Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive717

CoolKoon

Hi.

From Wikipedia:No personal attacks: Some types of comments are never acceptable:

Racial, sexist, homophobic, ageist, religious, political, ethnic, sexual or other epithets (such as against people with disabilities) directed against another contributor. Disagreement over what constitutes a religion, race, sexual orientation, or ethnicity is not a legitimate excuse.

User Coolkoon wrote [[1]]:

And have no doubts about it, over 50% of Slovakia identifies itself with such psychotic claims CoolKoon (talk) 21:53, 18 August 2011 (UTC) --LastLion (talk) 11:21, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Note: I've just moved this from WP:AN Nick-D (talk) 11:40, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Sheesh, another Slovak nationalist sockpuppet?! When I said in the last discussion about this that it won't be long before another Slovak nationalist will appear out of the blue to give me a hard time, I never would've thought that that'd happen within a DAY! BTW thanks for notifying me, Nick-D (after the blatant sock with malevolent intentions has failed to do so).

And as for my statement, anyone can read the translation of the Slovak note posted by the user I've referred to and make up his own opinion. My opinion was that the user's psychotic (evidenced e.g. by the fact that he's referred to Hungarian as the "language of the barking dogs", that I'm warmongering etc.) and my assertion's been supported by at least one of the admins as well (the guy's been indef blocked). The second part of my statement is supported by all the representative polls in Slovakia whose long-time winner and leader (with over 50% approval rate) is a party called SMER. Now this party was the ruling power of the 2006-2010 governing coalition. During this time Slovak-Hungarian relations have rapidly deteriorated (to the point of freezing). Then in 2010 election the party's campaign was heavily based on anti-Hungrian sentiments (e.g. they've indirectly accused the right-wing parties of "treason" by entering into a coalition with the then only Hungarian party of Slovakia). Therefore I fear that the whole electorate of SMER (over 50% of the voters) agrees with/endorses the heavy anti-Hungarian propaganda they've been pursuing back then and ever since. Therefore I have to conclude that many in Slovakia DO identify themselves with anti-Hungarian sentiments (such as the ones written on my talk page). -- CoolKoon (talk) 13:21, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Hobartimus

[text inserted by block evasion removed]

--LastLion (talk) 11:21, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Note: I've just moved this from WP:AN Nick-D (talk) 11:40, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

This is not the only inadequate action done by Hobartimus these days. At 1848–1849 massacres in Transylvania he is trying ([2] [3]) to remove a text supported by a reliable source ([4]) and to reinsert 2 sources that were considered by an administrator and 2 other neutral users to be unreliable (WP:SPS) - see [5] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.24.46.251 (talk) 12:16, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Note that the reporter was indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet of user:Bizovne. Bizovne a user from Slovakia was communicating with the banned user:Iaaasi in email, and acting as a meatpuppet / proxy for user:Iaaasi. Hobartimus (talk) 19:20, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Another Plautus Satire is born

I've had it with the Wikipedia. You work hard to make an article good and someone reverts it or deletes your work over some minor oversight without giving any notice. EVEN WHEN MY PERSONAL EMAIL IS DISPLAYED ON MY TALK PAGE. Then, even though it is clear that some mistake was made, it is damned difficult to get it fixed as most admins will automatically side with another admin on principle alone regardless of the merits of my argument, regardless of the rules and policies in place. Then, I realized, it is way more fun to vandalize and troll the wiki

Congratulations Guys, you just created a super troll / super vandal

Joey Eads (talk) 13:14, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

The primary form of communication between users here is by talk pages, not email. That's why you see a big honking orange bar that says "you have new messages" when somebody posts to your talk page. It's not reasonable to stick an email address on your user or talk page and expect users to open up an external email client to communicate with you about your on-wiki activities because that's what your talk page is for. On your images, they weren't deleted due to a "minor technicality". Wikipedia is a "free encyclopedia" and aside from some very strict exceptions we can only use images with a "free license" and the vast majority of images found on Panoramio don't qualify. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 15:58, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations Joey, you just made it insanely easy for the admins to indef you. rdfox 76 (talk) 13:31, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Joey, you're overreacting. I see Hut 8.5 suggested it, so why didn't you look at the logs for the file (or files) that were deleted, speak with the admin who deleted them, and then start up a WP:DRV if you weren't able to get things sorted out with them? lifebaka 13:59, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocked. This person vandalized WP:AN the other day with the same garbage via IPs. –MuZemike 14:05, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

FYI, this nuclear meltdown resulted over one image deletion: File:Johnson Beach west view.jpg. –MuZemike 14:18, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

It should be noted that some panoramio photos can be used here if the uploader chooses a free license such as this one I recently uploaded there. You just have to check the license before putting it on Wikipedia. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 15:01, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

It's taken from [6] where it is marked as copyrighted with all rights reserved, though it appears to have been uploaded to panoramio by the same person who uploaded it here (at least the name is the same). Hut 8.5 16:02, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Won't somebody please think of the turtles? - If I remember correctly, it was more than 1 image, though still a very small number. If copyright questions are an issue, I would hope it would still be possible to restore them long enough to get copies back to him. Can admins see a log for uploaded images that have since been deleted in contributions? --Onorem♠Dil 14:28, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

I only see the one image in there that was deleted recently. I could download it and email a copy to him, if he would like. Oddly, he seems to have had a similar reaction to something back in February 2008 and came back sometime in the interim. Cheers, everyone. lifebaka 14:43, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

I've just posted this to his talk page. Let's see if he responds and how. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 21:39, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

And as a bonus I sent him an email telling him about it. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 21:49, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Legolas, on another incivility

The user in question dropped by on my talk page, asking me to delete a particular GAR page that is deemed superfluous. A reply of mine is this:

IMO, the community reassessment page must be deleted. Based on the guidelines, GAR (community) must be used when there was no consensus reached by the involved editors. Seeing that it was only created yesterday, the second copy-and-paste move must be deleted. Also, Peter had a comment there (history page). I suggest you tag the other one. Thanks Lego. --Efe (talk) 13:16, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

We almost had reached decision which one to delete, but then I saw this diff which was an attack against the nominator, User:Paul75. Since I am involved in a discussion with the user, I decided not to delete the page (to preserve the diff for other user's reference, until there's a decision to delete the page). My writing here is about the gross incivility of Legolas, which precluded me from using the broom to execute the requested action. I believe he has been reported on this noticeboard more than once. --Efe (talk) 13:52, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand. What am I supposed to do? I don't understand the CSD rules here. Did I do something wrong in the page? About that comment, I sincerely apologize to the community as well to Paul, if he feels perturbed by it in any way. I guess I was trying to call him "smart" but I see how it was wrong. I will abide by any hold placed by the community as and what they decide. Thank you for bringing this here Efe. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 14:37, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

To other admins. Please review the deletion as requested by Legolas. --Efe (talk) 15:12, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

I would like to thank Efe for reporting Legolas for incivility. Unfortunately I cannot see in what way he was rude to me as the link has been deleted. I was searching how to report him for incivility myself,as I find his constant bullying, belittling and humilattion tactics distressing and not at all in line with Wikipedia conventions. Everyone is human and can make mistakes, and if I made mistakes in my GOOD FAITH nomination for a GAR reassessment of Like A Virgin I do not deserve to be made look like a fool by someone who constantly breaches Wikiquette. I would personally like some form of block or 'punishment' on Legolas as this is not his first warning. Tellingly, I was not given a personal apology - if I hadn't searched for reporting incivility and following link after link after link I would not have found the apology above. --218.185.58.34 (talk) 01:49, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Inappropriate use of userpage

User:InfinitelyWhipped has, since his arrival on Wikipedia, been using his talkpage as a sort of personal weblog, posting his favourite YouTube videos, lustful thoughts on Avril Lavigne and various other inappropriate content. I warned InfinitelyWhipped about this a couple of weeks ago, and with his permission refactored the page to remove the offending material with this diff (here's what it looked like previously). Today, I noticed that the page is still being used as a personal web page, with no other edits to the user's name save two minor adjustments to the Abomination of Desolation article.

I'm not exactly sure where to go with this - there doesn't seem to be an obvious process to deal with repeated violations of WP:UP - but have been advised that ANI may be the right place to turn. It's a piddly thing to complain about, since the user isn't exactly harming anyone, but guidelines are there for a reason, and there are perfectly servicable webhosts out there that can fulfill InfinitelyWhipped's requirements instead. Yunshui (talk) 18:50, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

I've deleted the duff content and posted what I hope is a concise summary of 'what not to post'. Hopefully he'll take the hint this time. Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:34, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Sandeep999 mass tagging for speedy deletion

I have come across a user who I think recently had an article of theirs deleted, TURF Insight[7], they are now mass nominating articles on competitors to that company for speedy deletion under WP:CSD#G11 [8][9][10][11][12] (only linking to a small proportion of diffs, see user's contibutions), these are mostly spurious, but I believe that Inbenta, Attivio, and Brainware have actually been deleted after being nominated by them (that is speculation, I can't know for sure as I am not an admin and the user has informed none of the creators). I am in the process of removing all of the db tags as disruptive, but could an admin look into whether a block is in order, and perhaps restore the deleted articles if necessary. Thanks, Quasihuman | Talk 16:06, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

There's a relevant statement by this user on my talk page 'I am not prepared to be excluded from a place where every one of our peers has one.' - MrOllie (talk) 16:29, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Quasi for this tag. In fact it was my objective to land up in a discussion like this. Otherwise, it would have been obvious stupidity to do so many tags and even tag the Google Search Appliance in a single day. My point is simple. Most of what I have tagged today had pure promotional content with most of them having references to their own website or a website like KMWorld that is so easy to get mentioned in. When I had pointed this out to Mr Ollie who made an obvious attack on TURF immediately after TURF was added on to the vendors list, he pointed me out to the "Other Stuff Exists" page. I had removed any content that could be considered promotional and even made genuine product promises as "claimed by the company". Yet, without going for a "promo"tag, it was put for speedy deletion. I would welcome Quasi's suggestion to restore all the deleted pages, along with the deleted TURF page. When contributions are made to the wiki, the intention is to share information. If some of the sentences, as you can see in almost all these tagged pages, are considered promotional the sensible and responsible thing to do is to suggest that it sounds like promotional and that it may need a few more references and not to push for a deletion at the earliest. Such suggestions were there in all the articles I had placed the spam on. I know that I took a rash step to get attention. But sometimes you just have to do something drastic to get attention and the right parties also out onto the same platform. Eager to hear more.

Sandeep999 (talk) 18:21, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Quasihuman, Attivio probably isn't worth our time to restore. Brainware had issues and would've benefited from being copyedited with a chainsaw, but wasn't perfectly G11 material; it's probably not worth worrying about unless someone wants to work on it, though. Inbenta currently exists.

Sandeep999, what you have been doing is disruptive. Don't do it again. We'll talk here, but if you do it again expect to find yourself blocked.

Most likely the best way forward, if you want TURF to have an article, is to create a sandbox version at User:Sandeep999/TURF Insight and work on the page's issues there. To save you some trouble, I can userfy the previous content there for you. Cheers. lifebaka 18:31, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Lifebaka, I understand your point and respect your opinion. I have no intention to vandalize or disrupt a great institution like wikipedia from where all of us have benefited immensely. Last year, I contributed 10 percent of my personal earnings to the foundation. My intention is to encourage the foundation, not disrupt it. I wanted the unfairness to be noticed and an option provided to correct a wrong. I have achieved my purpose. I will prepare the article in the sandbox. It would be great if you could verify it once it is ready so that next time I move it to public domain and someone like Ollie strolls in, the same calamity would not happen again. Thanks again.

Sandeep999 (talk) 18:39, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Lifebaka. can I just note that the authors were not informed. As a matter of courtesy would it possible to inform the authors after the event, and point them towards WP:DRV if they want to appeal. Having never seen the articles, I would leave it in the hands of the admins to decide what to do with them. Quasihuman | Talk 18:46, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

A note for Sandeep999 - please take a look at WP:POINT. Thanks, - Wikidemon (talk) 18:52, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

I have provided some additional detailed advice and analysis for Sandeep at User_talk:Sandeep999#Gaming_the_system. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:50, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Need a page move

Here for a Good Time (album) needs to be moved to Here for a Good Time, and Here for a Good Time needs to be moved to Here for a Good Time (song). There is a precedent that albums are superior to title tracks in the naming schemes. Can someone please do this move? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 22:54, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

WP:RM is the place to ask. While the 'precedent' you quote may be common, it is not always the case. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:03, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Disruptive comments, threats to disparage, and borderline legal threats from UrbanTerrorist

Resolved

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

UrbanTerrorist has been participating in various debates about the status of Heroes in Hell-- here at AN/I, at the Dispute Resolution page regarding those issues, on the Heroes in Hell talk page, as well as on my talk page. The debate is far too exhausting to explain and is not directly relevant to the problematic behavior of the user. The following are a sample of the user's conduct:

• these recent comments on my talk page: That law has never been tested on Wikipedia yet, and I am Not a Lawyer. However I would hate to be a test case which would prove that the law could be applied to Wikipedia.
• this threat to write about Wikipedia editors in a book as a way to stifle or skew discussion: I've finding this totally fascinating, and I've been documenting the entire procedure, so that I can write a short non-fiction book about what it is like to work on Wikipedia. I am a writer after all, and writing is what I do. I'm also a publisher, so I won't have any problems placing the book. I should warn you that all of you will star in the book.
• this notice to OrangeMike, also about writing a book about the entire episode: ...I wanted to make you aware that I've decided to write a book about the entire episode and that I'm gathering information.
• these disruptive comments in AN/I about people he knows: Yes, I know everyone involved. I know a hell of a lot of people. ...I'm two degrees away from George W. Bush, Barack Obama, Stephen Harper, Arnold Schwarzenegger, and a lot of other big names. It's not that I'm important. I'm not. Its just that before my body fell apart I used to be the Major Accounts Sales Representative for a company that manufacturers catalytic converters and other emission control products, and I spent a lot of time in Ottawa, Washington, and San Francisco, and I know a lot of people in government.
• Promotion of the writer's book during an AN/I: I've got several books in various stages - shameless plug - buy The Joy of IRig from the ITunes Book and Kobo book stores for $0.99 in September!
• accusations that a debate between two editors may prompt legal action: Exactly how mad do you wish to make her? From her comment on the Heroes in Hell discussion page I suspect she is damned near ready to call in the lawyers.
• An expression of belief that consensus building is dangerous, and therefore, Wikipedia is inherently dangerous for users: Wikipedia in many ways is a bad example. The belief in consensus building is dangerous. On one of the chemistry related articles the consensus was reached that 2H2 O2 = 2H2. Any chemist, like myself, would react to this with horror. As I stated during the earlier discussion, consensus is not suitable for all situations. Consensus of this sort, in an encyclopedia that people are using for reference, could kill someone.

Overall, we see threats, two comments that imply legal implications to Wikipedia or its editors, and general disruption. I am not alone in these observations:

• Doc9871 per this diff.
• lifebaka per this diff
• Qwyrxian per this diff and this diff with the edit summary: if I saw Urbanterrorist's comment outside of an ANI discussion, it would seem to be block-worthy to me, and we now see as such on my talk page and OrangeMike's talk page.

These have been scattered across the several discussions that UrbanTerrorist has engaged in, and it seems obvious to me that UrbanTerrorist's goals and conduct are not compatible with improving Wikipedia. Because we do not condone legal threats and because the editor's behavior has been grossly disruptive, I request immediate discussion regarding blocking the user, as this has gone on far too long. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 06:36, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

I saw this earlier, and had no time to act. Since then, I've been trying to decide if I wanted to take the risk of blocking UrbanTerrorist due to the danger of getting involved in some sort of ugly off-wiki drama. And then I realized that that's exactly why I needed to block xyr. I don't believe that there is any reasonable way to read the nexus of comments, including the indirect legal threat on I Jethrobot's talk page, the intentional announcement to involved editors of the book writing, and the "two degrees" name dropping as anything other than an attempt to compel others to be fearful and act accordingly. Add in the book plug, the pointy addition of 11 {{fact}} templates (7 in one sentence that really aren't at all challengeable) in this edit, and the overall attitude, I see a severe incompatibility with Wikipedia norms.

I may not be around much over the next 12-24 hours; if and only if a consensus should arise here to unblock (particularly in light of any redeeming comments made by UrbanTerrorist), feel free to unblock without consulting me. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:27, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Classic wiki-lawyering NOTTHEM unblock request, BTW. Claims that "I should warn you that all of you will star in the book" was actually not a threat "..to "publicize" the behavior of editors." Groan... Doc talk 15:52, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

And.... declined ublock. --Errant ^(chat!) 16:10, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

I see why people are upset, but this was not a drama-reducing way to address the behavior, IMHO. Overreaction. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 18:27, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

With all due respect, several other more neutral methods were attempted by other editors (notably Lifebaka and Doc9871) during the course of discussion, on my talk page, or on the editor's own talk page. The editor's behavior did not change. I feel this was an appropriate next step. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 19:31, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't think there was an overreaction either. If in an unblock request one states, "...if anyone feels threatened, they should consider their own actions. Nothing that happened was initiated by me.", they have clearly not read WP:GAB. Really standard stuff. He can always try again since his block is not "infinite". Hopefully he'll get it, but personally I'm not optimistic that he will considering all the diffs provided above. There are far too many veiled threats coming from him to wait and see if he makes a "concrete" legal threat. And we all know what happens then. Doc talk 21:34, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, yes, this was escalated a little quickly. But I think we should stamp on potential harassment, or the attempt to chill discussion using threats, fairly quickly. It's not collegial, and totally unfair to the other editors in a discussion. I think this can be recovered, although the onus on him now to buck his ideas up. --Errant ^(chat!) 00:01, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I also agree that I was "quick" to judge. Because I felt I had to be. If I'm feeling threatened about possible consequences of taking admin actions, then the threat is surely going to effect regular editing as well. I have left a long message on xyr talk page pointing out that I myself will unblock so long as xe can explain and accept the problems in prior behavior, and promise not to repeat them in the future. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:28, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I know this is serious and all that, but am I the only one that finds "I've finding this totally fascinating, and I've been documenting the entire procedure, so that I can write a short non-fiction book about what it is like to work on Wikipedia. I am a writer after all, and writing is what I do. I'm also a publisher, so I won't have any problems placing the book. I should warn you that all of you will star in the book." absolutely hilarious? Also, more seriously, this user should be indef banned until he decides to take back and never again uses the words "lawyer" or "law" in any way that can be construed as a threat. These comments singly are borderline, but taken together they are either a serious lack of judgement - in which case we need to protect the project from recklessness, or they are a conscious flaunting of the rules by going as far as the border, but never quite crossing it - in which case we need to protect the project from a gamer that is toying with WP:NLT to disrupt. --Cerejota (talk) 08:57, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Subtle vandalism?

90.201.251.28 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) persistently adds unsourced information or makes unsourced changes [13] [14] [15] (generally fairly trivial-looking such as residences). Stopped completely after 3rd August then started again yesterday. Some of what they're adding proves correct but a few edits have introduced information that is demonstrably wrong, eg [16] (contradicts the source) and [17][18] (captions contradicting the image descriptions), which makes me think they're mixing good-faith looking edits (such as adding wikilinks) with subtle vandalism.

81.136.183.218 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) who edited just before the 90 IP started up again looks to be the same user, as the 90 IP has reinstated two of their edits that were reverted [19][20], [21][22], that IP also made a false change to a caption [23]. January (talk) 07:05, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

That is an excellent catch. I don't think the 81 address is a persistent one... it's probably a mobile address... although the links you provide seem to be linked. The primary IP though is clearly an issue. A few of the links you noted have very similar IPs (same range) making similar edits in a timeframe that suggests they are linked (same IP, contiguous edits). This is a pernicious and difficult sort of subtle vandalism to track. At the moment User:90.201.251.28 has a number of edits outstanding, although what I've reviewed aren't a problem.

I'd say a block would be immediately in order for the diffs you provided, but this individual is hopping IPs, albeit on a predictable range. This is something to keep an eye on for sure... see if there's a broader pattern. I don't have the time atm to delve into it, but this is something worth looking into. Similar ranges and similar edits types might reveal a pattern that could fix a lot of subtle vandalism.

In any case, this work is amazing January... we need more people looking out for stuff like this, and that you found a rather sophisticated version of it is a really great thing. I hope you continue doing this, as this is the most potent wiki threat at the moment. Shadowjams (talk) 08:55, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Hearfourmewesique

User:Hearfourmewesique keeps on removing the fact that smooth jazz is descended from older jazz styles to suit his/her POV. That is a violation of WP:NPOV and WP:OWN. It is an ABSOULTE FACT that smooth jazz is descended from jazz, but User:Hearfourmewesique keeps on removing it from the article, caling it a "false statement". It is only a" false statement" according to jazz purists, which everyone should know have a bias against smooth jazz.

Looking at the user's edit history, it looks like he/she has a history of edit warring and POV pushing. ANDROS¹³³⁷_TALK 19:25, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Hearfourmewesique has been known to be extremely argumentative and too stubborn for his own good really. He doesn't like to see much reason most of the time and has been blocked for it multiple times. Edit warring is sort of his vice I guess. Suggest the user be warned and told to desist and if he doesn't; block for edit warring. Atomician (talk) 19:43, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Do we have sources to support this absolute fact that everyone knows? If not, he's entitled to remove it. Also, we shouldn't be refering to his edits as vandalism, now should we. This appears to have been an ongoing debate for yearsElen of the Roads (talk) 20:30, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

First of all, let me begin by heartwarmingly thanking Atomician for his incredible WP:AGF... but seriously, folks. Everyone here is more than welcome to check out the ongoing debate, in which Andros1337 has not yet come up with a single WP:RS that supports his "ABSOULTE [sic] FACT", which is further supported by the template on the article page. Until such a source can be found, there is as much similarity between smooth jazz and jazz as there is between black pudding and bread pudding – sure, they're both food products called pudding, but that's all there is to it. Note to Andros1337: before accusing an editor of POV pushing, look at what you've been doing here. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 01:30, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

In reply to Elen of the Roads, there is an ongoing discussion, since 2008, about the verifiability of the whole genre itself. I have drawn up a couple of references but as per usual, they've been disputed. Now, I don't think anyone would actively suggest that smooth jazz does not exist (and if you think it can't be verified and therefore meet Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion in Wikipedia itself, articles for deletion is that way...), because it's formed a part of the US (and to a smaller degree, an international) radio landscape. But there is a greater issue with the whole article itself for years now beyond just the edits of Heartfourmewesique, where numerous solutions such as a draft article or calls for article clean-up from the wider community have not been successful. I've hit a brick wall as to where to take this and it appears others have too. As I reliterate, the problem is not necesarily with Heartfourmewesique, it's with the article, and in particular, the inclusion of verifiable references which can be agreed on by the whole community to meet Wikipedia policies and guidelines for an article's inclusion in Wikipedia. --tgheretford (talk) 12:12, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

The fact is, all of the early smooth jazz artists (such as George Benson) root their influences to musicians of older styles of jazz. There is no disputing that. ANDROS¹³³⁷_TALK 15:04, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Ah, now that may well be the case, but is it sourced? One of the main problems I have seen with the article is that people are putting things into the article without citing any sources or where the source is added but it is of dubious or suspicious origin, which then leads to conflicts and arguments as we are seeing here. The way forward as I see it is to a) first strengthen existing citations within the article, b) remove dubious parts of the article which cannot gather consensus and then c) rebuild the article with multiple verifiable citations. We may just then prevent the problems as has been seen here. --tgheretford (talk) 17:15, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Here is a source for George Benson (see "Influenced By" section): [24] and Grover Washington Jr: [25]. That was easy. ANDROS¹³³⁷_TALK 18:41, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

The leap from "the artist is influenced by jazz" to "the style is a subgenre of jazz" is the issue here. But then again, it has all been said more than once, hasn't it, Andros? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 21:47, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, the fact that these artists were influenced by jazz artists obviously implies that smooth jazz is an evolution in jazz history. While there is some R&B influence, it doesn't overshadow the primary origins of smooth jazz. ANDROS¹³³⁷_TALK 23:23, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Also, what consensus is there besides yourself? Sounds like clear WP:OWN to me. ANDROS¹³³⁷_TALK 23:26, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

No, no WP:OWN on my end, but a clear WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT on yours, not to mention WP:SYNTH – quote – "the fact that[...]obviously implies that[...]". Every editor here (besides Atomician, who had not contributed a single word to the issue in question), as well as on the good ol' debate, agrees that your "absolute fact" lacks reliable sources, yet you keep trying to portray me as the bad guy here. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 03:50, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

• LOL. @ Andros1337 - Dave Brock's earliest musical influence was New Orleans trad jazz. Does this make Hawkwind a jazz band? Seriously, discuss this on the talkpage, provide sources before anything is added, and don't drag people to ANI if you are in a content dispute with them. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:27, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Boderline harassment by andreasegde

andreasegde (talk · contribs) has been a less than constructive influence in the article Swarcliffe for some time now, as the talk page shows (here and here in specific). Chzz has stepped in a few times to try and keep the page from bursting into flames, and as a result, andreasegde is now going after Chzz on his talk page (here).

Can someone uninvolved please intervene. Ideally, I'm not sure this has reached the level of a block, but a stern warning regarding the thread on Chzz's talkpage and a one or two month ban from Swarcliffe and its talk page would help alleviate the situation. Sven Manguard Wha? 06:11, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'll agree this editor has got a gob on them - like about half of all our editors - but hasn't descended to the sublevels of abuse, at least not yet. Other than mistaking Chzz for an admin, I can't see what they are actually doing on the article that is sufficiently problematic to warrant a ban for any length of time. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:50, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

"Yellow-billed pintail" article has a serious problem

I was doing some reading on the article about the Anas genus of waterfowl birds when I clicked on the link to Yellow-billed Pintail and something disgusting and obscene came up. I can not even edit the link/direction article to fix it so someone with better knowledge or access should probably do something. Thanks for any help with this. Epf (talk) 12:36, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

This vandalism and outright hack of the article's redirection may also be related to the incidents with the Dodo article mentioned further above. Epf (talk) 12:38, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

That's related to this edit (now revdeleted). I've semiprotected the template that got vandalized, though perhaps full protection is necessary. Ucucha (talk) 13:42, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Recent socks have been registered in 2008 and autoconfirmed, so semi-prtection is useless. I've fully protected it. Some form of cascading protection may be advisable: I'll leave that to those who understand it better than I. FWIW, malware insertion should be a WMF matter. I'm going to see what it might take to get action. Acroterion (talk) 13:47, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

The malware insertion on a linked page, not on the actual Wikipedia page. There's little we can do about that short of blacklisting the offending links (and encouraging people to install stuff like NoScript). Ucucha (talk) 13:56, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I thought the procedure, if a convenience link is compromised, is

A. Delink the convenience link (remove "http://") so it's not clickable and hidden comment the reason why.

B. Hidden comment the convenience link, and note the reason why.

Deletion of the convenience link should only occur if the reference is otherwise complete(title, pub, date, etc). I thought. --Lexein (talk) 14:18, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Legal threat from new user

New user KevinScintilla's fifth edit on Wikipedia was this legal threat delivered to my talk page. Binksternet (talk) 17:41, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

(non-admin opinion) User has been warned. But I agree that the comment is unquestionably a legal threat, and should result in an indefinite block. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 18:09, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Looking at the article's edit history, a fairly compelling case can be made for KevinScintilla being a SPA. It's difficult to definitively say yes or no based on a single edit, but I think AlbertHalftown (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is making some faint quacking noises as well. KevinScintilla is also likely the IP editor 109.111.133.13 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), again based on the editing history. So there's also a slow-burning edit war ongoing, and I see absolutely NO discussion between the parties on the article's Talk page. My 2p would be to throw the WP:NLT hammer at KevinScintilla, then semi the article for three days to get the principals to talk about what is and isn't reliable and neutral. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 18:21, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good to me,  Done. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:33, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Please review: Protection on WP:CSD

I fully-protected WP:CSD because a number of people were revert-warring over the addition of a certain proposal from the talk page. Since I had commented on the discussion that lead to the proposal, I might be considered involved, which is why I would like to request the review of my action here. Regards SoWhy 20:33, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Aside from the fact that all parties are experienced editors, and I would say what we were seeing was more WP:BRD than WP:3RR..... I wouldn't have taken that step yet, but I think your action was intended honorably, and I expect they will thrash it out on the talkpage and agree a version, which is always preferable for policy pages anyway. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:00, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Jackie d. alarcón (talk · contribs)...

Resolved

 – (thanks, Elen Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 21:06, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

...has been on a campaign to edit-war the Category:Discrimination into Compulsory voting despite numerous warnings, previous blocks, and his being the only one who is in favor of this. At what point would an indef-block be appropriate? User is determined to continue. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 20:46, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Round about now would be my opinion. I don't know whether there's a language issue, some POV arising from the editor's unknown home state, or he's just a disruptive troll, but there's no way Compulsory voting is a universal form of discrimination, and the user's refusal to add anything coherent to the debate suggests at minimum a WP:COMPETENCE issue. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:07, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

AfD assistance request

Resolved

 – - thanks Joseph Fox

I'm the OP for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashley Smith (prisoner) which has now been up for slightly more than 7 days. I now think it clear that the article will be kept, and would be grateful if an admin familiar with closing AfDs would take a look through it and consider closing it. There seems to be a consenses forming as to what the notable issues are to be taken forwards, and a willingness from a number of involved people (on both sides of the AfD argument) to continue work going forwards. thanks --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:01, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

As one of the delete !voters, I'm not sure there is a consensus yet. We just had a very productive debate, and I think we've narrowed the options to two possibilities: 1) keep with a page move to an agreed new name, or 2) delete with a new article being created later under the agreed new name when there has been more information. Since this debate has only happened recently in the AfD, I think it should be re-listed at least one time. Singularity42 (talk) 22:21, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Extremely inappropriate personal attack directly at User:Ebe123's user page.

Joey Eads (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has just attacked user Ebe123, and I doubt this attacker will stop. I need some help reverting those attacks. I also reinforced the message at AIV, and will watch his page in case of another attacker. StormContent (talk) 14:12, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Already blocked (indefinitely) per above. Thanks. --Efe (talk) 14:19, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Should I watch Ebe123's user page in case of another attack? StormContent (talk) 16:16, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

If you want to spend your time volunteering for Wikipedia by doing that, no one's going to stop you. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 16:43, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Well that's a tricky question, Fetchcomms. I can't do that. However, I can also revert any personal attack that gets in my way. Trust me; I looking out for vandalism. StormContent (talk) 17:01, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Hello? Anyone? StormContent (talk) 13:31, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I think you can drop this matter unless the problem occurs again. If it does, you can report it for appropriate action. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:22, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Kurmi page protection

Why has this page been protected. Two or three editors are involved in dispute with everyone and they go about getting the page protected by raising useless issues such as sockpuppetery. Can someone tell me who was the sock they caught. Just because they have suspisions doesn't justify protecting this page.

Anyways user:Qwyrxian is not working as an admin for this page, and has been involved in this page as an editor before he or she became an admin.

Please have a look at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sitush#Kurmi_PP

"but since the last IP editor is obviously a sock of someone (don't know if it's a blocked editor or just someone trying to dodge 3RR), I requested semi-protection" based on what evidence was the sock issue raised. This is getting seriously a big headache. Nameisnotimportant (talk) 18:51, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

can't it be someone who forgot to log? Why is someone who has been made an admin fails to understand such a simple thing. Anyways, this issue is not related to reporting an user behavior and I have nothing against User- Qwyrxian, but this report is related to getting the Page protection off. This page protection was not based on any merits. Please remove it. Nameisnotimportant (talk) 18:51, 20 August 2011 (UTC) --

Because if you (for example) were to revert twice logged in, and then decided to log out and started reverting, that would be avoiding 3RR. If you don't want the page to be protected, don't edit war on it. Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:37, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Elen, thanks for jumping in and declaring that I am edit warring. Was this sock puppet case proved, or was the page protected just on whims? Nameisnotimportant (talk) 19:56, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Qwyrxian is an involved admin. I would imagine that is why they did not protect the page themselves. There is something odd going on across several of these caste articles. Whether it is socking or meatpuppetry or just off-wiki canvassing, things are not right somewhere. Semi-protection is not massively onerous & if it causes people to raise the points on the talk page rather than war thens surely that is a good thing? Every time these articles have ended up here at NPOV, DRN etc in recent months the decision has always tended towards the contributions of myself, MatthewVanitas and one or two others. - Sitush (talk) 20:08, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Just to clarify, Qwyrxian was involved before they became an admin & therefore the involvement persists/is inherited. - Sitush (talk) 20:13, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Let's not bring in matters that have nothing to do with the discussion here. The page was protected saying that this is a socket puppet case. Was this proved??? Even if you editwar or do 6RR or 7RR no one is going to report you due to obvious reasons. Let's stick to the main point here, how certain group of people are acting to propogate a certain point. Even for no reasons some guys are able to get page protected, etc. Nameisnotimportant (talk) 20:18, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure what the "obvious reasons" are to which you refer. The evidence of disruptive editing is clear from the article history. If you want to call it that rather than socking then feel free. It doesn't actually make much difference from the point of view of applying semi-protection. - Sitush (talk) 20:22, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Ditto. If you wish, I can amend the protection log, so that it reads "disruptive edits by IPs" instead of sockpuppetry, but, as far as I'm concerned, I'm not going to lift semi-protection. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 20:26, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

• Given that semi protection would not affect a logged in user, I'm wondering exactly why Nameisnotimportant is getting quite so aerated here. Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:25, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

The reason is: for reasons that have no merits someone asks for page protection, and the page is protected. That's what is irritating. What's more frustrating is people ignoring to look into the reasons given for justifying page protection. What was the reason page was protected this time? Sock puppet case was said, but my simple point is: did you catch a sock puppet . Elen, what's your point? Nameisnotimportant (talk) 20:30, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

The reasons above sound like: no matter what, if I am an admin, I can do whatever I want and I can justify that action for one reason or the other. Nameisnotimportant (talk) 20:35, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Uninvolved admin comment If you want the page unprotected, there's always WP:RFPP available to make such a request. Mjroots (talk) 20:40, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Dear Mjroots, thanks for the suggestion. There are a few reasons why I came to ANI and not RFPP:

• a user who happens to be an admin makes a bogus claim. Though the user is involved in edit war raises allegations such as sock puppets without merits. A person who is an admin must know better, or can anyone be an admin?
• Someone shows up and blocks the page, taking the statement on face value.

I have no reason to ask for page protection, but the above reasons are serious enough and need to be looked into. Nameisnotimportant (talk) 00:15, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Sure, maybe that person just forgot to log in. I doubt it, but I'm willing to extend that good faith. But if that's the case, then the page protection solves the problem--the person who forgot will simply get a message saying they can't edit the page, and thus will log in. Is there any harm here? Semi-protecting keeps everyone honest and helps them avoid a mistake. It's not like the page has had a lot of constructive IP editing anyway. Note that I have no intention of pursuing any sort of SPI (since CU can't connect IPs and named accounts anyway), because I don't have any desire to punish anyone--all I care is that the edit warring stops, and that no one, intentionally or unintentionally, gets to have "extra" reverts by editing while logged out. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:32, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Mjroots' point was that you can request unprotection at RFPP. - Sitush (talk) 00:30, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Qwyrxian, going by your logic, each and every page needs the same level of protection on Wikipedia. This is not a valid reason to protect the page till November, isn't it? Nameisnotimportant (talk) 23:42, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

So take it to WP:RFPP. That is the appropriate forum, surely? Or is your point here to query the competence of Salvio? - Sitush (talk) 00:27, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

EdJohnston has declined the unprotection request at WP:RFPP; as I pointed out, and EdJohnston agreed, all edits by IP editors since at least April on that page have been reverted as being not in accord with either policy, consensus, or both. As always, IP editors are more than welcome to suggest changes on talk, using the "edit semi-protected template", all suggested edits will be evaluated per our policies and guidelines, and any issues resolved unsatisfactorily may be taken through the dispute resolution process . Given the unprotection decline, I believe that an uninvolved user is justified in marking this discussion as resolved. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:55, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

User Msu2006

User Msu2006 has spent several hours removing the wikilinks to years for the Miss USA pages (had done so for every state). I have spent the last half hour or so reverting these edits and have warned the user 3 times on their talk page, but they dont seem to understand. Msu2006 is now doing the same thing to the Miss Teen USA pages. I am requesting an admin block this user as they have been warned and continue to make these unexplained edits. Trut-h-urts man (talk) 22:42, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

• I've left Msu2006 a note that their editing has been mentioned here. I've also explained how their edits appear disruptive and attempted to open a dialog. They have not edited in a couple of hours, so a block would not be preventitive at this point. Tiderolls 00:05, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
• Update: After spending a couple of hours with Msu2006 I've formed the opinion that this individual is not serious with regard to editing here. Nothing blockable, but if they contiue in their current mode it shouldn't be long in coming. Tiderolls 02:34, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Removal of Northern Ireland references from articles

I bring this here because I think I've gotten too close on this one and would like an oversight review. The editor User:John6547 has been editing articles related to the band Crubeen (also Crubeen (band), The Longkesh Ramblers and Eagle's Whistle.) Some were created by the user. The articles themselves are fine, and the user has come into the creation and editing well. There is just one small problem which is why I'm bringing the issue here. The articles all originally said the bands were from Newry, County Down, Ireland. On my searches I recently changed them to correct the country of the bands from Ireland to Northern Ireland and this is where the problems have arisen. John6547 originally changed the edits back to read Ireland instead of Northern Ireland, and when reinstated has now taken to completely removing the origin completely. There does seem to be a slight ownership issue here with claims of "details corrected by original author" 1 (also removing referenced information) and "origin neutral" 2 or "origin unknown" 3when this isn't the case. I'm now too close, so I bring it here to ask for another opinion. I also admit I may have come on a bit strong, but that's from years of combating Irish nationalist vandalism dealing with the attempted removal of Northern Ireland from the project. I shall inform the editor of this discussion. I look for any response, no matter the side it ends up on. Canterbury Tail talk 00:00, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Does either WP:TROUBLES or Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names or other cases apply here? Do we have discretionary sanctions over these sorts of disputes? --Jayron32 00:22, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

It's possible, it could be construed a nationalist editing, but the rules around the sanction are not well understood to be honest. Could be a bit heavy handed in this case anyway. In my opinion this isn't a user that deserves to be blocked for this as to be honest they're editing in good faith and maybe don't realise the results of their actions in this area, and maybe I could have been clearer in that respect. This is why I brought it here. Canterbury Tail talk 00:32, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Not directly as they currently stand. One could try to come up with a very broad interpretation of one of them, or propose a request for amendment or clarification that would pick it up ... but it is possible that the issue can be addressed on its own, and if so, that would likely be preferable. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:37, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Seems like another user has weighed in and they're continuing massive edit warring link seems like a block may be required here after all. I don't think I should be the one to do it. Canterbury Tail talk 00:42, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

It took some time, but I think he finally got the message. See: User talk:Night of the Big Wind/Archives/2011/August#Crubeen updates Night of the Big Wind _talk 01:50, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Permanent tags

An editor has, since September 2010, insisted that an {{update}} tag go at the top of a section of an article. He states that there are sources that have been missed in the section, and has even specified which sources he thinks should be used. He has, however, refused to actually update the article himself, or state what specific material he thinks should be added. I've tried to remove the tag, but he insists that it must stay, despite the fact that he refuses to fix the problem which apparently only he sees. At this point I'm at a loss as to what to do, and the issue is behavioral, so I've brought it here. The article page discussion is here. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:06, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Other editors (including at least one previously-uninvolved admin) have joined the conversation on the article Talk page. I don't think there's anything for an admin to do right now, other than maybe keep a weather eye on the discussion.. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 21:23, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I suggest closing this ANI case. It is clear that the user who wants the tag there is a good-faith editor who engages in discussion. Therefore, no outside action is required, although more comments are welcome. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 22:35, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

If he was a "good-faith editor", he would have actually put in whatever he insists belongs there, rather than tagging the article for 10 months, while refusing to both remove the tag or add the material. This needs to be resolved one way or the other; or should we just leave the tag there for another 10 months? Jayjg ^(talk) 23:29, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I'd say remove the tags - the article looks well-developed. If we had tags on an equivalent level elsewhere we'd be drowning in them. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:33, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

This isn't really about cleanup tags IMO. The issue is that ליאור apparently thinks that the section is light on opposing viewpoints. However, that's more of a dispute than a simple cleanup job, and dispute tags are only supposed to be kept in place while there's ongoing discussion. The onus is on ליאור to make his case for adding opposing viewpoints. If that doesn't happen, or there's no consensus to do so, then the tag should be removed. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 09:54, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

This appears to be a case of one or two disruptive editors who have no intention of actually attempting to fix the alleged problem with the article. Their stated goal in using the tag is that of "warning our readers of its incorrect content." That has never been what we use temporary cleanup tags for, and continuing to edit war over it violates WP:POINT and WP:TE. I can’t take any action now because I’m “involved”, but other administrators need to take a look at the tagteam editing behavior of accounts ליאור (talk · contribs) and אדעולם (talk · contribs). — Satori Son 15:37, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It's strange to be summoned to ANI merely two weeks after volunteering at Wikimania... As explained in the relevant talk page, the very existence of this section has been disputed by at least seven different editors since 2005, with Jayjg insisting on keeping it as is. We all agree that tags are temporary, but so is the incorrect content that they are meant to flag. Composing faulty sections and then enforcing others to clean up after you is an excellent way to keep Wikipedia with obsolete content, and grumpy editors.

Anyways, constructive suggestions on how to deal with this section have been made in the talk page, so I suggest we direct our efforts there. Shabbat Shalom, ליאור • Lior (talk) 15:42, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

First of all, you're hardly a newbie: You've been editing here since April, 2010. And I understand you would prefer to have this issue characterized as a content dispute that does not require admin attention, but your "constructive suggestions" are to either delete the section entirely or keep a permanent tag "warning our readers of its incorrect content." Neither of those two options are "constructive", nor are they "suggestions" since you keep edit warring over the latter. Much of the existing grumpiness here at English Wikipedia is caused by editors such as yourself who refuse to follow our guidelines and edit collaboratively. — Satori Son 16:34, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually, Lior may have a point that the section is contrary to WP:MEDRS. He's objecting to some genetic studies that failed to be replicated, according to him. I suggest posting at WT:MED about this. FuFoFuEd (talk) 20:06, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

When are genetic studies ever "replicated"? These are genetic studies, not medical studies. Meanwhile, he's reverted in the tag again. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:44, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't know how Satori reached the strange conclusion that I'm an editor since April 2010. If it makes any difference, and I believe it shouldn't, I'm a registered editor since 2003 and my first contribution dates back to November 2004, a year and a half before his. Over the past 4.5 years, most of my contributions to Wikipedia revolved around Beta Israel Wikiproject, especially in Hebrew. I've made thousands of related edits, contributed hundreds of related images, and coordinated a successful writing competition that lead to the collaborative composition of eighty new articles on Beta Israeli Heritage and Ethiopian Culture. Moreover, I've detailed in the talk page how the genetic section could be rewritten to conform with our articles about other Jewish ethnic groups. I agree with FuFoFuEd that a professional eye on the subject could be helpful. I suggust either Jayjg or I leave a post at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Genetics and let the issue be settled down more calmly. ליאור • Lior (talk) 18:23, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

That's great. So you won't have any objection to removing the tag, now that the issue you see (whatever it is) is getting attention? I'll assume you agree with removing it now, unless you state otherwise. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:48, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I'll certainly support the removal of the tag once the section is improved, and I suppose the same holds for the other participants in the discussion who opposed the removal of the tag while the section is faulty. As I suggested at your talk page, I'll put aside other pressing assignments I took upon myself, to get this section fixed within the next couple of weeks, under the supervision of you and others. So in two weeks time there will be no tags over the Beta Israel article, and the concern about permanent tagging could be directed elsewhere. ליאור • Lior (talk) 06:41, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Peculiar Activity at Joseph Marinaccio AfD

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Joseph_Marinaccio Lots of keep recommendations with like-formatting from new user IDs. Suspect individual with multiple IDs and IP addresses.  Nipsonanomhmata  ^(Talk) 02:12, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I have added the "not a ballot" template, marked several of the !voters as SPA, and even struck the !vote of someone who !voted twice (and commented a third time). The AfD's on my watchlist now; if it gets really disruptive, further action can be taken, but the closing admin will eventually evaluate the discussion not by the number of people that vote one way or the other, but by the quality of the arguments and how they relate to our policies/guidelines. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:28, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks Qwyrxian.  Nipsonanomhmata  ^(Talk) 10:43, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

94.65.56.95

Hello, The user User talk:94.65.56.95 is continuing to add spam links to articles. I can no longer revert, as this would violate the 3RR (unless spam is vandalism, could someone tell me if this is so). Thank you --Matthew Thompson ^{talk to me bro!} 08:30, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Never mind, user has been blocked now. --Matthew Thompson ^{talk to me bro!} 08:31, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

• WP:VANDTYPES, under heading of "Spam external linking", defines adding external spam links as vandalism. You are exempt from 3RR in such situations and need not worry of even a warning, much less a block. Peace. --64.85.217.39 (talk) 11:57, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Cush 3RR violation

There's no call for what's this editor been doing. It's mendacious fighting, edit-warring, POV, bias, and false accusations. And he just violated 3RR. I'm writing here because I see that he won't be reasoned with or talked to. He has a history, from what I can see, of POV-pushing, false accusations, projection, bias, bullying, hostility, and blatant edit-warring.

I know that he already has a pro-"Yahweh" bias. He reverted three times now the edit on erroneous grounds. (On the "Crossing the Red Sea" article) In his one of his edit comments he said "weirdest possible transliteration" when that is blatant POV, and simply not true. "Jehovah" is not a weird transliteration, and saying that it is is just a matter of opinion. It's an established rendering, and in major Bible translations. And is already in many WP articles. It's true that most WP articles have "Yahweh", but not all. He seems to accuse others of what he himself more guilty of. The POV and bias here is all his. And it's obvious. His bias against the rendering "Jehovah" is clear. And is on faulty and just POV grounds, nothing more. There are scholars on both sides of that rendering. There's no valid reason to remove that simply because of "WP:I Don't Like It". (And there was no "vandalism" on my part, so that's a false accusation.) I told him to please stop edit warring...or take it to this article talk. Instead he just reverted again, and wrongly accused me of "vandalism".

I only reverted twice, not three times. There was one "edit" there I did that was NOT an actual "edit". If you click here here you'll see that it was just a non-edit, simply to make an edit comment in the revision history. There was no "reversion" (or anything) in that specific one. So I only reverted twice, not three times...like he did.

Cush reverted clearly three times in a 24 hour period.
here...
22:33, 21 August 2011 Cush (talk | contribs) (12,504 bytes) (there was no need to change the deity's name to the weirdest of all possible transliterations.)
here...
09:27, 22 August 2011 Cush (talk | contribs) (12,505 bytes) (Undid revision 446121644 by Hashem sfarim there is no need for the renaming. please do not unnecessarily change the article to promote some POV. if you want a change please discuss it first.)
and here...
09:42, 22 August 2011 Cush (talk | contribs) (12,505 bytes) (Undid revision 446124503 by Hashem sfarim you changed the article without discussion. stop your vandalism!)

So you see there. That's three reverts in less than a day. That's a bright line, and he's in violation. Hashem sfarim (talk) 10:23, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

WP:AN/3RR? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:45, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Bwilkins. I'm not used to doing this. I really wasn't sure where to go. Thanks for the app. Regards. Hashem sfarim (talk) 10:54, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Just to note that not only did Cush not breach 3RR (although he's at it), it was Hashem who first made the change to Jehovah. He was then reverted by RossNixon who has an entirely different pov to Cush. Hashem reverted to his version, then Cush reverted to what I think was the original (Yahweh). There's been no attempt to discuss this at the talk page, which I think is Hashem's responsibility as he wants the change and has been reverted by two editors. Dougweller (talk) 11:16, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Vile anti-Semitic email

Ttwtchr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has emailed me, How surprising to read that you are jewish. Constantly moaning that everyone is out to get you, completely unaware of your belittling of others. And how surprising that your user name contains a monetary refernce whilst we're on the subject, what a nasty little shit!

Please could someone block and revoke email talkpage access? Ta. ╟─TreasuryTag►Regional Counting Officer─╢ 13:22, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I have done so, but you should probably forward someone the e-mail as proof ... I don't mind taking your word for it right now (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:26, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't see how forwarding the email would prove anything (it could be easily fabricated) but if a Checkuser emails me, I'm happy to forward it in reply. ╟─TreasuryTag►co-prince─╢ 16:57, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

TTWatcher? Sounds like a SPA, specifically one meant for hounding TreasuryTag. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 13:34, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Is this the fourth or the fifth one now? Has anyone done a checkuser? --Errant ^(chat!) 13:35, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but there's not much to see at the moment. TNXMan 15:04, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I suspect Bwilkins is asking for an email copy so you don't give these TT watchers ammunition like "he made that up". Knowing the history of TT watchers - as they are now categorized! - you don't want to give them ammo. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 18:09, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Repeating the call for an admin to step up as a private contact for these in future. TT, it seems unlikely this is going to stop if you proceed to repeat the contents of every such mail at ANI, where the sender presumably gets his jollies. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 18:34, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

If anyone imagines this is doing "TT watchers" (which I will take to mean people involved in the MfD) a favour they must be nuts. I also cannot believe that it would be made up - at least not by Treasury Tag. No doubt there are some users who would make that sort of thing up. I will admit at first I thought the emails may be being exaggerated but now that we've been given the content of two of them (and I agree that any more shouldn't be posted as well - it's very much up to TT but doing so is highly likely to feed trolls, which this probably is rather than a lunatic, although that can't be ruled out) that's enough to know they're completely unacceptable.

No one should have to put up with this.Egg Centric 19:28, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Can't like community sanctions be raised in this respect? Seems like every time I look at ANI there is some drama around TT... I have no idea why this is happening, but this stuff needs wider attention. --Cerejota (talk) 19:31, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I can confirm that Ttwtchr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) sent an e-mail through wikipedia, but as recipients are listed as hashes in the checkuser results, I cannot confirm to whom it was sent. There are no obvious socks, either. -- Avi (talk) 19:34, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Ten bucks says that the accounts are in... England. Just a stab in the dark. Doc talk 21:54, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

User: Agallob

Resolved

 – Blocked by Tnxman307, and copyvio articles deleted. Singularity42 (talk) 15:36, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Agallob (talk · contribs)

Not sure if this belonged to AIV, CCI, or somewhere else, so I have brought it here for now. Agallob is a new user who's only contributions is to add content by copy/pasting content from another webiste. He has been warned multiple times. After I left him this final, personalized warning, he created another copyvio article. At this point, I have no choice but to request a block. Singularity42 (talk) 15:30, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Blocked, although I'm fine with anyone shortening/lifting the block if they promise to behave. TNXMan 15:36, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh god I screwed up

Resolved

I tried to be helpful moving a misleadingly titled "Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashkenazi intelligence (3rd nomination)" to "Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashkenazi intelligence (4th nomination)" but it's all gone wrong. Can someone fix please? Won't do it again! Egg Centric 22:56, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

 Fixed Reaper Eternal (talk) 23:03, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Egg Centric 23:40, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Joshua the Independent

Resolved

 – Blocked by Kinu. CycloneGU (talk) 00:15, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Can somebody take care of Joshua the Independent (talk · contribs)? At Esperanza Spalding, he is creating copyright violations, MOS violations, BLP violations (including the removal of living people category). I am not at home and I don't have time of this. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 23:34, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

• I've gone ahead and blocked for 24 hours... the edits appear disruptive in the manner that Tbhotch has indicated and, if nothing else, Joshua the Independent has broken 3RR. --Kinu ^t/_c 00:07, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Grerr

Resolved

 – Blocked by Kinu. CycloneGU (talk) 00:15, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Account created solely to insult another editor. FuFoFuEd (talk) 00:04, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

• Obvious troll is obvious. Blocked indefinitely. --Kinu ^t/_c 00:11, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Abusive Emails 3: Return of the Abusive Emails

Further to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive716#Abusive emails and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive716#Abusive email: the sequel, I have received yet another lovely message, this time from Ttslyr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – this one was rather more explicit than the others: YOU HORRID LITTLE SHIT. YOU THINK THOSE LAST EMAILS WERE ABUSIVE??? YOU DON'T EVEN KNOW THE MEANING OF ABUSIVE YOU FUCKING LITTLE TWAT!!! is just an excerpt. Pleases could someone block this so-called person and revoke talkpage access, as per the previous occasions? Thanks. ╟─TreasuryTag►consulate─╢ 11:17, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

And blocked. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 11:41, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Someone seriously needs to get a fucking life, Jesus. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:18, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

• There was a recent thread... err... somewhere... about Capchas and our email system. Last I checked, it was pretty heavily supported. Can we resolve and implement that please? Sven Manguard Wha? 19:49, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

  To be fair, CAPTCHAs wouldn't solve the problem of abusive emails, because the culprit of the material above is (just about) literate. What would be useful would be to ban 'disposable' email addresses such as those from Mailinator – two of the three messages I've received from this guy have used the service. ╟─TreasuryTag►condominium─╢ 19:53, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

  To comment on this part of the discussion: one idea brought up in the discussion in question was having a requirement for users to have to make a certain number of contributions before removing a captcha requirement. I would go a step further and perhaps disallow new users to use the e-mail function until a certain number of edits has been met. Thoughts? CycloneGU (talk) 21:06, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

A fair idea, although if that is implemented it should be optional (and perhaps a default setting - have no view on that) as there are good reasons to allow a user with no edits to email another user. It would also be trivial for the recipient to choose whether anyone could email them or just autoconfirmed users. In fact, I see no reason why it shouldn't be possible for someone to permit anonymous editors (i.e. non logged in users acting as IPs) to email them - again that could be useful. There may also be some utility in adding more sophisticated filtering functions (e.g. allowing a user to ban specific IPs or users from emailing them) Egg Centric 21:14, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Where would you suggest raising such a proposal? CycloneGU (talk) 21:43, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) - naturally I'll support it if it resembles the one outline above Egg Centric 21:49, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Can an admin that TT trusts perhaps nominate himself as a future private contact for these things? Taking it to ANI every time just seems to be giving TT's harrassers the attention they're looking for. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 15:42, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I would second this comment. The person sending these e-mails is presumably hoping to see precisely the type of reaction he or she is seeing. In addition, information about incidents of persistent and serious off-wiki abuse should be brought via e-mail to the attention of the Arbitration Committee. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:20, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Forward it to the Foundation. It's a pretty clear threat, and I'm sure they'd be more than happy to contact the authorities in that area. —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 06:16, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Or maybe we should be disabling our email ability, as someone suggested during a similar email problem not too long ago. –MuZemike 06:32, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Female genital mutilation

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

With respect to all involved, I'm closing this section. I have already closed one thread at the talk page as it proved to be little more than bickering back and forth between editors who don't understand copyvio and people who have been accused of lumping the former editors into the body of one editor, and I'm sitting in the middle helping keep everything peaceful. Additionally, there is no administrative action needed here; to suggest there is is just plain silly. Whatever needs to be done will be done at the copyvio board; nothing here can override that. I've posted at the article talk page in that close that it's time to move on to fixing the problem, which RobertMfromLI had posted a new thread to begin doing before I conducted the close of the prior one. Since article discussion should take place there, there's nothing to discuss here for the time being. CycloneGU (talk) 03:19, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

---

There appears to be a copyright violation issue at Female genital mutilation but the {{copyvio}} template has been removed and there is an issue with edit warring. Not my area of editing and I've no particular wish to get involved but given the issues, some oversight by an admin is probably warranted. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:37, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I've restored the copyvio notice for now. I am also going to do a quick scan myself. CycloneGU (talk) 21:21, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

See [26] for info. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:24, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

• Consider me to be that article's uninvolved-admin-in-residence until these issues are resolved; I've made clear that people continuing to mess around with the tags will result in me pulling out the ol' administrative banhammer. Ironholds (talk) 21:27, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

  Duly noted. I have no intention of crossing paths in that fashion, but a copyvio concern is serious and if non-admins. are removing the claim then those users might also need further investigation. Also, Wee Curry, I found that on my own and have already commented there. =) CycloneGU (talk) 21:31, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Hello iam the user who removed the template because there has been no discussion, hint or information concerning copyright violation or plagiarism on the talk page before the template. Therefor i treated the issue as an unnecessary and dubious edit, due to one user was allowed to simply claim a copyright violence wich immediately blankened the page, even if no other discussion about copyright ever happened before. This issue is already been discussed at the talk page. My intention was not to break rules of removing a template, i simply treated this edit as dubious because a lot of persons are involved and as far as i remember there has never been mentioned a violation of copyright before. I hope this matter will be solved soon. For the case that i broke policy i appologize.--Santiago84 (talk) 21:45, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

• That's fine; as you see above, discussion has gone on (although Henrietta should probably have linked to it) so the template is kosher. Ironholds (talk) 21:47, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I also removed the template because Henrietta's conclusions were completely unfounded. She put up this tag out of frustration with people not agreeing with her and she did it while discussion on potential issues were still ongoing. In short, she completely sidestepped the proper process for initiating the action she did. Feel free to review the article, I'm sure you'll find no copyright violations are present and that this is just a distraction from improving the article. Vietminh (talk) 22:17, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, if there is general agreement that a copyvio is not present I'll be happy to revert myself with a link to this discussion. CycloneGU (talk) 23:23, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I am fairly confident (see comments from Ironholds on the article talk page) that anyone removing the copyvio tag without due process being followed will be blocked. We don't resolve copyvio issues by a quick vote at ANI (particularly when no one has presented any evidence for or against here). Johnuniq (talk) 23:32, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I concur, but if it can be proven that there was no case for placing a copyvio in the first place, as noted, I'd be happy to revert myself. I don't see any reason to do so unless the case is dismissed there. CycloneGU (talk) 23:37, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

@Vietminh: There is no urgent need to fix the article now. The plausible report of a copyvio will be assessed by independent editors, and making claims about the person who lodged the copyvio report is unwise. In case it's not obvious, Ironholds has been very helpful by assuring editors at the article that any further edit warring regarding the copyvio tag will result in blocks, and there is no need for further discussion here. Johnuniq (talk) 23:32, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

• I did not place this tag because I have some sort of personal vendetta for the other editors or due to my bias. You can also note on the talk page that while I get frustrated with some of the people there, I have never had some sort of "demands." I placed the notice because I saw that the plagiarism that I corrected was removed. I took a lot of time to do the research write it correctly to remove this plagiarism. I felt like if I edited this again, it would turn into an edit war. I noted in the comments that there was plagiarism. After reading the COPYVIO convos on the talk page, it seems that some people don't even know what plagiarism is. This is not about blaming any of you guys or getting anyone into trouble, or seeking a out some sort of revenge. (It's wikipedia, people.) It's about giving due credit to the researchers who did a lot of work. I find that an important issue, okay? And considering I wrote in the comments that I corrected the plagiarism, I'm not sure what I could do to prevent another edit war when two editors were talking on another page about my "problematic" edits that they didn't agree with, then decided to revert them.--Henriettapussycat (talk) 01:04, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I will find the specific instances and show them in a bit, unless people are frantically editing it now. --Henriettapussycat (talk) 01:08, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

You can still get the diffs. in the history. Meanwhile, the talk page is rather interesting right now. CycloneGU (talk) 01:33, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia text: "Support for the term female genital mutilation grew in the late 1970s. The word "mutilation" not only established a clear linguistic distinction from male circumcision, but also emphasized the putative gravity of the act. In 1990 the term was adopted at the third conference of the Inter-African Committee on Traditional Practices Affecting the Health of Women and Children (IAC) in Addis Ababa. In 1991, the World Health Organization (WHO) recommended that the UN adopt this terminology, which it did."

Original Text: The expression “female genital mutilation” (FGM) gained growing support in the late 1970s. The word “mutilation” not only establishes a clear linguistic distinction with male circumcision, but also, due to its strong negative connotations, emphasizes the gravity of the act. In 1990, this term was adopted at the third conference of the Inter African Committee on Traditional Practices Affecting the Health of Women and Children (IAC) in Addis Ababa.4 In 1991, WHO recommended that the United Nations adopt this terminology and subsequently, it has been widely used in UN documents."

The article only cites it as a reference, and makes no move to mention these are direct quotes (with a word or two moved).

Wikipedia Text: "In 1999, the UN Special Rapporteur on Traditional Practices called for tact and patience regarding activities in this area and drew attention to the risk of "demonizing" certain cultures, religions, and communities. As a result, the term "cutting" has come to be used when trying to avoid alienating communities."

Original Text: In this spirit, in 1999, the UN Special Rapporteur on Traditional Practices called for tact and patience regarding activities in this area and drew attention to the risk of “demonizing” certain cultures, religions and communities. As a result, the term “cutting” has increasingly come to be used to avoid alienating communities."

Again the article only cites it as a reference, and makes no move to mention these are direct quotes.

Wikipedia Text:"The UN uses "FGM" in official documents, while some of its agencies, such as the UN Population Fund, use both the terms "FGM" and "FGC""

Original Text:"Official UN documents use FGM, the earlier term, while some UN agencies, such as the UN Population Fund, use both FGM and female genital cutting."

Source is cited, but plagiarized.

I was incorrect about the Shell-Duncan plagarism, but I was posting that in the morning when I had somewhere to go, and didn't have time to look at each instance.--Henriettapussycat (talk) 01:40, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

For the record, seeing what you have posted here I don't dispute that there was copyright problems with this article Henrietta, and I was perfectly willing to support the edits you made. My dispute was only that you had made the changes without giving anyone beside Jakew time to weigh in, and for what its worth, Jakew has a serious problem with misquoting sources so I don't trust his judgment at all. The situation I was in was one with a lack of information, when I did the revert you had yet to actually indicate what specific problems there were, so I thought it best to go back to the old version while we addressed these issues. To put it another way, if you had specifically noted the problems on the talk page instead of just saying there was a copyvio problem I wouldn't have reverted. Vietminh (talk) 01:57, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

In comments I said "fixed plagiarism" or something of that sort. Also I'm not really sure why this has to be a discussion anyway. No one owns the page. Even as a group, this is not any one group's page. If an editor sees problems and fixes it, then they fix it. I don't have to go and discuss with someone that it will be fixed. Although you might consider that a great procedure, Wikipedia doesn't necessarily work that way. Reverting when an editor specifically says in comments there is plagiarism is good enough discussion, so a copyright notice must be put up. --Henriettapussycat (talk) 02:22, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

That's true but given that the page is contentious its best practice to notify people of what's going on. The problem here is I couldn't distinguish between a heated argument and a legitimate copyright violation claim. When I looked at the discussion all I saw was you and Jakew going back and forth and no one actually saying what the copyvio was, I assumed (incorrectly) that you were just pissed off and put the notice up without merit. Vietminh (talk) 02:56, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

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

Incidents over at Village Pump (Policy)

I require more community input at WP:VPP#AfD_nominations_and_de_jure_WP:Banning_Policy, as somehow the discussion has resulted in me being asked by User:Unscintillating to cease and desist in advocating 'undermining or sabotage', which I consider as personal attack against me. Relevant diff here. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 02:50, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

• See also page history at Template:Banning-enforcement_undermining, which was created on August 22 by the same editor. This template do not assume good faith at all, and in my opinion is too controversial. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 02:55, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Page creation in apparent violation of NOTPROMOTION and possible compromised account

Please see Infopulse Ukraine LLC which appears to violate WP:NOTPROMOTION. This article was posted by User:ALEF7 after a series of what appear to be responsible edits, possibly indicating a compromised account. An administrator said to post this in ANI for another administrator to review. Pine^talk 09:28, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Can't find the diff where another admin said that this must be brought to to ANI. Personally I don't see any evidence of a compromised account. Misguided maybe? Have you addressed the NOTPROMION concerns with the author and/or tagged the article? Agathoclea (talk) 11:07, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I've taken a look at his contributions and I think WP:GOTHACKED is unlikely. He has been working on a userspace draft I've merged the histories of the article in question since late last month. On the outside this looks like a wikignome who finally decided to create his first article though it is strange that he would "take note of" a B2B subject for his first article and at first glance it does look borderline promotional. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:14, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

This incident is not "compromised account" at least. And about promotion - give me some time. I'll review WP:NOTPROMOTION and try to fix article. English is not my native language so it will take a time. May be it is better to turn article back to userspace? ALEF7 (talk) 06:10, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the responses. The immediate concern was the possible account compromise, which was the primary reason for bringing this to ANI. ALEF7, yes moving to userspace would be good while you revise. If you re-draft the article and would like me to review it before moving to article space, please leave me a note on my talk page. Thank you! Pine^talk 07:06, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

List of Metalocalypse episodes

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

---

One of the most interesting/senseless edit wars I've ever seen is currently taking place at this article. May need a warning or several. OlYeller^Talktome 01:58, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Protected for a week. "interesting/senseless" indeed. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 09:28, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

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

Is Cyberconfidence, now up for AFD, eligible for speedy deletion as obviously promotional?

In the process of dealing with a vandalising IP I came across the article, now up for AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cyberconfidence . The article's title, 'cyberconfidence', is a trademark of the company that owns the IP address, and was evidently created by someone working for the company (not sure which employee, it may be a family company, but a Google search shows up several possible editors at the company). What reliable sources there are do not mention 'cyberconfidence'. The AfD has two delete !votes, both agreeing that this is just promotional. An article using a trademark as a title and created by someone working for the company seems eligible for G11. What do others think? Dougweller (talk) 08:23, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Does it really matter? With the exception of serious policy violations like copyvio or attack pages, we don't typically bother overriding AfDs to speedy pages if they're already running. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 09:30, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I'd second that; unless there's content which must be removed urgently, it's probably easier to let the AfD run its course. bobrayner (talk) 10:34, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Sure, I was just wondering if I would have been correct to speedy it if it wasn't at AfD, it's pretty clearly going to be deleted so that's not a problem. Dougweller (talk) 10:43, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure; it's not directly promotional in the usual sense - rather, it's about a neologism in the area that the author presumably works in (and "neologism" is not a CSD criterion). I work in that field too, and although I have concerns about the content I wouldn't see it as unambiguous advertising for one particular rival organisation (or perspective).

However, that's just my opinion, and plenty of other people around here will have other opinions...bobrayner (talk) 12:04, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

If I'd have seen this at CAT:CSD, I'd have declined it, as much because it isn't clearly about a product, which makes it inherently less spammy. FWIW. GedUK  12:10, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, these are the sort of opinions I was after. I actually do think it's pretty promotional but I can see why some people might have declined it. Dougweller (talk) 13:06, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Indef requested

Resolved

For IP: 31.96.126.89 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). For legal threats, not to mention PAs. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 13:06, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

IPs aren't indef'd. It's registered to a UK ISP, probably a mobile provider, so it's dynamic. WP:RBI. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 13:14, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

If it is a dynamic IP, you've got a point. But if it can be determined otherwise, a temporary block may be in order, given that their editing stance is not very encouraging at least for the near-term. Thank you for the clarification. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 13:22, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

They're certainly up to no good, but have so far edited only the Nicosia article. I have reinstated the semi-protection that was in effect prior to the recent rounds of full protection. Wish I could feign optimism regarding the chances of Wiki-peace on this article :( Favonian (talk) 13:26, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

GMTA; I was going to suggest putting the article on semi. The IP last edited almost three hours ago, so it's more than possible they've already moved to a different address. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 13:30, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you guys for the details. I think this is resolved. Take care. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 15:59, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Redaction needed

Resolved

User:98.25.186.42 recently vandalised Aziz Ansari - trusty old ClueBot got the revert in before I could, but the vandal's diff appears to contain a private phone number. Unlikely that it will ever be an issue, but it might be worth a tooled-up admin going over there and removing it from the edit history. Yunshui (talk) 13:49, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Done. TNXMan 13:57, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Apologies for posting on the wrong board - I was in the process of removing this request to oversight when I got an edit conflict. Since the problem's sorted now, I won't bother moving the request. Yunshui (talk) 13:59, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

As such information falls under the Wikipedia:Suppression policy criteria, I have further restricted the visibility of the edit. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:07, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Jakew and circumcision

This page isn't about a particular incident, per se, but rather a continued pattern of tendentious editing. I hope I'm in the right place.

In short, I believe that User:Jakew has a consistent pattern of bias in his editing (in favor of circumcision). His account borders on single-purpose; it seems to me that he is here to promote circumcision, not to build an encyclopedia.

To his credit, he is extremely civil (much more than many of his interlocutors, including myself), and does always operate within clear policies (like 3RR). He knows Wikipedia policy well, and cites it frequently. I believe it's because of this that he hasn't faced formal censure before.

Since I cannot point to any particular diff to show a history of tendentious editing, I must suggest broader places to look. For one, consider the 51 times he has been involved in conflict here on the administrators' noticeboard: [27]. Many of those times were him reporting other users, but it was not always clear-cut. If you search other Wikipedia dispute-resolution archives you'll find many more cases where he came into conflict with other editors. Being involved in many disputes isn't damning on its own, but it does suggest something wrong. Of course, you will also find him in many disputes in the archives of talk pages of circumcision and related articles. And by all means look through his edits to judge whether his account is single-purpose and/or engaging in advocacy. Also read the articles and see if they seem NPOV to you; Jakew is the single largest contributor to them by far. Finally, I hesitate to bring up this somewhat flimsy evidence, but Jakew has been exerting such a strong and seemingly-biased control over circumcision-related articles that people who have the opposite bias have actually created a page on their own wiki tracking him: [28].

I will provide one concrete example of his bias-pushing. There was a long dispute in early July over what to say about the position of medical organizations regarding circumcision. None of them recommends neonatal circumcision without some compelling abnormal medical cause, and I and some other editors wanted to insert language to that effect. Naturally, it is hard to prove such a negative. After much debate and gnashing of teeth about WP:MEDRS (we had a source that was "too old") and undue weight (if listing the positions of several organizations), I finally found a recent source that made the same claim explicitly. And gradually over the next several days, he weakened the language: [29] [30]. I'm not saying those two edits are unreasonable in themselves, but they're part of a pattern of holding anti-circumcision claims up to the strictest scrutiny, attacking them with any policy available, and qualifying them as much as possible when they can't be kept out of the article entirely. Pro-circumcision edits receive no such scrutiny from him.

I don't expect this to be an easy dispute to resolve. There is no red flag to point to. To get a truly good understanding one has to look at 5 years of edit history, and that seems an unreasonable thing to ask anyone to do. But frankly I don't know where else to turn to report this sort of problem. Many people have tried lesser methods of dispute resolution in the past with him, without much luck.

I believe that Jakew comes to Wikipedia primarily to push his point of view, and that he has been remarkably successful, to the detriment of the articles involved. I suggest that he be banned, or if possible merely banned from editing articles related to circumcision. ^L_Wizard @ 07:52, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Speaking as totally uninvolved, and without looking at anything else, claiming this user is a SPA betrays a rather deep misunderstanding of what the term means. This user has helped bring another, entirely unrelated article to FA quality. So regardless of other issues, this is not an SPA and certainly doesn't border on being one. I suggest you strike that out.--Cerejota (talk) 12:27, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I've interacted with the jakew several times. He seems to have strong opinions about circumcision (that are the opposite of User:LizardWizard's opinions), but he certainly spends a lot of energy improving articles, adding reliable sources, etc. In my experience he has shown himself to be civil and willing to compromise. It's one of the strengths of Wikipedia that different editors have different POVs, and hold sources up to close scrutiny for that reason. It may be annoying when an editor refuses to agree with you, but it's not a reason for sanction. – Quadell ^(talk) 13:43, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I have interacted with Jake as an editor for over 5 years now. Jake, like many others here in Wikipedia, has personal opinions and points-of-view. Having a point-of-view usually goes hand-in-hand with being an intelligent, thinking individual—it is how it affects your editing which is key. In these 5 years, I am continually impressed at how despite Jakes's personal opinions, he continues to edit strictly in accord with Wikipedia principles and guidelines. He is rigorous with citations, both the need and the quality, and he writes from a very neutral perspective; his prose, unlike the vast majority of those who disagree with him (in my opinion) does not intend to color the reader, but solely to inform the reader. If anything, I would put Jake up as an example of how to edit Wikipedia in matters in which one holds a strong opinion—using up-to-date and pertinent neutral sources for everything and ensuring that prose is not colored in either direction. Furthermore, Jake has interests and edits widely in this project, more so than most of those who have now, and in years past, tried to silence him through improper allegations of Conflict of Interest. Jake is certainly not a single purpose account, and in my opinion, does not exhibit any evidence of editing with a conflict of interest. -- Avi (talk) 14:32, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

At least four editors have recently complained about Jake's edits and I agree with those concerns. Last year seperate editors also raised similar concerns, so i'd say there's definitely a problem. I personally think his edits violate WP:COI. In every topic in the circumcision debate Jake advocates a very strong pro-circumcision bias. In the lede of the circumcision article he exaggerates the benefits of circumcision. He amplifies the HIV prevention benefits of circumcision and defends these views with a WP:OWNERSHIP POV like anything you've seen. He starts a dispute whenever the disadvantages of circumcision are printed. He even gets into WP:LAYOUT revert wars such as this to ensure the pro-circumcision sentences dominate over anti-circumcision sentences. He rarely makes wiki-policy demands against people who share his view but tries his utmost against those who share a different opinion. Because of the lack of compromises with Jakew, I find his relentless POV unconstructive and unpleasant. He uses his strong knowledge of wikipedia policies to overwhelm WP:NEWBIES. Instead of an encyclopedia, with Jakew it seems that wikipedia is promoting circumcision. It is difficult to provide diffs because this problem has a systematic pattern lasting 5 years. I advocate a month-long topic-ban, so he can cool his seemingly polite but nonetheless aggressive WP:BATTLEGROUND style. In conclusion he violates WP:NPOV, WP:OWN, WP:UNDUE and WP:COI. Pass a Method talk 16:41, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

What's the WP:COI? That term doesn't cover simply having an opinion; what's his interest? Is he a spokesman for some pro-circumcision group or something? Similarly, I haven't seen any WP:OWNERSHIP issues; could you provide links to diffs where he has behaved that way? The one diff you give is one of two reverts about where a paragraph marker should be... that's hardly an OWNERSHIP issue, especially since he specifically requested more input about it on the talk page. This seems to be an attempt by a few editors here to disparage someone who simply disagrees with them. – Quadell ^(talk) 17:02, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

As Quadell says, taking the time to review Jake's edits, indicates an editor who often bends over backwards as to ensure the article remains neutral. Over the past 2-4 years, there has been an on-again-off-again attempt to silence Jake on the page. In my opinion, it borders on harassment, and perhaps some further investigation into the editors who continue to incorrectly disparage Jake should be started. Trying to remove another editor's ability to edit an article because his or her opinions are disagreed with would indicate someone who is more interested in advancing their outside interests than advancing the aims of Wikipedia. -- Avi (talk) 17:32, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Accusations of Jakew having a COI could be added to a "perennial proposals" page somewhere, I'm sure. The issue comes up again and again. And yet, that still doesn't lend any credence to the idea that a COI exists. Jakew is, in fact, affiliated with (actually is a founder of) an organization called CIRCS, and has also been published in academic journals writing about circumcision topics. All of that has been acknowledged multiple times. However, Jakew, to my knowledge, has never promoted that organization or its web site, or his own works. Having an opinion on a subject does not constitute a COI, and being an expert in the field does not either (see WP:COS). I was first acquainted with this issue 2 years ago and have seen it come up a number of times since, so none of this is new. Also, if being involved in many disputes shows that something is wrong, I should be site-banned from Wikipedia. My work over the years in mediation, helping out at the COI noticeboard, and trying to resolve dispute on the admin noticeboards would show that I'm constantly involved in disputes. -- Atama頭 19:07, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

The bold text on WP:COI reads "Where advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest." That makes it sound like an outside interest in promoting circumcision, for whatever reason, can constitute a conflict of interest. I doubt the policy is meant to be interpreted that way, but it does seem ambiguous. ^L_Wizard @ 23:15, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm rather surprised by PassaMethod's assertion that I exaggerate and amplify the benefits of circumcision (esp. HIV prevention) in the lead of that article. Prior to early June, the lead was in a stable state for some time (eg., this version); a lengthy editing process took place over the following few weeks, such that this is the current version. As can be seen, the information about risks and benefits has been almost entirely rewritten, but having examined my edits in between, it's clear that (with only a few exceptions such as adding attribution to a sentence) almost all of that text in the present version (ie., the 2nd paragraph of the lead) was written by editors other than myself. All of the HIV information, for example, was added by Jmh649 (I hasten to add that I'm not passing judgement on it, just pointing out that I didn't write it). Please correct me if I'm mistaken, but I don't think I even participated in the edit war over that material. I'm also startled by the accusation that I defended it "with a WP:OWNERSHIP POV like anything you've seen" — the main discussions about that material seem to be Talk:Circumcision/Archive 67#Rewrite of introduction, as well as the sections "Representing the science in the lead" and "No consensus to change intro" on the same archive page. At a rough count, I contributed 0 of 21 comments in the first of those sections, 0/10 in the second, and 2/40 in the third. It seems accurate to say that I was barely even involved with that material or with defending it. To describe these accusations as unfair and unwarranted seems rather an understatement. Jakew (talk) 20:12, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I doubt ANI can solve an issue like this, even if true. Try a RfCU. FuFoFuEd (talk) 19:43, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. I considered an RfCU instead, but frankly without "involuntary sanctions, blocks, bans, or binding disciplinary measures" I don't think the situation can be resolved. ^L_Wizard @ 07:37, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

For ownership, it's less blatant as it involves some pro-Brit milah (jewish circumcision) proponents such as User:Jayjg and User:Avraham who also edit those articles, and naturally side with Jakew. Since circumcision is an essential part of Jewish doctrine i understand their POV. However, when the most notable contributors to a sensitive medical article are Brit milah proponents and founders of a Circumcision group, then there are bound to be issues. In mid-July after a series of edits in circumcision, the article lede at one point read as if circumcsising was a necessary surgery to prevent life-threatening disease! It still has some issues now. Note, the problem is not only content edits, but also reverts and talk pages. Pass a Method talk 19:58, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I have never been a "proponent" of any sort of circumcision, and you "understand" nothing about me; stop asserting nonsense, stop talking about me, and start addressing the actual issues raised here, if there are any. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:07, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

• Imo there are two separate things to consider: (1) whether Jake Waskett does in fact have a bias on the topic of circumcision, which is of interest only to the extent to which it demonstrably influences his editing, and (2) whether edits performed through the Jakew account can establish incidents or even a pattern of tendentious editing.
  Mr. Waskett's fairly strong personal bias in favor of circumcision can be established as fact by looking at the forum links provided on the circleaks page (and by googling on). In between becoming a self-professed "amateur researcher" into circumcision (with papers co-written by him currently used as sources in Sexual effects of circumcision and Circumcision controversies), co-founding CIRCS, and being principal author and quite a bit of a self-appointed doorman on circumcision-related articles on Wikipedia, he has also posted on parenting and other internet forums, with the apparent intent (your mileage may vary) of convincing others of the benefits of circumcision. In my own humble opinion, his overall behavior shows clear signs of an obsession. That he hasn't faced severe sanctions before has a lot to do with smart behavior on his part, following policies to the letter (most of the time, anyway), as well as with a loosely affiliated group of admins who have been supporting him to varying extents over the years (nominating and supporting him for adminship at one point).
  Perhaps the most elusively obvious red flag is the fact that no attempt has even been made to get the main circumcision article to featured status. This in spite of the fact that Jakew is evidently capable of excellent contributions and of producing featured content, and in spite of the fact that he evidently cares deeply about the topic and about the article itself.
  Personally, I don't care as deeply as I used to about Jakew, specifically, but more about the systemic weaknesses that enable situations like these to go on for as long as the often do. However, as far as I can see, and also taking into account his well-demonstrated abilities as a contributor, Jakew is nevertheless a clear net-liability to the project due to his strong bias which does find its way into his Wikipedia contributions, too subtle to prompt sanctions but too much to lend credence to claims of true editorial neutrality. Imho, it is possible to assemble a convincing body of evidence, but reading and discussing it will require the utmost intellectual honesty with regard to the evidence. The question is rather where and in which format to discuss the issue, RfC/U or RfAr. Another (imo preferable) option is to simply ban Jakew from circumcision-related articles and talk pages. This could very well be proposed, discussed, decided upon and enforced by the community. At worst, it would only produce an overview of opinions which could be used as the starting point for an RfC/U. --213.196.208.244 (talk) 20:32, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

• Did you actually suggest that we ban someone because they are so devious as to carefully follow Wikipedia policy while secretly maintaining a harmful bias (one too subtle to see)? Or that he should be banned for not getting an article to FA, even though he has "well-demonstrated abilities as a contributor"? I'm not a friend of Jakew's, I don't even know him outside of the few times I've commented on the applicability of COI against him. Show me some actual disruptive edits and I might support some kind of sanction. Also, you say you don't know whether to use RfC or ArbCom for evidence; considering that ArbCom almost never takes a case without at least an RfC/U, the answer to that should be clear. -- Atama頭 22:03, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

• Atama, yes he really suggested all of those things. 213.196.208.244, do you have any actual evidence supporting that lengthy statement, or is it just another biased opinion? Also, when you say "don't care as deeply as I used to about Jakew", could you say which account you were using when you interacted with Jakew in the past? Jayjg ^(talk) 22:07, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

• Oh look, you found your way here to defend Jake Waskett. What a surprise. I won't stoop to trying to enter a discussion with you though, I'm sure you understand. Your opinions regarding circumcision and Jake Waskett are about the most biased things in the world and you show zero effort to participate in an intellectually honest manner. Should this ever proceed to ArbCom, you will most definitely be named a party to the case, and you know that quite well, Mr. I-lost-my-CheckUser-and-oversight-privileges-due-to-behavior-inconsistent-with-holding-a-position-of-high-trust. --213.196.208.244 (talk) 22:23, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

• I think that ad hominem attack just destroyed any credibility you might have had here. One more attack like that and you'll be taking a break from Wikipedia. -- Atama頭 23:18, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

• Please point out any personal attack in my comment. Also, my credibility is completely irrelevant here. The facts about Jakew's editing speak volumes for themselves. You have to be trying not to see it in order not to see it. Plain and simple. --213.196.208.244 (talk) 00:08, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

• Calling someone Mr. I-lost-my-CheckUser-and-oversight-privileges-due-to-behavior-inconsistent-with-holding-a-position-of-high-trust is a personal attack. It undermines your entire position here, since it shows a motivation to smear others, rather than legitimately raise concern over any actual issues. -- Atama頭 00:28, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

• Reminding someone that he has lost his CheckUser and oversight privileges due to behavior inconsistent with holding a position of high trust is a personal attack?
  "smear others"? Was I telling a lie?
  "rather than legitimately raise concern over any actual issues" -- Issues like Jayjg's involvment on circumcision, talk:circumcision and related places? Issues like his repeating patterns of behavior against which he was specifically and repeatedly warned by the ArbCom, leading the revocation of his CheckUser and oversight privileges? --213.196.208.244 (talk) 00:46, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

• As my mother always used to tell me "It's not what you said, it how you said it." Mentioning that someone had their privileges removed is OK, as long as it's pertinent to the discussion (and this was a borderline case), but saying "Mr. blah-blah-blah" is sarcasm directed to someone's personal misfortune, and it's not civil. I'm not sure it's a personal attack, but it's hardly being civil and collegial. (And you almost certainly knew it was sarcasm, because there's no other reason to choose to express it that way.) Play nice, please. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:49, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Hm, is there some reason you're using an anonymous I.P.? It's not that you're too new to know how to create an account, is it. Personally, I find it annoying and rather boring when certain people like to make every thread about Jayjg, just because he comments there... and I find it ridiculous when they berate him for his past problems, while hiding behind anonymity themselves. – Quadell ^(talk) 11:51, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

My goodness 213.196.208.244, what a tour de force! A combination of personal attack, misdirection, innuendo, and outright falsehood. Bravo! Anyway, returning to the topic you so adroitly side-stepped, when you previously interacted with Jakew, what account were you using? Jayjg ^(talk) 00:46, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

It's rather ironic that User:LizardWizard has opened this AN/I thread by describing User:Jakew as a single-purpose account. As it happens, Jakew has edited almost 2,100 unique pages; by comparison, LizardWizard has edited under 900 unique pages, and has essentially edited only on this topic since January of this year. Jakew has, unfortunately, been the target of a number of well-orchestrated off-Wikipedia campaigns by anti-circumcision activists, who coordinate to create accounts and edit-war with him, and smear him on Talk: pages. This most recent effort is the outcome of this FaceBook campaign. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:07, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I have edited hundreds of articles across wikipedia, but the only article where i've ever felt like i was under siege for my edits is the circumcision article - largely due to jake and the editors that defend him such as Jayjg. Many others feel the same way and this needs to be addressed which is why were on AnI. Whether we can resolve it on good terms on not depends on whether there will be some acknowledgement or pure denial. Speaking to these editors on talk pages is pointless because you immediately notice that rather than a civil discussion, you either get dictated to in a patronizing way, or you are sucked into an endless debate over every comma. Can anybody keep a straight face and tell me that this revision (defended by Jayjg and Jakew) is neutral? Pass a Method talk 23:23, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I think you meant to link this diff. The edit summary does express an opinion about the validity of the source, sure. The merits of that revision can be debated, whether or not the inclusion of that citation in the lead does violate WP:UNDUE, whether or not the source is an opinion piece, or represents an obscure minority position. But what is so wrong about it? What is it about removing that source that demands administrator intervention? This is starting to sound like a content dispute. -- Atama頭 23:52, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

By the way, I finally took a look at Talk:Circumcision. It's horrid. Does Jakew have to put up with that stuff all the time? I consider myself to be pretty thick-skinned but I don't think I'd be able to handle the attacks from TheDarkSideHasTacos, and I'm disturbed that others are actually supporting the attacks. I see that Jayjg gave a final warning for those remarks, which is completely appropriate. -- Atama頭 23:58, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

"Completely appropriate" for a highly involved administrator who has been warned by ArbCom in the past for this exact kind of behavior to wave the admin tools at people opposing his and his protegé's point of view? --213.196.208.244 (talk) 00:16, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Leaving a warning is not "waving the admin tools". Jayjg would be violating WP:INVOLVED to do the block. However, someone uninvolved, myself for example, could do so. I would not unless TheDarkSideHasTacos chose to repeat the personal attacks again. -- Atama頭 00:28, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Leaving a warning is not "waving the admin tools". -- We will have to agree to disagree on that. Imho that is exactly what it is. Again, Jayjg has been admonished by ArbCom for this exact kind of intimidating behavior in the past. --213.196.208.244 (talk) 00:39, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Atama: DarkSide's attacks were a lot worse than usual, but occasional attacks are not uncommon, unfortunately. I've been meaning to bring this up (and this seems as good a place as any): could someone do something about the DarkSide's attacks on Talk:Circumcision and at User talk:TheDarkSideHasTacos. I have considered doing so myself, per WP:BLPTALK, but would much prefer for an uninvolved admin to do it. Jakew (talk) 08:29, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

(Edit conflict, I haven't yet read PassAMethod's comment) Numberwise, it seems to me you need to consider total activity level. Jakew makes an average of 6.6 edits per article, to my 2.5. One way to read that is that he's more focused, and thus more like a single-purpose account. Also compare top-edited articles. Jake's are:

• 1269 - Circumcision
• 349 - Medical_analysis_of_circumcision
• 314 - Foreskin
• 194 - Sexual_effects_of_circumcision
• 179 - Foreskin_restoration
• 176 - Circumcision_controversies
• 175 - Prevalence_of_circumcision
• 173 - Ethics_of_circumcision

Mine are at least varied across more human sexuality articles. And for the record, I had not previously seen that Facebook page, and my raising of this incident was not organized by any outside body. There was some conflict on the Circumcision talk page that drove me to it, and that conflict may have originated somewhere organized; I have no idea. ^L_Wizard @ 23:26, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Also, Jake has a tendency, whenever there's a disagreement, he points to a past discussion where he supposedly silenced an opponent, as if his word is the final conclusion on each issue. It might border WP:OWNER and its rather irritating how he single-handedly trumps the opinions of half a dozen editors. Pass a Method talk 01:04, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Do you have a few examples of this? lifebaka 04:52, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

The first three instances of the word 'discussed' on this page, to start. Search the archives for world like 'discussed' or 'already' to find more. ^L_Wizard @ 07:27, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Aha, I see the smegma lovers are back for their periodic claims that wikipedia is run by a "pro-circumcision cabal". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:46, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

"Pro-circumcision cabal" It always gives me a chuckle. Wasn't someone blocked or banned fairly recently due to their fixation on that delusion? Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:56, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

"Smega, spasmodic, frog, and the far-flung Isles of Langerhans." - Firesign Theatre

You were the first person to use the word 'cabal' in this discussion. And if you read it at all, you'd see that the focus in just Jakew (though Jayjg's influence has come up). One and a half people is hardly a cabal, so I'd appreciate it if you didn't put words in my mouth for the purpose of deriding me. Thanks! ^L_Wizard @ 07:33, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

• I believe the first person I ever blocked was an anti-circumcision campaigner who was making some nasty allegations at Jakew. Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:33, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

COI

To get back on topic, the COI (or rather, lack of COI) here is superficially similar to that perennial favorite of ANI User:James Cantor. I say superficially similar, because unlike James Cantor, Jakew doesn't edit in BLP articles related directly to his professional life, however, they are similar in that their declaration of having a relationship in real life to the topic he likes editing. After all, we like to focus on the "bad" side of COI, but often do so overlooking the good side, such as the perspective of an expert view on a topic, or the passion for quality one could get in good-faith involvement.

I have changed my views, over time, on this topic, taking a kinder, inclusive approach to the topic.

My suggestion is to consider the creation of an "accepted" list Wikipedia:Editors with self-declared relationship to a topic area or something similar (or even a user category/userbox combo), were editors in good standing can declare their professional or otherwise potentially involved relationship to an issue, and the community can access before making judgement on any controversy. There is no doubt self-identification is often controversial, and that editors with specialist knowledge can often make mistakes in their passion for a topic, but this pattern of screaming OMGCOIBBQ every time you have an edit dispute with a user who has the kindness to reveal from where they are coming from is something uncivil that generates a poor editing environment.

I think we should celebrate, and to an extent protect those users who are considerate enough - and often putting themselves in a vulnerable position - to reveal they have a professional or other potential conflict of interest, as a way to get it out of the way. But if we as a community do not then respond with skepticism to naked accusations of COI, or make it known somehow that they are unacceptable objections.

In this particular case, rather than showing diffs or other evidence of actual warring, we get naked accusations to amount to 1) User has COI 2) User hence is incapable of editing according to our norms. That is quite frankly bullshit unless actual evidence of misbehavior happens to be included - such as repeated 3RR or 1RR violations, charges of WP:OWN, or other true tendentious behavior - simple having passion for a topic, well, should be a Good Thing if the user can handle it.

I am not suggesting that those who reveal the COI be given carte blanche, they shouldn't, nor that it is impossible even for a declared COI editor to make COI related mistakes, however they should be examined on their merits, in the same way an editor without potential COI would be examined. Right now our way of working essentially makes self-declared potential COI a scarlet letter, we should make an effort to make into something no more significant than any other self-identification made in user pages.--Cerejota (talk) 06:07, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the comments which have been made here in regards to Jakew's pattern of tendentious editing. His actions are not confined to the circumcision page and he has also undertaken in tendentious editing on the Female genital mutilation page as well. Jakew does follow the rules to the letter yes, but every time an issue comes up he relentlessly pursues his point of view whilst ignoring the conclusions and consensus achieved by other editors. When other editors try and tell him that an issue has been settled or consensus has been achieved, he disputes it and continues in a pattern of trying convince other editors of his rejected point of view. Once he fails to do that he claims that there is no consensus and uses this an excuse to wait for "outside editors" to help resolve the issue. Curiously the "outside editors" that arrive are people who have worked with him on other pages that talk about circumcision and who agree with his point of view. Two editors here (Quadell and Jayjg) I have witnessed participate in this kind of behaviour with Jakew. To continue, Jakew also has a well established pattern of misquoting or quoting sources which do not agree with his position out of context, this is especially prevalent in two cases. The first example of this is when he initiates requests for comment, he attempts to frame the debate in terms that are favourable to his point of view and continues to do so despite repeated warnings about it. The second comes from my discussion with him about terminology on the Female genital mutilation talk page. Following a RM from Female genital cutting to Female genital mutilation I changed all the terminology on the page to match the name change. This initiated a month long argument with Jakew wherein he tried to argue that the terminology should remain FGC despite the title change. During this argument he continued to use arguments that were rejected by every editor but himself, and continued to argue that FGC should be used despite it only being used by less than 25% of the sources, and in doing so questioned the validity of such reputable sources as the United Nations and the World Health Organization. He attempted on numerous occasions to inflate the amount of sources which used FGC and attempted to deny that sources which supported the use of FGM actually did. Administrator action is most definitively required on this, Jakew needs to be warned off of these types of behaviours because he flatly will not listen to his fellow editors. Given his affiliations with organizations that are pro-circumcision I think there is a serious problem here. It is one thing for an expert to contribute to a subject and that should be encouraged, but Jakew is not an expert, he's an activist. He's a person who self-avows himself as an expert and attempts through attrition to extract concessions from other users to propagate his point of view, as such he is using Wikipedia as a springboard for pro-circumcision causes. Experts are academics or scholars who are subjected to peer review of their publications and assertions, they have degrees in their subject area which they have earned through rigorous and repeated academic achievement and recognition. Jakew should not be treated as one of these people, at best he is an editor with an interest, at worst he is an activist with an agenda. Although the reality may fall somewhere in between, that does not excuse the tendentious behaviour that he has repeatedly engaged in. Vietminh (talk) 22:08, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

To address some of the above, I am indeed involved in a content dispute with Viewminh at Female genital mutilation, which began with a requested move. I withdrew my initial opposition to that move when it was clear that consensus favoured the present title. A long discussion then took place about terminology to be used within the article, in which myself and two other editors[31][32] objected to the exclusive usage of the term "FGM" in the article. I proposed a compromise, which was rejected, then a second, which was also rejected. Due to the difficult atmosphere, with some editors claiming a consensus and refusing to discuss the matter, I sought advice from an uninvolved administrator, who recommended that I make a RfC. I did so, resulting consensus has favoured the "FGM" language, and I have previously indicated my acceptance of this. Jakew (talk) 22:44, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

My concern is not with the result of what happened, by rather with the methods Jakew tried to use before he was removed of options to continue to pursue his personal point of view. Jakew did offer compromises, but he was offering compromises to a group of editors who had already unanimously agreed that there was no content issues to begin with. As such they weren't really compromises but attempts to extract concessions through badgering and persistence whilst appearing to be continuing the debate in a productive manner. Also for clarification, at no point were there editors refusing to discuss the matter, only editors who agreed that no compromise was needed because the consensus was established. Of the two editors he mentions, neither specifically agreed with his POV and as such that does not negate his tendentious editing prior to the RfC. Jakew attempted and is still attempting to claim that no consensus existed, but he forgets (despite others pointing it out) that unanimity is not required for consensus, and that whether consensus exists is not determined solely by him. His response to me here does not change that Jakew has been warned about tendentious behaviour by multiple editors, on multiple pages, at multiple points of time. Something needs to be done about this. Vietminh (talk) 23:15, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't wish to get into any argument here, but I will at least comment that Jakew does take quotes and present them to advance his POV. I have only encountered him at the FGM article, so I cannot comment on any other activity, and I have only encountered him recently. But I have talked to other editors about his practice of doing this, and remember reading Vietminh saying this somewhere at some point. I make a point to read sourced material, and I find that he's taken quotes out of context and put a bias on them. I correct them, and he doesn't like this. I warned him about this and he said, "I'm baffled about why you bring this up." Right. Even that response is weird. Also I have told him in research you are not supposed to go around looking for stuff that supports your view. You just look for stuff that relates to the subject at hand. I said that I felt that was what he would do. He said that it didn't make sense for me to say that we should just use our original research for those reasons. I didn't argue, because I felt that would just cause drama.--Henriettapussycat (talk) 19:11, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

User:79.97.144.17

79.97.144.17 has continued his practise of edit warring (And then deliberately stopping before he breaks 3RR) on Michael Gambon, Hanged, drawn and quartered, Jewish Internet Defense Force and has written "Fuck all y'all" on his talk page (And edit warring when this was removed) - inappropriate edit summary here [33] as well as, I feel, generally not engaging in talk page discussions. Thank you. --Τασουλα (Almira) (talk) 20:25, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not overly concerned with trash talk on his own talk page. He apparently is the only user of that IP address.

I'm also not overly concerned about an edit summary that succinctly and accurately characterizes a prior version as ridiculously POV, although admittedly calling something "horseshit" is unnecessarily vulgar. It wasn't an attack on another editor, it was a commentary on the content.

Edit warring is another matter and should be looked into.

I am a bit disturbed that 79.97.144.17 and Τασουλα have had altercations in the past, and both have been blocked for reasons related to their interactions. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:49, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I have not interacted with the IP in question since then. The IP in question is also banned from interacting with me on a personal level. I only came across his edit warring by coincidence and I think this would be plainly obvious. I do not have some silly vendetta going on which is also plainly obvious, I have acted accordingly by banning interaction with this IP on all levels. Please retract your last statement as I have done nothing wrong. And as I was the creator of this thread, please do not address me in the third person, that's kinda...I don't know, odd. OH yes, further more, our past interactions simply have nothing to do with this, I have not been involved in ANY of the things I reported on. --Τασουλα (Almira) (talk) 20:56, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I think the edit history regarding the PRODing of Emich, 7th Prince of Leiningen is quite telling, as is this intersecting contribution history. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 21:02, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

User:The-Expose-inator

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

---

Comment. The Exposinator has confused this thread by adding some of his response to CutOffTies at the top of the thread, and some of it at the bottom. I have attempted to unscramble the result by moving COT's original post back to the top.
@The Exposeinator: 1) Always put your responses at the bottom of the relevant thread on this board, please. (And on all other boards.) 2) In your own interest, keep your input concise. Bishonen | talk 19:37, 21 August 2011 (UTC).

The-Expose-inator (talk · contribs) has consistently showed a disregard for original research. Currently, the user keeps on adding information to the blp article for Dutch Ruppersberger's article. The edits consist of Ruppersberger's lack of participation in the Vietnam War despite the fact that there are no sources provided that cover this. I'm not disputing the fact that Ruppersberger didn't serve in the war, but I don't agree with the inclusion when no provided source is including this information. It is being presented in a derogatory way and I feel this is a BLP violation. The user believes that simply including a source with the user's birthdate and a dry list where "none" is provided for the subject's military service is enough to include this.

• [34]
• [35]
• [36]

The user was also involved with what I consider synthesis on the Draft dodger article.

• [37]

I took that to 3rd opinion and the original research noticeboard.

• Talk:Draft_dodger#African_American_military_figures_in_Vietnam_War
• Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard/Archive_20#Synthesis_on_Draft_dodger

The consensus there was to remove the content but the user does not seem interested, despite being this being discussed on Talk:Draft dodger

Also concerning is that the user takes a very defensive tone and accuses me of an anti-war bias [38]

Honestly the user's page [39] and previous edits lead me to believe this is going to be an ongoing problem. While the edits are spaced apart there is a pattern.

• [40]
• [41]

I have gone back and forth with the user enough and it is time for me to step aside. Thank you. --CutOffTies (talk) 20:23, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Explanation from The-Expose-inator What was added to this entry was the rather innocuous and footnoted phrase: "Despite having no military service, ..." in front of an entry where the Congressman is touting his support for service members through his support for “Operation Hero Miles.” This seems something totally appropriate to point out and it is footnoted from the non-partisan Vote-MD.org Ruppersberger Bio (http://vote-md.org/Intro.aspx?State=MD&Id=MDRuppersbergerCa ) which is actually a quite flattering pro-Ruppersberger piece. This is hardly "original research" and if this source is not sufficient, there are several other sources that verify that the Congressman has never served in the Military I could also cite but how many would CutOffTies like?

In my back-and-forth on this with CutOffTies I simply suggested that either the "entire support for service members" section be deleted or that his lack of service be added. CutOffTies didn't seem to like either suggestion and wants it all his way. I might add that most of what is in this article which is so flattering that it might have been written by his campaign manager is not footnoted but that doesn't seem to bother CutOffTies, just my footnoted addition. Finally, I have read the Wiki definition of vandalism and this hardly fits the definition. I believe CutOffTies should be barred from making further edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The-Expose-inator (talk • contribs) 18:09, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

The-Expose-inator responds to CutOffTies Draft Dodger slur:

As for my Draft Dodger entry, CutOffTies fails to mention that my citing the accurate statistics about who fought the Vietnam War was to correct a falsehood in the article that had gone unchallenged (even by CutOffTies) for years. There was an entire section entitled African-Americans in the Vietnam War that perpetuated the myth that the war was fought mainly by poor minorities and they were disproportionally killed. All I did was insert the official U.S. Government records on the War that can be found in the Official U.S. Government Records: Combat Area Casualty File of 11/93 (CACF1193), and The Adjutant General's Center (TAGCEN) file of 1981 – but I could have also cited three Washington Post articles with the identical statistics but I thought the official Government records were more credible.

Contrary to the misinformation originally in the entry, the VA statistics show that U.S. troops in Vietnam represented a much broader cross section of America than is commonly believed and only 25% of troops deployed to the combat zone were draftees (compared to 66% during World War II) ( Washington Post, Inside: The Veterans Administration, 24 Aug 1983). A total of 8.615 Million men served during the Vietnam era and of them 2.15 Million actually served in the Combat Zone so less than 540,000 draftees went to Vietnam. Three-fourths of those deployed were from working families and poor youths were twice as likely to serve there THAN their more affluent cohorts although the vast majority of them were volunteers. (Chance and Circumstance, 1978 Library of Congress ISBN). Hence, socio-economic status rather than race was the greatest determinate of who actually served in Vietnam and of all the service members who served there, 88.4% were Caucasian (including Hispanics), 10.6% were black, and 1% other. At the time, Blacks represented 12.5% of the total U.S. population and 13.5% of the military age cohort, so they were under represented in the war zone. Casualty data shows 86.8% of those killed in action were Caucasian, while 12.1% were Black. Although higher than the proportion serving in combat, it was still below the Black military age cohort in the general population at the time. (19. Source: Combat Area Casualty File of 11/93 (CACF1193), and The Adjutant General's Center (TAGCEN) file of 1981. Some draft eligible men publicly burned their draft cards which was illegal but the Justice Department only brought charges against 50 of which 40 were convicted (Chance and Circumstance, 1978 Library of Congress ISBN).

I would also point out that the inaccuracies in the article had been in there for years without so much as a peep from CutOffTies and it wasn’t until I inserted the accurate and footnoted corrections that CutOffTies took umbrage over my edits.

There were several other passages in the Draft Dodger article that were undocumented statements of opinion and many even false yet remained unchallenged. I can only suspect that because the facts didn’t conform to the general anti-war bias of the article, they were allowed to remain. Here are some of the numerous other undocumented passages in this article and comments/facts refuting each; I have corrected many of them with the accurate information but CutOffTies doesn't seem to be able "to handle the truth':

-- This was the source of considerable resentment among poor and working class young men including African-Americans - who could not afford college.[citation needed]

How many exactly is “Considerable?” Also, “including African-Americans” is this two or were there more? This statement adds nothing, is completely un-sourced and is opinion with no basis in fact.

-- Large groups of draft eligible men publicly burned draft cards.[citation needed]

Again, “Large groups” – I would agree “some” publically burned draft cards but because it was illegal and punishable (by being drafted), proportionally it was not many that did it. The newspapers and TV publicizing those that did might have made it seem like “large groups” but it was a tiny piece of the draft cohort that actually risked it.

--Since the National Guard was slated only for domestic security, service in the National Guard guaranteed protection from deploying to Vietnam. Vocations to the ministry and the rabbinate soared, as divinity students were exempt from the draft.[citation needed] Doctors and draft board members found themselves being pressured by relatives or family friends to exempt potential draftees.

Is there some proof of any of this? I would point out that a few National Guard units were activated and sent to Vietnam including the California National Guard (didn’t go as units but individual replacements) but more famously, the Kentucky National Guard’s 2nd Battalion, 138th Field Artillery which served in 1968-69 in support of the regular 101st Airborne Division. The Battalion's C Battery out of Bardstown lost 9 men killed and thirty-two wounded when North Vietnamese troops overran Fire Base Tomahawk on June 19, 1969. (Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Guard_of_the_United_States ) . This is history so this statement is obviously false.

-- in at least one case, a man who went to the movies, at the Biograph Theater in Chicago, every night on the week before the draft to eat buttered popcorn.[citation needed]

Talk about questionable and un-documentable passages. Was he trying to OD on popcorn? This statement is so ridiculous it needs no counter yet no one has challenged it?

-- During the Vietnam War, about 100,000 draft dodgers, in total, went abroad; others hid in the United States.[citation needed] An estimated 50,000 to 90,000 of these moved to Canada…

According to the definitive book on the subject, “Chance and Circumstance” (page 169) the total number of accused draft Evaders (Dodgers) was 210,000 with only 30,000 leaving the country. The TOTAL number of Deserters and Evaders total that went to Canada was about 30,000. Now that is sourced and this passage is patently false and greatly exaggerated.

I would finally point out that in the 1972 Presidential election, Nixon ran on a platform continuing our involvement in Vietnam and won the election in a landslide with 60.7% of the popular vote and the fourth largest margin of victory in the popular vote (23.2%) in presidential election history. He received almost 18 million more popular votes than McGovern—the widest margin of any U.S. presidential election. McGovern, who would have had us out of Vietnam before the end of his Inaugural Speech, only won the electoral votes of Massachusetts and the District of Columbia. This would certainly indicate that a “silent majority” didn’t want to abandon South Vietnam. (Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1972 )

I thought Wikipedia wanted to be the sourse of accurate information but if folks like CutOffTies are happy with it simply perpetuated myths and Urban Legends, ban me and I'll stop correcting some of the ridiculous falsehoods people try to pass off in here as facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The-Expose-inator (talk • contribs) 21:36, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Sweet merciful crap, could you two give us the Cliff Notes version please. This giant wall-o-text is unlikely to garner any considered response. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:44, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

If you look at the post before theExposeinator provided his response, you'll see it is not long at all. I cannot help the fact that the other user added a ton of text, and would hope that doesn't cause a lack of response. --CutOffTies (talk) 02:18, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

@Beeblebrox: the big problem wasn't even the length, believe it or not, but The Exposinator's (apparent) unfamiliarity with threading. See my comment at the top. Lord, I hope I've got the unscrambling right.. if not, I could fiddle with this section for the rest of my life. Anyway, COT should get some response. Bishonen | talk 19:37, 21 August 2011 (UTC).

Thanks Bish. Never have got there else - I've been looking at this for days. The problem appears to be that statements like "Despite his mother being a terrible cook, he went on to become a top chef" need a source that links the two facts (his mama being useless in the kitchen, and he being a Michelin star burger-slinger) and gives a reference to that 'despite'.Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:48, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

On first impression - Exposeinator is here to advocate a heavily non-neutral position and has been inserting biased material into at least one BLP repeatedly. This appears to be a violation of WP:SOAP, on a BLP, and ongoing... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:29, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Bish, I appreciate you sorting things out here. For this issue, I would also like to point out that the editor continues to add negative content that is not properly sourced to the Dutch Ruppersberger article. See this edit. At first it just looked like original research. Turns out it is a mix of copyvio and improperly masking an editorial as fact. --CutOffTies (talk) 13:57, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

The-Expose-inator responds to CutOffTies: I notice that CutOffTies is only diligent in “protecting” pages that exhibit a liberal bent, regardless if the information is patently false or misleading. While deleting my footnoted entries to Democrat Congressman Ruppersberger’s page about his National Guard’s Dick award, I would note that Maryland Republican Congressman Roscoe Bartlett also received a Dick Award but CutOffTies never added that to Bartlett’s page. Also, the Bartlett page contains derogatory and erroneous entries such as he is the only Republican in the Maryland Congressional Delegation when anyone that follows Maryland politics knows that Republican (and US Navy Reserved Commander and Medical Doctor) Andy Harris represents MD-1.The-Expose-inator (talk) 16:27, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Expose-inator blocked and topic banned

I have done some checking at Dutch Ruppersberger. The History is a horror story of attacks on the article (by the Expose-inator) and defense of it (by COT). I urge both users to familiarise themselves with the policy Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, which is the most important policy here, though certainly others come into play also.

@COT, I wish you had had help in containing these atrocious BLP violations sooner. One point, though: please be more careful with the word "vandalize". The Expose-inator's edits are awful in many ways, but they're not vandalism, he's quite right about that. See Wikipedia:Vandalism.

@Expose-inator: snide insinuations about your opponents' motives have no place on Wikipedia. Nor do weasel words about the subject, as for instance in the post COT links to, [42]. I was going to quote a few phrases to horrify the admins, but really, they might as well have the whole:

His 2nd Congressional District was fashioned in 2001 after the last census by Maryland Democrats, who enjoy the political upper hand in the Free State, and pays little heed to counties and communities. It was designed to dilute Republican votes by dispersing them among districts. … The Washington Post describes MD-2 as “curlicue territories strung together by impossibly delicate tendrils of land — is a crazy-quilt confection drawn for the express purpose of ousting the incumbent at the time, Rep. (and later Gov.) Robert L. Ehrlich Jr., a Republican, and installing C.A. Dutch Ruppersberger, a Democrat who still holds the job.

Clicking on the reference you give, it's obvious that this is, as COT mentions, indeed a mix of plagiarism and editorial masquerading as fact. And you put it into the article lead section!

You have been warned several times on your talkpage and told that continued infractions of various policies will lead to a block; most recently by COT. These warnings you have ignored. OK, here's the block. Better late than never. When you return after the block, you are topic banned from all BLP pages for the following three months. I hope my collegues will discuss this topic ban below. We have 31 hours for that. I can't topic ban you from adding biographical items to talkpages or non-bio articles (see WP:BLP again), since that would surely lead to unmanageable borderline distinctions. If there is anything you don't understand about the block or the topic ban, ask on your own talkpage, which you can still edit. I'll be watching it.

OK, will people please let me know below if they support my block and topic ban or not? Bishonen | talk 18:29, 22 August 2011 (UTC).

Thank you for your work here Bishonen. I'm not going to chime in about the block/topic ban, but a quick question - if I used Template:uw-biog4 instead of the generic final vandalism warning template, would that've been appropriate in this situation? Are there any other blp issues that I missed in dealing with this? Thanks. --CutOffTies (talk) 18:46, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that template is good for the purpose, as the user has already received several milder warnings. The reason I asked you, too, to read the BLP policy was so you'd get a sense of how special BLPs are; everything that's important for other articles is more important for BLPs, and also for BLP-type material inserted somewhere else. Note especially that inappropriate material can be removed from BLPs by any user without regard for the three revert rule. That's if you're sure you know what you're doing; as the policy says, it may be safer to raise the matter at the BLP noticeboard.

Going straight to ANI might, in hindsight, be the best thing in such a serious case. But I certainly don't mean to criticise you for taking rather long to get here — I realise you tried several other boards — but, as you found, the user simply ignored the consensus there. Anyway, thank you very much for your work in defending the article. Bishonen | talk 19:21, 22 August 2011 (UTC).

I appreciate it, thank you. --CutOffTies (talk) 19:44, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Another thing to mention is WP:BLPBAN. Administrators have special discretion to ban editors from BLP topics. Normally administrators can't decide to ban people, it takes the Arbitration Committee or a consensus of editors at a noticeboard to initiate bans, but BLPs are so sensitive that we're allowed to ban people based on our own judgement (assuming that the person has been properly warned and advised first). We really take BLP article seriously. -- Atama頭 20:53, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

We do indeed. Good point, Atama. I wasn't aware of WP:BLPBAN. Shouldn't we put some version of it into WP:BLP? I'm not any too comfortable referring users to an arbitration remedy. The arbcom doesn't create policy; the community does. Would some arb like to comment here? Bishonen | talk 22:27, 22 August 2011 (UTC).
P.S. I'm not requesting arb comment on the block or ban, but on the arbcom's relation to policy, especially as it applies to WP:BLPBAN. Bishonen | talk 00:41, 23 August 2011 (UTC).

That might be a good question for WT:BLP. I'd be in favor of including some language in the policy itself, probably in the "Semi-protection, protection, and blocking" section (we might add "banning" to the end of that title). -- Atama頭 00:49, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Whomever opposes the user will be EXPOSED - see the first sentence on their user page. POV-warrior, maybe? The user needs to consider a good unblock argument. Doc talk 00:58, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Rather unfortunate that userpage, given that he's the one adding unsourced opinion and passing it off as fact! Bishonen, I think your block and topic ban is fine, particularly given that last edit of his. Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:55, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Cool, thanks, Elen. Would somebody a little less involved than me like to mark this thread "Resolved" and hat it? My request for comment on the block ban has been up for 24 hours with no opposition. I wouldn't call that a "consensus" for these actions, since so few people have commented on them at all, but I hardly think it's worth waiting for more. The thread is long, life is short. Bishonen | talk 18:35, 23 August 2011 (UTC).

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

Veiled legal threat posed as a query?

Yogesh Khandke has posed a query regarding legality of WP hosted material - see Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics#Map of India.2C the WikiIndia meet.2C etc. As a query per se it is probably valid but this user is one of a group of contributors who have of late been pushing some sort of agenda across various articles and which have included both personal attacks and legal threats. Given that the issue of how Indian law has no specific capability of being enforced on WP content (and that this has been explained in threads which Yogesh Khandke participated in), should this query be seen as anything other than genuine? I am concerned that there is a possibly sophisticated, concerted effort going on here. It has involved numerous ANI reports, article and user talk pages, DRN, NPOVN etc. And, yes, it may appear that AGF has gone out of my window. I apologise for that but this really is a genuine concern, based on what appears to be a pattern of argumentative (sometimes outright disruptive) editing that has emerged in particular during the last 6 - 8 weeks. I am fast losing count of the number of admins who have become involved in the overall scheme of things. - Sitush (talk) 23:54, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I note that Yogesh Khandke has been involved in some sort of email discussion with EyeSerene and that some of the public conversation also had a legal tinge to it. It seems that Eyeserene is on a break until September. I will post a note about this on Eyeserene's page anyway. - Sitush (talk) 00:19, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

The discussion is ongoing and has been adequately rebutted on the talk page. If, as with the troll blog, Yogesh Khandke proceeds to take this supposed problem to random other forums en masse then another block is in order. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 18:31, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

 Note: Just to make sure everyone is on the same page, but without pointing any fingers, please keep this in mind. No legal threats is widely misunderstood, and sometimes the misunderstandings are extremely damaging.

A polite, coherent complaint in cases of copyright infringement or attacks is not a "legal threat".

— WP:NLT

Threatening to indefinitely block a user for discussing the legal implications of copyrighted content on Wikipedia is a Bad Thing. That is to say nothing about disruptive editing practices outside of such discussion, of which I have no knowledge or opinion. causa sui (talk) 22:28, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

1 to causa sui. Questioning the legality of material on Wikipedia is AOK. Hinting that you have battle lawyers at the ready in case they disagree with you is not. —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 06:12, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Seconding. A legal threat is not any discussion of legality, it is the claiming of taking off-wiki action or providing on-wiki legal advice for off-wiki actions, and/or claiming to be an officer of the court giving a legal opinion with off-wiki validity (not just lawyers, mind you). The over-riding word here is "off-wiki". I do have perhaps a point of difference, which is that we should be careful with WP:GAME around WP:NLT, I have seen editors skillfully skirt NLT in often successful efforts to intimidate other users, and we should be careful not to ignore this WP:GAME issues even in the absence of WP:NLT violations.--Cerejota (talk) 23:00, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

To clarify, the discussion has indeed moved on at the WP:IND page since I raised the query here. There does appear to be a genuine concern expressed by several people and I understand that the issue has been highlighted to the WMF liaison, Moonriddengirl (Maggie Dennis). I remain uncertain of the original motives, especially since it has come to light that YK was involved in a similar earlier discussion & there is a fairly clear group of India-nationalist centric contributors working together at present, per their various talk pages and input at similar articles etc. But in this instance, AGF is certainly valid & in view of subsequent comments in the WP:IND discussion I was probably wrong to raise the issue here. My apologies. Right now, it is sometimes difficult to see the wood for the trees in this particular sphere of articles. - Sitush (talk) 23:11, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Thread at User_talk:Mdennis_(WMF)#Question_regarding_India_from_some_Chapter_members. I note that someone else picked up on the potential POV undertow, which at least makes me feel a little better with regard to wasting everyone's time here at ANI. And so to bed ... - Sitush (talk) 23:18, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Supress an adress from pictures

Hi. I´m a new admin in es:WP. We received a "report of mistake" of a not registered user who says to be the author of these two pictures, uploaded in en:WP. Both pictures say: "thank to Violeta Sánchez Ramos adress (city) Country". She is now requesting to delet the personal information as she is in a judicial process. I´m not sure what to do in this case. An OTRS request, maybe? Can you hide the info anyway 'cause is not in scope? Thanks. --Andreateletrabajo (talk) 02:29, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Checking the image sources on Flickr I see that the images are licensed as NC so of no use here unless someone feels fair use applies. Agathoclea (talk) 05:19, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

The request here is not to remove the picture, but the detailed personal information given in the file comments. We routinely redact this kind of information upon request, so I hope that someone can help out here. Unfortunately, it appears that mere mortals cannot remove the information since it is part of the file history. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 05:29, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Marked for speedy deletion; license is non-commercial. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 05:39, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Pity that we have to - apparently Violeta Sánchez Ramos was even proud of that picture being here and pointed that out in the picture comments. Anyway there are a few worse items in the users upload list. I'll look at them again when I have a bit more time. Agathoclea (talk) 05:46, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Incredible the twist of the files. Thanks all for your help. Cheers. --Andreateletrabajo (talk) 13:00, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Hm. For the source images, [43], [44] I've requested that the Flickr user change license to "Attribution-ShareAlike Creative Commons" (Flickr license option 5). If this happens, the WP uploader can upload them again without further trouble, (without adding personally identity information to the file comments!). --Lexein (talk) 14:23, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Y The Flickr user has updated the license for [45] and [46] to "Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 Generic (CC BY-SA 2.0" (Flickr option 5). If the deleter would be so kind as to undelete, please do so. Never mind, I'll re-up, sans personal info, for a clean history. --Lexein (talk) 00:41, 24 August 2011 (UTC)  Done--Lexein (talk) 02:32, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

2011 Battle of Tripoli

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

---

I will accept my part of the mess, but this need urgent attention as the article is high profile. We can discuss the merits later, but right now, the article creator did a "copy and paste move" while reverting my move from 2011 Battle of Tripoli and 2011 Battle for Tripoli. I tried talking to him but he seems not to understand, perhaps feeling am too involved. Please fix, some admin... At this point the name is irrelevant, its the copy&paste disaster that is my concern.--Cerejota (talk) 21:48, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

 Doing... SoWhy 22:19, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

 Done. I also Move protected it for now . Please use WP:RM for further rename requests for the time being. Regards SoWhy 22:25, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, also don't forget to do close it Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen. Can you speak with the cut and paste rand make sure he understands what happened? He seems inexperienced and a bit WP:OWNy as new editors who find themselves with a high-profile article are prone to be, so a gentle advice on what happened and WP:OWN would be helpful.--Cerejota (talk) 22:56, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

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

Dwarf Gymnure

Resolved

 – Template:IUCN was vandalized and has been protected, see WP:ANI#Dodo for further info.

The Dwarf Gymnure article seems to have been redirected to a shock site, likely virus-laden.

66.69.21.25 (talk) 00:55, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

As I cannot afford to replace my computer at this exact moment, I'm not going to take the chance of clicking that to see what happens...but I might try to check the history somehow or place an earlier edit back at the front. CycloneGU (talk) 00:57, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Never mind...I can't figure out what happened here with very few 2011 edits...I'm not willing to click individual edits and locate the redirect, or guess how far back I'd have to go. Here's the history for anyone who wishes to try (THAT link is safe and doesn't load the article itself at all). CycloneGU (talk) 01:00, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

• I don't see anything. I think the IP is lying. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 01:02, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

  I found my way to the edit page via the history link and reviewed it as well. I also found nothing. CycloneGU (talk) 01:03, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I followed the link from the Erinaceidae page initially. 66.69.21.25 (talk) 01:06, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

TPH, care to see if something is located in Erinaceidae? CycloneGU (talk) 01:11, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

• Is there some way that they could hijack the link from there? 'Cause I know what I saw, and it sure as hell wasn't a rat-like hedgehog. I just want to make sure that I'm the last person to get that surprise. 66.69.21.25 (talk) 01:17, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

  Sadly, it IS possible. Another article already had that problem. If this keeps happening all around Wikipedia, there will have to be something done off-wiki to catch the perpetrators; even that won't stop it, because the new form of "virus infecting" will catch on in that community. CycloneGU (talk) 01:26, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

  I'm going to run a virus scan to establish how dangerous the link is. I'll post the results later. 66.69.21.25 (talk) 01:33, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Dodo above, caused by vandalism to a template: this might be some form of residual caching issue, since it can't be replicated. Acroterion (talk) 01:38, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

• So far, my computer has been fine. I'm running Comodo Dragon, if that's significant. What image did Dodo link to? The one I saw definitely fit GNAA's modus operandi. 66.69.21.25 (talk) 01:44, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

• It was a page redirect, which clicking anywhere in the browser frame would cause the issue. As for what page, it's been corrected and then revdel'd (meaning we can't see it, and the admins are not likely to post the link here, as that kinda defeats the purpose of the revdel I requested). I still have the links in question (still in my browser history), but no (for obvious reasons) I will not post them, nor email them. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 01:57, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

@ User:TenPoundHammer, IP 66.69.21.25 is not lying; to even suggest that is inappropriate, especially coming from an experienced editor such as yourself. Please strike that erroneous statement of yours, TPH. --64.85.220.98 (talk) 04:19, 23 August 2011 (UTC) — 64.85.220.98 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Ah, you caught me User:Baseball Bugs. Your edit here tagging me as a SPA is spot on since I only chose a dynamic IP address just to point out a personal attack and request its removal! Since TPH, and BB, have failed to remove it, I have done so myself. --64.85.214.54 (talk) 23:17, 23 August 2011 (UTC) — 64.85.214.54 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. (Self-tagging so you don't have to!)

Guerilla Skepticism on Wikipedia off-wiki project

I'm not sure if anyone else has noticed this, but the James Randi Educational Foundation's blog has a supportive post that came out today praising an off-wiki initiative called Guerilla Skepticism on Wikipedia. This initiative, from the blog post, appears to be encouraging skeptics to publish "skeptical" (i.e. anti-paranormal/religious POV) "references" on Wikipedia articles, and to engage in WP:COI editing of pages relating to the skeptical community. Whilst I self-define as a skeptic (and strongly support the JREF), this makes me extremely nervous, as it seems to be exhorting outside participation in large-scale POV editing of Wikipedia articles spanning multiple topics, and smacks somewhat of bussing in editors to perform COI edits in the name of their community. This would otherwise be worth disregarding were it not for the JREF's following and standing. I wonder if someone should write a polite message, preferably from the foundation, to the JREF and the post author suggesting they might want to be more careful? --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 17:47, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

It looks like that post was very carefully worded so as not to suggest that anyone should violate any Wikipedia guidelines. "Guerrilla Skepticism is the act of inserting well written, carefully cited skeptical references into Wikipedia pages where they are needed, while still following the guidelines and rules of everyone’s online encyclopedia." If that is actually followed, then this will be nothing more than people editing articles in areas they're interested in, which is not in-and-of-itself a problem. cmadler (talk) 18:09, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

And furthermore I expect any complaints will be mocked - Randi's a great guy but acerbic towards what he perceives as foolishness.. and I can't imagine him supporting verifiability over reality Egg Centric 18:58, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

If you read the Guerilla Skepticism blog then it does seem kosher, if very badly named. Indeed the author of the blog had a discussion with User:Tom Morris, which was posted, where they actually discussed the unfortunate naming. I checked some of the edited articles, and it all seems generally fine. At the end of the day there is no issue with people bringing material from their perspective to the party - so long as it does not skew articles unduely. Just the name.... Facepalm there actually could be something we could do here - get some of the chapters to do talks etc. with the movement --Errant ^(chat!) 18:59, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Yep, the post is here, which is a copy (authorised) of a conversation I had with User:Sgerbic on her talk page. The name "guerilla" does sound problematic but I think that Sgerbic is acting properly. I think when people have concerns about pseudoscience and WP:FRINGE topics on Wikipedia, we should try and engage them and hopefully nudge them towards the talk pages, WP:FTN and eventually productive, neutral contribution. One of the points that I think Sgerbic is going for is that a lot of minor articles have WP:UNDUE problems: while something like Homeopathy adheres to NPOV and UNDUE, articles on minor psychics and other "things that go bump in the night" type topics don't necessarily reflect the consensus of the scientific community... but there will be some potential BLP issues here. It's the majority opinion of the scientific community that psychic powers aren't real: the implication then is that all these people are fake, and some charlatans. Should our BLPs of psychic mediums point out that the majority of scientific opinion is that psychic powers aren't real? To include it seems to be giving undue weight to a non-biographical matter and to not include it gives implicit undue weight to the view that psychic powers are real. There are interesting issues here, but so long as skeptics - guerilla or otherwise - abide by the letter and intention of policy, I don't see how this is an ANI matter. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:29, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I've notified User:Sgerbic. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:31, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

So long as it doesn't skew wikipedia articles towards a "pro fact-based research" POV, it should be fine.Bali ultimate (talk) 19:34, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

LOL, everyone is entitled to their own facts in Wikipedia. WP:V is policy. FuFoFuEd (talk) 21:29, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) A project to encourage "skeptics" to edit wikipedia - whilst following the house rules - could potentially offer big benefits to the encyclopædia; bringing in new editors who are more passionate about WP:V and WP:RS. Of course there are the "obvious" big articles (atheism, homeopathy, &c) which do not currently have a shortage of skeptical viewpoints; but there are more obscure articles out there, on fringey topics, which have been written by one or two editors who take that topic seriously and have (so far) evaded more skeptical attention. Everybody brings a POV, and everybody is an SPA at first; but we could do a lot worse than (for instance) enrolling a few EBM fans, giving them a copy of WP:MEDRS, and setting them loose to spend a few hours working on some of the more neglected alt-med articles. bobrayner (talk) 19:35, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

One other thing: about the name "guerilla skepticism". As far as I can tell, this is a reference to the fact that within the skeptical movement, there are formal organizations, like JREF, Center for Inquiry, Committee for Skeptical Inquiry and others. "Guerilla" then is more like "grassroots" rather than "guerilla warfare". At least, that's what the good faith part of me thinks. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:36, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I can see nothing wrong with this blog. If it leads to an influx of intelligent genuine sceptics, great. If it leads to an influx of stupid followers of scepticism preachers, then it's going to exacerbate a problem that we already have at times: Lots of people pushing to write articles in a style that repels everyone but the most hardcore 'sceptics'. I have long wondered if the occasional pseudosceptic mobs form naturally or via a secret mailing list similar to the one a relatively prominent 'sceptic' editor once tried to initiate. (I am not going to name anyone or provide evidence as this would involve outing someone. I found the evidence on my own with little effort, so I am sure it's well known to everyone who was active in some of the pseudoscience conflicts before my time.) But this new blog appears completely independent of Wikipedia's old problem. I just hope that this isn't going to inflate the number of people who try to own the hagiographies of their respective scepticism idols. But we can worry about such problems if and when they arise. And celebrate improvements if and when they occur. Hans Adler 19:42, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I would have expected that skeptics who visit wikipedia on some skeptic mission are more likely to indulge in 386-style editing of fringey articles, rather than hagiographies of people on the "right" side, even though that blogpost seems to lean towards the latter. We don't really need a dozen more people arriving at homeopathy on a crusade to replace the lede with "Homeopathy doesn't work. There's nothing in it"; but there are less-trafficked articles out there which would really benefit from a skeptical eye. bobrayner (talk) 20:27, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia has had an active "sceptic" community for years. Their productive edits are encouraged; their unproductive edits are dealt with. When it comes down to it, when it comes to editing Wikipedia with an agenda it is difficult to hide it no matter how cleverly the canvassing is worded. That the author of the post in question has a blog which points people at articles should make it trivial to monitor potential trouble spots before they flare up. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 21:27, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

And this is different from editors with undeclared but rather obvious agendas how? FuFoFuEd (talk) 21:31, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

We don't accept POV-pushing no matter how honestly it's done here. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 21:33, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Is this a purely theoretical comment? I've not seen you getting your hands dirty at WP:AE. Some editors that I'd easily characterize as POV pushers have been doing it for years, and I don't see anything stopping them. FuFoFuEd (talk) 01:20, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

This at least makes a change from the plea from an ex-Wikipedia editor in a UK skeptic journal for skeptics to avoid Wikipedia! Dougweller (talk) 05:26, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Reporting user:Medeis

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

I suggested on the Talk:2011 Virginia earthquake that the whole page be deleted and its not needed and user:Medeis keeps reverting it and threating to report me for being a vandel, thats what the talk page is for but this user is not allowing me to put my option on the page. 173.64.109.64 (talk) 02:42, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Whether or not the article should be deleted doesn't seem to be an issue here; it's more a matter of how you suggested it be deleted. Claiming that "Wikipedia is a joke" is hardly what I'd call constructive editing. I think this report is likely to come back on you. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 02:51, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

(ec)The user is trolling without signatures about how stupid wikipedia is, not making suggestions toward improving the article. "This is such a joke and proves wikipedia is a joke" He has been told that he can file an AfD, and given his immediate recourse here it is obvious he is the IP sockpuppet of an experienced user. I suggest this IP immediately be blocked for vandalism and checkuser be performed to find out what other accounts are involved. I don't intend to comment further here. If any admins have a question I request they place it on my talk page. μηδείς (talk) 02:53, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I've blocked the IP for disruptive editing. I don't see any point to a checkuser at this time. Acroterion (talk) 02:56, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I don't see a sufficient basis for a checkuser at this point, but I agree that the IP's input has not been useful, and he or she is directed to cut it out. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:58, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the swift action. μηδείς (talk) 03:01, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Returned as 206.217.197.164 (talk · contribs), who has an interesting history. I've blocked that IP for a month as a result. Acroterion (talk) 03:11, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

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

Revisiting familiar terrain

I'm forum shopping here. It seems a previous discussion on removing current block notices went nowhere. User:TransporterMan left me a note saying that removing uncontested block notices is fine, after I pointed out to a just-blocked user that it was not; I was unaware that there was no consensus on this minor point. For shits and giggles, look at the recent history of User talk:Wicka wicka, and you'll see that it is clear that we cannot agree. (And let's not re-block that user for edit-warring in this case!) What is the right forum to hash this out once and for all, if we can? This? If so, let's get to it. Drmies (talk) 19:40, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

My feeling is that the best place to take it would be back to the point of the most substantial discussion, that is, Village Pump (Policy), but even though I think that the current language leaves a lot to be desired that it at least constitutes default rough consensus on an issue which, the last time it came up, proved to be extremely controversial even in the way the primary discussion should be closed. I really wonder if it wouldn't be better to let sleeping dogs lie. For everyone's convenience, let me list the components of that discussion, as far as I can find them (these include current links to archive pages, BTW, which some of the other references do not):

• Wikipedia_talk:User_pages/Archive_8#Block_notices_and_BLANKING (26 Sep 2010 - 4 Nov 2010; last past discussion)
• Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_88#Should_users_be_allowed_to_remove_current_block_notices.3F (23 June 2011 - 5 August 2011)
• User_talk:Bwilkins/Archive_6#Wikipedia:Village_pump_.28policy.29.23Should_users_be_allowed_to_remove_current_block_notices.3F (25 July 2011 - 26 July 2011)
• Wikipedia_talk:User_pages#Removal_of_current_block_notices (25 July 2011 - 30 July 2011)
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive226#Should_users_be_allowed_to_remove_current_block_notices.3F_and_Require_all_new_articles_to_contain_at_least_one_source (25 July 2011 - 30 July 2011)

Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:36, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Note that WP:UP#CMT says that "Sanctions that are currently in effect...may not be removed by the user". But supposing a user does remove a block notice, what beyond superficial advantage does it offer? Their block will be visable in the log anyway, and anyone trying to speak to a blocked individual where they don't know that the individual is blocked will just be wondering why they aren't getting a response. WilliamH (talk) 20:43, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

That was, indeed, one of the primary arguments made by the "allow removal" faction in the recent discussions listed above. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:58, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I have added a history of the discussion to Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 88#Should users be allowed to remove current block notices?. I have done so to give editors a clear chronology of the closure of the discussion and the resulting consensus that the closure was incorrect. Feel free to add more to the notice if you want. Cunard (talk) 08:37, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks Cunard. Drmies (talk) 13:36, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

This is an outrage!

Resolved

 – Aman4Bebo blocked for 60 hours

That's too much edit warring from Aman4Bebo, a registered user. Should the semi protection at Kareena Kapoor be upgraded to full lockdown? StormContent (talk) 13:49, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

This can be discussed at WP:RFPP. In the meantime I will be blocking the user again, if someone else hasn't done it first. Daniel Case (talk) 13:58, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

 Done He's out for the next 2.5 days. Daniel Case (talk) 14:02, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm heading right to RFPP. StormContent (talk) 14:15, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

SPI

Has a backlog of about 4 days now. Anyone want to close some of the non-CU cases? I may have a go, but I've got one there now. Dougweller (talk) 11:31, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I thought only clerks could close cases. However, I did perform administrative action on one. Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:43, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Instructions for administrators is at WP:SPI/AI and it's invaluable for any admin helping out in the area. Included on that page are instructions for any administrator to request a closure for a case after all necessary actions are complete (see here). Oh, and as to the original request, I closed a handful yesterday and I'll see what I can do today also. -- Atama頭 21:20, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Any administrator can close an SPI case, but only clerks can archive them (as a more or less "make sure the i's are dotted and t's are crossed" measure). –MuZemike 21:41, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I think I have an explanation as to why there was such a backlog at SPI. In the Harmonia1 SPI, I Jethrobot had added a "collapse" template which completely broke the SPI page and essentially hid older cases (or at least, I couldn't find them). I replaced the template with other formatting and the SPI page is back. I'm now trying to resolve those older, forgotten cases. -- Atama頭 17:08, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Legal threat by Arjuna deekshitar

Resolved

 – User indef'd by Tnxman307 for WP:NLT. Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 15:48, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Hello. I am here to report Arjuna deekshitar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for legal threats. Apparently, the fact that I remove his personal analysis from Campantar would be considered terrorism and reported to police who would terminate wikipedia. After I replied and warned him about WP:NLT as well as WP:NOR and WP:NPOV, his reply was to inform me that a notice has been sent to agencies world wide including interpol and FBI and they are on the look. My apologies if I just caused the end o' Wikipedia, but would an admin mind stepping in here? Thanks. Apparition^{11 Complaints}/Mistakes 13:52, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Indeffed. - David Biddulph (talk) 14:05, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Apparition^{11 Complaints}/Mistakes 14:08, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

"My edits on the page are more or less consistent with facts". I wonder how that will hold up in court. :) --Atlan (talk) 14:22, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

It would hold up. More or less. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:51, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Why is it when people say "more or less" you can always guarantee that the second option is the accurate one? --Jayron32 16:41, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Dodo

The article appears vandalized in a very strange and severe way. Even the Mediawiki interface is not showing up on it. FuFoFuEd (talk) 02:43, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Any help with the {{Taxobox}}, Grawp did it again (see Dodo or any other animal). Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 02:45, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh, its an include? Or something in the page itself? I reverted to an older version that seemed to fix it, but I can put it back. -- Avanu (talk) 02:48, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

The {{{status_ref}}} is the problem, does somebody know how to fix it? Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 02:55, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Solved, problem at Template:IUCN. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 02:59, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

:IF YOU CLICKED ON THE VANDALIZED PAGE. If you have, especially if you are running Idiotically Exploding and your AV software did not go crazy, I strongly suggest you kill your browser sessions and do a full scan of your computer. I tried right clicking for source... then left clicking to get focus... and before I could right click again, my AV software got very upset.

That said, I'd strongly suggest someone RevDel the affected versions of whatever template, etc is affected. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 03:05, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I've revdel'd it. If it's really a problem, you could ask for oversight (warning the OS people first). Acroterion (talk) 03:10, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Acroterion. Depends on the quality of malware protection a user is running, as well as the browser. For instance, IE is a lot more susceptible to drive-bys like on the page that the whole article was linked to (necessary backwards compatibility for various older technologies of theirs). So, I guess to play it safe, I will submit to OS. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 03:14, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Done. ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 03:21, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

RevDel is fine for that - it is not something that necessarily needs to be scrubbed even from admin eyes, and it might be useful for future reference. Also; I checked the link against my (work) automated tools - so long as all you did was click through nothing should have happened. --Errant ^(chat!) 03:24, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm... both AVG and Chrome disagree. And it dragged both to their knees (speed wise) till Chrome was killed. :-/ ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 03:27, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

It's very disturbing that someone manged to mount that kind of attack. I can live with the NSFW pictures popping unexpectedly around here, but malware injection?? FuFoFuEd (talk) 03:38, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

So allow me to ask the question to make me look foolish: Would this be considered illegal, that is the addition of known malicious scripts? Wildthing61476 (talk) 04:29, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Probably, I can't see the script(s) myself because of the revdel. I doubt the Foundation has the inclination to file a police complaint, but who knows... FuFoFuEd (talk) 04:57, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I haven't seen the code but based on the report it would probably be illegal in the UK (IANAL but I work with the CMA). Other developed countries have similar but not identical laws. However, the jurisdiction thing could be vexing when you have a miscreant in country A, a server in country B, and a browser in country C. Don't expect meaningful legal action. bobrayner (talk) 12:06, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

The question is not foolish. This kind of injection is, AFAIK, illegal in numerous countries. By making such an edit yourself, you would be causing havoc on the PCs of anyone visiting the infected article. It might as well be a computer virus; those, as you know, are indeed illegal. CycloneGU (talk) 21:10, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I believe the malware site was under the domain feenode.net (the homepage is a shock site with gruesome images and audio—don't go there!), which is apparently owned by GNAA (see [47] archive) Would an admin add this domain to the edit filter or the spam blacklist? Thanks, Goodvac (talk) 05:03, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Done, ironically, by me. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 06:23, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

IUCN

I had a look at that template myself because it was the only significant difference, but it was fully protected! So how did this happen? FuFoFuEd (talk) 03:40, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Mmkay, I actually looked at {{IUCN2006}}, which is fully protected, but apparently it invoked something that isn't [48]. FuFoFuEd (talk) 03:43, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

For what it's worth, attempts are still being made to insert that link. RxS (talk) 06:08, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Got pwnd

I used Firefox 5, did not click on anything in that page, but still got infected with something that moves my browser window randomly around and fills it with some gory pic. It's fine for a while after I kill the process but then starts again. Avira can't find anything. Any suggestions? FuFoFuEd (talk) 06:10, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Malware Bytes, Combo Fix or Dr-Web-CureIt...probably in that order. One of those will help. RxS (talk) 06:13, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Same thing here, except I merely refreshed this page and NOD32 lit up with a quarantine warning and killed further loading of the page (in Opera 11.5; no damage thankfully beyond killing a Java instance). My suggestion is to remove all links to this the moment blacklisting is up on them. Nate • (chatter) 06:15, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I, and I expect other users, are going to want a hint as to which Wikipedia page(s) had the exploit, so I can see if I visited them! --Lexein (talk) 07:32, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I have a HTML/Crypted.Gen and a TR/Meredrop.A.3590 according to Avira. I think I'll stay away from Wikipedia for a while given that I can get infected by just visiting one of its vanalized pages. Thanks much. FuFoFuEd (talk) 06:42, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Or avoid Javascript? Out of curiosity I tested WP with the OffByOne plain HTML3-only browser. The results aren't pretty, but everything basically works: log in, edit, etc., and page loads are fast. Of course just turning off Javascript in the per-site settings in whatever browser you're using will do the trick. --Lexein (talk) 07:32, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Looks like it's been taken care of; an edit around 7:03 GMT which was left by someone (not going to do a full link to the ANI history out of an abundance of caution) has just been rev-deled here. Thank you to DeadlyAssassin and GogoDodo for catching it. Nate • (chatter) 07:09, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

DeadlyAssassin was reporting another matter, which I also happened to take care of. I found an open template that was the cause of the recent issue and took care of that, too. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 07:15, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the great work, folks. I've seen this and will present it internally. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 15:06, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Shouldn't this be more than a thread on ANI?

This is a hugely serious issue, surely? If simply viewing a page on Wikipedia can cause ones browser to become infected (and if that isn't the case then I have misunderstood the discussion) then at the minimum there ought to be a banner on every page (say where the image referendum thing is at the moment) telling people about it. And more technical details too! Egg Centric 20:16, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

It was a link to a web page, which had the virus. To get it, the link had to be clicked. Admittedly the link was partly hidden (I'd give details except for BEANs), but it doesn't look like anything serious technically for Wikipedia, to me. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 20:34, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Ah ok. The above gave the impression that it happened on page load. Yup, pretty much impossible to do anything about I suppose if we're going to allow both CSS and external links, never mind adding javascript to the mixture. Egg Centric 20:42, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I clicked a link from Google last night, saw the vandalism, and was redirected to the malicious page without clicking anything. What is going on? TihsReggin (talk) 23:18, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

So just why, exactly, do we not semi-protect all templates, again? I understand the rationale for not semi-protecting all articles (I may not always agree with it, but I understand it), but I don't expect that many new users would be editing templates instead of articles; established IP users would presumably be familiar enough with Wikipedia to use the EditRequest template on the talkpage if they needed to have the template edited, and almost all template vandalism is done by people who either editing as IPs or have yet to be autoconfirmed... rdfox 76 (talk) 00:49, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Bad idea, prevents regular users from editing, etc. TihsReggin (talk) 01:45, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. Trading essential liberty for temporary security et cetera. If someone really wants to damage Wikipedia it can be done, but having as open a process as possible has worked well enough for a decade so far. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 09:34, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Hmmmm....I wonder if an account whose username is "nigger shit" backwards should be taken at face value. I get a whiff of the unpleasant odour of the GNAA here. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:50, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Additional Notes:

Sorry I couldn't follow up earlier.

• Oversight indicates that they see no need to totally blot the revdel, believing revdel is sufficient. I agree.
• Infections due to this will occur two ways:
  • A user loaded an affected Wikipedia page and clicked someplace on the page they were redirected to
  • A user loaded an affected Wikipedia page and didnt click, but their browser is set to read ahead and grabbed the infected page (speed enhancement thingy). This is a lot less common, but if your computer got infected and you didnt click, this is why.
• (I'll preface this by noting I've been a computer tech for 2.5 decades and deal with this stuff reguarly) IF you've become infected:
  • As suggested above, ComboFix is a good starting point, BUT BE CAREFUL, you really should know what you're doing if you run it. Google for it, look for the "Bleeping Computer" link and download via that site (which also contains instructions).
  • ComboFix is NOT the final solution. You should scan your system with such programs as MalwareBytes, SuperAntiSpyware and your regular up to date antivirus software. When you do so, make sure they are set to scan everything and not just infectable files. SAS, AVG and many other apps need those settings manually set in the advanced options, otherwise their "scan whole computer" buttons only "scan some of the computer".
• If browser pop-ups or redirects are still occurring, you will need to check various aspects of your Internet settings, browser plugins and so on. You may also have damaged xul/chrome stuff in Firefox, or stuff sitting in a Java/Javascript/Flash cache. Clearing all browser caches since the beginning of time is a good idea. This (for most browsers) does not clear your Flash cache - to do that, you can go here.Macromedia.com The tool to clear your flash cache is actually a flash app that resides on Macromedia's and Adobe's site.
• Any questions, please feel free to email me - or find a suitable, competent tech friend near you. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 00:46, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
  • That's probably how I got hit on Opera; I didn't click on anything but it does preload what it thinks would be the next page I would visit (say, a television station article would load the image page for the station logo), and if I Alt Right or Forward, then it goes to that page. Somehow this managed to hit that behavior and there I am at the spyware page. Thankfully a scan with my AV/spyware showed nothing (and it was immediately thrown into the quarantine bin with the connection immediately aborted before the file fully loaded), so I'm OK, but it still shook me up quite a bit. Nate • (chatter) 10:38, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Blocking of User:Lombshi

After having his user name changed and admitting it was no more than a simple mistake, the user was blocked as a "sockpuppet" although no proof of this was provided. Could this be a case of Checkuser abuse in bad faith? Sheep have wool (talk) 18:09, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I think it's more likely that you are Lombshi. You're being a bit too obvious here. ;) -- Atama頭 18:25, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Please Assume Good Faith. Sheep have wool (talk) 19:13, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

There's one thing for me to assume good faith, and another thing for me to be stupid. If I didn't assume good faith, you'd be blocked now. :P -- Atama頭 23:46, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Stalking by Cossde

Cossde and his sock puppet Gira2be have been stalking me for a few weeks but it has gotten out of hand in the past 24 hours. Cossde has been having disputes with a number of editors recently (see Sri Lanka, Sri Lankan Civil War, War crime, War rape) but has picked me out for particular attention.

Cossde/Gira2be's tactic usually consists of placing unnecessary tags on articles I have edited recently, often within minutes of my edit. These articles aren't part of any dispute but they have been targeted specifically because I created or made major contributions to them:

• Batticaloa Municipal Council - My edit at 21:00, 20 August 2011, Cossde edit at 04:50, 21 August 2011. Cossde had not edited this article previously.
• Valvettithurai Urban Council - My edit at 22:12, 20 August 2011, Cossde edit at 04:47, 21 August 2011. Cossde had not edited this article previously.
• Point Pedro Urban Council - My edit at 21:42, 20 August 2011, Cossde edit at 04:40, 21 August 2011. Cossde had not edited this article previously.
• Trincomalee Urban Council - My edit at 19:00, 20 August 2011, Cossde edit at 19:16, 20 August 2011. Cossde had not edited this article previously.
• Vavuniya Urban Council - My edit at 18:57, 20 August 2011, Cossde edit at 19:11, 20 August 2011. Cossde had not edited this article previously.
• Upul Tharanga - My edit at 12:09, 14 August 2011, Cossde edit at 16:50, 14 August 2011. Cossde had not edited this article previously.

I opened a sock puppet investigation on Cossde and Gira2be on 19 July. Cossde was banned for 3 days and Gira2be was banned indefinitely.

• V. A. Alegacone - My edit at 11:45, 7 July 2011 , Gira2be edit at 19:03, 16 July 2011. Cossde and their sock puppet Gira2be had not edited this article previously.
• V. Dharmalingam - My edit at 18:08, 9 July 2011, Gira2be edit at 19:03, 16 July 2011. Cossde and their sock puppet Gira2be had not edited this article previously.
• Jaffna College - My edit at 16:43, 16 July 2011, Gira2be edit at 19:02, 16 July 2011. Cossde and their sock puppet Gira2be had not edited this article previously.
• K. Thurairatnam - My edit at 16:28, 16 July 2011, Gira2be edit at 19:02, 16 July 2011. Cossde and their sock puppet Gira2be had not edited this article previously.
• C. Suntharalingam - My edit at 13:26, 16 July 2011, Gira2be edit at 19:01, 16 July 2011. Cossde and their sock puppet Gira2be had not edited this article previously.
• St. John's College, Jaffna - My edit at 13:28, 16 July 2011, Gira2be edit at 18:59, 16 July 2011. Cossde and their sock puppet Gira2be had not edited this article previously.

Other articles that have been targeted by Cossde/Gira2be include Chundikuli Girls' College, St. Patrick's College, Jaffna and Kumarapuram massacre

I have asked Cossde twice ([49], [50]) to stop their personal vendetta against me but they have ignored me and continued. Cossde has clearly taken a dislike to me and is out to disrupt my personal enjoyment of Wikipedia.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 11:04, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi, do I have any say in this or is judgment automatically passed ? Cossde (talk) 11:52, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Go ahead, this is just a report. Clarification from your side would be appreciated! L.tak (talk) 11:57, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks,

1. Please refer to all edits in the articles mentioned, I do admit I may lack Edit summaries in some, however most are self explanatory edits.

2. The said user has been making a massive contribution to articles about Sri Lanka. Listed here are a fraction of his/her work. Most of his/her work have been very constructive additions. However lately (as well as in the past) he/she has been creating/editing articles which are clearly aimed at creating a negative picture of Sri Lanka. This I believe is based on his own beliefs. Yet the aims are clear. His/her contribution to articles Upul Tharanga, Chinthana Vidanage, Manju Wanniarachchi and List of doping cases in sport show specif targeting of Sri Lankan sportsmen accused of doping without any contribution to doping at large, I makes one wounder as this his/her intentions. The edit history of Upul Tharanga is a clear log of his attempt to discredit the payer dis-proportionality (much like me :S).

3. Users User:Hillcountries, User:Arun1paladin and User:HudsonBreeze seems to be his pets, and I stress the word seems (dont want a law suit on my hands), yet I have lost faith in "system" to bring complaints (which seems to be the habit of the said user) - just wanted to mention here.

4. In the recently created articles (less than 48hr old therefore I could not edit them before as mention by the said user) of Batticaloa Municipal Council, Valvettithurai Urban Council, Point Pedro Urban Council, Trincomalee Urban Council and Vavuniya Urban Council the said user and his pet look alikes have, if you were to look into the edit history have engaged me in a edit wars of the simple request for more neutral RS as appose to the anti-government source he/she is using. The RS was requested since a allegation has leveled against the government of Sri lanka using a anti-government source. The same item was copy pasted in the other three articles. Instead of removing this I gave the editor a chance to provide an additional source.

5. As mentioned by the said user, I have noticed the activity very much similar to the above on countless time hence have intervened in articles of sensitivities of sensitive nature.

If clarifications are needed for any edits I will be happy to make them, at least now some one would listen. So that things will be done correctly rather than for the one's personal enjoyment of Wikipedia. Cossde (talk) 13:31, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

non admin opinion Just my 2 cents (separated in different headings to ease discussion)

1. Cossde, I think it would be good if you reacted to the comment regarding WP:HOUNDing. After reading that page, do you think you are hounding user:Obi2canibe? If you are following his contributions, please indicate to what extent you are checking his pages and why, because I have the feeling you haven't answered that.
2. About socks/pets, however you both call them: please be very careful. If you have a suspicion, go to WP:SPI; if you decide not to, then don't make any suggestions here. The first line here strongly suggests Cossde was still socking, while his sock was blocked a month ago (and I would have appreciated if that confusion had not been raised)
3. A bit content based: the discussion seems to be about the use of tags. I must say that I feel the cn tags are legitimate (although section tagging; or a restricted use might haven been more useful) and I would suggest strongly O2C places references. That should easily solve some cases.
4. The suggested "putting people in a bad light" is a typical thing to discuss at talk pages concerned. (My personal opinion is that doping offences are for most sportsmen notable enough to be mentioned; also in a lede).

Hope this helps and think a -concize- reaction of both of you would be helpful. naive? hope Maybe that's even enough to resolve this... L.tak (talk) 17:37, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi,

1. Hounding no, following certain edits yes; non-neutral edits made regarding Sri Lanka.
2. Your are wellcomed to investigate me or any user that may appear to be a sock of mine ;)
3. I might take your advice on WP:SPI, will go there thx.
4. Could you please give me some more infor on section tagging, restricted use and O2C places references ?
5. Mentioning facts that are not in-dispute where not disputed. It was the special attention given to highlight the negatives, and only the negatives even adding it on to the summary section. Please have a look at the edit history of Upul Tharanga.

Cossde (talk) 18:00, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

He Cossde, thanks for your reactions. As for the section tagging. If a whole section is a problem, you can also tag {{Unreferenced section}}. That might sound a bit less bity than having citation_needed-tags at >3 places... For Upul Tharanga (and there are more examples), the two of you seem to be in a edit war, with only (passive agressive) comments in the edit summary. On both of you rests the responsibility to have the discussion at the talk page if you disagree, which you both don't do. Furthermore, the argument in edit summaries tehre you provide seems to be a WP:OTHERSTUFF argument, which isn't fully valid. The discussion you both should be having is whether the addn is giving WP:UNDUE weight and how to solve that. As for the hounding, if I were you I would show a bit more restraint, because it can give people the creeps if you follow a major part of their edits; even if you don't do it specifically for that reason. Wikipedia is a big place and there's many other articles to edit/create/improve... L.tak (talk) 20:40, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Obi2canibe's reply to L.tak comments/queries ^above^:

2. I accept that I may have given editors who weren't aware of our past history the wrong impression that Cossde was still socking. I was just trying to point out that the stalking has been going for while and that I had ignored it until now.

3. The tagging is, IMO, malicious and intended make life difficult for me. It has nothing to do with making the articles better. Inline citations are needed "for any material challenged or likely to be challenged". None of the content tagged by Cossde falls into this category. For the politicians and schools I have used a global citations which are listed on the foot of the articles (I do not think they require inline citations). Cossde refuses to accept this. For the local authority articles I have provided an inline citation from TamilNet. Cossde belives TamilNet to be an "unreliable source" but a number of discussions have concluded that TamilNet is WP:RS. Cossde refuses to accept this and has re-placed the tags. All of Cossde's actions are just about hounding me. --obi2canibe^{talk contr} 21:43, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

For the discussion on TamilNet-sources, -unless it's done before already!- I suggest to take it to Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard, if that has not been done before. The editors there are experts at finding out and discussing that kind of thing. Until then, I think double tagging (tagging of an article (with citation needed), while already a ref is in place) is not appropriate. As for the other tagging, I feel it is legitimate: you can not possibly ask from another editor to look through a list of refs, and when something is unclear it is reasonable to put on a cn tag. You are not required to place an inline ref, but this way of adding refernces (only at the bottom), surely does justify the placement of the tag. Furthermore, I believe both of you are content-interested editors, who are interested in a fair representation of facts and happen to be interested in the same subject and I sincerely hope that you both will find a way to work together and discuss your issues. I see (again, I am not an admin) not much real hounding here, although I repeat that it would be helpfull if Cossde showed a bit more restrained in going through O2C's edit history for interesting new things (I assumed you did, maybe I am wrong).... From that assumption, I hope you can continue editing together! L.tak (talk) 14:09, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

TamilNet has been discussed at least once on (Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 64#Tamilnet (http://www.tamilnet.com) and it was pointed that it is WP:RS according to Wkipedia guidelines. Cossde has continued their malicious tagging ([51], [52]) despite you asking them to show restraint. Anyhow, I don't think this is going anywhere. It's time to call an end to this thread.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 18:50, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I didn't want to comment here but now I can't stop from doing that because Cossde has mentioned my name.Cossde is a proud Sri Lankan and I am a supporter of human rights.So naturally he finds me to be pro-Tamil.I live in Maharashtra ,a state in India.I don't even know where Hill countries or Hudson breeze live.Lot of patriotic Sri Lankans are too interested in wiping out the references of Sri Lanka's aspiration to make SL as a Sinhala buddhist nation-state and its war crimes & crimes against humanity on Tamils.So it doesn't make those patriotic sri Lankan as pets of Cossde (Arun1paladin (talk) 11:48, 23 August 2011 (UTC))

Mmmm seems that I am being WP:HOUNDed too. Ar the plot thickens ...... Cossde (talk) 13:49, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Harassment through suicide threat?

What is the appropriate action to take, if any, when an editor tells another one "I feel that you are harassing me. I feel that you are a wikibully. I feel that you thing you own wiki and have created a personal vendetta to track me and modify my contributions with subjective opinions. I would appreciate it if you do not have any contact with me. You make me want to kill myself. You are really a really depressing anonymous nobody. If you don't cease your harassment I am going to file a formal complaint against you." The personal attack and threat of a "formal complaint" seem to me to make "want to kill myself" an empty threat, but that's just my opinion.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:40, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

See WP:SUICIDE. - David Biddulph (talk) 14:49, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Sarek, it's three days after that post, and the user is still editing productively. Don't you think perhaps it was just hyperbole? --Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:27, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Obviously. I also think that threatening to kill yourself because of someone's edits has as much of a chilling effect as legal threats, and should be dealt with similarly. (And "productively"? Are you sure?) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:38, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

• Looking through his contribution history, his user page and his talk page, does anyone else think that he's not really here to contribute with any conducive use of discussion? Seems to be a soapboxer (at least from the user/talk pages). Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 15:41, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

He's definitely given to the hyperbole. And I may be wrong about the productively bit :) However, I'm not of the opinion that "you make me want to chuck myself under a bus/stick pins in my eyes/eat kittens" type statements in the middle of what is clearly a rant would have any effect at all. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:46, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

It's a tough one. Assuming his complaints have no merit (a reasonable assumption I expect, and I am not going to bother investigating) then he's probably depressed... and yeah I know wikipedia etc is not therapy yada yada but I would still see if there was some way that he could be handled better. Certainly punishing him for making these sort of statements doesn't sit right with me - they're genuine distress and I don't think people should be punished for expressing that they are distressed. So yes - I would treat him differently. And I know that isn't fair on MSJapan, but that's what happens when we deal with humans Egg Centric 16:16, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I more or less ignored it, seeing as how it was a "I think you suck, I'm going to tell you that, and then I'll tell you not to contact me again so I get the last word" type of post. Yosesphdaviyd's not distressed in the least - he simply wanted a way to edit the way he wanted without anyone telling him he couldn't. He has also in the past accused me of being racist, prejudiced, a "know-it-all", and probably a few other things that don't come to mind at present. He once claimed to be a Past Grand Master of a Prince Hall Masonic jurisdiction, which he is not. So, a lot of it really is hyperbole, and dare I say, untruth. The other aspect of this is that YD has created so many issues in his short time here, there's a lot of people looking at his edits besides myself. I actually figured I'd see if his edits held, and someone else reverted him, at which point he proceeded to WP:OWN said article. So there's definitely some problems.

As I said in a previous ANI, this user has the capacity to be productive, but he keeps going about things wrong. He needs a mentor, and it's to the point where he needs a mentor "forced" upon him, or he is going to get banned sooner or later. He hopped right in and created several improperly sourced articles, which led to a COI because of the article subjects and his username, which led to an AfD and a prod, which led to retaliatory POINTy prodding, a "retirement", a blocked sock (who, created to "avoid harassment", as its first edit voted on the AfD on YD's article - so much for avoiding harassment), and some other items here and there.

However, to his credit, after having to explain something very minutely, he did get my point of view on the topic, and also saw that I was correct. On the other hand, I should not have to write an essay on why an honorary alumnus is not a regular alumnus and ask at a WikiProject about it in order to make that small point. Also, the whole basis of why they were the same was based on the fact that schools keep separate lists of honoraries, and the fact is, why keep separate lists if they're the same? In short, the logic doesn't hold up, but having edit wars and OWN issues because of that is not a good use of anybody's time.

The pattern shows if the user is not mentored, he will be banned, sooner or later. I believe that it is in the best interests of the community to exacerbate either one action or the other. MSJapan (talk) 17:12, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm alive? lol - Actually MSJapan hasn't made me want to kill myself lately. He's stopped trying to figure out who I am in RL and we actually had a productive conversation where he patiently took the time to explore my reason and logic and explained something to me in terms I could understand. If he keeps being patient with me I may continue to live. Thank you so much for the concern. If you don't see any contributions by me for more than 72hours please call 973-555-5555 to make sure I am still alive. Thanks?

Signed, Jane's Got a Gun? --Yosesphdaviyd (talk) 03:35, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Alternatively, how about you post an update to ANI every 20 minutes to confirm you're alive? Any time you miss this we will assume you are dead. Egg Centric 14:40, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

ROFL @ Egg. Thanks for the morning laugh. That was good! --Yosesphdaviyd (talk) 15:27, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Yosesphdaviyd, regardless of the suicide issues discussed above, calling another editor a "depressing anonymous nobody" is unacceptable. So is suggesting that people who post on your talk page are instruments of Satan. Wikipedia is a collaborative project, and if you can't collaborate with other editors your editing privileges may eventually have to be revoked. rʨanaɢ (talk) 16:52, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

My previous interaction with Yosesphdaviyd was at COIN. He seemed reasonable then. I'm concerned about this hyperbole though. One thing that people forget when they are posting on the internet (in a chat, a forum, Wikipedia, etc.) is that it's difficult to determine intent. Nobody can see your face or hear the tone of your voice, they only have the words you're writing. So something that might be congenial when spoken aloud comes across as alarming when written down. I strongly advise Yosesphdaviyd to write more soberly when interacting with others, or more conflicts will inevitably result. -- Atama頭 18:43, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Yosesphdaviyd has been a problem editor since day one, in my opinion. He's already had one sockpuppet blocked, one that was created when several articles he started were up for deletion, including one apparently about himself - he managed to convince the COI noticeboard otherwise, but I have doubts about that. I've also noticed a pattern of personal attacks from him - calling one editor "the Jap" or "cyber-bully", calling other editors racist (see [53], [54], [55]) or telling others to not trust me. His user page has already been deleted once as an attack page, and he's currently got a screed up on his talk page which is nothing but a veiled attack on others. Something really needs to be done about this one. However, he won't be responding here for a day because he was blocked for violating WP:3RR. MikeWazowski (talk) 22:51, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Rjanag so what you would do is go into the archives and pull out a contrib that was posted and almost immediately removed by me and use that evidence for what? lol omg I almost never say what I mean to say the first time, so when you want to dig into my page, please note the time that it was created and undid by me.

That aside, when people communicate, even through this anonymous forum of nobodys (meaning this isn't really you in your body - it's textual expression of personage by you) communication still yields a response of feelings and emotions by the receiver. Yes, I feel that some editors are depressing and some annoying, and if you never met one then Yay for you, and if you don't want to tell them that they are a drag then that's on you. But, as for me, I like to tell people exactly how they make me feel so that they can be aware and have the opportunity to change their interactions with me. If I remain silent and don't tell them how they make me feel, then I will continue to feel that way, which isn't good.

Don't know why I have to explain basic communication skills here as I would to married couples, but go ahead and take what I said home with you and do your best to always tell people how their words and actions make you feel, so that you won't feel like crap. And hyperbole is fine - it expresses a real thing, though veiled. Too many people leave work, home, dates, and other situations feeling bad because they failed to communicate how they felt. This anonoymous world is no different. There is a human person behind those words, those warring undo's, and all the other unhealthy and mean spirited stuff that goes on here. I think more of you anonymous wiki editors really need to tell each other how the other makes you feel. Go ahead and get if off your chest. And maybe then the other editor will have a heart, look at themselves in their computer screen and change.

I'm really starting too see that for some of you this is your world, your reality, your source of self-esteem, and that isn't healthy. Not by a long shoot. If you spend more than 3 hours here a day and you are not getting paid for it - you have a problem. Who would you be if there was no Wikipedia? Next Lent I recommend that all of you give up Wiki for 40 days, if not sooner. Detox! You take this far too serious. Seriously. Jesus Loves You!

Signed,

Dr. Yo

--Yosesphdaviyd (talk) 20:08, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

The Satan comment is still on your talk page; it hasn't been removed. The other comment is from the diff that Sarek linked prominently above; I didn't "dig it up". rʨanaɢ (talk) 22:36, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

(And by the way, repeatedly saying "God bless" or "Jesus loves you" doesn't automatically make you polite, especially if you do it at the same time as you insult other editors, say they have "problems", and tell them they need to get a life. rʨanaɢ (talk) 22:45, 24 August 2011 (UTC))

For me, Wikipedia is a hobby I do in my spare time because I enjoy it. It's like lawn darts or cheese sampling. From late last year to the beginning of this year, I took a 6 month break just because my real life was too hectic, and I took a 3 month break earlier last year. So this sure isn't my whole purpose in life. But let me tell you... No, dramatic hyperbole is not okay. Making claims of suicide and whatnot, that's not okay. Being uncivil to other people, that's not okay. Wikipedia isn't like your blog where you can always just write what you feel like, it's meant to be a collaborative environment. You talked about there being a "human person" on the other end, but you should remember that also. You share this site with other people, other people you're supposed to be working with, and to flippantly say that people need to get a life when you say something objectionable is not going to go over very well. -- Atama頭 22:41, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

eve online 'future developments' edit.

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

---

Hi. Recently, Farix reverted several of my edits, and even though i can agree with him on policy regarding the NPOR content, there was an edit i made which is not NPOR, attempting to correct infactual information in the 'future developments' section. As far as I can understand his last statement, he considers this to be NPOR as well and has threatened to remove my posting access. This doesn't sound logical at all. It seems he has a taken a dislike to my edit due to the NPOR content i added to eve, dune and ergo proxy articles, which have now been removed as per policy. Please advise. The edit I'm trying to make is a simple factual statement which would change the future devs section of the Eve Online article to better reflect the curretc and future state of development regarding atmospheric flight in eve as can be ascertained from developer announcements. 64.250.81.218 (talk) 22:00, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

IP comments about subverting WP:V and WP:NOR over pop-culture references

Not an issue for Administrators' noticeboard. Referred elsewhere.

I've been debating whether this was worth bringing here, but the comments from 64.250.81.218 (talk) about subverting WP:V and WP:NOR are concerning.[56][57][58] The editor has been inserting pop-culture related original research into a number of articles, and then has demanded that the information be re-added when it was removed when they got their Level 4 warning. The affected articles are Ergo Proxy, Eve Online, Avatar (2009 film), and Dune (novel). —Farix (t | c) 22:09, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Huh? You are completely misrepresenting the facts. Also, you should have posted this in the thread i started just above this. I never said i want to subvert anything if you just read the thread above. I will not repeat myself here. Seems like a case of abuse of power. Also, possible conflict of interest, as anyone should agree that the future developments section is NOT factual, is missing citations, and is ambiguously worded and organized. No person without a vested interest here should be putting up resistance to this argument. 64.250.81.218 (talk) 22:28, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

You both might find the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard helpful. It's thataway. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 22:30, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

• • Having looked at two of the articles in question, it is crystal clear that the IP is a disruptive editor. He has been informed of the applicable policies but refuses to read them, let alone apply them. When you ask for a RS and the editor responds "I am a reliable source", you can see policies and guidelines aren't getting read. His edits have OR and SYNTH issues. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:30, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

FIrst of all, i made all the edits at once, and was informed at once. I did not make them after being informed, except contesting the dune revert, which i apologized for. Also, you are taking my comment out of context. 64.250.81.218 (talk) 22:50, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

"then i will write an article, publish it in an obscure paper and have it included."[59] That is a clear declaration that you intend to subvert Wikpedia policy. As for you COI claim, that is utter rubbish. Here is the diff[60] with the content you added to Eve Online. Your attempt to justify adding original research on the bases there are other contentious statements in the article doesn't fly. —Farix (t | c) 22:37, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

That was a hypothetical. Again. I fail to see why you are making this about NPOR content. as i stated time and time again, and you just refuse to listen. this is NOT regarding the NPOR content as i made all those edits at the same time, and never reverted them in a distruptive fashion. The content I wish to add which you are referring to as NPOR is not at all, if you would just READ and UNDERSTAND. But obviously, you are incapable, and keep resorting to this FALSE argument of yours about it being NPOR. this has NOTHING to do with my NPOR edits.... This seems like a case of you trying to use your influence here to strong-arm a certain version of an article. This is UTTERLY unnaceptable behaviour. 64.250.81.218 (talk) 22:50, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Also, shortly after porting this thread, Farix deleted my conversation with him on his userpage, i am assuming to hide the facts about what this discussion is REALLY about. I have copied and pasted the discussion to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Eve_Online#Future_Developments_edit since it only contains a conversation regarding the article. 64.250.81.218 (talk) 22:54, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Another conflict of interest. Nightshift is Eve Online player currently or has been in the past, it can be inferred from his user page. 64.250.81.218 (talk) 23:04, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Merely playing or having played a video game does not mean one has a COI issue when editing any article concerning it. Doc talk 23:08, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

No, but attempting to force a certain wording or version is, especially if that version does not square up with reality and cannot be referenced and is contentious. 64.250.81.218 (talk) 23:15, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

No. Read WP:COI. Having an opinion about something isn't a conflict of interest. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:18, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @IP - That's not a conflict of interest issue either. I thought you were referring to that guideline when you said "conflict of interest". My bad :> Doc talk 23:21, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

In that sense it is COI. 'COI editing involves contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote your own interests or those of other individuals, companies, or groups' 64.250.81.218 (talk) 23:23, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

That's talking about advertising, really. Is this editor advertising their own website (or services), or other websites though their edits? Doc talk 23:26, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Not advertising, thatis too general, attempting to bias an article based on your affiliatins, that is basically what it means. 64.250.81.218 (talk) 23:41, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Removing original research from an article is itself original research? That's laughable. And no, arguing that you cannot add original research into an article for any reason is not a conflict of interest. And the reason I removed the discussion for my talk page was because you refused to drop the stick and walk away. —Farix (t | c) 23:28, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Once again... this is not about NPOR... WHY do you keep bringing this up? communication issue? hard time understanding english? this has NOTHING to do with the NPOR edits... seriously... you are trying to revert an edit to 'future developments' which was not NPOR, i am trying to correct the wording to more accurately reflect reality and the states position of the developers on 'atmospheric flight', and you're telling me this falls under NPOR and threatening to remove my posting rights. 64.250.81.218 (talk) 23:30, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

This has EVERYTHING to do with you repeated insertions of original research and your deceleration to disrupt Wikpedia to illustrate a point. —Farix (t | c) 23:34, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

according the the link i posted to the Eve Talk page, this has NOTHING to do with NPOR, and i dont even understand what your previous statement is about. This is about the conversation in the Eve Talk page, regarding 'future developments', to which i was planning to add citations and clarify the paragraph in question, and you keep referring to this as NPOR... get your facts straight. 64.250.81.218 (talk) 23:40, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

You know what. It is now clear to me that I cannot get anywhere with you. I will simply make the edits tomorrow, which will be factual and cited to better reflect the state of development on atmospheric flight. If you attempt to revert that, I can assure you all hell will break loose. Also, i never tried to disrupt anything as you claim. Carrying on a conversation does not constitute vandalism. 64.250.81.218 (talk) 23:48, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

In addition, the only edit i reverted was the one-liner in the Dune article, to which i provided what i thought was a valid reason, and after that was reverted, i apologized and provided my point of view on the discussion thread. This is eaxctly what is going on here. This user, Farix is attempting to strong-arm an article. Plain and simple abuse of power. 64.250.81.218 (talk) 23:50, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

TheFarix is an editor, plain and simple. He (I'm presuming the proper pronoun is he) has no special powers that you yourself don't have. What TheFarix DOES have is over ninety thousand edits, spanning five years. That's around three orders of magnitude beyond your own experience. I'd very strongly suggest, therefore, you quit WP:POKING him, and instead, actually listen to the advice he's trying to give you. With that said, I see absolutely no need for any administrative action here...yet. However, if you DON'T step down off your WP:SOAPBOX and start trying to work with him and other editors in developing WP:CONSENSUS, an admin may decide it's time for someone to take a mandatory WP:WIKIBREAK. So get yourself over to WP:DRN and make your case there, instead of trying to continue what is clearly nothing more than a content dispute in an improper venue. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 02:37, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't think you understand. I know he is a longtime wiki user, but this is beyond the pale. He completely misunderstands the issue, and keeps repeating himself. Maybe miscommunication, not sure what it is, but it's clearly not getting through to him after a lengthy conversation. Also, this whole thing is starting to stink of 'elitism'. Just because you (and this applies to Farix as well) can use an extreme overabundance of wiki tags and link to policies, does not make you more intelligent than someone else. This is not a simple content dispute. This is a case in which either: A. the user does not understand the problem at hand, or B. is using strong-arm tactics to force a revision. My advice, before you or anyone else sounds off on this issue, make some effort to look through the thread on the the Eve Online discussion page as i linked to better understand the issue. this is clearly not NPOR, or a simple content dispute. This editor with long standing simply does not or refuses to understand the problem. I also do not need a lecture and this has nothing whatsoever to do with NPOR, so stop lecturing me and actually make an effort to understand the problem... 64.250.81.218 (talk) 02:54, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Let me see if I can make this sufficiently clear. This is a content dispute. Nothing more. Seek dispute resolution. There's nothing "elitist" (to paraphrase you) about a recommendation to follow Wikipedia policies. Your continued WP:SOAPBOXing serves no purpose except to run the very real risk of hoisting yourself on your own petard. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 15:33, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Soapboxing does not apply (at least not to me). It is a problem with a user and miscommunication or understanding. I'm letting people understand the errors in their judgment. If you cannot handle criticism, please, stop typing, the world is full of it. As for boomerang, I will not submit to the will of anyone who is clearly way off their mark, moderator or not. I have read Dispute Resolution: that is what brought me here, and I have attempted to discuss this with the editor as stated. End of discussion. 64.250.81.218 (talk) 17:38, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

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

Want to denounce the User: 189.47.164.239

This user changed one individual data related to Brazil in the Wikipedia English Article “South America Life Quality Rankings” – “Population Below Poverty Line Ranking 2011 - The World Factbook” The mentioned user changed the original Brazil percentage by one that does not agree with the existing value in the source used to build that Ranking. Additionally, this user only changed that specific data and not the Ranking values associated with it leaving damaged and contradictory information to all Wikipedia users. Checking its history, this user seems to have been doing several similar incomplete articles’ alterations during today Aug-24-2011.

I put the following message on this user’s page: “Please stop modifying data with values that do not match with the real value at the source. You modified Brazil Poverty line percentage value in "South America Life Quality Rankings" article with one that is not the one that appears at the cited source. And if you do have a serious updating, please edit also the rankings values to not damage the article for all other Wikipedia users around the world.

Your behavior was denounced to Wikipedia administrators on Aug-24-2011.” — Preceding unsigned comment added by Southamerica2010 (talk • contribs) 19:18, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

• Come on now. The user changed 2010 to 2008, and it's dubious either way since the particular source doesn't give a date for the document as a whole. Then they changed 26% to 15% for Brazil, which, yes, does not accord with the source and thus could be called vandalism. But that's not a reason to come to this board and ask for administrative action. We don't block after one such edit. You left them a note asking them not to do this again (and they haven't), and that's it. Don't overdo it, please. Perhaps an uninvolved editor (who knows how the templates work) can close this: there is no need for any administrative action. Drmies (talk) 20:24, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
• Note: they made a couple more unverified and unexplained changes that I've reverted, and have left a level-2 warning. Drmies (talk) 20:25, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I have to say, that's a pretty awful article. It looks like a school assignment, with as much graphs crammed in there just to make it reach the minimum page requirement. Do those 4 refs cover all that?. Anyway, yeah, this is kind of a frivolous report.--Atlan (talk) 22:52, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I think mere denouncement of 189.47.164.239 is not enough. We should have a struggle session. Or does anyone have any effigies of 189.47.164.239 that we can burn? rʨanaɢ (talk) 23:05, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

We can always consider farting in their general direction, but I think that we'd need the combined effort of hundreds of administrators to get anywhere near Sao Paolo. Drmies (talk) 04:29, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

We must have some admins in Brazil to do it... what we probably need to do is supplement Wikipedia:Admins willing to make difficult blocks with a WP:Admins willing to fart in general directions. I would volunteer for it but I don't fart, it would ruin my cute girly image. rʨanaɢ (talk) 06:37, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

For a second time this year this same user (189.47.164.239) wrongly modified one Brazil data in the “South America Life Quality Rankings” article. A new comment on its talk page was added and the data was reverted to the official value.

By the way, this article is used by several American Embassies in South America to allow potential investors and visitors to have an idea of South American countries realities and development. It also helps almost 400 million South-Americans to monitor their countries development, based on real numbers and figures provided by serious worldwide and well known organizations.Southamerica2010 (talk) 19:28, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

MFD listed under wrong date

I would sort this out myself but as I've both voted and commented on the votes of others I feel I shouldn't do anything to it myself. Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:TreasuryTag is listed under 19 August at Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion when obviously it ought to be under 17 August. Could someone take a look please (it may be it is better put under 18 August to allow more people to !vote if it is their practice to look at last minute things, I'm not sure, that's for an admin to judge) Egg Centric 23:04, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

No, it's correct. The page was created on August 17, see here. -- Atama頭 23:57, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Never mind, you were saying the opposite. It looks like there was some refactoring going on, with the original nomination overwritten, and that confused Wikipedia, let me look into how that happened. -- Atama頭 23:59, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I think I fixed it. What happened was that BWilkins put a note at the top of the MfD on the 19th reminding people to be civil, and included a datestamp with the signature. On a quick glance it looked like the original nomination was replaced which is why I assumed that there was a refactor, but the original nomination is still there, under that quote. The page was categorized by the first datestamp it found on the page, which moved it to the August 19 category. I removed the datestamp from the message. The WP:MFD page still hasn't updated, I hope it will eventually. -- Atama頭 00:06, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

And for the last time (hopefully), looking closer, that list is manually edited. So someone else purposefully put it under August 19. I guess anyone could have just fixed it, it was a minor clerical error. I'm assuming that whoever added it had also seen the BWilkins comment and assumed it was started on the 19th. -- Atama頭 00:09, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Blame User:One bot, which maintains MFD. T. Canens (talk) 04:39, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Blame me for being nice, and One bot for cleaning up behind me :-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 08:41, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Page needs protecting

User:Tuhinchat (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been reported because he just did 4 reverts within a 24-hour period on Manish Tewari. I reinforced the message at AIV, and I'm about to protect the page. See you at RFPP. StormContent (talk) 13:49, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

User blocked for 24 hours, that should take care of the issue. Cheers. lifebaka 14:20, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Questionable editing?

Could I ask for another set of eyes, or perhaps several other sets of eyes, on the activity of Squeekybird (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)? That account has made only two contributions, but I'd call both of them questionable...one was to create an attack page (now CSD'd as such), the other was to create a redirect for "Senior Staff Group" that goes to Knights Templar. I've already queried the user regarding the latter, but there's a little inner alarm bell going off that moves me to request a bit more scrutiny here. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 15:09, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

575broadway - possible spam or COI

Most (maybe all) of this users contribs insert a reference to Interview Magazine or the magazine Art in America. Both magazines are owned by Brant Publications, whose address is at 575 Broadway according to this. Bluebonnet460 (talk) 15:24, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I assume you meant 575broadway (talk · contribs) ? - David Biddulph (talk) 15:31, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, sorry. Bluebonnet460 (talk) 15:40, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Absconded Northerner

Resolved

 – Everything's sorted now. Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 18:32, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

A dispute emerged between this user and me in the last 24 hours over a matter on Talk:Andrea Petkovic. My concern is that this user has now began to revert my edits on another article, Bernard Tomic. Observing historical accuracy, I amended text to replace "his parents left Croatia" to state that it was Yugoslavia. User:Jenks24 reverted but I restored my edit and wrote to that user. In the meantime, User:Absconded Northerner has twice resored the original. My irritation is down to two things: 1) I compromised when I made an amendment to my original piece here, 2) it was ignored by Absconded Northerner who took the liberty of reverting my modified version back to the original and all based on the original scanty evidence that "Croatia not Yugoslavia is what is on the source". Sources do often get things wrong or innacurate, even the reliable ones. It was at this point I used rollback and at that time I felt I did so accordingly, perhaps to have used it with Jenks24 was wrong and for that I apologise - he has modified my version and I am happy with that. Concerning Absconded Northerner, can I suggest disciplinary action from an admin as not only did he cancel my contributions citing negligible evidence - the only proof for my claim would have been statement of Croatia's independence in June 1991 coupled with the same source stating October 1992 had been "years" since the parents left the place! I stated this in my summary but this did not stop Absconded Northerner providing me with two template warnings in breach of Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars which he by his own admission knew to be the policy as confessed here. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 16:35, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

One minor point to be made: WP:DTTR is not a Wikipedia policy. It's an essay, outlining a suggested best practice. Nothing more. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 16:47, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

There is no doubt that he would have continued an edit war had Jenks24 not intervened. I shall be watching Absconded Northerner's edits very closely where his activity clashes with mine. Any more proof of bad faith and I shall add to this. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 16:51, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Please don't say you will be watching AN's edits, Evlekis. While that is probably not what you meant, it could be interpreted as hounding. Jenks24 (talk) 17:40, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

• Warned user over edit warring templates back into your talk page. I've also notified them of this discussion. --Taelus (talk) 17:13, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Well I see nobody bothered to notify me about this. The person edit warring was Evlekis, a user who has in recent days a) Ignored policy on Reliable Sources, substituting his own "In my opinion" policy instead; b) Abused his rollback privs (here, here, here and here); c) left abusive edit summaries such as this, and generally demonstrated absolutely no knowledge of any WP policy - up to and including accusing me of violating a non-existent policy.

Please can an admin remove his rollback rights and issue a proper warning to Evlekis about his incredibly disruptive and tendentious editing. Absconded Northerner (talk) 17:13, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Notification from a different user came after I posted this message. Another policy of which Evlekis is ignorant, it seems. Absconded Northerner (talk) 17:14, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

@Taelus - the "edit warring" - which wasn't edit warring - was a mistake. I meant to revert Evlekis' warring at Bernard Tomic and hit the wrong button. Absconded Northerner (talk) 17:18, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough, mistakes are made, i'm just informing you that you were close to passing 3RR. As I said below, discuss with involved users on relevant talk pages. --Taelus (talk) 17:26, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I know - and I wouldn't have made another revert. To be accused as follows: "There is no doubt that he would have continued an edit war" when the accusing user had been doing just as much reversion strikes me as a massive case of the pot calling the kettle black. That's what pissed me off here. Absconded Northerner (talk) 17:28, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

• Filing party has already been warned for misuse of rollback tool. I don't see the need to revoke any users rollback tools at this stage. Other than that, as this is a content dispute, discuss at user talk pages and/or the article talk pages before editing. --Taelus (talk) 17:23, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
• Evlekis and I have discussed this on my talk page and we appear to have come to an acceptable compromise for the Tomic article so I am confident that the edit warring (if that's even what it was) will stop. Evlekis has also apologised for inappropriately using the rollback tool at the Tomic article, so I see no reason why his rollback access should be revoked, seeing as he has apologised and said he won't do it again. Yes, Evlekis shouldn't have used rollback like that and AN shouldn't have templated him. Either way, both these things are in the past and both have been apologised for. I don't see any need for admin action here and if this does need to be discussed further, hopefully Evlekis and AN can sort this out amicably at each others' talk pages. Calling for this thread to be closed: The content dispute has been resolved and, while both parties have made mistakes, there is nothing here that necessitates a block or other admin intervention (in my opinion). Jenks24 (talk) 17:40, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
  • I second the call to close. There is nothing further to be gained here, both parties know what they need to know, and no administrative action is required here as things stand. --Taelus (talk) 17:47, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

• • I've just logged back on for a few moments and have read the above statements. This is just to confirm that I acknowledge the decision on administrative outcomes and I have no further information to add. Many thanks Taelus. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 18:30, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Future Perfect at Sunrise

Socks galore. Favonian (talk) 22:29, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs) This is a user with a serious problem. He always vandalise whatever he wants for example he removed a whole sentence from the article syrtos cause he doesnt like it. vandalism. He does whatever he wants and bans innocent users and ips without been checked just that dont like him [61].Something must be stop that uncontrollable situation,users collaborate each other not with this authoritarian way.--Lakaster (talk) 16:02, 25 August 2011 (UTC) Since the original reporter did not provide the required notification, I have taken the liberty of doing so. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 16:06, 25 August 2011 (UTC) When a user is obviously a sockpuppet of a previously banned account, then their edits are reverted. That's completely normal. Black Kite (t) (c) 16:13, 25 August 2011 (UTC) Methinks I hear the unmistakable whup-whup-whup-whup of a WP:BOOMERANG in flight... --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 16:15, 25 August 2011 (UTC) 1st edit - de-redlink userpage. 2nd edit - de-redlink user talk. 3rd edit - report admin for vandalism at ANI. 4th edit - unblock request saying "how dare you block me? I'm not a sock!" --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:17, 25 August 2011 (UTC) The users trying the best for the articles, are not vandalists look for example: this user is not a sockpuppets of BouzoukiGr User:Merovigla. He put an RS about zeibekiko and he immediately blocked by User:Future Perfect at Sunrise. What is the line that make someone sockpuppetry, only the mind of this user without a check by check-users? Someone that vandalise the articles must be blocked I agree but if they are not vandalists, just the reliable sources disturbing the ideology of this user. Wiki doesnt encourages that authoritarian incidents, even causing sockpuppetry. In my opinion, this user isnt being in the wiki for contribution, but for suppliing his not neutral isupplies by erasing whatever he doesnt like, especially Greek. example restored by user User:Kwamikagami snubing him restore of part.vandalism --94.69.230.181 (talk) 21:57, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Addition of self-published sources to Lordship salvation controversy

208.40.217.130 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has had a long history going back to 2009 of adding self-published sources (such as Lou Martuneac, In Defense of the Gospel: Biblical Answers to Lordship Salvation, Xulon Press, 2010) to the Lordship salvation controversy article. After repeated warning on his talk page, he or she continues to add them in. He or she was blocked for edit warring a few days ago, but continues to add Xulon Press books. StAnselm (talk) 19:54, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

TreasuryTag

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

---

Resolved

 – --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:12, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Is currently restoring personal attacks on his userpage, attacks that were removed following consensus at MfD. See: [62] 2.121.29.24 (talk) 19:59, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Relax, it's part of the DRV process.--v/r - TP 20:09, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah my bad I hadn't realised. I've since commented at the DRV so feel free to close this thread. 2.121.29.24 (talk) 20:10, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

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

Problems with IP: 122.176.58.109

I'm having a problem with an IP: 122.176.58.109. He removed reliably sourced human rights content from Laos, here [63] with the edit summary "Go to USA's page and include guantanamo bay in its politics section before doing it here, pusillanimous assholes". He blanked the entire section. I reverted with a level 2 warning to him [64]. He's reverted back, and is now on my talk page [65] and appears to have been delving around my history. His talk page is a long series of similar warnings from other editors. I'm here to see what we can do to stop this? Mattun0211 (talk) 10:14, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

IP has a history of disruption, though he has only reverted once, and only seems to have brought up one issue with you on your talk page which I could say is not a particularly in depth "delve" into your history. I would move to give the IP a direct final warning that another foot out of line is going to result in a block, giving his edit summary alone is unacceptable. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 10:37, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

The IP does need some non-block related intervention in his editing styles, I don't think he has heard of terms like "neutral" or "POV" [66]. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 10:41, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks - I've issued a final warning.Mattun0211 (talk) 02:30, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Author needed

Resolved

I am looking for a person to author an article. I’ve vetted and collected the WP:RSs. It’s actually two articles, Keith Raniere and NXIVM, but maybe they should be merged because it’s hard to tease the two apart. Everything needed is on the discussion page of the article Keith Raniere. I will help any way I can, but I don’t want to write it myself.

Do you have any advice as to how to find a person to write an article? The research is already done. The person should ideally be a good Wikipedian who has never heard of either Keith Raniere or NXIVM. It would be best if s/he doesn't care at all about him and it, just use the sources to present the facts.

This might be very important. Chrisrus (talk) 13:53, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Please see WP:REQUEST. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 17:03, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind attention. However, this WP:REQUEST seems to be about articles that don't already exist. The articles that need to be written are Keith Raniere and NXIVM, although I think they should be merged. The problem is clear when you compare the articles to the sources that I've put on the discussion pages of Keith Raniere, but any WP:RS about it is also about him. We need someone to familiarize themself with the sources that we have there, and any other appropriate ones, and write the article(s) based on what's in those sources, only. Basically, what's needed is not to have new articles written, but rather existing articles written right.

Having said all that, I was able to provoke a recent spate of improvement at the article. Chrisrus (talk) 19:36, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I misunderstood. Perhaps WP:MAINT is what you're looking for. In any case, the help desk is a better venue for this sort of question - ANI is for incidents requiring the attention of administrators. Hope this helps. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 23:26, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Fly_by_Night is vandalising people user pages

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

---

User:Fly_by_Night is removing user templates from people's userpages as can be seen by his edits to my userpage here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Bryan.Wade/Bryan.Wade&action=history and to his edit here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:JCRulesJCRules&diff=prev&oldid=446742988 and a bunch of other edits to other peoples user spaces. I told him to stop but he insisted that I report him instead. You can also see the ensuring discussion here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Fly_by_Night . Basically, he is removing templates from my page without my permission even though it clearly states on the service awards page that there is no penalty for displaying the incorect one as they are unofficial. For past discussions of a similar issue see this incident when someone else was vandalising my userpage http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=333678636 Can someone please tell this guy to stop because he is going to keep doing it to other user pages? Bryan.Wade (talk) 01:09, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

While editing others' User pages is generally frowned upon quite severely, in this case I think Fly By Night has a good point. You have NOT earned at least one of those !awards, so you shouldn't be displaying it. However, that's only this non-admin's opinion. All I can (and therefore will) do is tell you to give some very serious thought about removing it voluntarily. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 01:18, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Believe it or not, there's already a discussion about this here: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Bryan.Wade/Bryan.Wade. The result was keep, and I really don't think it would be a good use of time to revisit the decision. I suggest (a) Fly by Night not revert the awards anymore, as it goes against old but established consensus; (b) Bryan.Wade educate himself on the meaning of "vandalism" (this ain't it); and (c) Bryan.Wade reflect on the fact that posting those medals on his user page makes him look ridiculous. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:26, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Fly_by_Night is edit warring, users are given broad discretion with regards to their userpage, and the editor "ranks" are not officially sanctioned. If Bryan.Wade wants to display the template it should not be edit warred off. Think what you like of editors who display "ranks" they are not entitled to, but they cannot be forcibly removed, and doing so is edit warring. Fly_by_Night should be so advised. Monty₈₄₅ 01:29, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Monty, I made three edits to his user page in two months. One was on July 12, one was on Aug 25 and the one on Aug 26 was to replace some things I didn't mean to remove. So two edits in two months… that's not edit warring! — Fly by Night (talk) 01:53, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

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

User: 68.40.235.153

K this user keeps editing LA Ink episodes along with Star Wars: Clone Wars all of which contains editing that should never appear like changing colors. can you block this person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.254.108.115 (talk) 02:16, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Looking at your contributions list, you don't seem to have tried to make contact with the user; either about the multi-coloured text or about this AN/I post. (When you edited this page it said, in a big orange box, that "You must notify any user who is the subject of a discussion"). Why not go to the user's talk page and mention Wikipedia's manual of style; you might like to make a similar, but more general, comment on the article's talk page. — Fly by Night (talk) 02:28, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

sock needs blocking

Please block 88.147.14.203 as a sock of banned editor User:Mikemikev. He's attacking again the same article as always. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:53, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

This is probably the same user as this 88.147.30.77 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), editing from Brussels.

I don't think this is Mikemikev. It is probably the same user that was blocked for edit-warring last year as 88.147.47.204 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (note the racist comments on the talk pages are different from Mikemikev's style). He also edited as 88.147.17.119 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). (One of the edits here contains a sentence in French, so with the anti-french insults, the user is probably Belgian.) Mathsci (talk) 20:42, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Here is another recent example. 88.147.36.139 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) Mathsci (talk) 02:47, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

My calculator and the WHOIS says it's a /19 block allocated to wireless broadband users. Too big for a rangeblock if the activity persists? --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 02:56, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Block request for the I.P. user 198.164.211.80

The I.P. user 198.164.211.80 has been doing disruptive editing for months: [67], it introduces objetive & unsourced information in articles related to the band Deftones such: [68], [69], [70], [71]. It also removes verified information from articles related to the band Muse such: [72], I've previously been given warnings and invited it to discuss it's point of view but it just don't wants to discuss, it's edits violates the NPOV policies and since it don't wants to stop it must be blocked. Carnotaurus044 (talk) 02:25, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I am not adding anything unsourced. I am simply reverting the red link account above who keeps trolling the same pages repeatedly and removing previously discussed, and many time cited, content. 198.164.211.80 (talk) 02:42, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

If it has been cited many times why don't you just found a reference to add your edits?, actually if it was previously discussed why there are like other six users reverting your edits? actually if you go to the 2007 version of this deftones article[73]it mentions the genres that im adding. Carnotaurus044 (talk) 02:53, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

And now it's using a sock puppet acount, [74], really this genre warrior must be blocked, all it's I.P.s Carnotaurus044 (talk) 03:01, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Ummm... Mr. Carnataurus... this is your IP. And this is your IP. And this is your IP. You've been [[WP:STALK|Stalking me for any weeks and undoing my edits... even valid edits, and there are hundreds, to other articles. 198.164.211.80 (talk) 03:07, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

This is another IP Used by Carnataurus to stalk me. All Mexican locale... all using same broken English edit summaries. All being extremely uncivil. 198.164.211.80 (talk) 03:14, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

as far as i'm concerned those are diferent I.P.s each one, just acept it, everybody knows that you'r trolling, in the last half of hour, two users aside me have reverted your edits. Carnotaurus044 (talk) 03:10, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

187.154.x.x does make a good point. All four IP addresses are registered to the same ISP and geolocate to the same city. There's more than enough overlap between articles and similarity in edit summaries to say it passes the WP:DUCK test. If I were a betting man, I'd lay money on your complaint here coming back on you. Of course, someone could always hoist the Checkuser flag to either confirm or reject the hypothesis. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 03:20, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I put out a plea for help last week because the Mexican IP (and accounts like Carnataurus) just kept coming back and undoing any edits I did. It was very disconcerting. Some advice was given to me at the time... I just didn't follow up. And I should have. 198.164.211.80 (talk) 03:27, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Honestly, showing all these I.P. you only shows how much you've been trolling other articles. if those I.P. are or not mine, you can't prove that, actually i would never notice the edit war if you weren't edited album articles, then i see the mess that you were doing and i decided join in. In the other hand i can bet that this i.p.[75] is your parallel i.p. Carnotaurus044 (talk) 03:27, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I would agree that user 198:164:211:80 is making a lot of unjustifed edits and deletions, several of which I have personally reverted. A block may be warrented, but that is for an admin to decide. Dbiel ^(Talk) 03:30, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

that's what im about, it is the one doing all these edits and drivin everyone at Deftones articles crazy. Carnotaurus044 (talk) 03:34, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

And don't forgot that the troll that is introducing unsourced information again and again are you, not me, im trying to keep the articles as they'll always been. Carnotaurus044 (talk) 03:31, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Dbiel you made an unjustified reversion to 1 of my edits. And my edit was valid since it followed both the consensus of the talk page asn well as the ghosted instruction on the page itself. You failed to read the talk page and added unreferenced content... which the talk page, and the hidden instructions, both say will be removed as part of the Featured List push for the article. Please read the talk page on the list of you want more clarification. It's all right there.

And Carnataurus... did you not do a geolocate or IP search of the 2 IPs you listed? They come from 2 different servers. Similar (sort of) ISP. But completly different servers in a Region which has over 3 million clients of the 2 different ISPs. Always use the geolocate tool when you think two people are the same... especially when they are not. 198.164.211.80 (talk) 03:37, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

There are various reazons for that, could be that you have a friend, you own an imported computer, you own an imported router, you used an special software... the list is long, however, no one of us is wrong in the fact that you are doing persistent disruptive editing. Carnotaurus044 (talk) 03:40, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Why is it that when I post a reply to Dbiel on my talk page. The reply from Dbiel comes from the Carnotaurus044 account????????? 198.164.211.80 (talk) 03:54, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I explained it in it's talk page, Can anyone just block this user and give it a rest?Carnotaurus044 (talk) 03:56, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

A request from 198.164.211.80 to Wiki admin who reviews

If an administrator sees the need to block me that is in their right. But I have raised some valid concerns that they will also have to investigate such as A) Why have so many Mexican based IP edits been targeted at undoing all of my edits repeatedly...the same edits you are undoing. And Also, B) why is it that when I posted a question to Dbiel on my talk page the response to my question to that account... came back from YOUR account. As an IP editor I am under scrutiny as anonymous editors are not treated the same as accounts. But it would seem like your Carnataurus044 account, Your User:Massivesquid account and your series of Mexican based IP addresses have all been on a single purpose to stalk me and negate any/all of my contributions to this project. 198.164.211.80 (talk) 04:03, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Dbiel, I, the Mexican user, prove you're robot and the other located I.P.s are there just because you're messing with the Deftones articles, you're the problem that started all the other problems, without you, nothing never would happen. Carnotaurus044 (talk) 04:09, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

An administrator will determine whether you are the Mexican IP range that has been stalking me. I do not believe you are Dbiel. But you spoke as though there was collusion between your edits. Especially where I asked Dbiel a question... and YOU answered as if you were him. That does not Concern me. But a long range of Mexican based IPs have been stalking me, you have been stalking me and your alternate account Massivesquid has also stalked me. And so those concerns will be looked into as part of your pursuit to try and get me blocked... accusing me of vandalism in my edits, when I was simply restoring content that you were removing even though it was content which was covered on the talk pages of the articles concerned. 198.164.211.80 (talk) 04:18, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Just, turn off your computer, you need some air. Carnotaurus044 (talk) 04:26, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I have remained faithful to WP:CIVIL throughout your accusations. Please do the same. Thank you. 198.164.211.80 (talk) 04:36, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Don't pretend being a victim, nobody is buying that, anyone who check your history will see that it's filled with pointless unsourced reverts & trolling, things that are against WP:CIVIL, just face the consecuences of what you do. Carnotaurus044 (talk) 04:41, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

• As far as I can see, both of you are edit warring and could both be blocked if you keep it up. Dispute resolution, anyone? Heimstern Läufer (talk) 05:06, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Fair and reasonable. I had no real dispute with added content... but did dispute the constant removal which went against previous talk page consensus. I can police myself to not re-add content blanked by the other user... if the other user can agree to use the talk pages from here on in. I am still concerned about being stalked by the Mexican based IPs. But since I do not know how to request a proper RCU for the IPs and the 2 accounts posted above... I will be AGF that those Mexican IPs won't stalk me anymore while Mr Carnataurus pursues the concensus he is trying to get in his own edit agenda. Thanks Heinstern. Take care. 198.164.211.80 (talk) 05:17, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Old, unedorsed RfCU

Resolved

Can some admin delete this? It should not be controversial. FuFoFuEd (talk) 02:37, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Pmanderson being tendentious, baiting, and uncivil with personal attacks (again)

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

---

• This thread was getting very long, I've taken the liberty of moving it to a subpage: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Pmanderson. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 10:50, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Call to close

Would an uninvolved admin please declare the result in this one? There's a large overwhelming majority in favor of a particular topic ban, and various opinions on a range of other block options. Everyone has had their say, and someone needs to say where it nets out. Dicklyon (talk) 16:00, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

The same proposal, on a subpage where no uninvolved editors will be attracted to it, has been made again and again, despite being opposed before. Now the discussion has dwindled chiefly to those who would like to use this civility complaint to silence opposition to the view that MOS must be authoritarian, that If more people support it than oppose it, of course we should ignore the opposition.

Well, they have, whatever the admins decide. I will not comment on WT:MOS unless explicitly asked, for quite some time; I will join the rest of Wikipedia in ignoring the page, since I am not contributing to making it what it could be. They can have the maze of rules they have made up, as long as they leave those of us alone who are trying merely to write English, not reinvent it.

Let Dicklyon, who refers to others (not me) as having their heads stuck in the sand, join the editor who refers to posts as vomit, and the editor who assailed me so intemperately that he was threatened with a block if he ever made such posts again. Let them learn lessons of civility from each other; they have corrupted my good manners, as this discussion has made clear. I will be relieved to be free of their company. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:21, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Some may think this exaggerated; but the proposal GWH mentioned below would, in the words of the proposer, leave me unable to justify my actions or to defend myself if challenged. I would appreciate anybody who defends that explaining how this helps the encyclopedia; or how my spending more time on this issue benefits the encyclopedia. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:35, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Small point - If (this is predicated on the sanction going into effect) you were to be editing specifically to ignore MoS or to keep the prose you added to convey content in a specific format. Then you would be hard pressed to discuss/justify your edit without either breaching or acknowledging you had breached the topic ban.

If you were to be editing just to add legible content - and legible does not mean it meets the MoS - and were being reverted because you were not following MoS. You would have the right to say, politely, "I have added content, sourced content, sourced content that someone using Wikipedia can read. Yes, I wrote it how I feel it should be written, but I accept that once I place it, others can an likely will modify it based on their interpretation of Wikipedia's policies and guide lines. If it needs to be copy edited, then by all means, copy edit it, at least the content will still be there."

- J Greb (talk) 01:32, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

But most to the point: I will take away not to post in anger. I should not have done so, and I regret causing trouble to the community. Even though I calmed down before the next time I posted, harm was done to GTBacchus; I thank him for looking forward to working with me in the future (in the interim, we have discussed a title question here). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:42, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

The current tally on the subpage for topic ban from MOS is 24:3:1, on topic ban from Titles is 5:1. This is prime for uninvolved admin review and enaction. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:23, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I see that Carcharoth has observed, at some length, the extent to which that majority consists of those who are already involved, and have spoken of me intemperately elsewhere. This is not the first time such people have used a civility complaint against me; the previous time was the complaint by the author of one of those proposals, that "anglophone" is somehow racist. GWH should remember that; he closed it himself with a Trout all round. I have done wrong; I shall avoid these people; but this is another of the same effort at silencing. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:30, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

That you have conflicts with some unreasonable people does not mean that everyone conflicting with you is unreasonable; nor does some people who are unreasonable or combative having !voted to topic ban you mean that everyone voting to topic ban you is unreasonable or combative. We can identify some potentially conflicted users, but there are a wide, wide variety of users who have never been in conflict with you who have reviewed the situation and responded. That you feel that "these people" are the problem and not you generally (having admitted having done wrong or not) isn't enough at this point. That was where it should have been at the RFC/U. Things not fixed well enough yet. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:41, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Literally, most of those (non-admins almost entirely) who endorse the proposal are, like the editor who wrote it, engaged in a content dispute; they wrote the sanction, they are impatient for Elen or somebody to impose it, and the author says that the purpose is to make it impossible for me to defend my edits. Plaintiff, judge, and jury; I should be thankful they are not also executioners. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:05, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I say close this thread without prejudice or consequence against Pmanderson. My advice to Pmanderson, try some new wiki-stuff (review a GAN for example). To the same extent I presume you may have negatively affected someone by your conduct, I believe you have endured like manner. Seek better association! They are out there! My76Strat (talk) 23:22, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Interesting. So all this got shuffled off to a subpage and a "consensus" developed? Before, the allegedly "passing" motion was at 13-3 on raw votes, but after hidden in a subpage, every !vote was for a ban. That smells fishy. PMA can inform you about our interactions - we don't exactly get along - but I'm commenting because this process appears to me fundamentally not just. The repeated new threads proposing censures were disruptive; indeed, another editor directly said so. Hiding that on a subpage is simply not just. Furthermore, the result - the allegedly "passing" "ban" - would seem to prevent PMA from discussion such as the most recent I can recall [76]; PMA and I were on opposite sides, but I don't see a problem with PMA's participation. What I see here, on the other hand, rather looks like a lynch mob. Also, as a matter of record, I don't think Elen of the Roads should close this discussion. Gimmetoo (talk) 07:08, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

"Hiding"? How is it hiding? It's still clearly mentioned on this page. And putting it on a subpage means that edits doesn't drown in edits from other incidents, so it's actually easier to see if somebody has updated it. It's the opposite of hiding. --OpenFuture (talk) 13:44, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

• Indeed, Gimmetoo’s “interesting” post all suggests suspicious impropriety. The whole PMA thread grew long on this ANI page so User:Strange Passerby, who is a regular to this venue, moved it for the reason stated above to its own sub-page. No, that is not “hiding” the discussion of the incident; it is has been plainly titled right at the top of the list here with a big red question mark the entire time for anyone who cares and knows how to read can stop, stare, read, and click. Yes, a consensus developed over there. No, not every vote was for a topic ban, but the consensus is truly overwhelming. The only thing that smelled “fishy” was Locke Cole (someone who believes himself to have been victimized by mob rule on MOSNUM) visited the page and made arguments which didn’t find traction with the rest. His rationale for having dropped in on ANI for the first time since 2009 wasn’t credible to many and appears to have been the product of… uhm… something fishy. As for the “lynch mob” appearance to which Gimmetoo refers, I suppose that is what it looks like when an editor has been very disruptive for a very long time and then goes to an ANI where a very appropriate remedy was finally fleshed out. I am pleased to see that Elen of the Roads will close it out unless someone does so earlier. In advance, thanks. Greg L (talk) 20:34, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

• Greg, I've seen threads FAR longer than this one survive on AN/I without being shuffled off to a subpage. At the very least, someone should have transcluded the subpage on to this page so people could see it here (while maintaining a separate edit history). The odds of anyone clicking through to that subpage diminished significantly once it was just a link on this page. And the alleged "consensus" formed once the MOS regulars had the place basically to themselves (neverminding what appear to be a handful of pile-on supports that, thanks to not commenting AT ALL don't seem to indicate any knowledge of the goings-on). Voting is evil. —Locke Cole • t • c 20:56, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

• Transclusion would have defeated the whole purpose of moving this action to its own subpage: freeing up room. You see, there was so much discussion and debate (what helped to make this quite distinct from a simple poll) that this page was getting too long in User: Strange Passerby’s opinion. Now, I don’t know the individual, but given that Strange Passerby is a regular around here and presumably knows what he’s doing and what is customary on ANI, I suspect he thought a big title at the top reading Pmanderson being tendentious, baiting, and uncivil with personal attacks (again) was sufficient to, as you say, make it so “people could see it here.” At least I can certainly see it (and presumably too most others) as well the link to the discussion page. PMA has had a full and fair hearing and the community has spoken with (nearly) one voice. Greg L (talk) 00:02, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

• That's fantastic, but when all the sub-threads get lost on a sub-page (because the headings have all been moved) an idly passing by editor wouldn't have any knowledge of the large dispute taking place or know that additional input was necessary to reach a consensus amongst uninvolved editors. And I said it before, but apparently I need to say it again; I've seen discussions QUITE longer than this one (often times hundreds of KB of discussion) sprawl out here before being moved to a subpage. And even then, it's transcluded back so editors can see the discussion and participate if it's needed. Again: voting is evil, and even more so when apparently a good chunk of the "voters" are directly involved in the area of dispute... no, it's not the "community" that's spoken here, it's the MOS regulars voting out someone they don't want to deal with anymore. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:52, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

• Sorry, Locke Cole, but I believe I told you once before not to intentionally mischaracterize the situation for your own purposes. I am decidedly NOT an MOS regular, and there are many others who have commented which are not either. Merely because the discussion isn't going the way you want it to, doesn't mean you can just make stuff up to discredit the people who are on the opposite side as you. Again, I have commented in favor of topic bans against PMA, and I have never been significantly involved with the MOS, article titles, or indeed any conflict with him before. It is rude that you keep spreading this deliberate falsehood for your own reasons, and I will ask that you stop. --Jayron32 05:57, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

  I agree that Jayron is not a MOS regular; I don't think Locke Cole intended to say so. But those who are pushing for the proposed settlement, who say specifically they want this rather than voting for the only action being polled for, are chiefly MOS regulars: Ohconfucius, who drafted it, and has been baiting me during the discussion; Greg L, who was threatened with a block for his intemperance; and Noetica, who is, I think, the most frequent editor of MOS. Has Jayron done more than !vote?

Ezhiki, who is deeply annoyed with me, opposes it in the poll; Carcharoth and Bkonrad have left statements concerned with the sweeping nature of this proposal - and the interpretation of the proposal; and that this will be used to harass me. If they are wrong, and this becomes, in wording or effect, an interaction ban between me, on one hand, and Ohconfucius, Noetica, Tony1, Kwamikagami, and Greg L on the other, that will settle this matter; if they are right, I will have little choice but to seek an amendment. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 13:43, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

To suggest that PMA has been victimized by a pack of partisan wiki-hounds ignores the clear evidence. PMA has enjoyed the benefit of one of the more protracted and thoughtful ANIs around. Nearly four days-worth of fruitless discussion transpired with plenty of “outside & uninvolved” editors weighing in on one proposal after another, up to the last loser of a proposal (“Alternative N: 1 month block for civility with exponential penalty”), which went down in flames because the community wisely thought it was not a proper fit for PMA’s circumstances and wanted the project to continue to benefit from what PMA brings to the table.

There was no solution in sight, which even precipitated an aborted move to close, until “Alternative N 1: Indefinite topic ban from Manual of Style and any related discussion, construed broadly” was proposed, which made so much sense, it received broad support from all corners of wikipedia. Note too that an uninvolved admin, User:Carcharoth, who had opposed all previous proposals, supported this new proposal.

Then that proposal went on to morph into still another proposal that was worded very precisely and which went on to enjoy a landslide of support because it made so much sense.

PMA has enjoyed all the protections Wikipedia has to offer to ensure he was proper protected from mob rule. Now it is time to institute the consensus remedy so that the community can contribute to the project without further disruption from PMA. Greg L (talk) 14:20, 25 August 2011 (UTC)\

Yes, there was a landslide of support for the latest proposal from those involved with the Manual of Style, and non-admins with other old grievances against me. As it became clear that this was intended as a vague and catch-all proposal of drastically altered chatacter, the uninvolved admins objected; Carcharoth said (of this version) If things are not made clear now, you can be sure that Pmanderson will arrive at a discussion citing WP:COMMONNAME and claim it is a content/NPOV issue, not a style issue, and you can be just as sure that someone will haul Pmanderson off to a noticeboard and demand an immediate indef block; Bkonrad said that If Greg's interpretation below is understood to apply, then I Oppose.

Greg L's wish to act as plaintiff, judge, and jury may be understandable; but that is not the way ANI is supposed to make decisions. I am perfectly willing never to interact with him or his friends again; that will secure the MOS community against "further disruption from PMA." As he makes his demand for this proposal (and only this proposal) clearer and clearer, he provides evidence for such a request. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:34, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Closing

I shall be able to close the discussion later this evening (although don't let me stand in the way of anyone who wants to do so sooner) Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:59, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

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

User:Buffs refusing to stop posting to my talk page

On at least six other occasions in the past stretching over two years, I have asked User:Buffs to stay off of my talk page. Twice in the last month Buffs has ignored this request and posted to my talk page anyway. The first of these two was July 29 [77] where he concluded his posting saying "All you seem to care about is whether people have checked every bureaucratic box". The second was today [78]. I posted to Buff's talk page once again requesting he stop posting to my talk page (see User_talk:Buffs#Stay_off_my_talk_page). His response was to state that I don't own my talk page.

Wikipedia:Harassment states "Do not stop other editors from enjoying Wikipedia by making ... repeated annoying and unwanted contacts" and "This policy is aimed to protect victims of genuine harassment which is meant to cause distress to the user, such as repeated and unwanted correspondence or postings. " His postings to my talk page are most emphatically unwanted correspondence.

Would an administrator please step in and warn User:Buffs that his behavior is inappropriate, and that I can request he stay off my talk page and expect such a request to be honored? Buffs has been informed about this request. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:12, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

that seems a rather low frequency compared to what we normally call harassment. DGG ( talk ) 15:45, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

• There's a ton of history here. I could go on for pages and pages about the history behind this. It's not necessary. The point is, I've asked him to stop posting my talk page and he refuses to honor that request. Regardless of anything else that has gone on before, if I ask him to remain off my talk page it should be a request I can expect to be honored. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:57, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Once again, HS has decided to parse policy to his own end and ignore the rest of it. "Do not stop other editors from enjoying Wikipedia by making ... repeated annoying AND unwanted contacts". Two postings within the past six months (or year?) hardly constitutes any form of harassment. HS is handing out very bad advice to people who have come to his talk page seeking guidance. To let noobs think that his extremely poor interpretations are the actual rules of Wikipedia is to do a disservice to our community as a whole.

I recognize that HS has the right to request that I not post on his talk page, but I also have a right to ignore that request and do what is best for WP. To leave those interactions alone only serves to perpetuate a myth about WP image use and hurt our community as a whole.

I have limited almost all interaction with him, but he continues to create a hostile atmosphere, directs noobs in the wrong direction, continues to act as if his views are actually policy (when they aren't), and refuses to learn anything about what items are eligible for copyright and which ones aren't. I have offered help and, instead, he insists on treating every image with a labeling error as if it is copyrighted no matter what its status actually is.

I haven't taken unequivocal action to ban him from my talk page. He could try discussing it with me there instead of elevating it just so he can have more DRAMAZ and claim how badly he's being treated (just check out his user page to see how much he likes the drama). Buffs (talk) 17:07, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

• I am not surprised that you are bringing your continued disagreement with my actions into this request. Our long standing disagreements, while providing history regarding this request, are not something that should in any way have a detracting effect on this request. I asked you to stay off my talk page. You have previously acknowledged that request and agreed to it (last paragraph) and are now in violation of your own agreement. It's a simple request, and a reasonable one. Your posts to my talk page are distinctly unwanted. If you have continued problems with my edits, you can take them to appropriate WP:DR paths. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:13, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

  Right, like the part of WP:DR where it states "Disputes or grievances should always be reacted to in the first instance by approaching, in good faith, the editor or editors concerned and explaining what you find objectionable and why you think so. This can be done on the talk page of the article or on the user page." I'm trying to take care of this at the lowest level instead of elevating it; while I avoided your page as much as possible, at some point, you have to be served notice that your behavior isn't acceptable and your talk page is the required place. Not really interested in OMG DRAMAZ that you seem to be, just in getting you to stop disruptive behaviors. Have fun at ANI; This thread will be easily closed in less than 24 hours. Buffs (talk) 18:43, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

• This is ridiculous. You have been asked multiple times to stay off the Talk page. Your continued refusal to do so is nothing other than harrassment. Find some other way to spend your time, or you will wind up being blocked. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 18:45, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

  Sorry, but the admins responding to this have basically said this isn't going to result in a block. You aren't an admin and can't threaten a block, so this seems to be quite the empty threat. Buffs (talk) 21:28, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Buffs, I think this comment is a good example of something you should have handled differently. If you feel it's necessary to monitor all of the conversations on Hammersoft's talk page, but they have specifically asked you not to comment there, then you should have contacted Muqman52 directly at their talk page to express your differing opinion. That's Civility 101. — Satori Son 19:07, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Right, I guess I "should have contacted Muqman52 directly at his talk page to express my differing opinion". Buffs (talk) 21:21, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

The reason we don't routinely treat violation of these so-called "talk page bans" as harassment is so that harassment actually means something. The diffs in question are not harassment in and of themselves, especially a month apart. It takes rather more than that before we start issuing formal restraint orders to people. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 18:47, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

• Allow me to clarify; I am not stating any case that what he is doing is or is not harassment. That's not the point. I cited the harassment policy to sustain the case that it is a reasonable request to ask someone to remain off of my talk page, and to expect that person to comply. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:12, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

• But if they refuse to stay off the Talk page, are you saying there are no remedies? The Mark of the Beast (talk) 20:14, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

  WP:OWN: "All Wikipedia content[1] is open to being edited collaboratively. No one, no matter how skilled, and regardless of their standing in the community, has the right to act as if they are the owner of a particular page." Buffs (talk) 21:30, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

• Buffs, you assert that I came here seeking "dramaz". Yet, you know that posting to my talk page when you have previously been asked not to do so multiples times is deliberately provocative. The best way to avoid this "dramaz" is for you to not post on my talk page. It's really that simple. Just stop. It's easy. Don't click "edit this page". --Hammersoft (talk) 21:38, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

  ok...sure. It's all my fault that I tried to communicate with you (just like WP:DR says) and that justifies you plastering this all over WP and sullying my name. Your extent of WP:DR was to post to my page once and then immediately elevate it. I never "reported you up the chain". YOU made a conscious decision to elevate this and cause more drama. You didn't have to do that at all. Buffs (talk) 02:46, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

• I have blocked User:Buffs for 31 hours, after reviewing their comments at this thread and on their talkpage. They seem to be very willing to wikilawyer their "right" to edit Hammersoft's talkpage, when there is a fairly clear consensus that they should not do so - and especially when there are other avenues to pursue any perceived issues with Hammersofts editing. My rationale for the sanction is disruption; the effort being expended on attempting to resolve this issue is far in excess of any concern that it may be addressing, with no apparent change in the viewpoint from the party concerned. As ever, I welcome review and amendment/reversal of my actions if thought appropriate. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:40, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

  I have disputed this block on the talk page. Gimmetoo (talk) 22:51, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

  Responded there. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:58, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

  So did I. Bishonen | talk 23:36, 22 August 2011 (UTC).

  I'm sorry, but what the hell!?!? No one can even point to a policy or guideline I've violated. Hammersoft does not own the page, PERIOD!!! He cannot dictate by royal decree what is done on his page. He doesn't get to dictate what others say. Like I said earlier, I've posted twice in 6 months. These actions do not violate any policy or guideline. If anything, HS deserves to be blocked for WP:OWNing his talk page (at least that is a violation).

  My block history has been nearly spotless to this point. I had a a single block for a 3RR violation, which I acknowledge I was in the wrong at the time (however, though the rules have been changed since then to exempt reversions of vandalism). I have had a blemish-free history for FOUR YEARS.

  This is absolutely ridiculous. You cannot simply make up rules and arbitrarily enforce them. This used to be a community ruled by consensus, not by dictators blocking on a whim with no backing other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I never swore. I never called people names and, yet, I'm blocked for...what? One admin doesn't like me personally? One admin doesn't like the rules of Wikipedia? This is ludicrous!!! Buffs (talk) 02:46, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

  Hey, he doesn't want you to post on his talk page; don't post on his talk page. There's no conceivable reason why you should continue to do so against his wishes. Why is it so important that you enforce your rights to the point of making it uncomfortable for others? Just stop dealing with him. Take his talk page off of your watchlist. Seriously, why is there such resistance to this. What is so important that you do this; forget being "allowed" as the perspective on this, even if you are "allowed", that doesn't mean its still best to do so. There's lots of things people have "the right" to do which is still a bad idea to do. It seems like a no brainer that if people don't want to interact with you; that you stop trying to interact with them. --Jayron32 03:49, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

  I can certainly think of "conceivable reasons" for posting on a user talk page after having been "banned" from it. Furthermore, regarding the punitive block, I thought warning shots were supposed to be across the bow rather than beneath the waterline. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 09:21, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

  I feel that Buffs and yourself should review the section immediately below Wikipedia:UP#CMT, which is the guideline Buffs believes they should be referred to. As for warnings, Buff questioned the ability of the admin who ended up unblocking him to sanction him when the issue was raised. Other editors warned Buff regarding their actions immediately above and on their talkpage, and their response was to wikilawyer the wording of WP:OWN... There is a difference between not being warned and not acknowledging or agreeing with the warnings. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:23, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

The guideline says "probably sensible". Normally things that earn editors 31hr blocks for first offenses (or at least first ANI reports) are worded rather more strongly than that. Had Buffs boldly declared "the guideline doesn't specifically ban me from commenting there so I shall do as I please" then it's certainly be wikilawyering, but he didn't. As for "not acknowledging or agreeing with the warnings", are you referring to the warnings from Hammersoft? Because again, the guidelines discourage rather than prohibit posting on user talk after "bans" of the type Hammersoft handed out precisely because of the existence of cases where that's not in the best interests of the project, and Buffs made a reasonable argument for why he did so. On the other hand, he received no warning at all for getting a 31hr block, especially one apparently justified on the grounds that he'd dared to defend himself on ANI. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 11:00, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

This was more like a mafia reminder (you know, break all the guys knuckles on one hand with a nutcracker and say "this is just to remind you not to piss off Jimmy the Fish"). Buffs kinda drew the line in the sand "you can't block me for that, nyah nyah nyah", and well, he's been proven wrong. I just love how he tried to use WP:OWN for his benefit. I thought we were all nice saying "listen, don't post there" and suddenly he started acting like a WP:DICK about it. Well, guess what Buffs ... you can and will be blocked for it, capische? Maybe it wasn't the right way to do it, but the continued wikilawyering about it pretty much reminds us of ends justifying means ... he still doesn't get it. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:23, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

What is he to "get", exactly? That while policy says that staying off people's talk pages when asked to is a sensible way of avoiding conflict, what that really means is "do it or get blocked"? And as for the analogy, do we really want admins to intimidate editors into behaving? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 11:49, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

No, intimidation is not useful. I was using the analogy humourously. Realistically, this whole discussion should be over by now. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:20, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I receive rude, uncivil, vulgar, obscene, and other darkly amusing comments on my talk page all the time. I don't own my talk page, so I don't play the OP's "stay off not-my page" game. If the OP can't handle the occasional heat, maybe he ought to find another kitchen. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:00, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

• Occasional heat? As you very well know, there's a very long standing dispute between myself and Buffs that has never amicably resolved. This 'heat' has been going on for years, not 'occasional'. I attempted to disengage, and Buffs previously agreed to not post on my talk page (last paragraph). There is absolutely no need for him to post comments such as "All you seem to care about is whether people have checked every bureaucratic box" yet he chose to do so. What I sought here was to have Buffs informed that his behavior was inappropriate and that he stay off my talk page. That has happened. Whether he takes the admonition to heart and abides by the request remains to be seen. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:24, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Responding to claims by Buffs that I needlessly escalated this; not so. I, for the 7th time now, asked Buffs to stay off my talk page. His response made it clear he had no intention of honoring that request. If there is a more appropriate place to take such disputes when they've reached this state than this board, I'm certainly open to being advised of such. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:24, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, twice in a month, that's just unbearable is it? There is no absolute right to "ban" someone from your talk page, it comes down to common sense, which apparently needs to be explained to both of you. Franamax (talk) 13:55, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

• What common sense would that be? I've asked him seven times to stay off my talk page, and he refuses. What do you think I should have done? Just kept silent and taken his deliberately provocative posts? My request is reasonable; stay off my talk page. That's all I'm asking for. I don't expect his opinion of me to improve. I don't expect him to apologize. I don't expect anything of him, but to stay off my talk page. So please tell me what common sense it is that I should be expressing? --Hammersoft (talk) 14:01, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

• No, what you've said in the past is you don't want any opposition to your edits (from me and others). Buffs (talk) 23:51, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

• Would you be open to using the talkback function? Buffs (talk) 23:52, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Buffs, earlier above you asked for a specific policy to be cited to show how you were violating a rule. While I don't think blocks, bans, or discipline necessarily require a rule to be broken (after all one of the rules is "ignore all rules"), if it makes you feel better, consider the following:

• Wikipedia:Civility - "If you are in active dispute with the user, consider offering an olive branch to them instead" (like just leaving the guy alone)
• Wikipedia:Harassment - a pattern of repeated offensive behavior that appears to a reasonable observer to intentionally target a specific person
• WP:POINT - you're being pointy about the WP:OWN policy, it is one thing to acknowledge a policy, and another to flaunt it

I'm sure I could find more things, but why? Just using a little common sense here is the most important bit. I had to deal with an editor once who absolutely went quite nuts whenever I tried to interact with him on his user page. After 2 times, I left a polite apology and promise to leave him alone. No more drama, and its easy. -- Avanu (talk) 00:30, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Now THIS I have no problem with: disagreement, but a civil discussion.

• WP:CIVIL: I have offered numerous olive branches to HS. They have all been ignored, deleted, or outright rejected. I've offered discussion pages. I've offered to look at images for him so he doesn't even have to get involved. EVERY offer has been rejected.
• WP:HARASSMENT: Where is the offensive behavior?
• WP:POINT: Doing what I can to prevent newer users from acting upon extremely poor advice and/or preventing someone driving away editors/their contributions isn't pointy, it's what we are all supposed to do. Buffs (talk) 02:07, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

1. If every offer has been rejected, then move on.
2. The harassment behavior is evidenced mostly by the fact that Hammersoft has asked you to stop and you have not.
3. You say you're 'doing what you can to prevent newer users from acting on poor advice'. Please give 1 specific example that REQUIRED you to specifically intervene on Hammersoft's page, rather than talking to such a user on their own Talk page, or at an article's Talk page. -- Avanu (talk) 02:45, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

See below, no point in fragmenting the conversation. Short version though, I cannot change his problematic behavior without communicating with him. If a person repeatedly bites the newbies, it doesn't help the situation to always talk to the noobs. Buffs (talk) 03:51, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

The overall point is, you have not been personally assigned to fix Hammersoft's problematic behavior, and while your intentions might be helpful, they are not working toward a productive end. If there is an problem, talk to another editor, or use Dispute Resolution methods. But there's no need to bother him directly if he says to leave him alone. -- Avanu (talk) 13:23, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Proposed ban of User:Buffs from User talk:Hammersoft

There is a quite simple solution, going forward. It is within the remit of the community to ban a user from any page where there is the potential for disruption; I therefore propose, "Buffs (talk · contribs) is banned from editing the page User talk:Hammersoft (and any subsidiary or related ages), indefinitely, for a minimum of one year. Any concern of User Buffs regarding edits by User Hammersoft should be conveyed either by a third party to User talk:Hammersoft or initiated on a dispute resolution page - notice again being supplied by a third party." I further propose that, "User Buffs may not use another editors talkpage to initiate contact/discussion with User Hammersoft, and limit interactions with User Hammersoft on other talkpages to issues within discussion only. This restriction is to run concurrently with the User talk:Hammersoft ban." Please indicate support or opposition below.

Comment from "recipient of said ban": there is no policy which states that the community may ban a user where there is the potential for disruption. Discussion, by definition, is not disruption. I haven't broken a single rule on WP nor have there been any blocks enacted on me (except this one above...which was rapidly overturned due to a lack of evidence/). One user cannot enact an arbitrary "ban" and admins should not enforce any attempt to do so through punitive blocks. Buffs (talk) 18:56, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

• Support both restrictions, as proposer. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:55, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
• Sure, since I tried to deal with this previously a year or two ago. If it is still going on, then the situation is not going to get better. Syrthiss (talk) 15:11, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
• No. Unnecessary and unwarranted. Bish said this discussion was a waste of the community's time, and you do this? The point has been made to Buffs, and that's all that's needed for now. Just let this threat die. Gimmetoo (talk) 15:18, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
• Formal interaction restrictions should be used sparingly where it's seriously disrupting the project. I don't believe that's the case here. Buffs should be admonished not to test his luck as regards use of Hammersoft's talk page, but that's all that's required. A formal interaction ban here rather seriously steps over what the user talk guidelines actually say. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 15:26, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose per above. Buffs (talk) 15:47, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
• oppose, also be aware that the precedent will be used to ban the tagspam from my talk page; i expect the support votes to confirm. Slowking4: 7@1|x 17:32, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
• Support It may not be harassment but its clearly provoking after User talk:Hammersoft has clearly asked him to stop. Warburton1368 (talk) 17:38, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
• Support, though I doubt this will end teh dramahz. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 21:18, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
• Support, I just looked into this myself, clearly a ban is warranted. I agree there seems to be no malicious intent here, but really this has to stop. --Τασουλα (Almira) (talk) 21:33, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose - OP needs to shrug it off. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:37, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Are you serious? That goes against all that WP:CIVIL stands for.--Cerejota (talk) 23:08, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

If someone has an issue with someone else, they should be free to post on their talk page. And the recipient is free to ignore it. This stuff about being "provoked" is the old "look what you made me do game", which is bogus. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:30, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Tell me what I've done that was uncivil. Buffs (talk) 23:49, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

• support anything truly serious that Hammersoft needs to be told about, someone else is likely to tell them, or it is only serious to Buffs. I would make an exception fo {{TB}} without any summary text, because in the end this is a collaborative environtment, but TB allows you to ignore or respond as you see fit. This exception, if abused, should be then disallowed.--Cerejota (talk) 23:08, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

  I see no problem with this option, but I still oppose the ban. It allows me (or anyone else) to make a point without unduly being on his talk page. Buffs (talk) 23:49, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

• support Talk page bans have come up for years on wikipedia. In the past, I've generally seen them enforced, which would indicate at least some community support for them despite the fact that we don't have a policy specifically written about them. Many people have ended up banned from other people's talk pages, and consider it a specific form of interaction ban. Which are also routinely applied around here. There is often little need for anyone specific to be editing anyone else's talk page. Most discussions about articles can happen on article talk pages, other discussions on noticeboards, and you really would only need to go to someone's talk page if you wanted to discuss something particular about their editing behaviour in general. And if they're having genuine issues, someone else can discuss that with them. Conversely, I think this should be reciprocal, and hammersoft should also not be posting on Buffs' talk page either. The drama potential there is too high--Crossmr (talk) 23:36, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

  I'm not saying we can't ban someone (anyone) from a talk page. I am saying that it cannot be arbitrarily decided by a single user. All I want is for HS to stop intentionally directing users to do things that run contrary to copyright law and NFCC. Buffs (talk) 23:49, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

  Furthermore, I strenuously oppose a ban of anyone on my talk page (except those who are banned from WP altogether) Buffs (talk) 02:53, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

• Support - I typically believe in a very wide latitude for people and many chances, but in the case of a simple request of "stay off my userpage", it is easy enough to comply with, and unless there is a legitimate reason that Buffs specifically needs to notify Hammersoft about something, I don't how honoring the request to leave Hammersoft alone is unreasonable. Buffs makes the case that Hammersoft does not "own" his userspace, and while this is true to some degree, the Wikipedia:User pages guideline says that userpages are for "facilitating interaction and sharing between users". It sounds like these forced interactions are not helpful for Hammersoft, so why continue? Buffs doesn't "own" the space anymore than Hammersoft does, so how can this be a forced interaction by one editor onto another? If this were a dispute in a Article Talk Page, I might simply ask them to find separate topics to work on, but a User Page is a special place that we don't "own", but we do get to call 'home'. Simply leaving someone alone should an easy request to honor. -- Avanu (talk) 00:15, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
• Support per WP:HA. ╟─TreasuryTag►stannary parliament─╢ 00:35, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
• Why are we here? - If user X says that User Y is no longer welcome to post on X's talk page, that is the end of the story. If Y persists, then Y gets blocked. This is not a support/oppose case. Tarc (talk) 00:35, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

  It is one of our policies that explicitly states that NO ONE OWNS A PAGE; no one person can dictate explicitly what is on a page. Even WP:USER explicitly acknowledges this. This is a collaborative encyclopedia. We have a policy explicitly prohibiting that kind of behavior: WP:OWN. Buffs (talk) 01:44, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

  It has nothing to do with ownership, that is a red herring of an argument of yours. User talk pages are for simple communication with other editors, but this isn't a perfect world and people sometimes get into disagreements. If one editor no longer wishes another to communicate with them, then that person should honor that request; to do otherwise is rather dickish. Tarc (talk) 02:10, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

  I have largely honored that request and have made a grand total of FOUR edits in the past year out of almost 1000...and two were to correct errors in the first post. ALL of these were to advise a person asking for help what to actually do. Buffs (talk) 02:48, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

• Support both ban of Buffs commenting directly about other user, and Tarc's comment immediately above. The what policy have I broken? nonsense needs to stop. In an ideal world, the other editor might have a personality which can shrug off unwelcome provocations (and intruding like that is a provocation—what comment is so vital for the encyclopedia that it needs to be posted on a user's talk page by Buffs?). However, there is no policy which says all editors must be thick skinned, and the community needs to support its editors. Johnuniq (talk) 01:27, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

  WP:NOTCENSORED? Buffs (talk) 01:44, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

  Sorry, but comments like that merely support the need for the ban. Johnuniq (talk) 01:49, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

  I'm not sorry, but your comment makes no sense. You say "There is no policy which says all editors must be thick skinned." I point out that there is a policy which says exactly that. Your response is (I guess) "because he contradicted me in public, it's clear to me that he should be banned". WTH? Buffs (talk) 02:00, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose I cannot support any ban that is based upon what MIGHT happen. While I generally subscribe to a personal philosophy of "Never wrestle with a pig - you both get dirty, and the pig likes it" when it comes to avoiding conflicts both on the Wiki and in real life - some battles aren't worth the effort of the undertaking - I cannot in any way subscribe to the viewpoint that an editor should be banned for what MIGHT happen. Lightning MIGHT strike me if I go outside, but probably NOT. I feel that the proposed action creates an awkward precedent and unduly compromises the efforts in good faith of editor Buffs who has been active on the Wiki project for several years. I vote in support of editor Buffs. Thick or thin skins doesn't really enter into it from my viewpoint. You can't convict for a crime that MIGHT be committed but hasn't YET. Mark Sublette (talk) 04:21, 24 August 2011 (UTC)Mark SubletteMark Sublette (talk) 04:21, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure you are aware of what the 'ban' proposal is above. It is only saying thet Buffs needs to stay off Hammersoft's personal Talk page. It isn't a 'ban' beyond that. -- Avanu (talk) 07:12, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose Talk page ban, as two comments in six months do not indicate an ongoing disruption, no matter perception of the distant past, and there has been a reasonable compromise offered that will solve the issue Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:06, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose as unnecessary. Going back to Jan 2010, there are all of 4 or 5 interactions. Buffs shouldn't be harping on the point, but you don't own your talk page, pure and simple. There is no systemic attempt to create an unpleasant environment. Buffs has been counselled on appropriate use, viz not furthering the interpersonal dispute, and can be counselled and/or blocked on future activity. Hammersoft can remove whatever they want, so long as it doesn't falsify a thread. This would set a crazy precedent. Franamax (talk) 07:01, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
• This is an easy one. Oppose per Tarc. Let me make this even more clear - I'd like Buffs to stop venting his WP:OWN argument, as it's tangibly irrelevant. This is simple enough - somebody asks you to stay off of their talk page, you do it. If you want a guideline, go read WP:DICK and WP:CIVIL. (I don't think WP:HA really applies here.) — Kudu ^~I/O~ 23:12, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Alternative

How about just allowing only a {{TB}} template for all future communications. HS can chose whether to participate or not. If it makes anyone feel better, I'll even pass that request through a third party. It is not obtrusive and allows HS to do with it as he wishes without any further communication? Buffs (talk) 02:41, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

• Support the proposed alternative of a self-imposed use of only a neutral Tb template as User:Buffs has offered, as this is a tacit agreement by him to not post anything more and a ban need now not even be considered. Note, I do not agree that WP:IAR can be used to trump WP:CIV, as Buffs can always get an intermediary to post something more than a Tb at User Talk: Hammersoft if it must be posted, as there may be times where the two might actually need to discuss an issue. And by Buffs offering to post nothing more than a neutral Tb template, such will invite User:Hammersoft to a discussion that he may then himself choose not to join. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:06, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

• I'm not sure this would be helpful. User talk pages are for messages intended for that person alone, or for responses to other particpants in a thread. In the latest case (the "Kingdom" image), you could have tagged up the image and just made a note in the thread on HS's page "Image is not copyrightable, fixed cover page [diff]" and throwing in "per [Cornell copyright link]" is always a good idea so that everyone can learn that stuff. It's the tone and persomal commentary that raises problems. Linking through a talkback to the same type of thing doesn't solve any problems. Franamax (talk) 07:21, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. This is quite worthless - I don't see the improvement from the perceived "harassment" involving posting directly on HS' TP. — Kudu ^~I/O~ 23:14, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

So there I was

...driving down the street, going 45 in a 45 mph zone. It's a nice, clear sunny day without a cloud in the sky. Without warning, a policeman pulls me over and says, "I'm going to have to arrest you."

"You can't do that. I haven't broken any law."

"Well, you were going too fast on this street."

"The speed limit sign says 45"

"Yeah, well some of us don't like that you are going that fast. This guy here lives on the street and called to complain that he doesn't like it when you go that fast. Just because you can, doesn't mean you should."

"Well, I'm sorry he doesn't like it, but that still doesn't mean I broke the law and that you can arrest me."

"Oh yeah? Get out of the car! Put your hands on the hood"

The officer proceeds to arrest me and throws me in jail. Three hours later a judge throws out the case, but several of his neighbors still don't like it and band together to block off the street solely so I can't drive on it. They don't try to get the speed limit changed. They don't try discussion, they simply say, "Jimmy doesn't like him driving on that street, so he shouldn't ever drive on it." Buffs (talk) 01:56, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I find it extremely in poor taste to continually make an appeal to whether you have broken policy, when in your first response above you quote Ignore All Rules as a defense of doing whatever you like, to quote you:

I recognize that HS has the right to request that I not post on his talk page, but I also have a right to ignore that request and do what is best for WP. To leave those interactions alone only serves to perpetuate a myth about WP image use and hurt our community as a whole.

In what possible world are you REQUIRED to post on a specific other person's Talkpage in order to accomplish the goal of helping with Wikipedia? You could EASILY fix this by just agreeing to leave the guy alone, but instead you continue to give arrogant responses to the rest of us. Please, stop being a WP:JERK, and stop justifying poor and uncivil behavior. -- Avanu (talk) 02:39, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Wow. Since when did this devolve into name-calling (pretty sure I haven't called anyone a "jerk" or a "dick", but apparently it's ok to do that to me. I guess we're going to ignore WP:CIVIL today...pretty sure that's another policy...)

but to answer your question, no, I don't think that WP:IAR gives me the right to do "whatever I want", but it does allow me to post on his page no matter what his request is. It certainly isn't a blockable offense to disagree with someone.

So, let's just stick with either proposal above and stop the name calling, ok? Buffs (talk) 02:47, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I want to make sure you understand the difference here. It isn't namecalling, but a description of the behavior you're exhibiting. I have no idea about you beyond this page, but I can tell quite quickly that you are being stubborn and dickish, mostly because you won't just say "OK, I'm sorry for the trouble, I'll leave the guy alone." This is a easy one, Buffs, and rather than work to solve the problem, you're choosing to be the problem. I'm not against you personally; I don't know you. But I do clearly see what the problem is here. -- Avanu (talk) 03:04, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Few things are required, but I believe that HS is WP:BITEing the noobs by giving them bad advice. In the past year, and the only two instances in which I've posted on his page, both were in response to him telling a person that YOUR IMAGE ISN'T ALLOWED ON WP!!! I REMOVED IT BECAUSE YOU CAN'T HAVE THAT IMAGE HERE!!! when in fact, both images were entirely permissible. HS knows better, but has decided to ignore what copyright actually covers and what it doesn't and, instead force newer users to jump through hoops and spend hours reading through WP:NFCC, WP:NFC, WP:IMAGE, WP:COPYRIGHT, WP:FUR, U.S. copyright caselaw, and others only to decipher that there are two lines that need to be fixed in their image to make them usable on WP in the capacity they want. To use his fishing analogy ("I consider it teaching a man to fish rather than giving him a fish"), HS really wants them to hand-whittle a pole, weave a line out of small vines, and bend their belthook into a hook instead of telling to just switch which bait they are using.

In short, he's not only giving bad advice, but making WP more difficult to use.

So, no, you apparently don't see the entire problem. However, I am willing to cease all communications with Hammersoft on his talk page, with the exception of a generic {{TB}} template if you, or any another user, feels it's appropriate (they will be passed through a third party). Buffs (talk) 03:10, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Avanu is correct. When an editor repeatedly points out that everyone commenting at ANI is wrong, there is a high probability that the editor is mistaken. Establishing a perfect system of government is not one of Wikipedia's aims, and persisting with this unhelpful discussion is only providing evidence that something stronger than an interaction ban is required. There is no requirement that an editor agree with outcomes at ANI—by all means state once or twice that the reasoning is not accepted; however, to not accept the outcome is disruptive. Johnuniq (talk) 03:14, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

John, sorry, but I never said "everyone was wrong". In fact a sizable number of people agree with me. The rest of it, I just don't understand what you are talking about. Buffs (talk) 03:45, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

@Buffs, I don't see a reason that you would ever have to speak to Hammersoft on his Talk page again. Just leave him alone. If there's an issue with his conduct toward other editors, talk to that specific editor, or bring it to dispute resolution. As for your defender of the Wikipedia award, I don't see how this type of interaction qualifies - diff, since Hammersoft asked you not to post there, and he was actually accurate in describing Wikipedia policy. It may not always be convenient to follow policy, but it is there for a reason, unless you can get it changed. -- Avanu (talk) 03:16, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

His description of policy was accurate, but his application was not. I could describe WP:DEL and then nominate an article for deletion. But while my description of policy might be 100% accurate, nominating George Bush for deletion isn't appropriate. Likewise, telling a relative newbie that he can't use a specific image on his user page when, in fact, he can, is disruptive to WP. The only problem with the image was that the description tag was wrong and it was categorized as a non-free image when it should have been a public domain image categorized as {{pd-textlogo}} image. I have tried on numerous occasions to educate him on the matter, offered to help (drop me a link on my page and I'll fix it/take care of it). His answer is effectively, "no thanks, I prefer annoying other people and forcing others to make changes, but actually making the changes myself is beneath me and/or I just don't have time for it since I am doing much more important WP work". He has also stated that he actively refuses to make any distinction between non-free and PD images that are mislabeled and he has no desire to learn or apply differences accordingly. Buffs (talk) 03:45, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Since we're doing analogies here's one. At "Wikipedia Beach" there's a law that says that it's against the law to pick "foo oats". A policeman sees a group of tourists picking what looks like "foo oats" and goes over and warns them. All this is witnessed by a local botanists who then examines the oats and determines that they are actually "bar oats" and therefore lawful to pick. The botanists then confronts the policeman. Instead of politely telling him that the oats are in fact "bar oats", he instead yells at the policeman and accuses him of bullying the tourists, says he knew that they were "bar oats" all the time and just sadistically enjoys "biting the tourists". In this case the policeman would be well within his rights to tell the botanist to get out of his face. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 14:00, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

But the policeman can't arbitrarily prohibit the botanists from going to the police station and filing a complaint... Buffs (talk) 17:01, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

If said botanist kept going to the police station and filing charges of harassment and brutality against police officers for simply doing their jobs and keeping people from picking what are marked, correctly or not, as "foo oats", it might get to the point where his rants are ignored and his reports are filed in the round file. The fact that he might be right will be lost because nobody likes listening to jerks, no matter how right they are. What the botanist should do is "assume good faith" on the part of the police department and inform the city counsel that there some patches of "bar oats" incorrectly marked as "foo oats". Also, nobody should ban him from the police station but they can tell him to stop screaming in the officer's face. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:53, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

This isn't the point though. Currently the question is why you feel compelled to post on his User page, even when he said leave him alone, and honestly, dispute resolution can be solved outside a User page. He's made it clear that he doesn't want the interaction there. We give people wide latitude on their own Userspace, and there are plenty of alternatives for dispute resolution. -- Avanu (talk) 03:53, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

This is the point. HS is continuing problematic behavior and I do not wish to elevate it as a first resort. There is no reason to go to ANI or other places when a simple, reasoned discussion can occur. HS simply doesn't want to fix his own behavior and has gone so far to say he won't help WP/noobs simply because I was the one asked (even if I offer to reduce his workload!).

Addressing your WP:HA comment above, ("The harassment behavior is evidenced mostly by the fact that Hammersoft has asked you to stop and you have not"), my point is that he does not have the right to restrict access to his talk page in the first place. Since that is the basis for the block/ban in the first place, it isn't valid. Note that WP:DR starts at the user/article talk page.

However, for the sake of keeping the peace, I'll refrain from now on from posting to his talk page (as described above by solely using {{t1|TB}} templates posted through a third party...who obviously have to agree to the contact). Buffs (talk) 04:01, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I'll go one step further as a sign of good faith. Since I cannot ask him if this is acceptable (he's left me no means by which to directly communicate with him), would you be so kind as to ask him? Buffs (talk) 04:03, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

What is wrong with just 100% leaving the guy's Talk page alone? No Talkback templates through third parties, just saying, OK, done? You make a promise, the AN/I purpose is ended and everybody moves on. -- Avanu (talk) 04:11, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Let's say the issues continue and he continues to bite the noobs. Since I cannot talk to him on his talkpage, I cannot take it to any form of WP:DR since I am required to inform him of the WP:DR process (i.e. ANI, AN, ArbCom, etc). It's a catch-22. If I cannot communicate with him at all, I am unable to perform any dispute resolution! Then there is the principle of the whole thing: he doesn't own the page in the first place and cannot dictate who can and who can't contribute on the page. I didn't contribute to it to make a WP:POINT, I did it to correct his problematic behavior and to try and stop him from being a WP nuisance/biting the newbies. I admit I took a risk of some blowback here, but I'm trying to give him every opportunity to fix the problems before escalating. If he's not going to stop, then WP:ANI is the next option. Buffs (talk) 04:25, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

No, you're not required to inform Hammer. Apply some common sense. No "catch-22" - Hammer's request freed you of any responsibility to do so. If you have concerns about Hammer's editing (I don't see much discussion of that), then you should bring them up so we can see if they hold water. Gimmetoo (talk) 04:39, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Surfacing to make a comment. Buffs, I've read through pretty much the entire thread here. If Hammersoft is biting new editors (I prefer not use the word noob since it tends to have derogatory undertones), then someone else will bring it to his attention. He has asked you to not post on his talk page, granted that you only have limited postings to said page, then by common courtesy you should abide by his request even though by policy you are not required to do so. Your continued defence of your position isn't going to get you anywhere and flogging the horse further is only going to earn the ire of the community and an increasing barrage of wikilinks and ultimately blocks and topic bans. Just leave it be, move along and let this thread die. --Blackmane (talk) 09:48, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Buffs, IAR is to be invoked when a rule prevents you from improving Wikipedia. Please elucidate what rule you believe needs to be ignored to improve Wikipedia. If you are trying to improve an article, fix the article. If you want to open a discussion about an article, do it on the article's talk page. Neither of these requires you to post on Hammersoft's page, as he's asked you politely multiple times to stop posting there. By doing this you only antagonize Hammersoft and create a non-collegial editing environment. Your responses to every support demonstrate that you don't get the point. Furthermore your narrative that starts this section only works if it is a residential street. Neighborhoods are allowed to petition the city government to request a "No-Through-Traffic" if there is a reasonable demonstration that the street is being used as an access corridor. Hasteur (talk) 11:59, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

There was a clear majority above for a ban on him talking to him on his talk page. Its really simple just stop. There are plenty of other avenues to go down if an issue arrives that don't Require Buffs to go on his talk page such as dispute resolution. Take him off your watchlist ignore him if he is doing wrong then another editor can deal with it. The more buffs protest the more i feel there is more to this hes asked you nicely and you refuse to listen stop antagonising him. As i said there is no need at all for you going on his talk page. Warburton1368 (talk) 13:59, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

It looks like Buff's course is clear. Since the other guy doesn't want complaints on his talk page, then instead of going to the other guy (which would be the normal procedure), Buffs should bring it here. A few extra trips to ANI might make the other guy rethink his stance. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:00, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

• Not at all. I have been and am always open to collegial feedback on my edits. I am not open to Buffs posting to my talk page, since interactions between he and I virtually always result in decidedly the opposite. Buffs has his own opinion of my edits and he is certainly welcome to them. I am well past undertaking any effort to correct him. If he feels it necessary to report me to WP:AN/I for some perceived infraction, he is welcome to so far as I'm concerned. In fact, I encourage him. He won't take my word for anything; getting outside input regarding his opinions may be helpful to him. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:28, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

The WP problem here is: WP:Hear. - Shell (Nut Case) (talk) 18:46, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

• First and foremost, I echo Avanu and Hasteur's comments. You aren't seeing the "big picture" here - stop referring to rules and policies, because this matter is clearly covered in a blanket-style way by WP:CIV. What I mean by the "big picture" is, why, out of the 2000 editors who are regularly active on Wikipedia, do you need to communicate with HS? Maybe he's stupid, maybe he's judging you and just doesn't like your face, but so what? It's just civil and common-sensical to follow his request. Isn't it just easier? And, again, you say one can't block someone just because you disagree with them. Well, that isn't quite right - virtually every block reason is based on a disagreement, to a certain extent. Obviously, this isn't quite one-versus-one, but here there are 20 editors who agree that you should stop editing HS' talk page. Go read WP:CONSENSUS. — Kudu ^~I/O~ 23:22, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

  I count 11 vs the 7 who support me, but I'm not really good at numbers. Perhaps my math is way off. And no, we don't block editors solely for disagreement. We block them as a preventative measure to prevent further policy violations. Perhaps you should read WP:BLOCK...and note that I haven't posted on his page. Buffs (talk) 03:17, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

But editors are blocked for disruption, tendentious editing, wiki-lawyering, exhausting the community's patience, excessive levels of not listening. Buffs, all thats' required is that you undertake not to post on Hammersoft's talk page except in the case of official type notifications like ANI notifications etc. If you agree to that and Hammersoft agrees to that then this discussion that is just going round in circles can finally come to a halt. --Blackmane (talk) 06:23, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

You know, if we'd all just follow the fundamental rule of all social spaces, we'd not have this problem. If someone tells you not to post on their talk and you do so anyway, you're in violation of that rule, pure and simple. I don't care if policy allows it or not. It's still being a dick. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 12:40, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

It's also a pretty brutal analogy. The proper addition would be "On my way to the 45 MPH zone, I cut through the parking lot of a variety store - the same way I have a few other times. A year ago, the store put a "no trespassing, other than immediate customers" sign out on the boulevard. 6 months ago the proprietor stopped me and pointed to the sign. A week ago, he did that again. Nevertheless, I continue to take the shortcut - it is, after all, the fastest way to the street I need to travel on". (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:46, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Your addition is completely flawed. The store owner legally owns that property and can control who he wants on it. The street is completely open to everyone. WP:OWN applies to all of WP, not just some of it...this explicitly includes user pages. Buffs (talk) 16:56, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Just one question. How is your personal crusade to retain access to Hammersoft's User Page benefitting the encyclopedia MORE than it is working against it? We've given you a lot of easy alternatives, but you insist that your approach is the right choice. -- Avanu (talk) 17:17, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Buffs Your badgering your point and to be honest its pointless. Your insistence is over the top and is provoking a reaction which is unnecessary. Take the easy option and accept not to post on his talk page no he dosent own it but its his way of communicating and if he feels provoked or harassed then he is correct in asking you politely not to post on it. Warburton1368 (talk) 23:35, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Proposal for Buffs

I propose: Give Buffs a trout, Buffs promises to not post on Hammersoft's page again (no exceptions)

• Support - Buffs is right that we don't own *anything* at Wikipedia, but poking people because we can is a lame reason to do it. -- Avanu (talk) 13:33, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
• Support - As per Avanu.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:42, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
• Support per Avenu. If "because I have the right to" is the best reason you have to do something, that's a good sign you probably shouldn't do it. --Jayron32 13:49, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
• support just because others persist in the toxic environment of noxious warnings on talk pages, dosen't mean we should. but now that it's clear what "harrassment" is, expect more of the same drama here. there are many i never want to have to read on my talk page. Slowking4: 7@1|x 14:44, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
• support (although it is a bit of a waste of fish) LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:51, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
• Support but lets make it a whale instead. --Blackmane (talk) 17:11, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
• Support but with low expectations of the disruptive behavior changing. Buffs should be reminded in the very strongest language that further reports of this behavior will be treated with significantly less Assumptions of Good Faith by the community as he's been warned before. Hasteur (talk) 18:21, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
• Support per Wikipedia is not a battleground. Making personal battles out of Wikipedia discussions is odious. Use the whale. Bishonen | talk 23:32, 25 August 2011 (UTC).
• Support Provoking behaviour isn't on.Warburton1368 (talk) 23:35, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
• Support. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 05:42, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Actioned. Buffs has been trouted and requested / urged / invited to promise not to post to H's talk page again. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:53, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Violation of WP:BLP policy at Talk:New York v. Strauss-Kahn

User:Borgmcklorg made comments on the above talk page, labelling DSK an 'attacker', with 'a history of this kind of behaviour'. I redacted them and left a note on Borgmcklorg's talk page explaining why - however, he/she has reverted this [79]. Can someone please take appropriate action to see that Borgmcklorg conforms with WP:BLP policy - I don't think that this is simple edit-warring, given this [80] comment elsewhere on the talk page, labelling contributors as 'Strauss-Kahn's PR agents'. This is a high-profile article, and we need to maintain appropriate standards on the talk page too. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:36, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

A strange note here, yes, I used the word attacker once (in the last of four sentences), it seems quite undeniable in general. Likewise, Strauss-Kahn's team (described in some detail in several articles in major media) are exactly as I characterised them in the last comment (dirty lawyers, ex-government 'intelligence' people, etc.). AndyTheGrump might just lay off, it is hardly a major violation. Interesting that it is on this topic in particular. Furthermore, I object to the username (AndytheGrump) and have expressed that in the past. It is a threatening and aggressive username, and should have been blocked under Wikipedia username policies.Borgmcklorg (talk) 13:46, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I find Borgs to be highly aggressive in their assimilation policies, and thus you should be blocked indefinitely. In other words, are you serious about your username concern? Can you provide one iota of proof that it violates the username policy, or are you simply attempting to discredit someone with whom you're in conflict? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:29, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Er, yes, what is threatening about admitting to be a grump? Did Borg have nightmares about one of Snow White's diminutive friends as a child? AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:10, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Well said, both of you, but Grump by name Grump by nature seems to influence your approach. No offence intended.Borgmcklorg (talk) 11:55, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I see you state that this is hardly a major violation - I presume that is an admission that it is a violation? so how about withdrawing it, rather than repeating it? AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:51, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

No, will not recognise that.Borgmcklorg (talk) 11:55, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

It is a major violation. Wikipedia's talk pages are not forums in which to discuss the subject, nor to air one's opinions of the subject. AndyTheGrump was right to remove your comments on grounds of avoiding harm to living persons, you were wrong to reinsert them, and that's basically it. If you think the article in question would be improved by including what reliable sources have suggested to be evidence for the prosecution then so be it, but you are obliged not to accompany any comments you make to that effect with personal opinion on the subject nor the outcome of the case as you see it. If you are unable to do so it would be better if you found a separate forum in which to air your views. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 13:53, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Exactly which 'separate forum' do you have in mind? If you read newspapers, you will see that all of my comments are supported by reliable sources.Borgmcklorg (talk) 12:54, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Borgmcklorg; I've hatted the section. Keep your opinions to yourself, please, when discussing an article. If all you are at the talk page to do is soapbox then please be aware it is not welcome, or productive. Perhaps this can be the end of it. --Errant ^(chat!) 13:55, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

No it is not, it is not soapboxing and to say it is just a method of denigration. Other comments have been deleted here, too, all I was doing on the discussion page was reiterating points that have been in the major media (as was the NYT article about Strauss-Kahn's almost secret defense team consisting of lawyers, detectives and publicists). Was not expressing personal opinions.Borgmcklorg (talk) 11:55, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

The article as it stands is just as much soapboxing (on behalf of S-K), and the current version of the Wikinews article (with a big loud link on the top page of Wikipedia) is even more so (disgraceful POV wording and inaccuracies). If you'd like a debate on that, I will gladly take it up point by point.Borgmcklorg (talk) 12:54, 25 August 2011 (UTC)=

NOTE: Borgmcklorg has just reinserted his/her policy-violating comments, combined with a personal attack on editors. [81] Evidently he/she has no intention of doing anything but causing trouble. Time for a block? AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:03, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I have blocked for 31 hours, with a rationale of WP:DISRUPT in respect of violation WP:FORUM after having consensus found against them making their comments above. Should this short term block not deter them, I would suggest making the next one indefinite - for as long as they disregard consensus. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:57, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Admins should be aware that AndytheGrump, ErantX and others (OfftorioRob, Wikiwatcher1) have for many weeks engaged in WP:Ownership and Tag-Team intimidation of others who edit this article (and DSK's bio). Virtually all of their edits tend to present a beneficent POV about of DSK and thereby cast doubt on the credibility of his (BLP) accusers (of which there are least six named in reliable sources, including Diallo, Tristane Banon, her mother, Piroska Nagy, the Mexican maid, etc). By this point, asking about the tag-team's bias (and possible motivations for it) is reasonable. This has been amply documented elsewhere. Among other WP:Crush ploys, the tag-team will insist on ever-increasing explanations for inclusion of any point written -- and then turn around and accuse new editors of 'coatracking' based on the very explanations that they demanded. It is clever-by-half, and does a disservice to WP readers. Benefac (talk) 13:45, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Admins should note that the above statement is off-topic for this thread, unaccompanied by any evidence whatsoever, and in my case at least (though I'm sure the same is true of the other editors named), demonstrably false. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:19, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

re User:Jm1106

I'd like to ask for input/advisement on one issue and help with a second one.

Was this a good block?

A brand-new user, User:Jm1106, began her editing career by inserting about 40 external links into towns in eastern Massachusetts. Town info from the local paper, here's an example.

In my opinion these are good links. Other users don't agree (there's an ongoing discussion here). But even if they're not OK, they're arguably OK. Arguments supporting the links may be wrong, but they're not nonsense or madness.

User:Jm1106 might be an agent of the Patriot Ledger or its parent, out to promote newspapers. I doubt it, but other people think she probably is. Maybe it's 50-50 odds. There's no way to know for sure. But even is she is, if the links are good (or even arguably good) that's not necessarily a deal-killer. (BTW the links were restored and are in the articles now.)

Regardless of either of this considerations, she got blocked for this.

Now, of course I understand that a brand-new editor inserting a bunch of external links raises a red flag. That's fine; it should. However, And we're busy; we have to work fast here. So it's understandable that the person was blocked. (I guess. I wouldn't have done it. But whatever). But in my opinion this was a false positive, and and bad block. And the person was blocked with no warning or engagement of any kind, with no real explanation (just the phrase "Spamming or advertising), and forever. Which makes it that much worse.

But a bunch of other people disagree: The blocking admin (User:SchuminWeb) sure does, and admin User:JamesBWatson I'd say. Non-admin User:Thparkth called it "a good block, properly executed", and User:Wikiklrsc agrees I gather.

To my mind, this is nuts. Aren't we supposed to be welcoming new users? But maybe I'm wrong. I've stated my case and other involved people have stated theirs, so I'm just asking for the collected wisdom of the solons who inhabit this board: was this a good block? (I'm not asking if it was an understandable mistake but if was actively a good thing? Is the kind of block we should be making, and encouraging our new admins to make? Is the lack of warning a regrettable oversight, or actively a good thing (e.g. warnings would have been a waste of time or would have been coddling the user or whatever)?

(By the way and FWIW, since my attempts to the user unblocked in a timely fashion failed (see below), the user came back, saw she was blocked, and objected to having her attempts to contribute met with a block and kissed us goodbye. This is exactly what I feared and expected if we didn't act with a little alacrity. It looks like we just pissed away a useful new contributor. Granted, she could be yanking our chain (but I have no reason to think that). And granted, there was no way to prove to she was legit before the fact. Still, does this new info make a difference? Is the "good block!" camp still in high-five mode? I'm just asking.)

Request for unblock

I requested the blocking editor to undo (or at least explain) this block, and didn't make much headway there. I then made an unblock request on the blocked user's talk page. This was rejected on the grounds that only the blocked user can use {{unblock}} on her page. (I maintain that whether or not this is technically true, WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY overrides this for an otherwise-valid non-trolling request especially when we're trying to quickly avoid pissing a away a new contributor before she returns and see's she's blocked, but but OK, fine, whatever, I'm not here to fight about that.)

So since I can't use {{unblock}} on the user's talk page (I guess), I'm making my third-part request here: will someone please unblock this person?

A couple of points:

• This may be moot, since the user has stated "I guess that's all the Wikipedia contributions I'll be making". But you never know. An abject apology might help. It's a matter of principle also.
• The person declining to unblock didn't look into the merits of the case, but I see indications that he has since, and thinks the block was valid on its merits. That's very different. But the unblock-decline doesn't say that. I'm not sure if one is allowed to edit the unblock-decline reason days after the fact (I hope not), so my third-party unblock request here is valid, I would say. Herostratus (talk) 07:28, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I just left a couple of notes on your talkpage Herostratus - you've handled this rather poorly, and your own actions probably actually helped lead to the editor leaving. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:02, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

That's possible. I did my best. I'm all ears as to what I have done differently. I was trying to get the user unblocked before she knew it. I think you may be way, was overestimating how likely good-faith brand-new users, upon being being blocked (without warning, engagement, or explanation), are likely to say "Oh, well, it's just the Wikipedia whack-a-mole game, I'll just use the template they provide and read through the material the point to and go through the litigation required and so forth, all in good spirit" and way way underestimating how likely they are to throw up their hands in horror, disgust, amazement, and trauma and just go away. Being blocked from a website is a very very traumatic experience for most people. Most people have never been arrested and so forth, and a lot of people have never been suspended from school (or even had detention!) or anything like that, or been called on the carpet for a serious chewing-out by their boss and so forth. Most people are very good about following the rules of whatever situation they are in and for the average person this is probably the worst punishment they have ever had, OK? This is quite possibly the first time someone has told them "You've broken the rules, and badly, and you're in serious trouble here", at least as an adult. I know for a Wikipedia insider it's all part of "Under the spreading chestnut tree/I blocked you and you blocked me", but can you not understand that most people don't live in that world? Herostratus (talk) 17:18, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

"The person declining to unblock didn't look into the merits of the case" is not correct. I did look into the merits of the case. Since the user had not requested an unblock I procedurraly declined the unblock request placed by a third party. I did not say "and I have not looked further into the case, so I don't know whether I would have accepted an unblock request if the blocked user had made one", which for some reason Herostratus evidently thinks was implied. I simply didn't mention what I would have done if the user had requested an unblock, because the question didn't arise. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:55, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

OK, sorry, but was going by your unblock reason ("If the user wants to be unblocked then they can say so, and their request can be considered. So far that has not happened" and your first response when I asked to you reconsider: "'Pettifoggery'? 'Bureaucracy'? Why unblock an editor who has not requested an unblock? If the user wants to be unblocked then they can say so, and their request can be considered. This certainly looks like you didn't look into the merits of the case or, if you did, considered them moot. If you looked into the merits of the case, well for goodness' sake why didn't you say so? I can't know what's in your mind, and if you had declined the block on the merits that'd have been different and we probably wouldn't be here -- I'm not inclined to try to overturn a block and an on-the-merits unblock-decline, if there's even a mechanism to do so (I might have brought it up as something to review in general, as part of the first section of this thread). Herostratus (talk) 17:18, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

There's something oddly familiar about that red-link user's ID. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:12, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

If you've got anything more, Bugs, then spit it out; I'm going to unblock the user in a few minutes if all you have a vague sense of unease. --Floquenbeam (talk) 12:33, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

• Unblocked. As I've noted elsewhere regarding other similar situations, this is not so much a bad rogue block, as it is a symptom of a systematically poor approach we have to new editors breaking the rules. --Floquenbeam (talk) 12:54, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Unblocked? Despite the fact that several other admins and some other editors have indicated that they think the block was appropriate? I don't see consensus for that. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:55, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I might be misreading policy, but a reversion can be done without consensus. He is simply responding to a good faith request from a third party. Personally, I think the block is understandable, but also WP:ROPE should be considered...--Cerejota (talk) 15:02, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and WP:BITE too...--Cerejota (talk) 15:03, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm neither claiming consensus for or against. An unblock was the right thing to do, so I did it. Normally I'd check with the blocking admin, but since he made it clear he wasn't going to discuss it, I went ahead and unblocked. If this was a good block according to policy, then the policy is bogus and needs to be changed. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:15, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

As a note, "Answerbook" is not a "local paper" - it's a link to enterprisenews.com/<TownName>, which publishes the AnswerBook. That could very easily be considered advertising. From the paper's about: "The Enterprise is an afternoon daily newspaper published in Brockton, Mass. It is considered a newspaper of record for Brockton and nearby towns in northern Bristol and Plymouth counties, and southern Norfolk County."

So the question becomes why this paper is somehow more trustworthy than other papers, and the simple answer is that it is not. In my community, there are two papers, the major paper and a local weekly nobody reads. I think that this paper is the latter, and its competitor is the major: "The Patriot Ledger has been the South Shore's newspaper since 1837."

Therefore, there is no reason to be linking to it repeatedly for every town it covers (and the editor missed quite a few). There is likely a COI behind this, seeing as how this just came out both on enterprisenews.com and patriotledger.com (the competitor, owned by the same company) not one day ago. This is the very definition of linkspamming. I would imagine that the user won't make any more contributions, as the user has no more to make, having finished spamming the articles in question. MSJapan (talk) 01:38, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Also, a Captain Obvious! statement that not everyone would notice - the user went in alphabetical order through the towns, and by county as well, if I don't miss my guess. They were clearly using a list. This was not good-faith editing by any means, and while perhaps it could have been handled differently, I think the block itself was good. MSJapan (talk) 01:42, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

No, the block wasn't good. The block notice was the first post to their talk page. We are supposed to discuss/educate/warn new editors first. You could very well be right about their motivations, but you could also be wrong. We shouldn't block if there is any possibility of it being a misguided but good faith editor. In fact, even if it was certain that this was someone affiliated with the website, a block would not have been appropriate until we explained that that isn't what we do here. If the link adding continued after a talk page warning, then a block might be in order. But "good block" doesn't mean "they were probably spamming, so let's block just to be safe". "Good block" means "we tried explaining and it didn't work, now we now they're spamming and unwilling to abide by our policies". --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:54, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

As I said, methodology could have been different, but the end result was likely correct. MSJapan (talk) 06:18, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I think it[s a very reasonable procedure for someone to find a source, and use it where it applies. It's a much more effective way of sourcing articles than taking an individual random article and finding a source, then taking another unconnected article, etc. Doing things alphabetically is also a good idea. To the extent we have information on local things, we need to use local sources. I don't necessarily support using them for notability in some topic fields (such as high school sports), but when we're dealing with an article on a town they're usually the best sources. We need to assume some degree of good intent from new users; even if their initial purpose or actions are not what we ideally would want, most of them can learn. Indefinite blocks of users should really be deprecated except for vandalism or repeated copyvio. Adding external links is not in that sort of category. I totally agree with Floquenbeam, but I';m saying it again to make plain how important I think this is. Without new editors, Wikipedia will first stagnate and then die, for none of the present editors will be around forever. The rule that a blocked ed. has to ask themselves is pure BURO. It is very good practice to remove things that would unfairly discourage a new editor. Remove, and apologize also. The statement that an admin considered the "merits" when they admit they just considered the formalities seems confused. The merits are whether the original work was block-worthy. It wasn't. But it's the sort of thing that's blocked here all too often. It's a disgrace, and anyone who has tried to work with new editors is surely aware of it. DGG ( talk ) 02:10, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't want to belabor the point, but I don't think AGF applies, and I don't think this was a new editor. I noticed the previous edit (before rv) to Abington, Massachusetts was by User:Patriotledger who added the exact same EL Jm1106 did. I think that was what Bugs was referring to earlier by "familiar". Alexf blocked PL for spam (and I'd say an obvious COI, as the Patriot Ledger is the other paper, and the publisher of the link). Therefore, "I have no beak and I must quack"; I would say it was the same user coming back from a different IP. Why else would two "new editors" start with the same edit on the same article two days apart and get the wl correct on the first shot? RFCU, perhaps? Again, it might have been handled differently, but there may have also been some good intuition. MSJapan (talk) 06:18, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

If this was believed to be a sock returning in defiance of a ban, either that should be the reason for the block or the user page should be tagged appropriately to note that it is a sock. In that case, there was poor communication here. If this is a new contributor, it's appalling to block without advising them of the problem with their behavior and allowing them to stop. In that case, there was poor communication here. Either way, communication was poor. (And as a matter of principle, I agree with User:DGG. We can't lose sight of how important it is to bring in new contributors.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:51, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

User:MSJapan has made a very key finding and point here in the User:Patriotledger and User:Jm1106 saga. --- Wikiklrsc (talk) 14:01, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Long term vandal needs stopping

Today, I discovered that Tokusatsu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) had been, once again, vandalized by an individual I have classified as the Saban troll based on how he at one point replaced pages with screeds against Haim Saban (example here).

Due to a series of edit filters, he has not been able to replace whole pages with his screed (failed attempts here). However, he has been putting his attention to other articles, such as Meryl Streep (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Charlie's Angels (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), and Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (1987 TV series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), the last two of which were protected (along with a series of other pages last week). Today I discovered that he made changes to Rhoda Montemayor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), an actress who portrayed Power Ranger, that made her Catalonian instead of Filipino, and removed any mention of her Power Rangers role from the page. Based on his editing patterns and the fact that all of his IP addresses are similar, I have narrowed down his IPs to the following ranges:

• 67.70.152.0/22 (67.70.152.0 - 67.70.155.255)
• 70.48.112.0/22 (70.48.112.0 - 70.48.115.255)

This individual cannot be reasoned with. There was once an abuse report put in that made him go away for a period of time, but Bell Canada just does not seem to give a shit and he keeps getting service from them. If the ISP will not stop him, then the only recourse we have is stopping him ourselves, once more.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 19:25, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Funny how ISPs don't seem to give a shit about what their PAYING customers get up to on wikipedia aint it? 2.121.29.24 (talk) 07:14, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

As long as they get their money, I don't think the ISPs really care. –MuZemike 14:50, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

It turns out 70.48.112.0/22 has been blocked for 3 months by Black Kite, but 67.70.152.0/22 has only been blocked for a week by Materialscientist. Seeing as this guy has been at it for years now, can we extend these blocks into mid 2012 to give us time to report his ass to Sympatico?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 19:24, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Has this been brought up at WP:ABUSE? If the user is active only on those IP ranges, and they both belong to the same ISP, it should be a relatively straightforward matter. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 19:34, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

It was brought up at WP:ABUSE on the previous ranges he utilized (Wikipedia:Abuse reports/64.231.0.0/16). He was stopped for a while, but he has been back in action on these new ranges, several more of which can be seen in the edit filter's log.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 22:26, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I guess the question at this point is if the old blocked IP range is still active? If so I'd say a long block would be appropriate... and if that's not available then is there a way we can update abuse filter?
We need to have zero tolerance for this kind of long term vandalism, where it's quite clear it's no longer just "messing around". I hope this thread doesn't get ignored, because notwithstanding all the very exciting ANI drama, in a better world this is the kind of thing that ANI ought to be actually handling regularly, and individual page squabbles should be the rare exception. Shadowjams (talk) 09:37, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

The abuse filter is doing its job. However, there are other edits that it does not cover that are going through that allow us to identify this guy. He's on the two ranges I listed above, both of which are blocked for now. The edits to Tokusatsu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (1987 TV series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Meryl Streep (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), and Rhoda Montemayor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and the others are ones that are hard to track and I doubt can be blocked by an abuse filter. Blocking this guy for a year or two would probably help things out better while we contact Sympatico, again, to get him blacklisted or whatever.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 21:05, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Threeafterthree

User:Threeafterthree has for some time objected to links to the website of John C. McAdams, a Marquette University professor who has published a book on the JFK assassination and whose website is widely recognized as an excellent resource. McAdams' credentials are detailed in his WP article. Threeafterthree has periodically removed links to this website with merely the edit summary "per WP:EL" and has generally refused to discuss the issue. On the few occasions he has engaged in talk page or noticeboard discussion, he has made broad generalizations about the quality of the website or about McAdams himself, abandoning the discussion before substantiating any of these generalizations in any way. He will then generally wait a few months and remove the EL again.

After I restored a couple of such links today, Threeafterthree retaliated by

• going on a deletion spree of McAdams links
• reverting me on an entirely unrelated article which he does not appear to be currently editing
• libeling McAdams in an edit summary which I've deleted
• Replacing links to McAdams with links to [ www.prouty.org/mcadams/ a website] (his own?) devoted to the late L. Fletcher Prouty, a former USAF officer who has become a hero to conspiracy theorists for his rather bizarre allegations regarding the JFK assassination, the CIA, etc. The page linked to is basically an attack page directed at a BLP, calling McAdams "Laughing stock of the Internet". Not only that, it is an attack page directed at me personally, with a picture of myself apparently taken from Wikipedia cyberstalker Daniel Brandt's hive mind hit list and (obviously false) allegations that I'm a Nazi.

This is really beyond the pale, something I'd expect from a drive-by anon, not an editor who has been here almost six years. Contentious editing and refusal to discuss is certainly one thing, but I would think libeling a living individual and posting an attack page directed at a BLP and another editor demands some sort of serious and immediate sanction. Gamaliel (talk) 21:42, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

• Note: I have notified User:Threeafterthree of this discussion here. --Kinu ^t/_c 21:53, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I've only just started looking into this, but it looks pretty bad. Even if the links added by Gamaliel were inappropriate (not saying they were but even if they were) replacing them with links to attack sites falls in the realm of disruption to make a point, and following him to another completely unrelated article and reverting him there as well would appear to be WP:HOUNDING. I'd be interested to hear how Threeafterthree could rationalize taking such actions. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:30, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

• I tend to agree with Beeblebrox on this one. Unfortuantely, this does appear to be a POINTy series of actions. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 22:54, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Try AGF. Single reverts where other editors appear to share his concerns != "beyond the pale." Recommended cure is a cup of tea - making mountains out of relative molehilss does not not benefit Wikipedia as far as I can tell. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:43, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Your response to posting an attack page directed at me and a BLP is for me to AGF? Since you don't take WP policies like BLP and CIVIL seriously in this comment, I don't think this comment should be taken seriously. Gamaliel (talk) 22:46, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Seriously, Collect? Personally, replacing Wikipedia links with links to an attack page that libels another editor (and has major BLP concerns) sounds more like something that deserves an immediate block. Looking more into this now. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:02, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Really, Collect. Attacking another editor and reverting all their edits cannot be explained away with a smile and a nod. I'm sure you've heard the old saw before that AGF is not a suicide pact. We should not ignore what appears to be a deliberate attack by one long-term user on another one because of the (extremely faint) possibility it was an innocent mistake. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:07, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

There is no way this is a mistake, especially adding the attack page. Threeafterthree removed MANY external links recently, there is not way they would "innocently" add such a blatant WP:ELNO page. None. This was intentional and hostile. The crap on the attack page directed towards Gamaliel, since threeafterthree linked it to WP, should earn them something beyond a trout. Ravensfire (talk) 03:10, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Also, note that the attack page was added to the L. Fletcher Prouty article. Would someone mind judging if that's a viable EL? Ravensfire (talk) 03:12, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

It plainly isn't (although neither was the link that it replaced). I've removed both. As for threeafterthree, the most cursory examination of his block log is telling enough. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 09:14, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Allright then, we seem to have a general agreement here. I'm going to indef block Threeafterthree. This sort of attack editing has no place whatsoever on Wikipedia. I note they were let out of their last indef block merely because the blocking admin was out of town when they appealed it. As it happens I will be unavailable after today for five or six days, if a consensus to unblock becomes clear I do not ask for the block to be held pending my return, but I do ask that it be a consensus, not just one admin's opinion upon reviewing what I anticipate will be a convoluted tap-dance of an unblock request. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:50, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

• I am late to the party, but for the record, based on the presentation of the case above I am endorsing the outcome as the only conceivable one. Hans Adler 18:49, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

• Concur w/Adler. As to the AGF discussion, a point that is important to stress is that it is a rebuttable presumption. When an editor's actions rebut the presumption, as I agree was the case here, one should not be "assuming good faith" any longer.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:51, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

• Personally, I think some of their recent actions bring credit to neither User:Threeafterthree nor User:Gamaliel. I think both have removed relevant and appropriate links (that appear to differ from their own personal viewpoint). Gamaliel, really, removing and blacklisting prouty dot org "the Fletcher Prouty Reference Site" from the article on Fletcher Prouty? How is Wikipedia supposed to aspire towards accuracy and NPOV when we can't link to the subject of the article's own words? That a notable person who is the subject of an article has "non mainstream" or "fringe" opinions does not by itself seem reason for wholesale removal and blacklisting of any links to their own words. (We have articles on people IMO a lot wackier than Prouty -- Lyndon LaRouche comes to mind -- and are able to have reasonably balanced articles on them without such drastic tactics.) -- Infrogmation (talk) 22:57, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

This thread appears to being fading into obscurity with no resolution. I will say, first, that I feel that an indef block is wholly correct. But in order to attempt to achieve a consensus on unblock I will comment below the current extant unblock request on the users talk page, and hope that other admins will add their opinions as they see fit. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 19:29, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Personal attack by User:Evlekis

Resolved

 – Blocked for 31h

This user has just claimed I have "severe learning difficulties". I don't. I've had enough of this user's attacks against me. Absconded Northerner (talk) 23:07, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

• Indeed. Given the discussion above this one, you would expect the user to have learnt exactly what a "collaborative editing environment" is. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:12, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Very interesting that 24 hours ago another user has expressed this opinion of AN based on a discussion completely unrelated to the one that I am currently having with AN. Hans Adler 18:53, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Has anybody got a cleanup bot?

Resolved

 – Contribution already deleted and user blocked. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 06:48, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't do IRC, or I'd ask there.

An indefinitely-blocked user went on a spree of creating inappropriate welcome message, as his lengthy contribution history attests. Is there an easy way to delete these pages en masse? They all appear to be where his is he only edit to the page. —C.Fred (talk) 06:35, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Same as the other 20 or so disruptive accounts, and about the 5th one who has been using vandalbots to fap over Nazis. All such accounts blocked and  IP blocked. –MuZemike 06:49, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

All socks I have blocked are all  Confirmed as Felipe Garcia (talk · contribs). –MuZemike 06:53, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I ran into a slight variation of that name about a week ago. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:36, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

For those who don't know (I didn't know for a long time), there is a mass delete tool for this. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 08:19, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Excessive inappropriate userspace content

Resolved

 – Page has been CSDed, no further action on the UAA concern. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:39, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Please see contribution history and userspace content of Guney azerbaycan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). User is using Wikipedia user space as a means to promote/publicize his own political cause, and this recently entered the article space. I don't know if anything here is grounds for an immediate block or deletion of the user page, but I would like an admin or someone more comfortable with addressing this sort of issue than me to take a look at it. Thank you. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:17, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I CSD's the userspace as G11 for promoting/soapboxing. I also CSD A10'd the article for duplicating an existing topic.--v/r - TP 15:30, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I think the user name is a policy violation too: Google Translate states it means "South Azerbaijan" [84], and from the talk page, the user is promoting the South Azerbaijan Independence Party. I know nothing of the merits of the cause, but it appears inappropriate for Wikipedia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:36, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Not a blatant violation of the username policy. South Azerbaijan is a region. If it was "South Azerbaijan Independence Party" it would be a violation. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:34, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Gun Powder Ma engaged in Baiting and personal attacks, also revealing locations of other users

User:Gun Powder Ma, who has been warned and blocked for personal attacks before, appears to be engaged in WP:BAIT, with another user, GPM also openly posted the location of the user on his talk page, (the city where he was residing) which can be considered subtle intimidation. It occured Today, on August 25 2011.

This occured on User talk:BlueonGray today on August 25, 2011.

First he engaged in baiting- " Unlike you I don't need to remain silent on my identity, I have nothing to hide. :-)" and then he posted the users ip address, "Greetings to 98.142.247.157"

Next he openly posted his location "Pity for you. Greetings to Toronto. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 00:40, 25 August 2011 (UTC)"

He has quite a history of personal attacks and getting away with them, and he has posted other user's real life locations, potentially leading to harm

On Talk:Roman_metallurgy/Archive_1#Dubious_iron_production_figures- (these are from one year ago)

"(talk about WP crowded by nerds and singles). Gun Powder Ma (talk) 10:50, 30 June 2010 (UTC)"

"I know it rattles your Han national pride big time that modern scholars find the Roman Empire outproducing all other ancient empires by two-digit factors, but if you cannot even stomach harmless estimates move back from Baltimore, USA, to where you've been making cheap propaganda for all along. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 00:14, 1 July 2010 (UTC)"

Talking about low ball: although you might not have even noticed yet, but in most places on earth, and I subscribe to that view heartily, people who do renrou sousuo are considered outright shit. User:Gun Powder Ma (talk) 10:39, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

He then proceeded to replace "shit" with "idiots", and then "as having no life", and then "morally defective

I request a block be imposed upon User:Gun Powder Ma. He's been warned to keep civil before and continues to engage in baiting and mockery. (and revealing the locations of other users potentially leads to real life harm).DÜNGÁNÈ (talk) 18:02, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah he does seem to step over the line sometimes. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:04, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

While I won't argue that GPM is a bit...shall we say...abrasive, how is what he did any different than another user (myself, for example, since I do it often) posting a {{shared IP}} template on the IP's Talk page? WHOIS information often contains location data, especially when it involves an address range registered to a school, and posting WHOIS info on a IP user's Talk page is specifically described as NOT being WP:OUTING by that policy. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 18:11, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I also just now saw that the original reporter had not notified GPM of this discussion. I have taken the liberty of doing so. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 18:13, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

You beat him by 18 seconds. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:18, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

actually we posted our notices on the exact same second

People deliberately sign up for accounts to avoid detection, since they don't want to be outed. Ip addresses are given warning that it will be recorded publicly in the page's history. User:Blueongray presumably signed up for an account in order to remain anonymous, but GPM essentially rubbed his location in his face in a taunting, mocking way- he put "Pity for you" right before he mention his location.

also, User:Intranetusa and GPM did not just have the argument here on wikipedia. It spilled over from China history forum, and I don't know where GPM got Intranetusa's location, but he did get it and openly posted it on the talk page, Intranetusa mentioned he lived in Maryland on his userpage, but GPM then posted his city and told him to essentially get out of the USA, called him a "Shit", and accused him of "national pride", which violates ad hominem in personal attacksDÜNGÁNÈ (talk) 18:22, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Ah. Somehow, I completely missed that he'd posted that on a registered user's Talk page. And unless I'm mistaken, that does violate WP:OUTING. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 18:36, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Isn't this WP:OUTING? Shouldn't User:Gun Powder Ma be blocked? I'm a bit new to the mop, but how specific does a location have to be before it's considered outing?--v/r - TP 18:37, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

'Fraid so. The pertinent part of WP:OUTING: "Unless unintentional and non-malicious (for example, where Wikipedians know each other off-site and may inadvertently post personal information, such as using the other person's real name in discussions), attempted outing is grounds for an immediate block.". I don't think anyone can make a good case that GPM's actions were either unintentional or non-malicious, given both the content and context of the remarks. This is, of course, merely my (non-admin) 2p. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 18:42, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

The only thing that holds me back is that WP:OUTING says "home or workplace address".--v/r - TP 18:47, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi. First, most of these quotes of mine are over one year old (!) and have to be understood in the context of the debates then which today, I venture, hardly anyone can reconstruct nor cares much for anymore. It hardly needs to be mentioned that unearthing one-year old quotes to make a point is widely seen as unconstructive 'dishing out' and as such WP's spirits. I have been over five years editing, with over 10,000 edits. If a couple of these were less than amicable, I apologize but the percentage which is low has to be taken in account.

Second, it is quite absurd to suggest I would "intimidate" BlueonGray, the IP is recorded in this article which BlueonGray, a classic single-purpose account (1) has been editing disruptively solely since March. Each day, many thousands of anonymous IPs edit WP, you know. I only wanted to suggest to him that it did not went beyond me that, apart from his username edits, he has also vandalized the article anonymously. If he is not this IP (and thus does not live in Toronto), this is just as fine with me. Hope that settles it. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 18:51, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

five years of editing with repeated warnings and blocks over that time. After a while, the message has to sink in. Otherwise you'll just attack another editor, apologize, and avoid a block. Since you've been warned already about personal attacks, an apology just doesn't cut it.DÜNGÁNÈ (talk) 18:58, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

You still haven't explained why you outed Intranetusa, and the "context of the debates" is very relevant, since you appear to have brought over fights from China history forum and allempires.com onto wikipedia in your tangle with Intranetusa, exactly the same thing you accuse BlueonGray of doing with the newspaper article and Duchesne. You have displayed WP:BATTLEGROUND and I can find your posts on allempires.com and chinahistoryforum to prove it if you wish.DÜNGÁNÈ (talk) 19:03, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Gun Powder MA did bring up a point which I missed in that most of the diffs you provided were a year old. No misrepresentation on your part, you did begin by saying he had a history of this behavior I just didn't notice the dates. I also don't think the first quote was really all that baiting. That said, Gun Powder MA, posting the IP address and location of a user is clearly uncivil whether or not it was easy to obtain.--v/r - TP 19:04, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Comment: You should be aware that DÜNGÁNÈ was one year ago part of the whole dispute. This should not explain anything away, but users participating in this ANI should be aware that he not some neutral user but a party. I did not really interacted with him in contents work since, but he seem to monitor my page to take advantage of trivialities such as these. Enough said. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 19:19, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

If I was monitoring your contributions, I would have barged into the debate on Indian inventions (only found out after Aua mentioned it at medieval islamic inventions) and other things relating to Persia which I just found out you have deleted, I would also have noted your manipulation on Talk:Plough/Archive 1#Heavy_Moldboard_Iron_Plough, which only came to my attention after the fact. This incident only came to my attention after I noticed how frequently Dechesne's citations appeared on different articles. Not only that, I was not involved in the dispute on Roman metal production figures, which you dragged over with Intranetusa on ChinahistoryforumDÜNGÁNÈ (talk) 19:43, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Dredging up diffs over a year old doesn't indicate a continuing problem: it points up a lack of one William M. Connolley (talk) 19:06, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Also, if you actually cared about "user's real life locations, potentially leading to harm", instead of just using it for point-scoring, you wouldn't have reposted location or IP in such a visible place William M. Connolley (talk) 19:11, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) That's not true. Some folks panic and they dont realize they are making a situation worse when they ask for help. That or they don't know the right way to handle it.--v/r - TP 19:16, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

the fact that the diffs are over one year old points to a lack of vigilance that his grossly offensive attacks were not spotted and reported. Also, GPM did not explain why he felt it was nessecary to post the location of the ip addresss. He originally just posted the address itself, then proceeded to post "Pity for you. Greetings to Toronto".

If GPM meant good intentions, he would only have posted the ip address. Instead, he traced the ip to the actualy city and posted its location. That is clearly malicious.DÜNGÁNÈ (talk) 19:15, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

So if posting "Toronto" is such a terrible thing, why have you done it (again?). The obvious answer is because it really isn't terrible at all. Pointing out to an anon that they are geolocatable is actually doing them a favour William M. Connolley (talk) 19:17, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

What "favour" would this be? What possible reason could he have had for revealing my location other than as a suggestive threat in order to shut me up? I merely nominated the biographical entry for Ricardo Duchesne for deletion on the grounds that Duchesne does not meet the criteria for scholarly importance and influence. I pointed out that Duchesne's most successful scholarly piece has been cited a paltry 12 times. To this, Gun Powder's response was to reveal my location and to threaten to have me blocked. What "favour" would he have been doing by publicly disclosing my location?--BlueonGray (talk) 19:59, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

It's the principal of the matter. Gun Powder MA's intention was to scare another editor and make them hesitate the next time they choose to edit. Whether it was effective or not or minor is irrelevant.--v/r - TP 19:19, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

User:BlueonGray signed up for a reason, presumably that he wanted to conceal his ip address. He was no longer an ip address when GPM posted his location. Its not "doing him a favor". if GPM wanted to "do him a favor", he would have said nothing about his location since BlueonGray's ip address was no longer visible.

GPM said "Pity for you", which could be an insinuation that something bad is coming his way, constituting phsycological intimidation (like telling BlueonGray to drop his dispute or else).DÜNGÁNÈ (talk) 19:28, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

We should be taking civility seriously. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:47, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Its pretty obvious from the above that D is very vociferously anti-GPM. And dredging up year-old diffs says that this has been simmering for a long time. So could D explain where his animosity against GPM comes from? It clearly isn't this incident; this is just an excuse William M. Connolley (talk) 20:19, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

You should assume good faith and chill out, we should be valuing the evidence not the contributor in question. If all we have is year old diffs then there isn't a particular problem. If things are still occurring now maybe we need to take them more seriously. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:26, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

It can equally be as pertinent that User:William M. Connolley is desperately trying to defend Gun Powder Ma. the two acted together on the list of inventions in medieval islam article, not only that, GPM has canvassed William Connolley against me before (GPM withdrew his complaint since everyone agreed that I did not attack him), which might hint that GPM knows Connolley supports him. If William M. Connolley did not attempt to defend GPM and claim that GPM's clearly malicious post was doing a "favour" to BlueonGrey, and then he claimed I have a vendetta against GPM, his point might be legitimate if he gave evidence. But the moment he defended GPM's malicious attack as a "Favour", outs him as clearly pro GPM, possibly his friend, since he defended him against an indefendable offense.DÜNGÁNÈ (talk) 20:45, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Come to think of it, this is now the second or even third time, DÜNGÁNÈ, that you post on some talk page or noticeboard the same one-year old quotes which is a clear case of WP:ADMINSHOP and should bring your actions themselves into close scrutinity. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 21:20, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

And where else did I post your attacks on User:Intranetusa? Where else did I post those "one year old quotes? Can you provide a link showing me posting those exact quotes somewhere else?DÜNGÁNÈ (talk) 21:36, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree. I just saw that User:William M. Connolley made a dubious edit to the entry on Ricardo Duchesne, the entry which is currently under discussion for deletion and which Gun Powder Ma is trying (with very weak evidence) to preserve. Connolley's edits provided a more flattering, even though misleading, portrait of Duchesne. I have edited that entry in order to provide greater detail and accuracy.--BlueonGray (talk) 20:56, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

also, GPM's outing of User:BlueonGray happened today, not one year ago.DÜNGÁNÈ (talk) 20:45, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

The point of assuming good faith about other editors actions applies to you as well as it does pointing the other way. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:52, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Eraserhead1. This discussion should focus on the legitimacy of disclosing a registered user's IP address and location in the middle of a discussion over whether to delete a biographical entry. There is simply no ethical justification for revealing a registered user's IP address and location. The only conceivable reason would be as a suggestive threat in order to shut that user (i.e. me) up. I fail to see how that could possibly be interpreted in a more benign light.--BlueonGray (talk) 20:40, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

For people who are unaware of the wider dispute: User:BlueonGray is demonstrably a single-purpose account who has been ever editing only this one article, invariably negatively. He is identical in name with one BlueonGray who actually 'debated' Duchesne this February on a Canadian site in a resentful manner: For the record, if anyone is turned off by Western civilization, it is because of the arrogance and tastelessness of its self-appointed representatives like Ricardo Duchesne. (Posted by Blue on Gray, Feb 12, 2011 5:28 PM). Nine days later Wikipedia's BlueonGray registered and began editing the article disruptively. On his talk page, Wikipedia's BlueonGray refuses to acknowledge whether he is the same person, desspite my repeated requests. The whole Afd he has launched can be thus regarded as a thinly-veiled case of WP:Battleground, namely Wikipedia is not a place to...import personal conflicts. This is what I was referring to with "Pity for you". It's a pity that he misuses WP for his own personal crusade against Duchesne. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 21:20, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

The issue here is the legitimacy of disclosing a registered user's IP address and location. There is no justification for that kind of conduct. It is egregiously unethical and a transparent form of intimidation and harassment. We have seen above that you have a history of this sort of behavior. The issue with the entry on Duchesne is scholarly noteworthiness, which is deafeningly lacking. The issue here is the legitimacy of disclosing a registered user's IP address and location, which again is deafeningly lacking. Stick to the issue.--BlueonGray (talk) 21:32, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

The exact same charges can be levelled against User:Gun Powder Ma, who also violated WP:BATTLEGROUND, and demostrates attributes of a Single purpose account. User:Gun Powder Ma has a history of importing personal conflicts from internet forums like chinahistoryforum.com and allempires.com

search Gun powder ma on chinahistoryforum

search Tibet Libre on chinahistoryforum

search gun powder ma on allempires forum

Gun Powder Ma at allempires forum talking about the Moveable type article- "Forget Wiki. If you feel comfortable, I am going to edit the whole article for you. Then you can quote again from Wiki."

See User:DÜNGÁNÈ/Off Wiki Forums for more evidence.DÜNGÁNÈ (talk) 21:36, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

• I think it can easily be agreed that violation of WP:OUTING is a serious issue, and one that should be clearly indicated as having serious consequences to the violator. It is also readily apparent that this is being brought to the attention of admins in pursuit of a dispute between editors involving the violator where sanctions would remove a party to that dispute for the duration of any block and possibly effect the outcome of the issue. The matter raised, including the baiting and personal attacks alleged (and the former again fairly apparent), is however a year old and there is no more recent indication of such violations. Notwithstanding GPM's less than stellar block log I cannot see that there would have been a sanction for more than a matter of weeks (and likely much less) had the concerns been brought forward at that time, so sanctioning the editor now is senseless. So, I propose that Gun Powder Ma should be warned that any repeat going forward of a violation of WP:OUTING will result in a substantial block, regardless of when it is brought to notice, and that further issues of baiting or personal attacks regarding the editors involved in this dispute will likewise be dealt with severely. Then, I suggest, we can let this particular concern lie and allow the various parties to resolve their ongoing dispute via the correct resolution processes. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:40, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

The previous outing and personal attacks were a year old, but the outing against BlueonGray occured today at User talk:BlueonGray. GPM outed users twice and the most recent one was today, not last year. Also his other comments on BlueonGray's talk pages were less than friendly, they brought to mind an indication of gloating and a threatening matterDÜNGÁNÈ (talk) 21:46, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe this outing stuff. But what about WP:BLP, which we're so proud of? As GPM has pointed out, BoG is a SPA unhealthily obsessed with Ricardo Duchesne. What about stuff like [85]? That page has also suffered from IP BLP vios like [86], so wondering if BoG is that IP is entirely valid. Given that this is being considered "outing" I can only presume that is an admission that BoG did indeed make that edit. Or there are edits like [87], which are unquestionably from BoG. If anyone is being sanctioned here, BoG is the obvious one William M. Connolley (talk) 21:56, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

claiming that User:BlueonGray has no right to edit the article on Ricardo is a violation of Wikipedia:Ownership of articles. BlueonGray is free to edit any article he wants. WP:OUTTING also says its considered as outting "whether any such information is accurate or not", which shows Connolley does not understand what is considered outting or not, GPM posted a location (the city where BlueonGray was residing) on his talk page, which was completely unnesesarry. And so what if the ip was BoG? He didn't deny it. We don't even post the private info of vandals, no one at all is allowed to threaten other users with private information.DÜNGÁNÈ (talk) 22:15, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

You are not even trying to hide your partiality. I am new to Wikipedia. I was disturbed that a biographical entry had been created for a total and utter mediocrity like Ricardo Duchense -- someone whose greatest scholarly work has been cited a paltry 12 times. My initial interventions were admittedly amateurish. Since then, I have been learning about the mechanics of Wikipedia and am now working to evaluate the entry on Duchesne according to the community's criteria of scholarly noteworthiness. That much should be recognized. I pointed out that Duchesne does not meet the criteria of a noteworthy scholar, something which he has failed to prove otherwise. To this, Gun Powder's reply has been to disclose my IP address and location, in a clear and obvious attempt at intimidation and harassment. You now are playing legal defense for Gun Powder.--BlueonGray (talk) 22:06, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Why are you making unjustified edits to the entry on Ricardo Duchesne? I correctly listed his multiple concentrations, as well as his dissertation supervisor, who was not H. L. Harris. Why would you undo those? For what reason, if not out of obvious partiality?--BlueonGray (talk) 22:10, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

You can speak of "hide your partiality" and then go on to describe Ricardo Duchense as "total and utter mediocrity". I certainly agree you've been editing the article as though you believed that - your biases are all to obvious. But the vandalism you did as the IP isn't acceptable, and GPM was quite correct to link that IP to you. It is quite clear that you should not be editing the article at all William M. Connolley (talk) 22:14, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

If you call User:BlueonGray "anti Duchense", then GPM is equally as "pro Duchense", since he wrote the entire article, it resembles more of a platform glorigying Duchense's views rather an an encyclopedia entry on him, with GPM engaging in WP:PEACOCK/ puffery- A search for Ricardo Duchesne on wikipedia reveals that in all the articles he is cited in, the citations have been added by none other than Gun Powder Ma himself

Gun Powder Ma calls Duchesne's work an "influential critique" on another article, violating WP:PEACOCK

below this is a list of times GPM inserted Duchesne's work into multiple articles on history and "multiculturalism"

[88][89][90][91][92][93][94][95][96]

GPM calling H. S. Harris the "foremost Hegelian scholar" he changed it to "most influential", which still violates WP:PEACOCK, however, I've just removed it, he might change it back.DÜNGÁNÈ (talk) 00:25, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

These revelations are simply jawdropping. While Gun Powder Ma, William M. Connolley, et al have been arguing that BlueonGray has an unhealthy obsession with Duchesne, it is clear now that BlueonGray is only reacting to GPM's single-handed efforts to promote Duchesne's polemical views, reviews, and articles all over the encyclopedia. If GPM has a conflict of interest to declare in relation to Duchesne, now would be an appropriate time. Quigley (talk) 00:39, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Note that D has started to maintain a list of GPM's off-wiki contributions User:DÜNGÁNÈ/Off_Wiki_Forums. That hardly seems proper William M. Connolley (talk)

GPM has repeatedly dragged disputes from off-wiki Chinahistoryforum.com and allempires.com into wikipedia, which was how his encounter with User:Intranetusa started. this is a violation of WP:BATTLEGROUNDDÜNGÁNÈ (talk) 22:48, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Duchesne is a mediocrity. That much is transparent. No, my initial interventions were not acceptable. However, I can admit fault and then work constructively according to the community's principles. I created a user account precisely to remain anonymous. There is simply NO JUSTIFICATION WHATSOEVER for disclosing my IP address and location. Similarly, your weak and empty defense of Gun Powder's unethical actions has no justification, either. Duchesne remains a mediocrity of no scholarly importance and revealing the IP address of a registered user as a way to shut that user up remains unethical.--BlueonGray (talk) 22:20, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

calm down with the capital letters. However, BlueonGray is right in that the main issue is GPM revealing his location in an intimidating manner, and William N. Connolley only seems to be trying to deflect that issue. If GPM even posted the location of a prolific vandal on his talk page, it would be considered outting and GPM would be penalized. It doesn't matter who the contributer is, if someone outs him, its considered outting. We don't out anyone, whether positive contributer, vandal, disruptive page mover, or even trolls.DÜNGÁNÈ (talk) 22:55, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

My apologies for the use of caps.--BlueonGray (talk) 00:46, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

As I appear to be the only admin taking any interest in this thread, here is my opinion. No admin action is needed. This has spiraled into a bickering contest of Gun Powder MA and Mr. Connolley vs Dungane and BlueonGray. The content issues and civility issues should be discussed on other noticeboards or dispute resolution. The only issue here deserving admin action is incivility by Gun Powder MA, which only one recent diff has been provided and is quite trivial to be honest, and the outing. The outing consists of an IP address that BlueonGray was not careful with in his editing and a very broad location that isn't specific enough to be personally identifying. I feel threatening behavior may have occured and so Gun Powder MA should be warned not to engage in anything close to outing anymore. Does this about sum it up?--v/r - TP 00:25, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with admin TParis, and I hope this nonsense with bringing the issue with the AfD on Ricardo Duchesne onto here will stop. The thread is nearing unreadable. I will stop adding more issues that don't have to do with the outting to this thread, and I recommend everyone else as well. We will carry on the dispute at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ricardo Duchesne. DÜNGÁNÈ (talk) 00:47, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I also want to be clear that I filed this report since I found GPM's attitude toward User:BlueonGray to be unsettling and threatening, and BoG is a new user, not that familiar with wikipedia rules. I also agree with BoG on his AfD. I have left alone other users like User:Teeninvestor who engaged in disputes with GPM, and did not defend them, since Teeninvestor was not a new user, neither did I agree with some of his edits on the Manchu Qing in China.

If I was "violently" against GPM as William M. Connolley claimed., I would have butted into the dispute between GPM and Gnip here- Talk:Plough/Archive 1#Heavy_Moldboard_Iron_Plough and into this dispute GPM had over here on ANI recently. Can he explain my absence from those disputes if I was that antagonistic toward GPM? I was actively editing at the time of those disputes. If I was stalking GPM I would have showed up at these disputes, I only got involved with GPM in the other ANI incident since I was watching User:Aua rather than GPM. I hope this is the end of the mudslinging and bickering, and I'm taking a wikibreak for a day due to diarrhea. This is my final comment for the day.DÜNGÁNÈ (talk) 01:52, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I think Dungane has crossed into WP:HOUND territory. It is plainly obvious that he is desperate for a block against GPM, with whom he seems to have serious beef. Digging up diffs for over a year ago is an unmistakable sign of hounding, I have seen people sanctioned for something like that. As for the accusations of WP:OUTing, since there is no mention of home or workplace or anything remotely close to that, I don't think they stand up to scrutiny. Athenean (talk) 05:48, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

GPM was far more desperate for a block against Dungane (Referring to myself in third person) at this previous ANI thread when he was clammering for a "disciplinary block" for describing his editing pattern to another user. When another User:Quigley came to defend me, GPM described him as having a "Grudge" against him, and User:Quigley exposed the fact that GPM had a vendetta against me, GPM called his comments "largely irrelevant"

Not only that, GPM notified four uninvolved Users, presumably to vote against me [97][98][99][100]. I think its rather safe to say that GPM was rather unnaturally obsessed with getting me blocked.DÜNGÁNÈ (talk) 16:34, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Athenean collaborated with GPM in getting User:Teeninvestor banned from wiki- see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Teeninvestor, and Athenean and GPM also collaborated to push the same POV on Talk:List_of_Indian_inventions_and_discoveries and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ethnic Macedonians of Greece.DÜNGÁNÈ (talk) 16:16, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Athenean. I have had only positive interaction with GPM on Wikipedia. What he is accused of here seems out of character to me. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:12, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

OTOH, my experience with GPM has been one of continual POV pushing over other's added refs. Like a few other editors, he's always right, no matter what anyone else thinks, editor or RS, and he'll cheerfully edit war to demonstrate this. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:23, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Nothing new has been brought to this discussion since my last message. Is this over?--v/r - TP 13:45, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Its over if we all agree that this kind of attitude toward User:BlueonGray and any other user won't be tolerated again.DÜNGÁNÈ (talk) 16:16, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

We'll say that outing, or attempts to intimidate other editors by revealing their general location, is wrong. Aside from that, content issues should be discussed on relevant noticeboards.--v/r - TP 17:53, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Regardless of other behavior, the filibustering by both Gun Powder Ma and BlueonGray on opposite sides of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ricardo Duchesne is turning that AfD into a mess. I tried to clean up the worst of it with collapse boxes but it just grew back again. I think both editors have had plenty of opportunity to make their case on the AfD and should go find something else to do. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:36, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I'm done. I've tried to avoid repeating myself. At this point, I don't think anything more can be said, so I'm finished there. My apologies if I dragged the case too far. I just wanted to be thorough.--BlueonGray (talk) 01:15, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Pigsonthewing repeatedly modifying closed discussion at WT:RJL

Pigsonthewing (talk · contribs) insists on modifying a discussion that I closed at WT:RJL: [101] [102]. For the record, I closed this discussion because certain users decided to use unnecessary rhetoric to disrupt the discussion, and I wanted to shut it down before things got worse. Could some other admins look into the situation? --Rschen7754 23:33, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

With all due acknowledgement of WP:AGF, it was a bad faith attempt to close and this is a bad faith AN/I listing. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:44, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

As I explained in my subsequent comments, the ongoing, contentious discussion was closed prematurely, by an involved editor, with a PoV summary. I undid the closure per WP:BRD. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 23:39, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

1) It is considered acceptable for "involved" editors to close smaller-scale discussions like this; 2) even if not, WP:IAR applies as that discussion was spiraling out of control and becoming uncivil; 3) my closure supported the consensus of the editors who wanted the discussion over and done with. --Rschen7754 23:42, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

[103] - abuse of rollback. --Rschen7754 00:00, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

It is generally acceptable to use rollback in one's own userspace. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 00:15, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Does that include reverting messages you don't agree with on your user talk? --Rschen7754 00:18, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, it is just taken to mean they read the message. Doesn't mean it isn't a bit rude though. -DJSasso (talk) 00:21, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Anybody interested in looking at this? --Rschen7754 04:46, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

The discussion doesn't really look ripe for closure to me. I see it still actively being discussed, and not just sniping (though certainly there is that, too). Heimstern Läufer (talk) 05:02, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not referring to the last section, where there's another attempt at an entirely different proposal - I'm referring to solely the one above it. --Rschen7754 05:04, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Involved editors should find another, uninvolved editor or admin to close things, as involved people closing things blows up drama fests rather than calming things down. We could warn both of you for pushing things, but the best thing to do is for both of you to just stand back a ways and calm down. Please disengage a bit (you too, Andy). Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:13, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Would you be interested in closing the discussion? --Rschen7754 21:57, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I had hoped to resolve a related matter without bringing it here, but I've been rebuffed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:18, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Bt8257 ignoring manual of style

Bt8257 (talk · contribs) has many several edits to NBA playoff articles and while the edits appear to be good faith, the editor is capitalizing every word of the section header. Fair enough, I figure I should leave a message on the user's talk page explaining the manual of style, and perhaps they'll even be nice enough to clean their edits up. [104]. Bt8257 promptly deleted my message [105] (yes I know a user can do that, but one would think it shows that they have read it), and is continuing to capitalize the section headers [106]. I don't want to start an edit war. I'm not sure if this is an exception to wp:3RR, or if editing after clearly being given the link to the MOS guideline is considered vandalism. Thanks. --CutOffTies (talk) 00:29, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

There's no 3RR exception for obnoxious pigheadedness, but it wouldn't hurt to revert a time or two more while explaining to him that these edits are not productive and will not stand. I reverted a few for you. Dicklyon (talk) 00:50, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

CC NC = speedy? WTF?

The above too-rapid process {discussion and resolution here) brings up the troubling question: Why is CC non-commercial a reason for speedy delete? Why is time of such importance, when the license can quite easily be updated at the source (Flickr), and then reflected here? Help me understand. This is one kind of over-zealous process that sends new editors away. --Lexein (talk) 00:46, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Not an administrator, but my feeling is that CC-NC is speedy deleted in the same fashion as any other file that does not have a compatible license. CC-NC doesn't necessarily come from Flickr either, so it should not be assumed that the source can be easily 'updated' (even it it's from Flickr, nothing guarantees the original uploader is ready to 'update' with a free license). Regardless, non-compatible license = delete, whether it's outright All Rights Reserved or CC-NC or any other non-free variant. Is it over-zealous? I don't think so, licensing requirements are made pretty clear on the upload form either here or on Commons, and new editors are not exempt from the rules. My two cents. — CharlieEchoTango — 06:55, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

"All rights reserved" can easily be updated at Flickr as well. The problem here seems not to be that CC-NC is speediable (definitely a word), but that files are being deleted without checking if they can be relicensed. However, I would imagine the turnaround for relicensing is not sufficiently rapid on average to consider making an exception for Flickr-hosted works. If you disagree, it'd be worth making a solid proposal. For what it's worth, I don't personally believe CC-NC is any freer than full assertion of copyright, but IMO that's tangential to your real point. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 08:32, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Just for the record: CC BY-NC is probably compatible with CC BY-SA to some extent. If it was CC BY-NC-SA, it'd be a different story. — Kudu ^~I/O~ 23:04, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

(It was CC-BY-NC-SA at Flickr - see my reply below.) --Lexein (talk) 13:50, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I would argue that "speedy" doesn't necessarily mean "very urgent". What it usually means that "A clear boundary has been crossed, so we don't have to spend a week haggling over it".

If a new article's only contents are "Jenny is cute :-)", it doesn't harm any third party, and probably doesn't even harm wikipedia because few readers would ever find it; but it is so clearly, definitely outside our rules that we can skip the whole AfD thing and go straight to pressing the delete button - even though that might dismay Jenny. If an image has a license incompatible with our current rules and there's no wiggle room for interpretation or discussion, then I'd be happy with going straight to the delete button.

Our other deletion mechanisms tend to involve a few days delay, but that delay is not there solely to allow something broken to be replaced with something working - the main purpose for the delay may be for community discussion, and the reprieve is just a fringe benefit for those who've created broken-but-probably-fixable things, who may then be able to turn the content around whilst the rest of the community has the opportunity to discuss it. Of course, some kinds of flawed content sent to XfD are not fixable within a few days; most might not be fixable at all.

If good new users are being "scared off" after breaking a rule, the most important part of the solution is to find some way of breaking the news carefully to new users, and advising them on how to stay within the rules next time - perhaps cuddlier templates could be a good start. We could even try to improve guidance on uploads to prevent the problem before it ever happens. However, I would not be keen on lowering our standards by letting clearly noncompliant stuff hang around for a while for fear of biting hypothetical well-intentioned uploaders of noncompliant content. bobrayner (talk) 11:54, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks to all for their responses. The (now archived) CC-BY-NC-SA speedy deleted images discussion was not a completely pure example {discussion here) it was complicated by a request for personal information removal.

Is {{Holdon}} - specifically {{Holdon|Contacting Flickr user to change source license}} an appropriate brake to allow time to rehabilitate image licensing? IMHO such time should be allowed, especially for Flickr images. The user-deterring aspect of this is that deletion is easy, and a one-step process (tag), but uploading is verbose, multistep, and slow, by comparison (especially since deletion destroys article usage information). Of course, if a Flickr user can't be reached, then the deletion should just proceed after some period of time. Is a week too long?

I wouldn't mind if there were a task force specifically for rehabilitating, rather than deleting, images for which license rehabilitation has a path. --Lexein (talk) 13:50, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Unless there's evidence to suggest that Flickr editors are significantly more likely to relicense promptly than anyone else who is asked to relicense for Wikipedia, I don't see grounds for an exception here. Of the numerous Flickr photos with non-free licenses - mostly on football players - that I've seen people going to the authors with for relicensing, I can't remember any of them actually getting it, at least within the sort of timespan that we'd consider acceptable in a general case. Whether the relicensing is from BY-NC or from all rights reserved is not really relevant. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 14:29, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

My question was, is {{Holdon}} an appropriate brake to apply in general, and in the case of Flickr license change requests? The other question, is "Speedy" even necessary for CC-BY-NC-SA, or can some time be taken for it to be corrected? To answer your conditional, in my opinion Flickr users are likely to adjust license, because communication is easy, and in my experience, 8 of 11 Flickr users have changed their licenses upon my polite request: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and the most recent ones 8a, and 8b. Of the remaining three, two never replied, and one refused to use CC or public domain, preferring "Wikipedia only." (By the way, here are two OTRS licenses I've obtained: a, and b. ) --Lexein (talk) 17:53, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I would say yes and yes. A file with an NC restriction is incompatible with Wikimedia, and is a valid speedy delete candidate. However, if someone places a Holdon tag, clearly stating that they are attempting to have the author relicense, I would hope that the people monitoring those deletion processes would allow time for that to happen. What I hope, and what I expect they will do are probably very different things, however. Resolute 18:07, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

If a file is speedy deletion and permission is indeed obtained, you can go file an Undeletion Request and the OTRS permission (or new Flickr license, depending on the situation) can be added. Instead of using an Holdon template, there should be an OTRSPending template that not only acts as a holdon, but tells us that permission is being sought. That is another idea. As for why the images are speedy deletion (anything with NC or ND is subject to this), this explains why. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 22:25, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you. That's an interesting historical nugget from Jimbo, and the following policy/guideline thread as well. I haven't tried WP:Requests for undeletion yet - sounds like I should just get used to the idea of it, and stop worrying about delaying deletion. . --Lexein (talk) 04:57, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

As someone involved in the original discussion. The speed of the deletion was not due to NC. I agree that normally time should be given to allow that licence request. Thanks for making the effort of getting those pictures back. I was sadend of the loss of those pictures myself. Agathoclea (talk) 05:46, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Improper split, attribution issue, duplicative articles

I'm not sure if AN/I is the best place for this, but if it isn't please direct me to the appropriate notice board. Just under 6 years ago, List of disco artists was split, without proper attribution, into List of disco artists (A-E), List of disco artists (F-K), List of disco artists (L-R), and List of disco artists (S-Z). However the pre-split article was left intact. In the intervening years since the split, the un-split article has received over 500 new edits, and each of the splits have also received substantial editing. How should the articles be dealt with at this point, both to deal with the attribution issue, and that the split and pre-split version are duplicative? Monty₈₄₅ 00:22, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

• You need an admin who has nothing better to do than history merges. I nominate LadyofShalott, naturally. Drmies (talk) 02:00, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Does Article ex- and import work here on enWiki? Agathoclea (talk) 21:04, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I think these can be solved with any need for all of that. It seems as though the content was copy-pasted out, but the original article was never redirected/repurposed to be a directory of them. This leaves us with two easy solutions:

1. Move anything on the A-E, F-K, L-R, and S-Z lists onto the bigger list, noting the origin of content in the edit summaries, and redirect the others to the bigger list. Or
2. Move anything on the bigger list out to the smaller lists, noting the origin of content in the edit summaries, and repurpose the bigger list to serve as a table of contents of the other lists.

I don't know which of these two is preferable, so it should be discussed on the talk page of one of the lists. No explicitly administrative work is required, however. Cheers. lifebaka 21:40, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Either of these will work. Since the current state is separate articles, I think it would be least confusing to follow WP:Merging with discussion at Talk:List of disco artists, with notifications at WP:WikiProject Music and/or relevant sub-projects. Similar lists are at Lists of musicians. I will add dummy edits and {{Copied}}s for the original split. Flatscan (talk) 04:20, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Amsanilkumar and AfD for Inna Muddanu Mahalingeshwara

Moved from WP:AIV at request of User:Daniel Case. Amsanilkumar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is repeatedly removing the AfD notice from the article they created. This continues past a final warning. The user is also using a sockpuppet account Amsanilkumar77 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and regularly edits from 203.124.18.29 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Please see edit history of Inna Muddanu Mahalingeshwara for full details. After several days, it appears the user has no interest in either addressing the issues raised in the AfD debate, nor in taking part in it. Could an admin take a look and if necessary block the accounts and the IP address? Thanks, Claviere (talk) 04:07, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Requesting a block on two warnings, the first of which was placed above other content on the talk page, rather then at the bottom where new warnings usually go, and skipping over the level 3 warning... If the editor didn't see the first warning due to the placement, then the block would be on the basis of a single level 4 warning, removing AfD tags doesn't seem serious enough to justify that. Monty₈₄₅ 04:51, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

CC NC = speedy? WTF?

The above too-rapid process {discussion and resolution here) brings up the troubling question: Why is CC non-commercial a reason for speedy delete? Why is time of such importance, when the license can quite easily be updated at the source (Flickr), and then reflected here? Help me understand. This is one kind of over-zealous process that sends new editors away. --Lexein (talk) 00:46, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Not an administrator, but my feeling is that CC-NC is speedy deleted in the same fashion as any other file that does not have a compatible license. CC-NC doesn't necessarily come from Flickr either, so it should not be assumed that the source can be easily 'updated' (even it it's from Flickr, nothing guarantees the original uploader is ready to 'update' with a free license). Regardless, non-compatible license = delete, whether it's outright All Rights Reserved or CC-NC or any other non-free variant. Is it over-zealous? I don't think so, licensing requirements are made pretty clear on the upload form either here or on Commons, and new editors are not exempt from the rules. My two cents. — CharlieEchoTango — 06:55, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

"All rights reserved" can easily be updated at Flickr as well. The problem here seems not to be that CC-NC is speediable (definitely a word), but that files are being deleted without checking if they can be relicensed. However, I would imagine the turnaround for relicensing is not sufficiently rapid on average to consider making an exception for Flickr-hosted works. If you disagree, it'd be worth making a solid proposal. For what it's worth, I don't personally believe CC-NC is any freer than full assertion of copyright, but IMO that's tangential to your real point. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 08:32, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Just for the record: CC BY-NC is probably compatible with CC BY-SA to some extent. If it was CC BY-NC-SA, it'd be a different story. — Kudu ^~I/O~ 23:04, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

(It was CC-BY-NC-SA at Flickr - see my reply below.) --Lexein (talk) 13:50, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I would argue that "speedy" doesn't necessarily mean "very urgent". What it usually means that "A clear boundary has been crossed, so we don't have to spend a week haggling over it".

If a new article's only contents are "Jenny is cute :-)", it doesn't harm any third party, and probably doesn't even harm wikipedia because few readers would ever find it; but it is so clearly, definitely outside our rules that we can skip the whole AfD thing and go straight to pressing the delete button - even though that might dismay Jenny. If an image has a license incompatible with our current rules and there's no wiggle room for interpretation or discussion, then I'd be happy with going straight to the delete button.

Our other deletion mechanisms tend to involve a few days delay, but that delay is not there solely to allow something broken to be replaced with something working - the main purpose for the delay may be for community discussion, and the reprieve is just a fringe benefit for those who've created broken-but-probably-fixable things, who may then be able to turn the content around whilst the rest of the community has the opportunity to discuss it. Of course, some kinds of flawed content sent to XfD are not fixable within a few days; most might not be fixable at all.

If good new users are being "scared off" after breaking a rule, the most important part of the solution is to find some way of breaking the news carefully to new users, and advising them on how to stay within the rules next time - perhaps cuddlier templates could be a good start. We could even try to improve guidance on uploads to prevent the problem before it ever happens. However, I would not be keen on lowering our standards by letting clearly noncompliant stuff hang around for a while for fear of biting hypothetical well-intentioned uploaders of noncompliant content. bobrayner (talk) 11:54, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks to all for their responses. The (now archived) CC-BY-NC-SA speedy deleted images discussion was not a completely pure example {discussion here) it was complicated by a request for personal information removal.

Is {{Holdon}} - specifically {{Holdon|Contacting Flickr user to change source license}} an appropriate brake to allow time to rehabilitate image licensing? IMHO such time should be allowed, especially for Flickr images. The user-deterring aspect of this is that deletion is easy, and a one-step process (tag), but uploading is verbose, multistep, and slow, by comparison (especially since deletion destroys article usage information). Of course, if a Flickr user can't be reached, then the deletion should just proceed after some period of time. Is a week too long?

I wouldn't mind if there were a task force specifically for rehabilitating, rather than deleting, images for which license rehabilitation has a path. --Lexein (talk) 13:50, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Unless there's evidence to suggest that Flickr editors are significantly more likely to relicense promptly than anyone else who is asked to relicense for Wikipedia, I don't see grounds for an exception here. Of the numerous Flickr photos with non-free licenses - mostly on football players - that I've seen people going to the authors with for relicensing, I can't remember any of them actually getting it, at least within the sort of timespan that we'd consider acceptable in a general case. Whether the relicensing is from BY-NC or from all rights reserved is not really relevant. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 14:29, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

My question was, is {{Holdon}} an appropriate brake to apply in general, and in the case of Flickr license change requests? The other question, is "Speedy" even necessary for CC-BY-NC-SA, or can some time be taken for it to be corrected? To answer your conditional, in my opinion Flickr users are likely to adjust license, because communication is easy, and in my experience, 8 of 11 Flickr users have changed their licenses upon my polite request: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and the most recent ones 8a, and 8b. Of the remaining three, two never replied, and one refused to use CC or public domain, preferring "Wikipedia only." (By the way, here are two OTRS licenses I've obtained: a, and b. ) --Lexein (talk) 17:53, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I would say yes and yes. A file with an NC restriction is incompatible with Wikimedia, and is a valid speedy delete candidate. However, if someone places a Holdon tag, clearly stating that they are attempting to have the author relicense, I would hope that the people monitoring those deletion processes would allow time for that to happen. What I hope, and what I expect they will do are probably very different things, however. Resolute 18:07, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

If a file is speedy deletion and permission is indeed obtained, you can go file an Undeletion Request and the OTRS permission (or new Flickr license, depending on the situation) can be added. Instead of using an Holdon template, there should be an OTRSPending template that not only acts as a holdon, but tells us that permission is being sought. That is another idea. As for why the images are speedy deletion (anything with NC or ND is subject to this), this explains why. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 22:25, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you. That's an interesting historical nugget from Jimbo, and the following policy/guideline thread as well. I haven't tried WP:Requests for undeletion yet - sounds like I should just get used to the idea of it, and stop worrying about delaying deletion. . --Lexein (talk) 04:57, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

As someone involved in the original discussion. The speed of the deletion was not due to NC. I agree that normally time should be given to allow that licence request. Thanks for making the effort of getting those pictures back. I was sadend of the loss of those pictures myself. Agathoclea (talk) 05:46, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Improper split, attribution issue, duplicative articles

I'm not sure if AN/I is the best place for this, but if it isn't please direct me to the appropriate notice board. Just under 6 years ago, List of disco artists was split, without proper attribution, into List of disco artists (A-E), List of disco artists (F-K), List of disco artists (L-R), and List of disco artists (S-Z). However the pre-split article was left intact. In the intervening years since the split, the un-split article has received over 500 new edits, and each of the splits have also received substantial editing. How should the articles be dealt with at this point, both to deal with the attribution issue, and that the split and pre-split version are duplicative? Monty₈₄₅ 00:22, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

• You need an admin who has nothing better to do than history merges. I nominate LadyofShalott, naturally. Drmies (talk) 02:00, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Does Article ex- and import work here on enWiki? Agathoclea (talk) 21:04, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I think these can be solved with any need for all of that. It seems as though the content was copy-pasted out, but the original article was never redirected/repurposed to be a directory of them. This leaves us with two easy solutions:

1. Move anything on the A-E, F-K, L-R, and S-Z lists onto the bigger list, noting the origin of content in the edit summaries, and redirect the others to the bigger list. Or
2. Move anything on the bigger list out to the smaller lists, noting the origin of content in the edit summaries, and repurpose the bigger list to serve as a table of contents of the other lists.

I don't know which of these two is preferable, so it should be discussed on the talk page of one of the lists. No explicitly administrative work is required, however. Cheers. lifebaka 21:40, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Either of these will work. Since the current state is separate articles, I think it would be least confusing to follow WP:Merging with discussion at Talk:List of disco artists, with notifications at WP:WikiProject Music and/or relevant sub-projects. Similar lists are at Lists of musicians. I will add dummy edits and {{Copied}}s for the original split. Flatscan (talk) 04:20, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Amsanilkumar and AfD for Inna Muddanu Mahalingeshwara

Moved from WP:AIV at request of User:Daniel Case. Amsanilkumar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is repeatedly removing the AfD notice from the article they created. This continues past a final warning. The user is also using a sockpuppet account Amsanilkumar77 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and regularly edits from 203.124.18.29 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Please see edit history of Inna Muddanu Mahalingeshwara for full details. After several days, it appears the user has no interest in either addressing the issues raised in the AfD debate, nor in taking part in it. Could an admin take a look and if necessary block the accounts and the IP address? Thanks, Claviere (talk) 04:07, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Requesting a block on two warnings, the first of which was placed above other content on the talk page, rather then at the bottom where new warnings usually go, and skipping over the level 3 warning... If the editor didn't see the first warning due to the placement, then the block would be on the basis of a single level 4 warning, removing AfD tags doesn't seem serious enough to justify that. Monty₈₄₅ 04:51, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Stephanie Adams - Off2riorob

Stephanie Adams (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

User:Off2riorob may have the best of intentions, but his editing pattern as shown here is strange, to say the least. In what is now the latest edit, he terms Fasttimes68, who has been editing since 2007 a "meatpuppet". Some others should take a look (and at the discussion page). -- Hoary (talk) 04:52, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

What administrative action are you requesting? Off2riorob (talk) 04:56, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

A careful viewing of the edit history and the discussion, with an eye to a block, or at the least a warning that you're on the verge of a block, for (i) the (as yet) unsupported allegation that one user is a meatpuppet of another, (ii) CIR for (a) your perverse refusal to read footnotes that supply information that you first demanded within the text, and (b) the unilateral demand that for something to be worth mentioning in an article it should be worth mentioning in the "lede" of that article, and (iii) general appearance of would-be ownership of the article. -- Hoary (talk) 05:11, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

• (ec)Well, fasttimes68 doesn't have that many edits, and a good percentage of them are about Stephanie Adams. Off2riorob does a lot of blp policing and is not a huge fan of playmate articles, but his actions seem to be in good faith.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 04:58, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

what the hell is a meatpuppet? --Fasttimes68 (talk) 05:02, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

WP:Meatpuppet - a meatpuppet revert is in this situation and similar ones where two or three users work together against a single good faith user to include disputed content into an article. Off2riorob (talk) 05:06, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

considering that content has been in the article for quite some time, then i can hardly call it disputed. Perhaps you should discuss first before reverting? im still willing to discuss as others probably are. --Fasttimes68 (talk) 05:12, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

No, something can be in an article for a long time and yet become (or indeed have been) disputed. Removal of misinformation and some other material is fine, even if there's been no dispute. But yes, he should have discussed. -- Hoary (talk) 05:33, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

For the record, the Bold Revert Discuss cycle properly shows discussion as after the B and after the R. I see nothing out of process. My76Strat (talk) 06:22, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for helpfully pointing toward an explanation of "meatpuppetry", which clearly shows that you are wrong. (I quote: Do not recruit your friends, family members, or communities of people who agree with you for the purpose of coming to Wikipedia and supporting your side of a debate. [...]) -- Hoary (talk) 05:28, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

For the record, im no ones meatmuppet. --Fasttimes68 (talk) 05:57, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

It seems like Rob frequently removes info about sexual orientation from BLPs. Possibly a good thing. We need to develop more guidance on the subject. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 05:09, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, User:Fasttimes68 has replaced it again - there is a OTRS complaint about this, and its clearly undue to say lesbian, lesbian , lesbian (thrice Dorothy) in a line and a half - but I am loggin of as I have had enough for tonight. Off2riorob (talk) 05:12, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

see you on the talk page then.--Fasttimes68 (talk) 05:14, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Yup, I can see Robs point here. Regardless of the facts (if there are any), there is no way that using the word 'lesbian' three times in the same sentence can be justified. Someone needs to get of their soapbox... AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:20, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm happy to rewrite it so that the word doesn't appear three times in a line and a half. (I'm also happy to have all the "personal" stuff removed.) AndyTheGrump, here are the facts. -- Hoary (talk) 05:25, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Actually, we should name that section "Lesbian life" :)--Cerejota (talk) 06:08, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Fasttimes68 beat me to this, but not at all in a way I'd have done. What is now the current version is mine and I don't think it's bad. Again, I am open to reasoned argument that all this "orientation" nonsense should be cut, and need very little persuasion to have it cut together with other "personal" stuff whose sourcing is much worse. -- Hoary (talk) 05:54, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

You are the main user that is insisting on this lesbian labeling - you added, lesbian lesbian lesbian - the only other personal data is that she is married to a man with a child, do you object to that detail? Off2riorob (talk) 05:58, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I will admit the usage of the word was heavy. But it doesn't warrant removing the information from the article altogether especially since you were asked to discuss the issue on the talk page. And the meatpuppet calling was a bit over the top as well. -- Fasttimes68 (talk) 06:10, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

You,(User:Hoary) are the primary contributor to this disputed BLP with multiple OTRS reports - you appear to have got into some kind of six year issue here after early discussion with someone claiming to be the subject or their supporter and it has become personal for you - the subject objects to being portrayed as a lesbian and you war to add, lesbian lesbian lesbian - wiki is not a user ego game to beat the living subjects of its articles. You win, the subject didn't want to be portrayed as a lesbian and you managed to add lesbian lesbian lesbian in a line and a half . Off2riorob (talk) 06:05, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

The subject doesnt want to be identified as a lesbian anymore, but she did in the past and was an activist for lesbian issues. it is notable in this BLP. --Fasttimes68 (talk) 06:14, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

There is nothing in the WP:BLP that supports your "lesbian activist" claim. Off2riorob (talk) 06:17, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not the slightest bit surprised that I'm listed as the first editor. However, if permablocked "Goddessy" were listed with her aliases and IP numbers, and if the other throwaway accounts and movable IPs were lumped together, I wouldn't be number one. There's no "issue". The subject -- of whom I'd never heard until, years ago, I saw a plea for help at AN/I, BLP/N or wherever -- has a history, clearly visible in versions of the talk page that precede their recent blanking, of wanting the article to say just this or that. Now, is her personal life notable or isn't it? If it is, provide readers with what is reliably sourced and do so in a straightforward, unsensational way; if it isn't, pull it all out: orientation, engagement(s), husband, kid, aunt(s), whatever. Or discuss the proposed different treatment: I am open to reasoned argument. When the current little spat is over, I'll happily take her article off my watchlist for a year or longer. And I apologize for my appalling use of the word "lesbian" three times in one and a half lines. (I subsequently fixed this.) -- Hoary (talk) 06:35, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Regardless of the content issue, using an edit summary of "Meatpuppet revert"[107] is inappropriate unless Off2riorob is plannning to file an SPI case to establish that the account is question is an actual WP:MEATPUPPET, the definition of which he does not seem to know correctly.   Will Beback  talk 

I agree. An apology is in order. --Fasttimes68 (talk) 06:27, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

If she is a notable lesbian activist as you claim I would expect to see some content in her BLP to support that claim.Off2riorob (talk) 06:29, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

If you read the footnotes you would see support. or perhaps you deleted them befoe reading them? --Fasttimes68 (talk) 06:53, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

A meatpuppet revert is in this situation and similar ones where two or three users work together against a single good faith user to include disputed content into an article.Meatpuppet reverters should apologize themselves. User Will Beback has got a "hard on" for me at the moment and can't stop chattin to me at every opportunity, sadly I am just not interested, sorry Will. Off2riorob (talk) 06:32, 24 August 2011 (UTC) Off2riorob (talk) 06:29, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Hoary and I were not working together. However both of us are still confused at your odd commenting inside the article.-Fasttimes68 (talk) 06:56, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Nice ad hominem reply. Regarding, WP:MEATPUPPET, please actually read the link policy. it dos not say what you think it does. What you may be thinking of the essay, WP:TAGTEAM.   Will Beback  talk  06:37, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, a meatpuppet revert is similar to a tasgteam tweak, little difference really. Off2riorob (talk) 06:47, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

• General comment. Off2riorob is one of the few Wikipedia editors who have undertaken the thankless task of trying to clear up all the garbage that has been inserted into BLP articles throughout Wikipedia. His efforts to remove sketchy information are constantly resisted by editors who really should know better. A little more administrative support for his efforts would be very helpful in improving Wikipedia's wretched history regarding its treatment of BLPs. Cla68 (talk) 06:33, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

(ec) WP:MEAT states that meatpuppet is a deragtory term. Unless you have any proof that meatpuppetry is going on, then you need to stop with the breach of civility. 132.3.33.68 (talk) 06:35, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Civility is in the eye of the beholder - one persons civilly issue is another's honest comment. At least the user over the last few years is a single issue account adding disputed content to a BLP article Off2riorob (talk) 06:40, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

It is not appropriate to change a policy in the midst of a discussion so as to vacate the other party's point.[108] It's underhanded and manipulative.   Will Beback  talk  07:12, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

It is appropriate to have your attention brought to an issue that requires attention and improvement as I did it - I say - whenever is good for improving issues. Off2riorob (talk) 07:19, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

That seems to be some pointy logic. Your contributions to the article itself are completely appropriate to me. The problem is your comments to the other editor. Appologize and move on. Don't turn this into a dramafest. 132.3.33.68 (talk) 07:32, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Off2riorob, you accused people of being "meatpuppets", which the policy said is a derogatory term. When confronted about it you didn't apologize or offer proof, you simply changed the policy so that it's no longer says that it's a derogatory term. That's gaming the system in a brazen way.   Will Beback  talk  08:08, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

"Goddessy.com" is not RS. It is not remotely near RS. It may be SPS at best. The cite given appears to be a compilation of quotes from some RS sources, and lots of stuff from not-remotely-RS sources. The claims do not meet WP:BLP. Off2riorob's edits are both proper and required by WP:BLP "Meatpuppet" may be inapt, but the concept that two users co-ordinate insertion of a non-RS source and contentious claim into a BLP is part and parcel of what is properly being discussed at the ArbCom case on BLPs. When one of them is a user with relatively few edits (say, under 200) then the concept that the newer user knows the older user might actually arise. Heck, an IP with only 300 total contributions might fall in that category. By the way, SPI will never find a "meatpuppet" and is not to be used for such. Cheers. Collect (talk) 06:53, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that Fasttimes68 was coordinating insertion of something or other with another user? If so, please name the other user and provide your evidence for this. -- Hoary (talk) 07:00, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

A subjects website can be used in a BLP if it is not unduly self serving. __Fasttimes68 (talk) 07:07, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Off2riorob asks above: If she is a notable lesbian activist as you claim I would expect to see some content in her BLP to support that claim. Good point. It has been claimed (notably, by somebody identifying herself as an employee) that she was a "spokesmodel" for LGBT stuff. I never understood the notion of "spokesmodel", and said so in the article's talk page. My interlocutor got quite indignant: being a spokesmodel was pretty significant, she insisted. See this section and the following one in that talk page archive, as well as other stuff there. Now, was she a spokesmodel to a significant extent? I've always doubted this. However, a statement about a given period that was true in 2007 is also true in 2011; or if it's not true in 2011 it also wasn't in 2007 either -- and all in all a look in these recently blanked talk page archives will show you that the biographee has long believed not merely that the article should avoid defamatory material and invasions of privacy (demands with which I'd have no argument at all) but beyond this that she should control what the article says. So the OTRS stuff (to which I am not privy) starts to look like ghost-writing: the biographee badgers well-intentioned editors to do as she says, effectively creating an autobiography. -- Hoary (talk) 06:55, 24 August 2011 (UTC) some typos fixed 07:15, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

So in 2003 she was a lesbian, and in 2009 she's suddenly straight with a husband and child? Something doesn't add up. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:24, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Contrariwise - it is very clear what is up. Cheers. Collect (talk) 07:30, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Not at all. Please see Vita Sackville-West, who had two sons. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 07:32, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Interesting but - dead and incomparable. Off2riorob (talk) 07:37, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

And also bisexual, not lesbian. Real lesbians don't get married to men and have children with them, at least not after they've supposedly come out. Bisexuals might. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:40, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Personal opinions, which might be of interest on some other website. I'm not quite sure which. Perhaps teletubbies. (Was there a problem with Tinky Winky?) Mathsci (talk) 07:52, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Lesbians, by definition, do not have sexual relations with men (unless they're getting paid for it). Teletubbies, last time I checked, are fictional characters. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:56, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

There is a category Category:LGBT parents; see e.g. Ann Bannon. Your "definition" of lesbian, which can be an adjective, is just as odd as Off2riorob's definition of meatpuppetry. Mathsci (talk) 08:25, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Hang on, people. (A) Self-identification as being inclined one way and/or the other is one thing, (B) actual "sexual relations" are another. The relationship between (A) and (B) may be an interesting matter for academic or other discussion. But this is not the right place to discuss it, or (B); and let's not get carried away with (A) either. -- Hoary (talk) 08:35, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Jesus people, how many years will it take before people learn to ignore Bugs's off-topic crap on ANI?

There are two issues here:

1. The content dispute, especially because this is a BLP
2. The meatpuppet comment

The two are orthogonal. The latter could (and should) be resolved right now by Off2riorob apologising to Fasttimes68 for calling him a meatpuppet (that is, a real-life accomplice who tags teams with someone to edit war). The former looks to be heading for an RfC, but in the interests of BLP it would certainly be best for controversial material (specifically sexual orientation, past or present) to be removed from the article until consensus is reached as to whether it's adequately sourced.

Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 08:41, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Ignoring your typical personal attacks, the last part of your statement is on the money. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:02, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Chris, your #2 is too narrow. There's an Off2riorob issue. Off2riorob demands (by writing questions directly in article text, and with no edit summaries) that material is made explicit in the article text. When reminded (via edit summaries) that the information is provided in the footnotes, he reverts. We all make mistakes, and if he either sleepily wrote "[[Who?]]" instead of "{{Who}}", or whatever, fine; but he reverts to the mangled state he created. After all that, he deletes. And again. Fine, he could have changed his mind -- but there's no sign of willingness to communicate, or of curiosity about what has so recently been hidden in the talk archives. Plus he writes up a fantasy about Will Beback's sexual attraction to him. Plus he mis-cites a policy page (well, I've probably done that too) but then promptly tampers with the policy page to make it say what he wishes it had said. If the problem is that he is overstretched (and I am being very charitable here), then he should realize this and lay off. And if he doesn't realize it, then he should be told it. -- Hoary (talk) 09:52, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

That diff [109] should get Off2riorob a little time off from editing wikipedia. Mathsci (talk) 10:10, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I realise that Off2riorob works hard on BLPs, but that diff - combined with changing the policy to suit what he said rather than simply backing down - leaves a very sour taste in the mouth. I agree with Chris Cunningham that there are two separate issues here. bobrayner (talk) 10:26, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I've only read this ANI thread, but I don't see anything wrong with what User:Off2riorob has been saying up to this point in this discussion, particularly if it's taken in context. If the editor's incorrectly accusing people of team tagging fine, but the specific term "meat puppet" has a very specific term on wiki and attempting to turn that into a dirty word is fucking ridiculous. If you've got a problem with what's going on then talk about the content, not the words. I don't see any substantiation of anything untoward here. Shadowjams (talk) 11:55, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

You're right that "meatpuppet" has a very specific meaning here: it is a meaning which is analogous to "sockpuppet", but for third parties. And if you call someone a sockpuppet on here then you'd better have evidence, because doing so otherwise is obnoxious. "meatpuppet" is most certainly not any less pejorative than "sockpuppet". Off2riorob should be advised that if he's currently using "meatpuppet" to mean "anyone engaged in tag-teaming" then he's using it wrongly and should stop doing that before he needlessly offends anyone else. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 12:43, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

• - Anyway, I have had a warning note about a couple of points in regard to my contributions last night which I accept were a bit violating - I have just read the meatpuppet description again and I apologize to User:Fasttimes68for referring to him as that - his edit didn't warrant that accusation, I didn't mean it like that anyways.I should likely apologize to Will Beback as well, using "hard on" to describe his actions in a dispute about sexual content was "inappropriate" - Off2riorob (talk) 15:19, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I accept your apology. Thank you. --Fasttimes68 (talk) 21:37, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Categorization as a lesbian

Behavioural issues aside, there seems to be another, more important BLP issue here. There seems to be no dispute that Stephanie Adams declared herself to be a lesbian about 8 years ago. She is in the category "LGBT African Americans". She has since married a man (and reportedly had a child). Although we can speculate as to whether or not she is still a lesbian despite her current circumstances, WP:BLPCAT is quite clear that as far as sexual orientation is concerned, only self identification will suffice for inclusion in categories. There was a similar situation recently with an actor (Luke Evans (actor) who had been openly gay until recently when they were reported to be dating a woman. Much argument followed about whether or not the LGBT category should be retained or removed.

The situation with Adams is much clearer. She has declared herself to be "straight". This 2009 interview was easy for me to find (skip to about the 7 minute mark). Since she has no longer self-identifies as a lesbian, it seems logical that the category should be removed, but this was a cause for much argument in the Luke Evans case. Although this is a content issue, perhaps raising it here will bring fresh eyes to the discussion. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:12, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I did ask to remove the cat - "LGBT African Americans" but the request was rejected. Off2riorob (talk) 15:40, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

You asked for the category to be removed, or Adams from the category? As for removing Adams from the category, there is IMO enough RS that she does not consider herself to be a lesbian so she should be removed from the cat. As for keeping the category itself I havent formed an opinion.--Fasttimes68 (talk) 16:37, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Why is the gender/sex that a person chooses to have sex with part of an encyclopedia? Would you create a category of people who have sex with animals, like that guy in Australia who married his dog? I've never picked up Britannica and went looking for who is on recorded as being gay that year? Where's the category for heterosexuals in San Francisco, Atlanta, and Greenwich Village if we are talking about minorities. What a strange strange category . . .

Signed,

WTH? Jesus Loves You --Yosesphdaviyd (talk) 20:21, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually, we do have that category: Category:Zoosexuality in culture -- Atama頭 23:51, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Off2riorob cautioned

(multiple edit conflicts) I have cautioned Off2riorob that continuing to misuse the term 'meatpuppet' to describe good-faith editors with whom he has a disagreement is just not on, as is any future attempt to rewrite policy pages to support his position in the middle of a disagreement. I have also advised him that WP:BLPN exists to help resolve these sorts of issues, and that he should seek the assistance of other, neutral editors sooner rather than later should he encounter problems like this in the future. (It is also worth noting that the exemptions to 3RR provided by WP:BLP apply even if one's opponents are editors in good standing; there's no need to invoke accusations of sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry if one is – in good faith – clearly and explicitly applying WP:BLP's provisions.)

My caution to Off2riorob is issued without prejudice to either side of the question of the content in the Stephanie Adams article. I hope that the participants in that discussion are able to resolve matters satisfactorily now that there is additional attention on the page. (Speaking as an editor, I think it seems odd and excessive under any circumstances to say 'lesbian' three times in one sentence—regardless of the sources employed.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:21, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you --Fasttimes68 (talk) 15:26, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Suggesting that someone is a meatpuppet does not automatically imply that they were canvassed for that purpose. I think some people are confusing themselves by forcing such an association. My76Strat (talk) 21:49, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Then you're a meat puppet of Off2Riorob just for agreeing with him here. Want fries with that? FuFoFuEd (talk) 01:29, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

In a sense that is true, but I would not edit war, or indiscriminately rebut an opinion simply to follow his lead. And I prefer a more civil approach in all regards, but am in no position to require it. For those who like to encroach a line, I think it is counterproductive and ill-advised, But Off2riorob knows where that line exist, and has not crossed a threshold. It is a bit patronizing to issue warnings when conduct is in accord. IMO My76Strat (talk) 02:49, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that you understand what 'meatpuppet' means as the term is used on Wikipedia. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:56, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

After a robust read, I would have to retract the most part of my comment. It seems that solicitation, and response to solicitation is a requisite. My76Strat (talk) 04:27, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure by what policies Off2riorob often justifies his actions in; or if he means to use the term "meatpuppet" to justify his silencing of criticism or edits he does not like. We are encouraged to go to others for help when faced with a problematic editor or a dispute -- yet this is the sort of thing he discourages. Perhaps Off2riorob sees posting on another established user's talk page for help as meatpuppetry, in which case his definition is very curious indeed. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 04:35, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Fasttimes68 and anti-Adams blogging

I was doing some digging into this and found a blog from Fasttimes68 here where he describes Stephanie Adams as a twat. Ironically, in the ten or so minutes from me finding this and deciding to post about it, the blog entry has disappeared, though it does show up in a google searches. The blog was about a lawsuit Adams filed against a different blogger and is titled Stephanie Adams is a twat. Fasttimes68 also just left a note on User talk:Silver seren here linking to yet another extremely anti-Stephanie Adams blog. I don't think someone who is so obviously biased against a subject should be editing an article on her. AniMate 15:33, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Cite a policy stating someone with bias cant edit an article. Or try to create a new policy. This is yet another red herring. --Fasttimes68 (talk) 15:43, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

How about WP:NPOV? Since you are clearly biased against the subject, going so far as to create a blog entry calling her a twat, you aren't neutral here. AniMate 15:49, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'll see AniMate's WP:NPOV and raise it with WP:COI. Then I'll trump all of them with WP:CCPOL. I think they're all quite clear-cut. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 15:52, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Help yourself. I am in no way connected to the subject. Never met her, communicated with her.--Fasttimes68 (talk) 15:57, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Furthermore there is a difference between neutrallity on a subject vs. neutrality in terms of edits to an article. Edits should be neutral. I think the article reads very neutral at the moment. If you disagree, take it to the talk page.--Fasttimes68 (talk) 16:15, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that with our BLPs, we have to be extremely careful, and since you have expressed strong opinions against this subject elsewhere, why not let other people take care of the article? Wikipedia is a big place. You can find other subjects to work on that you don't consider to be twats. AniMate 16:52, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I'll mull over your diplomatically worded request :) In any case I'm perfectly happy to let others do the edits and stay on the side in discussion.--Fasttimes68 (talk) 17:01, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Fastimes68 has 200 edits over a few years here - half of them are focused on Stephanie Adams or discussion related to her. Off2riorob (talk) 15:35, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Methinks I'm catching the scent of fish. The sockeye, perhaps? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:54, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

DeSPIse him then? FuFoFuEd (talk) 16:41, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Cut it out you guys. Unless there is credible evidence that this is someone sock you shouldn't be making these vague implications. Off2riorob was just warned in the section right above this about calling editors meatpuppets without proof. The same goes for calling or implying with not particularly clever jokes that someone is a sock. AniMate 16:52, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I was merely suggesting he might be a salmon. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:52, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

There's no policy barring individuals with strong opinions from editing articles, however we expect that editors holding such opinions – particular those who have clearly and publicly linked themselves to such opinions – to strive to edit in a manner that is utterly above reproach in its compliance with the letter and spirit of Wikipedia's core content policies (especially WP:NPOV and WP:BLP). We also strongly encourage (though we generally do not compel, in the absence of other difficulties) those editors to make even more use of consensus-building techniques and discussion of changes in advance on article talk pages than they might otherwise consider absolutely necessary. WP:BOLD and WP:BRD are editing strategies that these editors should try to avoid.

Please also bear in mind that holding a strong opinion on a subject does not constitute a conflict of interest (within the general meaning of the term, or within the boundaries of Wikipedia's policy).

Finally, there's a difference between SPI (a sockpuppet investigation) and SPA (a single-purpose account). FuFoFuEd may be making an error in his use of acronyms, but should in any case be much more cautious in making accusations that he is unprepared to support. While I have not specifically evaluated Fasttimes68's editing history, I note that merely having a narrow focus for one's editing is not a violation of Wikipedia policy. It is only when that narrow focus extends to counterproductive conduct (especially advocacy of one sort of another) which interferes with Wikipedia's goals that SPAs are a problem. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:43, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

We can ask an editor who conducts off-wiki attacks against a living person to leave that person's WP BLP alone. User:Bill Huffman is an example. He runs an attack site on Derek Smart. ArbCom asked him (not ordered him) to leave the Smart article alone. He has since abandoned that account and started another one (which name is unknown to me), but, as far as I know, is holding to the agreement not to mess with the Smart article. I don't think it's unreasonable to ask Fasttimes not to edit BLPs of people he disparages in his blog. How does it make WP look when it comes out that we allow people who bollock real people on the Internet to edit their BLPs? Cla68 (talk) 22:34, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Cla68. I've started a thread at WT:BLP to discuss whether it would make sense to add a paragraph to the BLP policy saying that individuals running attack sites or disparaging blogs on living people should not edit their biographies in Wikipedia. --JN466 23:10, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

As a clarification, the issue was volunteering to not make any comments/suggestions on the talk page, not the article itself. I no longer edit the talk page (or anything related to the article). I have never "messed with the Smart article" itself, contrary to Cla68's apparent implication. Bill Huffman (talk) 00:24, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Bill, you made content suggestions on the Derek Smart article talk page, which other editors then implemented. So, yes, you did "mess" with the Smart article. That's one of the reasons why topic bans usually include article talk pages also, because article talk pages are where content decisions are often made. Cla68 (talk) 01:18, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Let's complete this story Cla68, you failed miserably in your attempt to argue to the arbcom that I tried to influence the Derek Smart article in any negative way. You were apparently so desperate to convince the arbcom that I needed some sanction, that you made up the blatant lie that I claimed on the website http://flamewarfollies.com that Mr. Smart had a PhD from Warren National University. Since I edited the WNU article you argued to arbcom that I should be banned from editting that article. [110] I think that this shows that when it comes to at least me, your opinion statements cannot be trusted. Bill Huffman (talk) 02:13, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

• Fasttimes should be banned from editing the adams article, because he has some bizarre affectation about it. Trout rob for slight impertinence. The fact that someone is/was a lesbian, however, is not a blp "issue" until this is still the 19th century.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 5:21 am, Today (UTC 1)

Off2riorob's incivility

Off2riorob is a positive force in the community, and I commend Off2riorob for his diligence, but his comments to editors who he has disagreements with are generally very abrasive. I have never known Off2riorob to disagree politely or pleasantly or to make editing a happy affair. While I respect his contributions, his civility is sometimes lacking.

I first encountered this editor in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tin Pei Ling and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nicole Seah, where he made such misinformed arguments about WP:NOTABILITY in response to comments that she fulfilled WP:GNG with such remarks as "Tin Pei Ling is not notable because she fails WP:POLITICIAN and has not been elected yet." Off2riorob made such remarks about a now quite prominent Singaporean politician: "This person is currently of minor note - is they win they will be notable, the WP:GNG is for desperate claims She is currently a not notable political candidate." The articles were later speedy kept because they passed WP:GNG with flying colours, and Off2riorob's novel argument was found to be faulty -- contrary to his belief, WP:GNG always supersedes everything else. I have come to the impression that many times, he vigourously opposes something not out of policy, but out of his personal distaste for a topic; which is fine -- he doesn't have to be such a dick while doing so, selectively removing talk page comments.

Off2riorob removed my comment from a talk page where I expressed a concern about the conduct of certain editors with a conflict of interest, especially because I was concerned that articles were being abusively managed by public relations managers or hired editors -- suspicions that continue to have rather strong basis in them. Off2riorob remains unapologetic.

Calling a user that has edited since 2007 a "meatpuppet" is only one of many gaffes that this user has made, who generally does not like to apologise or admit to mistakes. This is disconcerting in an editor. I am so glad that Off2riorob is so motivated to defend WP:BLP, but at the same time he neglects WP:COI -- and seems to reward or defend conflict of interest editing. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 02:39, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with you that GNG supersedes everything--see WP:EVENT for a counterexample--but otherwise your analysis is spot on. FuFoFuEd (talk) 03:18, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Myself, I'm wondering if this bio could survive a challenge at AfD. Neither playboy bunnies nor blog editors have fared well there... Carrite (talk) 03:54, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Implementing the BLP policy provokes edit warring. Count Iblis (talk) 04:06, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, censorship was the concern back when it was implemented but people argued that it would be applied reasonably; the policy is now subject to policy creep. Like vandalism, should have a stricter definition of what constitutes a BLP violation; the rest can fall under "content dispute" or "discretionary tastes dispute". elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 04:12, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Furthermore, while we should avoid slander and libel on talk pages, I propose that the standard for discussion pages be set a little less strict than article space, so as not to unreasonably chill discussion. There is something wrong with the current implementation of BLP policy if it leads to users cautioning others against making valid and particularly astute observations. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 04:14, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

GNG certainly does not trump everything, indeed it is regularly interpreted or ignored in light of making a good decision. You really are on a crusade against Rob aren't you? --Errant ^(chat!) 08:17, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

As I was one of, if not the first user to draw attention to User:La goutte de pluie's returning contributions and one of the first to suggest/request recall of his Administrator status .. and the subsequent removal of his advanced administrative privileges, I am not expecting any good luck messages from him. If the user wants to communicate to work things out in an attempt to move forward and leave any disputes behind I am open to that. Off2riorob (talk) 15:08, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with it. I hold no grudges against User:Strange Passerby (who was far more vocal than you ever were), but you are simply an incivil editor. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 22:48, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

• "Incivility"? He certainly has an odd way with words, yes. Hours before he had made a series of edits to the article and written comments above that speculated about Will BeBack's dick, he'd sent email to me that said in part: I don't get why you have such a hard on to insist on focussing on such sexual trivia. Well, some people's rhetoric does make much reference to appendages and orifices; I don't much mind that. What I do mind is that, erections or erectile metaphor aside, this allegation of his was and is utterly wrong. It shows that he either didn't read or didn't understand the message that I'd sent him in reply to the one in which he started a short and ultimately unhappy correspondence. (Oh, conceivably he read it and understood it but disbelieved it; but if so then he failed to explain this.) His first message was amicable enough (if hard to understand in places), and I think that my reply was thoughtful and polite. But my effort turned out to have been a waste of my time. In this matter, as elsewhere, I got the impression that Off2riorob doesn't like to read, yet careful reading and thought and discussion are essential to the kind of work that he seems most keen to do. Incivility is less important than incompetence, and I see incompetence, however well intentioned. This is exacerbated by his reluctance to admit that he has goofed. I suggest that he takes a month's break from following up OTRS complaints and that he works on adding sourced, worthwhile (and of course non-titillating) content to articles. -- Hoary (talk) 11:49, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

  Heres my full email post to you - all of which you rejected quite strongly in your email reply to me, and then added to the BLP content that multiple users have objected to, your lesbian, lesbian, lesbian sentence. Also as I requested and you refused to support the removal of the BLP-LGBT categorization has also been removed after investigation and wider exposure.

• Hi (User:Hoary), just in private as there is a lot of heat about this bio and I want to keep out of it on wiki.Regarding the subject 1992 playboy interview "I am a lesbian" .. the subject seems to be retracting - can we not allow her to do that? And add something not specifically labeling her but a couple of comments about her support for LGBT issues? It is clearly quite normal for playboy models and such like to be portrayed as whatever sells the most, she clearly is not lesbian now as she's married. Are you open to resolving this in this way? We could remove the lesbian claim and add - In (whenever it was) Adams was a gay rights advocate and appeared on the cover of the Village Voice for Gay Pride Week, in addition to being a guest speaker at The Heritage of Pride NYC Rally for Gay Pride. also if we replace that can we also remove the BLPCat that asserts she is a LGBT African Americans - perhaps it seems likely she never was and it was pure promotion and sales - could you consider these solutions - nothing will be lost to the reader, she is only of limited notability anyways - Rob - Off2riorob (talk) 13:51, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

  As I have already said, I didn't agree with all of the content this first message of yours, but I didn't think it was at all rude. Where I disagreed with it, I did so politely (I believe) and with explanations. If my explanations were inadequate, you didn't bother to ask for an elaboration -- you instead sent a second, less coherent message (within which you incidentally fantasized about my dick), and you then went straight into the article, first demanding information (most of which was already in the footnotes) and then deleting. Yes, yes, one interim version of mine indeed used the word "lesbian" three times in one line and a half; you have already said this, repeatedly, I have already said I regretted it; the recent edit history of the article (which I encourage anyone to examine) makes it clear that I reworded it promptly. -- Hoary (talk) 14:12, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I added a "when" request to the statement in the article that said Adams idnetifed herself as Lesbian - I think the fact that its in the citation is still not a correct position - to assert such without a date in the article text is extremely vague indeed, a simple date of when the subject did that is clearly beneficial to the readers understanding of the timeline, this is especially true in this case where the subject had later in a citation self identified as straight and basically retracted the historic self identification. You also objected to the removal request of the BLP LGBT categorization.(since removed) Your adding lesbian, lesbian, lesbian to a single sentence was imo a backlash to our discussion , something that should not have occured in a BLP. - Do you give permission for me to post your email replies? Also , I assure you, the expression, I don't know why you have a hard on for this content is in no way a fantasy about your dick, its just a quite common English idiom. Off2riorob (talk) 14:26, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

After User:Hoary responded to me strongly disagreeing with my request for compromise I sent this reply which includes the comment he posted above, as he has posted a snippet from a comment I think its important to see the snippet in context.

• (my full email reply to him that User:Hoary has posted a snippet from above) - I don't get why you have such a hard on to insist on focusing on such sexual trivia - there are no reports that she has ever had girlfriends of note - never lived with a long term woman - its just silly to insist on including this trivial likely falsehood - in 1992 Adams said she was a lesbian, there are no reports of any relationship but wiki has to keep it because it is important to you, but now she is married to a man with a child sorry but such insistence of demanding crap like this has got to be included is beyond me.

User:Hoary has been the major contributor to the Adams BLP since April 2005 and had imo become "involved" after a series of disputes with the subjects representatives, in a position of keeping the disputed content in the article because the subject objected to it and not wanting the subject to have any "control" over the content. His "backlash" addition of lesbian, lesbian, lesbian and his refusal to remove the LGBT BLPCAT after the subject had self identified as straight is as an example of that "involvement" - Combine User:Hoary's "involvement" and User:Fasttime68's off wikipedia attack blogging against the subject and my attempting to come to the defense of the subjects bio from a neutral uninvolved position... well I get accused of all sorts and I am well used to it with some of the reactions I get when I attempt such work. I am not perfect, but I do apologize when I make mistakes and am all the time evaluating, re assessing in relation to discussion and consensus and updating my positions in regards to policy interpretations. Off2riorob (talk) 14:46, 25 August 2011 (UTC)Off2riorob (talk) 14:01, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Subjects should not have any control over the content of their article. That would be called a conflict of interest. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 22:50, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

• He apologized. --Fasttimes68 (talk) 14:49, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, great. Lets consider this section closed then. Off2riorob (talk) 14:53, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Fasttimes68 topic ban proposal

It is proposed that, based on the discussion above, user Fasttimes68 be banned from editing the Stephanie Adams article, including the talk page. The article is currently undergoing its second AfD.

Support

• Cla68 (talk) 04:57, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
  • If you are going to propose this ban, you should at the very least provide some germane supporting evidence and not just cite "see above" which is an unreleated topic. It's just lazy.--Fasttimes68 (talk) 14:10, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
• ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:59, 25 August 2011 (UTC) A user with a website saying "so-and-so is a [obscene expression]" is unlikely to be able to edit fairly. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:59, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Pure speculation on your part. Let the edits speak for themselves.--Fasttimes68 (talk) 18:41, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
    • You've got a source saying "she announced she was no longer homosexual". You've got to be kidding. What did she do, take a "straight pill"? Or are you citing this stuff to try to make a fool of her? (or a tw*t, perhaps?) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:59, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
      • If I ever learn of a straight pill being discovered, I'll post about it in your talk page. --Fasttimes68 (talk) 01:19, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
        • That would be interesting info. I was issued mine at conception. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:05, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
• Draco^E 19:56, 25 August 2011 (UTC) By all means, let the edits speak for themselves: user Fasttimes68 hasn't created a single new article since joining the project in 2007. He has a total of 223 live edits (plus 7 deleted ones), and the majority of them are concerned with Stephanie Adams. Time to get a life.
  • Nice ad hominem attack. Maybe you should read up on WP:NPA --Fasttimes68 (talk) 00:24, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
    • Do you dispute the facts? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:05, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
      • I dont dispute them, however they are completely irrelevant. That and possibly the "get a life" comment borders on a personal attack.--Fasttimes68 (talk) 15:09, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
        • It's just a snippy comment along the lines of "grow up" and such stuff as that. As personal attacks go, it's pretty lame. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:56, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
        • To demonstrate irrelevancy, perhaps you could explain why you referred to the subject as a "tw*t"? I don't know where you are, but where I come from that would be considered outrageously obscene. What does it mean to you? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:58, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
          • Red Herring. The articles I've not created or the # of edits I've made or the fact that the majority are on this BLP have no merit as to the quality of the edits and discussion. It's funny that your user page says not to feed the trolls, yet all you seem to do here is WP:BAIT--Fasttimes68 (talk) 19:03, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
            • You're labeling yourself a troll??? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:56, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
          • Srsly? FuFoFuEd (talk) 17:09, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Oppose

• He's nowhere near as bad of a problem as the endless self-promotion in the archives of that page. He even supports the (marginally wp:notable, IMO) article deleted. He stated that his concerns were with promotion and COI, and if you look in the archives, they are amply justified. The attempt to put an exclusively positive spin on all the activities of that person by OTRS pressure should not be tolerated. Furthermore the demands on what is "positive" seems to vary depending on, shall we say, business circumstances. Now HJ Mitchell is probably going to censor half this post claiming BLP violation, but you get the idea. FuFoFuEd (talk) 05:06, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
• The actions of the editor are not anywhere near justifying a topic ban. It is not against policy to hold mistaken positions, so long as you do not edit tendentiously. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 06:26, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
• This is somebody who's been blocked once, over two years ago, and has received a grand total of one warning since. Yes, the warning was for something stunningly asinine, but it was not obviously Adams-related, it was short and simple and perhaps merely a drunken aberration, and it happened months ago. Some aspects of this person's editing are worrisome, but there's nothing banworthy here. -- Hoary (talk) 11:10, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
• Not even close to being justified. Absconded Northerner (talk) 22:07, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
• This proposed ban has no grounding in policy or practice, and is a continuation of a content dispute by other means. Quigley (talk) 23:20, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
• Completely unnecessary, and I'm the person who found the blog. AniMate 02:37, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
• No justification for this at all. Mathsci (talk) 03:58, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
• Way too extreme. Opinions off-wiki aside, we judge by the content of the edits, and there is nothing out of line with the edits made so far. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 16:47, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
• Non-Admin. Opposed, but hopefully following deletion-and-redirect, which seems a likely outcome at AfD, this circus won't recur. Carrite (talk) 20:03, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Other/threaded comments

I support this but it may become mute if deletion or redirect is supported. Off2riorob (talk) 05:06, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you meant "moot". Cheers, elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 06:27, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Both work - if it gets deleted/redirected there may be mumbles about the principle/principal, but not so one will hear it... LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:44, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

By the way, most of the recent editing that has caused complaints from the User:GODDESSY sock pool was not done by Fasttimes68, but by a VA Comcast IP, 69.143.17.59. Based on editing style, they don't seem to be the same person, but if you have doubts file a SPI, neither are stale. FuFoFuEd (talk) 16:58, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Ban proposal for User:GODDESSY / User:An-Apple-A-NY-Day

This is apparently a PR person or group working for Stephanie Adams. [111] They have consistently attempted to insert promotion in the article, have made legal threats [112] and trolling rants on the article's talk page. [113] They have socked for 5 years to evade indef blocks on numerous accounts, most recently in the AfD of that article. See Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of An-Apple-A-NY-Day. Mind you the want the article kept and WP:OWNED by them. It's time Wikipedia formally rebuked this attempt at subverting its core policies. FuFoFuEd (talk) 04:38, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

• This is not a pointless excessive by the way. List of Playboy Playmates of 1992, where the SA article is most likely going to be redirected given how the AfD looks, is not a mere list of names. It has paragraphs of text, thus we can expect the persistent problems to overflow to that article. FuFoFuEd (talk) 04:50, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
• Support. That this amount of conflict of interest can be tolerated is astonishing. If I had the tools I would have immediately enacted this block. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 05:44, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
• Support. It's worth noting we have banned users for "high conflict of interest" (amongst other things) before; see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Community sanction/Archive6#Please review ban, which led to Biochemical Mind (talk · contribs) getting banned. —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 06:37, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
• Comment What would this accomplish? The sockmaster seems to create new SPA accounts or changes her ip address to get around editing concerns. For example, after a protection was issued a few weeks ago a couple of freshly created accounts started editing on the subjects talk page. One of the them User: OnlyGodTheFatherKnows just got blocked for being a suspected SP, and I wouldnt be surprised if User:SanMike7 starts chiming in soon.--Fasttimes68 (talk) 14:01, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
  • See WP:UNBAN, [114], WP:LTA. FuFoFuEd (talk) 16:47, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
    • So considering the user in question is unlikely to honor the ban, this is more of a public rebuke?--Fasttimes68 (talk) 17:16, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

• A banned user's edits can be reverted on sight without 3rr applying, and checkusers are more willing to check accounts linked to a banned user. In addition, a community ban requires the community to overturn it and not one individual admin. —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 20:07, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
• Being banned (as opposed to blocked) means we can be more aggressive in terms of acting against their edits. It pretty much means we can shoot first, ask questions later. Tabercil (talk) 22:25, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

• Support Throwing around legal threats like they've done should not be tolerated at all. Tabercil (talk) 22:25, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
• Comment Would this ban extend to anyone claiming to represent Goddessey et al? In the AfD page OTRS says that the subject is not performing edits (and presumably the OTRS requests), but rather others representing her and her company. In light of this new information, is it possible to extend the scope of this proposed ban to the subjects representatives as well? --Fasttimes68 (talk) 01:41, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
  • See WP:MEAT, bullet 3, and WP:DUCK, so it applies to anyone as long as there is reasonable suspicion (behavioral, technical) that they are related. Banning these troublemakers from editing does not prohibit Adam's legitimate representatives from raising concerns through OTRS, but that adds a filter of experienced editors between her real staff and Wikipedia. FuFoFuEd (talk) 04:54, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
  • In light of this I Support — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fasttimes68 (talk • contribs) 12:41, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Off2riorob's ediTs

Dear all,

There is an ongoing discussion "Autograph as signature in infobox" on which I would like to draw attention. One, there is no consensus on this issue (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Infobox_officeholder/Archive_12#Proposal_to_delete_signature_parameter). Two, Off2riorob suggested experimenting with a few autograph inclusion in the articles and based on discussions on talkpages we decide whether to keep the autographs or not. Three, several contributors have already included autographs as signatures. Overlooking them, how can only I be targeted? Four, I am fail to understand that once Johnuniq posted a message on my talkpage, I had stopped posting signatures. Then why did Rob remove all my autographs? Is it also right to ridicule a fellow Wikipedian citing the instance of an Urdu autograph which he does not understand? Hindustanilanguage (talk) 12:18, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I have told you - I am under no obligation to search the whole wikipedia removing similar low quality unverified pictures of someones autograph collection taken with a mobile phone. Please present the evidence of "ridicule" - I have imo been quite patient and helpful towards you - linking you to people to help and places to discuss - I actually suggested to you to discuss on talkpages not add your autographs to infoboxs and then discuss - you also failed to discuss on talkpages and have failed to seek consensus and have failed to join in the directed to discussion of the wider issue currently under discussion on wikipedia, but instead have just focused your upset and perceived bias on to me, instead of focusing on the real issue worthy of resolving which is, what, if any, added value are your collection of autographs, the unverified nature of them and the low quality of the vast majority of them. Off2riorob (talk) 13:47, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Did you not lift the off-the-track autograph of Shaz Tamkanat and try to make fun of me? Also, on what basis do you refer "Your king hussain of Jordon"? I am not Jordanian. Thirdly, if you are under no obligation to check others on this issue, then why are you, or maybe Johnuniq (is he your meatpuppet - because his editing and messages go side by side with yours?) only bent on targeting me? Has any one bothered to remove the so called "signature" - just a print of the name in Urdu from the article on Nazeer Akbarabadi. First, there has to be unanimity and a rule on an issue and it should be applicable to all. It should not be that on one issue the rules are different for two editors. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 04:15, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Johnuniq is my meatpuppet - yea right. Please present a diff to support your claim that "I ridiculed you" - You say, "did you not lift the off-the-track autograph of Shaz Tamkanat and try to make fun of me?" - please present diffs of what you assert is me ridiculing you or making fun of you, - to be honest - you are wasting your own time here - this is the place to report issues requiring immediate administrative action which your issue is not at all - go discuss some more - thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 04:22, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

For chrissake, HL, what Off2riorob said referred simply to "your King Hussain" as in "your King Hussain picture", "the picture of King Hussain that you have uploaded" etc. People commonly use such idioms as "your average Joe" (for someone on the street who is not anyone's), "his [the artist's] Jesus Christ has an expression of grief" (meaning the one rendition of Christ), and so on. And, ad absurdum, even if he were going to call you a Jordanian or speculate that you are, that would not in itself be insulting or even callous. Using the same skewed way of yours in reading what he said about "your king Hussain", I could now ask you: what do you have against Jordanians? See my point?

Finally: HL, you are doing yourself little service by flaring up a war on Off2riorob because he has brought into discussion your massive uploads of images that are indeed questionable for a lot of reasons. Instead of informing yourself about existing and quoted wikipedia policies and recommendations, which by now would have enlightened you as to why people keep questioning and reverting your various additions, you repeat the pointless argument "others have done it too" and, frankly, at this point, badgering Off2riorob (to say the least) in an effort to either exhaust or intimidate him. And yes, he is right: it is his privilege to address the one problem he decides to address, not any other potential or real problem; that he doesn't also do this and that is none of our (me and yours) concern, and we thank him for the time he spends cleaning up the mess that has caught his eye. In this case, the mess your edits have left behind.

I assure you that this sort of "defense" of yours is not generally tolerated on wikipedia, as this very project page shows. Please clean up your act, is my advice to you. Don't shoot yourself in the foot. Dahn (talk) 05:59, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

You people are not understanding me - all that I want first is there any universally accepted rule (in the Wikipedia). If so, please let me know the link where it is posted. Secondly, if you want to remove my signature-related edits, under that rule, what is the problem in editing similar edits by others? Why people target me alone. Does anybody know how painstakingly I translated all the Program and Schedule information files of Wikimania 2011 into Hindi, some in Urdu, created a separate category of files of Indian Languages which includes some files in Telugu and Malayalam as well. As an online volunteer, I also helped some of the other online contributors with templates and posting problems. At the personal level I have grudge with Rob - even when he reverted my edits. Please understand me and help me in contributing to Wiki Projects with even more dedication and friendly environment. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 06:50, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

1) If a "universally accepted rule" is what you're looking for, this is not the place to do it, and opening up several threads to badger Off2riorob is an even worse idea. 2) There isn't necessarily a "universal rule" to cover all the autographs you upladed, but there are several issues that, as you could have picked up from the earlier discussions, do address topical reasons why most if not all your uploads are dubious. For one, you have persistently uploaded them citing yourself as an author - whether this done out of confusion or lassitude, it is simply manipulative; you did not author the samples you photographed, you just authored the photographs. This does not make you a copyright owner, unless there are copyright laws that you cite saying otherwise, and they'll have to be on a case by case basis. Secondly, yes: images do get deleted because they are of poor quality and/or unencycopedic in nature, because wikipedia is not a repository of personal experiments (how's that for a universal rule?). See also Wikipedia:Copyright violations. 3) About the other signatures, several editors have told you already: wikipedia doesn't function under an all-seeing eye, and editors will tackle problems as they see them. There are and, alas, there will always be users who upload images that are in breach of policy, and users who will apply that policy - every bit helps. Again: WP:OTHERSTUFF. 4) Have you asked yourself if other images of signatures aren't indeed kosher under copyright legislation? 5) Again, the issue that was brought up in parallel was about removing the images of signature as a standard entry in the infobox, not about deleting them. This opens up a new series of questions: should we have images of sigs elsewhere in the article? do we even need images of sigs? That means that, even if your own images would be kosher, they will probably be kept, but not used in the article. It is a possible outcome, please please get used to it already. 5) I'm sure we all appreciate your other contributions to the project(s), but you have to learn how to properly assess the work and intentions of your fellow editors. I am frankly sorry that, since you state you are an experienced editor, you are not yet familiarized with basic wikipedia policies, and candid about not understanding their meaning and rationale - it is a wake-up call, if anything.

I hope this settles it. Dahn (talk) 07:24, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Pronunciation

Could someone tell Kwamikagami to stop moving the pronunciation to the infobox? I would tell him/her but he/she has protected his/her talk page. Objections have been raised to this practise at Template_talk:Infobox_person#Pronunciation?, but yet, he/she continues to make these edits. Thank you. 198.102.153.2 (talk) 16:59, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

In fact, the last thread I can see about this in the MOS is here, and there is clearly no consensus for moving this to the infobox. 198.102.153.2 (talk) 17:03, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

"Kwamikagami performing mass changes without consensus" is a recurring theme here, but I fear that raising it here again is unlikely to make any difference. bobrayner (talk) 18:23, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

This is indeed disruptive. Kwamikagami edited a MOS page to include an idea that is clearly against current practice, made related controversial additions to fully protected templates and then started using AWB to make changes "per MOS". Along the way, he also removes birth and death dates, claiming this is supported by MOS when the opposite is actually true. Prolog (talk) 19:12, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

The dates are per the MOS, and long have been. The only thing new is that I added support for pronunciations to several templates, support which already existed in others, and made a note of that in the pronunciation MOS, which already suggested moving pronunciation out of the lede to avoid clutter, clutter that numerous editors have complained about. And I haven't "removed" birth and death dates, or if I have, it's an oversight I apologize for. If you show me where I removed any info, I'll fix it.

The talk-page protection, BTW, was due to two editors continuing a POV fight over whether the Zaza are Kurds on my talk page. — kwami (talk) 19:21, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

The MOS is clear that birth and death dates should be in the lead sentence (WP:MOSBIO, WP:MOSBD), as is actual practice. By "removed", I meant removed from the lead (unlike pronunciations, they usually are already in the infobox). While I agree that sometimes noting pronunciation in a footnote is a good idea, you should not continue to cite WP:PRON as justification if the words are actually yours and have received little to no acceptance. As your bold changes have gathered more opposition than support, and are unlikely to gain consensus, you should self-revert the remaining edits. Prolog (talk) 20:14, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I just noticed that MOS does have some support for your date format, but this has been the case only after these edits that you made a few days ago, so this issue seems similar to the pronunciation moves. Prolog (talk) 16:53, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

A similar experience: Recently I moved five pages from plural to singular like this one [115]. At 11:32, Kwami engages in a talk with me: [116] (IMO the click families should be plural) -- looks OK then, talk is going (here I claimed the MOS: use singular line). But already at 11.26 they have reverted the move, back in to plural. The Talk led to nothing, Kwami did not appear again. The other disputed pages in this set are [117], [118], [119], [120].
If I'm correct, it takes admins tools to revert a move, because one page must be deleted first to free the name. I expressed surprise at Kwami at the thread [121], but did not bring it further until now.
Of course, it is frustrating is that Kwami reverted, and then entered a talk writing imo ... should (discovering that can spoil a day), and that admin tools were used for that. Apart from starting an ANI, what else can I do? I also have distrust in admins preventing such behaviour, even when there seems to be a pattern, as Bobrayner has pointed to above. -DePiep (talk) 17:29, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

No, it does not generally take admin tools to revert a move; I've reverted a few myself. It only takes admin tools after the redirect has been edited, like by the silly bot that adds Template:R from alternative spelling or such. Sometimes an editor will edit the redirect after a move, to make it harder to move back when he knows it's controversial (like happened today at My Tam, though he used a non-existent template). Dicklyon (talk) 23:47, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

You are right. As a test, I reverted Alveolar clicks into singular Alveolar click, and it finished as intended. Still, this is not the essence of my post. Kwami reverted before Talking. -DePiep (talk) 00:26, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

From WP:ADMIN - Administrators may be removed by Jimmy Wales, by stewards, or by a ruling of the Arbitration Committee. At their discretion, lesser penalties may also be assessed against problematic administrators, including the restriction of their use of certain powers or placement on administrative probation. Jimmy will only desysop for admin is using tools because he's being paid by The Man type situations, stewards will only remove powers if an admin has manifestly run mad or had their account hacked. Which leaves the Arbitration Committee. If you feel that something needs to happen, you will have to start that ball rolling. Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:30, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

You mean ANI has no function in handling this behaviour? -DePiep (talk) 18:38, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

No, she just means ANI can't remove adminship. If there were an actual problem, other solutions could be developed here. Dicklyon (talk) 23:47, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

remove adminship? A red herring Elen of the Roads threw in here. Why not discuss Kwami's behavior, as per the OP and my addition? -DePiep (talk) 00:13, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Wow

Wow. This takes the biscuit even for Kwami.

1. Edit a fully protected template to add a new parameter for pronunciation, without discussion.
2. Edit the MoS against significant opposition (to wit: the last discussion prior to July ended with "So... we don't appear to have a consensus yet.—RJH (talk) 18:40, 26 July 2010 (UTC) ") to support Kwami's position.
3. Immediately edit several hundred articles to match that position citing the MoS. I'm actually being generous here: the edits actually started two hours before he'd edited the MoS to suit himself.
4. Edit war over the template, citing that the parameter in question was being used.

If this were an editor who hadn't had the tools for long, it would be worth a telling off. If this were an editor who didn't have a history of mass edits with questionable consensus, it would be worth a stern talking to. In this case, I really can't see that anyone could suggest this is remotely excusable. If Kwami is pathologically incapable of not using tools (admin or automated) to enforce his personal position above consensus, it's high time both were taken away. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 14:47, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Woah, this is an admin making these kind of edits?! Definite misuse of their tools, and I agree, they shouldn't have them in the first place. GiantSnowman 14:51, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I find this disturbing. A simple revert was not the answer. Very disappointing. This admin just doesn't get it? Putting the IPA in the infobox has been deemed controversial, but yet he/she continues. Frietjes (talk) 20:01, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

• Comment – I don't see why this is at AN/I. Did anyone try discussing it with Kwami where the discussion is going on at the relevant MOS talk page [[122]]? The only one of the complainers that I see there is Chris Cunningham, and he seems to have a general disagreement about the use of infoboxes, and isn't finding support for his point of view on it. I don't see how this is seen as a big behavioral problem of Kwami; he's at least talking. And anyone who works toward consistency with MOS is going to have "a history of mass edits with questionable consensus." So question it in the right place. Dicklyon (talk) 23:19, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

re Dicklyon: I don't see why this is at AN/I. -- then why talk here at all? It is at ANI because it is a (possible) disruptive behavior by an editor. So rightly here. Which and admin could resolve -- good. Now I'll go read the rest of your post. -DePiep (talk) 00:51, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Talking maybe, but listening? Is there a particular reason why Kwami is still moving the IPA to the infobox (see here) even after reading this thread and the thread on infobox person? Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:57, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't know; you'd have to ask him. There's a conversation open on this, yes? I'm guessing that since nobody responded to his posts of more than a day ago, he didn't see much objection to what he's doing. Dicklyon (talk) 01:05, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

There is a conversation open at Template talk:Infobox person, where the objection was raised. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:12, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, Dicklyon, if you think Kwami's behavior is OK beforehand, go ahead (and again: go away from this ANI). Me too could find a talkpage where Kwami wrote a Nice Word (even I myself have made some Good Edits). You know, like Other Stuff Exists. Now why not stay to the topic here: Kwami's behaviour, based on diffs. and questioned with good reason? -DePiep (talk) 01:21, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

• Broad comment: I've had negative interactions with Kwami, but I have to say that I believe his edits are in good faith and reflect a deep knowledge of language and formatting. Asking him for more notice and discussion of proposed changes might be appropriate, but this thread has snowballed, as usual, out of proportion. Tony (talk) 06:08, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Me too: I have had good cooperations with Kwami. Still, the OP of this ANI is valid. And I don't see a snowball that big. -DePiep (talk) 14:53, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Debresser's edit-warring continues unabated

User:Debresser has twice moved Tachlifa the Palestinian. The second time without responding to my post at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism#New stub: Tachlifa the Palestinian. If he wanted to change the name of this new article, he knows the renaming procedure. (This issue is related to a current DRN, but I feel it is in order to create new pages using the sourced term, as Debresser continues to remove it unsustainably elsewhere, [123].) Chesdovi (talk) 14:02, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

In view of the reaction of admins last time a conflict arose between us, I think it is better I not reply. If any admin is really concerned about what is going on, please see this, this and this. Debresser (talk) 14:43, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

• How about I block both of you for 24 hours for edit warring. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:06, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
  • No, because what happenes then is that I should have left Debresser's rename and reported here. Whereupon there would be no case against Debresser as there was no repetetive reverting. I would be advised to take it to talk where the matter would not be resolved and Debresser rename would remain. If I do not revert Debresser's edit, it will stay. Block both of us. It will not stop Debresser enforcing his own preference on each and every relevant article. He is the one who can not stop himself from "fixing" new articles [124], let alone old ones. Chesdovi (talk) 15:43, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Or, alternately, you could've brought the issue to a content or dispute resolution noticeboard instead of reverting and waited for someone uninvolved to weigh in their opinion on whether a rename was appropriate and then they could revert. Then, and here is the funny part, had Debresser reverted more uninvolved editors, only he would have been guilty of edit warring instead of both of you. --v/r - TP 15:49, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

• The two editors, Debresser and Chesdovi, should consider opening a central RfC where all these matters could be resolved. The issue seems to fall between the cracks because it is not quite subject to ARBPIA, and the same dispute keeps popping up on different articles so 3RR may not be broken. The community's patience should not be unlimited. It would not be sudden or unexpected to issue disruptive editing blocks of one week apiece. If either party will agree to make no further reverts on this topic until an RfC is completed I would hold off on a block of that person. EdJohnston (talk) 16:02, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Ed for your refreshing suggestion. I agree to not revert, but ask that I be able to create new articles with the term - there should be nothing wrong with that as the Rfc-DNR will hopefully settle the matter, and either term may be applied from scrath. I also ask that Tachlifa of the West be moved back to its original name. Chesdovi (talk) 16:13, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

You are not quite accepting my offer, since you want to create new articles with 'Palestinian' in the title. You'd have to agree to pause on that, but you could make a list of what you want to do and wait until the RfC is over. Tachlifa of the West should also be kept under that title until the decision is reached. EdJohnston (talk) 16:56, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I was under the impression that these guys (Chesdovi, Debresser) were both banned from ANI... FuFoFuEd (talk) 21:04, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

It was suggested but not formally proposed. Frankly, it's long past time for a general interaction ban if not a complete ban on Palestine-related articles. This is unbelievably tedious. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 16:15, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I thought that WP:ARBPIA was "broadly construed" and included any religious topic of contention? I feel this particular article does fall under ARBPIA and 1RR sanctions apply, so there are sanctions that should be applied to both editors.--Cerejota (talk) 18:47, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Need help to create redirect page with "-".

Resolved

 – Redirect created. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:12, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi Admins ;

I am merely trying to create a redirect page "Thyroid-S", which is a brand name, and I want to redirect to the general discussion page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desiccated_thyroid_extract

But the "-" subtraction sign in the brand name "Thyroid-S" appears to be causing a problem in creating this page. Can someone help me please?

BR Peter G. Thailand — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cresard (talk • contribs) 04:00, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Done. -- Atama頭 04:36, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Bokan995

Resolved

 – Indef blocks issued free to socks. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:10, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Could someone please block this user? They previously had two socks blocked on 24 August per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Bokan995/Archive but weren't blocked themselves because they already were (for edit warring). They've now used two more checkuser confirmed socks per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Bokan995 to edit-war POV material into Medes, and the article was semi'd. However as of this moment they have reverted back to the original account to continue the edit-war. I'd block them myself, but I'm one of two editors that has been rv-ing the material introduced by the socks back out of the article (actually I think I'm on 4RR already, though rv-ing socks probably doesn't count). Black Kite (t) (c) 18:04, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree. He's apologised on my talk page, but given that this is his second blatant round of sock-puppetry and edits such as today's [125] and earlier [this edit and this edit praising the work of his socks. Dougweller (talk) 18:13, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Counting his socks he's at R6 now. Dougweller (talk) 18:15, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Master and all known, named socks blocked indefinitely. Favonian (talk) 18:21, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 18:28, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Renewed abuse by a new sock/account of indef-blocked user Harmonia1

Heat-to-light ratio has dropped below useful levels. Supposing there are still content issues, they can be discussed elsewhere. lifebaka 02:29, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Well after that copy editing, I introduced 'Bisque' as a background Div style (aid to reading), as this long tortuous discussion kept going off page. // FrankB 14:37, 22 August 2011 (UTC) And I removed it, because that's not normal practice here. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:44, 22 August 2011 (UTC) A note to new readers: There are users who have commented inside of other user's comments. I have tried to indent them to avoid confusion, but may not have succeeded. lifebaka 16:38, 18 August 2011 (UTC) In May 2010, User:Harmonia1 was identified by Checkuser as the master account associated with four sockpuppet accounts: User:Critias6, User:Elkoholic, User:Tailertoo, and User:Ellieherring, after this SPI was conducted. The defense was that the alternate accounts were all associated individuals involved with M2 Technologies, a company owned/operated by Janet Morris. All of the accounts edited exclusively subjects associated with Morris and her business, which involved "nonlethal technology". The SPI was opened after coordinated editing became apparent in disputes over articles dealing with the "nonlethal technology" area. "Tailertoo" and "Harmonia1" reported close personal association, and "Tailertoo" turns out to be the Twitter handle of Janet Morris's husband, also a central figure in the M2 Technology business. All of the accounts were blocked, with five unblock requests rejected for the master. The accounts edited in tandem, votestacked, and typically participated in discussions without ever citing any external sources of authorities in support of the positions they held. For some time this year, there has been extensive coordinated editing on subjects related to Janet Morris, with many new accounts and SPAs appearing, particularly in editing disputes. The accounts involved edit subjects related to Janet Morris principally or exclusively, participate in discussions at length without citing any external sources or authorities in support of their positions, and otherwise parallel the behavior of the accounts in last year's disputes. There has been a great deal of canvassing off-wiki. Virtually all of the accounts involved self-identify as associates of Janet Morris, or use names that correspond to those used off-wiki as associates of Janet Morris. Many of them are names of authors published in the book Lawyers in Hell, which was the subject of a contentious AFD where several of the accounts first surfaced. The accounts involved are: User:Guarddog2. This user self-identifies as Janet Morris. Comments by this users and other accounts suggest that Morris has operated other accounts. User:UrbanTerrorist. This user-self-identifies as Wayne Borean, a friend or associate of Morris who promotes her most recent book project on his blog. Right... Please notice that I have a longer and more productive record as an editor here than Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. Any article that I edit is improved by the edit. Any article that he/she/it edits looks like it has been attacked with a chainsaw. UrbanTerrorist (talk) 01:10, 19 August 2011 (UTC) You have, as of a moment ago, 547 edits. I have over 43,000. That's sure an interesting definition you have of "longer". Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 04:39, 19 August 2011 (UTC) User:Bluewillow991967, who self-identifies as Julie Crawford Cochrane, a writer who is negotiating the sale of a story to a book Morris is editing. That's Julie Cochrane -- I have 3 novels out (co-authored). I am submitting a story to an anthology as one of a collection of people who have been solicited to submit stories. Submitting stories to open anthologies on series or subjects we like or find interesting---it's what professional authors do. I disclosed my association up front, and I note that instead of assuming my good faith, Wolfowitz is using the disclosure to imply bad faith on my part. My disclosure was not on my own talk page. I'm very new to Wikipedia, I put it on Jethrobot's talk page and mentioned in the Hell talk page that it was there. Bluewillow991967 (talk) 10:55, 18 August 2011 (UTC) The notice is on my talk page now. Bluewillow991967 (talk) 12:54, 18 August 2011 (UTC) User:Hulcys930, who self-identifies as being involved in the genre Morris writes and publishes in. "Hulcys" is also the screen name used by a writer published in Morris's Lawyers in Hell anthology, and who has used her Twitter feed to canvass Wikipedia disputes. User:Knihi, an account created to participate in the Lawyers in Hell AFD, and used only to participate in disputes involving Janet Morris-related articles. Really? Are you kidding me? The very first thing I ever said was "I'm a total newbie." I happen to be a SF/Fantasy reader and fan, and I like to look at wikipedia articles. When I saw the dispute on this author, a book of whose I once read and liked, it intrigued me -- enough to pull me in to contribute as an editor for the first time. Given that my interest in WP has led to me being called some sort of unethical sockpuppet, I'm really having a hard time believing that the principal of good faith means anything around here. I certainly have not seen Hullabaloo Woolfowitz exercise ANY in my direction. I have to say this newbie's experience of WP has been a real turn off. I doubt I'll contribute or be an editor any more if this is the sort of treatment newbies receive. Let me state this concisely: I've only participated in disputes involving Janet Morris, because I'm brand-spanking new and that's the first thing I EVER spent time on. Jeesh. Do I need to have somehow magically contributed to articles before I opened a WP account in order to get treated with a little good faith around here? I regret the snark, but I have to confess I'm really steamed at this treatment. By the way Cthu-Lou is my account also, but only continues to exist because I couldn't figure out how to delete it. This is something I announced the very first time I posted with Knihi. Knihi (talk) 16:32, 18 August 2011 (UTC) user:Knihi has made a number of false statements here; most conspicuously, he did not "announce" his prior editing as Cthu-Lou in his first edit as Knihi [126], or anywhere else that I can find, until this posting, after the possibility of an SPI was raised. His first edit as Knihi did, however, toss barbs in Orangemike's direction. It's really remarkable how many people with grievances against OrangeMike showed up to argue over these articles, all claiming no coordination, canvassing, etc., especially when the central player has announced she's "keepingbuilding a file" on OM and his "cronies". Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:58, 20 August 2011 (UTC) Oh for crying out loud. You're being very literal -- I didn't mean my very first post, I meant up front. I'm pretty darn sure I mentioned it early on, and no, I'm not going to go hunting through all the conversations to find it. I can't even find some of the conversations. I just figured out how to find post history, but there were a lot of times I posted without being logged in. Once again, you are just assuming bad faith. As for these so called "barbs" can you link to them please, because I don't recall anything but trying to be polite and/or add some levity. I never even heard of OrangeMike until I got involved in these discussions. And is that what this is about? You think I somehow tossed 'barbs' at someone you know, so you wind up listing me as part of some sort of pernicious conspiracy. I'm really starting to feel like you're trolling me. Also I don't appreciate you using the rhetorical tactic of baldly claiming I made a number of false statements but then only listing one. If you want to go making claims about my truthfulness, I'd appreciate it if you enumerated them, giving me something specific to which I can respond.Knihi (talk) 03:27, 21 August 2011 (UTC) What you said was "This is something I announced the very first time I posted with Knihi." It wasn't true, and it's a plain, straightforward factual statement. You claim that your only motivation is that you've read and and liked some of Morris's work, but by a curious coincidence the description you'vr given of yourself on-Wiki matches up to the self-description of a person who uses the screen nane "Cthu-Lou", who describes himself as a friend of one of the Lawyers in Hell authors, and has actually passed along requests for help from that author on the details of what might well be a "Heroes in Hell" story, and who also has social-network connections with User:UrbanTerrorist. It's also quite peculiar that your first post as Knihi teed off on OrangeMike over his conduct in deletion discussions, even though none of the AFDs you'd posted in as Cthu-Lou involved OM. And as a final note, you stated, above, that someone here has called you an "unethical sockpuppet." Who and where, pray tell? With an appropriate cite. I don't see anyone having done that. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:27, 21 August 2011 (UTC) Really? Ok. You caught me using inexact language. It wasn't in the very first post. I'm not exactly sure what you think you've accomplished, but clearly I was typing in a rush. In turn, I feel confirmed in not trusting to your good faith. It is quite curious to me you seem so concerned about this OrangeMike person and have yet to link to where I supposedly tossed 'barbs' at him. As for being called an "unethical sockpuppet" what I actually wrote was "being called some sort of unethical sock puppet" -- which is subtly different -- and I can certainly cite that. You. Here. As an "account involved" with "Renewed abuse by a new sock/account of indef-blocked user Harmonia1" I find being included on this list and having to have this conversation as equivalent to "being called some sort of unethical sock puppet," and I stand by that impression. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knihi (talk • contribs) 19:38, 21 August 2011 (UTC) It's not a question of "inexact language." It's that you never made that disclosure, in your first or any other post, so far as I can tell, and you don't cite the post where the "announcement" was purportedly made. As for your claim that I didn't link to your comments regarding OM, the link is there, plain as day in my reply to your first post in this subthread, despite whatever motive you might claim for denying it's there. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 04:57, 22 August 2011 (UTC) Well I remember making the post, even if I can no longer find it. Its entirely possible I made it to someone's talk page or somewhere else, like a message. *shrug* There's been a lot of typing around here. I don't think it proves anything substantive one way or another; but I guess you'd have to assume good faith to accept that, which seems in short supply. As for a link to 'barbs' I see a link to my opening post as knihi on a discussion but I don't read anything in there that is a 'barb' -- and, in asking for greater specificity from you, I don't have motives here, other than to categorically refute your blanket characterization of my comments. Which comment, specifically, do you regard as a 'barb' and why? And as for inexact language, I point you to the opening of your very first comment on my user account. It's been established that UrbanTerrorist not Janet Morris claimed to be "keeping a file"; so either you claim to know UrbanTerrorist's gender or you too made a mistake and used inexact language. I'm going with uncorrected mistake. Please note that I am offering you the good faith you consistently fail to offer me. Knihi (talk) 15:04, 22 August 2011 (UTC) Guys, enough. Lots of heat, no light. lifebaka 16:27, 22 August 2011 (UTC) User:Dokzap, who self-identifies as a science fiction writer. The credentials claimed by Dokzap match those of a science fiction writer who has sold stories to anthologies edited by Janet Morris, and who uses the Twitter handle Dokzap User:Dburkhead, who has edited only subjects related to Janet Morris, and who made multiple promotional edits involving "With Enemies Like These", a story published in Lawyers in Hell and written by David L. Burkhead. User:Dburkhead Interesting word choice. A brief, factual synopsis of the story in question, listing major characters and settings in order to link to Wikipedia articles on those characters and settings, is not "promotional." The term for what Hullaballoo Wolfowitz is doing is called "loaded language."user:Dburkhead User:Luke Jaywalker, an editor who made a handful of edits in 2008, returned early this year, and since then edited principally subjects related to Janet Morris or to Baen Books, Morris's principal publisher I can assure you, and I invite IPs to be checked by any means available in order to prove this, that I'm nobody's sockpuppet. I've been primarily (about 75%, I estimate) editing those subjects because they happen to be of interest to me at this time, the same reason (aside from fixing typos I happen to spot) I make edits in general. Luke Jaywalker (talk) 00:16, 21 August 2011 (UTC) User:Mzmadmike, who self-identifies as Michael Z. Williamson, a writer with a story published in Lawyers in Hell, and several novels, mostly published by Baen Books. Williamson operates a discussion board under the Baen's Bar site, and used that board to canvass on Wikipedia disputes related to Janet Morris Mike's Madhouse Please do look at the thread directly, as it refutes the allegation of "canvassing" and is instead a request for users familiar with WP and/or Morris's work to contribute information to improving the articles if they can. I would note that this also substantially refutes allegations of attempts to WP:OWN the articles in question. Bluewillow991967 (talk) 10:55, 18 August 2011 (UTC) User:Cthu-Lou, an account which participates exclusively in discussions relating to the notability of books by Janet Morris. For real? Participates? I used this account to post a few times then lost my password and got snarled in the lost password process. So I created the knihi account and my very first act was to announce this in the AFD we were having. I'd as soon see this account deleted. If it has more than a few posts to its name then someone other than me has been using it. And even if it were not me, Good Faith anyone? Why does contributing to only one article make you suspicious? Everyone starts with some article sometime. Forgive the redundancy but I really feel like being new is the same as being suspicious and good faith is out the window. Talk about a turn-off. Sheesh. Knihi (talk) 16:32, 18 August 2011 (UTC) User:ColdServings, an account which participated only in an AFD regarding one of Morris's novels. I created this account earlier using one of my various "screen names" (http://coldservings.livejournal.com, http://www.coldservings.com) and had forgotten about it when creating the account I use now however user:ColdServingsonly participated in one discussion and never an any discussion in which user:Dburkhead participates thus the usual complaint of using "sock puppets" to create the illusion of more support for a position than truly exists does not apply in this case. As for whether either of these accounts is a "sock puppet" of Ms. Morris, you are welcome to contact me via one of my sites (both of which have been around a lot longer than this particular wikipedia controversy).user:Dburkhead User:Cordova829, who self-identifies as Jason Cordova, a writer published in Lawyers in Hell. Cordova edits almost exclusively on articles related to Morris or, to a lesser degree, Michael Z. Williamson (Mzmadmike). Well now, I suggest you double-check all of my edits. I've been on WP since 2004 and while I did work for quite awhile establishing author Michael Z. Williamson's page, I also did quite a few edits on other authors as well. I believe that one of WP's admissions (or perhaps it is desire, I am not certain) is for those who are knowledgeable to make edits, contributions and place cites. I happen to be a fan of science fiction and am very knowledgeable about the author pages I edit. I'm sorry that I don't "branch out" and edit pages I know nothing about but I, unlike others, believe that facts trumpet a consensus. Cordova829 (talk) 04:27, 25 August 2011 (UTC) Principal pages involved: Lawyers in Hell AFD Talk:Heroes in Hell Talk:Gilgamesh in the Outback Dispute Resolution Noticeboard#Gilgamesh in the Outback There may be other accounts involved; there are problem edits and many articles and AFDs involving subjects related to Janet Morris. This is very messy. Since the current disputes coalesced following the Lawyers in Hell AFD began, several users (principally UrbanTerrorist and Guarddog2) have posted extensive personal attacks on User:OrangeMike and myself, with helpings of general incivility. Guarddog2 made a round of not-quite-actionable, borderline NLT violations, reported and discussed here [127], then last night declared she was taking her dispute with me to the SFWA Grievance Committee, which seemed to me a peculiar attempt at intimidation, since that group only involves itself in disputes between writers and publishers. Guarddog2 also declared she is "keeping a file" on Orangemike and his "cronies", another crudely ineffective mode of intimidation. You know and not for nothing, but as an outside observer more interested in fair treatment of the original articles than these disputes, my opinion is that you have been pretty darned uncivil and hostile yourself. You also seem to take everything in the worst possible light. For example, Guarddog2 never said she was taking her dispute with you to the SFWA Grievance Committee. She said words to the effect that she was going to ask someone from their to weigh in. I took that to mean, because they would have expert knowledge on the topic (ie the difference between firs serial, reprint, etc. and how all that is handled in the industry), and since you'd been invoking the SFWA as an authority, it seemed that would be someone you'd actually believe. Your interpretation that this was a threat is...well, it's your interpretation and you're entitled to it. But it wasn't how it read to me. For whatever that's worth. Knihi (talk) 16:32, 18 August 2011 (UTC) As Spartaz commented in closing the Lawyers in Hell AFD, the set of Janet Morris-related disputes, has become dominated by a clique of users, mostly with professional connections to Morris, who "have been bludgeoning this discussion to the point of imcomprehensibility." It is extremely difficult to find good faith in the extended discussions. For example, when I cited the well-regarded reference work Contemporary Authors, Urban Terrorist compared it to the Protocols of the Elders of Zion [128]. Guarddog2 posts lengthy commentary on copyright law, unsupported by any sources and often contradicted by what's available, then she and her associated authors post insinuations that editors who disagree with her are ignorant, etc. Wow. I guess can see how you took it that way, but I recall Urban Terrorist -- whom I agree should tone it down -- as saying, essentially, if one were willing to accept any source uncritically, one might as well trust the Protocols... He did not compare that particular reference to the Protocols. I think you may be way to close to this and hearing everything as hostile. Additionally, I responded to that very comment about incomprehensibility, that I for one didn't find it incomprehensible, nor did I have trouble finding good faith. Until accusations flew and everyone seemed to get angry at which point all I could find was bad faith directed indiscriminately. Admittedly, this is just my opinion, but what you just wrote is merely your opinion of events as well. Knihi (talk) 16:32, 18 August 2011 (UTC) l The specific dispute I'm engaged in with the Morris clique is fundamentally bizarre: multiple reliable sources support a simple factual statement; but they repeatedly try to exclude it from the relevant article without citing any contrary sources. Underneath it is an effort to WP:OWN a class of articles and use them to promote the interests of various writers. Some editors are trying to reopen ancient disputes; UrbanTerrorist and Guarddog2 are targeting Orangemike for abuse over a book review he wrote when Jimmy Wales wasn't old enough to drink legally. Janet Morris (assuming it's her) is still complaining about differences she had with Robert Silverberg back when Michael Dukakis was running for US President. Now hold on here. Seems to me you're just asserting this stuff about "promoting the interests". It also seems to me someone else could have written what you just did, swapping the sides. Once these two groups are having editing wars, accusations like this are inherently one-sided. It could be equally flipped around and directed at you. And you'd both be being biased and unfair. For example, it's not a "simple factual statement" You make it sound like arguing about 2 2=4. Of course its nothing so simple. How could it be? You're claiming one thing, and the other side claims you're using a term incorrectly and oversimplifying matters. The use of the term has real impact and meaning and accuracy in all articles on collections, anthologies, and shared-universe fiction -- all of which are different art forms. I don't mean to start a debate here but I just can't let that kind of one-sided oversimplification stand. YOU see it as "bizarre" and about a "simple factual statement," but they don't. Also using terms like 'clique' or mentioning your belief she's "complaining about Silverberg" in a disparaging fashion are irrelevant and hardly civil.Knihi (talk) 16:32, 18 August 2011 (UTC) There's obviously coordinated editing and canvassing going on. The same thing was done on related articles last year, and the central player appears to have returned, even though her unblock requests have been rejected, with a more effective approach toward the puppetry involved. This kind of behavior needs to be stopped and strongly deterred. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 04:01, 18 August 2011 (UTC) Could you classify and describe the conflict of interest that the writers collectively believe you have with the work(s) and writer(s)? COI works both ways. I am not saying you actually have one, but they're asserting something along those lines a lot, and it's not clear from reading all that (once) what exactly it is. Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:33, 18 August 2011 (UTC) The accusations of COI against Hullaballoo are not grounded in anything mentioned at WP:COI. One user said that they "had no idea" why he would have a COI. The argument, by another editor, is that "Hullaballoo is committed to making it as difficult as possible for any of Ms. Morris' work to be included in WP without fighting a battle against editors with many years of experience doing an inordinate amount of work to denigrate and dismiss Ms. Morris' books and stories." But he hasn't violated the three reversion rule or even tried to find ways around it (because there hasn't been an edit war). The arguments basically demonstrate ignorance of Wikipedia policies, which I am somewhat sympathetic to because there are many. However, they seem to have an inability to accept Wikipedia policies that have been explained, such as the need for verifiability of claims and the fact that Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. It has also been intensely frustrating since many users (myself included, perhaps) have responded with wall-of-text-type responses that are long, winding, and include too many issues. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 04:51, 18 August 2011 (UTC) The tactics of this group of editors has been to assert, over and over again, that Hullabaloo Wolfowitz has a conflict of interest in this matter, without offering a single shred of evidence in support of those charges. Then, they go on to demand that he recuse himself from this matter, since he has such a flagrant conflict of interest. The evidence that Hullabaloo Wolfowitz has presented above seems to show that it is his accusers instead who have a genuine conflict of interest. In several cases, they admit it openly but claim some sort of special expertise as an exemption from Wikipedia's normal standards of behavior. Acting in concert, they try to own this group of articles. This conduct ought not be allowed to stand. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:03, 18 August 2011 (UTC) (ec, the commenter immediately above say what I'm trying to say better than I can tonight, and I thank them) I have not a clue what the editors making the COI claims are talking about. It strikes me that they are simply throwing ad hominem attacks because they can't really contest the substantive points I've made. As I recall, the COI claims began with this comment by Hulcys930: "The issue of COI is that each and every page regarding a Janet Morris story, novel or anthology has been the subject of inordinate scrutiny for a number of years by three WP editors: OrangeMike, Dravecky and Hullaballoo Wolfowitz."[129] That's not a real COI claim, of course, and the facts don't bear it out -- the first Morris-related editing I'd done was on the Lawyers in Hell AFD; I believe Dravecky's involvement began only with AFD comments earlier this year; and these folks seem willing to accuse Orangemike of high crimes over a review he wrote many years ago. Full disclosure: I had a brief, pleasant conversation with Robert Silverberg, the author of the story at the center of much of this dispute, about 30 years ago, at an sf convention. I also met Jim Baen, Morris's one-time publisher, at a party even longer ago. I have no less tenuous connection to anyone else involved in the dispute. I consider myself moderately knowledgeable in the field because, 15-30 years ago I did some "management consulting" (loosely described) for some specialty booksellers, two or three of whom dabbled in small press publishing, but never had any contact with any of the people involved here. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 05:08, 18 August 2011 (UTC) I'd like to try and answer Georgewilliamherbert's question with something other than "He doesn't! Their crazy!" (not that those words were literally used, of course). Before I do let me say first that I'm not an editor claiming Hullaballoo has a COI, but I can see why others might. For one he, like other editors in these discussions, has not stuck to a neutral tone, leading to the conclusion that he doesn't have a WP:NPOV. Hullabaloo has also, in my view, gone ahead and done the very thing WP:COI suggests not doing (from WP:COI): "When someone voluntarily discloses a conflict of interest, other editors should always assume the editor is trying to do the right thing. Do not use a voluntarily disclosed conflict of interest as a weapon against the editor." And yet this very discussion feels like just such a weapon (and as I've said elsewhere, I feel caught in the crossfire). His intensity and the mutual hostility have likely led opposing editors to feel that (from WP:COI) "he's got interests...more important to [to him] than advancing the aims of Wikipedia" even if they don't have proof of such. Additionally the newbie's (like myself) may have confused prohibitions against "citing oneself" -- which Hullabaloo has not done -- with those against "original research" -- which he may very well have done. Finally, since WP:COI mentions that "...when editing causes disruption to the encyclopedia through violation of policies such as neutral point of view...accounts may be blocked..." They might have concluded, perhaps erroneously, that Hullabaloo has a COI. My point in writing this is to balance what appears to me to be a sort of witch-hunt-like/conspiracy theory vilification of everyone who opposes Hullabaloo in this discussion. Just a way to support Good Faith and show these editors (myself included) can be wrong without being crazy or antagonistic. Knihi (talk) This above statement seems to support Cullens summation of the COI-interest accusations against Hullaballoo. There is nothing that substantiates the accusation, only some vagueness about him not having "stuck to a neutral tone" (seems to be a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT). The COI is clearly on the other side of this conflict, not Hullaballos. --Saddhiyama (talk) 23:11, 20 August 2011 (UTC) Nicely said User:Cullen328, but totally inaccurate. The problems come from Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, whose tactics have included a wide variety of wild accusations and attacks, for which he/she/it has refused to provide any proof, even when asked repeatedly for it. I gather that the necessity to actually have to come up with proof is so terrifying that it has now decided to move the argument to another level. I'm not assuming good faith anymore because threatening to write about us, expounding on your credentials, your associations, "knowing a lot of people," and saying that some editors (in general) are idiots in this Wall of text are disruptive and not helpful to your case. Only checkusers can confirm sockpuppets. Also, we can read your edit history just fine, thanks. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 04:37, 19 August 2011 (UTC) Since I disagree I've taken out the Collapse statement. I think that the information on who and what I am is very germane, since I've been accused of being a sock puppet, and I posted this as proof that I'm not a sock puppet. This would be the equivalent of my deciding to Collapse Hullaballoo Wolfowitz complaint so that no one could read it, and no one knew what he was complaining about. UrbanTerrorist (talk) 13:57, 18 August 2011 (UTC) I've finding this totally fascinating, and I've been documenting the entire procedure, so that I can write a short non-fiction book about what it is like to work on Wikipedia. I am a writer after all, and writing is what I do. I'm also a publisher, so I won't have any problems placing the book. I should warn you that all of you will star in the book. Now let's take a look at the situation one step at a time, going back to when this started. Yes, I know everyone involved. I know a hell of a lot of people. If you want to go back to the Six Degrees of Separation theory, I'm two degrees away from George W. Bush, Barack Obama, Stephen Harper, Arnold Schwarzenegger, and a lot of other big names. It's not that I'm important. I'm not. Its just that before my body fell apart I used to be the Major Accounts Sales Representative for a company that manufacturers catalytic converters and other emission control products, and I spent a lot of time in Ottawa, Washington, and San Francisco, and I know a lot of people in government. You can still find my name on the California Air Resources Board, Industry Canada, West Coast Diesel Collaborative, and Western Regional Air Partnership government body websites, Environmental Defense, Manufacturers of Emissions Controls non-governmental organization websites, and on Forklift Action the Forklift Industry News website even though I've been out of work for nearly three years now. If you check the Diesel Particulate Filter article you will find that I started it and that most of the first 9500 words were contributed by me while I was working for a company that manufactured and sold the devices. If you look at the article on Selective Catalytic Reduction you will notice that I took the original article from 600 words to 3800 words, again while working in the industry. The article once again needs a re-write because some idiot who doesn't understand chemistry tried to come to a consensus rather than understanding the chemical reaction. Yes, I've removed the collapse statement a second time. The information is germane to my claim not to be a sock puppet, and therefore needs to be seen. As I've said several times, it appears that there are two sets of rules. One for the in crowd and one for everyone else. The in crowd can say what they want. They can make any accusations that they want. They can claim that long standing accounts are sock puppets without providing any evidence (as you will notice Hullaballoo Wolfowitz has provided none above). When one of those accused attempts to provide evidence it is claimed that it isn't germane, and that it doesn't need to be seen. UrbanTerrorist (talk) 01:10, 19 August 2011 (UTC) The point that I'm making is that I've been here a long time. I've never had any problems with anyone before this. Sure, there have been disagreements about how articles should look, and what should be included, but I've always been able to work them out with the other editors before this episode started. It started when I decided to set up a page for the new book in the Heroes in Hell series, Lawyers in Hell. I did what I usually do, which is set up a junk page to get the layout right. Life intervened, and I didn't get back to it for a couple of days. When I say live intervened, my dog Sam had been hit by a bus. Beagles are tough little dogs, but they don't win against a bus. I did all of my writing with Sam curled up against me, and loosing him totally messed up my mind. When I came back, the page been deleted. I wasn't in the best mood before I logged on. This put me over the edge. I found out who was responsible, and proceeded to tear a strip off him. Probably not the best thing to do, but I wasn't feeling at all good, and Orangemike caught the fallout. I later learned that Orangemike wasn't in compliance with Wikipedia rules when he deleted the article. I didn't know that at the time, accepted his explanation, and apologized. I was in the process of reading up on the rule that he had told me I wasn't in compliance with (it isn't something that we have to worry about in Canada, we have rational online copyright laws) when someone else set up a page. I explained to that person the copyright issue, and they got it fixed. I then went back to Orangemike and asked for his help to make the page deletion proof. His way of helping was to tag the page with an Articles for Deletion. This wasn't exactly the sort of help I had asked for. It also wasn't in compliance with Wikipedia rules, but I didn't know that at the time either. The Article for Deletion Discussion is fascinating reading, and yes, I'm including it in the book. If you haven't read it, I suggest that you do. At one point someone said, "The discussion is open to any Wikipedia editor," but when I made an effort to let some editors who I thought would have an interest in the AfD know about it, I was accused of canvassing. Meanwhile a series of editors who could have known nothing about it, unless they were told by someone who knew about the AfD kept showing up, and voting Delete. I found that rather curious. At the end of the AfD it was decided that no consensus was reached. But all of a sudden there's discussion of a merge. Now unlike certain people who appear to live online at Wikipedia, I have a life. I've got several books in various stages - shameless plug - buy The Joy of IRig from the ITunes Book and Kobo book stores for $0.99 in September! So I missed the merge discussion which was carried out with unseemly haste. I did however have an argument with Orangemike about his setting up a Wikipedia article for a mutual friend, who while he is a nice guy, isn't notable by Wikipedia standards. I didn't AfD the page even though I would have been justified in doing so. I've known this guy longer than I've known my wife, and we are celebrating our 25th wedding anniversary this weekend. But as I said, he's a friend, and I'm not an ass. I left the page. I do think that its curious that there are two standards. One for the insiders. One for everyone else. OK, so the merge happens. Then I notice something curious. One page is left. So I decided to merge that one page (note that this probably isn't in the correct order). I merged the Gilgamesh in the Outback page into the Heroes in Hell page, and Hullaballoo Wolfowitz freaks out. He claims that he's got solid evidence that Gilgamesh in the Outback is notable and that it would have existed without Heroes in Hell. I look at his evidence, and to me it looks like he's doing original research, and I say so. This lead to the Dispute Resolution. Based on the comments there, it appears that the only person who agreed with Hullaballoo Wolfowitz was Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. I'll admit having little patience for idiots. I have less patience for chainsaw editors like Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. I've made tons of corrections over the years on Wikipedia. A lot of them have been no more than minor grammatical fixes. Others have in some cases been fairly extensive. In no cases have I walked away from an article without improving it. When Hullaballoo Wolfowitz works on an article the damage is incredible. He should be blocked from editing. UrbanTerrorist (talk) 06:34, 18 August 2011 (UTC) On first impression - Everyone here is behaving badly and should stop it. On second impression, everyone here is operating in good faith, has disclosed enough to know what's at stake with COI - and are still behaving badly, particularly including operating in bad faith regarding the other participants, and should stop it. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:15, 18 August 2011 (UTC) If you can provide solid evidence of where I have been behaving badly Georgewilliamherbert other than the short period where I have admitted to being short tempered for a very valid reason, I would love to see it. UrbanTerrorist (talk) 13:57, 18 August 2011 (UTC) If you have a specific example of my operating in bad faith regarding other participants, please bring it forward. I've made every effort to remain civil and stick to the issue(s) at hand. Bluewillow991967 (talk) 16:21, 18 August 2011 (UTC) Replying to a comment by Knihi above: I've gone ahead and tagged User:Cthu-Lou as a former account for you. If you still have the password for it, you should log on and change the password to something random (bang randomly on the keyboard for a bit) so that you won't have access to it any more. You shouldn't have any more problems from it, though. Cheers. lifebaka 16:46, 18 August 2011 (UTC) Thanks! I don't have the password, and your help is a relief to me. Knihi (talk) 17:20, 18 August 2011 (UTC) I clearly stated when I created guarddog2 that it was a single purpose page and that as Janet Morris I could be perceived as having a COI, and that I am unskilled in WP rules, regulations, and procedures, and don't have time to become expert. There was a previous discussion on many issues now raised anew here, which appeared on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, of which I was informed by: Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:56, 12 August 2011 (UTC> In relation to current issues primarily surrounding the HIH series, I have repeatedly been accused of not being me, and others have been accused of being me. In relation to previous issues in previous years: The issues surrounding my connection to Harmonia et al WP activities (all unpaid) and the WP NLW page are discussed in a WP review and WP has that documentation, which can be reviewed by WP authorities at any time. I believe that the people named in this current review (some authors, some not) have all been forthcoming about their COI where they perceive it. All of these people trying to help with the HIH series issues, as far as I know, really exist. None are my sockpuppets, if I understand the term. All have their own computers and their own volition: I am not controlling any of them now,and have never controlled any group of WP editors. Some people have or may write for my series; some may never write or submit a story for HIH. I was trying to help in good faith, as I said on my talk page,to clarify a contentious situation, initially in a review that was called out as a "copyright" issue review, though that was later changed and broadened. It is worthy of note that if all of these new editors were treated with respect, they might become WP resources. It is also worthy of note that if all these young editors are disbarred, Mr. Wolfowitz will have much more control over the fate of the HIH page. My interrest in talking to the SFWA Grievance committee member I know was to find out what the process was in SFWA for attributing award-nominated works on ballots, and whether that process could have been compromised or was as simple as "first alphabetical listing when more than one publication" exists for the same year, or was, as I have previously assumed, the author's choice -- and if this were so, was that documentable. We discussed potential remedies for such confusions or confutations, given the increasing power of aggregators to correctly state or misstate history based on a small amount of information that becomes proliferate, whether correct or incorrect, and then is taken for true based on the number of times that information can be found on the internet. Guarddog2 (talk) 18:15, 18 August 2011 (UTC) Note that Guarddog2 has acknowledged here that she is in fact the editor behind the Harmonia1 account ("my connection to Harmonia et al"), and has therefore been editing in violation of the indefinite block imposed on her last year. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:13, 19 August 2011 (UTC) Editing? Wasn't she just replying to you in an administrative forum? Is that "editing"? The term gets used a lot. I'd be interested in its WP definition *runs off to search WP*. Anyway, there weren't any guarddog2 edits to WP articles that I recall, before they all got merged. Can anyone check the record on that? But lets be real here, she could have easily said "my connection to Harmonia et al or lack thereof" as that's the tenor of the comment. Changing "the proper authorities know about this so I'm not going to speak about it" -- effectively 'no comment' -- into "Ah ha! Guilt has been admitted!" seems a bit of stretch, no? Knihi (talk) 03:40, 19 August 2011 (UTC) Knihi, precisely what I thought I said: this Harmonia issue was discussed and decided by WP years ago and interested parties can look at it, where I'm sure my connection or lack of same to everyone involved was decided by WP's rules to WP's satisfaction and is a matter of record. Also, when I said "new" (wherever that was) I meant it in the Webster's sense of "recently created," with no other connotation. Guarddog2 (talk) 20:09, 19 August 2011 (UTC) From WP:BLOCK: A blocked user can continue to access Wikipedia, but is not able to edit any page', except (in most cases) their own user talk page. The block is not limited to articlespace edits. Even if it were, Morris's contribution history as Guarddog2 began with articlespace edits. Your interpretation of her comment makes no sense, the "review" she refers to was conducted more than a year ago, well before the Guarddog2 account was opened; there's no way her statement here could be true, or even make sense, otherwise. (And she's referred to Guarddog2 as her "new" account, indicating she had an old one.) The phrase "Harmonia et al WP activities (all unpaid)" refers to her defense last year that the supposed socks were actually her colleagues at M2 Technologies, editing via the company servers, but not as part of their jobs (that's why "unpaid" is mentioned, and how would Guarddog2 have known that otherwise?) She deserves some credit for owning up to it, although she would have done better to make full disclosure before beginning to edit again. And think about this: if you were Janet Morris, owner of M2 Technologies, and discovered that somebody had been impersonating you on Wikipedia, including creating an account under your husband's Twitter handle, making edits relating to your business, etc., wouldn't you have entered ballistic mode very quickly? The silence here would be remarkable. Besides, as I recall, several of the alternate accounts last year occasionally edited via IPs by mistake, making it possible to associate them with Guarddog2's IP if she denied the connection and a full investigation was done. (But even I'm not cynical enough to assume that motivated her rather than a good faith disclosure.) Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 04:32, 19 August 2011 (UTC) Actually my interpretation of her comment makes perfect sense, given my knowledge of things, it just doesn't make sense to YOU. You have a different interpretation. I'm afraid you lost me with your speculations on what I might or might not do if I owned M2 Technologies as well as speculating on other people's motivations to be remarkably silent or not, but I do know that you can have a 100 people behind the right kind of firewall, and they'll all show the same IP. Who knows, while we are speculating on people's motivations maybe she fired whoever was impersonating her and got fed up with WP. What do I know? But whatever, dude - I probably shouldn't have engaged this as much as I did. You saying I made no sense just irked me. So. You caught Guarddog2 admitting outright she's Janet Morris (I'm assuming you accept that now and are no longer disputing it?) and editing a page you think she shouldn't have, before limiting herself to administrative issues. *shrug* Ok. Knihi (talk) 05:19, 19 August 2011 (UTC) PS I just reread the Guarddog2 comment. She didn't say she was the editor harmonia1. She said she has a connection, nature unspecified to 'Harmonia et al' (and to go look it up if we wanted to). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knihi (talk • contribs) 05:24, 19 August 2011 (UTC) The connection and the possibility that they may share the same IP may not constitute sockpuppetry, but there may be a concern about editors engaging in the same behavior as another user in the same context, and who appears to be editing Wikipedia solely for that purpose or about editors who are closely connected (in the IP sense of the word) and edit with the same objectives. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 05:40, 19 August 2011 (UTC) We aren't going to take administrative action that one-sidedly decides anything here. There are several issues in play, which need reasonable and rational discussion (which has not been forthcoming from either side so far, for the most part). The particulars of the credit and listing and so forth for the story are simply not worth fighting over this badly. Hullabaloo Wolfowitz should know this already; the relative newcomers here who are writers cannot be expected to know what Wikipedia norms and standards are, but they're not that different from other normal society, and the behavior here wouldn't be good in any other normal civilized arena. There is a significant problem here that Wikipedia is really not even the right venue to resolve those. Wikipedia isn't a primary source. We're not a secondary source. We're supposed to be a tertiary source, relying on secondary (and to some extent, primary and tertiary) sources we believe are reliable and which we can verify. The totality of the argument over credit and timing is exactly the sort of thing we shouldn't be getting into resolving here. As I said, everyone calming down will help this. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 18:59, 18 August 2011 (UTC) (ec with George, above)Okay, I just finished reading through all of this, and I only have a few things to say. First, Hullaballoo, you are failing to assume good faith for many of these users, especially those who have announced their conflicts of interest. Please stop, try to maintain a softer tone (and yeah, I understand why you are getting frustrated), and try to avoid silly disputes. Second, UrbanTerrorist, you are continuously using veiled personal attacks and derogatory language directed towards those of us who care enough about Wikipedia to spend a lot of time here. You will stop if you expect us to want to help you, or you're likely to find your time here stressful, aggravating, and short. Third, to all of those asserting that Hullaballoo has a conflict of interest, stop. He doesn't. Fourth, to all of those asserting things about OrangeMike's intentions or interests, stop. You're throwing what he said hugely out of proportion. Fifth, as is suggested in the dispute resolution noticeboard thread, all this arguing over who owns what rights and such needs to stop. To be frank, while such points might be important to all of you, no one who reads the article is going to care. Discuss what should actually be said, but avoid getting mired in minutiae. Sixth, keep in mind that discussions on Wikipedia can, and often do, get heated. If any of you, for any reason, can't calm yourself down, please take several hours, days, or even weeks away before coming back. There is no time limit on anything that we're doing here, and typing out of anger can do far more harm than any resolution to this dispute will do good. Cheers, everyone. lifebaka 19:02, 18 August 2011 (UTC) Thanks lifebaka for summarizing that and stepping in so firmly. There are however two things I'd like to point out related to your 5th and 6th points. Caveat first: newbie here, not sure how things usually go. So that said: 6th point - I'm totally with you on anger doing no good (how could it?) and a great deal of harm; however, I've often felt in these discussions like there really is a time limit. I've walked away for a few days only to come back and hear that pages were deleted or merged. Maybe this is just me not understanding AFDs, but I entered the AFD on the Lawyers in Hell book expecting that it would run its course and reach consensus and then interested editors would get a chance to update the entry. Instead by the time the AFD on that one book was done, multiple pages on multiple books were called into question, deletes and merges took place like wild-fire on more volumes than I could keep up on, and I found myself feeling, "Wow. If you want to participate as an editor you'd better move darn fast around here or the thing you want to edit might vanish." I was also loathe to create new pages when I couldn't, in my opinion, get a direct response to the ideas I was putting out (the original discussion was around notability). Maybe its just a newbie error, but I had the distinct impression if I updated the articles they'd just get deleted anyway. Sort of like saying to someone who wants them deleted, "Well I'd update them like such and such? Would you accept that?" And not getting a yes or a no -- so why bother? 5th point - the rights argument is a boondoggle, no doubt. However IIRC it came about because if you decouple the short story from the book by calling the short story a mere reprint, you get to say the book isn't notable. A claim of non-notability for the book (with which I disagree strongly) may have been just one of the reasons that Rebels in Hell was merged (can't say from direct experience because I turned away from the discussion for what felt like a few days and boomf it was merged, but I trust jethrobot on that), but the whole discussion definitely felt to me like a mere strategy aimed at weakening the case for the book to have its own page. It is this fight over "the story is not a reprint in the sense that you get to take away that the book won a major award, because the shared universe is as much a part of that story as not" vs. "the story is a mere reprint developed independently, and the award goes with the story and not the shared universe book/world construct..." that is at the heart of this discussion. Rights and copyright and such are just the rathole that discussion ran down. So while WP is not a venue to dispute legal matters, legal matters were not really at issue until the arguing got out of hand and the "you don't understand what reprint means moron--yes I do, you a-hole" kind of arguments started flying (not that anyone said that stuff literally). A literary and a notability question was at issue, which does strike me as a WP issue. That's from where I'm sitting anyway.Knihi (talk) 01:21, 19 August 2011 (UTC) On my sixth point, I was referring specifically to this philosophy, and I forgot that some people might not understand the reference. Sorry. Yes, things tend to happen quickly, probably as a product of how quickly things can happen (compare to the process of writing a paper encyclopedia), but you can always revive an old discussion if you have new points, new sources, or something similar. It's often difficult to keep track of, especially if you can't be on often. As for being worried about doing things when you can't get an answer to a question, we suggest that users be nice and bold in editing. We're extremely forgiving of honest mistakes, and we're perfectly aware that our policies and other rules provide a near-vertical learning curve. Since most of them are (supposed to be) intuitive, we don't require that new users read anything before they start editing. Go ahead, do what you think needs to be done, use common sense, and don't worry if you make some mistakes. We can correct anything. I'd also like to point out that the current status of an article shouldn't have anything to do with its deletion. On the fifth point, the suggestion currently being discussed at the dispute resolution noticeboard seems entirely workable as a shortcut around the problem. I understand how the dispute started, and why it started, but neither of those things change that it needs to stop. As long as it does, everything's kosher. I should also mention that it's best to never attribute any sorts of intentions to other editors. You can't know what's going through my head any better than I can know what's going through yours, and all too often users attribute intentions to each other in the nastiest parts of disputes. Stick to commenting on the strict facts; that is, something that can be objectively pointed to in a diff. lifebaka 01:50, 19 August 2011 (UTC) Pardon me lifebaka, but a quick perusal of my account would show that I've been here since 2005, and that I've made a lot of high quality edits. I will probably outlast Hullaballoo Wolfowitz on Wikipedia. I also spend a lot of time here, and I try to make sure that the articles I'm interested in (mostly scientific and industrial in nature) are of the highest quality, in spite of the errors made by people who don't bother to check the sources. As to Item Three, if that isn't the case, you need to consider what the problem might be then, because by his actions there is a problem. As to Item Four, I am still talking to OrangeMike about this. As to Item Five, in that case we should go ahead and merge the Gilgamesh article with the Heroes in Hell article. As to Item Six, have you ever known a case on the net when discussions didn't get heated? I'm one of the old timers who thought SLIP was high technology. It was high technology back in 1991. If discussions didn't get heated, we wouldn't be online. UrbanTerrorist (talk) 01:59, 19 August 2011 (UTC) Item three: I'd suggest that we assume that Hullaballoo's problem isn't ours. Item four: I've seen. He seems bemused, to put it mildly. Again, it was nothing and I suggest you drop it. Item five: You could merge it, if users decide it's a good idea. Hullaballoo is right that it can be a standalone article, but that doesn't mean it needs to be, and that certainly doesn't mean it should be merged. Cheers. lifebaka 02:13, 19 August 2011 (UTC) I just read this...mass...and a lot of it seems problematic, but the following quote from Guarddog2 jumped out at me: "I've finding this totally fascinating, and I've been documenting the entire procedure, so that I can write a short non-fiction book about what it is like to work on Wikipedia. I am a writer after all, and writing is what I do. I'm also a publisher, so I won't have any problems placing the book. I should warn you that all of you will star in the book." Doesn't that appear to anyone else like a clear threat intended to intimidate editors into conforming to xyr preferred outcome in this dispute? Also, Guarddog2, could you please confirm what you meant about your connection to Harmonia? Qwyrxian (talk) 03:38, 19 August 2011 (UTC) Actually, that statement was not made by Guarddog2, but rather made by UrbanTerrorist per this diff. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 04:41, 19 August 2011 (UTC) (ec) That comment was made by UrbanTerrorist, who also uses his blog to disparage Wikipedians he's been in conflict with. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 04:45, 19 August 2011 (UTC) And he's begun posting it on uset talk pages[130], not just here. If this were the NFL, he'd get flagged for taunting. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 04:53, 19 August 2011 (UTC) My apologies, I got the two editors confused. So, if I understand correctly, the two questions (I have) are, 1) is it appropriate to us to block UrbanTerrorist for attempting to use external pressure to influence the debate, and 2) Guarddog2, what exactly is your connection to the Harmonia1 account? Or, perhaps the second question should be rephrased and asked to the community: does Guarddog2's statement count as an admission of block evasion? I'm not entirely certain it does; the sentence seems ambiguous to me. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:40, 19 August 2011 (UTC) Addendum: let me clarify, if I saw UrbanTerrorist's comment outside of this larger discussion, I would consider it threatening enough to warrant an immediate, indefinite block while we await clarification and/or retraction. To me, I see the threat as very similar to a legal threat--it is an attempt to intimidate, well, all of us, into being extra careful because everything we say or do is going to be printed in a grand expose. I have no problem if UrbanTerrorist wants to write such a book (I gather UrbanTerrorist lives in a country protecting freedom of speech and right to engage in money-making affairs, so, you know, go for it), but I don't see how xe can do that will still continuing to edit--the goals seem incompatible to me. I decline to do so now as I feel like discussion is still ongoing (and there is still the fact that this seems to be a much larger issue than just one editor). Qwyrxian (talk) 05:45, 19 August 2011 (UTC) I agree that there other issues here besides UrbanTerrorist's conduct, but their comments have sometimes been disruptive and unhelpful, and the threat to "write about us" pushes it over the line to a personal attack per WP:NPA#WHATIS. I support a block on UrbanTerrorist. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 06:07, 19 August 2011 (UTC) The threat to remove my editing privileges because of my wish to document what is already public (Wikipedia does after all document everything that happens here) seems to me to be incompatible with freedom of speech rights. As to myself I don't see it as a threat, but rather as an attempt to tell people how the online encyclopedia that so many of them rely on works. It might in fact encourage more to become involved as editors, something which I believe we would all regard as a good result. UrbanTerrorist (talk) 01:32, 20 August 2011 (UTC) With all due respect, are you really a published author? Because an author would know that "free speech rights" have absolutely nothing to do with having one's words published by private organization. Wikipedia is a privately held non-profit organization, and has the right to forbid anyone from publishing in their space any time they want. They have vested the ability to make such a decision to the community of users; one thing the community has decided is that anybody using threats to influence a content dispute may need to be blocked. You declaring that you have a freedom of speech right to speak here is exactly like me going to your publisher and saying "I have a 30,000 word book that I wrote and you must print it because I have freedom of speech!" Now, if you had just announced on your user page that you were writing a book about Wikipedia, I'd be willing to believe you did it in good faith. The fact that you announced it here, in the middle of concerns about your and a whole group of related editor's behavior, and then afterward you specifically went to the talk pages of people that you're involved in the dispute with speaks strongly to me that this is not an attempt to "encourage more to become involved as editors", but rather to threaten those people considering whether or not your editing violates our policies and should be sanctioned. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:03, 20 August 2011 (UTC) Urban, the issue isn't that you threatened anything in particular, it's that you mentioned writing this book in some very... strange ways. First here, in the middle of a long and somewhat vitriolic comment, and then on the talk pages of users you've had disputes with. It's not exactly unreasonable for us to jump to the conclusion that you're using an implied threat of negative press in your book as a way to dissuade others from continuing the dispute. Regardless of whether or not this was your intention (and I assume it is not), you still are going to need to avoid talking about this book on Wikipedia, if only to prevent anyone from making the same mistake. Cheers. lifebaka 04:14, 20 August 2011 (UTC) TO: MODERATOR Just for clarification: it is my understanding that a possible solution to the subjects discussed on this page, and on this page [131], and on this page [132] is being attempted by uninvolved, neutral editors/admins. Does this place these 3 pages "on hold" so that there is time for that possible resolution? A short break to restore calm and civility might not be a bad idea. I would also like to personally thank lifebaka for the very reasoned approach taken to the tenor of this page. Neither side is blameless. Thank you. Hulcys930 (talk) 09:03, 20 August 2011 (UTC) Lifebaka, thank you for reducing the heat on this page and giving people time to think and restore composure. I do want to say that my comment on the sockpuppetry accusations page, mentioned here by Mr. Wolfowitz, was not an admission of anything: I said that whatever that WP investigation found and decided is a matter of WP record: those who want to can look it up. That Mr. Wolfowitz misconstrued what I said was pointed out by several people on the other page, so what I said was clear to most readers. I consider that issue unrelated to the HIH discussion and am here only to discuss HIH. As to how the RIH page and GITO should be discussed on WP, it seems to me that any decision that lists both publications, as Dozcap and others have suggested, would be a good decision. As for when books were available, books ship well before publication date, may be in different stores quite a bit earlier, and must ship to reviewers at least three months before publication; Lawyers in Hell was available at least a month or two before the publication date from different outlets: book availability is not a horserace where a gate opens and the publications come charging out together; books and magazines are available at different times from different outlets, including direct from the publisher in some cases. Trying to determine exactly when and in what publication the story could be bought is a fruitless exercise and may require original research, while both editions in question say clearly July, 1986. Simply stating that the story GITO was published in IASFM and RIH in July 1986 seems an elegant and equitable solution to this long debate. As you say, cheers. JEM Guarddog2 (talk) 19:33, 20 August 2011 (UTC) Redirection/Blocking of Related Pages to This/These Disputes Er, why do I end up on this page when I attempt to access the following page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:AN/I#NLT_violation.2C_possible_impersonation.2C_COI_combative_editing.2C_and_general_disruption_at_Heroes_in_Hell_and_related_articles Has it been rendered inaccessible and, if so, why? Why would the system redirect me to this "Harmonia" page from one having nothing to do with that old blocked account? I was able to access the dispute page addressing the Gilgamesh in the Outback/Heroes in Hell, so why is the original complaint of "impersonation/COI/combative editing, etc." no longer available? Hulcys930 (talk) 05:26, 21 August 2011 (UTC) Hulcys, that thread was already archived (threads on this noticeboard are automatically archived by a bot if no one responds to them in 24 hours). You can find the archived thread at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive715#NLT violation, possible impersonation, COI combative editing, and general disruption at Heroes in Hell and related articles. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:40, 21 August 2011 (UTC) Sockpuppet investigation I just added a new entry to the old Harmonia1 sockpuppet investigation, to initiate a checkuser on Guarddog2 to see if Janet Morris's new account is an extension of Harmonia1. Binksternet (talk) 19:24, 21 August 2011 (UTC) I woulda, shoulda hoped some of the many rules and procedures here would have injected hard facts like that, vice the wild allegations and beliefs read above BEFORE generating such a MONUMENTAL WASTE OF TIME built on ignorance of contract law and perhaps a few misunderstood rules. But since I was canvassed to come here from some trivial edit (I don't know the series, though have read Ms. J.C.), let me say that I find it perfectly normal behaviour for writer-associates to be of similar mind about the contract law in dispute. AHEM ... experience will tell. Ahem. There has certainly been a lack of common sense exhibited by the accuser. This is a tempest in a teapot and exactly the sort of spiraling feckless arguments over nothing much that drive good editors away. For the record, iirc each of the people who've self-identified above as writers have books on my shelf. I also recognize them from BAEN circles and related web sites. I trust the accuser will forgive me for reading a top publisher, and for contributing to articles about said associations here. SOME of us try to write about what we know. RECOMMENDATION: Close this discussion if the IP Check doesn't back up the finger pointing and penalize Hullaballoo Wolfowitz for lack of maturity, common sense and far too much poor judgment. He/She clearly has far too much time to snoop for suspect associations to present this matter over a trivial difference. // FrankB 14:37, 22 August 2011 (UTC) A checkuser is likely to come back as declined for being stale on the master account; it's been over a year. We'll probably only have behavioral evidence to work on. Cheers. lifebaka 15:47, 22 August 2011 (UTC) And that's why I didn't ask for Checkuser or open a standard SPI to begin with. I pointed out that last year, in a dispute over a subject related to one of Janet Morris's businesses, a user self-identifying as Janet Morris, together with a group of SPAs claiming to be her business associates, engaged in inappropriate editing practices and were indef-blocked. I pointed out that in a current dispute, involving a different business project of Janet Morris, a user self-identifying as Janet Morris, together with users identifying as associates of Janet Morris in that project, appeared to be engaging in the same inappropriate, off-wiki coordinated, editing in concert on a subject where they had COI problems. I also suggested that the user who claimed to be Janet Morris this year was likely to be the same user who claimed to be Janet Morris last year, and therefore appeared to be engaging in block evasion. For all of the caterwauling and invective directed at The Big Bad Wolfowitz, none of the editors involved have made any significant substantive comments about the behavioral issues involved, except to indignantly assert "I am not a sockpuppet," an accusation which I was careful not to make except in the case of the two accounts which both self-identified as Janet Morris. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:54, 23 August 2011 (UTC) Apologies Hullaballoo Wolfowitz if my stepping in to assist caused a problem...but can you identify where you stated that Harmonia1 self-identified as Janet Morris? I think I missed that, which was why I was willing to trust Guarddog2's claim that she had never edited Wikipedia before. Qwyrxian (talk) 16:37, 23 August 2011 (UTC) No complaints about anything either you or Binksternet have done with respect to the SPI, Qwyrxian. It's a complicated situation, and Guarddog2's comments haven't been very transparent. In the course of the SPI last year, one of the accounts identified as a sock of Harmonia1, "Elkoholic", identified herself in an unblock request as the owner of M2 Technologies, referring to it (more than once) as "my company" and providing some details about its operations. "Elkoholic" was identified by Checkuser as a sock/alternate account of Harmonia1. Harmonia1 also described herself on her userpage, saying "User has 60 horses, has written and edited fiction and nonfiction published in a number of languages, and is a defense contractor who provides long range strategic planning and other goods and services to government and industry in the national security area" [133]. This pretty clearly matches up to Janet Morris, and the 60-horse reference particularly matches up to Morris's description of herself in the Equine International profile of her and her husband cited in our Janet Morris article, content and citation added by Harmonia1 [134]. (Harmonia1 also admitted being closely associated with (and denied being) User:Tailertoo, who Guarddog2 acknowledges to be her husband, Chris Morris. Curiously, User:Ubter, who also edited in tandem with Harmonia1 on various Morris-related articles in 2010, also self-identified in this image upload [135] as Chris Morris. It's also interesting to note that while Harmonia1 did very little editing with regard to Heroes in Hell, she edited extensively with regard to a different series written by Morris, The Sacred Band of Stepsons -- a series which, not coincidentally, Morris was just about to publish a new volume in after a two-decade break. That is, to belabor the obvious, the same pattern of editing seen with regard to Heroes in Hell/Lawyers in Hell, and is one of the factors underlying my suspicions of concerted editing on her behalf in the current disputes. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:05, 23 August 2011 (UTC) That is quite strong evidence, and thank you for providing it. I've put the question to Guarddog2 on her talk page to explain why her story now (as a completely self-identified Janet Morris) of never editing previously doesn't seem to match the very strong evidence from before that Harmonia1 was also Janet Morris. She did indicate that she'll be out of town for the week, so we may have to wait until next week for her response (if she provides one). Previously, I had thought that it likely that she was involved off-wiki in the previous situation but not actually Harmonia1, but now I'm leaning the other way. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:36, 24 August 2011 (UTC) So we have one editor who previously claimed to be Janet Morris. We have a new editor who claims to be Janet Morris, but claims to not be the previous editor. Neither editor has provided proof of identity. So my suggestion is this; block her per WP:REALNAME until proof is provided. I know that the policy is meant for usernames, but this is still the same situation as our policy because she's using her real name on her user page. I'll leave it up to you, Qwyrxian, since you're the one who has been involved, but this is my recommendation. -- Atama頭 18:19, 24 August 2011 (UTC) SUMMARY OF NEVER-ENDING COMPLAINTS This dispute started out by Mr. Wolfowitz using insulting language in the edit history of the Heroes in Hell series page edits. In fact, the very first exchange I had with Mr. Wolfowitz was when I added two sentences to the Heroes in Hell series page which he deleted 45 minutes later with the comment: "skanky promotional." (I do not appreciate being referred to as "skanky" because when I was raised, people spoke to others with civility - especially if they had never met the person). After I rewrote the two sentences to make sure they were completely neutral, he deleted them with the comment "Rv, this is just a naked plug by the book's editor, and has nothing to do with the book's "reception" or any other subject of an encyclopedic nature" [136] in essence accusing me of being Janet Morris. The "edit war" continued when Mr. Wolfowitz attempted to prove that a legal definition could be changed by "consensus" and a huge argument ensued wherein people tried (unsuccessfully) to explain the difference between "first serial" and "reprint" to Mr. Wolfowitz. When it became obvious he was not going to get what he wanted, i.e., a consensus to declare Mr. Silverberg wrote a short story set in a shared universe, BEFORE the shared universe was created, [137] Mr. Wolfowitz decided to start making accusations against everyone who did not agree with him. Mr. Wolfowitz then decided to try to accuse several people of being Janet Morris, except of course, Janet Morris herself, and began a dispute accusing everyone who did not agree with him of all having COIs (all of which were disclosed by the users with no attempt to hide their identities) and of being sockpuppets or "meat puppets" (charming term) of Janet Morris, and all editors of trying to use Wikipedia for "promotional" purposes, from which it must be diligently defended.[138] When that didn't seem to be working, Mr. Wolfowitz dragged up an old accusation of sockpuppetry of a person who is not even involved in this dispute and used that as "evidence" that Janet Morris had opened many accounts over the years (including the Harmonia1 identity) and was doing so again after having been blocked as Harmonia. Unfortunately, the people Mr. Wolfowitz is convinced are sockpuppets of Ms. Morris actually live in different states and countries. In the prior dispute, some did live in the same state and worked on different floors of an office building which was apparently how the vaunted CheckUser system decided they were all the same person.[139] If Mr. Wolfowitz knew anything about word usage, it would be easy to read different posts to know the same person did not write all of them. Now, Mr. Wolfowitz has filed ANOTHER dispute See: THIS PAGE and gotten other editors (to whom he speaks oh so politely and reasonably, as opposed to the way he speaks to anyone who disagrees with him) to jump on his bandwagon and engage in mutual back-slapping and glad-handing. There was never any "good faith" assumed by Mr. Wolfowitz in the original edits to Heroes in Hell nor any of these disputes; his use of insulting and uncivil language cannot be contested; when anyone brings up something he can't refute, he simply ignores the question and goes off on another tangent of more paranoid accusations. It seems to be fairly clear that Mr. Wolfowitz has no intention of ever letting go of these disputes and if the Checkuser program (which is apparently considered flawed based on results of a Google search, like this [140]) does not uphold his accusations that we are sockpuppets of Ms. Morris, he will, no doubt, find something else to file a dispute about. A time-honored tactic of unscrupulous lawyers: if you don't have a good case, bury them in paper. I don't expect any of Mr. Wolfowitz' friendly editors to agree with anything I have said here. However, it is now part of the record. Hulcys930 (talk) 07:17, 24 August 2011 (UTC) That WikipediaWatch page is a blog, and anything can be said on it. Also, most of those checkuser concerns deal with a Type II error-- failing to find a sockpuppet when they actually exist, not a Type I Error, saying there's a sockpuppet when there is no actual sockpuppet. Second, your opinion about the other editors being "swayed" by Hullaballoo is ungrounded: Now, Mr. Wolfowitz has filed ANOTHER dispute See: THIS PAGE and gotten other editors (to whom he speaks oh so politely and reasonably, as opposed to the way he speaks to anyone who disagrees with him) to jump on his bandwagon and engage in mutual back-slapping and glad-handing. Neutral, independent editors and administrators have come into this argument on their own, not through canvassing. If anything, it is other editors who agree with your sentiments who have been canvassed by the now-blocked UrbanTerrorist and others. Third, accusations that the sock puppet investigation were not justified do not seem right to me. Guarddog2 stated an association with blocked user Harmonia1. Hullaballoo has also made a convincing argument that Harmonia1 is Guarddog2. Previous confusion over Guarddog2's identity dealt with errors in her own statements about various books and publishing issues, as pointed out by Hullaballoo. Finally, while I agree that Hullaballoo has not always shown good faith, that doesn't mean his arguments or evidence are null and void. They are certainly not paranoid. Again, anything regarding this whole publication debacle needs to be verifiable. If it's publication rights, then a contract would be the definitive document. Barring access to that, we rely on reliable sources, which have been provided en masse in support of Hullaballoo's arguments. I have yet to see sources contradicting his statements regarding publication. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 16:48, 25 August 2011 (UTC) Unrelated wall of text content issue that is already posted here here and here I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 05:55, 27 August 2011 (UTC) BACK TO THE ORIGINAL ISSUE The following information was edited into the Gilgamesh In The Outback page, along with the message to Mr. Wolfowitz (identified only by an IP address), by someone not familiar with Wikipedia. However, in an abundance of caution that the information will be removed from the page at any moment, I apologize for the length but due to the subject matter I have no other choice and am copying the information here for the edification of the other editors (and since this page is not a book/series/entity page, and all quotations are noted with attribution, there should not be a "copyvio" problem): "Hullaballoo Wolfowitz: I want to apologize in advance for making these comments here, but there is no room to address these issues in the edit summary, so I will make them here and you can modify it. I think this comes under the WP "Ignore All Rules" rule. Anyway you keep reverting my edits and this last time you claimed my edit summary is utterly false and without credibility. I take that as an affront. I made my edits on the 23rd and you reverted them 3 times. You said my work was inaccurate based on changes YOU made to the source Gilgamesh in the Outback article on the 22nd that I had not even seen. The last time I looked at Gilgamesh in the Outback - you had not added the Plot Summary. Now that I see what you have done, I believe you have completely left the concept of NPOV behind and are actively working to skew the facts. You added the following to the Gilgamesh in the Outback article: Robert Silverberg wrote that he was "drawn into" writing a story for for the "Heroes in Hell" project. While he remembered that the central concept of the series was "never clearly explained" to him, he noted the similarity of "Heroes in Hell" to Philip Jose Farmer's Riverworld works, and decided "to run my own variant on what Farmer had done a couple of decades earlier." After writing "Gilgamesh in the Outback," he decided that, since the story "was all so much fun," to write two sequels, "The Fascination of the Abomination" and "Gilgamesh in Uruk." In writing those stories, as Silverberg recalled, he "never read many of the other 'Heroes in Hell' stories", and had "no idea" of how consistent his work was with that of his "putative collaborators"; instead, he had "gone his own way . . . with only the most tangential links to what others had invented."[6] You injected nuance and insinuation with your selective choice of particular words and their quotation marks to take the true meaning out of context. What Mr. Silverberg actually wrote was this (your source - same page - the actual wording - First Paragraph) "During the heyday of the shared-world science-fiction anthologies, back in the mid-1980's, I was drawn into a project called Heroes in Hell, the general premise of which was (as far as I understood it) that everybody who had ever lived, and a good many mythical beings besides, had been resurrected in a quasi-afterlife in a place that was called, for the sake of convenience, Hell. The concept was never clearly explained to me - one of the problems with these shared-world deals - and so I never fully grasped what I was supposed to be doing. But the idea struck me as reminiscent of the great Philip Jose Farmer Riverworld concept of humanity's total resurrection in some strange place, which I had long admired, and here was my chance to run my own variant on what Farmer had done a couple of decades earlier." The second paragraph described Gilgamesh's character development and companion characters. The third paragraph - again verbatim: "It was all so much fun that I went on to write a second Gilgamesh in Hell novella, featuring the likes of Pablo Picasso and Simon Magus, and then a third. I never read very many of the other Heroes in Hell stories, so I have no idea how well my stories integrated themselves with those of my putative collaborators in the series, but I was enjoying myself and the novellas (which were also being published in Isaac Asimov's Science Fiction Magazine) were popular among readers. "Gilgamesh in the Outback," in fact, won a Hugo for Best Novella in 1987, one of the few shared-world stories ever to achieve that." I am a Commissioned Officer in the United States Army. I know the various and sundry meanings of the word "Commission." What the first paragraph does do, is corroborate, directly from Robert Silverberg, that "Gilgamesh in the Outback" was commissioned for the series Heroes in Hell - the point I keep trying to make in the Heroes in Hell article. He signed a contract to produce an original story for the series. The third paragraph corroborates that - oh by the way - it was ALSO published in Asimov's - not originally published there. It was written for the book, with the magazine sale in the same month a first serial sale giving Mr. Silverberg extra income. I used a different source to talk to the pedigree of the story on the Heroes in Hell site - Silverberg's quasi-official website. Your source is better in that it tells the truth directly with his words, rather than his complicit blessing which you discount. Your insinuations make it sound nefarious, that Mr. Silverberg was somehow lured into participating in this lowly endeavor, while sharing the spotlight with other Hugo winning authors who wrote in this series such as CJ Cherryh and George Alec Effinger or Hugo nominees Gregory Benford, Robert Sheckley and Robert Asprin. Silverberg even states he had so much fun he wrote two more Hell novellas. Then he goes on to make the point, proudly, that his Hugo for the work was one of the few shared-world stories ever to achieve that distinction. Note - "shared world" - part of a series - not a standalone story written for a magazine. I am not going to belabor this any longer. I hope you see that that your objectivity has somehow been compromised. Please do the right thing and correct the misconceptions so that WP can remain a valued "accurate" encyclopedic source." ALL EDITORS, PLEASE EXAMINE THE CITATIONS OF BOTH VERSIONS OF THE "GILGAMESH IN THE OUTBACK" PAGE SO THIS ISSUE CAN BE PUT TO BED. There is an old saying: "You can't prove a negative." Most of the accusations brought by Mr. Wolfowitz and his fellow editors fall into the category of forcing the accused to prove they did NOT do something - thereby creating an impossible situation: that of "proving" a negative. The earlier example of Mr. Wolfowitz' strangely intense desire to rewrite the Silverberg/Heroes in Hell relationship of 1986, by selective quoting and "creative" editing, highlights the problem that started this entire debate, leading to Ms. Morris creating an account solely for the purpose of attempting to straighten out the obvious misunderstanding of the situation in the dispute pages (as she repeatedly attempted to explain not only here but to various editors on their own talk pages) only to be accused of being someone already blocked from editing WP, and from there the debate degenerated into flying accusations and digging up ancient history to obfuscate the true issue: Did Mr. Silverberg write "Gilgamesh in the Outback" for the series Heroes in Hell or did he write it independently to be printed in Dr. Asimov's wonderful publication, and then "allow" it to be used in Heroes in Hell? That question has now been answered unequivocally. Without that dispute, the rest of these hundreds of thousands of words and unknown number of hours wasted would never have happened. (Yes, we all know the first serial of the story was printed in IASFM(v. 10, no. 6, Jun86 (whole no. 105) Created 1986; Pub.; Reg. 1986-05-08; TX0001821228 and the original was published in Rebels in HellDate of Creation:1985; Date of Publication: 1986-07-01 (both citations from Copyright WebCite queries from story page) two months' later and no one is arguing that. Mr. Silverberg's own description of his creation of "Gilgamesh in the Outback" must take precedence over simple statements of the dates of publication which only delineate the chronological order in which they were published - they do not prove for whom he wrote the story).Hulcys930 (talk) 08:05, 26 August 2011 (UTC) Haven't we had enough walls of text already? Honestly, I think that concern that the term "originally published" also establishes intention of the author is very, very superficial and is largely unimportant to most readers. I doubt most readers will take that interpretation of the phrase. "Originally published" is only intended to signify the order in which the story appeared. Can we just leave it at that? I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 08:22, 26 August 2011 (UTC) Before dismissing the above post, please go to the "Gilgamesh in the Outback" page and see the difference between what Mr. Silverberg reported in his interview and the way Mr. Wolfowitz has characterized the situation on the page.Hulcys930 (talk) 08:28, 26 August 2011 (UTC) Hulcys, a call for more eyes is one thing, but huge amounts of text here aren't going to solve anything. AN/I is a terrible venue for solving content disputes. Besides, the thread at WP:DRN already showed obvious consensus for a compromise. Has is not been implemented? lifebaka 13:34, 26 August 2011 (UTC) lifebaka If only that were true. We THOUGHT there had been compromise and consensus until Mr. Wolfowitz revised the Gilgamesh page on August 22 to reflect his own personal wishes rather than the actual history of events. Please read the Gilgamesh page and then Mr. Silverberg's entire statement. The only way to create the fiction stated on the Gilgamesh page is by heavily parsing certain words from Mr. Silverberg and putting them together in a different order with a skewed narrative so as to change the situation entirely. "And selective quotation is a well-known mode of character assassination. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:40, 23 December 2009 (UTC)" (emphasis added) I guess it works for history revision too... Hulcys930 (talk) 08:39, 27 August 2011 (UTC) Also, I DID apologize for the length of the above post but refuting statements made using "verifiable" sources in a deliberately misleading manner by highly experienced editors takes some explaining. Hulcys930 (talk) 02:27, 27 August 2011 (UTC) This is just a rerun of Hulcys930's phony COI charges against me and other editors. She goes on at length about the misdeeds of The Big Bad Wolfowitz, but never gets around to explaining what they are. I added well-sourced, relevant information. including properly referenced quotations, to a page involved in this dispute. Hulcys can't actually find anything inappropriate in my edits, so she declares that the quotations I presented are "in a different order" from the original. This is not an automatic bad thing, of course; WP articles aren't just paraphrases of their sources, and may present relevant information in a different structure and order. And here it's simply not true; anybody who compares the article to the cited source (reproduced in that wall of text Hulcy is plastering all over WP) can verify this for themselves. Who's being "deliberately misleading"? I'd say it's the editor who's been rather free in throwing uncivil, unsupported personal attacks around while refusing to disclose her own COI regarding the subjects involved in the dispute. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 12:31, 27 August 2011 (UTC) Hullaballoo, you're not doing any better in assuming good faith yourself. Both of you, instead of commenting on each other, just find a compromise (as an example, you could say that the story was serialized in Asimov's on <date> and publised in RIH on <date> without giving any other wording on order; as I'm lead to believe both dates are the same month and year, the first published parameter in the infobox doesn't explicitly refer to either, and no one will care, anyway), put it in the article, and move on. Cheers. lifebaka 16:09, 27 August 2011 (UTC) You know, lifebaka, WP:AGF doesn't require users to paint targets on their backs or otherwise accept abusive treatment. It "does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of obvious evidence to the contrary". And Ms Hulcy's repeatedly making wholly groundless accusations against editors who've opposed her in garden-variety content disputes is pretty obvious evidence. She dragged this dispute into the mud with her accusation that "each and every page regarding a Janet Morris story, novel or anthology has been the subject of inordinate scrutiny for a number of years by three WP editors: OrangeMike, Dravecky and Hullaballoo Wolfowitz," a complete fabrication that she never provided evidence to actually support."[141] Now she repeats this sliming, with a more insulting accusation and no evidence whatever, and I'm supposed to ignore what's gone before and assume that this time she's acting in good faith. Forget it; that's not what our policy calls for. And note that an SPI, which I wasn't involved in, just closed yesterday and confirmed that Hulcys930 has "a consistent record" of "using anonymous IPs to engage in edit warring-like behavior".[142]] And Ms Hulcy's response to the SPI filing was a new, groundless, uncivil personal attack on me, over an edit I'd made about a week earlier, plastering multiple copies of it all around WP. Your sympathies here a clearly misplaced, and you should rethink what's been going on. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:04, 27 August 2011 (UTC) I've just now attempted such a compromise by changing the Gilgamesh text to "It was published in Asimov's Science Fiction[3][4] and in Rebels in Hell[5] before being incorporated into Silverberg's novel To the Land of the Living." If that's not acceptable, I'll walk away; I just thought it might be easier for both to accept - or at least, let pass - a compromise that came from someone else. NebY (talk) 17:18, 27 August 2011 (UTC) That's not a compromise, that's a capitulation. It's not acceptable to me, and it isn't supported by a genuine consensus. No one disputes the accuracy of the publication history I set forth, which was uncontroversially included in the article for several years. Even Hulcys acknowledges its accuracy -- note above, where even Hulcys agrees that the magazine publication came first, and "no one is arguing [about] that". It's standard practice in Wikipedia, for works of fiction, to identify their first chronological publication. It's not just standard practice in Wikipedia, it's the norm, across the board, for reliable bibliographical works. No one's made any case that there's a good reason, based on encyclopedic principles or Wikipedia policies, for doing anything otherwise in this case. The compromise has already been made, by mentioning Rebels in Hell at all, because it's not standard practice, here or elsewhere, to mention anthologization of already published short fiction, except in the case of things like year's-best volumes, where inclusion is a clear indicator of notability. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:37, 27 August 2011 (UTC) I find it fascinating that since Mr. Wolfowitz rewrote history on August 22 on Gilgamesh in the Outback, everyone still thinks this is about the "when was it published where" issue. THAT issue was brought to consensus about 2 weeks ago. As far as I knew, the issue was closed. Since, as Mr. Wolfowitz claims, in his view the consensus reached was "not a compromise, that's a capitulation. It is not acceptable to me..." he decided to rewrite the entire page to make it say what he wanted from the beginning, in spite of the consensus reached. When challeged by information in his own source, Wolfowitz' only defense is to accuse me of making "personal attacks" - I guess by quoting paragraphs from an interview; how that is attacking, I really don't know; followed by a vague explanation that (regardless of fact) Wikipedia's policies and encyclopedic principles won't allow for the information to be presented. I'm sorry, but no matter what Mr. Wolfowitz wishes, reality and history remain unchanged, despite his strenuous attempts to alter it; he simply damages the accuracy of WP. The repeated charges of "personal and insulting attacks" from Mr. Wolfowitz is the first actual case of "projection" I have ever run into. I was unaware of the SPI mentioned until I saw it HERE, so, obviously, that had nothing to do with anything I said. (I'm interested to discover I have "a consistent record" of "using anonymous IPs to engage in edit warring-like behavior." A CONSISTENT record? Really? For how long? Did you bother to check MY IP address?) The only notifications sent out (as far as I can tell) were to two IP addresses, neither of which are mine. As far as "using anonymous IPs" I simply copied the information posted on the GITO page by someone with only an IP address because I knew it would be deleted the moment Mr. Wolfowitz saw it, as it contained too much sourced information for him to refute (he removed it in less than 2 minutes). But since no one actually wants to read or hear anything that can't be explained in three sentences or less, I'll close with this: I DO finally understand that opposing Wolfowitz is a completely futile gesture, as is obvious from perusing his personal Talk page. Over and over the same problem: when opposed, he becomes more entrenched in his position and gradually loses the ability to discuss the issue cogently or rationally, resorting to whatever insults he can think of, while complaining to other editors that he's being picked on and how Wikipedia policies are more important than truth. This is no different from identical disputes on a wide-ranging series of subjects that Wolfowitz has been involved in over the years. By tacitly condoning this behavior, I see no indication that Wickipedia cares whether it represents accurate information or not. I DO, however, know when I am playing on an uneven field and this pretty well defines that concept. I am content to let Mr. Wolfowitz continue to imagine he is manipulating reality to his liking, and exercise what little power he has as a WP editor, rather than waste my time trying to make a silk purse. Wikipedia is the real loser of this argument. Hulcys930 (talk) 22:38, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Renewed abuse by a new sock/account of indef-blocked user Harmonia1

Heat-to-light ratio has dropped below useful levels. Supposing there are still content issues, they can be discussed elsewhere. lifebaka 02:29, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Well after that copy editing, I introduced 'Bisque' as a background Div style (aid to reading), as this long tortuous discussion kept going off page. // FrankB 14:37, 22 August 2011 (UTC) And I removed it, because that's not normal practice here. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:44, 22 August 2011 (UTC) A note to new readers: There are users who have commented inside of other user's comments. I have tried to indent them to avoid confusion, but may not have succeeded. lifebaka 16:38, 18 August 2011 (UTC) In May 2010, User:Harmonia1 was identified by Checkuser as the master account associated with four sockpuppet accounts: User:Critias6, User:Elkoholic, User:Tailertoo, and User:Ellieherring, after this SPI was conducted. The defense was that the alternate accounts were all associated individuals involved with M2 Technologies, a company owned/operated by Janet Morris. All of the accounts edited exclusively subjects associated with Morris and her business, which involved "nonlethal technology". The SPI was opened after coordinated editing became apparent in disputes over articles dealing with the "nonlethal technology" area. "Tailertoo" and "Harmonia1" reported close personal association, and "Tailertoo" turns out to be the Twitter handle of Janet Morris's husband, also a central figure in the M2 Technology business. All of the accounts were blocked, with five unblock requests rejected for the master. The accounts edited in tandem, votestacked, and typically participated in discussions without ever citing any external sources of authorities in support of the positions they held. For some time this year, there has been extensive coordinated editing on subjects related to Janet Morris, with many new accounts and SPAs appearing, particularly in editing disputes. The accounts involved edit subjects related to Janet Morris principally or exclusively, participate in discussions at length without citing any external sources or authorities in support of their positions, and otherwise parallel the behavior of the accounts in last year's disputes. There has been a great deal of canvassing off-wiki. Virtually all of the accounts involved self-identify as associates of Janet Morris, or use names that correspond to those used off-wiki as associates of Janet Morris. Many of them are names of authors published in the book Lawyers in Hell, which was the subject of a contentious AFD where several of the accounts first surfaced. The accounts involved are: User:Guarddog2. This user self-identifies as Janet Morris. Comments by this users and other accounts suggest that Morris has operated other accounts. User:UrbanTerrorist. This user-self-identifies as Wayne Borean, a friend or associate of Morris who promotes her most recent book project on his blog. Right... Please notice that I have a longer and more productive record as an editor here than Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. Any article that I edit is improved by the edit. Any article that he/she/it edits looks like it has been attacked with a chainsaw. UrbanTerrorist (talk) 01:10, 19 August 2011 (UTC) You have, as of a moment ago, 547 edits. I have over 43,000. That's sure an interesting definition you have of "longer". Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 04:39, 19 August 2011 (UTC) User:Bluewillow991967, who self-identifies as Julie Crawford Cochrane, a writer who is negotiating the sale of a story to a book Morris is editing. That's Julie Cochrane -- I have 3 novels out (co-authored). I am submitting a story to an anthology as one of a collection of people who have been solicited to submit stories. Submitting stories to open anthologies on series or subjects we like or find interesting---it's what professional authors do. I disclosed my association up front, and I note that instead of assuming my good faith, Wolfowitz is using the disclosure to imply bad faith on my part. My disclosure was not on my own talk page. I'm very new to Wikipedia, I put it on Jethrobot's talk page and mentioned in the Hell talk page that it was there. Bluewillow991967 (talk) 10:55, 18 August 2011 (UTC) The notice is on my talk page now. Bluewillow991967 (talk) 12:54, 18 August 2011 (UTC) User:Hulcys930, who self-identifies as being involved in the genre Morris writes and publishes in. "Hulcys" is also the screen name used by a writer published in Morris's Lawyers in Hell anthology, and who has used her Twitter feed to canvass Wikipedia disputes. User:Knihi, an account created to participate in the Lawyers in Hell AFD, and used only to participate in disputes involving Janet Morris-related articles. Really? Are you kidding me? The very first thing I ever said was "I'm a total newbie." I happen to be a SF/Fantasy reader and fan, and I like to look at wikipedia articles. When I saw the dispute on this author, a book of whose I once read and liked, it intrigued me -- enough to pull me in to contribute as an editor for the first time. Given that my interest in WP has led to me being called some sort of unethical sockpuppet, I'm really having a hard time believing that the principal of good faith means anything around here. I certainly have not seen Hullabaloo Woolfowitz exercise ANY in my direction. I have to say this newbie's experience of WP has been a real turn off. I doubt I'll contribute or be an editor any more if this is the sort of treatment newbies receive. Let me state this concisely: I've only participated in disputes involving Janet Morris, because I'm brand-spanking new and that's the first thing I EVER spent time on. Jeesh. Do I need to have somehow magically contributed to articles before I opened a WP account in order to get treated with a little good faith around here? I regret the snark, but I have to confess I'm really steamed at this treatment. By the way Cthu-Lou is my account also, but only continues to exist because I couldn't figure out how to delete it. This is something I announced the very first time I posted with Knihi. Knihi (talk) 16:32, 18 August 2011 (UTC) user:Knihi has made a number of false statements here; most conspicuously, he did not "announce" his prior editing as Cthu-Lou in his first edit as Knihi [143], or anywhere else that I can find, until this posting, after the possibility of an SPI was raised. His first edit as Knihi did, however, toss barbs in Orangemike's direction. It's really remarkable how many people with grievances against OrangeMike showed up to argue over these articles, all claiming no coordination, canvassing, etc., especially when the central player has announced she's "keepingbuilding a file" on OM and his "cronies". Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:58, 20 August 2011 (UTC) Oh for crying out loud. You're being very literal -- I didn't mean my very first post, I meant up front. I'm pretty darn sure I mentioned it early on, and no, I'm not going to go hunting through all the conversations to find it. I can't even find some of the conversations. I just figured out how to find post history, but there were a lot of times I posted without being logged in. Once again, you are just assuming bad faith. As for these so called "barbs" can you link to them please, because I don't recall anything but trying to be polite and/or add some levity. I never even heard of OrangeMike until I got involved in these discussions. And is that what this is about? You think I somehow tossed 'barbs' at someone you know, so you wind up listing me as part of some sort of pernicious conspiracy. I'm really starting to feel like you're trolling me. Also I don't appreciate you using the rhetorical tactic of baldly claiming I made a number of false statements but then only listing one. If you want to go making claims about my truthfulness, I'd appreciate it if you enumerated them, giving me something specific to which I can respond.Knihi (talk) 03:27, 21 August 2011 (UTC) What you said was "This is something I announced the very first time I posted with Knihi." It wasn't true, and it's a plain, straightforward factual statement. You claim that your only motivation is that you've read and and liked some of Morris's work, but by a curious coincidence the description you'vr given of yourself on-Wiki matches up to the self-description of a person who uses the screen nane "Cthu-Lou", who describes himself as a friend of one of the Lawyers in Hell authors, and has actually passed along requests for help from that author on the details of what might well be a "Heroes in Hell" story, and who also has social-network connections with User:UrbanTerrorist. It's also quite peculiar that your first post as Knihi teed off on OrangeMike over his conduct in deletion discussions, even though none of the AFDs you'd posted in as Cthu-Lou involved OM. And as a final note, you stated, above, that someone here has called you an "unethical sockpuppet." Who and where, pray tell? With an appropriate cite. I don't see anyone having done that. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:27, 21 August 2011 (UTC) Really? Ok. You caught me using inexact language. It wasn't in the very first post. I'm not exactly sure what you think you've accomplished, but clearly I was typing in a rush. In turn, I feel confirmed in not trusting to your good faith. It is quite curious to me you seem so concerned about this OrangeMike person and have yet to link to where I supposedly tossed 'barbs' at him. As for being called an "unethical sockpuppet" what I actually wrote was "being called some sort of unethical sock puppet" -- which is subtly different -- and I can certainly cite that. You. Here. As an "account involved" with "Renewed abuse by a new sock/account of indef-blocked user Harmonia1" I find being included on this list and having to have this conversation as equivalent to "being called some sort of unethical sock puppet," and I stand by that impression. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knihi (talk • contribs) 19:38, 21 August 2011 (UTC) It's not a question of "inexact language." It's that you never made that disclosure, in your first or any other post, so far as I can tell, and you don't cite the post where the "announcement" was purportedly made. As for your claim that I didn't link to your comments regarding OM, the link is there, plain as day in my reply to your first post in this subthread, despite whatever motive you might claim for denying it's there. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 04:57, 22 August 2011 (UTC) Well I remember making the post, even if I can no longer find it. Its entirely possible I made it to someone's talk page or somewhere else, like a message. *shrug* There's been a lot of typing around here. I don't think it proves anything substantive one way or another; but I guess you'd have to assume good faith to accept that, which seems in short supply. As for a link to 'barbs' I see a link to my opening post as knihi on a discussion but I don't read anything in there that is a 'barb' -- and, in asking for greater specificity from you, I don't have motives here, other than to categorically refute your blanket characterization of my comments. Which comment, specifically, do you regard as a 'barb' and why? And as for inexact language, I point you to the opening of your very first comment on my user account. It's been established that UrbanTerrorist not Janet Morris claimed to be "keeping a file"; so either you claim to know UrbanTerrorist's gender or you too made a mistake and used inexact language. I'm going with uncorrected mistake. Please note that I am offering you the good faith you consistently fail to offer me. Knihi (talk) 15:04, 22 August 2011 (UTC) Guys, enough. Lots of heat, no light. lifebaka 16:27, 22 August 2011 (UTC) User:Dokzap, who self-identifies as a science fiction writer. The credentials claimed by Dokzap match those of a science fiction writer who has sold stories to anthologies edited by Janet Morris, and who uses the Twitter handle Dokzap User:Dburkhead, who has edited only subjects related to Janet Morris, and who made multiple promotional edits involving "With Enemies Like These", a story published in Lawyers in Hell and written by David L. Burkhead. User:Dburkhead Interesting word choice. A brief, factual synopsis of the story in question, listing major characters and settings in order to link to Wikipedia articles on those characters and settings, is not "promotional." The term for what Hullaballoo Wolfowitz is doing is called "loaded language."user:Dburkhead User:Luke Jaywalker, an editor who made a handful of edits in 2008, returned early this year, and since then edited principally subjects related to Janet Morris or to Baen Books, Morris's principal publisher I can assure you, and I invite IPs to be checked by any means available in order to prove this, that I'm nobody's sockpuppet. I've been primarily (about 75%, I estimate) editing those subjects because they happen to be of interest to me at this time, the same reason (aside from fixing typos I happen to spot) I make edits in general. Luke Jaywalker (talk) 00:16, 21 August 2011 (UTC) User:Mzmadmike, who self-identifies as Michael Z. Williamson, a writer with a story published in Lawyers in Hell, and several novels, mostly published by Baen Books. Williamson operates a discussion board under the Baen's Bar site, and used that board to canvass on Wikipedia disputes related to Janet Morris Mike's Madhouse Please do look at the thread directly, as it refutes the allegation of "canvassing" and is instead a request for users familiar with WP and/or Morris's work to contribute information to improving the articles if they can. I would note that this also substantially refutes allegations of attempts to WP:OWN the articles in question. Bluewillow991967 (talk) 10:55, 18 August 2011 (UTC) User:Cthu-Lou, an account which participates exclusively in discussions relating to the notability of books by Janet Morris. For real? Participates? I used this account to post a few times then lost my password and got snarled in the lost password process. So I created the knihi account and my very first act was to announce this in the AFD we were having. I'd as soon see this account deleted. If it has more than a few posts to its name then someone other than me has been using it. And even if it were not me, Good Faith anyone? Why does contributing to only one article make you suspicious? Everyone starts with some article sometime. Forgive the redundancy but I really feel like being new is the same as being suspicious and good faith is out the window. Talk about a turn-off. Sheesh. Knihi (talk) 16:32, 18 August 2011 (UTC) User:ColdServings, an account which participated only in an AFD regarding one of Morris's novels. I created this account earlier using one of my various "screen names" (http://coldservings.livejournal.com, http://www.coldservings.com) and had forgotten about it when creating the account I use now however user:ColdServingsonly participated in one discussion and never an any discussion in which user:Dburkhead participates thus the usual complaint of using "sock puppets" to create the illusion of more support for a position than truly exists does not apply in this case. As for whether either of these accounts is a "sock puppet" of Ms. Morris, you are welcome to contact me via one of my sites (both of which have been around a lot longer than this particular wikipedia controversy).user:Dburkhead User:Cordova829, who self-identifies as Jason Cordova, a writer published in Lawyers in Hell. Cordova edits almost exclusively on articles related to Morris or, to a lesser degree, Michael Z. Williamson (Mzmadmike). Well now, I suggest you double-check all of my edits. I've been on WP since 2004 and while I did work for quite awhile establishing author Michael Z. Williamson's page, I also did quite a few edits on other authors as well. I believe that one of WP's admissions (or perhaps it is desire, I am not certain) is for those who are knowledgeable to make edits, contributions and place cites. I happen to be a fan of science fiction and am very knowledgeable about the author pages I edit. I'm sorry that I don't "branch out" and edit pages I know nothing about but I, unlike others, believe that facts trumpet a consensus. Cordova829 (talk) 04:27, 25 August 2011 (UTC) Principal pages involved: Lawyers in Hell AFD Talk:Heroes in Hell Talk:Gilgamesh in the Outback Dispute Resolution Noticeboard#Gilgamesh in the Outback There may be other accounts involved; there are problem edits and many articles and AFDs involving subjects related to Janet Morris. This is very messy. Since the current disputes coalesced following the Lawyers in Hell AFD began, several users (principally UrbanTerrorist and Guarddog2) have posted extensive personal attacks on User:OrangeMike and myself, with helpings of general incivility. Guarddog2 made a round of not-quite-actionable, borderline NLT violations, reported and discussed here [144], then last night declared she was taking her dispute with me to the SFWA Grievance Committee, which seemed to me a peculiar attempt at intimidation, since that group only involves itself in disputes between writers and publishers. Guarddog2 also declared she is "keeping a file" on Orangemike and his "cronies", another crudely ineffective mode of intimidation. You know and not for nothing, but as an outside observer more interested in fair treatment of the original articles than these disputes, my opinion is that you have been pretty darned uncivil and hostile yourself. You also seem to take everything in the worst possible light. For example, Guarddog2 never said she was taking her dispute with you to the SFWA Grievance Committee. She said words to the effect that she was going to ask someone from their to weigh in. I took that to mean, because they would have expert knowledge on the topic (ie the difference between firs serial, reprint, etc. and how all that is handled in the industry), and since you'd been invoking the SFWA as an authority, it seemed that would be someone you'd actually believe. Your interpretation that this was a threat is...well, it's your interpretation and you're entitled to it. But it wasn't how it read to me. For whatever that's worth. Knihi (talk) 16:32, 18 August 2011 (UTC) As Spartaz commented in closing the Lawyers in Hell AFD, the set of Janet Morris-related disputes, has become dominated by a clique of users, mostly with professional connections to Morris, who "have been bludgeoning this discussion to the point of imcomprehensibility." It is extremely difficult to find good faith in the extended discussions. For example, when I cited the well-regarded reference work Contemporary Authors, Urban Terrorist compared it to the Protocols of the Elders of Zion [145]. Guarddog2 posts lengthy commentary on copyright law, unsupported by any sources and often contradicted by what's available, then she and her associated authors post insinuations that editors who disagree with her are ignorant, etc. Wow. I guess can see how you took it that way, but I recall Urban Terrorist -- whom I agree should tone it down -- as saying, essentially, if one were willing to accept any source uncritically, one might as well trust the Protocols... He did not compare that particular reference to the Protocols. I think you may be way to close to this and hearing everything as hostile. Additionally, I responded to that very comment about incomprehensibility, that I for one didn't find it incomprehensible, nor did I have trouble finding good faith. Until accusations flew and everyone seemed to get angry at which point all I could find was bad faith directed indiscriminately. Admittedly, this is just my opinion, but what you just wrote is merely your opinion of events as well. Knihi (talk) 16:32, 18 August 2011 (UTC) l The specific dispute I'm engaged in with the Morris clique is fundamentally bizarre: multiple reliable sources support a simple factual statement; but they repeatedly try to exclude it from the relevant article without citing any contrary sources. Underneath it is an effort to WP:OWN a class of articles and use them to promote the interests of various writers. Some editors are trying to reopen ancient disputes; UrbanTerrorist and Guarddog2 are targeting Orangemike for abuse over a book review he wrote when Jimmy Wales wasn't old enough to drink legally. Janet Morris (assuming it's her) is still complaining about differences she had with Robert Silverberg back when Michael Dukakis was running for US President. Now hold on here. Seems to me you're just asserting this stuff about "promoting the interests". It also seems to me someone else could have written what you just did, swapping the sides. Once these two groups are having editing wars, accusations like this are inherently one-sided. It could be equally flipped around and directed at you. And you'd both be being biased and unfair. For example, it's not a "simple factual statement" You make it sound like arguing about 2 2=4. Of course its nothing so simple. How could it be? You're claiming one thing, and the other side claims you're using a term incorrectly and oversimplifying matters. The use of the term has real impact and meaning and accuracy in all articles on collections, anthologies, and shared-universe fiction -- all of which are different art forms. I don't mean to start a debate here but I just can't let that kind of one-sided oversimplification stand. YOU see it as "bizarre" and about a "simple factual statement," but they don't. Also using terms like 'clique' or mentioning your belief she's "complaining about Silverberg" in a disparaging fashion are irrelevant and hardly civil.Knihi (talk) 16:32, 18 August 2011 (UTC) There's obviously coordinated editing and canvassing going on. The same thing was done on related articles last year, and the central player appears to have returned, even though her unblock requests have been rejected, with a more effective approach toward the puppetry involved. This kind of behavior needs to be stopped and strongly deterred. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 04:01, 18 August 2011 (UTC) Could you classify and describe the conflict of interest that the writers collectively believe you have with the work(s) and writer(s)? COI works both ways. I am not saying you actually have one, but they're asserting something along those lines a lot, and it's not clear from reading all that (once) what exactly it is. Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:33, 18 August 2011 (UTC) The accusations of COI against Hullaballoo are not grounded in anything mentioned at WP:COI. One user said that they "had no idea" why he would have a COI. The argument, by another editor, is that "Hullaballoo is committed to making it as difficult as possible for any of Ms. Morris' work to be included in WP without fighting a battle against editors with many years of experience doing an inordinate amount of work to denigrate and dismiss Ms. Morris' books and stories." But he hasn't violated the three reversion rule or even tried to find ways around it (because there hasn't been an edit war). The arguments basically demonstrate ignorance of Wikipedia policies, which I am somewhat sympathetic to because there are many. However, they seem to have an inability to accept Wikipedia policies that have been explained, such as the need for verifiability of claims and the fact that Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. It has also been intensely frustrating since many users (myself included, perhaps) have responded with wall-of-text-type responses that are long, winding, and include too many issues. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 04:51, 18 August 2011 (UTC) The tactics of this group of editors has been to assert, over and over again, that Hullabaloo Wolfowitz has a conflict of interest in this matter, without offering a single shred of evidence in support of those charges. Then, they go on to demand that he recuse himself from this matter, since he has such a flagrant conflict of interest. The evidence that Hullabaloo Wolfowitz has presented above seems to show that it is his accusers instead who have a genuine conflict of interest. In several cases, they admit it openly but claim some sort of special expertise as an exemption from Wikipedia's normal standards of behavior. Acting in concert, they try to own this group of articles. This conduct ought not be allowed to stand. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:03, 18 August 2011 (UTC) (ec, the commenter immediately above say what I'm trying to say better than I can tonight, and I thank them) I have not a clue what the editors making the COI claims are talking about. It strikes me that they are simply throwing ad hominem attacks because they can't really contest the substantive points I've made. As I recall, the COI claims began with this comment by Hulcys930: "The issue of COI is that each and every page regarding a Janet Morris story, novel or anthology has been the subject of inordinate scrutiny for a number of years by three WP editors: OrangeMike, Dravecky and Hullaballoo Wolfowitz."[146] That's not a real COI claim, of course, and the facts don't bear it out -- the first Morris-related editing I'd done was on the Lawyers in Hell AFD; I believe Dravecky's involvement began only with AFD comments earlier this year; and these folks seem willing to accuse Orangemike of high crimes over a review he wrote many years ago. Full disclosure: I had a brief, pleasant conversation with Robert Silverberg, the author of the story at the center of much of this dispute, about 30 years ago, at an sf convention. I also met Jim Baen, Morris's one-time publisher, at a party even longer ago. I have no less tenuous connection to anyone else involved in the dispute. I consider myself moderately knowledgeable in the field because, 15-30 years ago I did some "management consulting" (loosely described) for some specialty booksellers, two or three of whom dabbled in small press publishing, but never had any contact with any of the people involved here. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 05:08, 18 August 2011 (UTC) I'd like to try and answer Georgewilliamherbert's question with something other than "He doesn't! Their crazy!" (not that those words were literally used, of course). Before I do let me say first that I'm not an editor claiming Hullaballoo has a COI, but I can see why others might. For one he, like other editors in these discussions, has not stuck to a neutral tone, leading to the conclusion that he doesn't have a WP:NPOV. Hullabaloo has also, in my view, gone ahead and done the very thing WP:COI suggests not doing (from WP:COI): "When someone voluntarily discloses a conflict of interest, other editors should always assume the editor is trying to do the right thing. Do not use a voluntarily disclosed conflict of interest as a weapon against the editor." And yet this very discussion feels like just such a weapon (and as I've said elsewhere, I feel caught in the crossfire). His intensity and the mutual hostility have likely led opposing editors to feel that (from WP:COI) "he's got interests...more important to [to him] than advancing the aims of Wikipedia" even if they don't have proof of such. Additionally the newbie's (like myself) may have confused prohibitions against "citing oneself" -- which Hullabaloo has not done -- with those against "original research" -- which he may very well have done. Finally, since WP:COI mentions that "...when editing causes disruption to the encyclopedia through violation of policies such as neutral point of view...accounts may be blocked..." They might have concluded, perhaps erroneously, that Hullabaloo has a COI. My point in writing this is to balance what appears to me to be a sort of witch-hunt-like/conspiracy theory vilification of everyone who opposes Hullabaloo in this discussion. Just a way to support Good Faith and show these editors (myself included) can be wrong without being crazy or antagonistic. Knihi (talk) This above statement seems to support Cullens summation of the COI-interest accusations against Hullaballoo. There is nothing that substantiates the accusation, only some vagueness about him not having "stuck to a neutral tone" (seems to be a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT). The COI is clearly on the other side of this conflict, not Hullaballos. --Saddhiyama (talk) 23:11, 20 August 2011 (UTC) Nicely said User:Cullen328, but totally inaccurate. The problems come from Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, whose tactics have included a wide variety of wild accusations and attacks, for which he/she/it has refused to provide any proof, even when asked repeatedly for it. I gather that the necessity to actually have to come up with proof is so terrifying that it has now decided to move the argument to another level. I'm not assuming good faith anymore because threatening to write about us, expounding on your credentials, your associations, "knowing a lot of people," and saying that some editors (in general) are idiots in this Wall of text are disruptive and not helpful to your case. Only checkusers can confirm sockpuppets. Also, we can read your edit history just fine, thanks. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 04:37, 19 August 2011 (UTC) Since I disagree I've taken out the Collapse statement. I think that the information on who and what I am is very germane, since I've been accused of being a sock puppet, and I posted this as proof that I'm not a sock puppet. This would be the equivalent of my deciding to Collapse Hullaballoo Wolfowitz complaint so that no one could read it, and no one knew what he was complaining about. UrbanTerrorist (talk) 13:57, 18 August 2011 (UTC) I've finding this totally fascinating, and I've been documenting the entire procedure, so that I can write a short non-fiction book about what it is like to work on Wikipedia. I am a writer after all, and writing is what I do. I'm also a publisher, so I won't have any problems placing the book. I should warn you that all of you will star in the book. Now let's take a look at the situation one step at a time, going back to when this started. Yes, I know everyone involved. I know a hell of a lot of people. If you want to go back to the Six Degrees of Separation theory, I'm two degrees away from George W. Bush, Barack Obama, Stephen Harper, Arnold Schwarzenegger, and a lot of other big names. It's not that I'm important. I'm not. Its just that before my body fell apart I used to be the Major Accounts Sales Representative for a company that manufacturers catalytic converters and other emission control products, and I spent a lot of time in Ottawa, Washington, and San Francisco, and I know a lot of people in government. You can still find my name on the California Air Resources Board, Industry Canada, West Coast Diesel Collaborative, and Western Regional Air Partnership government body websites, Environmental Defense, Manufacturers of Emissions Controls non-governmental organization websites, and on Forklift Action the Forklift Industry News website even though I've been out of work for nearly three years now. If you check the Diesel Particulate Filter article you will find that I started it and that most of the first 9500 words were contributed by me while I was working for a company that manufactured and sold the devices. If you look at the article on Selective Catalytic Reduction you will notice that I took the original article from 600 words to 3800 words, again while working in the industry. The article once again needs a re-write because some idiot who doesn't understand chemistry tried to come to a consensus rather than understanding the chemical reaction. Yes, I've removed the collapse statement a second time. The information is germane to my claim not to be a sock puppet, and therefore needs to be seen. As I've said several times, it appears that there are two sets of rules. One for the in crowd and one for everyone else. The in crowd can say what they want. They can make any accusations that they want. They can claim that long standing accounts are sock puppets without providing any evidence (as you will notice Hullaballoo Wolfowitz has provided none above). When one of those accused attempts to provide evidence it is claimed that it isn't germane, and that it doesn't need to be seen. UrbanTerrorist (talk) 01:10, 19 August 2011 (UTC) The point that I'm making is that I've been here a long time. I've never had any problems with anyone before this. Sure, there have been disagreements about how articles should look, and what should be included, but I've always been able to work them out with the other editors before this episode started. It started when I decided to set up a page for the new book in the Heroes in Hell series, Lawyers in Hell. I did what I usually do, which is set up a junk page to get the layout right. Life intervened, and I didn't get back to it for a couple of days. When I say live intervened, my dog Sam had been hit by a bus. Beagles are tough little dogs, but they don't win against a bus. I did all of my writing with Sam curled up against me, and loosing him totally messed up my mind. When I came back, the page been deleted. I wasn't in the best mood before I logged on. This put me over the edge. I found out who was responsible, and proceeded to tear a strip off him. Probably not the best thing to do, but I wasn't feeling at all good, and Orangemike caught the fallout. I later learned that Orangemike wasn't in compliance with Wikipedia rules when he deleted the article. I didn't know that at the time, accepted his explanation, and apologized. I was in the process of reading up on the rule that he had told me I wasn't in compliance with (it isn't something that we have to worry about in Canada, we have rational online copyright laws) when someone else set up a page. I explained to that person the copyright issue, and they got it fixed. I then went back to Orangemike and asked for his help to make the page deletion proof. His way of helping was to tag the page with an Articles for Deletion. This wasn't exactly the sort of help I had asked for. It also wasn't in compliance with Wikipedia rules, but I didn't know that at the time either. The Article for Deletion Discussion is fascinating reading, and yes, I'm including it in the book. If you haven't read it, I suggest that you do. At one point someone said, "The discussion is open to any Wikipedia editor," but when I made an effort to let some editors who I thought would have an interest in the AfD know about it, I was accused of canvassing. Meanwhile a series of editors who could have known nothing about it, unless they were told by someone who knew about the AfD kept showing up, and voting Delete. I found that rather curious. At the end of the AfD it was decided that no consensus was reached. But all of a sudden there's discussion of a merge. Now unlike certain people who appear to live online at Wikipedia, I have a life. I've got several books in various stages - shameless plug - buy The Joy of IRig from the ITunes Book and Kobo book stores for $0.99 in September! So I missed the merge discussion which was carried out with unseemly haste. I did however have an argument with Orangemike about his setting up a Wikipedia article for a mutual friend, who while he is a nice guy, isn't notable by Wikipedia standards. I didn't AfD the page even though I would have been justified in doing so. I've known this guy longer than I've known my wife, and we are celebrating our 25th wedding anniversary this weekend. But as I said, he's a friend, and I'm not an ass. I left the page. I do think that its curious that there are two standards. One for the insiders. One for everyone else. OK, so the merge happens. Then I notice something curious. One page is left. So I decided to merge that one page (note that this probably isn't in the correct order). I merged the Gilgamesh in the Outback page into the Heroes in Hell page, and Hullaballoo Wolfowitz freaks out. He claims that he's got solid evidence that Gilgamesh in the Outback is notable and that it would have existed without Heroes in Hell. I look at his evidence, and to me it looks like he's doing original research, and I say so. This lead to the Dispute Resolution. Based on the comments there, it appears that the only person who agreed with Hullaballoo Wolfowitz was Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. I'll admit having little patience for idiots. I have less patience for chainsaw editors like Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. I've made tons of corrections over the years on Wikipedia. A lot of them have been no more than minor grammatical fixes. Others have in some cases been fairly extensive. In no cases have I walked away from an article without improving it. When Hullaballoo Wolfowitz works on an article the damage is incredible. He should be blocked from editing. UrbanTerrorist (talk) 06:34, 18 August 2011 (UTC) On first impression - Everyone here is behaving badly and should stop it. On second impression, everyone here is operating in good faith, has disclosed enough to know what's at stake with COI - and are still behaving badly, particularly including operating in bad faith regarding the other participants, and should stop it. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:15, 18 August 2011 (UTC) If you can provide solid evidence of where I have been behaving badly Georgewilliamherbert other than the short period where I have admitted to being short tempered for a very valid reason, I would love to see it. UrbanTerrorist (talk) 13:57, 18 August 2011 (UTC) If you have a specific example of my operating in bad faith regarding other participants, please bring it forward. I've made every effort to remain civil and stick to the issue(s) at hand. Bluewillow991967 (talk) 16:21, 18 August 2011 (UTC) Replying to a comment by Knihi above: I've gone ahead and tagged User:Cthu-Lou as a former account for you. If you still have the password for it, you should log on and change the password to something random (bang randomly on the keyboard for a bit) so that you won't have access to it any more. You shouldn't have any more problems from it, though. Cheers. lifebaka 16:46, 18 August 2011 (UTC) Thanks! I don't have the password, and your help is a relief to me. Knihi (talk) 17:20, 18 August 2011 (UTC) I clearly stated when I created guarddog2 that it was a single purpose page and that as Janet Morris I could be perceived as having a COI, and that I am unskilled in WP rules, regulations, and procedures, and don't have time to become expert. There was a previous discussion on many issues now raised anew here, which appeared on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, of which I was informed by: Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:56, 12 August 2011 (UTC> In relation to current issues primarily surrounding the HIH series, I have repeatedly been accused of not being me, and others have been accused of being me. In relation to previous issues in previous years: The issues surrounding my connection to Harmonia et al WP activities (all unpaid) and the WP NLW page are discussed in a WP review and WP has that documentation, which can be reviewed by WP authorities at any time. I believe that the people named in this current review (some authors, some not) have all been forthcoming about their COI where they perceive it. All of these people trying to help with the HIH series issues, as far as I know, really exist. None are my sockpuppets, if I understand the term. All have their own computers and their own volition: I am not controlling any of them now,and have never controlled any group of WP editors. Some people have or may write for my series; some may never write or submit a story for HIH. I was trying to help in good faith, as I said on my talk page,to clarify a contentious situation, initially in a review that was called out as a "copyright" issue review, though that was later changed and broadened. It is worthy of note that if all of these new editors were treated with respect, they might become WP resources. It is also worthy of note that if all these young editors are disbarred, Mr. Wolfowitz will have much more control over the fate of the HIH page. My interrest in talking to the SFWA Grievance committee member I know was to find out what the process was in SFWA for attributing award-nominated works on ballots, and whether that process could have been compromised or was as simple as "first alphabetical listing when more than one publication" exists for the same year, or was, as I have previously assumed, the author's choice -- and if this were so, was that documentable. We discussed potential remedies for such confusions or confutations, given the increasing power of aggregators to correctly state or misstate history based on a small amount of information that becomes proliferate, whether correct or incorrect, and then is taken for true based on the number of times that information can be found on the internet. Guarddog2 (talk) 18:15, 18 August 2011 (UTC) Note that Guarddog2 has acknowledged here that she is in fact the editor behind the Harmonia1 account ("my connection to Harmonia et al"), and has therefore been editing in violation of the indefinite block imposed on her last year. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:13, 19 August 2011 (UTC) Editing? Wasn't she just replying to you in an administrative forum? Is that "editing"? The term gets used a lot. I'd be interested in its WP definition *runs off to search WP*. Anyway, there weren't any guarddog2 edits to WP articles that I recall, before they all got merged. Can anyone check the record on that? But lets be real here, she could have easily said "my connection to Harmonia et al or lack thereof" as that's the tenor of the comment. Changing "the proper authorities know about this so I'm not going to speak about it" -- effectively 'no comment' -- into "Ah ha! Guilt has been admitted!" seems a bit of stretch, no? Knihi (talk) 03:40, 19 August 2011 (UTC) Knihi, precisely what I thought I said: this Harmonia issue was discussed and decided by WP years ago and interested parties can look at it, where I'm sure my connection or lack of same to everyone involved was decided by WP's rules to WP's satisfaction and is a matter of record. Also, when I said "new" (wherever that was) I meant it in the Webster's sense of "recently created," with no other connotation. Guarddog2 (talk) 20:09, 19 August 2011 (UTC) From WP:BLOCK: A blocked user can continue to access Wikipedia, but is not able to edit any page', except (in most cases) their own user talk page. The block is not limited to articlespace edits. Even if it were, Morris's contribution history as Guarddog2 began with articlespace edits. Your interpretation of her comment makes no sense, the "review" she refers to was conducted more than a year ago, well before the Guarddog2 account was opened; there's no way her statement here could be true, or even make sense, otherwise. (And she's referred to Guarddog2 as her "new" account, indicating she had an old one.) The phrase "Harmonia et al WP activities (all unpaid)" refers to her defense last year that the supposed socks were actually her colleagues at M2 Technologies, editing via the company servers, but not as part of their jobs (that's why "unpaid" is mentioned, and how would Guarddog2 have known that otherwise?) She deserves some credit for owning up to it, although she would have done better to make full disclosure before beginning to edit again. And think about this: if you were Janet Morris, owner of M2 Technologies, and discovered that somebody had been impersonating you on Wikipedia, including creating an account under your husband's Twitter handle, making edits relating to your business, etc., wouldn't you have entered ballistic mode very quickly? The silence here would be remarkable. Besides, as I recall, several of the alternate accounts last year occasionally edited via IPs by mistake, making it possible to associate them with Guarddog2's IP if she denied the connection and a full investigation was done. (But even I'm not cynical enough to assume that motivated her rather than a good faith disclosure.) Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 04:32, 19 August 2011 (UTC) Actually my interpretation of her comment makes perfect sense, given my knowledge of things, it just doesn't make sense to YOU. You have a different interpretation. I'm afraid you lost me with your speculations on what I might or might not do if I owned M2 Technologies as well as speculating on other people's motivations to be remarkably silent or not, but I do know that you can have a 100 people behind the right kind of firewall, and they'll all show the same IP. Who knows, while we are speculating on people's motivations maybe she fired whoever was impersonating her and got fed up with WP. What do I know? But whatever, dude - I probably shouldn't have engaged this as much as I did. You saying I made no sense just irked me. So. You caught Guarddog2 admitting outright she's Janet Morris (I'm assuming you accept that now and are no longer disputing it?) and editing a page you think she shouldn't have, before limiting herself to administrative issues. *shrug* Ok. Knihi (talk) 05:19, 19 August 2011 (UTC) PS I just reread the Guarddog2 comment. She didn't say she was the editor harmonia1. She said she has a connection, nature unspecified to 'Harmonia et al' (and to go look it up if we wanted to). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knihi (talk • contribs) 05:24, 19 August 2011 (UTC) The connection and the possibility that they may share the same IP may not constitute sockpuppetry, but there may be a concern about editors engaging in the same behavior as another user in the same context, and who appears to be editing Wikipedia solely for that purpose or about editors who are closely connected (in the IP sense of the word) and edit with the same objectives. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 05:40, 19 August 2011 (UTC) We aren't going to take administrative action that one-sidedly decides anything here. There are several issues in play, which need reasonable and rational discussion (which has not been forthcoming from either side so far, for the most part). The particulars of the credit and listing and so forth for the story are simply not worth fighting over this badly. Hullabaloo Wolfowitz should know this already; the relative newcomers here who are writers cannot be expected to know what Wikipedia norms and standards are, but they're not that different from other normal society, and the behavior here wouldn't be good in any other normal civilized arena. There is a significant problem here that Wikipedia is really not even the right venue to resolve those. Wikipedia isn't a primary source. We're not a secondary source. We're supposed to be a tertiary source, relying on secondary (and to some extent, primary and tertiary) sources we believe are reliable and which we can verify. The totality of the argument over credit and timing is exactly the sort of thing we shouldn't be getting into resolving here. As I said, everyone calming down will help this. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 18:59, 18 August 2011 (UTC) (ec with George, above)Okay, I just finished reading through all of this, and I only have a few things to say. First, Hullaballoo, you are failing to assume good faith for many of these users, especially those who have announced their conflicts of interest. Please stop, try to maintain a softer tone (and yeah, I understand why you are getting frustrated), and try to avoid silly disputes. Second, UrbanTerrorist, you are continuously using veiled personal attacks and derogatory language directed towards those of us who care enough about Wikipedia to spend a lot of time here. You will stop if you expect us to want to help you, or you're likely to find your time here stressful, aggravating, and short. Third, to all of those asserting that Hullaballoo has a conflict of interest, stop. He doesn't. Fourth, to all of those asserting things about OrangeMike's intentions or interests, stop. You're throwing what he said hugely out of proportion. Fifth, as is suggested in the dispute resolution noticeboard thread, all this arguing over who owns what rights and such needs to stop. To be frank, while such points might be important to all of you, no one who reads the article is going to care. Discuss what should actually be said, but avoid getting mired in minutiae. Sixth, keep in mind that discussions on Wikipedia can, and often do, get heated. If any of you, for any reason, can't calm yourself down, please take several hours, days, or even weeks away before coming back. There is no time limit on anything that we're doing here, and typing out of anger can do far more harm than any resolution to this dispute will do good. Cheers, everyone. lifebaka 19:02, 18 August 2011 (UTC) Thanks lifebaka for summarizing that and stepping in so firmly. There are however two things I'd like to point out related to your 5th and 6th points. Caveat first: newbie here, not sure how things usually go. So that said: 6th point - I'm totally with you on anger doing no good (how could it?) and a great deal of harm; however, I've often felt in these discussions like there really is a time limit. I've walked away for a few days only to come back and hear that pages were deleted or merged. Maybe this is just me not understanding AFDs, but I entered the AFD on the Lawyers in Hell book expecting that it would run its course and reach consensus and then interested editors would get a chance to update the entry. Instead by the time the AFD on that one book was done, multiple pages on multiple books were called into question, deletes and merges took place like wild-fire on more volumes than I could keep up on, and I found myself feeling, "Wow. If you want to participate as an editor you'd better move darn fast around here or the thing you want to edit might vanish." I was also loathe to create new pages when I couldn't, in my opinion, get a direct response to the ideas I was putting out (the original discussion was around notability). Maybe its just a newbie error, but I had the distinct impression if I updated the articles they'd just get deleted anyway. Sort of like saying to someone who wants them deleted, "Well I'd update them like such and such? Would you accept that?" And not getting a yes or a no -- so why bother? 5th point - the rights argument is a boondoggle, no doubt. However IIRC it came about because if you decouple the short story from the book by calling the short story a mere reprint, you get to say the book isn't notable. A claim of non-notability for the book (with which I disagree strongly) may have been just one of the reasons that Rebels in Hell was merged (can't say from direct experience because I turned away from the discussion for what felt like a few days and boomf it was merged, but I trust jethrobot on that), but the whole discussion definitely felt to me like a mere strategy aimed at weakening the case for the book to have its own page. It is this fight over "the story is not a reprint in the sense that you get to take away that the book won a major award, because the shared universe is as much a part of that story as not" vs. "the story is a mere reprint developed independently, and the award goes with the story and not the shared universe book/world construct..." that is at the heart of this discussion. Rights and copyright and such are just the rathole that discussion ran down. So while WP is not a venue to dispute legal matters, legal matters were not really at issue until the arguing got out of hand and the "you don't understand what reprint means moron--yes I do, you a-hole" kind of arguments started flying (not that anyone said that stuff literally). A literary and a notability question was at issue, which does strike me as a WP issue. That's from where I'm sitting anyway.Knihi (talk) 01:21, 19 August 2011 (UTC) On my sixth point, I was referring specifically to this philosophy, and I forgot that some people might not understand the reference. Sorry. Yes, things tend to happen quickly, probably as a product of how quickly things can happen (compare to the process of writing a paper encyclopedia), but you can always revive an old discussion if you have new points, new sources, or something similar. It's often difficult to keep track of, especially if you can't be on often. As for being worried about doing things when you can't get an answer to a question, we suggest that users be nice and bold in editing. We're extremely forgiving of honest mistakes, and we're perfectly aware that our policies and other rules provide a near-vertical learning curve. Since most of them are (supposed to be) intuitive, we don't require that new users read anything before they start editing. Go ahead, do what you think needs to be done, use common sense, and don't worry if you make some mistakes. We can correct anything. I'd also like to point out that the current status of an article shouldn't have anything to do with its deletion. On the fifth point, the suggestion currently being discussed at the dispute resolution noticeboard seems entirely workable as a shortcut around the problem. I understand how the dispute started, and why it started, but neither of those things change that it needs to stop. As long as it does, everything's kosher. I should also mention that it's best to never attribute any sorts of intentions to other editors. You can't know what's going through my head any better than I can know what's going through yours, and all too often users attribute intentions to each other in the nastiest parts of disputes. Stick to commenting on the strict facts; that is, something that can be objectively pointed to in a diff. lifebaka 01:50, 19 August 2011 (UTC) Pardon me lifebaka, but a quick perusal of my account would show that I've been here since 2005, and that I've made a lot of high quality edits. I will probably outlast Hullaballoo Wolfowitz on Wikipedia. I also spend a lot of time here, and I try to make sure that the articles I'm interested in (mostly scientific and industrial in nature) are of the highest quality, in spite of the errors made by people who don't bother to check the sources. As to Item Three, if that isn't the case, you need to consider what the problem might be then, because by his actions there is a problem. As to Item Four, I am still talking to OrangeMike about this. As to Item Five, in that case we should go ahead and merge the Gilgamesh article with the Heroes in Hell article. As to Item Six, have you ever known a case on the net when discussions didn't get heated? I'm one of the old timers who thought SLIP was high technology. It was high technology back in 1991. If discussions didn't get heated, we wouldn't be online. UrbanTerrorist (talk) 01:59, 19 August 2011 (UTC) Item three: I'd suggest that we assume that Hullaballoo's problem isn't ours. Item four: I've seen. He seems bemused, to put it mildly. Again, it was nothing and I suggest you drop it. Item five: You could merge it, if users decide it's a good idea. Hullaballoo is right that it can be a standalone article, but that doesn't mean it needs to be, and that certainly doesn't mean it should be merged. Cheers. lifebaka 02:13, 19 August 2011 (UTC) I just read this...mass...and a lot of it seems problematic, but the following quote from Guarddog2 jumped out at me: "I've finding this totally fascinating, and I've been documenting the entire procedure, so that I can write a short non-fiction book about what it is like to work on Wikipedia. I am a writer after all, and writing is what I do. I'm also a publisher, so I won't have any problems placing the book. I should warn you that all of you will star in the book." Doesn't that appear to anyone else like a clear threat intended to intimidate editors into conforming to xyr preferred outcome in this dispute? Also, Guarddog2, could you please confirm what you meant about your connection to Harmonia? Qwyrxian (talk) 03:38, 19 August 2011 (UTC) Actually, that statement was not made by Guarddog2, but rather made by UrbanTerrorist per this diff. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 04:41, 19 August 2011 (UTC) (ec) That comment was made by UrbanTerrorist, who also uses his blog to disparage Wikipedians he's been in conflict with. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 04:45, 19 August 2011 (UTC) And he's begun posting it on uset talk pages[147], not just here. If this were the NFL, he'd get flagged for taunting. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 04:53, 19 August 2011 (UTC) My apologies, I got the two editors confused. So, if I understand correctly, the two questions (I have) are, 1) is it appropriate to us to block UrbanTerrorist for attempting to use external pressure to influence the debate, and 2) Guarddog2, what exactly is your connection to the Harmonia1 account? Or, perhaps the second question should be rephrased and asked to the community: does Guarddog2's statement count as an admission of block evasion? I'm not entirely certain it does; the sentence seems ambiguous to me. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:40, 19 August 2011 (UTC) Addendum: let me clarify, if I saw UrbanTerrorist's comment outside of this larger discussion, I would consider it threatening enough to warrant an immediate, indefinite block while we await clarification and/or retraction. To me, I see the threat as very similar to a legal threat--it is an attempt to intimidate, well, all of us, into being extra careful because everything we say or do is going to be printed in a grand expose. I have no problem if UrbanTerrorist wants to write such a book (I gather UrbanTerrorist lives in a country protecting freedom of speech and right to engage in money-making affairs, so, you know, go for it), but I don't see how xe can do that will still continuing to edit--the goals seem incompatible to me. I decline to do so now as I feel like discussion is still ongoing (and there is still the fact that this seems to be a much larger issue than just one editor). Qwyrxian (talk) 05:45, 19 August 2011 (UTC) I agree that there other issues here besides UrbanTerrorist's conduct, but their comments have sometimes been disruptive and unhelpful, and the threat to "write about us" pushes it over the line to a personal attack per WP:NPA#WHATIS. I support a block on UrbanTerrorist. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 06:07, 19 August 2011 (UTC) The threat to remove my editing privileges because of my wish to document what is already public (Wikipedia does after all document everything that happens here) seems to me to be incompatible with freedom of speech rights. As to myself I don't see it as a threat, but rather as an attempt to tell people how the online encyclopedia that so many of them rely on works. It might in fact encourage more to become involved as editors, something which I believe we would all regard as a good result. UrbanTerrorist (talk) 01:32, 20 August 2011 (UTC) With all due respect, are you really a published author? Because an author would know that "free speech rights" have absolutely nothing to do with having one's words published by private organization. Wikipedia is a privately held non-profit organization, and has the right to forbid anyone from publishing in their space any time they want. They have vested the ability to make such a decision to the community of users; one thing the community has decided is that anybody using threats to influence a content dispute may need to be blocked. You declaring that you have a freedom of speech right to speak here is exactly like me going to your publisher and saying "I have a 30,000 word book that I wrote and you must print it because I have freedom of speech!" Now, if you had just announced on your user page that you were writing a book about Wikipedia, I'd be willing to believe you did it in good faith. The fact that you announced it here, in the middle of concerns about your and a whole group of related editor's behavior, and then afterward you specifically went to the talk pages of people that you're involved in the dispute with speaks strongly to me that this is not an attempt to "encourage more to become involved as editors", but rather to threaten those people considering whether or not your editing violates our policies and should be sanctioned. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:03, 20 August 2011 (UTC) Urban, the issue isn't that you threatened anything in particular, it's that you mentioned writing this book in some very... strange ways. First here, in the middle of a long and somewhat vitriolic comment, and then on the talk pages of users you've had disputes with. It's not exactly unreasonable for us to jump to the conclusion that you're using an implied threat of negative press in your book as a way to dissuade others from continuing the dispute. Regardless of whether or not this was your intention (and I assume it is not), you still are going to need to avoid talking about this book on Wikipedia, if only to prevent anyone from making the same mistake. Cheers. lifebaka 04:14, 20 August 2011 (UTC) TO: MODERATOR Just for clarification: it is my understanding that a possible solution to the subjects discussed on this page, and on this page [148], and on this page [149] is being attempted by uninvolved, neutral editors/admins. Does this place these 3 pages "on hold" so that there is time for that possible resolution? A short break to restore calm and civility might not be a bad idea. I would also like to personally thank lifebaka for the very reasoned approach taken to the tenor of this page. Neither side is blameless. Thank you. Hulcys930 (talk) 09:03, 20 August 2011 (UTC) Lifebaka, thank you for reducing the heat on this page and giving people time to think and restore composure. I do want to say that my comment on the sockpuppetry accusations page, mentioned here by Mr. Wolfowitz, was not an admission of anything: I said that whatever that WP investigation found and decided is a matter of WP record: those who want to can look it up. That Mr. Wolfowitz misconstrued what I said was pointed out by several people on the other page, so what I said was clear to most readers. I consider that issue unrelated to the HIH discussion and am here only to discuss HIH. As to how the RIH page and GITO should be discussed on WP, it seems to me that any decision that lists both publications, as Dozcap and others have suggested, would be a good decision. As for when books were available, books ship well before publication date, may be in different stores quite a bit earlier, and must ship to reviewers at least three months before publication; Lawyers in Hell was available at least a month or two before the publication date from different outlets: book availability is not a horserace where a gate opens and the publications come charging out together; books and magazines are available at different times from different outlets, including direct from the publisher in some cases. Trying to determine exactly when and in what publication the story could be bought is a fruitless exercise and may require original research, while both editions in question say clearly July, 1986. Simply stating that the story GITO was published in IASFM and RIH in July 1986 seems an elegant and equitable solution to this long debate. As you say, cheers. JEM Guarddog2 (talk) 19:33, 20 August 2011 (UTC) Redirection/Blocking of Related Pages to This/These Disputes Er, why do I end up on this page when I attempt to access the following page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:AN/I#NLT_violation.2C_possible_impersonation.2C_COI_combative_editing.2C_and_general_disruption_at_Heroes_in_Hell_and_related_articles Has it been rendered inaccessible and, if so, why? Why would the system redirect me to this "Harmonia" page from one having nothing to do with that old blocked account? I was able to access the dispute page addressing the Gilgamesh in the Outback/Heroes in Hell, so why is the original complaint of "impersonation/COI/combative editing, etc." no longer available? Hulcys930 (talk) 05:26, 21 August 2011 (UTC) Hulcys, that thread was already archived (threads on this noticeboard are automatically archived by a bot if no one responds to them in 24 hours). You can find the archived thread at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive715#NLT violation, possible impersonation, COI combative editing, and general disruption at Heroes in Hell and related articles. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:40, 21 August 2011 (UTC) Sockpuppet investigation I just added a new entry to the old Harmonia1 sockpuppet investigation, to initiate a checkuser on Guarddog2 to see if Janet Morris's new account is an extension of Harmonia1. Binksternet (talk) 19:24, 21 August 2011 (UTC) I woulda, shoulda hoped some of the many rules and procedures here would have injected hard facts like that, vice the wild allegations and beliefs read above BEFORE generating such a MONUMENTAL WASTE OF TIME built on ignorance of contract law and perhaps a few misunderstood rules. But since I was canvassed to come here from some trivial edit (I don't know the series, though have read Ms. J.C.), let me say that I find it perfectly normal behaviour for writer-associates to be of similar mind about the contract law in dispute. AHEM ... experience will tell. Ahem. There has certainly been a lack of common sense exhibited by the accuser. This is a tempest in a teapot and exactly the sort of spiraling feckless arguments over nothing much that drive good editors away. For the record, iirc each of the people who've self-identified above as writers have books on my shelf. I also recognize them from BAEN circles and related web sites. I trust the accuser will forgive me for reading a top publisher, and for contributing to articles about said associations here. SOME of us try to write about what we know. RECOMMENDATION: Close this discussion if the IP Check doesn't back up the finger pointing and penalize Hullaballoo Wolfowitz for lack of maturity, common sense and far too much poor judgment. He/She clearly has far too much time to snoop for suspect associations to present this matter over a trivial difference. // FrankB 14:37, 22 August 2011 (UTC) A checkuser is likely to come back as declined for being stale on the master account; it's been over a year. We'll probably only have behavioral evidence to work on. Cheers. lifebaka 15:47, 22 August 2011 (UTC) And that's why I didn't ask for Checkuser or open a standard SPI to begin with. I pointed out that last year, in a dispute over a subject related to one of Janet Morris's businesses, a user self-identifying as Janet Morris, together with a group of SPAs claiming to be her business associates, engaged in inappropriate editing practices and were indef-blocked. I pointed out that in a current dispute, involving a different business project of Janet Morris, a user self-identifying as Janet Morris, together with users identifying as associates of Janet Morris in that project, appeared to be engaging in the same inappropriate, off-wiki coordinated, editing in concert on a subject where they had COI problems. I also suggested that the user who claimed to be Janet Morris this year was likely to be the same user who claimed to be Janet Morris last year, and therefore appeared to be engaging in block evasion. For all of the caterwauling and invective directed at The Big Bad Wolfowitz, none of the editors involved have made any significant substantive comments about the behavioral issues involved, except to indignantly assert "I am not a sockpuppet," an accusation which I was careful not to make except in the case of the two accounts which both self-identified as Janet Morris. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:54, 23 August 2011 (UTC) Apologies Hullaballoo Wolfowitz if my stepping in to assist caused a problem...but can you identify where you stated that Harmonia1 self-identified as Janet Morris? I think I missed that, which was why I was willing to trust Guarddog2's claim that she had never edited Wikipedia before. Qwyrxian (talk) 16:37, 23 August 2011 (UTC) No complaints about anything either you or Binksternet have done with respect to the SPI, Qwyrxian. It's a complicated situation, and Guarddog2's comments haven't been very transparent. In the course of the SPI last year, one of the accounts identified as a sock of Harmonia1, "Elkoholic", identified herself in an unblock request as the owner of M2 Technologies, referring to it (more than once) as "my company" and providing some details about its operations. "Elkoholic" was identified by Checkuser as a sock/alternate account of Harmonia1. Harmonia1 also described herself on her userpage, saying "User has 60 horses, has written and edited fiction and nonfiction published in a number of languages, and is a defense contractor who provides long range strategic planning and other goods and services to government and industry in the national security area" [150]. This pretty clearly matches up to Janet Morris, and the 60-horse reference particularly matches up to Morris's description of herself in the Equine International profile of her and her husband cited in our Janet Morris article, content and citation added by Harmonia1 [151]. (Harmonia1 also admitted being closely associated with (and denied being) User:Tailertoo, who Guarddog2 acknowledges to be her husband, Chris Morris. Curiously, User:Ubter, who also edited in tandem with Harmonia1 on various Morris-related articles in 2010, also self-identified in this image upload [152] as Chris Morris. It's also interesting to note that while Harmonia1 did very little editing with regard to Heroes in Hell, she edited extensively with regard to a different series written by Morris, The Sacred Band of Stepsons -- a series which, not coincidentally, Morris was just about to publish a new volume in after a two-decade break. That is, to belabor the obvious, the same pattern of editing seen with regard to Heroes in Hell/Lawyers in Hell, and is one of the factors underlying my suspicions of concerted editing on her behalf in the current disputes. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:05, 23 August 2011 (UTC) That is quite strong evidence, and thank you for providing it. I've put the question to Guarddog2 on her talk page to explain why her story now (as a completely self-identified Janet Morris) of never editing previously doesn't seem to match the very strong evidence from before that Harmonia1 was also Janet Morris. She did indicate that she'll be out of town for the week, so we may have to wait until next week for her response (if she provides one). Previously, I had thought that it likely that she was involved off-wiki in the previous situation but not actually Harmonia1, but now I'm leaning the other way. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:36, 24 August 2011 (UTC) So we have one editor who previously claimed to be Janet Morris. We have a new editor who claims to be Janet Morris, but claims to not be the previous editor. Neither editor has provided proof of identity. So my suggestion is this; block her per WP:REALNAME until proof is provided. I know that the policy is meant for usernames, but this is still the same situation as our policy because she's using her real name on her user page. I'll leave it up to you, Qwyrxian, since you're the one who has been involved, but this is my recommendation. -- Atama頭 18:19, 24 August 2011 (UTC) SUMMARY OF NEVER-ENDING COMPLAINTS This dispute started out by Mr. Wolfowitz using insulting language in the edit history of the Heroes in Hell series page edits. In fact, the very first exchange I had with Mr. Wolfowitz was when I added two sentences to the Heroes in Hell series page which he deleted 45 minutes later with the comment: "skanky promotional." (I do not appreciate being referred to as "skanky" because when I was raised, people spoke to others with civility - especially if they had never met the person). After I rewrote the two sentences to make sure they were completely neutral, he deleted them with the comment "Rv, this is just a naked plug by the book's editor, and has nothing to do with the book's "reception" or any other subject of an encyclopedic nature" [153] in essence accusing me of being Janet Morris. The "edit war" continued when Mr. Wolfowitz attempted to prove that a legal definition could be changed by "consensus" and a huge argument ensued wherein people tried (unsuccessfully) to explain the difference between "first serial" and "reprint" to Mr. Wolfowitz. When it became obvious he was not going to get what he wanted, i.e., a consensus to declare Mr. Silverberg wrote a short story set in a shared universe, BEFORE the shared universe was created, [154] Mr. Wolfowitz decided to start making accusations against everyone who did not agree with him. Mr. Wolfowitz then decided to try to accuse several people of being Janet Morris, except of course, Janet Morris herself, and began a dispute accusing everyone who did not agree with him of all having COIs (all of which were disclosed by the users with no attempt to hide their identities) and of being sockpuppets or "meat puppets" (charming term) of Janet Morris, and all editors of trying to use Wikipedia for "promotional" purposes, from which it must be diligently defended.[155] When that didn't seem to be working, Mr. Wolfowitz dragged up an old accusation of sockpuppetry of a person who is not even involved in this dispute and used that as "evidence" that Janet Morris had opened many accounts over the years (including the Harmonia1 identity) and was doing so again after having been blocked as Harmonia. Unfortunately, the people Mr. Wolfowitz is convinced are sockpuppets of Ms. Morris actually live in different states and countries. In the prior dispute, some did live in the same state and worked on different floors of an office building which was apparently how the vaunted CheckUser system decided they were all the same person.[156] If Mr. Wolfowitz knew anything about word usage, it would be easy to read different posts to know the same person did not write all of them. Now, Mr. Wolfowitz has filed ANOTHER dispute See: THIS PAGE and gotten other editors (to whom he speaks oh so politely and reasonably, as opposed to the way he speaks to anyone who disagrees with him) to jump on his bandwagon and engage in mutual back-slapping and glad-handing. There was never any "good faith" assumed by Mr. Wolfowitz in the original edits to Heroes in Hell nor any of these disputes; his use of insulting and uncivil language cannot be contested; when anyone brings up something he can't refute, he simply ignores the question and goes off on another tangent of more paranoid accusations. It seems to be fairly clear that Mr. Wolfowitz has no intention of ever letting go of these disputes and if the Checkuser program (which is apparently considered flawed based on results of a Google search, like this [157]) does not uphold his accusations that we are sockpuppets of Ms. Morris, he will, no doubt, find something else to file a dispute about. A time-honored tactic of unscrupulous lawyers: if you don't have a good case, bury them in paper. I don't expect any of Mr. Wolfowitz' friendly editors to agree with anything I have said here. However, it is now part of the record. Hulcys930 (talk) 07:17, 24 August 2011 (UTC) That WikipediaWatch page is a blog, and anything can be said on it. Also, most of those checkuser concerns deal with a Type II error-- failing to find a sockpuppet when they actually exist, not a Type I Error, saying there's a sockpuppet when there is no actual sockpuppet. Second, your opinion about the other editors being "swayed" by Hullaballoo is ungrounded: Now, Mr. Wolfowitz has filed ANOTHER dispute See: THIS PAGE and gotten other editors (to whom he speaks oh so politely and reasonably, as opposed to the way he speaks to anyone who disagrees with him) to jump on his bandwagon and engage in mutual back-slapping and glad-handing. Neutral, independent editors and administrators have come into this argument on their own, not through canvassing. If anything, it is other editors who agree with your sentiments who have been canvassed by the now-blocked UrbanTerrorist and others. Third, accusations that the sock puppet investigation were not justified do not seem right to me. Guarddog2 stated an association with blocked user Harmonia1. Hullaballoo has also made a convincing argument that Harmonia1 is Guarddog2. Previous confusion over Guarddog2's identity dealt with errors in her own statements about various books and publishing issues, as pointed out by Hullaballoo. Finally, while I agree that Hullaballoo has not always shown good faith, that doesn't mean his arguments or evidence are null and void. They are certainly not paranoid. Again, anything regarding this whole publication debacle needs to be verifiable. If it's publication rights, then a contract would be the definitive document. Barring access to that, we rely on reliable sources, which have been provided en masse in support of Hullaballoo's arguments. I have yet to see sources contradicting his statements regarding publication. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 16:48, 25 August 2011 (UTC) Unrelated wall of text content issue that is already posted here here and here I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 05:55, 27 August 2011 (UTC) BACK TO THE ORIGINAL ISSUE The following information was edited into the Gilgamesh In The Outback page, along with the message to Mr. Wolfowitz (identified only by an IP address), by someone not familiar with Wikipedia. However, in an abundance of caution that the information will be removed from the page at any moment, I apologize for the length but due to the subject matter I have no other choice and am copying the information here for the edification of the other editors (and since this page is not a book/series/entity page, and all quotations are noted with attribution, there should not be a "copyvio" problem): "Hullaballoo Wolfowitz: I want to apologize in advance for making these comments here, but there is no room to address these issues in the edit summary, so I will make them here and you can modify it. I think this comes under the WP "Ignore All Rules" rule. Anyway you keep reverting my edits and this last time you claimed my edit summary is utterly false and without credibility. I take that as an affront. I made my edits on the 23rd and you reverted them 3 times. You said my work was inaccurate based on changes YOU made to the source Gilgamesh in the Outback article on the 22nd that I had not even seen. The last time I looked at Gilgamesh in the Outback - you had not added the Plot Summary. Now that I see what you have done, I believe you have completely left the concept of NPOV behind and are actively working to skew the facts. You added the following to the Gilgamesh in the Outback article: Robert Silverberg wrote that he was "drawn into" writing a story for for the "Heroes in Hell" project. While he remembered that the central concept of the series was "never clearly explained" to him, he noted the similarity of "Heroes in Hell" to Philip Jose Farmer's Riverworld works, and decided "to run my own variant on what Farmer had done a couple of decades earlier." After writing "Gilgamesh in the Outback," he decided that, since the story "was all so much fun," to write two sequels, "The Fascination of the Abomination" and "Gilgamesh in Uruk." In writing those stories, as Silverberg recalled, he "never read many of the other 'Heroes in Hell' stories", and had "no idea" of how consistent his work was with that of his "putative collaborators"; instead, he had "gone his own way . . . with only the most tangential links to what others had invented."[6] You injected nuance and insinuation with your selective choice of particular words and their quotation marks to take the true meaning out of context. What Mr. Silverberg actually wrote was this (your source - same page - the actual wording - First Paragraph) "During the heyday of the shared-world science-fiction anthologies, back in the mid-1980's, I was drawn into a project called Heroes in Hell, the general premise of which was (as far as I understood it) that everybody who had ever lived, and a good many mythical beings besides, had been resurrected in a quasi-afterlife in a place that was called, for the sake of convenience, Hell. The concept was never clearly explained to me - one of the problems with these shared-world deals - and so I never fully grasped what I was supposed to be doing. But the idea struck me as reminiscent of the great Philip Jose Farmer Riverworld concept of humanity's total resurrection in some strange place, which I had long admired, and here was my chance to run my own variant on what Farmer had done a couple of decades earlier." The second paragraph described Gilgamesh's character development and companion characters. The third paragraph - again verbatim: "It was all so much fun that I went on to write a second Gilgamesh in Hell novella, featuring the likes of Pablo Picasso and Simon Magus, and then a third. I never read very many of the other Heroes in Hell stories, so I have no idea how well my stories integrated themselves with those of my putative collaborators in the series, but I was enjoying myself and the novellas (which were also being published in Isaac Asimov's Science Fiction Magazine) were popular among readers. "Gilgamesh in the Outback," in fact, won a Hugo for Best Novella in 1987, one of the few shared-world stories ever to achieve that." I am a Commissioned Officer in the United States Army. I know the various and sundry meanings of the word "Commission." What the first paragraph does do, is corroborate, directly from Robert Silverberg, that "Gilgamesh in the Outback" was commissioned for the series Heroes in Hell - the point I keep trying to make in the Heroes in Hell article. He signed a contract to produce an original story for the series. The third paragraph corroborates that - oh by the way - it was ALSO published in Asimov's - not originally published there. It was written for the book, with the magazine sale in the same month a first serial sale giving Mr. Silverberg extra income. I used a different source to talk to the pedigree of the story on the Heroes in Hell site - Silverberg's quasi-official website. Your source is better in that it tells the truth directly with his words, rather than his complicit blessing which you discount. Your insinuations make it sound nefarious, that Mr. Silverberg was somehow lured into participating in this lowly endeavor, while sharing the spotlight with other Hugo winning authors who wrote in this series such as CJ Cherryh and George Alec Effinger or Hugo nominees Gregory Benford, Robert Sheckley and Robert Asprin. Silverberg even states he had so much fun he wrote two more Hell novellas. Then he goes on to make the point, proudly, that his Hugo for the work was one of the few shared-world stories ever to achieve that distinction. Note - "shared world" - part of a series - not a standalone story written for a magazine. I am not going to belabor this any longer. I hope you see that that your objectivity has somehow been compromised. Please do the right thing and correct the misconceptions so that WP can remain a valued "accurate" encyclopedic source." ALL EDITORS, PLEASE EXAMINE THE CITATIONS OF BOTH VERSIONS OF THE "GILGAMESH IN THE OUTBACK" PAGE SO THIS ISSUE CAN BE PUT TO BED. There is an old saying: "You can't prove a negative." Most of the accusations brought by Mr. Wolfowitz and his fellow editors fall into the category of forcing the accused to prove they did NOT do something - thereby creating an impossible situation: that of "proving" a negative. The earlier example of Mr. Wolfowitz' strangely intense desire to rewrite the Silverberg/Heroes in Hell relationship of 1986, by selective quoting and "creative" editing, highlights the problem that started this entire debate, leading to Ms. Morris creating an account solely for the purpose of attempting to straighten out the obvious misunderstanding of the situation in the dispute pages (as she repeatedly attempted to explain not only here but to various editors on their own talk pages) only to be accused of being someone already blocked from editing WP, and from there the debate degenerated into flying accusations and digging up ancient history to obfuscate the true issue: Did Mr. Silverberg write "Gilgamesh in the Outback" for the series Heroes in Hell or did he write it independently to be printed in Dr. Asimov's wonderful publication, and then "allow" it to be used in Heroes in Hell? That question has now been answered unequivocally. Without that dispute, the rest of these hundreds of thousands of words and unknown number of hours wasted would never have happened. (Yes, we all know the first serial of the story was printed in IASFM(v. 10, no. 6, Jun86 (whole no. 105) Created 1986; Pub.; Reg. 1986-05-08; TX0001821228 and the original was published in Rebels in HellDate of Creation:1985; Date of Publication: 1986-07-01 (both citations from Copyright WebCite queries from story page) two months' later and no one is arguing that. Mr. Silverberg's own description of his creation of "Gilgamesh in the Outback" must take precedence over simple statements of the dates of publication which only delineate the chronological order in which they were published - they do not prove for whom he wrote the story).Hulcys930 (talk) 08:05, 26 August 2011 (UTC) Haven't we had enough walls of text already? Honestly, I think that concern that the term "originally published" also establishes intention of the author is very, very superficial and is largely unimportant to most readers. I doubt most readers will take that interpretation of the phrase. "Originally published" is only intended to signify the order in which the story appeared. Can we just leave it at that? I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 08:22, 26 August 2011 (UTC) Before dismissing the above post, please go to the "Gilgamesh in the Outback" page and see the difference between what Mr. Silverberg reported in his interview and the way Mr. Wolfowitz has characterized the situation on the page.Hulcys930 (talk) 08:28, 26 August 2011 (UTC) Hulcys, a call for more eyes is one thing, but huge amounts of text here aren't going to solve anything. AN/I is a terrible venue for solving content disputes. Besides, the thread at WP:DRN already showed obvious consensus for a compromise. Has is not been implemented? lifebaka 13:34, 26 August 2011 (UTC) lifebaka If only that were true. We THOUGHT there had been compromise and consensus until Mr. Wolfowitz revised the Gilgamesh page on August 22 to reflect his own personal wishes rather than the actual history of events. Please read the Gilgamesh page and then Mr. Silverberg's entire statement. The only way to create the fiction stated on the Gilgamesh page is by heavily parsing certain words from Mr. Silverberg and putting them together in a different order with a skewed narrative so as to change the situation entirely. "And selective quotation is a well-known mode of character assassination. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:40, 23 December 2009 (UTC)" (emphasis added) I guess it works for history revision too... Hulcys930 (talk) 08:39, 27 August 2011 (UTC) Also, I DID apologize for the length of the above post but refuting statements made using "verifiable" sources in a deliberately misleading manner by highly experienced editors takes some explaining. Hulcys930 (talk) 02:27, 27 August 2011 (UTC) This is just a rerun of Hulcys930's phony COI charges against me and other editors. She goes on at length about the misdeeds of The Big Bad Wolfowitz, but never gets around to explaining what they are. I added well-sourced, relevant information. including properly referenced quotations, to a page involved in this dispute. Hulcys can't actually find anything inappropriate in my edits, so she declares that the quotations I presented are "in a different order" from the original. This is not an automatic bad thing, of course; WP articles aren't just paraphrases of their sources, and may present relevant information in a different structure and order. And here it's simply not true; anybody who compares the article to the cited source (reproduced in that wall of text Hulcy is plastering all over WP) can verify this for themselves. Who's being "deliberately misleading"? I'd say it's the editor who's been rather free in throwing uncivil, unsupported personal attacks around while refusing to disclose her own COI regarding the subjects involved in the dispute. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 12:31, 27 August 2011 (UTC) Hullaballoo, you're not doing any better in assuming good faith yourself. Both of you, instead of commenting on each other, just find a compromise (as an example, you could say that the story was serialized in Asimov's on <date> and publised in RIH on <date> without giving any other wording on order; as I'm lead to believe both dates are the same month and year, the first published parameter in the infobox doesn't explicitly refer to either, and no one will care, anyway), put it in the article, and move on. Cheers. lifebaka 16:09, 27 August 2011 (UTC) You know, lifebaka, WP:AGF doesn't require users to paint targets on their backs or otherwise accept abusive treatment. It "does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of obvious evidence to the contrary". And Ms Hulcy's repeatedly making wholly groundless accusations against editors who've opposed her in garden-variety content disputes is pretty obvious evidence. She dragged this dispute into the mud with her accusation that "each and every page regarding a Janet Morris story, novel or anthology has been the subject of inordinate scrutiny for a number of years by three WP editors: OrangeMike, Dravecky and Hullaballoo Wolfowitz," a complete fabrication that she never provided evidence to actually support."[158] Now she repeats this sliming, with a more insulting accusation and no evidence whatever, and I'm supposed to ignore what's gone before and assume that this time she's acting in good faith. Forget it; that's not what our policy calls for. And note that an SPI, which I wasn't involved in, just closed yesterday and confirmed that Hulcys930 has "a consistent record" of "using anonymous IPs to engage in edit warring-like behavior".[159]] And Ms Hulcy's response to the SPI filing was a new, groundless, uncivil personal attack on me, over an edit I'd made about a week earlier, plastering multiple copies of it all around WP. Your sympathies here a clearly misplaced, and you should rethink what's been going on. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:04, 27 August 2011 (UTC) I've just now attempted such a compromise by changing the Gilgamesh text to "It was published in Asimov's Science Fiction[3][4] and in Rebels in Hell[5] before being incorporated into Silverberg's novel To the Land of the Living." If that's not acceptable, I'll walk away; I just thought it might be easier for both to accept - or at least, let pass - a compromise that came from someone else. NebY (talk) 17:18, 27 August 2011 (UTC) That's not a compromise, that's a capitulation. It's not acceptable to me, and it isn't supported by a genuine consensus. No one disputes the accuracy of the publication history I set forth, which was uncontroversially included in the article for several years. Even Hulcys acknowledges its accuracy -- note above, where even Hulcys agrees that the magazine publication came first, and "no one is arguing [about] that". It's standard practice in Wikipedia, for works of fiction, to identify their first chronological publication. It's not just standard practice in Wikipedia, it's the norm, across the board, for reliable bibliographical works. No one's made any case that there's a good reason, based on encyclopedic principles or Wikipedia policies, for doing anything otherwise in this case. The compromise has already been made, by mentioning Rebels in Hell at all, because it's not standard practice, here or elsewhere, to mention anthologization of already published short fiction, except in the case of things like year's-best volumes, where inclusion is a clear indicator of notability. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:37, 27 August 2011 (UTC) I find it fascinating that since Mr. Wolfowitz rewrote history on August 22 on Gilgamesh in the Outback, everyone still thinks this is about the "when was it published where" issue. THAT issue was brought to consensus about 2 weeks ago. As far as I knew, the issue was closed. Since, as Mr. Wolfowitz claims, in his view the consensus reached was "not a compromise, that's a capitulation. It is not acceptable to me..." he decided to rewrite the entire page to make it say what he wanted from the beginning, in spite of the consensus reached. When challeged by information in his own source, Wolfowitz' only defense is to accuse me of making "personal attacks" - I guess by quoting paragraphs from an interview; how that is attacking, I really don't know; followed by a vague explanation that (regardless of fact) Wikipedia's policies and encyclopedic principles won't allow for the information to be presented. I'm sorry, but no matter what Mr. Wolfowitz wishes, reality and history remain unchanged, despite his strenuous attempts to alter it; he simply damages the accuracy of WP. The repeated charges of "personal and insulting attacks" from Mr. Wolfowitz is the first actual case of "projection" I have ever run into. I was unaware of the SPI mentioned until I saw it HERE, so, obviously, that had nothing to do with anything I said. (I'm interested to discover I have "a consistent record" of "using anonymous IPs to engage in edit warring-like behavior." A CONSISTENT record? Really? For how long? Did you bother to check MY IP address?) The only notifications sent out (as far as I can tell) were to two IP addresses, neither of which are mine. As far as "using anonymous IPs" I simply copied the information posted on the GITO page by someone with only an IP address because I knew it would be deleted the moment Mr. Wolfowitz saw it, as it contained too much sourced information for him to refute (he removed it in less than 2 minutes). But since no one actually wants to read or hear anything that can't be explained in three sentences or less, I'll close with this: I DO finally understand that opposing Wolfowitz is a completely futile gesture, as is obvious from perusing his personal Talk page. Over and over the same problem: when opposed, he becomes more entrenched in his position and gradually loses the ability to discuss the issue cogently or rationally, resorting to whatever insults he can think of, while complaining to other editors that he's being picked on and how Wikipedia policies are more important than truth. This is no different from identical disputes on a wide-ranging series of subjects that Wolfowitz has been involved in over the years. By tacitly condoning this behavior, I see no indication that Wickipedia cares whether it represents accurate information or not. I DO, however, know when I am playing on an uneven field and this pretty well defines that concept. I am content to let Mr. Wolfowitz continue to imagine he is manipulating reality to his liking, and exercise what little power he has as a WP editor, rather than waste my time trying to make a silk purse. Wikipedia is the real loser of this argument. Hulcys930 (talk) 22:38, 27 August 2011 (UTC)