Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive558

User:Sbakuria(talk) and Alexander Mashkevitch

Involved Parties -

User:Sbakuria(talk), User:Bricklayer (talk), User:PhilKnight(talk) and myself.

Issue: User repeatedly reverts to a version of the article which does not meet with consensus. Has ignored warnings and several requests for discussion of the article. Version consistently switched to by Sbakuria has issues with format, neutrality and a possible copyright violation. I can't think of what else can be done, doubt user will ever discuss the article and attempt to reach consensus.

Article's discussion page: Talk:Alexander Mashkevitch.

Requests made on user's talk page [[1]].

Difference after repeated requests for user to halt behaviour:[[2]]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rtdixon86 (talk • contribs) 21:31, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Suggested action: A block or a ban for Sbakuria —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rtdixon86 (talk • contribs) 23:40, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Firefox crashed before I could complete edit, sorry.Rtdixon86 (talk) 21:45, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Although adoption or editing restrictions could be conidered, I'd support a site ban. PhilKnight (talk) 18:35, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I also support a site ban in this case. Bricklayer (talk) 11:46, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

User:76.177.224.98, 76.177.225.49

I seem to have a problem as does User:Ohnoitsjamie. This user was originally blocked a few days ago as a possible "Willy on Wheels" vandal, but he insists the name "Willyonwheels1969" is legit; he claims his name is William, was born in 1969 and his nickname as a child was "Willy on Wheels." I'm now getting messages on my talk page from Road Runner Cable IPs in Georgetown, Kentucky with this user demanding apologies, threatening "action," etc. I have tried to reason with this individual to no avail. He wants to edit with this username or variation thereof and both I and Jamie have basically (and politely) told him sorry, ain't happening and here's why. If he's legit, I regret his less than friendly reception. However, one of his first edits was to Jimbo's talk page; he's familiar with this system, claiming he'd mostly edited anonymously before establishing an account. To his credit, he hasn't done any WoW vandalism. No page moves, nothing. Otherwise, I'd dismiss him as just another Willy wannabe. I can't get through to the guy as to the myriad reasons he can't edit under that username. He seems more interested in the username than anything else. Any suggestions? --PMDrive1061 (talk) 14:52, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I believe that we as a community can state what is and what is not a disruptive username, and that naming yourself after a particular vandal is disruptive no matter if you have good faith intentions. If the user really really realllllllly wants to contribute to the encyclopedia, they're welcome to change their username. If the user is a WoW clone, they'd continue in the manner that they appear to be pursuing. In other words, demands and threats will justify blocks of the ip. Syrthiss (talk) 14:59, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Wholeheartedly agree with Syrthiss. — Satori Son 20:32, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Works for me; that's the conclusion I drew, but I wanted to weigh in here. I'll let you all know what he says in response to my last message. If he insists on going down this particular route, I'll request a rangeblock. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 15:06, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I've also had a request from this editor, and agree with the above comments. We can't always have the username we would like to have, and that's a fact of life here, whether it is disruptive on the face of it, or by association- which latter case is what we have here. I wanted different usernames, but they were already taken. It didn't bother me, and, er, I didn't shout about it. Rodhullandemu 23:36, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

but did anyone block you for using the name of a real life famous (albeit dead) person? (and their glove puppet?) NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 16:33, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Concur with Syrthiss and Rodhullandemu. We're here to write an encyclopedia with minimal distracting WP:DRAMA and WP:POINT. User has made it clear he's only here for drama and point, and his stated intent to keep creating new accounts is blockable in its own right for the same reasons. DMacks (talk) 00:24, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again, all. The last thing I would want to do is bite a newbie and I tried to reason with him based on his original claim, thinking that would be the end of it. When the hits just kept on coming, I knew this would be trouble. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 16:02, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

But newbies can be really tasty :-P No bites, just nibbles. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:05, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Editor claiming I am committing a crime

Resolved

 – Comment struck. No need to feed the drama llama over this one. Protonk (talk) 17:53, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

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

At this diff, a self-proclaimed lawyer (see first line of User:Dirtlawyer1) is making a claim that I am breaking the law. Specifically, "Frankly, sir,...you are probably engaged in the unlicensed practice of law". He goes on further to state "you are dangerously close to engaging in the unlicensed practice of law" [3]. I am specifically requesting this user be blocked for violating Wikipedia:No legal threats. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 20:58, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

That is in no way the only way to read that comment. A nice message to the editor would have been the preferred step to take here. I have left them a message asking them to avoid ambiguous comments of such nature in the future. Regards SoWhy 21:22, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

• Right. A lawyer says I'm breaking the law, but that's not a legal threat. <cough> He's attempting to intimidate me off of the thread by dropping this accusation at me. He did this not once, but twice. Not to worry, it's not a legal threat you say. Ok, fine. Out goes WP:NLT along with our empty civility policy. Sigh. You do realize this editor is accusing not just me, but EVERYONE who comments on this project on the legal status of images as being engaged in an illegal activity unless they are a lawyer (such as he)? So, we're all supposed to shut up and let him decide the fate of every image? I can't believe this. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:27, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

He has been warned by 2 of us, and recommended to retract. He did not threaten you with anything - he did not say you are breaking the law, anymore than some of our templates warn that you might be breaking things like 3RR. He was, however, using his supposed position as a lawyer to suppress your input and action. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:30, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

As Bwilkins says, claiming you might break the law is not a legal threat. He did not threaten to report you, to sue you or anything. He was probably just trying to use his status to win an argument (see WP:NPLT). As such, you should have told this user (who has never been told so, at least on his talk page) about WP:NPLT and that he should stop using such language instead of coming here directly. As I wrote above, the comment can be well understood differently (WP:AGF!) and as such, you should have not assumed a policy violation first but a simple error of words chosen. After all, if he continues to use such language after being informed he can still be dealt with accordingly. Regards SoWhy 21:38, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Meanwhile, if you're making edits that you consider to be valid and within the wikipedia guidelines, feel free to ignore anything that looks like a legal threat. Legal threats are intended to intimidate. Do not be intimidated. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 21:42, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

• I have no intention of working further on anything he touches. I do not need to be accused of breaking laws and be told that when I complain about it, I am "squeeling" and "bullying". --Hammersoft (talk) 21:52, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

• Since I seem to be doing a bang up job of misinterpreting today, read his response and decide for yourself whether he continues to claim I am giving out bad legal advice. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:45, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Gentlemen, this is not "resolved." If you disagree, I hereby request arbitration. I have written nothing for which I need to apologize. No threat, legal or otherwise, was ever made. Please re-read Hammersoft's comments; I am not the one engaged in WikiBullying in this matter. This escalation is evidence of that. Please do not presume that I am in the wrong merely because the other guy squealed first. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:47, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the original issue of the image itself, the proper avenue would probably be to remove the speedy deletion tag - esp. since Dirtlawyer1 has provided a lot of new information to review - and bring it to WP:FFD where a more thorough discussion could take place. Regarding the issue of the legal threat - hmmm - how about this: Dirtlawyer1, try to ease up on the language a tad since most of us are volunteers and not lawyers, and Hammersoft, if you're going to work in the rough world of image deletion, you'll definitely need a thick skin. K? Wknight94 ^talk 22:24, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

• I've been working in this area for quite a while now. My skin is plenty thick enough. If you doubt it, just look at my userpage. Regardless, I fail to see how I'm supposed to put up with being accused of committing a crime, told I'm "squeeling" and "bullying" when I complain about it, and then apparently shrug my shoulders and say "That's ok, I have a thick skin". What Dirtlawyer1 did was unconscionable. He is still unrepentant, and still believes he acted properly. "I do not believe that I have engaged in any 'behavior' which contravenes policy or good manners" [4]. Honestly? I find it humorous, from a number of vantage points. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:35, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm confused - the image that was tagged that started all of this seems to just be tagged with the "needs a rationale" tag, not a "this isn't/can't be fair use" tag.

Why all the fighting? That's just a "fill out the paperwork" issue... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:26, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

• So am I. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:35, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Hammersoft says he has been intimidated by Dirtlawyer's legalistic comments. That is sufficient proof that it's a legal threat. Dirtlawyer must withdraw it or be blocked. There is no middle ground on this. If Dirtlawyer has issues with material that may conflict with wikipedia policies, that's another matter. But legal threats, or anything that resemble legal threats, must not be tolerated. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:52, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) While I suppose it's possible to divine a legal threat from Dirtlawyer1's comments, I don't think it's of the sort that was ever intended to be covered under WP:NLT. "Hey, Wikipedia users should be careful about this, you guys need help from real lawyers" is very distinct from "Stop that or I'll sue you!!!!!!11" -- which of the two do you think policy intends to prevent? Concerns expressed in good faith probably shouldn't be met with block threats. – Luna Santin (talk) 23:54, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

The rule is intended to prevent intimidation, and unless Hammersoft is lying to us, he's feeling intimated to the point where he's afraid to edit there. To me, that qualifies, and the dirtlawyer guy should withdraw it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:54, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

My problem is that he didn't really threaten any sort of action (unless we're talking about different edits). How can you retract a threat to do an action when there was no action verb in the sentence. "...you are probably engaged in the unlicensed practice of law by presuming to represent Wikimedia in these matters" --- would a retraction be, "you are probably not engaged in the unlicensed practice of law by presuming to represent Wikimedia in these matters"? It's an opinion with no real threat to take actual action. Now if he followed that with "...and I will be serving you with court papers" (or whatever it is lawyers do), then that would be a threatened action. That's my 2 cents. It just doesn't seem quite as vicious as it's being made to sound, but maybe I'm jaded from spending part of the day listening to stuff like this gem. Wknight94 ^talk 01:13, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Oy. Well, that kinda puts it in perspective. If I'm hearing the other voices right, Hammersoft is being intimated over something that he need have no fear of. As you well know, if some character here threatened me legally, I wouldn't be intimidated at all; I'd tell him to talk to my lawyers. Or just tell him to go to the taxidoimist and get stuffed. A threat of a block, though... that's intimidating. 0:) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 01:55, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually this whole thing is quite hilarious. Someone comes here in good faith, provides some interesting background related to a divisive issue with a view towards resolving a potential problem (as opposed to looking for a fight) and ends up getting berated by rule banger with a series of self-important and obstructive rsponses who then decides to turn the whole thing into an unnecessary and overblown drama. Accused of a crime - oh my! But then that's the H-man's style. There's no threat there - I'd be frustrated too being subject H's inexpert drivel. And here all this time I thought the saying was it was the law that was an ass (thank you, Charles Dickens for Oliver Twist). The Hammer needs to chill some and be more respectful of what other editors views and what they can bring to the project. Wiggy! (talk) 01:44, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, for what it's worth, some states (AZ) don't have real UPL statutes, so the first few diffs are not even an accusation of a crime. However, WP:NLT is unclear whether it's "No Legal Threats" or "No statements which could be reasonably construed as Legal Threats" (which, I'm afraid, User:Dirtlawyer1 has done). Perhaps User:Dirtlawyer1 should make it clear that he has no intention of reporting H (other than possibly to WikiMedia's lawyers) or suggesting that others do so. If that were done, it would be clear that there's no LT, and perhaps we can go on to right of panorama questions.... — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:35, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Dirtlawyer1 made a comment which Hammersoft perceived as a legal threat. Hammersoft brought the issue here for clarification or further action, as s/he is perfectly entitled to do. Dirtlawyer1 has since clarified that "no threat, legal or otherwise, was ever made."[5] That surely resolves the legal threat issue, though the underlying image dispute remains. Euryalus (talk) 02:52, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

• I guess I'm the odd man out here. Though I agree with Euryalus that no issue remains aside from the underlying dispute, that diff presented above is what I feel NLT was meant to prevent. Remember, a legal threat doesn't require malice. In this case it was a statement where the implication is sufficient to constitute the threat--Hammersoft shouldn't be editing things related to derivative images because his misrepresentation of the legal issue at stake would constitute a crime. That's a perfect example of a legal threat. User:Dirtlawyer1's statement that no threat was ever conveyed isn't strictly accurate. Either way normal dispute resolution can continue now, i guess. Protonk (talk) 06:08, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Since there is no consensus to block dirtlawyer, here's my advice:

To Hammersoft: Ignore dirtlawyer's threats and edit as you please, within wikipedia guidelines of course.

To Dirtlawyer: Rubbish. You have no legal power here. Begone, before someone drops a house on you.

Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 06:33, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

• I wouldn't go anywhere near that far, bugs. My view is that discussion about what is and isn't a derivative work under US law is both necessary and healthy here. Insofar as dirtlawyer is promoting that, good. What isn't healthy is the use of legal credentials to push around other contributors, whether intended or unintended. Dirt, I'm sure that you are a lawyer, but you aren't my lawyer and you aren't the foundation's lawyer. No one, except mike godwin, speaks for the foundation in legal terms on wikipedia. No one should be tossing around statements that imply that hammersoft could, through the normal editing process, be engaging in unlicensed legal practicing. More importantly, no one should be using their claimed expertise outside of wikipedia as a matter of authority in discussion. If you want to offer your off-wiki experience as knowledge/wisdom, great. But please try and make an effort to avoid appearing as though you are using your status as a lawyer to influence discussions on wikipedia. Protonk (talk) 07:47, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
  • "That far" what? You mean dropping a house? I never said that I nor anyone else would drop a house. I merely described what theoretically might happen. If you disagree, I hereby request arbitrariness. I have written nothing for which I need to appy-polly-loggy-gize. No threat, house-al or otherwise, was ever made. I am not the one engaged in WitchOfTheNorthBullying in this matter. This Otis escalator is evidently of that. Please do not pre-zoom that I am in the wrong merely because the Wicked Witch of the East croaked first. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 08:45, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Heh. Are we broadly agreed that Dirtlawyer1 having made clear he did not intend a legal threat, this issue can be marked resolved? Euryalus (talk) 11:05, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Whether or not he meant it as a legal threat, he meant it to have the same chilling effect on the discussion - and was apparently successful at it. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:38, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

My point exactly, and he has not backed down from it, last I knew. I suggest that if he won't remove those comments, we should do it ourselves. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 14:23, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

To me, this is enough to qualify as backing down - at least from anything that might be considered chilling or threatening. Wknight94 ^talk 14:35, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

That's the paragraph I was lampooning above. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 14:40, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth; Bwilkins is correct. I refuse to work with User:Dirtlawyer1 because he remains adamant that he acted appropriately in accusing me of committing a crime. I will, to my knowledge, never again work on anything he touches because of his apparent belief that his behavior is appropriate. He has been successful in intimidating me away from things he works on. I don't expect any particular action now to be done with respect to him. He will not retract his comments, and nobody can force him to do so. If similar stunts are pulled in the future, I'm at least somewhat confident he will be blocked for it. So, since he's been successful at protecting his sub dominion on Wikipedia and forcing me off of it, since he will not retract his comments, and since this reference point exists for future controversies when he pulls similar stunts, I consider the matter closed. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:37, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

No, don't back down. Dirtlawyer1 is a newbie trying to throw his weight around. Treat him like any other newbie that's full of himself. He has no legal authority here, and is in no position to do you any harm. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 14:40, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

• I am not interested in contesting with a lawyer throwing his weight around over some entries on Wikipedia. I'll avoid anything having to do with University of Florida, the school he attended. If I trip across him in any other area of Wikipedia, I'll avoid him there too. It is a pain, but it is easier that dealing with accusations of me breaking the law. He's not going to retract his comments and he's not going to be blocked for it. So, there's nothing to be done at this point. But, this reference point exists when he tries similar stunts on people in the future. That's enough for me. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:46, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict):::Who ordered the drama llama? I'm sorry, I do think you are being a bit excessive. He's said his piece. What's he going to do about it? Report some anonymous Wikipedian that he can't even be sure is on the same continent as he is to his legal body? And what are they going to do? Report it to Wikipedia? And what is Wikipedia's lawyer going to do (when he stops laughing that is). I don't think anybody yet has ever successfully brought a barrack room lawyer to book for practising without a license. I think you're safe here, I really do. Which is not to say that Dirtlawyer ought not to moderate his tone (which tone is coming off distinctly snotty, and not an asset to the project),. But he can't actually do anything worse to you that...you know...type mean words at you. Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:48, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

(ec x 3) Dirtlawyer was asked to strikeout the offensive comments, and even advised how to do it. Until he does, he has not backed down. If we have to do it, then someone will also have to give him a short rest for disruption. If he does it himself, I would be happy to merely monitor future interactions and consider this situation closed. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:49, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I;m sorry. I don't like to disagree with you. But this [6] makes it perfectly clear that no legal threat is made or intended. I don't know what else you want him to say, as he's not going to apologise, and blocking him because he won't apologise is not an acceptable tactic. Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:00, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Whether or not there is concensus here to block the guy - Hammersoft, you need to understand that that self-proclaimed lawyer has no more legal authority over anyone here than does my pet goldfish. Ignore him. And if he persists in hassling you, tell him to stick it where the moon don't shine. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 14:58, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well put me in the Refuses-to-block-based-on-current-data column. If Hammersoft finds Dirtlawyer too unpalatable to work with, that's fine. I have my own list of such users, and I simply avoid them. "More-trouble-than-it's-worth" is what I call that list. I'm sure I'm on other people's "More-than-trouble-than-it's-worth" lists too. Everyone probably has such a list and everyone is probably on someone else's list too. Does that make everyone blockable? Wknight94 ^talk 15:03, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Block 'em all! Block 'em all! The long and the short and the tall! Or, in lieu of that, either confront them or ignore them. I still think it looks like a legal threat, but opinion seems to be divided, and as I said, Hammersoft has nothing to fear from that character. Many editors come here making legal threats, and most of them eventually get indef'd. If he continues to wave his law degree in people's faces, he won't be around long. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 15:08, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you there - well the last part about toning it down anyway (and I did say that above), but not the Block 'em all part (although some days, I may agree with you on that too). Wknight94 ^talk 15:14, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

That's more of a metaphor, and is also a parody of a World War II song. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 15:21, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Ok ... then I will simply remind him about both toning it down, and on how to retract the statements in the spirit of collegial editing (remember, I'm not a fan of blocking unless required). (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:17, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Ladies & gentlemen, I previously requested that BWilkins explain on my Talk page how a reasonable person could interpret my comments as "legal threats." That request was apparently overlooked. I will restate the request of both of you. From my perspective, there seems to be a bias to provide the other gentlemen some measure of moral support and satisfaction, even in the absence of any actual threat. Quite frankly, the overwrought header on this thread and the immediate request to have me blocked are far better examples of intimidation tactics.

In my professional world, I am used to dealing with an objective standard (i.e., how would a reasonable person of average intelligence perceive the situation, and act or react) not a subjective standard (i.e., what one individual may actually believe). In this particular dust-up, the other gentleman's stated reaction is subjective----he writes that he believed he was being threatened or intimidated. By way of illustration, I can honestly and in good faith believe that the moon is made of green cheese, but my subjective belief does not make it so.

Demanding that I apologize for something that I did not write, and something I did not intend, is Orwellian. There is no hidden message. Threatening to delete purportedly threatening language, without explaining how any reasonable person could interpret it as such, is an attempt to chill the debate (and apparently at putting the perceived "newbie" in his place).

No threat was actually made, that has been clarified by me twice before, and acknowledged by several administrators in this thread. If the other gentleman does not like the rough-and-tumble of actually being told that he is wrong, then perhaps he should adopt a more cooperative and less rigid sense of his self-appointed role as a Wiki copyright enforcer. From my reading of his User and Talk pages, he has a history of bullying less-experienced editors who are unable to defend a posted image for which a perfectly valid "free use" or "public domain" rationale may exist if only someone would listen to them and help them.

Is is it not in Wikipedia's interest to preserve all relevant images when there is a valid exception or rationale for doing so? Would it not be better to adopt a mentor-oriented approach in these copyright matters, rather than leaving inexperienced editors to fume in frustration? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:28, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Cheese and Rice, just as we're about to mark it resolved, the wikilawyering begins anew ... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:33, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

That....didn't help. Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:40, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

However, if we can all agree that no-one is actually threatening to drag the Hammer off to the cells, perhaps in another venue (in a galaxy far, far away) there could be a discussion about the idea of supporting editors trying to upload images vs the experience that Dirtlawyer plainly feels he had. I know that one can get very blase (I used to work collecting the General Rate many years ago. You quickly become immune to pleading when you find that you have heard every excuse under the sun at least three times) but there may be something worth examining here. I also note with concern that among the very early advice given to Dirtlawyer was to by preference load the image into Commons, as one got better advice from them. That is something that maybe ought to be addressed y/n? Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:40, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Given his lengthy essay, full of words and music and signifying nothing, I am now convinced that Dirt is an actual attorney. And I see that he repeated his claim that "no reasonable person" would see his comments as a legal threat. So in addition to making legal threats, he is now making personal attacks, calling a number of us "unreasonable". Instead of blustering at length here or anywhere else, he needs to go back to that image he's so concerned about and make sure that the licensing fits within wikipedia's rules about images. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 15:38, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

• We have reasonable proof from User:LtPowers now that the image in question is in fact in the public domain (but not because of Dirtlawyer1's interpretation). See the thread where this is discussed. As to the continued insistence by Dirtlawyer1 that he did nothing wrong, meh. See my 14:46, 13 August 2009 comment in this thread. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:43, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Baseball Bugs, I'm new here, but I catch on fast. Rule Number One: First, assume "good faith." Please see the Wikipedia article regarding the Reasonable person standard in the practice of law. It may go a long way to helping you understand my statement above.

Ladies & gentlemen, pursuant to the last comment and suggestion from BWilkins on my Talk page, I will strike the references to the unlicensed practice of law. I do this in the suggested spirit of "collegiality," not because I believe that I have engaged in "legal threats," and certainly not because I have accused anyone of "committing a crime." Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:50, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Dirtlawyer. Collegiality is A Good Thing, especially since you maintain no threat was intended in the first place. I think that resolves everything? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:54, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

D'accord. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:14, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

He needs to follow his own rules. Calling those who disagree with him "unreasonable" hardly constitutes an assumption of good faith on his part. However, I commend him for retracting the comments that triggered this section. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 16:43, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm willing to consider that "reasonable person would believe" is a term of art in his field that has slightly different resonance for him than us. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:07, 13 August 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.

Leonardo Ciampa articles

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leonardo Ciampa

Some more eyeballs are kindly requested at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leonardo Ciampa, a situation brought to my attention at the village pump. After the subject of the article posted about the AfD on his blog, the AfD has been clogged with SPAs trying to have the article kept. This has escalated into harassment, attempts to reveal personal information about a user, and what appears to be an entirely frivolous SPI request against two of the editors arguing for the deletion of the article. I have already taken the, admittedly unusual, step of semiprotecting the AfD to stop some of the nastiness, and I'd like to ask that others keep an eye on the page. Many thanks. Cool3 (talk) 05:42, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

User:THD3 is saying that Mr. Ciampa is attempting to contact him in real life. I can't say whether or not this constitutes real-life harrassment, but it isn't healthy. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 06:01, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Cool3 has mischaracterized the events. See below. RoverRexSpot (talk) 06:26, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Request for blocking of User:Grover cleveland

 Note: See also this WQA. Nja²⁴⁷ 07:33, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

 Note: See also this blocked user's talkpage, which may or may not be relevant. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:34, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I am writing to report vandalism on the part of User:Grover cleveland.

The following diffs show that he vandalized the Leonardo Ciampa article with an overabundance of "fact" tags, citing statements that were utterly uncontroversial:

[7] [8] [9]

With each of these "fact" tags, the information was very easily obtainable, had Mr. Cleveland wished to obtain it. (To give one example: rather than check Amazon.com to see if Mr. Ciampa indeed had CDs there, he threw on a "fact" tag.)

Mr. Cleveland then recommended the Leonardo Ciampa article for deletion. However, the sheer volume of his commentary at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Leonardo_Ciampa, and its malice, is disturbing and very not in keeping with Wiki policy.

The claims of "online and offline harassment" seem to be towards Mr. Ciampa himself. That gets into the realm of libel. See [10].

In short, User:Grover cleveland has acted atrociously; someone with thousands of edits under his belt should know better. I respectfully but strongly suggest at least a temporary block of User:Grover cleveland RoverRexSpot (talk) 06:26, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

RoverRexSpot has been warned about the no legal threats policy. "Gets into the realm of libel" is generally understood to be a legal threat here.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:08, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

This request is as frivolous as the sockpuppet investigation noted above was, and is nothing more than a continuing campaign of harrassment against a couple of users who had the audacity to launch an AfD against a non- or barely notable musician who's taking things personally. This request is petty and vindictive, and certainly not in line with the blocking policy. Resolute 14:20, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Time out

Please stop making threats and wild accusations against each other. Wikipedia:Assume good faith is one of our policies - it's mandatory, not optional. As is Wikipedia:No personal attacks.

IP editors and those newly arrived - please do not insult people when you leave comments. Anyone's input into the article and process is welcome, but abusive behavior is not.

The key issue here seems to resolve around notability and reasonableness of challenges to it. That type of issue requires polite and collaborative and constructive discussion on the article talk page or AFD entry. Please talk to each other. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:58, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

For the record, WP:AGF is a "behavioral guideline", not a policy. It is strongly recommended but certainly not mandatory -- as far as I know, nobody has ever been blocked solely for failing to AGF. Looie496 (talk) 18:04, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Chetniks

Hi all, could someone please help out at the Chetniks article...? There's another newb nationalist guy (judging by the HUGE Serbian insignia on his userpage) removing images he doesn't like, deleting sources, and tagging the article with "this section does not cite any references or sources" (the article has quite a lot of sources). He's reverting any removal of the wrong templates, and is pushing his nonsense edits with constant and immediate edit-warring. Apparently I'm "delusional", and I'm infringing his "right to make the article fair" by removing the "vial filth" from Wikipedia. Last time I tried to handle a situation like this I got blocked for edit-warring, could someone lend a hand? He's basically ignoring everything I write on the talkpage and just repeating his opinions... --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 12:43, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

There is a directly related Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Chetniks. Perhaps that's the best forum to pursue this discussion. Toddst1 (talk) 15:37, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Heh, perhaps not? What's to discuss about reverting the addition of incorrect templates and content blanking? The User's edits are poorly concealed POV-pushing. I don't think this "qualifies" as a proper dispute. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 16:31, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

User:99.225.160.205

Has engaged in a tendentious revert war with all comers for the last week, will not listen to reason, insists University Canada West are crooks or worse and will not accept any version of the article that says otherwise. Ingoman (talk) 17:58, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

User has already been warned for 3RR. If the user steps over the 3RR line, then block away. MuZemike 18:29, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

RetlawSnellac, Neftchi (formerly Baku87) and copyright issues

Locus of dispute, or action in dispute

User:RetlawSnellac

Involved parties and confirmation they have been notified of the discussion

• User:Neftchi
• User:RetlawSnellac

Description of the dispute and the main evidence

I don't contribute often on English Wikipedia, being mainly active in Armenian WP. While browsing through Commons categories I came across photos of new user RetlawSnellac who registered here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/RetlawSnellac and on commons: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:RetlawSnellac

He uploaded 4 pictures to commons claiming to be the author [11]. It caught my attention, because Retlaw Snellac is one of my Flickr contacts, and I do follow his photo stream [12]. Retlaw Snellac is the acronym of his true name, Walter Callens, spelled in reverse. Browsing his folder on Azerbaijan, I checked, and found that all 4 pictures were in fact taken by Retlaw Snellac I know from Flickr. I became curious, because I remember Walter publishes his photos on Flickr under standard, "strict" copyright, as once I checked his Flickr page, to see if I can import some of his photos to Commons. The other obvious reason was, that from lot of nice photos from different countries, only those 4, and only from Azerbaijan were uploaded. Even more, he suddenly shows special interest in discussions related to Azerbaijan.

I wrote him on Flickr, to see if it was really him to upload his photos to Commons and participate in some discussions/voting. His reply was:

Hello,

Thanks for the information.

Retlaw Snellac from Wikimedia is NOT me.

Kind regards,

Walter

The problem here is that the RetlawSnellac on Wikipedia claimed to be the real Walter Callens, uploading his own works, using the date of the real Walters visit to Azerbaijan from flickr to come up with this story, he even explicitly claims to be the real Retlaw, see here.

Upon the incident I contacted another member who too contacted him. I was advised to prepare something about this and report it here, as upon checking this user contribution there seem to be one obvious correlation between this suspicious account and user:Neftchi (formerly Baku87).

Here is the evidence I gathered so far:

Since June 26th, Neftchi edited daily, until July 3rd. Retlaw registered on the 4th and edited until the 7th, Baku87 never edited during that time period. He returned on the 11th and soon request a name change from Baku87 to Neftchi. [13]

• Ratlaw Snellac addeed this map, which has the same borders as this map uploaded by Neftchi. This was probably done to support the revert war on the ADR article initiated by Neftchi when he adding the map on Jan 2009 [14].

• Here he announces having uploaded new picture of petroglyphs of Qobustan. Note that the original uploader of those petroglyphs was Netchi(formerly Baku87)[15]. Neftchi then shows an interest in pictures, by switching the pictures[16].

• On Church of Kish, Retlaw reverts to Neftchi version. The article history indicates that there was an edit warring in process, this user, who registered one day ago, apparently knew the edit war was going on and reverted to Neftchi version.

• "All by sudden" continues the discussion started by Baku [17], [18], [19], [20], [21] (adds a website owned by a well-known Adil Baguirov)

• The article Azerbaijani Special Forces was created on June 18 by Neftchi, Fedayee requested a source for an element, which was provided by Retlaw here. Check the article history and see that in fact this user who only registered on July 4, only showed interest in Neftchi contributions.

• He edits the Azerbaijani Armed Forces article, in which Neftchi is the most active editor.

• On Nagorno-Karabakh War, Neftchi added an unreliable source [22] which was reverted twice. Retlaw re-added that source.

• Baku87 started a thread in August 2008 [23]. Almost a year later RatlawSnellac backs him up [24], [25].

• Retlaw voted for an AfD here in which Baku87 had already voted.

• Retlaw created this article which was copied from here, Ministry of Culture and Tourism of Azerbaijan.

• Both users show interest in documenting Chinese alleged crimes during the Urumqi riots. Neftchi provides a source in its talkpage. [26] [27] So did RetlawSnellac. [28]

• RetlawSnellac goes on to add dozens of individuals in the List of Azeris. [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34]. Neftchi was by far the most active contributor to that list for the last couple of months. [35]

• Neftchi adds a picture of a carpet manufacturing in Ganja and here RetlawSnellac adds one on the Carpet Museum.

• Here RetlawSnellac even leaves a message on the Neftchi talkpage inviting him to use his pictures. This leaves Neftchi to do what he wants with those pictures without having the trouble of using two accounts. Note that the real RetlawSnellac denied having anything to do with this account.

• Funny here, the fake RetlawSnellac even goes to attempt to have the picture of the so much loved by Neftchi petroglyphs of Qobustan to FA statues.

• Also see here, most of the edits in the last few months were done by Neftchi. And here, where he supports Neftchi out of nowhere to add the POV tag.

• Note also that Retlaw claims to be from Belgium/Netherlands. [36], prior to Neftchi name change, this was Baku87's personal page on Wikipedia, which read: Deze gebruiker spreekt Nederlands als moedertaal.

The pattern between both users, as if he switched from one account to the other, and while one user was contributing the other never was.

I do not know Neftchi and never interacted with him, so nothing personal, but impersonation, and compromising whole project by thief of IP and abuse of freedom and trust, is something that in my opinion, can not and should not be tolerated. --Aleksey Chalabyan a.k.a. Xelgen (talk) 21:22, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I have tagged one of his images at commons (File:Carpet Museum in Baku.jpg) with {{subst:npd}}, since I have found it on the flickr website. I'm out of time, I'm afraid, to contribute more now, but these are serious allegations which do need careful investigation. If he is truly who he says he is, he should be able to verify permission at the flickr site or through e-mail. If it should prove that this individual is deliberately misrepresenting himself to commit intentional copyright fraud, then I think it would be appropriate to immediately indefinitely block any and all accounts that may be involved. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:38, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello, I just received a message in my talk about alleged sockpuppetry, impersonation and IP thief suspicion related to me and RetlawSnellac. I certainly hope this has got nothing to do with me being ethnic Azerbaijani and Aleksey Chalabyan a.k.a. Xelgen being Armenian as we both work on articles with in which we have strong opposing perspectives. I noticed that the only users who have ever accused me in Wikipedia were ethnic Armenian. For example I was accused of having a sockpuppet account called Baki66 thats why I changed my name from Baku87 to Neftchi to prevent confusion. I want to make it clear that I dont know who RetlawSnellac is and its certainly not me, he posted a message in my talk see here and I never replied back to it. I have not talked or had any contact with that user I do have encountered him several times in wikipedia in articles in which I was active, I think he is just checking out my contributions list and works from there. Also notice how all his edits are done after me. This kind of approach is often done by anon-users. So just going through my huge contributions-list and finding any connections with RetlawSnellac is easy work but in no way is that evidence or proof. With this kind of approach I could probably link you to sockpuppetry aswell. I have been a member in wikipedia for a long time and I have never engaged in this kind of forgery so under what motive and reason would I suddenly start now. RetlawSnellac said in my talk page that I was welcome to upload any photo of his Photoalbum in Flickr and gave me this link and also note that the username in Flickr matches the one in wikipedia (that is retlaw snellac), why not approach him instead of me and ask him to verify his identity on both Flickr aswell as in Wikipedia. Neftchi (talk) 22:32, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

He has been approached in addition to you as both of you have been mentioned in this thread. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:40, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello. First of all, the main "hero" here, is owner of fake account RetlawSnellac, who did several serious violations and for whom I can not think of any excuse, for that. About you, no believe me you being azeri and me being armenian doesn't really mean anything for me. I had lot of contacts, and worked/lived together with azeris and turks. I'm soo far from being nationalistic or xenophobic in any other way. Also I'm in WP, since late 2006, but in en:wp 99% of my contribs are interwikis to hy:wp. So "we both work on articles with in which we have strong opposing perspectives" isn't correct, we really haven't meet, neither we worked on same articles. I'm not much into history or politics, and I do avoid Armenian-Azerbaijan related topics, as I find edit wars, one of the biggest and stupidest problems of wikis in general. I'm much into photography and I'm much for Free Software and Free Content, because I do really respect IP rights. Add because I've been following authors works for some period, I felt myself much more obliged, to report this. So If I noticed similar incident done by Armenian, my reaction would be the same. I'm probably most copyright-paranoid in hy:wp. I Hope my motivation is pretty clear now, and no one goes to look for ethnic problems here, and we can come back to incidents. Let me sum it up again, I'm sure RetlawSnellac on wikimedia, is impersonator and thief, as I got reply from author, I'm almost sure RetlawSnellac here is puppet (my expereince of moderating several forums tells me so), what comes to you, you're account has most correlations with RetlawSnellac's contirbs. But I don't think I have any moral right to accuse you in anything, until check is done, by admins. And if it proves you have nothing to do with all this, I'll ask your pardon, for my suspicion. --Aleksey Chalabyan a.k.a. Xelgen (talk) 00:55, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm back. I've also located several others and tagged them for verification of permission. If there were a contact address for the flickr account owner, I would happily contact him through OTRS so that we could quickly resolve this. If you are in communication with him, can you perchance ask him to get in touch with info-en-c@wikimedia.org, explaining that there is an individual on Commons impersonating him and uploading his images without permission? If his e-mail address can be clearly connected to the point of publication, this could resolve matters very quickly, at least as far as the copyright problems are concerned. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:39, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Just because this alleged imposter (RetlawSnellac) is going through my contributions list should not make me a suspect of sockpuppetry, impersonation and IP thief suspicion, these are serious accusations. Just think about it, what motive would I have for all this? I upload my own photos, edits my own articles and I have been doing this succesfully for several years now. Perhaps I am a bit overreacting, Im just taken by surprise by all of this. I would like to see RetlawSnellac's explanation to all of this aswell. Neftchi (talk) 17:36, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Hmmmm.... fascinating. And well researched and presented evidence, Xelgen. At the very least, RetlawSnellac seems to have been engaging in activities that not only break Wikipedia rules but which are quite clearly illegal. He has been pretending to be someone he isn't (Walter Callens), has been claiming that he owns the copyright of images which he does not own, has been uploading some of those images to Wikipedia, and has been inviting Neftchi to upload even more of those images to Wikipedia, thus breaking copyright laws. Whether RetlawSnellac and Neftchi are one and the same might be provable using CU evidence - but if they are the same person, the evidence suggesting he has been carefully avoiding being online using two accounts at the same time-period means that he has probably also been using two completely different ISPs. Similarity in editing styles, the identical use of particular words or phrases, might be another way of proving they are the same person (or proving that they are not). Meowy 21:41, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

There's smth wrong with my ISP, as it's second day I can't access Flickr. So using proxy, I've got to real RetlawSnellac profile on flickr. There is an email address, at the bottom of the page. Guess you can try it, to contact him. And I've just wrote a FlickrMail to him, leaving link to this report, and your instructions to info-en-c@wikimedia.org and describe the situation. --Aleksey Chalabyan a.k.a. Xelgen (talk) 23:05, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

After reading Neftchi’s reply, I feel it is important to clarify few things.

• Neftchi told, that RetlawSnellac was editing only after him, as do some annonims do. But there are cases, when Neftchi showed interest in some articles only after Retlaw contributed in them. One example is Neftchi's renewed interest in the petroglyphs like here and this clearly after RetlawSnellac. Also, if we dig a bit deeper into RetlawSnellac's contributions, we see controversial edits in articles which Neftchi did not edit (which seems to apparently discredit his claim of a plot against Neftchi). A few more examples: [37], [38], he also created Shirvan Domes. Also check his edits on Saingilo – the disputed region between Azerbaijan and Georgia, this image is in commons too.

• On the diagram we see how Neftchi takes a break twice, both for about exactly a week. RetlawSnellac posts right after him at both times, and most importantly, only at times. Such "perfect timing" makes plot against Neftchi quite unlikely (untill someone knew he will be on brake).

I'd like to mention, that some of the pictures uploaded by Neftchi, rise some questions to me, as well.

• Compare this with this.

• Uploaded to skyscrapercity.com on June 30, 2008 - Source Flickr vs. Uploaded to wikipedia by Baku87 October 25, 2008

Note that Neftchi again claims to be the author.

I have more in mind, but I'd like to re-check them tomorrow with fresher mind, cause after few hours spent digging contrib. history, I'm afraid to become a suspicious paranoic. --Aleksey Chalabyan a.k.a. Xelgen (talk) 00:27, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, that's some pretty hefty evidence of copyright infringement, unless Neftchi is a woman named Erica who lives in Maine. Both of those images clearly predate our usage here. I'll see if I can get an admin who works more routinely with sock puppetry to weigh in on the sock question. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 10:39, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Have you noticed its summer? Thats why I was on a break, what else could I be doing during this time. If I was changing accounts then wouldnt my IP remain the same? So check for IP between mine and that of RetlawSnellac's. Unless you have that it means nothing. And what do those photos have to do with this case, that has got to do with copyright and my previous website - euro-caspian.com (which is offline now). The fact that your out of topic makes it seem more like a crusade against me. Also note how fellow Armenian Wikipedian collague Meowy suddenly enters the talks, this at least raises the bar of suspicion of your accusations against me. Especcially taking into account Meowy's offensive language against Azerbaijanis, such as in this example, in which I qoute:

We also have to consider the plight of the population of Azerbaijan. They have a medical condition that's rather like a severe nut allergy. At the sight of a map showing the borders of Nagorno Karabakh their necks start to swell up, then they begin to involuntarily jump up and down as if possessed, arms swinging about wildly. If the situation is not quickly relieved by removing the map, their heads will quite literally explode! Many medical papers have been written about this unfortunate condition, but a yet no definitive cure has been found. The ingestion of a very large dose of democracy is known to alleviate the symptoms, but this is something the afflicted are reluctant to undergo because of cultural reasons.

So I would like to know whether this is a anti-Azerbaijani case due to my opposing perspectives regarding both our countries and politics. It could also very well be that you are RetlawSnellac and whilest I was on a break you made edits based on my contributions list and collected so-called-evidence for a case against me; considering you know my history of contributions very well. Anyway as I said before, I could probably find connections with you and some other user aswell and accuse you of socketpuppetry, because this is what kinda evidence you present. What you want you will find.Neftchi (talk) 14:43, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for inserting some off-topic humour into the thread - and, unlike your uploading of images, at least you are acknowledging the real creator of that satiric piece! However, I think you should be responding to the issues and the questions about your uploading of images that appear to be the work of others. Meowy 16:38, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

BTW, I think what Neftchi is trying to say in his "and what do those photos have to do with this case, that has got to do with copyright and my previous website - euro-caspian.com" comment is that the photo on the blog by a woman named Erica has actualy been stolen by Erica rather than the other way around. That seems possible. Looking at all the photos in her album there is no evidence she has actually been to Azerbaijan, and the photos show dancers in many locations around the world. So, unless she is extremely well-travelled, it would be common-sense to assume that almost all of the photos in that album have been taken from other sources. Meowy 17:02, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd certainly agree with you that Erica is unlikely to be the photographer of a lot of those images and may not be this one. I'm not entirely sure if Neftchi is either, though. I have confirmed that File:Kara Karayev.jpg was hosted, for instance, on the now defunct website, but I can't confirm that it was hosted there prior to its uploading here by another contributor, and copyright seems questionable, given that the photograph must be, what, 30 or 40 years old? Also, is he the copyright owner of the schoolbook from which this was scanned? Questions like this are worth some clarification. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:33, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I had hosted a website called euro-caspian.com funded by Heydar Aliyev Foundation, but the website was not required anymore and thus I closed it down, its offline now. The photos of Gara Garayev for example is from the database of the Heydar Aliyev Foundation. If your interested in learning more about the Heydar Aliyev Foundation I suggest you visit their official website here. The schoolbook picture is a scan of a schoolbook in Azerbaijan for 4th grade about Azerbaijani history. I wasnt aware that it was not allowed to scan book covers and upload them, I thought since the picture depicted Babek a heroic figure in both Iranian aswell as Azerbaijani cultures it would contribute to the related articles. I would also like to note that we stay on subject as I cannot represent myself while being confronted on several different subjects. I suggest we deal with the current case that is regarding the socketpuppetry and then later move on to copyrights regarding me, otherwise it would simply be unfair for me to represent myself. Neftchi (talk) 20:39, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

No, you cannot claim copyright to a picture you scan from a schoolbook and license it under GFDL and CC-BY-SA. I see that you've used fair use rationales before; unless you can verify that this picture is public domain, you can only use it if it meets the non-free content criteria and you provide a proper fair use rationale. With respect to the others, I see that you were advised in 2006, here, to obtain a letter from Heydar Aliyev Foundation to verify your authorization to release their materials. Did you ever obtain this? I don't see a copy of a letter from them in the OTRS system related to this (though there is one letter from them on an unrelated matter, which agents can see at Ticket:2008101710030661). You should add your comments to the PUF listing, which is linked at your talk page, as that listing will run its course within two weeks' time. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:53, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I can imagine, one doesn't understand the IP right laws, standards and the different licenses and cases. But I think every child understands, that writing "This work was done entirely by me", under work created by another person, is something "bad" and "wrong". I still, do assume good faith: for example - I can imagine being lazy, to properly provide all the necessary license/rights information. But it's not acceptable, in many ways. Project could be simply sued by real authors - seriously harming project, communities, and idea of Free Content in general. So can you please, look through all your uploads, mark for clean up all the images, you didn't have rights to upload, and provide info on images you really created by yourself, or had rights to upload. So this question never rises again in the future, and doesn't rise mistrust? --Aleksey Chalabyan a.k.a. Xelgen (talk) 01:16, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Dear Neftchi, it's second time you try to present this as personal and/or ethnic-biased. First time I ignored that, taking in account we had no contact before, and that you might be surprised by this situation. After all my explanation, and time I've spent trying to be as correct and accurate in facts/evidence rising suspicion to you, I find it quite insulting. If I by any chance would have any personal/national problems with you, I would contact you directly. I do understand, that this is not pleasant for you. Neither it's pleasant/interesting/fun for me. Noitce, that I didn't even put any of your words under doubt, without providing verifiable facts. You already did it several times. And constantly looking for ethnic background, you try to accuse me in nationalism. So I demand for mutual respect and civility.

About Meowy, as I can see you recently had a clash on her talkpage, I think it's natural she was quite interested in your edits at ANI.

I hope we'll finish with personalizing now, and deal with incident and actions, not persons.

Have, you really checked evidences? At both times RetlawSnellac posted really early the days you started to take brakes, check it, that person knew then you would be on vacation if not you. Please let's stick to what is presented, and solve this out fast. --Aleksey Chalabyan a.k.a. Xelgen (talk) 00:27, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

 Inconclusive based solely on technical evidence, it can not be ruled out nor proven solely on technical evidence.  Likely based on behavior and edit patterns that they are the same. I'd support indef blocks of the socks and a short block of the master. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:44, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Update; still unresolved, more feedback requested

I have listed several images by Neftchi at WP:PUF for clarification of their copyright status. The listing is here. Meanwhile, I have spoken to several admins who work sock puppetry or checkuser, and based on behavioral evidence and regional base of both registered accounts, the concerns are plausible. (see here and here. I have sought feedback from another CU as per suggestion, but would more than welcome other admin opinion here. :) Sock puppetry is not my neighborhood. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

After looking this over once again, I have issued RetlawSnellac (talk · contribs) an indefinite block, and Neftchi (talk · contribs) a one week block (bearing in mind that the image issue is still, as far as I know, unresolved). Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 11:16, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Possibly same case, in the past

I'm not sure if related, but while I was checking Neftchi contribs, I found another case, which looks quite similar, to this one. VanWeesp registered on Jan 10 and loaded related pictures on commons, with questionable rights. The only info I find on VanWeesp on google is hotel in Netherlands not a real person.

• See here: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/VanWeesp. Questionable pictures, on google picture search results for example , here I find on September 13, 2008 a version of this here loaded on Jan 10, 2009.

• Here: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Azerbaijan_Navy.jpg Was uploaded on Jan 10, 2009, while http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showpost.php?p=3679927&postcount=134 Was uploaded on November 08 2008.

• Take a look at this photo. Now look at a LiveJournal of Ukranian pilot who visited Azerbaijan, for training Azeri pilots, and obviously made that photos during flights. It's written in the mentioned LJ post, anyone speaking Russian can confirm this. Now notice how photo uploaded to commons, was cropped out, to hide the watermarks of real author, and presented as "work done entirely by myself". A style we already know. Guess no need, to talk about dates, here.

• Same here - a cropped version of Photo at Military today. I'm not sure if last one is the author, but it could be taken from that website, and cropped out for the very same reason.

• On English wikipedia he also created an account and added those photos, see here. Not all photo's incorporated in articles by him, the rest were added by Neftchi, examples: [39], [40], [41].

• Neftchi was off wiki from January 8 to January 18 (VanWeesp only edited on Jan 10) and when Neftchi returns, first thing he do is put VanWeesp’s picture here. Note the only contributions by VanWeesp is on articles relating to the Azerbaijani military, articles which Neftchi is the most active contributor of.

• And majority of photos come from military parade of 2008, Neftchi too added pictures from same parade. See description here for example. This photo again was often seen by me on different forums, with photos weapons (like here), and again uploaded few months before, then they were uploaded here.

Add to this, that photos have small and different dimensions. And the reason is, that photos were taken from web, and then cropped out, to hide the watermarks, as it was with done with Fighter/MRLS photo. After few days I spent checking I'm almost sure all the photos of Neftchi and his puppets were stolen. A person who does create artworks/photos would be much more respectful to photos of others. And to me, Neftchi crossed the line, after which you can hope that at least 10% of images he uploaded, were created by him/or he really had rights to upload them. --Aleksey Chalabyan a.k.a. Xelgen (talk) 00:57, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

This example you have found (original:[42], on Wikipedia:[43]) is a blatant case of a deliberate breach of copyright. VanWeesp, as you said, has simply cropped out the copyright-owner's original copyright information. All of this case is revealing just how much Wikipedia Commons is being used as a way of "laundering" stolen images. The methodology seems to be first upload them to Commons, then insert them into Wikipedia, using their established "Commons" status to avoid any inconvenient copyright questions being asked here. I know from experience that copyright issues on Wikipedia Commons are far more "relaxed" than on Wikipedia itself, and some of its uploaders are allowed to literally get away with theft. However, it isn't proven that Neftchi was aware of the true copyright status of these images - he may have just been searching Wikipedia Commons for suitable images to add into articles here. The connection you have discovered between this thread on militaryphotos.net [44] and this image uploaded by Neftchi [45] (the same photo is on post 27 of the thread) might just mean that "Zakali" is Neftchi - and if Neftchi is the actual photographer then there is nothing wrong. But is that credible? For example there are photos in that thread depicting similar stages of the same parade which have been taken from opposite sides of the same streets. This suggests two or more photographers at work - propably a lot more than two. Also, the subject matter, plus the closeness to the subject, suggests the involvement of official photographers (i.e. photographers working for the state or the armed forces, which would mean the photographers will not own the copyright of their photos). Meowy 16:16, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

For reasons I did not find explained, Zakali is labelled a "Banned user" on militaryphotos.net. Many of the photos contributed by Zakali in the thread on militaryphotos.net are watermarked "APA", which stands for Azerbaijan Press Agency, and were apparently copied from their site: see here, here and here. In either case, whether Neftchi is Zakali or not, something is rotten here.  --Lambiam 20:31, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, I don't think we should think if Neftchi and Zakali are same persons. There are lots of such forums on the internet, and lot of general forums, have threads with similiar photos of weaponry from all over the world. And there are millions of people from all over the world who kind of fetishy weapon. While I was searching, I've seen at least 20 similar threads. So I propose to leave this aside now. --Aleksey Chalabyan a.k.a. Xelgen (talk) 18:11, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

• Update: I have opened a deletion debate on VanWeesp's images at Commons, since these images must be handled there. It can be found at Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Azerbaijan Navy.jpg. User:Rlevse tells me that VanWeesp's contributions on En Wikipedia are too old for check user, so there may be no means of determining if he is anyone's sock. I'm speaking to several admins on Commons about the best handling of the VanWeesp and RetlawSnellac accounts. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:51, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. It's pity though we can not technically determine if Neftchi and VanWeesp are really same persons. So we have edit patterns/interests/and fact that only Neftchi was adding to articles photos uploaded by VanWeesp. --Aleksey Chalabyan a.k.a. Xelgen (talk) 19:04, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Single-payer

Resolved

 – No admin action required. TNXMan 14:22, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Please start discussing the changes you are making to Single-payer health care on the article talk page. You are drastically rewriting things without any discussion, even after you have been reverted by others. And please read this policy. Your contention in this edit summary that "concensus never defines wikipedia" is categorically incorrect. Consensus-based editing is at the heart of the project, and since at least one editor has disagreed with your changes, you need to start discussing them before editing further. Thanks. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:10, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

consensus-building, yes, but not consensus defining. plus, i explained my edits, while the reversions were *not* explained, and consensus is no excuse for irrelevancy. on this basis, i feel harassed, unduly chastised, and my time and efforts disrespected. just because the admin (as proudly self-identified) bigtimepeace has no basis for their reversion, it doesn't mean that i should be required to do extra legwork, or be threatened with sanction. i suggest that the person taking the action reverting, deleting or creating paragraphs should be able to back it up with at minimum a short and relevant explanation. wikipedia is supposed to be about the written word! relevancy changes with time, and consensus cannot be a catch-all for deletions of significant parts of politically charged current topics.

24.2.247.208 (talk) 22:56, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

i guess the question of abuse also relates to how irrelevant the article was. there were at least three major problem with the leading section on single-payer. the first: there was no identification of the notable controversies in the early paragraphs. the second: the whole thing had been skewed and repeatedly destructively edited to eliminate and/or obscure references to single-payer as a legislative proposal for government-based universal health insurance. the third: the language in general, as is often the case, was unclear, the cumulative effect of *people not taking their time on their writing*. 24.2.247.208 (talk) 22:56, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Why is this at the administrators' noticeboard? Looks like a conversation between two users, which in turn seems to suggest it should be located at one or both of their respective user talk pages. (On a side note, administrators are generally expected to say so on their userpages; it's not an ego thing, it's so you know who you're talking to.) – Luna Santin (talk) 23:26, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Worth noting that Bigtimepeace hasn't edited this section - his comment above was posted by the IP. The admin category is on his page, too - were you referring to him, or someone else? Nathan ^T 03:03, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

This makes a little more sense if you look at the original post [46] which was to WP/AN, and then the IP moved the bulk of it to WP/ANI. This appears to be a content dispute in which the IP wants to be a consensus of 1. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 07:32, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Just for the record, yes, I did not post anything in this section (my original comment was on the IPs talk page), and I only happened to see this thread just now as I was not informed of it. I think this can be marked resolved, as there is not much cause for admin action here in my view. The IP editor has been making significant (and sometimes problematic) changes to an article without discussion and in the face of objection, hence my note on their talk page (which was followed by, instead of a reply, the opening of a thread on AN and then on ANI). Quick version: this is a content issue and thus has no place here on this board, unless anyone feels my initial post on the IP editor's talk page was somehow abusive. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 10:08, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I did notice you hadn't edited here, but didn't think to mention it; in retrospect, it would have been smart of me to say so. Either way, I agree that this doesn't seem to be a problem as I read it. – Luna Santin (talk) 20:32, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Berlin Wall missing on "On this day" (main page)

On 13 August 1961, construction of the Berlin Wall started. This should definetely qualify for OTD, but only admins can edit/add it. Skäpperöd (talk) 08:33, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Confirming links eg here (German) and here (English). Skäpperöd (talk) 08:45, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I think you're looking for Wikipedia talk:Selected anniversaries. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 21:06, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

User:FalunGongDisciple

Could we have some eyeballs on Special:Contributions/FalunGongDisciple please? The entries look to me like trolling/harassment by a new account. Ohconfucius (talk) 16:53, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

• I would let things settle over a few days. The first 'attack' seems more hyperbolic than anything else. Protonk (talk) 19:06, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd cautiously agree. I haven't seen many users that started out on such a footing develop into regular editing, though. In general, when you immediately assume other editors are a conspiracy against you you're already on the event horizon of being blocked. Syrthiss (talk) 19:14, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

DanaUllman

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

DanaUllman (talk · contribs) notified of result. Sanction logged here. Shell ^babelfish 19:57, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

---

• Courtesy link to recent discussion: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive554#User:DanaUllman

DanaUllman (talk · contribs) is behaving exactly as he did before the arbcom ban. (Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Homeopathy)

I think that one set of edits will suffice: it demonstrates his WP:IDIDN'THEARTHAT behaviour very well, where he'll accept something one moment, then bring it up as if evidence hadn't been provided to refute it shortly thereafter.

On the 30th, another user - not Mr. Ullman - asked about whether a study was withdrawn. The withdrawal had been linked a couple times in the thread, but you had to scroll down a bit, so I thought it worth pointing out the relevant sections:

From http://mrw.interscience.wiley.com/cochrane/clsysrev/articles/CD001957/pdf_fs.html [Edited slightly to restore lost formatting; Emphasis mine.]

“ Homoeopathic Oscillococcinum for preventing and treating influenza and influenza-like syndromes

Andrew Vickers1, Claire Smith2

1Integrative Medicine Service, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA. 2Weston Education Centre, King’s College, London, UK

Contact address: Andrew Vickers, Integrative Medicine Service, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, 1275 York Avenue, New York, NY, 10021, USA. vickersa@mskcc.org. (Editorial group: Cochrane Acute Respiratory Infections Group.)

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Issue 3, 2009 (Status in this issue: Withdrawn)

Copyright © 2009 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by JohnWiley & Sons, Ltd.

DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001957.pub4

This version first published online: 8 July 2009 in Issue 3, 2009.

Last assessed as up-to-date: 19 May 2006. (Help document - Dates and Statuses explained)

This record should be cited as: Vickers A, Smith C. Homoeopathic Oscillococcinum for preventing and treating influenza and influenza-like syndromes. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2009, Issue 3. Art. No.: CD001957. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001957.pub4.

The editorial group responsible for this previously published document have withdrawn it from publication.
REASON FOR WITHDRAWAL
This review was withdrawn from The Cochrane Library, Issue 3, 2009 as the authors are currently unable to update it.

”

It's withdrawn. It says as much, three times. Sure, it's a little odd of a reason for withdrawing it, but it still makes it pretty impossible to include it here, when other, non-withdrawn papers exist. That people agreed with its inclusion before it was withdrawn three weeks ago is irrelevant now. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 183 FCs served} 19:41, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

While it was withdrawn, it has not been disproven, nor was it withdrawn because of an inability to reproduce the results, nor because another paper debunked it. It was withdrawn because it couldn't be modified as time went on. I see no reason why this is not still a perfectly legitimate study, aside from the fact that it doesn't go against homeopathy and any excuse is an excuse to exclude it. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 18:01, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

On the 31st, DanaUllman responds to this, and a few intermittent comments:

We all seem to be a tad confused on the meaning of this "withdrawal," though the review is still listed at their website Ultimately, the homeopathy article states that there are no replications to homeopathic research, and this is now clearly inaccurate. We can cite the Cochrane Report from 2006 or 2009 or reference the Lancet's News and Notes that mentioned that the results of the British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology were clinically relevant. Whig suggested a good compromise on wording, and although I'd prefer saying something else, I can live with his suggestion. DanaUllman^Talk 00:48, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

And then today he posts:

In due respect, the Oscillo research is still very much alive on the Cochrane site: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/homepages/106568753/CD001957_standard.pdf -- It seems to be the same body of information as in the 2006 article. I cannot find evidence at their website that it has been withdrawn. Can someone else? Further, if, by chance, someone finds such a reference, we need to understand what "withdrawn" means because there has not been any new research to disprove what their previous analysis provided. Unless someone provides this information, reversion to the original reference and description is in order. DanaUllman^Talk 17:47, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

The withdrawal - with the link to the Cochrane website - was posted, he responded to this posting, and then - in the same thread where the withdrawal is posted, he claims no evidence of the withdrawal exists.

DanaUllman was banned for a year for his tendentious editing and WP:IDIDN'THEARTHAT. Further examples, perhaps requiring more quoting, can be found on Talk:Homeopathy, of him refusing to get a point, or trying to twist words into a concession that he can do whatever he wants.

Furthermore, this is exactly the same as behaviour that came up in the arbitration case, only worse: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Homeopathy/Evidence#1c:_Part_i is a discussion of Ullman insisting that the findings of a study weren't retracted, even though the authors wrote of said study in 1999:

"The evidence of bias weakens the findings of our original meta-analysis [7]. Since we completed our literature search in 1995, a considerable number of new homeopathy trials have been published. The fact that a number of the new high-quality trials (e.g. [14,15]) have negative results, and a recent update of our review for the most “original” subtype of homeopathy (classical or individualized homeopathy [16]), seem to confirm the finding that more rigorous trials have less-promising results. It seems, therefore, likely that our meta-analysis [7] at least overestimated the effects of homeopathic treatments."

Ullman claimed this wasn't a retraction as that word didn't appear. In this new situation, Ullman is claiming that the statement on the Cochrane site saying the paper is withdrawn three times doesn't mean that it's withdrawn by the Cochrane Collaboration.

Furthermore, in the middle of the Arbitration case, Ullman was topicbanned by Vassyana for insisting that Scientizzle agreed with him, despite Scientizzle telling Ullman he did not: [47].

Dana Ullman caused massive disruption for months with his tendentious editing last time. He has promptly returned to his past behaviour.

I would ask that he be community indef banned. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 184 FCs served} 19:28, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

• I'm not an admin, but I've checked his contribtutions and I endorse an indef community ban. Behavior like this is totally unacceptable. --Tenant23 (talk) 19:40, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse indef ban as one of the editors that has to untangle all the misrepresentations of sources, and who helped in getting the first ban. At least topic ban him from anything homepathy-related, because of his huge COI as a full-time homeopath who writes books and articles saying that homeopathy is scientifically proven. Notice that all Homeopathy-related articles are under probation, so please some uninvolved admin review Talk:Homeopathy and issue a topic ban so at least we can work in peace. --Enric Naval (talk) 00:28, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• Temporary action and note. Under the discretionary sanctions authorized by ArbCom, I am imposing a two-week ban from the homeopathy topic area across all namespaces, broadly construed, including userspace and user talk pages. This should not be construed to prohibit Dana Ullman from responding to conduct reports and complaints regarding him. Additionally, I have advised Shoemaker's Holiday about short-term repeated complaints about the same issue (the last ANI closed barely a week ago) and about his failure to inform Dana Ullman of either thread. The apparent battlefield mentality on both sides is highly disruptive to the project. The topic ban is meant to be a temporary measure, thus its short duration. If Dana Ullman cannot accept the problematic nature of his approach and/or is unwilling to focus on other areas where he does not get carried away, I regretfully endorse a community ban. I would consider this his last chance to reconsider and reflect on his conduct. I do not expect endless last chances to be extended, as we have seen so many other times (including for this editor). If necessary, I will utilize the discretionary sanctions to impose the maximum one year block in order to prevent further disruption to the wiki. --Vassyana (talk) 03:24, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• As far as my current understanding goes, this is a substantially different situation from the previous one involving the word "retraction". Take the following with a grain of salt because I am simply repeating what came out in the discussion on the homeopathy talk page and have not tried to confirm it independently (I'm a bit handicapped by traveling): The old case was about the authors of a study later saying that the study was probably wrong. Whether they used the word "retract" or not, that's clearly a valid reason not to use the study. The present case is about a study that appeared in the "Cochrane library". Apparently this is a repository for up-to-date, high-quality medical studies. If the authors are unable to publish a new version of their study every X years, then it is removed from the library. This is what happened here. The authors "withdrew" the study because they cannot keep up with the literature. This is something that would not have happened if the study had simply been published in a prestigious journal of the normal kind. Note the wording "Status in this issue: Withdrawn" etc.

The lead of Homeopathy currently claims that (not: almost all of) the few positive findings of effects beyond placebo have not been replicated. If I understand things correctly that's not technically true because the study from 2006 that was removed from the Cochrane libraryin 2009 for a purely technical reason indicates that one of the positive findings is replicable. In my opinion the relevant language in the lead is still OK. That's because I am generally fine with little white lies in the lead, so long as they are explained further down. But here Dana's opponents insist on both leaving the lead as it is and not even mentioning the caveat in the body. That's at least borderline disingenuous, and it seems odd to take Dana's ineffective attempts to get the situation changed as a reason for a ban.

If you want to ban Dana because he is an undiplomatic, ineffective advocate of homeopathy who, instead of causing the changes to the article that he desires, merely brings out the worst in his opponents, then by all means do so. But don't pretend it's for a different reason that makes no sense. Hans Adler 05:19, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• (ec)To be explicit, my imposition of the ban is simply based on recurring patterns. It is not based on any particular argument about content violations or related concerns. The plain fact of the matter is that DanaUllman's current mode of interaction, including misrepresentation and statements ignoring ignoring valid discussion points (popularly referred to as "IDIDNTHEARTHAT"), is the same scheme of conduct that lead to previous sanctions. I am saddened that he is returning to these old patterns, as his expertise and topic knowledge could be valuable. However, in order for that value to be realized, he needs to accept the impact of his conduct and make a serious course correction. --Vassyana (talk) 05:45, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• Maybe Vassyana could be more specific. Please tell us what we should avoid in the discussion - exactly. Which behavior is disruptive so we can avoid it. Give us 2 diffs. There is a content dispute in Homeopathy -Thanks.--JeanandJane (talk) 05:49, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• This appears to be straightforward advocacy which is discouraged by our basic conflict of interest and discussion rules. The following sections are similarly informative, with DanaUllman being obtuse (requiring another editor to puzzle out what exactly he was referring to) and appearing to represent his concerns misleadingly as a new point (the Cochrane Collaboration material has been discussed ad naseum and indeed prior to his ban DanaUlmman was involved in those discussions including about the very points he recently raised again). I know from observation that he is capable is expressing his points directly in a forthright fashion without such vague references and maquillage. Another sign that time has not changed the situation is his continual misuse of the phrase "NPOV" (such as referring to "NPOV sources"). If my point is unclear, there is no such thing as a "NPOV source". NPOV is an article measure based on the predominance of information in reliable sources, not some subjective/personal measure of objectivity or neutrality. With DanaUllman returning after such a harsh arbitration sanction, I would expect that he would take special care to familiarize himself with the expectations of our principles and practices, and especially to avoid the same patterns of conduct that lead to a ban from Wikipedia. Instead, he immediately soapboxed and engaged in tendentious debate. I hope this helps clarify why I have imposed the temporary topic ban while the community discusses how to move forward. --Vassyana (talk) 11:58, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
• Replying a bit more directly to the subject of your concern, it is not that difficult to avoid problematic behavior. Do not engage in general (forum-like) discussion and advocacy on Wikipedia. Do not misrepresent the content of reliable sources or the statements of other editors. Do not beat dead horses or mislead editors regarding the nature of discussions (such as whether they are novel or revisited). Be forthright in discussions and do not belabor discussion with vague points coupled with strong assertions of specific evidence. Follow these simple points and you will avoid the pitfalls that DanaUllman has experienced at this project. --Vassyana (talk) 11:58, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Vassyana: 1. The diff you gave shows that Dana referred to his point of view on BBC Horizon but very soon he moved to another subject and did not edit the article. Nothing else.I saw nothing else which could be problematic. Instead Ullman offered many reliable sources to discuss. 2. Lets give to Ullman some tiny credit.[[48]]

"The Cochrane Collaboration material has been discussed ad naseum" is incorrect. Just few days ago or so when Dana Ullman he was proposing to add a comment from the Lancet supporting the efficasy of OSCILL., the editors -they want him now banned, they were saying that the Cochrane review on OSC was a better source . Few hours later they discovered that it was withdrawn. That created confusion since it is still appearing in the Cochrane Library website.

You imposed the ban when we were discussing another issue : whether or not several papers and info from exceptional reliable sources (which express different views on the Homeopathy effectiveness and meta analyses) should be included in the article as you already have seen in the talk page.

Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. It does not say to exclude the minority view especially in an article on the specific minority view (which according to the policy must be described in detail).4 editors dispute the neutrality of the article and you chose to ban Ullman ban upon request. The editors asked they same question : Is appropriate to exclude minority views on Homeopathy since they are published in many decent RS? Some editors say yes. You agree with this ? Is it appropriate to take a side in a content dispute and ban an editor? --JeanandJane (talk) 15:08, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I think we will have the agree to disagree on the impact and nature of DanaUllman's talk page contributions, as we obviously have very distinct perceptions of the circumstances. Moving on, if you review the history of talk page discussions in the homeopathy topic area, you will find that the Cochrane Collaboration material (including the findings in particular that DanaUllman is asserting) has been discussed on many occasions. Part of my concern is this is the same material DanaUllman was discussing (in the same tone and fashion) in the weeks leading up to the arbitration case where a full ban was imposed on him for homeopathy advocacy. Regardless, the topic ban of DanaUllman is short-term and considered a temporary measure. Discussion may lead to other uninvolved editors supporting stronger restrictions, a set of alternate editing restrictions, a full ban, or even no sanctions at all. Let us give a chance for other uninvolved admins to review the situation and comment. I'll gladly follow whatever consensus emerges. --Vassyana (talk) 20:51, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• I rightfully have said and still assert (and Shoemaker’s quote helps to verify!) that the findings of Linde 1997 study were NOT retracted. Shoemaker even quotes directly in Linde’s 1999 article that the new evidence “weakens” his previous findings, but he clearly doesn’t “retract” his results…he simply found that they were less strong. The quote that Shoemaker provides is: “The evidence of bias weakens the findings of our original meta-analysis.” The fact that Shoemaker asserts that this quote proves the Linde “retracted” his previous findings is evidence of poor scholarship or purposeful antagonism to the subject that clouds his normally rational mind.

Further evidence of Linde’s viewpoint on this subject was his strong critique of the Shang review of research.

Shoemaker is also upset that I did not see the link that he provided that “proved” that this article was withdrawn. http://mrw.interscience.wiley.com/cochrane/clsysrev/articles/CD001957/pdf_fs.html -- However (!), to me, this article is not available without subscription. I could NOT make certain that this article was “withdrawn” with certainty, and further, I provided solid evidence that the 2006 article was still posted at the Cochrane site…and further, that this article was also posted in 2009, issue #2.

Since my return to wikipedia, I have not done a single “edit” of an article. I have only participated in Talk pages…and obviously, my bringing up studies in major medical journals and other RS sources is disconcerting to him. Although I know that we can all sympathize with him and his POV, we all need to make an effort toward NPOV.

The other people here who are recommending sanctions against me are the usual suspects…people who are extremely active on the homeopathy article who have a long history of blocking many even mildly positive facts or information on homeopathy. Then, there are some wiki editors who are claimly to be “uninvolved” but it just so happens that they are seemingly “new” wiki editors, despite many obvious editing contributions to complex wikipedia issues (is someone a sock here?): [[49]]

I have been shown to be a civilized editor. I have been shown to provide important contributions to this discussion; however, just because I seem to provide RS references and facts that differ from Shoemaker, he makes the above complaint.

I believe strongly that my recent “topic ban” has been unfairly bestowed upon me, and instead, I urge Admins to evaluate those editors in the homeopathy article who are showing clear antagonism and bias to the subject and are blocking NPOV information in it. DanaUllman^Talk 05:40, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse ban of any length, re-applied as needed. My recent experiences with him give me no confidence at all that he can be neutral about his pet subject. He'll go on indefinitely, wasting the time of other editors, if he's allowed to do so. Friday (talk) 14:24, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse ban from Homeopathy and related pages. Homeopathy had stabilised and was improving, but Dana has turned it into a battlefield, promoting his own work, or trying to get wikipedia articles to agree with his published work. Doesn't seem to have learned anything from his block. Verbal chat 16:51, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
• endorse ban Clearly doesn't understand WP:BATTLE. Having him edit these pahes is detrimental to the construction of an encyclopedia. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:01, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Wow, all of this antimosity against me despite the fact that I have not edited a single article, have a history of being a civil editor, and have a history of referencing high-impact medical and scientific journals. I have no intent to have wikipedia repeat anything that I've written elsewhere, even various peer-review articles and book chapters. I only have a desire to submit information that seems accurate, reliable, and up-to-date. It seems that most of the above people who want me banned have content issues with me or are friends of those who do... It is not my intention to battle (at all). My intent is to collaborate...I hope that some admins look at my recent short contributions to the Talk pages and see for yourself (and please see context too). Humbly... DanaUllman^Talk 22:11, 3 August 2009 (UTC)22:08, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• Please do something. After a year's ban, Mr. Ullman started right back up with the identical issues (the efficacy of oscillococcinum and the 20/20 episode) that he left off with in 2008. He is unequivocally engaging in advocacy, for which he was blocked for a year by arbcom. It is clear by his statement directly above that he sees nothing at all wrong with this. Sources that he presents invariably have to be double and triple checked to be sure they say what he says they do, which they usually don't. Furthermore, dormant user (User:JeanandJane) and a new user (User:Dbrisinda), both pro-homeopathy SPAs, jumped in immediately to support Mr. Ullman and make his suggested edits to the main article. Edit warring, gross source misrepresentation, talk page filibustering, and IDIDNTHEARTHAT have ensued. The situation before his re-arrival was one of incremental and agreeable collaboration. The final straw, for me, is continuing to argue for the inclusion of a withdrawn paper, after it has been made clear that a withdrawn journal article is unusable. Topic ban him, indef him, whatever, just keep him far away from anything related to homeopathy, please. Skinwalker (talk) 00:49, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

  Oppose ban. He should be given another chance to stop has disrption, because he doesn't seem to be editing in total bad faith. -- 科学高爾夫迷(讨论|投稿) 13:31, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse ban - this user has long since passed his use-by date. His pattern of disruptive and tendentious editing is well established. He's here to further a particular agenda, not the encyclopedia. It's time for the community to flush him once and for all. Crafty (talk) 13:36, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse ban We are not here to give people chances, we are here to write an encyclopedia. Someone does not need to act in "total" bad faith to be disruptive. We don't need people who turn this place into a battleground. Chillum 13:34, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose indef community ban, in case it wasn't clear from my TLDR post above. This seems way out of proportion. Arguing with Dana is frustrating and his presence at the homeopathy talk page seems unlikely to improve the article. But as in the case of Dr.Jhingaadey (just look at the groundless agitation at User talk:Avathaar) some people are going nuclear because of a perceived danger from Dana that I simply can't see. I believe any perceived disruption comes from the reactions to Dana at least as much as from what he says. It's not unreasonable to ban such an editor per putting the encylopedia above everything else. I believe the German Wikipedia might do it like this. But here? I am not currently aware of any other topic than homeopathy where a community ban would even be considered for this behaviour. Hans Adler 07:22, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

• I think the problem here is limited to the subject of homoeopathy, and probably results from Dana's advocacy and his frequent COI issues there. His failure to acknowledge COI issues may also contribute to the problem. For example here, where I had drawn attention to the fact that advocating insertion of references to "Oscillococcinum" on homeopathy so that it supported an article he has written (and which had recently been republished in several places on the web) about swine flu gave him a clear COI. He responded "why does it matter what I've written off-wikipedia, and have I ever mentioned any such writings here or linked to them?" He just doesn't seem to understand the issue here. Note also that in the diff I've linked to he also implies that he hasn't cited or linked to his own articles ("have I ever mentioned any such writings here or linked to them?") despite having done so (albeit having acknowledged that it was his own website) only a week before on the same talk page; in the past he has at least once pasted material from his own site directly into an article (see this diff and this article - incidentally the reference cited in that diff appeared to mention neither William Court Gully nor George Woodyatt Hastings, despite having been cited to support a passage about their alleged antagonism). A topic ban may be appropriate. There's probably no reason for a Wikipedia-wide ban (I assume that's what is meant by "community ban"); however, since all (or almost all) of his edits have been in some way connected to homoeopathy a topic ban may amount to the same thing. Brunton (talk) 13:41, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, a topic ban on homeopathy would serve the same purpose of stopping the disruption (mind you, only under the same conditions as Vassayana's two-week topic ban above). --Enric Naval (talk) 18:11, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

• opposeIt is quite surprising that a well known writer who has served as an instructor in homeopathy at the University of California at San Francisco, and as member of the Advisory Council of the Alternative Medicine Center at Columbia University's College of Physicians and Surgeons as the chairperson for the National Center for Homeopathy's Annual Conference, and has been consulted by Harvard Medical School's Center to Assess Alternative Therapy for Chronic Illness, he is a regular speaker at universities, medical schools, pharmacy schools, and hospitals to be treated like that in this forum. This does not look good on wikipedia. Even if I understand all the editor's concerns about pseudoscience and I agree with them ( some times ) this animosity cannot be justified. Maybe his style is passionate, maybe he made some mistakes in terms of style in the past but I think skeptics and Wikipedia could use him to improve the Homeopathy article. I don't think we are enemies here even if we disagree some times. I m confident that a civilized solution will be found. --JeanandJane (talk) 02:46, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

• His credentials outside Wikipedia are irrelevant they would be relevant if he used his expertise to improve the articles in wikipedia according to policies and guidelines, which he is not doing. And they are relevant when evaluating if he is violating the WP:COI conflic of interest guideline which seems to be the case here. The reasons for the ban are his continued disruptive behaviour in-wiki, and his refusal to correct it. "He is an expert in Real Life" is not a reason for not issuing a ban unless ignoring this reason worsens the quality of articles. If he behaves in Wikipedia in unacceptable ways then he can fully expect to be banned from it. I remember that User:ScienceApologist was banned (temporaly) in spite of being an expert, and so was User:Peter Damian, and Dana was already banned by one year by Arbcom, and I'm sure that there are other examples. And I don't think that those bans made Wikipedia look bad at all, quite the contrary, it showed that we treat all users equaly. And please don't understate the disruption that he has caused in the talk pages of homeopathy-related articles. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:23, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Brunton writes about my “frequent” COI, where he correctly sited the ONE time I referenced my own site AND where he referenced my acknowledgement of this and my assertion that it is not RS, along with my note that this link was to a personal email from Professor Ennis that provided some direct insight into the veracity of a discussion at hand. Brunton also expressed concern that my Talk contributions sometimes included some of the same references to research in which I provided in articles that I have written. In due respect, I did not reference or link my articles. Is he actually suggesting that a wiki editor who writes about a subject in a non-wiki source creates a COI if he or she writes about this subject on wiki, even when he doesn’t reference his own work? It seems that someone is either extending the definition of COI or simply selectively enforcing it.

By the way, I originally chose to edit under my real name because I seek to maintain high ethics in my life and being transparent seems to be one important way to maintain this standard. While I could have easily used a fake name and thereby allowing myself a lot more ability to refer to my work, this is neither my style nor ethics. If I were really trying to be an “advocate,” I would have done this. Instead, I want to be a resource to people who are working on this article.

User:Verbal asserts that my references and discussions the Cochrane Report and to a Lancet “News and Notes” article are “advocacy.”[50]. User:Brunton then chose to question if the Lancet’s News and Notes was “peer-reviewed” [51], as though something written by their editors or editorial staff of this prestigious journal was suddenly not reliable because it had something positive to say about homeopathy.

What is remarkable is how offensive some editors can be to me personally and to my references to high quality research (as determined by reliable sources), and yet, no wiki editors or admins do any degree of admonishment of them. I can only imagine what would happen if I referred to an editor here as “delusional” as User:NRen2k5 did here [52] or what User:Friday did when he created a section entitled Talk:Homeopathy#It.27s_probably_best_to_ignore_Dana_Ullman.

Because so many antagonists to homeopathy edit the article on wikipedia, it is not surprising when normally recognized reliable sources of meta-analyses are ignored when these sources report positive results from homeopathic treatment. There are many examples to give, but the Cochrane Report on the homeopathic treatment of adverse effects from conventional cancer treatment is ignored in the article [53] My apologies for providing a “content” issue here, but my point here is that wikipedia needs more balance in many of its articles because they are dominated by just one side of the issue, while there needs to be a better effort at balance.

It is surprising how many editors who have sought to reference good research meta-analyses that have positive results for homeopathy have been sanctioned, banned, harassed, or simply overwhelmed by the larger number of antagonists to the field. I would hope that wikipedia would seek to protect some “experts” in order to create a real encyclopedia. DanaUllman^Talk 22:55, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Dana Ullman is known to misrepresent sources. Evidence of this appears on the arbitration page, but we can give

For instance, in Talk:Homeopathy#Proposed change on replication of trials, Ullman uses a note, which is not included on the journal's webpage or pubmed; a study's inclusion in a meta-analysis, and various other things to suggest that we throw out all large-scale metanalyses and work showing that homeopathy doesn't work, and replace it with his hand-picked set of studies, raising the weakest results to the status of "high-quality replicated studies". Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 184 FCs served} 00:27, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Shoemaker all the meta analysis are not definitive and are kind of controversial. Look at the talk page Linde's criticism to The Lancet about Shang meta analysis. Adler above says that the study from 2006 that was removed from the Cochrane libraryin 2009 for a purely technical reason indicates that one of the positive findings is replicable. Maybe he meant that? I don't know about the other papers. --JeanandJane (talk) 01:49, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

No. Dana has misrepresented sources, and also misrepresented the consensus of other editors at the talk pages, and he got that three-month topic ban when was caught red-handed misrepresenting the comment of another editor during the Homeopathy arbitration case, as seen here (at the end of the section). This is not a content problem but a behaviour problem. --Enric Naval (talk) 03:08, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

For recent (i.e. since his return from the 1 year ban) examples of this sort of thing, see for example this diff, in which he claims that when he cited his own website "several people defended this action": the "action" in question is in the section of the talk page headed "Rephrase please" - there is no sign there of anyone defending it. Or this diff, in which he writes "The wiki community thought that it was important to bring up the issue of replicability in this article, and I have simply provided references to RS and high-impact meta-analyses on the homeopathic treatment of specific ailments": scrolling back up the talk page to the relevant section (headed "Updating Info on Replication of studies") reveals that the issue was brought up not by "the wiki community" but by Dana Ullman himself. These may be comparatively trivial examples, but they would appear to indicate a continuing pattern of behaviour. Brunton (talk) 07:59, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Dana - What you are trying to do with Wikipedia is essentially to synthesize a secondary source here, from a number of primary sources. You have been constantly treading on the grey line dividing normal summarization and reporting and paraphrasing legitimate secondary and primary sources, and WP:SYNTH (and in the process, WP:BATTLE, and other related policies).

You are, for all intents and purposes, too close to the topic to be doing what you've been doing here.

If you go out and write overview secondary source / tertiary source articles in reliable publications, those can be cited in Wikipedia. Trying to write that material directly in here - what you've been striving to do (directly with pre-Arbcom-block, and indirectly with talk page discussion since) - is not acceptable behavior.

Fighting the secondary sources battle in Wikipedia is all about what WP:SYNTH and WP:BATTLE show is entirely what Wikipedia is not here for.

If you will not work to understand that, in good faith, then you need to leave the project. In this case, your being an expert (and as experts are, particularly opinionated) is leading to significant mis-use of the Wikipedia project. This type of debate is not what we're here for. Please accept that, or leave of your own accord. You will do your field much better work if you write these synthesizing opinions and reviews and overviews elsewhere and let others include those (presumably, as you're clearly an expert) reliable secondary sources here once you've published elsewere.

Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:05, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi there. Can you please clarify what do you mean? I agree though synthesis is not in our rules. For instance The lead which is not written by Dana Ullman says "Homeopathy 's efficacy is not supported by the collective weight of the scientific and clinical studies". Since meta analyses have been controversial and inconclusive with the results conflicting somehow each other ( according to our reliable sources ) this could be considered a synthesis and thus should be avoided? I m trying to understand what we should not do. Thanks --JeanandJane (talk) 04:05, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

In the case of controversial topics, we have to say something. WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE work to support WP:NPOV - we report the general community biggest consensus as our main focus, and present major alternative viewpoints commensurate with their weight in the field.

We can't avoid doing some judgement to determine what is the consensus neutral point, and how much weight, but in the case of Homeopathy (and many related fringe science/medicine topics) we have determined that the "mainstream view" is the consensus neutral point and that the proponents view, fairly reported, is the alternative. An article focused on alternatives like this should probably aim for something like 50:50 balance (the article topic is the fringe / alternative topic, after all) in terms of page space, though that will vary by topic greatly.

Dana Ullman's work, done in an external reliable venue, could then be presented neutrally and straightforwardly in the sections describing the pro-homeopathic research studies in more depth.

Done directly here, however, it's WP:OR, WP:SYNTH and bad for Wikipedia.

We are not denying that he's a major figure in the field - our point is, him being a major figure and being here does not shift the point of neutrality, even though he can both argue in more focused detail and depth than the average editor.

He can write synthetic overviews, in external reliable sources, and we can include them (he should not - WP:COI and WP:RS prohibit that - but others could). He can perhaps provide better, more balanced specific sources for the pro-homeopathy arguments. There are lots of things we can do here.

But what we and he can't do here is use Wikipedia as the venue to synthesize new material that's original research - whether that's new primary research or new secondary source overviews and reporting. You make secondary sources out there - in reliable venues which we can verifyably find and cite. And then, we can include them.

Synthesize here bad. Synthesize elsewhere in RS, then report on what RS said elsewhere, good. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:30, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. As an introduction : I was looking to determine if Homeopathy is a fringe belief and I could not find a reliable source which states it. In the contrary, I found a reliable source BBC which states "Homeopathy isn't some wacky, fringe belief." No skeptic argued against this during the conversation. If somebody has a major reliable source which states that Homeopathy is fringe - besides the skeptics organizations, please let me know.

Homeopathy is a highly controversial topic according to our reliable sources. The mainstream scientists have not reached a strong consensus about its efficacy, if we believe again in our reliable sources: World Health Organization is attacked by the Lancet for supporting Homeopathy 's efficacy. The American Medical Association states that "The efficacy of most homeopathic remedies has not been proven.". The early meta analyses are positive but not fully conclusive and definite, some others negative and positive and the recent Lancet meta analyses are negative but its results strongly criticized by other mainstream sources (with letters published in the Lancet and papers at the J Clin Epidemiol.

Meanwhile very notable Homeopaths have published their criticism for the latest meta analyses. Currently excluded from the article!

The main problem is that some of the sources have been excluded and the article reports that the mainstream consensus is that Homeopathy is unsupported by the collective weight ...... which is as you see above at least inaccurate according to the our RS.

I believe that Ullman tries to convince the other editors to use all the RS about Homeopathy's efficacy and not only the negative ones. And also to include the minority view in the article which is currently excluded for instance Fisher's article/J Clin Epidemiol.paper.

I did not see any synthesis from his part but maybe I have to look more for this. If you have seen something please provide a diff so I can also read it.--JeanandJane (talk) 05:23, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Oppose ban of DanaUllman.

What I've found most frustrating about the editing process for this topic is the screening of allowable RS articles published in respected peer-review journals, and also prominent secondary sources. When a statement that requires support of an RS is advanced, and that source either contends to support the efficacy of homeopathy, or criticizes the results of other anti-homeopathy research, that RS itself is attacked on some obscure grounds, lessening its value by stating it's too old, or it's been detracted (not!), or it's results have been heavily criticized and put to rest, or newer sources invalidate them (as if seminal older RSs suddenly become impertinent). All in an attempt to keep fair and RS supported content at bay. This is not in the least neutral in my opinion. DanaUllman, unfortunately, has been caught in this whirlpool of bias and intransigence. From my perspective, attempting to disassemble it, it seems, has proved overwhelming, to the point where one person cannot be expected to respond to every accusation or criticism made towards him by a group of others (allusion to IDIDNTHEARTHAT). In the short time I've contributing to editing for this article, many criticisms of propositions and suggestions I and others have put forward to make the article more neutral, have been repeatedly attacked even after they have been explained very clearly as to why and the reasons. And counter-suggestions have rarely, if ever, been advanced by the anti-homeopathy quorum. It seems as though a strong case of viral IDIDNTHEARTHAT is sweeping the forum.

As far as misrepresentation of RSs goes -- virtually *everyone* on the homeopathy talk page that has attempted to say anything substantive, has misrepresented sources by selectively quoting from them, selectively summarizing them, or biasely paraphrasing them, and then failing to notice a statement in some other part of the article which puts this interpretation into serious question. If DanaUllman is guilty of this, he is in *very* good company. Even so, I don't really blame editors for this if it's occasional, as perhaps this is due to unintentional zeal of having found what appears to be clear evidence in support of one's POV, to the blind exclusion of all else.

I don't believe DanaUllman should be banned, as I've learned a great deal from his participation in the discussion. He provides a unique perspective that is refreshing in (what I perceive to be) an already highly anti-homeopathy-biased forum. I've addressed specifically in the talk page two of the areas I see as biased, and now I've noticed a third involving the citing of publication bias -- but only in one direction in support of anti-homeopathy views, when there are *many* examples of publication bias in the opposite direction as well (the talk page reference lists many of them). But I haven't yet gotten around to addressing this latest issue on the talk page.

If DanaUllman is ultimately banned (which I don't support or agree with), then I would at minimum suggest banning at least two or three editors from the anti-homeopathy side as well -- those who are especially culpable in creating repeated and consistent obstacles to constructive editing and more neutral improvements based on the merit of arguments advanced and RSs to support these arguments.

Dbrisinda (talk) 06:50, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

The suggestion that "editors from the anti-homeopathy side" should be banned in some kind of cold war style tit-for-tat seems needlessly confrontationalist. Brunton (talk) 09:28, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Disagree with banning

But Agree with Dbrisinda above. While I would support DanaUllman not being able to edit the actual homeopathy article because of a conflict of interests, I see an attempt at totally banning him as the anti-homeopaths just trying to lock away any and all resistance.

I have also said this before, and will say it again: If a homeopathic doctor can not be used for input, research, and statistics on their subject of expertise, then all physicians must be banned from editing medicine related articles, as it is a conflict of interest, regardless of how up in the air the subject matter is.

It's pretty clear that every editor that contributes to Homeopathy puts their opinions first. Anti-homeopathic editors will always search the Earth for any studies that disprove the efficacy, and shoot down anything otherwise, while pro-homeopathic editors will always search for studies that prove the efficacy while shooting down anything that disproves it. To be quite frank and honest, everyone (Including myself) needs to take a break from the subject and come back to it with an editors neutral point of view. - ʄɭoʏɗoiaɲ ^τ _¢ 17:57, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Oppose ban - I have had some concerns that I have pointed out to Dana and he has been very responsive and understanding. He is a COI editor and he acknowledges this, and he has not recently attempted to edit the Homeopathy article or any related article to my knowledge. What he has done is participate in Talk page conversations related to Homeopathy, a subject in which he has expertise other editors do not. I believe that those most strongly accusing him of bad behavior have engaged in similar actions, cherry picking and selectively representing sources in order to portray homeopathy in the most negative possible light. As far as the claim of synthesis, the policy applies mainly in article space, not to the same extent in Talk space, where editors of all sides frequently synthesize in the course of discussion. The article has been one sided for a long time and I very much appreciate the input of others who can explain the other point of view and help us to achieve a more balanced presentation. I believe that Dana would benefit very much from helping improve Wikipedia in other articles unrelated to homeopathy, but I do not think a topic ban is necessary, nor would it be fair to single him out. —Whig (talk) 03:31, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Article Ban - It's time to see if Dana can edit articles (articlespace) other than Homeopathy. I recommend (initially) a 1 month article ban from Homeopathy. If Dana edits nothing else in this time, it's extended to 3 months. If there are still no edits to any other aricles - then indefinite ban implemented. I'm thinking that Dana needs to give the overall Community confidence that he isn't a one-trick pony and is actually interested in the project, rather than just one article out of millions. Of course if he violates the ban, then blocks can be issued per the Pseudoscience ArbCom decision. Shot info (talk) 06:17, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Since Dana hasn't edited the Homeopathy article recently, and has expressed his intention not to do so, I don't think an article ban from Homeopathy is meaningful. —Whig (talk) 07:36, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Dana is testing the Communities (short) paitence with him. I congratulate you that you are trying to help him. I'm trying to help him too - I don't want to see him permabanned, so how can he be encouraged to help himself? How about he go an edit another article - or discuss another article? His singleminded focus on homeopathy isn't helpful for him as a Wikipedian. If he doesn't diversify, well what is the Community going to do? Shot info (talk) 08:09, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think Dana is trying to test anyone's patience, but I appreciate that some people are frustrated, and I do agree it would be good for Dana and the project if he would edit some other article. I'm not sure what more I can do to encourage him: I think it would increase both his understanding of the project and his respect from others involved in the project. I don't think a formal ban is necessary to encourage positive behavior, only to prevent negative behavior, but what mechanism can do this? I'm open to ideas too, because the goal all of us share should be improvement of the encyclopedia. —Whig (talk) 13:48, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Note and reminder

If anyone was in doubt the Homeopathy Wars are now in full blood again after a period of relative calm. Note also that the article remains under Arbcom sanction. If there are admins out there who have rhinoceros-thick hides and want to help sort things out, please do. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:03, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, please, we have even gotten back where people will place POV tags at the top of the article because their proposed changes were all shot down at the talk page because of not being in agreement with what the high-quality sources say. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:46, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Did you notice how many editors dispute the neutrality of the article? .--JeanandJane (talk) 18:55, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Which is moot because, once it was discussed thoroughly, they failed to show that the article didn't represent sources accurately. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:05, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Or they failed to convince the editors who added those sources that there was a neutrality issue. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 19:09, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

The NPOV dispute never ended, and I continue to believe that the article should be tagged, but I have not personally added the tag recently. —Whig (talk) 03:40, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

We're governed by WP:NPOV. WP:NPOV#Pseudoscience specifically deals with articles such as Homeopathy. That some editors disagree with it, and want a purely sympathetic view doesn't make the article a violation of NPOV. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 184 FCs served} 07:26, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Nobody is arguing for a purely sympathetic view. Perhaps you would like a purely hostile view? —Whig (talk) 07:46, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

The tag says in plain english that "The neutrality of this article is disputed" (By some editors). This is far from how some editors seem to think it reads: "A new topic disputing the neutrality of this article has appeared" or "This topic is not neutral". The tag simply states that some authors disagree with the stonewalling of the likes of User:Shoemaker's Holiday, User:Enric Naval, User: Verbal, and User:Brunton (And to a lesser extent by a few others to fill the gaps). The tag discussion, however, is for the talk page. If DanaUllman is causing chaos, its only because those 4 previously mentioned editors go absolutely haywire when someone disputes their studies (Which because they've been published later, somehow supercede the earlier studies... But haven't been around long enough for much peer review. Convenient, huh?). Dana has not (And has even privately said to me that he has no intention of doing so) edited the Homeopathy page, and has merely provided insight and discussion on the talk page. This is perfectly allowable. If you can't handle these comments, don't respond to them! - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 15:29, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Floydian, you've been here enough years to know what WP:PSCI says. You've been here enough years to know that, for any subject, no matter how wacky, a few ostensibly reliable sources exist supporting it. You ought to know that some articles are the subject of continual campaigns to push them to meet a non-scientific point of view. Homeopathy is akin to Creationism. If Ssomeone showed up to the Evolution article with books by various Intelligent design proponents, and was abusing the scientific literature to find random quotes that seemed, out of context, to support his point, but, when you looked them up, didn't, would you still be complaining that the pro-science side was stonewalling? Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 184 FCs served} 00:45, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I'm aware of the policies regarding this, and I only believe that the term fringe belief needs to be changed, as the common person reads that as "Very few or next to no people on the planet believe in this." I am also aware of what history can teach us, and that's not to trust everything that is handed to you immediately. The merits of this medicine are not widely understood, and studies are bouncing back and forth every decade changing the opinion of it. I am aware of what money can do to the world and that things that aren't marketable are always at a disadvantage to the things that are. Just like at Wikipedia, consensus is not always achieved merely by numbers. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 03:20, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

There was just a long discussion on the Talk page about this and it was pointed out that the article does not call Homeopathy a fringe belief. It remains that some editors continue to refer to it as fringe in comments and edit summaries, however. I don't think there is reliable sourcing for characterizing it as such, and evidence of prevalence to the contrary exists. —Whig (talk) 15:33, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

If I might get back to the original point... all of the above only reinforces that we really need some uninvolved admins to maintain order. Pretty please? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 19:04, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

This I will agree with. A neutral admin who has no opinion of the topic either way needs to stand as a mediator, and possibly an overseer of edits. Consensus should be declared by this admin as opposed to the passionate editors of the topic. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 03:20, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

This ANI shows that it is important, perhaps essential, for some non-involved admins to participate in the homeopathy article. The ANI is evidence of one group of editors, who have a strong POV on homeopathy, who want to mute someone who doesn’t have their POV. Even though I have not made a single edit (!) to the article and have provided references to RS, their solution is to mute me. I sincerely hope that non-involved admins consider policing these editors who may be abusing wiki policies.

As for specific assertions above, I take issues with Shoemaker’s statement where he asserts I am “known to misrepresent sources,” but his “evidence” is simply not there. I encourage people to read his link to the Talk pages and see for yourself.

For the record, homeopathy does not simply have “some” studies that show efficacy; there are meta-analyses on the treatment of specific conditions that show this, and there is evidence of replication of studies, and yet, the article at present says that there are no replications of trials with positive results. Ironically, the reference that presently exists of this statement is reference #12 that is dated 1995! Despite my and others efforts to change this misinformation, this outdated information still exists, as does the 1995 reference. DanaUllman^Talk 03:55, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Suggested resolution

• DanaUllman (talk · contribs) is strongly warned against general discussion of the topic, especially for specific issues where he is (or has been) directly involved or acting as an explicit advocate. Conduct contrary to this warning will be regarded as disruptive.
• DanaUllman is strongly advised to communicate in a direct, frank, and clear fashion. This requires avoiding vague references, misrepresenting the statements of others, misleading other editors regarding the nature of a discussion, selective omissions, and other actions that clearly cause misperceptions or obfuscate aspects of the discussion. Failure to communicate clearly and honestly will be treated as disruptive conduct.
• All editors in this topic area are explicitly warned against soapboxing and treating the area as a battleground.
• Editors in this topic area are strongly encouraged to utilize avenues of soliciting community feedback when there is an intractable disagreement or other impasse in discussion. This includes, but is not limited to, requests for comment and various content noticboards (such as for NPOV, reliable sourcing, original research, and fringe theories). All such requests should neutrally report the disagreement and solicit feedback.
  • Failure to seek out such community feedback or other forms of dispute resolution while persisting in edit warring and/or talk page arguments will be handled as disruptive conduct. Rejection of community feedback will be treated as disruptive behavior. Extremely biased or advocacy style requests on those noticeboards will also be treated as disruptive behavior.

This specifically addresses DanaUllman's conduct, while also addressing disruptive behavior by other editors. This should not be the basis for further (or practically endless) second chances. It should be regarded as a "final warning" and provides a clear basis for admins to act decisively. Thoughts? Comments? --Vassyana (talk) 09:39, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Does this do something that the arbitration case didn't already do? Any reasonable editor would have taken a year-long ban as a hint that a change in behavior is needed, right? Friday (talk) 14:15, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

(ec) I still don't see how Dana Ullman has done anything wrong to deserve any warnings, let alone a final warning. He is not editing the article (And therefore is not engaging in vandalous advocacy), and the only "disruptions" are editors spazzing out at his comments on the talk page. All his comments are dedicated to improving the articles, none of them have to be carried out, or even taken into consideration if there is a general disagreement. Long arguments and discussion needn't be construed as a disruption, but rather as a means to some new resolution. My suggestions:

• Fully protect the article (Including from any admins involved with the article) so that only a neutral party can make the final edits to it. This way, nobody can accuse another of taking ownership of the article.
• Split the talk page into one dealing with style and one dealing with content. The content talk page should be labeled as a place where passions roar, and that comments should not be taken or delivered personally and should stick to improving the topic at hand.

The second is a bit unreasonable, but here is the alternative: Banning anyone that stands behind their opinions from editing Homeopathy or its talk page and related subjects. This isn't tribal warfare, I know we can be more democratic about this instead of being socialists crushing the rebellion. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 14:25, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

What he does wrong: He's wasting the time of editors on the talk page. He misrepresents sources, and has a severe tendency toward "I didn't heard that". I believe he's proven himself unable to be a useful contributor here. You want us to change our standard operating procedure to accommodate one guy? I believe there is a simpler, more common solution, already suggested above. Friday (talk) 14:57, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

1) Editors waste their own breath (... or strain their finger muscles) responding if they are unswayable in the first place.

2) He hasn't edited the article, so he hasn't misrepresented anything nor contributed to it. Its a talk page, and anything on a talk page is merely a suggestion or comment which is put forth to review by others.

3) I don't want to change operating procedures, but I don't want a communist wikipedia where editors go cry foul whenever somebody disagrees with them and the perpetrator gets a midnight visit from which they don't return. If he is misrepresenting sources, you say "You're misrepresenting sources there", and ignore it. You are suggesting we silence the only professional involved with the subject on wikipedia because you want things to just be silent and left alone, as is. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 15:47, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

No, misrepresenting sources should be an only warning the first time and a permanent disinvitation from editing the second time. It goes against the heart of WP:V to misrepresent a source. The fact that he is a professional here is rather the crux of the problem: he is promoting an inherently fringe view of a pseudoscience, something with no actual science (beyond the established efficacy of the placebo effect) to back it up. → ROUX ₪ 15:57, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure there is evidence of misrepresenting sources, perhaps he has selectively represented one side of the issue which offends other editors who selectively represent the other. In any case, I don't think that Floydian's split-talk proposal has much to recommend it, and the alternative is worse. We shouldn't be banning people based on POV. As far as fully protecting the article, since Dana has not edited the article recently and it is his conduct that is the issue here, there is no reason to consider that. I think that Dana is trying to help improve our coverage of homeopathy but lacks an appreciation of Wikipedia's wider community. I don't believe he has done anything to justify a ban, at this time, but a warning or friendly advice may be appropriate that Wikipedia depends on respect for the community and a difficult SPA runs the risk of exceeding the community's patience. —Whig (talk) 16:19, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I repied below in the evidence of misrepresenting sources. Dana has already had lots of warnings and advice, he had a mentorship by LaraLove, and he got banned for 1 year, and he still doing the same behaviour. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:12, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

(ec)But can one assume he is intentionally misrepresenting them and not simply misinterpreting them? The human mind is bound to create logical fallacies in order to satisfy the pattern it seeks. That is, someone looking through a study for something to back up homeopathy is very likely to only catch the parts that do just that (And miss the counterpoints made), but it doesn't mean they are intentionally fabricating their own results. I know my suggestions are extreme, but there should be a place for these discussions on wikipedia as they incite change as opposed to stagnation. Rules need to be lay down, not punishments - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 16:56, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Your point that one may misinterpret and not intentionally misrepresent sources is well taken. I don't believe there is evidence of bad faith on Dana's part. Nonetheless, I don't think rule changes are needed here. —Whig (talk) 17:34, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

See my comment and Brunton's comment. Dana was caught red-handed misquoting a comment to misrepresent it, the probation incidents page is packed full with complains and analysis of the misrepresentations, and the evidence page of the case is also full of that, Dana then got banned for 1 year for advocacy, and now he's back to misrepresenting again. We can't read his mind to know if he is doing it in good faith or not, but don't say that he didn't made misrepresentations because he has made a lot. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:12, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it is constructive to relitigate old battles from more than a year ago, and the evidence page you point to has been blanked, so there is nothing to look at or discuss. If you have a case to present to the ArbCom then as you know the article is under their supervision and you can bring violations to their attention. Here we are discussing recent conduct and I do not see evidence that intentional misrepresentation occurred. —Whig (talk) 20:18, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Not an old battle when Dana has been banned for 1 year and has restarted the same behaviour as soon as he was able to return. Just the continuation of the same problem after 1 year of forced pause. For the evidence page, you can simply click in history just like the blanking template says, but I'll give some links [54][55] and all of Scientizzle's evidence[56] (and Baegis' and PhilKnight's, and Shoemaker's might be too long to read but it has lots of diffs in painful detail). (and the stuff in the accident probation page was enough by its own to justify an arb case, mind you....) --Enric Naval (talk) 20:52, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

It is widely known that User:Enric Naval has a strong POV that is antagonistic to homeopathy, that he uses various wiki-lawyering strategies to keep potentially positive information about homeopathy out of the article, and has a tendency to take things out of context. He asserts that I have “misrepresented” sources, and he gives this as “evidence” [[57]], and he has the audacity to reference User:Brunton who is another of editor with a strong POV and who makes similarly unfounded assertions. They seem to think that if they and other editors with their similar POV gang-up and repeat the same accusations that others will think that they are real. Because many editors with a strong POV against homeopathy know that I provide references to high-impact journals that are widely recognized as RS, they seem to see me as a threat to their POV, even though I am simply trying to make the article more accurate and NPOV. Several editors have asserted that I have not done anything wrong and that I provide a real contribution to wikipedia.

Brunton and Enric assume that the issue of “replication of studies” is not important to this article, even though our article at present has a 1995 (!) reference to the lack of replication of studies that confirm efficacy of homeopathy in the treatment of specific diseases and even though I have provide RS evidence from the Cochrane Report that verifies that there has been replication of studies by independent sources. Further, I provided a reference to the Lancet showed that the result of one of these studies was clinically relevant. Brunton asserts that only I am interested in this subject of replicability, and yet, his own link shows that this is a highly debated subject with people voicing pros and cons [[58]].

My point here is that Enric and Brunton and select others make unfounded assertions primarily because I have a different POV than they do. The bottomline is that my new involvement on the homeopathy Talk pages is relatively short, and a non-involved admin can easily evaluate my contributions, see the many RS references, see my civilized efforts, see the many attacks (even personal attacks given by the NAME of a sub-heading [[59]], and see the persistent stonewalling of information that a group of editors with a strong POV against homeopathy.

It seems clear that the editors who want me muted should be more carefully evaluated for their actions.

I also want to address User:Vassyana: I am an “advocate” for accuracy. If THAT is a problem, please let me know. Please clarify what I have done wrong since my return to wikipedia. It seems that your recommendations are good recommendations for ALL wiki editors, not just me. Because you have chosen to address them only to me, I would benefit from knowing on what you are basing your recommendations only to me? DanaUllman^Talk 20:57, 10 August 2009 (UTC)19:38, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I have not asserted that only you are interested in the issue of replicability of results: what I was trying to point out was that your statement that "The wiki community thought that it was important to bring up the issue of replicability in this article, and I have simply provided references to RS and high-impact meta-analyses on the homeopathic treatment of specific ailments" implied that the matter was raised by "the wiki community" and you just provided supporting info, and this isn't borne out by the evidence which shows that you brought it up yourself. If you had phrased it the other way round, stating that you had brought up the matter and provided references, and the community had considered it an important matter to discuss, that would have been fair enough, and would have reflected what had actually happened; but that isn't quite what you wrote. I provided diffs in the comment that Enric referenced so that others could judge the evidence and decide for themselves whether or not I'm mistaken here. For the record, I don't assume that the issue of replication of studies is not important, and I don't think I have posted anything that could be interpreted as meaning that - I was even one of the participants in the discussion that you cite as evidence that it is a highly debated subject. Brunton (talk) 22:33, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Dana, I don't want to answer for Vassyana, but the standard on Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. I'm sure you know that, but I just wanted to make it explicit. —Whig (talk) 20:24, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Whig...of course...and THAT is why I have a history of providing reliable sources to verify what is NPOV information, usually in high impact journals, and sometimes with secondary reliable sources that have reported on them...and THAT is why I seem to be so threatening to some editors here. I cannot help but find a bit of irony that some editors assert that I am "wasting editors time" by providing this information, and they seek to mute me (this is why I feel that admins should be investigating those editors here who have are pointing fingers at me). DanaUllman^Talk 21:07, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

There is no such thing as NPOV information, Dana. I really think you lack sufficient perspective on Wikipedia's policies and practices. I don't want you banned, I don't want you restricted from participation in Talk page discussions on the topic of Homeopathy, but I doubt you are going to get why you confuse people if you limit yourself to one article without broader involvement in the encyclopedia project. —Whig (talk) 00:40, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Choices

Vassyana's suggestion

• Support Vassyana's proposal. There is far too much soapboxing on that talkpage. DU is certainly an instigator, but by no means the only one to wander off WP:TPG. As I believe I argued last year, knowingly and flagrantly misrepresenting a source should be grounds for immediate block. As a side note to the strong encouragement to seek input from the wider community, I would like to urge that such discussions when (not if) they occur not be overrun by the usual suspects. - 2/0 (cont.) 03:40, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

  Third choice, as somewhat stronger measures seem required to end this disruption. The non Dana Ullman advice remains excellent, though. - 2/0 (cont.) 05:18, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

• Support, with the understanding that disruption of a talk page is still disruption. Suggest adding article probation if these problems continue. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 19:24, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

  Second choice KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 15:10, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose Ullman returned after a year, and immediately, the talk page goes from civil to an all-out war. He's not a good influence, he has shown nowhere in this entire discussion any desire to change, and he has continued the problematic behaviour. It's far too little for a very obviously single-purpose account who caused months of disruption in the past, and who promises further months of disruption in future. Ullman hypes minor studies that support his view to the skies, ignores anything he doesn't want to hear - look at the incident that started this, where he participated in a discussion about a study being withdrawn, then went straight back to asking whether there was any evidence it was withdrawn - and is talking about exactly the same points as before the one year ban. Does allowing him to continue editing alternative-medicine-related articles serve any constructive purpose, or is it just another example of the holder of the minority view must always be given endless second chances? Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 188 FCs served} 11:48, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose per Shoemaker, this in no way address the problem. This isn't a sanction prohibiting Dana's problem behaviour, instead it sanctions Dana to continue these actions; the very same actions for which he was banned for a year. Dana has shown an unwillingness or an inability to change his editing regarding alt med, so should be topic banned from alt med. I support the non Dana specific parts, but that doesn't address the problem that is Dana.Verbal chat 12:00, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose, clearly ignored the other POV's in this debate and made a hasty suggestion that really doesn't do anything to solve or address the problem. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 15:40, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
• Comment - better than nothing, but would prefer a site ban. PhilKnight (talk) 18:33, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
• Support but the same advice for all editors .--JeanandJane (talk) 19:37, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose I have considered it, but given Dana's past history it's obvious that he is not going to hear this advice. A 1 year ban made no change in his behaviour. We'll be back to the same situation in a short time. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:45, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
• Support but provided it applies to all editors equally. Dbrisinda (talk) 00:30, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. If Dana's behaviour gets worse, he can be topic banned without such a final warning. If it stays essentially the same (I am afraid it's probably not going to improve), this may get him banned for the doing what his opponents do, but being on the wrong side. Hans Adler 08:49, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Article ban

• Support. This keeps DU from editing Homeopathy (Which is already the case), but allows his participation in the talk page. This entire debate is being run by the individuals with a strong anti-homeopathic POV, and the other POV's n the matter are completely being ignored over this group that has simply banded together to take out their key opposition. This "war" is just as much their fault as DanUllman's, and this incident board post is a fucking joke. Every participant should be given the same punishment as DanaUllman. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 15:36, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
  • On what grounds? Can you provide evidence of misrepresenting of soures? Of being a single-purpose account? Of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT? Of any good reason for a ban that would apply to the other editors? Provide diffs. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 189 FCs served} 18:48, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
    • On the grounds that the debate here is identical do the debate at homeopathy. It's essentially the same editors taking the same opposing viewpoints. There is very little to no input on this from neutral parties, and the decisions are clearly based on an effort to silence Dana. Why is a site ban necessary when a topic ban accomplishes the same thing? - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 20:14, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose - Talk pages are where Ullman causes the most disruption and problems. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 188 FCs served} 18:01, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. An article ban would accomplish absolutely nothing, since Dana has not been recently editing the article and has expressed no intention of doing so. —Whig (talk) 17:36, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose unless talk pages, and all pages related to Dana's published work are included. That's why I support the two options below rather than this. Verbal chat 18:55, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose it misses the point of where the disruption actually happens. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:45, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose since he has made no edits and does not intend to do so. Dbrisinda (talk) 00:30, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
• Fourth choice. This would recognize that the community finds Dana Ullman's participation problematic, but would not do much to further the restoration of productive editing. A ban solely from the article will almost certainly serve only to shunt the issue to specific remedies &c. As well, any measures should in this case include talkpages, as disruption confined to talkpages is still disruption. - 2/0 (cont.) 05:18, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
• Support as a purely symbolic action since Dana is careful not to edit the article, anyway. And per Floydian's rationale, which is correct. Hans Adler 08:49, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose - does not address the problem. → ROUX ₪ 16:11, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Topic ban (All Homeopathy-related articles and talk pages)

• Support, third choice KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 15:10, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
• Support, as a second choice, as the harshest punishment possible. Includes all the homeopathy-related articles, as well as all the remedy articles. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 15:40, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
• Support, if talk-pages included. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 188 FCs served} 17:33, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
• Comment, if this is imposed in such a manner as to encourage Dana's wider participation with unrelated articles/topics, it may help him to gain a greater appreciation of Wikipedia and the community. I do not know that it is necessary or appropriate to force him to do so, but if the topic ban may be lifted more quickly upon some demonstration that this account is no longer single purpose, then perhaps it may do some good. —Whig (talk) 17:36, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
• Support - if talk pages are included, but prefer outright ban. PhilKnight (talk) 18:33, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
• Support Second choice, but only if article talk pages are expressly included. And any off-site canvassing should lead to an immediate site ban. If similar behaviour manifests in other topics it should be a short step to a site ban. Verbal chat 18:55, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
• oppose --JeanandJane (talk) 19:32, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose as per COI and previous editing of other pages related to homeopathy. Needs to include talk pages. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:45, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose since he is an expert in the field and can provide valuable discussion and alternative perspective on the talk page. Dbrisinda (talk) 00:36, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
• Comment Lets just for the sake of things assume that this option includes both the articles as well as the talk pages of all articles directly related to homeopathy. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 03:19, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
• Second choice. This editor disrupted the encyclopedia, was banned for it, and returned with precisely the same behaviour (and even discussion points!). Enough already, let us get back to creating a free NPOV encyclopedia. - 2/0 (cont.) 05:18, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
• The wording here has obviously caused some confusion - see alternatives below. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:25, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
• I didn't follow the Arbcom case at the time because it was confusing as hell and was about articles where I had not been active. But it looked as if there was essentially a lynch mob going after Dana because he had the wrong opinion and fought for it tirelessly and ineffectively. Now he is back, still having the wrong opinion and again fighting for it tirelessly and ineffectively. If that's indeed why he was banned by Arbcom, then it seems quite extraordinary to me (not because it doesn't make sense in the interest of the encyclopedia, but because we generally don't do that), and "returned with precisely the same behaviour" is not a convincing argument to repeat Arbcom's mistake. — By the way, if I were dictator of this place, I would topic-ban Dana along with a few other people who are active around homeopathy. Hans Adler 08:49, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
• Support - this is the same as the topicban below, why is this a separate section? → ROUX ₪ 16:11, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Topic ban (DanaUllman is prohibited from editing any page relating to Homeopathy, broadly construed. This is a strict topic ban that includes talk pages.)

• Not voting at this time; merely clarifying the wording to avoid future wikilawyering. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:25, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
• Support - Might help. He hasn't shown any indication of wantin to edit outside this field, however. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 189 FCs served} 06:13, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes. If this restriction was imposed, it ultimately forces him to contribute to another area to understand en-wiki and improve his conduct to a level where continued sanctions are not necessary. If he refuses to work anywhere else, and insists on working in a similar manner which led to his site-ban in the ArbCom case, then there is no cause for ever lifting this restriction, which effectively makes this a community ban. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:32, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
• Comment, I'm not sure that I understand how this option is different from the topic ban proposed above, since the above option also includes homeopathy-related talk pages. —Whig (talk) 15:19, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
• Support - second choice. Siteban is best, given that the ArbCom ban provided no behaviour modification. But this would be an acceptable second choice, as long as talkpages are included. → ROUX ₪ 16:11, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Probation (DanaUllman is subject to an editing restriction (probation). Should DanaUllman make any edits which are judged by an impartial and uninvolved administrator to be disruptive, or should DanaUllman continue to engage in advocacy, WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT or other similar recurring issues that were specified at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Homeopathy, he may be banned from any affected page or set of pages. The ban will take effect once it has been logged at User:DanaUllman/Community_sanction and the imposing administrator has posted a notice to the user's talk page. If he is also banned from using affected talk pages, this must be specified in the notice and log.)

• Again, not voting at this time; merely clarifying another wording for a proposal to avoid future wikilawyering. This avoids letting problems spill elsewhere. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:25, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
• Errr, all homeopathy articles are already under probation since around February 2008. About that Dana had already been indef-blocked once, and unblocked only under mentorship. Then, during the probation, he was fully topic banned by the community, then indef-blocked for not respecting the ban, and then unblocked again with a promise to respect the ban. And then he was fully banned for 1 year by Arbcom. And now he is still with the same behaviour. Honestly, Dana already spent all his second chances. --Enric Naval (talk) 05:42, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I can see what you are saying, but this probation is not on Homeopathy - it's exclusively on DanaUllman. Any edit he makes, be it in Homeopathy or in another subject area (if it comes to that), will be scrutinised in the same way. This is more of an IF the site ban does not get community consensus, or terms that will already be in force IF the site ban is later lifted. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:48, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

• I would support this only if qualified with "impartial and uninvolved administrator"—and adequate measures were taken to genuinely insure the adjudicating admin was truly impartial and uninvolved. Otherwise, it is conceivable that happy trigger-finger admins who may be sympathetic to anti-homeopathy views, may be a little quick on the draw. Dbrisinda (talk) 06:06, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree.Truly impartial.That's a challenge. --JeanandJane (talk) 06:11, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Impartial and uninvolved; though it was implied anyway. However, enforcing the sanction does not make an administrator involved or partial; so it ultimately comes down to whether DanaUllman will engage in appropriate conduct, or not. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:26, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

• Weak oppose I don't see this working out in practice. Any administrator trying to enforce it is going to get attacked by Ullman's supporters (also, why did so many new editors show up at the exact same time he did?) Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 189 FCs served} 06:13, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. Unnecessary, unpractical, would be abused. And no real cause, anyway. Hans Adler 08:49, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. There is no claim that Dana has engaged in bad behavior outside of his participation on the topic of homeopathy, which is already under probation, and there is no cause to put Dana under individual probation without even a claim of broader misconduct. —Whig (talk) 15:24, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose - per Whig, and per my support of the site ban. → ROUX ₪ 16:11, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
• Hans Adler's point is well taken: what assurance is there that this would not be abused? Perhaps if it were limited to one or two administrators that DanaUllman would voluntarily accept as his "probation" officer(s) for the homeopathy page only. Whig's point is also well-taken: since claims of "bad behaviour" have not been made outside the topic of homeopathy, any probation etc. should not apply outside it. Dbrisinda (talk) 02:19, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Site ban

• Support, first choice KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 15:10, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose, there is no grounds in this and it is completely unneccessary to ever ban Dana from anything but his conflicts of interest. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 15:40, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
• Support - continuing the same behaviour upon return from a site-ban is generally met with return to a site ban. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 188 FCs served} 17:33, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

But that is to assume that the last ban was completely justified as well. Perhaps it should have been a topic ban. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 20:07, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

• Strong oppose, there is no basis for this. —Whig (talk) 17:36, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
• Strong oppose, there is no basis for this. No censorship (in Wikipedia I mean) .--JeanandJane (talk) 19:31, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

  All due respect, but this has nothing to do with censorship. We're not the government, and DU is free to say whatever he wants elsewhere, regardless of what decision is reached here. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 20:33, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Note: a.Almost all the editors who want Ullman out have edited the article and they have or had participated in the content dispute in Homeopathy. b. Can whatever decision override Arbitration's committee decision for 1 year ban only ? (rhetorical question) --JeanandJane (talk) 01:20, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

• Support - user was given a 1 year ban, and the user's comments above indicate the same problems remain. PhilKnight (talk) 18:33, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
• Support as PK says, a 1 year ban and he immediately behaves in exactly the same way and denies the problems that lead to the ban. First choice. Verbal chat 18:55, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
• Support, although the topic ban (including talk pages!) could be enough. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:45, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
• Strong oppose as per others' statements above, there is no basis for this. Dbrisinda (talk) 00:36, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
• First choice. I see no compelling reason to expect that Dana Ullman's editing in areas unrelated to homeopathy (broadly construed) would maintain high encyclopedic standards. It might be best practice to start with the topic ban as the softer option, but issues of sourcing are universal and not confined to the COI area. - 2/0 (cont.) 05:18, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
• Please note I've added 2 more choices above this. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:25, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
• Strong oppose. Totally ridiculous. So far I can't even see cause for a topic ban. Dana editing the article about his home town or his favourite musician would be a step to the solution, not a problem. The problem is that he doesn't want to do that. Hans Adler 08:49, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
• Support - first choice. DanaUllman was banned by ArbCom for the exact same behaviour he is now engaging in. Clearly the sanction did not cause any behavioural change, and as such it is time to say goodbye, permanently. → ROUX ₪ 16:11, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Results

This discussion has been going on since 19:28, 2 August 2009. It is currently 16:14, 13 August 2009 (UTC). I have a number of points; if you object to any of them please refer to the number and do not interlace your comments with my numbered points, thank you.

1. I am a reasonably uninvolved admin, as I have made four edits to the article[60] none of them significant. - indeed, one was removing apparent vandalism, and one was removing a misused tag, one was repairing a reference. The last was an edit in 2007 wehre I attempted to enact talk page consensus - I presume something somewhere drew my attention to some issues there - and I made it clear in my edit summary I was so doing and stated "feel free to revert" making it clear I had no stick in that particular fire.
2. I have placed my views in the sections above, as an uninvolved admin, after carefully examining the evidence and posts offered. I also formatted the Choices of remedies which is now in place, for better ability to determine strength of views.
3. There are strong objections to all remedies suggested.
4. If we count the supports only, both Site ban and Topic ban are tied.
5. If opposes are given weight, the section with the most support overall is Topic ban.
6. I therefore move for an immediate topic ban for editor DanaUllman, on the subject of Homeopathy, broadly construed, talk pages included. I suggest that if this is not obtainable, then it is very likely the only recourse may be a site ban, in order to prevent the kind of disruption this editor seems to carry with him.
7. I am aware other editors are seen as sources of concern by some who have posted here. I strongly suggest you not confuse this issue with those issues; if after the DanaUllman situation is resolved you perceive issues with other editors handle that then, do not add them onto this.

-- KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 16:14, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, obviously, pe my comments above. However, it'll be met with great opposition and we'll just be back here doing the same thing soon enough. At which point there will again be no consensus, and in a year or two this will finally make it to ArbCom. → ROUX ₪ 16:20, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Too many choices! It's difficult enough to gain consensus when only one course of action is proposed. Offering half a dozen or so alternatives practically guarantees that there will be no clear consensus. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:16, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. I have seen that done on purpose before in Wikipedia discussions as a deliberate attempt to hamstring any possible constructive outcome. I highly doubt that's what has happened here, but it's an interesting parallel nevertheless. → ROUX ₪ 16:20, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Hence my boiling it down to the two most supported, and making it clear if we cannot agree upon the one, I may have to enact the other, to protect Wikipedia from further disruption. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 16:22, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I admire your willingness to stick your face in a blender. → ROUX ₪ 16:27, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I object only on the basis that you have published your opinion of homeopathy:

Sorry, you're simply wrong. Its not a "fledgling science" and if you were knowledgable about it you would not consider calling it that. Its water, plain water, with "magic" properties. We're being beyond neutral and even placating the fringe water-worshipers who think there is some special ability of water to become something else if you shake it enough. We should be harsher, not kinder, if we were to achieve true NPOV. Its too much a battle though, due to POV warriors, so we keep it "close enough". There is no dispute - there are those who really don't understand either NPOV, or homeopathy, or (most likely) both. Puppy has spoken. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 8:38 am, 9 August 2009, last Sunday (4 days ago) (UTC−4)"

Which would not make you a neutral admin (Though a perfectly eligible juror). You are also basing your decision purely on the number of votes, which only indicates how many editors have voted. We need an admin who doesn't know what homeopathy is so that they have no opinion on it. Knowledge of the subject itself isn't really necessary in the matter at hand, but opinion certainly is.

My suggestion is that DU be given an indefinite topic ban on homeopathy and its directly related articles (Water memory, remedies, things that are unique to it), and that the ban be lifted only when he shows initiative to break his SPA into an active contributor to Wikipedia as a whole. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 16:36, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Uh, wrong. That's pure policy wonkery. Knowing what homeopathy is, and having an opinion based in reality, is no hindrance to taking administrative action here. It's like saying that an admin who comprehends global warming cannot enact sanctions against someone who denies that it exists. You would probably say that, of course, and you would be equally wrong. Facts != involvement. → ROUX ₪ 16:44, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I think that Floydian's point is correct, KillerChihuahua is not a neutral admin, even to the extent he may be relatively uninvolved in editing the article. It would be better if some other admin without express hostility to homeopathy would take whatever action is deemed necessary. —Whig (talk) 16:58, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Expressing hostility to homeopathy is akin to expressing hostility towards the Four humours. There are these things called 'facts' and 'reality', you see. → ROUX ₪ 17:02, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

This is not the place to have an argument about the subject matter. —Whig (talk) 17:03, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Here is Floydian's proposal, which I think deserves to be emphasized and voted on. My suggestion is that DU be given an indefinite topic ban on homeopathy and its directly related articles (Water memory, remedies, things that are unique to it), and that the ban be lifted only when he shows initiative to break his SPA into an active contributor to Wikipedia as a whole.

• Submitted for consideration. —Whig (talk) 17:06, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

You seem to be missing the point of this section, which is to have fewer options muddying the water. Not more. → ROUX ₪ 17:07, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

KillerChihuahua. Your participation in the debate had a highly combative character; besides that you reverted the tag, your wording - had battleground character: you gave no additional reasons ,no reliable sources and you said We're being beyond neutral and even placating the fringe water-worshipers who think there is some special ability of water to become something else if you shake it enough. ( Your edit ignored major reliable sources which speaks of controversy on Homeopathy ) Since your point of view is so strong against homeopathy I don't see how you can be neutral .--JeanandJane (talk) 17:07, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

There are no reliable scientific studies which show any efficacy for homeopathy apart from the well-documented nature of the placebo effect. Again: factually-based opinions are a good thing. We should not be providing equal weight to things that are simply not supported by reality; please see WP:FRINGE for more enlightenment. → ROUX ₪ 17:11, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Scientists from some mainstream reliable sources say different things for instance "Given these limitations, Shang and colleagues' conclusion that their findings “provide support to the notion that the clinical effects of homeopathy are placebo effects” is a significant overstatement."--JeanandJane (talk) 17:26, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

This is totally not the place to have this discussion. —Whig (talk) 17:20, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

You made KC's opinion of homeopathy part of the discussion, not me. I am merely pointing out that knowing that unicorns don't exist is no impediment to an admin enacting a sanction against someone who repeatedly claims that they do, and (knowingly or not) misrepresents sources to support said claims. → ROUX ₪ 17:24, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

You seem to advocate banning all pro-homeopathy editors. That is unfortunate and contrary to the NPOV policy of Wikipedia. I will not argue the topic with you here. I did not make KC's opinion part of the discussion, I concurred with another editor that he is not a neutral admin. —Whig (talk) 17:31, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

• Rather than make everyone sit through another discussion about whether or not the KC can close this one, can I help out here? I am not just reasonably, but completely uninvolved in any homeopathy-related topics. I agree with the Puppy - there is clear support for doing something to limit DanaUllman's disruption and of the possibilities (looking at the section above and earlier discussion) a permanent topic ban seems to be the solution that most can live with. Shell ^babelfish 17:10, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes please. → ROUX ₪ 17:11, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

  Appreciate your help, Shell. Can you rephrase "permanent" to "indefinite" and give Dana a chance to have the topic ban removed in the future if he demonstrates good behavior editing other articles unrelated to homeopathy? —Whig (talk) 17:17, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

  Please don't. That is trivially gamed and we will be right back where we started. → ROUX ₪ 17:19, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

  Our objective should not be to ban constructive editors. The question is whether Dana will be a constructive editor. Whether or not his future behavior leads us back here again is not something we can assume now. If he cannot behave on other articles then I think a site ban would shortly be forthcoming, and in order for an indefinite topic ban to be lifted, some admin would have to agree he had demonstrated understanding of Wikipedia's policies and community. —Whig (talk) 17:23, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

  We're not banning a constructive editor. And you seem to have forgotten that DanaUllman was banned for a year by ArbCom for certain behaviour. The ban is over, and he is now engaging in the exact same behaviour. So yes, we can very easily assume that his future behaviour will lead us right back here, as a year-long ban did not change a single thing about his behaviour. AGF is not a suicide pact, and Dana has exhausted his reserves of same. → ROUX ₪ 17:29, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Alright, so formally, this would be:

Pursant to Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Homeopathy#Discretionary_sanctions and as a result of this community discussion, DanaUllman is indefinitely prohibited from editing any page relating to Homeopathy, broadly construed. This restriction applies to both articles and talk pages.

Are there any concerns with this wording?

As for future removal, I would be happy to review the ban later if DanaUllman has shown an ability and interest in editing productively in other topic areas. Also, ArbCom is still a standard option for reviewing such sanctions.Shell ^babelfish 17:38, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

You may want to explicitly say talk pages are included in this language. But as it is, I think it is pretty clear to everyone what is meant so perhaps it doesn't matter. I just don't want there to be any confusion. —Whig (talk) 17:39, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Concur with Whig regarding specifically including talk pages, and thanks much for helping out here, Shell. I agree you are a better choice than I; at the time I believe I was the best (least involved) choice volunteering (well ok, only one) but there can be no objection or concern to your carrying this out. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 17:50, 13 August 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.

Trolls of Anti-Americanism

Trying to edit this article is like walking down an alley in Bogota at 2 AM....Talk:Anti-Americanism

Cast of Characters

Abce2|Aww nuts!Wribbit!(Sign here)

• Stalking

• Follows me to Islamaphobia, sole action is to revert me (same reversion as Munci). [61] Obviously trying to draw me into an edit war.
• Follows me elsewhere to snipe and pester, e.g., [62], [63] (there is more).

• Trolling. His only edit to the article is to revert me [64]. Abce2's interaction with me is based entirely on personal remarks. Most of his comments on the Talk page of Anti-Americanism are scolding. He made a marginally polite offer of "peace" [65]. All his comments on the related ANI's are sniping and pestering directed at me. He seems to have no actual interest in the topic, having never discussed any aspect of it.

User talk:Munci

• Stalking. Follows me to Anti-Americanism from Islamophobia, sole action is to revert me (same reversion as Abce2). The text being restored was added without discussion or consensus by an erased account. Obviously trying to draw me into an edit war.
• Trolling. His edit comments distort his edit. Part of the issue is a near-spam of multiple warning templates, which nobody has explained in Talk. They want to plaster the article with templates, without specifying what needs to be improved.

User talk:Gasta220 The text Munci and Abce2 are reverting to was added by this anonymous, hit&run account that doesn't even have a Talk page. (How do you delete your own Talk page? I tried and couldn't.)

WebHamster

• Warring, incivility. I won't beat the dead horse here. Blocked twice for warring on Anti-Americanism, and numerous personal attacks.
• Stalking.

• Followed me to First Amendment to the United States Constitution, sole edit was to revert me [66]
• Single-purppose IP reverted my edit to Tehran. [67] The IP geolocates to Manchester England. WebHamster's User page states he is from Manchester, England.

• Trolling. Just tells everybody to "fuck off" like it was his daily multivitamin.

User talk:Blippy

• A Third Opinion who doesn't stay neutral. Doesn't withdraw after reason for request no longer applies. I solicited a 3rd Opinion to help in my dispute with Webhamster, since it is specifically for disputes between two editors. Blippy ignored everything I said, proposed edits no different from WebHamster's, reverted one of my edits, inserted edits I opposed and generally acted like WebHamster's lawyer. After the dispute with WebHamster was resolved, Blippy continues to propose content changes that ignored everything I said. He is inserting changes he knows I oppose [68]. What kind of Third Opinion is this?
• Similar pattern on Roald Dahl, where he showed up as an uniinvovled editor in an RFC. The similarity extends to supporting IP/Pantherskin's edits in the same way as on Anti-Americanism.
• Recent accusation of socking involving IP/Pantherskin on Roald Dahl and Anti-Americanism, and two sockpuppet investigations in the last two months.

Pantherskin

• Constant distortion of everything that is said; constant framing of every dispute as personal attack. Targets contentious issues, articles for deletion. Starts friviolous ANI's [69]
• 3RR violation on an AfD, deleting my comment that he might be a sock [70], [71], [72], [73]. 3RR violation on Talk:Anti-Americanism: [74], [75], [76], [77]. These are discussions where he is removing my comments.
• Stalking. Followed me from Anti-Americanism to Animal liberation movement, sole activity was to revert me. [78] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noloop (talk • contribs) 19:21, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Slatersteven (talk

• Trolling. His Talk page is a littany of warnings about disruptive edits, answered with wide-eyed innocence, such as one which "caused a mass deletion of active threads that took a couple of admins, Haemo and Slp1, some fussing to fix" [79]. There are several dialogs of this sort, in which SlaterSteven basically says "Ooops." In Anti-Americanism, the feigned incomprehension takes the form of using Google search hits as sources. Repeatedly on the Talk page, he proposes text using a Google page of search hits as sources, I say "that's not a valid source", and he adds more pages of Google search hits as sources. He's been editing over two years, hard to believe he really thinks Google page of search results is a valid source. His other MO is to make barely readable comments because of a childlike use of spelling, punctuation, etc.

• Stalking: SlaterSteven has followed me to more articles than anyone else. He doesn't generally revert my edits, just buzzes about and often opposes. There are a million mild examples, but he has really followed me to about 5 different articles in the last month. A few examples: [80], [81], [82], [83], [84]. There are more. None of these is indivudally problematic, but the overall effect of being followed everywhere is like dealing that a bug that just won't go away.

And what about User:Noloop?

• Stalking. I've followed once. After the sock case, I looked at Pantherskin's contribs and clicked on a deletion discussion [85] page, because it interested me. I attempted to clean up the article and make constructive observations about the case, e.g. [86], and [87]. I mentioned Pantherskin's sock case because socking matters when there's a vote. There are also two suspicious accounts on the deletion discussion, Kingcredibility as single-puprose new account, and an anon. IP.
• Trolling. I don't think so, but others have said so. This article has produced so much abuse and general irritation that I've lost my cool a few times. I don't believe any look at my behavior that considers what I've been putting up with will result in a conclusion of trolling, but I can't deny being curt more than once.

Other than WebHamster, all these editors are new to the article. They weren't there before my dispute with WebHamster. They've done little but snipe about behavior, and propose changes they know I oppose. They've followed me to (literally) a dozen other articles, where they either revert me or throw peanuts. There are no other active editors. There can't be. The article is uneditable. No newbie in his right mind would stay.

Are they all socks and trolls? Does the article just bring out the worst in well-meaning people? Am I paranoid delusional? I don't know, but the article is uneditable. Personally, I'd like to see a massive "relational" IP-lookup for everyone involved. The article needs the mother of all flea bombs. Noloop (talk) 16:01, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Ooh, all so many people wrong, but yet again you appear to be the only one in the right. Perhaps you should bimble over to WP:SPI and start making a nuisance of yourself over there too. Given your propensity for accusing people of being trolls and sockpuppets I'm surprised you aren't a regular fixture there. --WebHamster 17:57, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

No I have not used google search hits a sources, I would susgest you provide the link in question. I would also susgest that you refrain from commenting on users literacy.

*Stalking: SlaterSteven has followed me to more articles than anyone else. He doesn't generally revert my edits, just buzzes about and often opposes. There are a million mild examples, but he has really followed me to about 5 different articles in the last month. A few examples: [88], [89], [90], [91], [92]. There are more. None of these is indivudally problematic, but the overall effect of being followed everywhere is like dealing that a bug that just won't go away.

A million, I suspect you exagerate, but in at leat one case [93] there is correlation between what you awere asking and our discusion on anti-american. [94] involved Blippy, who I was in some debate with over anti-american, so I saw the report on his talk page. As to Books on Arthur, does it look like I did not know my subject, odd then I included a book not on the page, as well as mentioning a few more (I am still wating on comments about that). Moreover I have not visited bitch , Islamaphobia, prostitutuion in fact you have editied far more pages then I have visited. As to the user talk page, that is not stalking I informed you of an ani against you, sorry if that offended you, I shall not repeat the offence. Slatersteven (talk) 17:47, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict, response to Noloop's original post) You know, when six people say your edits are wrong, there's a good chance you may be in the wrong! An edit like this to Islamophobia should be reverted, as it cosists of nothing but adding various tenses of "alleged" before various references to Islamophobia, until the whole thing reads like a Monty Python sketch (or should that be, "an alleged Monty Python sketch"?). The Anti-Americanism edits which seem to have triggered this kerfluffle involve Noloop deleting reliably-sourced content regarding anti-Americanism in Turkey and Pakistan. Noloop is told to get consensus on the talk page before tinkering with consensus-established content. Noloop, as many do at this point, flips out, demanding that people jump through bureaucratic Talk Page hoops to use Foreign Policy In Focus as a source. There's probably more to it, but I think that's the gist. You're not walking down the streets of Bogota minding your own business - you're walking through the streets of Singapore spitting your gum on the ground and doodling Kilroy on a wall or two, then wondering why everyone's glaring at you. Badger Drink (talk) 18:07, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Or even walking down his previously mentioned alley in Bogata shouting "I'm an American and everybody likes me and you shouldn't grow drugs". --WebHamster 18:25, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Noloop does seem to deem anything he does not agree with as an opinion.Slatersteven (talk) 18:32, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

He now appears to be canvasing support from users who have been involved with the accused [[95]] & [[96]].Slatersteven (talk) 19:21, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Seems that Noloop is right and everybody else is in the wrong. Even in his notification he couldnt refrain from personal attacks, [97]. See also [Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive556#Harassment], including the subsection on Noloop for some of Noloops other attacks. Pantherskin (talk) 19:29, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Noloop, I am getting sick of this. I am not trolling, stalking, or any other crud you've thrown at me or others. I'm on my last nerve. I am getting close to submiting an RFC for you. Not many people have gotten on my last nerve.Abce2|Aww nuts!Wribbit!(Sign here) 19:34, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I would also like an inivloved admin to come and see this. Noloop, I've been here for, oh, 7 or 8 months. I have more experiance than you. You accusations are a joke.Abce2|Aww nuts!Wribbit!(Sign here) 19:45, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

• Calling Google search results reliable sources:

SlaterSteven proposed search results as reliable sources many times, as he knows. Here he proposed text to add that uses results from the books.google search for "the anti american phrase death to america": [98] I object, he proposes it again, [99]. I object again, and he adds three more [100]. I object again, and he adds another ref that is a Google search results page. [101] In between, he makes comments like "A list of google search hits is not there." [102]. Finally, Blippy, the allegedly neutral Third Opinion, adds the whole thing to the article. [103]. So, when SlaterS. says "No I have not used google search hits a sources, I would susgest you provide the link in question." he is (to be uncivil but accurate) lying.

• SlaterSteven's disruption under guise of innocence: [104], [105], [106], [107], [108]
• Regarding disagreement generally: the problem isn't disagreement. The problem is when I am followed around to a half dozen articles solely for the purpose of undoing my edits, and a another half dozen articles solely for the purpose of throwing peanuts. If I can't convince anyone of that with reason, maybe I will try convincing them of it by following them around to articles and undoing their edits. Noloop (talk) 20:29, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

They are links to pages In Google books, which if you had botherd to read them you would have realised. In fact they are links to specific pages that contain the information they support.

As to my feigned innocence, example one was created only a couple of months after I joined, and it was only the second page I edited (and the first I created). The second example was due to an editing error on my part (I think). The third is not me feigning innocence, it is some one informing me how to read Harvard citation templates, I did not even respond. Fourth example was again a mistake; I had two examples of the page open and saved the wrong one. Fifth example I do not feign ignorance, But I was in the wrong. I take it if I go back over your history I will find you have never made mistakes?

Do not make threats to be disruptive e if you cannot win please. It is not constructive. Most of the ‘following’ has been linked in some way to either disputes you are having or other users not you, at least on my part. In only two cases you have raised is this not the case. Less then 1/3 of the pages you have edits in the last 24 hours, and this is over the course a month or more.Slatersteven (talk) 21:06, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I have started a RFC for Noloop.Abce2|Aww nuts!Wribbit!(Sign here) 21:13, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Slater, thanks for explaining your rationale regarding the Google searches. The problem is that I had to start an AN/I to get that out of you. I don't agree that they support the text, that they are reliable, that you addressed the problem with due weight, neutral POV, systemic bias, or anything other objection I raised on the Talk page. However, those are content disputes. The problem is the complete disregard for these objections in the first place (until now). As for only following me to 1/3 of the articles I edited, instead of all of them, gee thanks. Noloop (talk) 01:41, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's good to see SlaterSteven is edging toward edit-warring on Criticism of Human Rights Watch, an article he followed me to. That means everybody but Blippy has now followed me to an unrelated article and reverted or warred. Is that the non-troll way of editing, or the troll way? Meanwhile, they are starting to war again on Anti-Americanism. I'm not asking for blocks here. I'm asking for some kind of supervision, and something more conclusive than this Sherlock Holmes-like approach to "investigating" socks. Just do a bleeping IP-lookup, folks. Any admin must be able to do it. Noloop (talk) 05:02, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

You appear to be living proof of the adage "give them enough rope..." Noloop. This is no way to collaborate or gain consensus for your views, but it's a great way to further alienate the people you should be trying to work with. I suspect you are suffering from the misapprehension that WP has some sort of authority structure that will ultimately vindicate your perspective. In answer to your question "Am I paranoid delusional?" - a little. This project moves forward through working together, not railing against everyone who disagrees with you. And it is purely human nature - something you have succumbed to yourself - to keep an eye on the actions of people who defame, belittle, and generally alienate people. That might explain why you feel stalked. The only reason I haven't bothered to do this myself is because I think you'll learn soon enough without any more of my (obviously unwelcome) input - such as I attempted on your talk page - and that once you attract the ire of enough editors you might start to wake up to your unproductive ways. I'm tipping we're just about there. Cheers, Blippy (talk) 08:48, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

If you are not asking for blocks then what are you asking for? You are asking (it woould seem) for Admins to do some digging for you to try and find evidacne of sockpupptery becasue you belive i9t but those Wiki rules just don't back you up?Slatersteven (talk) 12:45, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

What is interesting here is that it is Noloop who follows editors to unrelated articles and starts reverting and attacking other editors. Given that this is not the first time Noloops disruptive editing behavior has to be discussed here on ANI I propose a topic ban or 1RR restriction on this account. For this to work an admin should also make sure that all of Noloops sockpuppet accounts will be blocked. Pantherskin (talk) 12:48, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Noloop, you've managed to piss off alot of people, inculding myself. Why do you keep persisting even when it's you verus about 7? Abce2|Aww nuts!Wribbit!(Sign here) 14:39, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

The simple answer is: I do what I think is right, not what I think is popular. Effectively, you are proposing I stop editing any article, since you are claiming everyone has the right to follow me to any article and revert me. Noloop (talk) 15:52, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, what you think is right. And then you accuse anyone who says otherwise of trolling. Abce2|Aww nuts!Wribbit!(Sign here) 15:53, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Au contraire you do what you know is right regardless of the evidence to the contrary, regardless of how many people who tell you that you are wrong. Your knowledge of everything is no doubt omniscient and highly admirable, the problem is that your interpretation of things you have little understanding of are skewed by your belief of your own perfection and inability to be wrong. The above complaint is certainly proof of that. Yes, you are definitely the sort of editor that WP cries out for. Can I recommend that you apply for your first RFA as soon as is practicable? --WebHamster 16:46, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

• Pantherskin is deleting my comments (documentation of his stalking) from this board: [109].
• I've now been followed to an article and reverted a 7th time, by Abce2. If this isn't stalking and harassment, then what the Hell is? Is it OK if I do it? Blippy is right about one thing: I have no clue what admins do or what this board is for or how behavior standards are enforced on behalf of any minority view. All of this is editors following me to an article they hadn't previously edited, with the sole purpose of making edits they know I opppose and reverting me.
• Abce2: [110], [111]
• Munci (stalked from Islamophobia): [112]
• WebHamster: [113], [114] (probably)
• Pantherskin (as IP): [115]
• SlaterSteven: [116]

We can add that Pantherskin has deleted my Talk comments 9 times: 4 from the AfD, 4 from Talk:Anti-Americanism, and once from here (that I've noticed). If admins think this is a waste of time, it would be nice of them to say so, so I can stop wasting my time here also. Noloop (talk) 16:39, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Noloop (talk) 16:39, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

you don't mention that the 4 reverts made by PS were your unfounded accusations that he was a sockpuppet. That you insisted on posting these accusations in spite of the fact that the Checkuser request hadn't gone through yet and he was ultimately found to be innocent of the accusation. Shoot first and ask questions after eh? --WebHamster 16:46, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Wow. Still, you have never admitted to be wrong. Not once. You must be sooo perfect.Abce2|Aww nuts!Wribbit!(Sign here) 16:54, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it was an observation that he'd been accused of it, in a discussion that involved voting by single-purpose accounts. Noloop (talk) 16:56, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

It was still unnessecary to put it their, and was disruptive.Abce2|Aww nuts!Wribbit!(Sign here) 16:58, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Wow...how did it turn into this? I thought we'd just continue with the discussion. I shall address Noloop's concerns.

• "Stalking. Follows me to Anti-Americanism from Islamophobia, sole action is to revert me." Both of the articles are linked to from the "Specific Forms" section of Template:Discrimination. Anyone who goes on one article has a fairly quick link to the other.

• "The text being restored was added without discussion or consensus by an erased account."

Noone needs discussion or consensus to add well-cited information.

• "Obviously trying to draw me into an edit war." I do not want to start any edit war. I hoped that my edit summary [117] was enough to show you that the reason for deleting the information was unfounded.

• "Trolling. His edit comments distort his edit." I thought at the time I wrote the edit summary [118] that what I said in it would not be misinterpreted. I since apologised in the talk page [119] and tried to explain how I thought my edit summary would not have been misinterpreted. Munci (talk) 17:20, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Jesus. Abce2 just followed me to a GAN-review I did, to complain I wasn't responding to his comments on my Talk page. [120]. I am starting to fear for the safety of my family. Noloop (talk) 21:52, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

If you treat your family the same way you treat editors here, I fear for them too. --WebHamster 22:55, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I have stayed out of this, but WebHamster, the above was completely inappropriate. Do not bring editors' families into this discussion in any way, shape or form. Completely, utterly, mind-bogglingly wrong. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:41, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I didn't bring them into it, Noloop himself opened the door to that one. --WebHamster 11:46, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

He sure as hell didn't open his family up for that. If he seriously thinks he's being "followed" then he expressed an actual concern. If he was being facetious, that still did not give you the right to make commentary about any of his off-Wiki actions. It was plain wrong. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:57, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I again ask is this going to be anything other then a very nasty slkging match in which a few users spits on the floor and say "see that, thats your swiminig pool". I mo0ve this sillyness if closed.Slatersteven (talk) 12:42, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I vote close too. (If this is a vote, if not I must look stupid.)Abce2|Aww nuts!Wribbit!(Sign here) 14:57, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Noloop, I had that page watchlisted for weeks, hoping to get some work done on it, but never got the time. I was happy when it got a reviewer, but then it was you, and that was kind of awkward.Abce2|Aww nuts!Wribbit!(Sign here) 21:56, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Is this actualy going anywhere? I propose this is shelved.Slatersteven (talk) 22:15, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

No, Noloops just going to keep posting "evidence" of our trolling. Abce2|Aww nuts!Wribbit!(Sign here) 22:20, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

They should rename this site psychostalkers-meetup.com. Noloop (talk) 15:45, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

How does that help this at all?Abce2|Aww nuts!Wribbit!(Sign here) 16:06, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

At least it was a semi-honest opinion. Unlike your last edit comment on Anti-Americanism: "You don't need a consensus for edits." Somebody forgot to change the official policy. Noloop (talk) 16:19, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

You need a consensus for some edits, but not most. And your in no position to be accusing me.Abce2|Aww nuts!Wribbit!(Sign here) 16:23, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I just looked at your contribs. 90% of your last 100 edits are reverting me on articles you followed me to, or commenting on the cascading issues. You're like a puppy who won't pee anywhere but on my leg. Noloop (talk) 16:41, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll be on Noloop's side here. He's just misunderstanding the definition of trolling, but I don't see anything he's doing that has purposeful disruption.

Strange IP, I never said Noloop was purposly doing something, I was saying that he/she needs to learn to work with others and stuff like that. And I'm sick of being call a troll.Abce2|Aww nuts!Wribbit!(Sign here) 16:38, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm trough with this harrasment. I hope you have fun with me out of the picture.Abce2|Aww nuts!Wribbit!(Sign here) 16:44, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Maybe he should see WP:TROLL. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.231.200.55 (talk) 16:46, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

So now WebHamster has followed me to my GA-review to make non-trolling comments like "[Noloop] choose to pop his cherry and fail his first article on an article that had minimal other comments, he doesn't have the experience to be the only reviewer and spectacularly misunderstands even basic tenets of WP let alone complicated scientific articles. Noloops should never have failed this article, he barely understands the GAC procedure as it is." [121]. No trolling or stalking here, oh no. Again, there is one thing upon which we all agree: I don't understand the definitions of trolling and stalking, and the reason this thread hasn't been archived are unclear. If the admins think I'm wrong that I'm being harassed, why don't say something clarifying? If they think it is harassment, why don't they do something? If they think this thread is an irrelevant spat between children, why don't they archive it? If they think it is relevant, why don't they do something? Noloop (talk) 21:10, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

The thread will be archived 24 hours or so after you stop posting in it. If you're trying to establish a pattern of behaviour, off to WP:RFC/U. Obviously, no admins see this as an immediately blockable issue, so that is your next route. Your own behaviour in this thread has been ... well ... undermining of your point. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:22, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

My own behavior in this thread is direct result of the bullshit that has continued unchecked for weeks. When Webhamster stalks me to a GA-review to make comments about popping my "cherry," I get bitchy. Fuck the admins. I will deal with this my own way. Noloop (talk) 01:47, 14 August 2009 (UTC) (Actually, I will deal with it WebHamster's way, which the admins seem to find acceptable.)

This may be my last edit, but I'm surprised you still haven't admited your wrong, not even once. This thread is a load of crap.Abce2|Aww nuts!Wribbit!(Sign here) 02:30, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

False image copyright claims

I recently came across some images uploaded by Princeofdark07 (talk · contribs) that not only were copyright infringements, but also had blatantly false claims such as,

• "an image of dr devi prasad shetty shot by me during a ceremony at the bunt sangha meeting in Bangalore"
• "this is an image taken from a mobile phone camera by me near his home at bangalore.this image is completely owned by me and is free to use"

Both these images were copied from online websites ([122] and [123]).
All his uploads that I spot-checked seemed to have similar problems. I have nominated these and 4-5 other images for speedy deletion, but I wonder if all this user uploads should be speedied, since his claims of taking the photographs or owning the copyright seem to be untrustworthy, i.e., this is the case of deliberate misrepresentation and not simply misunderstanding of copyright issues.. Note that the user has been previously warned and even blocked for similar copyright infringement. See this version of his user talk page for previous warnings and notices. Abecedare (talk) 10:23, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Looks like a serial copyright violator. feydey (talk) 11:54, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Given past history and evidence of willful misrepresentation, I have indefinitely blocked. This, of course, is not the same as infinite block. I'm inclined to think that he should not be unblocked without some very good reason to believe that he will follow copyright policy henceforth...or perhaps a ban on uploading images. I would support a close review of his existing images given his history. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:58, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

No EXIF, and all the files are of inconsistent dimension... delete them all. MER-C 13:52, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I have gone through the list of his uploads and tagged 5-6 more copyvios since my above post. That said, I believe that most of the remaining images uploaded by the user may be genuine, based on the videos he has on his youtube channel. So we can perhaps mark this thread as resolved till the user requests unblock or further issues are found. Abecedare (talk) 14:47, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

this image is not genuine http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Tigliari.PNG , it is a photoshopped image of a copyrighted work http://www.vishwatulusammelana.com/tulufonts.html . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.92.138.52 (talk) 19:15, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

You're right IP! I have nominated it, and its common's duplicate, for speedy deletion. Thanks. Abecedare (talk) 19:39, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Found another instance of photoshopping: this flickr image was cropped and contrast enhanced into File:Adishakti.jpg. Abecedare (talk) 19:57, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

That flickr link 404s. Protonk (talk) 21:08, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Fixed the link (missing space). Abecedare (talk) 00:50, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Encouragement to vandalize

Resolved

 – User page blanked, user blocked.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 23:05, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Recently dealt with vandalism by one Oldmanjenkins93 (talk · contribs), after taking a look at his userpage, I discovered he has made his own barnstars/awards and UBX's for rewarding vandalism, actions evidently indicate a vandalism only account, but I'm wondering whether any further action should be taken against him, he has not vandalized Wikipedia any further since his level 3 to my knowledge. Files can be found here, here, here, and here. Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 21:32, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm deleting all of it as a violation of WP:DENY.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 22:55, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 23:09, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

User:El estremeñu removing maintenance templates on Extremaduran language

Locus of dispute, or action in dispute

Maintenance templates have been repeatedly removed from Extremaduran language.

Involved parties and confirmation they have been notified of the discussion

User:El estremeñu is the user responsible for the repeated removal; they were warned initially by this edit summary, then here and later here.

Description of the dispute and the main evidence

Since I noticed that the article lacked reference for the majority of its content, I tagged it. However, my tag was removed with no explanation, so I re-added it while requesting one in the edit summary. My addition was reverted, so I sent a formal warning against removing maintenance templates and pointed to it in the edit summary. At this point, the user explained on my talk page that they felt the article had all the needed references (previously, he had been sending me messages in Spanish that I couldn't positively undertstand). Thus, I used inline "citation needed" tags, but those were removed, too.

The user mostly refuses to use English in the discussion on my talk page, and for the little they do, they insist they are right in their behavior. I therefore request some kind of intervention at this point. --LjL (talk) 22:38, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Comments by other involved parties (Please include diffs to substantiate your claims)

Comments by uninvolved editors

I can decipher enough Spanish to tell that the sources given are reliable. However, they do not seem to be in sufficient depth--at least not at the pages cited-- to substantiate all the material in the article. But this is not a matter for administrative attention--ask at one of the appropriate WikiProjects for some help. There are tags for WikiProject Languages, and WikiProject Spain on the talk p. But where the help is needed is not in arguing about tags, but in finding additional sources. DGG ( talk ) 23:48, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I know that the sources given are reliable, but they back up a tiny fraction of the article. I did, as a matter of fact, believe that arbitrarily removing maintenance tags was not considered acceptable - especially so requests for sources removed without providing any sources. --LjL (talk) 23:52, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Remarks by closing editor

Disruptive placement of db-move tag by 81.110.104.91

Per the diff, 81.110.104.91 (talk · contribs) has continued a pattern of unilateral disruption of the talk page at Willis Tower (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). I do not have the ability to keep up with this user, who previously acted to disrupt archiving of a recent Requested Move discussion. Please see the talk page history for the request to automatically archive I made, with edit summaries and details, vs. the unilateral unexplained or discussed actions of this user. Sswonk (talk) 16:43, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I consider User:Sswonk's recent conduct on that page, and this report, to be an unjustified personal attack. 81.110.104.91 (talk) 17:44, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Discussion continues at the talk page in question. I am not convinced this was worth bringing to AN/I at this point, as neither party seems to have done anything awfully wrong - but some outside views would be welcome at Talk:Willis Tower - thanks. ~ mazca ^talk 17:46, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh no. Tell me you two aren't fighting over the name of a talk archive page! Proceed directly to WP:LAME, do not pass Go... Wknight94 ^talk 18:49, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

This has to do with a few Luddites who want wikipedia to keep calling the Willis Tower by its old name. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 18:58, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay, but if I have to fully protect and move-protect talk archive pages, then everyone is getting a trout slap for sure. Wknight94 ^talk 19:02, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

That would make them dizzy. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 22:51, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

For what it is worth, I do not appreciate the whimsy here. This has absolutely nothing to do with "Luddites" or what an archive is named. What is WP:LAME is that attitude. Go get your laughs on your own time, and after that grow up. What this does concern is wasting time repairing the dismantlement of a properly requested and configured improvement to the page by an anonymous editor who did so without the decency to propose anything. I am not nor was I fighting over archiving.

I reported someone who I consider to be an untrustworthy, careless person with nothing to offer the encyclopedia but bad editing habits and smarmy, insolent commentary. I refuse to be portrayed as the instigator or the producer of argument in this case. I did not argue anything. I proposed automatic archiving of a talk page, did not receive comment about the proposal for twenty four hours, performed the configuration of the automatic archive process and the page move necessary to have the previous archive pages fully accessible to the templates that generate links to them. I placed a "done" tag on the talk page with explanation upon completion of these tasks. There is nothing anyone can call an arguement there. Soon thereafter the person at address 81.110.104.91 then proceeded to use a speedy deletion tag to begin the process of undoing everything I had done, without a single comment, question or request to do so. Further, doing served no purpose other than to disrupt the links that were already working and return the old archive to an out-of-sequence name. I contacted this page for help because recent dealings with the person were always tinged with arrogance and disregard for logical explanation. Then, once things were straightened out by an administrator, the person at address 81.110.104.91 proceeded to proclaim "that seems fine" when in fact what to him was now "fine" was what he had started to dismantle in the first place. Finally, the person falsely characterized my correct description of his unilateral actions and later boldly declared that I was "whining" about his total wasting of everyone's time.

I really do not have time for this, and those of you here who find this amusing might need to spend half an hour dealing with someone like this disrupting your work to appreciate my total rejection of the assumption of good faith in this case. My wish is that you don't have to ever deal with such a complete level of ignorance and impudence ever at any point in the future. In the meantime, either hold your comments or apologize for making light of this. I feel personally insulted by the persons commenting here beyond what Mazca reported. Sswonk (talk) 03:20, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't calling you a Luddite. Why not just do an archive yourself, manually, and be done with it? Or better yet, just leave it alone until the IP address gets bored and goes away. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 03:23, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Request for review of admin's actions?

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

No abuse found / Editor should follow the proper pre-ANI procedures for disputes as outlined here first, ie discuss with admin directly.

---

I think that this comment could be politely interpreted as a request for an independent admin to review this situation. The admin is User:DGG, and the editor is DarlieB (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:17, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Looks like a hardworking admin going where he is needed, taking abuse calmly, and dishing out a valid block while trying to keep the peace. Nice little bit of sarcasm, but not unreasonably so, and certainly no excuse for Darlie blowing top. Kudos to DGG.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:22, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm with wehwalt here. Having reviewed the action I don't see anything amiss. Protonk (talk) 00:50, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, well ... DGG's July 22 block appears to be in order - considering the post today, can't say I'd even object to another for that little outburst. I think DarlieB is out of line here. — Ched :  ?  05:02, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

{{uw-attack1}} is probably sufficient. Nothing there that warrants a re-block, IMO. --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:41, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Looks good to me. EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:11, 14 August 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.

Re-creating a deleted page?

Resolved

 – page has been redeleted on CSD G4 --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:43, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

This page was the subject of an AfD and the result was delete. Yet Johnfos (talk · contribs) immediately re-created it. I'm pretty sure he knows this is wrong, but either way, is there a way to delete it so that it cannot be re-created like that? It sort of makes a mockery of the entire AfD process if you can just re-create an article as soon as it is deleted. csloat (talk) 04:22, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

{{db-g4}} Recreation of deleted material. It also might be a copyvio. However, if it's substantially different content, the speedy template will not automatically apply - having not seen it I can't say. ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 04:36, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

It's the same thing; he just added more sources. Who do I ask to do something about this? csloat (talk) 04:46, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

 Done Similar to what was deleted via AfD. Enigma^msg 04:51, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Autism Every Day

From November 2008 to August 2009 the article was as it was. Brief, factual. Editor 6th Happiness abruptly added controversial content to the article recently without first presenting it at the articles Talk page, and without first waiting for many other editors to reply. I responded to this matter with a few Talk page comments in these sections Disability Reference and RFC, and tried reverting the article to the original, a couple times, each time explaining way. The editor seems to be doing tendentious editing and disruptive editing, and fails to understand that controversial content additions should be discussed thoroughly in the Talk page before adding to the article. Failure to understand a core wikipedia policy. The editors unwillingness to cooperate, and failure to understand the standard steps of editing, has resulted in conflict situation. The editor seems to believe that my editing of his new content is disruptive, when in fact he is the person adding the new content after 10 months, and controversial content, all of which he never presented at the Talk page first. he seems to believe his additions should be a part of the article without any consensus, nor be in need of discussion in Talk before adding. Very pretentious, and makes for a hostile, unhappy situation here.--GzRRk 4 (talk) 21:43, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

A brief look at the diff you supplied suggests a content dispute. We can't deal with that here (admins are not empowered to intervene in that way) but our dispute resolution mechanisms may be helpful to you both. I'm not known for my sensitivity, so I'll blunder right in here: if either or both of you are on the autism spectrum, that may cause problems in dispute resolution. In that case, myself and other editors will help you out if you would like. Contact me on my talk page. Otherwise, direct reference to dispute resolution is for you. ➲ REDVERS ^{It sucks to be me} 21:53, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I strongly recommend to both of you to get a third opinion and perhaps trying to bring this up at WikiProject Films. Continued edit-warring will only lead to blocking. MuZemike 21:57, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I've watched, and pinged Steve (talk · contribs) (Film) and Eubulides (talk · contribs) (autism). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:57, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

The time an article has remained relatively unchanged should have no bearing on if any additions/removals are valid; if such a thing were true then all pages that have had no major edits in the last 12 months might as well be automatically locked from any future edits over 140 characters. Controversy/criticism sections are often touchy editing points... RIUM+ (talk) 08:58, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Persistent threats

Resolved

In the archived discussion, we see that someone has a grudge against User:CUTKD and has put threats on the talk page. A new user Special:Contributions/CUTKD threatening account has now put rubbish on a couple of pages. Would someone please do a quick block. Johnuniq (talk) 11:39, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Kanonkas got them. ➲ REDVERS ^{It sucks to be me} 11:55, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

McGeddon (talk)

McGeddon (talk · contribs)

McGeddon is not objective in his deletions. I would like to report McGeddon as it concerns Stoern Discussion web page. There is a section that has my long in Irrito at the Stoern Discussion webpage. There were comments about my actions. I in return presented my case yesterday by cutting my response from the dispute about me on this page and pasting it into that the Irrito section of the Stoern discussion page. Moreover, there was an objective 3rd persons view of my edits which was not helpful to McGeddon and his people. Thereafter, he deleted the section claiming I only cut and pasted my response from this page, as reason for deletions. It is unfair that accusation can be made about be on two different pages and when I defend myself McGeddon deletes an informative discussion. Lastly, because the 3rd person in parts agreed with me or didn’t agree with McGeddon’s edits of my work further supports my argument that McGeddon is not even handed in his editing.Irrito (talk)

Have you sought out any dispute resolution regarding this? I'm unclear on what administrative action you're looking for here. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 16:30, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what you can do to him. May just holding him accountable would help curb his actions. I don't want to bother you or this page every time there is a problem. I have not sought WP:DR.Irrito (talk)

Hello. This is the edit in question. Irrito cut-and-pasted the entire contents of the ANI section against him into Talk:Steorn, and I cut it down to a single explanatory link back to ANI, for clarity's sake. I realise now that I accidentally took out some of the earlier content that was in the section, when I did this. I'll restore that now.

If Irrito wants readers of Talk:Steorn to read a particular "objective, 3rd persons view" of his edits, he'd do better to just quote that and explain the relevance, rather than to paste a duplicate of the entire ANI thread. Edit: Reviewing the history, Irrito is possibly referring to one of the comments I accidentally deleted ("Maybe you could nurture him instead of threatening to have him blocked."), which has now been restored. --McGeddon (talk) 16:35, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Seems reasonable. Irrito, does this help explain things to you, or do you still have concerns? Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 16:47, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I think that McGeddon edits with a free hand and in his interest. If I wouldn't have called him on it on this page, then he would have provided a number of reasons for not undoing his edits/deletions. I know this because we have gotten into an "edit war" over the Steorn page. The issue on that page is that even when faced with a scientific report that Stoern technology does not work the "interested" editors find unreasonable reasons to make the news report say something it does: for example, scientific jury found the technology doesn't produce energy. The purpose of the machine was to produce energy. Editors on bot the article and discussion page attributed the fact that it did not work to the reporter who wrote the article not the scientists on the jury. Now, they seem to changing their edit habit but that was after a long fight.Irrito (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:57, 14 August 2009 (UTC).

I think I see where Irrito has an issue. He used ANI rather than the Steorn talk page to present his reasons for the edits he wanted to make but which were being reverted by four different editors as original research, leading to edit warring by Irrito and the original ANI post I made. In an effort to resolve this problem, I'm going to try extract the relevant bits of his comments and add them back to the Steorn talk page so that a discussion can take place there (which is where it should have taken place originally). GDallimore (Talk) 18:22, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

IP editor User: 82.136.102.104 : Possibly JA/G or wannabe

The editor has so far edited only ClueBot's sandbox, but the content is JA/G-related and so perhaps cause for concern. --Rrburke^(talk) 19:19, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Still pending, please review. 78.133.122.186 (talk) 16:46, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Please de-sysop this guy

Resolved

 – Both accounts blocked by User:Thatcher

--Atlan (talk) 13:22, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

See User talk:NawlinWiki/Special message. Over the years he has deleted HUNDREDS of constructive redirects I've made like beef tomato, sticky willy, banlieu, cackle, Man child and Man-child (both of which should redirect to disambig Manchild), BT Internet, Tokyo subway attack, NeoGeo Pocket Color, Job reference (see his logs) and it makes me rage that the encyclopedia is incomplete. Furthermore he has reverted many constructive edits as well like this (and other admins have done so as well like this and [124]). NawlinWiki deletes articles about notable subjects with articles in other language versions of Wikipedia (Michel Magne, Julia Augustin). He also blocks innocent users who are not me and seems to have a special 'mind-reading' ability for sockpuppets (see User_talk:NawlinWiki/Archive_36#User:Girls_with_brown_hair_and_brown_eyes) despite not being a checkuser.

I want to help the encyclopedia. Vandalism doesn't do any permanent damage. NawlinWiki does. He is a terrible admin and should be de-sysopped immediately. This is no joke.--Ελληνικά (talk) 12:55, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Have you notified NawlinWiki of this thread, as you should? Note that diffs of the alleged misconduct would be appreciated, it makes it easier on us.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:59, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

The deletion log is visible there. He has also blocked several innocent users for doing nothing more than creating articles on non-notable subjects.--Tryittoday (talk) 13:01, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like if you endorse vandalism then the sysop was 100 percent correct. Please moderate your behavior to our policies or don't stick around, nothing in the above suggests anything inappropriate.Hell In A Bucket (talk) 13:01, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Both of these editors have contribution histories stretching back... less than a day or so. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:03, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

HMMM< socks?Hell In A Bucket (talk) 13:04, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah looks fine to me, and I would bet these two users are socks. -DJSasso (talk) 13:05, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I, too, smell socks. But, I have notified NawlinWiki of this discussion as his talk page is semi-protected. →javért ^chat 13:05, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

The deletion logs say they were deleted as the work of banned users, and we have two brand-new users complaining about them, including one who explicitly takes credit for them. While I think deleting obvious redirects and NOT immediately adding them back under the deleting admin's name is, to be charitable, silly and self-defeating, nonetheless the obvious thing to say about the complainant(s) is quack quack. --Calton | Talk 13:07, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Of course they're socks. "Tryittoday" was modifying the previous comments of Greek-letters-guy. Now ask yourself who attacks Nawlins the most frequently. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 13:10, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I can't even find anywhere that Nawlin has reverted Greek letters guy.....Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:17, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Not under that name. One of the dead redirects of which he complains was created by User talk:Bored of the world, a blocked sock of somebody. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:21, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Thatcher beat me to blocking both. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:22, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Hey-Hey! Two "Plaxicos" for the price of one! Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 13:47, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

• Nice to see that User:ByAppointmentTo is getting creative. NawlinWiki (talk) 14:05, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

MMM, Sockenpuppen. Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:14, 14 August 2009 (UTC) (Who says you never learn anything from Wikipedia. I learned what the german for Sockpuppet was)

Puppen is apparently the plural of Puppe. German plurals typically end in "en", which is why some German-based English plurals (men, women, children) end in "en". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 17:42, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Germanic, not German. Better examples are oxen and brethren, by the way. And "Sockenpuppe" isn't really a German word (yet). It's Wikipedia speak. The normal word would be "Handpuppe". I think I needn't explain what it means literally. Hans Adler 17:55, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Germanic - Old High German or something like that, a common ancestor to modern English and modern German. Oxen is one I was trying to think of at my previous post. It's odd how English largely follows Latin-based pluralization rules (trailing s). Sockpuppe and/or Sockpuppen are probably "coined" words that might have no literal German equivalent that fully convey the meaning. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 18:10, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I've expressed elsewhere my delight in the French faux-nez for a sockpuppet. Groucho glasses anyone? Deor (talk) 18:19, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Username woes

Resolved

 – We do not benefit from further flaggelation of the issue. The two editors share no pages edited and have apparently come to their names independent from each other. Absent actual evidence of harassment editors are reminded to assume good faith. You are free to seek a checkuser on meta but I would be surprised if a check were authorized and stunned if they released this user's IP address. Protonk (talk) 20:15, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Moved back from UAA--Jac16888Talk 20:30, 13 August 2009 (UTC) Yonideworst (talk · contribs · deleted · filter log · SUL · Google) • (block · soft · promo · cause · bot · hard · spam · vandal). Please rename, block and delete his pages. The account is barely active and was cleary created to offend and provoke me. Yonidebest Ω Talk‏ 19:41, 13 August 2009 (UTC) user has existed for two years now and in that time doesn't seem to have ever interacted with you or edited the same pages, they don't seem to have been making bad edits either. I really don't think a block is justified here--Jac16888Talk 19:48, 13 August 2009 (UTC) I might prefer to take this one back to AN/I; in many circumstances this might well be a simple case, but this particular account has been editing since 2007. There might be something else going on. – Luna Santin (talk) 19:49, 13 August 2009 (UTC) Pages on the english wikipedia where both accounts have edited (the tool can't detect deleted revisions or pages), 0. Intersections on the Hebrew wikipedia, 0. If the intent of the account was to provoke and offend, they clearly aren't trying very hard. Protonk (talk) 21:05, 13 August 2009 (UTC) can we at least change Yonidebest's username? it looks like a riff off the other persons username so at least one of them should change so that it doesnt seem so offensive. User:Smith Jones 21:39, 13 August 2009 (UTC) If any usernames are changed, they should be done through discussion between the two users and a 'crat. Absent actual evidence of harassment, I don't see a good reason to step in and change anyone's username. Protonk (talk) 21:50, 13 August 2009 (UTC) that seems reasonable, although Yonidebest does seem harassed. has anyone notified Yonideworst.?? User:Smith Jones 21:58, 13 August 2009 (UTC) I really don't see that Yonidebest is harassed, there is absolutely zero connection between the two and yonidewort seems to be just quietly editing away every now and again. Nothing but a welcome on their talk page in two years suggests they really don't rock the boat. --Jac16888Talk 22:15, 13 August 2009 (UTC) still, yonideworst deserves to hear about this discussion. I think yonidebest is curious as to why the username was chosen since even tough yonideworst is not being harassing it is still an odd choice of name User:Smith Jones 22:27, 13 August 2009 (UTC) I prefer to keep my user name as is. This is the nickname my mother gave me every time I screwed up when I was a child. Yonideworst (talk) 22:58, 13 August 2009 (UTC) Just seems like an odd coincidence, is all. Close it up. Tarc (talk) 23:01, 13 August 2009 (UTC) This user is clearly from Israel (see nature of his contribs), from the Hebrew Wikipedia, and is clearly trying to offend me. I am a sysop in said Wikipedia and have to deal with offensive users and trolls and such. If you want to compare his IPs for a stronger connection, go ahead. BUT I demand that this user name be changed and that the account be blocked. You should know that you are feeding a old troll. I am sad to see there is no cooperation between sysops from different projects and that you make it harder for us to fight these trolls and destructive vandals. Yonidebest Ω Talk‏ 09:15, 14 August 2009 (UTC) Show some proof of trolling please. He must be doing a really poor job of it, as it took you 2 years to find out about him. Making demands for blocks is pointless and people will be less inclined to help you. If it's so clear that he's trying to offend you, then please explain how.--Atlan (talk) 09:20, 14 August 2009 (UTC) Yonidebest, I am sorry but under WP:AGF (and the simple fact that the other editor has not even attempted to visit the same pages, your page, or even slightly resembled your editing in 2 years) on the English Wikipedia, there is absolutely no valid and fair reasoning to either block the other user or force a username change. The minute that they do start to, then yes, you've got full ammunition to go forward. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:54, 14 August 2009 (UTC) It's an odd coincidence, but I am afraid one the two users will have to live with unless one of them is minded to change a name. I did have a good laugh though.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:56, 14 August 2009 (UTC) The proof is the use of the offensive name. His reasoning ("my mother gave me the nickname") doesnt impress me. He is clearly a Hebrew speaker and yet he doesn't have the same account name in the Hebrew Wikipedia. Even if you don't believe he means wrong, i still find the name offensive. How would you, Atlan, like it if there was a user named "User:AtlanAawful" or you, Wehwalt, like it if there was a user name named "user:WehwaltSucks". Imagine both users, in the Hebrew Wikipedia, edit once a month and you only notice the new username a year later. Would you not feel this is an insult to you? I know one thing for sure. I wouldn't hesitate for you and block them imidetialy. I you were on the other side, you would demand the user be changed and blocked. If you are not going to change his name, let me know to whom I should turn to, because I will not let this troll get away with this (and thank you for giving him a smile). Yonidebest Ω Talk‏ 13:21, 14 August 2009 (UTC) Trolls love the type of reaction that you're providing, Yonidebest. Seriously. To see someone making angry demands: it warms their trolly hearts. Trust me; I know trolls, personally. The way to win is to ignore. Don't reward the behavior with your attention. It's what a troll would want. Now, if my username were GTGood, and someone made an account called GTBad... I would be happy that my name is the positive one. I'd much rather be "debest" than "deworst", wouldn't you? -GTBacchus(talk) 13:29, 14 August 2009 (UTC) You miss the point. If you were "GTisGreat" (yes, that's the meaning of "de") and the troll was "GTisShit), whould you not feel like me? If this user was an arab, an american, indian or from some other nationality, I would belive it, because it could happen. but he is from my "neighborhood", he is a Jewish Israeli who knows his way around Wikipedia and the Hebrew Wikipedia doens't have that many users - I actually know most of them. Coincidence? you must be kidding me. Yonidebest Ω Talk‏ 13:45, 14 August 2009 (UTC) Huh. Knowing that "de" means "is" does change the connotation, to me. In English (as I know it), "de" is a common way of abbreviating "the"; hence I read "Yoni the best" and "Yoni the worst" - rather different. Does "Yoni" also mean something, or is it more of a personal name? By the way, there's no chance that I'm "kidding you". Try "proceeding reasonably from incomplete information". Complete it up front next time. -GTBacchus(talk) 13:49, 14 August 2009 (UTC)...and did you truly expect a bunch of English speakers to realize that "de"="is"? -GTBacchus(talk) 13:50, 14 August 2009 (UTC) "Yoni" is probably short for "Y'honatan", the equivalent of Jonathan, but it could be a proper name in its own right. Common enough, since Jonathan gets pretty good press in the Bible. Unless there is a showing that there is animus between the two either here or on another WP, I don't see that we can take this any further. And the example equivalent to "Wehwaltsucks" would be "Yonidebestsucks", not "Yonitheworst". Wehwalt is actually fairly negative in itself, if you know your German, it is an operatic reference to complicated to go into now. See Die_Walkure#Act_1.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:07, 14 August 2009 (UTC) Yonidebest, the purpose of trolling is to provoke a response. If this person is a troll, then you are giving them precisely what they like: an angry reaction. If this person is not a troll, then you're unfairly accusing them of trolling. The smartest strategy for you in this case is to ignore Yonideworst, unless some kind of active baiting or disruption occurs. It's just as the others have said. If Yonideworst is a "troll" or a "destructive vandal", then just show us diffs of trolling remarks or destructively vandalistic edits. Otherwise, there's nothing to talk about. Sorry. -GTBacchus(talk) 13:12, 14 August 2009 (UTC) Meanwhile, introductions are in order. "This is the best, this is the worst." (Straylight Run, "Try")--Wehwalt (talk) 13:20, 14 August 2009 (UTC) In any case, let me know what his IP is so that I can ask a checkuser in Heberew Wikipedia to check if he is connected to a user there. Yonidebest Ω Talk‏ 13:29, 14 August 2009 (UTC) Try m:Steward requests/Checkuser. Wknight94 talk 13:42, 14 August 2009 (UTC) I know a couple of different people named/nicknamed "Yoni". It's not uncommon. We call one of them "Yondelay" - partly sounding like yodelling, and partly because they're aways late. How close is that to "Yondebest" or "Yondeworst". Come on, Wikipedia works of verifiability and assuming good faith. Live with that until the other user actually does something worth complaining about. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:51, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

complaint - misuse of admin privledges by William M. Connolley

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

Consensus is clear here that no admin abuse took place. Further discussion isn't going to change that. As such, I am closing this with the hope that UkFaith will let it go and move on before he gets himself into further trouble for personal attacks. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:00, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

---

I wish to complain about the misuse of admin privledges by William M. Connolley

I was recently put on a 24hr block two days in a row, 10 & 11 of August 2009, by William M. Connolley in what I believe was unjustified and misuse of admin privledges.

The blocks were imposed against me only and were completely one sided and personal. The blocks were to enable another user, Mitsube, to make changes to an article without needing to go through the usual Wikipedia process or needing to meet the correct Wikipedia requirments for changes.

Article Buddhism. Section Philosophical roots. Dispute between Mitsube & UkFaith.

below is a copy of my reply to a 3RR rule infringement and I hope clearly explains what happened. -

• Mitsube began by deleting an entire section from the article without discussing any of it with anyone first. I believe this action falls within the scope of vandalism. I was able to successfully revert this and I posted my reasons on the talk page. Mitsube went on to say his reasons for deleting the section were that the references were untrustworthy. The references in fact included Giuseppe Tucci who was a world learder in his field of Buddhism history.

• After this Mitsube set about rewriting almost the entire section of the article, completely changing its view. I tried to revert this also, however I was unaware at that time of the 3RR rule and I did not know how to revert Mitsube's edits, which were split into three or four, as one revert. I there for broke the 3RR rule just trying to restore the page to its original wording. I posted my ressons on the talk page. Mistube then reverted my revert quoting vandalism as his reason. He knew full well of course that it was not vandalism and that I was unhappy about him making such a massive change to an article that had respectable references without any discussion. His reason of vandalism was not acceptable in my opinion and I again reverted the changes to restore the page to its original wording and again asked for a discussion on the talk page.

• At this point Mitsube contacted William M. Connolley who immediately blocked me for the 3RR rule without any discussion.

• The very next day when I was able to edit again I returned to the article and 'worded' the section as it was originally worded without reverting and again asked for a discussion. Mitsube immediately contacted William M. Connolley again and told him I had reverted the article and William M. Connolley immediately blocked me again. He did obviously did not bother to check if it was true and was eager to block me again.

• The upshot is that Mitsube has changed what was a well referenced article into his own personal opinion and if I try to challenge it in anyway I get blocked, unfairly and against Wikipedia policy in my opinion, by William M. Connolley who iseems to be supporting Mitsube's changes. I dont believe that William M. Connolley is an expert in the field of Buddhism history or that his knowledge out ranks that of Giuseppe Tucci and there for I dont believe he should be taking sides and supporting changes he is not qualified to judge.

• Anyway I dont see there would be any point in my continuing to contribute to the Wikipedia project at this point. I will of course forward my experiences where possible after which I will delete my account.

• The article as it stands is in a mess and has a number of omissions and mistakes and opinions. I have read more and more outside articles that say the same thing about Wikipedia and state that many other users feel they were bullied by abusive admin people in similar situations.

• For the record these reverts were the very first ever edits I have made to this article. I have only ever edited one other page in the entire time that I have been a wikipedia member. It is an out right lie by Mitsube to say "His edit history indicates that he has been engaging in a great deal of such behavior". In my opinion Mitsube set out from the very beginning to discredit me rather than discussing the article because he did not have a sound foundation for his changes.

• I also note from Mitsube's talk page that he has been reported in the past for vandalism by other members.

• I doubt very much will come from this today but maybe in time other people will complain about both Mitsube and William M. Connolley and evidence will mount up. UkFaith (talk) 23:00, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

So let me get this straight. A user removes material while explaining clearly in the edit summary, while at the same time, offering to discuss on the talk page. Instead, you decide contest that everything he did to that page was vandalism? No, I disagree. Both of you continued to edit-war despite trying to discuss on the talk page. As a result, both of you were blocked. You had plenty of time to read about edit-warring and the three-revert rule the first time you were blocked. And to leverage a complaint of "admin abuse" on your blocking admin on the grounds of Mitsube's character and record is shallow at the least. MuZemike 23:27, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Firstly we were not both blocked. check your facts. I was blocked. Secondly I did read the 3RR rule after I was blocked and I did NOT revert even once after my first block. so check your facts on that also. I made ONE edit. And got blocked for 24hrs for doing it. Inappropriately. But you are not interested in the truth...lets be honest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by UkFaith (talk • contribs) 13:25, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Also, I count six administrators who declined requests for unblock. That confirms the correctness of the original block decisions. Johnuniq (talk) 01:50, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I realise that at the moment because I lost my temper with the admin team you are now personally against me however you could at least do me the courtesy of reading through what I have posted above and understand it before adding non helpful and non factual remarks.

Mitsube removed an entire section because his own "personal opinion" differs from that of a world renowned leader in the field of Buddhism history. After I reverted this Mitsube rewrote almost the entire section to suit his own person opinion. How rediculous to keep ignoring fact?

• I asked Mitsube to discuss the matter three times I think and he ignored it. Not one admin person has acknowledged this fact.
• Mitsube reverted and changed the page more times than I did without good cause.
• Mitsube reverted my edits and called them vandalism knowing full well they were not vandalism and that I had asked him to discuss the matter before making such massive changes. Another fact completely ignored by the admin team.

Does anyone here at all care about the actual article???

I would contest the article but of course I cant...you will block me and Mitsube will undo any edit I make of any kind and call it vandalism...how is that right?. Your actions just ensure Mitsube can post his own personal opinions which is against Wikipedia policy. UkFaith (talk) 12:43, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

NOT ONE ADMIN PERSON HAS EVEN BOTHERED TO READ THIS. WHAT A COMPLETE WASTE OF TIME. YOU MAKE IT IMPOSSIBLE FOR THE ARTICLES TO HAVE ANY INTEGRITY AND MAKE A MOCKERY OF THE WHOLE PROCESS. SCHOOLS AND UNIS ARE3 ABANDONING THIS PROJECT...ANYONE LISTENING? UkFaith (talk) 12:55, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Since you will delete this complaint in a moment...and that you intend to delete all my edits and block me constantly could you please REMOVE MY ACCOUNT.

I find the whole situation abusive and dishonest. Regretfully. UkFaith (talk) 13:10, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

TALKING IN ALL CAPS makes me less likely to read something. Chillum 13:29, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

laughing and crying banging my head against te wall. UkFaith (talk) 13:54, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Hey UK take a break for a minute this thread isn't going to go anywhere so don't work yourself up. We understand you want to add a viewpoint but you're doing it in a way that is counter productive. There are plenty of editors and admin that can help you understand where things are getting fouled up. If you won't try that then it is futile to continue, you're only going to get more angry and then someone pops off with a long term block. That isn't what you want, just take a break for a few.Hell In A Bucket (talk) 13:58, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks...just keep talking about me...forget about every point I keep trying to raise over and over and over and so far has been completely ignored by everyone. Thanks a lot. UkFaith (talk) 14:06, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry but there isn't any actions we can take right now as there seems to be no ongoing abuse of power currently. Sorry but the above comments just cloud your arguements because at this point you're so upset that you are attacking everyone, If you aren't willing to go into what you want changed and how it fits wiki policies no one can help you. I've offered 2xs to help but you don't seem to be aimed at improving the excyclopedia at this point. Remember Admin are human just like us so not always perfect. What do you want the people to do here anyways, admins can only protect, block and one other button other then that they are 4bound by the policies we are.Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:16, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

The ongoing abuse of power....if you bothered to read the above....is that if I edit in anyway I am immediately blocked without needing to meet any Wikipedia policy.

Since you are not an admin person Hell In A Bucket I do not know why you have involved yourself in this issue, since you are not involved in any other way either?..are you trying to become an admin...is that your agenda here?

I have gone to great length to explain exactly what happend and what I beleieve is against Wikipedia policy but you still have not bothered to read what has been posted nor have you commented on a single point that I raised.

What exactly will it take to get anyone to read the above and comment on my points individually rather than just attacking me??? UkFaith (talk) 15:18, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

You've gone to even greater length to lash out at everyone in this thread. For the record, I read your complaint (just like everyone, contrary to what you think), and don't see the admin abuse. Take a step back for a few hours, you're not doing yourself any favors here.--Atlan (talk) 15:23, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I would reccomend if you can't operate within our communities policies you leave post haste. No admin is going to do anything about this because you didn't follow procedure. I've offered help so you can affect change through accepted means. It doesn't matter that I'm not an admin, I am an editor with more experience then you as well as the others above and would like to help ease you into the community. For you to come here you should have tried the user you disagreed with first, then an admin, then a request for comment and then finally to here. Had you dont that people would likely be telling you the same thing as I am. William Connelloy acted according to policy, the number in 3rr is a guidline in the warning itself it also states that it doesn't have to be three times for a edit war for a block to be emplaced. At this point you are being disruptive and I strongly suggest you tone down your attacks at people trying to help you, you are new here, so learn how this community operates before assuming bad faith about every editor and admin on our site.Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:26, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

If you have read through this as you claim....what do you say to my being blocked for 24hrs for making a single edit?

Which bit of policy is that?

And what do you say about Mitsube reverting all my edits and calling them vandalism when he know that was not the case????

UkFaith (talk) 15:28, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

It was NOT a single edit. You keep saying it was. On the 10th, you did seven reverts. On the 11th, you got straight back on the horse and did another two. That's nine reverts, not one. Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:34, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Thats a lie. Check the records. I did no reverts on the 11th whats so ever. I did one edit. And got 24hr block. and as for the 10th...you will see that Mitsube did the same as me. UkFaith (talk) 15:40, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

The first edit you made to the article once your block expired was to restore the section again. That's a revert. Your second edit to the article was to revert again. --Onorem♠Dil 15:43, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

On the 11th I actually typed out the text so it was not a revert, but I admit I had forgotton that Mitsube revterted my edit calling it vandalism. How comes he can continually revert and call my edits vandalism and never gets called on it. No way is that Wikipedia policy and thats partly why I feel this is completely one side. I did then revert his unfounded revert which I had forgotton, but even so I was still within Wikipedia policy at that point and did not deserve to have another one sided 24hr block. UkFaith (talk) 16:06, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I myself suggest another short term block at this point. There is nothing we can do to get the editor to realize what we've been offering or saying and this is becoming quite disruptive with personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith to everyone who disagrees.Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:36, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah go ahead and block me...certainly dont let anyone tell the truth..and Hell in a Bucket isn't even a admin if thats not stiring then what is! UkFaith (talk) 15:40, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Ukfaith, here is a revert by you on the 11th. It's hard to edit accurately and angrily at the same time. Now, in my humble, completely uninvolved, non-admin opinion, you've probably got two options.

• Keep editing aggressively here, and I suspect an admin is sooner or later going to block you.
• Talk with someone about this, calmly and quietly, on your talk page or theirs.

I'd be willing to do this, if you'd like. Let me know. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:47, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Followup: perhaps you're getting confused by the timezones; you edited on the 11th as far as UTC is concerned, it might not have actually been the 11th where you live... does that explain anything? --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:50, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

UkFaith, I commented on your talk page, FLoquenbeam is 100% right. You take the dumb route, and you will be banned. Ikip (talk) 15:52, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I have just been warned by Hell in a Bucket they I will be blocked shortly for 'attacking people'. I am not attacking anyone. I am telling the truth. This is completely one sided against me.

As far as I am aware Hell in a Bucket has no business here other than to cause trouble. He is not an admin person and is not involved in any way in what has happend at the Buddhism article.

I suspect I will now be blocked again since thats what you do to people who stand up for the truth.

Just go ahead ad delete my account and be done with it. I dont believe you will ever hear that anyone other than me did anything wrong. UkFaith (talk) 15:56, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

UKFaith, I can understand your confusion regarding Hell In A Bucket's participation in the discussion. Despite this being the Administrator's Noticeboard, non-admins are permitted to comment on situations as well as make suggestions on how to resolve an issue. HAZardousMATT^toxic 16:02, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

The phrase "Hell in a Bucket has no business here other than to cause trouble" is a good example why you've been recieving these warnings, you can continue saying all of us are wrong and you are right, if you don't like the way our community works then by all means please leave and stop disrupting it, you've had 2 offers from help from me and you declined, you are attacking every editor that disagrees with you, i don't think the problem is on our side, you are clearly examplifying how this is your issue.Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:01, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)On the 10th, starting at midnight UCT, we have [125][126][127] in the space of 3 minutes, all reverting edits by Mitsube. During the course of the next 12 hours, Mitsube made two edits, neither of which reverted you or affected the text you had reverted - the first corrected a markup error, the second changed "Indo-Aryan Brahmanism, and their key ideas of samsara, karma, " to "Indo-Aryan Brahmanism, and ideas originating in this religious culture, such as samsara, karma,". At 12 noon, [128] and [129] reverted those two changes (including putting the markup error back) and [130] reverting another editor, all in the space of 3 minutes. At 4.30, Mitsube did a major edit which probably did relate to your previous edits, and at 8 o clock [131] you reverted that change. That makes seven edits.

On the 11th UTC, Mitsube did revert one of your edits, and made other edits that were not reverts. At just after 11pm [132] you chopped out everything Mitsube had done. Mitsube reverted this at 20 to midnight, and you reverted again 10 minutes later [133] You then went on to make another edit that was not a revert, just before midnight UTC. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:02, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

For User:UkFaith own sake, can an admin close this discussion? Ikip (talk) 16:13, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

If you look at the full history you will see that it was Mitsube that began chopping and it was he also that changed considerablly what the entire section originally says. For the record I am not the author of the original text. This was, in my opinion, unfounded and unjust and was at the root of my reverts. Mitsube was unable to present fair arguments as to why the original section need to be changed so much. He first commented on the references but this proved to be an unfounded argument. After this I may have gone about things wrongly but it is equally unfair that I was one sidedly blocked and that Mitsube has been able to revert or delete all my contributions and call the vandalism. UkFaith (talk) 16:15, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, as I've alluded to on UKfaith's talk page, his biggest problem is probably a lack of patience and a tendency to get upset and expect very quick responses and, seemingly, an inability to absorb what he's being told because he's so worked up. Several users, including me, have tried to talk with him calmly on his talk page to no avail. If he relaxed a little bit and let go of the mistaken idea that people are ganging up on him he might have an easier time here. Exploding Boy (talk) 16:15, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

They tried he reverted it go through the history boards here. He will not drop this, I've offered help and after an original ty [[134]] when i tried to explain he was doing things the wrong way he came back here and started trashing me.Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:16, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

So you honestly believe I am wrong on every single point and I have nothing valid to say on anything?

Its completely ok for another user to delete or revert all of my edits and call them vandalism even when they know thats not the case.

That is completely unfair and one sided. UkFaith (talk) 16:21, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

If we agree will you drop it?Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:24, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

If it is agreed then you are agreeing that I was blocked unfairly and that I will not be blocked in the future for personal matters. I did not exceed the 3RR on the 11th and did not deserve a one sided block.

You have quoted the good faith clause a number of times..what about good faith for me that I was trying to restore the integrity of a Wikipedia article?

And then there is the question of how to proceed. How will it be possible to correct the article if each time I try Mitsube is allowed to delete other peoles work and call it vandalism or I get blocked. He has changed considerably what was originally being said with out valid grounds? My understanding was that is a reason to revert until resolution?

Mitsube's talk page also indicates he has been through this same thing with other people misusing the vandlaism claim dishonestly.

Mitsube needs to be issued with a formal warning about such behaviour surely? UkFaith (talk) 16:58, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Let me try to address all your points.

1. Mitsube was within his rights to edit boldly, something we encourage here. Rewriting sections of articles happens all the time; there's no such thing as a stable article here. Whether or not you were aware of the 3RR rule at that time, you violated it by reverting multiple times, which got you blocked.
2. When you returned from your block, as you put it, you returned to the article and "'worded' the section as it was originally worded without reverting." Unfortunately for you, this is considered a form of reverting. Since it appeared you were continuing the behaviour that got you blocked in the first place, you were blocked a second time.
3. Several editors have disagreed with your proposed edits on various Buddhism-related talk pages; it's not a case of you vs. Mitsube.
4. There is no "admin team" and nobody is against you. However, as I've told you many times, we're all volunteers here and we don't like dealing with people who are being rude and pushy. Things take time on Wikipedia; you need to have patience.
5. You have a tendency, out of frustration, to lash out at people who are trying to help you; this is counterproductive.
6. As I said on your talk page, your edit history shows multiple reversions, a tendency to be quick to accuse others of vandalism and to be rather easily frustrated in talk page discussions. Wikipedia can be frustrating at times. Things tend to happen slowly as consensus building takes time, and ultimately things do not always go our way; working in a cooperative environment is not for everyone. The only way to accomplish anything here is by calm, sometimes extremely lengthy discussion; that's the nature of the beast.

I really urge you to take some time to relax, and possibly to consider applying for a mentor if you would like to continue to contribute here. Exploding Boy (talk) 16:38, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

For the record there is no one who disagrees with me on the talk page because I am not the one making the changes and I am not the author of the original text. I have also not been allowed to contribute to the talk page so I am not in a position to have defended myself for the last three days.

I take it you disagree with me about Mitsube deleting my edits and calling them vandalism. I am sorry but I dont accept that is Wikipedia policy. Mitsube did not act in good faith nor honestly by doing this. He knew that I had already commented on the talk page a number of times and was asking him to justify his changes.

I am sorry but you wont accept there was any wrong doing by anyone but me. UkFaith (talk) 16:58, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:StickHell In A Bucket (talk) 17:04, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

You have quoted the good faith clause a number of times..what about good faith for me that I was trying to restore the integrity of a Wikipedia article? UkFaith (talk) 17:07, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Good faith applies until you flame everyone. I don't doubt you're trying to act in good faith and only want to do is defend yourself. Like I said you are a new user and it is not uncommon to see a reaction like this because you misunderstand us applying policies for a manhunt against you. Instead you should understand what went wrong with your behaviors and then af5ter learning the relevant policies go about affecting change. You need to accept that your opinion is not the hand of god here. Neither is mine, these policies however were made through consensus and discussion. Step back a bit and understand the policies and when you do this will be in a different light.Hell In A Bucket (talk) 17:11, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Has anyone attempted to contact William Connolley about this thread? Please note also that WMC is party to an ongoing arbitration case which, among many other things, is looking at his administrative conduct. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 17:15, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I can't believe there is not a single other person here that believes its wrong to dishonestly claim vandalism to justify reverts when no real reason exists. Am I really completely alone in that belief? UkFaith (talk) 17:16, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

No, you're not alone. Your edits should not have been referred to as vandalism. This was a content dispute/edit war, not a case of vandalism on either side. --Onorem♠Dil 17:19, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I have advised WMC of this thread.Hell In A Bucket (talk) 17:25, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

• Thank you. In that case, according to the information I have, since Mitsube has also been reported by others for similar behaviour is it not reasonable that he should now given a warning against such behaviour which has contributed to inflaming this situation as much as any mistakes I may have made?

• And there for I hope you can see why I feel it was unfair of William Connolley to single me out for edit waring since Mitsube was at the very least as guilty for delibrately using vandalism to discredit me and justify his reverts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by UkFaith (talk • contribs) 17:36, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

The other editor was blocked as well. it was for a lesser time but that person was blocked. Perhaps you should see their talk page.Hell In A Bucket (talk) 19:46, 14 August 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.

The other user Mitsube was blocked for one hour. I was blocked for two lots of 24hr. That is completely one sided.

Also I have just asked two very important questions. Closing this complaint with out answering them of taking me serious shows that yoiu have no respect for me or for anything I have complained about. Even though other user have made the same complaint.

This is completely one sided. UkFaith (talk) 21:16, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Abuse by new admin

User_talk:RetroS1mone#August_2009

User:Colds7ream confirmation User_talk:Colds7ream#ANI

I have very much concern, new admin User:Colds7ream, 4000 edits and no experience w difficult medical articles I edit is abusing power and harassing me with incivil threats and templates. I think, this admin may be needs warning and advice from a mentor admin and should let other uninvolve admins block me when i do need block.

I am in contention with content on some articles on Chronic fatigue syndrome and Fibromyalgia, where medical community’s view point, Wiki view point is different from some patient’s view point, and there is alot of conteroversy. I make many improvements to these articles, i have much production 3300 edits in a year and I have praise from experience medical editors that say I am helping Wikipedia. But some patients and other people that have very strong POV are very upset they think some medical finding should not be in these articles and they try to delete WP:MEDRS I put in and they accuse me of OR and agenda.

One of these editors wrote User:Colds7ream email to complain of me after Colds7ream became admin one week after his RFA. In RFA Colds7ream wanted admin powers to help his editing about space travel and aviation, it is only editing Colds7ream does and Colds7ream does not have familarness with medical articles. Since then colds7ream approves RfC about me which is not in RfC guide-lines from users that contact him and are following me on Wiki for a year bc from my WP:MEDRS edits they do not like. Then Colds7ream is very condescending and mean to me, also when I am trying have politeness and understand why it is a problem. Today Colds7ream threatens he will block me with a level 4 vandalism warning [135]. OK so first I thought, mistake, Colds7ream does not know how to use Twinkle very good. Then Colds7ream modifies it. It is very deliberate, I have concern. Admins should not act like this.

Edits I made were not vandalism, I did not have any one vandalism warning before, Colds7ream used a vandalism level 4 warning to tell me I would be blocked. Colds7ream added in all capitols IF YOU DO NOT BEHAVE IN A MORE CIVIL MANNER, YOU WILL BE BLOCKED. [136] and then they edited the warning so it did not look like vandalism 4 template [137]. I do not understand bc I did not vandalize any thing. Also Colds7ream said I did not vandalize [138] Also I was not incivil to any person from last time I talked to Colds7ream. Colds7ream did not have diffs for bad behavior. I try to work with other editors. Colds7ream edit was response to a message from my friend that I emailed, that said I should think about break from Wiki or CFS article. The editor said, they do not blame me or other people and they did not say I was being incivil. [139]

History is,

• [140] Colds7ream approved a RfC about my comment, it was made by two users that have followed me on Wiki almost one year, delete my contributions, make accusations on me, made a RfC does not meet RfC guide-line. Colds7ream admits, one of the editors wrote him private email and recruited him and says the RfC is unusual. Why Colds7ream did not write me private email, get my perspective or ask me on Wiki when RfC is so unusual?? it is strange partial behavior for admin.
• [141] Reverts my edits, accuses me I took credit for edits by Tekaphor by using “exact same paragraphs” under my own name. IT is not true, I kept the medical reliable sources Tekaphor put back in and I took out WP:UNDUE “caveat” from this editor, who is spa editor and never edits except one subject and one strong POV.
• 9:00 on August 10, [142] Colds7ream threatens to block me, says “Stop accusing editors of various behaviours in your edit summaries; leave them a message on their talk page or the article talk page is you wish to open a discussion.” Since Colds7ream says this, I did not ever accuse another editor in edit summary. Says “Stop reverting edits which add valid content & sources to articles; if you have a problem with them, find a source and write a paragraph in the article which provides the alternative viewpoint.” I do not delete MEDRS sources, other editors delete MEDRS sources I put in, and Colds7ream did never threaten blocks of those editors. I think, Colds7ream does not know WP:MEDRS and WP:MEDMOS, bc Colds7ream only edits space station articles and said he would only edit space station articles in their RFA.
• [143] OK, not enough, they threaten a block and say false things about me at 9:00, at 9:06 August 10 Colds7ream puts welcome message on my talk page WP:TEMPLAR when I have 3200 edits, says I should AGF. I did not make any edit more. I called one person SPA, that is on Wikipedia 3 years, did never edit another subject, always takes same fringe activist position and attacks me, AGF does not say, ignore all evidence, it says assume good faith except where there is evidence. Why Coldstream does revert my edits on article, accuse me falsely in edit summary, threaten block on my talk page, put incivil welcome template on my talk page all about same incident in like 10 minutes??
• [144] Colds7ream puts welcome message back on my talk page with mean edit summary after I acknowledge and remove like WP:CAIN says, a experience editor sees and removes it, tells Colds7ream they are wrong [145].
• Colds7ream makes mean and condescending comments to me and accuses me I do not know AGF [146]

I do think, this admin can may be have some help and advice from other admins?? BC they have other problems, like,

Colds7ream refactors another editors comments to cover up a mistake they made [147].

Thx, RetroS1mone talk 00:43, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Comments by other involved parties (Please include diffs to substantiate your claims)

Comments by RobinHood70

As mentioned, an RfC was filed against RetroS1mone on July 28 in regards to a long-term pattern of disruptive editing and unwarranted accusations. At that time, it sat in the "Candidate pages" queue for several days, so I figured that most likely none of the regular editors was willing to make a ruling on whether or not disruptive editing constituted a "same dispute" as specified in the RfC. At that point, I contacted Colds7ream offline to request that an administrator make a decision. (Contrary to what RetroS1mone says above, the RfC wasn't filed by 2 users, but rather by 6 editors (5 certifying, 1 endorsing); and this was not one week after his RfA, but rather closer to 2 months.)

To avoid any possible accusations of bias, I simply went to the list of admins willing to make difficult blocks and picked the last one on the list. I did not know him in any way at the time. Even though it wasn't a "block" I was asking for, I used that list and contacted him offline for the simple reason that a banned user had been apparently contacting editors—including admins—offline in regards to various CFS-related posts, etc., and I did not want to risk that happening if he was uninterested in making a ruling. It was a neutrally-worded request simply to make a ruling so the RfC could either move forward or be rejected and other means of dispute resolution pursued.

Subsequent to Colds7ream's approval of the RfC, RetroS1mone removed her reply to it with edit summaries of "i remove my comments, i will not respond to harassing any more", and "i am not playing this game".[148][149] Since that time, Colds7ream has sent her a couple of conduct warnings, which RetroS1mone has replied to by accusing him of harassment and being involved/making it personal, requesting that another admin get involved instead. Colds7ream's and my responses follow the initial points of concern expressed by RetroS1mone, at which point she thanked us for our responses.

The latest warning was in regards to the general editing tendencies at the Chronic Fatigue Syndrome article, where RetroS1mone has made 32 edits, almost all substantive, in the four days since the article was unlocked.[150] Many of these edits were either removal of previously-inserted text by other users, or disproportionately increasing the weight of a given viewpoint.

The very RfC filed against her was about making unsubstantiated allegations, and this ANI filing clearly continues that trend, as can be seen with accusations of bias, patient view point, POV, following her, etc.

There are other things above that I could respond to, but I think I've said enough for the time being. At least from where I sit, I see this as a blatant case of admin shopping, though being an involved editor, I will certainly admit the possibility of bias. --RobinHood70 (talk) 02:04, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

• Following response stricken after RetroS1mone removed her recent reply to the above. --RobinHood70 (talk) 03:57, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to respond to most of this, as I think my actions speak for themselves. I chose the most recent admin in the list because it made it pretty much a no-brainer that he'd still be an active admin. RetroS1mone seems to be implying that I or some other users are in fact Guido den Broeder or meatpuppets. I can't speak for others, but I know that I most certainly am not him, and I've been quite open about the two contacts that I've had with him (both initiated by him) and what my response to them was. What's more, I have a clear history on Wikipedia and UESPWiki under this same user name, and a history of edits in other forums and newsgroups that date back probably 10 years or more. Googling my own nick, I'm finding forums that it's been so long since I joined them that I didn't even remember I'd joined until I saw them! All of these will hopefully confirm that I am not Guido, and that the location of my IP matches the long history I have online.

If any uninvolved editors have questions or concerns about any other specific points, I'll be more than happy to respond to them. --RobinHood70 (talk) 03:10, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Tekaphor

Sigh. RetroS1mone is obviously not a vandal and does some good edits. However, the relatively common distortion of facts by RetroS1mone appears to show no serious signs of improving. RobinHood70 already commented about the trend of unsubstantiated allegations. RetroS1mone is constantly engaging in strawman arguments, pretending to know the motivation, agenda and opinions of the editors who disagree with her. Along with a single compliment from a "medical editor", she uses these opinions to justify her editing style and poor etiquette, without seeing any fault in it. RetroS1mone seems outraged at the idea of being requested to "assume good faith", because of her experience at Wikipedia. Unfortunately her history contains regular examples of not assuming good faith, and I believe other editors have been exceptionally patient with her.

RetroS1mone claims she deleted my edit because of "WP:UNDUE", but there is nothing in that policy which warrants the total removal of the information I added (all of which was reliably sourced). I even stated in my edit summary that the section may need expansion! Instead of constructively adding the appropriate weight, RetroS1mone just reverted my entire edit and added back the main two sources I initially added but without any caveats whatsoever. By doing so, she omits uncertainty about the research and excludes a significant minority opinion.

The heavy-handed style of RetroS1mone has indeed been a cause for disruption over the last year, despite her claims that people are "harassing" her merely because people "don't like it" that she's "following MEDRS". She assumes wrongly that "patient activists" are "hounding her" and keeps using this excuse to discredit any dissenting article edits and talkpage arguments. It is attitudes like RetroS1mone's which form a major reason this account will remain single purpose: CFS is a dirty topic and I don't want the mud to stain my other clothing, thanks. RetroS1mone keeps saying I have a "strong POV", but has never accurately defined what that is, just keeps saying I have one. _Tekaphor (TALK) 08:56, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Comments by uninvolved editors

Remarks by closing editor

Have you notified Colds7ream that you have started a topic of which he is the subject? You should do so.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:47, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes thank you the diff is on top. Thx for reminding tho! RetroS1mone talk 00:48, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

What is with all of this "comments by", "remarks by closing editor", etc. on this page? This is not RfC. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 02:14, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I was confused also, when i started it was a new template, said i should paste it into the section. Is it new?? RetroS1mone talk 02:32, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Similarly, I followed the format that appeared to be called for by the post. --RobinHood70 (talk) 02:58, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

It's advised to do things that way in the new editnotice. --Conti|✉ 09:04, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Where was the consensus for this? Things are far too bureaucratic as they stand, and I, for one, have no intention of doing that. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 18:48, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Can I suggest taking this side-discussion to the talk page and deleting it from here? I'd do it myself, but I sort of consider AIN to be Administrators' domain. :) --RobinHood70 (talk) 18:59, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

A few points

Fair enough, I'll allow the community to settle this as it sees fit. I would, however, like to make a few corrections to what has been said:

1. I am, in fact, familiar with medical articles, as I am a third-year medical student, and as a result have plenty of experience in working through medical journals with an eye to looking out for cherry-picking and other faults.
2. My RfA passed on 9 June, not 'one week ago'.
3. I selected to the level 4 template merely to make use of a standard template, and, as I pointed out in the edit summary when I corrected it, I removed those sections of the template which were inappropriate to this case. I'd like to suggest that a template set is created for generally disruptive editing.

As for anything else, I'd like people to please read the messages at User talk:Colds7ream#I have concern to see the discussion I've been holding recently with RetroS1mone, and would also invite people to look at previous versions of User talk:RetroS1mone to see the discussions that have occurred there (which RetroS1mone has since removed under WP:CAIN). Many thanks, Colds7ream (talk) 12:11, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Medical articles, i mean Wiki medical articles, what Wiki articles did User:Colds7ream edit? Being medical student and being good medical editor are not same thing always :-)

Colds7ream accuses me that I cherry pick, that I have faults, why, why put this "dig" into comments. Colds7ream will pls show what percentage from my hundreds MEDRS edits to Morgellons Lyme disease Chronic fatigue syndrome and its forks, also Fibromyalgia, Medically unexplained physical symptoms and others are "cherry pick" and wrong. May be also ask experience medical editors what they think? ;>)

Colds7ream accuses me, disruptive editing, why?? Pls look to edit history of Chronic fatigue syndrome this week, i am person adding MEDRS sources to the article, other editors are deleting, accuse me of OR, say things are not relavent. I am discussing on talk page. What i am doing wrong to get a level 4 vandalism template and block threat? :-(

I did not say Colds7ream's RfA was passed one week ago, I said the RfA was passed one week after it started, i do not know why i said it bc it is not relavent. It is example again, Colds7ream does not read my edits, assumes i am saying sth bad and wrong and accuses me. I do not think it is good for admins to act so, and it is why i think this inexperience admin can benefit from a mentor and advice. I do never say i am perfect, and i need improvement to but i am not admin and i will never be. ;-) RetroS1mone talk 13:20, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Mea culpa

I would like to apologise to all involved, as it appears an unintentionally ambiguously-worded message I posted yesterday to User:RetroS1mone was the cause of this entire mess. Simone had asked for my advice (by e-mail) on several editing issues. In my response I wrote "100 edits since Chronic fatigue syndrome was unprotected several days ago: that's bad from any perspective". By which, as User:RobinHood70 correctly observed, I meant 100 edits by all editors, not only those by Simone. It would appear that tempers are on short trigger for reasons I admit I don't fully understand, and that User:Colds7ream pulled yet another trigger (in a somewhat bold fashion) after reading my note.

My apologies again; I trust all will take a step back, cease the reciprocal accusations and get back to improving the encyclopaedia. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 15:03, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks for this, but I'd rather this request to verify (or otherwise) my involvement in this dispute reach a full conclusion, both for my benefit and that of everyone else involved. Colds7ream (talk) 17:26, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

'Similar name' problem

Resolved

Kingturtle (talk) 11:57, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Username policy says "Usernames that are very similar to existing ones can only be created by administrators;" - so how did Dougweler (talk · contribs) get created? You can't get much more similar. Looks harmless but still, I'd rather there not be another user with a username so close to mine. Dougweller (talk) 14:31, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

The quoted section is a policy, not a technical limitation. There's nothing in the technology to prevent creation of similar user names. The violation of policy, on the other hand, is why the new account has now been blocked. - TexasAndroid (talk) 14:50, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually there is a technical limitation. I'm not sure of the rules exactly but one shouldn't be able to create an account called, e.g. User:TexasANdroid. It will tell you it's too close to an existing account. But without knowing the exact rules, I can't say how User:Dougweler snuck through. Wknight94 ^talk 15:05, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

BTW, I hope we don't piss the poor guy off. He's very active and has edited well for several months as far as I can tell. It probably would've been courteous to ask him to change his username rather than immediately block with a template. WP:DTTR applies at this point IMHO. Wknight94 ^talk 15:09, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

This is kind of similar to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Username_woes, except for the completely opposite resolution. Yeah, I hope we didn't scare him off. No need for the immediate block IMO.--Atlan (talk) 15:26, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I thought that. And about the block notice. A "So sorry, the autodoodad should have stopped you creating this name, but didn't catch it. We already have a Dougweller, would you mind awfully changing yours." would seem more appropriate Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:29, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I guess I could just comment on his page, saying I'll help him if he has problems? I brought up the technical issue at the Village Pump. Dougweller (talk) 15:38, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I boldly unblocked and left a note. Feel free to add to it. No slight to the blocking admin - I was kinda hoping to unblock before he noticed he was blocked. I know many people who would fly off the handle if the first thing they saw was a big block message. Wknight94 ^talk 15:45, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

It is more than odd that an editor should adopt a name so similar to mine yet most of their edits are adding links to the Galego Wikipedia. Where he also uses the same name. Dougweller (talk) 15:51, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

If his edits are fine, where's the problem? --Conti|✉ 15:56, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I was kinda wondering that myself. Maybe his name is Doug Weler? That's possible, no? He has edits on that gl.wp with edit summaries in whatever language that is. He has accounts at dozens of other wikis presumably adding IWs on those too. Maybe ignore him? Wknight94 ^talk 16:06, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Neurolysis here throwing in my two cents -- the name issue is one of convienience as much as one of impersonation. If someone mistakes the two editors, that could cause problems. Does either of the editors actually have a problem with the other editor editing with their chosen name? I see that the OP states that he is not at ease having someone else with a username so similar, but does he actually want direct action taken at all? 78.133.122.186 (talk) 16:37, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Also, at Elen -- saying the filter should have stopped them is misleading, as it doesn't detect this sort of similarity (evidently). As far as I am aware, it only detects direct similarities like a 1 or an I in place of an l, or a capital letter in place of a lowercase one. 78.133.122.186 (talk) 16:50, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

To your first point, and Dougweller, correct me if I'm wrong, but I think someone happened to notice Dougweler and dropped a note on Dougweller's talk page. Otherwise, Dougweler went seven months or so without even being noticed! If all Dougweler ever does is add IWs, it's hard to believe there would be any inconvenience to the community. Wknight94 ^talk 17:41, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

The suggestion has been made that as an editor of another Wikipedia, when he got single signon it created his username here, with no filter intervention. I'm still not sure that should happen. There's no inconvenience, so maybe it should be dropped, although obviously if things changed I might reconsider. Dougweller (talk) 18:40, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I left him a note telling him I could change his username if he decided to take that route. I also told him he wasn't in trouble. I don't want him to get the wrong idea. If in the end he doesn't want to change, we can still come up with some solutions to make it less confusing. Kingturtle (talk) 19:24, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I've noticed User:Mastcell and User:MastCell have little hatnotes to reduce confusion. Of course, in that case, the current admin was the interloper, as Mastcell was here first. To be honest, I'd take any mention of even voluntary renaming off his (Dougweler's) talk page, even the gently worded notes there now. He hasn't done anything wrong, it appears to be his SUL name, Dougweller has said above it's no inconvenience, and he's editing in good faith. Ask him if the hatnote idea is OK, and leave him be. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:57, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I see no reason why this should be treated any differently than the Yoni-come-lately case above. If there is no interaction between the editors, there is no problem. It is OK to suggest the hatnote, for both, but if one or both says no, suggest leaving it at that. I suggest that both these naming threads be closed, whatever may be needed, it does not fall under administrative powers. Good discussions, though!--Wehwalt (talk) 20:00, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

• A note. I've archived the Yondi discussion above, as it wasn't productive. I don't think that my decision there should influence anyone's decision here, but it might offer a pointer. Protonk (talk) 22:11, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Indefinite ban requested

Resolved

 – Blocked 48h. Rschen7754 (T C) 19:31, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Please place an indefinite block on the user account User:Cuhawk which has clearly been set up with the intention of vandalising articles. --Jack | ^{talk page} 18:21, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

This should go to WP:AIV. --Rschen7754 (T C) 18:30, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Reported to AIV. <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 18:38, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

IPs

The IPs 193.203.240.225, 92.41.237.130, 202.175.26.145, and 92.61.135.119 added "Please type the following into your address bar in order to discuss this or any other topic anonymously without registering an account: "www.Anon", follow by "Talk" and end with ".com". Then press Enter." to multiple articles and AFDs. Joe Chill (talk) 19:06, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, this is just the AT spammer. RC patrollers, admins, and the abuse filter are all over it. Please report IPs to AIV or block on sight. Make sure to revert all instances of vandalism - there may be several edits from different IPs on the same page. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:37, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

See my post here. I'll start blocking on sight, but this appears to be quite a problem... _TalkIslander 19:40, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

(ec)The second IP listed had just made an unsigned "Keep" !vote on an AFD, so I restored their !vote, noting as unsigned and as a single purpose account, and moved it to the end where it belonged. As I recall, IPs are allowed to participate in AFD. The others received appropriate warnings for their vandalism. What is the point of the edits, and how long should an IP be blocked for one to 3 instances of it? The IP might be assigned to someone else at any time. Edison (talk) 19:43, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

The second IP appears not to belong in this list. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:05, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, (this'll need explaining to me, I fail to see the logic in it) User:J.delanoy has blocked the IPs I've reported in the post I link to above for 5 years each... _TalkIslander 19:48, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

(ec)::::I see a range of block durations of 1 week to 5 years for one of the offending IP addresses: [151]. How long actually makes sense? Do we really expect a vandal to sit there frustrated for 5 years trying to edit Wikipedia from the same IP , unable to get another assigned? Edison (talk) 19:51, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

These are all open proxies, mostly dynamic. 5 years is excessive IMO, but these IPs will be a liability for quite a while yet. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:56, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't a bot comb these periodically to ensure they're still open proxies ? –xeno^talk 20:06, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Is there a page somewhere explaining what is meant by "dynamic open proxies" and how to detect that an IP is one? Edison (talk) 20:08, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

In this case, trust me and use WP:DUCK. Dynamic IPs change owners frequently, usually within a month or two meaning the proxy moves to a different IP. Open proxies also frequently get closed down in a relatively short time. I could probably explain more over at WT:OP, but checking proxies is a bit complicated. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:16, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

We have thousands of "blocked proxies", some dynamic and indefinitely blocked, which are no longer proxies. If there's a bot, it isn't working. I really doubt a bot could do it, unless it made the block itself. Maybe Procseebot (sp?) does that, but I think it just keeps the blocks short - 2 months I think. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:10, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

KrimpBot used to do something like this for blocked Tor proxies. –xeno^talk 20:11, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Helpfully, Tor publishes all its IP addresses. There is no other definitive list of proxies. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:16, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Multiple issues: civility, good faith, edit war

I am trying to avoid an edit war (I have warned) with user:EastmeetsWest on Roman Catholic Mariology. There was also a civility problem with his message on my talk page. The topic is being discussed on the project Catholicism page anyway, and I do want to avoid an edit war, but keep the stable content from 18 months ago while discussions continue. Assistance will be appreciated. Thank you. History2007 (talk) 19:24, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Chetniks #2

Well, the content "dispute" on this article has been settled with seven new sources that reinforced the text User:Rex Dominator was disputing, and completely and blatantly contradicted his claims. However, now the user is trying to get me blocked in all ways he can think of. Being somewhat new, he probably plans to get me blocked by any means necessary and then revert my edits :). He's reporting me for anything he knows how to report :P [152][153], and is likely counting on admins not taking a better look at the issue. Near the end of it he was completely ignoring the talkpage and introducing outrageous edits completely and obviously misquoted from sources - right in the lede. I broke the 3RR reverting one of his edits (most of my edits was the introduction of the new sources), and now I guess he's trying to get rid of me. I was hoping for a bit more (admin) attention to this issue (having reported it earlier), and other users reverting those kind of edits as well. Unfortunately, having handled the matter myself I've stepped over the 3RR limit. (There you go, I've reported myself :) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 20:11, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I guess what I'm saying is: could someone help conclude the matter? The user is now engaged in POV-pushing with images (moving the lede image all the way down, adding completely unrelated images in-line with his agenda of glorifying the Chetniks). I won't revert him again, but I don't think his POV-pushing edits are going to stop, no matter how many sources are against him. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 21:21, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

SieBot out of control?

It keeps adding red links to articles such as: mwl:Angenharie. Dr.K. logos 20:28, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

• SieBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights), for convenience. Protonk (talk) 20:35, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
• I took the liberty of prefixing your link with a colon. Protonk (talk) 20:39, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
  • No problem. Thank you Protonk. Dr.K. logos 21:58, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
• Special:Block/SieBot. Bot was blocked while I was fiddling w/ templates. Protonk (talk) 20:42, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Siebrand has apologised for any inconvenience; the links themselves are fine, but the prefixes are not yet in the interwiki table so the software can't join the dots. The devs are handling it, naturally, and the bots are on hold. - Jarry1250 ^{[ In the UK? Sign the petition! ]} 21:01, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Apparently it's an issue with the installation configuration; there's a bugzilla open on it [154] and the devs are looking into it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:28, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
      • Thanks to all for your response. Good job. Take care. Dr.K. logos 21:58, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

My Attempts to make a complaint about William M. Connolley.

Resolved

I have tried to put forward points which show behaviour that is against Wikipedia policy. However I feel most of my points were completely ignored by admin and users mostly spent their time trying to close the subject and discredit me rather than answering any of my questions.

Its so frustrating with so many people against me al the time. Why is it so impossible just to have a duscussion with out so many people trying to close the subject all the time or threatening me...or anything else.

Mitsube behaved badly and William M. Connolley enabled him. I have more than had my fair share of people being rude to me over this subject and threatening me all the time.

All I want is whats right and the truth. That is not unreasonable. UkFaith (talk) 21:27, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Well I see you habve completely closed my complaint against my will and without answering my questions. That is exactly what I am complaining about in the first place.

You delete people with out any respect for them. UkFaith (talk) 21:30, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I would like to reopen my complaint which was NOT resolved and has been unfairly closed against my will. UkFaith (talk) 21:34, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I strongly advise you to drop it or, if you must, pursue other avenues of dispute resolution. This board is for items that require immediate administrator action, which is clearly not the case here.

People haven't ignored you, or even been "against you." You asked for thrid party input & you got it. As it happens, most people have reached the opposite conclusion as you - namely that the block was justified. Numerous uninvolved parties agreed, which should be a pretty clear indication that the community does not feel you were wronged. Perhaps it is time to admit to yourself that you were in the wrong and were properly blocked for editing warring. That doesn't make you a bad person, it just means you made a mistake. Many now well respected editors got off on the wrong foot here and have recovered from it. The sooner you move on, the better off you will be. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:36, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Look UkFaith, I get your frustration. As you said, you're new - but that does not excuse "playing by the rules". You broke a key rule, and were justifiably blocked for it. You then were digustingly rude in asking for unblocks - a number of separate, unrelated Admins then looked at the requests, and you were denied. Wikipedia is a collegial editing environment - you came into ANI and yelled and screamed and demanded things, when you're just another peon like the rest of us. Your complaint was heard - immediate admin reaction was judged by the community to not be required. You were actually pointed to a current complaint in another forum about the editor where you could, indeed, also comment I believe. Your own actions have driven dozens of Wikipedia's finest and most trusted admins away from your case. Have a glass of wine, pray, breath deeply, whatever it takes for you to look inside yourself and your actions, and calm down. Wikipedia is not a battleground, and there are no admins in the world who will let it become one. Your first ANI thread was a true disaster, please don't make it worse on yourself. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:54, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Incivility and general disruption

Resolved

 – 24 hour block Dougweller (talk) 16:44, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

"New" editor Leslie Roak has a consistent pattern of incivility, namecalling, insults, and personal attacks which have so far gone unreported, like this edit summary, this section heading/comment, this comment, and this edit summary/merge tag. He has been advised and warned a few times about cursing and incivility; I gave a clear "final" warning here. He subsequently called admin AniMate an "ID*OT" here. Please advise.— TAnthony^Talk 16:29, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

It seems like the editor is not getting the idea -- would endorse a block if such action were taken. 78.133.122.186 (talk) 16:39, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

The sockpuppetry accusation was the final straw. 24 hour block. Dougweller (talk) 16:44, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

---

Is it worth trying to determine what other accounts they admit to having? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 00:24, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Speed of light

Resolved

 – edit war block 55 hours Toddst1 (talk) 22:54, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

A dispute has been brewing for a few days on this page, but it has got to the point here of threats of edit-warring. Perhaps an admin or two could show a stick to the relevant parties (perhaps including me) while there is still time just to show a stick rather than use it. Physchim62 (talk) 22:37, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I would support locking the page for a week while discussions are going on. After a week the page could be unlocked provided a clear consensus has been arrived at. Count Iblis (talk) 22:43, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Declaring an edit war is the same as executing it. Blocked. Toddst1 (talk) 22:54, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Did you check to see who was correct with article content before blocking? QuackGuru (talk) 22:59, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

No, and he shouldn't have. Protonk (talk) 23:17, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Do you think blocking an editor who could be reverting WP:OR is appropriate. QuackGuru (talk) 23:20, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

In this case the dispute is more about what to write in the lead than a dispute about the physics. What the editors do think is a dispute about the physics is minor nitpicking about definitions. If a real dispute about the physics would arise, then disucussion on the talk page based on the fundamentals are a good way to resolve the dispute, see here. Count Iblis (talk) 23:28, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

If they are edit warring, yes. That should be obvious. Barring vandalism or BLP vios, being 'right' isn't an excuse to edit war. Protonk (talk) 23:46, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I protected the page at basically the same time. Any admin is free to unprotect it if they think that protection is unnecessary while the block is in effect. Protonk (talk) 22:56, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I think that it's important to note that one of the users fighting over the standard definition is advocating pseudoscience elsewhere.

User:David Tombe in sources such as this paper Lenz’s Law and others, including extensive discussions of alternative physics theories including aether and so forth.

User:Brews ohare who was just blocked is not, that I can see, but seems to be sympathetic to / playing off Tombe's positions. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:45, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I gave out a bunch of 3RRs. I'll be leaving for the Big Blue Room very soon, so feel free to take over if necessary- including if the war spills over (seems likely). tedder (talk) 00:29, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Offsite canvassing at the Afd of Search for Alan Goulden

See also: User_talk:PeterSymonds § Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion.2FSearch_for_Alan_Goulden

Please can someone look into this twitter post which suggests that the Afd nominator of Search for Alan Goulden, Dalejenkins (talk · contribs), solicited the admin AnemoneProjectors (talk · contribs), to vote delete, with the words "Vote delete please? I know it's against the rules, but I don't care ;)". AnemoneProjectors did vote delete in the Afd [155], with no declaration of this innappropriate canvassing. MickMacNee (talk) 18:21, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

As my tweets are protected, there is no way on God's earth that this could possibly be true. I guess that you fabricated a generic URL in the hope that you could accuse me of all sorts (this user not only voted keep in the AfD concerned, but we've also had disagreements in the past). I also find it most conveniant that a random IP just happened to post this false link on the discussion page and that you just happened to notice it[156] WP:SOCK? DJ 21:10, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I seriously urge you to find an adoptor, somebody experienced with Wikipedia policy and practices, who you can run your theories and accusations past, before you post them. I don't profess any knowledge of url jiggery pokery, and your theories about that part may well be right, but if someone went to the trouble to stitch you up so elaborately just to be able to bring you to ANI, it seriously wasn't me. In actual fact, this posting was more about the potential of there being an admin here not disclosing off site canvassing. But nobody seems bothered, so you're off the hook, combined with the fact that the twitter page has 'mysteriously' dissappeared. Seriously though, adoption, you need it badly. Even a good faith editor review might prevent the inevitable fate of your Wiki career if you don't clue up, fast. MickMacNee (talk) 00:38, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

As I've been editing for much longer than you, I feel that you need an adopter for your aggressive tone. This isn't a witch hunt and Wikipedia is not real life. Please, for your sake, step away from the computer and relax. The tone of your comments here and on Talk:Big Brother 2009 (UK) really woory me. DJ 01:17, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Until I met you, I did generally assume that competence with Wikipedia increased with time. Interjecting this post at this indent level is just the latest example of how little you've picked up, in addition to the rest. MickMacNee (talk) 03:47, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

"Interjecting this post at this indent level is just the latest example of how little you've picked up". As you can see from my userpage, I've expanded a range of article to GA, FA or DYK, yet MickMacNee feels its my indenting skills that are clearly the issue.... DJ 10:12, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I also noticed this link to twitter too and was extremely disappointed at the apparent action of DJ to canvas off site for deletion votes. The twitter post was left on the talk page - I noticed it as I was watching the AfD - i hardly just "happened to find it". The IP is also located in California and so I think that DJ's accusations against MickMacNee are completely unfounded. I think that DJ should explain themselves in regards to what seems to be pretty clear evidence against them. I noticed that both DJ and AnenomeProjectors are involved in the Big Brother projects and so it seems as though they know each other slightly. Just for the record I have not had any contact with the other editors involved in this AfD prior to the discussion. Can we have some admin input? Oh - I notice that the twitter link is now dead but I can vouch for the accusations made by MickMacNee and I believe that PeterSymonds would also be able to as I posted on his talk page about this just minutes after the IP posted a link. Smartse (talk) 00:49, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

"The IP is also located in California and so I think that DJ's accusations against MickMacNee are completely unfounded." How so? Is there evidence that MickMacNee does or does not live in California? No. There's no evidence for either party. DJ 01:21, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Like I said, I'm actually more concerned about the admin aspect. MickMacNee (talk) 00:57, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

And we're supposed to belive that you two have no contact? Because at the moment, there's as much evidence that AnemoneProjectors and I have broken the rules than there is that you two have; it's one side's word against the other. My Twitter account is locked, and always has been, you can see so by clicking on the link on my talk page. There is no way that anybody from Wiki would be able to read my tweets. And if I was to act such a way, I think I'd be intelligent enough to use the private message function. DJ 01:17, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, actually no. The admin in question is saying nothing, which is odd if it never happened. And as explained, if you want more people to say that they saw in the link, it can probably be arranged. And yes, we would all hope you were more intelligent, but you haven't expanded on any of the explanations you are giving as to why this could not possibly have happened. I can see your account is locked now, but funnily enough, I never tried to access it before now, so what does that prove? MickMacNee (talk) 05:55, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Baiting

Ok, can someone please do something about this joker DJ. I don't mind if nobody cares abut the Twitter issue (although I find the admin in question's absence concerning, as he is aware of the discussion), but look who has just turned up at an Afd I am involved in, voting Delete per Alastairward., where Alistairward was not the nominator. You don't have to be Einstein to figure out who else has voted keep, and who else I currently have an issue with. This is his only edit between commenting here, and removing the ANI notification from his talk page. This is not the first time DJ has turned up at an Afd and pulled this kind of stunt. MickMacNee (talk) 02:27, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

• AnemoneProjectors didn't !vote there :S. Or are you reffering to somebody else? If so, maybe you have a problem with too many editors? And I feel that my !vote is valid; I feel that Alistairward put forward a good argument and you can see from my contributions list that the VAST majority of the articles I edit relate to British TV. "This is not the first time DJ has turned up at an Afd and pulled this kind of stunt" - evidence please? DJ 02:43, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I've got the link if needed, or did you think I was a liar? It wouldn't be hard to discredit the rest of your post either, so keep it coming. MickMacNee (talk) 03:30, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
    • It's not particularly wise to bait someone in a section where you are complaining about baiting. Uncle G (talk) 03:47, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
      • If so, I class this post as baiting as well. I am asking for attention to his actions. If people don't want to know, fine, its more than to be expected here, and will do nothing to dissuade the behaviour, but please, doing nothing is preferable to winding up the person who is already alleging baiting, with such non-comments. MickMacNee (talk) 05:55, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Gerald Celente article repeatedly corrupted by user User:Laura289

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.

---

 Note: User is indefinitely blocked. Nja²⁴⁷ 08:21, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Futurist Gerald Celente, the gloom-and-doom prognosticator and talking head, his article is being used as advertising for his consulting business, and user Laura289 who works for Trends Journal, has been consistently violating Wikipedia policy by using suspect sources, original research, making unsupported claims, reverting other editors work without explanation, removing "citation needed" flags without explanation. Now she's making legal threats against me (see the Gerald Celente talk page). Myself and other editors have tried to explain to her why Celente's own "Trends Journal" is not a good source about him, but these don't seem to have any effect. It has been a long pattern of abuse of this article. Is there a way to get the article deleted? Or blocked? This article, and Laura289, needs administrator attention. Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:02, 15 August 2009 (UTC)tomwsulcer

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.

Russavia

Action in dispute

I believe the recent actions of this user can be classified as disruptive behavior. The user has committed more than 50 identical edits in less than an hour, justifying his actions by the fact that "Termer has seen fit to tag A&SO articles with POV - Kosovo articles also require it in this instance" even though he actually opposed Termer's edit and tried to remove it earlier today[157]. The sincerity of his protests is also unconvincing: one simple Google search or one visit to Kosovo would have showed that the international recognition of Kosovo is, without doubt, not as unambiguous as the user suggested. Since I find it unreasonable to believe that a user with 55618 edits under his belt would make such a blatant mistake unintentionally, I left a copy of this message on the user's page. He ignored it, answered another user in a deliberately provocative, WP:POINT-like manner[158] and immediately continued his editing activities without any pause. At least three other users expressed similar concerns: 1, 2. Please review. — Rankiri (talk) 18:29, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Kosovo? Is that the Republic of Kosovo? Or the province of Serbia which is currently under UN administration? The articles make no mention of this fact, even though other editors are insisting that A&SO articles make mention of these similar facts at every stage - I mean honestly, what do such editors expect? After every piece of information that we include that Saakashvili condemns it? OK, we fucking get it already. However, unlike Russia-South Ossetia relations where I have been very careful to include opposing points of view on major points, Kosovo articles make absolutely zero mention of the disputed status of Kosovo, and they will need to include such information in order to reach NPOV. So editors are welcome to include such information, as I already have with the Albanian and Estonian articles, but the removal of POV tags over a legitimate POV dispute is not on. And that is regardless of the reasons for its placement. I would also look at edits such as this which introduce some degree of NPOV into some of these articles. --Russavia ^Dialogue 19:03, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Kosovo articles are quite clear on the disputed status, if you saw it without, then rest assured, you caught it in the few minutes or seconds before reversion. The debate at the relevant talk pages is rabid, but it does make clear there is a dispute. That's a flat out straw-man anyway, per WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. ThuranX (talk) 19:35, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

This section is pretty hard to understand. To simplify things, what policy or guideline has been violated, what is the basis for saying so, and what admin action is called for? Looie496 (talk) 21:25, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

• WP:POINT, WP:DISRUPT, and I'm not sufficiently familiar with administrative responsibilities to suggest a course of action. — Rankiri (talk) 21:37, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

From WP:DISRUPT#Signs of disruptive editing:a disruptive editor is an editor who . . . Engages in "disruptive cite-tagging"; adds unjustified {{fact}} tags to an article when the content tagged is already sourced, uses such tags to suggest that properly sourced article content is questionable . . . Does not engage in consensus building: repeatedly disregards other editors' questions or requests for explanations concerning edits or objections to edits.

From WP:POINT: If you disagree with a proposal, practice, or policy in Wikipedia, disruptively applying it is probably the least effective way of discrediting it – and such behavior may get you blocked.

1. The user added dozens of {{NPOV}} tags on a number of seemingly neutral and well-sourced articles: [159][160][161][162] and so on.
2. A number of other editors questioned the user's motives on here and here. I made several posts on some of the affected articles and his page. I find no real concensus building arguments in any of his replies. As I said earlier, my own inquiries were ignored.
3. The mentioned edit summaries ("Termer has seen fit to tag A&SO articles with POV - Kosovo articles also require it in this instance") and following comments clearly show that the edits were made in a defiant, retaliatory manner:[163][164][165] — Rankiri (talk) 03:43, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

nominations like this Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kosovan–Serbian relations seem to be consistent with WP:POINT. Russavia's motivation seems revenge [166] and disrupting Wikipedia to achieve this is not good. LibStar (talk) 03:33, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I would like to say that after viewing Russavia's contributions regarding "Kosovo-X relations", I believe his edits to be very unhelpful and disruptive. He has added POV tags then moans on about how Abkhazia and South Ossetia articles have been edited in the past, which have nothing to do with these "Kosovo-X relations" articles been "POV". He has not said why they are POV. Seems a bit tit-for-tat to me. Also I do not appreciate his use of swearing above. He needs to remain WP:COOL and stress free. Maybe a short wiki-break would do him good? But that is not really my place to say. Ijanderson (talk) 15:53, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Messy dispute going on at Talk:List_of_best-selling_music_artists

This is a messy situation, as a user named User:Johnali123 is interupting a discussion on Michael Jackson's sales numbers. He keeps posting babble with non-reliable links to sales numbers. Then he happens to post via IP address the same stuff again and is simply being disruptive to the other editors who are trying to gain consensus on the issue. Johnali123 had been previously blocked for 3RR violations to the article and resorted to socking to disrupt the whole thing. I made a SPI report and behavior evidence says they are all the same user per WP:DUCK. I hope I am being complete about this, hopefully other users involved can add to this discussion. Momo san ^Gespräch 20:15, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I've blocked him indefinitely for sockpuppetry. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:20, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

King ♥, the problem is that the sock is bouncing all over the place- many IPs. It's been extremely disruptive- enough that I took the dumb step of blocking both the article and talk page at the same time, since it was impossible to narrow down the IP range the sock was on.

Momusfan came to me, hoping I had some ideas. I suppose the semi-protection will keep the socks away, if we leave both of them protected until the editor gets bored. Otherwise.. maybe an edit filter? tedder (talk) 20:25, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll try to look at it and find a range to apply an EF to. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:38, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, they're all registered accounts. I'll look in detail at his behavior. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:40, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

See Special:AbuseFilter/226. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:05, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Whilst I understand the sock issues, fully-protecting the talk page means that it is now impossible for us to form consensus. I've been trying to mediate the issue, and move things towards reasoned debate (with limited success, but I remain optimistic). Is it really necessary to fully-protect the talk?  Chzz  ►  22:14, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Problem, looks like the 92 IP has returned, see this edit. Can someone block it please? It also triggered filter 226. Momo san ^Gespräch 05:08, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

A block is unnecessary; the filter will disallow it (I just set it to disallow). The reason we set up filters is to prevent edits from people who cannot be feasibly blocked. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:17, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, and his IP range is Dynamic too, so it will change. Thanks for setting the filter up. Momo san ^Gespräch 05:19, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I ended up giving him a 3-hour block for tripping the EF at an obscene rate. (But if you want to see something worse, try this.) -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:39, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Looks like he's trying to crack the abuse filter. No other reason for making a null edit like this. So now he knows, no matter what he adds, he's getting disallowed. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:40, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Thats good, now hopefully this situation can finally end. And wow about that other filter, Japanese police vandal. Momo san ^Gespräch 14:57, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

i am here to complaion Momusufan beacuse he keep deleting my comments on the list of best selling artist talk page i am only trying to make a point could someone please report this is the 10 time today he has delete them i dont understand why thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.3.162.220 (talk) 15:00, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me but I have done nothing wrong. You are a sockpuppet to User:Johnali123 and were blocked for disrupting consensus at the talk page. What do you have to say to that? Momo san ^Gespräch 15:04, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Outlaw biker articles: anonymous editor

90.208.53.17 (talk · contribs) has been editing anonymously for quite some time, and the edits have been very consistently focused on outlaw motorcycle clubs and associated content like templates. Not all of the edits have been harmful, but they are usually in violation of WP:MOS, especially WP:OVERLINK, WP:MOS#FLAG, WP:N, and WP:RS. The most serious problem is the insertion of accusations against living people and groups of committing crimes, usually in the "criminal activities" field in the Template:Infobox Criminal organization found on the outlaw motorcycle club pages. Sometimes news articles can be found that state that specific persons were convicted of crimes, but this does not justify adding these crimes in such a casual way to the infobox. It makes it look like WP has proven that this group as a whole continually commits murder, arson, and so on, based only on the fact that one or more people were convicted. Or worse, based on no source at all.

I have attempted to work with this person. Nominating an article to DYK was one attempt to give an positive incentive for improvement. My warnings on the talk page about unsourced material did get a response, but primarily the result was new edits containing URLs to newspaper articles that did not, in fact, support the edit.

Members of the WikiProject Motorcycling have been at work for a while trying to raise the quality of these articles, but every day this user creates more work undoing damaging edits and sifting through deceptively cited statements. A short-term ban might be sufficient to get the editor's attention and lessen the burden on other editors. A short term block on the Category:Outlaw motorcycle clubs articles might also be helpful because it would allow time to get all of these articles in a more maintainable state, by clearing out unsourced material and making sure the articles are well-cited. After that point, future edits can more easily be checked for accuracy.

The motorcycle gangs in question do care about their public reputation, and particularly in Australia recently [167] they have taken steps to object to negative stories about them. It is all very controversial [168]. There is clear evidence that the reputations of living persons are at stake, and Wikipedia should apply high standards of verifiability when calling a club "criminal" or saying the club engages in specific criminal activity.--Dbratland (talk) 21:27, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

IP editor has been adding unreferenced and/or poorly sourced info to quite a few articles, wikilinking dates contra our WP:MOS and not responding at all to the numerous greetings, offers of help, and warnings on their talk page. L0b0t (talk) 16:00, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

IP editor has been notified of this thread http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3A90.208.53.17&diff=308140699&oldid=308137899. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 16:10, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Zaxby

(Also involves IP User:24.119.105.217)

I came across this user in July following an edit made by the user to 2009 Formula One season in which the edit summary stated massa misspelling while in fact the edit involved Zaxby changing the name of a driver to one who was rumored to be driving in the future, but uncited, and no edits were made to anything involving the driver Massa. I warned Zaxby not to make false claims in edit summaries. Zaxby's IP account (mentioned above) reverted the edit, and he was warned again. However, I decided to check his other contributions and noticed a trend of claiming to correct a spelling or grammatical mistake in a summary, but actually deleting or rewriting information that had nothing to do with the summary.

I provided an overview of his lies on his talk page, the examples can be seen here. This included a blatant attempt at vandalism, seen here but claimed to be fixing a mispelt word. Although Zaxby appeared to stop editing in this fashion, he was having a dispute with another editor (User:CeleritasSoni) which was dealt with, and things appeared to have moved on. Zaxby was sticking to editing his own user page, and I stopped paying attention to his contribs.

I decided yesterday, while looking back through my own contributions, to look at Zaxby's once again, and noticed that he was now up to more trouble. This edit to the Yuma, Arizona article involved the removal of two notable people, and replacing them with one about an all-star hockey player, "Ryan O'Hara". Two more edits were made to the article on Prescott, Arizona, again removing notable people and adding "Ryan O'Hara". This was not too big of a problem until I noticed all the work on his user page that Zaxby had been working on since the last time I had looked at his contributions. His own user page claims to be about "Ryan O'Hara" and puts him into the fake persona of a NASCAR driver (the stats are simply borrowed from other existing drivers). At the bottom of the page it simply states that "O'Hara" is a high school student who is a boxing and hockey fan.

I think this seems fairly clear to me that Zaxby is O'Hara, and is attempting to not only add his name to Wikipedia articles, but to also add some fake persona. This information about "O'Hara" has been twice removed by myself only to be added once again. This is just the latest in a long line of lies that this user has used on Wikipedia, and I struggle to find what this user contributes to Wikipedia to be in any way helpful. He has been warned numerous times ( 1, 2, 3, 4, 5) by numerous editors about removal of sourced information, adding unsourced information, and general vandalism, and I believe shows no signs of correcting his behaviour. ^IIIV_IX (Talk) 04:44, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I indeffed the user, because as I went through their contributions I couldn't seem to find anything (aside from edits to own user page) that was not vandalism, but then as I looked at the talk page I noticed the user wasn't ever explicitly given a final warning, and then I noticed right at the end the user seemed to make a useful edit. So I unblocked, giving a huge benefit of doubt. That being said, it's hard for me to see how this user is not here just to vandalize, especially because of the intentionally misleading edit summaries. So if another admin sees fit to reblock I will certainly endorse, and if the user does it again then no question. -- Deville (Talk) 05:10, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

He removed all his warnings. He's been given a Level 4 warning twice, once by myself earlier today. ^IIIV_IX (Talk) 05:14, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Scratch that, I gave him a Level 3. User:Aktsu however gave him a final warning in July. ^IIIV_IX (Talk) 05:21, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Woah, woah, woah. Can you prove that I borrowed the stats from existing drivers? I'm just asking, but im going to continue editing in good faith.(Zaxby (talk) 06:31, 15 August 2009 (UTC))

Well, the stats under "2009 Season" are, with some minor alterations of finish placings, those of Matt Kenseth, for example. I'm not going to take the trouble to check them all, but I suggest you blank your user page before someone deletes it for you. Deor (talk) 12:44, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Note: I've MfD'd the user page; see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Zaxby. Deor (talk) 14:35, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Well the user page isn't really the problem, I merely brought it up since it helped show where this "Ryan O'Hara" came from. The point of this discussion was supposed to be his editing behaviour and lies. ^IIIV_IX (Talk) 17:18, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Seems to be a part of several previously deleted hoax Articles back in '07. A legitimate article since that time now resides on Ryan O'Hara, which explains why it was created @ User:Zaxby. Most likely this account is related to;

Thechroniclesofratman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
--Hu12 (talk) 17:42, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Agreed, looking at the history of Ryan O'Hara it appears Zaxby may be yet another sockpuppet of Thechroniclesofratman. They edit almost the exact same articles (Randy Johnson, Jeff Gordon, various NASCAR articles) and seem to try and insert this vandalism of O'Hara. ^IIIV_IX (Talk) 17:49, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

That would make these relevant;

See also - Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive383#Posing_as_admin

See also - Wikipedia:Abuse_reports/76.178.67.45

See also - Category:Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Thechroniclesofratman

See also - Category:Suspected_Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Thechroniclesofratman

A block may certainly be in order.--Hu12 (talk) 17:57, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Further evidence, User:Gordon24fan also edited the Yuma, Arizona article twice, just as Zaxby has. ^IIIV_IX (Talk) 18:19, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

History of the Philippines (1898–1946)

Resolved

 – Move of History of the Philippines (1898–1946) by Nasugbu batangas, contested by Rmcsamson and Gubernatoria, reverted to the status quo ante. The correct next step for all parties is talk page discussion. Uncle G (talk) 16:23, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I need some help fixing a mistake I did when moving a page. I made the mistake of copying and pasting the text, and the history wasn't moved as a consequence. It started when a user, Nasugbu_Batangas moved the page unceremoniously to something which he says is more easily recognizable. I wanted to move it back because this does not reflect any community consensus, and isn't even precise. Similar attempts to move by the same user were done before and reversions were performed, but not by me. Thanks! Rmcsamson (talk) 10:48, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Naming and shaming

I have raised an issue at WP:WQA#Naming and shaming. I now realise this won't automatically attract the attention of an administrator. I would be grateful if an administrator could take a look at it and repair some damage. I have not repaired the damage myself because I understand it is provocative for one User to amend another User's contribution on a Talk page, especially where the matter has been discussed between the two Users and consensus was not achieved. Dolphin51 (talk) 11:50, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Forum-shopping will get you nowhere. You are suddenly introducing new things into the above that were never mentioned in the WQA. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:23, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Note the matter has been discussed between the two users, and neither of them are here complaining about "naming and shaming" Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:02, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Possible BLP issue

Resolved

 – page protected, contentious passage deleted (for now), deferred to BLP noticeboard Toddst1 (talk) 13:15, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Since neither the discussion at the respective talk page [169] nor a subsequent BLP/N thread [170] have received any comments of uninvolved editors I bring this up here to a wider audience.

Edits in question: [171], [172] and similar ones

Controversy: Is one source enough to describe anyone, especially a living person (German lawyer), as "associated with the far-right" or similar stuff (essentially a Nazi) in an article. The source is a translation of an essay written by a historian, who in that essay says that another historian has associated the subject with the German right-wing. Circumstantial evidence was presented that the subject published in a journal associated with Holocaust denial. A booksearch has not turned out any matches of the subject's name and right-wing exremism.

In my view, this is a BLP violation as long as not a lot of other sources also associate the subject with the Neo-Nazis. There is currently an edit war emerging at the article whether or not this is correct, thus input is urgently needed, best in the above linked thread on the talk page. At the moment, the disputed attribution is online. Skäpperöd (talk) 12:36, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

It would appear it is one source, but two noted historians. Also, the subject appears to self identify as "associated with the far right", as he writes for far right publications, and appears to be a Holocaust denier [173]--Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:10, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

The italicized text in the above link is the editor's introduction to Nawratil's laudatio, and not written by him. Skäpperöd (talk) 15:45, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Rather than weighing in on this I've protected the page and removed the contentious passage per Wikipedia:V#Exceptional_claims_require_exceptional_sources. Source it exceptionally well, discuss, then unprotect. Toddst1 (talk) 13:13, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Why exactly have you protected the page? Loosmark (talk) 13:30, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

And the consensus at BLP was that it was adequately sourced. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:58, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

There was no "consensus" at the BLP board (link in my opening post) - only me and two involved editors posted there outlining the issue, no other comments were made at all before the bot archieved the thread. That is why I brought it up here in the first place. I agree that there is an indication that the subject might be involved with the far right. My disagreement is on whether this indication is sufficient, especially if the only source saying so is opposing his position in the issue the source is about. If he is involved with the Nazis, many sources should say so, since he is not a "nobody". What makes it even more spicy is that the person in question is a lawyer, decorated for his law-related achievements. Skäpperöd (talk) 15:45, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

@Toddst1: You deferred this to the BLP/N, yet the thread there is already archieved. What needs to be done now? Follow-up BLP/N thread was started here: [174]. Input of BLP experts appreciated. Skäpperöd (talk) 16:22, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Deepmath

See also: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive557 § Deepmath

In support of the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy, I have taken the following actions:

• Closed Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User talk:Deepmath as keep
• Closed Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Deepmath/Gangstalked as delete for BLP reasons
• Closed Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Deepmath as keep, with this edit made under the remit of the BLP policy

For details, see the closures. Note that there is definitely further content on that user page and user talk page that the community might find objectionable. But that content, much of which is presented as autobiographical of a person using a pseudonym, is not actionable under the BLP policy.

I also draw attention to these edits, which show context and demonstrate areas of further concern:

• edit
• edit
• edit

Also note this interaction with another editor:

• edit
• edit
• edit

It will help to know that "frimurare" is Swedish for "freemason".

I suggest a user RFC on the objectionable user page and user talk page content and the pattern of edits and talk page interactions. Uncle G (talk) 00:33, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

• I have reviewed in depth. I am taking the bold administrative action that it's evident to me that Deepmath is no longer here to participate in building the encyclopedia, and that what he's doing now needs to be taken off to another site (Facebook, MySpace, a blog, a personal website, etc) and not be hosted by Wikipedia.

  As he's becoming disruptive and clearly not here to advance the Encyclopedia in any manner at this time, I have indefinitely blocked his account.

  If there's strong consensus that this was a mistake, we can revisit, but I think it's reasonably clear that he has become a problem and is no longer remotely interested in constructive encyclopedia building. I could hazard some guesses as to what is really going on but I think it's easier to just say his time to go has come. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:02, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

  • Uh, this was a mistake. Tan | 39 04:11, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
    • I disagree. The block was bold, decisive, and completely correct. Doc Tropics 04:48, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Why do you think this was a mistake? Deepmath barely contributes to article space and insults others; sounds like a no-brainer to me. Awickert (talk) 04:51, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
      • Actually, Deepmath's article-space contributions were noted in the prior incident report (q.v.). Uncle G (talk) 06:11, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
        • My fault; I thought I clicked through his/her entire contribs and I didn't. Certainly the earlier ones look useful, so maybe this should have been a short-duration ban. Of course, indef means indef and not forever, so this can be revisited if Deepmath again seems willing to contribute productively. Awickert (talk) 16:52, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
• I'll say that I don't have a problem w/ the block. When Uncle G first posted this I dug through the links, his talk page and some edits and came to basically the same conclusions as gwh. I didn't want to say as much, because it seemed like uncle G put a fair bit of work into this and thought that redemption lie on the other side for this guy. But I don't see how it is worth the bother. Protonk (talk) 05:41, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
  • there appears to be a back story here, and I'd like it explained. DGG ( talk ) 05:45, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
    • I took a look at the links and its fairly clear. a block is correct, and I am not sure about keeping the pages. one of the rules at BLP is no no harm, and keeping them here will quite possibly add to his problems. DGG ( talk ) 05:51, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
      • As I said in one of the MFD closures, I'm fairly sure that there's content on both user and user talk pages that the community will find inappropriate if not outright objectionable. I suggested dialogue with the user, and, failing that, a user RFC and some collective boldness with the editing tool. I still suggest the collective boldness. Out of the user page, the user talk page, and the user-space sub-pages such as User:Deepmath/Chemistry 101 and User:Deepmath/Health care reform, I didn't see anything other than what I edited that warranted immediate action specifically under the remit of the BLP policy, though. What I edited was about a named, identifiable, and locatable person. There's lots more about this editor xyrself, of course, but xe is pseudonymous (although xe may have revealed more than xe intended at File:Identity theft made easy.JPG — which I agree should probably be deleted in order to protect personal information). Uncle G (talk) 06:11, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
    • I don't want to go into excessive speculation about specifics, but WP:THERAPY is the underlying rationale. I reviewed the edit contents and patterns over the last several days and concluded as I described above. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:50, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I don't agree with this block, although I'm not going to press the issue that much. This editor has had many productive edits in the past, and has never been blocked before. Without naming names, the community has tolerated much more disruptive editors in various areas of Wikipedia without doing anything, let alone indefinitely blocking. In my opinion, misuse of userspace is a minor violation - if you were going to be bold, removing everything you consider a violation (without an MfD) and then warning the user that re-posting of material can and will result in a block would have been the better option. Any initial block should have been 24, 48, maybe 72 hours. Going from nothing to an indefinite block - in the light of many past productive edits - was a severe unilateral overreaction. Tan | 39 16:12, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Well, those editors you wish not to name aren't unblocked for lack of admins willing to pull the trigger. Protonk (talk) 17:02, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
      • I read the above several times and I'm not sure I understand it. The editor(s) I am not naming aren't blocked because there is no consensus to block. Are you saying some admin should have been bolder? I might agree with you. But, my point was that deepmath is far less disruptive. Tan | 39 18:11, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
        • Well, I was partially just being glib. In some cases the 'nameless editors' in question aren't blocked because their considerable content contributions tend to incline folks to be willing to tolerate eccentricity. In other cases (or sometimes in the same case), the focus of their behavior is squarely around wiki-authority. We have an aversion toward blocking people who are commenting on arbcom, admins, etc. There are a dozen different reasons, some good and some not so good. But in most cases there has been an admin willing to step in and block the editors you and I are assiduously talking around. Saying "The editor(s) I am not naming aren't blocked because there is no consensus to block." is a little tautological. If this editor, Deepmath, is blocked and the block is upheld then he is automatically not in the class of editors you describe, so a comparison is useless. Rather than focusing on consensus or lack of it, we can probably get somewhere in a general discussion by seeing what is different between this editor and those nameless editors. Then we can ask ourselves if the differences result in a healthy reason to block or an unhealthy community dynamic around unblocks. Protonk (talk) 19:22, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
    • removing everything you consider a violation (without an MfD) […] would have been the better option — I agree. My view on whether the blocking tool's use was warranted here is implied in the fact that I didn't pull it out and use it. I do possess it. ☺ But I can see Protonk's, DGG's, and Georgewilliamherbert's point of view. We do know, from long and sad experience, what the next step in this little dance very often is: Deepmath starts ranting on about how we are all freemasons, everything escalates, and we reach the point of blocking by the long and very scenic route.

      Protonk was right, however. I did think that the situation was rescuable through dialogue with Deepmath. I did think that that wasn't necessarily the next step in the dance in this particular case. One editor did, after all, persuade Deepmath to make this edit through dialogue on xyr talk page. And Deepmath, did make this edit, too.

      Oh, and it's probably not a good idea to hijack this incident and turn it into yet another circumlocuted argument about The Usual Suspects and their little soap opera. Please let's concentrate upon the issue at hand. Uncle G (talk) 20:34, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Momusufan

could you block Momusufan keeps deleting my comments i am only trying to make a point could someone please report this is the 10th time today he has delete them i dont understand why thank you If you are not vandalizing, and he is removing your comments in bad faith, you can leave anotice here. Griffinofwales (talk) 15:07, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

these are the only point i am trying to state

i dont think we should place Jackson in a separate table entry between the Elvis/Beatles section and the ABBA section, with a range of sales of 350M to 750M beacause if your read everting above it tell you elvis and beatles have not sold this much

even the wall street jounal article you keep bringing up says they have not sold this much

we should either change elvis or the beatles sales or change michael jackson sales back to how they orginaly were

i can see the sales will never change beacuse people are treating them differntly to michael jackson

And we can not use Recording Industry Association of America beacuse the only state usa sells

i am just saying we should never treat people on list of best selling music artist differently even if you not a fan of them or you are —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.156.126.203 (talk) 13:48, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Momusufan has deleting my comments 10 time today i dont understand why thank you

he is also say i am using someone else ip address how can he say this —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.3.162.220 (talk) 15:21, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

As I have told you about a hundred times already, You are a sockpuppet to a blocked user User:Johnali123 disrupting consensus about the Michael Jackson sales numbers. Can we please stop with the false accusations, I have done nothing wrong and simply reverting a blocked user's edits. Momo san ^Gespräch 15:23, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

This appears to be one of the IPs that has been disrupting conversation on this topic for days. I've advised him that if he's innocent, he's still best off being quiet. Even if Momusufan is wrong (I don't think he is), his reversions are clearly good faith.—Kww(talk) 15:25, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

This is another sock puppet of User:Johnali123, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Johnali123/Archive. Perhaps someone could do a check on the /16 range to see if a rangeblock is feasible? MuZemike 18:16, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Too much collateral damage. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 20:20, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Rockwick Capital spammer tries again.

(History of this issue: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive537#Big sockfarm -- but why?)

The Rockwick Capital spammer is back. Sidnfuasdusn (talk · contribs), a new account, put an ad for Rockwick Capital into Medium Term Note[175]. Watch for randomly generated new accounts adding material about "Rockwick Capital" or "Cohen & Stein" to financial articles. --John Nagle (talk) 16:37, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Maybe we should add the phrase "Rockwick Captial" to the abuse filter? Have it be a filter term for mainspace? JoshuaZ (talk) 17:18, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I suggested that back when the Rockwick spammer was using twenty or so sockpuppet accounts. But the spammer went away and the problem became moot. Now that they've tried again, it might be a good idea. The appearance of "Rockwick" in an article ought to set off an alarm, so someone notices. It's a subtle spam, in that the material looks superficially plausible and isn't likely to be reverted unless you know what to look for. The nature of the spam is to make Rockwick Capital look like a major financial firm by making phony claims. --John Nagle (talk) 17:30, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

YES add it to the abuse filter, case closed! JBsupreme (talk) 18:18, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

The abuse filter works on a kind of relative cost/benefit basis, and this spam appears so rare, and there are so many other ways to detect it, on so few articles, that the filter will probably be turned off quite quickly. However I'll add a logging filter to gather some data. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:17, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Filter 227 -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:36, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Issue

Resolved

I think that I need an admin's help here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Korn's ninth studio album (3rd nomination). Joe Chill (talk) 17:39, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Could you explain what admin assistance is desired? A quick glance at that page doesn't show any obvious problems. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:43, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

In Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/How to Cut & Paste: 80's Edition, Michig posted I don't need to. Stop trolling and go away. Michig reverted my edits with "lets just cut this crap out - it's unrelated to the deletion discussion - if you want to insult me use my talk page." when there was no insult. I re-added it by saying that I wasn't trolling. Michig reverted it and said "removed trolling totally irrelevant to the deletion discussion". I still didn't get an apology for that. In the studio album AFD, I brought up that complaining about something being done wrong without trying to fix it sounds pointy. Michig reverted it and said that I was being disruptive by calling him whiny about the AFD being messed up even though the declining admin of the csd-g4 tag has already said it. When I posted on Michig's talk page that said how what he was doing was wrong including removing comments from AFD when he isn't an admin, he reverted my edits and said "You're not wanted here. Go away." I don't know how to get him to stop even though I have tried. Joe Chill (talk) 17:50, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

This is what I put on his talk page: "The declining admin said that you were whining also and you didn't complain about that. You still didn't apologize for calling me a troll. Also, admins are the only ones that can remove comments from AFDs. You are just calling me disruptive because I disagree with you. If you say something to me that I don't agree with, I continue the discussion. If you hear something that you don't like, you remove it and call the person a troll and disruptive." Joe Chill (talk) 18:00, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

It's a slur on User:Mazca to suggest that he accused me of "whining". Mazca did nothing of the sort, and I don't have any complaint about Mazca's conduct whatsoever. I pointed out an error made by User:Joe Chill in the AFD, and for what it's worth I think he showed undue haste in trying to get Korn's ninth studio album deleted, given that before tagging the article for speedy deletion he had sought admin advice regarding whether this was deleteable as recreation of previously deleted content (see above), but tagged the article with a G4 before he had received a response. His insistence on dragging that out into an extended debate and trying to provoke me into being uncivil towards him is extremely wearing, and that is what I consider disruptive, and unfortunately this is not the first occasion this has happened. I feel entitled to ask him to go away when he repeatedly tried to extend his desired argument to my talk page. Compared to what I was tempted to say to him, I can assure you that this demonstrated considerable restraint. Unless he can actually come up with some issue for an admin to look at, I suggest this discussion is closed without further drama. Thanks. --Michig (talk) 19:12, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I suggest that you not call me a troll, call me disruptive when all I'm doing is disagreeing with you, remove my comments, and tell me to leave Wikipedia. You're dragging the discussion out also. I never tried to provoke you to say that! And again, don't try to close a discussion just because the person disagrees with you. Why should I shut up about it after you doing those things? Joe Chill (talk) 19:15, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I have never told this or any other user to leave Wikipedia. I am perfectly entitled to remove comments on my talk page that I do not feel are welcome. I'm not going to comment further here unless requested to do so by an admin, as I have better things to do. I really don't feel that I should have to put up with this nonsense any longer.--Michig (talk) 19:21, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

You removed my comments from AFDS, called me disruptive, and called me a troll. "I have never told this or any other user to leave Wikipedia." You did twice! I posted the links above! How is insulting me, removing my comments from AFDs, and telling me to leave Wikipedia nonsense? Troll! Liar! Joe Chill (talk) 19:25, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

You said Stop trolling and go away and You're not wanted here. Go away. Liar! Joe Chill (talk) 19:29, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

In general, AFD runs more efficiently when there is less Drama creation, when people avoid trying to have the last word by replying to every opposing Keep or Delete !vote, avoid claiming to be insulted when there is no insult, and get on with life rather than demanding apologies. Edison (talk) 19:29, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I only replied to one keep and the other one was not a reply to a keep. He wanted him calling me a troll and reverting my edits as disruptive to be the last word. I was not fine with that and no one should be fine with that, so I continued. Joe Chill (talk) 19:32, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Even it was because of that, where does it say that doing all of that is alright to do? And how is being called a 'troll multiple times not an insult? Joe Chill (talk) 19:35, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

When you squabble over a definition such as Multiple jesus use common sense it means more then one. You may have a different belief and that is fine but blowing up an issue like that is ridicoulosly dumb, get a thicker skin, if you aren't a troll move on. Don't fault some for calling things like they see it. It wasn't over'y rude but direct.wp:duckHell In A Bucket (talk) 20:13, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

"Don't fault some for calling things like they see it." Well, I guess that it doesn't apply to me in your eyes. If Michig was a new user, he would've been blocked. Joe Chill (talk) 20:17, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

This thread isn't going to go anywhere, the attack was no where near serious. A little smoother touch maybe but nothing blockable. Really what do you want to happen here? a block and descretion of the userpage? It's not happening, unless you have something further other then being called a troll or told to go away then you are doing nothing but wasting our time here.Hell In A Bucket (talk) 20:22, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Wasting your time when he called me a troll, removed my comments from AFD, and told me to leave Wikipedia? What policy says doing that is alright? You guys just ignore what stablished editors do. Joe Chill (talk) 20:26, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

So are to assume you want us to block him and desecrate hiss user page? Right now you aren't asking for anything just complaining. What do you want? we can finish this with a quick yes or no.Hell In A Bucket (talk) 20:28, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I just want admins to get him to stop being rude to me. From what I have seen on this ANI, it is to much ask even though stuff like this has been treated as a big issue many times and this time it is treated like nothing. Joe Chill (talk) 20:31, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Since it isn't ongoing, or immediately actionable I suggest you go your way and she will go hers. Seriously it's a big site there will be limited interaction between you. You are new I'm assuming so don't trip over the small stuff.Hell In A Bucket (talk) 20:39, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

If it continues, is there anything that can be done? Joe Chill (talk) 20:42, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely. Read the dispute article on my talkpage message i left for you last. After that if the problem can't be solved you then have other people who have been involved in the process comment on your behalf. On a nuetral note though you will need a little mor ethen just being called a troll once and told to leave. If it was a complete rampage it would be different but in terms of attacks this is extremely mellow. If you think he's getting out of hand hit me up, I'll look at it and if nec. make my own comments (I have never heard of this editor btw), like I say you seem to be new so you might also want to apply for a mentor.Hell In A Bucket (talk) 20:47, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

InvestExp

Resolved

User InvestExp (talk · contribs) has been attempting to add self promotional material to wikipedia. User made 4 edits, 2 at a time in two days, adding a persona called "Ricardo Borrali Pena" or "Ricardo Borrali"[176] [177] [178] [179]. I reverted the changes, and warned the user. User also has created three articles in reference to the said individual which were Speedy Deletions and can be seen on the users talk page. User is a SPA, and will continue to add promotional material to the encyclopedia. Sephiroth storm (talk) 18:56, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

No edits since the final warning, keep an eye out though... Deville (Talk) 19:12, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

User has just made new edits to the article. [180] [181] Sephiroth storm (talk) 19:47, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

User blocked indefinitely by Deville Skier Dude (talk) 20:16, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Sephiroth storm (talk) 21:19, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Admin abuse. - William M. Connolley

Resolved

 – user: ThaddeusB gave UkFaith a 24 hour (revised to indefinite for threat to continue disruptive editing) block for personal attacks and disruptive editing after multiple warnings. Dougweller (talk) 21:25, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Extended content

This is the third time I have tried to discuss and issue I have with how I was treated by William M. Connolley. I believe I was one sidedly singled out by William M. Connolley in a personal way. I believe tht William M. Connolley supported user Mitsube to bahave in an abusive way also. I have tried to raise the details of these points on this page twice but so far I have been, in my opinion, either ignored or walked over; closing and archiving my complaint with out any regard as to whether my points were addressed or any other aspect of my feelings on the subject. I realise I have been threatened with being banned if I persue this topic but I am ok with that if thats what you feel you must do. It is not reasonable in my opinion to treat people in this way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by UkFaith (talk • contribs) 20:18, 15 August 2009 (UTC) Ok. This is the last time this particular dispute will be aired on AN/I by you. You thought that WMC abused his power in blocking you and that his block of you was unfairly disproportionate. About a dozen editors and admins disagreed with you. Disagreement isn't 'ignoring or walking over' you. It means that we considered your argument and rejected it because we thought it was wrong. Please stop bringing this up here. Protonk (talk) 20:28, 15 August 2009 (UTC) (ec) What part don't you get? You posted your first complaint, and NONE of the administrators in the forum felt that there was anything that required IMMEDIATE ACTION (which is, after all, the purpose of this forum). You were pointed an an WP:RFC that is currently underway about the admin in question - you could comment there too, if desired. Nothing is going to happen in ANI - it's the wrong forum (PLUS: you were required to discuss it with the admin in question, as per the top of this page, AND the help I provided on your own page). (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:30, 15 August 2009 (UTC) Definition of Stupid Repeating the same action over and over and expecting a different resultHell In A Bucket (talk) 20:35, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Sweetfornow (talk · contribs) new account, edit warring, no communication, copyvios, many issues

I saw this user earlier today when they made a mistake, claiming a ): was an emoticon when it was being used to finish a() and introduce a quote.[182]. I left them a welcome message and a note to be more careful. However after checking back later I've noticed them accumulating a fair number of warnings and a refusal to communicate, other than to blank warnings. Over at [183] famous for being famous, there was an edit war to push an entry in, initially unsourced and apparently considered a BLP violation. The first edit of the day was made by 24.190.34.219 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) who was reverted and issued a warning. Their response was to blank the IP talk page [184]. Suddenly Sweetfornow appeared and continually tried to push the entry in. When given a BLP warning, they also blanked the warning [185] that is a pretty strong coincidence. Using the duck test I'd say it isn't a stretch to imagine the IP was Sweetfornow logged out which would make 4 reverts on the article. They've also had original research and link spam warnings. I also just found a copyvio [186], from [187]. I'm going to keep looking at her edits, but there is an obvious issue here.--Crossmr (talk) 12:02, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to go out on a limb and guess this edit might indicate some sort of sock-puppetry[188]. I can't see any reason why a brand new user would insert a fact tag with a may date...--Crossmr (talk) 12:09, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

[189] this is another bizarre edit for a new account.--Crossmr (talk) 12:12, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

[190] is a copyvio from [191]. Other than a vandalism revert, I'm going to go out on a limb and say it looks like every single edit this person has done has been reverted as a problem in someway.--Crossmr (talk) 12:16, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

SPI, as you know, is thataway... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:29, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if its a sock puppet, I'd have no idea who, just a very strange edit for a new account don't you think? I think there are enough other issues here without even getting into the SPI for an administrator to get involved. I also found the possible SP after posting the first bit.--Crossmr (talk) 12:34, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Originally that fact tag was inserted by Fernspores (talk · contribs)[192] but at that time that person also inserted several others which Sweetfornow didn't do. Seems an unlikely sock, but very strange.--Crossmr (talk) 12:44, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Some edits by this user are constructive, numerous others are additions of unsourced content or original research, still others are disruptive [193]. Given edit history, a final warning is imminent. 99.149.84.135 (talk) 21:59, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I found 2 or 3 reversions of vandalism, but other than that I haven't found any other constructive edits from this user.--Crossmr (talk) 00:55, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

VolkovBot interwiki link bug

I just reverted VolkovBot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) on Engineering because it added an interwiki link that rendered not on the left of the article as the other iw links, but at the very bottom of the article and only as a red link. I am not sure what's causing this but it is similar to the problem SieBot had yesterday. The strange thing is that the interwiki link is active but when it renders at the bottom of the article it is red. Dr.K. logos 00:24, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Appears to be fixed now. I just reverted back to the bot edit. Dr.K. logos 00:32, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Is this behavior acceptable?

User first inserted dispute tag without any dispute conversation going on the talk page[[194]] then nominated the article for deletion[[195]] and then blanked the page by rederecting it all together.[[196]] Is this an appropriate behavior[[197]]? I can't and I don't want to revert to correct that anymore but I think that his behavior is not in line with our policies. Advice or intervention will be greatly appreciated. Thank you--Jacurek (talk) 01:39, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it would appear to be acceptable. The other editor considers the article to be a content fork of the article to which he has redirected it. Content should not be on Wikipedia twice. You can add any content from the moved article to the article it was moved to, that you think is relevant.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:50, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

O.k. thanks--Jacurek (talk) 01:51, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Since the entire contents of the article was copy-pasted from Collaboration with the Axis Powers during World War II without indicating the source it was also a copyright violation. decltype (talk) 01:59, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks--Jacurek (talk) 02:03, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

The Settlers II

Please check the history of The Settlers II. Dynamic IP keeps re-adding text about fan-works that were deleted as a result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Widelands (2nd nomination). ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 01:43, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

This appears to be a content dispute pure and simple. Notability doesn't affect the contents of an article, so the fact the stand alone article was deleted doesn't mean it can't be covered other places. There way be good reasons (such as WP:UNDUE) to exclude the content, but the AfD isn't one of them. I see only 1 attempt to contact the IP has been made. I suggest informing them about policies regarding edit warring and reliable sourcing under their current IP and encouraging them to use the article's talk page for discussion. This appears to be an honest mistake that can be corrected through conversation. However, if disruption continues after an attempt to engage let me know and I'll semi-protect the page. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:00, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Bambifan101, New IP sockpuppets/meatpuppets from Canada

Resolved

 – For now...

This is getting out of hand, 2 IP ranges judging from the history pages of Scooby-Doo (film) and my talk page have been vandalising various articles and claiming to be Bambifan101. A new IP User talk:69.156.124.211 is vandalising and evading his block right this second. Based on the edit history on those 2 articles, those IP ranges are tight and I am proposing that a rangeblock be issued to stop this blatant vandalism. Everyone involved including Collectionian and PMDrive1061 are getting tired of reverting this person's edits every time. Momo san ^Gespräch 14:29, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Pretty clear this is Bambifan101 again, either having traveled (again) or having recruited someone to help him. Some new range blocks would be useful, if possible, or more vigilance/watching for these ranges doing edits. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:35, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I estimated the ranges to be 64.231.200.0/19 and 69.156.124.0/17 respectively. Momo san ^Gespräch 14:36, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

He is changing IPs rapidly, likely from a dialup or the like where he can just reconnect to get an IP. Some rapid action would be prudent. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:41, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

At this point I have blocked the IP listed above and semi-protected the talk page of Momusufan. However I would like to see more input from other admins before implementing the requested range blocks. — Kralizec! (talk) 14:49, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

• The IP ranges are actually much smaller, 64.231.200.0/23 and 69.156.124.0/22 and I have blocked both of them for a month. Black Kite 15:32, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

• This is actually ScienceGolfFanatic (talk · contribs). I had blocked three of his ranges – 65.92.124.0/22, 67.68.32.0/22 and 64.231.8.0/22 – a few days ago. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 20:19, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Ohh, ok now. But I don't get why he was referencing Bambifan101 though. Weird. Momo san ^Gespräch 20:25, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Not too surprising, though. I've dealt with this ScienceGolf nincompoop myself; he knows Bambifan is disruptive as hell and he's being a copycat on the same articles. Even it it isn't Bambifan, I'm all for the range blocks to keep that other idiot off the site for awhile. Sorry about the lack of "wikilove," but there comes a time when a spade must be called a spade. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 04:05, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

ShowEXP

Resolved

User ShowEXP (talk · contribs) is a Sock of InvestExp (talk · contribs). InvestExp was Blocked earlier in the day, for vandalism, through advertising. Discussion is here: [198] User has immediately started violating the same policies, creating Ricardo Borrali Pena Hacker, as well as re-adding information to the Hacker article. See: [199] I request a user and IP block. Sephiroth storm (talk) 02:36, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Looks like a sockpuppet. I'd recommend asking a ckeckuser to check it at WP:SPI. Mythdon (talk • contribs) 02:42, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

ShowEXP (talk · contribs) has been Blocked Tiptoety ^talk 02:45, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, do I need to go to SPI to request IP block? Sephiroth storm (talk) 02:51, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

No. SPI is for requesting sockpuppet investigations, not blocks. Mythdon (talk • contribs) 02:52, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I'll wait and watch, see if he comes back. Keep up the good work. Sephiroth storm (talk) 02:58, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Outlaw motorcycle club articles and user:Madhazza‎‎

Madhazza‎‎ (talk · contribs) is creating ongoing problems with the articles in Category:Outlaw motorcycle clubs and other articles associated with the topic. The primary issue is inserting statements with either no source at all, or using sources that appear to be reilable but in fact don't mention the cited statement at all. This kind of deceptive citing creates a lot of work to undo, and this user is back every day reverting edits and adding new unsourced content. Repeated warnings, queries, positive complements for worthwhile edits, and welcome statements have not produced any improvement. This edit citing "Madhazza‎‎" was one response to our attempts to get this person to change their behavior. --Dbratland (talk) 04:44, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Various anti-social edits

• Dencod16 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Thousands of edits over the last 7 months, not one edit summary. Reversing consensus decision on Talk:Daniela_Hantuchová#Ridiculously_overblown_article to separate detailed career information to a new article. Edit warring with editors attempting to uphold the consensus. There may be similar issues on the other tennis articles, I don't have the time to look. Oh and suggesting a compromise after having imposed the compromise <g> ! Yet another editor who seems disinterested in respecting basic community rules, to the detriment of those who do. :-( -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 08:57, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

User:J0-r3L

• This user loves doing flame wars/edit wars in Wikipedia. Right after the Darna (2009 TV series) got protected he's off to another page to start a war. I did try to cooperate with him about this matter, but then he identifies my cooperation as a "vandalism" and again inserted the undecided section on the page without replying. Can someone please warn him.--Witchy2006 (talk) 13:42, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I suspect this user may be a sockpuppet to User:GMA Fan as this user User:GMA_Telebabad was blocked before he came into the article. See History of Darna (2009 series) Momo san ^Gespräch 14:33, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

No, I found edits by Jo-R3l before the most recent edit war between GMA Telebabad and Witchy, she sure seems to accuse all opponents of socking rapidly. She's had a couple of 3RR violations in there as well, instead of going to the appropriate administrator's boards and reporting the issue. As well, it does appear that she's blanking a section from one article while supporting it's inclusion on the article about her favorite show. This looks like a Filipino pop culture conflict turned on Wiki edit war. Witchy says she's been editing for a couple years here, that appears true, she uses our guildelines and policies in her edit summaries, she should've moved for admin assistance rapidly, rather than edit war at multiple pages with multiple editors. I'd support short blocks for both editors. ThuranX (talk) 14:51, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I did report it to administrators, yet they seem too slow and take too long to take action (and I dont blame them, Wikipedia is the least important thing in the world). Which makes it very hard for me to cooperate with the other user, specially if they keep reverting the page and doesn't want to cooperate. What else would I do? Allow them to edit the page without a decision and wait for administrator? Obviously, I would also revert their edits. Which comes into a loop and creates the edit war. Blocking would be very unnecessary without any warnings. And the edit war with User:GMA Telebabad only happened because I know that he's a sockpuppet of User:GMA Fan. And I never mentioned once I've been editing for 2 years, now, how did you know that? And yes, I do accuse people for socking (guilty about that), but it only happened when I got annoyed about my flame war with GMA Fan. -- Witchy2006 (talk) 15:13, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

You said so on your user page. Check your user page edit history. ThuranX (talk) 15:52, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, I have to give you that. :)--Witchy2006 (talk) 15:57, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

User:KhatriNYC is not using Edit Summary properly.

In spite of being warned once the said user is not using Edit Summary properly and keeps on undoing other people's contribution without proper reasons. User Contribution evidently explains this. This behavior often leads to Edit war. Hitro talk 19:17, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

• A note to perusing admins, the dozen or so "undo edits by XYZ" in the editor's contribution history aren't a sign that they have trampled over 3RR. The 13 'reversion's on Kshatriya are all performed by this editor in sequence. No comment on the rest of the issues, but my finger jumped for the block button and I thought some explanation might be needed in case someone else went further. Protonk (talk) 21:27, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Feu Follet

Resolved

 – Blocked until they learn to play nicely. That may take a while given their recent behaviour. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:20, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Feu Follet (talk · contribs) is repeatedly posting the same page, Futurepop after an AfD closed as delete, in addition to edit warring over linking of the page, edit warring on the AfD and attempting to revert an admin's closure of it as well as engaging in gross incivility. Could an admin address this? THanks, Triplestop x3 21:13, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Abuse reports help

Description of the matter or request and any relevant links or diffs

Wikipedia:Abuse reports is undergoing a major revamping to make the entire project more efficient, but while I was cleaning up the old reports, I found a protected report that needs to be unprotected so I can merge the contents from the talk page. Could someone remove all protection from Wikipedia:Abuse_reports/203.129.33.225? Thanks! Netalarmtalk 21:50, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Could someone also remove the protection on Wikipedia:Abuse_reports/Melbourne_High_School? Netalarmtalk 22:00, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

• I've removed the formatting. I'm contemplating changing that edit notice. Protonk (talk) 22:12, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
• Both pages unprotected. In the future please use Requests for page protection for non-urgent protection matters. Thanks for revamping Abuse reports, godspeed! Protonk (talk) 22:12, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Category:Critics of NATO bombing of Yugoslavia

Was recently added by a new user. He/she has added 41 people to the list. I assume the user is trying to make some sort of political point. Please review & delete Cat, if deemed warranted. ^rossnixon 08:08, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I have just nominated it for deletion, although I was not at the time aware of this post.-gadfium 22:05, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Could someone explain what is wrong with this category? Sarah777 (talk) 22:24, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

It seems trivial. Is there a category for people opposed to Obama not showing us his long-form birth certificate? ^rossnixon 09:27, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Category:insane nutjobs does not appear to exist yet.--Jayron32 01:50, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, yeah. It'd be huge... HalfShadow 01:51, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

vandalism on Arindam_Chaudhuri page and not adhering to living person's autobiographies

dear editors, the page in question Arindam_Chaudhuri refers to a living person. kindly notice the page http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arindam_Chaudhuri&oldid=306857190 which is the last saved page in the history list of the said article (before I reverted). the edited page was saved last by a user called http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Makrandjoshi. i am not sure whether makrand joshi is the vandal but he has not reverted the obvious vandalism on the said page and has in fact made further additions to an already vandalised page. i have reverted the same as the page does not adhere at all to a living person's autobiography. i request you to kindly look at the page history and block obvious vandals as many statements are libellous. cheers Wireless Fidelity Class One 04:53, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

The vandalism mostly took place over a week ago; any blocks at this point for that article alone would be by definition punitive. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!)} 05:07, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Tendentious editing

Editor M (talk · contribs), started a discussion attempting to gain consensus to remove the OTRS policy as a policy. Consensus was never achieved, and the discussion participants grow tired. This is akin to seeing spiderman on the tower... the editor does not does not understand that there is no consensus for the change. Too much time is going into the discussion. Please reference the now archived original discussion, where consensus among participants was to keep the policy. Note also this discussion started in a separate forum in an attempt to get another consensus. And the currently ongoing discussion. Please intervene, this is now a time sink and is crossing the line from debate to tendentious editing. Very respectfully, NonvocalScream (talk) 20:27, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

The initial discussion was on the subject of whether the page was correctly labelled as policy (it was based on a consensus of three people, though it has remained policy for a while - though, it hasn't been crosslinked or listed, and is one of the least-visited policies). The discussion has moved through various objections to OTRS policy, and counter-objections. Throughout this time, the number of responders who were OTRS users, or who were directly involved with the page, has been very high. Accusations of disruption, threats to block, and requests to stop discussion or move it elsewhere, have come from exclusively from OTRS users, and even from the very start. The opposition to discussion of this policy is overrepresented by OTRS users, who are a very small fraction of the community at large. The RfC at WT:OTRS was closed (using an archive box) by an OTRS admin actively involved in the discussion, and it certainly did not have consensus to keep. It should be noted that external responses were not decidedly for or against the OTRS position. I asked for input regarding the situation at the more neutral policy pump - here, responses like the following:

"I still wouldn't mark it as policy, since it's generally just an informative page, but I don't think there's anything that might give grounds for unreasonable censorship any more.--Kotniski (talk) 13:27, 13 August 2009 (UTC) (concerning very recently changed wording)

"I agree that no page should say OTRS shouldn't be reverted, because OTRS volunteers do sometimes introduce problems. I saw one situation where a volunteer introduced a serious BLP violation to a talk page. [5] Editors have to be allowed to use their discretion in situations like that. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 20:42, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

"What the box says is that if the summary of a policy given in the list disagrees with the actual policy, the latter prevails. Nothing about policies not listed. I'm still awaiting an alternative explanation of why that policy (?) isn't listed. Peter jackson (talk) 13:58, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

have been typical, though of course OTRS users have also had their (disproportionate) say. I believe this to be a case of a vocal minority attempting to override widespread consensus on what that minority's censorship rights may be. I'm concerned that the policy is or may be used not to offer a way to get more information, but to authoritatively shut down discussion based on private reasons, in cases outside of BLP and Copyvio, etc. Yes, the discussion needs to be cleaner. I've tried to do this by moving the discussion into a statement of positions (rather than arguments) a couple of times, without success. The way to do this might be with a more formal method of discussion, such as a proper community RfC.    M   21:33, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Why are the above 3 signatures not linked? I was looking for a nowiki somewhere, but don't see it. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:08, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

They are quotes. I tried to do the quotebox, but I'm screwing it up, so I did a codebox. NonvocalScream (talk) 19:59, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

You certainly are ;) Please don't mess with my message, ok? I added " " these things, I think it worked.    M   20:23, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

In before tl;dr. NVS has this basically correct. (Disclaimer) I support the OTRS policy as written Protonk (talk) 21:06, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with this report, reluctantly. M's intentions are good. His main concern is that policies should not contradict each other, and he is right. That is why he challenged the OTRS policy that OTRS edits should not be reverted without discussion, because it seems to contradict other policies that say anyone may edit anything, be BOLD etc. He is making the same objections on policy pages that advise people not to be BOLD when it comes to editing policy. I don't agree with him, but I respect his motivation.

However, his style in making his point borders on disruptive. He changes policies then reverts multiple times over objections; he starts discussions on project talk and user talk that continue with no end in sight, even when it's clear no one agrees with him; and he has ignored the results of at least one RfC. I would ask him here please to stop what appears to be a crusade to change the policies, tone things down a little, and take things more slowly. With less of a concerted push, he might actually end up achieving more, because less of the time will be spent arguing. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 20:44, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Your statements are inaccurate, and this matter is unrelated. Please provide diffs.    M   20:49, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

It is not unrelated, because the issue is your approach: changes to policy without proper discussion, a failure to recognize consensus, a lack of knowledge about the history and development of the policy, multiple reverts against objections, opening discussion on several talk pages so that no one can keep up; forcing people to devote a lot of time to responding. It is just your approach that needs to be changed, not necessarily your ideas. As I said, I respect your main aim, which is to make the policies more rational and consistent. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 20:58, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

You are expected to provide diffs when you make serious accusations. I expect you to either <del></del> your accusations, or to provide evidence in the form of a diff. I'm treating this as a serious issue, and you should as well.    M   21:09, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, while we have instructions on making policy, policies are descriptive statements of the way we work, rather than prescriptive instructions. There are exceptions, and then there is common sense. If an issue has come to light through OTRS in relation to non-public information, you will inevitably be in an unequal position, however, it makes sense that said information remains non-public. Therefore, restrictions in relation to OTRS are common sense, and there's no reason they shouldn't be considered policy. You make clear that your dispute isn't that it is policy, but rather in how it came to be policy, which is something of an argument about process rather than the result, and would be viewed by many as overly legalistic. You will find that in the grand scale of things, nobody cares. 81.110.104.91 (talk) 22:28, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I do not, my positions: it is not policy. It is not even a policy on meta. It did not come to be marked a policy page correctly. It contradicts other policy. It can be used to shut down open discussion. It helps OTRS deal with situations. OTRS users are good, but make mistakes. There has been at least one RfC that showed consensus for the 'prescriptive' variant. I'm not going to state my position on this matter since it takes too long. I'm not going to argue for any of these, this isn't the place, just please be careful not to misrepresent my positions. Feel free to ask me what they are, if it is relevant, though.    M   23:18, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

The issues you've raised are hyperbolic. It can be used to shut down open discussion when it threatens to make non-public information public. Your argument is akin to saying that we should ban flour because it can be used to make bombs. You've not presented any evidence of actual, wilful abuse of OTRS privilege. We can discuss this when it happens. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 23:46, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

This is not about OTRS, but about my behavior. I responded here.    M   00:24, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I would add that User M along with Kontiski, has been using the same tactics to try to significantly alter the Wikipedia:Naming conflict guideline, moving the discussion elsewhere when failing to gain consensus on the article talk page etc. Xandar 01:29, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Not accurate, but let's not go into that. Comment: WP's policies and guidelines are such an almighty mess (often duplicating or contradicting each other, or simply not making sense, like the one Xandar refers to), that someone has to start taking bulls by horns and clearing them up. While I don't agree with the detail of all of M's bold edits, he deserves praise, not criticism, for addressing himself to this task. It's the people whose "arguments" consist solely of "well it's said this for a long time" who are the disruptive ones, as they are hampering efforts to get WP's practices properly documented.--Kotniski (talk) 10:39, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Keepscases: proposed community ban from RFA and RFB

Resolved

 – There clearly still isn't a consensus for this right now this persuit of Keepsakes is looking more like a witchhunt then anything else. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:58, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

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

---

Extended content

As described at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Keepscases, Keepscases (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)'s behavior at RFA has been under scrutiny for some time, though with no consensus as to whether he should be banned from RFA, based on his behavior until August 7 described in the RFC. At Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/MBisanz, however, Keepscases decided to push the limits of the community's tolerance for him, by engaging in direct, extreme personal attacks on MBisanz's mental health [200]. For relevant context, our article describes malignant narcissism as a syndrome characterized by a narcissistic personality disorder (NPD), antisocial features, paranoid traits, and ego-syntonic aggression. An absence of conscience, a psychological need for power, and a sense of importance (grandiosity) are often symptomatic of malignant narcissism. Pollock wrote: "The malignant narcissist is presented as pathologically grandiose, lacking in conscience and behavioral regulation with characteristic demonstrations of joyful cruelty and sadism."... Malignant narcissism is highlighted as a key area when it comes to the study of mass, sexual, and serial murder. Keepscases later reaffirmed his position that "MBisanz's userpage clearly shows he's not exactly right in the head..." [201]. While it's clearly unwarranted to assume that a supposedly self-indulgent userpage indicates a serious mental illness implicated in violent crime, it's even more readily apparent that RFA and RFB should not serve as a forum for unbridled personal attacks on candidates. If this is the sort of RFA and RFB participation that we can expect from Keepscases in the future, then he needs to be removed from the process. Erik9 (talk) 04:19, 17 August 2009 (UTC) You do have links to more historical discussion and/or evidence, yes? Right now, I'm not seeing the two linked diffs as enough to justify a topic ban. Jclemens (talk) 05:06, 17 August 2009 (UTC) And didn't we have an identical vote here [202], where it was determined that there was no consensus for a topic ban? --Stephen 05:27, 17 August 2009 (UTC) Yes, but a re-discussion should still take place. Mythdon (talk • contribs) 05:29, 17 August 2009 (UTC) Why should it? --Stephen 05:39, 17 August 2009 (UTC) Because of new concerns. Mythdon (talk • contribs) 05:59, 17 August 2009 (UTC) Voting Endorse - WP:NPA exists for a reason.— Dædαlus Contribs 05:04, 17 August 2009 (UTC)` Endorse - Per Daedalus. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 05:06, 17 August 2009 (UTC) Yep - Such an attack due to a mental disability is unacceptable, but that's just part of my reasons for supporting a topic ban. Other reasons can be found at the archived discussion here. Mythdon (talk • contribs) 05:11, 17 August 2009 (UTC) No As much as I feel keepscases was totally out of line this is basically another bite at the apple. There isn't a consensus for a community ban. We made our bed, and now we are going to sleep in it. Protonk (talk) 05:36, 17 August 2009 (UTC) The above three statements seem to indicate otherwise, barring additional no-votes. —harej (T) 05:42, 17 August 2009 (UTC) I know that it seems that way, but it is what it is. Keepscases wasn't going to get banned even if his comment at that RfB was widely known during his old topic ban discussion. I don't think he needs to be subject to another topic ban discussion and I don't think that the community gets a free pass from leaving him in RfA. Protonk (talk) 05:55, 17 August 2009 (UTC) Support - Keepcases has an impossible time practicing what he preaches - if one is of such delicate constitution as to find most athiest userboxes offensively incivil, one should certainly not be accusing others of mental illness in the figurative next breath. RfX can easily do without another civility warrior who has only the most superficial, rudimentary idea of what "civility" means. Badger Drink (talk) 05:47, 17 August 2009 (UTC) Weak no No This WP:NPA case seems pretty clear cut: User:Keepscases should be booted for some period of time. But what really made me question this case was the last attempt to ban keepsake. The "disruption" charges from the last attempt at User:Keepscases make my skin crawl. "Disruption" is a catch all phrase that has been used to silence dissent and unpopular views for millennia. As a user who has seen many editors almost indefinitely banned here by a small group of editors, I think these community bans/topic bans are just an easy, quick way to silence someone. I don't understand why an admin can't block User:Keepscases for 24 hours up to a week. I say if you can't ban User:Keepscases: TAKE IT TO RFC. Ikip (talk) 06:06, 17 August 2009 (UTC) There is an RfC: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Keepscases. Mythdon (talk • contribs) 06:11, 17 August 2009 (UTC) Oppose I think it's a stretch to call his posts personal attacks based on what I remember from the RfA. People need to learn to ignore opposes they don't like. It's not very fun to oppose anyway, but it's part of the process and trying to ban people for "bad" arguments seems kind of weak. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:16, 17 August 2009 (UTC) Oppose probably should have been blocked for a few hours after the personal attack. But he wasn't. That doesn't now simply extend to warrant a RfX ban, which did not have prior consensus. Are we going to forum shop for a ban every time we have a new piece of 'evidence.' --Stephen 06:34, 17 August 2009 (UTC) Oppose Being wrong should not be grounds for banning. RfA is inherently personal. What needs to be done is to establish rules about what is and is not cause to vote for or against someone. For example, say that if you vote against someone because of their race/religion/etc. it will be ignored. Evil saltine (talk) 06:37, 17 August 2009 (UTC) Support He has a bias against anyone in a certain group. That disqualifies him from being of any value in RfA's. The more the community stands up to frivolous voters, the stronger signal is sent. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 06:42, 17 August 2009 (UTC) Oppose It can be said that this another request not so long after the last one is a forum shopping until people who do not respect a minority view are eventually banning the minority for the majority's wish, which I totally do not want to appreciate.--Caspian blue 06:53, 17 August 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.

Proposed User block: Ser Amantio di Nicolao

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

---

Resolved

 – AfD would be a more fitting start, not here. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:20, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Following on from the recent mass spamming of articles by AlbertHerring which was the subject of an incident last month regarding the Semi-automatedcreation of unreferenced stubs and their deletion in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Claus Peter Poppe, the same editor, this time under the name of Ser Amantio di Nicolao, has created hundreds of unreferenced stubs using automated tools without any regard for Wikipedia's content policies.

In accordance with WP:BLOCK which says that, I propose that this editor is blocked, as clearly he not paying any care or attention to quality control, and is recklessly creating stubs with no encyclopedic content:

A user may be blocked when his or her conduct severely disrupts the project; that is, when his or her conduct is inconsistent with a civil, collegial atmosphere and interferes with the process of editors working together harmoniously to create an encyclopedia. Some types of user accounts are considered disruptive and may be blocked without warning, usually indefinitely, i.e. bots operating without approval or outside their approval.

The mass creation of stubs which do not provide evidence of notability is undermining the whole of the Wikipedia project; for instance, it is impossible for Wikipedia:New pages patrol to carry out their work, and it is impossible for the various Wikiprojects to carry out their work if stubs are being created on a massive scale. My own concern is that the mass creation of articles which do not comply with Wikipedia's content policies is basically undermining the whole Wikipedia project where editors who operate automated tools do not make any effort to exercise any form of quality control.

It is not clear why he is enganged in article spamming on this scale, or why he is choosing such topics as German politicians such as Claus Peter Poppe or orchids such as Bulbophyllum abbreviatum, but and I feel this issue needs to be address urgently. I suspect mental health concerns may be an issue here. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:51, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

"Undermining wikipedia". Utter Rubbish. The stubs are referenced, however short and can be reasonably expanded by anybody. We should have articles on these subjects if we are to attain our goals. Please stop this hostility and do something constructive Gavin, like myabe expand a few of them and do some article editing. More wikidrama is certainly not appropriate. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia where most people should be free to edit. All of the articles he starts are within requirements they need a lot of work to be expanded, that's all. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 11:35, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

An editor is adding article topics someone doesn't agree with, so someone comes to ANI and says there may be "mental health concerns"? Gwen Gale (talk) 12:12, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Mmm I was thinking the same thing actually, but not about Ser Amantio.... Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 12:16, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I will say that there seems to be some need that if people are going to run automated tools to create hundreds of articles of similar subjects that there should be a check to make sure that it makes sense to have those types of articles as standalones and instead whether other means of presenting the same information is possible, only based on past feedback when such runs have occurred. There's still disagreement whether all verifiable towns and villages around the world classify for articles, and the same could easily be said for rivers or all species of plants or animals. I'm not saying that the created articles are wrong, but when notability is pulled hard on other topics and yet these articles float by, it creates an apparent systematic bias. --MASEM (t) 12:34, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

There is systemic bias of many and sundry kinds (and worse), this may indeed be an echo of systemic bias, but it's a content worry. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:38, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the issue that hasn't been properly addressed is the user's bot-like use of semi-automated tools to create large swaths of material. I believe he was previously admonished for running what was essentially an unapproved bot on his account when the German politician articles were created, but seems to be doing it again. Whether or not that warrants a block I am not certain - I have to find the previous discussion and get a better grip on what happened there - but the user's continuation to run what amounts to an unapproved bot on his account is troubling and does need to be addressed. Shereth 13:27, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

No. The German politicians were an issue because of BLP. That was the reason. As for articles about rivers in Grenada and exotic plants "creating a systematic bias" that is laughable. Just look at the zillions of articles we have about American popular culture. The idea is quite the opposite, I'm certain. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 13:36, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Shereth that this issue has not been properly addressed - I think the administrators are not aware of what is going on, or perhaps I have not explained myself clearly. I will make a real world analogy to illustrate the situation:

Imagine that we are all editors working in the offices of Encyclopædia Britannica, and are paid to create articles for the next edition. The editor in chief walks into the office and asks an employee "What have you done this week?" The employee replies "I copied entries from German Wikipedia and Wikispecies and created hundreds of articles that comprise of one or two lines". The editor would probably say "What fracking use is that?" The employee answers "Well its my job to create articles", to which the editor responds "Your sacked. Go home and get some medical assistance, your clearly going mad"

I think we have to put the creation of these articles in context. I know that Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, but it does have editorial rules. In the real world, complying with the editorial policy makes a real difference and has real consequences, but it would be a mistake to assume that is not the case in Wikipedia. Unless the administrators are going to take action to stop the indiscriminate use of automated tools, then sooner or later everyone will be using them with impunity. I think they have to take action now, or loose the initative altogether.--Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 14:01, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Gavin, you've now slid into personal attacks. Please stop that. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:09, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the Village pump thread you initiated is the best place for this type of discussion. Perhaps requiring semi-automated article creation >25 or >50 articles require BRFA? –xeno^talk 14:03, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it is a village pump issue, and I don't think WP:AFD is the next step either. Either the administrators roll back the damage has been done and block (or at least warn) Ser Amantio di Nicolao, or we are faced with a fait accomplait. If we had to go to the village pump or AFD everytime articles are spammed, we will be spending the a lot of time doing this in the future. This has to be nipped in the bud now. It was not done last time, but action really needs to be taken now. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 14:12, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser

The stubs were made with Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser. I wasn't aware this was thought of as a bot. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:32, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

AWB can be used both as a manual/semi-automatic tool and as an automatic bot. I've commented previously to Ser Ama that he should leave notes for the WikiProjects that oversee the articles he's planning to create, and I've now also suggested that running tasks through BRFA may assist in ensuring community consensus exists for these tasks. –xeno^talk 13:39, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

It isn't a bot. Given that Ser Amantio is on the auto-patrolled list, his new stubs shouldn't cause problems with new page patrollers. The content he starts is notable, even if very short. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 13:40, 17 August 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.

Jardinefan101

Jardinefan101 (talk · contribs) just uploaded File:BabaluKO.jpg which is a copyright violating of Saturdays Strikeforce: Carano vs. Cyborg TV-broadcast where Renato "Babalu" Sobral was knocked out by Gegard Mousasi. The user has uploaded similar copyvios of article-subjects getting knocked out and added it to their articles in the past, and I was thinking it's time for a block. Thanks, --aktsu ^(t / c) 06:59, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I note a username similarity to User:Bambifan101. Inferno, Lord of Penguins 07:01, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Other than the use of 101, which is a pretty common number, I don't see anything else similar. One posts to MMA articles and has an MMA related username...and the other...well, doesn't. --Smashville^talk 16:04, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

The return of (the dreaded) User:AlexLevyOne?

Gudshead (talk · contribs) appears to have the same obsession for classifying people according to their real or supposed Jewish Alsacian ancestry as AlexLevyOne (talk · contribs), a banned master sock-puppeteer. Does anyone see a relation or could it just be a coincidence? --RCS (talk) 09:54, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Superficially (since I am not familiar with the original case) it does appear to be similar (edits regarding french topics, edits regarding jewish ancestry). I'd say its enough evidence to start a checkuser. Syrthiss (talk) 12:55, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

And we now have Category:Scholars of antisemitism, Category:Authors about Antisemitism which is under Category:Authors about antisemitism -- 'authors' are different from 'scholars' in that "This category is semi-scholar about (not specialist, studier of Antisemitism), but author, fighter. and not Antisemitic author (Lither, Hitler, etc.". Dougweller (talk) 18:07, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Persistent Incivility and Gaming by LaMome

I would like to report editor LaMome in the IBDP series. She has accused me of being "fraudulent" for posting links which contained information relevant to the article which for some reason, she was unable to locate on the linked documents. I have asked repeatedly for an apology and she just jumps around, trying to start new discussion topics and being generally disruptive. A simple apology from her would put this matter to rest. Thank you. ObserverNY (talk) 14:44, 17 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Administrators are not responsible for extracting apologies to soothe your feelings. Try WP:WQA if you are so inclined. Tan | 39 14:48, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahmed Abdelkafi

Resolved

 – AfD closed as delete. --Smashville^talk 16:01, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

This AfD has been open for 13 days now, and hasn't been closed/relisted or anything like that. Dunno if this is the right place to post this, but either way, can an admin sort it out pleas? Thanks in advance, GiantSnowman 15:47, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Got it. --Smashville^talk 16:01, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Inurhead incivility and edit warring

User:Inurhead was blocked on August 14th for 31 hours for edit warring and personal attacks regarding The Hurt Locker. For some backgroungd: the issues revolved around his extreme disagreement with some half dozen editors working on cleaning up and improving the article and his preferring his version. During his edit warring, he claimed everyone else was vandalizing the article and that he asked the half-dozen (or maybe more, did only a quick count) experienced editors not to edit war, but he was the only one edit warring. Looking at the article history, it seems like this actually went on for nearly 10 days before administrative action was taken after some editors, following proper dispute resolution process, posted a note at Films about the disagreement and asked for additional input. Inurhead was reported for his continued edit warring and personal attacks and blocked. He is now back from his block and posted a personal attack against some of the editors he disagreed with, accusing them of meatpuppetry, sockpuppetry, and canvassing.[203][204] The accusations are so obviously false its ludicrous and a warning was left for him. However, he also appears to intend to once again attempt to start edit war on the article, as he has again reverted part of the article[[205]] to his preferred version of the plot[206], basically restarting the same edit war he was blocked for. It seems prudent to raise a flag for administrative reviewing of these actions and keeping an eye on this situation for awhile as it seems clear Inurhead will not accept the actual consensus agreed to on the article talk page and I'm concerned that he is only going to restart the edit warring and continue making these kinds of attacks. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:56, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Continuing with personal attacks and has made his second revert[207][208] (as a note, my only interest here is in one of the Film members responding to the situation, reading through the discussion, and attempting to help resolve the problem and deal with what appears to be a disruptive editor. Have only reverted in response to the clear consensus on the article talk page and its edit history. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:34, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

That is not an accurate assesment of the situation. It is unfortunate that Collectonian has fallen for the trick of the WP:MEAT puppets and sock puppets who have recently attacked The Hurt Locker page and tried to force me into a multiple revert. It should be noted in the event of a deletion discussion that if there is a user or multiple users who "suddenly" jump in and who normally do not participate in discussions, but who participate periodically in those of articles that were all created by a single user, but that s/he did not previously edit him/herself, this may be a sign of Meatpuppetry. As used by Wikipedia editors, refers to the recruitment of editors to join a discussion on behalf of or as proxy for another, usually with the aim of swaying consensus in that discussion.

When it is obvious that an account is being used for a single disruptive purpose, there may be reason in some cases to believe that its operator also has an account regularly used for productive editing, and its user does not want his/her regular account to be tarnished with the malicious behavior being performed by the second account. This may include vandalism, personal attacks, hoaxes, edit warring, POV pushing, or gaming the system. Ckatz has some limited administrator powers which prevent him from all out edit warring, and which likely have enticed him to potentialy create sock puppets or solicited (stealth and otherwise) meat puppets to do so.

I don't have the time to go back and document each and every instance of how his attacks started. But just look at the history of the page, and of the detractors Ckatz, Erik (who are meat puppets) and their likely sock puppets or meat puppets Ravensfire2002 and BovineBoy2008. Several of the meat puppets, especially Ravensfire2002 and BovineBoy2008, launched into disruptive canvassing and excessive cross-posting to bring other contributors to this page to augment their position with opinions (vote stacking) which match theirs.

Ckatz started this whole edit war with his malicious reverts. His first attack on the page was to repeatedly delete the name of Canadian actress Evangeline Lilly, a native of Vancouver. He did this multiple times for no reason. Despite being told that it was on her own blog and on IMDB:

• Here: [209]

• Here: [210]

• Here: [211]

• Here: [212]

He didn't question the inclusion of any other actor, yet repeatedly required sourced references for her inclusion. Again, she was listed on IMDB as well as on her own blog as being in the film. He refused to accept either of those as evidence. Then Ckatz spitefully began to revert any "Awards" and an Awards table that the film had, despite many other film pages having similar tables.

This he did Here:

• [213]

• Here: [214]

• Here: [215]

• Here: [216]

• Here: [217]

He also reverted sourced plot material and quotes from actor Jeremy Renner, for some reason, repeatedly.

• Here: [218]

• Here: [219]

This has been going on for over a year! Ckatz never made any positive contributions to this page and repeatedly deleted and reverted material and then solicited others to do it with him. When Ckatz "disappears" from a discussion Erik mysteriously always appears to take his place! This establishes their meat puppet link.

Ckatz and his meat puppets have also tried repeatedly to revert the year of the film from 2009 to 2008, despite not having any logical reason to do this (except in an attempt to remove it from 2009 lists, to hinder the film's availability to those perusing current release lists). They also tried to remove the link to 2009 in film, which is the page that lists all the U.S. release dates of films in 2009, and where The Hurt Locker is listed. Recently, Erik eventually came to a pre-meat puppet consensus (a "straw man" argument) to make himself look "fair" that it should probably be a "2009" film. Then he used that faked "neutral" position and his self-appointed status as King of the Meat Puppets to procede to competely restructure the page adding tedious and redundant titles and deleting material and references along the way. This, when he and others were asked by administration not to edit war!

Now he and others are guess what? Proposing to delete Evangeline Lilly's name from the credits again!

Since then, a mysterious "new contributor", likely sock puppet or meat puppet SoSaysCappy, has added unsourced and against WP:PLOT and WP:PLOTSUM plot material, original writing without sources, and going into dialogue and tedious scene-by-scene breakdowns (again, against WP) which the meat puppet consensus has allowed (but which wouldn't allow any extensive plot material previously that I contributed which was more concise and which was sourced).

Ravensfire2002 is clearly a sock puppet or meat puppet of one of these two Ckatz or Erik, considering the precocious edit history. This person started contributing at a "pro" level this year showing considerable skill (a sign of a possible sock puppet), and doing malice with this account. This person also mysteriously jumped into the conversation, without prior contributions, making deletions and reverts. This person has been blocked for prior edit wars, specifically for his/her contributions to the Barack Obama birt certificate issue.

I don't have to tell you guys, because you see it everyday. But meatpuppetry and sockpuppetry gives a misleading impression of participation in the discussion, and of the support and opposition of a majority view, which would not otherwise exist. The recruitment of new editors to Wikipedia for the purpose of influencing a survey, performing reverts, or otherwise attempting to give the appearance of consensus is highly inappropriate. I seriously suggest that any administrator who wants to block me again, look at this situation a little more logically. The things I have added to the page have been thoughtful, considerate and well sourced and backed up by references and have been attempted to show the film as it is -- a criticially-acclaimed film. The only reverts I have done has been when someone has erroneously or maliciously deleted important info or when they have attempted to make digs at the film through semantics and tedious changes. I also suggest that someone do a sock puppet investigation of these meat puppet tag teams, particularly Erik and Ckatz to see if an administrator is guilty of violating his duties, and thus should be stripped of his administrator limited powers. Thanks for your time. Inurhead (talk) 20:46, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I haven't fallen for any tricks, thank you, and your continued asserstions and false accusations against multiple well-established, well-known editors is not helping our case at all. Erik is one of the Film project coordinators, is a crafter of several good articles, and has been editing at Wikipedia since 2005! Bovineboy2008 has been here since 2006 and is an active editor of film topics. SoSaysChappy has been here since early 2008 and is another editor with several good articles to his belt. All three are well known editors in the community, particularly around film articles, and are clearly unrelated. Ravensfire2002's account was registered in 2007, and he began more actively editing in 2009 working in a variety of topics. Considering you have been around since 2008 yourself, you should know better than to make these kinds of spurious accusations, certainly without any actual evidence, and against edit warring, calling other editors good faith edits "vandalism", and to continue making these personal attacks. There is no meet puppetry and there is no sockpuppetry going on here. Cease the attacks and accept that consensus is against you. Considering your length of time here, it seems likely you are interested in being a good editor, but your current actions are likely to cost you your editing privileges all together. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:08, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Despite another warning on his talk page, Inurhead is continuing to edit war[220], reverting anyone's changes to the article in question and completely ignoring the talk page consensus with his continued false accusations that everyone but him is a meatpuppet or a sockpuppet. This is really becoming obnoxiously disruptive and causing a lot of problems for the editors who are actually working to improve The Hurt locker because of Inurhead's continued reverting and malicious remarks. He has also reiterated his false claims at the original 3RR report that got him block, after the fact.[221]-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:24, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

He's been blocked for 72 hours. I'd call this resolved, in the short term. Cheers. lifebaka++ 02:38, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Wow, go off-line for a few weeks and look what happens... seems my supposed "army" of sock- and meat-puppets has been outed at last. (Darn, guess that blows the carefully-crafted cover story of the past three years worth of contributions, all of which were merely in preparation for the opportunity to edit the Hurt Locker article.)

In all seriousness, I can't see any reason to counter Inurhead's claims about myself or the others who have been caught up in this mess; I think a perfunctory review of Inurhead's contribution history will immediately illustrate exactly why we have ended up here today. Simply put, he/she appears to be a single-purpose editor who is here only to promote the film, and to weed out any negative comments that others add. I seem to recall first becoming aware of his edits when he added an excessive list of non-conforming external links to the "American Gothic" article. After he reverted that cleanup, I noticed that he was focusing heavily on the "HL" article and also adding non-encyclopedic text to related articles such as Jeremy Renner (for example, this contribution). His history also shows a pattern of aggressive edit summaries and comments, a refusal to acknowledge the concerns expressed by other editors, and a tendency to hide major revisions and reverts as "minor" edits. --Ckatz^chat_spy 21:13, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

User:IronDuke and User:Iosefina

^WikimediaUK 20:02, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

 – Per Jake Wartenberg, Nothing more can be gained here. Passed onto the checkusers and they will handle it. Ill file and preapprove a case at the SPI page for the checkuser results to be dealt with. Seddσn ^talk

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.

---

In the course of an ongoing dispute on Talk:Seven Jewish Children, IronDuke has repeatedly deleted comments by Iosefina, who he claims is a banned user. However, there is no indication on Iosefina's user page, talk page or contributions record of any such problem, nor to link him/her with any banned user. I accordingly restored Iosefinba's comments. IronDuke then accused me of "acting as a meatpuppet for a banned user", and threatened me with "the same remedies in effect for the banned user" (since I don't even know who that is, I have no idea what these remedies might be). If I again restore comments deleted without apparent good cause, in line with Wikipewdia policy, am I liable for any such penalty? Is IronDuke's behaviour acceptable? (As it happens, I agree more with IronDuke than with Iosefina in the actual content dispute). RolandR 16:40, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

1) Inform IronDuke of this discussion so he can comment here as well.

2) IronDuke needs to put-up or shut-up. If this is a banned user, he needs to provide diffs to show WHICH banned user this is so they can be blocked as a sockpuppet, and then we can deal with their contributions. I do not necessarily disbelieve IronDuke's assertion, but he needs to consider that not everyone is familiar with the situation as he is, and he needs to clearly establish his case before reverting talk page comments, so other editors can be as familiar with the situation as he is.

3) IronDuke needs to stop the borderline personal attacks where he accuses other users of being meatpuppets without cause. A dose of WP:AGF could help, especially when dealing with established users.

Just my opinions. --Jayron32 16:48, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

How about this. Do #1 and then ignore 2 and 3 until IronDuke has the chance to comment. You are prejudging the matter like anything, Jayron32. And without even notifying IronDuke. For shame.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:50, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I did do the investigating before I commented, and IronDuke has been notified. However, you will carefully note that I backed up IronDuke in comment two where I state that if he were right, he would be justified in removing the comments. You will also carefully note that IronDuke calls a long established editor a meatpuppet in this dif: [222] and someone should not make such personal attacks. --Jayron32 17:12, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Jayron: I most certainly did not call RolandR a meatpuppet, but made him aware that he was acting in a manner that could be so construed as similar to one, and that this could have serious consequences. I also note that not only did RolandR fail to treat me (who has edited here for years) and the obvious sockpuppet as equals (which would have been wrong), but actually privileged the socks actions over mine without bothering to discuss it. While I can appreciate RolandR’s unfettered glee in widening this problem for me, as he and I rarely see eye to eye (with the exception of the one issue he cleverly refers to on this page), I would appreciate it if others did not follow his lead in creating greater difficulties by providing a (perhaps inadvertent) megaphone for the sock of the banned user. I am dealing with this via email at the moment (with people who can actually do something about it), so please, everyone, know that the situation is being discussed and dealt with (albeit frustratingly slowly). Thanks, all. IronDuke 17:33, 17 August 2009 (UTC) And just to be clear: this involves real people in RL and their identities, thus the (present) need for not having it splashed all over WP. IronDuke 17:34, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

There appears to be a similar conflict between IronDuke and Iosefina on Ulysses S. Grant‎‎ which has nothing to do with BLP. Toddst1 (talk) 17:41, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I don't think any of this has to do with BLP particularly. And it's not a "conflict," it's "stalking," which can be see merely by checking the sock's contribs against mine. IronDuke 17:44, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Let's be really clear here. You need to file a WP:SPI or stop accusing others of being socks or meats. Toddst1 (talk) 17:46, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I would indeed like to be clear: if you took one look at the user's contribs, you can see it doesn't pass the WP:DUCK test. I've already said I'm dealing with this at a level where it can be adequately addressed -- it doesn't have to be at SPI, and in this case it can't be, for privacy reasons. Please be patient -- this will be my last comment on the matter until I get some kind of resolution. IronDuke 17:53, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for those comments IronDuke. If this does involve RL problems, then some discretion may be in order. However, if this is clearly a sock of a blocked user, just give us all the name of the blocked user. If that is done, this whole issue becomes resolved. I have no prior knowledge of the situation, so I have no idea how to respond to these accusations. Just a name or a link to the SPI page or something like that, and we can close this thread, block the sock, and move on. --Jayron32 17:46, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Most welcome. I very much wish it was as easy as you suggest; however, this is an ongoing problem, and needs a more permanent solution than blocking one stray sock. IronDuke 17:53, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

In short - that's not good enough. You need to share the information now either here or in a SPI (or an email to me or Jayron) and allow the administrators to have a look. Without that, we frankly don't believe you. Toddst1 (talk) 17:55, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Once again, IronDuke is impugning my motives, asserting my "unfettered glee" in raising this issue, and implying that differing political views mean that I have been seeking a pretext to attack him. This is an unwarranred and unacceptable attack. A simple chjeck of my contributions will show that I did everything possible to avoid making an incident of this. It was only after a made a query at the article talk page, and IronDuke made a personal attack and issued threats against me, that I raised this officially.

If he is indeed being stalked, he has my full sympathy, As probably the most stalked and maligned editor on Wikipedia, I cannot accept such behaviour towards any other editor, whether or not I agree with their views. But a simple assertion, without any evidence or diffs, that an editor engaged in a dispute is a banned user, is not sufficient grounds to oblige other editors to accept IronDuke's edits. There is nothing objectionable in the specific edits under question, and my action in restoring them was perfectly acceptable.

I object most strongly to IronDuke's raising of the stakes in this matter, with his personal attacks, threats of unspecified "remedies" and unfounded implication that I have somehow instigated this crisis. RolandR 18:12, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

IronDuke, if you're willing to do all of this off-wiki, then you need to keep it off-wiki and tone down the rhetoric on-wiki. Maybe send RolandR, etc., an off-wiki e-mail about your allegation rather than dropping words like "meatpuppet" on-wiki. You can't act like we all know what you're talking about if you're going to keep it to yourself. Wknight94 ^talk 18:35, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't like this gaming the system via an Argument from Special Knowledge and Argument of Protecting us from ourselves. He says he can't tell us, because it would be dangerous for Wikipedia, in some way, but that we should trust him because only he can see the pattern in the contribs that reveals the evil mastermind? Forget that happy manure. He makes it public, immediately, or he drops the entire matter. Sunlight is the best disinfectant, and secrecy and distrust is alright a pox on this house. Be open and free with the problem, or, frankly, there isn't any problem at all beyond drahmuz. 18:42, 17 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ThuranX (talk • contribs)

I'm fine with things being secret and off-wiki - but don't let it have a negative effect on editors in good standing on-wiki. If someone is going to try to be half off and half on, then the onerous is on them to keep that balance, not the rest of us. Wknight94 ^talk 19:15, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

According to other SPI clerks, this dispute has been passed on to the functionaries mailing list. The matter is being looked into. There is a wide range of issues involved in this case, and it will probably take some time for the checkusers to resolve things. I suggest that we calm things down in this venue and allow the case to run it's course. Further discussion here isn't going to be productive. — Jake Wartenberg 19:50, 17 August 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:Noloop

Resolved

 – No admin action necessary. --Smashville^talk 18:48, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I came here to get this settled and I'm also tired of being called an f-ing troll. Noloop has a problem reconizing that he's/she's wrong. He/she keeps pursueing his/her perfered version of multiple articles, even after serveral established users and admins disagree. He/she has now resorted to name calling after he/she was temporary blocked for the behavior I have mentioned above. Let me get some diffs and I will show them.Abce2|Aww nuts!Wribbit!(Sign here) 17:50, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

[[223]] [[224]] Abce2|Aww nuts!Wribbit!(Sign here) 17:52, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Accusing a user of edit warring even though Noloop warred even more and very disruptivly on the same article.[[225]]Abce2|Aww nuts!Wribbit!(Sign here) 17:55, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

The user is already blocked. --Smashville^talk 18:22, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Temporarly. But he/she is most likely to resume behavior after the block expires.Abce2|Aww nuts!Wribbit!(Sign here) 18:28, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

"Most likely"????? WP:CRYSTAL and WP:AGF (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:30, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Did you even look at the diffs? Most were after the block. Noloop belives that he/she should not have been blocked, that it was all others fault.Abce2|Aww nuts!Wribbit!(Sign here) 18:35, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I've also noticed that you've continued to argue with him and provoke him on his talkpage after his block. Any reason you won't leave him alone? It's not a personal attack if it's a legitimate complaint. --Smashville^talk 18:38, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I am leaving Noloop alone now. And what I mean for something comes up is like a vandal attacks Noloops talk page or he/she just out of the blue does something extremly unnacceptable (100 percent that will not happen, but it's an example.)Abce2|Aww nuts!Wribbit!(Sign here) 18:42, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

And I'm sorry if I did something unnacceptable, and I am asking that I be punished if I deserve it.Abce2|Aww nuts!Wribbit!(Sign here) 18:45, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

No reason for that. We all know what it's like to get too caught up in something on Wikipedia. Sometimes you just need someone to point it out to you. --Smashville^talk 18:48, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Thank goodness I'm leaving for a vacation today. I've got so much stress.Abce2|Aww nuts!Wribbit!(Sign here) 18:54, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Cddoughty insisting to remove protection on high risk articles

Cddoughty (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user I think maybe connected to 4chan or a similar anon group as he is insisting to remove protection to a couple high risk articles, Template:Anonymous and the Internet and Encyclopedia Dramatica. He has been denied once and denied again at WP:RPP to get Encyclopedia Dramatica unprotected. After that he goes to the template and requests that Anonymous and the Internet be unprotected. Once again got denied. Now he is resorting to trolling to prove a point when he has been told he is denied. I think a block is in order for disruption. Your input is greatly appreciated. Momo san ^Gespräch 19:05, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

• For my part, I've been within a hair of blocking the user for obvious trolling (DUCK). IDHT, POINT, etc. However, I've been doing my best to extract decent edits from them, with limited success. –xeno^talk 19:11, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

• I would fully support a block for obvious trolling and a checkuser to see who this is. --Smashville^talk 19:15, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

• Eh, slow down. I'm with xeno. This could be someone who came to wikipedia and the first thing they found was the ED article. They might be genuinely pissed. Protonk (talk) 19:25, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

• Also need to throw out that I deleted a slew of warnings off of his page. He received a warning for vandalism for adding something that was cited in the source, a warning for removing a speedy deletion template when he did not remove it and received a warning for adding uncited material when, as far as I can see, he has not done so. --Smashville^talk 19:41, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

• User is now trolling on his talk page, I think it's time to end this whole thing. Momo san ^Gespräch 19:48, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

• Meh. He does have appear to have one that's kind of poking him. --Smashville^talk 19:52, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
• Just unwatch their talk page. They don't seem too out of line to me. Protonk (talk) 19:53, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

• Indeed, trolls are only successful when people allow themselves to be trolled. Judging by his talk page, he's doing a spectacular job. –xeno^talk 19:53, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not the one filling your talk page with accidental warnings, reverting your good edits and ending your discussions before they even get anywhere.--Cddoughty (talk) 19:55, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

You'll notice I am the first to re-instate your good edits. Please keep those up. –xeno^talk 19:56, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd do a lot more if I wasn't responding to the problems mentioned above all the time.--Cddoughty (talk) 19:59, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Blocking at this time sounds highly inappropriate to me -- lets assume some good faith, it is one of our core values, after all. — neuro^(talk) 19:59, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Don't assume I am being trolled. I am no idiot. I fail to see how his disruptive editing results and praising his ability to troll. Am I the only one that sees something wrong with that? –túrian^patois 20:21, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

If that was a response to me, you'll have to forgive me -- I don't understand what you mean. — neuro^(talk) 20:26, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

It was more towards xeno and Smashville, who seem to change their position on a whim. –túrian^patois 20:29, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

My position is that the user is trolling but that he's also making somewhat decent edits in the interim. My anti-troll method is to trick them into making good edits. YMMV? –xeno^talk 20:30, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Where have I changed my position? His actual article edits are not disruptive. --Smashville^talk 20:31, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

\=> But both have admitted to trolling? Yet no actions have been taken? That is my issue. –túrian^patois 20:33, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Both who? Because it really looks like you are accusing me and xeno of trolling here... --Smashville^talk 20:34, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Bad wording on my part: both of you admit that he is trolling. –túrian^patois 20:36, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I admit I think he's trolling. There's a possibility he's not, which is what brought me back from the brink of the blocking form. –xeno^talk 20:38, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

It really doesn't matter if he is trolling, or thinks he is, or is and thinks he isn't, or if the Lions win the 2010 superbowl. What matters is if any further disruption takes place. He's been warned multiple times, he seems intelligent enough to know what not to do, and any more crusading will result in a preventative block. Tan | 39 20:42, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Escalation from WP:WQA - serial copyright image violations

• WriteINGWell (talk · contribs)

Editor does not respond to copyright violation notices, and continues to upload copyvio images. A brief wakeup may be required. Thanks (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:42, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Blocked for two weeks--the only reason I didn't go indef is because he's got some good edits. I'm about to leave him an additional "keep this up and it 'will be indef" warning as well. Blueboy96 21:47, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

69.221.233.1

User 69.221.233.1 has been repeatedly vandalizing the Nobody's Fault but Mine‎ page and article, as well as my user page. While I agree with the criticisms on the article's page, it's still vandalism. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:54, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I semi-protected the article. Enigma^msg 06:30, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

And warned the user. In the future, Walter, please use the templates at WP:WARN. Thanks. — Satori Son 13:23, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Not sure I'm getting this. Satori Son, are you telling Walter Görlitz that a robotic warning template is better than using his own words.. ? If you are, you're very much in error. Bishonen | talk 21:58, 14 August 2009 (UTC).

No, a robotic warning template is better than no words. There was no warning or any other communication on the IP's talk page prior to the template that Satori had left. I interpreted the suggestion as a helpful one, saying that there was a quick and easy way to leave a warning on a vandal's talk page. -- Atama^chat 00:14, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Ah. Thanks, Atama. I did check out this edit and saw that it had words (in the edit summary). But looking at the whole picture, I note that it's the only one that does; and more importantly, I missed the fact that Walter hadn't put anything on the IP's talkpage. That's certainly more important than edit summaries, so the advice was good and I was wrong. Bishonen | talk 03:30, 15 August 2009 (UTC).

So you're telling me that I should warn a user who doesn't care and continues to vandalize the article's talk page now that you've locked the article down? You people live in a world where these vandals actually care about being civil. Get into the real world and block the IP already> I'm tired of wasting my time reverting the edits. If The admins won't do something, give me the ability to do something. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:26, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you, Walter, but nothing about this is going to change. If you try to go to WP:AIV to complain about a vandal, you will be told you must warn them first, and nobody will block until that's done. Four times. And Bishonen, it has long been practice that only 4 specific robot warnings will get anybody blocked. Note also, that the vandal bots are expecting to see robotic warnings, if they don't they'll start over with warning level 1 if they encounter vandalisms they can revert. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:05, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Ugh, that's a strange requirement, & makes for more work to use something that's supposed to save work. Do these bots send the cases where there aren't exactly 4 warnings they are expecting to some queue so a human can make the final call? If not, then why? -- llywrch (talk) 18:15, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

As far as I know, no. A bot will look at a user's Talk page after the bot has reverted an edit, and looks for the current month as a header. For example, August 2009. If they don't see that header, the bot will create it, then add a level 1 warning. If they see the header, they'll look to see if there's already a standard warning, what number it is, and add 1. And as far as I know, they don't report to AIV if there's already a level 4 warning there. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:38, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

User:The Cow That Thinks She's A Horse

Resolved

 – User blocked. Nakon 05:41, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

• The Cow That Thinks She's A Horse (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user is a slight cause of concern for me, as the user does not have the signs that it is a new user. Although the contributions appear to be almost nothing at first, look closely and you'll notice they were all made on sysop user pages.. except for maybe one, and the responses after that. Could someone please explain to me how a new user finds sysop pages so easily?— Dædαlus ^Contribs 05:11, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Blocked. Nakon 05:14, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I dealt with this user a bit earlier, and I think it's a sockpuppet. Mythdon (talk • contribs) 05:16, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

The question however, is of who? I'm going to ask for a comment by the users the suspected sock bothered.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 05:28, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I think you're giving this more attention than it needs. WP:RBI would suffice. Nakon 05:30, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

If you're going to say RBI, at least offer an explanation for how those userpages were found in that order.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 05:39, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't even aware she'd posted to my talk page, but thanks for the heads up. Exploding Boy (talk) 05:40, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Probably because I removed the message from your talk page. Mythdon (talk • contribs) 05:42, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

No. That's the I part. Protonk (talk) 06:23, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Well doesn't look like I can do anything here. Given that combo of contribs, I would wager that was a sockpuppet of User talk:UkFaith, I'm just spitballing here but they did threaten to return under a new account.......Hell In A Bucket (talk) 13:05, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

 Confirmed as a sock of OMGOMG2009 (talk · contribs). Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/OMGOMG2009 for evidence.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 22:41, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I had no doubt that was a sockpuppet. Exactly what I thought—A sockpuppet. Mythdon (talk • contribs) 23:30, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I have tagged the userpage as a sockpuppet user. Mythdon (talk • contribs) 23:43, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

point-of-view pushing at Van Jones

Resolved

I have admin buttons, but since I've gotten involved in this dispute, I wanted to refer it to an uninvolved administrator. User:Dewen12 is determined to add to the article on Van Jones a paragraph which is, in my opinion, rather deeply biased. I've explained the specifics of what's inappropriate about the paragraph on his talk page, and discussed it on the article talk page. I've had two voices from WP:3O come to agree that the paragraph in question does not comply with WP:NPOV. And I've warned him that continued pushing of a point of view is likely to result in a block. Despite this, he has placed the paragraph in question on the page for the sixth time in two days, and so I request that an uninvolved administrator review the problematic paragraph and deliver what you judge to be the appropriate response: an uninvolved reprimand, a short block, or even your opinion that I'm in the wrong here. Thanks. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:21, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

• Blocked for 31h. If after the block expires, the editor re-inserts the information, the next block should be indef, and I don't think anyone would have a problem with you doing it yourself. Black Kite 23:29, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

• Thank you, BK. I try hard to tread carefully in areas where I may be influenced by my own opinions, so I appreciate the independent look. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:30, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

• Looking at that talkpage, no-one can say you didn't try your hardest to explain the problems with the edits. Unfortunately, for some editors, The Truth^TM must prevail. Black Kite 23:33, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring against consensus after extensive RfC

The article in question is nuclear terrorism and the disruptive editor is Biophys. That page included two large sections that I consider classic WP:SYN violations as neither section actually discusses the topic of the article, which is nuclear terrorism. I started a very carefully elaborated RfC on the issue which led to several editors coming on and agreeing that material that does not talk about "nuclear terrorism" does not belong in the article. But there was some question about one user's viewpoint, and Biophys continued to indicate his intention to edit war to keep this material in the article, so I started yet another RfC on the issue. Again the result was that every editor who commented agreed that material that did not mention nuclear terrorism did not belong in the article. The ONLY editor supporting such material was Biophys. So I took that as consensus and removed the material, save for one quotation which actually mentioned nuclear terrorism, which I included in a different section. Rather than trying to work with the consensus or rewrite the disputed material to eliminate the original research, Biophys came back a few weeks later and re-added the material without any comment to the talk page. I reverted him, indicating that consensus had been established, and he reverted me, with the false edit summary "no consensus to remove." My question is, what do I have to do to get him to stop adding this material to this page? Two RfCs have established a consensus, but I'm apparently the only one who cares enough to keep watching this page closely, and I don't want to keep edit warring over it. I cannot continue to make constructive edits to the page (as I did after the RfC closed) if we are going to stay bogged down in a disputed section like this. Biophys refuses to even edit the material he wants to add; his version of the page includes two copies of the exact same quote! I am reaching a point of exasperation with this user; he is simply bullying his way on this page regardless of consensus or Wikipedia policies regarding original research and undue weight. csloat (talk) 00:27, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Int3rnaut / Nexus: The Kingdom of the Winds

Int3rnaut has a history of periodically making inappropriate edits to the Nexus: The Kingdom of the Winds article and has previously received warnings about vandalism. After taking a break of several months, he has again vandalised the article - I have reverted his edit. I have tried to approach him to discuss the problem with his edits in the past but, as you can see on my talk page, he accused me of a personal attack against him and did not respond to my attempts to make peace with him.

Could someone please review this user's contributions and see if there is appropriate action that can be taken to dissuade him from altering the Nexus article again? Eliahna (talk) 05:52, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I actually don't see any vandalism warnings on his talk page or in his history, per WP:VAN if an editor is doing blatant acts of vandalism (not simply edits you disagree with) then escalating warning templates should be issued. If he then vandalised after the last edit he could be blocked, which would hopefully serve as a wake-up call that he needs to behave if he wants to continue editing. He has made a large number of edits to the Nexus article, I assume they aren't all vandalism edits. -- Atama^chat 23:24, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

My mistake. I hadn't looked at his talk page since March and had forgotten the warnings were regarding deleting speedy deletion tags from his own articles. If you go through his edit history, you'll find he kept restoring the section called "Sa San Massacre", which was a complete fabrication, a so-called "role play" of attacking and killing employees of the company that makes Nexus to force them to release an upgrade to the game. He created a linked article on "Chimese Cute Kingdom", a game that does not exist, and when I nominated the article for deletion on this basis, he deleted the nomination and accused me of harassment. He continually reverted my edits when I tried to remove the non-functioning (and Wikipedia-non-compliant) link to his Nexus tribute videos on YouTube. He has attributed false quotes to Nexus players and edits such as his most recent contribution ["This game is hella stupid, RP that mutha darners"] do not appear to be good faith. Even his [very first edit to the article], nearly a year ago, was vandalism - err, on looking closer, it appears his first couple of dozen edits were vandalism, or undos to restore his vandalism (I know it's hard for people not familiar with the game to tell what's a false addition and what's not, but keep in mind that it is set in ancient Korea and anything that seems out of place for that setting probably is - references to property developers, amusement parks, golf courses, etc are pure fiction). I have not yet found any factual contributions in his edits, simply "role play", pure nonsense and promotion of his (arguably racist) YouTube videos. He is not attempting to improve the article, he is pursuing his own agenda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eliahna (talk • contribs) 03:07, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I actually played the game once, a long time ago (almost 10 years ago, time sure flies). I've looked over his edit history and you are correct, so I've left a clear final vandalism warning at his page. If he makes another edit that is blatant vandalism (much like his most recent edit) report him to WP:AIV and state that he has a long history of vandalising the article, and continued to vandalise after a final warning. -- Atama^chat 05:19, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Nonsense Articles

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

User:Vishankapraveen has created 1, 2, 3, 4 completely patent nonsense articles. All have been nominated for speedy deletion per CSD G1. Would it be possible for an admin to let them know that this isn't what Wikipedia is for and direct them where they can create actual articles? Thanks. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 06:37, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

User is now recreating the articles that are being deleted per CSD G1. Salting may be needed. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 06:38, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

They haven't edited in an hour. Maybe they will stop on their own. Protonk (talk) 06:49, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Scratch that. Wasn't looking at deleted contribs. Protonk (talk) 06:50, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Viral Marketing via Wikipedia Article?

I really hate to cite of all places, 4chan, but it seems that fellow denizens of 4chan have begun to question a mysterious video on the nets, and somehow, the Wikipedia article for Alfa-Tsentr has popped up in the discussions. The article looks too perfect; there are certain aspects that make it look suspicious. The cited sources are at best, either vague a/or misleading (The linked ones don't even mention Alfa-Tsentr in the articles; by that assumption, I would have to question the offline sources). The creator of the article (User:Radoslav_00) has only made major edits to said article and wikilinked the questionable article into Private military company in one day (July 19th, 2009).

I dunno, all the evidence points to possible viral marketing for something and I think it needs to be looked further by an Admin.--293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 07:26, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

• Good catch. I've posted it to AfD. Starting an AfD doesn't require admin privileges, by the way. rspεεr (talk) 07:36, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Well, since it is viral marketing allegations, isn't it a violation that needs to be brought up to Admins first? I didn't want to do an AfD without confirming my suspicions.--293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 07:44, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
• Account indeffed. I left a colorful comment at the AfD. Also, our hoax template sucks. I should make a bigger and better one. Thanks for the catch, it was a good one. Protonk (talk) 08:15, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
• Lol, didn't even watch the vid before digging through all the sources. Talk about the long way 'round. Protonk (talk) 08:26, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
• Related find - Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/A nikitin.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 08:27, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I missed this from above: Related thread on another 4chan board, with some detailed info. Might wanna grab the info before it gets deleted.--293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 09:01, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:AN3

One complicated one that's been there since this morning, another simple one (I think) but I've been editing the article, that's been there 5 hours. I can't get my head around the first or I would have handled it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 16:08, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

If its been there for a VERY long time, and the edit war has since stopped in that time period, what disruption would be stopped by issuing blocks? If we are only blocking to stop an edit war, and the edit war stopped on its own, what further action need be taken? If the situation is a very complex one, then it should perhaps be moved here for a more thorough investigation. --Jayron32 16:50, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Is 5 hours a VERY long time? They continued to edit after that. They were warned, they carried on, they've edit warred before on the same article. If it were an IP that might have changed, I'd agree, but an account with a history, that shows no sign of stopping? The complex one is a different one. Dougweller (talk) 17:27, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

No, it is not. I was making more general comments on the wisdom of acting on old requests merely because they were old requests. If the edit war is continuing, then by all means, block away! --Jayron32 17:48, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

It just hadn't been acted on because the OP at AN3 hadn't formatted the request very well. I've handled it, though. Cheers, everyone. lifebaka++ 17:45, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks everyone. Dougweller (talk) 18:08, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps it is time we figure out some way of dealing with problems that does not require exact formatting. The current AN3 system would discourage anyone, and what has been set up to save work, has probably resulted in an increase of unreported editwarring. DGG ( talk ) 23:37, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Yea, to be honest I rarely look at the diffs they post for the 1st - 4th reverts. I generally check the page history and talk pages first, and then read any comments left by the parties on the AN3 report, but the requirement of providing diffs is unnecessary in my opinion. Thoughts? Nja²⁴⁷ 13:31, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Unusual reversions by Fastily

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

Resolved

 – Fastily admitted to huggling over the speed limit, and agreed to dial it back a bit. Nothing else to deal with here --Jayron32 11:57, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

---

Fastily (talk · contribs) seems to be reverting good faith IP edits and misusing the vandalism templates. For example, he's recently rolled back character descriptions, corrected terminology, copyediting, elaboration, etc., and then left vandalism warnings on the talk pages of reverted users. I asked that he stop, but he reverted my comment. 24.224.194.249 (talk) 02:08, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I noticed this as well and concur. Falcon8765 (talk) 02:13, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. This likely needs to stop. Has anyone notified him of this discussion? --Jayron32 02:17, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Fastily has been notified. Mythdon (talk • contribs) 02:19, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

That sure looks like abuse of rollback, which in turn is abuse of administrative tools. Mythdon (talk • contribs) 02:19, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

As far as I can tell it's not technically WP:ROLLBACK. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:37, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Huggle definitely does use rollback to revert edits. Camw (talk) 02:45, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not so sure about the other edits, but the first one removed descriptions of characters that were not only laden with editorializing, but read as if they were lifted from a fansite or something. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 02:21, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, but check Fastily's contribs history. He is clearly a) reverting lots of good faith edits and b) calling good faith edits "vandalism". Yes, one or two of the bad ones may have been worthy of reverting anyways, but that doesn't mean that one should WP:BITE the newbies by misrepresenting their goodfaith edits as vandalism, or leaving the wrong warning at the talk page, or something like that. I understand the advantage of using tools like Huggle to help with tasks like vandalism reversion, but there are far too many "false positives" and questionable reversions in Fastily's recent contribs for my comfort level. He needs to take a voluntary break from this sort of speedy Huggle work until he can do so with more subtlety. --Jayron32 02:24, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

And if he/she doesn't stop, then maybe a temporary desysopping and ban from rollback may be necessary. Mythdon (talk • contribs) 02:29, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Ooh! Ooh! Can I have his badge? Pretty please? HalfShadow 02:31, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

No. Mythdon (talk • contribs) 02:41, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Let's AGF here. Fastily has stopped for now. And apparently signed out. There's no need to start discussing -sysop until they reply, IMO - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 02:32, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I would like to report another incident of this kind involving Fastily (talk · contribs), regarding my comments to Martin451 (talk · contribs). What happened here is, Martin reverted one of the edits I made on the Science RefDesk and I asked him in good faith (on his user page) to tell me which edit he reverted and why. Well, Fastily went and reverted my question to Martin before Martin could even answer my question, and when I demanded that he restore my question, another admin (I don't remember his exact user name, something like "December2012Freak" or something like that) not only reverted my demand to Fastily, but also wrongly accused me of vandalism and threatened to block me completely from editing! Now I admit I wasn't over-civil in my posts to Fastily and that other admin, but what the hell do they think they're doing reverting me when all I done is ask politely which of my edits Martin reverted, and then accusing me of vandalism and THREATENING me when I objected?! And since at least in the case of Fastily, this appears to be part of a wider pattern, I request that you folks review this incident soon as you can, and (if warranted) take disciplinary action against these two admins to stop them from misusing their power in this way. (BTW, I'm not accusing Martin of anything, but I think he may be a witness to this incident.) 98.234.126.251 (talk) 02:30, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Given this edit [226] the above IP is in no position to be criticizing the behavior of others. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 02:45, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

That's an obvious mistake; it clearly looks like you are warning Martin, not asking him why he warned you - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 02:34, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

BTW, the other user was User:December21st2012Freak. I would like to see Fastily and others apologising for their mistakes, rather than removing all the talk page messages they get. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 02:38, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I concur with Kingpin. Falcon8765 (talk) 02:43, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

"it clearly looks like you are warning Martin, not asking him why he warned you" -- what makes you think that? Since when is asking an editor which edit he/she reverted the same as "warning" him/her? Sometimes it seems you can't even ask people for clarification without them thinking that you're accusing them of something! Sheesh! 98.234.126.251 (talk) 02:45, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

A lot of typical vandals will copy the warnings they get, and then paste them on the talk page of the user who warned them (incorrectly warning them of vandalism). In your case, you quoted the warning, and then asked why you got it. A user who was going too fast on huggle, could easily not have read the whole message (e.g. just have read the quoted warning), and revert it, thinking you where incorrectly warning Martin. It's just a shame that Fastily didn't apologise for that mistake after it was pointed out by you - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 02:57, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

• I won't list the whole mess, but a significant fraction of this editor's recent huggle actions have been misuses of rollback. If he were not an admin, I would have taken that userright away. Since we can't unbundle ROLLBACK from the rest of the admin toolkit, I'm not sure what to do. I think he was just going too fast and ought to slow down. As a comment on the talk page reversion, that's totally within policy. No use dragging that discussion out because the end result will be to note that rolling back edits on your own talk page is 100% ok (if a little brusque). Protonk (talk) 03:17, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

  Sure it's allowed, but it's extremely bad conduct for an admin, IMO. I agree about slowing down. I'd suggest to Fastily that they stop huggling for a while. And put some more work into different areas - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 03:30, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

  Whether or not it is bad conduct for any user (It's frustrating as hell to have it happen to you) is debatable but I don't think engaging in that debate is worth any of our time. Protonk (talk) 03:34, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Lol HalfShadow - the answer's no.. But nice try. Alright, well, this is quite the mess here... I admit, yes, my accuracy with Huggle wasn't all that great. I had been editing during a period of heavy vandalism and in effort to keep up with incoming diffs, increased speed but ultimately reduced accuracy. Increased speed accompanied with limited Huggle experience account for lack of accuracy. This is, however, on no grounds a reason for excuse. I reverted edits by IP editor 24.224.194.249 as their edits involved changing the link Child sexual abuse to Pedophilia. This could easily be perceived as vandalism at first glance but perhaps upon closer observation, found not to be. As for revert of your edit to my talk page, I offer my apologies. I again had perceived your edits as vandalism due to the more or less forceful nature of your wording. However, I would like to make it clear that at no point whatsoever have I been attempting to WP:BITE anyone or tread on anyone's toes. I realize my actions may have suggested that but I assure you this was never the case. As for 98.234.126.251, I reverted your edits because it had appeared you were attempting to warn Martin rather than asking why he warned you. This is a common action trend of vandals. If you wish to get a response from Martin, I would suggest you not attempt to start a conversation like that. Now, I must agree with Kingpin that taking a break from Huggle is a superb idea - I really hate to have caused this whole fiasco and any undue stress for those who made legitimate edits. I may use Huggle again in the future but will definitely slow down and take some more care with the reverts (I don't intend to make a mess like this again of course). Finally, if there is anyone else whose legitimate edits have been reverted, I would urge them to leave me a message or undo the revert. I will be sure to deal with queries as quickly as possible. Apologies to all for having to spend valuable time trying to sort out this embarrassing mess. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 06:46, 18 August 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.

Ethnic origin

Can I request some (more knowledgeable) eyes on the contributions of 98.15.137.71 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)?

This IP has made a mixture of good, questionable and downright bizarre changes to ethnic origin categories and wikilinks going back to 16 July 2008, often leading to slow-motion edit warring (or at least re-reverting).

Changes include this which is in the "questionable" range (reverted here); this which appears to be correct; this habit of breaking a page's formatting when editing by using tonnes of whitespace; and this which is in the "downright bizarre" category (a man named Jure Dolenc, born in Austro-Hungarian Slovenia, is an Italian American because Trieste is now in Italy?) and was what drew my attention to the editor.

They also edit as 67.82.170.19 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 64.90.244.101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) although at different times of the day, suggesting work IPs vs main home IP.

I question the usefulness of these X-of-Y-origin categories to start with, and this would be one of the reasons why. No doubt this editor would put me, a Welshman, in Category:Devon-Welsh Britons due to my great-grandfather or Category:Britons of Bermudan decent because of his father - and neither would correctly identify me. That's what, I think, this editor is doing to these various celebrities. ➲ REDVERS ^{It sucks to be me} 08:25, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

In general, if all their edits were good and they were non-communicative I would say that people should let them continue on with improving the encyclopedia. In this case, I believe that the lack of communication does quite a lot of harm. They seem to have their own rules for editing, and while I cannot say that they are editing in bad faith...they certainly don't seem to be improving the encyclopedia. IIRC I saw a 6 month block on the primary IP a while ago. Is there good evidence that they are the only one doing edits at those IP's? I'd support a lengthy block for all three, if only to perserve other editors from having to trying to discern if Soandso was an Australo-Domincan of Icelandic descent through his mother's cousin's side. Syrthiss (talk) 13:11, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment I blocked the static IP after a request for page protection. Just off a six month block. I did not look at the other two IPs. Neither had edited in a week (and one hasn't edited in over two months). Enigma^msg 13:56, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Disruptive IP

70.139.72.66 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Unresolved

 – Take these type of reports to WP:AIV please. Thanks. Nja²⁴⁷ 13:28, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

The IP 70.139.72.66 persists in adding incorrect content to airport articles such as [227] and [228] even though several warnings have been given to cease such activity. Can an Admin please give some advice in this matter and take it one step further if deemed appropriate. --Cyber Fox (talk) 10:20, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Patent nonsense pages

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

Resolved

 – Blocked indef ACB by Tiptoety. — neuro^(talk) 21:43, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Euclidthegreek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is creating pages patently nonsensical. This is after numerous MfDs of his pages. Dr.K. logos 09:12, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll give him a final warning. John Reaves 09:22, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

While looking in the contribs, I found this subpage which is named "on wheels". I don't know, anything that says "on wheels" makes me think of Willy on Wheels. Checkuser? - NeutralHomer • Talk • 09:26, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I saw that too. I doubt there is much good in this account, but we may as well give it a chance. I don't really think a CU necessary, probably just a copycat. John Reaves 09:32, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Okie Dokie...I will let you all handle it from here. Take Care...NeutralHomer • Talk • 09:35, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, Willy emailed one of the main mailing lists a good while back stating that he was 'retiring' (if you like) and regretted his actions, IIRC. Definitely comes off as a copycat, and a poor imitation at best. — neuro^(talk) 10:58, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Come on, we've already had a thread on him. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:41, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:DENY is overused and impedes action the majority of the time, but this isn't the place to discuss that. — neuro^(talk) 11:58, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

He has been indef'd as a sockmaster. Dr.K. logos 18:01, 18 August 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.

Possibly ethnic-related disputes on Pakistani issues

I've stumbled into what appears to be an ethnic dispute related to members of Pakistan's Marwat clan. User:LineofWisdom has nominated some Marwat-related articles for deletion: please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dil Jan Khan, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abdul Majeed Khan Marwat, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sarfaraz Khan Marwat. User:Marwat has opposed these deletions, apparently seeing them as an attempt to start an ethnic dispute. Moreover, User:Marwat786 (a new editor; I'll just call him/her 786 from now on) has participated in these discussions; his/her first few edits were to oppose deletion. Marwat (without numbers) has said that LineofWisdom is a sockpuppetteer, and Marwat has called 786 a sock. I'm one of several editors who participated at the AFD for Dil Jan Khan, and (probably like most of the others) I have no idea of these ethnic disputes. Further discussion has taken place at User talk:LineofWisdom (see the header "Your Edits In Article on Marwat"), User talk:Marwatt (headers "Why are you Editing the Administrators set page ?", "Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dil Jan Khan", and "Anwar Kamal Marwat"), and my talk page (header "Your Vote on Dil Jan Khan AFD"); I've also commented on 786's talk page. Marwat has asked for administrator intervention, and I really don't think that I'm qualified in this specific situation. Sorry that I can't give more information; I'm just confused by all that's going on, and we really need someone or someones who understand it better than I. Nyttend (talk) 17:56, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I should also note — unlike Marwat, 786 and LineofWisdom are clearly not native speakers of English, so I'm a little concerned that language issues might complicate things. Nyttend (talk) 17:59, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

• Extremely grateful I am extremely grateful to you talk for takin an appropriate action into this serious matter. I, once again as before, present myself accountable for using Sock. If Wikipedia even inquired that any other I.D than my own, User:LineofWisdom, has ever been used, I will honour a lifetime Blacklist against my I.D and even I.P address. Why should I be cursed for User:Marwat786's deed and actions? If User:Marwat786 looks like my other I.D why cannot we doubt that User:Marwatt might have created that I.D just to sabotage the Deletion process and to bring infamy to my name? Whatever the issue is, it is too far from the requirements of Deletion. I, hereby, request and plead to Administrators to conclude the Deletion process as per Wiki's Policy and on the other hand probe into the questions raised by me, User:Marwatt and User:Marwat786. I am sure, justice would be unveiled, as it is there but we cnnot see due to the mess-up my fellows has created to dull it. --LineofWisdom (talk) 18:35, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I think you have betterly understood the matter. I would have no objection, if you could decide the matter yourself, rather asking someone else. Your decission, whatever it may be, would be warmly and heartly accepted. --LineofWisdom (talk) 18:41, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Marwatt has no dispute and have not opposed the deletion of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abdul Majeed Khan Marwat but infact he voted in favour of his deletion and also commented in detail. So the above article be removed from the new category, please. --LineofWisdom (talk) 18:57, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

• Wikipedia admins are not qualified to solve ethnic disputes, and I do not understand what LineofWisdom means to say with the above. What actual admin action is required here?  Sandstein  20:34, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

There have been socking accusations (see LoW's comment above), and it seems to me that Marwatt has accused LoW of nominating some of these articles for deletion to make a point; it seems like one or two or all of them is/are trying to make Wikipedia a battleground, and admins are quite qualified to deal with that. As well, we're getting into some personal attacks (see 786's comment at the end of his/her comment on my talk page), and it's obvious that good faith is not being assumed despite what looks to me to be invalid reasons. In my mind, someone deserves a strict warning (although perhaps not the block or ban suggested by one party here), but I'd like input from others. I'm an admin, but I've been involved here, and I'm not much experienced in dealing with contentious situations. Nyttend (talk) 00:34, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

• I am an adequately qualified person and have been educated in English all my life including a PhD from USA. So I don't think that I have an issue whatsoever in understanding the policies of Wikipedia. As it is evident from my user account that I am an old worker of Wikipedia and on the other hand both of the user accounts that I have accused of being socks of each other were very recently drafted for a specific purpose. Since I am myself a member of the Marwat clan and know most of the notable people belonging to this clan, therefore, I don't have any problem with the insertion of the names of prominent people of the soil in the parent article. I would be rather very happy to brush up the quality of English of these insertions and clean up the article itself. However, what bothers me the most is that when users like LineofWisdom and Marwat786 popup all of a sudden and start editing in the parent article (mostly deleting the names of rival clan people) then a person like me who co-created this article on Marwat really feels agitated. So my request would be to investigate the matter in detail and check the record of these two user accounts.-- MARWAT  05:01, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

• I am not so much high qualified as User:Marwatt. But does it disqualifies me from editing here, with good faith? I have several times presented myself for lifetime ban, if my sock is proved. I assure you and vow that I am editing with good faith. I am a Punjabi, I admitt, once again, does it disqualifies me to share my knowledge here on Wikipedia at any article other than my ethnicity. User:Marwatt, while stating that I must not edit his tribe's article has infact disclosed his intentions that he wants his authority on his article not on mine. I could never be sure about any proxy wars like my fellow User:Marwatt, but what I doubt is that he might have created many Identitys to sabotage the situation and to make me out. I bestow my full trust, faith and sincerity to you Nyttend and any of your verdict on this issue would be warmly welcome. It seems you are really serious to solve this issue with nuterality and sincere intentions. --LineofWisdom (talk) 06:08, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Marwatt has also started an Edit War at Article Anwar Kamal Khan and have inserted the citation tags 3-4 times within 24 hours and is keen to reveert its position. The claim for which he is demanding citation has been refered and there is a reference proving whatever has been written there. Despite my continuous pleading to him that he must read the references before adding Citation tag, he is blindly reverting the article on the Disputed status. The article must be protected and he must be banned, as his intentions are proved i.e. to disgrace and manipulate the notables of rival clan. See his track record, he is famous for vandalising. --LineofWisdom (talk) 18:53, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Blocked USer:Marwatt is blocked for 24 hours on the charge of vandalising and edit war. This proves that there is no ethnical dispute but just one user is reasonf or all mess. --LineofWisdom (talk) 19:19, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

• This is coming to be a more constant problem with these articles: Source A posts something, Source B gets a thorn in their ass about it and it turns into a massive edit-war with insults and accusations of 'sabotage' and worse. Please take your 'clan wars' somewhere else; this is an encyclopedia, not a battlefield. HalfShadow 19:36, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

AnonTalk bot attack?

Judging by the number of anonymous editors writing this everywhere:

“ Please type the following into your address bar in order to discuss this (or any other topic) anonymously without registering an account: "www.Anon", follow by "Talk" and end with ".com". Then press Enter. A convenient link unfortunately could not be created because Wikipedia, much like most other politically correct organizations, attempts to censor the best site on the Web in every way possible ”

Shall I presume that we are under a bot attack via proxy servers? — Kralizec! (talk) 23:44, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Something of that nature, I believe J.delanoy has cleared it all up - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 23:47, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Looks like filter #228 made quite a dent on the attack. — Kralizec! (talk) 00:02, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I saw this too on List of Royal Pains episodes. They cover it up by writing "reverted edits" in the summary. One of the bots is 210.211.148.46 Purplebackpack89 (talk) 00:23, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

This came up at the Help Desk. Here are some more diffs. [229] [230] [231] This appears to either be a coordinated attack or a spambot issue. The filter perhaps needs a little tweak. --Jayron32 01:24, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I've taken the time to sift through the recent changes for user talk page edits made by IP's, and found 3 talk page with the spam. I have since removed it. Until It Sleeps ^alternate 01:48, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I found more AnonTalk spam by searching for "www.Anon" "Talk" in the search bar. Got quite a few hits, most of which had the spam already removed, but I found 3 pages that still had the spam, and removed it. [232] It should be noted that this was quite old, being on the pages since the 1st of August. Until It Sleeps ^alternate 01:57, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

New strategy by the vandal...they're posting edits getting around the blacklist entirely by rendering the site address with http:// and the rest broken apart, mispelling "Anon" as "Anoe" and telling later in the address to correct it as anon in the address bar. Nate • (chatter) 02:44, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I think it's funny how they say "Absolutely no fucking spam" on their rules yet they would resort to this crap to promote themselves. Triplestop x3 03:13, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

"It's not wrong if we do it" ;-) SoWhy 13:42, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I've done a run through and blocked blocked some of the proxies the bot was using which should help. --Chris 13:18, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

That is probably a really good idea. They were coming in so fast and furious last night, I did not have time to check and see if the IPs in question were open proxies and block accordingly. — Kralizec! (talk) 13:23, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Generally, if it's a spambot, it's an open proxy.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 13:28, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I found a couple spambot IP's that were only blocked 48 hours, this one and this one. Momo san ^Gespräch 14:10, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Got those, thanks, Momus. NawlinWiki (talk) 14:15, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

And another; [233]. Fribbulus Xax (talk) 15:07, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Blocked for a year by J.delanoy. Enigma^msg 20:17, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Vivek Kundra

Specifically, the line 'In 1997 Kundra was convicted of shoplifting four dress shirts from a JC Penny department store, an incident the White House said was resolved long ago.'

A lot of random IPs appear to have a stick up their ass concerning this, 57.67.16.50 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) especially. It's turned into one big messy edit war. I'm considering suggesting the page for semi-protection, but can we get an official word on who's right here? I don't care one way or the other, it's just a edit war is an edit war... HalfShadow 02:27, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I put in a WP:RPP 30 min ago or so because of it, the talk page consensus seems to back inclusion. I mean it's a true, well-sourced statement. Falcon8765 (talk) 02:40, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I added info about how he pled guilty, was fined $155 and did 80 hours of community service (all of this was also mentioned in the ABC News source). Without that information the reader could speculate that he fought the conviction or served a heavier sentence. -- Atama^chat 16:43, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I removed the whole section as a violation of WP:UNDUE. Horologium (talk) 16:49, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

They can't even manage to spell JC Penney properly. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 17:41, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I've reverted Horologium's removal of sourced information, especially since it was done during a discussion of the content, which has also been the subject of recent edit-warring. I also trimmed it down, and spelled JC Penney correctly and wikilinked it. It isn't constructive to walk into a content dispute and unilaterally remove information being discussed because you don't like it. -- Atama^chat 19:38, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Wow. Just wow. Try to assume just a little bit of good faith. Whether I "like" or "dislike" information is not relevant; what I saw a minor incident which occupied way too much real estate in an article which had been discussed here at AN/I. (Yes, I saw this discussion thread first.) When dealing with bios of living people, we should err on the side of caution, and (in my opinion) something that happened a dozen years ago and resulted in a minor punishment did not merit inclusion; your mileage may vary. Horologium (talk) 20:17, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I apologize. I do see where it could be seen as unimportant. I disagree that it doesn't merit inclusion, if the White House feels a need to comment publicly on the incident then I think it's worthy of inclusion, but we're free to disagree. I actually think that since this is a content dispute, and the only administrator action required has been taken (semi-protection) this discussion doesn't need to take place at the noticeboard and should be at the article talk page. Thanks for treating my somewhat uncivil response to you in a civil manner. -- Atama^chat 20:47, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Block request for disruptive usernames

Resolved

 – Quit bringing this to ANI. --Smashville^talk 14:54, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Oarias (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Oscar Arias (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Jon Corzine (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User:OArias and User:Oscar Arias are the same person (socks) and redirect their user pages to each other. Oscar Arias is the President of Costa Rica. Since User:Barack Obama was blocked, these 2 names should be blocked.

User:Jon Corzine should also be blocked because Governor Jon Corzine is the Governor of New Jersey.

I originally brought it up in ANI. The consensus was that those names are old so they are not to be blocked. I was also told to bring to to UAA.

I brought it to UAA and the report was deleted by User:7 who is running for administrator citing that the three names were old. I brought it to UAA again and administrator User:Stephen deleted it saying, again, the names are old.

Since there was 100% consensus (Baseball Bugs, WKnight94, Stephen, 7, etc.) that inappropriate names that are old are not to be blocked, I added that to the WP:U username policy (old stale names are not to be blocked). User:Beeblebrox objected.

I do not want an edit war but nobody is listen, just giving conflicting advice. Either block those names (preferred) or change the policy. If they are blocked, you don't have to say "fk you, you are blocked" but rather you can say "you are blocked because your name is the same as a major politician. If you are the person, you can be unblocked, otherwise, change your name".

Will Wikipedia stop contradicting itself! Acme Plumbing (talk) 03:48, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

What's your personal interest in those particular items? Why do they trouble you so? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 03:53, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Policy is not a straitjacket. We don't have to reconcile every decisions about usernames w/ the fact that we blocked an account named barack obama. Protonk (talk) 03:56, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

You should really stop bringing this to ANI. You've attempted to do so at least twice already (once while the other one was ongoing), it's becoming disruptive. -- Darth Mike ^(talk) 03:58, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I am bringing this up because this is so confusing. Administrators keep contradicting themselves. First, they so don't block it. OK, I can live with that. Then when I report the consensus to the WP:U page, they disagree. It's as though there is page ownership and different owners are staying what they want for that page.

Why the conflicting information???? I am not trying to change things. I just want an explanation to why administrators' instructions keep changing. The changing part is the disruption, not me.Acme Plumbing (talk) 04:09, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Once and for all, the policy seems to be that bad usernames that are stale shouldn't be blocked. Isn't that what people are saying??? Acme Plumbing (talk) 04:10, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Once and for all, what's your personal interest in this? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:14, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

• I think Acme Plumbing is a disruptive nickname. He is clearly named after several plumbing businesses. Ooh, irony. HalfShadow 04:22, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
• Other stuff exists, man. If you want to work on the policy getting changed to say this, then do so slowly and in proportion to other edits in the encyclopedia. But bringing it up to AN/I repeatedly will end in tears. Protonk (talk) 04:26, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Acme Plumbing says he is threatened with "blockage". If an Acme plumber can't prevent blockage, it's time to call on Roto Rooter. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:40, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Now now. Don't get all flushed with victory. HalfShadow 04:42, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Zing! - NeutralHomer • Talk • 04:49, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

The Acme in question is Wile E. Coyote's favorite mail-order company. Considering how the products usually work out, I suspect Road Runner is a major stockholder. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 05:57, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

It's worth pointing out that one of the three seemingly-dormant users (I think it was Oarias) edited on the 16th, and for the first time since last year sometime. Even without yesterday's edit, it had edited more recently than the other two. Regardless, it may be that at least the Arias twins need to be watched for any misbehavior. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 06:00, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed that there's something to look at, here, Bugs, and I've removed the "resolved" icon Acme inserted. A random sampling of Acme's edits (he started on July 26) appeared to be almost entirely disruptive. - Dank (push to talk) 11:47, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, per the heading, these usernames are only "disruptive" in that Acme Plumbing keeps disrupting us by bringing them up. Otherwise, they weren't hurting anyone. Even if the Oscar Ariases started editing, it's a common name! Who is to say he is impersonating the politician? Wknight94 ^talk 12:00, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

As a point of general order, and this isn't something we have to add to the Username page since its already at WP:BLOCK; blocks are preventative, not punitive. Usernames which do not appear to be in use don't need to be blocked since, as they aren't in use, they don't need to be stopped from doing anything. I agree that if these names are in active use very recently, then a block may be in order. But in general, we don't block users who have not edited for a long time, under the understanding that we aren't stopping anything by issuing the block. --Jayron32 12:02, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Oarias edited for the first time in 10 months, but the edit involved removal of an obviously vandalistic comment. Presumably Oarias is normally editing as either another user or an IP, but that by itself is not against the rules. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 12:10, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

From 2002 up to 2006 I had plenty of periods where I wouldn't edit for months, but I always stuck to this account. I expect Oarias is simply doing the same.--Atlan (talk) 12:18, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

However, there is also no clear evidence that Oarias is trying to directly impersonate a famous person; he may have registered the first name, realized his error, then registered this one. This may be an unrelated person, or other explanations. It is unlikely, given this combination of letters, that anyone would jump to the immediate connection to the head of state. I agree that the full name account may have been a violation, but THAT one is not active, and THIS one is not causing problems, and is not itself a blatant violation of the username policy. This seems like an WP:AGF issue, and I see no reason to block. We don't block people because their username, if read really carefully, could maybe possibly be similar, in a roundabout way, to a famous person. That's far too tenuous to be blockable. BTW, has anyone notified said account of this discussion? They may be interested to know we are talking about them... --Jayron32 12:39, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I just did. If he doesn't edit for another 10 months, it won't much matter. But I would still like to know why a registered user cares about the removal of another registered user ID. I can't think of any good reason someone would object to the deletion of any given user ID except for "personal" reasons. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 12:54, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I should point out that quite awhile ago, the Oarias talk page was redirected to Oscar Arias talk page, by an IP. Obviously there's some connection. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 13:17, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

And by the way, if you type "User:Barack" in the search line, a bunch of them come up. I wonder if there are other candidates for deletion out there? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 12:55, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

My biggest problem here is that all this has been said before!!! It's been on WP:UAA at least twice, it's been here at least twice (three times now if I read above correctly). Someone needs to say "enough already" please. How much time has been spent on two perfectly compliant usernames (even the full name Oscar Arias - I'm sure there are plenty of people named Oscar Arias in the world), neither of which have bothered anyone or even so much as edited in however many months?! Mark this resolved and let's get on with the actual encyclopedia (yeah, remember that thing?) Wknight94 ^talk 14:36, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

That is clearly enough of this issue. This matter is finished. Any more disruptive asking the other parent on this matter, and there will be actions taken. --Smashville^talk 14:54, 18 August 2009 (UTC)