Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive521

User:Collect and Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Rick Warren

Closed per the privileged nature of mediation. MBisanz talk 00:55, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

This user has, in the few brief minutes that yet another round of mediation has opened on this article: Announced his immediate intention to "call a halt to the mediation" if his conditions are not met. I don't know how a single party to mediation can do that, but there it is. Accused another editor of treating the mediation as "a high school debate club." Accused another editor of posting a "brief ultimatum" when all they'd done is reposed one of the earlier proposals from an earlier round of mediation. I am bringing this to ANI because I think more eyes need to be on this. This dispute is well past ten weeks now, and this is not looking like a postive start to formal mediation. I regard these comments as personal attacks on other editors, no matter how Collect thinks mediation is supposed to be conducted. Mike Doughney (talk) 17:53, 10 March 2009 (UTC) Is there any reason to think the current mediators can't keep a handle on the subject? Admins overseeing this have certainly been willing to give out blocks and topic bans to both sides for bad behavior. THF (talk) 17:58, 10 March 2009 (UTC) I felt that the comments made by this user at the outset were well beyond the scope of mediation, and I wanted more eyes on this from the beginning. Mike Doughney (talk) 18:06, 10 March 2009 (UTC) The mediators are, by definition, experienced editors and can certainly ask for help if they need it. Mediation is optional, so unreasonable demands on either side that cause the mediation to fail to resolve the issue just means that the dispute resolution will go to the much more unpleasant arbitration process. This doesn't belong at ANI. THF (talk) 18:14, 10 March 2009 (UTC) Considering that I posted my reasoning to the mediator, I find this to be an exceptionally bad faith complaint. I noted the mediator asked for "brief comments" to which the editor above and another editor appended thousands of words, and that they then posted "finalized" language which was anything but final as that is what the mediation was about. I find mediation works best when it is treated as a formal process accoridng to WP guidelines, and not as a free-for-all continued directly from an article's talk page, and including material not even up for mediation. My "conditions" are that mediation protocol be followed -- I find that to be reasobnable. Thanks! Collect (talk) 18:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC) Per WP:MULTI, please don't relitigate the mediation here. THF (talk) 18:09, 10 March 2009 (UTC) Per User:THF. Phoenix of9 (talk) 18:09, 10 March 2009 (UTC) I also agree, to stretch the legal metaphor: a case has opened an attempt to appeal until that case has run its course is premature. And this is probably not the correct appellate venue either. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:46, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Block review

I blocked Special:Contributions/160.36.237.191 after this charming edit on my user page, after I gave him a stern warning about his disruption on WP:RFPP. (The duck test makes it clear that the IP is the same individual as User:Zubeneshamali; the two combined made about 25 edits to two requests for unprotection and a request for editing a protected page, all relating to the full protection on University of Tennessee.) Since the final straw was a personal attack on me (which was reverted while I was blocking him), I'm putting this up for review, and if anyone feels the block is unjustified, feel free to unblock with a note here. Horologium (talk) 03:13, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Seems justified in my mind. I can't imagine how you could be both a boy and a princess :-) Even without having heard of Zuben_ before, I can say that blocking is warranted for the IP. Nyttend (talk) 05:05, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I can't imagine how you could be both a boy and a princess :-)

Yo. ;) //roux   05:16, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Fresh off a 24hr block, using article talk to protest.

Resolved

 – blocked 2 weeks Toddst1 (talk)

• JohnHistory (talk · contribs)

More Obamalamadrama, unfortunately. Fresh off a 24hr timeout, John has repeatedly inserted this vertaible Wall-of-Text several times now (one, two, three, four), a long tirade against the fascists of Wikipedia, etc...etc... the first 3 each reverted by a different editor for soapboxing concerns, while the 4th currently sits shiny at the top, as I'd rather not personally repeatedly revert war over it. Tarc (talk) 05:28, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I am not going to respond your disrespect. I simply created a discussion thread about the problems that are systemic that I saw. That is all. You seem to be deeply scared or intimidated by my point and are thus waging some strange "obamamania" war on me that I simply do not get. If you wanted to prove your "fascist" whatever idea that you said I thought then simply continue your feud with me. You are the one opposing the Jimbo guidelines not I. I don't think I have anything else to say to you. Leave my discussions alone and stop violating your tools. JohnHistory (talk) 05:39, 11 March 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory

I don't know what a jimbo guideline is, but i do know what disruption is. I suggest you start editing and stop disrupting. The mere fact that i've made a comment here may help you... if you stop. If you don't stop, this is probably the end.Bali ultimate (talk) 05:49, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

The article talk page is for discussion of, y'know, the article. Not for your tangential musings of fascist Wikipedians and the perceived unfairness of your block. And no, there's nothing scary or intimidating about it. Tarc (talk) 05:48, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Repeated postings of rants against a block in no way belongs on the Obama talk page, the guidelines are setup at the beggining. Do you go to Starbucks when your overcharged for something at Dunkin Donuts? No. YOUR block, and the discussion is confined to YOUR talk page. Youve been told that many times, and you ignore it. --DemocraplypseNow (talk) 05:50, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

JohnHistory blocked for 2 weeks for personal attack here. Toddst1 (talk) 05:59, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Michael McLendon

Resolved

 – Pages moved to other locations, considerably updated. - NeutralHomer • Talk • March 11, 2009 @ 16:06

A new article has just been created about the alleged shooter in Alabama. I deleted the first unreferenced version of it. It's back already with a few references. I think we need some eyes on this, please! Aleta ^Sing 05:34, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I think a page should be created, but more in the news story version than to the actual person. - NeutralHomer • Talk • March 11, 2009 @ 05:45

Right now it is a one line article about the man who allegedly killed a bunch of others and then himself. It would be a BLPE issue if he were still alive, but he apparently killed himself at the end of the spree. I'm not sure this is at all appropriate as is. Aleta ^Sing 05:48, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

What I was thinking of, is move the article to say 2009 Alabama shootings and have it be like a "news" page like 2009 Baghdad police recruitment centre bombing looks. - NeutralHomer • Talk • March 11, 2009 @ 05:51

That would certainly be better than what there is now. Please feel free to go ahead and do it! I have to go to bed now. Aleta ^Sing 05:56, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I would agree with the move (although I couldn't think of a good name at the time)... I took a minor stab at some of the wording in the article currently (I admit, "...man who police believe killed" is kinda weaselly, but, I too was concerned about the sorta-BLP issues involved). umrguy42 06:00, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

If you want to take a go at it, I will move the page to 2009 Alabama shootings (seems appropiate enough a name) and work on some references and more information. - NeutralHomer • Talk • March 11, 2009 @ 06:02

Looks like someone beat me to the punch and moved and updated the pages. I am marking this as resolved. - NeutralHomer • Talk • March 11, 2009 @ 16:03

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Nadya_Suleman_(2nd_nomination)

This Afd is bizarre. The first AfD was closed after a few hours by a non-admin, leading to this second AfD. This second AfD has now been closed early, by a non-admin. I have no idea why we couldn't let it run for the regulation five days, but let that pass. Could an admin (one used to closing awkward AfDs would be best, I think) look over the AfD and agree or disagree with the closing and the decision? TIA Mr Stephen (talk) 12:31, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

• I can't see much point in having an AfD for someone who is mentioned in the media virtually every day. Better to wait until media attention to her dies down before trying to nominate the article about her for deletion. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 13:55, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
  • What you've got there basically is one editor who absolutely can't stand the fact that this baby factory has an article here. He objects on the grounds that there's already an article about the octuplets. I would argue the octuplets article is the "not notable" one, because they haven't done anything except to be born. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:25, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Although I personally think the woman in question is an messed-up idiot, and the doctor involved could not pass an ethics board to save his life, the sad fact is that this issue overally does merit some encyclopedic entry because of the same reasons I just gave. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 14:27, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Baseball, it may not be right but you can't say that only one editor questions this bio, several voted delete. Non admins shouldn't really close early or close contentious AfDs, I think per WP:NAC, which I know is just a guideline but makes sense. It should be reopened as the close was not in accordance with standard practice, the snowball clause or guidelines. Having said that, it would eventually have been an obvious keep, but why not wait till the end so no-one can say it's not been handled in the standard fashion. Sticky Parkin 15:38, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

At the AfD, some editors want two articles, some editors want them to be merged, some editors want no articles at all. A contentious AfD with 30+ contributors should be closed with more explanation than 'keep'. Non-admins shouldn't be anywhere near the closure (IMHO). One problem with these AfDs is the appearance of trying to stifle debate: firstly by closing AfD/1 after less than twelve hours here, then trying to get AfD/2 closed in equally quick time here, then appealing to this page to get AfD/2 closed early (see above), finally getting another non-admin closure. If there is consensus for anything, then fair enough. But let's discuss it, find consensus, and close the debate properly. (MHO is no consensus, but whatever.) Mr Stephen (talk) 16:30, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Just for the record, I initiated the first AFD on BLP policy, albeit a section of policy which has been poorly enforced and may very well not be policy at all. I don't believe that a NAC was inappropriate in that case, since at that point it was not particularly contentious (i.e. WP:SNOW) and I as nominator had withdrawn it. I was not involved in the second AFD and have no opinion there. SDY (talk) 21:06, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

The first AfD's close complies with WP:Speedy keep, clause 1. Flatscan (talk) 04:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Talking of BLP, we should probably be more careful about slinging around phrases like "baby factory", "messed-up idiot" and the ethics board comment. Exxolon (talk) 22:44, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I was careful to state that it was my personal opinion. If it was anywhere near an article, there would be an issue, as it would be WP:OR. I'll never be called to provide testimony at said ethics board, so it's not an issue. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 22:59, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Making it clear it's a personal opinion helps, but BLP does apply outside non-article space. It applies on ALL pages. Exxolon (talk) 00:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

• I'm not sure what admin action is really required here. If you don't like the article being kept WP:DRV if always availablt to contest that. Disclaimer: I opined that the article is a keeper given the significant coverage of her. It would be interesting if WP:DRV came out differently (don't hold your breath), as we'd have a much higher bar to get rid of some articles on marginally notable (under the current regime) subjects....but I digress. Should this be marked "resolved"? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:09, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
• Would an admin simply endorse/overturn/reopen the AfD? DRV shouldn't be necessary, as this NAC is clearly outside the limits suggested by the relevant guideline and its supporting essay. Flatscan (talk) 04:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC) —striking per information provided by MBisanz Flatscan (talk) 04:25, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

• Seddon (talk · contribs) is an admin, see WP:FORMER, he just currently does not have the sysop flag by his own choice. MBisanz ^talk 04:17, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

No wonder we have problems with BLPs

I am gravely concerned when a thread supposedly started to discuss concerns about article deletion promptly turned into an opportunity to bash the subject of the article: "baby factory", "messed-up idiot", "the doctor involved could not pass an ethics board to save his life". This is unacceptable. The editors who have made such comments should consider themselves warned, and I hope they will give thought to striking such commentary. Very disappointing. Risker (talk) 04:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Although I understand your possible concern, fromWP:BLP: Editors must take particular care adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page. None of my statements are being passed off as biographical material about a living person. If you would like, I could go and find properly sourced versions of those statements (they've been printed in a number of the papers I've written for - and many others), but that would be completely contrary with what I was trying to achieve with the original statement, wouldn't it? (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 09:12, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

(NB: I say the above out of total respect, and not attempting to be flippant. I readily take criticism, but appreciate things being kept in proper context. I was, indeed, supporting the inclusion of an article about a controversial individual (and their doctor) who both have performed highly controversial actions - I placed personal statements that have indeed also been made by sourcable/notable professionals. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 10:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC))

If this is what you consider context, there is a bigger problem. This is the noticeboard for people requesting administrator assistance, in this case about a dispute relating to certain discussions. The place for you to add your personal opinion about the discussion is at the discussion, not on this noticeboard. And stating that someone is a "messed-up idiot", or that "the doctor involved could not pass an ethics board to save his life" is most certainly a biographical commentary. If you put that in an article without attribution, as you have on this page, there's a relatively good chance you would have been blocked, let alone warned. Your personal opinion about these individuals is completely irrelevant to this or any other discussion page, the article, or the encyclopedia - as is mine. Risker (talk) 17:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Ladies and gentlemen, an ARBcom has spoken. The phrase "lunatics running the asylum" comes to mind. Fear not, I'll be dutifully reporting that phrase to the BLP noticeboard ASAP. Badger Drink (talk) 10:23, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Huh!?! Shot info (talk) 11:17, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure exactly who coined the phrase or when they coined it, but I'm worried that it may refer to living lunatics. Badger Drink (talk) 18:55, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

This from a User whose User page has once been deleted as an attack page and once deleted for vandalism. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:32, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Risker, I won't mention any names, but I know a current member of arbcom who might argue that this problem doesn't exist because Google doesn't index it. I don't accept the "all about the juice" argument. However this is nothing new. AFD has long been a toxic environment where people have nothing better to do than ridicule the subjects and editors of articles they don't like.

Bwilkins, that sounds like wiki-lawyering. Non-biographical intent would not make it acceptable for me to refer to you on Wikipedia as an asshole, for example. — CharlotteWebb 02:37, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

For crying out loud, this is gone from bad to worse. First I have been wrongly "warned" by an ArbComm member, and now I'm being accused of Wikilawyering, all within 24 hours? I go away to a military base for one little week to write a series of real life articles with bullets flying over my head, and come back, and I'm public enemy #1? The original intent of my original statement stands: unlike some editors, just because I disagree with a subject, that does not mean that it does not have encyclopedic merit. Yes, I used phrasing about 2 living people that appear throughout the press around the world - indeed, one of the phrases was said by that person's own mother in a number of real world articles, so it's not original (unfortunately, I don't think you can find any reliable sources calling me an asshole, that's just WP:OR ;-) ). I did not participate in the AfD, I have not touched the article in question, nor do I plan to. I mean really...do you want me to source the 2 statements? Is it worth the drahma for me to go back and put quotations and references? Can we not get back to the subject of the original AN/I report, and if you have an issue or need clarification with any of my edits, then let's deal with it in a way that does not make it look like I had involvement in the original issue? You want to call me out, then do it in the right way...if you want to discuss, I will discuss...you want to take wild stabs in the dark, forget it - I'm used to wearing kevlar. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 09:20, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I think the closures were correct. It is sometimes impossible to figure out whether a person is merely known for one veent, or could become notable. I'm goign to semi-protect the article if it hasn't been done already. Let's call it a day. Bearian (talk) 12:21, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

William Murphy (tennis)

I am having difficulty persuading an IP account from making changes to this article that are inappropriately based on a personal relationship with the subject or his family. The IP account continues to insert information that is based on unverifiable information. In response to my requests for citations, he continues to insert "according to Chet" (the subject's brother) or to refer to the fact that certain war medals were seen at the subject's home. See, e.g., [1], [2], [3], [4], and [5]. I have tried leaving extensive notes/suggestions on the IP user's talk page, (see [6]) but the user continues to delete my notations. I have tried to be courteous but I don't want to get into an edit war with this user. What can be done about this? Cbl62 (talk) 06:18, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I have posted the user a caution message suggesting they engage in discussion and read up on the guideline and polices they have been referred to. I also added them a {{Welcomeunsourced}} with the relevant links in mind of their unsourced contributions. They certainly seem in good faith, just misguided about what is appropriate so hopefully this will prompt them into slowing down and reading up. I suspect thought that they may well not know what a watchlist is so aren't seeing edit summaries and have not stopped long enough to see they have messages, or may not even know what a talk page is yet. A revert of all the unsourced stuff is appropriate, maybe that will confuse them into stopping or clicking away long enough to see they have messages. If it continues against that reversion they could get a couple of hour block to prevent them wasting any more time contributing material that will not stick, get their attention and give them some reading time. Mfield (talk) 06:42, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

IPs using Wikipedia as a storage location.

This diff shows an IP tucking away a character file into an article, no doubt for later recovery. This is not the first time, either see this as well. I'd like to request that both be oversighted out, as a preventative measure against such behaviors being commonplace; this is not the purpose of WP. ThuranX (talk) 22:49, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, that's already fairly commonplace. HalfShadow 22:50, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

From my experience, Oversight will not deal with such edits, Thuran. Sorry. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 22:54, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Damn shame. Such edits ought to be deleted to discourage them entirely. On the other hand, good to know we can all abuse the site ad nauseum from now on. ThuranX (talk) 23:23, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Admins can, with some effort, nuke the revision out of the publicly visible history (deleted revisions of page, etc). However, is that even justified? Is just deleting it out of the active page good enough here? Yeah, it's not completely gone, but it's fairly gone, someone has to know about histories to go find it now.

I'm open to the answer being "It needs to go away harder" but that should be explained and justified if you think it is... Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:34, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

stray question....what is that sort of thing used for? --Rocksanddirt (talk) 01:09, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

That is a HeroMachine save "file". I just happen to have the software and I've loaded his character onto my computer. Looks like some sort of Asian Sith Lord.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:27, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and the other one is some assassiny knife wielder.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:29, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

thank you for filling my head with yet one more piece of irrelevent garbage. --Ludwigs2 01:50, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

(ec)To be honest I can't see the point of considering oversight for this specific form of vandalism. Add together "Wikipedia is on the Internet", "Wikipedia is freely editable" and "I am a complete numpty who will happily use freely editable resources on the Internet for my own purposes" and this sort of thing will happen, as will people using talkpages as a message board, people thinking an article on their dog/band/girlfriend/cake recipe must appear on here. It's no different to people seeing "L1z suz c0k" on a page and saying to themselves "aha! i could create a page like that too", and nobody (surely) is considering oversight for all vandalism "as a preventative measure against such behaviors being commonplace". WP:RBI, applies, doesn't it, just as for any persistent vandalism? Tonywalton ^Talk 01:12, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

(EC, servers were acting up, ryulong said a lot of what I'd tried to say) For those unclear about this, this string represents the save data for a character for an internet game of some sort. The difference between this an 'joo allz zuk kawk' is that this editor is seeking to squirrel away actual usable data in our edit histories, which he can recover and use later. This is far more a WP:NOTMYSPACE violation, or WP:NOTYOURHARDDRIVE, perhaps. Wikipedia shouldn't be abused as an off-site storage site. ThuranX (talk) 01:42, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

There are other possibilities. See Numbers station. WAS 4.250 (talk) 01:45, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

If this is doubting the fact that what the text is used for, I can provide an image of the output. :P And, yeah, this is a vio of notmyspace or notharddrive because this can be saved in a freaking .txt—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:21, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Because of the sticky nature of oversight (interaction with WMF policy, real world copyright issues, local policy, and dramaz) its highly unlikley a drastic measure will be taken. I would support however, a single revision deletion of that edit - although we need to actually get that featured installed for us non-OS admins.--Tznkai (talk) 03:06, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

It can be done, I've done it on occasion- I thought it best if people elsewhere weren't able to see the diffs (ED related rubbish). Just delete the page, and then restore all revisions apart from those that you don't want to be seen. It's a bit of a hack, but it can be done. J Milburn (talk) 20:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Isn't that what User:NawlinWiki was doing incessantly a few months back that caused the whole site to freeze up and watchlists to backlog by thousands of seconds? No thanks, we have an encylopaedia to write. Skomorokh 21:36, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

LOL, he still does that, God love him. 211.30.25.62 (talk) 08:39, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Alright, if you must know, it was a threat involving me, being linked to "for the lulz". Not something I want sitting around. J Milburn (talk) 18:03, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

scriptural reasoning article

I am writing about the article 'Scriptural reasoning'. I am happy to admit I am an officer of the Scriptural Reasoning Society. I am not 'scripturalreasoning' but am part of the same society and we all know about the history and editing conflict. I made a single edit on this article a long time ago. I have not done so since because of the conflicts and I do not have time nor sufficiently interested.

But I am concerned that 'thelongview' seems to have added a lot of references to himself and people from the organisation which he is part of or works for, and his editing seems biased towards the Society for Scriptural Reasoning. Two other editors 'mahigton' and 'laysha101' arrived at the exactly same time last November and they have all admitted they know each other. This all seems dodgy.

Other admins have noted that this article has been a conflict between the two organizations and suggested that it should be edited by people who are not linked to either organization, and don't use it to promote either organization. There are hardly any references from people who aren't directly involved in scriptural reasoning. Thanks. --Kurteasy (talk) 15:10, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

• Scriptural reasoning for ease of editors. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:12, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Is there a really good reason for this article to exist and not just be a redirect to Exegesis? Just because multiple people join the same two words together doesn't really mean we need an article about it. For example, "my stupid parents" gets plenty of g-hits, but that's obviously not an article topic. --B (talk) 15:45, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Scriptural reasoning is not exegesis... I'm not convinced about its notability, but a redirect to exegesis would be profoundly misleading. [[Sam Korn]] ^(smoddy) 16:24, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
    • I thought "scriptual reasoning" was just another synonym for prooftext. -- llywrch (talk) 16:50, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Please also see this recent discussion here at AN/I regarding Scripturalreasoning.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:01, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

From what I can tell Scriptural reasoning is a (relatively) new interfaith practice. A more accurate description may be "interfaith discussions concerning Abrahamic scripture". We've got an obvious COI problem, but it doesn't seem unmanageable. Cambridge University's interfaith programme seems to be involved, but I'm not sure if the notability is inherited. All that having been said, what exactly, if anything, are admins needed for?--Tznkai (talk) 19:30, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

A search for scriptural reasoning on wiki reveals that the lead scholars have their own articles, some of which may have been autobiographies, but this appears to be an editors needed problem, not an admin intervention required problem.--Tznkai (talk) 19:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, Tznkai. The article certainly needs to be improved, and more editors are needed. Most scriptural reasoning activity worldwide takes place under the aegis of the Society for Scriptural Reasoning, so most editors familiar with the practice will be affiliated in some way with it. There is an expanding literature on the topic, and over time I would expect a corresponding increase in numbers of editors able to form independent judgements. Thelongview (talk) 21:56, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Thelongview, in the Google-searching I did a couple of days ago, I got the impression that everything relating to the Scriptural Reasoning Society was probably generated by a single person. I presume you know something about this -- can you shed any light? (No personal identities, please, though.) Looie496 (talk) 00:13, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Looie496, the website relating to the scriptural reasoning society is, I think, maintained by a couple of friends/colleagues. I think one of them, Carpathy2009 (recently blocked), originally designed it, but he has said on a talk page that the board of trustees of Interfaith Alliance UK approves the content. I don't know who drafts the content that the trustees approve, but it represents the views of Carpathy2009. It's difficult to be more precise than this, or verify it, as the website lists no trustees, and does not name sponsors or participants. Thelongview (talk) 08:46, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

The Scriptural Reasoning Society is not run 'by a couple of friends'. If you buy tomorrow's Baptist Times there's a full feature article on the Scriptural Reasoning Society, description by the journalist of one of our group meetings, interviews with people, photos etc. It is true up to now we haven't blown our own trumpet enough to the media and we've been too modest. There are names of some SR Coordinators under the affiliated local groups (click 'Events' on our website). I think names of Coordinators, Trustees etc should be much more prominent, but one or two of my colleagues have been vocal that it would apparently make us 'unequal' and a 'personality cult' like the other SR organization. We also have over 200 members and we aren't going to put their names up on the internet just because a couple of anonymous Wikipedia tell us to. Due to conflict of interest it would be better if non-involved editors edited the scriptural reasoning article. --Kurteasy (talk) 13:10, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Looie496 asked a specific question about what he found by Google-searching. My response relates solely to the maintenance of the website, not to the scriptural reasoning society. I agree entirely with you about publishing names of coordinators and trustees. It is normal for societies to do that. (And wholly unusual to publish full lists of members - no-one is asking for that.) Thelongview (talk) 16:16, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Duncan Ferguson

Hi. I'm back after a while and I screwed up my attempt to reverse an old redirect, page move, thus accidentally deleting the edit history of one of the pages. I wanted to recreate a disambiguation page after an old deleted page was recreated as there are two people with the exaxt same name. There should be a page for Duncan Ferguson (political activist), Duncan Ferguson (Scottish football player) and a disamb. page. Sorry and thanks for the help. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 02:24, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Can an admin help with the above? Thanks! Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 03:55, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

That is contrary to recommended practice. Skomorokh 06:19, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Request for assistance at ANI withdrawn.Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 11:42, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I fixed the issue with misplaced article history. Whether or not there needs to be a disambig page as opposed to two top-notes is another issue. Cirt (talk) 15:31, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

There doesn't, basically. One is an internationally-known footballer. The other is a sculptor whose article was started this week. There's a clear primary topic; I've marked the dab for speedy, and will add a hatnote to the footballer article once it's moved to the root title. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:52, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

USER:A6702 and Sock

Resolved

 – IP and all known sock accounts blocked.--Jayron32.talk.contribs 16:53, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

USER:A6702 posted this [7] and this [8] and this [9] to Presidency of Barack Obama with a few minutes of each other; each was quickly reverted for any of many good reasons. He was warned of 3rr.

A few minutes later, the brand new USER:A16529 appeared, and added this [10] to the same page. I smell socks. PhGustaf (talk) 05:19, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

See also [11]. This appeares to be a deep sockfarm. I am off to bed, so if other admins could continue the whack-a-mole for me, I'd appreciate it. If a checkuser is reading this, we need to clear up this problem, and perhaps block the underlying IP as well as the rest of this farm. I have also semiprotected the target article for 24 hours to stop these newly created accounts from disrupting. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 06:07, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I have blocked the IP. No other socks were immediately apparent. Dominic·t 10:58, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

And I have declined the unblock request of A16529. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:37, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

user:Aloemps

Aloemps (talk · contribs)

Earlier today, I reverted some edits to Mannatech, a company that is, to say the least, controversial. The edits violate WP:NOR, but more to the point, it's advertising for Mannatech. I placed a level 4 warning here, because a previous warning had been placed for the exact same edit. I usually do the the 1-2-3-4 warning system for editors, but it was obvious that this editor was focused on Mannatech and its products.

After a good night's sleep, I awake to the following:

• Fascist Wikipedia
• Personal attack, but at least to the point.
• User:OverlordQ warns Aloemps for personal attacks.
• User:Verbal does the same
• The old boring canard that "mainstream" science blocks everything important in medicine. Of course, the edits to Mannatech fail basic issues like WP:MEDRS.
• In addition, there must have been something at User:Aloemps, because User:Verbal requested a speedy deletion. I have no clue as to what was there, but I'm sure an admin can read it. (And if there's a way for us low-life, non-admins to read it, can someone just drop me a note as to how).
• Another personal attack. Well not so personal, more a general attack on editors at Wikipedia, but not nice, nevertheless.

I believe that Aloemps does not represent the best of Wikipedia, and administrator intervention is needed, even though if he thinks we're all fascists, it's going to be interesting. Good luck. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 15:53, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

A note about the speedy: it wasn't a direct personal attack, but with the immediate history and editing I felt it might warrant action and was sufficiently directed, and an admin agreed. The editor seems to fail to grasp the basics of contributing here. Verbal chat 16:03, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Pretty much what Marlin said sums it up, I reverted a rather largish block of text here which seemed to be a mass block of unsourced WP:OR. And that's really all I had to do with it besides that WP:NPA warning. Q ^{T C} 16:08, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Well as per his last post that you cited above, it seems he is all done. No block is needed if he really does leave Wikipedia. If he doesn't leave, a block may be required then, but a wait-and-see approach may be best at this point. The Seeker 4 Talk 16:09, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I took the last post as a comment that he wasn't going to post on my talk page anymore. Well, we'll see.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 16:49, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

egregious personal attacks in edit summaries

User:ErikWarmelink has been attacking other editors on Talk pages, and in edit summaries. He was recently warned by an administrator about making personal attacks, yet he persists. Yesterday, he described another editor as a "racist" in this edit summary, and after I warned him yet again about violating WP:NPA, his response was 'I hope you may rot in a camp too'. Mr. Hicks The III (talk) 17:01, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Blocked 24 hrs for the two personal attacks, after / despite prior warnings. Left a long message about civility and cooperative engagement rather than abusive confrontation. Hopefully he gets the message. Most of the time he's merely strident, but he keeps going too far and pushing the personal attack button every few days now, and that's not OK. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 17:58, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Block of Dabomb87 by Jehochman

Resolved

 – User unblocked per statement released on talk page. Did anybody bother to notify Johochman of the ANI thread? Nope. seicer | talk | contribs 11:38, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Jehochman has blocked Dabomb87 for 24 hours. I asked him here to explain the rationale for the block. It is my understanding (which may be in error) that the block is because Dabomb87 made a single edit involving a date de-linking. It is also my understanding that the parties to the date de-linking ArbCom are currently enjoined from “mass de-linking”. Jehochman explained on his talk page that he “will not tolerate badgering from multiple parties every time I try to enforce the rules.” He further instructed interested parties to go to WP:AE to discuss any concerns. I did and was told that the proper venue is here. Ergo my question: what rule? Shouldn’t Jehochman cite the rule he is enforcing? As I am not aware of a new ArbCom injunction enjoining the parties from any linking or delinking, the original injunction applies. And in that injunction, the term “mass delinking” meant—and still means—bot delinking or manual delinking in similar quantities. If Dabomb87 really made a single edit (an assumption), then what rule does Jehochman think he is enforcing? If my understanding of the facts is correct, then this has a chilling effect: editors should always be comfortable with following the letter and spirit of rules without fear of an excessive, knee-jerk reaction from a frustrated admin. Greg L (talk) 05:44, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, a full explanation is in order. I have raised three issues on that page, concerning (1) unexplained assumptions by this admin of what was going on in dabomb's mind at the time, ini particular, the admin's declaration that the user was "testing the limits [of the ArbCom temporary injuction in question]" and aimed "to provoke conflict"; (2) different rules for each side in the current "dates" ArbCom hearing in relation to this admin action, resulting in the appearance of grossly unfair treatment in what is meant to be a fair and neutral hearings process; and (3) clarification of just how the definition of "mass [delinking] was reached by the admin, seemingly at odds with previous statements by arbitrators (diffs on request). (4) The apparent breaching of two fundamental WP:ADMIN requirements to (a) communicate fully, before and after, the reasons for a block, and (b) to block only as "a last resort", to prevent harm to the project. It has all of the arbitrariness that characterises extreme regimes. Tony (talk) 08:03, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm copying here my comment I made at WP:AE: This is beyond ridiculous. These kinds of blocks, and much more importantly, these kinds of vindictive hostile reports, must stop immediately. The "injunction", if handled in this way, is evidently creating much more damage and bad blood than it could ever prevent. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:30, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

There needs to be a very specific clarification of what is meant by the ArbCom temporary injunction. It had never occurred to me that it would cover something like this. I wonder if I've broken it? dougweller (talk) 10:31, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

The edit in question by Dabomb is this one. Dabomb had been commenting on the arbitration enforcement page, and so was aware that the very idea of delinking dates was under dispute (how could he not know?). Thus I agree with jehochman that the edit summary of that edit is provocative: "delinking dates and making dates the right format: this is a featured article and therefore must comply with all MOS guidelines".

The question whether that MoS guideline has agreement is well known to be disputed, especially by Dabomb, who has been discussing whether to place a "disputed" tag on it. For Dabomb to refer to that MoS page as if it is controlling when he/she knows that it is disputed is unlikely to help resolve the dispute, and more likely to irk those on the other side. It's a classic power move (and it does not build rapport with editors on the other side of the arbitration case).

Moreover, Dabomb had not previously edited the page in question, and made no other changes to it. I agree that if someone were to delink a date while making significant changes to an article, that would not violate the injunction. But to arrive at a page simply to change date linking isn't on, and Dabomb reasonably could be expected to know this.

If all editors would simply not change date linking styles until the arbitration case is settled, that would resolve the issue of blocks such as these. — Carl (CBM · talk) 11:50, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

This was an obvious violation by somebody deeply involved in the case, clear testing of limits. I was in contact with Dabomb87 and they understood the 24 hour block and more importantly, how to get unblocked (for which I left instructions on their talk page for any reviewing admin to consider). Greg and Tony have engaged in needless drama mongering, and wasted the community's time. Anyone who wants to review this should read the thread on WP:AE fully, and the preceding thread also at WP:AE. This is a vitriolic dispute. Regretably firm limits had to be established, and the disputants will be blocked if they test them. Jehochman ^Talk 12:01, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

• Jehochman: Since you are an admin, I expect better conduct out of you than this. I did not know the detailed facts and wanted clarification. My appeal here makes that much clear; I was seeking an explanation and justification. In my mind, the only controlling rule governing the extent to which editors can delink dates was an ArbCom ban on “mass delinking.” I had received an e-mail from Dabomb87, who is a wikifriend, saying he made a single delinking edit. Based on that, I sought to help him out of what I perceived to be an unfair action by an administrator. I was first seeking 1) the facts of this dispute, 2) the justification for why you blocked Dabomb, and in the end, 3) fairness. That is not too much to ask. I wasn’t out to get you, or, as you accused me of here, “drama mongering.”

  I see now that Dabomb87 was unblocked by another admin, who chose to post this edit summary when doing so: “as per unblock request and discussion. No immediate danger of further disruption. We need fewer blocks and less incentive for vindictive hostile "reporting" of "infractions" in this matter.” That explains a lot. I don’t know who made the hostile reporting and don’t care (though I can imagine), and see now how you got wrapped around the axle on this issue. I wouldn’t have bothered responding were it not that your above post, in a manner of speaking, accused me of having bad faith in my actions here. That was not the case, unless “seeking to get an unjust block” is regarded as “drama mongering.” I’m sure, as an admin, you frequently link to WP:Assume good faith; I suggest you go study what you link to a bit more until it becomes more of your modus operandi. Greg L (talk) 15:29, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

As an uninvolved admin, I am not seeing that the block was clearly justified under nor proportional for the enacted injunction:

1.1) Until this case is decided or otherwise directed by the Arbitration Committee, all editors are instructed not to engage in any program of mass linking or delinking of dates in existing articles, including but not limited to through the use of bots, scripts, tools, or otherwise. This injunction is entered as an interim measure and does not reflect any prejudgment of any aspect of the case. The Clerk will notify the parties of this temporary injunction and post a note of it on the appropriate policy page(s).

Maybe by "mass linking or delinking" they meant "doing so throughout a single entire article", but on looking at the injunction and arbitrators comments I tend to interpret it as "running a bot to do so across a bunch of articles", not "manually did it throughout one whole article".

If Arbcom meant to freeze the date linking/delinking entirely, they should have and presumably would have said so. What they said wasn't "Stop entirely", at all.

Perhaps he was being provocative - and anyone doing so in the middle of an arbcom case should not to that. That a case was filed and accepted indicates that there's reasonable suspicion of seriously unreasonable behavior on one or all sides. But there's a difference between provocative, and blatant violation of an injunction.

Jehochman, if you have some additional comment diffs or locations you can point us to which support your assertion that Arbcom meant the injunction to apply as you have stated you interpreted it, please post them. I don't see this as an open and shut case that you're wrong on this, but there seems to be a preponderance of evidence leaning the other way... I think you have a burden of proof to either show that Arbcom did draw the line where you say they did, or ask them to clarify whether you interpreted it correctly.

I don't think that you clearly did wrong either, but I think that you have more of a burden of proof here. In some cases an admin action dispute is just sour grapes on the enforcee's side - in this case, I think there's a legitimate question as to whether the injunction was interpreted correctly. In any case, admins should be willing to explain actions in more depth if they didn't verbosely explain them to start with. In particular, when uninvolved parties object or ask for more clarification we all have a burden of justifying our actions.

I think the simplest way forwards is if you can find us some comments or diffs clarifying the injunction, or just ask Arbcom to do so now... Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 18:41, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

• Thank you Georgewilliamherbert. Well written; that was precisely my take on the matter. I had two motivations for involving myself on this: 1) to get Dabomb87’s block record to reflect that it was far from an egregious, purposeful violation on his part (if it was a violation of any sort), and 2) I might have innocently delinked a date I had stumbled across if it stood out like a sore thumb in some article. I don’t make it a practice to go looking for trouble with “neener neener” delinking, nor do I run a bot, but “mass delinking” is just that and a single edit once in a while simply isn’t a legitimate concern of any sort. So having “instruction creep” like this and blocking an editor is quite troubling. This whole thing is unfortunate because, even though Dabomb87’s block was undone, the fact that he was blocked and that there was so much drama associated with getting it undone still has a chilling effect. Again, I don’t know who was the party who complained about Dabomb87’s edit, but there are a few involved in the date linking/delinking ArbCom who are quite good at writing wikilawyered prose that makes admins spring to action. IMO, this, may have unfortunately been the root of the problem on this one. Greg L (talk) 21:24, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aaron Klein

Resolved

 – Restored, offending comments redacted. seicer | talk | contribs 18:39, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

The afd is turning into a bash-Klein fest with major WP:BLP violations. Can an admin with guts do the right thing and close this discussion? (I don't care which way)--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 17:29, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Done. What a cluster@%&! of garbage. Kept as no-consensus with no bias towards a renomination at an appropriate time. seicer | talk | contribs 17:32, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I tried courtesy blanking, but I seem to have been reverted by seicer. Won't revert, but still think it's appropriate given the possibility of BLP issues Fritzpoll (talk) 17:36, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

No, I was having technical issues with the AFD Closure app, and had to submit it twice for it to stick. It looks to have been overwritten in the process. seicer | talk | contribs 17:41, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Heh - no problem. I figured it was something like that Fritzpoll (talk) 17:45, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

"Speedy no consensus", in the context of Wikipedia, sounds like an oxymoron. When there's no consensus it's more typical to extend discussion rather than to cut it short. I'm not arguing with the closure, but maybe we need to think about how we handle contentious AfDs concerning living people.   Will Beback  talk  17:49, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I would normally agree, but the AFD was littered with numerous BLP issues. Keep or not, I wasn't about to dig through and sort out the valid rationales from the obvious garbage. seicer | talk | contribs 17:51, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

True that. Doing what's easy is almost always a better option than doing what is right. --Ali'i 17:54, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

We could try giving warnings to everyone who went too far with the BLP issues. I'm trying to sort through it now, but have no firm conclusions on that yet... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 18:00, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

There was certainly Klein-bashing there, and a lot of Keep and Delete !votes that had nothing to do with policy, some WP:NOT#CHAT violations, and some minor incivility, but I don't see anything that obviously violates BLP. THF (talk) 18:05, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Here is the comment Brewcrewer was so worked up about. All I said was "doesn't matter if he's an idiot, he is notable." the comment was a reference to a couple comments above mine that referred to his "idiocy." I didn't see that as a big deal, although I may be wrong. While brewcrewer was forum shopping I didn't see anyone share his opinion though. Landon1980 (talk) 18:08, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

There's a whole string of stuff there which is ... suboptimal, bending policy, though I am still not sure if any of it is warnable or cautionable. "selfpromoting puffery by a conservative nonentity.", "more sources have picked up on this guy and his world of idiocy. ", your comment as a less extreme example.

There's a tendency to feel more free to use terms like puffery and idiot talking about article subjects in BLP AFDs and talk pages, but BLP applies in talk and WP space as much as in article space... one can express ones unhappyness with the article subject without crossing the line into a BLP violation. Those do not reflect well on Wikipedia if someone googles them, and violate our own policies. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 18:17, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I am very big on WP:CIVIL and WP:BLP, and I don't think anyone since David Horowitz has ever accused me of left-wing bias, but "puffery" refers to the article content, rather than the subject. I don't see that remotely as a BLP violation. It's entirely appropriate to note that a subject's notability has been exaggerated by the inclusion of non-notable details in an article: there are thousands of Wikipedia articles where an editor has tried to get over the WP:N hump with lots of footnotes to mentions in passing. THF (talk) 18:22, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't see either "idiot" comment as a major violation, if at all. I know BLP applies to this area as well, but come on, lighten up. Landon1980 (talk) 18:24, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Borderline personal slander, but both instances have been redacted. I didn't bother with the chit-chat, but if it degrades, then it should be closed. seicer | talk | contribs 18:25, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

"if he's an idiot" does not violate the WP:BLP policy I am aware of. I'm just going to remove my vote entirely, since I can't even say he is notable without it being removed, and my comment exaggerated. You shouldn't refactor other's comments unless it is necessary, not just because you could possibly twist them into a policy violation. Landon1980 (talk) 18:32, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

It would have been much more appropriate to ask the "offending" users to adjust their comments rather than create a false incident. Grsz¹¹ 18:37, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment on the BLP interpretation

I am concerned about the overbroad view of the BLP policy expressed by some editors. WP:RS and WP:WEIGHT, among other policies, requires editors to assess the substance and credibility of living people. Does it violate BLP to say "Joe Schlabotnik is not a credible source"? (I had one editor edit-warring to redact that comment from a talk page discussing the WEIGHT to be given to the non-credible source.) There needs to be a little leeway in talk-page space, where the opinions of individual editors are clearly stated as the opinions of individual editors. "Joe Schlabotnik is an idiot" may be on the unCIVIL side, but it is of a different caliber than "Joe Schlabotnik molests children," which should be redacted. THF (talk) 18:41, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah. There's a legitimate question as to when we start to overreact on any topic.

The comments were rude, not helpful (degraded rather than enhanced debate - the opinion could have been stated equally validly in a non abusive manner), uncivil. But I am tending to agree that the BLP issue interpretation was a mistake by Brewcrewer and myself. I wasn't sure they were - my first reaction was possibly, which was why I went and looked more carefully - but I spoke out here in part to float the interpretation up the flagpole. I think there's now a legitimate consensus that BLP wasn't broached.

That said, the comments were rude, not helpful, and uncivil. We're an encyclopedia and an online community which has to work together, under unprecedented external scrutiny, and comments like that do nothing but damage how we're perceived by the outside world if anyone notices. It may be that nobody will publicize them - the article subject is unlikely to point more fingers after being identified as the content offender in the first place. But the project would look bad if this was posted on the front page of the New York Times, or a CNN article. And those things happen from time to time.

Grsz' comment that this would have been best approached by asking those commenters to redact their own comments would have been preferable, I think. Pointing out the problem and asking that people edit collegialy and civilly would have been more useful as a first step. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 18:52, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Joe Blow is an idiot or whatever is not needed and should be removed from talk pages. Joe Blow is not a reliable source is a perfectly acceptable opinion that should be allowed. Tom 18:58, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe that noting that someone is an unreliable source is any sort of problem or violation, and I don't think anyone else said so. If it seemed that I or others were implying that somewhere above, my apologies, I didn't intend to convey that. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:22, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Not you, GWH, but I had two editors criticizing me on ANI a couple of days ago for identifying a non-credible source as a non-credible source, claiming CIVIL and BLP problems. It does seem that they were largely ignored, but I wanted to get out into the open the different degrees of BLP issues. There's a substantial difference between talk-pages and articlespace when it comes to BLP redactions. And since I use "puffery" quite frequently as a short-hand to describe article problems ("Joe Schlabotnik once spoke at a lawyers' convention and was mentioned on a blog."), I was also concerned that you viewed that as itself problematic. THF (talk) 19:42, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I think Puffery is bothering me, but I think we're somewhere around the grey line the community is drawing on what's ok and what isn't. From the perspective of what outsiders would say if they saw that, it's suboptimal. But it may well not break the communities' idea of where to draw the line based on discussion here.

I appreciate the value of shorthand, but shorthand that carries excessively negative connotations, in a public forum, has its downside.

It would probably help our general civility clean up efforts if you moved away from using it. But I'll agree not to do more than ask people politely not to use it, based on the rough consensus I'm seeing here. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:51, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Of course, this is all besides the fact that I didn't call Klein an idiot, rather called his actions idiocy. To me, there's a difference. Grsz¹¹ 19:06, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps, but maintaining an enhanced level of civility, even about article subjects, is never a bad idea. Pretending that the article subject is a personal friend often helps, even if you disagree vehemently with his or her opinions. -- Avi (talk) 19:13, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Grsz, I was talking in generalized terms and was not involved with this article until a few moments ago, so that was in no way directed at you. I agree with what you are saying but would add that even calling somebodies action's idiocy is not needed but no biggie. Tom 19:18, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Disruptive talk page polemic

Resolved

User:Neophytesoftware, who was recently blocked for personal attacks, harassment, and violation of article probation on Barack Obama, decided to put this rant on his talk page, in violation of WP:PA, WP:SOAP, and WP:UP#NOT's prohibition against just such polemical rants. I removed it, but he restored it and accused me of vandalism, so I'm requesting others' input. Cosmic Latte (talk) 19:37, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

• Removed it again, and warned not to reinstate it. Black Kite 19:41, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Somehow I doubt this is really resolved. I was just cruising over here to note the same issue. I tried to leave him a friendly message during his block to encourage him to read WP:CIVILITY. Between his talk page rant and this post, I see he still doesn't get it.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:07, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, this seems a step or two away from resolution. Neophyte has not ended his vendetta against Baseball Bugs. Moreover, he has reinserted the polemic ([12]); Black Kite has been notified ([13]). Cosmic Latte (talk) 20:01, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Soaping is relatively harmless, but the personal attacks aren't acceptable. He reverted Black Kite's removal. I've also removed it. I have told him that if he restores it he will be blocked. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:05, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

He's now had a little rant about "liberal admins". Removed again. I'll block him if he re-inserts anything even trivially incivil. (Edit: I see he's been blocked indef by GWH. Marked resolved, I think.) Black Kite 20:25, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

You know, it wouldn't bug me so much if these guys would at least use paragraphs... HalfShadow 20:26, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

He's been indeffed by GWH. I gotta say, the last edit was relatively harmless and he did comply with the request, so I would have just let it go. Meh ... the guy was heading for an indef anyway, so I suppose there's probably no point bothering now that it's done. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:29, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I believe GWH blocked him more for his efforts elsewhere [14] than that last comment. Black Kite 20:33, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit conflicted] Yes - It wasn't the last edit, it was the series of stuff on Baseball Bugs' adminship application. That was in combination just too far past acceptable behavior here. I wouldn't have done anything else over his talk page stuff at this point, but following up on his other recent edits I found those, and those were just too much. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:35, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

No worries, that's fair enough. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:37, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

A good block by George in my view also.--VS ^talk 20:45, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Cool; he thinks I'm an admin. HalfShadow 20:58, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I think it's best to leave him alone unless and until his talk page postings cross the line. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:59, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, we want to leave recently blocked users on their talk page to vent about it. Being upset over the block is a normal human reaction (that some people thankfully rise above). Let him vent. What he's done so far is nothing like the level of abuse at which talk page locks are applied. Please also don't bait or provoke him - if you chose to engage in discussion, walk away if he's just being nasty back.

We need to treat people with dignity under these circumstances. Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:05, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Circular logic; it is a well known fact that all WP admins are abusive - therefore any percieved abuse must be from an admin. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:20, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

So you're saying that if I didn't abuse him, I've been de-sysoped? Rats... --Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:07, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Cool. I'm gonna go block some people, then. HalfShadow 22:16, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Threat of violence

Resolved

 – Reported, reverted, lets now ignore him

See this edit. I've blocked the IP, and contacted the abuse address attached to it. Reported Reverted. Ignored. Toddst1 (talk) 21:28, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I know this is a horrible thing to say, but considering how thorough a list that is, I'm almost curious as to if he'd actually follow through... HalfShadow 21:34, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

A quick email to the RCMP might be in order (considering the Geolocate info for the IP). Sorry to spam it, but there's been a form letter and instructions in the works for awhile now at User:Mendaliv/TOV letter. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 21:52, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't expect that threat to be particularly credible. "I SWEAR THAT I HAVE YOUR IP ADDRESS RIGHT HERE AND I AM CURRENTLY HACKING THE GOOGLE EARTH SYSTEM TO FIND OUT YOUR REAL ADDRESS" doesn't strike me as very lucid, nor as very understanding of what Google Earth is, let alone how it works.  :-) And I'm quite sure he's not a checkuser. — Coren ^(talk) 21:59, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Even if he used your IP; it wouldn't help him. The physical location of my IP is about half the city away from where I actually live. Let us speak no more of him. HalfShadow 22:04, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Tiramisoo (talk · contribs) high speed editing, no edit summaries, some vandalism

This is an apparently new editor who has come in with a bang, creating new articles, new redirects (eg Suck a fuck to Donnie Darko]] and Hippey to HippieLate 00s recession as a redirect to Late 2000s recession), new categories, etc. Sometimes it's fine, othertimes it's vandalism, eg redirecting Arsehole to George W. Bush. Never an edit summary despite a request to use them. No responses on his talk page to warnings, etc. He's now created What Is Emo although we have a perfectly good article Emo. He is using some copyright material, eg What Is Emo has a sentence ripped from a source he gives (but he isn't using quote marks) at [15] - some of his sources are fine, others are bad, eg 'AskYahoo'. I suspect there is other copyright stuff, eg at Digital Revolution which was a redirect until he turned it into an article. As I type, he's created a new redirect, Info Age to Information Age. 28 edits in 31 minutes to almost that many different articles, some new redirects. Sloppy too, I hope he didn't intend to remove the Music formats category from MP3 as he did here [16]. At the very least, I think this editor needs some more eyes on him. I wish he'd respond on his talk page. Can he be blocked if he persists in not providing edit summaries? As an aside, should I have posted this here or at AN? dougweller (talk) 07:42, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

To be brief, yes he can be but that's a bit extreme and it doesn't really matter as the AN/ANI distinction is pretty much long gone. The better question is are his edits productive? This clearly is vandalism and if he's vandalizing, it doesn't matter about edit summaries. I'm going to ask him to stop until he explains what logic he is using for all these categories he's working on. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:23, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

He's inserting a lot of BLPs in Category:People with OCD now. Should we mass revert? I don't suppose they're legit. -- Mentifisto 01:03, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Is the right place for this?

This is greviously incivil: diff... calling the entire rescue squad "Filthy Coprophiles" (shit lovers)???? I am dismayed and totally apalled at this extremely poor behavior that repeatedly strikes at the very root of WP:CIVIL. And here [17] where more extremely insulting terms were substituted for the names of editors in good standing... and then when asked to remove the incivility, the edit summary here was even worse diff. This is escalating. I do not believe this continued denigration of other editors by User:Edgarde should in any way be allowed to continue. No such continued and blatant incivility should be tolerated for even a moment. This is grevious. I ask for a block, and that a ban even be consisdered. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:33, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I've deleted the box and warned the user. -- Avi (talk) 19:16, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

There is a continued pattern of agressiveness and incivility that should merit a close watch. Shall I provide diffs for futher investigation, or wait until the actions repeat? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:08, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Fraser Verrusio

Could some experienced editors make sure this BLP is appropriate. It seems to focus exclusively on a particular scandal. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:30, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

• My WP:BLP1E sense is tingling. I'd say Redirect to Jack Abramoff scandals would be appropriate here? Black Kite 23:36, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

New user using en-wiki for (mostly) personal fanfic

Resolved

 – Sock indeffed, master blocked for three months, page deleted as copy of previously deleted page and MfD closed

Hiya. Most of User:President Cole Herrington's edits are to his user page, where he's crafted a faux-history/self-fanfic -- which includes the choice line that his fake-country "presses Anti-Non Christianism or Anti-Atheism" (oh, don't worry: "it's not a law"). I've a couple of times asked him actually to contribute toward the Encyclopedia, with a few links to WP:UP and WP:NOT.... but, the article-space edits he's made are uncited OR. I just now pasted a welcome template... but if anyone knows of a better way to pull this fellow along, I'd be grateful. Thanks. --EEMIV (talk) 21:04, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I sent the page to Mfd: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:President Cole Herrington. – ukexpat (talk) 02:41, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

He is an obvious sock of User:The Real American; an admin can compare the material on his now-deleted userpage with the material on the userpage of "Cole Herrington". Ironholds (talk) 03:21, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

It is almost identical, there are a few more things on the old page, but you are right about this being an obvious sock. It is also recreation of previously-deleted material and qualifies for speedy deletion under (I can't remember which) CSD. -MBK₀₀₄ 03:25, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the first edit dates, it looks like User:The Real American is the master and User:President Cole Herrington is the sock. Anyone want to block other than me under WP:DUCK? -MBK₀₀₄ 03:31, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Al Rosas, subject blanking controversies

Resolved

 – pending result of SSP

Mfield (talk) 06:01, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Can someone help me out on this one. I happened upon it while watching RFPP. User:Tsunami812, with a clear COI, presumably is the subject judging by this comment to another IP. He has been attempting to remove information about controversies he has been involved in. I opened an SPI case on behalf of the IP requesting protection, and recommended cleaning up the article as there were some inappropriate parts of the claims that had BLP concerns. I then removed the most troublesome material myself and tagged the article for issues. Now the editor and IP continue to blank the remaining controversy content with zero discussion, and I feel I should not block them myself having been drawn in so far as to attempt some clean up on the article. The SPI is WP:DUCK material, the article may be a viable AfD with so many unverified notability points. Mfield (talk) 03:54, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

• I have semi-protected article, reverted it to the last edit before the disruptive edits by the anon IP, and blocked the anon IP 71.49.112.196 for edit warring. I will be available to block Tsunami812 for being a sock-puppeteer (if necessary) after the result of the report at SSP is finalised. Please return to my usertalk page for that action if you would like my assistance. If you agree with these actions Mfield will you please mark this thread as resolved?--VS ^talk 05:33, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

• I should note that I have also left a conflict of issue message at Tsunami812's talk page.--VS ^talk 05:37, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

User:غراوپ

Resolved

غراوپ (talk · contribs)

At Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Baseball Bugs, this user is constantly reposting the same thing multiple times, basically anywhere he can find an empty place to put it. I've warned him clearly that any further action of this sort on their part will be considered harassment/vandalism, but frankly, this guy already smells like a sock. HalfShadow 02:04, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

ALready blocked, see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=&page=User%3A%D8%BA%D8%B1%D8%A7%D9%88%D9%BE&year=&month=-1&hide_patrol_log=1 -- Avi (talk) 02:11, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I know; it took me almost a minute just to copy/paste the name. I wasn't about to go back and delete the topic. HalfShadow 02:17, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I've blocked this user for his disruptive behavior. Also, his username transliterates as "ghrawp" (with the Kurdo-Arabic 'p', not present in standard Arabic) -- a moderately clever trope, as you can see. — Dan | talk 02:16, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the vandal is "Grawp" but a sock of indefinitely blocked ㄏㄨㄤㄉㄧ (talk · contribs). The NYC IP User at the RFA would be the same one. See Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Julius Ceasarus From Primus and Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/ㄏㄨㄤㄉㄧ Nishkid64, Luna Santin, YellowMonkey, Alison, all of which looked into the account can confirm this.--Caspian blue 02:19, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I just looked into this 10 minutes ago. It's ㄏㄨㄤㄉㄧ (talk · contribs). I've also blocked some other accounts that were unblocked in his IP range. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 02:25, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

FYI, غراوپ is the transliteration of Grawp in Arabic. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 07:19, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

User:ソックマペット

ソックマペット (talk · contribs) Looks like he's making useful contributions, so I inserted the welcome template. I thought the username was interesting, ran it through Google, it roughly translates to User:Sockpuppet. Would appreciate a background check if it's a sleeper? - Mailer Diablo 07:28, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Could somebody please block User:218.186.12.230 ?

Resolved

218.186.12.230 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is harrassing another editor. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 07:36, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Block request for Youdontknowmypassword

Resolved

 – User blocked. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:19, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Another newly created account from the same person as Farticus2000, Hi i like bad smelly cheese (both blocked earlier today) and DanceDanceWereFallingApartToHaveFun. More inappropriate edits. ChimpanzeeUK - User | Talk | Contribs 14:06, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Please also block DanceDanceWereFallingApartToHaveFun on the same grounds. Thanks. ChimpanzeeUK - User | Talk | Contribs 14:24, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

sock drawer cleaned, IP blocked. -- lucasbfr ^talk 11:25, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Uncivil and totally uncalled-for comment by User:Sapphic

Resolved

 – user blocked for 12 hours. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 23:28, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I have seen some pretty surprising comments here on Wikipedia, but this is flat-out unacceptable. The edit summary was not very constructive either; reading some of the things on Greg L's user page, the the edit summary could be easily construed as a personal attack. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:16, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Editor warned for incivility. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 22:19, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

A lucky break for Sapphic, methinks. That's an appalling post. Hopefully they'll respond well to the warning. The post is still to be struck/reftd, incidentally. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 22:23, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

If the user makes good on her promise to "be offline for a while", I don't think the warning will do much. A block here would be punitive and unhelpful. I request that the comment be struck though. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:26, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, after reviewing this, I've set a 12 hour block. Any administrator can undo my actions if necessary. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 22:29, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I didn't see her prior edits; I can't say the block was bad. I suppose this is resolved then. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:31, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

It won't be me, Julian. The edits in question are far over the line and the user is experienced enough to know better. @ Dabomb, enforcing and showing that bottom-line conduct policies will be enforced is not unhelpful. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 22:31, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Deacon, I did not see Sapphic's comments in their entirety before (the three previous ones). I agree that a block is appropriate in this sitauation. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:33, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Strange. Looking at some random previous edits by Sapphic then that lot I wonder about compromised accounts. Or possibly my thought about '"Never Edit Sober" i not agoood idae' on my userpage applies. 'Endorse a short block. Tonywalton ^Talk 22:45, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

What we need for such people is topic bans from all date-linking related discussions. Including notice boards and the like. Really, this whole thing will only be solved once 80% of the ring leaders on both sides are permanently banned from MOSNUM and all related discussion contexts. Seriously, why does Wikipedia need them continuing to monopolise those discussions? They've presumably said what they had to say, many times over, now let them go away and do something else. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:54, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

HEAR, HEAR!!! //roux   23:06, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

You may find this interesting: User talk:Ryan Postlethwaite#Bold_RFC_Suggestion. —Locke Cole • t • c 11:29, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

After reading her comments at the talk page in question, I think this isn't a compromised account, but a temporary lapse in temper management. Hopefully she'll take advantage of the break to have a cup of tea and take the high road.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:00, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

(outdent). I request that Sapphic’s post not be struck by anyone other that Sapphic; to do so might look like Sapphic had a change of heart and struck it. If (s)he wants to (s)he can. If not, that’s fine too. It’s not the extreme elements from each camp I am writing for; the talk page is a marketplace for the exchange of ideas and I am writing to persuade the middle ground. Sapphic’s post speaks more about Sapphic than anything else.

Now, to a separate issue. I am astonished that Sapphic would write, in her last post, this for her edit summary: “teach your retarted son to swim maybe”. I have a post on my talk page about my son. He is, at this very moment training (and doing quite well I might add) in Panama City FL, where he is being trained as a Navy Diver. He was a teenager when 9/11 happened and worked his ass off to become a Navy SEAL because he wanted to do something of a very material nature to protect the country. To even try out to be a SEAL, one must score high enough on their entrance exam on the technical aspects to qualify to get into “Nuclear”. And, of course, you have to be in awesome physical condition. Like roughly 75% of these highly motivated young men, he didn’t make it through SEAL training; he didn’t make it through an “evolution” called “mask appreciation”, where they have trainees fill their masks full of water and yell out songs while treading water clustered tightly in a throng of men doing the same. Well, perhaps Sapphic thinks she has what it takes to get through that evolution. Now…

I’m tough enough to take on whatever Sapphic has to dish out against me. Her words impeach herself, not me. I don’t know what her major malfunction is here, but to write that another editor’s son is retarded (“retarted”) goes beyond appalling by Wikipedia standards of civility. Greg L (talk)

Attacking a fellow editor's children is completely and totally unacceptable under any conditions. //roux   23:17, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I have no children and an edit summary like that even randomly directed at me would be unacceptable. However Sapphic has now been blocked to have a cooling cup of tea, there appears to be consensus that the block was good, Sapphic herself has claimed she'll "be offline for a while" so there seems little point in prolonging this discussion. Tonywalton ^Talk 23:26, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed; marked as {{resolved}}. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 23:28, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Block review: User:ScienceApologist

Resolved

 – ScienceApologist has been unblocked as the blocking administrator was not aware of the approval from ArbCom. seicer | talk | contribs 11:32, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

User:DR2006kl

Resolved

 – I have protected the article for two weeks as both parties agreed to it. Please work out a consensus version on the article's talk page. The article will be unprotected upon request once a consensus version is developed.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 13:42, March 12, 2009 (UTC)

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

This is DR2006kl vol 2. The user was recently blocked for 3RR violation / editwarring at 1993 Russian constitutional crisis. As soon as the user's 24 hour block was over, he started reverting to his preferred version, that is totally unsourced and does not accurately summarize the article (WP:LEDE).
This is very disrupting, as I've been developing this article for some weeks, having to face a user who has apparently no intention whatsoever to enter anything encyclopedic/referenced but who is keen on pushing into the article's lead section his own research. The user, whose whole contributions list (of 50 edits (!)) indicates no desire to write anything constructive, has engaged in long-term edit warring in this article. I really wouldn't like to waste my time further on a RfC for such a single-purpose account. I think Wikipedia can actually do better without such single-purpose accounts, and something surely has to be done. --Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 12:20, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I have asked for the article to be locked at User_talk:Ezhiki#1993_Russian_constitutional_crisis. As this is clearly a case of WP:TEDIOUS editing on the part of User:DR2006kl, I would be suggesting another 24 hour block for that user, as a one-last-chance notice, and if it continues once that block finishes, a final farewell would be in order. As Miacek is clearly improving the article, including sourcing, I guess locking the article is a bit early at the moment? --Russavia ^Dialogue 12:32, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with locking the article. Russavia is a friend of Miacek who was brought in to do the 3rd revert of the article. He never contributed to the article before. Miacek's edits do not improve article, in my view. His references are welcome but they are all rather one-sided and further push POV of the article. The article is up for a major clean-up. Concerning Miacek's vicious personal attack, I, indeed, created this account with a single purpose of improving Poincare-Birkhoff-Witt_theorem. Then I came across several articles of personal interest that I may be able to improve. In particular, in this one I have managed to get rid of most POV language in the introduction. Concerning this particular conflict, I have already had 3 different edits to improve the paragraph in question while Miacek flatly undoes any of my edits. DR2006kl (talk) 13:35, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

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

Admin abuse

Resolved

 – No administrator abuse here. seicer | talk | contribs 13:08, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

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

Admin user Scarian used a name calling personal attack against Beantwo in violation of Wikipedia policy The specific attack part of an edit summary on Beantwo's talk page. Beantwo (talk) 12:34, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

You were warning yourself, Scarian removed the warnings with the comment "Please don't be an idiot". I think that WP:NPA applies to comments on the editor, not their behaviour - if an editor is behaving like an idiot, it's entirely reasonable to ask them not to. Saying "you are an idiot" is bad, saying "don't be an idiot" is not since it implies that it's your behaviour (which can - and in this case probably should - be modified) which is idiotic, not the editor themselves. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 12:40, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

(ec) While using the word "idiot" was a bad idea, what the hell do you think you are doing, Beantwo? Hipocrite (talk) 12:42, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I believe he's trying to get indefinitely banned as [indicated on his talk page, and by the two self-reports at AIV (1 2). As noted above he posted bad faith edits to my talk page and also (non-reported bad faith edits) to this user's page regarding his subsequent block following their report to AIV ysterday about 3RR. Nja²⁴⁷ 13:02, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

(ec)This is also forum-shopping; there is a Wikiquette alert filed, in which Beantwo has been told essentially the same thing. BTW, Scarian has not been notified about this ANI thread, only the wikiquette thread. I will notify him. Horologium (talk) 12:44, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I would like to have for once an admin that can publicly state they do not condone abuse of Wikipedia policies done by another admin. To answer your point, I am not admin here to set an example, I don't name-call, implied or not, although, If I were admin this entire thing in all honesty would never have happened because admins seem to appear to be above their rules. Also, to Horologium, thank you for correcting that message. That was nice of you to see and take care of Beantwo (talk) 12:50, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Please don't disrupt wikipedia to prove a WP:POINT. Hipocrite (talk) 12:53, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I have only just posted at your first location for this and now you're here on the same tack, take that advice that Scarian gave you and stop behaving like one.--Alf ^melmac 12:56, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, and I think it's perfectly acceptable to tell an editor to stop being an idiot when they're being an idiot. I do not think it's acceptable to say an editor is an idiot, and if that had occurred I'd consider it a personal attack. Since it hasn't occurred in this case I don't consider a personal attack has been made. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 12:59, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

And this is why any post titled with "Admin abuse" is universally ignored. You want an administrator to do what, again? seicer | talk | contribs 12:54, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I knew it would be Seicer as I stated on my talk page before I raised this concern. It's a sad state of affairs in my opinion when basic tenants of this site aren't adhered to and that's predicted and acceptable. It reminds me of how difficult it is to remove a sitting U.S. Senator because they make the senate rules. Beantwo (talk) 13:04, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

• Three things: 1) The users above are correct; I was referring to your behaviour. I think I called another admin an idiot a while back for blocking himself on purpose (multiple times). If you can operate a computer, then you are, by definition, not an idiot. 2) I don't need to be reminded to be polite; I said please! :-P 3) I left a note here directly after removing his self-administered warnings because I detected he may have "burn out". My apologies if you took it as a personal insult; but please be more self-aware. Look at the impression you're giving others when you give yourself warnings. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 13:05, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

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

Copyvios, or sloppy editing?

Resolved

 – After a brief deletion race between Pat and Doug, the article was deleted! Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 13:21, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

• Tomwsulcer (talk · contribs) and Common sense II: how to prevent the three types of terrorism

Came across the above book article and editor (also the same name of the book's author), and it seems a bit odd that there are a few "[edit]" texts within the article itself, that aren't actual section edit links, but plaintext. Seems like this would be an artifact of a bad cut n paste job, either of another wiki-like website, or a previously deleted page? This is also adding links to his book in other articles, and adding words of his own reviews of other books. There's a lot of apparent not-so-good things going on here. Tarc (talk) 13:06, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Published by Booksurge, Amazon's self-publishing branch. dougweller (talk) 13:11, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I've deleted it. Whatever it is, there is a strong WP:COI and it failed WP:NB. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 13:12, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

You beat me to it. He calls it a pamphlet on one blog. I searched, no evidence of anyone really noticing itt. dougweller (talk) 13:17, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

PhysicsExplorer in Quantum aetherdynamics

Resolved

 – PhysicsExplorer is now aware of what AfD procedure is

Tonywalton ^Talk 14:58, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

PhysicsExplorer (talk · contribs) thinks that I am vandalizing his brand new article about an extremely non-notable theory by AfD'ing it, and removes the nom with a rather uncivil edit summary. Another editor has replaced the nom, but I think we're seeing a meltdown in progress and so I'm bringing it here. Looie496 (talk) 04:07, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

PhysicsExplorer (talk · contribs) has now been notified of this thread. Looie496 (talk) 04:11, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

There's no need for this patronising talk 'I think we're seeing a meltdown in progress'. WTF? I left the banner up there now, so I don't know why you need to bring it here. What will happen here now? Ive explained why the article should stay. PhysicsExplorer (talk) 04:14, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm trading talk messages with PhysicsExplorer. I've pointed out that he doesn't own articles and that, unless independent sources are provided in an article, other editors are justified in tagging the article about the flaws they've identified. I think this is a simple case of a user not knowing the procedure and nothing more severe than that. Incidentally, PhysicsExplorer has yet to comment on the AfD page. —C.Fred (talk) 04:17, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Nothing needs to happen now that you've responded -- I was concerned that you were going to keep reverting and get yourself into deep water -- since you're not, no further action is needed. Thanks for responding. Looie496 (talk) 04:20, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

ScienceApologist asking for a block

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.

---

See his latest edits on N ray (including references to James Randi and to the Skeptics' Dictionary, so after the recent clarification he can hardly claim he thought it wasn't covered). His formal sockpuppetry accusations against Colonel Warden for a single logged-out edit also seem relevant. Perhaps he thinks that since his temporary site-wide ban is only lacking red tape now, he is essentially invulnerable. Therefore if this behaviour is found blockworthy, I suggest a block length of 3 months + x to prevent this kind of gaming the system. --Hans Adler (talk) 08:38, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

• There is a pending ArbCom motion to ban him for 3 months. - Mailer Diablo 08:42, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
  • This is not a fringe science article, no matter how broadly constructed. This is simply an article on the history of science. Not a good block suggestion at all. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:48, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
    • • You are probably right, but as I hinted, ScienceApologist is working on spinning this as fringe science. --Hans Adler (talk) 09:19, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
    • In the interests of avoiding drama, might I suggest that this section be marked resolved and archived, and allow ArbCom to deal with the situation? //roux   08:56, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
      • Looks like he was blocked for 48 hours for violating his topic-ban. Shouldn't be a problem to consider this closed, looking by the votes this is more or less moot. - Mailer Diablo 09:16, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
• I blocked SA for 48 hours before I saw this thread. He clearly went against his restriction by editing N ray - the page is even in Category:Pseudophysics! Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 09:27, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Bad block - this is an article about scientific fraud, not fringe science. Verbal chat 09:41, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
    • As far as I can see from the article, the supposed discoverer of N-rays seemed to honestly believe they existed (at least, no contrary evidence to this is presented), so it seems to be a false belief that was briefly held by a number of scientists, rather than an intentional fraud. If cold fusion is considered "fringe science" now, then N-rays would seem to be historical fringe science by the same criteria. It's still a bad block because it turns out the ArbCom gave him explicit permission to edit this article, though it's a failing on the part of the ArbCom that they didn't actually make any effort to tell anybody else about that dispensation to prevent a block and the drama associated with it. Anyway, given that an ArbCom remedy is in the works regarding this user, further action or debate about him is unnecessary. *Dan T.* (talk) 12:12, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
      • This entire affair is due to a failure of ArbCom. Verbal chat 15:56, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

The plot thickens. SA's edits to N ray were harmless, but probably provocative (which is not harmless); still, he had permission that had not been disclosed (why didn't he put "per AC permission" in an edit summary?), and the edits, on their face, improved the article, so, while Ryan's block was proper on the face (he gets to interpret "fringe science" broadly), his unblock was also proper. Now, is this topic related to fringe science? Reading the article, I noticed a See also link. To Cold fusion. There have been claims that cold fusion is "like N-rays." (I.e., a product of wishful thinking.) But if Cold fusion is a example for a supposedly similar pseudoscience like N rays, then N rays are peripherally related to a fringe science, and improving the article could be seen as an attempt to bolster an attack on a fringe science. Frankly, though, I'd ignore that possibility, since the edits improved the article. I removed the link, which was put there almost a year ago, not by SA. --Abd (talk) 14:26, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

SA edited the article with AC permission and as you say improved the article, trying to spin it as anything else is showing your own bias and ongoing problems. Verbal chat 15:56, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

SA knows the result of these actions. The block should not be surprising. Chillum 14:30, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

He's banned now. Let's move on. Wizardman 16:00, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

yes let's forget the whole thing and not learn any lessons from this sorry mess, or look into what caused it or the hounding etc. Verbal chat 16:11, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

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

But how do we help editors like User:Tomwsulcer who have quickly written other bad articles?

Tomwsulcer (talk · contribs) Ok, maybe AN and not ANI, but because it is here, and he's been directed here... He has written 3 other articles, Bad for democracy, The Boozer Challenge, and Karyn marshall - very badly written articles, one of them (The Boozer Challenge) probably not notable, the other two quite likely notable. But they need a lot of fixing. What should be done to help him? Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 13:36, 12 March 2009te

Re:Bad for democracy I've removed blatant copy vio, remainder was in quotes & have tagged {{non-free}}). Re: The Boozer Challenge, I've removed blatant copyvio and reduced it to a stub. Voceditenore (talk) 14:32, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I've AfD'd the two book articles. Karyn Marshall looks OK, but appears to have been cut-and-pasted from a wiki page, [edit] markup and all, but I can't find any earlier drafts on Wikipedia. Does anyone know how this might have come to be? It is a copyvio from another wiki? -- The Anome (talk) 15:01, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

It looks like he's tried to write the article so it looks like all the others. perhaps someone should point to WP:Tutorial and explain things.  rdunnPLIB  15:20, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, even the carets from the refs section are all there, as plaintext rather than pointers. I have a hard time believing someone would edit this way, even copying a style. Its lifted from somewhere. Tarc (talk) 17:46, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

He's emailed me, saying he thinks his article was deleted because he's an outsider and that his ideas deserve attention, I'll reply on his talk page. dougweller (talk) 18:43, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

← Well, the content of at least two of the articles was lifted, but from the sources he cited. I think he looked at a formatted WP article with footnotes and then copied the format into his articles but from the surface page, trying to fix it up later. It's not such a strange thing for a beginner to do. Incidentally, the reasons for the other two book articles may have been to get his name and book into other WP articles, e.g. this edit [20] to The Boozer Challenge (later reverted by a bot), and this one [21] to Bad for democracy. He's been pointed to the appropriate WP guidelines. I'll also point him to the appropriate close paraphrasing and copy vio guidelines. Not sure what else can be done, though. Voceditenore (talk) 18:57, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Help needed on Madoff Investment Scandal

This article was apparently cut and pasted as a split from Bernard Madoff, which means the new article is lacking a bunch of history. I'm not experienced at fixing history on cut and paste moves. Anyone know the best way of fixing this? Thanks, NawlinWiki (talk) 20:02, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

there isn't any fancy way of doing it. Just make note on the new article's talk page where it came from. Rklawton (talk) 20:13, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

You also want a notice in the page history - talk page notices get mislaid, and don't always get copied by mirrors. If you leave a notice in the page history, even after the fact -"content in the revision timestamped XXYYZZ was split from [[wherever]] at that time" or a close equivalent- then anyone who properly maintains the history of both articles, trivially including us, is in compliance with the GFDL. — Gavia immer (talk) 20:56, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Mr. Newguy34

Resolved

 – Not ANI material. Toddst1 (talk) 21:26, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello, I would like the help of one of the people in charge please. Mr. Newguy34 has been attempting to destroy my efforts to help you at this encyclopedia. He has accused me of vandalism, and tried to stop me from making articles better. John Norrison (talk) 20:37, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

For those of you who do not know him personally, his pages can be found here. Newguy34 (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by John Norrison (talk • contribs) 20:45, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

You should discuss this content dispute at talk:Bernard Madoff. If that fails, please follow the dispute resolution procedure. You should also read Wikipedia:Three-revert rule, as it seems you've reverted Bernard Madoff three times today. Mimetic Polyalloy (talk) 20:47, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I believe John Norrison is referring to the speedy delete tags that Newguy34 has placed on John's reporter articles. John, please be sure to read WP:N, WP:CSD and WP:RS. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 20:49, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I have made three reversions, but I have stopped, I did see your rule about that. My main problem is that I have left a number of messages for the aforementioned Newguy34, in each case he has removed them from his page and then not responded to me. He also accused me of vandalism for trying to talk to him. I believe that the articles do meet notability standards, also. John Norrison (talk) 20:54, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it seems John Norrison has been making repeated good-faith attempts at communicating with Newguy34, who in turn is simply blanking his own talk page and issuing (seemingly specious) warnings to John. While I don't think the Hulu link John wants to add to the Madoff article is a good idea, Newguy34's behaviour certainly contravenes WP:AGF and WP:BITE, and is getting on for WP:HARASS too. Everyone needs to calm down and disengage. Mimetic Polyalloy (talk) 20:58, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I saw the csd's and help tag before I saw this, but I agree, Newguy is being unnecessarily bitey, and have commented as such on his talk page--Jac16888^Talk 20:59, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

John Norrison is new to Wikipedia, so I have strongly suggested to him that he read the welcome message placed at the top of his talk page. He is quickly running into trouble with:

• Inappropriate additions to the Bernard Madoff article - I suggest he read Wiki's rules for BLPs, WP:TE, verifiability, and spam.
• Creating two articles that are BLPs, but he has failed to demonstrate why they are notable
• Reporting any user to the administrator's notice board as he did with me here.
• Wikistalking by continuing to post on my talk page when I have asked him to stop.
• Not assuming good faith by accusing me of somehow trying to harm or attack you.

My advice to him is to read the welcome message and proceed slowly. Newguy34 (talk) 21:05, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Asking you to explain your actions isn't wikistalking; you're in no position to demand users don't leave messages on your talk page, particularly when you're simultaneously leaving messages on theirs. You should immediately stop threatening to block a user with whom you are in a dispute, particularly when there appear to be no grounds for a block. Calm down. Mimetic Polyalloy (talk) 21:10, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

First, I don't need a lecture from you to "calm down". Second, asking me to explain myself eight times in 31 minutes (as John did) is creepy, if not stalking. Third, John needs to learn about using Wikipedia; me smells a fun game for him here (in spite of his protestations). Fourth, I have not threatened to block him (how could I block him?). I merely explained that his actions may get him blocked. Here's what we are going to do: I am going to leave him to it, and not try to take too much offense to this whole slightly bizarre episode. Newguy34 (talk) 21:19, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

In reference to the above:

1. I do not believe my additions to the Madoff articles run afoul of the above. I read most of those rules. What I added was verifiable (you can click on the link and it verifies it, was not tendentious editing, and was certainly not spam. Furthermore, there is no reason we can not discuss this like gentlemen.
2. Perhaps I am wrong, but I tend to think that two major reporters for America's leading newspaper are "notable". Everything I put in those articles can also be found elsewhere in "reliable sources"
3. If anyone is wikistalking, it is Newguy34 trying to follow me around and delete my articles.
4. I did assume good faith as best I could, but when someone makes numerous accusations against you, it's hard to keep doing that. I am sorry if I have been harsh, but I have been wronged.John Norrison (talk) 21:14, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I would also like to apologize for not signing some of my posts, as requested by SineBot, but I am now remembering to do that. John Norrison (talk) 21:20, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I think folks are trying to be understanding here, so no need to apologize. However, forum shopping, running around trying to find out who's in charge is not productive. "I thought we were an autonomous collective." Toddst1 (talk) 21:24, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

If I am not welcome here, then I will leave. John Norrison (talk) 21:28, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

John, you are welcome here, but this isn't an incident, rather, it appears you are still learning our policies and are a bit frustrated. I see no wrongdoing on anyone's part here. Toddst1 (talk) 21:34, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I understand what you are saying, I was just not happy about the way that Newguy34 was unwilling to talk to me like a gentleman, but it appears that he is now at least willing to leave me alone. John Norrison (talk) 21:37, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Abbarocks proposed ban

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.

---

Abbarocks faced action on this board last week. During this process, he "resigned" from Wikipedia with announcements both here and on his user page, and we closed the matter as moot. Today, this user resumed editing in his usual, contentions, non-consensus manner. A brief review of his edit history should suffice to paint an accurate picture of the problem. Administrators prefering a brief overview may find one here: User:THF/Abbarocks. Given this user's attempt at evading action and the resumption of his contentious, POV pushing editing tactics, I wish to propose a community ban on user Abbarocks. Rklawton (talk) 17:48, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse - I've not really been following this case, but looking into it now, Abbarocks is simply too much trouble, it seems. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 18:03, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse per Rklawton and Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive520#The_disruptive_editing_career_of_User:Abbarocks. THF (talk) 18:07, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse (ec) I would support a ban. Following this back and forth on my talk page two weeks ago, I wound up with an uneasy feeling this editor was a skilled sleeper/sock, but there are so many about these days, I was more keen on helping smooth things out and was willing to let my worries slide if the editor settled down. The pith is, this has not happened. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:08, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse after taking a look at his contributions log. To make it easier for others, Abbarocks (talk · contribs). Horologium (talk) 18:11, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse. He doesn't appear to have learned from the community input he's received.   Will Beback  talk  18:23, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse per TreasuryTag and Will Beback. Willking1979 (talk) 18:35, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
• Non-admin Endorse - that was the usual and well-known trick of skipping out of town right before the people show up with the tar and feathers. Came back, discussion reopens. //roux   19:33, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse - Also oppose closing as moot should he "resign" again so we aren't pulled into an endless cycle of Disruptive Editing, Ban proposal, Resignation, Repeat. FunPika 20:53, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse - THF's sub-page sums it up well. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 21:22, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse. We don't need this guy whatsoever if all he's gonna to is pick fights/edit wars. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 21:25, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse. Keep Wikipedia clean! Chillum 23:53, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:05, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse. I'm rarely a fan of community bans but this is one guy we're better off without. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 00:12, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
  • That's snowy enough, I think. Blocked indef, banned tags added. Black Kite 00:37, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

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

USER EEMIV

Resolved

 – No, seriously, enough. //roux   23:18, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

After an intense debate (and me asking EEMIV to stop deleting my discussions) he posted a response on his talk page in which he called me a "dick" and told me to "go the fuck away". He did this while telling me to be mature. Please ban him for his abusive behavior that finally culminated in this vile verbal attack. At the very least, please keep him from making edits for at least 24-48 hours. Thanks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:EEMIV&oldid=276827310 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.115.228.121 (talk) 21:40, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Just a comment here. This IP hopping editor has been forum shopping for a block on EEMIV and Arcayne. See User_talk:Fabrictramp#Kirk for a similar request by his old IP, and contribution history on the two will lead you to a number of other requests.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:46, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

*sigh* 24.115.228.121 is the IP from which User:Erikeltic started an edit war that led to a 24-hour block. I implored an "another" IP editor at 66.152.150.16 to go the fuck away; 24.115.228.121's claim that I told him to f off confirms my suspicion that these are the same editor (i.e. User:Erikeltic), evading his editing block.

As for civility, I plead no contest to telling a brat to fuck off and be mature (which may be hypocritical, but nevertheless is a reasonable request if meanly-worded request). I offer no apology. --EEMIV (talk) 21:48, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Understand that you will never get what you want by insulting someone. While I have no knowledge of the situation surrounding these events, the message left on your talk page were not disrespectful in any way, that I see. "Go the fuck away" is not a comment that I can respect from any self respecting adult. Sephiroth storm (talk) 21:53, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Understand that you will never get what you want by insulting someone. - No, but sometimes it feels pretty good. Regardless, though: since you acknowledge later on that I am an adult, you can save your well-intentioned PBS truisms for another audience.

While I have no knowledge of the situation surrounding these events - ...which is why what you wrote after falls on deaf -- or, rather, disinterested -- ears.

the message left on your talk page were not disrespectful in any way, that I see - for your edification, they were an extension of another user's talk-page discussion, an article talk-page discussion, a persistent edit-warring IP/new account whose continued tendentious content changes despite multiple editors' attempts at talk-page discussion and reversion, and the editor's previous comment on my talk page (deleted) calling me a "Nazi".

"Go the fuck away" is not a comment that I can respect from any self respecting adult. - Which, as I acknowledged above, was a less than ideal response -- and in your not-seeing of the other details, perhaps you also missed that I removed that profanity upon my next talk-page comment less than 30 minutes later. I'm not the only editor who's lose their temper, realized it, toned down some comments and moved on...and I'm sure (almost) none of us need to be told, "Hey, you really shouldn't do that."

While I acknoweldge your feedback is well-intentioned, it comes across as trite and condescending. But as I readily acknowledge, I'm an abrasive jerk on Wikipedia, so maybe the two cancel each other out.

Regardless, both IPs and the registered account have been blocked, at least for a while. Someone can check this off as "resolved"; I welcome informed and/or humorous discussion about losing one's temper on my talk page, and about the involved article on its talk page. --EEMIV (talk) 22:43, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I am not Erikeltic, but if you'd like to believe we're the same person because we have similar IPs, by all means--go for it. Furthermore, the mea culpa bit doesn't work for me when he's blocked for 24 hours for doing everything you did but without cursing or deleting other editor's comments from the discussion page. Can you tell me exactly how that's fair? Pa17927 (talk) 23:07, 12 March 2009 (UTC) — Pa17927 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Officially, we don't 'do' punishment here, so that's out. To answer the rest of your points, please read and internalise WP:NOTTHEM. This is resolved and over, please go back to editing productively. //roux   23:18, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

BTW, I know this was resolved, but I started this: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Erikeltic anyways, given the apparent sockfarm that is opperating here. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 23:54, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I have indef'ed Pa17927, evidence linked at his/her talk page. I will likely block any new IP or new account that decides to come here with their "first" contributions. R. Baley (talk) 00:07, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Simonsaysabc123

Resolved

 – warned user about WP:NPA Toddst1 (talk) 01:10, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Simonsaysabc123 seems to be making questionable ethnicity related edits. These are pretty extensive in Chaldean Christians [22] and similarly on Family name in relation to Maltese surnames. Nothing is ever sourced, always sweeping, always pushing the same pov (the user has made other, similar, contribs). If this isn't the place to raise this type of issue, I have no idea where else to take it. ja fiswa imċappas bil-hara! (talk) 23:32, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I see forum shopping here. Toddst1 (talk) 01:10, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

It was taking ages to get any kind of response. I've got to learn a little patience... ja fiswa imċappas bil-hara! (talk) 01:13, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

IP 24.87.45.232

This user has been reported here a few days ago. Well he's doing it right now. Could someone block this guy. Thanks.--McSly (talk) 00:40, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I have deal with this anon editor as well. He edits a large number of articles with incorrect information, and without references. If he does use any reference it is usually a blog, forum, or something else that is not valid. Additionally, he almost never gives an edit summary, never discusses his edits on the article talk page, and completely ignores any messages left to him on his talk page. He seems to completely disregard Wikipedia's policy on references/sources, and completely ignores messages left to him on his talk page(regarding this). He does this multiple times a day, and this has been going on for awhile.WackoJackO 00:46, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

An admin has blocked him for a day. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:57, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks ! hopefully this will be enough to get his attention and start a dialogue. --McSly (talk) 01:01, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I hope so as well.WackoJackO 01:02, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Ali

Resolved

An unregistered user from a consistent IP keeps making the same POV edits to Ali with negligible or no difference. The post was first put up by User:94.187.69.235, then carried on by User:Faizhaider for a bit, and now by User:63.216.122.93, who seems to be making a joke of it as well. Assistance would be much appreciated. RavShimon (talk) 03:04, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Clarification - there is some consistent POV pushing going on by the anons, mostly aimed at bashing Sunni Muslims, but I'm convinced that User:Faizhaider was editing in good faith and he is participating civilly in talkpage discussions. The IP edits are certainly a frustration tho....Doc Tropics 03:08, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Where the Sunni bashing in "Sunnis nowadays claim to regard Ali with the utmost respect, though historical Sunni treatment of Ali and his progeny suggests otherwise (see Umayyad tradition of cursing Ali, Umar at Fatimah's house and Battle of Karbala)"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.216.122.93 (talk) 03:33, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Glad to see this has resolved itself. With special appreciation to Doc Tropics, a compromise phrasing has been reached, and the anons seem to be staying out of it. RavShimon (talk) 06:25, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Edits to User talk: Nja247

Resolved

 – Discussion on talk page seems to have resolved it. Nja²⁴⁷ 05:55, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Could an admin consider the recent comments added by User:Beantwo and give guidance on the best course of action (or take the best course of action). I gave the user a 12 hour block yesterday (talk page) and this is apparently retaliation. I'm looking for an outside view on this, cheers. Nja²⁴⁷ 08:50, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

He's just upset that he was blocked. I've removed the warnings from your page and I think that's all that's needed for now. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 09:25, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

But what if that's not it? What if he continues the erratic behavior because no one can explain to this user why everyone gets multiple warnings except for Beantwo? He (or she) also posted appropriate warnings on User talk:Yousaf465 I move for a complete ban. He (or she) also listed himself (or herself we just don't know) on the admin vandalism intervention page and he (or she) is giving himself (or herself) warnings on User talk:Beantwo Beantwo (talk) 09:37, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

What if you continue your erratic behavior? It's fairly clear. You will be blocked and possibly banned. Will this be fair? Maybe, maybe not. Consider how your behavior looks. I've been involved in on-line community since the mid-1980s, and there is a phenomenon I've seen over and over. User is insulted, or thinks it was an insult, it doesn't matter. User is outraged and complains loudly, so to speak. Community sees user making loud complaints, which are disruptive, concludes this user is a problem. User is unsubscribed, blocked, banned, or, at least, rejected and ignored (which sometimes causes user to become even more disruptive). This community cares little about isolated incidents, and, indeed, that makes total sense. If you think an admin made an error, you can ask for an apology, or at least for an explanation. But if you loudly complain, if you disrupt the project to make a WP:POINT, you become a more serious problem than the original issue, even if it was a problem itself.

EXTENDED COMMENT by Abd

I was blocked a bit over six months ago. I thought it was an improper block. So what? Because a block record can under some circumstances make it easier to get blocked again, I thought that perhaps I should address it. But I knew very well what would happen if I went to a noticeboard or created an RfC. It would be disruptive. Admins would circle the wagons, and I would also be attacked by any editor who has tangled with me, and I have some tendency to be very interested in such issues as administrative error or abuse. I'd have been dead meat. So I invented a new process, I created a self-RfC in my own user space, and took it step by step, asking the community for comment on my behavior. There were some complaints, some users horrified at an editor controlling their own RfC, but since the purpose was to carefully examine my own behavior, to understand it and to find some kind of consensus on it, for my own advice, the very minor flap blew over. By and large, if you are careful not to be disruptive, and if people, without your attacking anyone or editing disruptively, complain about your legitimate actions, and if you are as responsive as possible to warnings, trying to accommodate concerns without lying down and playing dead, the effect I described above will work in your favor. I.e., they are the loud complainers. I got enough participation in the RfC to be able to show some kind of consensus; with this, I went to the admin who had warned me and wrote something like, "Hey, please look at this. Don't you think your warning was a bit extreme?" At first, he wanted to blow it off, but, see there is WP:DR. Next step is to involve a third editor. So I asked him whom he would trust. He made an excellent choice, and we asked the editor. That editor is very busy (he's now an arbitrator), and he wrote something like "Hey, guys, can't you work this out." So we did. The warning admin apologized. I had not alleged bad faith, I hadn't made it difficult for him. Now, I didn't go to the next step. I didn't extend the RfC to whether or not I was properly blocked. I had been warned, there was no doubt about that, in fact, my Talk page had become so busy that I couldn't follow all of it, and if I tried to respond, it was edit conflict after edit conflict. However, I'd stopped the behavior and had voluntarily confined myself to my Talk page, so the question I would have asked would have been whether my behavior was blockworthy or not. But running a process like this takes time. By this time, it had become fairly clear to me that it wasn't likely I was going to be blocked again. One of the things that had happened was that it had been suggested to me that I do more general editing. Now, since this was being said to me, possibly with some intent to get me out of their hair, I could have responded with, "No, this is more important than general editing, I have thirty years of experience with organizations like Wikipedia, blah, blah, blah." However, one of the things I've learned in all that experience is that when people give you advice, listen to it, regardless of their motivation. That doesn't necessarily mean follow it, but listen to it, and never reject good advice because you suspect the motivation. Now, I'd been blocked for allegedly harassing an administrator who had, I thought, made a mistake. I still think he made a mistake. So? Administrators make mistakes; this one had been under personal stress and, quite simply, didn't know how to deal with this bulldog who had fastened himself on his leg. Actually I hadn't done that, I'm careful about not doing that, but it looked that way to him; the alleged harassment that I was warned over was a long response to him on my own Talk page. Tl;dr would have been a perfectly legitimate response, just as it would be for this comment, if anyone isn't interested. To provide a clue how successful my approach was, I was offered rollback by the admin whom I'd supposedly attacked, who spontaneously had written to me that it was all a misunderstanding. And who has been quite supportive since then. I ran up a much more extensive edit history in mainspace, and broadened my view of Wikipedia and my experience. And my creds. Recently, quite without wishing to do it, I ran across what looked to me like a clear instance of administrative abuse, with ongoing damage to the project, and I started addressing it, and so my general editing has suffered. However, little by little, I'm being effective. But my goal is never to attack the "bad guys." My goal is to encourage the development of true consensus here, which requires civility and respect for all editors, from clueless newbies to burned-out administrators who frequently become uncivil and erratic. Beantwo, it may not look like it to you right now, but this is actually an open, egalitarian community, except that, like most communities, you must prove yourself to be fully respected. The process often is not fair, at least not from a superficial perspective. However, to effectively work in contentious areas here, you must be willing to place the welfare of the project, and the unity of the community, above transient personal slights or annoyances, above your own point of view, which doesn't mean, as I said, lying down and playing dead. Be honest and forthright, but also do not disrupt Wikipedia to make a point, which is exactly what you have been doing since you were blocked. By the way, one user very loudly complained about my self-RfC and alleged WP:CANVASS violations. This was an SPA created to promote a particular point of view by AfDing articles inconvenient to that point of view. Some of these articles were indeed inappropriate for Wikipedia, but others were actually legitimate, but he had discovered that AfD was poorly watched and that the experts who had written the articles were paying little attention, so he was initially successful, until I noticed and rained on his parade. He then became a dedicated opponent of my work, popping up at odd intervals with what he imagined might disrupt it, but he was only a minor nuisance. When he complained on AN/I, his history was noticed, and he was indef blocked. With little or no effort on my part. Interesting lessons, don't you think? It looks like you considered an IP edit to be vandalism. Perhaps. But it's just as possible that you misidentified it, and thus were edit warring to maintain your preferred content. The edits did not look like reverts of obvious vandalism, and you were using a tool that is restricted to that purpose. You screwed up, Beantwo. But consider what I wrote above. We get to make mistakes. However, if we refuse to recognize them, if we become disruptive, the community just may chew us up and spit us out. Did you make a mistake? I haven't seen you acknowledge the slightest possibility of it. And that's a bad sign. If you want assistance understanding what happened to you, ask. I've already explained some of it here, but if you need more, my Talk page is open to you. Occasionally I'll intervene on behalf of an editor who has been sanctioned, but generally only when ongoing damage has resulted, such as was the case with one young editor who was racking up DYK mentions, and who was blocked as the result of tangling with a disruptive editor who nevertheless managed to win the political battle. It happens. People are distracted, make snap judgments, etc. This was the situation I was working on when I was blocked, in fact. The effort was successful, the editor, who had been banned from her favorite activity (DYK) was returned to unmolested editing with the ban being lifted. The effort to undo the damage continued during my block; see, if you do everything for yourself, nobody helps because, obviously, you don't need it. If you are trying to do something worthwhile, and you've managed to get connected with the community, and you can't do the work, someone else will often pick it up. I was blocked for a few days, big deal (not) (it was indef, but the blocking admin wrote something like "until not needed, not indef as in infinite," and had recused herself from further action, which left the matter with other admins to unblock me. I wanted to see what would happen if I did nothing but discuss the situation, so I put off putting up an unblock template. I finally did, and, as I recall, it was backed with evidence, and as is quite common, it was denied. Happens all the time. I did nothing in response to that, and I was quickly unblocked. Now, what do you think would have happened if I'd loudly complained about the "jerks" or "idiots," or whatever choice words I'd found, who had blocked me or refused my unblock? I'd have been permanent history.

Your choice, Beantwo. I suggest that you, on your Talk page, open a section that says, "I'm going to stop editing until I figure this out, thanks to those who have given me sincere advice, I'm going to consider it." Then consider it. If you've made mistakes, admit them. If others have made mistakes, forgive them. In either case move on. If you don't, you will define yourself, before the community, as the problem. --Abd (talk) 01:30, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Excellence guidance by the way Abd, some of it should in fact be incorporated into a guidance page on how to handle disputes, etc. Nja²⁴⁷ 06:05, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Repeated removal of speedy template by author

Resolved

 – indef'ed by User:Camw. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 04:57, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this is the right place for this, but User:Peter163o has repeated removed a {{db-notability}} tag from Poundstuff.net, which he created, and was also speedied previously. It's probably also a WP:COI issue. Evan ¤ Seeds 13:43, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

He's been warned several times and has stopped at a level 3 warning which finally states that he will be blocked if he continues. If he continues, he should be reported at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. C: DreamHaze (talk) 13:49, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

It's been deleted by now, but I won't be surprised if he recreates it. He also at one point blanked his user talk page and replaced it with "Go ahead, block me, I'll just make another account", and also "You're a stupid cunt (~~~~)" and "You're all black" Evan ¤ Seeds 13:55, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

All Black? That's considered an insult now? When I was at school that was considered high praise ;-) Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 13:58, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Meh...his comment was obviously meant to be insulting...though that's up to interpretation. However, he has described his intentions of creating another sockpuppet. Cheers. Imperat§ r^(Talk) 14:00, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Sure, not disputing the intent. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 14:03, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Even as an American (one of the lucky ones who has rugby experience, of course), that wouldn't be an insult. I'm assuming the capitalization was just omitted. Evan ¤ Seeds 14:06, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Wow, that's WP:AGF to an extreme extent :-) (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 14:10, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

 Done He's also placed some rather racist and defamatory comments on his own talk page; suggest protection for talk page if he continues to edit his talk page AFTER the block. Cheers. Imperat§ r^(Talk) 13:56, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

BTW, 08:57, 12 March 2009 HBC AIV helperbot5 (talk | contribs) m (2,594 bytes) (2 IPs left. rm Peter163o (blocked indef by Camw (ACB ABD)). 1 comment(s) removed.) (undo) Cheers. Imperat§ r^(Talk) 14:01, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Jack Weiss

Starterwife (talk · contribs) has been warned several times on his page, but is continuing to blank sourced material on the Jack Weiss page with vague edit summaries. He's also adding various material disparaging the subject to the page and talk page without even trying to make it fit in from an encyclopedic standpoint. Seems to be an unrepentant POV kind of guy. Dayewalker (talk) 07:05, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Non-Admin reply: Looks to me like a standard "remove what you don't like" vandal. I say give a standard last warning and they don't chill after that then a nice 48 hour block so they can think about it. - NeutralHomer • Talk • March 12, 2009 @ 07:12

He's already received a "final warning" temp, now he's returned to blank the entire article calling it "libel." Can an admin step in, please? Thanks in advance. Dayewalker (talk) 20:48, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

And now, he's blanking the page [23] [24] with no discussion. I don't want to edit war over this, so again I ask for an admin to step in. Dayewalker (talk) 22:01, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Since this doesn't seem to be getting a quick resolution here at ANI. I have reported the user to AIV for vandalism. This is obviously a vandalism only account. I have issued a "last and final" warning to the user's talk page as well. I will keep an eye on the user's contribs in the meantime. - NeutralHomer • Talk • March 13, 2009 @ 04:22

Gracias, NeutralHomer. Not sure why this one's lasted as long as it has without an admin dropping by, but I appreciate you making the report. Dayewalker (talk) 04:28, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Glad I could be of assistance. - NeutralHomer • Talk • March 13, 2009 @ 05:11

As this definitely all seems like bad faith and POV editing, I have blocked him 24 hours for disruptive editing with a message telling him to take the time to read up on policies and why he should be engaging with other editors. Mfield (talk) 04:51, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Much apperciated :) - NeutralHomer • Talk • March 13, 2009 @ 05:11

Only those who have dealt with a similar issue may know what I am hinting at, but this particular editor, editing this particular article, smells rather fishy to me. Please keep this thread open for a bit, I need to email the other involved parties.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 05:31, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Or nevermind, maybe I just saw a similarity which wasn't really there.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 05:38, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I am however still waiting on comment from the involved party which I have emailed.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 06:43, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

User:FatGary5436

It seems like we either have a huge conflict of interest and/or we have an account that is violating the username policy by engaging in account sharing. Anyways, there is already an SPI open on this person at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/FatGary5436 (where user openly admits to sharing with 25 other people). MuZemike 06:37, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

The admission is somewhat vague. I don't see a direct admission to account sharing. I do see an assertion that a team of 25 people are editing Urban75 related articles on behalf of Urban75. Mayalld (talk) 13:23, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Complicated

The IP 97.96.86.226 continues to add unsourced music genres to the page Complicated and delete sourced genres, see here! Please help --Smanu (talk) 14:10, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Edit-warring on Spongebob Squarepants related articles.

Moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

User:FimusTauri

FimusTauri (talk · contribs) is engaging in long term disruptive editing. The issue resolves around what he perceives to be a "pro-myth" lobby group. He has started discussions on article talk pages (notably Talk:Noah's Ark - see the archives), WT:NPOV/FAQ (see here), The Village Pump (see here), new policy pages (see Wikipedia:Ambiguous Words), selective canvassing (see here for one instance), and now WikiProject talk pages (see here). They're the ones I've noted in my interactions with FimusTauri, though I haven't gone through his edit history too thoroughly so there may be more.

I have previously asked FimusTauri to lay off of the forum shopping here and here, carefully explaining the details including why I'm making the request, offering wikilinks and letting him know it is a blockable offence. Another editor has noted it here. The latest posting at the WikiProject talk page I noted above offers a threat of more forum shopping if he doesn't get the response he wants.

His persistence has exasperated many editors, including myself, so I'm bringing the issue here. Cheers, Ben (talk) 01:41, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

You say he is involved in disruptive editing, but you haven't posted any diffs to article space. Can you back that up? Or is it simply that his talk page choices are a problem? --Wehwalt (talk) 01:46, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I read through Wikipedia:Canvassing again before posting this, and based on that reading, I thought disruptive editing was the correct term to describe the problem. He has very few article space edits, in fact, the account is only a few months old whose almost sole purpose is what I linked above. Ben (talk) 01:51, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

That diff you say is canvassing doesn't seem objectionable in isolation. How do we know there is selective canvassing going on? Has he only invited editors on one side of a discussion to take part in another?--Wehwalt (talk) 01:57, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Dreadstar had no apparent interest in the discussion, including making no edits to pages related to the alleged myth problem. Fimus made the request quite some time after he started his RfC, and in isolation of any other requests for editor comments. The NPOV/FAQ page is locked, and Dreadstar is an admin, which he paid particular attention to in his request for that editors comment. The request seemed dubious at best, but you are welcome to discard if you think it isn't relevant. I have no objection to any one of Fimus' edits in isolation, it's the general pattern I have a problem with. It has been ongoing for months in spite of him being aware of WP:FORUMSHOP. Ben (talk) 02:13, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, I don't have time to dig in depth, so I will have to leave it to someone else to look more closely. Thanks for coming here. If you have not done so already, you should inform FimusTauri that there is a discussion concerning him at AN/I.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:16, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for your time. Cheers, Ben (talk) 02:27, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

You missed this, on Islamic mythology. Ilkali (talk) 15:15, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I've had some dealings with FimusTauri in three locations (Christian Mythology, WT:NPOV/FAQ and Wikipedia:Ambiguous Words), all loosely based around the same issue (use of the word myth). My impression is that he has no intent to be disruptive, but is determined to disregard any outcome that does not favor his view, frequently taking the same issue to new venues in hopes of a different outcome. It's leading to a disproportionate amount of editors' time being taken up with his campaign. Ilkali (talk) 02:19, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

The issue of ambiguous words in any articles (not just "myth" and not just religious articles) is of great importance to me, because it is my belief that ambiguity leads to lack of neutrality (or leaves the door open for it). Hence, I have been attempting to gain attention for this issue. As Ben points out, I am still fairly new to editing and may not have followed procedure as correctly as I should. If so, it is due to unfamiliarity with procedure and certainly not due to an intent to be disruptive.

The main reason why I have attempted to open this discussion in different places is because every time attempts are made to discuss the issue, editors such as Ben and Ilkali come along and simply refuse to admit that there is an issue. As a result, the discussion stalls before it gets anywhere. When this happens, I have attempted to find an alternative means of gaining wider attention for the issue. Up to now, this issue has only been discussed by a limited number of editors (around half a dozen regularly, with maybe twice that number making occasional contributions), so I have been trying to get more editors involved. For the same reason, I asked an admin to get involved. This was a simple request to one who had been editing in related articles. That admin neither got involved nor responded. I respected his wishes and have made no further attempt to contact him about it.

The allegation of "disruptive editing" is wholly false, at least with regard to articles. Whenever one of my edits has caused contention, I have immediately gone to the talk page to discuss the issue. I have made many edits on a number of talk pages, but do not see how that can be called 'disruptive editing'. Surely the idea in Wikipedia is to discuss issues? This is the heart of the problem: on the NPOV/FAQ discussion page, both Ben and Ilkali have implied that "there is nothing to discuss". Because they feel that, they are of the opinion that somehow "I don't get it" and my persistence in this issue is therefore "disruptive". The simple fact is that there is an issue and neither of these editors are willing to accept that. This is yet another attempt by Ben to stifle this debate. He has made numerous accusations against me in the past: of being a sockpuppet, of "not getting it", of having religious motivations and now of being disruptive and forum shopping. If I were not assuming good faith, I would be inclined to believe that this is an example of Wikibullying.

Because of the utter refusal on the part of the aforementioned editors to see a problem - and because they continually attempt to stifle any debate - I have become increasingly exasperated. Another editor has siggested that this should be a case for ArbCom, so I investigated the procedure for taking it there. One aspect of the procedure is that the issue should be raised in the relevant WikiProject. Hence, my most recent post at the WikiProject Religion talk page. Again, if sufficient editors can be brought into the debate, then maybe this issue can be resolved.--FimusTauri (talk) 09:22, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

That explanation is fine the first time, which is why I explained the problem on their talk page (linked above). But this explanation has been used before; see for instance: In my defense, I started the Village pump discussion when I was still relatively new and unsure of procedure. Note that that defence was used after the talk page explanation, and still the pattern continues. Ben (talk) 11:00, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps I didn't make it entirely clear. The "newbie" excuse applies to the initial opening of different forums. Later openings are explained above.--FimusTauri (talk) 11:24, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

"The main reason why I have attempted to open this discussion in different places is because every time attempts are made to discuss the issue, editors such as Ben and Ilkali come along and simply refuse to admit that there is an issue". Firstly, there is nothing wrong with editors disagreeing on the extent of a supposed problem or arguing that a supposed problem does not exist, and describing this as an attempt to "stifle any debate" is uncivil and an assumption of bad faith. Secondly, do you realise how your testimony reads? You are telling us that you found opposition in the places where you posted, so you've posted in other places hoping that everybody there will agree with you. That's what forum-shopping is, and you're not exempt just because you believe you're right.

"on the NPOV/FAQ discussion page, both Ben and Ilkali have implied that "there is nothing to discuss". Because they feel that, they are of the opinion that somehow "I don't get it" and my persistence in this issue is therefore "disruptive"". Please don't try to speculate on other editors' thoughts or motives, especially if you're going to use quotation marks. For my part, the accusation of disruption and of forum-shopping has nothing to do with how strong your case is. Even if I agreed with you, I'd still object to your incessant relocation and unwillingness to accept unfavorable outcomes. Ilkali (talk) 18:25, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

"Outcomes"? What "outcome" were you referring to? Maybe I missed it. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 18:31, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

that 'outcome' thing is just the tendentious assertion of a statement in the hopes others will take it as established fact. oldy but a goody. --Ludwigs2 19:38, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I think one outcome is listed just above: "As a result, the discussion stalls before it gets anywhere. When this happens, I ..."

Now, I wouldn't say months of discussion resulting in walls of text on numerous forums constitutes stalled discussion, in fact I'd describe the outcomes of each of his threads very differently, but hey, call it what you want, I don't care. Either way, it simply wasn't the outcome Fimus wanted, so he looked elsewhere to get his way, again, and again, ..., and again, and there is still more to come according to him. Just to be careful though, he may hatch brilliant plans like recruiting others to do it for him. Ben (talk) 21:01, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

it does take two to tango, Ben. frankly, while I don't agree with Fimus on all of his ideas, what I see is a heck of a lot of pointless, reasonless opposition to some points that ought to be simple and straightforward. "we ought to attribute potentially insulting words to sources." gee... "we ought not to use potentially insulting words to if we can't attribute them properly." golly... but no, apparently you find those ideas wholly unacceptable on wikipedia, to the point that no compromise is possible.

sorry, but I can't make heads or tails of your or ilkali's opposition, despite the fact you've made prolonged efforts to oppose these very points. --Ludwigs2 22:04, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Did someone mention tendentious assertions made in the hope that others will take it as established fact? Ben (talk) 23:17, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Without making any assertions or assumptions about the motivations of other editors, the simple fact is that there has never been any "result" on any of the forums. I have repeatedly asked for debate and been informed by certain editors that there is no debate. I have certainly not moved on to other forums because I haven't "got the result I wanted" - I simply haven't got a result of any description. All I am asking is for some sort of debate leading to consensus. I will abide by a consensus decision - that's how Wikipedia works. But if debate is stifled in one place, then I have no recourse but to either "give up" or go to another forum. I am not about to give up, so I am forced onto another forum. It is the actions of editors such as my accuser that are pushing this debate into new forums. The dispute resolution process requires me to try certain avenues before taking more extreme measures such as ArbCom. I am simply following procedure. --FimusTauri (talk) 09:12, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

What I'm seeing here is POV-pushing disguising itself as scholarliness and a simple content dispute. To the casual reader, "myth" implies "untrue", and immediately runs the risk of planting suspicions in the reader's mind about the article's neutrality. For that reason alone, it should not be used, regardless of the alleged "scholarly" use of the term. Now, the article goes into some detail as to whether the story (which, by the way, is a much more neutral word than "myth" and is just as good) has any basis in reality, and that's fair. But to start the article with a sentence that asserts, to the general public, "This is a fairy tale", is not the right way to do things. Wikipedia is not "scholarly" as such, it's a mass-market entity, and that fact should always be kept in mind. I note that the word "myth" is used in the lead, yet it links to "mythology". At the very least, why not just say "mythology" in the lead? That word is likely less tendentious than "myth". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 09:38, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

"ambiguity leads to lack of neutrality" if its ambigous, its not going toward any one thing and therefore is neutral.  rdunnPLIB  09:46, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

That is not a logical conclusion. And to the average reader, there is nothing ambiguous about the word "myth" - it's a synonym for "humbug". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 09:53, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

That means most people don't understand the word "myth". We all know the "myth" about Icarus. None of us believe that anybody actually glued some feathers on with wax, flew too high, the sun melted the wax, and they crashed down to Earth. We do however understand the lesson: don't fly too high, you'll crash down. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 11:43, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Precisely. And anyone who tried to argue that Icarus actually existed would just be smiled at while they looked for the nearest exit. However, there is a significant portion of the population that believes that the Noah's Ark story is either literally true or has some basis in reality. Hence the use of the word "myth", even if possibly technically correct, is not appropriate. "Mythology" would be better. "Story" would be ideal, as I don't think there are many who would question its neutrality. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:15, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

In contrast, there are "parables" told by Jesus, which could be safely classified as "myths" in the sense that there is no dispute that Jesus was simply teaching a lesson through a story that he had presumably made up on the spot. However, that principle does not apply to the stories of the Old Testament, as they are presented as fact, even if scholars question their factual basis. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:17, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Fascinating. I am accused of "forum shopping" and here Ben has opened up yet another debate on the issue!

Let me concentrate on why this discussion exists. Ben has accusd me of "forum shopping". I think that the accusation of "disruptive editing" has been debunked by the lack of diffs offered (because there aren't any). So the only "issue" left is the so-called forum shopping. Lets examine which forums I have actually employed:

• Noah's Ark. This was where I came in - the debate was already going on.
• The village pump. I attempted to raise it here because the issue had stalled at Noah's Ark and I wanted input from the wider community. This was a mistake that I have referred to above. Had I known procedure better I would have gone straight to the forum below.
• RfC on the wording in the NPOV/FAQ. The current wording was written by Ben without consultation or consensus. I raised the RfC because this article was being quoted by Ben and others and I sought some consensus on that wording. Since then there have been "walls of text" which have amounted to Ben and co saying "there is nothing to debate" and several other editors patiently attempting to explain why that is wrong. In exasperation I have decided that this needs to be brought to wider community attention; if need be, to ArbCom. Before going to ArbCom, I am required to bring it up on the relevant Project page, hence:
• WikiProject Religion. I have raised this issue on the talk page of this project in line with required procedure.

There is one other forum that I have used:

• Wikipedia:Ambiguous Words. This was never intended to be the same issue. It was supposed to be a matter for the Manual of Style. Ben and others, however, destroyed any hope of debate there by continually attempting to insist that I was forum shopping on the issue of myth and religion. I have now abandoned that project until the current issue is resolved.

Now, if anyone can enlighten me as to how this is "forum shopping", then I will happily desist. Otherwise, can an admin close this discussion for the irrelevance that it really is. This is, after all, just another attempt by Ben to disrupt the discussions over myth.--FimusTauri (talk) 14:43, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

IP sockpuppet violating multiple policies

Resolved

IP 92.17.225.113 (also using 92.1.40.215, both resolving to the same place) is a self-described sock account violating WP:3RR, WP:SOCK, WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL, and WP:CANVASS. For starters. The 3rr vio is on Emily Jacir, reverting sourced material here, here, here, and here. User canvasses here, refers to edits as "bullshit" numerous times here, here, "POV assery", and twice here. User admits to being a sock in that same thread. "As for logging in with my real account, I don't intend on muddying that with pointless back and forths over whether or not we should state tenuous allegations as fact in the lead sentence." This could appear on multiple boards, but I was hoping this one would be most efficient. IronDuke 23:33, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

• Not the most polite editor, but removing negative thinly-sourced comment from articles isn't a problem. One source isn't enough to describe someone as a "terrorist" (even his own article only says that "Israel considered him a terrorist"). At the point of some of his edits ([25]), the claim had no source at all which makes that particular edit completely policy-compliant. Black Kite 23:42, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
  • And in fact, I've rolled that edit back. Claiming someone to be a terrorist needs more than one source (especially one written by two Israeli historians, however respected), when the subjects own article does not definitely state that. Either source the claim properly, change it to "alleged terrorist", or leave it out. Black Kite 23:47, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

What does being Israeli have to do with anything? And I was asking about a policy-violating sock, not canvassing for someone to weigh in (erroneously) on policy. Anyone out there able and or willing to take admin action? IronDuke 01:37, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

You'd have to prove it's a policy-violating sock first - I couldn't tell you whether it is or not, because I don't know the main account. And the reason I said "Israeli", is because, as you know, basing an edit like that on one Israeli source is always going to be seen as thin whether it is or not. (I'm willing to bet that source doesn't even say that this person was definitively a terrorist though, only that Israel believed him to be one - am I right?) There's no admin action to be taken here unless the edit-war continues. Black Kite 07:31, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I did already prove it -- it violated 3rr for one thing among many -- which you helped out with by edit-warring on its behalf. And I'm still not getting the objection to an Israeli source -- why would a source coming from an Israeli be "thin"? And as for your bet, two questions. 1. How much were you thinking? 2. Do you have a PayPal account? IronDuke 14:45, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

As you well know, I was referring to "thin" as meaning "one source". You know that you can't refer to someone as a terrorist via a single source that will be challenged because of its origin, regardless of how respected the authors are. If you can source it properly, I certainly won't challenge it. Black Kite 14:56, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I know no such thing. You wrote that the fact that my source was "written by two Israeli historians" was "especially" important in terms of its not being good enough. In what way is their country of origin important here? IronDuke 15:27, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

You're a regular on I/P articles, you know quite well how a controversial comment being backed up by a source emanating from a single country involved in the issue might be considered "not good enough". Black Kite 00:47, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I sure am a regular, but I don't have to be to know how... odd... your comment is. Would we dismiss a US historian on the Vietnam war, because the US was a combatant? No. Would it be problematic in any way? No. And yet, for some reason, two Israeli historians are. IronDuke 02:40, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Consider it a different way; if you had an article which was being fought over by two political factions (let's say Republicans and Democrats for simplicity), would you accept a contentious edit sourced only by a book written by someone involved with one of those factions? This isn't an I/P issue, it's a Wikipedia-wide one. I know from working on The Troubles-related articles how thorny an issue such sources can be. Black Kite 08:40, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Of course I'd "accept" it -- why wouldn't I? I might try to balance it, if that were appropriate and/or possible. But you didn't do that, you just removed the "Israeli" source without knowing anything about it, apparently, other than that it was "Israeli." IronDuke 16:23, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

• • • You are correct IronDuke, this is most efficient, I wish we'd thought of it sooner. Thank you Black Kite, it worries me to see that such long established editors as IronDuke and Mr Hicks would push such a blatant POV. I would have expected them to have spotted what a tenuous claim it was and either banish it or temper it in the lead, I was disappointed. But if you take at some of IronDuke's comments regarding the positive aspects of POV pushing, you'll be unsurprised at his actions, and worried for the atmosphere in which these articles get built. Then again, I could be Black Kite :) 92.17.225.113 (talk) 00:28, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
      • Well don't be too pleased with yourself; you did technically violate 3RR which would've been a block if it wasn't for the nature of the edits, you need to sort out your civility, and you might still be violating WP:SOCK as well (depending on your primary account). I'd suggest you go for dispute resolution before edit-warring next time. Black Kite 00:48, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I think our anon sock has good reason to be pleased. He's sucked you into edit-warring on his behalf. I'd be laughing, too. IronDuke 01:37, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

PS: Dispute resolution with an anon sock? Really? Great. Are there any admins out there who want to take admin action and not jump into the edit war? IronDuke 01:51, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Some advice; stop forum shopping for a block and source your edits properly. If you hadn't insisted in trying to force insufficiently-sourced POV into the article, then the issue wouldn't arise in the first place; so you're equally as culpable as the IP. Black Kite 07:27, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

That's good advice. I hereby will promise to stop... forum shopping? Oh, wait... where did I do that again? IronDuke 14:45, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, strangely enough - here. The place to report edit-warring / 3RR violations is over here. Take it there by all means, and if you can find someone willing to block the IP for it, then fine. (Though it'd be a little pointless, as it's a dynamic IP over a large UK broadband range). Black Kite 14:56, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Strange ain't the word for it. Forum-shopping, in a WP context, refers to querying multiple venues in search of a satisfactory answer -- ironically, the very thing you just suggested I do. I'm a bit surprised a regular admin on AN/I wouldn't know that. And do please stop marking this as resolved. Even if you hadn't jumped in to start edit-warring on behalf of an anon sock, it wouldn't be resolved. It may not get resolved, but I'd like to give others a chance to weigh in. IronDuke 15:27, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

It's resolved here. WP:ANI is for admin action that can't be resolved at other venues. I pointed you to the correct venue for reporting edit warring above. Use it, please. And I'm marking it resolved again. Black Kite 00:45, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

It isn't resolved, though. You've weighed in. You're wrong on virtually every point you have made, both in terms of letter and spirit of policy, and in terms of the subject matter (which you leapt in to edit without knowing anything about). And this covers a number of issues. a 24 block for edit-warring wouldn't resolve the issues. That is extraordinarily obvious. IronDuke 02:40, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I suggest giving a minor talking to to the IP and a civilty to IronDuke for the above  rdunnPLIB  15:35, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean about giving me "a civilty." There's nothing uncivil about what I wrote. That said, if Black Kite is particularly upset about any of it, I'm happy to consider refactoring. IronDuke 16:18, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not thrilled about IronDuke claiming I'm edit-warring, but since it's inaccurate I'm not bothered. Black Kite 00:45, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad you're not bothered; I guess I'm not as bothered as I should be by your extending the abusive sock puppet's reverts to 5. I assume you also wouldn't be bothered by my pointing out your extraordinarily inappropriate edit-warring on the resolved tag of this thread, either? IronDuke 02:40, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Well that's interesting. An IP user violates WP:3RR, WP:SOCK, WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL, and WP:CANVASS, and you suggest nothing for the IP, but a violation for IronDuke. How do you figure that? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:47, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't agree with that either. I'm certainly not going to sanction IronDuke, and no-one else is either. Either take it to WP:EW or don't, the place is not here. Marked resolved again. Black Kite 00:45, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Unomi

Unresolved

This user is a participant in WikiProject Neutrality.

“ What is wanted is not the will to believe, but the will to find out, which is the exact opposite. ” — Bertrand Russell, "Skeptical Essays", 1928

progThis user is a programmer.

“ Every facet, every department of your mind, is to be programmed by you. And unless you assume your rightful responsibility, and begin to program your own mind, the world will program it for you. ” — Jack Kornfield, "The roots of Buddhist psychology"

This single purpose account has violated WP:NOTAFORUM and WP:SOAP at Talk:Aspartame controversy for several days. Essentially, this editor wants to add a GAO report from 1987. The report is relevant to the article in a strictly historical manner, because the report itself, done at the behest of Senator Howard Metzenbaum, was a review of the FDA approval of Aspartame performed by the Government Accounting Office. It fails WP:MEDRS since it doesn't even qualify as a tertiary source, it has been outdated by much more current research (that clearly shows that Aspartame does nothing), and it is not peer-reviewed. That's just the background, and I realize that this noticeboard's goal is to not decide content.

What is more concerning is Unomi's tendentious editing of the discussion section. They have made numerous requests to add a discussion of this GAO report, even though consensus is that a small sentence, from a purely historical purpose, is all that is required. I would point out individual edits, but a review of the history of the page is sufficient. Moreover, Unomi's contributions are completely either in or about Aspartame. I'm also quite concerned that Karloff (talk · contribs) and Unomi (talk · contribs) are the same person, since both edited only Aspartame controversy, Karloff quit editing on 28 February 2009, after Verbal made some observations at User talk:Karloff. Unomi started editing Aspartame controversy on 8 March 2009. It's obvious that Unomi and Karloff are probably socks, and may be socks of other editors.

I do not think that Unomi represents how we need to deal with contentious articles about controversial medical information. Editors revert the most egregious POV statements, so it remains a pretty good source for NPOV information on the controversy. However, an admin needs to deal with Unomi soon. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 03:57, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Also note [[26]] -- a pretty severe case of I didn't hear that. Looie496 (talk) 04:16, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Added Sockpuppet investigation here. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 04:23, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

This is a rather serious allegation that to my mind borders on harassment, I welcome the ensuing discussion and will try to defend my self against the claims in-depth shortly. In brief I will say that I acted in good faith and was repeatedly thwarted in my attempts to discuss with some editors involved, I think OMs links will show evidence of that and so will this. The allegations of sock puppetry are hilarious but will be dealt with in the appropriate venue.

It does not strike me as surprising that editors are refraining from contributing to wikipedia considering the behavior that OMs links document.

I hope that the submitting editor will further clarify the allegations. Unomi (talk) 05:03, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I would say that my view of the events is available here. Summarized by :

• I am being met with a barrage of WP:TAGS that seem to border on WP:PS.
• Every time I try to address one, it becomes another, when I try get outside opinion regarding the applicability of WP:RS, WP:NPOV, WP:OR
• I am accused of forum shopping. When I explain that I feel that they are in the wrong and try to explain why while soliciting their thoughts
• I am accused of WP:SOAP, WP:FORUM and WP:DE. I am trying to assume good faith but I am halfway to WP:NOCLUE.

If more information is needed I will be happy to add it, please let me know. Unomi (talk) 10:26, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Please also note that this user filed a thoroughly frivolous 3RR report about me, apparently in retaliation for a good-faith warning concerning his or her own (actual) 3RR violations. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 21:19, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Can some really nice admin deal with this editor ASAP. He has pushed and pushed and pushed the good will of the community. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:29, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

By following the links you will see that it was in fact NOT a 3RR report, and that orangemarlin and goodwill don't belong in the same paragraph. Unomi (talk) 14:42, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

There is one more thing I would like to bring to the attention of those that might be taking part in making decisions on this.

jc37s 'contribution'. I would like you to take a look at what an experienced editor interjected as 'reference to research'. Unomi (talk) 17:25, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

As it seems that I have to explain everything afterwards anyway; I might as well explain it up front. After the allegations of sockpuppetry came up I went to read up on karloff and immortale, this included visiting their talk page, I remembered seeing this which, if true, seems to indicate that this type of behavior is not uniquely confined to jc37. Unomi (talk) 17:31, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Also refer to this studiously ignored request for clarification. Unomi (talk) 17:45, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

←Please note that the 'controversy' is about the inclusion of passages from the Executive Summary and section summaries contained in a General Accounting Office report. Orangemarlin et al seem to simply be fishing and engaging in WP:PS, not understanding that WP:LASTWORD is not to be taken as literal policy. I have repeatedly asked for constructive debate and consistently been met with an attitude that could best be described as assume bad faith. Unomi (talk) 17:59, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we are done here. Unomi (talk) 18:44, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

False sockpuppetry accusations

Unresolved

Will someone please block OrangeMarlin as he doesn't contribute to a discussion on the article Aspartame controversy but instead makes constant accusations of sockpuppetry to anyone disagreeing with him. There is current sockpuppet investigation going on here but no conclusions are drawn there. Nevertheless, he acts like they are facts. To falsely make accusations is not allowed, right? Immortale (talk) 23:28, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

My view is that the accusations are true, but I think we should wait for the SSP case to close first. There seems to be some forum shopping going on, what with the multiple posts to noticeboards and an ongoing, if rather shortsighted, mediation cabal thingy going on. Verbal chat 23:37, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I should have pointed out that the allegations against OM aren't true either, as he has contributed to the article and has simply had his patience warn thin, and has only accused three rather suspicious SPAs of being sock/meat puppets. There are other editors there. Verbal chat 23:40, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

It's not important what your view is, it's the evidence that counts. And there's none because I don't have sockpuppets. OrangeMarlin is making these sockpuppet accusations lately: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Aspartame_controversy and he's getting hostile in the choice of his words towards other editors. There's nothing suspicious about these editors you mentioned. There are far more similarities between you and OM but we all know you are 2 different people. Immortale (talk) 23:50, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think I will be blocking OrangeMarlin. Though I will examine the other issues here. Chillum 23:47, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Guess what? When you're a single purpose account, you tend to get associated with other single purpose accounts on that issue. It's hardly a surprise. Asking for someone to be blocked because they make the connection is hardly going to help your cause. Black Kite 00:31, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I feel like a broken record, but I again must say this. Being an SPA is -not- inherently a bad thing. Whipping out the SPA label weakens whatever argument you are trying to make. If the behavior is disruptive, it is disruptive no matter what else the account edits. Why do so few understand this? Arkon (talk) 00:36, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

There's something very familiar-sounding about the complainant's ID, yet he's supposedly a brand-new user. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:58, 13 March 2009 (UTC) Actually not quite. Created in 2006, but pretty much of a "sleeper" account until this past December. Still, something sounds very familiar... Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:01, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Not ringing any bells to me, but... the sockpuppet investigation tried to tie together Immortale (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), Unomi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), and Karloff (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). I think the latter is a false positive - Karloff is an Oooold account (apparently pre-account-creation logs) which was sleeping for a long long time, which is not that unusual, and shows interests tangental to what Immortale and Unomi do from older edits. Immortale and Unomi match each other well in style and timing. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:12, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Is there an easy way to do a "word search" across the brazillion ANI archives? Although I'm guessing you've already done that yourself. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:24, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Google... 8-) Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:41, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Or the "search" link on the archive navbox at the top of this page. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:17, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, no wonder I couldn't find it. It was hiding in plain sight. I don't see anything for Immortale prior to December when he started his artificial sweetener crusade, so maybe I'm just remembering that, and being confused by early-onset Alzheimer's. I tell ya, the future looks really bleak when Alzheimer's starts at age 13 1/2. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 09:07, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Based on behavioral analysis, Immortale (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is identified as sockpuppeting with puppet account Unomi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). Unomi is indefinitely blocked, Immortale is blocked for a week. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:26, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Checkuser came back as unrelated. Cardamon (talk) 06:09, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah... reexamining, but with Jpgordon being that emphatic, I am inclined to unblock. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 08:04, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

The behavior is still suspicious, but not so suspicious as to constitute clear evidence of meatpuppeting at a distance. Given a strong unambiguous geographical separation from the CU results, I believe that my earlier conclusion was in error. I certainly can't say that the suspicious apparent cooperation is sufficient grounds for a meatpuppetry block if we know for a fact that they're some distance apart. With that, the block doesn't stand as reasonable, so I have unblocked both parties and apologized for disrupting their editing. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 08:30, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Going back to Immortale's complaint against OrangeMarlin - I think that if I as an uninvolved administrator who spent more than an hour looking at edits of the two accounts thought they were likely connected, OrangeMarlin's conclusion that they were was not grossly unreasonable, even if both of us seem to have turned out to be wrong. I do think that an independent mentor and/or the mediation cabal discussion might be helpful to try and de-escalate the incident, which I unwittingly made worse to some degree. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 08:34, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Checkuser is not 100% accurate, therefore being  Unrelated does not mean they're not the same person. Just that there's no connexion that we can see, from a technical POV. -- lucasbfr ^talk 13:20, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I must admit I am having difficulty comprehending why people think we are sock puppets. Would *anyone* care to point to specifics? Or will it all just be based on vague and unspecified 'suspicions'? SPA is, I think, the natural state of affairs when one has been engaged in a WP:BATTLE since day one. Would any of you have 'just backed off'? Please note that the 'controversy' is about the inclusion of passages from the summary of Executive Summary and section summaries contained in a General Accounting Office report. Orangemarlin et al seem to simply be fishing and engaging in WP:PS, not understanding that WP:LASTWORD is not to be taken as literal policy. I have repeatedly asked for constructive debate and consistently been met with an attitude that could best be described as assume bad faith. Unomi (talk) 16:31, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

←Seeing as how the allegations of sock puppetry have now been trounced, lets get back to this. Unomi (talk) 18:55, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
The point was that even though the investigation was not completed, OM et al acted as though it was a fait accompli to the point of demanding apologies from those who very reasonably stated that one is innocent till proven guilty. The number of people who have completely failed to address the point of this AN/I is astounding and deeply worrying. Accusations of sock puppetry are serious and should not be made lightly; unfortunately it seems that it is being used as a tactic to silence, distract and demean those that hold opposing views.

The fact that these specious SP allegations can cause unwitting admins such as GWH to impose INDEFINITE SITEWIDE BLOCKs points to the dangers of abuse. OM has now made new SP allegations here which, if anything, is even more dubious. Unomi (talk) 19:38, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Lisa Kachold article needs some additional scrutiny

I really don't know what to make of this. This is likely merely a case for WP:SOCK, but since there are few editors watching the page, I thought I would bring it up here for some other opinions. This article appears to be an autobiography, is being edited by a variety of accounts and IPs, that, judging by their editing style, all seem to be the same person (and they are proliferating), and despite their protests, there is quite a bit of article ownership going on here, especially on the talk page, where, apparently, one has to put comments in the proper section, according to this (these) editor(s). I'm not sure what action needs to be taken. Maybe block the socks, keep more eyes on the page, and offering of 2nd, 3rd, 4th, etc. opinions so the editor(s) in question. Note that I think the editor(s) is (are) acting in good faith. I also think that we might be dealing with someone who has a different communication style than most people, so although we can't allow this person to be disruptive, hopefully responses to him/her will be patient and in good faith as well. Thanks for checking into the matter. Katr67 (talk) 01:16, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I think the first question to be asked is whether the subject is "notable" or not. It's obviously an autobiography of sorts, which is not strictly against the rules, but it's obviously a touchy area. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:22, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm about to AFD it. I checked 8 of the "references" in the article. Six of them didn't even mention her name anywhere I could find, and the other are essentially self-created CVs, with no independent reporting on this person at all. An AFD should end this mess post-haste. Well, 5 days or so... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:46, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I've opened an SPI. Katr67 (talk) 16:21, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I think they've already admitted to being "colleagues". The curious one is the IP address voting against itself, but that could be just its own "straw man", as in, "Hey, not ALL the colleagues agree with this article." Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:02, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

BLP violations on talk pages

Lex2006 (talk · contribs) and some IPs added unsourced BLP violating material to Marcus Evans (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). The material was removed my me and others, and after edit-warring Lex was indef blocked as a SPA BLP violator. However, I'm now having problems with Ivankinsman‎ (talk · contribs) who has repeatedly added the offending material to the talk page (see history), despite warnings. He's now wikilawyering that BLP does not apply to talk pages. I've not the time to deal with this, nor the will to reply to wikilawyering. Can someone have a word, and watchlist for more problems? I'm sure he'll replace the material again.--Scott Mac (Doc) 09:29, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I left a note with this link. //roux   09:41, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

He's dead wrong about BLP not applying to talk pages, as we've seen over and over on pages like Obama and Palin. I could put it on my watchlist. Unless you don't want me to for some reason. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 09:42, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Another 4 1/2 years and you'll be ready for anything. ;) --Scott Mac (Doc) 10:42, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Keep in mind that the 13 1/2 figure is rabbit years. And it's already on my watch list, just to see what happens. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 10:44, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Rabbit years? Wow!! EconomicsGuy (talk) 13:02, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Yep, I've been around for awhile. Took this photo when I was a bit younger. [27] Seen a lot o' changes in my years. And I was agin' every one of 'em. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:57, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Request to speedily remove a rangeblock

Resolved

Hi,

A user at a school has demonstrated that they want to make a good faith edit, but is unable to do so because of a school rangeblock.

Could someone please consider swiftly removing this rangeblock, so that they can improve wikipedia?

I have already created the unblock template on their page, but raise the request here to try and get quick action.

User is 208.108.156.242

User talk:208.108.156.242

Rangeblock is 208.108.0.0/16

Thanks,

--  Chzz  ►  14:21, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Issue resolved; user referred to proper location. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 15:15, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Phoney website

Chintha.com a Malayalam website has been trying hard to increase traffic by linking WP articles to it. Malayalam Wikipedia has suffered this most. Recently Ml.Wikipedia deleted the article on this site because it is non-notable. The reason why I call it a phoney site is that it claims to be a Creative Commons (with no further specification) complaint site at the bottom of every page. However, if you check the disclaimer page of this site it becomes apparent that the contents are copyright protected and forbidden to copy.[28] Moreover, this site steals copyrighted contents from other websites and display them as its own property. Many of the articles on the site are mere theft from newspaper websites. How does Wikipedia deal with this problem?59.91.253.110 (talk) 15:39, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

See WP:SPAM for useful links. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 15:41, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

• chintha.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

Indeed on ml.wiki and here. Will keep an eye on this one. WP:SPAM tells more, you can post on WT:WPSPAM for discussion. Thanks. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 16:01, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Astatine-210

I just went to User talk:Astatine-210 to leave a note about not trying to redirect closed WP:SPI cases to the archive (doing so causes the old case to be relisted, and prevents new cases on a particular user being filed until somebody spots it and fixes it manually).

In doing so, I noted that he has an editnotice on his talk page than simulates MediaWiki:Blockedtext. Any less than experienced user going to leave him a message might imagine that he had been blocked.

I was tempted to just revert his editnotice per WP:SMI, but given that we seem to tolerate some deviations from WP:SMI (such as fake "new messages" boxes), thought I'd ask for a second set of eyes on it. Mayalld (talk) 07:31, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

It's also (technically) impersonating an admin. Also, given that they patrol recent changes, more noobs than usual will be seeing that. Also also, was apparently a user who invoked RTV, so they should know better. Also also also, baleet. //roux   07:38, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I've reverted it. There's no possible legitimate reason for that. – iridescent 07:41, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Note

I've unilaterally deleted User:Astatine-210/editnotice, an identical fake block message on his user page, as there's no valid version to restore. Normally, something like this would be MFD'd – but MFD-ing in this case would cause the MFD notice to appear as part of the editnotice itself. If anyone objects to this deletion – which I fully agree is technically out-of-process – feel free to restore it. – iridescent 07:50, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Gimme an I! Gimme an A! Gimme an R! What's that spell? iridescent ROCKS //roux   08:00, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't that be Iridescent And Roux? Teaming up to obliterate dangerous isotopes. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 08:11, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Except I did nothing but cheer from the sidelines. Like my pom-poms? //roux   08:12, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

We're migrating from the realm of IAR to the realm of TMI. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 09:02, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Hey, at least you didn't have to see the pictures. — neuro^(talk) 19:50, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Axmann8‎

Axmann8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Four days after being blocked due to edit-warring on Barack Obama, and since then getting into other tendentious editing, the user looks to be resuming his main cause (plain as day on his user page) of trashing Obama, specifically of pushing the fringe-at-best notion of Obama being foreign born. Can something be done? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 10:42, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

No, not until you pass an RfA ;-) (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 11:45, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Blocked for a week. This is far beyond what we ought to tolerate. If anybody wants to go for a more longterm sanction, they'll have my support. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:49, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Wow, does this mean I passed my RfA??? :) :) :) Actually, this is precisely how I would approach a case like this. I'm already involved with this editor, so I would have no business blocking him - I would "take it to court", as I did here, and let an uninvolved admin decide. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:47, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Somebody brought an objection to this block to my talk page. Please review; feel free to overturn if those concerns are shared. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:23, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Endorse block. Coming off his/her last block, this account also started edit warring over the image at another article the other day. More demonstrations of same POV pushing behavior will likely lead to longer blocks or a ban. R. Baley (talk) 19:29, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Anglophobia

Editors continue to use this page to complain about the English (or worse), in this case http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/122.106.166.14. BillMasen (talk) 19:14, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Remove it per WP:NOTFORUM. I recently did a lot of cleanup on the Talk page of Douche that had been there for years. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 20:23, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

User:70.57.239.4

Resolved

 – Blocked for three months by Edgar181. henrik•talk 20:43, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Is there anything that can be done about an IP editor like 70.57.239.4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)? This user, or users using the same IP address, has been problematic for over 2 years. Their Talk page has a long list of vandalism warnings, and the IP has been blocked three times, though none recently. Do we just let this User get away with starting over with the lowest level of vandalism warnings every time they decide to drop by to cause trouble? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 20:32, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Editor claims multiple personality disorder as an excuse for using more than one account -- and edit warring

This must be a new one. In this edit User:DancingPhilosopher explains that he linked to an old talk page edit by User:SloContributorSince2005 and presented it as his own history because he suffers from Dissociative identity disorder. He's also using this alleged personal experience as his justification for reverting the article on that topic to an old version that was determined to be the POV pushing of an editor who has since been banned (User:ResearchEditor). I have no idea if he's a sockpuppet of ResearchEditor (I don't recall RE ever claiming to have the diagnosis himself, he was more advocating its existence as a symptom of the satanic abuse conspiracy he was convinced was everywhere), but his actions seem very problematic, to say the least. I'd just 3RR it, but the official warning against 3RR on his talk page got there after the sixth revert (he was going really fast), and the edit warring seems to be just the tip of the iceberg on this one. DreamGuy (talk) 14:24, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a job for Julian Colton, why not?! X MarX the Spot (talk) 14:34, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

For the love of God, this edit summary is basically admitting the editor in question is planning on sockpuppeting. "your status quo will never be safe again, you will never know when I might change it, you can't block all IP I can do it from..." Block and page protect? I'm pretty sure that this is over the 3rr, and several warnings have been dropped on his/her page now (User talk:DancingPhilosopher#Edit warring and POV pushing on Dissociative identity disorder and User talk:DancingPhilosopher#March.2C 2009. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:36, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry eh? The evil genius! Who woulda thunk it? X MarX the Spot (talk) 14:41, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Now his "alternate personality" as User:SloContributorSince2005 has conveniently kicked in after User:DancingPhilosopher's block. DreamGuy (talk) 15:00, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Block extended for one week. SloContributorSince2005 blocked indefinitely. seicer | talk | contribs 15:07, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

lol. Chillum 15:14, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Huh? What? seicer | talk | contribs 15:19, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you heard him right: "sockpippetry". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:27, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the block, seicer. I wasn't sure about performing it myself. Meanwhile, there is a shiny new case page at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/DancingPhilosopher if anyone feels that a CheckUser would be appropriate. Probably that won't be necessary until/unless other accounts begin to appear. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 15:20, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

No prob. I'm awaiting additional sockpippets. seicer | talk | contribs 15:47, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Only one other pippet that I could find. Updated to "confirmed" by-the-by. -- Avi (talk) 18:31, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Although this is obviously a lie in this case, I don't want a bad precedent to be set - people with multiple identities should be able to have separate accounts for those identities, and they should be instructed not to share accounts. It should be inferrable from their writing that they're different people. Dcoetzee 23:09, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Even if we assume for the purposes of this debate that multiple personalities is something that actually happens and not just a bad diagnosis, a scenario where different personalities have different accounts and edit different articles with different writing styles should never get to the point where anyone would even take notice and have to do anything about it. But if there's ever any situation where it comes to our attention for some reason that it looks like socking or so forth and the person claims multiple personalities as an excuse, it'd be a very bad policy just to take the person at his or her word. As a practical matter anyone claiming DID still has to follow all the same rules as anyone else. There's no other way it would even work, and the last thing we need is an easy out for people to rationalize bad behavior. DreamGuy (talk) 00:17, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

You're right, it's something of a non-issue, in that from our perspective, a user with multiple identities is indistinguishable from family/friends who share a computer or a LAN. In either case we should strive to avoid accusing people of sockpuppetry unless there's evidence beyond CU that it's the same person doing the edits. Dcoetzee 01:53, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

deleting name

My name is Charles Hoelzel and it has been brought to my attention that my name is being used without my knowledge, I am assuming the person trying to use my name is the same individual who is responsible for my identity theft. I ask if you please remove any item. board or aticle in which my name is atached in any way, attached is what I'm refering to:

[edit] Nec532x

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhereDealt with on ANI

[1] This is the most recent comment left on my talkpage by Nec532x. He is impersonating an actual Navy SEAL named Bob McMeans (I've spoken to the real Bob McMeans about this) and has been trying to add someone named Charles Hoelzel who was not a SEAL to the List of Navy SEALs. This is beginning to look like harrassment and I wanted to make the admins aware. Thanks. Atlantabravz (talk · contribs) 18:02, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

There's rarely any admins here but that comment is obviously incivil and i posted a warning. Also remember to inform the editor of this alert. This seems to be an SPA so if the problems continue i'd post on the admin board. As this involves unsourced claims about a living person you are correct to remove the info. --neon white talk 21:42, 6 March 2009 (UTC) Having read the post to WP:ANI, I have issued a 1 week block to Nec532x (talk · contribs). Attacks of that nature are intolerable. caknuck ° remains gainfully employed 22:09, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Once again I don't know what is going on here but but please remove my name. Regards Charles Hoelzel —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.101.127.30 (talk) 21:10, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

• Mr. Hoelzel, please contact the Wikimedia Foundation's Open Source Ticket Response System to resolve this issue. Follow this link to go to the appropriate page with the procedures you will need to follow. This may take a while, and there will be some sort of verification involved, but they should be able to help you. Horologium (talk) 21:58, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

::*What makes this editor think he is the only Charles Hoelzel? I know for a fact that there's a wikipedia article on another individual with the same name as mine and I have a very odd name. Toddst1 (talk) 22:07, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I just read the deleted article. I thought the editor was talking about a user with his name. Toddst1 (talk) 22:07, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

• I don't pretend to understand what is going on here, but this IP started removing text from WP:WQA, and has now been blocked for a day. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:54, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Uninvolved admin on User talk:ErikWarmelink - personal attacks in response to final personal attack warning

Resolved

 – Jayron32 indef blocked offending editor while report was being filed here Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:32, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I would just give this user his requested wish and indef him, however last time I blocked someone for that it was stated on ANI that my being the subject of the final personal attack disqualified me as being an administrator in conflict with the block subject. So I'd like to request a review and presumptive block by an uninvolved admin on ErikWarmelink (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

I blocked ErikWarmelink for 24 hrs on March 11 for civility and personal attacks after warnings on March 4th and ongoing discussion. warnings on March 4th block on March 11th after edit summary accusing another editor of being racist and the edit summary suggesting another editor rot in a camp. The response was yet another personal attack, on me: suggesting I should rot in Guantanamo for the block

Today I left him another warning after two edits telling people to "sod off" (on Talk:Israeli-occupied territories, to user Wikifan12345) and "sod off, whitey" (on his talk page, to Arthur Rubin). Here's the warning: warning and his response here, with edit summary "hi, fat arse" and contents "I am not a member of your community. If you continue to consider obesity, lack of melanin and intelleigence, to be an important property of the master race, instead of a genetic decease of losers like yourself, please block me.".

I believe Mr Warmelink has exceeded the tolerance limit of the community for incivility.... However, per prior discussions, as he focused his ire on me most recently, I'll let someone else make the decision and take whatever action seems most appropriate. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:24, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Apparently Jayron32 came to the same conclusion while I was typing the report up and indef'ed him. Going to mark as resolved... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:32, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I indeffed him after his "losers like you comment". Sarek of Vulcan then shut down his abilty to edit his talk page based on this response to my block. I just redirected his talk page to his userpage and tagged him with {{indefblocked}} in the interest of WP:DENY. Let us enter the "I" stage of WP:RBI. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 00:45, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Ben Tillman

Ben Tillman has been engaging in inappropiate behaviour.

We have been engaged in a long-standing dispute (with others) over the use of the term "myth" in religious articles. This is not about that dispute and I certainly do not wish to discuss the dispute here. I mention it because it is in the context of that dispute that Ben's behaviour is questionable.

The specific issues that concern me are these:

1. Early on in the dispute, I noticed that certain policies/guidelines were being used as arguments, so I decided to investigate those policies. I discovered that one section of "policy" (currently in dispute as to whether it should be a guideline) had been written by Ben (presumably an attempt to strengthen his arguments). Further, it had been written without consultation and therefore without consensus. This is the section "Regarding terminology" on the WP:NPOV/FAQ page. Ben's edit can be found here. Further, at the time of the edit, the page was flagged as policy, with a clear warning to editors that they should gain consensus before making changes. A glance through the talk page history will show that no discussion took place; nor did Ben attempt to initiate a discussion.

2. A related article WP:WTA has a section on the word "myth". Ben has also altered this section (at around the same time); again without consultation or consensus. His edits can be found here. Again the talk page reveals no attempt to discuss this change.

3. Ben (and one or two others) has been attempting to stifle the debate about the use of the word "myth" in religious articles. Despite a number of other editors giving a whole range of reasons why there should be a debate, he is simply refusing to engage in debate. See here for a clear example.

4. Recently, Ben has threatened to archive the discussion at NPOV/FAQ. Up to that time I was willing to ignore his actions described above, but I was not willing to see the debate unilaterally closed by one editor who refuses to engage in debate. Therefore, I warned him that I would have to report his action if he carried out this threat. See here.

5. He has now unilaterally archived the discussion - see here. Another editor reverted this as he was considering an RfC. Ben ignored this and unilaterally archived the discussion again. See here.

(There are other, minor events that relate to this, but I do not think they are worth mentioning except for the fact that Ben has raised an ANI against me previously (see above). This is not relevent here - I only mention it because I suspect a "defence" that may be offered here is that I am raising this as some sort of "revenge". I ask only that admins consider this on its merits.)

I am not sure which of the rules this behaviour violates. I am not sure what the appropriate "punishment" is. All I want is for a debate that leads to consensus. I will leave it to admins to decide appropriate actions.--FimusTauri (talk) 09:40, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I have also advised the user concerned of this notice.--FimusTauri (talk) 09:42, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi FimusTauri, I suggest you file a request for comment on user conduct. PhilKnight (talk) 11:36, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that that would be a bit too extreme. Are you saying that I should take it there? I am not really looking for Ben to be somehow "punished"; rather, I am seeking to ensure that the debate is not "killed off" and that admins are made aware of Ben's behaviour and can advise/warn him appropriately. Certainly, if the behaviour were to persist I would consider more extreme measures. --FimusTauri (talk) 11:49, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Is this at all tit-for-tat from the entry above? Why not keep the entire discussion together? (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 11:44, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Certainly not. As I said above, I ask that this be seen in isolation for the events it describes. Ben's entry above is irrelevant to this discussion and I would have brought this discussion up whether that entry existed or not. Please see the warning that I gave to Ben on his talk page.--FimusTauri (talk) 11:51, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) personally, I'd be happy if an admin would reinstate the discussion that Ben archived. I'd do it myself, again, but I'm worried it might provoke an edit war, which wouldn't help anything. I'll add, that the only thing I can make out of Ben's actions is that he's acting out of a distinct religious prejudice. whether that's a prejudice against religion as a whole or a prejudice against particular religions I can't say, but this whole discussion clearly speaks to an effort to discredit something, not to an effort at achieving some sort of neutral balance... --Ludwigs2 18:04, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

If nothing else FimusTauri, you're living up to your username. Yes, I edited a policy and guideline page, and yes I archived a dead debate that was over 300 kilobytes - I know, I know, my stifling skills obviously need some work. The rest of what Fimus wrote is tendentious at best, inflammatory at worst. At any uninvolved editor's request I'm happy to discuss any one of the points Fimus raises, otherwise I don't see the need to add to this. Fimus, I apologise for what you will likely see, if your point three is any indication, as stifling your AN/I thread. Ludwigs2, I apologise for reading outside of the Bible. Ben (talk) 03:03, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

That's a deletion reason?

File:Wax_play_on_back.jpg has a very "interesting" deletion reason. Why hasn't it been dealt with yet?--293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 12:50, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Uh - the file is now hosted on commons, the GFDL requirements seem to be met. What's the issue? WilyD 13:06, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not seeing the issue either. seicer | talk | contribs 13:06, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Maybe that it looks gross. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:54, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

It looks gross? Wow, I kind of like it. :( — neuro^(talk) 19:48, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Not overly gross. Just sort of. Like a flesh-colored birthday cake that was left out in the rain in MacArthur Park or something. It probably helps to be into wax. I was, a few years back, but my interest waned. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 05:23, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Geez Bugs. Gibbous a break from the faux-Groucho. PhGustaf (talk) 05:33, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

A Little Help

I tried and have miserably failed to be the mediator between two users, Planecrash111 and JustSomeRandomGuy32.

There is accusations of sockpuppetry by Planecrash of RandomGuy and from RandomGuy to Planecrash. Warning Templation abuse on both. 3RR violations on both. Personal attacks from RandomGuy to Planecrash. Back and forth swipes at each other. Essentially a good ol' war of two users.

I tried to put them each in their corners with this post I sent both last night and it seemed to work, but today they are back at it.

I know it will probably end in blocks for both, but I need some help. Obviously this is something for an admin and not a non-admin wanting to help. :( - NeutralHomer • Talk • March 14, 2009 @ 04:00

I've blocked JustSomeRandomGuy32 independent of this discussion, and annotated his/her talk page about the whole TLDR saga now that I'm aware of it. Frankly, I don't feel inclined to wade through the whole saga tonight so feel free to modify my block in any direction. Cheers. Toddst1 (talk) 04:23, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories

This article was recently moved to a new title by User:Sceptre with a claim that a "rough consensus" on talk supported it. In fact, there has been no recent discussion of a name change at all and all past discussions have more or less rejected a move (an example at the bottom here [29]]). Per BRD i notified scepter of my intent to revert and did so. As i tried to start a talk page discussion he immediately reverted my move (within 1 minute). As this article is on probation and i don't want to edit war, i come here. He's making a rather dramatic change that has been rejected by a consensus of editors on numerous occasions in the past.Bali ultimate (talk) 14:18, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

A BLP problem can make what looks like no consensus into a good consensus. Besides, consensus can change. Seeing as no-one's explained how the old title isn't a BLP problem, I'd rather have it at the title I've moved it to. Sceptre ^(talk) 14:24, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure you would. Wouldn't we all? But you ought to know better. Move-warring after a move has been reverted is considerably more serious than "simple" revert warring. Move-protected for a week, for now. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:30, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

The divide on that article is the issue of whether all of it is a conspiracy theory or whether some of it is sincere. The catch is that conspiracy theorists usually think they're sincere, or at least they put on that front. The title Sceptre proposed might be more technically correct, but a title that goes clear across the screen seems excessive. And I don't get the "BLP violation" part. The mere presence of the article has been argued to be a BLP violation, and messing with it's title doesn't change any of that. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:44, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean by "clear across the screen"? On Modern at 1440*900, it only goes to about two-thirds. The only limit is the software limit, which is 255 characters, and if we can fit a title in there, it's hardly nexcessive. Sceptre ^(talk) 15:49, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Some of us have smaller screens. But what BLP issue does the longer title fix? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:52, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

The assertion that some of the people mentioned in the article are conspiracy theorists when we have no indication that they are. Sceptre ^(talk) 16:12, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

One does not need to be a licensed, board-certified "conspiracy theorist" in order to promote a conspiracy theory. Your average disgruntled voter can promote it. The title makes no "assertion" that anyone is anything. But if it somehow has that implication, then how about something even more objective, like...Barack Obama citizenship fringe theories? :-) Cosmic Latte (talk) 16:33, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Wow, that's an actual redirect. I was expecting a redlink. Nice. Cosmic Latte (talk) 16:34, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Given that "conspiracy theory" is a loaded term, BLP indicates that we don't use such a term to describe someone('s actions) unless we can undeniably say that that is the case. Sceptre ^(talk) 16:36, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

In short, through citations that say so. And that's the dilemma, right? That some of these items can definitely be cited as "conspiracy theories", but not all of them? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:59, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Pretty much. And we have ethical concerns to not lump those that can't be cited with the verifiable crackpots. Sceptre ^(talk) 17:06, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

If the "wrong" title raisies BLP concerns why is the page protected as such and this thread marked resolved? There doesn't seem to be much disagreement that this title lumps all of the parties making legal challenges as conspiracy theorists. This seems to be a legitimate BLP problem. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:40, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

See m:The wrong version. Horologium (talk) 17:41, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Still, marked as unresolved. Sceptre ^(talk) 17:42, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Of course it's resolved here. As the old saw goes, what administrative action do you want now? Yes, you made a unilateral move you knew well would be controversial and you did so with an edit summary claiming a "rough consensus" supported your action (when in fact there had been no discussion on the talk page recently at all, pro or con; all past dicussion had rejected this move). Your unilateral action led to a flurry of move-warring that resulted in an admin protecting the page against moves for a week, and now discussion is underway at the talk page. Which seems well and good. So (again) what admin intervention do you want now?Bali ultimate (talk) 17:52, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Apart from the POV issues of titling the article with "conspiracy theories", the title seems to be a clear BLP violation that lumps people into this category. The alternate title maintains the conspiracy theory assertion and notes the legal challenges. This seems a very reasonable compromise that eliminates the BLP concerns. A good case could be made that the title should be "Legal challenges to Obama's citizenship" based on our NPOV policies, so I think a compromise title is very reasonable. What is the argument against alleviating the BLP problems of the current title? ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:10, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, all should be put into the conspiracy theorist category, as that is precisely what they are, as I have explained on the article talk page. The assertion that the current title is violating BLP in regards to those who have made these allegations of ineligibility is a false one. We have several articles with "conspiracy theories" in their titles, from fake moon landings to 9/11 to JFK's assassination. Reliable sources have described them as such, and we follow suit. Tarc (talk) 18:32, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Funny that, because I don't see sources that specifically call Fessler or the Tennessee representatives conspiracy theorists. Sceptre ^(talk) 18:40, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I suggest moving it to "Right wing whack job opinions from the people who got us in this mess"... it may be a little partisan though... ;-) Hiberniantears (talk) 18:21, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

While I tend to agree generally with your characterization, that might not be the most encyclopedic title. The proposal isn't to remove the conspiracy theory part of the title, but to also note that there are legal challenges. The proposed title would be "Conspiracy theories and legal challenges regarding Barack Obama's citizenship". I'm sorry I didn't mention it earlier. I think it satisfies the concerns of all parties. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:05, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to suggest that this sounds more like a content dispute which does not belong on AN/I and those who are arguing here and not on the article's talk page, please take it there. As far as things being resolved, the page has been protected for a week, as far as this section was started for, it is resolved. Brothejr (talk) 19:14, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Disruptive conduct by Sceptre

The real problem here is that Sceptre is engaged in bad-faith tactics and disruptive conduct, in violation of article probation. He has made it clear on several occasions that he doesn't believe the article should exist in the first place [30]. He's AfD'd it twice [31],[32] and sent it to DRV once when the community disagreed with him [33]; he has repeatedly proposed name changes for which he has obtained no consensus; he has repeatedly reopened old discussions (and by old, I mean only a few weeks old) to reopen issues and make the same arguments that were rejected last time around; he has attempted to impose a name change without consensus by move-warring [34],[35],[36]; he has publicly rejected the validity of consensus [37],[38] and appears to believe that he is the sole arbiter of policy. His current concern about the article's name is little more than a smokescreen for whittling down, and ultimately getting rid of, an article that he has failed to get rid of by other means. His conduct on this article over the past three months is an absolutely textbook example of disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, and Sceptre is lucky not to have been blocked for it. (That may yet happen.)

The article has been largely stable since its creation last December; the only real exception has been the disruptive wrangles and move wars caused by Sceptre. This is not fundamentally a content dispute; it's mostly the result of a single editor refusing to accept consensus and repeatedly disrupting the article in consequence, apparently to either impose his preferred solution or to bully or wear down other editors into letting him have his way. This is a canonical violation of the article probation regime which is in force across Obama-related articles. The probation empowers uninvolved administrators to sanction any editor for "disruptive edits, including, but not limited to, edit warring, personal attacks, incivility and assumptions of bad faith."

Given this record of disruption, I propose a topic ban on Sceptre editing, moving or participating in the talk page of Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories for a period of at least three months. Failing that, it will probably require an arbitration case to deal with Sceptre's misconduct, but I would like to see if the community can deal effectively with disruptive editing before involving the arbitrators. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:18, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Even though the matter is resolved, I'd like to chime in that the (repeated) move was obvious bad faith by Sceptre. The name has been repeatedly discussed and polled, and every single time a consensus resolved to keep the original name. I completely agree with ChrisO that a topic ban for Sceptre is appropriate and needed, since his/her entire contribution history to this topic has been disruptive. LotLE×talk 19:22, 13 March 2009 (UTC) (note my emphasized word, BTW; I absolutely do not support a general ban on Sceptre, just a restriction from working on this specific topic)

I think I remember a history of disruption on other content areas, also.. Any reason we're still tolerating this guy? Friday (talk) 19:25, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah.

He's brilliant at article-writing, particulary with bringing pages up to GA/FA standard. He's an asset to Wikipedia in that sense, and this being an encyclopedia, that's great. You can't seriously be suggesting that he's banned? ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 19:38, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Topic-banned. That simply means that he can't edit articles relating to the topic area - in this case Barack Obama - for the duration of the ban. He is still free and unimpeded in editing any other articles on Wikipedia. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:45, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

No, I was replying to Friday, who seemed to be implying an actual ban. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 19:53, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, thanks for clarifying that. I wouldn't support a full ban on Sceptre, though a short block for the recent move war would not be inappropriate. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:20, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

What exactly would you be preventing by blocking me for move-warring? FutPerf already protected the page. Sceptre ^(talk) 20:27, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

You know what, forget it. It's only a trivial matter of defaming people. Sceptre ^(talk) 19:41, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Which, fortunately, Wikipedia is not doing. Reliable sources have associated their actions with the conspiracy theories and that is how they are presented in the article. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 19:46, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Again, where are the sources that Fessler and the Tennessee representatives are conspiracy theorists? We need them, or it's a BLP problem. What part of this don't you understand? Sceptre ^(talk) 19:48, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Sadly, the only defamation is what you see. However, Wikipedia is not here to soften things. Not here to call things other then what they are reported as. We call the issue, what the reliable sources call the issue. Plus, if you look up the definition of conspiracy and then look at each citizenship theory, it's vary hard not to call them what they are, conspiracy theories. Finally, something that must be keep in the back of our minds, we should not, and cannot legitimize these theories if the reliable sources do not legitimize these theories. The title change could be construed, whether intended or not, as legitimizing the theories in the article. Brothejr (talk) 19:51, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not removing "conspiracy theories" from the title. I'm adding "legal challenges", because it then removes the unsourced implication of Fessler and the TN representatives being conspiracy theorists. It's actually more accurate than the current title, and less BLP-volatile. Personally, I'd rather unintentionally leigitimize a theory than deliberate debunk a theory on Wikipedia. Sceptre ^(talk) 19:56, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

• No problem here, move on - Sceptre and I have rarely agreed on anything. He has been mean and rude to me a lot. With that said, I don't see any problems here. I think he has followed standard processes and that there is an assumption of bad faith on the part of Chris O. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:51, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Huh? Chris O was not the one to continually try for RFD, Chris O was not the one to continually bring up and re-bring up changing the title. Chris O was not the one who kept on changing the title against consensus. Brothejr (talk) 19:55, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Move-warring, rejecting consensus and failing to engage in any dispute resolution whatsoever are the polar opposite of "following standard processes", and are what the current article probation was specifically implemented to prevent. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:55, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

AGF, please Chris. Once you do that, you won't see these things as disruptive. However, with each moment you make it harder and harder for me to assume that you aren't disrupting and that you are here out of good faith. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:57, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Once again, OR, you're backing the wrong horse and slaying the messengers. Nice work. Chris O is the one who followed good procedure, not the one dragging around the fermenting chunks of equine carcass, flogging it in the streets. ThuranX (talk) 23:12, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

• Page moving wars are stupid, and Sceptre should not be doing that, but a topic ban (or any kind of ban) is unnecessary for this highly productive editor. These are legitimate concerns. The title of the article essentially lumps everyone mentioned in the article into a group claiming an Obama birth conspiracy, which is not entirely accurate and not fully supported by reliable sources. Although I personally think everyone who questions Obama's presidential eligibility is a wack-job, I think we have to be mighty careful with article names that characterize their content with such loaded terminology. Surely a less loaded title can be found? -- Scjessey (talk) 19:56, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Sure, let's also find a "less loaded title" for 9/11 conspiracy theories, Apollo Moon Landing hoax conspiracy theories and Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories while we're about it. We use the term "conspiracy theories" for good and well-sourced reasons. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:00, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Apples and oranges. I'm seriously doubting your good faith too. Sceptre ^(talk) 20:02, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

"Any editor may be sanctioned by an uninvolved administrator for disruptive edits, including ... assumptions of bad faith." [39] Violating article probation on a thread about your violations of article probation is not a good idea. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:12, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Doubting good faith isn't the same as assuming bad faith. Otherwise, you could be topic-banned too. Sceptre ^(talk) 20:30, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

The difference is that you have already more than adequately demonstrated bad faith through your conduct, as documented by the diffs I posted above. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:46, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Difficult situation. Sceptre has clearly been seeking some kind of conflict. He could have let it drop here after not getting blocked for move-waring, the page was move protected, and yet another time-wasting discussion was begun on the relevant talk page. But he insisted on keeping it here. He lied (a hard, but accurate, word in this case) about a "rough consensus" for his original move when there in fact there had been no discussion on it whatsoever recently and past discussions, which he participated in, ended in a consensus not to change. He's being flip now, and obtusely seeking to use BLP in a manner that would make it impossible to describe any conspiracy theory on the planet as such. He's shown no indication that he's willing to work within the rules and framework here (at least when they don't suit his own interests). And (according to his block log) he's a guy who's had a lot of last chances. However, I don't know that he's sought to rename the article before (doesn't show in the logs, but i'm not that savvy; maybe those get purged unlike regular edits?) and hasn't edit-wared over content there (at least not recently). Maybe he gets a strict warning not to make any possibly controversial edits without support on the talk page over there and if he fails in that, then just give him a nice long timeout. Maybe a further proviso that he can't propose a name change more frequently than once a year.Bali ultimate (talk) 19:56, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Sadly, there isn't and the current title is the most accurate. If you see something in there that is not considered a conspiracy theory, then remove it. Brothejr (talk) 19:58, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

For the fiftieth time, where are the sources for Fessler and the Tennessee representatives? Sceptre ^(talk) 19:59, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

That their actions have been linked to a conspiracy theory? The sources are used and cited in the relevant section of the article. I made helpful edit summaries "for sceptre tktkt" when i added the quotes.Bali ultimate (talk) 20:03, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

No, that they're conspiracy theorists. That's how high the bar needs to be set. Guilt by asssociation is unacceptable for Wikipedia. Sceptre ^(talk) 20:07, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

What nonesense. No one is calling them "conspiracy theorists." The article says that they appear by their actions to believe there is some merit (i use appear because maybe they're doing and saying things they don't believe to be disruptive, time-wasting, score cheap political points etc...) to what a preponderance of reliable sources describe as "conspiracy theories." There is no guilt by association. They openly state and do things consistent with the things called "conspiracy theories." And on this note, i support a topic ban or other steps that might curtail your ongoing disruption.Bali ultimate (talk) 20:11, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

And what the article says violates BLPs. We need concrete sources that show they believe in this theory. Stringing together the facts that they want Obama's birth certificate to be released, and that some people who want Obama's birth certificate to be released are conspiracy theorists, to imply that they're giving merit to the theory is synthesis and is prohibited per BLP. Sceptre ^(talk) 20:23, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

As someone who has been totally uninvolved looking at this, I agree that it has gotten woefully out of hand. I see sources listed in the article that have already associated the actions with conspiracy theory even for the protested individuals, so I don't see a BLP problem. I agree that ending the debate and moving on is appropriate, and that the issue can be raised again in a few months or if there is new information on the topic that suggests a change. To paraphrase an old yarn, "the problem with consensus is that sometimes the other guy wins." There are many other things to be done on Wikipedia, and the world does not end if Wikipedia is wrong. SDY (talk) 20:02, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I would certainly like to move on but the problem is that Sceptre has not allowed anyone to move on. Every time a consensus has been reached or (so we thought) a dispute settled, Sceptre has waited a few weeks before reopening the issue again. This can only be resolved by Sceptre either voluntarily agreeing to disengage from the article (which he's showing no signs of doing) or for him to be topic-banned for violating the article probation, which he has unquestionably done. Or of course he could simply be blocked. Which do you prefer, Sceptre? -- ChrisO (talk) 20:09, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose. I'm against a topic ban in this case, for reasons explained by Scjessey and others. However, I would recommend to Sceptre that edit-warring is not very useful, and that posting at the BLP Noticeboard might be a more useful pursuit. I agree that there is a very serious BLP problem here. The fringetard conspiracy theorists are being emphasized in the article title, to the exclusion of people who merely believe that a clause in the U.S. Constitution should be enforced more actively. So, it's basically a smear job, and Sceptre is right to be concerned. As far as the Tennessee representatives are concerned, a source says they are continuing a conspiracy against Obama, not that they are theorizing any conspiracy by Obama (and one of those representatives merely speculated that some unnamed people might view them as conspiracy theorists). Sceptre, would you please indicate that the edit-warring has ended? Thanks.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:10, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

  I kind of find the concepts of edit warring and BLP enforcement to be mutually exclusive. I do agree, though, that I should have gone to the talk after the first move back. Still, what people are missing in this thread is being bold. I thought that there was a rough consensus that the title, in its current form, was not the best title, and given BLP concerns regarding Fessler and the TN representatives, that gave me the justification to move it. Sceptre ^(talk) 20:23, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

  Well, given your history, you're unlikely to get a break here unless you acknowledge that you were way out of line. There was no consensus to change the title, and being bold has nothing to do with edit-warring.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:35, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

  I don't do forced apologies, as I don't think they're sincere. I will say that I acted like a bit of a cock and made a rash mistake, because that's true. Mind you, if I said I was out of line, someone's bound to jump on that and say, "he admitted he was disruptive! Topic ban him!" Sceptre ^(talk) 20:43, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to remind Ferrylodge that SCOTUS disagrees with you about whether or not the constitution was sufficiently enforced; the actiosn of lesser representatives after the fact is without constitutional argument merits as a result. Off topic, no state can pass a law making the requirements for candidacy for federal office more stringent, a fact that any sitting representative at state or federal level ought to know. This is all theater for the right wingers desperately grasping their straws by politicians hungering for votes and favors. ThuranX (talk) 23:19, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

This probably isn't the place to get into detail about that. Suffice it to say that the Constitution gives the separate states freedom to decide how presidential elections are run ("Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors....").Ferrylodge (talk) 23:27, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Completely different. Each state may determine the method of voting, but NOT place additional state laws on top of the federal constitution, which sets the eligibility of candidates. You keep building strawmen, though... ThuranX (talk) 04:09, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

If a thirty-year-old seeks to get on the presidential ballot in a state, the state is perfectly entitled to pass a law requiring proof of age, given that the constitutional minimum age is 35. If you dispute that, fine, but it's the simple truth.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:19, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

• Comment As a reminder of history, Sceptre was permanently banned from Wikipedia in 2008, for disruption. The indef block was changed to a 2 month block as a "last chance". This was extended to a 3 month block after he started socking. The block expired in December, and since then he has continued to be disruptive. You would think that a person with this history would learn to be a bit less assertive, but that doesn't seem to have happened. Looie496 (talk) 20:20, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

That's interesting. See the discussion at [40]. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:24, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

• Topic Ban, both editors - IMO, I think a Topic ban is appropriate for both editors. It is clear that both editors are way too involved. If Chris truly has the best intrest of Wikipedia in mind, then there will be no more issue here. If Sceptre has the best intrests in mind, then he will realise that the community does not want a war over this. The community can step in during the ban and decide what should be done to the article. Sceptre may indeed be a star editor, but that is no excuse for inapproprite conduct such as edit/move warring. As editors, we need to clear our heads before we use our keyboards:) Good luck to all involved. Sephiroth storm (talk) 20:29, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

"Both editors"? I've had no involvement whatsoever in the move war and I've not edited the article in a week. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:41, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Please allow me to clarify, I mean to suggest a restriction, by consensus, for both editors to stay away from the topic, not nessesarily an administrative action. Sorry for the confusion. Sephiroth storm (talk) 20:51, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Please present evidence of disruption by ChrisO, otherwise please stike your accusations against him. Jehochman ^Talk 21:17, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

• Support - Please topic ban both User:Sceptre and User:Ferrylodge for their entirely disruptive activities at Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories. Scepter prosecuted a page move war against consensus and policy, and Ferrylodge has engaged in argumentum ad nauseum and endless talk page disruption. Please read Talk: Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories and its archives to see what's been going on there. Note: I am an involved editor, not acting as an administrator in this matter. Jehochman ^Talk 21:14, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

• Well, let's just bring out the guillotine and ban everyone. Let's ban Scjessey too, since I've just been endorsing what he's been saying.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:20, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

• What is this, the King Solomon response? Threaten to hurt both sides and see which one folds out of the concern for the true subject? Bah. This is a melodramatic situation. Such ultimate responses are unneeded. Come on Jehochman. This can't be -that- crazy yet. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:25, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - Well, consensus, now and in the dozen other times this has been brought up, is rather clearly against removing the "conspiracy theories" from the title. A topic ban would probably depend on what Sceptre plans to do at the article once the move protection expires. Tarc (talk) 21:40, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

  I can adapt to it. I've recognised that the page won't be deleted, hence why I've stopped nominating it for AFD. I should point out I'm didn't remove "conspiracy theories", I added "and legal challenges". Sceptre ^(talk) 21:57, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I think it's pretty clear that he has no intention of abiding by the consensus decision and has gone past the line from "bold" to "too bold" (Thank you, Mr. Spenser). His point isn't entirely ridiculous, consensus can come to a bad decision if the participating editors are biased, but that's why we have mechanisms like requests for comment, the BLP noticeboard, and arbitration (unless, of course, the whole world is against you). Disruptive editing is not the solution to an unacceptable outcome, and it should be punished in some fashion if it has taken place. A topic ban appears to be appropriate if the allegations listed here are confirmed. SDY (talk) 22:09, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Just curious, is there any official written Wikipedia policy which allows positive contributions to serve as protection from repercussions for disruptive editing? I was simply wondering if it had ever been formally articulated. If not, doing so genuinely might be a good idea, as long as it includes limits to how many times it could be used. arimareiji (talk) 22:28, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

IAR allows you to screw the rules (affluence not required), but whether you can get away with it depends on how popular you are. Sceptre ^(talk) 22:32, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

There isn't anything formal, but that doesn't mean that it's not taken into account. I'd strongly oppose a formal guideline, since some people would use it as a license to be disruptive. SDY (talk) 22:34, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

If it can be openly referred to as a reason to protect someone from repercussions, as it has been several times in this thread, then it would seem nothing is lost by bringing it all the way out into the open. In fact, there could be substantial gain if doing so allows a limit to be placed on how many times this defense can be used. At present, it seems there is no limit - and that goes a long way toward driving away other positive contributors. arimareiji (talk) 22:52, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I see your point, but I still think it would be ill-advised. Maintaining and enforcing such a system would be a massive drain on resources too, since the quality of edits is not something that is easily judged and the volume of edits often means little. SDY (talk) 23:44, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I was a little bit too bold, but I will abide by a consensus decision that's in line with BLP. I'm trying to do so on the talk page, and we're getting there (by discussing removing tenuous paragraphs, instead of moving), but there's still some work to do. I think everyone got a little too heated earlier on and we're hopefully settling down now. I think that topic banning me would damage the efforts to improve the article; doubly so seeing as Scjessey's quit the discussion in disgust. Oh, and ArbCom don't rule on content. Sceptre ^(talk) 22:27, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Not directly, no, but they would intervene in cases where it's obvious that someone is acting based on motivations other than improving the article (certainly a possibility on political topics). SDY (talk) 22:34, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

That simply isn't good enough, Sceptre. You've already appointed yourself as the sole arbiter of what is "in line with BLP". You've already stated your intention to disregard any consensus that you feel doesn't follow BLP. You've justified all your actions to date in the name of BLP. You've repeatedly rejected consensus decisions because you deem them incompatible with BLP. And despite everything that's been said so far, you still haven't stepped away from the article. Do you really want this to go to arbitration - not for a content ruling, but to put your conduct under a microscope, with your past conduct coming up for review as well? -- ChrisO (talk) 23:16, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break: "Disruptive conduct by Sceptre"

I support a one month topic ban. Long enough for Sceptre to cool off about this topic and build interests in the areas in which Wikipedia benefits. Otherwise, I suspect it will be well under a month when we see the 'Sceptre causing problems on Obama CT page again' AN/I. ThuranX (talk) 23:19, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Whoa Chris, Why don't we give Sceptre a chance here? Give him the chance to abide by the BLP descision and work out the articles issues. If continues to "disrupt" the activities, then feel free to take other measures. Sephiroth storm (talk) 23:56, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd suggest you re-read what he's written above: "I will abide by a consensus decision that's in line with BLP". His approach all along has been to reject consensus because it doesn't accord with his personal views on BLP. After his two AfDs and one DRV were rejected, he made this approach clear in the article (see edit summary here) and only a few hours ago on his own talk page [41]. He's literally promised to do nothing differently to what he's already done, since he's justified all his actions to date - including the move war - in the name of BLP (see edit summaries here and here). His "in line with BLP" clause is nothing more than a get out of jail free card. Note that he's given himself room to ignore consensus if it's not "in line with BLP" in his judgment. That is how we've got into this problem in the first place. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:13, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

That's because, if there's a consensus decision that's not in line with BLP, BLP will always win out. You can't make a consensus decision to defame someone. Sceptre ^(talk) 00:18, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

If the consensus is that it isn't defamation, what then? SDY (talk) 00:21, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Exactly right, SDY. Sceptre, the point that you are consistently missing - or ignoring - is that you are setting yourself up as the sole arbiter of what meets BLP and other Wikipedia policies. If there is a consensus of other editors that something meets the requirements of BLP, then it's not your place to override that consensus. When the AfDs and DRV rejected your position, your response was to festoon the article with tags and declare "AFD stupidity does not override NPOV and FRINGE". You've made no attempt to go to the BLP noticeboard. When you raised the issue at the fringe theories noticeboard you were told that the article was created as a result of a discussion on the noticeboard, to which you replied: "You've got to be fucking kidding me, right? ... Jesus Christ, was everyone's brains on holiday that day?" The consistent theme is that you believe that you are right and everyone else is wrong, and that if consensus comes to a decision with which you disagree, you are empowered to ignore it and act against it. That's a canonical sign of disruptive editing: "Rejects community input: resists moderation and/or requests for comment, continuing to edit in pursuit of a certain point despite an opposing consensus from impartial editors and/or administrators." -- ChrisO (talk) 00:31, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

You raise an interesing point here. I think the point is that a consensus to keep content in an article, and a consensus that said content doesn't violate our policies, are not necessarily the same thing. Take, for an example I know of, the South Park episode "Volcano". An AfD could plausibly end in a "keep", but that doesn't make it not a violation of WP:NOT#PLOT. Transplant this onto the conspiracy theory article: a consensus could end up in keeping the content, but that doesn't automatically make it not a violation of BLP. It would be best to focus the discussion on whether the content is BLP-compliant, not whether it should be kept. Otherwise, we run around in circles. The reason why I keep harping on on the talk page is that no-one's given me a reasonable explanation on how the stuff about especially the TN representatives and Fessler are BLP compliant. Most of the replies tend to use circular logic, or at the very least, detours to answer the question. By the way, I won't move the article again rashly, but I will advocate for strict BLP enforcement on the talk page. If only for the fact that we screwed up articles about the last president, and we don't want to do it for this president. Sceptre ^(talk) 00:36, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

That doesn't answer my question. If consensus is that it is not a BLP violation, will you abide by that consensus? SDY (talk) 00:42, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Although that's an academic question, because there's no consensus either way. And there's no consensus on what "no consensus" defaults to regarding BLPs, funnily enough. Sceptre ^(talk) 00:50, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

It's not an academic question. Are you willing to accept a decision that you do not agree with if consensus is against you? If you always claim that there is no consensus when you don't agree with it, then a block is probably the best option. If you are willing to work with other editors and concede defeat when consensus is against you, then I don't see a reason for any administrative action. SDY (talk) 01:28, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

The BLP policy says that the burden of evidence is on people who wish to add or restore information, rather than on people who wish to remove it. In other words, consensus is required to retain information, and if there is no such consensus then removal is acceptable even if there is no consensus to remove. I'll leave it to you to figure out how all of that applies under present circumstances.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:37, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

That is a pretty fanciful twisting of policy there. What we have here is a user who lied about there being "rough consensus" to move the article, and when challenged, came up with "OMG BLP!" BLP is obviously an important policy to adhere to, but like WP:AGF it is oftentimes raised as a shield, or cudgel, to get one's way when other methods have failed. Suffice it to say, the claim of BLP violations was met with deep skepticism by most of those who participated in today's discussion. It is up to Sceptre, and you if you choose, to overcome that skepticism. Not the other way around, I'm afraid. Tarc (talk) 04:25, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

There are real BLP violations occurring at this article (including by the admin who started this thread), and being reverted.[42] This incident with Sceptre raises the interesting question about what happens if an article title contains a BLP violation. There was no consensus to change the title, but also no consensus to restore it after Sceptre changed it. Anyway, I've already agreed that Spectre shouldn't have edit-warred about it. Sceptre said at this page: "I should have gone to the talk after the first move back….I acted like a bit of a cock and made a rash mistake." So, there seems to be some contrition.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:37, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Wow, I must say this is the most interesting conversation I've had to date on Wikipedia, I'm please to be participating. So it appears we need to find a consensus on the BLP status of the article. That should be step one, correct? AFTER we have done so, we can see what happens and take action, IF nessesary. Sephiroth storm (talk) 03:41, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

• As many know, I worded/proposed/enacted Obama probation after a lot of time and effort - so if my words end up deaf ears, then this will end up at RFArb, which is not good news for anyone.
• I'd like to make a criticism on Chris O at this time prior to any further comments. Chris O, in opening this subsection, you've gone against what Obama probation set out to achieve - avoid these sorts of discussions. You've either doubted ability to sanction (if you are uninvolved), you are unwilling to sanction over the merits as you have doubts as to whether you're in the right, or the final possibility is you don't use Obama probation in the same way BLP Special Enforcement is treated by much of the community. I don't know which it is.
• When BLP is used to justify certain edits or actions, they need to be considered carefully. On the other hand, using BLP to game the system is not acceptable and still qualifies as disruptive. And moves wars (and the like) definitely fall within the ambit of Obama probation.
• If you [an uninvolved admin] proceeded to sanction, this would've been so much easier; either the community would be discussing an appeal by Sceptre, or if that failed to produce a clear consensus, then it would be ArbCom considering an appeal by Sceptre (which is all that is necessary if you're not interested in a total ban on Sceptre).
• Now we're here, it's unlikely that this will be resolved without going to ArbCom. I'm not ruling out the possibility of resolution, but it is much more difficult to achieve unless the community outright agree/disagree with you. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:17, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid you're missing the obvious points: as an involved administrator the article probation forbids me from sanctioning him myself (which I would certainly have done otherwise), and the probation page specifically says: "Please direct all discussions of this remedy to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents", which is exactly what I've done here. If the community is unable to agree on how to deal with clear-cut violations of a community sanction, then ArbCom is inevitable - but that's the community's failing, not mine or yours. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:44, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I've struck a large chunk of what I said above; I misread a few earlier comments - apologies! Thank you for politely clarifying, and I agree; if the community can't deal witih an issue, then ArbCom is inevitable. I will also note at this point that this isn't a view either way on Sceptres conduct; just comments with respect to how the remedy should've worked in this sort of incident if an uninvolved admin shared similar concerns. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:31, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Irfan Yusuf

Resolved

 – Blocked per NLT. — neuro^(talk) 19:47, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I've edited this article to try and make it more NPOV, but may have overdone it. The situation involves user_talk:Irfsol who identifies himself as the subject of the article and who has edited the article [43] and who has contacted user_talk:Michellecrisp complaining of defamation [44] [45]. I'm posting it here for wider consideration of the issues involved and to garner additional attention to watch the article. Thanks. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:40, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Everything you added was either already sourced, or sourced by you, so I don't see any issues myself. I added the article to my watchlist in case of any potential removal of cited content.-- Darth Mike  (join the dark side) 19:34, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

This lawyer had already been warned last year of our "No legal threats" policy. After examining his latest screed, I had to block him for violating it. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:36, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Did he actually threaten legal action? I think he said he would mention it to his publisher, but I didn't see an actual legal threat. But perhaps what he said was enough to violate the policy. I am new to those issues. Anyway, thank you both for your consideration. I agree this is resolved.ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:42, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Orange Mike, wasn't that his professional address? I am not so convinced of the validity of the block. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 20:05, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment after resolution The history here shows that user:Michellecrisp as far back as December last year was trying to stop continued attempts for the blocked editor Irfsol to have her contact him, and explains why. It appears improper to me that he continue to address her user page as late as a few days ago, providing further information clearly designed to have her contact him. I also note that Michellecrisp has not edited since Mid-January making it even more perplexing why he continue to address her in this manner. I was of two minds to provide the block myself but chose to remove the two lots of information from Irfsol on Michellecrisp page in the first instance (before I saw this thread). That said I can see the link between Michelle's summation of the request and Orange Mike's action. I support that action.--VS ^talk 23:08, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the background information Steve. Fair enough. I've also reviewed the article today and found nothing problematic thanks to user:ChildofMidnight's recent edits backed by reliable sources. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 11:47, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

A very large and widespread CopyVio problem

• GrahamBould (talk · contribs)

I am an editor in WikiProject Gastropods. I discovered on March 7th, first posted March 8th, that we currently have a very major CopyVio problem which is spread across a huge number of gastropod articles (approximately 800 to 1,000) and which also spills over into many (?hundreds?) of articles on the other molluscan groups. It appears that all (or nearly all) of the articles in the Category:Molluscs of New Zealand contain (in all or almost all cases right from the start) a lot of text that is copied verbatim or almost verbatim from a 1979 book by Powell, New Zealand Mollusca.

Unfortunately none of us in the Project have a copy of the book (which is uncommon outside New Zealand) otherwise this copying would have been caught a long time ago. I think that the creation of new articles with copied material has been going on for approximately 3 years. I asked the editor responsible for this about that possibility more than a year ago, on the 26th February 2008, in a message entitled "Doto pita and others" where I gave him a link to the WP Copyrights guideline, and quoted part of those guidelines in my message... but somehow he managed to sidestep the question while making it look like a no.

On March 7th 2009 I was able to quickly consult a copy of the book at a museum I was visiting in another State. I was able to examine a few species entries and compare them directly to the Wp articles. As soon as I had confirmed the copying, I told the editor responsible for this ( User:GrahamBould ) on 8th March 2009. Although he admitted he had copied, and agreed to work on fixing the articles, in the last 5 or 6 days he has not really made useful contributions in starting to fix this problem, despite several suggestions from me and another editor. An hour ago today I tried to alert everyone on Project Gastropods to how serious the situation is. The other editors are still replying to me as I write this. I do not need to tell you that this is an urgent problem of great magnitude.

I imagine that perhaps we may have to simply start the process of blanking some but not all of the content in all of those articles, possibly by using a bot? Doing it by hand may I imagine take too long because there are so many articles and this needs to be addressed urgently.

Of course I was not able to check all of the articles against the book, (it seems I may possibly be able to borrow a copy of the book for a few weeks, in a few weeks' time), but my general impression is that the majority of the text is copied verbatim or almost verbatim. However, as far as I can tell:

• The taxoboxes and photos are OK, although the taxonomy is totally out of date. The first sentence in each article is OK. Maybe the size info at the end of the description is OK. Any info that was subsequently added by other contributors is very likely to be no problem at all.

Very best wishes, Invertzoo (talk) 22:36, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I've advertised this thread in a few relevant places. Dcoetzee 22:58, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Maybe a bot can tag all those pages with {{copyvio}} and then editors can check the articles afterwards, now the copyvio text has been blanked from view? SoWhy 23:12, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, my. I'm inclined to second SoWhy's suggestion; the important thing is to block publication of them immediately for full clean-up. (Coincidentally, I'm in the process of trying to build a WikiProject for just this sort of thing at User:Moonriddengirl/WikiProject Copyright Cleanup.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:13, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, this being the consensus I will proceed with automatic tagging of the category. Might want to examine User:GrahamBould's other contributions and interview him about other sources he may have copied. Dcoetzee 23:16, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Can your script (I hope that's the right word) work for listing his contributions? Is there any way to exclude those that are in the category? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:21, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I've added the user links above; the relevant diff where he acknowledges copying is here. It would be very nice to get hold of somebody with the book. Perhaps Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange can help. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:26, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I've placed a request at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Resource Exchange#Potential massive copyright infringement; can your project help?. For further clarity, here is the February 2008 post where User:Invertzoo first broached the topic: [46]. Here is the partial response admitting one infringement (from a different source than Powell): [47]. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:41, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Just to let you know I'm doing a ContributionSurveyor run on GrahamBould, but it'll take several hours as he has over 26000 edits. Filtering out the articles from this category tree would be straightfoward. Dcoetzee 02:05, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Compliments to all on the fast response. I'd support a ban of the editor in question for his actions. ThuranX (talk) 23:28, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Barring a very good response here, I suspect I do too. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:42, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Don't be hasty. I suspect this is not intentional, as in a deliberate action to copyvio. He must give a comprehensive response soon tho, or events might overtake him. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 23:50, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I will be interested in hearing from the contributor, but I don't know how he would be able to justify continuing to infringe after being notified in February 2008 that this was inappropriate, should it prove that articles such as this also copy from that source. If he infringed accidentally, I do not know why he would not have admitted this over a year ago and taken efforts to rectify the error then. --Moonriddengirl2 (talk) 00:04, 14 March 2009 (UTC)yes, the same user :)

. Events have indeed overtaken him, because he has been indef blocked, which might discourage him from giving an explanation. You say he was notified Feb 08 he was acting inappropriately. I couldn't find anything relevant on his talk page for Feb 08. Back to my barbie. Hot enough for the T-bone. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 03:15, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

[48]. (The link is above, but this is already sprawling, and I'm sure it's easily missed. :)) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:58, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Related discussion solving Gastropoda afected articles is at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Gastropods#A very large and widespread CopyVio problem! and other general tasks can still be solved here. --Snek01 (talk) 00:10, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Update: I'm now automatically tagging all articles in the category tree as copyvio from the stated source (see Special:Contributions/DcoetzeeBot. Took longer than I thought, haven't done editing against the API before and got hung up on idiosynchrasies of cookie manangement. :-P Dcoetzee 01:49, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

The articles have been edited since their creation, I cannot see how this is a copyvio. The allegation of copyvio is one editors view, isn't this response a bit excessive? cygnis insignis 02:26, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

The contributor says, here, "Yes, you are right about copying." That would seem to me to move it beyond one editor's view. --Moonriddengirl2 (talk) 02:34, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I was heading over there to ask him to weigh in, but after seeing he'd been warned a year ago and continued, I decided to block him indefinitely. Please review. Blueboy96 02:54, 14 March 2009 (UTC) Ooops, after seeing he's probably in bed now and hasn't had a chance to respond, I've unblocked pending an explanation. Blueboy96 06:20, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Please calm down. There was only one sentence written by GrahamBould in New Zealand mud snail. (LOOK AT THE ARTICLE!) I corrected it. I believe that there are only certain books we need to find out in GrahamBould's edits. If we discover copyvio, do we need to tag it immediatelly or do we have a time to correction? There is always necessary to look in history and delete only one or two captions. It is necessary to do manually. How much time do we (members of wikiproject gastropods) have to manually remove all copyvios while we know now that they were here years? --Snek01 (talk) 02:59, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

The point of blanking before review is because there are so many. Once they are blanked, we don't have to worry about infringement; they can be investigated and cleaned. That's why the bot is blanking these articles pending investigation. Ordinarily, copyright articles are blanked for eight days before closure, but exceptions are routinely made for clean-up or verification of permission. I'm very sorry for the hardship that this is causing your project, but very glad that your project is proactive and willing to undertake it. (Sorry if I'm not eloquent; it's late for me, but I didn't want to leave you hanging. :)) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 03:09, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

(LOL, I am happy for simple English. Maybe you are lucky I do not know what is "leave you hanging".) I am not good in English, what does this mean? "copyright articles are blanked for eight days before closure." What is the closure? --Snek01 (talk) 03:28, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

To 'Leave you hanging' means to put a person in the position of awaiting, for a undue amount of time, an answer which they feel is important. ThuranX (talk) 04:05, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

See also wikt:leave_somebody_hanging. Dcoetzee 04:26, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for the use of an unfamiliar idiom. :) That defined, closure is when an administrator looks at an article that has been tagged as a copyright problem and determines what needs to be done with it. Sometimes, an article is deleted. Sometimes, the content is rewritten. As I said above, this deadline is routinely pushed back when circumstances require. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:01, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

What were the criteria for DcoetzeeBot, that was tagging articles? Are all articles according to chosen criteria tagged? It was stupid to tag articles including taxobox, because there can not be copyrighted material in taxobox and now articles do not provide information. I suggest to not remove taxoboxes next time. --Snek01 (talk) 03:38, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

• [ec] My goodness! There is no reason to assume anything but good faith that I can see. Can I draw attention to the point made by Invertzoo above: The taxoboxes and photos are OK, ... The first sentence in each article is OK. Maybe the size info at the end of the description is OK. Any info that was subsequently added by other contributors is very likely to be no problem at all. and was not able to check all of the articles against the book. Who else has compared the text to the articles to confirm the extent of any copyright. In the stubs I have seen this would leave around 5 - 10 words that may be a copyvio. cygnis insignis 03:42, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
• Sorry, I did not mean to remove the taxoboxes, I will fix them. It tagged all articles in the Category:Molluscs of New Zealand category hierarchy. The tags are a temporary measure to hide the copyvio content while the articles are being reviewed. Dcoetzee 03:50, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Administrators need to be aware of the following. A suggestion was made on the project page to use a bot to tweak the wording and I think user:cygnis insignis's changes to janthina janthina are a manual implemetation of the same idea. Concealing a copyright violation is worse than the current situation. wp:copyvio is quite clear, the offending content needs to be removed and replaced, not concealed. Celestra (talk) 04:25, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. Merely tweaking, or even rewriting phrase by phrase, the content is not sufficient. (This is a different issue from the copyvio template hiding the content, which is standard procedure.) Dcoetzee 04:30, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Huh! Is there a problem with the article now? Have I made it worse? cygnis insignis 04:39, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

And are you suggesting that I am a "clever contributor [who] gets out their thesaurus and changes things around a bit" by advertising your essay? cygnis insignis 05:14, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

No, I have not examined your changes or the project page. Celestra may be misrepresenting the situation. However, I am concerned that you removed the copyvio template, and left some potential copyvio material introduced by GrahamBould in the article, such as the Habitat section. I strongly suggest letting these articles be processed by standard procedure. Dcoetzee 05:22, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying that, Dcoetzee, you might be better positioned to find a solution to the issue here if you had reviewed the current circumstances. Now, what have you to say Celestra? cygnis insignis 05:27, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I now have reviewed the suggestion on the project thread and it is out of the question; this would constitute close paraphrasing ("superficial modification of the text") and not eliminate any concerns of copyright violation. It'll be a long time before anyone can write a bot intelligent enough to substantially rephrase written material. Please be calm; the articles will be reviewed and cleaned up in a timely manner, and the contributions of others will not be removed. Dcoetzee 05:36, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

What sort of timely manner are we talking about? I'm curious in general whether the copyright violations should be allowed to stand on Wikipedia for any amount of time, even in the history of the article, although I don't know what the rules are for this. The times I have run into copyright violations they have been removed from the edit history completely. The articles can be rewritten with no text except for the taxobox and a line saying the species is a mollusc from New Zealand, or at the family level preferably. Could this be done with a bot? How about, Cadulus colubridens is a mollusc in the class Scaphopoda?

Anyway, I rewrote one article, Cadulus colubridens based on the source used by the book author, the book read over the phone by a friend, and I added a brief bio on the authority, Robert Boog Watson (maybe a bot can run through the taxoboxes where he's mentioned). It took a lot of time to research and write. I am wondering in how timely a fashion such an extensive copyright violation can be removed. I'm not a mollusc expert, only rarely editing their articles, so possibly other editors specializing in this area see this task as requiring less time. --KP Botany (talk) 07:54, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Some users are quite dedicated rewriters of copyvio articles, but more typical is stubification. I haven't heard of stubification being automated before, but that's actually not a bad idea. I could automate that based on Taxobox material (where available), but I'll want to see what User:Moonriddengirl thinks first, as she might hope to salvage more of them. Dcoetzee 08:11, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

My preference for bot-stubifying is just that there are so many with such a substantial total copyright violation sitting on the encyclopedia. I guess it is one thing to have Wikipedia the holder of 3 pages from a book, but to be the holder of a large volume of a single work might be an issue of greater concern. Possibly Moonriddengirl, if she intends to rewrite many of them, could just work from the stubs plus taxoboxes? However, her input on the general possibility of rewriting so many and the volume of the copyright might be useful. --KP Botany (talk) 08:30, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

The point is that these are stubs, I am loath to point out the numerous bot generated stubs with a single source. At what point does rephrasing scientific concepts, classification, and data in a source, such as a short entry in a general work, constitute copyvio? If one is guided by your essay, which seems to be a fusion of the copyvio and plagiarism pages, any stub with a single source could be tagged this way. Or risked being being tagged as inappropriately sourced or original research. A bot assisted editor, perhaps from the project, could use a scheme (derived from consensus) to reword what seems to be only single sentences in stubs. It seems that any rewording of sentence could be shown to conflict with that essay. Has the bot corrected the mass tagging to address the specific problem, identified by Invertzoo and repeated by myself, to restore the parts of the stubs that are not considered problematic? cygnis insignis 08:41, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

(Edit conflict)

I'm not following you? What essay? You're saying the stub I wrote is a fusion of the copyright violation and plagiarized works? I don't think so, but I'm not sure what you're saying. I suggest a bot could remove the material that has been largely copied from the reference by turning the article into a single line species stub with a taxobox, referencing the work. A bot generated stub with a single source is not the problem, I don't think. If it is I don't understand why. The number of sources does not matter so much as whether it is a copyright violation from the source. --KP Botany (talk) 08:52, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I was addressing Dcoetzee with that remark, see the previous indented section. Apologies for misunderstanding. cygnis insignis 08:57, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

He seems to have been speaking to me. Cygnis, I repeat, the copyvio boxes are a temporary measure to hide the copyvio material while the articles are under review. They may be short, but they are not the one-sentence stubs described by KP, and they contain substantial copyvio content. It is not possible (with present technology) to create a bot that can automatically remove copyright issues, or to separate GrahamBould's contributions from those of others. The people who deal with copyright problems will clean them up in a timely manner, without removing your contributions, and then the tags will be removed. Dcoetzee 09:01, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

My contributions not my primary concern, the improvement of our document is. Can you please answer my questions above, taking some time to consider my take on copyright and copywriting scientific stubs. Your assertions regarding "rephrasing" would seem to have potentially wide-ranging implications. cygnis insignis 09:28, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I think I know what I'm being unclear about here, Cygnis; your edits to Janthina janthina to repair parts of the "Description" section were definitely a step in the right direction - my main complaint is that you removed the copyvio tag before the other sections were corrected. Additionally, the selection and order (or format) of presentation of the facts was not altered; it was a sentence-by-sentence rewording. It's better than it was before, but it's not done and I'd appreciate it if you would restore the tag until it's been reviewed, according to standard process. Dcoetzee 09:16, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

That content was substantially contributed by me, from another source. I crosschecked the facts with at least 5 other online sources. The article barely resembled the stub created by the user in question, and that was before I returned to it today. I removed the tag and immediately fixed it, what is your complaint? I reworded the original contribution to absolutely remove any question of cv, why on earth would I put the tag back? Please consider and answer my questions above. cygnis insignis 09:38, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

These animals are really well known and interesting, with much of the same basic information written about them in many sources. I've added some of the more interesting information that is often omitted in the most general articles about Janthina janthina, and it now just needs a bit of effort to group and order it well for the reader. For this organism which is well known and extensively studied, focusing now on getting a good article might be worthwhile.

For the other articles, I would like to see them mostly stubified, simply because there are too many for any small group of editors to check, and the cumulative volume of the copyrighted material on Wikipedia is great.

Part of the issue with scientific information is that the order of presentation and the level of information within that is somewhat standardized, even on Wikipedia the organism groups may have guidelines that reflect this, the distribution, habitat, ecology, include certain details depending upon depth of article. This is why natural history guides to organisms often look so much alike, or so I discovered writing similar information: the authors use the same primary references to the organism, outline the information the same way, and have similar defaults to the breadth of the description sections. --KP Botany (talk) 10:05, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

←I think we should probably move this conversation elsewhere, except with respect to issues that do require admin intervention. The contributor's response to this issue, for instance, is of relevance here. I have crafted a reply to some of the points above at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Gastropods#ANI conversation and am trying to gather some way of moving forward there. But I do have one burning curiosity that I think I need to address here: I don't know what's going to happen when DumbBot tries to list all those tagged articles on CP tomorrow, as it will. Is it going to break the 'pedia? or just CP? Or is it all going to be okay? :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:49, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I want to greatly thank all of the admins who rallied around in an attempt to address this major problem. it is a great relief to have it be at least somewhat addressed, rather than all just resting in my hands as it has been for quite a while. At the WikiProject Gastropods talk page [49] and probably on a new subpage there, a few of us will try to work out what realistically we can try to do in terms of rewriting. If at some point we decide to give up and delete some or many of the offending articles, we will be back in contact with this group again. My very best wishes to you all, Invertzoo (talk) 14:28, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Canadian Relations in Africa

My articles Angola · Benin · Botswana · Burkina Faso · Burundi · Cape Verde · Central African Republic · Chad · Democratic Republic of the Congo · Republic of the Congo · Côte d'Ivoire (Ivory Coast) · Djibouti · Equatorial Guinea · Eritrea · Gabon · The Gambia were deleted by Fram (talk · contribs) i understand why but i know my self it was not copy paste i had rewritten it from the internet article so it wouldn't be copyright. Basically what i am request is if someone can restore the pages to my sandbox so i can edit them to be accepted as not copy paste. My intent was never to violate and copyright issues and i'm hopeing i can be able to fix it with your help. Cheers and sorry if this is in the wrong place Kyle1278 (talk) 05:23, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Be careful with the phrase "my articles" as WP:OWN is never a good thing! (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 10:05, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

User has also raised this at WP:AN#Canadian Relations in Africa where Tony Fox has advised him that the articles are still too close to the original, with only a few words changed, and that he should rewrite from scratch or else go to DRV. JohnCD (talk) 11:14, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Ahhh, so WP:COPYRIGHT + WP:OWN + WP:Forum shopping = WP:MISTAKES (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 12:03, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

98.165.129.90 on Chester Bennington

Over the past week or so, 98.165.129.90 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has persisted on adding unsourced additions to the Chester Bennington article. The IP user has been prompted to cite the source of the information but has failed to despite multiple requests. I have further looked into the matter by following the IP's suggestion - searching the Arizona Secretary of State and performing a few searches on google - neither search turned up anything that supports the anons claims. I issued one severe warning, followed by a final warning, which have specifically mentioned WP:Cite, WP:Verify, and WP:RS. I am requesting input or appropriate actions--  StarScream1007  ►Talk  06:54, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

A quick look at the ip's contribs and their talkpage indicates that they are disruptively adding the same uncited content, and that they have been adequately warned about doing so. Should they violate the last warning, report them to WP:AIV for admin action. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:55, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

ScienceApologist ban

Resolved

 – No admin action required. Summary given. If anyone else wants to comment, then please use Peter Damian's talk page. I'm sure that even banned users can be given a basic courtesy that they won't be spoken about in this venue, unless absolutely necessary.

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

I appreciate there is a large and long-winded thread above that mentions aspects of this ban. Is there a way of summarising in a precise and coherent way the events that led up to the ban, and the incident that precipitated it, i.e. its proximate cause? Thanks. I also started a thread on the alternative ANI about this. Peter Damian (talk) 12:26, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Fringe theorists and their ilk prevail; Wikipedia credibility suffers, film at 11. HiDrNick! 12:41, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Really, it's comments like this that prolong the drama. When everyone takes their turn doing potshots, hackles get raised and it prevents a lack of civil discussion and consensus. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 12:51, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for these comments but these are opinions which do not answer my question: what were the events &c which led up to the ban. A very short summary required only. Thanks. Peter Damian (talk) 12:52, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Simple, a variety of his past actions/behavior had been questioned and led to the fringe arbcom case. From there he was given a six month fringe ban where he was only allowed to talk on the fringe talk pages, but not edit any of the articles. Soon after being informed this, he decided to push the limits and started editing fringe articles (correcting spelling mistakes) even though he knew that could be considered gaming the system and even wikiwillring (SP). He was blocked for 24 for evading his ban, by editing said fringe articles. During this time, the ban was clarified to mean that he was not to edit any fringe articles at all, including small spelling edits. However, his comments on his talk page and again gaming the system by editing an article, that while he was given permission to edit, was very close to being a fringe article, led to a review of the ban. After the review, the Arbcom committee decided to impose a further ban on editing anything in Wikipedia for three months due to his behavior after the first fringe ban and his first ban will restart after he comes off the three month ban. Brothejr (talk) 13:00, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Some people make things up out of whole cloth and call it 'science'. People who know real science, or even just people who dont like making shit up, try to keep an encyclopedia full of, you know, *facts*. SA got banned. Also, he was kind of a dick, so he made it easy. Sums it up. -M^ask? 13:04, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

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

MZMcBride continuing automated deletions despite injunction

Resolved

 – 44 manually reviewed deletions in a minute is quite possible with tabbed browsing. –xeno (talk)

MZMcBride is continuing to make automated deletions [50] despite the ArbCom injunction [51]:

MZMcBride is directed to refrain from using automated tools (including bots and scripts) to delete pages or nominate them for deletion while this arbitration case is pending. This is a temporary injunction and does not reflect any predetermination on the outcome of any issue in the case. This temporary injunction shall take effect immediately. Passed 9 to 0 at 23:52, 6 March 2009 (UTC}

-- Norvy (talk) 20:34, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I would say the user is highly abusive in reguards to editing wikipedia. However, I'm not aware of any way to check to see if an IP is a shared IP. Maybe an Admin can look into this. User is currently blocked. Sephiroth storm (talk) 20:36, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Load forty tabs on Special:Delete, then go through them quickly. Undiscernable from a bot. Mind you, I recall Beta doing that and still being sanctioned... Sceptre ^(talk) 20:39, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

The Arbitration Committee is aware of this thread. MZMcBride had previously noted on his talkpage that his recent deletions have been manual, not automated. If anyone believes there is concrete reason to dispute this, or if any of the deletions are actually problematic, evidence can be presented in the arbitration case. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:40, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

@Newyorkbrad: How should one be able to do 44 deletions per minute manually? :) — Aitias // discussion 22:16, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Using tabbed browsing: with tabs, I've reviewed a load of pages to delete; and even I've made close to 44 deletions in a minute, and they've all been manual. I haven't done it for a long time, however. Acalamari 22:57, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Just curious, what's the substantive difference between using a bot to delete pages and using a tool which allows rapidly deleting swaths of pages without actually looking through them? arimareiji (talk) 21:58, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I've asked MZM to respond here. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:59, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

When you're a bot, you don't respond to questions or concerns. That's a pretty significant difference when we want our admin corp to be responsive. Cool Hand Luke 22:03, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Then it would seem the big question would be whether MZM has been responsive to questions and concerns raised about the deletions, or simply continues. And the answer probably depends on who you ask. arimareiji (talk) 22:13, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I noted these manual deletions on my talk page. (Tabs, anyone?) After I delete broken redirects, I don't usually stay on the computer for sixty hours straight in case someone has a question. All users have talk pages for a reason. Admins are supposed to be responsive, but they are allowed to do other things (like go outside), as far as I'm aware. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:47, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

• twitch* there's an outside? ;) JPG-GR (talk) 17:31, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with keeping an eye on him, but there's no reason at the moment to doubt MZMcBride is complying. The important thing about manual editing is that each action is being taken willfully and with visual examination of the page being deleted. And don't forget that with tabbed browsing the deletions are usually done in bursts after a preparatory loading and visual examination period. Dcoetzee 23:07, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Blue Lacy

Can one of you busy people have a look at Special:Contributions/Bluelacy? This seems to be an SPA with some kind of axe to grind--out of the blue they claim some sort of conspiracy theory, that some group is contaminating the entry for Blue Lacy with references to their own websites and mentions of feral pig hunting (or some such thing). User went as far as to strike out what they though to be incorrect information. I've lost my patience a bit at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blue Lacy, for which I apologize--but I really think that an admin's quick intervention is warranted here. It's obvious, I think, that AfD is not the right place for these issues, and that this brand of dog is notable enough. (Disclaimer: I have a dog too--a mutt who snores and is not the official dog of any state.) Thanks, Drmies (talk) 05:10, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Editor notified of this discussion and asked to withdraw nomination. I think they simply don't understand how Wikipedia works. dougweller (talk) 10:58, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick response, Doug. Also, I posted this late last night and totally forgot to notify the user--I apologize. Listen, I wasn't suggesting that this user is bad to the bone or something like that, but I notified them that AfD wasn't the place etc., and did not receive a response that gave me the feeling they either understood or cared to listen. I thought speedy closure of the AfD would settle at least that part. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 15:19, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

User Jersay

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

Can something be done about this editor please? He originally created Second Northern Ireland Revolt, which was unanimously deleted by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Second Northern Ireland Revolt. Since then it has been reposted at Republican Violence in Northern Ireland (where it was originally moved during the deletion discussion), Paramilitary violence in Northern Ireland, and Northern Ireland 2009 Paramilitary Conflict. Thank you. O Fenian (talk) 14:49, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Guy obviously needs a slap upside the head with the banhammer; he hasn't paid any attention to the repeated deletions or being informed why his posts are incompatible with WP policy. Ironholds (talk) 15:23, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours. Let us see if that suffices to stop the disruption. LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:41, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

He has also vandalized List of terrorist incidents, 2009 in spite of repeated warnings. Wikifan12345 (talk) 20:25, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

He's also made contentious edits to many other articles about past and present conflicts: [52] [53] [54] [55] [56], many many reversions in List of terrorist incidents, 2009, and IMHO the entire article Guadeloupe Revolution, which portrays an industrial dispute as a war. (I'll be nominating it for deletion shortly.) AlexTiefling (talk) 21:35, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Jersay removing sourced material from List of terrorist incidents, 2009

user talk:Jersay has deleted roadside bombing from List of terrorist incidents, 2009 3 times. 1, 2, 3. I left two warnings on his userpage, 1, 2. In any of the cases did he leave a summary or an explanation.

Wikifan12345 (talk) 19:37, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Jersay has been blocked for 24 hours, see the discussion a few sections above this one, here. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:50, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Urgent RFPP

Resolved

 – thanks! JohnCD (talk) 21:27, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I have posted at RFPP, but it's getting beyond a joke - could somebody please semi-protect John Fenzel and The Lazarus Covenant whose AfD templates have been removed ELEVEN timesand four times respectively by anonymous IPs ? JohnCD (talk) 21:01, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

OK William M. Connolley (talk) 21:04, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Battleground

I'll note this IP is using the article as a battleground against censorship and is repeatedly reinserting graphic link to illustrate a point. Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 21:59, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the link for style reasons and offered my thoughts on the talk page. The edit warring is not a positive, but I don't think it's quite as clear-cut as you make out that the website should not be included. J Milburn (talk) 22:28, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Fasach Nua

Fasach Nua (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The user was blocked briefly last fall for tendentious editing, and this month in particular has drawn increasing attention, apparently due to deleting stuff he doesn't agree with, with little or no discussion. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 18:16, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

*sigh* Did anyone on either side try discussing the issue? Sometimes I think the culture of automated tools and templates does more harm than good. henrik•talk 19:40, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

He is not deleting "stuff he doesn't agree with": he is deleting lists of Notable Players where, despite the presence of the Template:Famous players, in some cases for several months, no attempt has been made to provide any justification for the inclusion or exclusion of players in such lists. The lists are therefore Original research, and it is quite proper that they be deleted. Ample chance was given for those with an interest in these sections to improve, and thus secure, them. Kevin McE (talk) 20:23, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

The lack of discussion and edit-warring is very disappointing. However, on at least one of these articles, there is a talkpage consensus for removal of the section, and as Kevin McE points out these lists almost always fail WP:V and WP:OR.

I would suggest starting a discussion at WT:FOOTY to see if there is a consensus for a project-wide solution to these problems. Knepflerle (talk) 20:54, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I think that would be a good idea (suggested the same ting over at Fasach Nua's talk). henrik•talk 21:07, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

The tip of this iceberg for me was on the Minnesota Twins page. I would probably not favor such a list, as it's typically arbitrary, unless it's from a reliable source. However, sniping at each other in the edit summaries hardly constitutes "discussion". Stating where the alleged consensus is, in the edit summaries, might be constructive. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 22:25, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Fasach Nua's approach is unnecessarily abrasive. He won't talk with other editors unless its to make some sort of unnecessary condescending or insulting remark. Its been fairly peaceful in many respects during his absence and I'm not thrilled at the prospect of his returning to stir things up unnecessarily. Just whitewashing stuff without working it through is sloppy thoughtless editing. Wiggy! (talk) 02:19, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Disruptive behavior and incivility by User:Off2riorob

Off2riorob (talk · contribs), an WP:SPA promoting the topic of Osho movement, is engaging in disruptive behavior on the WP:GA-quality rated article 1985 Rajneeshee assassination plot. Most disturbingly he made a comment on the article's talk page violating WP:NPA, referring to the primary writer of the article (myself) saying: this article could have been written by the kind of person that at the time was gettin his gun to go shoot some rajneeshees.... I have asked him to refactor this comment. He has not.

The user is also inserting wholly unsourced material into the article while simultaneously removing sourced material [57], [58]. He was warned about this, but simply chose to remove this from his talk page. In his latest edit he again removes sourced material, replacing it with unsourced material - note the edit summary - (removed the army referance and inserted sheela's position taken from her wiki page) he acknowledges he is adding this unsourced material by pulling it from another Wikipedia article!

Would appreciate it if another administrator looked into the issue of the incivility and personal attacks, and the continued insertion of wholly unsourced POV-pushing changes. Thank you, Cirt (talk) 18:32, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

It is extremely important for all introduced sources to come from truly neutral and reliable locations, and this is something that Off2riorob appears to be dismissing. I will leave a similarly worded warning on his user talk page explaining how crucial this is. PeterSymonds (talk) 18:53, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

This editor has been blocked for 24 hours for continued disruption despite warnings. PeterSymonds (talk) 23:16, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

As a further note, I removed some personal attacks directed against the editors of those articles. PeterSymonds (talk) 23:24, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Rajinder Kumar Kamboj AFD

Resolved

Can some admin saunter over to this AFD and inform User:Sze cavalry01 of the AFD process as well as WP:CIVIL ? I don't want to do this myself since I have !voted on the AFD and the incivility is directed towards all user who have not voted keep. See [59] (which includes the threat to recreate the article, if it is deleted) and user's earlier comments. Note that the user has voted multiple times, and also copied other users comments, so that my signature appears at least 3 times on the page, even though I have commented just once. Abecedare (talk) 23:11, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

• Done, removed all the duplicate !votes, and removed all the personal attacks. Black Kite 00:04, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Abecedare (talk) 00:15, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Another Politician Texas sock

It seems we've got another sock of PoliticianTexas (talk · contribs) adding the same old edits on Española Valley High School and New Mexico related articles. User D3wallFields (talk · contribs) has popped up, making the same changes as before. For evidence, compare this edit [60] to his previous edit as his most recent sock as TrentZee (talk · contribs) [61].

I don't know what his obsession is, but this one certainly seems to be quacking. Dayewalker (talk) 00:57, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm checking this out ... it does seem suspicious. He's clearly not a new user, as evidenced by his first edit. But is he a sock? Gonna take more digging. Blueboy96 01:16, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Just becuase I have re-added information from a previous user does NOT make me a sockpuppet what so ever. It is a shame that useful information was not used on the page, So I did some reverts and added a few things and also added a new State Champion from the school. By the way this is my first time on wikipedia and i created my account a month ago. D3wallFields (talk) 01:37, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

For any editors and admins who are new to the PT MO, usually the blocked editor will show up with a sockpuppet and make changes to a set of New Mexico-related articles. Often his changes are apparently supported by references, but the references to not actually support the material. He's quite the time consuming bore, really. Dayewalker (talk) 01:52, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, it took a little digging, but after discovering his edits were almost exact copies to another confirmed PoliticianTexas sock, JWillems (talk · contribs), that explained the quacking. Blocked indef ... most (if not all) edits either reverted or deleted. Blueboy96 02:23, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Orthomolecular psychiatry and Orthomolecular medicine

Discussion to continue at AE as recommended by Ronnotel. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 17:57, 13 March 2009 (UTC) Please see part of this discussion which took place at AE, but discussion has now been moved back to here. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 19:03, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Unmarking this as resolved and unarchiving. The issue here cannot be resolved at WP:AE; see my comment there. II | (t - c) 18:15, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Having failed to make for a case for a merge of Orthomolecular psychiatry and Orthomolecular medicine (see Talk:Orthomolecular medicine and Talk:Orthomolecular psychiatry) editors User:Verbal, User:Orangemarlin and user:Keepcalmandcarryon are resorting to edit warring[62] [63] [64] [65] [66] [67] on the article as a WP:TAGTEAM. As you can see from the talk page they really don't have much of a leg to stand on either in terms of consensus or policy put continue plugging away at it and WP:SHOPPING.At times their tone has strayed into the territory of the obstructive and the WP:UNCIVIL and it is beginning to become quite disruptive. I request that someone ask them to give it a rest, and if they are really that set on a merge to attempt to carry it out via the proper procedures (which is what should have happened in the forst place on that article, but that's a long story). Artw (talk) 09:05, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

While I am not familiar with the case above, I ask admins to also have a look at the very same editors approach to mediation efforts here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Unomi (talk • contribs) 09:20, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

as an independant person: the redirect is a clear breach of the concencus not to.  rdunnPLIB  09:32, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Please ban these editors, as well as any other disruptive troll who believes science should be afforded the slightest respect on our social network. Badger Drink (talk) 10:22, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

It's not an issue of science (despite continual attempts to portray it as a battle against the anti-science forces), but one of ignoring the results of a RfC, which concluded "the results of the above discussion are clearly against the merge." --Michael C. Price ^talk 11:03, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

correct diff for that sentence --Enric Naval (talk) 13:13, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Your sarcasm is out of place. Respect for science doesn't mean that unscientific tendencies need to be censored, it means they need to be framed properly. I haven't seen much of Keepcalmandcarryon, so I can't comment about this user. But OrangeMarlin has been "pro-science" hooligan for a long time, and recently Verbal tends to act in a similar manner. Just look at their childish behaviour at WT:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-03/Aspartame controversy, linked to by Unomi above. (The main advantage of this page is that it's must shorter than e.g. Talk:Aspartame controversy, so it's easier to see what's going on. Oh, and there is a neutral editor there trying to moderate.)

I am sure I am not the only editor with a firm science background who is sick and tired of seeing these editors' confrontative tag-teaming and complete failure to communicate in a meaningful way, each time they are confronted with a new user they don't agree with. It is my impression that they often prevent discussion and proper framing of notable fringe opinions in articles where it belongs, by refusing to discuss anything but the editors who propose such discussion. I am sure if these editors were editing under their real names they would be more careful, because there would be a real chance for them to hurt their real-life careers with their recklessly sloppy approach to writing about science. The fact that a large number of "pro-science" editors support each other in this misbehaviour doesn't exactly help, either. --Hans Adler (talk) 11:38, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

• I support the complaint and consider the behaviour of the offending editors to be quite outrageous. The topic falls within the scope of a general Arbcom finding which requires especially careful behaviour when editing such topics. User:ScienceApologist was involved in this matter and has now been banned for his bad behaviour and refusal to accept Wikipedia norms and sanctions. These editors show similar open contempt for policies such as civility and engage in similar game-playing and wikilawyering. Since they espouse the same methods and goals as a banned user, they should be subject to the same sanctions. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:21, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. The correct venue for this is probably Arbcom enforcement. Is there some reason this wasn't filed there? Ronnotel (talk) 12:58, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I think that there is a general fear of being labeled 'anti science' kook when confronting users who purport to represent Science and proclaim themselves as those that hold the barbarians at the gate. I believe those involved do not follow scientific principles or value intellectual honesty. I further believe that the costs incurred by an overbearing attitude towards them are quite substantial and real. This is one of the consequences, and part of a wider discussion on village pump regarding this kind of behavior. Unomi (talk) 14:14, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not saying I disagree with your sentiment. All I'm saying is that the admins who monitor WP:AE have been tracking this issue more carefully than the reader of this board. They are probably better equipped to render a decision and take action that is in line with the outstanding ArbCom decisions. I think you need to take this there. Ronnotel (talk) 14:33, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the list of suggestions at the head of this page, we seem spoilt for choice as there seem to be separate noticeboards for uncivil communications, edit warring, long term abuse and ban discussions. Perhaps someone should add arbcom enforcement to this list too but it's not clear what one is to do when there's a combination of all these. Anyway, you are an administrator - is there some reason that you do not wish to act upon this matter yourself? Colonel Warden (talk) 15:14, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Different admins tend to specialize in different areas. Given the long-running nature of the dispute here and the personalities involved, there are a relatively small number of admins who have the requisite knowledge of relevant ArbCom cases and other precedents that would be needed to be comfortable in building community consensus for any actions that are needed. I think you'll find these admins tend to congregate at WP:AE. I'm not saying I won't take action, all I'm saying is that this seems like an appropriate case to bring to WP:AE and that you will be more likely to generate a consensus there. Ronnotel (talk) 16:10, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I am the user who performed the merger after asking for input and receiving positive feedback. I don't co-ordinate with other editors as a tag team, and I respectfully ask that my interests in common with other editors not be used against me.

The articles had extensive duplicated information; also, what is called "orthomolecular psychiatry" and "orthomolecular medicine" are inseparable, and have been from the very first article by Linus Pauling coining the term (a term which is not accepted by medicine and never has been). User: Enric Naval eloquently made this case on the talk page. It seems that the major objection to the merger afterwards was that the final article was too long. However, the readable text occupies less than half the memory recommended by WP:SIZE. The discussion in general was marked by clearly partisan remarks versus arguments from policy by users such as Naval and the only truly uninvolved editor to respond to the RfC. As a result, based upon WP:VOTE, I saw the reversion by User:Coppertwig as unjustified and an example of Wikipedia at its worst: when sheer numbers of passionate advocates can sway content beyond what WP:WEIGHT, WP:RS, etc. would justify. Again, consensus is not a vote, and sheer numbers should not trump policies. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 16:03, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I am pretty much uninvolved at these articles. I don't know much about the subject other than what I've learned here on Wikipedia. I have no opinion on the subject with regards to its medical efficacy. I am the editor who brought up WP:SIZE. The current readable prose occupies about 50k. While this is significantly more than the 30k which the policy suggests is a good size, it does fall into the category of: "Probably should be divided (although the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading time)". That can be an argument either way. However, in my RfC comment, I stated that I oppose the merge per Phil153's comments. Phil brought up the most relevant policy to this dispute: WP:N. The question should be: Does Orthomolecular Psychiatry merit its own article? This can be addressed by looking at the sources that are out there discussing this specific topic and weighing them against the requirement of WP:N: Has the topic received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject? My searches on Google (Web, Books, Scholar, and News) returned a plethora of independent, reliable sources, and have thus - in my mind - proved the notability of this topic.

Okay, this is neither here nor there, as this isn't the place to make such an argument. What has happened at the articles and what continues to happen is atrocious. The small group of editors mentioned in this complaint are ignoring the closing admin's interpretation of the RfC discussions: The discussion stalled and no consensus for the merge has developed. However, as I said below, the results of the above discussion are clearly against the merge. This small group of editors are now relying on personal attacks, edit warring and gaming the system to further bully their POV here. It is my opinion that the Orthomolecular psychiatry article be reinstated (and its POV issues be addressed immediately). -- Levine2112 ^discuss 16:56, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:SIZE recommends 30 to 50 kb of readable prose, not "30k". The guideline also recommends "6,000 to 10,000 words of readable prose", and the merged article is below this range. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 21:45, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

<-- outdent

Here's the relevant chart from WP:SIZE:

Readable prose size	What to do
> 100 KB	Almost certainly should be divided
> 60 KB	Probably should be divided (although the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading time)
> 30 KB	May need to be divided (likelihood goes up with size)
< 30 KB	Length alone does not justify division
< 1 KB	If an article or list has remained this size for over a couple of months, consider combining it with a related page. Alternatively, why not fix it by adding more info? See Wikipedia:Stub.

While I think this is a reason to support separating the articles, I think the most relevant policy is WP:N which answers if Orthomolecular Psychiatry merits its own article. In my estimation it does. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 22:14, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and the text says 30 to 50 kb, or 6,000 to 10,000 words. Clearly, this is just a very rough guideline, so rough that no one has bothered to make it internally consistent. Even so, the current word count of the readable prose (by definition excluding boxes, tables, markup, headings), is just over 3000 words and thus well below any sort of arbitrary cutoff. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 22:27, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:SIZE exists to keep articles at a length which is easy-to-read, so in that sense, word count matters. However, it also exists for swifter page downloads, and in that sense, page size is important. The readable prose is roughly at 50kb, which places it in the "May need to be divided" category. So it doesn't have to be divided per WP:SIZE, but it may need to be.

Again, what should be more relevant to the discussion is WP:N, as that is the true test of whether a topic merits its own article or not. I hope that you and the others participating in this discussion will address WP:N rather than get caught up on supposing individual editor's motivations or biases. The latter is not helpful. Stick with a civil discussion of WP:N and you should be all right. In the meantime, please abide by the reading of the RfC's closing admin and allow the article to exist (at least for the time being so WP:N discussions can proceed in good faith). I would really appreciate your cooperation here and think that it would be a grand gesture of Wikilove if you were to revert the latest redirect. Thanks. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 23:05, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

• I personally would love to see these two articles merged, and I'm happy to add what criticism I can find to the orthomolecular medicine article (along with balancing opinion, per WP:NPOV). However, I can't reward poor behavior, and thus I have to oppose the merge. The blatant lies and edit-warring that are occurring here reflect a basic misunderstanding of Wikipedia's basic principles: process, good faith, honesty, neutrality and civility. One convenient case in point is Keepcalm's words above. He says "Naval and the only truly uninvolved editor to respond to the RfC". What he doesn't say is that in the original RfC, DGG and Phil153 voted oppose, and had never edited the article before. On the talk page, the continuous assertion from Verbal is that "there was consensus to merge, therefore a RfC on the issue with no consensus is no consensus to demerge" [paraphrase]. Keepcalm has said similarly that "since the merge occurred boldly and with consensus (at least at the time), I have reverted it". As I pointed out on ANI last time, the "consensus to merge" occurred when the 3 editors above, along with ScienceApologist, decided to merge in a discussion titled "This article was a POV fork". No note was made to the broader orthomolecular medicine talk page. Even then, Coppertwig, Colonel Warden, and myself expressed disagreement with it. The argument was actually immediately 4-4 (counting noted partisan editors ScienceApologist and John Gohde). How do you reconcile that with the frequent statement that there was consensus to merge? You tell me. In a place like Wikipedia, lying is usually easy to ferret out, but that doesn't seem to bother the above editors. II | (t - c) 16:49, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
• Comment One point which is not made clearly above is that the merge in question was the subject of an RfC. Admin User:Ruslik0 found against the offending editors and restored the article in question. As I understand it, this admin was previously uninvolved and so was acting impartially. By reverting this admin, there seems to be an element of willful disobedience/wheel-warring here. What is one to do when the results of dispute resolution are not respected? Colonel Warden (talk) 17:01, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

• This appears to be a content dispute, not an incident. Why doesn't somebody nominate the purported POV fork for deletion, and see what the consensus is? Jehochman ^Talk 19:16, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

• Deletion is not appropriate for this per WP:BEFORE and not even SA proposed this. The only sensible alternative is merger and we have already had that discussion which produced a result. What we now have is editors refusing to accept the result and so this is a behavioural incident, not a content dispute. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:34, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

• (ec; executive summary: what Colonel Warden said). Thank you very much for the suggestion, Jehochman. Earlier in this same dispute, although I favour keeping it as an article, I wanted to put it to AfD in order to get a broad community consensus with a discussion lasting a reasonable length of time (neither too long nor too short) and a definite, enforceable decision one way or the other. However, after I inquired here I was told that AfD was not appropriate since no one wants to delete the article outright, only convert it to a redirect (though the effect on content is essentially the same); I therefore pursued an RfC and asked that it be closed by an uninvolved admin after 5 days, figuring that this would be essentially the same as AfD as far as getting broad community input. This was done.
  This is an incident rather than a content dispute because some editors are editwarring against the outcome of the RfC as stated and clarified by the closing admin. I would appreciate administrative action, beginning with statements as to whether it's acceptable to revert to a redirect under the current situation (as Verbal and Keepcalmandcarryon have been doing), or not. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 19:49, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I stated some little while ago on Talk:Orthomolecular psychiatry that my perusal of the sources indicated that probably there is only enough notability for a single article, with psych. treated as a particularly notable facet of OMM in general. Psychological syndromes are easier to see via apophenia, so this makes sense. At that point and at least as of earlier today, much of the WP:SIZE argument is obviated by vast swaths of tangentially related cruft clogging the articles. Since that point, there have been no sources introduced indicating that the topics obviously would be better treated separately and distinctly. I respect that other good faith editors have reached the opposite conclusion, and request that they improve the OMP article to the point that it is obviously distinct from OMM in general. Given that such improvements may as readily carried out in a section as an article, I am unclear concerning why anyone cares deeply about this particular issue one way or another, or why the usual battlelines have been drawn on this particular article. Frankly, it is a little bit frustrating to be having the same conversations with the same people when there is so much encyclopedia out there. Why do people seek out editors with whom they seem incapable of editing harmoniously? Eldereft on a public computer 74.179.112.100 (talk) 22:16, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

If that is the case, take a sharp knife and trim out any cruft or poorly referenced material. Then you can take the resulting crisp prose and add it to the other article as a section, and redirect. Is that a possible solution? Saying we need two articles because of length when one or both are bloated is not a convincing argument. Jehochman ^Talk 00:15, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Re-reading this discussion, I see 7 or 8 editors (Artw, rdunnPLIB, Michael C. Price, Colonel Warden, Ronnotel, Levine2112, myself and arguably Hans Adler) supporting the idea that the uninvolved admin's close of the RfC should be respected, i.e. both articles kept; 2 (Keepcalmandcarryon and Badger Drink) apparently taking the opposite position; and two editors (Eldereft and Jehochman) presenting arguments in favour of a merge although this is not a forum for content discussion, but not as far as I understand their comments arguing that it's OK to revert against the consensus mentioned in the RfC close. This looks to me to be strong support for respecting Ruslik's close of the RfC. (involved editor) ☺Coppertwig (talk) 00:46, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

To be fair, the major thrust of my post was a request that we drop all this faintly pointless drama and just go write an encyclopedia. The rest was historical context for uninvolved editors who happen to wander through this thread. And Jehochman - yes, that is exactly the solution I proposed; a couple editors, most notably Keepcalmandcarryon and Orangemarlin (this article is fairly close to the edge of my editing interests), were doing an admirable job of improving the quality and relevance of the sourcing and removing material not well supported by the references. And now we have this interrupting article improvements. Can we please just close the thread and move on? Not try to censure people volunteering for a generally thankless task? Does that sound like fun? Eldereft on a public computer 74.179.112.100 (talk) 01:20, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

OrangeMarlin, who had been informed of this discussion, has again redirected the page, citing consensus at the earlier discussion (which at the time of Keepcalmandcarryon's redirect had 6 editors, 4 for the merge and 2 opposed, a talk page discussion without merge tags or other notices) but going directly against the consensus of the later, broader discussion here (12 opposing the merge, 6 supporting) which had greater participation due to editors at the other of the two pages to be merged being notified, as well as a link from AN/I which apparently brought in more participation from editors who had been previously uninvolved at that time; that this was a consensus was perceived and noted by uninvolved admin Ruslik as part of the RfC closure; OrangeMarlin's revert is going directly against Ruslik's RfC closure, against the consensus here in this thread that that closure should be respected, and against my statement that I would consider such reverts under current conditions to be disruptive. I do not oppose further discussion of a merge through proper channels. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 13:10, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

And OrangeMarlin has reverted yet another time, leading to the page being protected. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 18:17, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

An IP or editor who was not logged in reverted an edit leading to page protection. Why Coppertwig did not mention the IP reverting OrangeMarlin's edit. QuackGuru (talk) 18:31, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Eldereft. My personal feeling is that one poor-quality article is preferable to two poor-quality articles, but it's clearly not worth fighting about to this extent. That energy should probably be spent on improving the two poor-quality articles. I do have to chuckle at Jehochman's well-intended comment. Back when I was more naive and optimistic about Wikipedia, I did actually attempt to "take a sharp knife and trim out any cruft or poorly referenced material" from orthomolecular medicine. I came away convinced that doing so was impossible given the currently prevailing tolerance for various unencyclopedic editorial practices. I don't want to speak for User:TimVickers, but I suspect he came to a similar conclusion after trying the same thing. I found it slightly less productive and rewarding that beating one's head against a brick wall. So more power to whomever tries it next. I'm not convinced that these articles are worth another second of anyone's time; these sorts of unencyclopedic morasses are probably best accepted as the price we pay for an encyclopedia which anyone can edit. MastCell ^Talk 19:00, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi, MastCell, nice to see you. :-) Hi again, QuackGuru. In reply to QuackGuru: this is not just about editwarring. This is about causing disruption by editing counter to the consensus that was established in a broad discussion (18 editors) and recognized by an uninvolved admin as consensus. It's roughly as disruptive as repeatedly re-creating a page after it's been AfD-ed, except that here the consensus was to keep both articles. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 00:56, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, apparently the reason the page was protected was that OrangeMarlin requested indefinite full protection with a rationale which misrepresented the situation, 5 minutes after having reverted the page to a redirect: [68]. Here OrangeMarlin stated, "Anti-science editors are insisting to remove redirect, which was established by consensus. The anti-science editors did an RfC which ended in non consensus to remove redirect." when in fact Ruslik's close of the RfC said, "The discussion stalled and no consensus for the merge has developed. However, as I said below, the results of the above discussion are clearly against the merge." [69] ☺Coppertwig (talk) 01:06, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

(There were 3 discussions. Ruslik's close mentions the last 2 discussions; OrangeMarlin's claim of consensus is based on an earlier discussion involving fewer editors than the 2nd discussion which had consensus against the merge.) ☺Coppertwig (talk) 01:50, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Amazing, he's still continuing this course of action? I think the time has come to consider a block or ban. Artw (talk) 05:42, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

His repeated calling of those who disagrees with him "anti-science" (latest examples here and here, plenty more distributed across the talk pages of the disputed article) are pretty unhelpful and not particularly WP:CIVIL as well. Artw (talk) 06:19, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

User:70.67.163.110

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

Please look at this user's contributions. You will see repeated uncivil attacks on everyone that reverts his vandalism. He persists despite more than one block for incivility or vandalism. As the last was a combined uncivil remark with vandalism and his last block was for incivility, I reported him on the wikietiquette page, but they referred me here.--2008Olympian^chitchat 01:32, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Three edits in the last month? With all due respect, this doesn't look like a significant problem. – iridescent 01:38, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Also possibly editing under Mortamar Kahn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and I would guess others, but although the IP was belligerent and vulgar, it doesn't seem very frequent yet. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 01:58, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Also similar edits by 96.54.0.231 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Looks like a small sockfarm waiting to be harvested. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 03:49, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

If you start poking around, you see lots of similar edits made by different IP's. Could be just copycats, but it would take a checkuser to determine that. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:07, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

disruptive user

Resolved

 – User blocked for 2 weeks Mfield (talk) 03:25, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

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

This user received three edit war blocks in seven days. Since his last block ended a few days ago he has made five edits, four are reverts and none on talk despite my request. He edit wars, move-wars, and uses the talk pages for personal attacks. Could someone give him a longer block (he has had 24, 48, and 55 hours) or give him a meaningful warning? Ostap 03:07, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I blocked him for two weeks with and left him a message explaining that it will not be allowed to continue any further next time. Mfield (talk) 03:20, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

You beat me to it. I was going to give a 2 week block. If he edit wars after that, then it will likely be a block of undetermined length. Chillum 03:22, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the quick response, administrators. Ostap 03:32, 15 March 2009 (UTC)