neutral", as far as I can see. I sit somewhere in between, since I disagree with some of Breggin's methodologies and broadsided (too wide-sweeping) attacks, and yet I do agree with some of his concerns about the overuse of certain drugs. Basically being against any unnecessary use of drugs, supplements, or even vitamins, I tend to sympathize with cautions regarding their use. This goes hand-in-hand with my love/hate attitude toward the pharmaceutical industry. So far my few edits have been pretty innocuous cleanup attempts.

As far as the article goes, I am basically concerned with your removal of sourced information, your misuse and misunderstanding of BLP to justify deletions of whole paragraphs of properly sourced material, your antipathy towards the use of Quackwatch (a very notable source that has been exonerated in a recent ArbCom amendment of a previously inaccurate finding), your failure to understand our most basic policy, the NPOV policy, and your antagonistic attitudes towards other editors at the article. Deletionism is very destructive, especially when it's whitewashing. Around here, whitewashing gets punished by the debate attracting more focus and publicity.

As far as the complaints from the bio subject, unless there are proven inaccuracies of a serious nature, we couldn't give two hoots about them. Article subjects regularly complain about their bios not being sales brochures for their ideas. We are writing an encyclopedia here. We're not in the PR business, and we are not Breggin's spin doctor. If you don't want your dirty laundry displayed here, don't become notable. You and Breggin need to read about Wikipedia's Law of Unintended Consequences:

"If you write in Wikipedia about yourself, your group, your company, or your pet idea, once the article is created, you have no right to control its content, and no right to delete it outside our normal channels. Content is not deleted just because somebody doesn't like it. Any editor may add material to or remove material from the article within the terms of our content policies. If there is anything publicly available on a topic that you would not want included in an article, it will probably find its way there eventually. More than one user has created an article only to find himself presented in a poor light long-term by other editors. If you engage in an edit war in an attempt to obtain a version of your liking you may have your editing access removed, perhaps permanently." "In addition, if your article is found not to be worthy of inclusion in the first place, it will be deleted, as per our deletion policies. Therefore, don't create promotional or other articles lightly, especially on subjects you care about." "Accounts that appear, based on their edit history, to exist for the sole or primary purpose of promoting a person, company, product, service, or organization in apparent violation of this guideline should be warned and made aware of this guideline. If the same pattern of editing continues after the warning, the account may be blocked." (Source.)

Right now, your editing and talk page behavior are precisely described by that last paragraph and you may should be blocked. Consider this your warning. You have (once again) been made aware of this guideline. You act like you own the article.

Our reaction to improper complaints should always be resistance to attempts at whitewashing, and thus the negative material that is properly sourced will be included, enlarged, and strengthened, and poorly sourced material will be strengthened using better sources if possible. If that isn't possible, then of course they should be deleted per BLP. But objections will usually have the opposite effect of what is desired by the article subject, IOW they may achieve a short-lived Pyrrhic victory, with very negative consequences for them. On top of that, the media are often aware of such attempts at whitewashing and they just love to publish about it. Better to keep silent. Only make very serious complaints. They will be heard. We have to balance our concerns with being a serious encyclopedia, and being a tabloid newspaper. We include all forms of well-sourced opinions and facts. Period. Get used to it. -- Fyslee (talk) 03:25, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Attempting to give an less involved opinion on Wikipedia is like trying to break up a street fight: you're guaranteed to get pounded from all sides. I'll let you highly involved fellows continue to duke it out. Xasodfuih (talk) 16:00, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Nobody's pounding on you. For the moment, nobody from either side has reverted your edits to the Breggin article. The above remarks from Fyslee are clearly directed at MC. And I didn't pound you either, I just asked whether you could explain what you meant when you said that I was trying to lampoon Breggin because of my professional bias. --Crusio (talk) 16:21, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I just noticed this and want to assure Xasodfuih that my comments were indeed directed at MC, not you. -- Fyslee (talk) 07:50, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Userspace pages, worries about good faith, stalking and so on

Resolved

 – Let's please not let this escalate further. This is a matter suited for dispute resolution at best, but you two should really separate from each other for a while. seicer | talk | contribs 13:29, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

It seems he's simply not going to stop. Just when I think: finally, the mess on the ANI talk page was done, Dayewalker made this, which I presumed (in good faith) was an intention to pursue dispute resolution, given the matter was resolved well before-hand to warrant anything else. After requesting clarification on some comments by others, an administrator suggested that Dayewalker may not be pursuing dispute resolution, but may have a similar rationale to that specified here. I decided to have a look for the actual page referred to in the diff, and came across several others instead: User_talk:Dayewalker/Apoklyptk, User_talk:Dayewalker/Sandbox01, User_talk:Dayewalker/Penn, User_talk:Dayewalker/Sauve, User_talk:Dayewalker/Lando, User_talk:Dayewalker/Sockfile, etc.

What is most troubling is that some of these, particularly User_talk:Dayewalker/Lando, goes as far back as December last year. While replying to another comment made by Dayewalker, I decided to make him aware of the fact that I will request such pages be deleted, particularly those that are so old, as they do not comply with userspace requirements. His response was to accuse me of stalking his contributions because I'd come across that contribution from December last year. Making those sorts of accusations purely on assumptions of bad faith is disruptive. The assumptions of bad faith need to stop, and so do these userspace problems. If this means that he needs to be banned from interacting with me, or commenting directly or indirectly on me, for however long I'm still here, then so be it.

To clarify, ...lists of fault-finding diffs, users described as "problem users", negative postings, and other matters of a generally uncollegial kind, should be written only if needed, kept only for a limited period, and only for imminent use in dispute resolution or other reasonable and short term dispute handling. They should not be allowed - deliberately, through passage of time, good faith, wilful allusion, or neglect - to create some kind of perennial "hall of shame" or list of "disapproved, shunned or negatively viewed users". Users are encouraged to avoid keeping such content on the wiki when there is no good cause. Uninvolved users and administrators are encouraged to be willing to check whether such pages may be removed, if they appear to be dormant, redundant, or not presently "live". from here.

I request the following:

1. Someone to inform him of this thread (I won't go near his talk page when he makes such accusations);
2. For the stale pages in question to be deleted;
3. For the ridiculous accusation of stalking to be retracted in full;
4. For Dayewalker to leave me, and my edits for that matter, alone. As I noted in my final comment; in all honesty, I'd rather not have contact with an editor that acts to be more disruptive than finding better ways to amicably resolve a dispute.

Thanks, Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:59, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, Ncm, you're the one who is supposed to inform me when you post about me to ANI. When you refer to my single edit followed by talk page discussions with you as "disruptive," you misrepresent the case.

In terms of good faith, I tried to discuss your actions over your edit war at ANI [49] with you, but you continued to revert five times to post your side of the matter until finally three different editors reverted you. As I pointed out to you earlier, when it looked like you were purposefully edit warring, I went ahead and typed up the diffs in case you wouldn't stop and a report had to be filed. Even after the ANI matter was finished (and numerous editors asked both sides to stop), you continued to bring it up and argue over the details of a truly lame edit war. An admin finally got you to quit. At the conclusion of the matter, I summed up the situation and saved the page in my own userspace.

I saved this page for several reasons, not the least of which is that I correctly assumed that Ncm would show the same level of civility he did in the ANI matter and attempt to cause problems for me one day. When that day happens (unfortunately sooner than later), I'd like to be able to show any admin who asks where this situation came from and the original ANI thread.

That day is here, apparently. The link to the situation is here, just as Ncm pointed out.

No link to this page exists anywhere on wikipedia. If Ncm hadn't been going through my contributions looking for some kind of evidence, he would never have seen it, and it links to no other page except the ones he's linked it to. After going through my contribs, Ncm began posting the link [50] [51] [52] on three different talk pages, and when no one responded to him, he brought it here. Never once did he come to my page and ask why the subpage exists.

As Ncm points out, I've done this before. Admin Kralizec! pointed out to Ncm here [53] a similar discussion where I told CadenS my philosophy on these pages, and how they're not harmful. Most of those pages chronicle old situations, and would hopefully never be used. However for an example, if I need diffs of my own personal long-term stalker for an admin to issue a range block or see the evidence to protect my page, I have them [54]. I edit from multiple computers, so having the diffs is a great help to me in some cases. Again, those pages have no active links to them.

I'm not assuming bad faith here, I tried to talk Ncm out of an edit war (in which I only made a single edit), and didn't file a case of any kind on him. I'm certainly not the first editor to feel that Ncm has overstepped his bounds, and his behavior towards me validates that feeling. If he'll just leave me alone and stop posting about me (as I've asked him to do), as far as I'm concerned the matter will be over. When Ncm stops making this whole dead horse an issue, I'll blank the page myself. For now, I'd prefer to leave it as is since this is obviously still an active discussion.

Summing up, I'm sorry this wound up here. This is getting lamer and lamer with each iteration, and I've tried to steer the conversation to its correct location [55] and end it [56] [57] [58] without further wasted time. As I told Ncm on his page, I'd rather not have anything further to do with him, if only he will have to stop digging in my contribs and posting reports to numerous other pages in hopes of getting me in trouble. Honestly, I consider every single word I just wrote in my defense as just wasted time in response to a frivolous complaint, and I'd rather get back to actually helping the wiki. Thanks in advance for your time. Dayewalker (talk) 10:47, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

This complaint is far from frivolous. His definition of stalking is so incredibly ridiculous that his use of the word is simply a personal attack - can someone please make him retract the claim?? It's simply not legitimate as an accusation. Yet he finds he has free license to litter my talk page (and every other page) with more rants trying to justify it; that's nothing more than being disruptive.

Not only does he apparently have difficulty understanding what stalking entails, but he apparently also has difficulty understanding when it's a laundry list of grievances is permitted and when it's not. That's evidenced by his persistent denial in the response above. Can any arbitrator from ArbCom actually find his use of userpages in compliance with their ruling? Absolutely not; some have been around since December last year when "they should be...kept only for a limited period, and only for imminent use in dispute resolution or other reasonable and short term dispute handling." What is so difficult to understand about that?

As Dayewalker refuses to voluntarily do anything about them, or his personal attack, this does require administrator intervention. The pages need to be blanked or deleted; his comment needs to be forcibly refactored; and he needs to understand that he cannot continue to make those pages if he intends on leaving them around for months merely because he "changes computers".

I gave him a caution that he needed to have those pages deleted or I'd make a request myself; he responds by pretending there's stalking. I move forward with my request asking for admin intervention so that it's deleted; he claims that it's stalking too. How else do you describe this sort of behaviour than disruptive? He makes a response that clearly is long enough to be tendentious in the hope that no admin will intervene: my only fear is he will be successful in warding off admins. Finally, I have no obligation to inform Dayewalker of the ANI myself; I just have to ensure that someone informs him - and I made a request, given he's still wrecklessly and disruptively maintaining his frivolous stalking accusation. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:03, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Now he's resorted to changing the title of my ANI - can someone please tell him to back off? [59] When an editor makes an accusation, the title stays the same and the closing comment notes whether it's legitimate or not. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:08, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I changed your title because your accusations are very much in doubt. Much like the ANI case [60], you're willing to edit war to make an attack in a summary. Fine, whatever ends this quickest.

I answered your accusations above and you responded with further accusations that I went into too much detail. Fine, I'll sum up. You edit warred at ANI, and I was about to file a report on your when you made your fifth reversion in less than 24 hours. When you stopped, I just saved my sandbox page. Since then, you've continued to argue about the ANI case across several other editors pages (as shown above), and now have come to ANI to try and get your way. As of today, you were still complaining at Krazelic!'s page about the ANI, and making atacks on me without informing me. That means this whole situation is still active, and I'm perfectly within my rights to keep a report of it in my space in my defense.

I'll make the same offer I made above, please leave me alone. Stop posting to multiple places to try and get me in trouble, and show me that you're going to let your incident go, and I'll blank that page myself. When this is settled, I'll gladly request deletion of it. Until you stop attacking me on multiple fronts, it's evidence. Dayewalker (talk) 12:20, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

If you actually addressed what I was saying, this would be done with, but you keep skipping right around the issue. If this was merely about a page on me, I would've frowned and kept walking. I'd be happy with your assurance, had this not been online since December. Again, that is not permissible.

The other issue is your stalking accusation; I'd be happy to mark this resolved and as nothing more than an allegation that I will never look at again if you retracted that - you refuse to so this does not become something I will let go in the absence of someone else refactoring it for you.

After that, I'll be happy to not encounter you again - and I don't doubt that you'd look forward to that. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:29, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't see anything for an admin to do here. I do think each of you should try staying away from each other, there are so many articles which could be helped by your skills, this shouldn't be too hard. Dayewalker has said he'll be asking an admin to delete the note-taking pages, which I think have been mistaken for something they are not. Beyond this, if y'all truly want to waste your time, please take this to WP:DR. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:16, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree. You are both valuable editors and there is no sense in letting this spiral out of control. There is always a point from where you can't step back and, though you're close, you're not there yet. Best to move on and ignore each other. --Regent's Park (Rose Garden) 14:49, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

As I know from my own experience, Ncmvocalist is like a pit-bull when someone has upset him: he'll keep hanging on until the arm is off. The content in the userspace is a work in progress he's entitled to keep. There's nothing for an admin to do here, besides perhaps warning Ncmvocalist for frivolous forum-shopping, following good users around and attempted bullying. And Ncmvocalist, please stop handing out "cautions" to people you are in dispute with; none of them will ever take them as cautions since you are not an admin and even if you were you be too involved enough to do anything. Instead of trying to bully Dayewalker, focus instead on improving your own behavior, because that's the real way you will avoid trouble. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:23, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Miklebe impersonating User:Mikebe

Resolved

 – User indefinitely blocked for spam/apparent harassment. –xeno (talk) 18:30, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

All of User:Miklebe's contributions are linkspam; furthermore they're linkspam for an organization that User:Mikebe opposes including and which he has been the target of harrassment for (by socks of User:Newcrewforu) in the past. --Killing Vector (talk) 11:39, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I have just reverted most of this user's edits, simply because most of his links are invalid links (404 errors). E Wing (talk) 12:08, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

He's put all the links back up. --Killing Vector (talk) 04:03, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Mikebe has raised a complaint of impersonation against User:Miklebe here. --Killing Vector (talk) 12:23, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Reverted remaining links and warned him 3 times for link spam. Thanks for the info. E Wing (talk) 14:47, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Mikebe asked me as an admin to keep an eye on Beer style and I have been doing that. While both sides of the argument there are not being very productive, I consider User:Miklebe to be particularly unhelpful and I suggest he is banned if he does not respond to the warning about his user name. Any htoughts? How long should we let him have to respond. --Bduke (Discussion) 20:44, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

A username created intentionally for impersonation, trolling, and harassment? Would definitely support a hard block. –xeno (talk) 20:47, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Username impersonations are especially frowned upon because no doubt they will hurt the editor whose identity is being maligned. I wouldn't give the editor much time at all. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:51, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

(thread un-archived) The user has not responded to requests for discussion about their user name. They have also gone and re-added the links. --Killing Vector (talk) 10:03, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Seemed like checkuser might be helpful, here; Miklebe (talk · contribs) appears to be related to Tonyelsnow (talk · contribs) and Perapera (talk · contribs). For the time being I'll leave Miklebe another message asking for comment, with a very concerned outlook if they continue to ignore that request, but have no objection if someone else takes action in the meantime. – Luna Santin (talk) 10:57, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

If that's the case then it might also be worth looking at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Therascal99. That user's been harrassing User:Mikebe in the past and has impersonated User:Editor437 in the past as well... --Killing Vector (talk) 11:17, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Hmm... from a purely technical standpoint, a relation between this group and that groups appears to be possible, but can't be proven or disproven with the information I'm currently looking at. Examining behavior might be more conclusive. – Luna Santin (talk) 11:46, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Both groups tend to harp on links to the BJCP, that being the edit war on Beer Style that involved User:Mikebe on the exclusion side. --Killing Vector (talk) 13:57, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Note: User:Miklebe re-inserted all spam links, just reported him to AIV. E Wing (talk) 11:21, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I blocked, given the weight of evidence above. I've asked the user to respond on their talk page to what has been said here and said that Luna Sorry to volunteer you! or I will review the block if an answer is forthcoming. Otherwise, that's that. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ dedicated to making a happy man very old 11:27, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. :3 – Luna Santin (talk) 11:46, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Nonstop OR from Rktect (talk · contribs) despite 3 1/2 years of editing including a ban and blocks

I am here to ask for help from the community in dealing with this editor, who for 3 1/2 years has constantly posted OR both to articles and to talk pages (which at times he turns into virtual mini-articles. In 2005 he was banned from all articles to do with weights and measures (metrology) and he has been blocked 6 times for breaking the ban, OR, 3RR, etc, the last time being a month's block last September for Disruptive editing: Persistent insertion of original research in articles. This seems to have had no effect on him and he has continually received comments from other editors on his original research and soapboxing on talk pages. Since mid-January I count perhaps 8 editors commenting on his talk pages on his original research User talk:Rktect/archive 5 and User talk:Rktect - most of his past talk pages seem to have vanished.

Rktect considers himself to know a lot about the ANE, the Bible, and hieroglpyics. This may well be the case and perhaps a reason that most of his edits are using his knowledge to create original research. In articles which involve hieroglphics hs often inserts edits based on this knowledge, including his own new translations such as this one of the Merneptah Stele [61] which I note he has also inserted in our article on the Shasu [62] (I see he has recently created Shashu as a stub). His explanation for this is here [63] and the reaction of two other editors here [64].

Recently he also edited Chedorlaomer to claim that the name is Akkadian (see talk here [65] where another editor says it is original research), that the name Pi-hahiroth is Phoenician -- see this version of the article [66] and the discussion on his talk page here [67] and added the claim to Asherah pole and Asherah also - all on the basis his own research.

Some other examples of edits and comments on talk pages are [68], [69] (where he was trying to turn on article about the biblical story of the passage of the Red Sea into something on Red Sea trade -- I think, it's often hard to tell what he is doing).

He disagrees as to what is a primary source also. Eg, he thinks that the Bible is not a primary source, see [70] and [71].

Wading through his edits and talk page comments is, I'm afraid, tedious as he tends to add a lot of his own knowledge and references to it rather than references that directly discuss the article in question. Some of this may look like content dispute at first but I feel that enough other editors see it as original research that it is worth bring here. I've also just found this while looking for his missing talk pages: User:Rktect/Doug Weller. I'll put a notice on Rktect's talk page about this. dougweller (talk) 16:10, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Doug, I have MfD'd that as being... well, just wrong. Guy (Help!) 21:41, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. A bit weird also, I wasn't bothered, just amused. dougweller (talk) 21:52, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

• I suggest banning this editor. The history suggests willful non-compliance with policy despite being told many times over what policy is and how it works. Certainly any other measure is unlikely to be effective, as they all seem to have been tried already. Moreschi (talk) 19:11, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
• Absolutely agree. I don't think this is the first time concerns have been raised about Rktect, either. Guy (Help!) 19:41, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
• I'm fairly new to the situation, only interacting over the issue at Chedorlaomer, but looking through this history I am quite surprised. How has this user been allowed to edit like this for years? A ban seems long overdue. Chedorlaomer (talk) 19:45, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

• I have no idea. Looking at his block log I remember now the last conversation when I blocked him, since then he has had two long blocks for disruptive editing (OR) and has not changed at all. I am forced to the conclusion that he actually does not understand (or perhaps does not care) what he is doing wrong. I have blocked indef with an explanation, if only because other editors seem on the point of exploding out of sheer frustration. Guy (Help!) 19:49, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

• Comment On the Merneptah stela, I had to insert referenced material here showing the stela did indeed mention Israel and not Syria. All Egyptologists (including Kenneth Kitchen, Frank Yurco, etc) today accept it is Israel that is mentioned in this document and yet Rktect claims they are all wrong. This is OR theory in my view by Rktect. Wikipedia is judged by its content, and fringe or OR theories doesn't help its reputation. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 20:45, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
• This behavior appears very similar to the conduct addressed at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rktect but is in a different topic area, so we can't just apply the still extant sanction thereunder. However, that RFAR is pretty clear evidence that the behavior pattern goes back to 2005. In the RFAR workshop, then arbitrator Fred Baurer said "If his habits extend to other areas they can be dealt with later." We have reached that point now. I've reviewed the still extant talk history, and my take is that this is an editor that just doesn't act as if they get WP:NOR and WP:SYN, and occasionally combines this failure with tendetious editing to include material that is problematic for those reasons. I see in the extant talk history plenty of warnings about this, but I never found one where they appeared to understand. If the editor would understand and comply with those policies, they could be very valuable. While they don't, they are very problematic. I concur with an indefinite block, with the unblocking condition being evidence that they are starting to understand these fundamental policies and will attempt to respect them in the future. A mentor might help as well. GRBerry 23:09, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

One side issue -- I can't find his talk pages for 2008, I've used the special pages prefix function, any suggestions as to how to find them? Thanks. dougweller (talk) 11:18, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

1) From September 2007 to September 2008. 2) From September 2008 onward. He seems, however, to have made no edits between October 22, 2007 and May 13 March 29, 2008.

—David Wilson (talk · cont) 12:59, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

• Having been clued in, after the event, to Rktect's RWI (which is easy enough to establish if you know what to look for) I am pretty confident that this one always was unfixable. His off-wiki behaviour is well off into the outer reaches of the kook zone, and largely dominated by trying (and failing) to persuade much better informed people of his weird fringe ideas. Guy (Help!) 22:14, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Legal threat?

I can't tell if this is a legal threat or not. Certainly an attempt to intimidate an editor who made a less than constructive comment on the talk page. Toddst1 (talk) 23:19, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Certainly intimidation. But also 13 August 2008. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:25, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Definatly a breach of NLT. Though all that will happen will be an admin will indef block and the editor will then say 'Oh I didn't mean it like that' and annother admin will unblock. Not sure how worth it such a block would therefore be when recanting is so cheap a method of escaping the block in these not quite direct legal threats. --Narson ~ Talk • 23:28, 11 February 2009 (UTC) (ec)

(e/c)You mean this edit. I didn't see that. Yes, that one too. Toddst1 (talk) 23:29, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Support a block for that particular diff. The user has been here for almost two years so he should know how things work, and this can't be taken as anything but a legal threat, really. Block and ignore any "but I didn't mean it as a legal threat, I just meant I'd get the police to kick the shit out of him, can't you see the difference?" reasoning. Ironholds (talk) 00:26, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I felt totally incredulous over this unwarranted notice, as well as the digging up & the putting of 'extra words' in my mouth as seen above, over a general comment I made nearly 6 mths ago, in which I've nearly forgotten. According to past news reports, the security agencies of S'pore are known to monitor online media and taking swift action on individuals or groups such as [72], [73] for making provocative and untrue remarks previously. As such, is citing a true and factual example of their presence here (in 2006) as a note to the user, who had been making repeated provacative comments on Singapore-related pages previously, constitutes an imminent explicit legal threat on my part here? (The user concerned is still happiliy going around making his POV comments afterwards) Is reverting an edit made by the same individual who choose to remove my previous comment deliberately without any valid reason given wrong too? I'm deeply disappointed by the unprovoked vindicative atmosphere that I'm seeing here, and sad to note the lacking of prevailing good sense as well. -- Aldwinteo (talk) 02:37, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Careful there. Nobody but any words in your mouth - rather cited your own actions and let them speak for themselves. Another diff you may want to remember is here. Toddst1 (talk) 02:42, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Good thing Wikimedia's servers (or the target of your ire) aren't located in a police stat^H^H^H^H COUGH sorry. I don't think that the individual you made the threats to is contributing productively - indeed, he seems to be on something of a soapbox. Nonetheless, threatening to sic Singaporean Miniluv on him is seriously, seriously out of line. I would support a block for this sort of intimidation. Skinwalker (talk) 02:48, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I was about to say the same thing when I realised that Skinwalker had said it — what are Singaporean police going to do to someone in the USA? While the "presence here" link is a demonstration of their interest in Wikipedia, the fact that the crest remains on the article demonstrates their powerlessness over things not in the country. If this comment were made to a user in Singapore, I would see it as nothing but a good faith please-don't-get-yourself-into-trouble admonition. Given that Aldwinteo believes that this user is not in Singapore, I see it as a clearly empty threat that deserves to be treated like we treat a normal legal threat. Nyttend (talk) 02:58, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

By the way, Todd, could you explain what you mean by the "another diff"? I looked at it and saw a warning that you left, not something either negative or positive that Aldwinteo said. Nyttend (talk) 03:00, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Point was not engaging others in a productive, civil manner. He's already had a uw-4 for that. I had forgotten that I had issued that when I posted here. He's apparently been on my watchlist since then. Toddst1 (talk) 03:53, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Despite my further clarification as someone who highlighted the relevant news/discussions that I've read to the user previously, and to all here now, they are those who still don't get the whole picture & deliberately try to nitpick on my comments repeatedly as a 'threat' to someone, in a negative way, even though I've not done anything on my part to date, to warrant such unfair accusations or association. No one has informed me on my talkpage that certain words or the tone of the comment concerned (since 13 Aug 2008) may look 'intimidating' until now. But instead deliberately choose to highlight this near forgotten 6-mth old comment on this page here now, as well as adding a separate unrelated comment made previously, which ironically to say, only serves as another growing bad taste of this place. I can see where this mob action is heading even If I cited the full history, as well as the full & complete verbatim of the previous related discussions here. As I'm currently heavily tied down by various project deadlines at work, I'm unable to spare precious time to engage in a lengthy unproductive online debate now. Cast the stone if u want, if u think this block is meaningful in its intent or purpose now - and most importanlty - whether your intention is made in good conscience. Bye -- Aldwinteo (talk) 06:10, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

No matter how old your comments are (obviously a low-traffic page), they are still a legal threat, and against the rules. You could continue this debate and risk a block for rules violation, or you could fix this problem by deleting those comments. You had the "precious time" to write a lengthy self-defense, while it would have taken much less time to simply delete your comments on that page. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:52, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

To be clear, the diff I cited was in the editor's last 10 edits. It wasn't ancient history, rather, it was highly relevant to recent behavior. Toddst1 (talk) 21:04, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:NPOV/FAQ and User:Dreadstar

Resolved

 – Not the correct venue for the "core" issue, and AN3 is thataway. –xeno (talk) 18:51, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Dreadstar (talk · contribs) is editwarring to preempt any discussion and demote WP:NPOV/FAQ - which has been policy since 2002, originally as part of WP:NPOV, and then split off in 2006 for space reasons - was, in his exact words "never meant to be a policy" and Never any WP:CON this should be a polcy, nor should it be.

What the hell is going on here? Since when can someone just claim that a long-standing policy was never meant to be a policy, and demote it to guideline instantaneously because they don't want it to be policy, then edit-war to maintain the new status? Shouldn't it at least require an RFC to demote a policy, not adding three or four comments to a discussion from October that ended with no consensus, then immediately acting to demote it? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 17:56, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd recommend reading the entire discussion on this: Wikipedia_talk:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Policy.3F. Dreadstar † 18:04, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

It's a longstanding essential part of NPOV policy, and wide consensus that it's fully merged into NPOV itself would be needed before such a change. . dave souza, talk 18:21, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

The merge discussion of any policy material was started over four months ago, without any progress being made. A WP:FAQ should not be a WP:POLICY, if the material is so important that it needs to be policy, then move it over. Dreadstar † 18:36, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Looks to me like there is a productive discussion in progress on the talk page. It doesn't seem like something that needs an AN/I report. If wider attention for a policy discussion is wanted, there are RFC procedures for that. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 18:43, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure why Shoemaker is bringing this here, or why he is attempting to push this. This was discussed in the past... notice Dreadstar's post/link above regarding past discussion in which no decisions were reached, and doesn't make a lot of sense to now attempt to push this through, or back, to Policy status by himself, without wider community input. Confusing.(olive (talk) 18:50, 12 February 2009 (UTC))

vandalism only account

Resolved

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Zak_gray

this is probably a vandalism-only account: [[74]] [[75]] [[76]] [[77]] [[78]] Theserialcomma (talk) 21:01, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Blocked. For future reference, such accounts are dealt with faster at WP:AIV.  Sandstein  21:06, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Admin abuse of tools

Resolved

 – frivolous complaint Toddst1 (talk) 21:00, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

On February 9 I was blocked from the Masonic conspiracy theory talk page, based on invalid rationale. When I tried to argue my case using the unblock template I was subjected to verbal abuse, and then had my user talk page protected. Not a single admin has been able to argue his side, and instead all have tried to gag me to stay quiet. This sets a very dangerous precedent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ukufwakfgr (talk • contribs) 19:42, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Notified blocking admin and the three reviewing admins. –xeno (talk) 19:47, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Heh. Ukufwakfgr had his user talk page projected after the fourth unblock request in quick succession, most of which suggested incompetence/malfeasance on the part of the blocking admin, Elonka. (I'm a participant in the content dispute on the other side.) This message is a textbook case of calling the cops to report that your marijuana was stolen...--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:50, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Lol...now now...civility and mutual respect. :P

But seriously, I can find no fault with that block, and most certainly, no tool abuse. Ncmvocalist (talk) 20:02, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I've reviewed Uku's edits and the blocks and, like Ncmvocalist, see no problem with the latter. As to the former, whilst Uku continues to be aggressive in a pompous sort of fashion, he will find precious little support for his arguments. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:12, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Seems okay to me too. — neuro^(talk) 20:14, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

No complaints either. One should note that firing off a rapid succession of unblock requests after they are denied will result in a talk page being protected, per this handy dandy guide. The unblock requests were vague and did not address the block itself. seicer | talk | contribs 20:39, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

No issue found. Marking as resolved - frivolous complaint. Toddst1 (talk) 21:00, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

(followup) User has been blocked again, for two weeks this time by Toddst1. --Elonka 18:56, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Sigh. After two declined unblock requests and several un-called for accusations of impropriety against others on his/her talk page, I have changed the block so the user cannot edit their own talk page. If anyone feels this was not warranted, feel free to change it. Toddst1 (talk) 23:26, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

User:AndrewAntaro

Resolved

 – Immediate mess cleared up. Now it's up to the user.

I would like to draw attention to this user. It appears to me that he is using Wikipedia to promote his company (MarketingMarksman) and his clients. I have left a message on his talk page asking if we could discuss the issue, but it seems to have been ignored. This user is uploading spam images and creating advertisements disguised as user pages. This isn't the normal spam I run across (rampant addition of the same web address), but appears to be more subtle. If someone could review his contributions and let me know if I'm correct or not. If not, please let me know so I can see what I missed. I will notify the user after I post this. TNXMan 22:38, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

He's been generous in crediting photos added to various articles to his company website; and he's edited a user page which looks entirely like an advert. I've removed the excessive photo credits and asked for a speedy of the userpage. I'll drop a note to the user. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:04, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Our policies on photo credits are ambiguous; I've proposed language at WT:COI to address the situation if anyone wishes to comment. THF (talk) 23:05, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Captions seems to cover the use being made by Mr. Antaroi: "Captions should be succinct; more information about the image can be included on its description page, or in the main text." (my italics). None of the images added appear to be inappropriate, merely elaborately credited. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:10, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't know, this seems to be a little more than creatively captioned. I've tagged it for deletion as well. TNXMan 23:45, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Elvisandsoxrock appears to be an SPA

Resolved

 – User temp blocked. AKRadecki^Speaketh 00:30, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

intent on advertising here on wikipedia. Request permanete block. Garycompugeek (talk) 23:53, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Fragments of Jade

Retitled thread, was "Help please?"

Hope I'm doing this right. My friend said this was the place to go with Wiki problems. To put it simply, someone named Collectonian is undoing my edits. He/She has accused me of being a sock. I'm not sure what that means, but he says I'm blocked, and he's undone edits I've put a lot of work into. I feel like I'm being attacked, and I don't know what to do. He's also posting mean stuff on my talk and user page. I politely asked him not to just undo my edits and create a discussion or post on my talk page if he has a problem, but he won't. Is there something I should do or can someone handle it? I'm still a bit unfamiliar with the policies here. UnitedRhapsody (talk) 05:29, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and here's an example of an edit he/she reverted:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Higurashi_no_Naku_Koro_ni_characters&diff=269942224&oldid=269942148

UnitedRhapsody (talk) 05:29, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/67.163.193.239... Can you say "shameless"? Erigu (talk) 05:33, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

And now Collectonian has reverted every single edit I've made! Someone please do something! This can't be okay... UnitedRhapsody (talk) 05:34, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

This is yet another sockpuppet of User:Fragments of Jade who was here just the other day as User:+20 EXP attacking Luna and making the same proclamations . Has already been reported for AI/V to have this one blocked and a checkuser requested for an underlying IP block. Faster attention would be great to get this guy blocked (yet again). And yes, per the banned editor policy, all of his edits (none of which were actual useful anyway) have been reverted. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:35, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Was she (as she's female, for the record) actually banned though? Blocked over and over again, yes, but banned? I'd say she should be, but...? Erigu (talk) 05:41, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

In the last SI, it was noted that the main Fragments of Jade is considered banned as no admin would ever unblock do to their history. Not sure if that was considered calling community banned, but certainly all socks are being blocked on site which I believe alls under the banned editor policy. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:42, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

That's not true! I don't know what you're talking about! How can you just attack someone this way? And my edits were not useless! I corrected plot and grammer errors, added lots of character info for characters that had none, and was even trying to create a page of the characters of a game whose article was getting cluttered because there were to many profiles on the page! You're just being mean! UnitedRhapsody (talk) 05:40, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

No, you attempted to create a character list in an attempt to get your way over your dislike of there being spoilers in the Umineko no Naku Koro ni, per your own repeated arguments that spoilers should be limited to a non-existant character list, and you added excessive details on minor characters in another list. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:44, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

That's not true! I was trying to create a character list because there are over thirty character profiles on the main article for the game, and that's too many! Higurashi has it's own page, so I thought it was about time Umineko got one too! And the details I added were for the main characters of the manga arc, who had essentially no descriptions at all, in comparison to all the other main characters. I also fixed grammer and punctuation mistakes, removed plot errors, and so on. Please stop lying about me! UnitedRhapsody (talk) 05:52, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, it seems like someone just recently turned immediately to calling people liars as soon as they were found out. I can't recall who it was, but I'll bet if I could, it would be worth...oh, probably twenty experience points. Dayewalker (talk) 05:56, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

It is a lie! What else can I say? You are all ganging up on me with accusations I don't even completely understand! My edits are being reverted, people are being rude to me, and I've done nothing but try to improve the articles here... UnitedRhapsody (talk) 05:58, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

UR, then stop calling people "liars" and posting frivolous AIV reports, and just sit tight until an admin takes a look at this. If it's as you say it is, it'll all be cleared up shortly. In fact now that I think of it, it'll be cleared up soon regardless. Dayewalker (talk) 06:03, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

(EC) Note: he's also now attempting to file retaliation reports at AI/V against me[79]. Admin warned him, and he put it back.[80] -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:59, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

And put it back again[81]. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 06:08, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I have a right to defend myself! And there's nothing frivolous about it! Revering another person's edits just because you don't like that person has to be vandalism! And I can't just "sit tight". I'm being attacked left and right, while you guys are going around undoing edits I put a lot of work into! Why did you do that, instead of just sitting tight and waiting like you just told me to? You're making accusations, and before anyone has confirmed them as true or false, you're already reverting perfectly good edits, saying things that aren't true, and just being generally mean! UnitedRhapsody (talk) 06:08, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

My rabbit ears sense yet another "Plaxico" in the making. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:09, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Why, did he shoot himself in the crotch? Dayewalker (talk) 06:11, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, +20 did, the other day, and if UR turns out to be a sock, he will have done likewise. Two Plaxicos for the same guy in one week might be a new record. However, it could all be an innocent misunderstanding that we'll all be laughing about together someday as we sip our Kool-Aid. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:19, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

WhenTheyCry, IceQueenAvril, 76.120.153.223, MiyakoKajiro and Lamiroir were all blocked in less than five days, so she has yet to break her own record, actually. Erigu (talk) 06:29, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not talking about merely getting blocked, although 5 socks blocked in 5 days is fairly impressive. I'm talking about the situation of coming here with a complaint and ending up as the one who gets indef-blocked. That's the "Plaxico" metaphor - bringing a gun to defend oneself, and ending up being one's own victim. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:33, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Isn't that what 20XP also did? It's like FoJ is writing a book on how to sock obviously. Dayewalker (talk) 06:39, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The funny part is how perplexed they appear to be that they get found out so easily. The many socks of User:Pioneercourthouse are one example. The sad part is how much time they end up wasting, as every minute spent dealing with them is a minute not spent doing something productive. Which I'm sure they take great glee in doing, as it's basically a game. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:43, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't know, I think she's being dead serious about this. Which makes the fact she doesn't realize how transparent the whole affair is even more perplexing (and she did get blocked after posting on AN several times last year, actually... how should we tell her that it's not working?). Erigu (talk) 06:46, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of games... Yahtzee! [82] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:49, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

How do you tell the user that it's not working? I don't know. How many examples will it take? It reminds me of the stubborn mule that was really smart but you had to whack it over the head with a 2 x 4 to get its attention first. How many 2 x 4's will it take with this user, or with Pioneercourthouse, etc.? Beats me. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:51, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

And now, we're back to the good old "unblock requests" part of the cycle... Yeah, that should work, too. It usually does! Erigu (talk) 06:54, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Yep, just 4 minutes after the block, the user posts an unblock request, protesting innocence. I say it's a game. It's a trolling game of a particular type. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:56, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

(OD)Always strange how a new user with no concept of sockpuppetry picks up on filing an unblock request in a heartbeat, isn't it? Of course having said that, I'm sure the next iteration of socks will file incorrectly, and pretend they don't know. Dayewalker (talk) 06:58, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, this time around, we had the added flavor of "my friend told me", "according to my friend", etc, just in case somebody accused her again of being too familiar with Wikipedia for a "new" user.[83][84] She's trying. Not even close to succeeding, but trying. Erigu (talk) 07:05, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Unblock request declined, user disabled from editing talk page. Game over. Until the next time. Yeh, those mysterious "friends" often come to the aid of socks. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:08, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

As an update, Trusilver is now looking into this case, so things should be moving right along. Dayewalker (talk) 06:13, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

From what I'm seeing, there is sufficient reason to believe that UnitedRhapsody is a sock. His/her knowledge of Wikipedia procedures alone is fairly compelling. But the editing patterns and history are also a little bit too close to just laugh it up to coincidence. Trusilver 06:46, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

There's nothing funny about bullying new users. UnitedRhapsody (talk) 06:20, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

And he's blocked, thanks to Luna. Bon voyage, sock. Dayewalker (talk) 06:45, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

 Likely another sock, from a CU perspective, behavioral cues pretty much seal the deal. I've gone ahead and blocked, unless anyone has any objections. – Luna Santin (talk) 06:44, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I remember Fragments of Jade's first sock like it was yesterday *wipes away a single tear*. They arrived on the scene and their second or third post was "I have read the entire thing with you guys and FoJ, and you sure were not fair", and went on to lecture everyone, including those of us who tried to help. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 10:30, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Then again, like I explained there, even Fragments of Jade was just her latest sock at that point... It's "funny" to see how things were exactly the same two years ago. She even accused an admin of photoshopping evidence, back then.[85] Erigu (talk) 12:51, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

There is no accounting for the persistence of vandals playing this trolling game. One of the most persistent was at Rick Reilly, where it went on for like 4 years. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:22, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't suppose a checkuser could help block the underlying IP(s)? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:56, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I have started a thread at WP:AN shortly after the 20 EXP sock incident proposing a community ban on FOJ. It's there's quacking, there's going to be reverting, at least in my view. MuZemike 15:27, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The community ban wouldn't need to explicitly be on socks; all socks should be treated as that of the one banned user anyway. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:35, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Looks like another one: WitchAlliance (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki). – Luna Santin (talk) 09:25, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

The game continues. Isn't there a way to block the underlying IP address or addresses in order to stave off the new-account creation? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 09:40, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

It'd be a rangeblock, here. Not a very loud range, but there are nevertheless other users on it. It's easy enough to notice the socks as they come in, so far. – Luna Santin (talk) 10:08, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I reckon that's an option if things get out of hand. A week or two would at least compel the puppetmaster to find something else to do for awhile. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:02, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

See User talk:Xeno#I'd like to get your opinion..., wherein WitchAlliance claims not to be a sockpuppet and just wishes to edit the articles, etc... –xeno (talk) 15:52, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Apparently confirmed, but not blocked yet, so she's now bugging Nishkid64... Erigu (talk) 02:42, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Disruption at Lady GaGa

Resolved

 – Blocked 24h, hopefully that deter them in future. — neuro^(talk) 07:50, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I've been sort of watching this situation from the sidelines for a few days now, but it's getting to the point I feel admin action is needed; before I do so, however, I just want a second opinion here.

Dance-pop (talk · contribs) has been edit warring over a long period of time at Lady GaGa (and some other articles), apparently over some sources that are either unreliable or do not back up the information Dance-pop is adding to the article. Several users, namely User:Legolas2186, User:Efe, and User:Realist2, have been trying to explain why the edits Dance-pop is making are not acceptable. In response, Dance-pop has been making some very disruptive comments and continues to add content against consensus (Some examples: [86] [87] [88] [89]). While I don't think 3RR has ever been reached, almost all edits to the article over the past week or so have been in relation to this edit war, and Dance-pop has stated that they are not open to discussion (see last diff above).

Efe has not taken action on this, as he is involved, and the only reason I haven't yet is because I don't want to come swooping in out of nowhere with a banhammer. However, I bring this to your attentions for advice. Thanks. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 18:45, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

This edit summary, although it was two days ago, makes me think that blocking isn't a bad idea here.  GARDEN  18:53, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Wouldn't be averse to a block if the disruption continues when the user has clearly been told why their edits go against policy (which they do). Punitive though, remember - two days ago is much too long. — neuro^(talk) 20:17, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

From what I can see, it's continuing through to today - the last diff I provided was left earlier this morning, and basically says Dance-pop refuses to discuss until "it becomes a edit war," which I believe it already is. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 22:14, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello I am Dance-pop, and this "little convention" needs to stop, I have not put unreliable source into articles. Your examples are taken out of context, how about checking my user talk, and the others( Realist, etc). So before you disscuss the disruption, how about looking at both sides of the story (adims need to be fair). The two users Realist and Legalos are the real antagnists. Efe has done nothing wrong. So if you dont stop this I will go to someone with higher authority--this is not a therat, perhaps a warning.Kind Regards.

Admins need to be fair, assume good faith at all times. Dance-pop (talk) 00:19, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I've been looking at this for a few days, and I'd have to agree your sources aren't up to standard; either they aren't reliable, or they don't support the content you're adding. Regardless, part of the issue here is your behavior. Attacking people and threatening to start an edit war is considered disruptive. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 00:31, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

There is also quite obvious sock puppetry via the use of an IP. — R² 00:38, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, blocking is not a bad idea, but I have been talking with Dance-pop, and he sort of listened to me, and using my administrative powers (i.e. do the blocking) would be unfair for him for I am hugely involved in this matter. What I did was chop the problems and slowly try each to resolve. One of the problems was regarding the associated acts of Lady GaGa. The problem of Dance is that he continues to add what he thinks is GaGa's associated act when he knows that it is disputed and a discussion is ongoing. I have provided links at the talk page and a hidden comment on the infobox. What I find today is really disruptive: He removed the note. --Efe (talk) 00:50, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

You people are ignorant and arrogant. I will say again you dont have enough power nor evidence to block me, so how about you drop it. You will see, I will get what I want, Like the assoc acts and the name. About the IP puppertry--what is that?

C ya. Dance-pop (talk) 01:42, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Nope, and this is getting quite old. seicer | talk | contribs 01:49, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

And what does that mean? Dance-pop (talk) 01:53, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

You can't even hide your hostility at ANI, with probably 100 admins watching you. — R² 01:58, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I am not hostile. My comments may seem harsh, but thet are not.

                            Do NOT hold a Grudge Against a Admin, from previos posts.Dance-pop (talk) 02:12, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Blocked

I gave a final warning to Dance-pop (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), who subsequently ignored it with a rather curt reply. The user then began blind reverts. The user has duplicated the reverts at The Fame (album), but I'll let someone tackle that. The user was subsequently given a 24 hour block. seicer | talk | contribs 02:36, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Seicer. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 03:37, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

This is some of the worst adims I ever delt with. You say that I stared blind reverts, I give a edit summary, that justified it. I have contacted two abbrituors to sort this mess out. Seicer you are one of the worst adims, you take things out of context and do not look at both sides of the story. I hope that other third party adims see this, because I am concerend about the safety of other adims. I will be watching carefully, to see if you contiue with your eratic behavior. I hope you learn from this, I am dissapointed at you for your poor work as an adim. You wrongfully blocked me edit wrrings is to be repoted at 3RR violations and vandilism at ongoing vandlism( by the way I did nothing wrong). You ethic and morals on wikipedia should be questioned. I am digusted at you as a follow admin and your ignorance and arrogance. From the person you blocked wrongfully. Dance-pop (talk) 03:58, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Copyright problem or harassment?

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.

discussion going nowhere quick. Suggest taking this to DYK and discuss process. Xavexgoem (talk) 05:57, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

---

I've spent the last week-and-a-half or so working on USS Connecticut (BB-18), attempting to get it to the main page on 22 February for the centennial of the [{Great White Fleet]]'s return to the U.S. However, while it was on the main page for DYK, Ottava Rima decided to dispute whether or not it really was a 5x expansion. Read the discussion there as to why; it's too long to try to type out 10 minutes before class. Basically, it was a question of whether DANFS should be blockquoted.

However, he then started (and still is) now hounding me on a copyvio, where he found two sentences that were too similar to a book I used for sourcing that article. Now, I had no intent of copyvio'ing, so I changed them and also started going through the article, double-checking. I found zero copy-vio's in the first three paras that I checked, so I quit. Ottava, howver, is continuing to hound me on the FAC page for the article, theDYK section I linked above, and he was at SandyGeorgia's page here. Now, I need to know if I copyvio'ed parts of the article from this book, as Ottava can't/won't look for more than what he found. I'm just totally frustrated and a little stressed by this continual hounding and harassment, so I'd like to get third, fourth and fifth opinions from neutral editors. Thanks a lot everyone, —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 18:56, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Also: I will be gone for probably the next eight hours; it can't really be helped. —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 18:56, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

• The further I dig, the more copyright problems I keep finding. After finding uncited public domain information reported on here, I decided to check all of the sources. I immediately found a problem with this text having full phrases taken. From this diff, I discovered this set of duplicated phrases and these. This is from random checking, as I only have access to the Google book, which cuts off large sections and makes it hard to review all of the pages. However, these five sections shows that there is a blatant problem.

• This page was also displayed on the main page while having these errors. GFDL does not allow for us to pass off such information as our own, and putting it on the main page is a disgrace. User:the ed17 is a participant in a competition that gives points to DYK and FAC articles. This article when from DYK and is now at FAC. I find this combination of many copyrighted passages used, passed onto the main page by User:Dravecky, an admin, who did not look thoroughly at the article to see if there were any copyrighted problems, and now put at FAC is an abuse of all of our principles here at Wikipedia. I would recommend a ban from either DYK or FAC from this user for a short period of time in order to prevent further copyrighted material being placed up and displayed in prominent positions as their articles are more thoroughly searched for these problems. This is a blockable offense, and this temporary ban is the minimum of responses necessary. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:27, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Those diffs that you claim show copyrighted material being lifted... um, don't. As you yourself say on your user page:

Article: "After an eight-day period known as 'Navy Farewell Week' during which festivities were held for the departing sailors, and all sixteen battleships took on full loads of coal, stores, and ammunition, the ships were ready to depart."

Original: "The following eight days were known as 'Navy Farewell Week.' The preparations and festivities concerning the fleet's departure were extensive. Every battleship took on coal, stores and ammunition to capacity."

When you're describing a particular historical event, there are only so many ways to do it.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:46, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Really? So, you can't describe "the village of Uraga, where Commodore Perry landed more than fifty years before" that passage any other way besides "the village of Uraga, where Commodore Matthew C. Perry had landed 50 years before"? Sounds a little odd. I have written many biographies here and this is completely unacceptable. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:50, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Ottava Rima and I don't like each other, so you can take this with a grain of salt, but I will just point out that this user has been hounding various people at DYK for a while now. People have expressed concerns in the past about his disruption there. Just a couple weeks ago Dravecky (the admin who O R keeps saying should be desysopped) made a minor slip-up in promoting a DYK article that was on AfD, and rather than say "ok, people make mistakes, let's move on," he kept repeatedly going on about how Dravecky was "violating admin principles" (scroll down to bottom of that section), and didn't lay off until he got distracted fighting with me instead. In the dispute that's at issue here, O R came to the DYK talk page looking to start a fight about how PD text (specifically, DANFS) should be used, and was told by several editors (not just me, but also Art LaPella and Wehwalt) that such a discussion would be more appropriate elsewhere...but instead of taking the discussion elsewhere, he just continued to look for things over which to hound Ed and other editors.

As SarekofVulcan points out, Ottava's own collection of evidence shows pretty clearly that Ed's editing here is innocuous, and no different than the sort of paraphrasing that is done across thousands of articles; if this text weren't cited with inline citations it would be problematic, but the wording itself is really not a big deal. It seems to me that this is a pretty clear case of someone going out of their way to look for (if not, dare I say, make up) problems in order to attack someone. rʨanaɢ (formerly Politizer)^talk/_contribs 20:06, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

(@ uncited public domain) - you have a point with the uncited PD info, though that is hardly a fault of mine - there wasn't a {{DANFS}} tag before I started editing, and all copied DANFS info was removed by the time the article hit the main page (I was not finished rewriting that article at the time of the diff you gave)
(@ WP:CUP) - Full disclosure: Ottava, you appear to be in the Cup as well. Now, I will say it again to you: I did not write this article to get points in that contest. I wrote it so that WP would have something good to put on the main page for the centennial of the Great White Fleet's return to the U.S.. The Cup had nothing to do with this - and haven't I told you that already?
(@ similar phrases) - I've said it enough: I don't believe that I plagiarized anything. However, for obvious reasons, I will leave that for others to decide. I apologize in advance if any of my phrases are determined to be plagiarized, as I was consciously trying to not do that while writing it. If it is determined that one is needed, I will fully accept any ban placed upon me by the community. —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 20:30, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I haven't seen any plagarism. Paraphrasing goes on here constantly, of necessity, since we are a tertiary source and have to report what secondary sources have said. My only concern would be if Ed has adequately sourced the content. I'm not familiar with the template, since I don't deal much with Navy vessels, but if that is considered appropriate, that's fine. I'd like to see that resolved by people more familiar with copyright than me, since by the various threads, I see several thousand articles are affected. However, I don't think any of this is bad faith, by Dravecky, Ottava, or Ed. I think everyone is arguing about what they believe is proper, and that's what goes on, on Wikipedia.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:34, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

OR's recent escalating series of unfounded accusations and uncivil attacks against me and several other editors on WT:DYK is, now that I am forced to think about it, possibly a subject for ANI. That I promoted an article, already vetted and approved by at least one other editor, without somehow detecting one or two sentences vaguely similar although by no reasonable reading a blatant copyright violation out of 20K of prose? Not so much. While not perfect, I am willing to stand by my work at DYK as well within both policy and reason. - Dravecky (talk) 20:39, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Having looked over the article and DANFS, I really can't see the problem here. Everything is cited and templated - seems to be a big row over, well, nothing. Skinny87 (talk) 21:07, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean, "cited"? Citations require quotations for phrases taken from copyrighted books. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:48, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Unfounded accusations? You allowed copyrighted material to appear multiple times on the main page. That is a severe problem. And one or two sentences? I found a whole paragraph that was a problem just from glancing over the document, then I found whole chunks lifted from text randomly. You didn't put forth the least bit of effort. When it comes to copyright law, that is inexcusable. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:48, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

• Few things on the whole of Wikipedia can be more pointless than the absolute determination to get a DYK and arguing the toss over whether it is 4.9x or 5x expansion. I've had a few DYKs myself, all of them on things I thought were actually interesting (as in, genuinely unusual) facts. A very great number of DYK noms amount to "Did you know that I think X band/wrestler/hockey player is really k3wl and should be on teh wikipedias main page d00d" with nine different hooks all of which would apply to a hundred other similar articles. I applaud those who clerk DYK for their amazing patience in the face of rampant vanity. And that's despite not actually being much of a fan of Ottava Rima, for reasons which I have to say I can no longer recall so are probably residual sour grapes over something or other. Guy (Help!) 21:15, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Tend to agree with Guy, I've submitted a few DYKs when I saw there was no article or it just seemed like a fun thing. Most, I hope, were interesting. But Ottava Rima is to be applauded for one thing, he is trying to apply the rules on a page where people want something. I try to do the same thing on TFA/R. The problem is, that OR is being too heavyhanded here and, and won't step away from the equine's cadavar.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:27, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, just about everyone working at DYK is "trying to apply the rules"—if you look, we have had numerous recent discussions there over how to handle hooks that are vain/boring (which seems to have been Guy's major complaint). If you think Ottava Rima is somehow above the vanity and is a shining star of integrity at DYK, you might want to look at the major proposals he made, against overwhelming consensus, to loosen the DYK length rules after one of his articles didn't get accepted. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 21:39, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations on completely missing the point :-) The point is this: fighting over DYK nominations, the lion's share of which invite nothing more than "so what?" is WP:LAME in the extreme. Guy (Help!) 21:47, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, this thread was not started about fighting over DYKs, but about "harrassment" and allegations of copyvio. With all due respect, I'm not sure how your first message (above) was really relevant; I'm gonna try to keep my mouth shut now to avoid going even farther down a tangent that would just muddle things more. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 21:51, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

As many people here will say in agreement with me - copyright violation is not a matter that can be like a dead horse. It is a constant vigilance. This is the second time in a relatively small time frame that Dravecky passed pages on DYK that had copyrighted violation material (the other being Doug's articles on Appotomatox, which included exact phrasing of descriptives). I gave ed a chance to correct the page of all copyrighted material and phrasing, and I only picked out the ones that had a blatant breach. The fact that ed does not think that it is a problem, and that others don't think it is a problem, is a direct disregard for copyright laws. Believe it or not, the people publishing the works own those phrases unless there is proof that they are "common" enough. Even then, their alterations to common phrases (adding a certain adjective phrase, a verbal phrase, etc) makes them completely new. It is our obligation to not have any copyright infringement, and it is our obligation to not have it displayed prominently on the main page. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:48, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not a copyright expert, but even if Ottava is right, he should get a consensus from a place like Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems. Then he should propose changes to the thousands of articles that don't meet his demands, which I believe include nearly all our major ship articles for instance, not just Did You Know articles. More importantly, he's been told that before, but WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, and that's a pattern I thought Ottava had abandoned since last December. Art LaPella (talk) 23:38, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Ottava's previous brutal lack of knowledge about copyright precedes him (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 00:50, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Art, you cannot justify copyright problems by pointing out other copyright problems. And if every article on ships includes sentences lifted from copyrighted texts that were published in the past decade, then there is a serious problem and many people should be banned. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:40, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Did you hear the part about taking it to Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems (not DYK) and then fixing it everywhere, since the alleged problem isn't unique to DYK at all? Art LaPella (talk) 07:03, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Are you honestly trying to suggest that it is not DYK's responsibility to check through the articles and make sure that there are not copyright violations before producing them on the main page? After many ANI discussions and bans of people who violate the copyright laws from using DYK, I really don't know how you can say such a thing when the consensus is clearly against you on this. It is DYK's ultimate responsibility to make sure that DYK pages conform to the basic -legal- requirements of GFDL. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:18, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I heard your opinion that almost the rest of the world should be banned for plagiarizing the public domain, and I heard those who disagree. Did you hear me say you need to convince our copyright experts first? If not, did you hear WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT states that all your threats of banning should be made to the mirror? Art LaPella (talk) 15:06, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Art, please provide diffs to back up your claims or admit that they are false and strike them immediately. Your hyperbolizing of matters is clearly unnecessary and is a breach of civility, let alone the rude comments that follow. If you don't care about copyright issues at DYK, then perhaps you shouldn't be involved. At Wikipedia, we require that copyright is not violated. This is one of the fundamental aspects. If you have a problem with that, I am sure there are many sites for you to join that have no respect for the law and would love to be sued. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:17, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, just to prove I heard you, I'll answer you one more time. 1. Diffs. "the rest of the world should be banned" resembles several quotes like the one just above with timestamp 03:40 February 12:"... many people should be banned". 2. "Hyperbolizing"? Yes, but I made my point. Do you really want diffs of those who disagree? Read anyone else on this page. 3. Civility? Yes, I violated the civility policy as written (I think it should be rewritten), but it pales compared to your own behavior I was describing. Rude comments? If I was rude by pointing out that you still haven't heard me say you need to convince our copyright experts first, then I was rude; but if you had heard that, you wouldn't be making a speech as if I didn't care about copyright. Thus you have once again made the point I came here to make about WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, which we at DYK have had to put up with for months, and I don't understand why Ottava is still here. But this is my last response to Ottava, although I will be happy to answer questions from anyone else. Ottava gets the last word. Art LaPella (talk) 01:43, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

The only time I really used the term ban is discussion the DYK process and copyright problems leading to temporary bans. Do you not remember these? Do you think that consensus was wrong back then? And yes, these are rhetorical questions because we both know the answer already. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:57, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

• Did you know that Trimphone dials were self-illuminated using tritium and are now considered nuclear waste? Now that's interesting! Guy (Help!) 23:01, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

So let's see. the_ed17 (talk · contribs) you are doing a poor job of paraphrasing. You are copying the same structure, phrases, and syntax, even though you don't seem to be lifting whole sentences. I think you are trying to do the right thing and acting in good faith, but you really should be summarizing more and copying less. For example, try reading a couple paragraphs from a source, get the idea from them, and then write that idea in your own words without relying on the same phrases and structure in the original. Ottava Rima (talk · contribs), for you let me say, dial it down. Rather than helping Ed do a better job, you really do seem to be badgering and harassing him. Ed17's writing is not good at paraphrasing, and might be considered unprofessional, but none of your examples that I looked at rose to a level that I would expect to be criminal (see: de minimis and fair use). He appears to be acting in good faith and trying to do the right thing, so either be supportive and help him learn to do that or get out of the way. The repeated calls for blocking are over the top and inappropriate. Dragons flight (talk) 23:29, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I told Ed where the problems were. I told him that he had a few days to fix it if they were errors in good faith. I told him that I would check to make sure. He hasn't and he refuses to accept that they are a problem. This is extremely bad. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:42, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Um, you gave me two sentences, one of which I don't consider to have been a problem. I didn't even see this 'evidence' page (with additional diffs) until 3:30 today my time - half an hour before I want to work... —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 04:14, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

The fact that you don't think that what you did is problematic is why you should be banned from DYK for a while until you understand that it is a serious matter and it needs to end. You cannot justify copyright violation in any kind of manner like this. If you can't find a way to appropriately reword it, directly quote it. I told you to go through your source and check the rest and you refused. I have pointed out 4 more spots. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:24, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say that I didn't think those later diffs weren't problematic; it was the earlier diffs that I disagreed with. I'll quote an e-mail I sent to Durova, who recommended that I post it here:

Hating to admit this here, but while it may not have been plagiarism, some of those [new diffs] are AWFully more similar that I thought [they would be]. I know that I was tired when writing some of those parts, but that's no excuse...:/ I am never writing a long article in a week ever again... however, I can't say [all this] onwiki because Ottava will seize it and run with it (and I've had more than enough drama in the last few days...

(The [bracketed] stuff was me copy-editing myself, no content was removed) Take it how you want, Ottava, but don't run with it please, because I'm sick of drama. I will be working on your new diffs, tomorrow or the next day, btw...even if they aren't plagiarism in my or others' eyes, they are too close for comfort. —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 05:19, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

As I stated above, I believe (hope) that the problem is simply rushing about trying to finish something for the competition and not -malice-. My major concern was that people were not taking this seriously. There were too many admin who did not believe that such language was a problem, which means that they would be passing this onto the main page without realizing the legal implications of checking through this. In the past, when I have reviewed hooks for DYK, I have contacted people directly and asked him to rewrite/reword sections before they could be passed. If the admin who are supposed to stand as a buffer between new articles and the main page start to believe that this is not an important matter, then how can we expect any standards? The most troubling thing out of all of this is Dravecky acting like it was not his responsibility and Art seemingly stating that since there are so many possible copyright violations that we should not bother at all with them. No, the copyright problems should not count to DYK, but the beauty of DYK and Wikipedia is that editors have the ability to -fix- things and should eagerly fix these things. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:57, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

You're not listening Ottava. Ed has said many times that being a WikiCup participant is meaningless in his working on the article. He has stated many times that his goal is a TFA appearance on 22 February. He even stated that in his opening statement for the article's FAC. -MBK₀₀₄ 06:39, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Even 100% good faith does not require all users to believe the stated motivations of another user. Regardless, all you did was prove a further motivation for him rushing through items, which means short cuts. I see plagiarism come about because students feel the need to rush through papers. Its a common occurence but never proper. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:15, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Ottava I really appreciate your commitment to keeping plagiarism and copyvio off Wikipedia's main page. That's a major problem when it happens. What we have here doesn't rise to that level. Ed's a GA and FA writer who understands proper sourcing. He's being a great sport about the WikiCup so let's set that aside too. He just did a bit of editing when he was fatigued and it wasn't quite up to his usual standards. That could happen to anyone. Looks like this thread could be marked resolved, but recusing from closing it since I'm a Cup participant also. Best wishes, Durova^Charge! 07:06, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Rise to the level? One instance of a duplicated phrase is enough. There were random passages taken and were found to be duplicates. I am certain that if someone went deeper, there would be even more. Anyone who works in academia would instantly know that this is very problematic, and those who worked in teaching know that people would be expelled over this. And if he "understands proper sourcing" then there is absolutely -no- excuse for it. Fatigue is not an excuse. There is even an old Wikipedia entry about if you are tired, drunk, etc, that you should probably not feel obligated to continue writing. The major problem is that there is a system set up to make sure that people (passively or maliciously) do not have copyrighted material on the mainpage, and certain admin are turning a blind eye. I think it is a further problem that you think that duplications of whole clauses multiple times is some how not a big deal, Durova. We have quotation guidelines for a reason. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:15, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Ed acknowledges that his edits there are problematic enough to deserve attention. He is a featured article writer and is acting in the self-correcting manner we expect of all good editors. Please refrain from speculation regarding my opinions: the normal way of resolving that type of uncertainty is to ask for clarification. To presume a faulty understanding and then lecture an editor for the imagined shortcoming could be regarded as incivility. The question to be discussed here at this board is whether admin intervention is needed, and clearly it is not. Let's shake hands and call this resolved. Durova^Charge! 15:28, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Read above, there are many pressing issues that the community needs to decide on: 1) Should Ed be allowed to continue editing as long as we are still uncertain about the copyright problems or that he accepts that he needs to either directly quote material or summarize in a more efficient manner (which could be -resolved-). 2) What responsibility do admin at DYK have to thoroughly check for such copyright problems, including PD info not cited and other problems. 3) Should admin that allow such information to pass onto the main page multiple times be restricted from approving hooks at DYK. These final two need to be determined by ANI consensus. This was obvious above. I am not sure how you missed these last two issues. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:41, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely oppose any restrictions or sanctions being placed on Ed17; this is beginning to whiff of a witchhunt. We all make mistakes, and not only has Ed17 admitted to them, he has gone above and beyond what was needed to be done to correct it. Skinny87 (talk) 15:50, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

And the other two concerns? The one admin who promoted Ed's page also promoted other pages that were found to have similar violations. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:55, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

You caught them and informed others - good for you, thank you!; errors have been addressed, and I am sure everyone will try to be more careful in the future. What more did you think should occur? KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:00, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Art stated above that the admin at DYK should not bother looking for copyright problems anymore because all of the pages have them. This is the same view that Dravecky, the one who passed the hook, took up. In an earlier incident (just a few weeks before), I found multiple copyright violations in hooks put forth by Doug that were quickly corrected (too much quoted for fair use, one or two lines taken from a text, but nothing big). It is Dravecky's duty as an admin at DYK to check to make sure that pages do not have these. These are just two pages that I happened to glance at and saw a problem with. Who knows how many have been missed? I think it is in everyone's best interest if Dravecky was put on probation (if there is a third found incident then he be prohibited from adding hooks, but could still respond to hooks) and a stronger response taken to admin who let these slip through the crack in order to head off the problems being displayed on the main page. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:09, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Art never said that we "shouldn't look for copyright problems"; he, like numerous other people there, said that starting a discussion about how to use PD text is not productive at DYK because it's a big discussion that spans many areas.

As for Dravecky, he doesn't have sole responsibility for what goes to the main page, as you would know if you actually knew how DYK worked. Anyone can check DYK nominations, and anyone can assemble the set of hooks (Next update) that goes to the main page. The people who assemble that set of hooks are often in a hurry and go through and grab whatever hooks have the next to them, which means that when a mistake does happen (and, by the way, mistakes happen often in all projects, not just where Dravecky is), it's because several people made mistakes at the same time, not because a single admin is being abusive. Trying to pin this all on Dravecky and attack him for it, as you have been doing repeatedly, is really inappropriate. He's been doing the same thing everyone at DYK does. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 17:09, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

It seems clear that you haven't read Art's comments above or you wouldn't make such claims about what he has stated. Furthermore, Dravecky, as an admin passing the hooks, is responsible for each hook that he passes. That is why we have admin passing hooks. If we don't hold people accountable, then it defeats the original system put in place and is a severe sign of disrespect to everything this place holds true. Jimbo hates plagarism and copyright violation, and has come out against it many times. I am sure he would be upset by the culture of acceptable surrounding DYK as of late. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:17, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I just love when I get to explain myself over and over to Ottava Rima. Anyway, again: Dravecky did not "pass" the hooks; he took hooks that other people had passed and procedurally moved them, which is how DYK has been working for ages. If you want to bitch and moan about someone, go dig through the edit history of T:TDYK and find who added the to the article in question. (It's not hard; I dig up those diffs all the time.) Don't keep using one admin as your scapegoat. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 01:22, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of how you want to try and rewrite things, the DYK process is simple - someone nominates a hook. An admin selects it for the main page. The stuff in between is only for convenience. The admin moving it to the main page is responsible for everything that gets to the mainpage. We rely on admins because they are supposed to be trusted and know what they are doing. Clearly, there is a problem when admins fail to look for these fundamental problems. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:59, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the admin puts his neck on the line for those things. He relies in good faith on reviewers How do you expect that the admin is going to make sure that no three words of it are verbatim from another source? Are there procedures or resources for that? Brass tacks, Ottava, how do you expect admins to "look for these fundamental problems"? What, specifically, is the inserting admin supposed to do with those verified hooks? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wehwalt (talk • contribs) 02:46, 13 February 2009

"Good faith" is not an excuse to let copyrighted material onto the main page. If an admin is unwilling to lay his neck on the line at DYK then he probably shouldn't be adding hooks to the main page. If I was able to easily find a handful of problems, then Dravecky et al are easily able to. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:08, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Ottava, you may wish to read about public domain, copyright, and free content before you make a bigger fool of yourself --NE2 03:25, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Instead of being snide, why not read the thread and realize that this is a copyrighted source and is the subject of the discussion. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:39, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say you're totally wrong (though the argument that the text was not copied from there looks persuasive), but when I read your posts I see a bunch of contradictions, like a copyright violation of a public domain work, or copyrighted material on the main page being a bad thing. --NE2 05:55, 13 February 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.

Pikacsu running afoul of Talk:Barack Obama/Article probation

Resolved

 – Blocked 24 hours ACB. — neuro^(talk) 21:24, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Pikacsu (talk · contribs) is a SPA who has been running amok on Talk:Barack Obama for the last week trolling for arguments and pushing an anti-Obama POV. This includes assumption of bad faith against responses to the user's various "proposals". This article is on probation and I suggest that Pikacsu's disruptive visit has lasted long enough. Bigbluefish (talk) 20:16, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Pikacsu (talk · contribs), despite numerous warnings and suggestions (which are blanked without response on his talk page), continues to create non-productive, disruptive, and overall useless discussion topics to the talk page of Barack Obama. Gems include;

• Obama's health report
• Obama and drug
• Died soldiers
• Has Obama paid his tax?
• Could Obama pass Yankee White test? - (Yankee White)
• What is Obama's IQ?
• Obama's IQ is only 116!

These have been either reverted outright or quickly archived as unproductive by a wide variety of editors. IMO, this user's conduct has crossed the line of the article probation linked above. User was clearly notified about the article probation, and, again, blanked it without response. Clearly the actions of regular editors is having no effect here, so admin intervention is needed. Tarc (talk) 20:17, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Some of those edits seem a little forumish, and some are certainly disruptive. Seems to be a pro-Dubya SPA, judging by his constant comparisons of various attributes of this article and related articles with the GWB one. — neuro^(talk) 20:21, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Note - because the editor repeatedly blanks his talk page you may not notice all of the warnings. Here[90] is a version with all the warnings intact. Two SPA editors with similar but distinct patterns of disruptive trivia appeared in the past couple weeks, so if the problem persists after this account is blocked we'll probably need to see if there are sockpuppets to root out.Wikidemon (talk) 20:31, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Do just note though that users are allowed to remove warnings. They're to notify editors, not to chronicle a user's past misdeeds. If you think you need to reinstate them, your new warning probably isn't severe enough. Bigbluefish (talk) 21:09, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I have blocked Pikacsu for 24 hours under the terms of the Community Probation placed on Barack Obama and related pages. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 20:34, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

A good block. It´s hard enough there without this type of behaviour. Escalating blocks should be very severe.Die4Dixie (talk) 21:25, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Concur.  Sandstein  21:30, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Likewise. Ncmvocalist (talk) 21:36, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! Grsz¹¹ 21:58, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

A good block. Brothejr (talk) 21:59, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The editor removed the AN/I report and block notice. I restored that, but I get the feeling I'm beating a dead horse here so I'm just going to ignore it. Maybe he'll calm down or just go away after 24 hours.Wikidemon (talk) 22:07, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think he had actually edited the article, only the talk page. It's still nonsense, but at least it's only talk page nonsense. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:07, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

There's no 'at least' in this. Disrupting the talk page of an article is often a lot harder to deal with than straight up nonconstructive editing to the article. — neuro^(talk) 07:48, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I understand what you're getting at, but the difference is that in theory it can simply be ignored (or deleted), whereas article vandalism has to be dealt with. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 09:34, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

But as a rule of thumb, probably better to keep it an equally high priority; separating them as one that has to be dealt with and one that can be left till later was one reason why problem editors became so difficult to deal with; their nonsense accumulated to an unmanageable level. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:14, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

That's a good point. Better to choke it off before it gets to the point of actually being added to an article page. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:59, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

It seems that with his block now lifted, he is up to the same thing as before. Brothejr (talk) 21:44, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Yep, initial edits after coming off a block are: editing GWB article to say he is currently the last white president, blp violation on Barack Obama article, and trolling/talkpage disruption (complete with wondering if a reverting editor is racist) on Talk:Barack Obama: [91] [92] [93] --guyzero | talk 21:50, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

He's back, making insane references about Bush being the last white president, and Obama's IQ. --DemocraplypseNow (talk) 21:45, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the same problems. Looks like more time I suppose. Grsz¹¹ 21:51, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Eh. He's a dead man typing. Whatever. HalfShadow 21:52, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Blocked for a week. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 22:03, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Seeing as he continues to blank his page and hide the blocked notice from admins, should we also protect his talk page for one week also so that the messages he keeps on removing sink in a bit. Brothejr (talk) 22:08, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I can't help but notice that the behavior is similar to that of several of the Dereks1x guises. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:22, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

There is definitely a strong resemblance. Landon1980 (talk) 23:32, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I think this talk page history has a certain soothing visual rhythm to it.[94] - Wikidemon (talk) 01:32, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

That's funny. It's like ping-pong. Or like John Cleese and Michael Palin having an argument. "No it isn't!" "Yes it is!" Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:40, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Proposed Topic ban for User Pikascu

Pikacsu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been a problem editor at talk Obama, a page under the Obama umbrella of probation. His logs are short and problematic. Please view his talk page history for recent warnings. If someone wants to set this up better, since I have no experience with this, I would welcome any help. Diffs are not supplied, as the history is short and can be found in the userlinks.Die4Dixie (talk) 22:10, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I support upping the block to indefinite. The user has no constructive edits, only BLP violations, trolling, and personal attacks. S/he is clearly here for the wrong reasons. This is an obvious single purpose account with the purpose being disruption. Landon1980 (talk) 23:30, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

This editor has done nothing productive. He added the IQ nonsense to the intro after the block expired and takes all talk page comments badly. He hasn't responded constructively to any comment on his user talk page. Topic ban/indefinite block is appropriate.--chaser (away) - talk 00:23, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I would say that an indefinite block for this disruptive SPA is in order, and makes more sense than topic ban. Tvoz/talk 01:51, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

No argument from me. He just needs to permanately stop on Obama pages, and I support any means neccesary to have that happen.Die4Dixie (talk) 02:14, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I have seen dozens of admins/editors say you are not allowed to remove block notices while blocked, and now User:J.delanoy is claiming you can remove them. Which is it so I know in the future? Landon1980 (talk) 02:30, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I was going to ask that too - removing vandalism, 3RR, etc warnings are supposedly considered ok because it's an indication that they've seen them, but I thought block notices are supposed to stand so that other editors can see them. But I could be wrong. Tvoz/talk 03:21, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't guess I have ever seen it in writing in a policy/guideline or anything, but I have seen I don't know how many administrators revert the removal of block notices and protect if necessary. After seeing so many admins/editors say you could not remove them I became under the impression that was correct. I always thought you could remove anything other than block notices, declined requests for unblock, sock tags when confirmed, etc. Landon1980 (talk) 04:09, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

See WP:BLANKING. IIRC, that section didn't recently have the second paragraph about exceptions like unblock request and sockpuppetry warnings. I think the guideline was updated to reflect the practice of prohibiting removal of those specifically.--chaser (away) - talk 04:16, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

These 2 edits are Pikacsu's article contributions to date. These are all of his contributions, in contrast. I'm more willing than most to good faith it, but... rootology (C)(T) 04:25, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Possible block evader continuing their edit warring

Resolved

 – Users blocked, CU confirmed. rootology (C)(T) 04:42, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

A couple of days 23prootie (talk · contribs) was blocked for a second time for edit warring over lists of countries (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:23prootie reported by User:Nick-D (Result: 1 week )). This editor's edit warring and dubious additions included adding non-independent countries to the Allies of World War II (for instance, [95]), claiming that the United Nations Transitional Administration in East Timor was a former country in South East Asia [96] and changing the name of the Phillipines in articles on World War II such as Battle of Bataan (1945) from 'Philippines' to 'Philippine Commonwealth': [97]. A few hours ago Lemen drop (talk · contribs) registered as a new account and is continuing this exact behavior by undoing the reversions of 23prootie's edits: (Allies of World War II: [98], United Nations Transitional Administration in East Timor: [99], Battle of Bataan (1945): [100] - all their edits so far have been restoring material added by 23prootie). IP editor 203.76.211.184 (talk · contribs) has also just reverted my reversion of Lemen drop's changes and re-added most of the countries 23prootie was adding to the Allies of World War II article: [101] (revert), [102] (revert) and [103] (added more countries - note the similarity to 23Prootie's edit: [104]). This seems to be a clear-cut case of block evasion and continued edit warring by a blocked editor, and I'd appreciate it if an uninvolved admin could look into this and take appropriate action. I briefly blocked Lemen drop for block evasion, but undid this a few seconds later as it seemed better for a totally uninvolved admin to review this situation. Nick-D (talk) 21:19, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with your analysis, and have blocked User:Lemen drop indefinitely, and extended the block of User:23prootie to a week from today, in line with the original block. Probably overly lenient actually. Kevin (talk) 02:24, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks - that does seem a relatively light punishment but hopefully it will send the message. Nick-D (talk) 02:39, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

 Confirmed YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 02:48, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

User:General Disarray

Moved discussion to WP:AN/EW#User:General Disarray. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:05, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Osli73

Also Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Osli73 (2nd) --PBS (talk) 12:50, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

From my talk page:

What's up? Can you stop Osli73 from using IPsocks: User:79.102.103.78 & User:212.73.169.196, or if you could tell me how to start official request or smth? thanks! Historičar (talk) 09:00, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I seems to me Osli73 you have been a naughty boy. Both these IP addresses are ones that you could use indeed the history of 212.73.169.196 shows that you have used this IP address in the past to edit the Bosnian mujahideen article.

Because of edit warring over Bosnian mujahideen Osli73 is restricted to one revert a week to the Bosnian mujahideen article (Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Macedonia#December 2008 - February 2009) and because he spent several months editing that article with just IP addresses the article is protected from editing by new and IP addresses.

This is not the first time that Osli73 has been in this sort of situation. I think it is time that Osli73 is either blocked from editing Wikipedia for a time or under the terms of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia#Discretionary sanctions he is banned from editing any articles concerning the Balkans for a time. However I would like to hear what other administrators think and give Osli73 a chance to speak in his own defence. --PBS (talk) 10:54, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

There's a duck quacking. We could get a CU to confirm, perhaps.

It looks like he's violated the 1 revert per week in any case.

Is there a reason we don't permanently semi-protect the pages? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 11:35, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The 1RR is only a restriction on the Bosnian mujahideen article (i've altered my first post to make this clear) --PBS (talk) 12:44, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

PBS, thanks for giving me the heads up on this discussion. To all above I would like to make the following statement:

1. I am a little baffled. I realize I (inadvertedly) broke the 1RR limit in the process of editing parts of the article. However, this was not my intention.
2. the basic problem is that since I first wrote the Bosnian mujahideen article in 2007 it has been constantly either deleted or the text replaced by, what I believe to clearly be unsubstantiated, unsourced, (Bosniak) nationalist POV text.
3. I believe I have been very patient in engaging editors in discussions and I have initiated at least one formal mediation process.
4. the problem is that the Bosniak editors are either unwilling to engage in discussions completely or disregard sources.
5. again, I am more than willing to participate in formal mediation processes.
6. even better would be if more outside (ie non-Balkan) editors were willing to engage themselves in editing the article since it now very polarized between myself and a large group of Bosniak editors (who in my opinion are more interested in using Wikipedia articles as a means of promoting their view of the Bosnian wars of the 1990s, creating a heavy POV slant).Osli73 (talk) 13:08, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Could someone pls explain what I am doing wrong here. I am sorry about the recent breaking of the 1RR rule for the Bosnian mujahideen article, I was editing sections at a time, which I believed was withing the bounds, but apparently broke the 1RR rule in the process of doing so. Bastically, I believe I have been very cooperative regarding this article, including extensive discussions on the Talk page and initiating at least one formal mediation process. However, given that the article has been either repeatedly deleted or, as is now the situation, filled with what I believe to be unsubstantiated and clearly POV nationalist

Osli73 is using IPsocks in Bosnian war and Alija Izetbegovic article in order to avoid 3RR, AGAIN! - User:79.102.108.221 Historičar (talk) 13:59, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Osli73 see WP:STUFF "or engaging with two or more accounts in an edit war.", it is not your editing of Bosnian mujahideen but your alleged interlacing of IP addresses with your own user name when editing pages like Alija Izetbegovic. Do you deny that you made this edit? --PBS (talk) 14:42, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I have blocked all 3 IP socks for one month, and semi-protected the listed articles for a month to prevent further IP socking. I am inclined to a week's block of Osli73 as well, for sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry, but have not done so at this time. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:53, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I think we give Osli73 24 hours to state that he will not use IP addresses to edit Wikipedia articles and talk pages -- if he does do so accidentally (it can happen to us all) then he agrees to reverts out those edits as soon as possible -- otherwise we ban his editing of articles concerning the Balkans under Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia. --PBS (talk) 08:27, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

From Osli73's talk page:

User:Osli73, you have not replied to my question on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Osli73. I am placing an injunction on you editing any article on Wikipedia until you do. If you break this injunction and edit an article, I will block your access. The only reason I have not done so yet (although the 24 hours are up) is to give you a chance to answer on WP:ANI --PBS (talk) 10:13, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

--PBS (talk) 10:14, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Repeated plagiarism

Resolved

 – done rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 08:18, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

121.72.249.112 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is repeatedly inserting plagiarized content (the first sentence from here) at South Korea. (I first gave him a mild uw-npov warning, and it wasn't until later that I realized his edits were copyvio in addition to being peacocky.) I reported him at AIV and got a tepid response, so here it is. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 07:37, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

IP user has been reverted, and just got a strong (yet civil) final warning regarding this. If he / she does it again, we're going to need an admin to IP block. Edit Centric (talk) 07:57, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, yeah, I've been reverting him for the past hour. Lucasbfr just fully protected the article because of an "edit dispute." With all due respect, this is not an edit dispute; it's reverting repeated vandalism (see WP:Vandalism#Types of vandalism: "Repeated uploading of copyrighted material"). No offense intended to Lucasbfr, but for the sake of other people who might want to edit the page, I'm asking to have the protection lifted and the problematic IP user blocked instead. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 08:01, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

The IP has been blocked by another admin, after continuing to plagiarize at a different article once this one got protected. Now that this guy is blocked, please remove the protection from South Korea. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 08:16, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Blocked, unlocked. yandman 08:17, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Yandman. Once he started doing the same thing elsewhere, that was a no-brainer indeed :) -- lucasbfr ^talk 09:04, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

BillDeanCarter, Manhattan Samurai, and false information in several articles

A few days ago, I received an e-mail from the user behind the above accounts (and a slew of others) and have since been briefly corresponding with him in hope of persuading him to apologize for his behavior and return to Wikipedia for a... productive editing career. Unfortunately, that doesn't seem likely to happen anytime soon. After I suggested he publicly apologize for any objectionable behavior and come clean about his use of alternate accounts, I received the following message, which he allowed me to "forward" or post:

I apologize for deceiving my fellow Wikipedians over the years. I have a mental problem and it causes me to lie and fabricate information. The work I did in the "List of works by William Monahan" article is about 70-80% fake. The Old Crow Review journal is fake and only really printed two issues from what I've seen. The Claude La Badarian article [Dining Late with Claude La Badarian] is also largely silliness and misdirection. Again, I apologize for this and do not expect to be let back on the web site anytime soon. I need to fix the mental problems I have before I attempt to constructively edit the encyclopedia.

He has also requested that the above articles be deleted, and claims much of the "Early years" section in William Monahan is false/fictional.

Needless to say, this poses several serious, pressing issues—List of works by William Monahan and William Monahan are both featured; what will we do about them, stubify? send to AfD? try to verify whatever content is actually verifiable? This should also have implications regarding our sourcing requirements, particularly our acceptance of offline sources in good faith (although any discussion of this belongs elsewhere).

As I've tried to explain rather obliquely through wikibreak notices, I'm really busy in real life, to the point where I now have to decide between keeping my job and being active on Wikipedia. I'd really like to keep my job; it's a nice job which pays unconscionably well, and these seem to be in short supply these days, so I really, really can't be around much. If someone can take point on this one, you'll have my eternal gratitude :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 02:31, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

• He's probably full of shit. Don't listen to him. Or, if you do, investigate the claims and sources without making large changes to the articles. Protonk (talk) 05:09, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Emails from Manhattan Sammy should probably be ignored. He's got so many stories going on what's happened, his reasons for making his edits, and who his socks are that it's probably not worth the time to sort through it at this point. Publicly discussing him just gives him the attention he craves as the Riddler of Wikipedia, or whatever he thinks of himself. Ignore. Dayewalker (talk) 05:15, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
    • If MS tells you the sky is blue, you should look out the window to double check. Nothing he says should be believed. Double check the articles, yes--this is something we should be doing on a regular basis anyway. But don't bother wasting your time believing what he has to say. //roux   05:22, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
• Old Crow Review largely checks out. Hoax tag removed and another cite added. I changed the BDC block to forbid email use. Let me know what other socks are out there and I'll block their email as well (not like he can't just register another account, but this will make it a little harder). Remember, revert, block, ignore. Protonk (talk) 05:25, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

What is to be done? He's lying now. He was lying then. Lying liars lie. Go figure. What should be done is to fire all those highly paid FAR idjeets who spin cruft into wiki-cruft. Exposing that idiocy was the ultimate point of this jerk's exercise, I suspect. Clearly, FAR people dot Ts and cross Is but don't do real reviews of the slop cast before swines.Bali ultimate (talk) 07:50, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Has someone written to William Monahan to ask him if the article is accurate? --Moni3 (talk) 13:52, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Jake Gyllenhaal forgeries back again

Resolved

 – All blocked now, some recently, some as far back as November 08. rootology (C)(T) 14:30, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

We've been through this before. At least twice. Now it's SweetEscape12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and LoveProfusion12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), with an intricate forged tour article at User:LoveProfusion12 and an intricate fake album article at User:SweetEscape12. Time to delete and indef again.—Kww(talk) 03:46, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

• I smell poultry. Blocked and baleeted. Might I suggest a visit to checkuser to see if there are any others, and any suggestions on eliminating the problem in future? Tony Fox (arf!) 04:15, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

 Confirmed the following appear to be the same person:

1. SweetEscape12 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
2. LoveProfusion12 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
3. YouMustLoveMe12 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
4. DoMe12 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
5. BatterWow (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
6. Angels_Live (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
7. Nainki (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
8. OperatorMan (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
9. BrenMadge (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Most of these are no surprise, but the last one appears to be a more established account. – Luna Santin (talk) 08:41, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/89.241.62.18 making childish changes to articles

Resolved

 – Vandalism is stale, IP may be dynamic

Moved discussion to WP:AIV#Special:Contributions/89.241.62.18 making childish changes to articles. --MZMcBride (talk) 01:18, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Please don't do that in the future. I reported it here because I thought someone with a brain needs to look at this. At AIV the report just got deleted by a bot. Xasodfuih (talk) 13:58, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

You might want to rethink the incivility in your above statement. The directions are clear, vandalism is at AIV. It appears that a bot accidentally deleted the move. Why not post it there properly yourself, and advise that you were referred there by ANI?? (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 14:32, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

On your behalf, I left a message on the AIV talkpage. See it and its response here. Hope you don't mind me marking this resolved. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 15:50, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

• Maybe the brain comment was directed at the bot? --DFS454 (talk) 21:03, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Well, that's what I meant (the bot as opposed to someone endowed with a brain). Sorry if it came across otherwise. Xasodfuih (talk) 19:10, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Bhaktivinode

User:Bhaktivinode is displaying consistent ownership issues on articles he works on, refusing to allow anyone else to edit the articles. He removes maintainance tags (including notability tags), falsely claiming they need consensus to be added to articles before they are added,[105][106] and reverts any edits anyone else makes demanding they discuss them first, even minor MoS type edits (like removing over sectioning).[107].

He also appears to be engaging in canvassing over a current AfD discussions of one of "his" articles, only notifying those who supported keep in a second AfD on the article that closed as keep (really no consensus), but did not notify the many more people who said delete.[108][109] He then turned around and made bad faith remarks on three AfDs[110][111][112] that have nothing to do with the AfDs themselves. In the discussions he mentioned in those remarks, he repeatedly inferred that I was anti-semetic and made personal remarks. His remarks have no place in any of those AfDs, to me, and appear to be nothing but attempts at attacking the editor than actually addressing the issues.-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:45, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

• Reply Collectonian has sated above that I repeatedly inferred that she "was anti-semetic and made personal remarks." These statements are unfounded personal attacks against me that have no truth. If they were true, Collectonian would of provided evidence, but they are only personal attacks against me with no merit or evidence. Although, I do question attempts to delete articles about National Register of Historic Places such as Temple Freda. Bhaktivinode (talk) 03:25, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

You proclaiming people as anti-Chabad and claiming nominations are anti-religions[113][114][115][116] and specifically claiming I'm anti-jewish in my nominations.[117][118][119]. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:44, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

• Reply That is a lie. I never stated you were "anti-jewish." This is a lie that is unfounded. You should be ashamed of yourself! Bhaktivinode (talk) 03:53, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

• Note Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leon Toubin (2nd nomination) and Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 February 3 (Dixie Chicken (bar)) for comments by other editors. As Collectonian and I have had disagreements concerning notability since Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Temple Freda back in 2007, the articles Collectonian has presently listed for deletion need to be reviewed by 3rd party editors. Bhaktivinode (talk) 02:51, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Considering the whole purpose of AfD is discussion among multiple editors, your remarks are not useful at all. They only imply that something is wrong with my nominations, when there isn't. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:00, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Please observe consensus. Bhaktivinode (talk) 03:07, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Funny words from someone who continues to recreate articles almost immediately after they are deleted, by consensus, and who has created many articles that where deleted as redirects, despite their being deleted, again by consensus. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:44, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

"Funny words?" Okay. Bhaktivinode (talk) 03:47, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

• Okay, both of you go to your corners, please. Collectonian, I'm sorry, but the only issue that I can possibly see here is that notifying the editors who were on the "keep" side of the fence in the AFD as you noted. The comments you point out are all from 2007 or early 2008, and as noted, the tagging of the articles was, essentially, a drive-by. If you're tagging an article that is being worked on by someone you've had contentious issues with, I'd really, really suggest engaging in discussion on the talk page before or immediately after the tagging - it doesn't appear you engaged in any discussion about those tags. Bhaktivinode: canvassing is bad, mmmkay? AFDs are seen by a lot of editors, not just those that are involved in editing the article. Both of you: please don't comment on the other contributors, also; your efforts are better used to discuss the article and its merits. Beyond that? I don't see anything that can be really done by admins in this case. I highly recommend that both of you stay clear of one another in future, is the best advice I can offer right at the moment. Tony Fox (arf!) 06:00, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I mentioned those comments because he brought up those AfDs from 2007 in the current AfDs as a claim that "third parties" should check my AfDs! As if I suddenly decided to "retaliate" against him because of a disagreement TWO YEARS ago, when two of the articles currently under AfD aren't even ones he created (one he never even touched until I AfDed it). He has now removed one of those posts, refactored a second, and left the third as is. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 13:54, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually Collectonian, I'm now under the very very very firm belief that you're going overboard with some of your AfD nominations. Our job is to improve first and delete second. If you put as much work in finding sources and improving articles as you do in creating AfD's from older articles, and then defending them, we would have some pretty awesome articles. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 14:28, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me??? I spent crap loads of time improving articles, thanks. I have invested MONTHS in some articles, taking them from very bad states to good articles (7), featured articles (2), featured lists (5), and even featured topic, with many more in-progress. I've even done this with articles I had previously AfDed, taking them from nearly nothing to a well-written, well sourced piece that's just about ready for a GA nomination. You want to argue about my AfDs, fine. You want to talk complain about my attitude, personality, whatever, fine. But I take it real damn personally when people start implying that I don't do any work finding sources and improving articles. I see far less actual article improvement coming from those who frequently scream "keep" at every AfD than anyone else. Only around 10% of my edits are in the Wikipedia namespace (which includes my very active role in some projects), so my AfDs are not "overboard." And, FYI, not all of those articles are "old". The Eagle one was created very recently, I just don't think newspapers fall under CSD for unnotable company. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:53, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

It was not an attack, it was hopefully constructive commentary, which I have clarified above with the use of "some of". You know full well how I generally appreciate your editing, as I have said it in this and other forums directly, and even my last edit summary. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 15:49, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

• I agree she does go overboard with her nominations.
• http://toolserver.org/~sql/afd.php?user=Collectonian

There appear to be 374 AFD's started by Collectonian.

   * 137 (36.63%) were probably kept
   * 104 (27.81%) were probably deleted
   * 10 were probably deleted via some other method
   * 32 (8.56%) were deleted at an AFD at some point, and were re-created later.
   * 91 (24.33%) are now redirects

Notice how many of her attempts to delete something, were rejected? And if anyone disagrees with her, she accuses them of all sorts of things. Many editors wonder why someone is so determined to delete articles, thus causing conflict. Dream Focus (talk) 16:16, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Stop your damn stalking already! Its annoying, its disturbing, and you've already been warned you'll be blocked if you keep this crap up. This is freakin ridiculous! And as for your OR view on my AfDs, stuff it, only 37% have actually been kept, which is not "many". Can someone please do something about this guy? User:Sephiroth BCR has already warned him, repeatedly, that he is wikihounding me and showing an unhealthy obsession with following me around to make personal attacks, but he is continuing to do it. See Sephiroth BCR and Dream Focus's talk pages for the conversations. He was warned if he didn't stop, he would be blocked, but he is continuing again. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:23, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

No one is stalking you. And that is rather out of content. Most of our confrontations come from the anime/manga articles, we disagreeing on the definition of merge and delete, among other things. You are constantly in conflict with someone. And I have violated no rules. I read the wikihounding page, and I don't believe I have done any offense. You on the other hand, should read this page: http://en.wikipedia.org wiki/Wikipedia:Tendentious_editing#Characteristics_of_problem_editors Good faith edits are not vandalism. Is there a way to show just how many first time editors she sent a vandalism warning to with no discussion on the talk or user page to discuss what she thought they did wrong? Her constant behavior is most uncivil. Dream Focus (talk) 16:33, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

This sort of behaviour does not belong on Wikipedia, User:Collectonian. Speak with a civil tounge. -128.61.149.95 (talk) 12:24, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Account Creators and Sockpuppets

Isabell121 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
The Sacred Cheese (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Either I'm slightly wrong here, or we have a problem. I don't know how the sock master contacted the above user, but the above user created an account for a sockpuppet. The user below the above user is the sockpuppet.

The problem is thus: If this account creator created this account for this sockpuppet, out of an act of good faith, well, we're easily allowing them to evade their bans. There should be a way to prevent users from a specific IP, say, the one the sock master was blocked under from logging into any new accounts specifically from that IP, shouldn't there?

If I'm wrong about my assumption of the firstly mentioned user, perhaps she is a sock as well, or maybe she isn't, either way, I believe this warrants admins attention.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 09:31, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

(notified Isabell) The Account Creation Interface gives a number of options to a user before creating the account, one if those can check the IP contributions, rangeblocks and other things. If there is nothing concerning in the IP contribs, there is no good reason why the account shouldn't be created. It is impossible to gauge the intentions of a requested account with no information in the IP. • \ / (⁂) 10:21, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Hrm..— Dædαlus ^Contribs 10:36, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. From a technical side I think what you're thinking can only be done from Checkusers, in any event. rootology (C)(T) 14:26, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Sad this is. I am extremely humoured by the nick "The Sacred Cheese". Maybe it's just Friday. Gives a whole new meaning to the French swear "Sacré Bleu!" (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 14:31, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

The only thing I can recommend Account Creators do would be to check for any existing rangeblocks on the requesting IP in addition to direct address blocks, and also to take note of the email address used to make the request. Generally, if a checkuser has placed a soft rangeblock in response to socking, they'll require an ISP- or organization-issued email address be used to request an account. However, if none of these conditions exist, then WP:AGF remain the orders of the day. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 17:37, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Checking the Ip of the request would be a good thing (I thought this was already being done), but short of only allowing email addresses issued by in internet provider or school I don't really see any way of fully knowing if a request is coming from a banned user. Noting each email address used would be a tedious task and throwaway emails can easily be made and used through proxy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.88.87 (talk) 20:33, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Lyme Disease page is vandalized.

Resolved

 – Vandalism reverted. Hermione1980 19:37, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

The "Lyme disease" page has been vandalized. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shawn@garbett.org (talk • contribs) 18:30, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

This is the discussion page for incidents. To report vandalism, see WP:AIV. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 18:33, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. Just revert it yourself next time. NawlinWiki (talk) 18:34, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Couple of admin eyes please on Presidency of Barack Obama

Things are bizarrely getting a bit hot fast at Talk:Presidency_of_Barack_Obama#NPOV ("it's assholes like you that make the world a sucky place to live in", minor edit warring, NPOV/WEIGHT disputes), and it could use a little moderating/guidance from uninvolved folks and/or admins. rootology (C)(T) 21:14, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Grundle2600 addressed a question [120]"Did you erase the entry on Solis because she's a woman.." to rootology with an unnecessarily provocative follow-on. Dudemanfellabra then stepped in with a very insulting rant[121]. Both Grundle2600 and Dudemanfellabra have done serious edits earlier. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 21:36, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Dudemanfellabra has gotten a WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA warning for that comment. I am concerned about the content dispute issues but I think someone else should review that in more depth and try and calm that down. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:47, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Personal attacks

User Wikidea (talk · contribs) was blocked several months ago for constant personal attacks, and unblocked when he swore that he wouldn't do it again. However, he started again with PA, this time against different users. He called user THF "right wing hack" and suggested him to "crawl into a hole somewhere, disappear and take your shallow, bigotted view of humanity with you" [122]. He was warned by Cool Hand Luke [123] and Will Beback [124], but he continued with personal attacks. [125]. He even accused Cool Hand Luke of holding grudges and being "sly". [126]. -- Vision Thing -- 18:15, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Here's the earlier block

Warnings from Will Beback, Cool Hand Luke, Cool Hand Luke, Cool Hand Luke, Cool Hand Luke, Jpgordon, Jpgordon, and RayAYang. See also the unsuccessful intervention at Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts/archive49#User:Wikidea.

• "What would you know?" and "Sorry, but you're not qualified to comment." to User:Padillah in the process of edit-warring over an AFD tag
• "You're a group of disruptive right wing thugs, posing as thought police. You're probably working in the industry, your life isn't worth very much, and you think you might be doing something important by trying to censor others. You're not. Go away" to User:Jbowersox.
• In addition, the following diff from an IP address is very likely from Wikidea: "And you're a fat right wing cunt", followed by Wikidea immediately archiving the insult. The IP resolves to London, where Wikidea is from; note his use of fat and "right wing" as insults in other PAs. THF (talk) 18:46, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

• I would support perhaps a topic ban and parole/mentorship, with an injunction to leave THF alone. Apparently Wikidea thinks that warnings for the behaviour that previously got him blocked are "not relevant", I don't think that is the case. He is very clearly edit-warring on The Burke Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), a sensitive article which has previously been the subject of OTRS complaints. The presence of editors with an obvious agenda against the subject is one of the things that provokes people to return and try to rewrite the article as a vapid hagiography. I don't think he's helping there. Other work is much less contentious, a lot of wikignoming. Oh, and if the IP edit can be confirmed as Wikidea? Then reinstate the indef block. Guy (Help!) 19:32, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

  When you say an injunction to leave THF alone, do you mean something similar to the Abtract-Collectonian remedy? Ncmvocalist (talk) 20:08, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, exactly so. There are other similar injunctions, but that is very much what I have in mind. And a reciprocal understanding of no baiting on the part of THF, I guess. Guy (Help!) 21:25, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

• I am in the process of making a conflict of interest allegation against THF. It is typical of his actions (that is what I criticise) that he would try to turn this into something else. Cool Hand Luke's "warnings" are something without any credibility. He doesn't like me, and I think he is unfit to be an administrator, just as I maintain, THF has a conflict of interest editing topics anything to do with the right wing lobby group, the American Enterprise Institute that he works for. I create and write articles. I contribute. This lot are trying to waste everything they see. I stand by my record. I have more credibility in one key stroke than every talk page they fill up with their garbage. Wikidea 19:59, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

• I don't dislike you (and neither does SandyGeorgia, or anyone else you've disagreed with); in fact, I've tried to give you lots of opportunities to improve your behavior. I would just like you to edit cooperatively. I think the most striking feature of this exchange is how you invited THF to edit the article, then opened a COIN on him once he did. He was sticking to the talkspace before that. He has worked well with other editors, as exemplified in this comment.

  IANAL and I am also not an admin, but I would like to someone who is an admin to enforce Wikipedia policy by taking some action against Wikidea for his attacks on THF and his disruption of the editing process on Tort reform, now being actively edit-warred as this dispute here drags on unresolved, with accusations and angry responses flying back and forth.

  I put in many hours of work gathering good references to clarify the arguments made pro and con various aspects of tort reform. Wikidea nuked the whole article back to its state on January 3, and wants everybody to re-start from there. I'm not about to waste my time on an article that is being nuked and re-nuked, now on almost an hourly basis. Please, somebody, block Wikidea until he cools down a bit. It is my opinion that THF, despite having a pro-insurance-company POV on tort reform, has behaved honorably in revealing his POV and civilly in collaborating with editors who don't attack him. There is a difference between having a POV and having a COI.Questionic (talk) 16:43, 10 February 2009 (UTC) [Quoted on ANI with permission]

  Cool Hand Luke 20:20, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

  • • The message above (specifically including "This lot are trying to waste everything they see." and "I have more credibility in one key stroke than every talk page they fill up with their garbage.") violated WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. Wikieda was repeatedly warned on his talk page (warnings deleted by him - per policy, assume read and acknowledged), but continued with this abusive behavior above. I have blocked him for 24 hrs for personal attacks. Please feel free to file a non-personal-attack formatted COI claim on THF at the COI noticeboard 25 hours from now, Wikidea. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:40, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
      • Good call. The COI allegation is pure spite; we all know who THF is, and a calm, polite note requesting assistance would be more than sufficient. I suspect there is even an old arbitration case to which a motion could be attached, if anyone cared, but it's probably unnecessary. Guy (Help!) 21:27, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

• • • • • I'm very sorry for all this trouble to everyone. I just read over some of my postings again, and it's pretty bad. THF, and Cool Hand Luke, sorry as well. I was trying to put my points forward in the wrong way. Wikidea 02:26, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikidea's COI allegation

The history of Wikidea's COIN complaint is separately worth noting:

• December: THF, following WP:COI, registers objections to NPOV and NOR violations at Talk:Tort reform.
• 14 Dec: Wikidea, well aware of THF's identity, writes, "why not just replace the parts you feel are inadequate"
• 3 Jan: Wikidea, well aware of THF's identity, repeats the invitation to edit the tort reform article:

As an American tort reform professional I'm sure you have plenty of ideas. Here's your chance. I suggest that you change something. Wikidea 13:23, 2 January 2009 (UTC) and even templates THF on his talk page telling him to "be bold" and edit the article.

• 13-25 Jan THF does so, editing civilly and collaboratively. THF stops editing mainspace on 25 Jan when User:Questionic indicates he'll be editing the article.
• 9 Feb: Without notifying THF, Wikidea runs to COIN and alleges a COI violation because THF responded to Wikidea's multiple requests to edit: "He does not appear to be fit to participate in any constructive dialogue."
• 9 Feb: Reverts 44 edits made by six different editors, against talk-page consensus that Wikidea preferred version of article a mess
• 9-10 Feb: Even after every editor and admin to look at the situation marvels at the meritlessness of the accusation, Wikidea makes twelve more edits to the COIN page, not with any new evidence, but instead increasingly shrill demands that THF be barred, to the point that an editor opposed to THF politically asks for Wikidea to be "block[ed" "so that people can get back to work on the article"].

Four separate editors across the political spectrum--THF, Cool Hand Luke, Questionic, and Wikidemon--find Wikidea's ownership of the tort reform article problematic or have called his version of the page "a mess." THF (talk) 20:12, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

• Well, THF, we know who you are and we know you have an off-wiki agenda here (tousands of Google hits and your own Wikipedia biography link you wiht that subject), so perhaps it would be prudent for you to stick to making sourced suggestions on the talk page; that would largely forestall any COI allegations. Play a straight bat, eh? Guy (Help!) 21:21, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm perfectly happy to stay on the talk page of that article; you'll note that I have done so except when invited otherwise, and hadn't touched it in over two weeks when the meritless COIN allegation was made. I let myself get trolled into editing the mainspace by an editor who took the position that I was not allowed to comment on the talk page unless I actually made edits in the mainspace and repeatedly and insultingly demanded that I edit--and then threw a fit when I did what he asked.

Please don't accuse me of an "off-wiki agenda here"; I edit here as a hobby; if I wanted to push an agenda, I'd start by correcting the multiple factual errors in my wikibiography. But if you have evidence that my hundreds of edits on articles in Category:Articles with topics of unclear notability from September 2007 is part of a center-right agenda, I'm happy to address it. THF (talk) 21:52, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

No need to get airigated. I'm not accusing you of having an off-wiki agenda, I am simply stating fact. I'm glad you are mainly keeping to the talk page, that helps to keep COI allegations at bay, as I said. Guy (Help!) 08:40, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Sanction proposal

I make the following sanction proposals:

1. Wikidea (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is subject to an editing restriction (probation). Should he make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be disruptive, he may be banned from any affected pages or set of pages. The ban will take effect once a notice has been posted on their talk page by the administrator and logged at User:Wikidea/Community sanction. If he is also banned from using affected talk pages, this must be specified in the notice and log.
2. Wikidea (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is banned from interacting with, or, directly or indirectly, commenting on THF (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) on any page in Wikipedia. (Note - this remedy may be expanded in scope to include interaction of any other user if it is later deemed necessary in the opinion of 3 administrators to prevent harassment.)

• Support both 1 and 2. Ncmvocalist (talk) 20:58, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Please make it explicit that he may continue to use the talk pages of articles he is restricted from. Cool Hand Luke 21:10, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
    • I want to leave that at the discretion of the sanctioning admin; have tweaked it for clarity. Ncmvocalist (talk) 21:27, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
      • Looks good. Cool Hand Luke 22:52, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
• Support with the caveat that civil participation in talk page debates is permissible, provided that he does not slip into circular argument, soapboxing, grandstanding or other nonsense - i.e. he restricts himself to comments specifically focused on actionable improvements ot content, not commenting on contributors or pursuing any form of activism. Guy (Help!) 21:23, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
  • I've made it so that the sanctioning admin has discretion to ban him from relevant talk pages; but this would need to be specified in the ban-notice, or in a separate ban-notice if it later becomes necessary. Ncmvocalist (talk) 21:27, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
• Support - Identical terms as Guy. — neuro^(talk) 21:59, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
• Support per Guy. --David Shankbone 17:17, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
• Support per Guy rootology (C)(T) 04:47, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
• Support I am hopeful that this type of restriction will enable editors to continue to contribute usefully while avoiding those areas where interactions prove less positive. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:53, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

User requesting block on their IP address

Resolved

 – Block reduced to 3 months from now. No prejudice to re-extension if the legal threat turns out to be serious/credible. –xeno (talk) 14:53, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

{{Resolved}}1=IP indef blocked for legal threats, which trumps not "typically" indef blocking IPs. Also, the IP appears 'probably' static. Take a longer, closer look at the WHOIS. It's a business account from Comcast. rootology (C)(T) 04:44, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

After reverting the blanking of User_talk:75.147.171.209 by 75.147.171.209 I received a comment on my talk page asking me to explain my actions. After explaining that user talk pages were not usually deleted s/he has asked for a permanent ban on that address and that the talk pages be permanently deleted. They are also threatening legal action against Wikipedia if this matter is not resolved. —Smilers (talk) 22:00, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

The user has no grounds for action against wikipedia. They should, however, be banned for the threat. The page should stay as is. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:03, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Just a quick update: the user (75.147.171.209) has now removed the entire section discussing this matter from their talk page. I have not reverted it as I don't think me doing that would help the situation in any way. —Smilers (talk) 22:35, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

(ec) I blocked the IP indefinitely. The block can be lifted once the issue is resolved, or after the IP is released from the current holder and reissued to someone else. I wouldn't be opposed to blanking the talk page, though. WODUP (talk) 22:37, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

That possibly is a good idea considering the circumstances. —Smilers (talk) 22:40, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I thought users were allowed remove warnings from their talk pages anyway, as long as they are not currently blocked, as this indicates the warnings were read. In any case, "Block me or I'll sue" gets them blocked, meaning there's no more legal threat since you did what they wanted, so the block goes away, meaning they will now sue, meaning a block..... *explodes* Arakunem^Talk 22:41, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

You blocked the IP indefinitely? When we explicitly do not block IP's permanently? Surely a block of a few hours / days and contact to the ISP would help better - unless you have some magic wiki-pixidust that will alow you to know when the IP is released back to the pool. Further, if you think this is a legal threat you clearly have no understanding of what a threat is. Bad block. this is a legal threat so fair enough. Reduce the time. M♠ssing Ace 22:43, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

And before we start arguing - from the policy; "Rather than blocking immediately, administrators should seek to clarify the user's meaning and make sure that a mere misunderstanding is not involved." - I see no evidence this was done. M♠ssing Ace 22:49, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

There's no need for a tone like that. It frustrates me to see people communicate in this way - as wikipedians, why do we find it so difficult to keep an element of kindness and understanding? Anyway, off my soapbox, I'm sure WODUP will record the IP and unblock after a suitable amount of time has passed. Seraphim♥ 22:54, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) A courtesy blank is not unreasonable, and I've gone ahead and done so. An ARIN search shows the IP registered to a company, so it is not likely to be released any time soon, as it doesnt appear to be a DHCP pool. Arakunem^Talk 22:52, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Ace, if that's not a legal threat, I don't know what is. And an indefinite block != a permanent block, as the blocker said. Please don't try to inflame the situation. You're not likely to help much. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ dedicated to making a happy man very old 22:55, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

(I won the edit conflict lottery! Yay!) Yes, I blocked it indefinitely. I have no way to know when the IP will be released (ran out of wikipixiedust on Wednesday), but it seems to have been issued to the current holder since at least 3 Feb; I don't know if a block of a few days will cover it. I think that it can be unblocked when we're told that the threat is resolved, or when we get an e-mail from the new holder of the IP saying that they don't know why they're blocked, unless you'd like to re-block for some finite but moderately lengthy period of time. WODUP (talk) 22:57, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

You are assuming, of course, you won't get hit by a bus tomorrow (I of course hope you don't!) and would therefore be unable to come back and reduce the block. However, yes my initial reaction was wrong. I find it entertaining that I then get rammed for inflaming the situation when I both crossed out my comments, and per [guidelines] we do not block IP's indef. Why did WODUP not remember this and block for a week or so? No that it matters now I guess. M♠ssing Ace 23:03, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I edit conflicted about 3/4 times. But do realise that you wouldn't have got "rammed" if you'd just spoken more appropriately to begin with. Seraphim♥ 23:16, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Then I apologise for my tone / language if you and others were offended by it. M♠ssing Ace 23:19, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I very much appreciate that. Wikipedia can be such a depressing place to be when there's everyone sniping at each other (in general). Seraphim♥ 23:28, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate that you hope I don't get hit by a bus, thanks for that. :) The reason I didn't block for a week or so was because, given that the IP has been assigned to its current holder for at least 9 or 10 days, I think it's unlikely that it will be released in another 7. True, we don't usually indefinitely block IPs, but in this case, rather than have the block expire mid-legal action, I think it's the best solution. WODUP (talk) 00:03, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, yeah...this section is archived. I'm still wondering why the blanking was reverted in the first place. It seems like the whole mess would have been avoided if the talk page wasn't restored for no good reason. --Onorem♠Dil 04:51, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

FYI, Comcast Business account needn't be static. IIRC, they can be plain DHCP like the residential accounts or DHCP with a long lease. Not that I'm disagreeing with the decision or anything. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 04:56, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

The indef block should probably be changed to 3 months or so. As the lobster pointed out, Comcast is just a regular old ISP. Barring any objections, I'll reduce it as such. –xeno (talk) 14:34, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

No objections here, but I was sure that Comcast Business class service, such as this, provided static IP addresses, which would be a factor here. Check this URL. I took off the archived templates and struck the earlier comment pending a confirmation. rootology (C)(T) 14:40, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Even so, I don't think it would call for an indef. The legal threat didn't seem too serious either, probably just a bored employee taking the piss... –xeno (talk) 14:44, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Anyhow, after reading that WODUP had no objection to it being made finite, I've  Done so (3 months from now). –xeno (talk) 14:53, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

They do, you're not wrong, I'm just saying that they don't only provide static IPs. It depends on the plan and the market. And even static IPs can be reassigned by the ISP. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 01:32, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

User:CABlankenship continues Personal Attacks

CABlankenship failed to assume good faith and launched a personal attack accusing me of dishonesty. This was done on the evidence page of an ArbCom project.[127] I explained that it was an honest error, not dishonesty and apologized.[128] Good faith would have recognized that this was not an attempt to lie or cheat. But, despite my explanation, despite my apology for inaccurate information, despite my warnings given to him about his personal attacks[129], he continues to make them.[130] I consider these attacks to be damaging to my reputation, to be done without a shred of good faith, and to be an attack on my character. --Steve (talk) 22:31, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm looking into this. Please disengage from discussions with CABlankenship until I or other admins have weighed in. Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:28, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

block evader, anon IP at U. Mass. Lowell, vandalizing Nathaniel Bar-Jonah (again and again)

Here's a recent history. For a while the vandalism to Nathaniel Bar-Jonah was coming from 129.63.61.102 which is now in the middle of a week-long block. It seems the vandal is now using 129.63.143.133. __Just plain Bill (talk) 22:37, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

user:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) and article John Nicholas Ringling (unarchived)

RE: John Nicholas Ringling, Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk · contribs) is treating me like a vandal and reverting my VERY WELL referenced changes. He is not treating me in Good Faith. Not observing Wikiquette. 3RR. Civility. He thinks that he owns the article. I request an unbiased third-party admin to intervene. - 4.240.78.237 (talk) 17:49, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

A quick skim through the history leads me to believe that he is reverting and then reinstating your additions, and citing reasons why in the edit summaries, such as issues with the references. Are you absolutely sure there is a problem here? --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:13, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

• The problem was that 4.240.78.237 was taking several formatted references that were using the cite template and converting them to a free text format that used the unconventional dash to separate the terms. It was easier to revert the multiple changes then add back the new paragraph that he added. That way the cite templates were intact in the references, and his new information was intact. It was a win-win edit, I didn't see any controversy. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:21, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I think it is a perception thing. Can't Norton do that without beginning with a reversion? But I don't think AN/I is needed for that discussion.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:37, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I also think Mr. Norton needs a short wikibreak. He adds information not supported by the sources he cites (see his talk page). At the moment he is a net negative for the project creating unnecessary work for other editors. Xasodfuih (talk) 22:38, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

• Just as a reminder Xasodfuih left this on my talk page: "You have very idiosyncratic way of editing articles. You leave them in crappy state for years until someone else starts working on them and then you try to impose your weird style on whoever touches your "great" work." I think he was mad because we were editing at the same time and conflicted when we both tried to save out edits, but a personal attack is uncalled for. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:10, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

He also added back his silly yellow band that fakes the mediawiki interface [131]. Xasodfuih (talk) 22:45, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Take it to article talk page. Nothing to see here, please disperse.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:34, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

It was archived because after thousands of pageviews no one cares. Don't unarchive it. Take it to a talk page or let it go. Also "Don't fake the mediawiki ui" was about the silliest policy change this project has ever enacted. I'm not prepared to enforce it. Protonk (talk) 23:47, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

A Date with Fear

Resolved

 – I semi-protected the page for five days. Protonk (talk) 23:58, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

The AfD notice on this article has been removed numerous times by multiple IPs, and it's starting to get tiresome. I'm not sure what the best course of action would be, so could an admin please look into it? Many thanks. PC78 (talk) 23:49, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Persistent addition of unsourced material

I'd like to report a problem with 71.203.134.243's persistent addition of unsourced material. According to other users' comments on this user's talkpage, the user has been informed of this on multiple occasions. I myself have left messages for the user, but the user continues to add unsourced material. Many of their edits are the addition of Category:American Christians to pages, without any sources to back these additions up. This has happened on at least Clancy Brown, Drew Carey, Fred Durst, Kid Rock, Doug Jones (actor), David Garrard, and John DiMaggio.

Any possible solutions? Darimoma (talk) 05:13, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Adding a category like that, if the article doesn't already say anything about the person's religion, is a BLP offense. I'd say give him one or two of the uw-biog warnings, and if he keeps it up then AIV can deal with it. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 05:21, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Does it count as vandalism? The edits might be made in good faith. Darimoma (talk) 06:45, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Hold on, wasn't there some sock idiot recently who was adding cats like that? Within the past two-three weeks. I'd dig it up but I have class in less than eight hours and need my beauty sleep. //roux   05:23, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Usually folks like to add the "Jewish" categories to articles, go figure :). Seriously, the same things apply here. If the article does not discuss religion/ethnicity and it is not sourced, do not add the category to the article. This seems pretty straight forward unless I am missing something which is usually the case :) Cheers, --Tom 16:06, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Could I just get confirmation - if it continues, would it be considered vandalism? If so, what if the edits are made in good faith? If not, what should be done about it? Darimoma (talk) 02:04, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Provided they have been warned a couple of times, I wouldn't worry about their edits being in good faith. Warning the user gives them a chance to stop and consider what they are doing. If they ignore that, I think it's acceptable to assume that they don't care. And yes, since these are BLP violations you can treat them like vandalism. Natalie (talk) 03:33, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Aaliyahforever - infringing uploads and legal threat?

Resolved

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.

Matter resolved. Wehwalt

---

--Wehwalt (talk) 23:33, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I've got two issues with the conduct of Aaliyahforever (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) over the last few days.

The first is uploading of apparently unfree images. Today, the user has uploaded:

• File:Aaliyahad.jpg, described as an ad and apparently a page from a magazine
• File:Victoriasecretad.jpg, claimed as a Victoria's Secret ad
• File:Aaliyahiownthisphoto.jpg, a cover of Fader magazine (which I deleted as blatant infringement)

The user has claimed to have purchased the rights to the images but provided no evidence of so doing.

That would be bad enough, but the user has also made an apparent legal threat on my talk page.

I'm now too involved to be neutral; I need another adminstrator to take a look at the situation, since I think a number of images Aaliyahforever has uploaded are infringing. —C.Fred (talk) 22:18, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Update: second, more blatant legal threat. —C.Fred (talk) 22:22, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I've blocked her indefinitely and left an appropriate block template on her talk page. I fully concur that a legal threat has been made justifying an indefinite block.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:36, 13 February 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.

LOL those "legal threats" remind me of Votefortheworst.com during Season six of American Idol. Ahh good times.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 03:59, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

User:68.38.147.199

Resolved

68.38.147.199 (talk · contribs) has now been blocked once for legal threats and a second time for a month for vandalism which included legal threats. They're now using their Talk page to continue their attacks and legal threats. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 04:41, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Tagging this as resolved, since J.delanoy (talk · contribs) blocked the IP for one month for making legal threats (though I personally think this warrants a longer block), and Gilliam (talk · contribs) protected the page. --Kralizec! (talk) 05:29, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Stalking // Bribing Incident

Wikipedia is not here to promote your own product, nor is it your own web host for whatever drivel comes forth.

I was taking part in watching after a blatantly inappropriate article until a sysop came around. I kept adding a CSD template, but they kept undoing my edits. Anyway, eventually the article was deleted by a sysop. I figured the story would end there. It did not. Users joined my IRC network and started demanding I undelete their article - eventually some started flooding, using annoying color/control codes, etc. As the network manager, I simply removed them from the network.

Then starting a few minutes after the first removal, I started getting calls on my personal cellular phone. The number was the number used by Sprint's IP relay service. They called several times between 4 and 5 AM. They got my cell phone number by performing a WHOIS on my domain.. an ICANN requires accurate information to be provided on your domains.

Just a small while ago, I had another user join my network, who I believe is user:Dk69 - that was their nickname. He started offering me bribes ($10, $20 then $100) via paypal for undeleting the above article. I have logs of this conversation and his IP. Here is the log of the bribing incident. I also have the IPs (not sure how many are actually their IPs, not proxies) from first wave of harassment, which i can furnish upon request.

I figure that perhaps in circumstances likes this a Checkuser user can use the tool on DK69 and compare it to the IP I provided so we all can be certain that that user was actually DK69 and not another user claiming to be him.

While I normally would shrug this off as a bunch of immature kids having "fun," they went as far as sending me several IMs from different AIM accounts AND calling my personal cell phone number at 4:30 AM.

I can provide any information I have, including IPs of the users, as public information isn't covered by the privacy policy on my IRC network. Please help. Alpha 4615 (talk) 03:34, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I would notify the authorities for harassment. Isn't there also something OTRS or the Wikimedia office can do? MuZemike 04:06, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I would have taken his money. But yeah, email OTRS with the run-down and they can put you in contact w/ a checkuser. I wouldn't start a WP:SPI because of the private data issue. Protonk (talk) 04:52, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

This editor might be worth a look. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 06:30, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

This is outside the remit of what OTRS deals with - OTRS is nearly exclusively for complaints and questions from non-editors, excluding the permissions segment which deals with archiving email releases from copyright - and I'd suggest that OTRS won't be able to assist you much. You can contact the checkuser mailing list directly at mail:checkuser-l, which is probably your best bet. Daniel (talk) 07:21, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Aha! There is a checkuser mailing list. Should have known. Protonk (talk) 16:20, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I've notified ArbCom of it and have provided them with logs (including IPs) and additional incidents that occurred after my initial posting. Alpha 4615 (talk) 22:27, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

• Pardon me, but I don't appreciate being given a warning for assisting in making a page that as far as I could see is not innapropriate. We just want a wiki page for our IRC channel. The editor that started this incident is the "stalker", not DK69, he keeps trying to destroy our page and now has resorted to threatening us. If wikipedia is going to start placing limits on what topics we can make wikis on, wikipedia may as well just shut down. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Startropic1 (talk • contribs) 23:50, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

You probably need to read WP:N and should try to understand that wikipedia is not hosting space for some whim of yours. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:52, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how you were ever threatened. I find it interesting that you are somehow turning the tables on me when I haven't done thing to you or "your people" (a term so eloquently used by Dk69 on IRC yesterday) save for removing you from my IRC network. Pardon me while I drop the BS flag.. Alpha 4615 (talk) 23:55, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

• I recieved a warning for assisting in making the page after it was deleted a 2nd time. I take that as a threat. Also:

07:26, 11 February 2009 Jclemens (Talk | contribs) deleted "Baseball2 (IRC Channel)" ? (G3: Vandalism: A7: Article about an eligible subject, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject) Notice the part where the mod calls it an "eligible subject"? Hmmm. User:Startropic1

Yup. That would be in line with WP:N. Subjects that are not notable are not eligible for a wikipedia article. What part of this confuses you? --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:03, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

You didn't read it properly. He didn't say INELIGIBLE, he said ELIGIBLE. It says the article is indeed eligible. Also a chatroom community of over 120 users I think would be a little bit notable. There are far less notable topics that have wiki pages. User:Startropic1 —Preceding undated comment was added at 00:06, 13 February 2009 (UTC).

120 users! Wow! That's amazing /sarcasm (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 00:16, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

See also typo. Please use WP:CSD or WP:AFD to bring to our attention these other less notable topics, since they too should surely be deleted. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:08, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

It should also be noted that it was a USER page and not a regular wiki page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Startropic1 (talk • contribs) 00:11, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

See also: Wikipedia:User page#What may I not have on my user page? --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:13, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Also note that the User page was an exact mirror of the original channel in question. Full of the inappropriate (used out of context) images and such. Though quite frankly we're getting off topic from the original point at hand. Alpha 4615 (talk) 00:47, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Are you serious about the user page being off topic with out of context imaegs? What images are you talking about? Look at the last revision http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Efnet_baseball2&oldid=270151162 Our intentions with the user talk page was to make it appropriate and stop the inappropriate stuff. Look at the revisions Efnet baseball2 (talk) 01:50, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Really, what part of "thou shalt not use wikipedia pages to promote your off-wiki enterprise" are you having difficulty with. Why would you think that such a ruling is even controversial. Please, stop wasting our time. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:53, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Efnet_baseball2, you know exactly what I am talking about. Correct, those images are no longer publicly visible. They were on the original article and your userpage until they were deleted by a sysop. Alpha 4615 (talk) 02:36, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I understand the self promoting part, but there were no out of context images in the user talk page. I was addressing "Also note that the User page was an exact mirror of the original channel in question. Full of the inappropriate (used out of context) images and such. Though quite frankly we're getting off topic from the original point at hand. Alpha 4615 (talk) 00:47, 13 February 2009 (UTC)" Efnet baseball2 (talk) 03:03, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Have you read the WP:NOTWEBHOST page given elsewhere in this discussion? As it clearly says, you cannot post whatever you want in Wikipedia. Content must be verifiable from reliable sources, and the subject must be notable enough. The actual reason for this article to be deleted was that no significance of the subject was given in the article (articles can be deleted if no such indication is given - please see Wikipedia:CSD#A7). The notability guideline for web content is WP:WEB. There is no indication that your IRC channel passes any of the criteria given there. Therefore, it can't be included. Also, the people who had been stalking Alpha 4615 should read this. Chamal ^talk 11:42, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

At this time, as a matter of damage control and preventive action, I've changed my domain contact information.. Alpha 4615 (talk) 08:32, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Possible block evader continuing their edit warring continued

While reading about the block of 23prootie (talk · contribs) above, it struck me that in my brief interaction with this user at DYK, I may have stumbled on another sock with the unlikely name of Vanlla-C00kie (talk · contribs). Based on this odd note and this edit to the UNTAER article, along with their brief but odd editing pattern, my suspicions are strongly raised. --Dravecky (talk) 21:29, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

This edit to Allies of World War II only cements the suspicion of sockpuppetry. - Dravecky (talk) 04:00, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:SPI is the place you want to be at, ANI is not for reporting sockpuppettry.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 07:09, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Civility

Resolved

 – Complaint is misleading, summary is not actionable. Guy (Help!) 10:58, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Are such edit summaries considered to be appropriate, especially given that the editor in question had been warned to stay civil shortly beforehand? — Aitias // discussion 22:17, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

• Saying that the editor "has been warned" when you mean that you warned the editor, is disingenuous. Please do not do that. The edit summary is an expression of frustration and while undesirable it is understandable, not apparently directed at any readily identifiable individual, and does not appear to em to degrade the content of the encyclopaedia, nor to inflame any debate. I am marking this as "resolved" for those reasons. Guy (Help!) 10:58, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Anonymous edits and advocacy in Network Neutrality

There is circumstantial evidence of an advocate using different IPs to make edits in this article: Network neutrality.

diff 1 A recent edit.

diff 2 An older edit.

diff 2 whois

I am trying to be careful not to harass or "out" here, but I think the circumstantial evidence (the whois, the pov, the reference cited in the edit shown in diff 2, and a google search) is strong that both diffs show the same editor, and others would come to the same conclusion.

I didn't put this is WP:RFP because I don't want to see it come to that. Hope that's okay. demonburrito (talk) 14:31, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Abusive admin

This is not even close to resolved; I have not even been answered; only one or two of the posts below came close to addressing my concerns at all. Talk:ID is the place for the content dispute, but not the place for concerns about how an admin threatens to use their tools. Almost all the posts below both assume I care about the damn image war and/or assume this has something to do with that image war. It has nothing directly to do with it and I am not involved in it, having made ZERO edits in that mess. I'd re-open this because I have yet to get anyone actually reading what I've said and addressing that, but there seems to be a group insanity here. I'm insulted and annoyed at the tenor of the responses and the nearly complete lack of any kind of meaningful response. I would have appreciated it if those whose goal involved the ID images would have stayed out of this, as they have muddied the waters and lengthened this, and yet I have not received the input/help I requested, nor any rationale why that help is not forthcoming. This is now a large section which addresses nothing. I don't blame those who came after and didn't want to read all this and decided tl,dr; but I'm fairly pissed off at those who misdirected this section and tried to move it, attacked me, and finally closed it as "resolved" when it is anything but. Puppy has spoken; puppy is one. KillerChihuahua^?!? 10:24, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

• The title of this section is "Admin Abuse". you claimed User:John abused his privileges as an administrator. Two uninvolved administrators told you this is not the case. No administrators voiced an opinion this was abuse. You have your answer. I'm sorry you don't like it, but you have your answer. That is why this thread is closed. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:46, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Can we just get back to improving an encyclopedia now, before this develops into an actual argument? Talk:Intelligent design is the place for this. Thx. Black Kite 01:18, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it is resolved, I think this needs to be unpicked from the NFCC mess, but I can't see how that can be done easily. I suspect that the best thing would be for us to advise John to step back from this, but I don't think it's as simple as it looks. Guy (Help!) 11:16, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, you could be right. To be honest my real motivation was to shift this off the drama board before it developed into an actual drama. Black Kite 11:21, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

For sure, and that needed doing. I do feel that this might be a separate issue requiring of some debate; perhaps, though, we need to unpiock the various issues into an RfC of some sort? Guy (Help!) 15:25, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I see no need for same. John acted within the discretion the community entrusts to its admins. Probably just best if a couple of uninvolved admins watchlist the relevant pages, and pour water on any developing fires.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:35, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Original debate

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.

---

Yes, I used that heading. Yes, I can't believe I did either. I am at a loss. User:John is in a content/policy dispute, the crux being whether or not criteria #8 has been met on the NFCC policy. I avoid such disputes and am not part of it. However, John has been threatening to use his admin tools to block and/or ban editors[132][133][134] during an edit war and after I counseled him against threatening to use his tools in a dispute[135], he responded by basically saying I was a liar and he attempted a misdirect to the content, accusing me of violation OWN[136] ignoring that I have said nothing on the dispute. I spoke only to his handling of the dispute. He has escalated to trolling my talk page, attacking me and my motives, and continues his attacks on other editors with whom he disagrees. He most recently made a personal and insulting attack on Guettarda[[137]. I left a notice[138] on his talk page, but he has summarily removed it, apparently feeling that if he trolls my talk page and is called on it by me, he can ignore NPA warnings from me. I cannot say I am done with John; as if he continues to insult and attack editors, and certainly if he blocks to gain advantage in a dispute, if no one else will act I will feel compelled to do so. Hence my presence here, as John has dismissed me as "not in good faith" and is continuing to attack and run roughshod over other editors. Please, do not confuse this or mix this with the content/policy dispute, which is being discussed elsewhere. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:52, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

• John's tone isn't much different from Guettarda's tone in the [diff you posted. I don't see one being better off than the other from a brief glance. They both should try to be calmer and AGF, for sure, but I'm not sure these are blatant personal attack violations. They disagree and have been at it for weeks now, so tempers are expected to be thin. I wish it wasn't like that, but it isn't entirely unexpected. Also, I believe John has been clear that he has no intention of using the tools. He initially issued warning on the 6th, but once he became involved in the dispute, he has not used the tools (nor issued any threats like the ones from the 6th). Are there any more recent diffs of possibly admin abuse??-Andrew c ^[talk] 15:13, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
• IMO his tone is significantly different, but that's subjective of course. Where did he say he wouldn't use the tools? His response[139] to my concern was to call me a liar and accuse me of violating OWN, neither of which is correct or helpful and neither of which address his threat to end an edit war he was in by blocking three editors who disagreed with him. This is a matter of grave concern; that he threatened to do so at all is very disturbing, and he has responded to concern about it with insults. If he did state he would not use his admin tools, well and good - where did he do so? Do you recall? Thanks much - KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:24, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

  Adding, what do you mean "once he became involved" - he was edit warring before issuing the block warnings. That's why I said something. He was deep in an edit war when he made those threats. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:29, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

  I was referring to this, where John says I then made one revert on the article myself, after which I recused myself from taking admin action on the matter, as I felt that by the very strict interpretation of WP:UNINVOLVED that I hold myself too, I would no longer be considered strictly uninvolved. , and the whole WP:UNINVOLVED business is discussed further at John's talk page by two other admins.-Andrew c ^[talk] 16:15, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

  Ah, ok. That I missed in the noise, I guess. I note he only considered himself "involved" well after others did, which is still of serious concern to me, as he does not acknowledge that his previous edit warring constituted involvement in any way. I would still appreciate others keeping an eye on this, especially as this editor continues to be verbally abusive and hostile to well-intentioned counsel and criticism, personalizing both the content/policy dispute as well as any concerns about his handling of it in an inappropriate way. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:47, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

  Missed it in the noise because you removed it from your talk page with the edit summary "READ the note at the top of this page. Keep article content disputes on the ARTICLE talk page". You're complaining that I am personalizing the dispute, and here you are... personalizing the dispute. Hmm. --John (talk) 19:46, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

  Indeed, I did miss it in the morass of edits on my page which I removed. I expected you to respond to my concern post; you did respond, but your response was to malign me and dismiss me[140], as I have already noted. That you chose to change venues and state that you had belatedly determined you would not use your admin tools fails to address that you actually did threaten to do so while engaged in a content dispute. I have yet to see you acknowledge that or address that issue. Further, I fail to see how attempting to engage more of the community in this and solicit input and assistance could be in any way characterized as personalizing; I have made no personal attacks but have addressed only concerns about your actions and behavior. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:54, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

John's actions in this matter have already been discussed at length at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/ID-NFCC. Since these actions are directly involved with the debate regarding WP:NFCC and Intelligent Design, I earlier moved this discussion to the ID-NFCC page [141]. KillerChihuahua believes this is not the same dispute at all, and reverted this action [142]. I don't see the point in having two obviously tightly related discussions going on same topic. Would someone else please move this discussion as I did? Thank you. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:59, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

That discussion is about content and policy. This is about behavior; specifically threatening to use admin tools during an edit war, and subsequent attacks on editors who disagree with his position. They are specifically different and not related at all. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:50, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Probably better if KC will agree to close this one. His/her comments have been noted. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:01, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. Closure would indicate my concerns have been addressed; they have only been partially addressed. Closure also suggests that there is an "end point" and IMO that paradigm is inaccurate for this type of concern. Closure is inappropriate. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:50, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

"I don't see the point in having two obviously tightly related discussions going on same topic." Doesn't that apply here as well, then? •Jim62sch•^dissera! 19:59, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

• No. The reported admin abuse has already been discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/ID-NFCC, and opening up another discussion here at WP:AN/I where that discussion came from is rather pointless. The discussion of the image itself is a rightful standalone. Regardless of the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/ID-NFCC, the question of its use under our policy is perfectly legitimate and worthy of standing on its own. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:04, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

What part of "this has noting to do with NFCC" are you failing to comprehend? This is a separate issue. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:09, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

• What part of this has already been reported are you failing to comprehend? --Hammersoft (talk) 20:22, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Clearly, I disagree with you - or else you are not quite getting what I'm talking about. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:30, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

• You are complaining about his actions in this event, are you not? You have noticed that discussion regarding the appropriateness of his actions has already taken place at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/ID-NFCC, yes? --Hammersoft (talk) 20:55, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Looked over this. The warnings given by John, though they do not specify the policy violation, all relate to potential copyright infringements. John's previous "involvement" doesn't matter as WP:NFCC is serious global policy, and if there is a situation where several editors are collectively violating - knowingly or not - this policy, there's little John could do in theory except warn/block or revert and protect (or get other admins to do the same). Local "consensus" can never override this policy and John, having had the community trust placed in him, is entitled to be given the benefit of the doubt to force the application of this policy over local consensus when the latter may be insisting on - knowingly or not - violating it. I don't see how John behaviour can be at issue here. I suggest this thread is closed. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:01, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

The warnings given by John were not about a policy violation. They were about interpretation of a highly debated criteria which one side of an edit war felt had been met and the other side feels has not. This must be resolved by dispute resolution; not by one side threatening to block. The "other" side would have been just as in the right to block John for page blanking vandalism (in other words, not in the right at all, even though that's what he was doing). KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:07, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

• Ah, it's only guideline so it can be ignored. Understood. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:23, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Now I *know* you aren't talking about the same thing I'm talking about, and further, your sarcasm is unhelpful. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:31, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

• Call it as I see it. In NFCC debates, an age old argument is "It's only guideline, so it doesn't have to be followed". John acted properly. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:54, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

You're on the wrong page. This belongs in that other discussion. THIS discussion is NOT about NFCC, which is a policy, not a guideline. Please do not continue to post your thoughts about NFCC here. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:35, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Kinda like the cop who likes Pat's Steaks but doesn't (should that be "don't?") like Geno's Steaks only busting people who rob from Pat but not those who rob from Geno. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 21:43, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the other discussion, John clearly believes those edits constituted copyright infringements. So he was only doing his job, and can't be seen to be acting in bad faith or abusively (and wikipedia can't chastise admins for attempting to protect wikipedia from copyright infringements). The only potential issue would be whether John's intepretation is so unreasonable that his judgment could be called into question. It really doesn't look like that's gonna be the case. So there's nothing more to say here. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:27, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I have no dog in this fight whatsoever. But as a confirmed cynic, I would note that "clearly asserts" and "clearly believes" are not synonymous. arimareiji (talk) 20:30, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

"potential copyright infringements"? Yep, the publishers are gonna pitch a bitch and sue us castrato over free publicity. Duh. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 20:36, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

• Another ancient argument. "They'd never sue over this!" so therefore it's ok to violate copyright. Uhg. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:56, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Did you realise that if you go to cross the street and your first step is not inside the ped-walkway, no matter that all the rest of your steps are, you're jaywalking and can be cited? That's why there's these really weird concepts like discretion, judgment, intent, etc. Oh, wait they're all subjective. You get a ticket. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 21:02, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Arimareiji. Speaking as an admin, I think it is a poor idea to enforce policy in that way on an article you're involved in, once the fact of said enforcement becomes contentious. There are dozens, if not hundreds of uninvolved admins who would be willing to come in and help out.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:39, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

We have WP:AGF when in doubt. I'd agree that the method John pursued was not the one most likely to avoid animosity for himself, but there's no question of abuse here. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 22:05, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

thanks for addressing your comments to my areas of concern, Deacon. Clearly there is a question, since I raised it. I accept and respect that in your opinion, my concerns are unfounded and you feel his actions, while less than optimum, are not abuse or even bordering on abuse. Please correct me if I have misunderstood you in any way. Two questions (this is to Deacon) do you feel that his edit warring was excusable as he thought he was enforcing a policy, or do you feel his threatening blocks while edit warring was not in any way using his tools (by threat) to gain the advantage in an edit war? and 2) the NPA violations - acceptable or not? KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:30, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Suggest you drop it now, Killer. It takes two to edit war, and AN/I is not limited to action against the complainee. Your question is loaded and seems designed (as did your initial post) at gaining you sympathy, and possibly advantage in an editing dispute. Let it go.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:40, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

There were about five or six in the edit war. Only one threatened blocks. I'm not sure why you think I should "drop it now" but you'll have to give me an actual reason to do so. I am no in the edit war; I haven't made a single edit nor have I posted any talk page opinions on the dispute. I have no "side" to gain sympathy "for". You have misread my entire purpose here. KillerChihuahua^?!? 00:03, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

"complainant" maybe, but irrelevant. KC is pooched because she bitched about the same thing others are bitching about? Nice. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 22:46, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

KC is hunting for a declaration that John was edit warring, from another admin. I think the matter has been resolved, now let's improve an encyclopedia.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:56, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

No, I'm not. I damn well know he was edit warring. I am concerned that he threatened to block three editors on the "other side" while engaged in the edit war, which is to me a clear violation of the buttons. This has nothing to do with the content dispute per se. KillerChihuahua^?!? 00:06, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

No, that's factually incorrect, as the message I sent on your talk which you erased indicated. Do you want me to show diffs? I already asked you this once on your talk, but you erased the message (as we already discussed above) rather than reply, so I assumed you didn't. Please let me know if you have changed your mind. Or, it should be really easy to look at the times from my contribs and see that I made the warnings before I had edited the article, and that after the one edit I made to the article I recused myself from taking admin action. Let me know if you need any other clarification. --John (talk) 01:11, 13 February 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:Ghagent and User:Ghchat pages are being used for Myspacey-type chatter

Resolved

 – I'm going to mark this resolved. --Cyde Weys 16:44, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello. As stated above, these two userpages (and their associated talk pages) seem to be used extensively as a page for users to chat amongst themselves (not about Wikipedia-related matters, more in a Myspace-like fashion), which isn't allowed under Wikipedia:UP#NOT. I was unsure where/how to report this, feel free to move it elsewhere if there's a better place. Raven1977^{Talk to me}_{My edits} 21:50, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

For the moment I have blanked the social chit-chat and left appropriate cautions. – ukexpat (talk) 22:17, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

An anon undid your edits. I've indefblocked Ghchat and protected its talk page as it was clearly not going to be used for encyclopedia work. Ghagent I've left alone for the time being. — Hex (❝?!❞) 12:42, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism on the PERT page

Resolved

I undid an edit by 202.138.249.67 due to his/her vandalism. Look at the history of the page to see what it was. If this was not vandalism, let me know. If it was, block the user? Or is one offence not enough? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cybersteel8 (talk • contribs) 12:46, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Yep, I would definitely say that that edit is vandalism. It may possibly be in a different language, but considering that this is the English Wikipedia, it might as well be vandalism. Since this is their only edit, though, I'm not inclined to block. In the future, please report edits of this nature to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Thank you. --Cyde Weys 16:41, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Tom

Resolved

 – Complaint withdrawn after editing action by another admin.--Wehwalt --Wehwalt (talk) 18:33, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Tom has been asked repeatedly & politely to stop attempting to censor discussion about the article and it's history on Talk:Bernard Goldberg, as well as the article itself. Not just by me but by other editors. Those efforts have repeatedly failed. I have previously referred Tom to WP:CONS, WP:FORUM, WP:SOURCE, WP:TE, WP:OWN and WP:3RR among others, all to no avail. Tom engages in edit warring and reverts arbitrarily, right in the middle of discussions with other editors that are intended to build consensus. A review of this editor's talk page indicates other recent and difficult encounters of this same nature. Unfortunately, at this point, serious intervention is needed. Please help. 68.183.246.93 (talk) 15:47, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Looks to me like the IP complainant keeps adding an unsourced matter that might be trivial, might be a BLP problem, without having built consensus on talk page. I'm more inclined to think the complainant is to blame. Some of the IP's history of interest, including a past block (two weeks ago) may be seen here--Wehwalt (talk) 16:00, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

(Edit conflict)This is more of a minor content dispute at Bernard Goldberg that has spilled over into the talk page. I have removed two posts from the talk page that I felt were violating WP:FORUM. If others here feel that is not the case, then fine, I will not remove them again. I have no problem with 68.183.246.93 arguing his point about content as long as he assumes good faith and does not accuse others of bad faith in his edits, that's all. --Tom 16:10, 14 February 2009 (UTC) ps, thanks for that Wehwalt. Again, I have no problem with this IP arguing his point as long as he keeps it "clean". --Tom 16:10, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, all of the material I've added has not only been sourced, but passes WP:SOURCE, and WP:NOT. I was 3RR reported earlier because I didn't realize this editor and one other work together to revert and delete, so I paid the price for my naivete'. But this report goes to my comments on the discussion page about their history of reverts and deletes in the article, and those comments were deleted as well. He also deleted my notice on his talk page that I intended to report him. The comments that were removed on the article's discussion page also did not violate WP:FORUM as he suggests. To the contrary, they conformed with the letter and spirit of 4. Discussion forums. And the edits that were removed from the article were not only minor, but explained on the discussion page, and agreed to in principle by the other editor, Mark Shaw only to be removed by that editor later. It's a shell game. Unfortunately, my experience has been that both editors ignore WP:TE and WP:OWN, and I have tried to suggest that to them, but to no avail. Also please note, Wehwalt, that you will see both on Tom's talk page, and on the article's discussion page, the difficulties other editors have had with him for this same thing. I'm hardly the first. Thanks. 68.183.246.93 (talk) 16:53, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

The sources listed on the talk page of the article seem to be blogs to me, and there was no ref inserted in the article with the info. IP, everyone has the right to delete matters from their talk page, we take that as an indication that the material has been read. I really suggest that you guys go back to the talk page and work things out. I really don't see any intervention required, but you're verging on edit warring. Not quite there yet, but it's close.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:17, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually the content that I was trying to get included, even minimally, has now been included to an even greater extent by an admin. Curiously with little objection. But I'm satisfied now. I'm not interested in edit warring or fighting editors, I just want to improve articles that interest me, and think we should be to do that without anyone acting in a manner that resembles ownership, my ugly step-child IP notwithstanding. But it's good now, at least until the next update is necessary. Thanks again for your help & imput. Much appreciated. 68.183.246.93 (talk) 18:27, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Open an account, you'll turn into a swan. Glad it is resolved satisfactorily.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:30, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Mini RFC opened on Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/CheckUser and Oversight elections

Please see here. I've opened a mini-RFC for sitting Arbs and current CU/OS operators to give feedback to the community on Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/CheckUser and Oversight elections in regards to the elections and sitting CU/OS operators from before the elections. rootology (C)(T) 18:18, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Fethullah Gulen

Resolved

 – For now - article protected for a week. Black Kite 11:06, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Fethullah Gulen biography has recently been consistently vandalized, blanked and verified information, resources and links are deleted. The users User:Arnoutf and his master User:Adoniscik are doing that in turn. They claim ownership of the article, vandalize and blank the article written by many editors for long time, while does not allow new users edit. Please see the history page for tens of recent evidence. Just two example for your convenience for each:

• [143]
• [144]

Thanks, YusrSehl (talk) 04:43, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

A content dispute is not vandalism, and your accusations should be withdrawn. You are just as much guilty of edit warring. Discussion should continue on the article's Talk page. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 04:47, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

The case is different from a content dispute. They never discuss why they delete verified information, so there is no chance to discuss. My comments are not accusation, I am referring to well established wiki standards. What is page blanking, vandalizing and deleting verified information from an article, then? They delete huge amount of text and 80 references. Please note that not only me, there are many other editors they do not allow to edit. Here is a few such recent edits:

• [145]
• [146]
• [147]

YusrSehl (talk) 05:18, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I smell some edit warring that needs to be snuffed out. MuZemike 07:30, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

• Yes ... this is just warring between two versions of the article, one of which - the longer - appears to be an extended puff piece for the person, whereas the other is shorter and more critical of him. There isn't any vandalism going on here that I can see, just a content dispute. I'll watchlist it and protect if the edit-warring carries on. Black Kite 08:26, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

So, is it OK to delete 2/3 of any article together with ~80 references and verified information from it, with a brief edit summary?.. YusrSehl (talk) 09:14, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

The answer is, it depends. If the material is hagiograpic and the references are uncritical, then absolutely yes. Guy (Help!) 10:50, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

• Strange, I thought the references need not be critical alone. Are we writing critics of the living people instead of a biography? YusrSehl (talk) 18:33, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Nice being accused of being a puppet of Adoniscik, we sometimes meet in editing; but nothing more. The Fethullal Gulen article has been plagued since its beginning by Gulen fans who do not accept any critisism on Gulen. The original editor there was User:Philscirel, who has afterwards been banned for sockpuppeting. After that the longer versions originally been written by Philscirel have been reset by several sockpuppets of Philscirel. And after that a number of accounts were created that had as first (and often only) mainspace edit restoring the long version. Forgive me for thinking these many editors can not be taken on good faith in the light of the history of the article. Arnoutf (talk) 10:23, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Here is who started the leading section of the longer version [148]. YusrSehl (talk) 18:33, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

• Following another revert, I have protected the page for a week. Please discuss changes on the talk page; there must surely be a middle ground between the wide-ranging reverts. Black Kite 11:06, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Perfect timing Black Kite. You should not, of course, wait for another, a second, revert. Congratulations for your unbiased high caliber administrative action. YusrSehl (talk) 18:33, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

For information. YusrSehl has been found to be a sockpuppet of Philscirel, and has been blocked [149]. Arnoutf (talk) 21:42, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Threats

• Scripturalreasoning (talk · contribs)

Just spotted this - Talk:Scriptural Reasoning#External Damage to Interpersonal and Inter-organisational Relations Off-Wikipedia.
It's a bit Wikipedia:TLDR, but comes down to a threat by User:Scripturalreasoning to publish dirt on an organisation and its members if other editors don't obey this user's stance.
This note will be to put on the record in writing that any future embarassing material (more correspondence from David Ford, stuff about St Ethelburga's financial fraud) which comes into the public domain on Wikipedia, is published in response to demands made from you ... From now on, you will get whatever gruesome and personalised detail you ask for -- and it will go into the public domain on Wikipedia
Not sure if this counts as a legal threat, but it looks pretty objectionable whatever it is. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 17:35, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

My opinion is no. I don't think it is very polite, but I can't characterize it as a legal threat.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:38, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

OOF, WP:SOAPBOX violation at any rate.--Scott Mac (Doc) 17:41, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Threat yes, legal threat no. arimareiji (talk) 18:44, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Editors Removing Links

Resolved

 – Not an admin issue.--John (talk) 18:24, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi I posted some links for few artists and your editors are removing the links. They say it comes under advertisement. The site links i put is a small website that features the indie and unsigned artists to promote them. Obviously evry website runs with ads or donations. I linked to Katy and jennifer paige and few other artists i like. ex http://www.tunesbaby.com/jennifrepaige . Your editors just removed them and said its spam. Im mkaing it clear that its not spam. When you have an article on certian artists you can add links here. Its not come under advertising or spamming. If its spam then why do you keep links to youtube.com,myspace.com, imdb.com soundclick.com and many more websites? Many of these sites have google ads you know they put cookies and do so called collection of your information and use for business purpose. when you can gie big support to these corporate websites, whats wrong if i add link to a site that has only information related to an artist? By adding links they don't get so many hits and make a million dollar by tomorrow or next week. We are just providing a link to give some basic information to contact with those artists. What i say is adding link to that website is completely fair. In case if its against your policies adding any link that has an advertisement or sell something on the website is even not fair. So please support the small websites and let the visitors on wiki check some related websites. Sure Your policies making injustice to people or the editors are doing it on purpose.

--Jag666 (talk) 18:09, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Replied on talk page, not an Admin issue. --Rodhullandemu 18:13, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

And user blocked indef as a spam-only account. Blueboy96 18:27, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I had invited him to put a complaint on this board in this bit of my talk page. He seemed to take particular umbrage about my actions... which I don't regret at all. As you said, spam only account... who's still editing from an anon IP by the looks based on this section. Tabercil (talk) 01:14, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

71.252.55.101 on Ante Starčević

71.252.55.101 (talk · contribs)This user has been performing some edits like removing tags and been reverting them. This user has done it before in the article and has been repeating them. Also this user told me that I can't post any warnings, which I've warned the user about. Take a look at the contributions and see if this user needs to be blocked (this user has been blocked before) This user also have removed warnings too. I'm posting it here because I'm unsure. Thanks. Techman224^Talk 19:48, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Like pretty much everything having to do with the Yugoslav wars, figuring out who is "right" and who is "wrong" in the situation is nigh impossible. --Kralizec! (talk) 22:57, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

The problem here is ignoring the warnings, I think. Have you tried discussing with the IP about his edits? Maybe that would help instead of just giving him warnings. He is allowed to remove the warnings from his talk page btw, and we can take that as a sign that he has read them. But thing is, he seems to be regarding them as 'offensive messages'. Chamal ^talk 03:26, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Boubaker sockpuppets

The massive sockpuppet infestation of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boubaker polynomials (3rd nomination) has now spread to Wikipedia:Notability (numbers), where one of the socks appears to be attempting to game the AfD by inserting language favorable to that article. There's some older related sockpuppetry in Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Mmbmmmbm, and a possible relation to m:Vandalism reports/BogaertB since the Boubaker subject was one of the ones treated by the BogaertB socks (there are some differences, though: BogaertB appeared to have less narrowly focused interests). —David Eppstein (talk) 23:04, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive183#Boubaker polynomials and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive377#User:Clem32 and User:Mario scolas. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:20, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I've semi-protected the AfD. Tim Vickers (talk) 05:11, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Edit war at Rochelle Heights

I ask for administrators' immediate assistance to block User:Orlady for a short time for edit warring and to inhibit, however possible, the further edit warring by an IP editor for a comparable time. I am not sure what is possible but could a temporary block on an IP address or a range of IP addresses be put in place?

Background: This is one of many articles on neighborhoods of New Rochelle, New York which have been created and deleted repeatedly. Orlady has been one of a couple watchdogs and enforcers about New Rochelle area articles who have, in my opinion, been over-zealous and have been unfair and punitive against editors in that area. Their enforcement has caught up more than one user in a broad case labelled Jvolkblum and associates. I am preparing a case to make one or more unban proposals to help one or more users caught up in this who I believe have been treated unfairly.

However here I am trying to work on addressing the legitimate complaint of New Rochelle area editors that there deserves to be wikipedia articles on their neighborhoods. Mainly, recently, I am trying to manage a centralized discussion at Talk:List of New Rochelle neighborhoods.

In the immediate instance, I warned (in edit summaries and at Talk:Rochelle Heights ) both Orlady and the IP editor to stop edit warring on this article linked by merger proposal to the main list, and I put up their alternative passages for orderly discussion at the Talk page. They both are fully aware of edit warring policy. I ask that Orlady be blocked for some time, immediately, even if that is not entirely even-handed. The IP editor is perhaps beyond immediate control, but I expect this user has had one or more previous accounts already blocked and has cumulatively been wronged and punished disproportionately. It is important for my establishing credibility in being able to support / arrange for fair treatment for this and other Jvolkblum-linked editors to have some immediate action taken on Orlady's edit warring now. Disclosure: I have had differences with Orlady in other content areas, due to honest differences of opinion at times and also due perhaps to communication style differences and/or stuff that has seemed to get personal. My request here is unrelated to any of that; I do basically respect Orlady as an editor and contributor and I am just wanting this one instance of edit warring to be noted and stopped by a block. doncram (talk) 23:31, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

You've reverted the article just as many times as either of them. Why do you feel that they deserve to be blocked but that you don't? 87.112.81.29 (talk) 00:16, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, I am trying to act differently than an edit warrior. One difference is that I reverted the article to a short version created by someone else, to which I had only added a merger proposal tag. I am not edit warring in favor of any material written by me, while their edits struck out the others' material in favor of theirs. Also, I was already trying to lead a discussion at the talk page of both contending passages and I put time in to put them there, to get their references showing properly, and so on. Also, unlike the others, I don't have a history of edit warring in articles on New Rochelle neighborhoods. I don't think that most people would view my actions so far as edit warring. If i kept reverting others' changes back, then yes it could eventually appear that i was edit warring. One difficulty for administrators to deal with in attempting to moderate edit wars, by the way, is in determining which version of an article should be deemed the version to be reverted to, to freeze upon while the edit warriors are blocked for a while. My reversion was to put in place a version of the article that was relatively neutral, and which serves better as a fair base point for the article than either of their versions. Perhaps wp:edit war has more on this. doncram (talk) 00:34, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

[EDIT CONFLICT] The article was created and has been edited by two different sockpuppets (SSH2009 and QUADCIN; see SPI case) of banned user Jvolkblum, who has run some 300+ sockpuppets and has an appalling habit of creating plagiarized articles (and uploading plagiarized images) for which s/he supplies falsified sources. I assume that the various IP users (it's not a single IP user, but two different ones) who have commented on the article or made edits to it are also Jvolkblum socks (the whois records for 69.86.223.174 and 64.255.180.25 are consistent with Jvolkblum's IPs). The article could be deleted on sight as the ban-evading creation of a banned user, but Doncram has taken it upon himself to rescue this and other articles contributed by the sockpuppet. That is, of course, his prerogative, if he or other legitimate contributors are willing to take responsibility for the article content.

Jvolkblum's alleged sources typically are not available online. In this case, I managed to find one of the cited sources for the sockpuppet contributions online, read it, and determined (pretty much as I had expected) that it did not support the paragraph that cited it. (The paragraph may be true, but it's not based on the source cited.) Considering that the source is a long-term vandal and that I could not verify the content, I deleted the sockpuppet contributions, but added a paragraph of my own based on the content of the source. I am willing to take full responsibility for the validity of my content, and I believe that I am justified in reverting Jvolkblum whenever s/he appears.

Doncram seems to have decided to label my changes to this article as vandalism or edit warring with an anonymous IP (never mind that there are multiple anonymous IPs involved), and apparently has taken it upon himself to play "referee" by reverting all of our edits and insisting that we discuss the article on the article talk page. I have difficulty seeing my edits as edit warring, but it does look like Doncram is engaged in a revert war. --Orlady (talk) 00:53, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I note that i should have opened this at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. If someone wants to move this there that is okay by me. Also, I am not aware of a differentiation between a "revert war" vs. an "edit war", so I think Orlady is saying that i am edit warring while she is not.

It is a serious deficiency in Orlady's reasoning that she makes the judgment that an editor is Jvolkblum and holds the editor responsible for the entire sweep of past edits made by other editors caught up by her and others' accusations in the Jvolkblum case. I believe that Orlady has been wrong in labelling various editors as Jvolkblum. It happens that a checkuser today cleared, as not Jvolkblum, one that she had accused of being Jvolkblum. I believe that the checkuser took more care, and came to that different conclusion, because I have recently been asserting there that mistakes have been made. I think it entirely likely that the IP editor engaging in edit warring today has not been banned, because he/she may not be Jvolkblum. It is beyond reason to think that every person erroneously labelled as Jvolkblum by Orlady or others should understand that they are subject to a ban imposed on someone else. As relatively inexperienced users, some of them have effectively had no chance to respond through official channels, and in fact would not be able to do so, because they are blocked and only the Talk page of the original Jvolkblum, perhaps long gone, is left open for anyone to file any appeal. Given a few recently proven errors in accusations, I think it is unreasonable for Orlady to persist in both labelling IP editors as Jvolkblum and deleting everything they write. Particularly not if there are editors taking responsibility for content in various New Rochelle area articles, as I am now trying to do for the neighborhood ones and a few others where i have edited at Talk pages recently. It seems painfully clear that there are frustrated users out there trying to add legitimate content, although sometimes/frequently not in entirely perfect form at first, and with a fatalistic air because they have learned that wikipedia is a punishing environment. I sympathize with their not constructing difficult footnotes sometimes, as they must expect more substantial work put in is likely to be deleted anyhow.

This wp:ANI request is not intended to resolve all that. I ask simply now that Orlady's and the IP editors edits (and, I guess, mine) for this article Rochelle Heights be reviewed as to whether they constitute edit warring, for that to be stated, and if so, for the warring parties to be blocked for a short time, if administratively feasible. doncram (talk) 01:39, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

The situation at Rochelle Heights is no edit war. The most common definition of an edit war (from WP:WAR is more than "three reverts on any one page in under 24 hours," meaning more than 3 reverts by the same user, not counting reverting one's own edits, reverts for vandalism, reverting the actions of banned users, reverting the addition of copyright violations, and other exceptions outlined at WP:3RR. At Rochelle Heights, I made a grand total of 3 reverts in 42 hours. In two of those cases I was reverting edits that I am still convinced were the actions of a banned user. Doncram made a grand total of 3 reverts in about 27 hours. During those 42 hours there was also one revert by a registered sockpuppet account, one revert by an anonymous IP, and another edit by a different anonymous IP. The rate of activity is not consistent with the usual definition of an edit war, and there is nothing in the specific history to suggest an edit war between Orlady and an anonymous good-faith user. Furthermore, the best way to satisfy my concerns would be to delete the whole frigging article as a nonencyclopedic item about a residential subdivision contributed by a banned user. I'm sorry that I wasted my time trying to insert some verifiable content in place of the questionable content from the banned user, since Doncram (who I thought was committed to rescuing this content) has twice seen fit to delete my contribution (the users with whom I am supposedly warring left my material in place). --Orlady (talk) 05:36, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

It does not require 3 reverts by one user to be deemed an edit war. But this situation seems not to be an edit war any longer. The page has not been changed overnight from the short, relatively neutral version that i had put in place, and there has been reasonably civil discussion of the two alternative passages at the article's Talk page. I suggest that Orlady's preference to delete rather than build the article should be discussed at the Talk page of List of New Rochelle neighborhoods, consistent with the merger proposal tag. Thank you to anyone here who has read this discussion, I think it did help to have this discussion here in order to calm the situation on the Rochelle Heights article. doncram (talk) 16:36, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Next time, someone (anyone) with a cool head actually ask for protection and/or requests for copyright review. Orlady, if everything from those users are suspected copyright violations, report that and get some outside help. If not, and without any verification, I really don't like you calling anonymous sockpuppets immediately, either in summaries or on the talk page. While I'm guessing you are right, at least assume a little good faith. I'm reminded of another user who will call everyone, from admins to anonymous, puppets out to stalk them. It's aggravating. Doncram, you really thought that ANI was the most appropriate place to get help after he reverted you but your reverts back ignored his edits? He did claim to have read some parts and added that text. You should have at least respected that. Can we agree to chock this up to two users in a misunderstanding and move on? WP:3O is what you want, not this. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:29, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Template malfunctioning?

Resolved

 – Not our problem. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 04:23, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

When I logged off, I noticed this <centralnotice-template-plain_text_election_notice> became disabled. Is it intentional or something else? Because I thought if it were meant to be removed, it would have been removed altogether. I hope I'm not setting off a false alarm. --Whip it! ^{Now whip it good!} 02:36, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

No false alarm, I noticed that also. FTR, I'm viewing with IE 6, but I suspect that this problem is being seen with other browsers as well. Edit Centric (talk) 02:51, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, because I use Firefox as my primary browser. However, Safari doesn't seem to have that problem. --Whip it! ^{Now whip it good!} 03:06, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

(ec ...really :)) IE7, Firefox and Opera for me, so it's the template. I would have tried Safari, but that errr.. malfunctioned for me. Now reinstalling. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 03:09, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

And Google Chrome. Yes, I am now officially the most boring person on Wikipedia. :) FlowerpotmaN·(t) 03:12, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Not that this helps, but I'm having the same problem with Firefox. Chamal ^talk 03:21, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Centralnotice is controlled on Meta, so we have no ability to deal with it here. If it wasn't intentional, it'll probably be back up soon; if it was and they just messed it up, good riddance. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 04:23, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Note: It's been globally disabled ATM because it's broken and will be back once it is fixed. Peachey88 ^{(Talk Page | Contribs)} 06:26, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

ATM? Wikpedia is now in the money-dispensing business??? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:11, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd like mine in increments of $5, pls! (Okay, now back to work!) Edit Centric (talk) 08:42, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Art

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikipedia Art

Could an admin please take a look at the situation at Wikipedia Art? The nominator regrets nominating for AfD, when several CSD criteria probably would've applied. I've seen AfDs closed early in favor of speedy deletion and I think this qualifies. This has caused quite a stir, which I think was the intention of the article creator. I don't think any further community effort should be wasted on this clear violation of many policies and of Wikipedia's overall goals. Thanks. Equazcion •✗/C • 06:03, 15 Feb 2009 (UTC)

Well, it has several keep !votes with people attempting to argue notability, so CSD no longer applies, as it would obviously become a controversial deletion. Best let the AfD run its course, imo. Though looking at the sources provided, I have absolutely no idea how that could be considered anything but original research, a neologism and non-notable. Resolute 06:12, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Article has been deleted. Can we mark this resolved? (I suspect it'll show up at DRV shortly anyhow, judging from that AFD...) Tony Fox (arf!) 06:50, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

It's resolved for the time being, but I'm not sure how long that'll last. Werdna seemed to be acting alone on that one. Equazcion •✗/C • 06:52, 15 Feb 2009 (UTC)

Yep, you called it: Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2009_February_15 Resolute 07:09, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Remember, "non controversial" doesn't strictly apply to CSD. Plenty of people contest spam deletions or G3 deletions. The criteria themselves need to be non-controversial, but controversy is not a disqualifying characteristic for a speedy deletion. Although an AfD being in progress should have stopped us from deleting it per WP:DELETE. Protonk (talk) 07:30, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

CU/OS Elections are ending tonight!

The historic first-ever checkuser and OverSight election run by the Arbitration Committee is due to close at 23:50 (UTC) today! If you wish to vote, you need to do so soon. Your participation here is important to make the election a success! Thanks in advance, --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 13:44, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Edits to Great Power

Resolved

 – semi-protected one week; that should get them round the negitiating table --Rodhullandemu 17:09, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

There is an ongoing problem at Great Power and im not sure what the best way forward is. Today this IP Special:Contributions/83.35.9.14 has made several edits to the article which change the countries considered economic "Great powers" despite the sources for the article saying different. He has refused to engage in the debate on the talk page except for one post where he attacked editors and used foul language. I reverted his changes 3 times but obviously can not revert again. The article shows different IPs trying to make the same change in the past 48 hours and 1 which was reverted by someone else less than 24 hours ago which had a similar IP(Special:Contributions/83.39.228.80) and possibly the same person. Not sure what further action to take, thanks. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:03, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion tag war...

Resolved

 – Article speedied and TEDLEVITT (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) blocked indefinitely by Martinp23 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). — TKD::Talk 15:26, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

...at Seminole Enterprises Group, Inc. Enjoy!  :)  Doulos Christos ♥ talk  14:25, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Request for a review of Digwuren's block by William M. Connolley

Resolved

 – User unblocked by PhilKnight, no further action required. //roux   18:22, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

William M. Connolley (talk · contribs) recently blocked Digwuren (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for 8 hours for edit-warring on the article Michael Wines (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Digwuren has requested to be unblocked at User talk:Digwuren#Something to consider, and as an admin reviewing his request, I believe it has merit: he made one edit to the article at issue, which cannot be considered edit warring. Because of the brevity of the block, it appears important to me that it receive expeditious review; hence this post, which I am informing William M. Connolley about.  Sandstein  12:37, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I feel it should be overturned. WMC might have felt there was a editwar going on as the one edit was part of a longer string of reverts on that particular page. But the subsequent edits of Digwuren show that there appears no danger of an editwar by Digwuren. Therefore the block would no longer be preventative. Agathoclea (talk) 12:52, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

He had earlier blocked User:Idlewild101, who seems to still be an active participant in that edit war, and is not currently blocked. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:57, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

• Digwuren was banned for a year for edit warring and misbehavior on East European topics. The ban expired. Here's an EE dispute and Digwuren jumps into an edit war instead of discussing the issue. Hmm, good block. Jehochman ^Talk 13:03, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

• If Digwuren's editing in this area continues to be problematic, it would be wiser to make him subject to appropriate sanctions under Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren#Discretionary sanctions, and then block him if he violates these, rather than make an unhelpful brief block for an edit that, while certainly unproductive, is not by itself blockable.  Sandstein  13:09, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

This block does seem odd. The fact that the duration of the block is shorter than the time from the last edit until the start of the block would seem to hint that it's not preventative; a single edit (even if a revert) isn't blockable as edit warring (if lots of users are each reverting once, the page gets protected and none of the users get blocked!). I strongly support an unblock here. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:33, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

• Sigh. A perfect example of faulty logic based on ruined reputation - a common error which I discuss in an essay. Jehochman, I am disappointed. An administrator should not comment whit little knowledge of the case, based simply on faulty logic: "if a user was blocked before, anything he does is likely wrong and we should assume bad faith regarding anything he does and block him after any report, without reviewing it." PS. Support unblock, obviously. I am surprised that experienced admin like Will (who has shown good judgment on so many other occasions) has actually carried it out in the first place... but I guess we all can make mistakes. I'd hope that the blocking admin will apologize to the victim for the error. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:02, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Horrible block. Editor made one edit, was reverted, then joined discussion on talkpage - exactly what is supposed to happen. I'm also unhappy with this edit by the blocking admin [150] in which he suggests that controversial information about living people should not be well referenced. Exxolon (talk) 13:31, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Not to mention ten hours after the event - obvious this editor was not edit warring as they had not touched the article in that ten hour period. Draconian abuse of admin powers in a punitive fashion. Unblock immediately. Exxolon (talk) 13:53, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Based on a rough consensus here, I've unblocked. PhilKnight (talk) 14:43, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Good call.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:10, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Another user has asserted that Diggy has BLP on his side (see [151] [152]), in which case policy and general precedent would almost never allow him to be blocked (even if he was evading a ban, etc). — CharlotteWebb 14:44, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

The block was a mistake, thanks for undoing it. A poor morning for me; I managed to block Russavia for the same, but at least noticed and unblocked him. I'll go apologise to D William M. Connolley (talk) 18:19, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Mistakes happen to all of us. I am glad to see that as expected, you are one of the elite admins willing to admit their imperfection :) Kudos :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:11, 15 February 2009 (UTC)