Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive515

Question

With the vile vandalism being posted by numerous anon users (probably the same one, just IP jumping) and with most of the being threats of violence, wouldn't this be something that we track down via a WhoIs or Trusted Source search and then turn over to the police? Just seems like that next step in this...and might end the whole thing. - NeutralHomer • Talk • February 15, 2009 @ 14:05

I've been wondering that as well, but my guess would be that those who are dealing with it are constrained by factors we don't know about. arimareiji (talk) 14:10, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:ABUSE <-- thataway. Have fun, it's not often stuff gets done over there. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 19:00, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I have no "dog in this race", I was just throwing the idea out there. If someone wants to run with it and report it to WP:ABUSE feel free. - NeutralHomer • Talk • February 16, 2009 @ 00:52

Vandalism on User:MBisanz and User talk:MBisanz by suspected sockpuppets

Moved discussion to WP:SPI#Vandalism on User:MBisanz and User talk:MBisanz by suspected sockpuppets. --MZMcBride (talk) 18:58, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Legal threat by Mwilbs (talk · contribs)

Mwilbs (talk · contribs) has made a legal threat at User talk:Artypants. Cunard (talk) 19:15, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Blocked per WP:No legal threats, and so notified. Perhaps someone would like to drop Artypants (talk · contribs) a note about what constitutes appropriate civil dialogue in respect of this matter? LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:31, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree. User:Artypants could have acted a bit more sensitive at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Wilbur, especially is he thought Michael Wilbur was User:Mwilbs.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:36, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Anon campaign against Jeremy Vine

I wonder if anyone could help me? Over the past week or so, I have been regularly reverting additions by an anon editor making regular uncited allegations about the BBC journalist and presenter Jeremy Vine which violate WP:BLP and WP:POV among others. For one of many examples see here, but roughly the same text has been added to the following articles, often several times:

• Jeremy Vine (example) - article now semi-protected
• BBC (example) - article now semi-protected
• BBC Radio 2 (example) - article now semi-protected
• BBC Radio 5 Live (example)
• Panorama (TV series) (example)
• Jimmy Young (disc jockey) (example)
• Newsnight (example)

Usually the IP address is 94.196.xxx.yy. Since I will probably be busy this coming week, please could some kind soul watch for similar edits to these articles and others, revert them and provide suitable warnings to the anon editor? I don't know of any other way (aside from semi-protecting all the above articles) of doing this, but if there is anything else that can be done, please do it! Whatever can be done, much appreciated, Stephenb (Talk) 19:25, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

The diffs indicate that it's the same person behind all the edits. The warnings on all the IP talkpages, in aggregate, are sufficient for a block, imo. Semi-Protection of all the articles for a while is probably not a bad idea. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:58, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Spotfixer

Resolved

 – content restored, discussion continues at the article talk page. Kevin (talk) 23:05, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Spotfixer has today repeatedly blanked well-sourced (and bland) material in the zygote article.[1][2] The blanking seems more like vandalism than good-faith editing. I said to Spotfixer: “Re-write it if you think it's poorly written. Don't delete reliably sourced facts.”[3] He instead went ahead and blanked the material again. A block would seem appropriate here. I'll notify him of this discussion.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:18, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll affirm the complaint. Although Spotfixer is correct that the paragraph Ferrylodge added is not very well written, it is well-sourced and at least somewhat understandable, so repeatedly deleting it without any discussion beyond edit summaries is not an acceptable approach. Looie496 (talk) 20:40, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

As I commented, the problem isn't just that it's poorly written, but that the material is biased and inappropriate. I didn't—and still don't—see any way to repair it, short of deletion. I'm sorry that Ferrylodge appears to believe that he WP:OWNs the article, but he has to understand that not all of his contributions are acceptable. Spotfixer (talk) 21:01, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, that mud won't stick. The article history[4] shows that the article has existed for seven years, and that I edited it thrice (i.e. consecutive edits on February 11, 13 and 15). It's not your prerogative to blank all well-sourced material that you deem inappropriate, without any further explanation.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:08, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Have to agree with Ferrylodge. Spotfixer, use the talk page if you disagree. He's sourced the material, I think you should try to argue how it's "unacceptable". -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:10, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I hate to ask, but what in that material do you find biased? IMO, it's as bland as rice porridge. arimareiji (talk) 21:12, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

<-This has gone astray. Spotfixer said above As I commented, the problem isn't just that it's poorly written, but that the material is biased and inappropriate. If that were true, this would be a content dispute. But Spotfixer never made such a comment, at least that I can find, only two edit summaries saying "Poorly written" and then "Citations don't improve writing or appropriateness." No explanation of what is appropriate, no mention of bias anywhere. Looie496 (talk) 21:34, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Even if that argument had been raised before the fact instead of after, it's hard to believe that anyone could find this controversial in good faith:

"In humans, a zygote exists for about four days, at which time it becomes a blastocyst. A zygote begins as a fertilized egg (ovum), and contains all of the genetic information (DNA) necessary to become a baby; half of that information is from the mother’s egg and half from the father’s sperm that has fertilized the egg. The zygote travels down the fallopian tube, while dividing to form a larger group of cells."

Just my two cents' worth. arimareiji (talk) 21:50, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I've reinserted the language. Let's continue any discussion at Talk:Zygote. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:10, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay, thanks.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:14, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

(unindent)

Before I respond, can anyone explain why we're not discussing this on the article's talk page? Spotfixer (talk) 22:35, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

See Talk:Zygote#Lead language. Kevin (talk) 23:05, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Bad threat

I don't know if this is serious or not, but someone needs to deal with it ASAP. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:18, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Blocked for 5 years. Someone else can decide on further action. Viridae^Talk 22:23, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't sure what do about it on MastCell's page, in case someone needs to keep it for evidence or something. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:24, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Mastcell would probably know best if this should be taken as a real-world threat. Most editors' real-world identities aren't known to most people so this is probably just a harmless rant. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:28, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

It's that .01% chance that it's a valid threat that scares the crap out of me. There's that widely known story that someone who edited the same articles that I do pissed off someone who made threats then carried them out on the editor, nearly destroying his career. Don't we take this kind of thing more seriously? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:45, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I guess I can only speak for myself, but if I got that message on my talkpage I wouldn't think about it for a second. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:51, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the threat of violence and protected the page to prevent further threats of violence. — Aitias // discussion 23:02, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

British Isles talk page

Resolved

 – IPs blocked, page semi-protected. — Aitias // discussion 22:46, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello there is an ongoing edit war at Talk:British Isles. An IP (who has been reported for breaking the 3RR rule) has on more than 6 occasions reverted content on the talk page. As of yet no action has been taken despite the posting by others on the Edit Warring board. Now a second IP has started to undo the edits so its possible its the same person. We really need an admin to take a look thanks. Special:Contributions/213.202.129.181 at Talk:British Isles and recent edit by Special:Contributions/78.16.156.75 BritishWatcher (talk) 22:27, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I have semi-protected the talkpage for 1 day, as a quick review indicated that the majority of edit warring (by means of reverting) was by ip's against named accounts - and that the ip's were removing others comments. I suggest that if this recurs you take a request to WP:RPP. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:40, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much, not even sure why the person kept removing the content in the first place it was a valid part of an ongoing conversation. :\. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:43, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Also, I have blocked both IPs for 24 hours. — Aitias // discussion 22:46, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Both ip's indicate an Irish Republic location. I am aware that there is some sentiment that Ireland (or that part of it that is the Republic) should not be included in the geographical term British Isles because of the political connotations. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:50, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Are maps now unavailable in the Republic? I certainly saw them on sale in Dublin about ten years ago. --Rodhullandemu 22:53, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Nay, not the pov-ridden British type;) PurpleA (talk) 23:56, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Runescape123456789

Runescape123456789 (talk · contribs) is mass creating video game walkthrough guides. They're all very similar, I think he may even be running a script from his caccount to copy and paste them en masse from somewhere.--Patton^t/c 23:43, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Script seems unlikely, as the edits are relatively well-spaced. More likely he's just copy-pasting them from a Runescape-related wiki. I'll delete them and ask him to knock it off. -- Vary Talk 23:48, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Ack, he's still at it and I've gtg, sorry. -- Vary Talk 00:01, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

• Mostly copyvios, from videos if you can believe it. The text in the articles is the subtitle text from the videos, verbatim. Protonk (talk) 00:12, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Topic ban

Resolved

 – By user understanding the best way forward. //roux   03:35, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

※I don't accuse anyone here. I accept topic ban if there is sufficient explanation and procedure.※

I edited some Japan-Korea related articles. I admit my edition tendency was somewhat rough.

I was Topic banned by Future Perfect at Sunrise after my edition of Comfort women and Talk:Comfort women. And this time is the my first edition of Comfort women and Talk:Comfort women.

• User talk:Bukubku#Blocked again

Then I protested my Topic ban with my explanation. (Before I was topic banned, I encountered Future Perfect at Sunrise at Yaeko Taguchi and Korea under Japanese rule.)

• User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise/Archive 15#Let's have a conversation
• User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise#Please talk civilly

After our conversation went awry, I accept my Topic ban. Then I read Wikipedia:Banning policy. I think there is lack of procedure. But I don't know Wikipedia rules well. My edition certainly tended to edit nationalstic issues, so I think I deserve topic ban. However, my topic ban has no specifically definition.

Administrators, please specify my Topic ban definition like other users.--Bukubku (talk) 13:53, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

The topic ban was given at User talk:Bukubku#... and topic-banned as "I am therefore banning you from all topic areas dealing with Japanese-Korean political, historical and cultural controversies." Bukubku, what part of "Japanese-Korean political, historical and cultural controversies" is unclear for you? Without being familiar with the subject area, it would seem to me that one would know if an article did or did not fall under this description. Comfort Women - yes. Oxygen - no.

Oh, and may I say thank you to you for accepting the topic ban; very good. thanks --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:02, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Is only Japan-Korea related article and how long? Please, define like other users.--Bukubku (talk) 14:13, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

It is only articles which fit the description "Japanese-Korean political, historical and cultural controversies" from which you are banned. There is no time limit on the ban. The normal mechanism for lifting the ban would be for you to ask for it to be lifted. You would have to show evidence that you are unlikely to undertake the same sorts of edits that got you banned in the first place. I would suggest that you need to do many months of good work whilst still having the ban to be able to convince an admin to lift the ban. But as there are nearly 3M articles on wikipedia, and millions more that could be added, there is no shortage of good work that you can do. --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:17, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Tagishsimon, thank you for your comment. However you are not Admin.--Bukubku (talk) 10:34, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Whether or not they are admin is irrelavant. Don't discount opinion on this topic, and insult others POV in this manner. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 12:17, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't mean insult. I wanted Admin replys and I thought him as Admin but not. So I said like that. I apologize my words. I'm sorry, Tagishsimon.--Bukubku (talk) 12:29, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Before accepting topic ban, things should be cleared for other users and me. I was topic banned as POV-pushing of the Comfort Women. However, I don't think as POV-pushing. There are reliable sources. If other users edit comfort women like me, other users will be blocked and Topic banned? Are everyone banned to edit women who are coerced into prostitution for non Japanese Military? South Korean women were coerced into prostitute for Military until 1980s. And Russia and the Philippines women were corced into prostitute near military base until 1990s in South Korea. I don't deny Japanese Military Comfort Women existence. I think Japanese deserves to be accused. However, why specify only Japanese?

My edition [5]

“ Now women who were coerced into prostitution for the United States military by South Korean or American officials, accuse successive Korean governments of hypocrisy in calling for reparations from Japan while refusing to take a hard look at South Korea’s own history. ”

New York Times

“ Now, a group of former prostitutes in South Korea have accused some of their country’s former leaders of a different kind of abuse: encouraging them to have sex with the American soldiers who protected South Korea from North Korea. They also accuse past South Korean governments, and the United States military, of taking a direct hand in the sex trade from the 1960s through the 1980s, working together to build a testing and treatment system to ensure that prostitutes were disease-free for American troops.

While the women have made no claims that they were coerced into prostitution by South Korean or American officials during those years, they accuse successive Korean governments of hypocrisy in calling for reparations from Japan while refusing to take a hard look at South Korea’s own history.

”

“ In one of the most incendiary claims, some women say that the American military police and South Korean officials regularly raided clubs from the 1960s through the 1980s looking for women who were thought to be spreading the diseases. They picked out the women using the number tags the women say the brothels forced them to wear so the soldiers could more easily identify their sex partners.

The Korean police would then detain the prostitutes who were thought to be ill, the women said, locking them up under guard in so-called monkey houses, where the windows had bars. There, the prostitutes were forced to take medications until they were well.

The women, who are seeking compensation and an apology, have compared themselves to the so-called comfort women who have won widespread public sympathy for being forced into prostitution by the Japanese during World War II. Whether prostitutes by choice, need or coercion, the women say, they were all victims of government policies.

”

Sources

• Ex-Prostitutes Say South Korea and U.S. Enabled Sex Trade Near Bases New York times 2009/01/08
• Former sex workers in fight for compensation South Korean News Paper JoongAng Daily October 30, 2008
• Openly revealing a secret life South Korean News Paper JoongAng Daily July 31, 2005
• Deliver them from 'hell' South Korean News Paper JoongAng Daily October 19, 2002
• 미니 인터뷰 ‘한국군 위안부’문제 제기한 김귀옥 박사 “밝혀진 건 퍼즐의 일부” (Short interview ‘South Korean Military Comfort Women’ problems, Dr. Kim Gwi-ok alleged. “The thing which revealed were part of the puzzle” ) South Korean News Paper Ilyosisa 2002/03/26

(Google Translate)

• 朝鮮戦争時の韓国軍にも慰安婦制度　韓国の研究者発表 (South Korean researcher announced South Korean Military Comfort Women system during the Korean War) Japanes News Paper Asahi Shimbun 2002/02/26

(Google Translate)

Please reply.--Bukubku (talk) 10:34, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok, this is rapidly becoming content-related ... (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 12:17, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

It appears to have swung from "I accept the content ban" to "I do not accept the content ban and wish to contest the whole matter from first principles. Not good. --Tagishsimon (talk) 12:28, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I want sufficient reason for my Topic ban.--Bukubku (talk) 12:33, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

The reason was tendentious editing & edit warring on Comfort Women, which you know. The problem with your proposed insertion is that it is about allegations of South Korean hypocrisy. It is not directly about comfort women, except in so far as it is they who are leveling the accusations. It certainly does not deserve to go in the opening section of the article. And we see a string of five edits constituting the war. Caspian blue quite clearly explained on the talk page what was wrong, and where else the information might be placed in wikipedia: you went to war; and you got a topic ban. I trust that clears the matter up. --Tagishsimon (talk) 12:59, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Look the page signature correctly, Caspian blue inserted his comment between Oda Mari and Bukubku.[6] He changed turns. And he didn't reply my last comment.[7]--Bukubku (talk) 13:45, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Please, check Talk:Comfort women history.[8]--Bukubku (talk) 12:53, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Bukubku has disrupted part of Wikipedia and many edit warring has been occurred. And three blocks in 2 months are one of the evidences that he has disrupted part of Wikipedia.--Historiographer (talk) 09:10, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

So I was blocked as 3 revert. Yes, sorry. However, this issue is my POV pushing of Comfort women. And topic ban or not, I don't want to edit Japan-Korea related article now. I mend my edition tendency taking this opportunity. I don't want to involve with you. Why don't you stop editing Japan-Korea related article for a while. You were blocked many times, too. We should leave the articles. --Bukubku (talk) 09:56, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Objection

Sorry, my lack of knowledge. I understand now clearly.

My topic ban did not accord Wikipedia rule.

“ If an administrator identified that a certain editor was being disruptive in this area, the administrator could warn them, and then if necessary ban the editor from work within that the topic area. ”

(Wikipedia:Banning policy#Administrator)

There was no warm. I oppose--Bukubku (talk) 09:06, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, we don't unban clearly problematic editors based on a technicality, especially not one who clearly knew better due to prior blocks. Take the suggestions above: spend some time working in other areas and show you can properly handle disputes; after a few months of that, ask for the ban to be removed. Shell ^babelfish 10:27, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, your generous comment. However, please change Topic-ban reason. Because I didn't POV pushing of Comfort women. Please change the reason for other users who edit comfort women too. For example, edition war..--Bukubku (talk) 10:36, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty certain the answer to that will be no. You were pushing a POV, you have been blocked three times for edit warring, you are not really entitled to complain about a technicality. Do what Shell Kinney said and stop wasting everyone's time. Unless there are any objections from anyone else, I'm going to go ahead and mark this resolved. //roux   15:33, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

It seem difficult to get consensus. Everyone have each opinions, they are not same. I like diversity. So I should try to contribute to Wikipedia non Japan-Korea related issues for months and mend my edition tendency. Thank you, everyone's comments. I keep in mind. Thank you.--Bukubku (talk) 02:49, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

User archiving ongoing discussion

Diamonddannyboy (talk · contribs) insist on archiving an ongoing discussion about sourcing/BLP issues at Talk:Darren M. Jackson. Could someone other than me let him know that's not appropriate? Diffs: [9][10][11]. Cheers, --aktsu ^(t / c) 13:23, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Notified user. --aktsu ^(t / c) 13:24, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Theserialcomma (talk · contribs) reverted him, so I guess it's resolved for now. Will take it to 3RR if he continues instead. --aktsu ^(t / c) 13:33, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

It does not come under the 3RR rule and its is totaly fine to archive at any time, I have archived no more than 3 times Aktsu insits on removing the archive, again 4 times now, now that comes under 3RR rule.--Diamonddannyboy (talk) 15:20, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Sigh, I said " take it to 3RR if he continues" meaning report you at the edit warring noticeboard should you continue. And no, it's not "totally fine" to archive at any time... --aktsu ^(t / c) 16:04, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and I also only un-archived twice, not four times like you claim. --aktsu ^(t / c) 16:06, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

• i removed the resolved banner because he is still trying to archive the conversation. hopefully someone else will step in and explain why this is not acceptable on a tiny talk page with active discussion Theserialcomma (talk) 03:41, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't see an archive attempt since 13:17, 15 February 2009. Can you show me a diff? THF (talk) 03:45, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

i was referring to [[12]] where he said basically "problem solved, let's archive it?" after we kept explaining why it shouldn't be archived mid conversation. it's more of an issue of him pushing the issue at this point and acting like he is still trying to archive it. Theserialcomma (talk) 04:00, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

eyes please

• BLP1E/minor accused of doing nasty things, eyes wuld be appreciated on the relevant articles: (see this thread - I don't want to expand on wikipedia) http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=23005 Viridae^Talk 06:46, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

A couple of spelling variations now deleted and salted. Kevin (talk) 08:53, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism from 59.92.x.x

Moved discussion to WP:AIV#Vandalism from 59.92.x.x. --MZMcBride (talk) 10:12, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Henrywinklestein

Moved discussion to WP:AIV#User:Henrywinklestein. --MZMcBride (talk) 10:14, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Plumoyr again creating large number of countryX-CountryY relations

Plumoyr (talk · contribs)

See [13] - some were AfD'd in the past (and some of those I speedied some time ago. Is this a problem or do we just ignore it? dougweller (talk) 20:02, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Oops, another(?) editor was doing this recently, but the same articles, see [14]. Sorry, that was on the AN board. dougweller (talk) 20:23, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I NPP'ed a few of these yesterday. I was wondering if he's going through every country pair in the planet and creating a stub for each one. Some of these might be valuable, but I have to question the sheer volume here. §FreeRangeFrog 21:00, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree that bilateral relations are not inherently notable (see Burma-Greece relations, Greece-Turkmenistan relations, Greece-Guyana relations for some dead-end "articles"). Should Plumoyr persist in mindless creation of non-notable bilateral relations stubs, he should be warned and perhaps blocked -- there is no reason we should be absorbing this junk. - Biruitorul ^Talk 22:30, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

You what? You actually speedily deleted some of these? Which ones? They better have been rejected. They most certainly do not come under any of the speedy deletion crieria. AfD if you must. I agree that mass creating stubs that don't give any useful info isn't exactly useful, but an article on the relationships between any two countries could easily be FA is inherently notable, because there are so many sources out there for this type of thing (Hundreds per article I would imagine).--Patton^t/c 23:58, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

No, they aren't inherently FA quality. Greece-Guyana relations, say; how do you thing that is going to get to FA? Greece has an embassy in Guyana. I assume Guyana has an embassy in greece. That's it. A lot of relations (UK-US) for example probably could be FA: long-term cooperation, a history, so on so forth; ones between country X and relatively unknown country Y? probably not. That being said as much as the mass-stubs annoy me CSD isn't really the way to go; AFD would be better (unless they went to AFD and you are deleting them as "pages previously deleted in a deletion discussion"?) Such articles will eventually be valuable, but we should wait on creating them until we have more to stick there than "Country X has an embassy in Country Y". Ironholds (talk) 00:06, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I doubt any of these will ever get to GA, let alone FA. The notable ones (future events notwithstanding) are already covered in detail. I honestly fail to see the encyclopedic value of an article about relations between Uzbekistan and Ghana that essentially says Ghana is a country. Uzbekistan is a country. Ghana maintains an embassy in Tashkent and Uzbekistan maintains an embassy in Accra. But that's just me. §FreeRangeFrog 00:24, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

If some of these were afd and speedied in the past they're speedy candidates as recreated deleted material. In addition if the editor is "again" doing this, to me that sounds like he did it in the past and perhaps was told not to. In that case this would be seen as disruptive and frankly I don't see a speedy being out of order in that circumstance.--Crossmr (talk) 02:13, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

If they were AfDed in the past that's fine. Btw Ironholds any of these articles could be FA. If that's all that needs to be siad then the article is comprehensive, and if it meets the other criteria it's FA. Most articles on this website can be an FA.--Patton^t/c 15:04, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Sino-Roman_relations ← GA--Patton^t/c 15:23, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree that "any" of these could be FAs - if the content really is "X established relations with Y in 19__; X has an embassy in Y's capital and Y has an embassy in X's capital", even if it's comprehensive, it doesn't represent "our very best work", as required by WP:FACR. We would be much better served by placing that information in "Diplomatic missions of ..." articles. (By the way, I'm not sure about FAC, but this definitely was a subject of debate at FLC - people were trying to make featured lists out of one-item lists (say List of heads of state of Eritrea), but it was decided such lists failed the "very best work" requirement.) - Biruitorul ^Talk 17:34, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Er that's not half of what could be said, take a look at these: [15] [16] [17]. The article could be huge. I could proably get it to FA if I could be bothered.--Patton^t/c 18:09, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

1. State visits are part of the normal course of international politics. Dinners are had, friendly words are exchanged, medals are bestowed, but they really don't rise to the level of encyclopedic content. So no, I rather strongly doubt the addition of a paragraph about a two-day visit (which, by the way, didn't even involve the Greek Prime Minister, where real power in that country resides) would be enough for an FA.

2. Even where bilateral relations are notable, it would be nice if these guys, instead of pumping out masses of junk like Argentina–South Korea relations or Greece–Uruguay relations and letting it rot for a year, would actually think before creating new articles, gather up sources, try to build up some meaningful content. But perhaps we're asking too much. - Biruitorul ^Talk 19:30, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Nobody thought to notify him? Really? Ok, he's been notified and should read here. First step he needs to do is stop recreating these things. Check the AFD discussion and if there's something debatable, consider WP:DRV. If not, find the ones that are allowed and work out the others until they are created. However, someone needs to be help me. For example, Ireland–Ukraine relations was deleted under G4, but I can't find a link to the prior discussion. I'll guess that's Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bilateral relations of Ireland. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:40, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I believe that this is Groubani, who was blocked for being non-responsive about the same thing. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:40, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

As AfD is already so busy, i would certainly agree that having a full AfD for each possible one of these would break the system, so preventing their creation would be far prefferable, at least until some consensus if formed on which would be notable in principle. Shouldn't there be a wikiproject guideline made if they keep getting created? Without one, there is nothing to help AfD reviewers, and reading 100's of years of 2 countries histories to see if they had any notable interaction is impossible.Yobmod (talk) 11:02, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Harassment by dynamic IP sockpuppets of banned user Naadapriya (crosspost from WP:AN as the situation is spiralling rapidly out of control)

From WP:AN#Harassment by dynamic IP sockpuppets of banned user Naadapriya

“ After a request for comment on Carnatic music, Naadapriya (talk · contribs) was banned from Wikipedia. this was several months ago

However, an IP, clearly referencing that incident and almost certainly Naadapriya has now left a variety of increasingly harassing messages on the talk pages of people involved with the investigation that led to his community ban. He uses a dynamic IP, which makes things difficult, however.

The ones he left for me were:

• [18]
• [19] (Explicitly identifies himself as Naadapriya, if you know the circumstances)
• [20] (restores deleted message)
• [21]

He did the same to many other uses, sometimes using the same messages as he sent me. In no particular order (there's several IPs,

• [22][23][24](this one denies he's Naadapriya) [25] (this one heavily implies he is Naadapriya given the context of Naadapriya's ban). [26][27][28][29][30](the last explicitly references Naadapriya's ban, with a link, even)[31]

And finally, here he attacks the Naadapriya sockpuppeteer tag several times. That also contains quite a number of additional dynamic IPs that are not included in the above evidence.

He also has continued his behaviour on Carnatic music [32], but I think this is more than enough evidence: Can something be done? Leaving banned users to harass other editors really does not send a good signal to any other editor who gets banned. Can we get a range block? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 22:42, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

He's left some really nasty messages as of late on my talk page.[33][34] There's too much collateral damage for a rangeblock, unfortunately. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 22:55, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

The abuse and threats are continuing [35]. Please do something. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 08:22, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

”

Please comment at WP:AN#Harassment by dynamic IP sockpuppets of banned user Naadapriya, or better, do something immediately: We're sending the message that if you make it difficult enough for us, you can ban-evade and sock and harass any editors even tangentially involved with your ban to your heart's content. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 08:54, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Semiprotect the affected pages and WP:RBI the IPs with tight rangeblocks. Sooner or later they'll find another website to plague. Posting to ANI only encourages more bad behavior. Jehochman ^Talk 13:26, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Great. So actually do that. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 14:23, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

• IP appears to be blocked right now, please drop me a note if you think any pages need semi-protection. Since I'm reasonably familiar with this one I can probably help out there. Guy (Help!) 20:23, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

• • Just to note that I've made a proposal to formalize the community ban at the WP:AN discussion. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:03, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Rules99

Resolved

 – User blocked as sockpuppet

Rules99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Could someone take a look at the huge-scale changes this user has been making this afternoon? I can't decide if they're good or bad, but his behaviour on an AfD page (asked if he would care to list a reason as to why one of his pages should be kept, replied simply "No.") etc. don't inspire confidence. And his Category:Lists of former entities is absurd. Thanks! ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 14:23, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Also his continued posting of that category to pages despite having voted to delete it at WP:CFD. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 14:29, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Finally, the account is less than 1 hour old and is already correcting my syntax (very cleverly, but still...) - a little advanced for a "newbie"? ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 14:38, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

*rolls eyes* Rules99 (talk) 15:01, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I find this diff to be problematic. I have no opinion on the validity of the bulk of edits, but I am concerned if they are being made in a pointy fashion no matter how otherwise valid they may be. As TreasuryTag suggests, but cannot bring themselves to say, this is not a new editor but someone who has created an account for a specific reason - and one that may not be in the best interests of the encyclopedia. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:32, 15 February 2009 (UTC) (*finger gently caresses "Abusive Admin (for the use of) Block Button"*)

Agree on the non-new editor part ... but I have button envy for LessHeard vanU`s special button which I apparently do not have. --Kralizec! (talk) 16:49, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

If he won't explain himself other than giving sarcastic responses, then a block (for disruption) would seem to be in order. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:00, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I have given a level 3 non templated warning. If the behaviour continues any editor can drop a level4 warning and then/or take them to AIV. I suggest that WP:RBI be the response if there is no improvement or explanation forthcoming. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:09, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure you'll enjoy this delightful response: [36] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:00, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Charming... and wrong. I note the editor is up at AIV, but without the level4 warning - and with the recent edits being a little more communicative if not exactly respecting WP:POINT (redirecting a list to one that is being AfD'd). I wouldn't block under the circumstances even if I didn't have a COI. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:31, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I took your suggestion as an "either/or". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:56, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Hey your pitbull nominated that category for deletion before I had a chance to put anything it in, and nominated it based on it's "ludicrous" nature. This is not the kind of thing that will evoke a patient explanation from me. Rules99 (talk) 23:51, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, well - This is sounding more and more like a particular user who was recently indef-blocked for arguing that he has the right to be sarcastic in response to anything he doesn't like. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:54, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

What was said user's username? --Deskana (talk) 23:57, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

If I can think of it specifically, I'll send you an e-mail. In any case, it's obvious he's not a newbie, as this ID only started today and is very conversant in the nature of wikipedia. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:59, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I sent you the e-mail. Maybe soon everything will be jake. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:05, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh you do block people for sarcasm? ROFL, that's a cause for which I am willing to be matryed. Nail me to the tree. Rules99 (talk) 00:20, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Now, now. Don't get cross. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:52, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Ack now with the bad puns Rules99 (talk) 00:55, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

You nailed it. To a T. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:58, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Guess you'll just have to grin and bear it. arimareiji (talk) 11:15, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

harrasment

Hi, I have now been accused of sock puppetry twice. Users User:Wizzy has been following me around and reverting all my contributions because he seems to have an ideological problem with the issues I am concerned with. User:FFMG has now joined in and are 'tag-teaming' me. They have now both accused me of Sock Puppeting. After the first accusation by FFMG which did not go anywhere, Wizzy then recently accused me once again of being the same as user User:Skwanele. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Jaredsacks

I am obviously not this person and am perfectly willing to submit to any kind of investigation. I am willing to submit my personal data to an administrator and anything else requested of me. However, I want this investigation to finish ASAP and once and for all. Once I am cleared of these charges, I expect both users to stop harassing me and treat me with respect where there are edits that I make in error.

I hope that you can assist me as soon as possible but investigating this.

Thank You. Jaredsacks (talk) 18:27, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

This really belongs at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Jaredsacks (2nd). But since this user is repeatedly being accused of being a sockpuppetry (Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Jaredsacks), continuously requests that a checkuser be initiated, we should accede to his requests. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 18:40, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

A checkuser would satisfy me. This is the first time I have filed one of these, I am worried I missed a step at the end that listed the incident properly. It seems the WP:SPI process has changed recently, without all the instructions being updated. Wizzy…☎ 21:23, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, since rule number one is: "if you're not willing to file the SSP request, then stop calling them socks". Being called a sock is a serious insult/incident, and not to be thrown around willy-nilly. I'm glad you'll be filing one. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 11:12, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Black_Eyed_Husband

Please remove this deletion tag as this is the only article about a movie starring famous porn actress Francesca Le --Bziona86 (talk) 11:17, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

It's a {{PROD}} tag, which you are entitled to remove yourself. However, I suspect the article will then be sent to WP:AfD. ➲ redvers ^{sit down next to me} 11:21, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

A7ed by JzG in the meantime. -- lucasbfr ^talk 13:52, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Andrew Lih

This article on a Wikipedia administrator was created by a brand new editor, and then it was nominated for deletion by another brand new editor. CheckUser shows that the article creator, Lookie Louis (talk · contribs), and the creator of the AfD nomination, Poowe (talk · contribs), are likely the same person. I can't quite tell what they are up to, but if you look at the article's deleted edits, it seems that Andrew was previously the target of an article created about him by a banned user, so this may be related. Anyone want to figure out what to do here? Dominic·t 07:09, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Speedy it under G7? —David Eppstein (talk) 07:50, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Article deleted and AfD closed on the basis that both are disruption. If someone can point me at where the CheckUser findings are, I'll permablock both accounts. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ dedicated to making a happy man very old 08:51, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Dominic (Dmcdevit) is the CheckUser who performed the check :) -- lucasbfr ^talk 09:26, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Grrr! Down with changed usernames! :op ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ dedicated to making a happy man very old 09:43, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry about the confusion. :-) This was the CheckUser report, so to speak. I just wanted to bring it here rather than doing anything myself. Dominic·t 10:23, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

As I mentioned I would above, I've blocked both with non-templated notices that request further information and link to this section. ➲ redvers ^{sit down next to me} 10:50, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Lookie Louis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is requesting a block review. I'm happy to be overturned (or confirmed, obviously) without being asked, but any reviewer(s) should check with Dominic as the active CU in the case, please. ➲ redvers ^{sit down next to me} 21:35, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Raffaeleserafini and Xorxi Licensing problems

I was recently patrolling new images being uploaded without copywright/source status and was tagging them accordingly. I noticed user:Raffaeleserafini had uploaded a lot of images with no license (see their talk page). After a few days user:Xorxi decided to release the work under the GFDL licence which says they are the copywright holders and not Raffaeleserafini (which is improper). I think the source of these images is indeed questionable. It may be that the user just found them on the internet and uploaded them here. Is there any action required? --DFS454 (talk) 13:50, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

• Examples where Xorxi changed Raffaeleserafini's file info [37] [38] [39]. See history in each case. --DFS454 (talk) 15:33, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Weirdness on userpage

Resolved

 – someone deleted it

I'm going to WP:AGF and therefore imagine there may be a legitimate reason for this hidden userpage text from an editor, Jaggre (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who has done nothing but create bad pages and edit his userpage, but I'm not smart enough to think of one. An admin who understands what is trying to be done here will know whether this requires intervention or if it's mostly harmless. THF (talk) 19:36, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

John Vanderslice

We have an SPA who, despite multiple requests, continues to upload an image of dubious copyright according to the GFDL. More problematic is that they have completely re-written the article in a POV fashion, removed a lot of content, and inserted sentences such as, "John Vanderslice makes lyrically ambitious, highly varied and sonically adventurous records"; "Vanderslice is an accomplished and inspired live performer"; "Vanderslice owns an influential recording studio in San Francisco"; and "Vanderslice has always been a forward-thinking progressive", amongst others, none of it sourced. It's becoming an edit-war that I wish to back away from. --David Shankbone 20:25, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I assume you mean this and later similar diffs. It certainly looks like he has a conflict of interest, or is trying to promote the subject in some way. As he has no contributions apart from these and has been warned multiple times, I think it's safe enough to block him.--Patton^t/c 21:36, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

The editor seems to be behaving himself a little better now; a block for a week-old editor who hasn't been told about the edit-warring or COI rules would seem WP:BITEy to me. The page isn't half as bad as Tim Howard (attorney), and Tim's been able to keep that autobiography up for over two years. THF (talk) 21:39, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Over three years, in fact, and it's such a ropey article that I've sent it to AfD. Black Kite 22:17, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Accusations of sockpuppetry

user:Afroghost has recently been accusing me of being a sockpuppet of a blocked user, in a rude and hostile tone, for no reason. I have recently been looking over an incident involving a blocked user (User: Shnitzled), where he was blocked for being uncivil and making personal attacks, I felt his case was handled poorly but that is a different matter. My reason for being here, is because this user making the accusations has been following me around, asking me the same question "Are you a sockpuppet of Shnitzled?" on 2 of the pages I have posted on, I feel I am being harrassed by this user. Could an admin please look into this? Thanks very much, U_(ser)N_(ame)I_(n)U_(se) 16:53, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

This account was created on the same day that User:Shnitzled was blocked, and less than ten minutes later, she became involved in defending that user on a rather obscure user talk page. It is difficult to imagine how an unrelated user might have accidentally become involved in that conversation and even more difficult to conceive how she could have stumbled upon this conversation and drawn the conclusion that the wronged party was User:Shnitzled, unless she is either User:Shnitzled or a close personal friend of that user. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 19:17, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I can look into all right, but you are not going to like my conclusions. Blatant trolling almost certainly a sockpuppet or meatpuppet possibly deserving of an immediate block for trolling this board.UNIU please stop at once. Theresa Knott | token threats 20:17, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

UNIU is not a socpuppet of me, and cannot be for technical reasons - a blocked user cannot create accounts due to the restrictions in place, and why would I? That would only deepen my situation tenfold, all I want to do is get back to editing. I have no idea who this UNIU person is, all I know is that he/she or it was the only person who came and saw things from my POV, not that it was going to help, but I did notice it. I do feel that this Afrofrog person needs to lay off, he/she is bordering on incivility - precicely what I was blocked for. Shnitzled (talk) 23:18, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Afrofrog? Awesome, just back from your block and you are insulting other editors again. Afroghost (talk) 23:32, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Afroghost, I knew it had Afro, and I knew frog was also in it, simple mix up. Please, don't victimise me about those incidents. Shnitzled (talk) 23:42, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

(deindent) The solution to everyone's angst here is to leave this be and go do some constructive editing and encyclopedia building. There's work to be done over at WP:AFC, why doesn't everyone involved pick an article and improve it? Best medicine for problems like these. AKRadecki^Speaketh 23:59, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Chelo61

Per a discussion on WT:VG, the consensus on roster lists were that they should be written in prose. Chelo61 completely disregards this consensus as shown here, here, here, and many more places. S/he has been warned too many times as shown here. I'm tired of reverting his edits, as he does not listen at all. A block would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. Simon^KSK 22:12, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

They have also been warned many times about this matter and refuse to listen.--TRUCO 22:23, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:AN3 can also accomplish the same thing. It's not 3RR, but it surely is run-of-the-mill revert-warring and hence is grounds for a block. I think the talk pages have failed in this regard. MuZemike 01:06, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

User:WikiGruvakia

Resolved

Does the image on User:WikiGruvakia, in comparison to the text that is there, constitute a BLP violation? Is the text a violation of GFDL, since it's a copy of Wikipedia text with no indication that it's copied from an article? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 23:08, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

• From the timeline of the edits, I'm tempted to assume it was a good-faith exercise in copying wikitext and markup and inserting images. Since the editor hasn't been seen since January 17 though, I've blanked the page. Black Kite 23:16, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Thank you. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 23:17, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Indexsales

Resolved

 – Blocked indefinitely by Jclemens. --Dylan620 _{Hark unto me · Ping me} @ 00:43, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Indexsales (talk · contribs) can an admin take a look at this and fix as necessary? DuncanHill (talk) 00:21, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Block-evading sockpuppet

Resolved

 – blocked -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 01:29, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Keldino1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) claims to be the indef-blocked Keldino (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and is currently vandalizing pages. Fire at will. --Dynaflow babble 01:24, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Probably could have posted on WP:AIV, but he's gone now . -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 01:29, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

ANI protection level

I would like to propose that we leave the protection level on ANI as it is right now at "indefinte protection" because it seems like we it is lowered, the vandalism kicks up again. Just leave it be, no vandalism. People can still edit ANI, so it is not like it is hindering anyone. What does everyone think? - NeutralHomer • Talk • February 16, 2009 @ 20:12

But people can't edit AN/I only autoconfirmed users can edit it, no IPs and no new users. How can that be acceptable? The vandalism isn't that bad, it's easy enough to deal with IMO. Theresa Knott | token threats 20:26, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

What she said, was about to say the same. Viridae^Talk 20:26, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree; semiprotection is useful at times of high vandalism, especially if it's the same vandal persistently, but under normal circumstances the board should be accessible to anyone who needs to post here. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:28, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't know it would block out good IPs and new users. Oh well, it was worth mentioning :) - NeutralHomer • Talk • February 16, 2009 @ 20:41

well, we only know an IP is bad once it has been used to post, right? ThuranX (talk) 20:53, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Leaving [move=sysop] in effect is probably good, though. - Eldereft (cont.) 21:49, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

We should have a subpage to be used by non-autoconfirmed users when AN/I is semi-protected (as we have for AN). I'd create one, but I wonder whether people might prefer, especially in view of the community's recent inclination to prefer other noticeboards to AN/I, that we simply add a note to the header directing users unable to edit because of semi-protection to the AN non-autoconfirmed page. Joe 22:40, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

We used to have one, and a notice directing editors to it. I have no problem with recreating it in the light of recent events; it's easily watchlisted. --Rodhullandemu 23:34, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that looking at the number of sections here that would be better on other noticeboards indicates that quite a few people don't read/see the header. Would an unconfirmed/IP editor see AN non-autoconfirmed page? Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 00:31, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Also, it would just transfer the vandalism problem to another page, not solve it. SoWhy 09:10, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring on Rodrigo Ávila

Ever since Rodrigo Ávila, on a Salvadoran presidential candidate, was created, anonymous users have been adding BLP violations to the article. In addition to the mundane "he's gay" additions, there have also been many POV additions sourced to an interview he gave. The anons never edit from the same IP twice, making communication somewhat impossible. The only IP edits to the page are to add BLP violations (except for one or two to remove violations added by other IPs), but page protection until the Salvadoran election was denied at RFPP. Could an admin please protect this article, or someone else leave an eye on it? I seem to be the only person watching the page. Thanks. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:52, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Proposed unblock of User:ChristianMan16 (3rd)

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Resolved  – Discussion closed per subject's request. –xeno (talk) 13:31, 17 February 2009 (UTC) Previous discussions: 1st, 2nd (posted by Dylan620 below; copied here for convenience) — Gavia immer (talk) 03:19, 17 February 2009 (UTC) Per WP:BOLD, WP:AGF, and an e-mail I just got from User:Kalajan, I would like to propose formally lifting the existing indefinite community ban on ChristianMan16 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). He does very good work on the Simple English Wikipedia, where he is a hard worker who actively participates in community discussions, works on general cleanup, the founder of this, and has a good amount of edits in the "article," "user talk," and "wikipedia" spaces [40]. I'm an admirer of his work at SEWP, and when I first found out he was banned here, I was shocked. Not only does he do good work at SEWP, but also at Commons and the Simple English Wikiquote. But what may possibly be the biggest reason I would like to welcome him back to here is this – a well-written apology regarding his community ban here. CM16 has successfully proven to me that he has matured enough to be a responsible contributor here, and I'm hoping you all think the same thing. --Dylan620 Hark unto me · Ping me @ 00:35, 17 February 2009 (UTC) I recall that this has been proposed at this board at least once before. Can you post a link to that discussion and a summary of its outcome, please? If the (3rd) in the section title indicates that this is the third proposal, I'd appreciate a link to both prior discussions. Avruch T 01:09, 17 February 2009 (UTC) I'm about to take a shower, so it'll be a bit delayed... but I'll do what I can. And yes, the (3rd) in the section title indicates that this is the third proposal to unblock CM16. --Dylan620 Hark unto me · Ping me @ 01:12, 17 February 2009 (UTC) opppose The ban removal seems self-serving to me. He wants to be unbanned because it eats him up. I see very little in there about what he's going to do for enWP and more about what the unban will do for him. Frankly its not overly convincing of why on the third proposal this should be granted.--Crossmr (talk) 01:18, 17 February 2009 (UTC) Apparently this was only 2 weeks ago [41]--Crossmr (talk) 04:44, 17 February 2009 (UTC) Oppose IF only to try and prevent Simple becoming even more of a dumping ground for users who are childish time-wasters here to go and convince others to help them return here after a ban. This is the user who, on Simple, begged every established user to help him write the above linked apology! GTD 01:20, 17 February 2009 (UTC) Hi GTD, we all know your opinion on Simple. Can you please provide diffs of this? Hating Simple is not a reason. Sam Blab 01:23, 17 February 2009 (UTC) Sure - I'd just point to his begging note here (which is a re-add after being removed, then removed again, then re-added...) And it's perhaps worth noting the community over there is far, far smaller than here and easier to, erm, pull the wool over the eyes of. I would assume good faith, but in the case of a sockpuppeteer and time-waster, at least on this project, asking for an unban, perhaps assuming bad faith is safer? GTD 01:26, 17 February 2009 (UTC) No, he is asking politely where this can be posted so people on EN can see it, not asking "all of the contributors to write it". You really need to learn not to twist words around. Assuming bad faith is safer? Am I hearing this correctly? Look at how many people have turned their careers around by someone assuming good faith. I think that you just have something in for Simple and have resorted to the low of trying to tarnish their good-faith editors. Sam Blab 01:31, 17 February 2009 (UTC) After spot-checking over the past month's contributions, I'd support this--depending on what the last discussion said. It looks like he's learned his lesson, and if he continues to edit on WP like he has on Simple, he'll be a great addition to the project.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:22, 17 February 2009 (UTC) Just found this edit: not damning, but not encouraging either.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:38, 17 February 2009 (UTC) So what is the problem exactly? SimonKSK He responded to "don't break the interface" with ILIKEIT.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:44, 17 February 2009 (UTC) Weak Support I've worked with CM16 on Simple. There are a couple maturity-related issues, but I think a good mentor would take care of that. Sam Blab 01:24, 17 February 2009 (UTC) Support - I have worked with ChristianMan on Simple for some time now,and I have been watching for signs of improvement. I have seen archives on the old Hornetman discussions, and when I compare now and then, I have seen only improvement. Sure, CM1 might cause some minor drama, but he doesn't freak out anymore. No socks anymore. I believe that ChristianMan has really grown. SimonKSK 01:34, 17 February 2009 (UTC) Conditional weak support - I think CM16 has matured a lot since his shenanigans of 2007, and he seems to have curbed his ... 'zeal' ... to a certain extent. I've no issues if he's unblocked and admins can feel free to overturn my block if consensus indicates. However, I'd 1) like to see a "sane" mentor appointed first for the guy for at least three months, 2) please run this request by the members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling, too, as they've been most affected by his behaviour in the past, 3) leave Deskana and Daniel a note to weigh in, as they were involved last time. In short, I'm cool with a conditional unblock, with mentoring. Please, though, no garish, OTT userpages! - Alison ❤ 01:27, 17 February 2009 (UTC) Alison, I value your opinion, I really do, but to tie in your "matured a lot" with "Please, though, no garish, OTT userpages!" - erm...question of opinion, I guess!!! GTD 01:30, 17 February 2009 (UTC) Trust me when I say, GTD, that it's been a lot worse than that!!! That's streets away from the mayhem that it used to be. It's all relative ^_^ - Alison ❤ 01:33, 17 February 2009 (UTC) Weak Support - I feel that Hornet (or Christian) has matured since '07 and has learned from his mistakes, if he didn't he would have gone and done the same thing at the Simple English Wikipedia. I'm still a bit skeptic, but I think he means good this time.--TRUCO 01:30, 17 February 2009 (UTC) Whatever. I'm a lot better with CheckUser than I was then, so if he starts sockpuppeteering then he'll definitely not get away with it for long. I'd hardly support an unban, but I won't oppose it. I've got to say, I'm really not interested in any apology he might be writing to try to work his way into my good books. He wasted his time writing that, as far as I'm concerned. So... whatever... --Deskana (talk) 01:37, 17 February 2009 (UTC) Comment If ChristianMan16 needs a mentor, I would gladly step up. I have worked with ChristianMan16 on the Simple English Wikipedia, and I feel that I can help him get re-integrated into the community if he is unbanned and agrees to mentorship. Sam Blab 01:40, 17 February 2009 (UTC) Wait a bloody second. "Based on an email from User:Kalajan"??? Then, unless someone can explain on-wiki how those two are connected, I would say absolutely not. Kalajan has been at the center of some seriously stupid, time-consuming antics, wasting hours of my time, User:Chrislk02's time, User:SimonKSK's time, and a couple of others too. Based on an annoying email he sent me a few days ago, he has some kind of real world tie to User:Sinofdreams, who's up to like 20-30 socks. Kalajan used to be User:Steelerfan-94's mentoree, and sure enough, his name pops up in Hornetman's Simple English apology (linked above). No, there's just too buch bullshit going one with this whole little group of editors; my WP:ABF BS detector says all of these career sockpuppeteers are the same person, or a little clique of time wasting meatpuppets. And because Hornetman is banned, it's up to him, or his apologists, to explain how he's related to Kalajan, and why in hell we should do anything that a proven troublemaker suggests. Dylan, please explain some context of why Kalajan was the one who emailed you. Unless some really good, well thought out story gets presented, I say keep banned, keep blocking his/their socks, and stop listening to anything Kalajan has said. He's wasting your time. --barneca (talk) 01:45, 17 February 2009 (UTC) Reply - I don't believe that they are the same user. Kalajan whines a lot, and Sinofdreams exists to harass me. Whil CM16 can be whiny, he can't beat Kalajan. SimonKSK 02:38, 17 February 2009 (UTC) Whoa! I turn my back on ANI for 2 seconds, and when I get back, THIS is what my thread becomes? <sniff> They grow up so fast! <sheds a small tear> Also, to reply to Barneca's concern, Kalajan e-mailed me saying that he has been impressed with CM16's antics. I appreciated his input, which was the last (albeit not the biggest) thing that drove me to propose unblocking. --Dylan620 Hark unto me · Ping me @ 02:05, 17 February 2009 (UTC) "He has been impressed with CM16's antics"?? Please, please tell me that's a misquote. --barneca (talk) 02:26, 17 February 2009 (UTC) Well, I meant he was impressed with his work there. --Dylan620 Hark unto me · Ping me @ 11:19, 17 February 2009 (UTC) I don't believe he's grown up at all. He lost rollback on Simple recently for misusing it. I haven't been pleased at all with his behaviour on Simple. Majorly talk 02:01, 17 February 2009 (UTC) I was talking about this thread. And yes, while that loss of rollback was recent, he's still certainly improved from his 2007 shenanigans. --Dylan620 Hark unto me · Ping me @ 02:10, 17 February 2009 (UTC) He has lost rollback twice in the past three months...? ViridaeTalk 02:40, 17 February 2009 (UTC) Previous unblock proposals - 1st, 2nd. --Dylan620 Hark unto me · Ping me @ 02:14, 17 February 2009 (UTC) Oppose still too much trouble than he is worth, wikipedia is not therapy. Still lacks maturity as evinced by that apology and other behaviour on simpleWP. ViridaeTalk 02:29, 17 February 2009 (UTC) Oh and just to add to the load, the userpage on simple is still Myspacey (combined with other factors that further indicates a lack of maturity), even if it is in collapsed sections. ViridaeTalk 02:34, 17 February 2009 (UTC) No - we've been down this road before and nothing good is going to come from it. He does not have the requisite maturity. --B (talk) 02:45, 17 February 2009 (UTC) Oppose - I've scanned Simple a few times. I simple do not think that CM has the right temperament for the English Wikipedia. Please keep him off this wiki. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 03:37, 17 February 2009 (UTC) No. Not worth wasting our time. As Barneca said above, the involvement of Kalajan and his, ummmm... questionable judgement, is in and of itself enough to give pause, let alone all the other issues. //roux   03:55, 17 February 2009 (UTC) No. Synergy 04:10, 17 February 2009 (UTC) Oppose - Unfortunately, from what I've seen on Simple, CM16 has hardly improved with regards to immaturity. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 04:16, 17 February 2009 (UTC) Good gracious, please, no. Daniel (talk) 06:18, 17 February 2009 (UTC) Likelier than not that the net effect on the project of his presence should be negative, so no. Joe 07:15, 17 February 2009 (UTC) Why not? I do not see the fuss about it. If he behaves, good for us, if not, we can easily get rid of him again. Just place him under strict probation and if he misbehaves, block him again. There is no way this could do any major harm but there might be a slight chance it benefits us. SoWhy 09:20, 17 February 2009 (UTC) Why not? Why not let Gwarp back in..how long has it been? We can block him again easy right? Because he burned through all the chances before and his behaviour elsewhere doesn't show a significant enough improvement over the behaviour he showed here, not to mention his reasons for unban are wholly self-serving.--Crossmr (talk) 09:57, 17 February 2009 (UTC) Weird comparision you make there. Grawp comes back every few day to continue his confused vandalism-spree. There is plenty of proof he did not learn anything from it. Can you point out similar, recent behavior by CM16 here? Because otherwise your position essentially is: After all that happened we can never ever ever unban this user no matter how much time passes and how much he might behave elsewhere. I know, I might be wrong about him, but I'm willing to take this chance as I think (see above) that the risk we take is minimal at best. I think even if we decided to unban him, dozens of admins will watch him closely with the finger on the block-button. SoWhy 10:39, 17 February 2009 (UTC) Sure. Just read this discussion. As someone pointed out he's lost rollback twice in the last 3 months on simple wikipedia for abusing it. I put a link above where just 2 weeks ago he tried to proxy some content on to EnWP. That is a pretty clear indication that he isn't interested in working within the guidelines that are laid out before him. Those are all pretty recent, unless you want to define recent in the last 5 minutes, at which point I might point to his reply linked below in his not understanding what more we want him to do. As I pointed out the apology seems wholly self-serving and not remotely in the interest of EnWP and only in his interest of removing the ban which is apparently "eating at him". He barely mentions contributing in a positive manner to the encyclopedia.--Crossmr (talk) 12:58, 17 February 2009 (UTC) Oppose. Are we going to do this every few months? Also, these edits (except the last one) were all made right after the previous unban request. He used the good old "it was my brother" excuse to explain that away. Yeah wow, he's so mature now, let's invite him back. FWIW, he hasn't returned after October to edit here anonymously or with a sock to my knowledge, but it's still been only 4 months. Not yet. Oh, and a recommendation from User:Kalajan is worth absolutely nothing.--Atlan (talk) 11:15, 17 February 2009 (UTC) Notice - After I notified CM16 @ simple regarding his unblock proposal here, this was his reply. Maybe it should be looked into? --Dylan620 Hark unto me · Ping me @ 11:19, 17 February 2009 (UTC) Okay, so this unban request wasn't done at his request? What's the point of all this then?--Atlan (talk) 12:17, 17 February 2009 (UTC) Oppose. If the user himself isn't interested, then drop it. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 12:38, 17 February 2009 (UTC) Proposed addendum Shapiros10 (talk · contribs) said he would be willing to be CM16's mentor. So, if CM16 agrees, I propose that Shapiros10 is assigned to be his mentor in the event he is unblocked. I'll notify CM16 at SEWP. --Dylan620 Hark unto me · Ping me @ 11:29, 17 February 2009 (UTC) I don't think Shapiros10 would be a suitable mentor here.--Atlan (talk) 12:10, 17 February 2009 (UTC) No mentor is suitable, Sharipos10 especially. He should not be unbanned at all, with or without a mentor. Daniel (talk) 12:19, 17 February 2009 (UTC) This is going down in flames, but have you even looked at my recent contributions or are you just remembering my name off the top of your head from past incidents? Sam Blab (Shapiros10) 13:14, 17 February 2009 (UTC) I'd prefer someone more experienced than you. As far as I can see, you have never mentored anyone and now you want to mentor a banned user? And yes, I remember you from past incidents, which affects my judgement, truth be told.--Atlan (talk) 13:29, 17 February 2009 (UTC) Request for closure The user in question claims that it is getting "so heartbreaking" and apparently wishes to forget about the incident (please see his user talk header on simple). It has also been observed that the proposer did not talk to CM16 about it and only notified him after the proposal was created. Even another user has expressed his astonishment over this. In the interests of CM16 and Dylan, I request for this proposal to be closed. Continuing this won't benefit either person. Chenzw  Talk  13:27, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Build the web

Some time ago it was agreed after discussion that this guideline page WP:Build the web would be merged with two other pages at WP:MOSLINK, and this was successfully done. Now a couple of editors have (without any new discussion) begun repeatedly resurrecting the merged page and altering the changed links, and others (myself include) have reverted them. I hope we can settle this amicably, but admins might like to keep an eye on the issue in case it gets out of hand.--Kotniski (talk) 08:31, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

More eyes would be nice. —Locke Cole • t • c 08:37, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I've protected The Wrong Version^TM of the page at whatever position it was when I protected it - I didn't even look - so that people can spend a week talking. ➲ redvers ^{sit down next to me} 08:40, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

The discussion is at WT:Build the web. --Hans Adler (talk) 11:36, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Heh... I see that a different Wrong Version^TM was preferred and reverted to. Gotta love this place. ➲ redvers ^{sit down next to me} 12:44, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Yep, that was me. At least this Wrong Version^TM is one that can be read and discussed. — Hex (❝?!❞) 12:54, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Karthago Airlines - problematic insertion of POV

Resolved

 – Semi-protected for 24 hours Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:42, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Karthago Airlines (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Apologies if this should be at WP:RFPP or WP:AIV - two IP's (related) and a user account keep adding what looks like something that has spilled over from the french wikipedia as a content dispute / quest for the truth. [42]. I've reverted twice, but mindful of WP:3RR I'd like admin assistance please. M♠ssing Ace 12:35, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! M♠ssing Ace 13:49, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Dumb question

Resolved

Anyone wonder whether there's a connection between Mr. "Lex Luthor of Wikipedia" and the apparent upsurge of nasty vandalism? arimareiji (talk) 16:09, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Not his style. Is more the style of one of our other long-term idiots. (He Who Shall Not Be Named). //roux   16:16, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Point of interest - is anyone still getting emails from the illustrious arch-nemesis? Skomorokh 17:41, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Couldn't 'Lex' be doing something more helpful to the world as a whole, instead; stapling his own face shut, for instance? HalfShadow 17:46, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

He was, until the ankle-biters got to him. Mr. Luther has contributed more quality encyclopaedic content than 95% of those who comment here. Skomorokh 18:29, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Really? Because considering his actions thusfar, he looks much more like an asshole to me. You might consider seeing an optometrist. HalfShadow 19:32, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Being an asshole and being able to write better than the overwhelming majority of gutless, hiveminding little napoleons who populate this place are not mutually contradictory; too much exposure to the latter often cause the former. Regards, Skomorokh 07:42, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Could that be a consequence of it being "the encyclopedia anyone can edit?" And if so, whose fault is that? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:34, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Skomorokh 18:38, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Someone said his writing was better than 95% of the contributors. Since any moron can edit, then certainly 5 percent of the population are going to write better than 95 percent of it. That does not give someone in the 5 percent a pass to do whatever he wants, though. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:44, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Skomorokh, he pulled up his pants, put his ankles in the community's mouth, and hit us on the head. He was given multiple chances to reform, and at every turn, chose to become a combatant. He's made his identity clear, and it's a wonder we didn't block him as a COI long ago. ThuranX (talk) 00:10, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

That's got to be one of the most interesting visual metaphors I've ever seen. arimareiji (talk) 00:14, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. ThuranX (talk) 05:42, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Do you see anyone arguing otherwise? Skomorokh 01:04, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Your comment seems to imply that he was blocked, then banned, for no good reason, and that you are on 'his side'. If I misread it, then I misread it. ThuranX (talk) 05:42, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

It does nothing of the sort; you do yourself discredit by jumping to conclusions and taking a manichaean perspective. Sincerely, Skomorokh 07:40, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd suggest that characterisation of the people inconvenienced or whose time has been wasted by him as 'ankle-biters' does, indeed, require no conclusion-jumping by anyone and that your meaning, sympathies, and implications are quite clear. Certainly doing a great deal of work on a single article--one whose subject I'm not even sure deserves an article--means very little in the greater scheme of things. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 15:39, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Apropos of this, let me suggest something by Chirikure Chirikure, you can find it at
www.lyrikline.org/index.php?id=162&L=1&author=cc00&show=Poems&poemId=3122&cHash=d6d6fd3645
(I've left out the http:// because this site is still blacklisted.) The punchline, in Shona: Nhasi woisa tsvina mutsime? "And then you shit in the well?" --Abd (talk) 02:06, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Block review requested and seems like a good idea

Could some neutral parties have a look at the block on this user's talk page [43] and see if it's being handled appropriately? I believe the user is also now blocked from commenting on their own page, which I think means they can't appeal? Thanks. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:38, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Seems to be reasonably routine. He's blocked from commenting on his own talk page due to soapboxing (abusing unblock process), but that does not prevent an appeal via email, on the condition he doesn't abuse that privillege like he did with his talk page. Another administrator has already reviewed the block and considered it valid too. Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:50, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into it. I don't think there is ever a routine block by an administrator who is themselves involved in the dispute, as is alleged here, especially if it is that same administrator who then blocks the talk page. This smacks a bit of judge, jury and executioner. With great powers come great responsibilities, and I don't see the incivility or the soapboxing as being so clear cut or so blatant that bringing more neutral involvement shouldn't have been considered first. Let me make clear that I am not arguing that some kind of block or other action wasn't warranted, I haven't reviewed the matter and the history carefully enough to determine that. and clearly Spotfixer was pushing and outside the envelope of discussing content and was feuding rather inappropriately, but I do think following best practices and protocols for handling these situations is important. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:17, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

ChildofMidnight - thanks for bringing this here for consideration - however if you don't mind please review the history carefully before you make broad allegations about my role. When you do review you will find that I am not involved in the dispute in any way rather I have been one of two or three administrators actively trying to maintain the peace at Rick Warren for weeks now - and Spotfixer has taken a one-sided view on that work. Please note also that others have reviewed that situation and they have already agreed that my actions were not inappropriate. Best wishes.--VS ^talk 21:38, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

It may be a matter of perspective, but if he's taken a one-sided view of your role and disputes your methods, getting an outside view or a more independent Admin to review the situation instead of taking action yourself might have been helpful. A one week block is a substantial punishment (prevention per wikispeak). It is my observation (and stated in the guidelines) that once blocks are imposed they are difficult to have overturned, so making sure they are fair and impartially considered in the first place is important. His soapboxing amounted to a strongly worded request for independent review, and you were again the one to lock down his talk page. This after he requests "Take this into the light of a public forum". If others conclude the block and the talk page restrictions are warranted, I'm okay with that, but I do think caution needs to be used when a single Admin is the only one dishing out this kind of severe remedy in a case where the comments don't amount to grotesque or outrageous clear cut violations. The issue seems more to be about getting him to stay focused on content and not to grandstand or cast indirect aspersions on editors when frustrations develop. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:35, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I also concur with the block and talk page blocking, along with VS, Ncmvocalist and CIreland. Did you have a more independent admin in mind? Kevin (talk) 23:43, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I trust your conclusion arises from an independent review of the situation (as was requested) and that you haven't been involved with recent interactions with Spotfixer involving this dispute, right? Because if you were, I would think you should make that clear in your comment. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:34, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Of course it does. My recent interactions have been in my administrative capacity, and rather than clouding my judgement they give me a better insight into what has been going on. It is inevitable that the same admins are going to end up dealing with the same editors and issues, and that does not lead to "involvement" unless you take sides. Kevin (talk) 02:59, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

• Seems reasonable to me. I'm not really a fan of locking the talk page for marginal problems, but it isn't outside the realm of possibility to do so. Protonk (talk) 03:35, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay, thanks all for the input. Let's mark this one resolved? ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:15, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

• The talk page blocking was probably appropriate per the user's statement that "I'm going to put up an unblock request, and I will continue to do so until someone locks down my page." BUT it should have come from another administrator. Once a user makes an unblock request (that isn't plain vandalism), the blocking administrator should step back (except to provide additional information or insight as required). No comment on the original block. –xeno (talk) 16:20, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Mouth breathing and WP:AIV

Resolved

 – blocked.

There's an anon IP vandalising mouth breathing and removing the report from WP:AIV. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 23:07, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Sigh. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 23:10, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

He can try this again in 31 hours. Black Kite 23:12, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Now 55 because i got confused about what day it was in server land. Viridae^Talk 23:15, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Someone else appears to be vandalising mouth breathing still. Same person, different IP? No idea. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 23:17, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Different continent. Semi'd the article for a day. Black Kite 23:21, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

There's an article on mouth breathing? Alas... Gasp! What's next, an article on silly walks? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:54, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure that was a rhetorical question (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 12:11, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. The cultural opportunities at wikipedia are boundless. But we need efficiency. I'm going to propose merging Mouth Breathing with Yawning. Surely we have an article on Yawning? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:29, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

"Yawning" would need to be a disambig page ... consider "...a sort of yawning, tingling sensation in my..." (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 14:44, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Sanity check

Resolved

 – Quack, rubberstamp, etc. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 16:10, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't come across this situation very often, so I'd like a sanity check on how I handled this.

Doorshair1 (talk · contribs) has been very busy today creating pages lauding a Runescape player, presumably him/herself. After a final warning, Skeniwe (talk · contribs) creates an account and posts the exact same page. After a final warning to Skeniwe, Serwe (talk · contribs) creates an account and reposts the same page. I've indefed all three as sock/meat puppet vandals, as opening a sockpuppet investigation seemed like a waste of time, especially given that another few dozen accounts and pages would get created before I even filled out the forms.

Constructive comments?--Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:32, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

bang on with the handling. Viridae^Talk 00:34, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

This is about the bajillionth time I've seen a Runescape player create a page about themselves. It's odd. But yeah, you done well. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 01:18, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

RuneScape is hugely popular, free for as long as you want and not noted for having a mature player-base. It's not surprising that bunches of youngsters with a severe lack of clue appear and spray WP with irrelevant RS-related guff. He or she will wander off to post a video of their character on youtube, typing in some song lyrics and activating the dance emote over and over... RBI seems appropriate. Someoneanother 02:47, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that many people were here years ago when we had something like two dozen articles on various RuneScape pieces. The amount of spam, virus attempts, and just general cruft was incredible. It may have been one of the major impetus for our current fiction guidelines, as I remember even the Star Wars universe was more under control at that point. I mean, see all the redirects to RuneScape to get an idea (all mergers). It was crazy then. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:10, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. Always nice to know when you're on the right track. :)--Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:44, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Could someone block this troll already?

Resolved

 – Blocked by Chillum (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) — nothing to see here, move along. SoWhy 14:48, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

65.32.128.178, [44]. He appears to be a neo nazi who first made a series of disruptive edits to Collaboration with the Axis Powers during World War II and after that page was semi protected (which was made necessary by his editing) he started trolling the talk page. He occasionally makes a non-trolling comment (even a broken clock...) but the purpose of his presence is mostly to try and get people riled up.radek (talk) 04:24, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

"Floridian neo-nazis...I hate Floridian neo-nazis..." HalfShadow 05:27, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

That's right, Jake. They couldn't take the Illinois winters anymore. And they're probably wearing Nazi-issue shorts, too. I tell ya, they just don't make Nazis like they used to. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:01, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I prefer my neo-Nazi's to be flourinated and not Floridian. They're better for my teeth that way. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 12:07, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Nein, nein. It's a Commie plot, to sap and impurify your precious bodily fluids. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:36, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

JzG edit warring on Martin Fleischmann

Resolved

No violation of the 3RR has taken place. JzG hasn't used admin tools. This is a content dispute. File an article RFC if you want help with establishing a consensus on this point but admins don't dictate content decisions so this board has no locus here. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:23, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

21:47, 16 February 2009, I warned User:JzG for edit warring on Martin Fleischmann, with the following:

With today's edit, you removed material from Martin Fleischmann that you previously removed with 18 December 2008, and then, after User:Enric Naval, with considerable trouble, was successful with a whitelisting request at [45], you continued with 7 February 2009, and 9 February 2009. This is in violation of WP:EDITWAR. Please stop. I would prefer that you would agree to stop than to take this to a noticeboard. And, please, no threats like [46]. If I've done something improper, ask me to stop, with specifics, or take the problem to a noticeboard or other process. Thanks.

22:09, 16 February 2009 JzG responded. (permanent link to full discussion).

22:12, 16 February 2009, JzG again removed the citation. This was his fifth removal of that source from the article.

23:05, 16 February 2009, JzG deleted the warning, with the edit summary, February, 2009: Go away, you are beiong tiresome. (Since I prefer to respect this, would someone please notify him of this report?)

The issue I'm bringing here is very simple. JzG is edit warring to assert his position on the use of this source. He has long removed any citations of lenr-canr.org-hosted documents from Cold fusion, citing "fringe," "copyright violation" (without evidence), and "POV-pushing." He unilaterally blacklisted lenr-canr.org, and when that was questioned here, he went to meta and succeeded in getting that globally blacklisted; I've been looking into that situation for a month, see User:Abd/JzG, compiled for the RfAr he filed in a related action. The edits diff'd above represent the most recent examples of a dedicated and maintained aggressive pushing of a content position, and it may require community restraint.

The source is not the issue, that can and should be resolved at article talk or with standard WP:DR. Edit warring is the issue. Because I have reason to believe that general consensus, so far, has been that the source is usable, I have reverted him once before and once tonight, but I do not intend to continue that. BLP arguments may also be raised. The source is autobiographical, published as conference proceedings by a university in China, it is the subject of our article writing about the history of his research into Cold fusion. --Abd (talk) 05:59, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

JzG notified. Tony Fox (arf!) 06:43, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

If the source is an acedemic conference proceeding, why cannot it be cited directly, without having a link? If there is a problem with the hosting website, just bypass it. There is no rule that cites have to be online, and i haven't read anyone suggesting the proceeding doesn't exist or has been misconstrued. If the problem is the proceeding itself, which of you has taken this to the Reliable sources noticeboard? Shouldn't that be the first step if an editor contests the reliability of a source? There isn't a second R in WP:BRD. The is not a wiki-wide ban on conference proceedings as RSs, is there?Yobmod (talk) 08:23, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

This is a frivolous and vexatious complaint. I have removed one link to a blacklisted kook website on the basis that it is not a published peer-reviewed paper but a paper presented at a fringe conference; I have stated on the article's talk page that I dispute its inclusion per WP:UNDUE and would like to see independent evidence that the paper is independently considered to be significant. It was WP:BOLDly added, I WP:BRD reverted it, discussion is started on the talk page. The problems with cold fusion are evident fomr the evidence and workshop pages of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Cold fusion. Abd's rather strident crusade on behalf of Jed Rothwell, now topic banned from this area, seems to me to be disruptive. Enric Naval is focusing on content and we are discussing things perfectly calmly, Abd is focusing largely on asserted bad faith and personalising the dispute. This is simply not helpful in this highly contentious area of content. Given that Abd has been beating the lenr-canr drum at numerous venues, I am minded to ask for a restriction preventing him from continuing to pursue his esoteric views of content and blacklisting policy, WP:CANVASSing, WP:FORUMSHOPping, WP:ABF and refusal to accept WP:CONsensus when it goes against him, in the specific areas of external links in general and cold fusion in particular. Note his outspoken opposition to the topic-ban on Jed Rothwell, which ArbCom considered so obvious as to raise serious concern as to whether it was worth bothering them about it. Like I said, he is being tiresome.

As an aside, having accused me of edit-warring, Abd then went and restored the disputed content. He forgot to mention that, didn't he? If I am edit-warring, then so is he! Sauce for the goose.

It is my view, based on long experience, that WP:BRD implies that disputed content should be removed to talk until consensus forms for inclusion. The WP:ONUS is on those who propose disputed content to achieve consensus and demonstrate that policy is met - anything else would be a POV-pusher's charter How many times have we seen POV-pushers loudly howling that because something has some kind of source it is somehow sacrosanct? So here I am discussing with Enric on Talk whether this content violates WP:UNDUE, part of a core foundational policy. As far as I am concerned this is a good-faith debate between Enric and myself, with Abd playing the part of the peanut gallery. Guy (Help!) 09:09, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Guy (Help!) 08:55, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah, the density of warped evidence!

• I have removed one link... He's removed many. This is just the most recent.
• On the basis that... He has invented many arguments. Each one has some cogency, but at a certain point, it's wikilawyering and rationalization. He takes it out with one argument, he's reverted with an explanation, so he takes it out with a new argument.
• 'WP:BOLDly added... No. It was carefully and cautiously added, having been discussed in some detail on the whitelist page. Even if JzG were not aware of that discussion, he'd have known from the fact that the site he blacklisted was back in the link.
• I WP:BRD reverted it... No, he was not following WP:BRD. If he were, he'd have stuck to discussion after he was reverted, until some broader consensus was obtained.
• Rothwell... Don't get me started. User:Abd/JzG. Irrelevant. He usually tosses in Pcarbonn, he's showing some restraint.
• asserted bad faith... Eh? Where?
• beating the lenr-canr drum.... I know how to challenge the blacklisting, and it begins with whitelisting a single reference. If a single reference can't be used, it's far more difficult to reverse a blacklisting than if at least one use is shown.
• personalizing the dispute... Eh? Which reads more impersonally, my report here, or JzG's reply? I'd rest my case, except that he went on.
• refusal to accept consensus... Eh? Where? Following dispute resolution process is the reverse of refusal to accept consensus.
• ArbComm considered so obvious... ArbComm refused to consider the request that JzG filed, and for very good reasons. As part of that discussion, JzG was censured by some editors for use of admin tools while involved, but no consensus existed except to reject the request. Specifically, they did not confirm the topic ban, and that was explicit. And this was one more irrelevancy asserted by JzG.
• Core foundational policy...' Discussion is appropriate, no matter how wrong-headed, sure. But the assertion in this particular case is preposterous. And the usability of this source is not the issue here, the issue here is edit warring.
• tiresome... relevant? If he is being harassed, he knows what to do! Hint: it would start with a warning on my Talk page. Did I miss one?
• sauce for the goose... What's the default, what stands while discussion takes place? Typically, prior content. The particular source here was inserted by a regular editor, not a "POV pusher," and, in fact, a critic of Jed Rothwell, as I recall, and it stood for months before JzG removed it and blacklisted. That's one. User:Enric Naval requested the whitelisting specifically for this article. Beetstra approved it, then when JzG reverted, I joined the consensus. Roughly, that's four to one, plus assumed consent. Naval asserted the content three times, I asserted it twice, JzG removed it five times. One goose has a lot more sauce on it. No other editor has supported JzG's removal of this source, specifically, in this context.
• peanut gallery... I supported the whitelist request and would have made it myself had Enric not done so. Peanut gallery is a reference to a program I watched on a tiny black-and-white screen as a child. It refers to children kibbitzing, and has come to refer to people of no importance opining on issues they don't understand. Perhaps. We'll see. --Abd (talk) 13:17, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Edit conflict. I agree it is not what i would call an edit war, my comment was to all involved: If people dispute a source, someone should ask at the less combatative RS noticeboard first. Readding a disputed source just escalates problems, when there are specific places to discuss these things. ANI does not seem the best place for this, imo.Yobmod (talk) 09:41, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Yobmod, thanks for your comment. It isn't "people" disputing a source, it is one editor, over a long period of time, deciding that a certain website is verboten and removing sources using links to it. See User:Abd/JzG for examples. But the sources kept coming back, and JzG above makes numerous misleading statements about it. It isn't just a removal of one reference, it's many. It isn't just "fringe POV pushers" adding the source, its experienced editors. Finally, he figured how to remove the source and keep it removed; he went to Cold fusion and Martin Fleischmann and removed references again, then went to the blacklist and blacklisted them. There was no linkspamming, though he claimed it with references to Talk page posts that were signed by Jed Rothwell, editing as IP, and giving his title: "Librarian, lenr-canr.org." Not links. Blacklisting doesn't prevent that "linkspamming," all it did was make it impossible to revert his edits. So User:Enric Naval, not a POV-pusher, requested whitelisting of several references to papers hosted at lenr-canr.org. (Lenr-canr.org is not the source, it's merely a place where the otherwise very difficult-to-obtain paper may be read, having obtained permission from author and publisher.) One was granted by User:Beetstra on the basis that the site was usable for that purpose. So Eric added the source to Martin Fleischmann and JzG reverted it. At this point there was, in favor of allowing that specific source in that specific article, a general prior consensus from prior work, plus Beetstra on the usability, plus Enric Naval, plus I reverted him and explained in Talk -- he didn't explain his revert, even though it was repetitious, and he must have known his revert would be contentious, until he was reverted. So it was him against a general prior consensus, then three additional editors. When he'd reached a total of four removals, I warned him. He blew it off and immediately reverted again. I'm quite sure that if I'd done this, I'd be blocked within minutes. No, I considered carefully. This was the place. I'll say it again. The issue here is not the source, it is edit warring to maintain a content position. I could have gone to WP:AN/3RR which is also about edit warring, I considered that, but there is a tendency there to only consider 3RR violations, and because JzG is an administrator, I thought broader attention would be appropriate. --Abd (talk) 12:26, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

If JzG is correct that his actions were proper, with regard to the manner in which he asserted his position, then he should be sustained. If he is not, the community should tell him so. Whether the source is fringe or not, reliable or not, isn't the issue. Copyright violation, if the claim weren't preposterous, would justify it, but I've asked about that, if this were an RfC I'd put in the link, several admins have confirmed that copyright violation at lenr-canr.org isn't likely. --Abd (talk) 12:26, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Guy, this complaint may be vexatious to you (and it should have gone to a different forum), but it's clearly not frivolous. I am getting the impression that you are unable to make a distinction between people like Immanuel Velikovsky on the one hand, and respected scientists whose research (mis)led them to make controversial claims, upholding them much longer than most of their colleagues consider reasonable. The fact that he is a Fellow of the Royal Society, and that what you call the proceedings of a fringe conference was published by Tsinghua University Press (see Tsinghua University) should really tell you that Fleischmann and cold fusion are neither black nor white, but grey. --Hans Adler (talk) 11:06, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Abd, you keep saying this is "one editor" and making it out that I am the one crusading, but the evidence and workshop pages of the cold fusion arbitration clearly show that this is not the case, as does you failure to gain traction at the blacklists. When a site is blacklisted, removal of links is normal and uncontentious. The only people who are supporting large-scale linking to this site seem to me to be Jed Rothwell (now topic-banne,d which you also opposed, and consensus was once again clearly against you), and you. It's a kook website that has been abused for years to advance a fringe POV on Wikipedia. All the material cited to there which was worth having, can be cited using {{doi}} with absolutely no loss of utility. You have been beating this drunm for a long time with virtually no support. Please let me know the timeline for you giving upa lost cause, so I can have some idea that ther eis an end in sight, because this really is starting to piss me off now. Guy (Help!) 18:38, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

This report is very narrow. If JzG is allowed to broaden the discussion, sufficient distraction may be generated that the basic issue of edit warring won't be addressed. "One editor" is about one specific content decision, the inclusion (four or more editors supporting) or exclusion (one editor asserting repeatedly) of a particular reference. Not the whole web site, not whatever I supported or opposed in the past, which is all moot. As to being "pissed off," well, on JzG's Talk page is a notice at the top: If you are going to be a dick, please be a giant dick, so we can ban you quickly and save time. Thank you so much. What I've seen with admins who have burned out is that the behavior becomes more and more outrageous, but is tolerated because the admin has been so useful in the past, and has helped a lot of people. JzG helped me. I was disposed to think his actions justified, myself. This continues until it gets so bad that finally the community wakes up and the matter rises up to ArbComm, which asserts the obvious policy. That's why I'm asking a very simple question here about edit warring. If it is addressed here, perhaps JzG would take the hint and stop his egregious behavior. Perhaps his usefulness to the project, which is not denied, can continue. But if not, if the community looks away because it doesn't want to tolerate a little TL, if it just wants to make snap judgments and support old friends, regardless, well, it won't be good for the project and a lot more damage and disruption will take place before it stops. I really must stop now. Bye for the day. --Abd (talk) 19:32, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

• JzG reverted again, his sixth removal of that reference from the article. Should we MfD WP:EDITWAR? --Abd (talk) 13:23, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Who's edit-warring by adding an inappropriate source those six times? THF (talk) 13:51, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Yup, takes 2 to edit war. If the current reverts are the dispute, then it is not even a sourcing dispute no, just a content dispute? The paper being removed isn't being cited, the cite template is just used for formatting? I would not put conference proceedings in my list of publications, as i don't consider them important, for what that's worth.Yobmod (talk) 14:03, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

If there are only two editors involved, yes, it takes two to edit war. However, it is less clear when there are more editors involved. Here, there is only one editor removing. Adding is, in this case, by three editors: User:Petri Krohn [47] (one insertion), Enric Naval, (three insertions), User:Abd (myself) (two insertions), and then there is JzG six removals. And, again, please, this report is about edit warring, not about whether or not the source is usable. At the moment, JzG's last revert stands. I do not edit war, and particularly, I don't revert on my own opinion after the matter has been brought to a wider forum. If it depends on me, it's wrong. JzG apparently doesn't subscribe to this view, hence he continued to revert after warning, and again after this was brought here. He is directly challenging the community on the matter of edit warring, and without consensus. Absolutely, I know what would happen to an ordinary editor who does this, the way JzG has done it.

So does JzG have some Get Out of Jail Free card? I was warned that he might. Does he? The only relevant issue here is edit warring to maintain a content position, AN/I is absolutely not the place to resolve a content issue except for emergencies.

Based on continued tendentious argument and edit warring, I will now ask for a particular result: JzG should be short-blocked, not more than 24 hours and possibly less, having continued to edit war after warning, and he should be topic banned (and use of admin tools prohibited) with anything to do with Cold fusion, pending further process or a successful appeal by JzG. --Abd (talk) 15:42, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of tendentious. I'd suggest instead that you not try to use administrative channels to gain the upper hand in a content dispute. As you seem awfully fond of arguing at length, because you could aim those energies instead on the talk page of the article. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 15:54, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I have not asked for anyone to revert JzG or for confirmation that the source is usable. This report is not about content, it is about editor behavior. It is not an attempt to assert a content position, at all, and, from the beginning, I've claimed that content is not the issue. I will not revert JzG's edit until and unless a consensus appears, and, even then, I shouldn't be the one to determine the consensus. Please address the behavioral issue, not the content issue. Assume JzG is right about the content. (Except don't assume copyvio or BLP violation, which would create exceptions). May JzG use edit warring, i.e., repeated assertion of content, knowing his edits are opposed, to maintain his preferred version? If so, then please so conclude so I can revise my understanding of the policies. If not, then please, if you are an uninvolved administrator, come to some conclusion and protect the project. If any uninvolved admin considers me disruptive, I would take a warning on my Talk page as a desist order, blocking me would not be necessary. Maybe I could then get some Recent Changes patrolling done, it's more fun and less stressful. --Abd (talk) 16:14, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Agree with CalendarWatcher. I don't see any bad-faith edits or tendentious argument by JzG here. It would certainly be preferable if there were more editors keeping an eye on that page to prevent fringe theories from seeping in, and both sides should have resorted to WP:DR, but six reverts in three months does not call for a topic ban. Per Wikipedia:EDITWAR#Dealing_with_edit_warring, take it to RSN or NPOVN. If JzG (or Abd) does not comply with the resulting consensus, then there is a problem. The complaint here is disruptive and unripe. And see also WP:TLDR. THF (talk) 15:59, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

JzG would have been reverted earlier, but his blacklisting prevented it. I found out about the situation from a complaint on this, an editor who tried to revert. It took a long time to get a whitelisting decision, and then JzG simply made up new arguments for exclusion. Low-level edit warring (i.e., reverts below 3RR, even widely spread out) is still edit warring, and the issue here is whether or not repetitive assertion of content, knowing that one's position is isolated and opposed by multiple editors, locally, is legitimate. I've seen editors blocked who were, in fact, enforcing content policies (though that was 3RR), and those blocks were proper. The topic ban would be not simply from this one incident, but from the collection of them, as would come out in an RfC; many editors have suggested that JzG back off from this topic. And if I provide diffs and all that, it's just more tl;dr, right? --Abd (talk)

This is a content dispute that hasn't gone through any dispute resolution, and as best I can tell, JzG is substantively correct on the edits. If you're looking for additional opinions, take it to RSN or NPOVN before escalating to ANI and asking for topic bans. JzG can be forgiven for not anticipating that someone would POV-push a bad source so fervently that he needed to put forward every single one of his objections the first time he deleted it. You repeatedly complain about a supposed EW violation, but Wikipedia:EDITWAR#Dealing_with_edit_warring says take it to RSN or NPOVN or RFCsci. So why are you here other than trying to win the content dispute by getting rid of the editor who wants to follow policy? THF (talk) 16:43, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

What THF said. Your claim that you're not asking anyone directly to oppose Guy is possibly true but irrelevant, as your stated intent is to take him completely out of the game. And yes, tl;dr appears to be your modus operandi, though whether your way of driving people spare is deliberate or merely compulsive is irrelevant also. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 16:50, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Quoting Guy re Abd above: "I am minded to ask for a restriction preventing him from continuing..." Abd isn't the only one playing the "win a content dispute by getting rid of the other editor" game. *Dan T.* (talk)

That comment might have some merit if it weren't for the obvious fact that consensus has been against Abd every time so far, including this time, when it seems that (once again) a number of people do not support Abd's assertion of base motives where a good faith disagreement is sufficient explanation. Keep up the hounding, though, one day you'll drive me away. Maybe. Guy (Help!) 18:29, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

At what point will we be asking Abd to stop using pejorative terms to charaterise my actions here, since it is clearly the case that it is not a judgement supported by anyone else? Abd has been continually asserting bad faith on my part for a long time now, right from the first discussion of blacklisting, and in every single discussion it seems to me that consensus has been soundly against him. Eventually he surely has to stop using pejorative language to describe what everybody else apparently agrees is good-faith action, whether they agree with it or not. It really is a massive waste of everyone's time. He has expended many hours and countless thousands of bytes arguing for this site and its creator, with virtually no support at all from anyone else - not least because of the way he is pursuing the dispute, which borders on hounding. It would be good to know when the WP:STICK will be either dropped or forcibly removed. Guy (Help!) 18:50, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

First of all, your accusations that Guy "made up new arguments for exclusion" is ABF and virtually a personal ttack. I don't know what "many editors" suggested Guy take a break, but if it was for any reason other than so he can get away from your tendentiousness I will be much surprised. You're making a huge stink over Guy removing, quite reasonably, some highly questionable links. Be done now; move on and do something else. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:37, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

• Just in passing, the article appears to be experiencing improvements right now. This is good, thanks to those who are contributing there. Please do look over the other articles related to cold fusion, there is a lot of historical POV-pushing to be reviewed and potentially neutralised in this area. Guy (Help!) 18:33, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Nice to be able to agree, mostly, with JzG, the attention I expect will do the article good. However, this is a highly contentious topic, full of pitfalls, where consensus was worked out over a long time involving many editors, so please beware of snap judgments. The particular link involved here wasn't related to "historical POV-pushing," except by JzG, who takes a very consistent "anti-fringe" position when most neutral editors recognize that the situation isn't so black and white (see a comment above to that effect). User:Pcarbonn, now topic-banned, actually took out links to allegedly fringe sites, he didn't put this one in Martin Fleischmann.

(edit conflict, response to KC) I wouldn't call it ABF because it wasn't an assumption, it was an observation. I'll document it if necessary. No, the comments weren't about my tendentiousness, they were about about his. Only a beginning, other evidence can show this, but see Hans Adler's comment above.[48] See [49], where admin DGG suggests a topic ban for JzG. Durova acknowledges the problem with use of tools in this area while involved. Arbitrator Risker gently implies that JzG should back off and not use tools where involved. GoRight discusses the use of tools while involved, and arbitrator Carcharoth agreed with GoRight, see Carcharoth's comments at Arbitrator views and discussion. On this page at this time there is at least one other comment, see comment by Jtrainor. Once again, this report is about edit warring. Claiming that the links were "highly questionable," against which I'd assert all the editors who put them in and others who allowed them, is moot. As I asked, assume JzG is right about the content. Then, was repetitive removal a proper way to deal with them? As I wrote, I know what would usually happen if an editor did what he did, with JzG on the other side. The editor would have been blocked, if the editor was experienced and had been warned. So, once again, does JzG have a Get Out of Jail Free card? It's looking like he may, and it will have been useful to me to have learned this. Or, on the other hand, perhaps removing the same content six times, much of it without discussion, isn't edit warring. Can I file this away and use it? So, again, thanks to all who have commented. I may be done here, unless someone has questions for me that relate to this report on edit warring. Content claims, elsewhere, please. Talk:Martin Fleischmann, or RSN, or individual Talk pages, fine. Whatever. --Abd (talk) 19:12, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Maybe he's got a Get Out Of Hell Free card? :-) *Dan T.* (talk) 19:18, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

User:GTO123

Resolved

 – content dispute Toddst1 (talk) 22:07, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

• GTO123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

This user has persistently added unsourced trivia to numerous automotive articles, ignoring talk page warnings. They seem to have some sort of obsession with what year a vehicle was first designed and when the concept or pre-production models were first seen. This user seems particularly interested in mentioning the year 1992. I can list example diffs if desired, but virtually every edit by this user is of this nature. swaq 15:56, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Peugeot_306&diff=271356192&oldid=271226521 Wouldn't a fact like that be easy enough to look up and confirm? If you doubt its true, you could add a citation needed tag, and let him find a reference. And wouldn't the year something was first designed in, be relevant to the article? Dream Focus 16:32, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I could tag the statements or try to look up a source myself, but I don't think they are relevant to the article unless the design period was unusual (perhaps particularly long or short). Every car design is started at some point before it is released, so the fact that a car started being designed a couple years before it was released is not very special. I am not the only one who thinks this is not notable: 1, 2. swaq 18:08, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

71.64.141.62's edits of United States presidential election article

This editor is deleting a lot of information, and perhaps the edits are correct, but given the history (repeated vandalism warnings about editing US presidential election articles) they may all deserve scrutiny...? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/71.64.141.62 I brought it to the attention of administrator Icairns who suggested I post here. Шизомби (talk) 18:31, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Scrutiny is reasonable. Does anyone see anything wrong with the edits? On the face of it, they all look like improvements to the accuracy and presentation of the articles, a thankless task... Just make sure it isn't someone from the Ministry of Truth.Wikidemon (talk) 19:25, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Copyvio Images sent to Wikimedia Commons

User Dominick1283 has placed dozens of inauthentic images into cryptozoology articles. While going through the process of deleting them, I found that this user has uploaded many, many images to the commons as his own work. He has agreed to change the tags, but I'm still concerned that the images are copyvio. DavidOaks (talk) 02:50, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

The commons ones will have to be taken care of on commons — admins here have no power over commons. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:59, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Ooh, but some of us are admins on Commons. Please explain the problem in greater detail. I could do something about it, but need a better picture of events. Durova^Charge! 05:39, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Not sure how much I can add. I saw a bad image added to an article I watch, then checked contributions, and found the user had added a lot of images to cryptid articles within a short time. I looked at those and found the images were problematic: in most cases obviously professional photos and illustrations (in various media and incompatible styles). Checking the filenames, I found some widely distributed on the net -- so the work was pretty clearly not that of the user who had uploaded them to the commons. Checking the userpage, this person is suspected to be a sockpuppet of a user banned previously for the same behavior, same articles and images. I guess an admin needs to look at all the uploads to the commons made by this person and his suspected sock(s), and evaluate the likelihood that they're copyvio. He specializes in monsters, firearms and naval vessels. (per instruction, I also posted a notice at the commons). DavidOaks (talk) 16:12, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Heading out to brunch now. If they're still there when I get back I'll take care of it. Best, Durova^Charge! 17:04, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Having come upon the same problem in the past, isn't the advice to "consider uploading images to commons instead" (or whatever it says when loading claimed free images) counter productive to preventing copyright violating links on wikipedia? If i see a copyright violoating image on wikipedia, it is wikipedia's problem, so wikipedia's admins should be able to fix it, no? Would "admins have no power at commons" be a strong legal defence for wikipedia? Just wondering...Yobmod (talk) 11:08, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

What? You're questioning why administrators of the English Wikipedia don't also have administrative privileges on the Wikimedia Commons? They're two (somewhat) autonomous websites owned by the same organization. And this is about images that are explicitly not free. If someone has free photos, they should be uploaded to the Commons to be used by every project. And people uploading images with inappropriate copyrights to the Commons is nothing new, and something that is generally caught quickly, as in this situation.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 09:06, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

No, that is not what i said. Unless i am mistaken, images at commons can be directly linked to wikipedia, yes? I have in the past caused copyrighted images that falsely claimed free use to be deleted from EN wiki. However, they were subsequently uploaded at commons and re-linked to EN wiki, and no-one did anything about it. I am asking if an illegally uploaded image at commons can get wikipedia into trouble if it is directly linked. Aren't we breaking laws against contributory copyright until someone at commons does something about it? and if this is the case, the advice given upon uploading free images here that they also go to commons would weaken any defence, imo. Don't we advise all uploaders that claim free use to upload to commons? Yobmod (talk) 09:32, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Over at Commons, it's actually far stricter (relatively) for usage of images than it is on Wikipedia. It's actually easier to get a borderline image deleted there--since an image has to be 100% "free" on Commons--than it is here, where fair use is allowed under very specific circumstances. But then again, if the image is proven "free" on Commons, it's nigh impossible to delete an image validly there, which is at once a very good thing, so nothing falls down a memory hole, but some people don't like it. You should take it up there, however. Keep in mind that pretty much the only widely accepted deletion and likely to succeed deletion reason on Commons is due to demonstrated copyright problems. rootology (C)(T) 00:15, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: This

Hi all, I recently full prot'd Greek identity because of an apparent content dispute. I didn't look too much into the actual dispute but I did note there were numerous reverts between User:Deucalionite and User:Future Perfect at Sunrise. I didn't want to block anyone (I wasn't in a "blocking mood"), so I prot'd for a week. A little while later Fut. came on my talk to complain about my decision, I can understand that he's exasperated but I don't think he realises that he has been edit warring too. Can anyone advise on what to do next? Was my decision out of line? Thanks in advance. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 20:11, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, it might be worth investigating Fut. Perf.'s charges of misquotation and misrepresentation of academic sources. From my perspective, if it's demonstrable that one party is inserting OR, misquoting sources, or misrepresenting what sources say, and another editor is trying to keep such edits out of the encyclopedia through reversion, it's not right to say that both parties are edit-warring. Please don't tell me that such problems are supposed to be solved through discussion; we know full well that there are too many Wikipedia editors who spend months or years pushing idiosyncratic, wrong, or false material into articles. At a certain point discussion becomes useless. I don't know whether that's the case in this particular dispute (I haven't had time to look through the history), but Fut. Perf. knows what he's talking about in this area, and Deucalionite has a checkered history. --Akhilleus (talk) 21:02, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Another case of scapegoating. It never ends. Deucalionite (talk) 21:18, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

For the record, the material in question was discussed repeatedly on Talk:Greeks. Each time the discussion ended with a consensus to remove it. Each time Deucalionite has used his habitual tactics: stay away for a few weeks, divert attention away by making a few hundred harmless minor edits elsewhere, then returning with "minor" edits to the Greek-related articles, and finally inserting the same contentious material again when he thinks nobody is looking. Then he'll revert-war for a while, until he's sent off, and the cycle begins again. This was the fourth 3RR violation in this year alone. Last time round on Talk:Greeks#Genetics section, again, it was clearly agreed (even by the person who originally wrote the section) that the material was severely distorted and misquoted. Deucalionite has a history since at least 2005, of pushing the same idiosyncratic fringe views (mostly related to a claim of ethnic continuity of the Greek nation into the remote past). He is absolutely aware they are non-mainstream, but keeps pushing them single-mindedly and stealthily nevertheless. This is one of the most disruptive users I've come across in all my time on this project. Yes, at this point I refuse to "discuss" with him. The time for that is long past. I'm firmly convinced only reverts and blocks are the way to deal with him. He needs community-(topic)-banned, is all. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:39, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Uh-huh. It was User:Xenovatis who created the Greek identity article in the first place to deal with the problems existent on the Greeks article. Xenovatis removed the "Genetics section" from the Greeks article, because there were too many disputes over it (there was a consensus to keep the section since no one acted on the previous consensus to have it removed). As for my habits, Future Perfect seems to recall every edit I make to be based on "fringe views" when his linguistically deterministic mindset prevents him from considering, say, physical evidence that he claims to be "distorted" merely because he disagrees with it. Given the fact that I'm capable of collaborating with other users only disproves Future's propensity towards labelling me as a vandal to fulfill his usefulness as a rouge administrator. Deucalionite (talk) 21:52, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

If I was really one of the "most disruptive users" on Wikipedia, then I would have been permanently banned by the community years ago. So far, users (except you) have begrudgingly accepted me despite certain oddities in my behavior. The longer I contribute, the more I improve despite the slow process. Stop exaggerating and portraying me as some kind of Juggernaut. I'm NOT a threat to Wikipedia (though I am a threat to you for questioning your "authority"). Deucalionite (talk) 22:08, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

So, what is going to happen now, is anybody going to take further action? Scarian's decision was faulty. Deucalionite was committing his fourth 3RR offense in less than 6 weeks (3 weeks of which he was blocked), just three days after coming off his last. He was clearly beyond 3RR, I was clearly not. Yes, I know I was reverting, and I know the old "3RR is not an entitlement" and all that jazz, but if an admin is going to hold edit-warring below 3RR against a user, it is his obligation to check the context first and gain a clear picture of the whole situation. Scarian, self-admittedly, didn't. It took him 4 minutes between my posting the 3RR report and his protection decision. This is sloppy admin work. If you want to deal with "edit-warring" independently of 3RR, you don't just mechanically treat all participants equally. It is your responsibility to check and judge and understand, and not hide behind the facile relativism of being "uninvolved" (which mostly means: too lazy to try and understand the dispute). – The one-week protection doesn't solve anything, it just draws out the issue more. There is not going to be a discussion to solve this conflict in the meantime, because discussion has never solved anything with this user in the last three years. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:45, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

"...because discussion has never solved anything with this user in the last three years." Speak for yourself. I for one manage to get along quite nicely with other users despite the here-and-there disputes. By the way, you think that because you are an administrator you can get away with edit-warring. Scarian did the right thing to get involved and give both of us a chance to work things out on the Greek identity article. I'm still waiting for you buddy. Deucalionite (talk) 14:21, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I think Scarian's decision was the correct one to make. This case seems to complicated to be dealt with at WP:ANEW and further input by multiple admins and users here can only benefit the decision how to deal with the situation and the user in question. I do not see your issue with the decision: Protecting the article stopped the problem and now we can all discuss how to deal with the involved parties and the dispute without any need for urgency. I think a week should be plenty of time to decide whether Deucalionite's behavior really warrants the "really long block" you have been asking for. Regards SoWhy 09:04, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

So, does he? Discuss. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:14, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

It's pretty obvious from the discussion at Talk:Greeks#Genetics_section_again that several editors believe the material Decalionite inserted into Greek identity misrepresents its sources. Deucalionite inserted this material into Greek identity after the discussion at Talk:Greeks had concluded; since Deucalionite participated in that discussion, he had to be aware of the consensus. This is generally referred to as content forking, right? Whatever it's called, inserting text with deceptive citations is harmful to the encyclopedia. I suppose there's no need to block Deucalionite since the article protection ensures that he won't edit war on that article, but it seems that the problem here is not just on this one article. Given Deucalionite's block record, I'm inclined to favor Fut. Perf.'s recommendation of a topic ban. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:26, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Upadate: he's now returned to the main Greeks article and resumed reverting about yet another one of his idees fixes. This [50] is exactly the same statement as the one he was stubbornly edit-warring over in December and early January [51], and which was then roundly rejected by a very clear consensus. I can only interpret this timing as an act of deliberate provocation. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:25, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Delusion, anyone? I already explained my sources on the discussion page and there was really no consensus to ignore physical evidence if I at least provided a full citation for one of them [52]. Despite his attempts to obfuscate physical evidence, Future did an excellent job fixing things in the Mycenean section. So, I never really had any reason to "provoke" anyone or anything. It's funny how little things tend to get exaggerated. By the way Future, do you always treat users you disagree with as though they were inanimate languages? (i.e. "Deucalionese") Just curious. Deucalionite (talk) 23:16, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

By the way, a topic ban would be a really bad idea since I've actually made efforts towards improving the Greek identity article before it was protected. The consensus about removing the "Genetics section" was only for the Greeks article and not for the Greek identity article. The latter article was created by Xenovatis in order to subcontract rejected material from the Greeks article. [53] On the Greeks article, there was a consensus to remove the section (not enforced) and later a consensus to keep the section (enforced). [54] The discussion itself was initiated by User:Hxseek to which many users (including myself) believed at the time that a "Genetics section" would be relevant. Later, the first consensus was enforced and interest in the "Genetics section" waned. Of course, Future tends to obfuscate these facts in order to prevent me from editing. Deucalionite (talk) 23:30, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

"Delicious flavor" and "vast expanses of concrete" anon active again.

• 98.217.99.58 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 76.19.57.107 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This is not a very high profile POV warrior, but they are certainly persistent. This anon keeps adding "delicious flavor" to cigarette articles and "vast expanses of concrete" to Boston College. The top IP is currently active, while the bottom IP, which I've added for reference, was active last year. They have been made well aware that they're edits are inappropriate and disruptive over the past few years, so I suggest another block is in order.--Atlan (talk) 10:31, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

For some reason I keep cringing about the delicious flavor stuff. ViperSnake151 02:23, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Disagreement over removal of other's comments at Talk:Public perception of George W. Bush

otterathome (talk · contribs) has removed other people's comments here, reverted by LOTRrules here, reverted LOTRrules, describing edit as vandalism, again reverted by LOTRrules, reveted LOTRrules as "disruption, reverted by Calendarwatcher here, and reverts Calendar watcher in turn. Now, while he may make a weak point about the BLP concern, I think it is a weak point and that removing other people's comments should not be treated lightly. So I bring it here for discussion-- should the comment stay out or be let back in? Cheers, Dlohcierekim 15:52, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

The comment should obviously stay. This user has just violated WP:3RR and continues to do so. I suggest banning him as he is edit warring. In the discussions above he accuses me of edit warring when, hypocritcally he seems to being doing the exact same thing. This user is clearly trolling and his disruptive behaviour and manipulation schemes seem very annoying most of the time. He cannot build a coherant argument even when other editors warn him. I suggest a ban for a set amount of time would cool this user off. LOTRrules _Talk ^Contribs 16:12, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Keep this at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Personal_attacks_.26_COI.2C_LOTRrules.--Otterathome (talk) 16:13, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Why? It's a new discussion on you violating policies for you own end. Personally I think you should be banned for violating WP:3RR LOTRrules _Talk ^Contribs 16:23, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

See Centralized discussion at Wikipedia:DISCUSSION#Good_practice. The was already brought up at some time before at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Personal_attacks_.26_COI.2C_LOTRrules, no reason to split.--Otterathome (talk) 16:40, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, as his intent was to remove BLP, it isn't a 3RR. And banning is a pretty extreme for a Good Faith editor because you disagree with him. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 16:45, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Clearly he meant 'blocking' and not 'banning'--though if Otterathome continues on his crusade it may come to that. And, pray tell, what is this BLP violation and where is the 'good faith'? The arguments presented by Otterathome that I've seen border on the laughable--LOTRrules is apparently evil, for, among other things, having voted to delete two particularly bad articles, one of them simply on an unremarkable video nasty--so I am utterly unwilling to take Otterathome claims at face value. He certainly seemed utterly unwilling to provide the slightest explanation to myself, though he certainly had the energy to grind out several hundred words of speciousness in an attempt to put the blocks to another editor. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 16:59, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

The post removed was a harmless but completely unproductive humorous complaint about George Bush, a suggestion to add a nutshell saying that people hate him. In article talk pages subject to heavy editing and frequent vandalism it's sometimes helpful to manage the talk page - moving discussions around, archiving or closing them when they're done, and yes, sometimes deleting material that is completely pointless. This is not such an article - the talk page gets about one edit a week. This edit sat on the page for two and a half months and it's safe to say that if anything useful was ever going to come of it, it would have by now. It got deleted and was deleted for a week. So conversely, if any harm came from prematurely closing the discussion the harm is done. It is silly for two (presumably) grown editors to fight over a pointless comment that adds nothing to the encyclopedia. A somewhat better approach would be to close, collapse, or archive the thread so it does not sit there forever distracting from the purpose of the talk page. But having perhaps gone overboard in removing it, there's hardly any justification to put it back over another editor's good faith belief that it is a BLP violation. What possible benefit is there to the encyclopedia of re-introducing a jab against George Bush on the talk page? Wikidemon (talk) 19:39, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

• The user's talk page does show rather a lot of evidence of nonsense additions. Maybe he needs to take things a little more seriously. But only a little. Guy (Help!) 23:18, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Persian Gulf

Hi, 80.191.228.141 (talk · contribs) seems to be on a mission to add the word "Persian" before "Gulf" on every article. As a white guy in the UK this means little to me, but I think there is controversy over the name (similar to the Falklands/Malvinas dispute) whether it be "Arabian Gulf" or just "Gulf". Ryan4314 (talk) 19:00, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Looking at Persian Gulf naming dispute, most official bodies do seem to favour "Persian Gulf". However, the activities of this user do seem constitute vandalism as they have been inserting "Persian" into proper names of Arabic groups. How about issuing a middle-ranking vandalism warning?--Peter cohen (talk) 19:29, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I've got a better idea: How about a custom-worded warning like the one I just left, which describes exactly what the user is doing wrong, why it's wrong, and what will happen if they keep doing it? --Carnildo (talk) 00:29, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Seems fair to me :) Ryan4314 (talk) 01:26, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Your warning doesn't seem to have worked. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:47, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

It seems to have worked just fine: he's now taking a 31-hour vacation from editing the encyclopedia. --Carnildo (talk) 02:33, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Whilst this user deserves a block, there do be some articles that err the other way for example, Rugby union in the Arabian Gulf. This probably needs a rename to mention either Arabia or the Persain Gulf as we don't have a clear unambiguous definition of Arabian Gulf. Maybe we need to develop a policy on how that part of the Indian Ocean should be referered to?~--Peter cohen (talk) 23:50, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names) covers it quite nicely: the common name for the area is the Persian Gulf, but that doesn't prevent organizations from referring to it as something else in their official names. In the case of Rugby union in the Arabian Gulf, we may not have a clear definition of what constitutes the "Arabian Gulf", but the governing body in the region, the Arabian Gulf Rugby Football Union, presumably does. --Carnildo (talk) 05:23, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Indef blocked editor returns to redirect

Resolved

 – Sockblocked.

Adam J Stanton (talk · contribs) is an obvious sockpuppet of indef blocked Adamstanton (talk · contribs), making the same redirects on ROCKHarbor Church and Rock Harbor Church. Assistance, please? It looks like the first account logged in tonight and blanked its page [55] when it realized it was blocked. Thanks in advance. Dayewalker (talk) 05:17, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Blocked. Kevin (talk) 06:01, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Template:Convert

The Template:Convert is experiencing major problems. Example= 19 miles (31 km). Please help? Note: OS-Mac OS 10.5 ,Browser-Safari themaee 05:37, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I say something has gone wrong during an update of the Wiki software. Also best to take this issue to Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). Bidgee (talk) 05:41, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

A possibly related issue is being reported here: Template talk:Birth date and age#Decimal places. --Dynaflow babble 05:44, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Massive problems with Template:Convert and/or subtemplates

There have been some updates made to Template:Convert and/or its subtemplates that have broken this very widely transcluded template. Several articles linked from the Main Page contain these errors (see: Fuscoporia torulosa, HMS Vanguard (S28), Raymond Charles Père, and Galeras, for example). I don't know what happened or how to suggest fixing it, but it's a spectacularly bad way for this template to fails. — Bellhalla (talk) 05:43, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

We know, see WP:VPT. Software update broke it :/ Calvin 1998 ^(t·c) 05:45, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Some wikihounding going on

Resolved

 – Wikifan to observe WP:UNDUE, WP:RS, etc. –xeno (talk) 21:17, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

• Wikifan12345 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Editor, obsessed with adding "Jewish" to articles, is WP:HOUNDing User:David Eppstein at Talk:David_Eppstein#Jewish.3F after their content dispute at Talk:Noam_Elkies#Noam_Elkies_is_Jewish. THF (talk) 11:39, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

There's some edit warring and hounding, so a 12 hour block for disruptive editing would probably be justifiable. PhilKnight (talk) 12:55, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Apparently a recidivist. Twelve hours seems light if a block is appropriate at all. THF (talk) 13:02, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

My reading of the block log is that s/he should be considered a user with a single block from over 6 months ago. PhilKnight (talk) 13:06, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Separately, there seems to be some similarity with Wolfowit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), though it's within the realm of possibility that two different editors have the same insistence about identifying Jewish bloodlines in biographies. THF (talk) 13:09, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

THF, just a heads up, but you already probably knew this, there are actually many IPs, editors, socks, meatpupetts, you name it, that have an obsession with Jewish related issues. I send alot of time sending them Jayjg's way :) So I wouldn't assume they are the same editor. I just "treat" them as I find them :). Anyways, cheers, --Tom 15:05, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for raising this here. I did bring it up at WP:BLP/N but haven't yet received a response there. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:15, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

My take on this is that if an editor is going around generally inserting what they think is a person's religion into bios, they may be being a pain or tendentious or whatever, but probably not racist. But if they are only inserting Jewish into articles, well, that looks like a duck. dougweller (talk) 15:47, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Jews look like ducks? :-P Sorry, could not resist. /humor KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:01, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps wikifan may be aware of the Jewish background of some people but perhaps not aware of the Muslim or Christian background. People tend to know the background of our own group rather than others. That wouldn't be "racist," it would simply be adding material. I haven't looked at this article (and can't speak to the edit warring charge) and know nothing about David Eppstein myself, but generally speaking if a notable person is of an ethnicity or a religion, what is wrong with its inclusion (assuming that there are RS to support it)? Tundrabuggy (talk) 16:34, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Of course, early Christians were primarily Jews anyway. Maybe someone is looking waaaayyy too closely at the photographs, and can determine if the individual in question went through their brit milah or not? (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 16:53, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Could this be a content-dispute masquerading as an "edit-war"? Just wondering.  ? Tundrabuggy (talk) 16:36, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Not really. Please read this section. Is there a point here or not?? --Tom 18:02, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

That is very creepy. I'd say BLP's requirement for conservative reporting and respecting people's privacy applies, and Wikifan should be warned to stay clear of reporting such information unless it is relevant to the living person's notability. It was not so very long ago that this sort of "one drop" of blood theory was used to create lists of people for adverse action, and we don't want any of that here. Ray (talk) 23:24, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

How is this obsession? Noam is Jewish, I found a source and put it in there. What is the problem? It was reverted a couple times because my original source was weak, and I got that...but I don't see why this is such a big deal. Half the article is uncited, yet all you guys delete is the Jewish statement? HE IS JEWISH. His name is friggin Noam. Eppstein starting stammering on about blood purity blah blah I don't care about political correctness. I don't care if it offends him, it's truth. I saw that he had his own article and there was no reference of him being Jewish. I googled his name and found some documents indicating he *might* be Jewish, so I asked: craziness. He said his father was Jewish and I told him that he might be considered Jewish, at least according secular law. We kind of got into a little heated discussion about who's a jew etc.. and then he accused me of being racist. Read through the link I provided. Look, If it really takes this much hassle to put it ONE fact, why friggin bother. If this is what wikipedia has come to....christ man. If anything I should be reporting harassment...you don't just call some racist. Whatever, take me away and lock me up. : )Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:25, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikifan is a thoroughly unreasonable editor with a history of calling others racists. That he takes such offense to that line from David Eppstein is astonishing. And saying that because somebodies name is Noam he must be Jewish, that is a bit OR isnt it? And googling to find if he is and finding information that 'he *might* be', is that reason to want to put in a BLP that he is? Nableezy (talk) 01:52, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Never called anyone racist, even if you agreed to that. Please actually read what is going on before posting your painfully biased opinion. You're an extremely pro-Pal, I've been an openly pro-Israel user....nuff said. This isn't going to be another witch-hunt like in the current talk..LOL. Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:59, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

This isnt the place for this dispute, but lies are lies: [56] and [57]. an anti-semite is a racist no? Nableezy (talk) 02:07, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

wikifan12345 break 1

You said I wasn't racist. Jews aren't a race, as far as I know there's no genetic code to prove one is Jewish. There are however common phenotype traits but they aren't always unique to Jews. anyways, my rationale for my accusations stands and I apologized for them...but only for offense. It's not like you're innocent Nableezy, you're notorious for dragging out accusations and accusing me of hate/blah blah on your talk which you conveniently removed. But, this isn't a place for that discussion. This is about Eppstein's unjustified noticeboard and some user's inability to appreciate facts, (I.e, Delson, Noam is JEWISH.). And that being fact and me trying to put it in the article isn't RACIST, as I am accused of being. Fuck this is exhausting. I give up, leave the articles as is. Facts don't matter these days anyways, only argument. So sad. Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:27, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Also, Eppstein and THF seem totally obsessed with anything Jewish-related being shoved into articles. I provided a reliable source per TH's request, here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Noam_Elkies&action=history But eppstein is still reverting, continually, without going to talk which I requested. this is a FACt. He is Jewish. It can't even be debated, my god why are you all doing this? Don't we have better things to do than combat over easily-proven and blatant facts? If you're a self-loather I don't care, but stop censoring out facts. I changed the sentence placement per MoS, I got a verifying and reliable source even though it's a known fact he is Jewish and half the article isn't sourced to begin with, and you know the rest. Argh. Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:32, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Your first reference was not a reliable source. Your second reference does not mention the religion of Elkies, FWIW. And your questioning of David Eppstein this section was creepy and gives rise to the suspicion that you're a monomaniac. Why is this whole thing so important to you? Why don't you just drop it? --Tagishsimon (talk) 03:43, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

It's not important to me, what's important to me is this arbitrary crusade to delete everything Jewish from those articles. And as I said, the excuses changed as new info was provided, the situation didn't play out like the poorly-crafted strawman you posted. Noam and Delson are Jewish, one sentence in the correct paragraph shouldn't be a big deal. It's not like I'm saying his a racist or sex offender or anything. My discussion with Eppstein wasn't creepy, he's the one that wanted it. And he accused me of being racist and promoting blood purity...NOW THAT IS CREEPY. Makes me cringe lol...blood purity WOW. Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:54, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

He wanted you to come along and ask, "Hey David, are you Jewish?" ... where did he ask you to do that? And neither did he promote blood purity; he said "Regardless of your bizarre beliefs about blood purity, WP:MOSBIO says that religion AND ethnicity don't go in unless they're important, and WP:BLP says they don't go in unless they're sourced". You may believe your own propaganda, but the record shows your assertions - all of them - to be false. --Tagishsimon (talk) 04:03, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Uh? David has his own article, I googled David eppstein and there was evidence indicating he might be jewish, I ASKED IF HE WAS JEWISH. Fair question, no? And guess what, he's basically Jewish. LOL. Again enough with the strawman and actually read the talk and this. I'm simply repeating myself. And don't get nasty. Poisonous words like racist, propaganda, and blood purity should not be said without justification. I'm sick and tired of this, I proved what I did and provided evidence for my statements, so STOP dragging this out. If you would like to continue repeating the same rhetoric, I will continue to answer it promptly, but don't expect me to sit down because you shout louder. Eppstein was being a creep, I wasn't. He has a tendency to remove anything non-jewish, and his opinion of ethnicities was evident in the talk. what a waste of bandwidth. Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:08, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Update - anyways, issue seems to be resolved from an editors perspective. im sure you guys want blood so by all means, but the article is done for now. me and jay are talking about the source issue so yeah. cheers! Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:18, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Just a point of order. WP:MOSBIO says that ethnicity should not go in the LEAD unless it relates to the person's notability. It does NOT say that it does not belong in the article ANYWHERE. Most "well-written" bios include some mention of ethnicity and religion, whether that is relevant or not is POV. Also, this all started when Wikifan12345 added Jewish-American to the lead sentence which is against MOSBIO so I removed it. After that, we were off to the races as it was. Anyways, --Tom 15:21, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

There are other relevant policies here, notably WP:BLP and WP:NPOV. Wikifan12345 seems intent on adding some mention of Jewishness to articles, based not on sources but seemingly based primarily on their names, and is uninterested in any other ethnic backgrounds that the same person might have. In the case of Elkies, the situation seems to be resolved: the word "Israel" now appears in the article, making Wikifan12345 happy, but it appears with a reliable source describing a group Elkies himself is actively involved with, making the rest of us happy. But I think Wikifan12345's edits bear continued watching. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:18, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

• Ok, after reading the "creepy" section on Talk:David Eppstein here, I have to agree with the deep concerns. Wikifan12345 is ... problematic in his interest and approach, and if not racist, is at least biased and focused to an unbalanced degree. I suggest a topic ban on all aspect Jewish. He's not "getting it" here, or elsewhere. KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:32, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand the problem here. Elkies is JEWISH, so is Eppstein according to several laws though that may be disputed. I've been involved in many articles that don't relate to Jews. I'm not a racist, I'm not the one deleting facts simply because it has "Jew" in the title. Why is it so controversial? Eppstein, you're reasoning is rather off. I googled Elkies and it turned out he was Jewish, as is the professor he supposedly replaced as the youngest one at Harvard. It is a moderately notable fact and wasting time bickering over it is suspicious. Do you have some undeclared resentment?? I honestly don't care about your personal opinion, but I stand by my actions as I see I've done nothing wrong. Adding a one sentence FACT to a non-controversial article is not bias, Chihuahua. I don't understand your rationalizations so if you would like to elaborate further feel free to. Eppstein, you constantly list BLP and NPOV but I don't think you understand, since I've thoroughly explained why my actions haven't violated those rules. Please see this: Adding the names of editors to an article in order to make textual attribution visible in the main text. I did however use unreliable sources to back up the statement, which has been cleared up as far as I know. You can punish me for that if you want. ; ) Cheers! Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:24, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

You haven't answered a key question - Why do you think this information is relevant or proper to be on the pages? What is your objective or goal in having put that in all those pages? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:36, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

wikifan12345 break 2

I already answered the question: It is a fact. For Brad Delson, he is one of two members of Linkin Park who are Jewish. Also, he's been religious since a child according to one of the sources in the article. For Elkies, he replaces Jewish Dershowitz as the youngest professor at Harvard University. He is also actively involved in the Harvard's Israel Review, which promotes a positive spin on Israel. Are these not notable facts? Surely they're more notable than the rather unimportant philanthropy section for Delson or the house Elkies lived in at Harvard. My question to you is: Why are you so concerned about this? You imply that I have some sinister plan to paint Jew over wikipedia, when that is obviously not the case. A person's religion/ethnicity is notable if there is evidence and it relates to the topic. I've provided sufficient evidence IMO, if you disagree, please say so why. "You're a creep, racist, blah blah" is not acceptable and is highly inflammatory if not uncivil. Thanks. Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:51, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, unfortunately, there has been a rather clear trend in the past where anyone who went around adding large numbers of "this person is/was jewish" info to articles turned out to be rather vehemently and in some cases violently racist.

Wikifan12345, I cannot know what's in your mind and heart on this matter. And I have no particular indications of malice or misbehavior on your part. However, unfortunately, the historical incidents related to this particular behavior require us to take a careful and concerned look into it.

The answer "It is a fact." does not answer the question. It may be true - but is not sufficient justification to add the information. Where the information has been persistently used by racists in part of their campaigns to shape public information and opinion, we need a better answer than that.

Again - This is not assuming bad faith or being rude to you. If we were to simply assume that you are another in a long line of racists / antisemites who came here to vandalize Wikipedia and blocked you without asking or listening, that would be rude. That has not happened. You are being given every opportunity to explain your position and interests in the matter.

But the history of the situation demands that we examine what you're doing, and demands that we insist on you actually answering the question.

If you think that asking and insisting on more detailed and specific answers is implying or asserting that you are in fact racist or antisemite, I apologize for that implication. But there's no real way around us having to ask, given the situation and years and years of history about this type of behavior.

Please answer the question.

Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:13, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I just answered the questions. Here, I'll bold everything for you so there is no more repeating. This is your exact question not paraphrased: "Why do you think this information is relevant or proper to be on the pages? What is your objective or goal in having put that in all those pages?"

Here is my response paraphrased, you can look one post up to see the full version: "For Brad Delson, he is one of two members of Linkin Park who are Jewish. Also, he's been religious since a child according to one of the sources in the article. For Elkies, he replaces Jewish Dershowitz as the youngest professor at Harvard University. He is also actively involved in the Harvard's Israel Review, which promotes a positive spin on Israel. Are these not notable facts? Surely they're more notable than the rather unimportant philanthropy section for Delson or the house Elkies lived in at Harvard."

I appreciate your politeness, but that does not excuse the extremely abrasive and combative attitude of David Eppstein and KillerChihuahua calling me racist, creepy, etc...even after I explained myself. I hope if this ends up being cleared it is somehow established that I am not trying to smear Jewish propaganda over every article I edit. There must be a rule somewhere that doesn't allow users to accuse others of highly damaging violations without proper justification and appropriate conduct. Other users are also consistently reverting my edits in good faith I presume, because they see me adding the same thing over and see others reverting it and just assume. One argument was over sentence placement, but that is another story and doesn't apply here I think. thanks Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:50, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Update: THF, another editor involved, continues to revert my edits even with appropriate sources. I asked for an explanation on his talk and he deleted it, summarizing with: your single-mindedness on this is disturbing to me. Feel free to ask for a third opinion.. using TW Here is the edit in question: Edit Brad Delson I would ask for a third opinion, but I think this dispute should be resolved first as it may pose a problem. I'm sure you can imagine how frustrating unjustified roadblocks or refusal to negotiate can be, especially when it goes unnoticed. Argh. ; ) Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:57, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Let the record reflect that I did not revert. I deleted an SPS in a BLP, and I moved a link about Delson's Jewish wedding from his "early life" section to his "personal life" section where there was an unsourced statement about his marriage. I think that's perfectly reasonable, but if anyone besides wikifan finds that edit problematic, feel free to revert my edit. I stand by my talk-page edit summary. THF (talk) 05:03, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, well according to this: Revert 1 Revert 2, you did revert. In addition to your removal of my edit (though it wasn't a revert). Check the history for more info: history. Can we just end this? I don't care any more, if you guys are this concerned it's not worth it. Wikifan12345 (talk) 07:57, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank g*d for transparancey aroud here :) Wikifan12345, sorry to say it, but you sound like you are ranting. Above, you highlighted the "fact" that Delson is is one of two members of Linkin Park who are Jewish...SO F*CKING WHAT?????? Two of the members also jerk off with their left hand rather than right, did you KNOW that also???? I have been "defending" the fact that I am actually ok with adding ethnicity to bios, but your apparant ranting has to make folks wonder and who can blame them. Your protesting WAY to much about a non-issue raises concerns for most. Again, what is your fixation here? You gave me a story about the "truth" and I have assumed enough good faith, time to come clean if you are man enough but I doubt it--Tom 14:11, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I really hope you don't have a reference for the "jerk off" comment (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 15:31, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps it is OR?--Wehwalt (talk) 15:32, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

This is a general comment rather than aimed at any specific article or edit mentioned above. Seems to me that a person's religion or ethnicity is only notable if it is a major factor in what makes them notable. Barack Obama's race is notable because he is the first black president. In the majority of cases however, a persons religious persuasion (or lack of it), and their ethnicity is not going to be notable enough to include. There should always be references to back up the suggestion that the person's ethnicity or religion is genuinely something notable about them and worthy of inclusion in their article.Riversider (talk) 16:22, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I told you, I don't care anymore. I offered plenty of reasons why it should be included, if notability is your concern there are far more less-important facts in the article that I'd be happy to remove. also, please try to be civil. I'm trying to and whenever I slip I get the book. I would like for the admin who asked the question to respond, because I answered it thoroughly without strawman. Sick of wiki fallacies. sorry!forgot to login: Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:27, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment While according to generally accepted policy, a person's religion does not belong in the lead, there is no reason to not put that information in a biography. I just noticed that there are WP:categories called Jewish actors| Jewish Mathematicians|Jewish Americans| Belarusian-American Jews | Russian-American Jews|Jewish American writers|Jewish philosophers, etc. see: for plenty more. Alan Dershowitz's Judaism is noted in his "infobox." Those categories are there for a reason. They are given to help us understand more fully the subject of the article written. There is no reason NOT to include such information in an article if it is so and properly sourced. The allegation that to offersourced information on the religion or ethnicity of a notable subject is somehow "racist" is laughable. While perhaps it is more interesting to know whether they jerk off with their left or right, but it ethnicity and religion is one of the things that readers of an encyclopedia may want to know. So call this done already. Let's move on. Tundrabuggy (talk) 04:40, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

This isnt about adding Jewish categories, this is about wikifan following David Eppstein from a recent dispute to question whether or not he was Jewish, and then when getting an answer of a polite no insisting that he is in fact Jewish. Read the beginning of the complaint and you will see that was why this section began. Nableezy (talk) 05:17, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I didn't follow David Eppstein. As I said previously (about 3 times), I went into his own article David Eppstein and made a talk section asking if he was Jewish. Google indicates he MIGHT be, so I felt it was appropriate to ask. You can either accept Nableezy's interpretation, or actually read the talk discussion. Please know that Nableezy and I have a long history of disputes, so his opinion obviously violates wikipedia:COI. Admin, or whoever asked me those questions, please see my posts above. I've been as cordial as I can be and if uncivil/false evidence continues to be provided, I hope this thing can go to a higher power (as in the next level) because I can't take it any more. Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:35, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Also, for further reference please see Noam Elkies talk discussion. A lot of thought slipped into the David Eppstein talk, so make sure you read that first to get a better picture of the situation. Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:40, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

End this mess

Okay, let's put an end to this silliness. Wikifan please be a little more careful that all "Jewish stuff" be reliably sourced. All the ts-ts editors here at the talkpage, if Wikifan wants to discuss religion/ethnicity at article talkpages, he has every right to. You can make a very logical argument that religion/ethnicity is irrelevant, but it does not represent the real world situation. The calls to block Wikifan1234 were ridiculous, and one has to question the reasonableness of any admin making such a suggestion. One fact overlooked by a number of editors is that the discussion about Eppstein's ethnicity took place at Talk:David Eppstein, not User talk:David Eppstein, an important distinction. WP:COI comes to mind here.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 07:34, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

You're going to call WP:COI on me because an editor moves a confrontation with me to the talk page of the article about me? That's a bit rich, especially because both WP:COI and WP:AUTO say to go to the talk page rather than editing the article. And to be honest, it took me a little while to notice it was there instead of my user talk page due to the similarity of names between the two pages. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:14, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

He probably should have had more tact and not gone to the talkpage of your article, but I wouldn't call if a "confrontation". I'm not calling you out on WP:COI. My point is that if you would treat the article about yourself like it's Monster Allergy (TV series) this whole thing wouldn't have happened. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 08:24, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Btw, I find myself going to your Wikipedia article now that we have communicated; it's most natural. If I were to assume good faith, I would assume that the same thing that interested him at other pages (Jewish ethnicity) interested him at your article.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 08:36, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Let me remind you that "this whole thing" started on Noam Elkies and that I got into it by trying to enforce WP:BLP standards on that article. And, while I think you're going completely down the wrong track thinking this has anything to do with WP:COI, I'd like to point out that I think it's unreasonable to ask me to stop paying attention to the article about myself, and that in suggesting that I should you're going far beyond what WP:AUTO and WP:COI recommend. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:34, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I think COI has been put forth a couple of times without actually reading it, but a simple question is this. Even if it was fine to ask on the talk page, why when given the answer "no" is wikifan still insisting on saying that he is Jewish, even if he thinks it is true. Why not just leave it alone at the response of no. Why even here does he have to again say "And guess what, he's basically Jewish. LOL." Why does any of this matter at all? Am I the only one who is asking why this even started to begin with, and even if how it started was legit why did it get beyond the no? Nableezy (talk) 08:43, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

His ethnicity is arguably something that's intrinsically notable and thus discussion-worthy. The only reason why this whole thing became problematic was because User:David Eppstein cares about the David Eppstein article. We can't expect David to ignore the talkpage of the article about himself, but my point is that that this sort of a WP:COI issue because had he divorced himself from his bio we wouldn't be here now. Btw, I just noticed that the original comment included a smile, something that should be taken into consideration in this context. In any case, I'm done sticking up for Wikifan. He could use some more tact and maturity, but there's nothing here that requires any sort drastic action.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 08:58, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I didn't do anything wrong. the rules violated were in regards to sourcing, not notability. They claimed notability, and I explained why that wasn't an issue several times but to no avail. I found reliable sources anyways, but they still didn't care. After being called a racist, promoting blood purity, intolerant, blah blah blah, I honestly couldn't care less what they thought. They wouldn't compromise in talk, so they came here to save face. Is that mature? I know I'm a little ignorant when it comes to the feelings of other users, but I just don't care if it conflicts with facts. I'm curious: Why is everyone so obsessed about including one's ethnicity? Elkies is Jewish, he has promoted Jewish/Israeli causes at Harvard, he is one of several Jewish professors at the University. Brad Delson was a little iffy, I didn't really think including his ethnicity/religion would be that big of a deal considering all the fluff, like philanthropy and guitar style (which had no sources). I was more than tactful, but you can't expect Gandhi when I'm being berated by 10 users who are allowed to be uncivil and mean because they aren't on trial. Totally absurd. Wikifan12345 (talk) 10:34, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Per wp:undue, we only add information if they are relevant for the topic and have an enclopaedic value. The lead of an article is a summary of an article. To add in the introduction of the article of a person, his religious beliefs, it must be developed in the core of the article. To be in the core of the article, it has to be developed from wp:rs secondary sources stating it has some importance.

That is an easy stuff. If somebody refuses this and uses rhetoric in the talk page to circumvene these basic principles with bad faiths, he should be warned.

The same in the other direction if somebody refuses that the lead gives a fair and equilibrated summary of the core of the article. Ceedjee (talk) 12:55, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Well. I didn't know Prof Eppstein but this discussion is enough to warn wikifan to stop. Why not to add the size and the weight of Epppstein, the name of his wife and his children, his personnal address, his emails, his phone number etc : [58]. Ceedjee (talk) 12:59, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Personally I'd rather the article had more detail about my research; I don't care that it's undetailed about my personal life. But, contra brewcrewer, that's not the issue. The issue to me is the following, much of it has little to do with me. First, wikifan thinks that a name or a feeling about someone alone (or a discussion on a talk page) is enough of a basis to add claims about the person's ethnicity to their article, ignoring the requirement of sourcing in WP:BLP. And second, in cases like mine (my ancestry is a mix of English, Irish, and Jewish, and for reasons that seem valid to me I don't consider myself to be a Jew) he ignores everything but the "Jewish", violating WP:NPOV. I don't think he can be trusted to add information about ethnicity or religion to biography articles. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:50, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

If I weren't such a nincompoop, I would add details of your research into the article. I think at this point Wikifan understands that ethnicity can't be added to bios sans reliable sources. However, there's nothing that stops him, if anything to the contrary, from initiating a discussion about a bio's ethnicity at the bio's talk page. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:04, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

If the question of his faith is not developed, it should not be in the lede. Since this is not (in my view) a major point, I'm inclined to agree that Professor Eppstein's wishes should be respected. Incidently, even those with COI are perfectly welcome to engage on talk page, so the question of where the dispute was doesn't seem to me to be germane. We don't give subjects of articles veto power over what is in them, but in this case, I would say keep the question of his faith out of it, it is not what he is notable for and it is not developed (I assume) in the secondary sources which support this article. I don't even want to get near the question of "what is a Jew?" and it isn't necessary that we reach it.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:59, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

hopefully brewcrewer and tundrabuggy's insistence on wikifan's talk page that he enable his email is meant allow them to encourage him off-wiki not to be disruptive. however, due to their defense of his actions on this thread, i'm finding it difficult to agf.untwirl (talk) 16:26, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your input, Untwirl. If you had actually read the thread before attacking me you would have noticed that I was critical of Wikifan's editing habits. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 18:23, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I wrote a nice response clarifying why Nab and Unt shouldn't be here but it was deleted or didn't register because of an edit conflict. Anyywaays untwirl, can you please stop stalking me? I wanted his advice on editing the various Israel/Gaza topics and for encouragement, not to group up and POV-push like you do with Nab and Darwish on Israel-Gaza conflict. Also, you seem to have a wild history with Jewish articles, specifically lol. That took me 30 seconds but I could be more thorough if I truly wanted to. I stand by my edits, I apologized for the incorrect sources and vehemently deny all challenges of racism, promoting blood purity, ideology-pushing, crazy Jew promoter, evil Zionist etc. Can I please go to jail now? ; ) Wikifan12345 (talk) 21:41, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

The COI seems to be a red-herring. The main issue is BLP: If no sources are given for ethnicity, then it should not be included. If editors and admins would just follow the policy, most of the problems with BLP articles would be solved. The subject of an article should never have to dispute the inclusion of any unsourced content in their biography -it should be removed on sight by all editors. Only if there are reliable sources and the subject of an article disagrees should there be any debate about inclusion and the language to use.Yobmod (talk) 10:49, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Yobmod, I provided sources, several of them. The way the whole situation played out was extremely combative from the start. Instead of assuming good faith and negotiating a clearly notable quality, they reverted, reverted, continued with the same rhetoric in talk, etc.. I could have been more cordial but I doubt most users could have avoided frustration. And as evident by the extremely personal attacks by calling me a racist, promoting racial supremacy, and encouraging a sinister agenda from the start...well, they speak for themselves. If the problem was truly BLP, which appeared to be another wikipedia violation of rule-booking throwing to avoid actual discussion, then they should have continued the talk before starting a war. Eppstein took a suspiciously personal stance in his own article, not surprising considering it's his own article but suspicious because of his supposedly profession as a teacher at the respectable UCI. I've proven my side the best I could, any further questions, accusations, or blatant attacks I'll be glad to respond to. Though at this point it would be weird for an admin to act harshly or impose any weighted punishment considering how far and polarized this has become without seeking a more controlled arbitration IMO. Thanks for the "impartial" and reasonable thoughtful response Yobmod. It takes balls to not get personal in these types of discussions. Wikifan12345 (talk) 12:09, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

The accusations & recriminations did seem to come pretty fast, huh? I wouldn't add ethnicity to any lead i wrote, but if i saw someone else do it with a source, i would assume they thought ethnicity was more important than I, and if it is not violoating BLP, then it is just a talk page formatting disagreement. Getting so involved in the formatting of pages with need of content work is rarely productive from my experience! One section on a talk page does not really reach "hounding" proportions imo, so there is nothing for admins to do, yet. More like a RfC?Yobmod (talk) 12:39, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

What a waste of time. It looked like a racist inquisition from an outsider point of view, and all that taking place on an article talk page. The time would have been better spent developing the shamefully lame article on Eppstein or thousands of other academics in fields that Wikipedia editors don't speak, or asking him for an image of one of those origami that look like the Chinese ivory balls within balls. --KP Botany (talk) 11:03, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

ok ok I'm sure wikifan "gets it" by now. If not, you can always bring this up again. Let's drop all the drama now and get back to work. boos to anyone who wants to carry this on ad infinitum. Tundrabuggy (talk) 19:20, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Please, help and do something

Hi,
I have also a problem with this editor on the article Palestinian refugees.
These articles are very difficult to deal.
I have not studied these issues for years to have -each month- to argue with people (one time pro-A, one time pro-B) who doesn't know wp:principles, who are not aware of the historical consensus around these articles, who come with their ideas without having really studied the topic...
Can someone just help ? Ceedjee (talk) 11:53, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Please, if it is to answer me to follow the normal and usual process of discussion etc, just read here : [59]

Ceedjee (talk) 12:12, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

On s'en fout de tes jérémiades. Débrouille toi ! :-)

Strange move

Resolved

Soviet occupation of Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina‎ has been moved over redirect without any prior discussion, or even a short notice. I left a note on the talk page of the editor, asking to undo the move and start a discussion, noting that the move would be quite controversial, and that there was a prior long discussion and understanding on the talk page that the title was correct. The editor who performed this was not active for 2 days prior to that [60], and has not done other edits today, which might be something to worry about, as he/she was not a regular or even an occasional editor of the article. (Possible password breach?) I restored both the article and the talk page. However, as a result the article's history is lost. Could an admin, please, restore it? (The talk page' history is ok.) Dc76\^talk 05:37, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

• Add: I checked the history of the article, and noticed that this editor has had exactly 4 edits, all within 1 hour of each other, 13 months ago. One of the edits was an identical move: [61], which was then reverted as well. But the history was not lost because it wasn't "over redirect". Very strange. At least about one thing we can make an educated guess: it is probably the same individual that did the move 13 months ago, thus it's probably not a problem with breaking into password. However, another strangeness remains: doesn't it require sysop priveleges to "move over redirect"? If yes, can a sysop have such poor judgement as not even to propose the move on the talk page, or leave a note post-factum? If no, how did he/she move the history? Dc76\^talk 06:08, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm not an admin, but if I recall correctly, if the redirect they moved it to only had the redirect creation in its history (or something like that), the page can be moved over it by non-admins. (I'm assuming that if the editor only has 4 edits, they're not likely an admin.) umrguy42 06:33, 18 February 2009 (UTC) struck, I misunderstood, my apologies. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. umrguy42 07:43, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

The editor had 4 edits on that article. Obviously the editor had thousands of edits elsewhere. In fact, the editor's username has flashed in front of my eyes before, and I was of the rather positive impression of his/her activity on WP, hence my earlier worry about password breach. I don't know how (don't remember where) to check if an user is a sysop (but this doesn't really matter). I posted here because 1) there was this strage patern of 3 edits out of the blue with no activity for 2 days, and no other edits today, 2) I could one-click restore the talk page, but could not do the same for the article, hence I coppied it. But, copying the article is as bad a "restore" as it gets. One should always restore the history. Dc76\^talk 06:48, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I've merged the histories. Nergaal has edited Romanian articles extensively, so I don't think the edits to this article are particularly out of the ordinary. A requested move can be started if there is still a need to discuss the article name. DrKiernan (talk) 13:58, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Poorarticleremovalist

This user is clearly an attempting to look like PoorPhotoremovalist (talk · contribs) to discredit them. PoorPhotoremovalist claims they are not the same user, and is obviausly grieved by it.[62] The user has made the same nuisance edit to about 15 Sydney Suburb articles (e.g. [63][64][65]), and has blatantly attacked a couple of editors.[66](see edit summary) This is clearly not a legitimate account. Is there any reason not to indef block? -- Mark Chovain 08:07, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I have blocked the impersonator account. Theresa Knott | token threats 08:14, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

User: Nakkimies

Could someone have a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Nakkimies ? This user's just created a slew of new, non-English articles. Could they be dealt with en masse? Gonzonoir (talk) 12:25, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

• He was spamming the text onto user talk pages too. I did ask him to stop, but he carried on, so I blocked him with a friendly note asking for an explanation of what he was doing. He does know some English, though [67]. This might've been good faith, but unfortunately if people won't stop being disruptive after being asked politely then there is no difference between that and a bad faith disruptive account. Ah well. Black Kite 12:44, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Grand, thanks. A couple of the edit summaries included the word "vandaali"; my Finnish ain't that hot but it gives me a hunch about what s/he was up to :) Gonzonoir (talk) 12:50, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Editor using his talk page as an attack page

User: Glkanter doesn't seem aware of how to use his talk page, using it as a kind of soapbox. Recently he has started using it as an attack page ("POS", a name he calls me, doesn't fool anyone I hope, just like him calling me earlier a "hostile mother").

[68] In this dif he calls me garbage and is clearly taunting me by encouraging me to visit his talk page.

His level of incivility was already pretty high before I joined the discussion on Talk:Monty Hall problem, but it's risen to a level where I think some administrator intervention is necessary. Glkanter doesn't seem to respect the usual norms of discourse, but he does seem to respect rules and sanctions. I ask for a stern warning to him and immediate action upon further misbehavior.

Incidentally, glkanter has totally derailed the article discussion page, wasting a lot of people's times (he seems to be the only one not to understand the relevant issues, whereas everyone else is discussing expository style of the article). I think it will be useful to warn him that further irrelevant discussion is disruptive editing and not going to be tolerated. --C S (talk) 12:22, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

At some point you may have to ask for a topic ban. That won't happen without a solid history of consensus, warnings, and disruption, and an uninvolved neutral administrators generally won't see that if they're new to the issue... so it takes some time to get there, and the editor deserves every chance to shape up. It's a featured article and I agree that the obsessive barrage of off-topic posts are disruptive. By filling the page with objections to the very premise of the article, a well-understood mathematical principle, they distract the more productive editors' efforts. Maybe you should consider an interim solution of moving all of his redundant new threads to a single place on the talk page as he posts them, under a common heading, and/or aggressively closing and archiving threads once it's clear they stand no chance of leading to an improvement to the article. If you build consensus for doing that, he may get the point. If he continues to act out you have your answer.Wikidemon (talk) 19:51, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

What, no warning? Or removal of the attack calling me a piece of shit? Do I have to take some admin by the hand and push the keys on the keyboard for him/her? It wouldn't be the first time I've had to do that. Or is Friday's rather pleasant "hey, you should know you might be considered disruptive if you do more stuff like this" message supposed to be the stern warning I requested? Glkanter has been warned multiple times already there are consequences for misbehavior. Where are the consequences? --C S (talk) 02:11, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

A new talk page was added to the MHP talk page on Feb 12, 2009, called 'Arguments'. It has 29 edits, the majority on the topic of 'conditionality', which is the topic I've been challenging all along. By 'respected' editors. None of them by me. I do not think this is consitant with any description of my edits, or disagreement, as being the work (rantings!) of a troll or gadfly.

There have only been two editors on the MHP talk page to ever complain about me, or any postings I've made. Ever. Glkanter (talk) 06:51, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

At this point I'd support a topic ban for Glkanter. I tried the subtle approach but he doesn't seem to get it.. so it's time to try the cluebat. Friday (talk) 15:07, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Matthew Fouts

We are getting a lot of vandalism to a BLP, Matthew Fouts. The vandalism is coming from at least several IP users, many of which have numbers 137.12.x.x. Can you do something about it? Bubba73 (talk), 05:20, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

What's with the speedy delete template? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:45, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Do you not think this is speediable? Looks like blatant self promotion to me, no assertion of notability. Theresa Knott | token threats 08:17, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

It does at that. I tend to assume a high level of good faith where Bubba73 is concerned, though. So I've raised a question on his user talk page. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 09:35, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Bubba73 was mostly just guarding a chess-related article from vandals. Turns out the article was zapped for being not notable. All's swell. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:35, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Our Lady of America

Someone may want to keep an eye on this article, I am not sure that I have been able to get through to a new editor who wants to try a copyright law case here. -- The Red Pen of Doom 06:46, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

At the very least, the questions being raised belong on the talk page, not in the article. I didn't even know there was an Our Lady of America. I did know about Our Lady of 115th Street. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:07, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Please remember the 3RR Rule as you are also in violation. Take it to dispute resolution :) Dusti^SPEAK!! 07:14, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

He's not in violation. Leonie12 is a single-purpose, vandalistic account which I have now turned over to WP:AIV to see if they'll put a stop to it. Even forgetting that, you miscounted the times. RedPen reverted only twice within 24 hours and 3 times in 26 hours. No violation. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:29, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you, and have blocked the SPA. Theresa Knott | token threats 07:50, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Baseball Bugs, I didn't look at the thorough contribs... It was mainly just a note for reference and the future. But either way, good job guys :) Dusti^SPEAK!! 10:39, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, let that be a warning to you in the future, TRPoD! Who knows what you may have been warned for if Dusti had actually looked at the contribs! Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:57, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

You are treating it jokingly but issuing a 3 revert warning on TRPoD's talk page without even looking at the history properly isn't funny. Dusti please never do that again. Theresa Knott | token threats 15:22, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

TRPoD has asked for me to undo the block. Theresa Knott | token threats 15:22, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by User_talk:JeffJor

A sockpuppet investigation into JeffJor has developed into a clear pattern of disruptive editing, using IP addresses to make the same edits repeatedly without discussion when 5 other users have reverted the changes and called the user to reach consensus before making additional changes.

The problem is occurring at Boy or Girl paradox, where User:JeffJor made an initial contribution:[69]

This edit and subsequent edits were reverted by me (thesoxlost ([70]), User:Snalwibma ([71]), User:Rick Block ([72]), User:Noe ([73], and User:Versus22 ([74]).

The disruptive edits were made by 9 different IP addresses, all from Japan (similar to the IP posts that Jeff has acknowledged making, here [75] and here [76], that make edits that are similar to or exactly the same as those made by JeffJor. A full list of these edits can be found at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/JeffJor. I am not copying them here because they are ongoing; I'll add to the list at the sockpuppet investigation page as this develops.

These edits stem from a content dispute: JeffJor has some unique views about this topic that he wants expressed on the page. The problem has arisen, however, because discussion of the issues have not changed the consensus of other editors. When his view was not supported by the consensus, he began making the reversions with an IP address to force the content into the page. The edits meet the standards of disruptive editing: they are tendentious, do not satisfy WP:verifiability, not interested in consensus, rejects community input, and he is engaged in IP sockpuppetry.

I think the easiest way to solve this problem would be to simply protect the page from IP users, forcing JeffJor to use his own username to make these disruptive edits. Given that he has denied making them, he may be hesitant to do so, and may return to consensus building through discussion.

--Thesoxlost (talk) 15:02, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I checkusered based on the SPI case, and this looks like a different user than JeffJor. I'll let someone else decide if it's worth semiprotecting the article. -- lucasbfr ^talk 17:24, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

IP edit war on Heaven 17 and Template:Heaven 17.

There is a tit for tat revision war going on on Heaven 17 and Template:Heaven 17. I have intervened on the talk page but as editors are from various IP ranges it is not likly to be respected. Both articles could do with semi-protection at these versions

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Heaven_17&oldid=271582663
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Heaven_17&oldid=271582415

andi064 ^{T . C} 16:03, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Repetitive removal of discussion by Hu12 on MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist

I've become aware of the use of the spam blacklist (here and on meta) for purposes other than controlling linkspam, as well as of sometimes very aggressive action being taken against editors for alleged linkspamming, based solely on the number of links added, without regard, in the process, for whether or not the links were appropriate for the articles, the result being (perhaps rarely) substantial damage to the project. As I looked into cases where I suspected excess action, the name of Hu12 came up frequently, and, because I encountered situations where some remedial action could be taken, I started requesting him to undo certain actions: an article deletion here, a block there, or an error in a regex expression that was blacklisting sites not intended to be included. However, Hu12 is very active with the blacklist, and I've formed no opinion on his overall "performance." I considered it a courtesy to ask him first if I had a question about one of his actions (as well as a responsibility under WP:DR).

Because I see safeguards missing from the delisting and whitelisting processes, and guidelines are not being followed (acknowledged but possibly justified), I began to prepare a report at User:Abd/Blacklist and invited comment on the attached Talk page, and, so far, participation has been useful from Beetstra and A. B., and there has been supportive comment elsewhere from Lustiger seth (See permanent link) and others. This report is to be my report, it isn't a community process, as such, and I want to make sure that the point of view and needs of blacklist volunteers is fully considered and respected, as well as to document some of the experience of those who have been affected by the blacklist. I was not and am not ready to bring proposals to the community about the blacklisting process, though I've developed some ideas.

Because I'm now watching blacklist discussions, I made a comment in the discussion of ReadWriteWeb on MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist, and mentioned User:Abd/Blacklist. The discussion was then closed over four hours later, having received no further comment and there being no need for further discussion, by Steven Walling.

Then, after another five hours, my comment was removed from the closed discussion by Hu12, summary (rmv urelated see WP:CANVASS). "Related" could be debated, but a violation of WP:CANVASS, it was not. If I wanted to, I could only ask those I think would have one opinion or another, and I'd be the one harmed by that, because then I'd end up with a shallow report that would make me look like an ignorant idiot, wasting everyone's time.

In any case, removing comment, related or not, from a closed discussion, is usually discouraged, so I warned Hu12 and reverted. I was surprised to see him remove the comment again. He also responded to my warning, with the kind of wikilawyering and assumptions of bad faith I've seen him use with naive editors in his actions relating to problematic blacklistings. I'm bringing this here for comment and advice, for which I thank the community in advance. I'll notify him of this report. --Abd (talk) 01:19, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Restore comment. Abd, thanks for the clear introduction. I was involved in that discussion, and witnessed the reversions of your comment, but it was a little tough to see what was going on.

The reversion of a comment on a closed thread is indeed an extreme step, and something that should only be undertaken in extreme cases. You're quite right that there was no violation of WP:CANVASS. I think it's clear that your comment should be restored.

I should note that I've read Hu12's comments on his talk page, and I don't find his position convincing. It's clear that he feels threatened by what you're doing, but I don't think his concern is justified. -Pete (talk) 01:47, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Hmm, I can't see anything wrong with your comment. As far as I can tell you are trying to encourage discussion on how we should remove entries from the spam blacklist, and posted an invite on the blacklist talk page inviting editors to come and discuss on your subpage. Is that right? If so that looks entirely appropriate to me. Theresa Knott | token threats 01:48, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I wrote a little more than that, but as to the subpage, yes, that's right. I pointed out that evidence of linkspamming in the past (which just preceded my comment) isn't relevant to continued blacklisting, unless there is reasonable fear that linkspamming would continue. Otherwise blacklisting becomes a punishment, and possibly a deprivation of the readers of the encyclopedia, and perhaps the operators of the web site, for the sins of an editor who sometimes was just trying to improve a bunch of pages. But, again, this report isn't about that problem, exactly, that is what the subpage will be about, and, hopefully, how to fix it without adding to the burden, already great, of the linkspam volunteers. --Abd (talk) 02:39, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Abd completely failed to mention that the comment removed by Hu12 after the discussion was closed had been added by Abd after the discussion was closed. It makes a difference. Looie496 (talk) 01:51, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

It would make a difference, if it were true but the page history tells a different story.comment added discussion closed four and a half hours later Theresa Knott | token threats 01:54, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Oops, my mistake. Looie496 (talk) 01:59, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh, that would have been so embarrassing, to report the alteration of a closed discussion, if I'd altered it myself! --Abd (talk) 02:32, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

The plot thickens. I was wondering why the discussion for the delisting request didn't provide the original reports, that's the first thing I usually see when a delisting request pops up, piles of evidence why the blacklisting was perfectly fine. But it was missing in the discussion. So I investigated. It's a mess. In the blacklist log, readwriteweb.com is listed under March 2008. But it wasn't actually added until June 4. By Hu12. Based on his own report of May 19, with no comments from other editors, and no closure. The history is compiled at User:Abd/Blacklist/readwriteweb.com. The other evidences shown in the blacklist log don't mention readwriteweb.com, and Hu12's report, the only basis for his apparently unilateral action, was based on inaccurate understanding of readwriteweb.com's operating procedures and of our policies and guidelines.

When the delisting request was made, Hu12 formally declined it, thus having served as the original complainant against readwriteweb.com, the judge, the executioner, and the appeals court. --Abd (talk) 04:45, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

This is, unfortunately, a frequent occurrence with the spam blacklist because not enough admins/users are involved in monitoring requests for additions/removals/whitelisting. If enough people became involved, we could set a practice whereby one doesn't take action on an item that one added to the list.. --Versageek 06:56, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I understand. However, there was no emergency. My concern here isn't so much that an admin added a listing based on self-report, though that's a problem, it is that the same admin rapidly declined a delisting request, and didn't disclose the self-listing. Overworked, perhaps. The guidelines suggest that blacklisting be a measure of last resort, not a first-line response based on an admin's opinion, against many editors, that a reference or link cannot be used. In discussions on this, the supposed ease of whitelisting is often mentioned. It's not easy, it's arcane, and I've seen what has the effect of retaliation for the request. I'm not prepared to try to establish all of this, I'm simply explaining some of why I'm concerned.

There was, again, no emergency in declining the request. But there is a battlefield mentality among some of the spam warriors. See WP:WikiProject Spam with its image of a battleship, guns blazing, or the user page of MER-C, with a nuclear detonation, and some of the comments some admins have made have been practically libelous; this is what comes from treating editors as "spammers," a detested lot. (Beetstra has properly pointed out that "spam" is a loaded term and probably not appropriate.) I'm not averse to letting the volunteers play their video game, because there can be some value in it, maybe even great value, but we need to confine the damage. This incident with ReadWriteWeb resulted in a rather negative report on a major blog. Other incidents I've been examining didn't create any big splash, but one, for example, resulted in the indef block of a good-faith editor (still blocked, User:Lyriker) who was doing what was obviously thought to be helpful, who had no apparent COI, and who stopped immediately when warned, even while trying to explain that the links were useful, which the vast majority of the links were, IMHO, and I haven't seen any clearly otherwise. The article this user created here, Lyrikline.org, on a quite notable web site, not to mention useful and a reliable source in its field, was speedy deleted as promotional spam. It remained on de.wikipedia, which ultimately whitelisted the site in its entirety. (The blacklisting is on meta, and multiple delisting requests have been made, all denied so far.) (See User:Abd/Blacklist/lyrikline.org for some of the history.) I should stop now. I'll continue extended documentation of the problem at User:Abd/Blacklist and attached Talk and subpages, and I appreciate any help provided in this, and comments and suggestions. I think it may be easy to fix this, and some elements might be that, absent an emergency, self-listing wouldn't be allowed, though that would make only a small dent (because the blacklisters work closely together and tend to back each other up, as they should), but, more importantly, handling delisting and whitelisting would be mostly hands-off for active blacklist administrators, unless they decide to delist or whitelist without further ado. ("Can't say something nice, don't say anything at all.") The blacklist notice that editors get when an edit is blocked should include clear and functional instructions as to how to request delisting or whitelisting, whitelisting should be very easy for autoconfirmed editors, and instructions should be given for IP and new editors as to how to seek the support of an established editor. (Category:Users willing to consider whitelist requests? WP:WikiProject Whitelist?). --Abd (talk) 12:59, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

• The sound you hear is that of a stick hitting rotting horseflesh, I think. There is no real point discussing meta blacklisting policies or foundational issues in a user page on the English Wikipedia. The use of the blacklist to control forms of abuse other than spam is routine, virtually all URL shorteners are blacklisted, for example, to prevent circumvention and obfuscation. We have requested more than once that the list be renamed, due in part to the pejorative nature of the word spam, but there is no real dissent from the use of blacklists to control forms of abuse over and above simple spamming. This appears to have its root in the listing of lenr-canr.org, a fringe website whose owner is implicated in the issues around Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Cold fusion; in that case Abd argued long and hard for the site to be removed from the meta blacklist, and the request was denied by meta admins with absolutely no connection to the content dispute or arbitration case. Another case linked above is that of Lyrikline.org, a site which hosts copyright content with no evidence of permission from the rights owners (and which was subject of an extensive debate on that basis). As a foundation issue, abuse of copyright is probably one of the two most serious problems facing the project; that and WP:BLP are the only two issues on which the foundation has mandated any kind of content policy. Is blacklisting turning into the new NFCC enforcement, where militant free-speechers will try to torpedo any and every effort to control abuse? I certainly hope not. Guy (Help!) 12:38, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

FYI, the first possibly abusive blacklisting I saw, a self-listing with no log entry, and no linkspamming, and removal of links by the same administrator, being involved in the article over a long period, was by JzG (Guy). See User:Abd/JzG on the involvement and use of tools while involved. See also User:Abd/Blacklist/lenr-canr.org for detailed history. There is no copyright issue with lenr-canr.org, that is JzG's idiosyncratic opinion. Further, this report isn't about any specific blacklisting, except possibly that of ReadWriteWeb, so, talk about beating a dead horse, why is this relevant here?

The use of the blacklist for other than dealing with linkspam is not contemplated in the relevant guidelines and instructions. It simply grew up without supervision. Either the practice should change or the guidelines should change; the problem here is the extensive control of content by a small group of administrators, as small as one, based on opinions that are not clearly a matter of consensus. As examples where such extended usage is fully appropriate: sites with established and extensive copyright violation, such that linking is a legal hazard, or sites hosting malware or otherwise presenting a danger to anyone viewing them, spam linkfarms, and I'm sure there are plenty of others. "Fringe," by itself, should not be an argument for blacklisting, it is too easily abused, and fringe sites are, not uncommonly, useful in specific ways. --Abd (talk) 13:34, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

See? "The first possibly abusive blacklisting" - except that pretty much nobody else seems to agree. Just as nobody else agreed with you about bannign Jed Rothwell - ArbCom considered it so obvious as to call into quesiton whether it was even apprpriate to ask them to review it. You are coming across as a crusader for hopeless causes, Abd - actually a crusader for abusers and against hard-working wikipedians like A.B. and Hu12, whic is a lot worse. You can always join the spam wikiproject, which already fulfils the function you propose, or simply watchlist the whitelist page and comment. Anyone can. Guy (Help!) 18:50, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Look, you usually do good work, but in this case you are clearly off the mark. The OP's concerns and complaint are quite valid. Jtrainor (talk) 12:45, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I've only had one experience trying to get a blacklisted site "white-listed", which put the burden of proof on me that it was not spam and was reliable (i wanted to use an interview on a previously spammed site as a reference). Considering that once blacklisted, a site is considered guilty until proven innnocent (no matter if the orginal spammer is blocked etc), wouldn't it be better that blacklist reviews are always done by someone other than the admin that initially added it? A longer waiting-list is preferable to perceptions of bias imo. That would prevent accusations like this one, yes? (not that i think this review got to the wrong outcome, but it is not ideal to only have one self-appointed arbitrator)Yobmod (talk) 12:53, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

From what I've seen, with only a superficial following of the blacklist discussion pages for a short time, and no comprehensive review, your experience was not unusual, Ybomod. Yes, there should be no rush on delisting or whitelisting requests, and, in fact, delisting should be discussed on a different page than the blacklist Talk pages, so as not to disrupt the blacklisting process. Whitelisting is already a separate page and maintained list. --Abd (talk) 13:39, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Hu12 is in my experience less than communicative when his decisions on such matters are questioned. DuncanHill (talk) 13:46, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

^{Comment: here's some background on Duncan's interactions with Hu12. See this note I left for Duncan[77] followed by these from Duncan.[78][79][80][81] Note that Duncan kept at this on after Hu12's abrupt and prolonged wikibreak due to multiple deaths in the family and after Hu12 stopped editing. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 16:25, 16 February 2009 (UTC)}

Can't resist it can you? I note you (deliberately?) fail to mention that Hu12 was continuing to edit in the area of contention while ignoring requests (not just from me) to actually enter into a discussion. Still, I shouldn't expect honesty or decency from admins any more, particularly not when one of their own is criticised. DuncanHill (talk) 16:31, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Could you just point me to the guideline on acceptable talk page practice while dealing with bereavement? It would have been helpful to me twice in the recent past, once when my sister died and once when it was my father. Sometimes the bereaved don't want to deal with abrasive, chippy, demanding people, so it would be good to know whether the normal permission to remove from one's talk page those comments to which one does not wish to respond, is suspended in the case of personal emotional trauma. Guy (Help!) 19:03, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

If your personal circumstances prevent you responding to questions about your edits or use of admin tools, then don't edit and don't use admin tools. If you claim to be on a Wikibreak but continue editing, then don't complain when people do not believe that you are on a Wikibreak. DuncanHill (talk) 19:36, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Nobody says such exchanges are obliged to be carried out on your user talk page. In some circumstances it is important to maintain at small pool of calm around yourself, and the user talk page can be the place for this. Repeatedly attempting to initiate plainly unwelcome dialogue on the user page of a grieving Wikipedian is simply crass; keep it to the article talk pages or ask a neutral third party to step in. If you were in the same position I suspect you would appreciate that small consideration. This is not a job, it's a hobby, and sometime we cut people a little extra slack. Admins patrolling the spam queues routinely get trolled, harassed attacked and otherwise abused, so it's not surprising if at times of stress they choose not to engage with disputants on their talk page - and if that presents a problem to the encyclopaedia then raise it at the time on AN, not months later. I thought that was pretty uncontroversial. Guy (Help!) 22:26, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Hu12's uncommunicative behaviour was raised on the noticeboards at the time , as you would know if you had the slightest idea of what you were talking about. It is unfortunate that A.B. chose to give such a misleading account above. DuncanHill (talk) 22:31, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I hope you never have to go through the kind of pain I had to endure at that time . Know that if you (DuncanHill) are ever in the same type of position, I would never, never, never be as insensative and selfish as you've repeatedly proven to be. Thanks for the understanding, A. B. and Guy --Hu12 (talk) 20:59, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I also expressed sympathy, just below, or at least defense of Hu12 for being "uncommunicative." However, it's too much to expect to continue to take controversial actions, in the presence of opposition, and then not respond to questions, without criticism. It causes Wikipedia process to become much more inefficient. Basically, if you need a wikibreak, take it, but please, if possible, post a note allowing other administrators to reverse any of your actions where your response would normally be expected, because you won't be available for discussion. You could also ask an admin friend to watch your user page and take care of any requests. That's all. You'd get nothing but wikiflowers and sympathy. And very little harm would result, with respect to any solid actions. It would simply allow others to more efficiently clean up any errors, and we all make mistakes, don't we?--Abd (talk) 21:35, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I've often seen complaints about "uncommunicative behavior," and generally consider them off the mark. If an admin doesn't respond to a request, it's only a little worse than denying it. (Obviously, denying it is generally better, if it's on the admin's Talk page, because then the editor can move on more quickly, but.... we are all volunteers, and can't demand response, in my opinion.) However, if an admin doesn't respond to a request, then the admin shouldn't complain later if another admin reverses an action. I never complained about lack of response from Hu12, and I knew nothing about bereavement. If an editor doesn't explain edits, and continues making them, then the risk is the editor's, i.e., risk of reversion or warning or blocking. All I did, when I found a problem with an action of Hu12's, was the same I do in a similar situation with any admin whose action I question: ask him about it, discuss it a little, demanding nothing, and then, if not satisfied, proceed with the rest of the dispute resolution process. In filing this report, I did not seek any sanctions against Hu12, but I was concerned with behavior I'd not expect from an administrator. Perhaps bereavement explains this. I wasn't even terribly concerned about the comment remaining, I just thought that the community should make the decision, not myself or Hu12, and I thought that precedent was already well-established. I hope that Hu12 gets the support and rest that he needs, and that's sincere, and I hope that, if he takes a wikibreak, he comes back to an improved situation. --Abd (talk) 23:08, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Hu12 has permitted restoration of my comment. The actual restoration was done by User:SarekOfVulcan. Hu12's comment permitting restoration was still, unfortunately, peevish, suggesting Wikipedia:Harassment#Wikihounding, but that's not an AN/I problem. Please, if the problems with the blacklist, and how to fix them without hindering proper blacklisting process, are of interest to you, please watch User:Abd/Blacklist or comment on User talk:Abd/Blacklist. Those pages will hopefully point to any guideline changes or other related process (such as a real RfC). My thanks to all who commented here. Are we done now? --Abd (talk) 14:09, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

The above comment was missing a phrase that may have caused someone not following the link and reading the actual edit to misinterpret it. Hu12's comment, reasonably interpreted, implied that I was wikihounding him, which I don't think the facts justify. I've been digging into blacklisting issues, and Hu12 has been a very active volunteer in that project, and that, alone, may explain the number of issues I've found and questioned, never to blame, but simply to request correction of possible errors. I was not claiming that I was being harassed, and I do not feel harassed, indeed, I feel very positively about the community, including some of those who criticize what I'm doing. I'm in the kitchen, I understand that it can get hot in here sometimes. --Abd (talk) 01:48, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

(ec)I have been in quite a positive, though sometimes heated, discussion with Abd lately. We seem now to agree on some points, but, and I have said that on a couple of occasions, I find his point of entry for discussions sometimes a bit too direct, and heading in the wrong direction, and have commented as such to Abd as well. Criticism is fine, but please formulate it without giving the feeling of assuming bad faith or similar on the user (in this case Hu12) who performed the action.

Many of the actions that administrators are doing, are after the action less visible, or require access to the original information, which is not always visible to non-admins (e.g. after page deletion) or is very difficult to compile (going through the edits of multiple IPs to multiple pages to find the total scale of 'offending actions' is quite a task sometimes). If the actions encompasses several wikis, the situation becomes even less transparant. That is the trust that is put into us (admins) by the community during the request for adminship, that we appropriately judge the situation, and I think that approrpiate appeal procedures are there (there are quite some admins active on the whitelist which I have hardly ever seen on the meta blacklist), and I think the same is true for deletion review. And yes, we sometimes do make mistakes, but I don't believe there is here any form of intent of making mistakes.

In a number of cases which I have been discussing with Abd lately there is, simply put, inappropriate use of the link, including: placement on many wikis (where sometimes the link is useless to the local wiki) [lyrikline.org], the link to a respectable organisation is in a group of sites being search-engine-optimised [uofa.edu], pushed against consensus [lenr-carn.org; newenergytimes.com], or used by users who should engage more in discussion then just blindly put their links everywhere. That is indeed not always 'spam', but nonetheless linkabuse. If that encompasses multiple accounts / IPs who do that, then blacklisting and whitelisting is sometimes the harsh measure that needs to be taken to control the situation (I have my mop here next to me, but sometimes it is simply better to close the tap for some time). It is also our experience, that shutting down accounts, or blacklisting links only for a couple of weeks, does absolutely NOT stop the abuse, they will return (SEOs get paid to optimise the results of searches .., if you remove the link after one month, they will return). Wikipedia scores mighty high in Google ...

The current use of the blacklist to stop fringe sites, or similar, is indeed not written down, and I don't think that that should become pactice; the use only of such sites is certainly not a reason to blacklist them. However, and I do think that that was the case with the cold-fusion sites, they were heavily pushed by one editor/a group of editors while multiple editors where not convinced that that site should be used for that (Note: one of them also on a small scale cross-wiki spammed). That is not 'use' anymore, it gets closer to 'abuse', and I believe that all of the sites we are discussing are blacklisted because of that. Although much of the information on the site seems to be a correct copy (with proper copyright), it is also, and better, available on the official sites. Using these sites, for most of the documentation on it, is more convenience than necessery.

I indeed think that Hu12 feels a bit threatened by the situation, his actions are questioned in a direct way. In the comment I read a same feeling as I described above, the assumption that we do not thoroughly look at the site and it appropriateness (I mean the comment: "The spam blacklist community follows a general rule that multiple additions of links is spamming, with little regard for whether or not the links were appropriate in situ."). I have not looked into this specific case, but I do believe that that generally is absolutely not the case, we do address that. And I do think that the question if abuse will continue has been addressed as well, spammers don't always get the message that their edits are not wanted after blacklisting, and many will continue after their sites have been removed. Some of them get paid for it, and that goes for respected, important organisations just as much as for sex, tramadol and viagra-sites. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:04, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

If anything I wrote implied assumptions of bad faith, please point it out to me so I can redact it. The "general rule" comment quoted is actually not controversial, and it's apparent in the blacklisting discussions. Nor is that situation, in itself, considered, by me, to be inappropriate. It only becomes clearly relevant in three situations: the removal of links, which is editing of articles, delisting requests, and whitelisting requests. Blacklisting stops the addition of links. As long as users can easily appeal it, not only is there no harm in rapid blacklisting in the presence of significant linkspam, or simply massive addition of links, even if they are appropriate, but it may be necessary. To have a discussion on the merits of links is time-consuming and, meanwhile, additional links could be coming in and thus additional mess to clean up. Removal is more problematic, but, again, relatively easily undone if a problem is caught quickly, and if such removals are logged. They aren't, they would have to be found indirectly. (Cross-wiki removals are often done by IP, the blacklist volunteers don't register just to remove linkspam.) The "number of links" standard only becomes a serious problem when it is the primary argument in delisting or whitelisting requests. Yes, I think that my discussions with Beetstra have been useful. Above, though, we can see where we still clearly differ. His description of the situation with lenr-canr.org (and, not previously mentioned here, newenergytimes.com) is not balanced. Again, this discussion will continue elsewhere, so that we can find consensus. --Abd (talk) 15:21, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

The part that I feel not too happy with is the "with little regard for whether or not the links were appropriate in situ". That is the part that I see as more a remark on how it seems that we blacklist, and I think that is certainly incorrect. We do check (and we do make mistakes as well :-) ). You now add "Cross-wiki removals are often done by IP, the blacklist volunteers don't register just to remove linkspam.". For as far as we know, the editors who are active on the meta blacklist all have a SUL account, before the implementation of SUL the situation indeed becomes more difficult. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:43, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

The examples I saw were almost a year old, so, indeed, this situation may have been improved. I have much less difficulty with massive removals if they are done by a single identifiable editor, who notifies the blacklisting report of the removals, and they can be easily tracked (and reverted) if necessary.--Abd (talk) 23:15, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I should add to this, the majority of the cases we encounter are not reverted, but simply ignored, or ignored after reverting. Only if it persists, or if it is real rubbish, we add it to the blacklist (but even a lot of the rubbish does not even get blacklisted, we revert and see if it persists). I really want to stress, that we are on meta really careful with these things. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:51, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I began these investigations because of clear counterexamples to this claim that I found. But these are not issues to be resolved here. --Abd (talk) 23:15, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Adding to this, I guess we are done here .. I hope this situation can be resolved on the user talkpages, the blacklisting/whitelisting questions should end up somewhere else. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:04, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

The lenr-carn.org and newenergytimes.com links are a special problem, as is just about anything else to do with cold fusion articles on this site. I'm glad I haven't been involved and I don't envy the admins and arbitrators who have had to wrestle with all the issues (not just links) surrounding these articles and their editors.

Whatever decisions are made about broader blacklisting issues, let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater. I'd guess I probably rank in the top 2 or 3 admins for domains blacklisted, both here and on meta. 99% of these blacklistings involved open-and-shut cases of spam, both in terms of content and behaviour. In the majority of the cases, I was acting on problems reported by others. The remainder were based on links added to "spam honeypot" articles such as Mesothelioma (spammers drawing traffic to their mesothelioma sites earn >$50 US for just one click on a Google ads for asbestos lawyers) and Search engine optimization. In >98% of cases, the spammer has received 3 and usually 4 warnings from the community; in the few others I'm responding to something really, really egregious (hate sites, shock sites, etc.) I document and log the problem, then blacklist the domains.

Domain blacklisting is less draconian than actually blocking an IP or registered user, yet admins routinely block problematic accounts without first requiring a second look by someone else. We have block review processes in place to correct the small percentage of cases where a mistake is made. Given the typical backlog of 10 days for spam reports at WT:WPSPAM and WP:SBL, if all blacklisting has to go through some sort of double-checking, you'll see wait-times go out several months unless many more admins can be drawn into this work, which is sort of specialized. I think it would be more useful to have more admins pitching in with both spam-mitigation and whitelisting. I recently saw a statistic that we now average 18 external links added per minute; we all know that they're not all to scientific journals.

I would ask that folks assume not just good faith but also a decent level of good judgement and competence on those admins and other editors trying to keep up with our very large spam. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:15, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Correction: the number of links added per minute is even higher than I thought.^[82] --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:46, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Abd, in the matyter of hounding, I would suggest that you are living in a glass house so should not be throwing stones. Guy (Help!) 18:41, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I think you misread his comment above. Theresa Knott | token threats 20:01, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

You are right, I did. Apologies. Guy (Help!) 22:19, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

The comment to which JzG referred was missing a phrase, making it ambiguous, hence I also apologize for being unclear and possibly leading him into his misinterpretation. --Abd (talk) 01:50, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

There was an African king who retired to a thatch hut and kept his old throne in the attic. One day it broke through and killed him. Hence the old saying, "People who live in grass houses shouldn't stow thrones." Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:27, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

• I don't think we';re finished here, as the ed. originally complained of hasn't had a chance to comment here yet. The discussion so far has amounted to several other people saying that they personally do blacklisting right, but that's not to the point. How to rework this process, if it needs reworking, does need to be discussed elsewhere. (My view on that, is that it is possible to maintain efficiency by rejecting complaints without discussion, & I hope the current process isn't being defended on that basis). . DGG (talk) 03:33, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

• The "Spam Blacklist Group" shows a certain defensiveness when their decisions are questioned, and seem to wish for the pleasant simplicity of being left alone to do whatever they want without the ugliness and rancor of people actually discussing it and sometimes disagreeing with that group's supreme wisdom. *Dan T.* (talk) 04:33, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Dan, I don't see a monolithic "Spam Blacklist Group". I probably am as active as anyone and I don't feel I've been especially defensive. I've tried to lay out my view of things rationally and politely, both here and elsewhere.^{[83][84][85][86]} --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 06:15, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

That's correct, A. B., you have. (So has Beetstra and even more supportive of my analysis has been Lustiger seth, all active blacklist administrators. Dtobias's complaint is unfortunate because it treats a collection of editors, who may be quite distinct from each other and display unique behaviors, as a monolith. However, the effect of the collaboration of the editors who are active, taken as if it were a "cabal," or simply a committee that makes collective decisions, even if members of this virtual cabal vary greatly in their responsiveness as individuals, is as Dtobias has seen it. Without the hyperbole, "supreme wisdom," and other stuff tacked on. --Abd (talk) 18:24, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I do get into a bit of a bind in that when I name names specifically, it gets called a personal attack, while if I stick to vaguer mentions of group behavior I get criticized for lumping people together. *Dan T.* (talk) 23:38, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

There's a simple fix for that: try contributing to the encyclopaedia instead of spending the lion's share of your Wikipedia time following a small number of people around and shit-stirring. Off the wall, I know, but it might just work. Guy (Help!) 20:04, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Sure. It's difficult to address administrative errors, or even to simply describe what happens. If I lay out a set of diffs pointing to actions, with no judgment, I still get accused of ABF. If I describe obvious conclusions, even more so. I see the problem as systemic, not as a problem with individuals. Please, with every edit you make that tries to deal with "administrative abuse" or other problems, keep WP:AGF in mind. These are all volunteers. If they are wrecking the place, we must address that, but usually it's a mixed bag, and we need to take special care to treat our volunteers well. We need also remember that some of these "spammers" also are editing in good faith, and we should, at the same time as we put up a stiff wall against massive addition of links without consensus, welcome them and guide them to how to do what they want to do properly. Calling them spammers, blocking them for good faith edits, deleting all their stuff without regard to possible content usefulness, that is hardly welcoming, and it is unnecessary to protect the project from spam. In other words, Dan, try to see it from the blacklisters or administrative POV at the same time as you try to address problems. Seek consensus, not opposition. As you know, I'm dealing with a particular admin rather heavily recently. (It's not Hu12.) Do I think he's trying to destroy the place? No, not at all. I think he's burned out, he did tremendous work, and he's starting to do some damage, causing disruption -- may have done for some time, I have not attempted to go over his history with a fine-tooth comb, but I've been hearing noises to that effect from others. Because of all his good work in the past, there is a tendency here for editors to assume that his continued work is golden, and to defend him against anyone who points out problems. That's wiki-inertia. But I'm not attacking him, actually, I'm criticizing, or sometimes just raising the issue of, specific actions. Even done very carefully, very specifically, without ABF at all, ABF is assumed by too many, and responses are conditioned by this assumption. It's a common problem here, and I do not see this administrator, or the users defending him, as the problem. The problem is the system, and my real question, practically always, is how do we fix the system? Not should we get rid of this or that editor or not, or tie them up and gag them, those are subsidiary questions, ideally dealt with by a more functional (and more compassionate) system. It can be done, I believe, or I wouldn't even be here. Please try to be civil, avoid unnecessary generalizations and characterizations of individuals or groups. You'll still take some flack if you try to address the issues, but you may also find, as I am, more support. You warned me at the beginning of this saga with blacklisting that I'd learn to eat worms. I can understand your comment, and it wasn't exactly misplaced. But, so far, I've avoided eating worms. I've won a few and lost a few, and I have years of experience in deliberative, democratic or anarchic environments. If you get attached to results, you are dead meat. Just be civil, respect consensus even if you think it's stupid, seek common welfare, and be patient. --Abd (talk) 14:18, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Blacklisting is transparent; those of us who regularly volunteer on the blacklist have worked hard to make that a priority. Unintentional mistakes and miscommunications can happen, but links don’t "secretly" get blacklisted and there is no "Blacklist Group" type cabal or conspiracy, as suggested. There is always a logged record. I recently had an removal appeal by a user and removed it, however the origional case Illustrates one example of how carefully requests are researched and then handled. Personalities can differ on wikipedia, and disagreements occur as a result. Unfortunately Abd has perpetuated disputes by sticking to a viewpoint long after it has been discredited, despite the clear evidence of abuse. Additionally his record shows that he has a history of singling out specific editor(s), mischaracterizing editors' actions in which he disagrees^[87], in order to make them seem unreasonable or improper^[88] and assumptions of bad faith^[89][90]. What has been become evident in Abd's recent contributions is an attempt to impose one's own view of "standards to apply" rather than to develop a consensus. To reply to the primary topic posted about my "removal of discussion". In addition to my edit summary reasons for removing the comment, Misplaced comments unrelated to specific cases should be placed in the appropriate discussion area provided. for someone (Abd) who claims to be researching the "process", he has failed to note there is a "discussion" section. I would ask that more admins help out to better understand the blacklist and assume good faith on those who volunteer by trying to help out the encyclopedia.--Hu12 (talk) 21:01, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Hu12, you've stated that there is always a logged record. See [91], which blacklisted newenergytimes.com, and for which I find no log record and no prior discussion, just an offhand comment added by JzG to a different proposal, which received no closing decision, and which was added after the fact. See also [92], which blacklisted lenr-canr.org here. User:Lustiger seth logged the listing removal here, January 10, 2009, because of the meta blacklisting, but there was no log of the addition on December 18, 2008. Indeed, this little irregularity got me going, whether it was ultimately important or not. Is this important here? Not really, but you said something that wasn't correct, placing it in opposition to what I have previously said here. This report was about the removal of discussion from MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist and the rest was just background. Too many times, requests are not treated carefully. I've worked in a medical field, and I encountered people who confused their effort to avoid damage with success at it. People were dying because of errors or conditions, and when attempts were made to fix it, they were resisted because "we try hard to avoid this." Perhaps they do. And perhaps it isn't enough, they need help; in which case, they should not resist the help, but try to guide it. --Abd (talk) 22:04, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Fortunately, the stuff that happens here on Wikipedia doesn't cause people to die as far as I'm aware! I guess that's one good thing to be said about it... :-) *Dan T.* (talk) 23:38, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Usually not, anyway. I suspect there have been a few suicides. I know of one person who is sitting in federal prison right now, awaiting psychiatric evaluation, whose condition was quite possibly exacerbated by his experiences here. Really, it can be quite abusive and depressing, but that's only likely to affect people who are already marginal in some way. There are consequences to what we do; treat people badly, it can harm them and others. --Abd (talk) 00:40, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Block review

Okay. So I just blocked User:TipPt indefinitely, again. (I'm certainly open to having the block changed without my consent.) This is a long-time single purpose account who basically only edits circumcision and its talk page, to complain about the content of the article, without actually adding much himself lately, except to put disputed tags back on it. (This is the most recent example of TipPt trying to add content, and a reliable source is removed to do it.) User has an escalating block log, doesn't appear to listen to reasonable advice, has a problem remaining civil, and thinks everyone is out to get them.

I felt that this editor is being unhelpful and should be removed for the time being, but people may wish to suggest an adjustment of the block, or, possibly, a ban. Grandmasterka 22:56, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Indefinite is not infinite; if the editor acknowledges and addresses the issues with his editing, fine with an unblock, but so far, support this block. --Rodhullandemu 23:04, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

The user ID is certainly a tipoff. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:22, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh, that's a rather cutting remark. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 00:25, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh these silly jokes, is there no end in sight. Chillum 00:36, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

"So, mein young mensh, what you vanna be ven you grow up, eh?" "I vanna be a mohel, mein papa!" "A mohel? Vhy's dat?" "'Cause a rabbi gets a salary, ja, but a mohel, he gets all da tips!" Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:47, 17 February 2009 (UTC) (And somewhere, Myron Cohen is spinning in his crypt)

Oy vey, can we all stop being schmucks here? Badger Drink (talk) 11:14, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

My apologies for the poor Jewish accent. It's less like a New York Jew and more like a Scandinavian Jew: Ole Moses. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:08, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

A sense of humour is a wonderful thing; but, there are times to joke and times not to joke: see this policy.
One condition before any unblocking might be that TipPt demonstrate the ability to respond (directly and civilly) to what has already been said in response to TipPt's posts. (involved editor) ☺Coppertwig (talk) 00:50, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

It's good to have ideals. It's also good to keep expectations realistic. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:02, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Karmaisking

Karmaisking is an exceptionally persistent, abusive banned user and sockpuppeteer. See Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Karmaiskingand Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Karmaisking. He routinely creates new accounts, abuses talk pages, including user talkpages and so on. He's engaged in off-wiki attacks on my blog, and made a range of threats. He clearly relies on exhausting the patience of editors and administrators defending against his attacks. Can I request whatever kinds of escalatory response are available in cases of this kind? JQ (talk) 11:24, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing we can do. He is already banned here; we block his sockpuppets on sight, and revert their edits. As for the problem on your blog, that is clearly outside the scope of the project's involvement; we are not able to police the entire internet. You should be able to drop the banhammer on him on your own blog, though. Just IP block/name block him and be done with the troll. Horologium (talk) 12:37, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I have of course blocked him both by name and IP at my blog. I was hoping that his IP might be stable enough to allow something similar here.JQ (talk) 02:07, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

You can try forwarding it to ArbCom or some checkusers by email, I guess. We don't want to know it here, though. Guy (Help!) 20:01, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Wittenberg University‎ copyvio problem

I have been removing text from Wittenberg University‎ that is a copyvio from the source listed for the material and who I believe is a school employee has been re-adding it first as an anon-IP, and now as a new user. I have tried to explain to them the need for OTRS authorization, but they simply re-add the material. Could someone please semi-protect to prevent the continued re-addition of copyvio material. Then maybe a third party can get them to go through proper channels. Thanks. Aboutmovies (talk) 20:03, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Even with otrs authorization, text like that from a primary source is usually not overly NPOV and probably isn't appropriate for an article anyway. We don't just write things in our own words to avoid copyright problems.--Crossmr (talk) 21:58, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually we do just re-write things in our own words to avoid copyright problems (otherwise what we write would be OR). Copyright protects the expression (i.e. the way the information is presented with word choice, punctuation, etc. and even to some extent the themes) and not the ideas/facts (see also Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service). In this case the website does not own the facts it has on the website, as no-one owns the facts. Thus re-writing the information is the proper solution if those facts are to be included. Now simply moving words around isn't good enough, but a complete re-write with the info would suffice. Aboutmovies (talk) 22:24, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

What Crossmr means - and he has a legitimate point - is that part of the risk of copying a primary source verbatim - even a freely-licensed one - is the risk of introducing a bias similar to the bias of the source. This was a big problem with early articles copied from the 1911 Encyclopedia Brittanica. Nevertheless this is a content issue that merits cleanup, rather than a copyright issue that merits blanket rewriting or deletion. Dcoetzee 23:27, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Crossmr's other point, about copyright was also correct. If we have (for example) 7 paragraphs of text which have been copied verbatim from somewhere, we cannot just superficially rewrite that copied text--moving a clause here and changing an adjective there--in order to avoid "copyright infringement." Someone needs to effectively wipe the slate clean and summarize those 7 paragraphs independently. But the line there is very fuzzy. One person's legitimate attempt at a summary could be seen as a trivial transformation. Protonk (talk) 00:19, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, this is the problem I'm trying to address in my essay Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. Dcoetzee 02:27, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

This is a conversation among smart people trying to prove they are smart to one another. Aboutmovies is, I'm sure, aware of the points everybody is making. Still, if it's the intent of the IP contributor to release the material under a free license, they should be permitted to do so (even given assistance in doing so). We'll then be free to sort out whatever content issues might remain without the baggage of copyright. If the page has not yet been semi-protected, I'll do so right away, and leave a note on the IP's talk page. -Pete (talk) 03:59, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

First, nobody said the copyvio info being re-added was great material, as that is not relevant to whether their was an ongoing copyvio problem that needed to be fixed. Separate issues, and the quality of the material is not an issue for ANI. Only the repeated re-adding of copyvio material was, as the article needed to be protected or someone blocked to prevent it from recurring. As to quality of the copyvio material, as I said "if those facts are to be included". That is to say in my second post here, I am not in anyway advocating the inclusion of the information contained at that website, only to say that the Copyright Act and case law would not prohibit anyone from using those facts (as opposed to the websites expression of those facts). As to the point about re-writes, I shall repeat what I said before: "simply moving words around isn't good enough, but a complete re-write with the info would suffice" which means this would not be a "superficial[] rewrite", additionally a complete re-write would also address issues such as UNDUE and NPOV in general. But I'm done with ANI. Aboutmovies (talk) 08:57, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I apologise for getting off-topic - I was just discussing the general issue because I thought it was interesting. Concerns of article quality are indeed not pertinent to ANI. Dcoetzee 21:50, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Rashtra

As an un-autoconfirmed user, s/he is unable to complain on this page (maybe a good thing), but seems to be levelling some serious complaints which could spiral out of control without decisive action. To repeat, this is not my complaint, nor do I vouch for its integrity; I just think it might be wise to move earlier rather than later. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 11:27, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

The issues relate to perceived favouritism by admin User:Nishkid64 who supposedly ignores the racist and uncivil comments by User:Wikireader41 while blocking others talk page entry. I will advise Nishkid64 of this. I am trying to get some diffs from the editor. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 13:57, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Rashtra is the banned user Nangparbat. I've given a final warning to Wikireader41. If he violates WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL again, I will block him. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 20:55, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Nishkid64 ...I knew you'd have the answers if given the chance to respond :-) (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 22:09, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Caroline Cox, Baroness Cox and possible legal threat - admin sanity check requested

I protected Caroline Cox, Baroness Cox for long-term edit warring, giving it a three-day rest, and asked the various IPs and one user involved on their talks to talk it out on the talk page. I come back from a long AFK session to find this possible legal threat on my talk page, with CofJ (talk · contribs) accusing me of libel for having protected the article. A similar edit from him is here. He's since posted on various talk pages of other editors, saying what the lead of the article is required to be. Can we get some admins to review all this, and some Britons to weigh in on the content? Some of the edit warring includes removal of a lot of sourced content, with everyone calling everyone else a vandal for "apparent" good-faith edits. Previous AN/ANI reports on this:

• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive93#Legal_threats_and_sockpuppetry
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive138#Info_deleting_vandal
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive184#User:CofJ

Long history here, it turns out. rootology (C)(T) 19:21, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

• Looks sound to me. As it's a WP:BLP I would suggest you take advantage of the protection to comb through the various competing edits and remove anything poorly cited or contentious. I'll check OTRS for any related tickets. Guy (Help!) 19:25, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

And now it appears that these are one and the same (the IP just vandalized my talk page):

• CofJ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• 96.231.95.250 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Note the extremely similar edit summaries, so logging out to edit war and vandalize, as well. rootology (C)(T) 19:40, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

There's actually a lot of logging out going on here, including logging out to edit-war and evade 3RR restrictions. It's rather self-evident from the article history - Alison ^❤ 19:54, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I can't solve all of it, but I've indef-ed CofJ (talk · contribs) for legal threats after he/she vandalized Template:Editprotected and inserted the libel claim there and several other places. Toddst1 (talk) 20:50, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I think it's a stretch to call empty "it's teh libel" claims legal threats, but it is unquestionably the case that this user's behaviour is inappropriate on a number of levels. Guy (Help!) 22:31, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Someone claiming IP ownership of photo that was taken circa 1845

Resolved

 – commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Margaret Taylor.gif

Yeagerm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has left a message at File talk:Margaret Taylor.gif to the effect that he or she owns the intellectual property rights to File:Margaret Taylor.gif (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), a scan of a 160-odd-year-old photo of Zachary Taylor's wife, and that Wikipedia is doing him or her terrible harm by hosting it and asserting that it is in the public domain. I'm under the impression that even the most unforgiving reading of copyright law can't keep this image out of the public domain, but I'd like it if someone else could also evaluate the claim and give a second opinion. Or is this the kind of thing that should just be passed directly to OTRS? --Dynaflow babble 10:19, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with your assessment on the copyright. However you might want to ask him for more informations on his claims that the Library of Congress asked us to remove the picture. I can't find any OTRS tickets that may fit. -- lucasbfr ^talk 10:33, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I believe Yeagerm is referencing this. It's a request to change the attribution, not to delete the image. --Dynaflow babble 10:43, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

The only thing that might warrant a safety check here is that there might conceivably be an issue about "date of creation" versus "date of publication". If this was a privately owned photograph that was never published until recently, this might mean continued protection – depending on legislation and type of document. Can't say off-hand if something like that could apply here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:12, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Dammit, the guy seems to be right. According to our Public domain article and the law it references [93], photographs created before 1978 but not published until after remain under the copyright of their owners until 2047 at a minimum. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:21, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I was just reading 17 U.S.C. § 303 and coming to the same conclusion, contingent on the definition of "published." Does the developing of the daguerreotype and the presumed sale/transfer from the photographer to the Taylors in the mid-1840s count as publication? Reading on... --Dynaflow babble 11:31, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Nope, that would presumably fall under "creation for hire" in the sense mentioned in our article. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:33, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Where are IP lawyers when you need them? :P -- lucasbfr ^talk 12:00, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Unless it was first published after 2002: [94]. That means anything, no matter how old, that was first published in the U.S. (with copyright notice if before March 1989) between 1978 and 2002 is copyrighted by the original creator (which may be hundreds or thousands of years ago) until the Walt Disney Company comes to an end --NE2 12:06, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

If the picture was taken by an independent contractor, it wouldn't count as a work for hire (at least by current law) if a prior agreement hadn't been signed first explicitly stating that it was being done as a work for hire. Alternatively (and hypothetically), if the photographer was working directly as an "employee" of Taylor's in the mid-1840s -- which in normal circumstances would automatically make the creation a work for hire -- he would have been attached to the US Army, which would have made the photo public domain from the start. If we make the almost certain assumption that the photographer was an independent contractor, and that a written understanding of work for hire was not signed, then the photo seems like it would have been considered published upon transfer to the Taylors or whoever commissioned the thing. That means it would have entered the public domain long before 1978, and so it would continue to be public domain now. [head explodes] --Dynaflow babble 12:08, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Besides all that, check out that photo. And they called him "Old Rough and Ready"? How would you like to run into her in a dark alley? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:12, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Come to think of it, as unseductive as the lady in the portrait may be, does she strike anyone else as looking a bit too bright-eyed and bushy-tailed for a woman of the 1840s who was pushing 60, in reputedly terrible health, and utterly Crushed By Life? According to this, we may or may not actually be looking at a photo of Betty Bliss, which would make dealing with this photo even more of a pain in the ass. --Dynaflow babble 12:25, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

If the photo were a fraud, that could cause some pain to its owner, yes? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:34, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Note that "publication" means distribution to the public. This is understood to mean that the work was at some time made available such that essentially any member of the public, if they had been in the right place, and prepared to pay whatever was the asking sum, could at the time have obtained a copy of the work for themselves. Closed distribution to a select private group (for example, distribution of Oscar statuettes to Oscar winners, handing over a photograph to those who commissioned it, etc) doesn't qualify. Jheald (talk) 12:44, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

There was an interesting case on this recently in Germany, where the publishers of an opera score sued an alleged infringer on the basis that (until their edition) it had never been printed, and only performed for a few weeks in the mid 1700s. The alleged infringers got off, because experts were able to establish that it was a legal tradition at the time that new opera scores were made available so that anyone who wanted to send a copyist to make a copy could do so. The court therefore decided that the score had indeed therefore been published, on the basis that anyone who at that time in the mid 1700s had wanted to secure a copy of the score for themselves could have got one. But merely putting the opera on stage would not have been enough. Jheald (talk) 12:54, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Quite possibly. . . . So -- who wants to wake Godwin? --Dynaflow babble 12:42, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Am I getting from this that the user is asserting copyright purely on the basis of having bought the physical print itself? That claim doesn't seem very reasonable at all. We could always simply eschew the issue by using this image - http://www.whitehousehistory.org/04/subs_pph/PresidentDetail.aspx?ID=12&imageID=6205 - which was published in 1903 and is unquestionably PD - but I'm not sure that I like being bullied into not using a PD photo . --B (talk) 13:14, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

He used it for a book, so he may have known enough to get (sole?) publication rights. If not, would it still be copyrighted by the creator, or would the fact that he published it without permission negate the effect that publication has? --NE2 14:21, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

That the person has the only physical copy may not be relevant to who (if anyone) actually owns the copyright. From http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap2.html#202: "Ownership of a copyright, or of any of the exclusive rights under a copyright, is distinct from ownership of any material object in which the work is embodied. Transfer of ownership of any material object, including the copy or phonorecord in which the work is first fixed, does not of itself convey any rights in the copyrighted work embodied in the object; nor, in the absence of an agreement, does transfer of ownership of a copyright or of any exclusive rights under a copyright convey property rights in any material object." --Dynaflow babble 14:33, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I know that. I'm saying that he may have gotten such an agreement transferring copyright. --NE2 15:27, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

In his statement on the image talk page, he seems to be acknowledging that the copyright has expired, but claims "licensing rights". That's nice, but I know of no such thing. (I am not a lawyer.) When you physically have something, you can physically restrict access to it, but that's about it. The only way I can come up with that our use of the image might be a problem is if it constitutes tortious interference. In other words, the owner of the picture signs a contract with a website allowing them to copy it and display, provided that they take steps to prevent others from copying it. Does our use of the image, even though perfectly legal under copyright law, constitute tortious interference with that contract? I have no earthly idea and that's a question for the lawyer. --B (talk) 16:35, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, with his statement seemingly acknowledging that the copyright has expired, I don't think he was putting his case very well – for all I can see, that statement is simply not true. Licensing rights are copyrights. And somebody has them. If it wasn't published before 1978, there never was anything to expire. Whoever it is that owns the actual copyrights, he or some unknown heir of the original owners or whoever – one thing seems clear, it never became public domain. According to the pre-1978 laws, the clock never began to tick on those copyrights as long as the owner kept the thing at home. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:02, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm missing something here. According to http://www.copyright.gov/pr/pdomain.html, any unpublished work whose author died 50 years before 1978 became public domain in 1978. If a 10-year-old took a photo in 1845, they would have been 93 in 1928 and presumably dead. In 2003, the 25-year extension expired, so now any unpublished work where the author has been dead for 70 years is in the public domain. If a 10-year-old took the photo in 1845, they would have been 104 years old 70 years ago. Unless I'm really missing something here, the photo is unquestionably in the public domain and copyright is not an issue. --B (talk) 23:46, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

What you are missing is that the third paragraph explains that what is described in the second paragraph was seen as a problem, which was "fixed" by adding special rules for previously unpublished material. --Hans Adler (talk) 00:25, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

My personal opinion is that the copyright claim is sufficiently tenuous that I am not moved to do anything directly. However, I do agree that we should encourage the user to discuss the matter with Mike Godwin who is presumably in a better position to resolve the issue. Dragons flight (talk) 00:56, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

• Since the file is on the commons, commons:File:Margaret_Taylor.gif, the discussion should move there. --evrik ^(talk) 00:05, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

When it does, could someone post a link to it?--Wehwalt (talk) 00:26, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

There is something called publication right that comes from first publication of a previously unpublished work in certain situations... but it is not recognized for first publication in the U.S. (It does happen in the UK and Germany and elsewhere, and Wikimedia being for international usewould have to follow it, plus U.S. law typically recognizing legal copyrights for new copyrights in countries following the Berne convention). The site in question the image came from is based in the U.S., so unless there's some European publisher who first published it and that site has permission from them, there's no basis to that claim. DreamGuy (talk) 00:41, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

You are probably formally correct that there are no publication rights in the US, but you are ignoring the special rules introduced to cover the transition from the old US copyright scheme to the new one. We have been discussing them above, see links provided by Future Perfect and B. They have very similar effects similar to publication rights, making your conclusion invalid. --Hans Adler (talk) 01:18, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I sent Mike Godwin an e-mail earlier today (this morning by Pacific Standard Time) asking him to look into this. --Dynaflow babble 03:56, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

• There is now a discussion here: Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Margaret Taylor.gif. --evrik ^(talk) 04:27, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Mike Godwin has e-mailed me back and says, "I don't see any compelling reason to remove the image of the work in question. If the purported owner of the work wishes to make a copyright complaint, that complaint should be directed to me [at mgodwin(AT)wikimedia.org]." --Dynaflow babble 00:33, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Darren M. Jackson

• Diamonddannyboy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 86.11.100.50 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I feel this has gone far enough and that Diamonddannyboy and his IP needs a block to rethink his behavior.

Incivility/personal attacks: [95][96][97] (see the edit summary in the last one)

Disruptive editing:

• Archiving active discussions on talk page: [98][99][100][101][102]. Previously brought up at ANI here.
• Reverting the article in part or in full to an old revision after not liking what myself and another user both felt should be removed from the article: [103][104]
• Misleading edit summary: 1

Those are specific issues, there's also general edit warring over content. At the core this is a content dispute but Diamonddannyboy's behavior is making it very difficult to resolve. Please take a look at the talkpage of the article to get the full picture (complete talkpage before archiving). Thanks. --aktsu ^(t / c) 14:10, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

For the evidence that the IP and Diamonddannyboy is the same user, see discussion on my talkpage. Will notify both the IP and Diamonddannyboy of this discussion now. --aktsu ^(t / c) 14:12, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Warnings about incivility: [105][106][107] --aktsu ^(t / c) 14:19, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

the previous ANI was left open because he apparently stopped archiving the article's talk page mid discussion, but he kept threatening to continue. now that he's started again, he's proven that he does not understand or doesn't care that he's disrupting the article Theserialcomma (talk) 21:15, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Blocked Diamonddannyboy 48 hours and the IP one week. This editor archived an article Talk page five times without having consensus from other users to do so. See his previous block log and his record of sockpuppetry. EdJohnston (talk) 02:29, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Admin on a blocking spree

For the original information see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive514#User:Ghagent and User:Ghchat pages are being used for Myspacey-type chatter.

I just came across 200.30.68.212 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) who has made only one possible useful contribution in February. Based on that I looked at;

• Crashoverride10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Lapsax (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Ghagent (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Irisj-k (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Iris (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Pest (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

With the last two there are no contributions but the history of their talk pages is interesting. Crashoverride10 and Ghchat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) were both blocked earlier by User:Hex and User:Luna Santin. Based on what I see I really don't think these users are here to help Wikipedia and so I have blocked them all. At the same time I have redirected and full-protected their user pages and semi-protected their talk pages. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 01:11, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I've done a lot of these social-networking blocks in the past, and decided it was time to create Template:Uw-myblock :) seicer | talk | contribs 01:49, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

How can you know these users won't become the writers of featured articles someday? This kind of admin abuse and stalking must stop. What has happened to WP:AGF? Gwen Gale (talk) 01:58, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm all for directing enthusiasm to the right place, but when there are no, or few, constructive edits to content, I think a line has to be drawn. --Rodhullandemu 02:01, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

(ec)My impression is that these cases are rare, but certainly, those who use our (free) resources for social networking, setting up non-notable games pages, and the like, should be discouraged. I see the block template and will note it, but (and not only is it late here but I have also just had to rebuild my operating system, fortunately without apparently losing anything important), but is there a hierarchy of these templates or do we go straight from zero to block? --Rodhullandemu 02:01, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Kidding aside, after a month or so of no meaningful edits, I'd block indef pending consensus from the community that Wikipedia's servers and bandwidth are now open to straightforward social networking, as a way to snare and groom new editors. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:06, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, that just isn't going to happen, because such consensus isn't gonna happen either; the flipside is that new, and tentative editors might have some idea that we are an encyclopedia, and very little else; potentially constructive editors, I think, should exhibit this understanding in their edits, however naive, e.g. by correcting spelling mistakes, or tidying up grammar, even if their edits don't fulfil WP:MOS and its project-specific subtleties. My own initial editing experience here was hard, but I managed to adapt and understand, if you will, to the way things are done. A {{welcome}} may be all very well, but many younger editors are somewhat impetuous and impervious to the finer details of policy, particularly image policies. For seasoned editors used to creating defensible, or good, if not actually featured, content, the overhead of nursing new editors may be outside their interests. We tend here to throw new editors into the deep end, and if they don't make it, discard them. That, in one sense, is regrettable; whereas there is Admin School, there is no "new editor school", as such. --Rodhullandemu 02:50, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

My position on WP:MYSPACE blocks is somewhat different from consensus; I think they should have to go through at least two levels of warnings and be encouraged to make a productive contribution somewhere, even if it's just a spelling correction, before we consider a block, regardless of how long they've been a user without making a productive edit. After all, the biggest hurdle for a new contributor is always making their first edit, and if we can gently (or not so gently) encourage them to do that they may not have to be blocked. Dcoetzee 02:29, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

It's understood there are mild disagreements on how to handle these accounts. My own outlook is, a user's first few edits show a very strong likelihood as to what they have in mind: If the edits have to do with social networking, that's what they're here for. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:36, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I know this is a bit off-topic, but what's with the overly-long signature, anyway? (And what do you have against sausages?) —Travis^talk 02:46, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

It's not really an answer to your question, but the sig isn't overly-long in my opinion. By avoiding font and color changes, their sig isn't much longer than your simple-looking sig in the edit window. --Onorem♠Dil 03:00, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Answering the following: "Is there a hierarchy of these templates or do we go straight from zero to block?" I surmise that the current set of warning templates can apply. seicer | talk | contribs 03:12, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there's any standard escalation past {{uw-socialnetwork}}, but I'd hope that more than one warning would be issued prior to blocks being issued. Blocks seem to be handed out too quickly now. --Onorem♠Dil 12:20, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

To try and answer both above points, unless I've missed something, and it's quite possible I have, apart from the generalised disruption templates, there isn't a hierarchy for what might be called "non-encyclopedic use of edit-space". As for blocks being handed out too quickly, it's a matter of clue; although the word "encyclopedia" is hexasyllabic, it's not beyond rational comprehension, and I find it easy to distinguish between those editors who appreciate this, and those who don't. --Rodhullandemu 03:51, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

If anyone feels I was a little overeager then please feel free to adjust/remove in any way.

TravisTX, the signature is stolen from Bluebottle and can be seen at The Goon Show running jokes. Why next you'll be telling me that you have no idea who the great war hero Captain Hugh Jampton is! I looked at the size of it and it appears that it's smaller than Seicer's but slightly bigger than Rodhullandemu's, the signatures that is. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 04:02, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

• I make no claims based the size of my signature; that's an epiphenomenenon of our technology; it's not a macho thing, unless I am actually female. --Rodhullandemu 04:19, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Seicer, do you mind if I use that oh-so-nice template you created to the page of the user talk page User talk:Beautiful&Educated, used by the user Beautiful&Educated (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)? I myself think it would fit perfectly.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 05:24, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Sure, it's freely available. For now (until I get more time), I think it is acceptable to use the standard notification templates, but reserve uw-myblock for the finale. seicer | talk | contribs 12:59, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Just as a quick comment, the user I blocked was Ghchat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), an apparent parallel account for Ghagent (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), and only after several warnings had been received and blanked. I think if warnings are ignored in that way it's an open-and-shut case. As an aside, I wonder if there are many other invisible mini-networks like this, only editing each other's user spaces? — Hex (❝?!❞) 15:22, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

• That's fine, if warnings are being given and ignored. It's not something that needs a rapid-fire block, we can try to educate them, but past experience is not exactly grounds for optimism, unfortunately. Guy (Help!) 19:56, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, no time right now to take action, but: Rollthebones (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and User:Morachnus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) are another social networking case. (Special:Random/user is awesome.) — Hex (❝?!❞) 07:51, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Not to be agist but

Resolved

 – Revisions deleted. –xeno (talk) 13:59, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

anyone besides me concerned with the content? Dlohcierekim 22:46, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Nah. The user didn't upload any of the pics; just displaying them. Harmless, AFAIC. The userpage history has some amusing edit summaries, tho. Tan | 39 22:51, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

He removed everything. Raiku Lucifer Samiyaza 22:58, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, look at the dif's. I've removed what I'm talking about. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 23:17, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Looking at what Dlohcierekim removed, it looks like the issue was personal information for a minor, not the LOL Cats. Since the user has readded some information but not the problematic info, can we mark this as resolved?--Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:57, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

If we're truly concerned about personal information of a minor (especially one under 13) then we should have the diffs oversighted.--Crossmr (talk) 02:09, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and deleted the revisions, if someone feels it's important, they can engage an oversighter to get rid of the deleted revisions. –xeno (talk) 13:59, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Personal attacks on medical articles

MichaelCPrice (talk · contribs) seems to think that personal attacks and uncivil behavior is a valid replacement for editing according to WP:NPOV, WP:MEDRS, WP:RS, and WP:WEIGHT. He has made the following attacks recently:

1. Calling an editor a liar
2. Calling me a liar (I won't bore you with the several other instances)
3. Calling editors irrational
4. Calling editors severely disturbed

This is just a choice few. Setting aside the personal attacks, what Mr. Price fails to embrace is that we do not give undue weight to fringe theories. And, despite a valid guideline, WP:MEDRS, he wants to include citations for either tertiary sources which are specifically excluded from medical articles to make clinical claims, and second, he wants to include articles that have been disproved, set aside, or simply invalid. But those are issues which are purely content related, and are being handled by a number of editors and admins. I am requesting block so as to reduce the fighting and build consensus, but also because he's not listening to valid advice given to him by other editors here. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:16, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I started trying to mediate, but to no avail. A little quality time with WP:TE seems to be in order. - Eldereft (cont.) 00:36, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Orangemarlin (talk · contribs)'s behaviour, as an example, includes the removal of citations with an edit comment that is false; I point out the error and there is no substantive further engagement on the issue but the article is not permitted to be corrected. In another example an attempt at factual correction simply elicits a non-substantive response along with threats --Michael C. Price ^talk 01:15, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not all that familiar with the sources and the particular situation, but I'd say neither are acting very nicely. Michael is more out of line in his personal comments, but he contends that Orangemarlin is lying. If that is true, then it's not a personal attack -- it's a fact, and it is one worthy of attention. Also, Orangemarlin can make snide, deprecating remarks towards those he disagrees with and fly into emotional anger. I'm a little worried about even posting against him because I suspect I'll be attacked for it in the future. That was why that infamous ArbCom case arose. Note that in the 4th diff presented [108], Orangemarlin implicitly calls Michael a POV pusher and compares him to a creationist.

It's possible that Orangemarlin is not being truthful. At major depressive disorder, Orangemarlin cited a Cochrane review as stating the exact opposite of what it said, even after being corrected several times -- see discussion. The Cochrane systematic review, PMID 11869656, concluded that "available evidence does suggest these substances [tryptophan and 5-HTP] are better than placebo at alleviating depression". This was originally cited correctly, then switched by Orangemarlin to "tryptophan and 5-HTP have no effect beyond placebo" [109]. User:Looie496 noticed OM's mistake and corrected it [110], but OM changed it again [111]. Then I corrected it, and Orangemarlin again inserted the completely false language. At this point, User:Looie496 commented that User:Orangemarlin should be careful since he was under ArbCom restrictions, which he wasn't. For this, Orangemarlin called for the block of User:Looie496 at ANI (thread). Soon after, Orangemarlin removed all supportive studies from the 5-HTP page, although he stopped short of stating falsities aside from misreporting the sample size in an edit summary.

Also, note the message at the top of this page. This seems to belong more in Wikiquette alerts, and I don't think Michael should be blocked for personal attacks. II | (t - c) 01:27, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with ImperfectlyInformed, the issue is whether Orangemarlin has actually lied. I don't seem to be the only editor to have reached this conclusion. --Michael C. Price ^talk 01:32, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't know at all whether he lied, but it's worth straightening out. It might be helpful for you to succinctly lay out all your evidence of a lie here so we can determine if there is one. While personal attacks, unless egregious and consistent, shouldn't really be discussed here, lying about sources could. Those are a bigger deal than personal attacks. It's difficult to distinguish between a lie and a mistake, but when a mistake is repeated over and over, I tend to think of it as intentional. It's important to bring these up to deter it from continuing. Also, can you agree to stop making attacks on Orangemarlin? Better to say "you're not correct" then "you're a liar". II | (t - c) 01:43, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay, although either comment seem to provoke the same response :-) --Michael C. Price ^talk 01:51, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

The point of debate is not to convince your opponents, that is often impossible. You should refrain from enflaming the situation as an attempt to keep things calm. the return will come from others, not necessarily OM. Protonk (talk) 02:05, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Once again, this is about MichaelCPrice's incivility. And II stay out of this. You are borderline uncivil too. I love how the anti-science crowd comes out to support each other.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 02:39, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Note how any disagreement is labelled "anti-science". Is that civil? --Michael C. Price ^talk 03:09, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

It's not really uncivil no.It's a bit rude, to be sure, and you have been quite rude to him as well. This whole thing is simply petty squabbling. Theresa Knott | token threats 08:17, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

In any case, there seems to be far too much concentration on the weakest evidence, while ignoring the stronger. This, for instance, is out of line.

Checking his last 50 contributions, I find this, this and this comment which all serve to escalate the situation. While this edit by Orangemarlin's edit summary appears to be inaccurate, Michael nowhere attempts to politely point this out, instead choosing to roll back all of Orangemarlin's revisions and launch into severe personal attacks [112][113], turning a minor error (it appears Orangemarlin meant to remove the first citation, which his edit summary is an accurate description of) into a major situation. This dispute escalation is a major problem, and I support a temporary block. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 10:06, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree that I should have been more polite in your example and I apologise, but by that point both editors had lost their cool. In my case it was due to the continual smearing by association with creationists etc, and the serial factual errors. An example of how Orangemarlin likes to raise the temperature is seen in his attempted Wikihounding expedition, which he embarkd on immediately after raisng this ANI, [114][115] etc, culminating in raising an AfD. The expedition continued with a factual error in another article here, with the claim that the data were unsourced (not true, see ref that appears in article section), and another here, with claim that existence of atmospheric oxygen has nothing to do with the evolution of antioxidants. Note: all edits were made without any engagement on the articles' talk pages. It seems hypocritical to stoke the fires and then complain about the heat. --Michael C. Price ^talk 13:40, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Anyone know about Lex Luthor?

Hi: I have been somewhat helpful reviewing Ralph Bakshi at FAC but I have recently been bothered by a guy who emailed me and wants me to do this and say this about the article. I have listened to him because he seemed to know what he was talking about concerning Ralph Bakshi but taken no action on his behalf. Now he is asking me to make changes to William Monahan because it is "being edited by an unlettered twit who stupidly leaves articles erroneous as he quests about the encyclopedia irritating people". It quickly got weird as you can read and I then said that I would have to ask others about the propriety of our conversation. He then told me to report this to ANI and he told me to come here and report him as The Lex Luthor of Wikipedia because you guys know him as that. I will let you guys deal with this chap because I am way out of my league here. LaraDFW tragedy (talk) 12:29, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Admins: The above is the latest sock of Manhattan Samurai Bali ultimate (talk) 12:47, 19 February 2009 (UTC).

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive512#The Lex Luthor of Wikipedia. Nothing to see here, folks, ignore the waving person, move on! LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:51, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Best to ignore, the editor's motivations are possibly mischievous. Skomorokh 13:10, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

That's what I'll do then. I had a feeling it wasn't all right with him. Thanks! LaraDFW tragedy (talk) 13:27, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Lara: What user account contacted you? I think you might be one of his socks but recognize that might be a little unfair.Bali ultimate (talk) 14:00, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Didn't this guy take forty cakes? --NE2 14:04, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Interesting, i knew MS would be back eventually. But could you please stop with the Lex Luthor puns, they stopped being funny 2 weeks ago. Elbutler (talk) 14:08, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

IP vandal

This case was initially submitted Here. MZMcBride moved it to SPI 22:59, 10 February 2009. Mayalld closed it 15:16, 16 February 2009 stating "if investigation is required, please file as an SPI case above". I asked MZMcBride what the purpose of submitting it to SPI was, given that most (at the time all) of the edits were from IPs. MZMcBride's response was, roughly, "I don't have anything to do with SPI, I'm trying to keep AV/I clear." Now, after adding to registered accounts to the SPI it is being closed because the one account is stale (blocked a while ago) and the second one was just blocked as a sock of the first. Argh! The original problem has not been addressed. Additionally, another new register user, Mr.s86, may or may not be involved -- their limited editing, while suggestive, is not quite clear cut. (Edits to Raven-Symoné and Raven-Symoné (album) claiming an otherwise unknown future album are pretty typical, but these edits and creating Lil' Miss Diva are a whole new level beyond.) What do I do with the IPs? Help! - SummerPhD (talk) 13:53, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

There's also Kielz86 (talk · contribs) and Boi91 (talk · contribs) (both blocked) and XoxoGossipBoy (talk · contribs) (not blocked) whom I found by following the overlapping chain of deleted contribs. All three have been active in similar areas. May be relevant if another checkuser request is required. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 15:59, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Mysticshade

Mysticshade (talk · contribs)

Requesting assistance with user who is continuing to flaut multiple guidelines - despite repeated requests from multiple users to temper his edits and engage in CON.

Specifically, Mysticshade (talk · contribs) has repeatedly and deliberately:

• Uploaded and included copyrighted materials (both images and text) in this project and Commons (And has been blocked on Commons for same)
• Has copied and pasted content from one topic to another (ignoring the GFDL authorship, redundancy and MOS guidelines) despite multiple explanations as to why this was inappropriate [116]
• Has engaged in editwars, reversions (bordering if not surpassing 3RR) and non-collaborative practices, despite multiple requests here and on article talkpages to engage with other editors
• Has copied and pasted copyvio content from other sources
• And has introduced factual inaccuracies into several articles. Examples include:
  • Persistent use of a 2:3 ratio flag for Ireland, when it is officially 1:2 [117]
  • Inaccurate representation of the number of singles releases by a particular band [118]
  • Etc.

On their own, all of these issues could easily be forgiven as "newbie exuberance", but the fact that the user continues to ignore requests to temper his edits are all being ignored. Not sure I'm requesting a block per sé, but something has to happen. Guliolopez (talk) 14:53, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

• While I agree with Guliolopez's assessment of Mysticshade's problematic edits above, unfortunately I don't honestly think that Mysticshade is a newbie. For example, a new user finding his/her way so quickly to a hot-button issue like the use of the Ulster banner [119] definitely rings alarm bells for me. I know that I am sticking my head over the parapet here in abandoning the assumption of good faith, but there is something odd going on here. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 15:17, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Fully support action being taken here. I also agree with Flowerpotman, the articles being targeted, the language seen suspicious. The user has resisted all attempts to get him to discuss changes on the talk page and vandalism warnings when that failed. The same pattern of editing (littering with decorative photographs) has also taken place at Dundee and Dublin and elsewhere. --Snowded (talk) 15:30, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Blocking a US government IP

Earlier today, 204.248.24.165 placed text on Morgan, Vermont that includes a copyright notice: for this reason, I reverted it and placed a uw-copyvio notice on the IP's talk page. However, since then, the text was restored (complete with copyright notice), so again I've reverted. I rarely deal with copyvio text issues, so I'd like advice: is it right to block after two instances of copyvios in one day? More importantly: the IP is registered to the US government's Department of Homeland Security. I've never encountered a situation before where an IP worthy of blocking was governmental; could someone who knows what to do with such a tricky situation please work with it, and leave a note on my talk page that it's been resolved? Thanks! Nyttend (talk) 17:10, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Short answer for the IP: You need to notify the foundation, see Wikipedia:Blocking_IP_addresses#Sensitive_IP_addresses. Considering the low amount of editing from that IP, it shouldn't be a big issue. -- lucasbfr ^talk 17:12, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of sending an email to the Communications Committee and putting a note on their talk page on meta. If you block such an IP address it is a good idea to go send a note to the committee ASAP. If there are no other issues this should be marked as resolved. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:47, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, 204.*.*.* is not among the sensitive addresses listed. As such, no notification is required. It might still be a good idea, though. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:09, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

My impression is that the sensitive ones are the ones where we really need to make sure admins do it and so we list them explicitly on that page. There's still a general need to alert the committee for other governmental IP addresses. Am I misinterpreting things? JoshuaZ (talk) 18:12, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Seems sensible to alert when in doubt. A Whois doesn't make it obvious unless you pick up the D?HS code, but the template at the top of the talk page makes it clear that it's Department of Homeland Security, which seems worth treating with care. . dave souza, talk 18:19, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Point of clarification: from what I can see, 204.248.24.165 hasn't been blocked, though it was blocked for 3 hours last October. A warning was given at User talk:204.248.24.165#February 2009 and the IP made two more edits which were reverted, then stopped editing. . dave souza, talk 18:14, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Your tax dollars at work. After a hard day at the Department of Homeland Security, the individual seems to be continuing to post the copyrighted material from home (that's a Comcast address). --Dynaflow babble 01:39, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Why not sprotect and be done with it? JoshuaZ (talk) 03:24, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

But where's the fun in that? I'd rather get a government employee in trouble! Grandmasterka 03:54, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

(after reading a huge and ugly notice telling me to go away) - Treat them exactly the same as any other troublesome IP. DuncanHill (talk) 03:57, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect. That is the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 at work. My guess is that it's the very first of US$787 billion spent. MuZemike 04:22, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

given that several different ip addresses have been used, the simplest things seems to be to semiprotect the article on the town. As this is quite recent, I did this for only 7 days.I would not rule out that the ed. involved may have written the copyright material himself. & doe not understand how to donate it to us. And, FWIW, there is nothing the lease inappropriate or exceptional about the material otherwise--a summary using it as source would be suitable content. May DHS never do worse. DGG (talk) 06:46, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Idf anyone's interested, the source of the copyvio seems to be this. --Dynaflow babble 21:35, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Tookluck

Resolved

 – Tookluck lostluck. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori)} 21:10, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Can we ban this user? He/She redirected the BLP article for Roland Burris with a libelous comment (1, 2). As this ass-clown doesn't seem to have anything positive to contribute, the sooner the user is shown the door, the better. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:30, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Blocked indef. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori)} 21:10, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Do we wait for train wrecks to happen?

Resolved

 – Blocked indef ACB. — neuro^(talk) 00:49, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Or can we be preemptive? Ratttso (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) - seems to be a logged-in version of 71.114.8.82 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) If this editor returns to main / talk space it is not going to be pretty. Wikidemon (talk) 06:35, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Imo increase it to raising warning levels on the onsent (possibly 4im) and less leniency. It is not a static IP ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 06:40, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Blocked indef. No useful contributions (plus block evading). yandman 08:31, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

• Er, are you advocating the instigation of trainwrecks (with response units already in place) to lessen the likelihood of unexpected trainwrecks to occur, with the attendant diminishment of negative issues being propogated - or have I edited the Modern Philosophy website as I intended? LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:45, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Could somebody please semi-protect Hassan Nasrallah?

Resolved

 – Semi'd 1 week. — neuro^(talk) 00:45, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

An anonymous editor, hopping from address to address, is repeatedly vandalizing Hassan Nasrallah. I've added it to WP:RFPP, but it does take some time for things to be addressed there. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 03:49, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Set for 1 week. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 03:52, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 03:57, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Egebwc

Resolved

 – Blocked indef ACB. — neuro^(talk) 00:43, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Egebwc has his password on his user page and it works. Probably should block that acct. --64.85.215.227 (talk) 15:30, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

OK. yandman 15:36, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Rogerspeed23

Perhaps I should AGF more, but this user's edits look to me like an attempt at under-the-radar vandalism. Most of them re-word small parts of existing articles in ways which introduce minor errors of grammar and spelling, and generally reduce the readability and flow of the text. I've reverted some of the worst cases. No, I haven't warned him, yet. It's late and I'm going home. I'm flagging it here in case someone here is familar with the MO. Philip Trueman (talk) 20:47, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I checked three different articles he edited, and agree, it does seem like vandalism. All his edits have been reverted in those. Not yet certain if he is doing this on purpose or not. We'll have to wait for him to comment here. I believe you are suppose to put a tag on his user page telling him he was mentioned here. Dream Focus 21:34, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to address the issue of vandalism. Its such a strong In fact its an inaccurate statement. Vandalism by its nature is destructive. As stated above the accuser isn't sure.

I try to correct usage, and grammar myself,I've seen some criticism for style not on substance yet in these arguments. You guys are in Europe or something. My language is Southern American. If I were going to vandalize something I would know how to do that. I don't know all that you have reverted...I'd like to know. I did see the use of vapour changed it to vapor ...I'll listen....just don't hit me with a hammer....

See here for starters. Natalie (talk) 23:02, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

"Southern American" or not, please explain how Underground mine ventilation moves of air to the underground workings of a in order to dilute and reduce the dangerous build up of deadly gases is correct in any dialect. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 01:16, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Rogerspeed23 is either a troll or someone whose command of Standard English is so shaky that s/he has no business "emending" WP articles. I'm not sure whether WP:DENY, WP:DNIV, or WP:COMPETENCE is most relevant here, but I'd suggest that the user think carefully about each edit s/he makes, after checking it with the preview function, before clicking on "Save page." Eventually, the work required to undo Rogerspeed's edits is going to make someone with the power to block lose patience with her/him. Deor (talk) 01:32, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not attempting vandalism. Although I have mangled some things, and I stand corrected. The ventilation section I edited was laden with some industry specific jargon and I thought I could clear it up a little evedintly I failed- my bad. I thought I corrected it. I'll try to be more careful so as not to incur your evident wrath. I'd like to try your good side and collaborate more effectively. Rogerspeed23 21:09, 19 Feb 2009 (CST)

Aid, please?

Resolved

 – Thanks, guys! -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori)} 22:02, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Could I have someone who knows Chinese please translate what's currently on User talk:龘龗龖龕龔龓龑龞龝龜齾齹齉鼉鼈麎麤? He's calling every attempt to remove it as racism, but apparently it appears to be just gibberish. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori)} 21:48, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

It's been nuked, but now he wants an unblock, again calling what happened racism. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori)} 21:58, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

If you use the google toolbar, you can add a button which runs it through the google translator, which usually gives a translation good enough to get the gist. Alternatively you can add {{notenglish}} and preview it, which also gives a link to a google translation.--Jac16888^Talk 22:39, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

For the record, Google Translate confirms that it's total nonsense. Mind, it wasn't able to translate some of the characters, but it got enough to show that there wasn't any meaningful text there. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 00:58, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Pikacsu

Resolved

 – He gawn, bye-bye.

Just 10 minutes after Pikacsu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)'s one-week block for disruption expired, he was back at Talk:Barack Obama with these edits. He hasn't learned a damn thing in the past week, and it's time he be shown the door. Grsz¹¹ 22:40, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

He was re-blocked (for good) 58 minutes after patiently waiting for a week-long block to come to an end. It's like the Superman episode where an arch-criminal seals himself in an impenetrable cube for 7 years, only to be arrested the minute he walks out. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:28, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive514#Pikacsu running afoul of Talk:Barack Obama/Article probation for the previous discussion here. Grsz¹¹ 22:42, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

It is a little interesting that the word "Afghanistan" doesn't appear currently on the Barack Obama's wikipedia article. It means for me that some guys from White House is coloring his bio, but they don't write the hard issues, the bad news. And if somebody is editing his article then it is a 100% probability that somebody will revert it, block you, and they say the reason: "personal attack". Pikacsu (talk) 22:49, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Either present evidence that the White House is editing the article, or retract that personal attack. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:52, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Compare it by Bush's article, that contains 15 times the Afghanistan word, this tells me everything. Pikacsu (talk) 22:56, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

And this is not a soapbox for you to add POV edits like the one's presented here. Dlohcierekim 22:54, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

(ec)This isn't the venue for content discussions. You know full well what you are doing with this repeated trolling on the article talk page though; they are not valid attempts to engage in discussions, they are your personal soapbox for criticism of all things Obama. This "woe is me" plea falls upon deaf ears. Kudos for setting a land speed record for resumption of vandalism after a ban's expiration though. Tarc (talk) 22:54, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I have blocked Pikacsu indefinitely for refusing to stop trolling. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 23:03, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

It seems from his blanking his page he has no intent to request an unblock. Can his page be protected and redirected? Grsz¹¹ 23:18, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

They should be able to modify his block to where he cannot edit his own talk page. However, it would be prudent to give it a day or so and see if, on reflection, he actually wants to work here. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:24, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Possible Sockpuppets of Blocked user Pudge2

Resolved

 – Banhammered. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 00:53, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

User:They watch you posted this message on J.delanoy's talk page claiming he/she was Pudge2 (an indef blocked user). User:They watch you was created by User:Poophead92. These are possible sockpuppets with one being claimed. What should be done....block, checkuser??? - NeutralHomer • Talk • February 20, 2009 @ 00:36

No checkuser needed if they admit to it. Fire away, boys. — neuro^(talk) 00:38, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

The user could be told to request an unblock with the original account (although other users have been allowed to continue with new accounts after indefinite blocks before). One thing I don't understand is why edits such as this were reverted as vandalism. —Snigbrook 00:58, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

It is still block evasion. — neuro^(talk) 01:07, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Walter Görlitz

Resolved

 – ANI not right venue, no serious problem to handle. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:34, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

User Görlitz deleted a porton of the text in Nobody's Fault but Mine claiming "no citation".[120] I added a citation to prove the claim.[121] User then deleted passage again under the pretext "No reason given for removing the text. Restoring." which is bizarre because he removed the cited text not restored it [122]. It appears he's trying to imposed his own opinion on the article by deleting cited text that disagrees with his point of view. HelenWatt (talk) 01:08, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

What he did is mistaken, but there's no sign it was intentional abuse. In cases like this, the normal response is to restore the content again, put a note on the article talk page and on his talk page that it looks like he mistakenly reverted your addition of a citation and the original text, and see whether that solves it. If they continue to remove it and won't respond on their talk page or the article talk page then ask more experienced editors or admins for help talking to them to find consensus.

The Administrators' Noticeboards are only for serious or ongoing issues. This isn't serious, and has only happened once so far. Also, if it was serious, we do ask that you notify users on their talk page when you file a complaint here.

Please reach out to Gorlitz on the article talk and his talk. Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:22, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Help with important issue on Don Stewart

I've attempted to add WP:RS and been reverted based on the objections of Harvest09 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who is a WP:SPA interested in removing negative material from Don Stewart, a faith healer. This user misunderstands policy, and has called cited material wrong or misquoted. As pointed out by myself and another person, it is that user who misunderstands the material.

When The Daily Courier, a newspaper from Stewart's hometown, is quoted (via google news archives--"Prescott native hopes ashes will help rebuild his ministry", The Daily Courier, November 5, 1982) Harvest09 called it "an old photocopy that can be questioned." Then ironically, the user brings up WP:V in which he clearly does not understand it has to do with "verifiability, not truth." Then in another case the user accuses a living person and a religious foundation of "misquote articles like the one they claim to be using in the Dallas Morning News and as a result their reference is not a RS." It is entirely inappropriate to attempt to remove a source by claiming a living person and foundation are purposely misquoting material. It also important to note that TWO sentences in question deals with the fact that the foundation worked with Inside Edition on a national broadcast about Stewart's faith healing and finances. On a side note, the user also wants the reference to a critical story on Inside Edition removed.

There are 271 press stories from 1981-83 in google archives all backing this up the racism, riot, arson, and money. Articles in that link include "Black Church Vs. White Pentecostals", Los Angeles Times, Oct 1, 1981; "2 Die, 9 Hurt In Police, Sect Shootout," Pittsburgh Post-Gazette; "Miracle Valley church members arrested as feelings run high," Kingman Daily Miner.

Furthermore, the riots from 27 years ago are so famous that recent accounts on the riots and shooting from police are published regarding a new book about the events. How a WP:SPA can block something that has a current and historical interest is why I am posting here. Can some other people take a look at this article/talk page and work on it with me? It seems no one else is willing to actually look at what's going on with this user and article. BBiiis08 (talk) 00:36, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

• It seems that no one is reverting or adding ad hominem attacks - just a rather heated discussion on the talk page. I think that process should be continued, keeping in mind that reliable sources can be wrong, and if contrary information can be found in another reliable source, put both in the article or leave both out, as consensus serves. I don't see anyone trying to keep all negative information out, just questioning the details whether they appear or not in the sources. Using exact page or paragraph cites will help point people to such details, or consider whether those details really add anything to the article. Basically a content dispute that hasn't bubbled too far off course. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:52, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Please look again. This is a revert and this is a revert from two uninvolved parties in the last two days. Whereas, this is a removal of sourced information. BBiiis08 (talk) 04:37, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

• • I think the seriousness of the paragraph removed by administrators should be very carefully worded, if it is used at all. The paragraph he wants to insert doesn't make a number of things clear. I guess we could get into it now, but it is kind of frustrating, because we had started discussing something totally different and this has become a diversion. There is so much there I haven't had time to read all the articles, but I haven't seen Stewart mentioned as a major player in these events. Sorry this has become such a bother. You can see my objections on the discussion page to the paragraph that includes events of murder, riots, a church burning, etc. We aren't getting any discussion from BBiiis08 on the article discussion page before he inserts edits. His only discussion is criticism of my concerns about WP-V, RS, and NPOV on the things he has already edited. I'm confused about what point he is trying to make about Stewart when he keeps inserting this paragraph into the article. Harvest09 (talk) 04:56, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
    • @BBiiis - as detailed also by Carlossuarez46 - the process of discussion on the talk page is appropriate and should be continued. Arguing therefore that an editor has a Single Purpose Account (SPA) smacks a little of not assuming good faith (AGF) towards an apparently new editor because on the face of it there is nothing wrong with Harvest09 having an initial interest in this article - unless he breaches policy or perhaps COI guidelines. Given that he is discussing his concerns at length at the article talk page, and that his concerns appear important, reverting your recent edits whilst awaiting the outcome of the discussion seems the appropriate and patient thing to do. Please note both Scarian and myself have only reverted based on our administrator role (in this case of assisting the process of discussion) and certainly in my own case I have no specific interest in the article.--VS ^talk 06:30, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
      • Harvest09 being a WP:SPA is completely relevant because he is writing a book on the subject/Stewart and has a vested interest-- maybe WP:COI? Just read that post about him interviewing people in the ministry for his book as well as his attempts to contact them over this article. BBiiis08 (talk) 06:37, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
    • You (Harvest09) haven't explained what line/what sources you are concerned with. You simply write exclude for "WP-V, RS, and NPOV" concerns. You haven't been specific at all. Which WP:RS? Are you doubting that a boy was killed during the rioting as referenced in James Randi's book? Do you doubt two people were killed in the above cited sources or this news article? Are you saying this article is wrong about Stewart sending out letters asking for money? You can't throw a blanket claim of "WP-V, RS, and NPOV" to get sourced material removed. You can't just say, "I doubt this newspaper's article so we can't include it."
    • Above Harvest09 wrote: "...I haven't had time to read all the articles." If you haven't read the articles then on what basis do you oppose using the newspapers as references?
    • I added my proposed addition here: Talk:Don_Stewart_(preacher)#Proposed_paragraph. BBiiis08 (talk) 06:34, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) This really is a content dispute so doesn't belong here, but I can affirm that my feelings about User:Harvest09's participation echo those of User:BBiiis08. They appear to be an SPA intent on removing negative content from the article (see their contribs and judge for yourself). Just my 2 cents. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:17, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, not an SPA - two SPAs: User:JScardilli. See contribs (and note edit summaries vs changes). Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:28, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Yep, I didn't mean to SPA, but I didn't have a clue how to do things then. But I have been studying a lot and trying to do things correctly now. We can talk about this article on the discussion page, but like BBiiis said there are 271 newspaper & other articles. I've only read about 15 (How many have you guys read?), and don't see any connection to Stewart and all the dramatic stuff, (murder riots etc) For instance one article says Stewart sold the property to The Assemblies of God, (religious denomination), for one dollar long before all this happened. Then there is another that says it was valued at 2 million after it burned, see what I mean? Sorry if I'm doing something wrong here, but we should make it clear these people didn't have anything to do with Stewart, unless there is something in one of the other 256 articles I haven't read. I sure wish we could just cleanup the Stewart article as it stands first before we tackle something with this much material and this controversial. I don't see the big rush for anything in this article, (except not accusing or insinuating someone is involved with a group that committed murder), that is why I'm using it to learn on. Harvest09 (talk) 07:31, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

question about an old "friend"" of ours

As this user or an imitator has returned (if ever so briefly), should some version of this page be around for a reference? I remember reading it when I first started out, but it has since been deleted per WP:DENY. I doubt if many of us remember, and I think the benefits of having a point of reference outweigh the detriments. If nothing else, it's answer to a common RFA question. Dlohcierekim 22:07, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion on wheels!!!!!. Guy (Help!) 22:45, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:DENY is not policy. Endorse restoration, its deletion is merely a hindrance. Besides, Willy on Wheels is already reasonably well known on Wikipedia aside from the LTA page. — neuro^(talk) 00:38, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

...and has publicly apologized, lest I'm mistaken. It's a Spy wearing a WoW mask. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori)} 01:29, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion; I recall reading on a mailing list post a sincere apology from WoW after Wikipedia use managed to save him from flunking out of college. Anybody with the "(Willy) on Wheels" moniker is an impersonator, and should be blocked, no LTA needed. In fact, I wouldn't be shocked if this was a Grawpalike. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori)} 01:29, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I realise that this is probably just a copycat, but there is no real need for that LTA page to be deleted, as far as I can see. If he really has apologised, WP:DENY suddenly loses any effect to me. — neuro^(talk) 08:03, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Requesting further input regarding the addition of stock information to Warren Buffett

Resolved

 – Gary King (talk) 05:51, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi, there is a content dispute at Warren Buffett regarding the addition of stock information, such as in this diff. I removed the content, but User:Iifacts added it back. We discussed the issue on their talk page, but it didn't go anywhere, so I am requesting for further input into the situation. Please see Talk:Warren_Buffett#Stock_Holdings for the latest discussion, in which we are trying to form a consensus. The user reverted the same thing four times in the past 24 hours (1, 2, 3, and 4) but instead of going to WP:3RR, I'd rather just build a consensus on this as soon as possible so it can be done with. Thanks! Gary King (talk) 03:59, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Gary cut off many good content from the Warren Buffett page, especially the stock holding part and time line just because of his own taste. I try to engage talk with him but he dictated the page has to be in his way only, and reverted the page many times (4 times in 24 hours). Many people have done a lot of work and it's a shame that everything is gone and the page now looks very difficult to read. Thanks! Iifacts (talk) 04:12, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

The information in the timeline is still in the article. I merged it into prose form because it was essentially prose line. Regarding my overall changes to the article, here is the before, and here is the after. For the record, I did not revert four times in the past 24 hours. Gary King (talk) 04:19, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Also, the user might have a COI with the website that they are using as a reference. Gary King (talk) 04:28, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I tend to feel the chart was too much smack in the middle of the article there, and I don't believe I've ever seen someone's stock holdings in their article before. It seems to me to be rather too detailed, and I've said so on the talk page. Tony Fox (arf!) 04:31, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I strongly think the stock holdings are important, what Gary did was that he cut off the stock holding info on Warren Buffett page and in the same time, change the stock holding data to his own, which was difficult to read and out-dated, with many data are plainly wrong (% of reported portfolio) on the Berkshire Hathaway page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_assets_owned_by_Berkshire_Hathaway). As an experienced editor, he intentionally violated the 3RR rule and tried to dictate everything.Iifacts (talk) 04:41, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Guys and gals, what Administrative action are we looking for here, not that I am an admin, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn last night. This looks like a content dispute? Maybe try request for comment or ask some others to look at it which you did at the top of this section, but other than that? If parties are edit warring, take it to the 3RR board and I am sure some admin will be happy to block for a bit to help cool things down. Anyways, good luck. Tom 04:47, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm just looking for further input on how to best proceed. Anyways, the user was reported to WP:UAA by someone else and the information in question has been removed from the article. Gary King (talk) 04:56, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

• The information pertains to Berhshire Hathaway, and not Buffet, also, WP appears to be against including exhaustive, directory-style information, and I have tried to explain it to lifacts (talk · contribs) on his talk page, along with the rest of this discussion. Ohconfucius (talk) 05:18, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I believe that this has now been resolved. Gary King (talk) 05:51, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Are you sure?

Can someone please block Decoybrick1?

• Decoybrick1 (talk)

This user is vandalizing User talk:Eugene Krabs and OGame. - Eugene Krabs (talk) 06:51, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

This closely resembles a content dispute to me. The cheating section would warrant some redaction because of possible defamatory content, but I only see warnings about "vandalism." Has the user been informed about BLP policies and such? --Dynaflow babble 06:53, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

If these questions annoy you, I apologize. What's BLP policies mean? Also, what's BLP stand for? - Eugene Krabs (talk) 07:02, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah, good question. See WP:BLP. If I'm seeing this correctly, Decoybrick1 added some odd and problematic material to an article, and then you and he proceeded to edit war over it. Has Decoybrick1 even been informed why, specifically, his or her edits are a potential problem? --Dynaflow babble 07:07, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I think I'll let you take over the operation. That way, I won't accidentally get in trouble with another administrator. =D - Eugene Krabs (talk) 07:12, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not an administrator, just helpful. All I'm suggesting is that you may want to communicate with Decoybrick1 in a more in-depth way than uw-vandx templates and see what kind of response you get. You both need to stop edit-warring, though. I'll leave a warning to that effect at Decoybrick1's Talk page. [EDIT:] Someone beat me to the punch, but do try to be more communicativey and less reverty when Decoybrick1 gets back from his 3RR vacation. --Dynaflow babble 07:17, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay! Also, LOL at your vacation joke. XD - Eugene Krabs (talk) 07:24, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

(ec x 2) I don't see this as straight vandalism (on OGame), there is an element of content dispute. I gave him a 24hour block for 3RR violation. Mr. Krabs, please do try that communicativey thing :) --Versageek 07:28, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

This account needs a looking at

Resolved

 – Hardblocked. — neuro^(talk) 10:32, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

[123]. Edit is troubling even in sand box. Flaquito (talk) 07:10, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Username reported. — neuro^(talk) 08:01, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

And hardblocked. Flaquito (talk) 09:04, 20 February 2009 (UTC)