Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive544

Molana yaqoob alvi birotvi

Molana yaqoob alvi birotvi is apparently a biography. It was on the LGBT radar because the gay is amongst the many items within the various texts. It's quite a mess but is it art, a hoax or a DYK wet dream come true? -- Banjeboi 08:59, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

"His carrier as a teacher"? This magnificant effort needs preserving in all its tattered glory - on Uncyclopedia perhaps? LessHeard vanU (talk) 09:27, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

You missed the part about how his elementary school training occurred on the Nimitz. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 09:31, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't risk my braincells by actually reading it - I'm an admin; we don't do reading of content - but just looked at the section headers. LessHeard vanU (talk) 09:39, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Odd that the editor who created this article, User:Paharhikhan also created the user page for User:Syedbasit raza. Paharhikhan also created, in his/her first edit, Obaidullah Alvi, and later Syed Fazal Hussain Shah, both of which need wikification as badly as Molana yaqoob alvi birotvi. The syle of these articles reminds me of someone else, but I can't put my finger on it. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 09:47, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Well it appears to be a recreation of Molana Yaqoob Alvi Birotvi which has been deleted twice. I'd suggest someone who's not half asleep take a look at the creators other contributions. Circle Bakote and Dhundi-Kairali language have both been tagged for cleanup since '07. I found this gem in Dhundi-Kairali article about Molana: He is also a wrestler and broke the legs of many locals in his prime. Yeah, there's a lot of cleanup here. AniMate^draw 09:54, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I have deleted and salted the subject article. I shall take a look at the other articles mentioned and review Paharhikhan's contrib history. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:06, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I have deleted some as WP:CSD#A7, and templated others for improvement where there appears to be some claim of notability or supporting sources (some are borderline, but if Imran Khan's political party is advertising on the site I am inclined to consider it legitimate). I feel Parahinkhan is a good faith contributor, but whose grasp of WP practices is as shaky but enthusiastic as his English. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:24, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Obaidullah Alvi is another sneaky recreation, this time of Mohammed Obaidullah Alvi which was deleted in 2007 after this AfD. I'm tempted to delete it myself, but insomnia has my brain working at about half its normal speed, so not 100% on my judgement. AniMate^draw 10:34, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Good find. I shall take a look at the AfD discussion, since the current article does give a claim of some notability (books published, newspapers created) which was included in the deleted version. The deleted article has an awful lot of "family history" of non notable people, so I will review the discussion to see where the problems were. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:43, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

(ec) After comparing the two article side by side, other than an introductory paragraph, they're mostly identical. An easy G4, though this bears some looking into as apparently the subject is a relatively active editor named User:Molvi333. Perhaps an SPI is in order. AniMate^draw 10:46, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

BTW, as with all of my admin actions, feel free to revert without asking me first. I'm not particularly fussy about that kind of thing. AniMate^draw 10:51, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

(ec)I'm content to leave it up for a new AfD. The AfD was for an article which was only a family tree, and had the above articles predecessor added to it when it was WP:Coatracked to include the family history being discussed at AfD. While it may be troubling that an editor is cleverly attempting to place family history - the discussed article is a self bio, it appears - on WP it may still be a cultural misunderstanding of notability than disruption. Under the circumstances, it may be that a fresh AfD needs to be run on Obaidullah Alvi to determine whether the claims of notability are sufficient, or whether they need to be verified. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:53, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I am not going to undelete. If another admin wants to review and decide there should be an AfD then fine, but I am also not wedded to my opinions on this matter. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:56, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm just concerned because it looks like multiple accounts are being used and the recreation of these articles with slightly different names or capitalization is deliberate. I'd feel much more comfortable with an admin or user with some in depth knowledge of the Middle East weighing in. I'll do some more investigating soon. AniMate^draw 11:08, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

• If they insist on creating articles here, it might help their case, however slightly, if they learn to use our language instead of apparently slapping words together in a manner that 'looks nice'. 16:48, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I've looked at Circle Bakote none of the references had the word "circle bakote" in them. The words "Circle Bakote" get no hits on google books, and precious view on google. There is a small village that i can confirm exists in NWF Pakistan called "Bakote" and our article on this village Bakot albiet written by someone with a shaky grasp of english, says "Union Council Bakote is historical place in Circle Bakote where four Muslim sains are laying rest including." Since Circle Bakote is completely unverifiable (and likely a hoax) I'm redirecting to Bakot.Bali ultimate (talk) 20:37, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Having looked just a little further, it appears that Bakot (i've now confirmed that's the prefered spelling in English) is in Kashmir, which obviously has various nationalist issues at play which should make iron-clad sourcing for claims even more important than usual.Bali ultimate (talk) 20:41, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to drop a note on WikiProject Pakistan as they should be more familiar with the notability of these subjects. AniMate^draw 22:51, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Accuracy checker

Resolved

 – Blocked 12 Hours by Mifter, after failing to stop or respond to repeated warnings. --64.85.221.218 (talk) 04:48, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

• Accuracy checker (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - On Jamie Colby;. User:Accuracy checker is repeatedly inserting material which is copied directly from {http://www.foxnews.com/bios/talent/jamie-colby/} despite warnings.. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:21, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Falastine fee Qalby

Krisztina Morvai is a far-right Hungarian politician who has recently been noted internationally for some utterly antisemitic outbursts and has a long history of smearing political opponents by calling them "zionists". Reminding of these facts was obvioulsy too much for Falastine fee Qalby (talk · contribs), who removed them altogether under the thinnest of pretextes: [1], [2]. I take offense at a person with a - to put it mildly - strongly pro-Arab wikiagenda to rush at the defence of that great pro-Palestinian, Mrs. Morvai (http://www.hurryupharry.org/2009/02/02/the-anti-israel-neo-fascists-of-hungary/). It sure pushes the boundaries of POV a bit too far - or does it?--RCS (talk) 20:55, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

The user has now started an edit-war [3], [4]. --RCS (talk) 21:07, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

This is a content dispute with you pushing to place in inflammatory material. It has no place here on AN/I, whining about it won't help you here. Who rushes to the AN/I for dispute that started less than an hour ago? -Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 21:09, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

The censorship you want to exercice speaks for itself. By the way, you have started an edit-war and are on the verge of 3RR and PA. --RCS (talk) 21:15, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

And now this!!!! How disruptive can an editor get? This is the silliest request for deletion of the year (already).--RCS (talk) 21:18, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Both of you, enough with the fighting in the War Room. Anyways, in regards to She is also a rabid antisemite with a huge problem with circumcision → If that is not a blatant BLP violation, then I don't know what is. Such removal on the talk page is acceptable under WP:BLP and WP:NOTFORUM. MuZemike 21:21, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

He placed it back and he will continue to do so if someone doesn't step in. -Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 21:34, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

(ec)You call me the pov pusher, yet your only edits to the article is to label this person as an antisemite. Your accusation is ironic, clearly you are the one with the agenda. -Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 21:23, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I nominated it for deletion because you and your likes have only one purpose on that article, and that is to post libel. That's all.-Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 21:25, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Saying that a living person is antisemitic, conspirationist and sexist based on an inference on the source given is not only original research but also a BLP violation. MuZemike 21:38, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I have to leave now so please do what you can. RCS is adamant about keeping his blatant POV version. -Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 21:41, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I have changed the wording on the talk page section (see [5]) and have tried to remove the BLP-violating material and what was not supported by the sources (see [6]). Hopefully, both sides will be satisfied with this. MuZemike 21:51, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

(<-)Please review the definition of Category:Antisemitism. It is not Category:Antisemitic people, which was deleted years ago. This relates to the discussion of antisemitism; which is why the ADL is in this category too. Part of Ms. Morvai's notability is specifically how her statements are received within the context of the discussion of antisemitism in Europe, so the category is appropriate, and not a BLP violation, as it is reliably and verifiably sourced. -- Avi (talk) 00:47, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Related : User:Carpiggio

Carpiggio (talk · contribs) now removes every passage related to Morvai's and Jobbik's antisemitism. This is pure and plain vandalism.--RCS (talk) 09:23, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Possibility of BLP/BNP vandalism

In light of the news, it appears likely that there will be some politically-motivated BLP vandalism when the U.K. wakes up this morning. Uncle G (talk) 04:29, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

• A fair point, yes. Following the usual procedure would be easiest: keep a close eye on possible targets, blocking persistent vandals (or reporting them to AIV), and protecting (or requesting protection) if it gets out of hand. AGK 12:42, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Smanu

I am raising this ANI again. This user is continuously engaging edit warring on Lady Gaga discography when told not to do so. The user is from Italy and is hell bent on adding the Italian charts to the discography page when talk page consensus has been reached regarding choosing Ireland over Italy with valid reasons. Warnings have been given to the user to stop edit warring and discuss on the talk page but of no use. He/She has previously engaged in such edit wars over other Lady Gaga articles and is engaging in trolling and personal attacks against me for reverting his changes - See here and here. Administrative intervention is needed. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 11:16, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

• I've blocked Smanu for 14 hours. You and Moon-sunrise narrowly avoided a block too; in future, please discuss changes you disagree with—and don't flatly revert. AGK 12:37, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Frank Sontag: 3RR block and page protection

I had requested protection at RFPP. An admin handled it, and did so correctly. However, the admin looks to have stopped editing and may not be able to quickly respond to my request. As I'd like to handle this matter quickly, can someone take a look at my request here? Thanks, NonvocalScream (talk) 04:53, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

• Although I wouldn't oppose another administrator doing so, I don't think blocking the other parties to the edit war would be a productive action. There has been no recent activity on the article, and so I don't see how blocking the remaining editors would be anything but a punitive action. You might wish to discourage them by means of a talk page caution from reverting and not discussing changes they disagree with. AGK 12:47, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

The page is a WP:BLP, and it is therefore rather important that all claims on that page are referenced by WP:RS. One editor has used socks to evade a 3RR block, and continues to replace the unreferenced material. However this would probably best be handled by a block of that editor for non-BLP editing, rather than stopping references from being added. Verbal chat 13:10, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

That editor (DLA9999) is currently, it seems, blocked. I've looked through the history going back to last year and can't find a version with references, which the user claims exists, and has accused me (via their email from their sockpuppet) and another user (via their own email) of removing. Nonvovalscream, was the email you received from this editor, or another possible sock? Thanks, Verbal chat 13:16, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I've watchlisted the article and would be happy to act if/when necessary. MastCell ^Talk 16:25, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

The email is in the WP:OTRS database, as a ticket I was corresponding. I would have rather protected the article and forced talk page participation. Most of the time, that has worked in the past. Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 17:41, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Suggestions re: a persistent block evader

User:TungstenCarbide was blocked for civility issues by Toddst1 back in March. The initial block was for 72 hours, and several admins and editors tried to talk TC through it. However, the block quickly became indefinite (courtesy of Kafziel) following a string of abusive messages on TC's talk page. From there, TungstenCarbide has returned with a string of sockpuppet accounts:

• User:TungstenCarbide II (blocked 09 April 2009 by Rootology)
• User:TungstenCarbide III (blocked 21 April by Black Kite)
• User:TungstenCarbide IV (blocked 22 May by Ckatz)(this is where I first learned of the issue)
• User:TungstenCarbide V, User:TungstenCarbide VI, User:TungstenCarbide VII, User:TungstenCarbide VIII, User:TungstenCarbide IX, User:TungstenCarbide X (fairly rapid series of socks in early June 2009, all blocked by Ckatz)

The last few socks started leaving notes on my talk page, as well as at Wikipedia Review, so it has become a bit of a game for him/her. I strongly suspect that this guy has switched names to User:Strontiumsulfate; that account opened a few hours after TCX was blocked, and the only edit to date is to add "Here kitty, kitty.." on that user page. ("Cat"z jokes, haven't heard those before...) Any suggestions on how to get at the root of this person? Is it worth filing a checkuser request to establish if it is a common IP, or if we're stuck with an IP range? --Ckatz^chat_spy 17:35, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I think Checkuser is appropriate if not substantially overdue. If there's a static IP it should be blocked, if there's a range, it may depend on the collateral damage. Plus it might be wise to check for sleeper socks. Mangojuice^talk 17:44, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback; I have now filed one here. If you are familiar with these requests, I'd appreciate it if you could please look it over to make sure I've dotted the i's and crossed all the t's where appropriate. Thanks again. --Ckatz^chat_spy 18:11, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Possible Copyright Issues

I'm about to go offline, but I noticed the contributions of Rickbrown9 (talk · contribs) and I was hoping someone with a bit more spare time could look at a few of his image uploads. Any help'd be great. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 10:41, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

• The image File:MukundaGoswami.jpg would appear to be a cropped and resized version of this, which explains the artifacts. Another image, File:Butch-1.jpg is identical to the one here, only flipped and with a sepia filter. The light reflected on the photo matches that on the uploaded image. - Bilby (talk) 11:45, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Given File:ImNotTalking.ogg, File:ImNotTalking2.ogg and File:No-Survivors.ogg, I'd say there are two possibilities: 1) the uploads are all copyvios or 2) the uploader is Richard Shaw Brown. The user's edit pattern is strongly focussed on Brown's band, The Misunderstood. For the latter, since the recording contract probably would assign the rights, the mafiaa might give us an offer we can't refuse. MER-C 12:32, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

That seems quite likely, given the location of some of the photos. - Bilby (talk) 12:39, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

What does that make User:Rsbj66, whose user page says he is Richard Shaw Brown, but who stopped editing in April 2007? Lost password, perhaps? Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 12:53, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

That's plausible. MER-C 12:54, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

After Rsbj66 stopped editing, most of the edits on Richard Shaw Brown were done by multiple IPs from 125.24.xxx.xx, which Geolocates to Bangkok. If this is him as well, than the vast majority of the edits on the article have been made by the subject of the article, which seems like it might be a bit of a problem. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 13:00, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I've put notices about this discussion on Rsbj66's and Rickbrown9's talk pages, as well as a COI template. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 22:18, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Legal threats on talk page of Taleb

Hi! I would like an end of the legal threats (direct or indirect) made on the following talk page Talk:Nassim Nicholas Taleb. See for example [[7]]. It would be very helpful if some admin can explain the policies of WP:LEGAL, and how you should proceed if you want to take legal action against Wikimedia foundation or some contributor. Ulner (talk) 16:49, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I dropped a standard {{uw-legal}} on the users talk page as i agree that this is likely an implied threat. I leave it up to the admins to handle this further - also, you might want to give him a notice that you started this ANI discussion as well. Its just good form to do so :) Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 17:02, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Ulner (talk) 17:07, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

While not considered a (blockable) legal threat by the community, I bring to everyone's attention the User:IbnAmioun userpage and the intent of this user to contact the WMF office (see the edit summaries on [8] and [9]). Judging by the content on the userpage, this editor is editing with a clear COI. MuZemike 17:49, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello, See the comments in the harassment charge I raised. The COI is resolved as I only get involved to defend the Taleb family against stalking and harassment, simple self-defense (no updating, etc.). I filed a complaint of stalking harassment against a living person. I would like it to be handled the right way please. IbnAmioun (talk)! —Preceding undated comment added 22:31, 8 June 2009 (UTC).

2 Skinnee J's and Andyaction

Andyaction (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who has admitted he is/was a member of the band 2 Skinnee J's (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has been advised that he has a conflict of interest, but insists on inserting unsourced material, even though advised to provide sources, has also inserted point of view "statements" here [10], here [11], here [12] and here [13]. He persists in posting sarcastic comments on the user talk pages of Chiliad22 and Jezhotwells. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:59, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Politely made aware of WP's guidelines, but chose to ignore them. Blatant, inappropriate COI editing and incivility. ~Pesco^{So say•we all} 20:31, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

User:WFLonTVS

WFLonTVS (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Enthusiastic spamming. User account suggests connection with the site. Disembrangler (talk) 20:02, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

No indication that user has been warned of policy violation. KuyaBriBri^Talk 20:28, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Category disruption

68.198.119.123 (talk · contribs) is going across dozens (possibly hundreds) of articles about fictional characters, adding Category:Film characters. I posted a note on the user's talk page explaining that a vast majority of these articles are already categorized in more specific subcategories (ie. Category:Science fiction film characters) and asking him/her to stop applying the category indiscriminately, instead checking first to see if a more specific subcat is already applied (& if not, to apply a more specific subcat instead of the generic "Film characters"). The user's activity has not abated in the slightest, despite a warning and an additional request to stop with a request to read WP:CAT. I don't have the time to undo all of the edits myself, and the user shows no sign of stopping. Messages seem to be ignored, so unfortunately I think the only solution may be blocking and mass-reverting. --IllaZilla (talk) 20:09, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I just gave them a 15 minute block to put a stop to it and try to get them to talk to you.

Please WP:AGF and discuss with them on their talk page some more, not just template warnings etc. Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:27, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

FWIW I only used 1 template warning. I wrote 3 separate specific messages myself explaining the situation & asking them to stop, but still no response and no slowdown in activity. If you'll read my messages, particularly the first, I think you'll see that I did AGF, but there's not much else I can do when the user doesn't respond to any messages. --IllaZilla (talk) 20:42, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

BJAODN

I was just browsing through some old AFDs and saw a few mentions of BJAODN. I typed it into the search bar and saw that the page does not exist, but that WP:BJAODN redirects to WP:Silly Things. Since I'm sure I'm not the only user who's ever tried to get to a "WP:" page without typing in the prefix (or not realizing it is a "WP:" page), I thought I'd create a direct redirect to Silly Things. Unfortunately the page has been creation protected due to numerous deletions and restorations in 2006 and 2007, so I could not so it. Would an admin mind terribly creating BJAODN as a redirect to WP:Silly Things? I just think it would make things a bit more convenient for new and forgetful users (like me for the latter), and it would look a bit nicer than seeing a creation protection template. I understand that WP:Silly Things is itself only maintained for historical purposes, but it would still make it that little bit easier for newer users who may hear of it and want to see what the page entails. Cheers, MelicansMatkin (talk) 20:24, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I think these days WP:CNRs aren't very much in favour. –xeno^talk 20:30, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Xeno is correct. That would be a cross-namespace redirect and so far, consensus has always been against creating new such redirects... SoWhy 20:31, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for the info; I wasn't aware of that. Cheers, MelicansMatkin (talk) 20:41, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Legal threats

Resolved

 – Editor blocked indef per WP:NLT for this. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:35, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

• Blondie0833 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Got some legal threats from this user on my talk page about us "adding material and information" to Crieff Highland Games. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 20:32, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely. Tan | 39 20:35, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Ta - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 20:36, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

For reference, there was indeed some unpleasant material in the history of Crieff Highland Games. I deleted the history (twice, it went back further than I thought) earlier this evening. Doesn't excuse the pointless legal threats, but worth us keeping 'em peeled. ➲ redvers ^{throwing my arms around Paris} 21:31, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

82.69.26.149 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) seems to be the only source of the "unpleasant material"; the IP seems to be fairly stably assigned, so to my mind should either be blocked or given a stern warning. I'd do it myself, but I live too close to Crieff for comfort. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 22:06, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Copyright input request

• Allstarecho (talk · contribs)

Hi. Today's batch at WP:CP included Lazy Magnolia Brewing Company, which consisted almost entirely of text pasted from the official website and its subpages. (Admins only, I'm afraid, can view this, since it is now deleted.) When the copyright infringement was pointed out, the contributor evidently made an effort to obtain permission, but restored the text out of process while doing so, ostensibly so that the copyright holders could see the text in use. Not having received permission, he removed the single tagged section, but that left considerably more text from the site exposed (See the bottom of his talk page for some conversation about this.) Given the contributors evident misunderstanding of copyright policy (including the note in edit summary that "copyedit this section too to address any concerns.. although I'd hardly call descriptions of what a beer tastes like as being copyrightable"), I started checking the contributors other work and have found two more pastes for which he is evidently responsible (Including Grand Gulf Military State Park (Mississippi), which the contributor removed with the note "no copyright notice on that site but to appease the stalker...") and Mississippi Department of Wildlife, Fisheries and Parks, which he restored as not copyrightable, notwithstanding Mississippi's explicit claim otherwise. (The facts are not copyrightable, but the language used is.) I also found another copyright infringement which he did not place, but in an article which he split without noting the origin. There seem to be serious misunderstandings about copyright policy here, including that we can publish copyrighted text in the hopes that the owners will grant license, that beer descriptions can't be copyrighted and that we can use copyrighted text if it is not explicitly claimed. Since this contributor is taking my scrutiny personally, I would welcome other input. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:06, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't need other input, but thanks. Nothing to see or do here, carry on. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 17:17, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Unless you've now decided that beer descriptions and websites that do not explicitly claim copyright can't be used under our copyright policy, I'm afraid that I do. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:33, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

In the U.S., prior to the Copyright Act of 1976, published works needed an explicit copyright notice to be covered by copyright law. (Lack of a copyright notice on a print run of Houghton Mifflin's American publication of The Lord of the Rings allowed Ace Books to publish an unauthorized version of the trilogy.) After 1976, all published works were covered, regardless of whether they had a notice or not, and unpublished works were covered as well -- so whether a webiste explicitly claims copyright or not is totally irrelevant. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 18:00, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

• Although Allstarecho evidently still feels harassed by my overview of his contributions, I have found copyright from diverse sources going all the way back to 2007, with Lanier High School (Jackson, Mississippi), which duplicates this copyrighted 2006 source: [14]. And, in fact, I see he removed a Corensearchbot notice from an article he created here and was advised of copyright policies here. To boot, he still does not accept that this is in any way wrong, per edit summary: as usual, facts can't be copyrighted but whatever. I believe more input might be valuable. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:56, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
• You are correct in your analysis. Simply remove anything prior to 1976 (as mentioned above) that is not covered by a copyright release statement. If the editor replaces it, then block them. Black Kite 00:06, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
  • That's somewhat easier said than done, given the extensive contribution history, but I'm doing my best. :/ Meanwhile, the more I look, the more I am concerned that this contributor has shown no interest in complying with copyright policy, given the tone with which he's addressed these concerns and previous issues. His attitude doesn't seem to have changed since he was advised in September, 2007, when he said, "I'm not incorrect because I said I don't FEEL text about a public educational institution, especially one my tax dollars help pay for, is copyrighted." In other words, evidence suggests he has not been unaware of these policies, having removed a number of Corensearchbot notices as well as basically shrugging off that 2007 conversation. He seems simply to have not felt inclined to honor them, just as he removed without comment this notice of the issue and request to address it by yet another administrator on May 30th of this year. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:20, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

This is a serious problem of repeated, intentional copyright violations. If the user continues to upload copyright infringements, he should be immediately blocked. Meanwhile, we're going to have to plow through his contributions to remove any and all copyvios that he's added, since it's clear he won't do it himself. Any assistance would be welcome. (Moonriddengirl, do you think the damage is extensive enough to merit a checklist at Wikipedia:WikiProject Copyright Cleanup/Contributor surveys?) – Quadell ^(talk) 02:43, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

• Taking MRG's assertions on trust, I agree with Quadell's conclusion. Allstarecho, your actions are out of line and you must reconsider your position or else cease contributing. No amount of flippancy routes around the absolute intolerability of copyright violation on wikipedia. --Tagishsimon (talk) 03:50, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

• I've done an initial review of Allstarecho's contributions, and the problem is in fact far worse than Moonriddengirl's description - he has been routinely and indiscriminately borrowing copyrighted content from a variety of sources for years, and considerable effort will be involved in cleaning them up. His comments demonstrate that he has a distorted understanding of how copyright functions, which is probably the root cause of this, and as such I wouldn't trust him to clean his own contributions. His actions to restore his deleted contributions and remove copyvio templates prevented the issue from being detected sooner, and are are making the cleanup twice as difficult as it needs to be, and he should be blocked at least for the duration of the cleanup. Moreover, I would not unblock him unless he promises to cease copying content from external sources altogether - I don't trust him to distinguish public domain sources from copyrighted ones with any degree of reliability. This is unfortunate because he does also contribute original content, but a necessary precaution to enable the cleanup to proceed without disruption and without new copyvios being added. Dcoetzee 04:10, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

User says he is retired, but did not go gracefully. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 05:12, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd have to say that saddens me somewhat. I have had generally positive interactions with Allstarecho in the past. I do agree that copyright is a serious issue, and we need to tread carefully when copying text and pictures from other sources. I certainly wish he had handled this better. sigh. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:17, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

It'd been handled better if I hadn't been wiki-hounded all fucking day. I mean, look at my talk page history. And just to ease some people's fetish with the idea that I don't understand copyright: I do. Most of these g'damn articles were done in my wiki-infancy. Any newer ones which may be in question, I don't agree that statistical facts (dates, percentages, times and related words to explain such facts) is copyrightable.. just like a textual logo isn't copyrightable. But whatever, I'm done with the Wiki. I've had all I can stand of the wiki-hounding and wiki-stalking I got in one day - no, not even a full one day, more like the bombardment I got in the span of about 7 hours. No need to reply or try and explain any of your own interpretations of copyright to me because frankly, I don't give a shite anymore and am now, with this last post, retired.. so if you waste the finger strokes, you're just preaching to the choir. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 05:47, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

• Nicely done....we have pushed away ANOTHER good editor over some minor BS. Allstar was and is one of the better editors here at Wikipedia and it is a sad day when the good editors say "to hell with it" and walk away because of pointless minor BS and no one says a damned thing about it. Pathetic. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 06:16, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Copyright isn't minor BS, and he will be back. Viridae^Talk 07:04, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
  • There's nothing good about pasting text from copyrighted sources onto Wikipedia. This contributor was advised years ago that this was against policy, but as recently as May 24th copied [15] and many of its subpages onto Wikipedia, removing the {{copyvio}} template from the article that was placed by an administrator (not me). That he chooses to view the clean-up of this as persecution just verifies the problem to me. What are we supposed to do when it's been proven that a contributor has pasted text against policy on Wikipedia? Look the other way? He has ignored or rejected correction on this issue with hostility at every point I've seen. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 10:09, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
    • This kind of thing is potentially a very serious problem. I see that AllStar has been blocked, but that's just the tip of the copyright iceberg. I have seen various articles over time (by many editors) that "read like copyright violations", but how do you go about proving it? Thanks to endless sites parroting wikipedia, finding the original source can be very difficult. You take a suspicious-sounding phrase put it into Google, find hundreds of entries containing it, check each one to see if they are wikipedia parrots or not, and maybe you'll find the original. So you repair the article and hope that's reflected eventually in the mirroring sites. OK, that's 1 down, a few million to go. It's the proliferation that's really the problem - the same problem as with copyrighted images. Someday wikipedia might get sued over this kind of thing, if they haven't been already. But that's also just the tip of the iceberg. It is so incredibly easy to copy-and-paste on the internet, how can an author who publishes on the internet have any realistic expectation of it not being proliferated, regardless of his theoretical legal rights? This will be an interesting issue for the Supreme Court to tackle someday. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 11:12, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
      • If they ever abolish copyright, my Wiki day will be a lot more fun. :) We are trying to organize this sort of thing. Dcoetzee made a program that surveys contributions, and we've been using successfully at WP:COPYCLEAN. All true, what you say about finding the original source. It's tedious work. There are mechanical plagiarism detectors that I utilize, but they don't eliminate Wiki mirrors. Maybe someday we'll get one of our own that does. Even cutting out the mirrors we know about would simplify things enormously. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:25, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
        • A number of years ago, probably in the early days of the VCR, comedian Robert Klein was doing an HBO standup special. He "warned" people watching at home not to tape the show, as it was a copyright violation. He then went on to point out that that violation was on roughly the same level of illegality as "tearing a tag off your mattress". And as a practical matter, that's what the internet has done. I have seen occasional images which were protected from downloading, but generally that's not done. Youtube seems to have the right idea - you can view it but not download it (as far as I know). But text is usually written in text form rather than as an image, so technologically (though not legally) you can do anything you want with it. The courts might eventually have to settle question of whether the burden of protection is on the original poster - i.e. if he doesn't protect the text somehow, then he shouldn't complain that it gets proliferated. I suspect the law is far behind the technology on this issue. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 11:37, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

          • Not true. YouTube videos are easily downloaded [16], and in some cases converted to friendlier formats [17] 67.142.165.30 (talk) 17:12, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

          • As long as we keep Wikipedia safe while the jurists sort it out, it's all good (from a copyright standpoint that is; the whole plagiarism thing is a different, much debated story). Personally, I think the policies in place do a very good job of demonstrating due diligence, and we've got some contributors who put a lot of time into enforcing them even though I know from past conversations that some of them actually support the abolition of intellectual property laws (or, at least, the radical overhaul and relaxation of them). --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:45, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
      • When I first saw this thread my reaction was much like Neutral Homer's, & I almost posted something along those lines... but for some reason I sat on my hands & didn't. I'm glad of my silence: repeated copyright infringements does not do anyone any good, & AllStarEcho's best response would have been to say something like, "Oops, I did all of that early on when I didn't know any better. Sorry." And if fixing this got too stressful, take a lengthy break. Most of the regulars here have an otherwise positive opinion of AllStarEcho, & if he were to admit his mistakes, promise not to do it again, I suspect he'd be given another chance. But his ranting above about "wiki-hounding and wiki-stalking" doesn't help his case. (And before anyone thinks I'm without sin, I keep wondering when someone will start looking carefully at some of the first articles I wrote. Especially since many of them are practically identical to what I wrote 6 years ago. If that ever happens, I promise to try to handle that kind of examination with more grace.) -- llywrch (talk) 18:12, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Given that the user has extensively damaged Wikipedia by uploading hundreds of copyright violations over several years, which may take months of effort to clean up... given that he continues to remove warnings and templates regarding copyright... given that the user shows no remorse or inclination to change any of this behavior... given that he has said he has retired and has no interest in editing... and given that he turned his userpage into a terrifically offensive attack page against people who challenge him on any of his behavior... Given all this, I have blocked the user indefinitely. If he wants to unretire and promises not to copy-and-paste any more material from random web sources, then I will unblock him (or anyone else can). – Quadell ^(talk) 11:06, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

On a related note, User:Allstarecho/regularmaintained will be helpful in this cleanup. From this list, I've already identified Frank Frost as a direct copyvio of this.  Frank  |  talk  12:04, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I was a bit hasty on this one. Thanks to User:Voceditenore for pointing this out.  Frank  |  talk  13:46, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

The source of that article is this NYT piece dated 1999. Cf our article. "Over the years, cigarettes and alcohol wore Frost down but he continued to record, tour and diversify his repertory, appearing in the films Deep Blues: A Musical Pilgrimage to the Crossroads and Crossroads." NYT, "Cigarettes and alcohol wore Mr. Frost down over the years, but he continued to record, tour and diversify his repertory, appearing in the films Deep Blues and Crossroads." --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:02, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Just out of interest are you now going to block yourself, or some other admin going to do it for the blatant and deliberate copyright violation above. You did get permission from the copyright holder to publish the above didn't you? After all there was no necessity for you to quote any of that, the links were there for anyone else to see the above text. --WebHamster 11:26, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. It's likely to be a long haul. We have a program we use at WP:COPYCLEAN (developed to clean up the problem at User:GrahamBould, I think) that lists the contributions of a user prioritized by size. Once that's run, I'll be opening an investigation tab at the copyright cleanup project to help structure investigation. All contributors most welcome. :D --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:11, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

• Good block.  Sandstein  14:12, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Could someone with the buttons look at the header that comes up when editing Allstarecho's user & talk pages? Doesn't seem like the sort of thing that should stay in place. Athanasius • Quicumque vult 15:53, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant User:Allstarecho/Editnotice and User talk:Allstarecho/Editnotice. Don't know if these subpages stay for a blocked user or not. Athanasius • Quicumque vult 16:03, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Wow; it's true what they say: you learn something new every day. Now I know how that's done :-) Anyway, I'm not sure what should be done there or why. Can someone show a policy or precedent regarding the editnotice and whether or not it should be removed? Allstarecho is not banned, as far as I know, and I'm not certain even that would warrant deletion. I think he could return at any time and be unblocked (OK, not in that order), and I'm not sure there's a need to dig into this right now.  Frank  |  talk  17:05, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

This comes as a surprise; hadn't been watching the noticeboard in a day. If Allstarecho takes a few simple steps would support a negotiated unblock. Ball's in his court; door remains open. Durova^Charge! 20:35, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

On scanning this yesterday and the day before I thought "Ok, this can't be that bad, he's a longstanding editor in...". I stand suprised.

Perhaps we should launch a sitenotice campaign to remind all editors about the copyright policy, and offer an amnesty period ("Just tell us about it now, we'll clean it up.").

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:21, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Given that the primary idea is to protect Wikipedia, I'd heartily support both...especially since we can have reason to hope that a contributor who self-discloses means to follow policy henceforth. With this particular editor, I think I'd be uncomfortable with anything short of supervision, given that he has demonstrated contempt for copyright in his editing and in his parting shot (or one of them, anyway). Perfectly fine to despise copyright laws. Using Wikipedia as a forum to demonstrate that, by pasting others' text here particularly when multiple editors have advised of policy, is flatly disruptive to a dangerous degree, no matter what constructive contributions he might also have made. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:40, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Having slept on the matter, there's more to be said. The 'open door' is in need of oil at the hinge. Allstarecho has taken an unusually strict stand about copyright compliance regarding another editor, and Allstarecho repeated that hard line about copyright toward the other editor as recently as last week. Until yesterday Allstarecho's position seemed worthy of respect, but now it is clear he was raising the bar very high for someone he disliked, while setting it unacceptably low for himself. Diffs are available upon request. If Allstarecho changes his mind about retirement I would support him, but in addition to the usual concerns that need to be worked out with a habitual copyright violator he will need to address this double standard--which occurs on the very same topic that caused his indefinite block. Durova^Charge! 15:01, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Evidently Allstarecho has requested unblocking already (and been declined). I remain concerned about his attitude towards copyright. Even after requesting unblocking, he said, "Most of it was a misunderstanding. I still don't see how statistical facts can be copyrighted. Facts are facts, period." I trust that anyone with knowledge of copyright law will recognize that there is plenty of copyrightable, creative text in such "statistical facts" as "Indian Summer Spiced Wheat Ale is a light profile American-style wheat ale spiced with Orange Peel and Coriander. The recipe uses a mix of wheat and pale barley. This beer is very lightly hopped to allow the spices to shine through. Clean fermenting yeast produce a very dry, crisp base to further accentuate the spices. The aroma has a distinct citrus note without being overly fruity", text which this contributor copied to Wikipedia from http://www.lazymagnolia.com/Indian_Summer.html (one of multiple pages copied from that site; and more statistical facts that can't be copyrighted from April of this year). This is only one of many, and the clean-up on this has only just been initiated at WP:COPYCLEAN. I have found duplicated text already in possibly up to a dozen articles, and I suspect that there will be much, much more. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:18, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed: all the usual concerns apply. In addition, the issue of double standards also needs to be addressed. If you have a list I could work from to lend a hand with the cleanup, let me know how I can help. Durova^Charge! 15:46, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, please. :) Anybody and everybody welcome. There is a section open for him at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Copyright_Cleanup/Contributor_surveys#Allstarecho. Helpful instructions are on the first subpage, Wikipedia:WikiProject Copyright Cleanup/Allstarecho. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:49, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Rolls up sleeves. Durova^Charge! 15:53, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

*I am going to ask that everyone stop and actually read the damned page you are linking to before calling it a copyvio. In reference to the Southwest Mississippi Community College page (that Durova has tagged), this link is supposed the copyvio. Nothing on that page is copied, verbatim or near verbatim, onto Southwest Mississippi Community College. That does not a copyvio make. I think we need to actually read the pages before calling a copyvio or not nominate them at all. I also believe that in the case listed in this post, we own Allstarecho an apology for saying it was a copyvio when it wasn't. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 23:21, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

• • Obviously the wrong link was posted. That was corrected almost immediately by Durova, but missed by me. Once corrected, I see, quite clearly, the copyvio. Sadly, I must agree with the community on this one. :( Delete away. My apologizes. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 23:27, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
    • I can understand your initial confusion here, but I can't honestly support the idea that anyone who mistags something contributed by Allstarecho as a copyvio would owe him an apology. I can point out quite a bit of text that he has contributed that is. WP:AGF only works when there isn't "strong evidence to the contrary", and suspicion of his contributions is extremely reasonable at this juncture. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:50, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
      • Before seeing the correct link I thought an apology was needed, but after seeing the correct link, I now see that an apology is not necessary. I stuck that part with the rest above. Again, my apologizes for the confusion caused by my struck post above, I will be more cautious and check the links more than once before posting. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 00:04, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
        • Apologies for the confusion. Nominations for deletion are something I rarely do. Was having trouble with the Twinkle interface, and simultaneously copied the wrong URL by accident. Durova^Charge! 04:38, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Indefinite block, reset

Given that (1) this contributor has requested unblocking several times due to the blocking conditions set by User:Quadell, "Anyone may unblock if he wants to unretire and promises not to copy and paste copyrighted content into Wikipedia anymore", and that further evaluation has disclosed more significant infringement than Quadell may have known and that further conversation here suggests that there may be more involved in an unblock than that simple statement and that (2) this contributor persists in asserting (as discussed above and at his talk page) that he has not violated copyright because the text he has placed can't be governed by copyright, I have reset his block and left a note on his talk page explaining why. I would request that anyone considering unblocking him do so carefully in light of the fact that he has shown no remorse or even recognition that he has violated policy and was advised of (and ignored) policy many years ago. He may say that he will not place copyrighted text on the project, but if he believes that copyright cannot protect material such as he has placed, then he cannot be trusted to comply as he can't be trusted to recognize what is copyrighted and what is not. I do not consider myself involved in spite of his personal attack on me, as my only involvement with him has been in relation to these copyright infringements. But I bring it up here anyway for others to evaluate. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:23, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

• I feel bad saying this because I quite like Allstarecho, but support indef, especially in light of this rather worrisome edit summary: "...I am officially retired.. as this user anyway. ; bye bye."] I don't know if that means he will create sockpuppets, whether he already has an alternate account, both, or neither and it's just another parting shot. It may be worth a CU poking around in case socks do exist and are being used. This whole mess has been rather sad. //roux   04:49, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
• Could we wait a bit before boldfacing supports or opposes? Afterward he posted FYI, as far as socks, Ive posted under my IP a few times in my life but only cuz I forgot to log in. The latest was at Talk:Autofellatio, Friday. Transparency. So you can sleep better at night knowing I'm not running around socking up the Wiki.[18] We all know how this usually goes: an editor feels cornered, responds aggressively. Maybe doesn't even mean it and regrets it the next day, but by that time the ball is rolling and an indef converts to a siteban. Yes there are problems here: serious ones he needs to acknowledge. Wikitime can be brutal, though. Durova^Charge! 05:25, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Durova's right. I doubt anyone would support Allstarecho being unblocked without some preconditions, and perhaps he'll agree once he's calmed down and if he returns. AniMate^draw 10:26, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Let's build a path back with caveats that restoring someone else's copyvio edits is also problematic, intentional or not. I suggest too a bit of empathy as my wee brain recalls their home burned to ashes not too long ago and I believe they live in the US South, Mississippi, which likely is a major suckfest economicly. There may be some real life issues trimming the fuse short. This does not excuse everything but we can at least pretend that behind that heat is a passion for what they believe and that same energy that has generally been constructive here can still be directed toward our collective goals. In dominatrix-speak it's an attitude adjustment! -- Banjeboi 12:11, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
    • I support civility and empathy, but in evaluating his constructiveness, I think we need to consider what has previously not been recognized: that a number of his articles have been built with content pasted in large or small scale from other sources. He may have been a stellar vandalism fighter, but he has been working outside policy for a long time even though he had every reason to know what policy was. This can't be put down to a short fuse, I'm afraid. Further, his ongoing talkpage dialog does not seem to me to demonstrate any awareness that he has created a problem or why. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:40, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
      • I would refer you to Durova's comment at the top of this subsection; He was sufficiently aware of copyright issues to use it against another editors violation of policy. I have no clue as to his motives, since my knowledge of him comes from his interactions on the noticeboards, Jimbo's talkpage and AIV, and while he seemed fine (if somewhat "sparky") there the disregard - I can't think of any other phrase - for a core policy and the potential trouble for the project that might incur leaves me to feel that any return to editing will need be heavily monitored/mentored. Given his two responses in the thread I don't feel that he will willingly accept such conditions. It is a pity in respect of the good work he has done, but perhaps it would be best if the editor and WP remain estranged. LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:16, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
        • We're too willing to cut people loose, which neither addresses the problem nor helps WP:ENC. Clearly Allstar has lost his admin standing, but I'm with Durova's more, "Can he be rehabilitated?" line of query than with the calls of "Cut this cancer off". Situations where there are no signs of intentional malice or disruption call for firm kindness. -->David Shankbone 20:29, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
          • As pointed out above, he was notified of copyright policies years ago and as recently as a week ago removed without comment a note from another administrator pointing out the issue and requesting his assistance cleaning up. He has multiple times removed without comment warnings placed by Corensearchbot. These may not be signs of intentional malice, but they're troublesome. Further, Durova seems to suggest that he is familiar enough with copyright concept to hold another contributor to it, which would make it puzzling why he would not know himself that he cannot copy from newspapers and websites unless these are properly licensed or public domain. I do not say that Allstarecho cannot be rehabilitated, but I have asked that any administrator who unblocks him does so carefully in light of the circumstances and ensure that his statement that he won't infringe further recognizes what the problem is and how not to continue it. I have myself offered to supervise indef-blocked copyright problem editors and seen them go on to productive contributions, but it does take willingness and time on both sides. (I don't think that Allstarecho was ever an administrator, but perhaps I'm mistaken.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:45, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
          • A massive amount of good faith has been extended to AllStarecho. If you review the dialogue on his talk page, you'll find literally hours of my time just in calmly explaining to him what the situation is. It's a long, tedious dialog which would probably take more than an hour to piece together and read coherently, and took plenty longer than that to unfold. My point in collecting this (really just the tip of the iceberg) is that I would like it to be seen that there is recognition of the value of Allstarecho's past contributions and that there is definitely the presumption that he can come back and be productive within policy. It's really up to him. I remain of the belief that he can be a net positive to the project - if he wants to be. So far, he hasn't expressed that desire.  Frank  |  talk  00:14, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
• Is now a good time to confess that I haven't taken any of my photographs? Seriously, this is a sad case and I hope everyone overlooks any recent outbursts by Allstar, and recognizes a long, productive, and honorable history. That the honor is being called into question undoubtedly raised his hackles, especially, as I suspect, he seems truly ignorant of the copyright issues involved. I'd prefer to see a more formal RFC-U, with or without his participation, with whatever has been found out. A gentle RFC-U. I think he's earned that rather than Trial by ANI. -->David Shankbone 17:26, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Including, amazingly enough, the ones with yourself in them. :) I've thought pretty highly of AllStarEcho, and I don't know what to make of all this. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 17:38, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
    • It's helpful to have agents :) -->David Shankbone 17:43, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
      • Aha! So you outsourced the picture-taking. Just like Mathew Brady did. Sort of. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 17:49, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
• Whether or not to leave Allstarecho indef blocked is a tricky question because it's difficult to discern his mental state and intentions. There are a lot of people here who are motivated to see him rehabilitated - and I have seen Moonriddengirl successfully rehabilitate long-term copyright violators before - but it's an arduous process of continuous review and education, and it starts with an admission of error and a willingness to learn, which Allstarecho has unfortunately not demonstrated. I might support for the time being an article-space block - no editing of articles, but discussion pages and project pages are okay. This would have to be enforced by monitoring. Dcoetzee 22:31, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I was thinking something similar that they be allowed to continue there non-article building work - which seems fine - but that article building, mainly the Mississippi ones, needs to be done in userspace with each being launched once reviewed. In effect we would get the vetting needed, they would still get credit, and possibly DYK brownie points and when issues arise they can be dealt with in a less heated way from all perspectives since article space is not compromised. For existing articles they can post suggestions with sources to the atlkpages and others can add them in or review to allow ASE to do so once vetted. -- Banjeboi 02:02, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Benjiboi's suggestion sounds very reasonable to me. LadyofShalott 02:23, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good to me as well. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:44, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

• A ban from articles? I see the intention, but oh dear. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:08, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Maybe just until he can be trusted again. Hell, I had to earn everyone's trust back after coming back from my indef block and in some cases I am still earning it. If we go with Benjiboi's idea, with the vetting of articles and ASE creating them in his userspace, I say give him 6 months of it. Then let him back in. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 03:12, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
    • First, I would only support such a move with indication from Allstarecho that he understands the issue. I don't see how mentorship could work without an open-minded approach, and so far I have only seen him defending his contributions as not copyrightable. Second, before such a measure can be enacted, an uninvolved contributor with a good understanding of copyright and time to evaluate these concerns would need to agree to review these edits. Third, I don't believe that a specific time would be helpful. For the sake of argument, presume that the problem here is difficulty grasping the distinction between uncopyrightable fact and copyrightable expression. If he still has this problem in six months, releasing him from mentorship would obviously be irresponsible. On the other hand, if he demonstrates in three months that he understands what can and cannot be used and shows an ability to paraphrase material without infringing copyright, continuing direct monitoring would make no sense. The purpose isn't punitive, but protective, and pre-approved article building should continue for whatever time it's needed. Finally, whatever person mentors him should ideally also be willing to look back in at some point after the restriction is lifted to ensure that the problem has not resumed. We can't presume that it will not when a contributor, any contributor, has continued pasting material into the project after having been told to stop. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:26, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
      • (edit conflict) I think the concern is that we should be fostering good article writing behavior, and a ban from articlespace may be seen to foster, well, posting to ANI or XfD. The only way ASE is going to regain the trust of the community is through hard work and proven example that the same behavior has been corrected. I don't see a system of userspace-vetting-move working out; it's unduly restrictive on ASE to make good contributions under such terms, it's a waste of time for those who have to confirm his contribs, and it might not even satisfy everyone as of course someone who understands copyright (as the double standard situation suggests) will behave well when watched. If ASE can work without a net, then I think that'll carry weight, and this current indef block may necessitate that be on another Wikimedia project for a period of time. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 11:28, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

If Allstarecho says (1) that he wants to unretire, (2) that he recognizes that what he did was wrong and won't do it again, and (3) that he's willing to be mentored by someone who's willing to spend the time looking through his contribs for violations, then sure, it'd be great to have him back. Tellingly, he hasn't agreed to any of the three, and he has been insulting and hostile to anyone who has suggested it. I also think he owes Moonriddengirl a pretty big apology for (among other things) calling her a "cunt", and I personally wouldn't unblock him unless he offers one. But that's just me -- others may find such incivility more tolerable that I do, I don't know. – Quadell ^(talk) 18:40, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Idea

I approached ASE with Banjeboi's idea of having ASE create articles in userspace and have them approved and moved to mainspace until he earns the community's trust back. I also offered to work with him via the mentor program. He could easily tell me to take a hike, but if he thinks this is a good idea (and granted I am not an admin), I think should consider it and let this good editor come back from a bad situation like others let me come back from my situation in 2008. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 05:55, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Atollardo persists in removing speedy delete tags from pages they created.

This user has been warned 5-7 times in the last 2 weeks about rtemovingt speedy delete templates yet keeps on doings so. I would suggest a short term block. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 23:13, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

He sure has been, doesn't look like he answers those warnings in any way either, maybe a block would encourage this user to discuss the matter instead of just edit warring.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 23:26, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

from the backtrack he keeps recreating csd deleted pages. I have nominated two others as well but admin may want to look at his contribn log. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 23:29, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Looking. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 23:59, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll give him a final warning. His edits seem infrequent enough that a short-term block wouldn't have much effect. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 00:08, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Bad move reverts

Resolved

 – Script misfire (?), feel free to re-implement moves. –xeno^talk 02:40, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I checked my watchlist and saw this, a revert of my moves to article space, fixing naming, renaming per GAN, etc.:

1. (Move log); 02:06 . . TownDown (talk | contribs) moved Talk:Henry Fielding's early plays to Talk:Henry Fielding's Early Plays over redirect (Pagemove vandalism cleanup)
2. (Move log); 02:06 . . TownDown (talk | contribs) moved The Covent-Garden Tragedy to The Covent Garden Tragedy over redirect (Pagemove vandalism cleanup)
3. (Move log); 02:06 . . TownDown (talk | contribs) moved Talk:The Covent-Garden Tragedy to Talk:The Covent Garden Tragedy over redirect (Pagemove vandalism cleanup)
4. (Move log); 02:05 . . TownDown (talk | contribs) moved East Coker (poem) to User:Ottava Rima/East Coker (poem) over redirect (Pagemove vandalism cleanup)
5. (Move log); 02:05 . . TownDown (talk | contribs) moved Little Gidding (poem) to User:Ottava Rima/Little Gidding (poem) over redirect (Pagemove vandalism cleanup)
6. (Move log); 02:05 . . TownDown (talk | contribs) moved Sermons of Jonathan Swift to Sermons of Dean Swift over redirect (Pagemove vandalism cleanup)
7. (Move log); 02:05 . . TownDown (talk | contribs) moved Talk:Sermons of Jonathan Swift to Talk:Sermons of Dean Swift over redirect (Pagemove vandalism cleanup)
8. (Move log); 02:05 . . TownDown (talk | contribs) moved Wikipedia:Peer review/Sermons of Jonathan Swift/archive1 to Wikipedia:Peer review/Sermons of Dean Swift/archive1 over redirect (Pagemove vandalism cleanup)
9. (Move log); 02:05 . . TownDown (talk | contribs) moved Nicolo Giraud to Nicolò Giraud over redirect (Pagemove vandalism cleanup)
10. (Move log); 02:05 . . TownDown (talk | contribs) moved Talk:Nicolo Giraud to Talk:Nicolò Giraud over redirect (Pagemove vandalism cleanup)
11. (Move log); 02:05 . . TownDown (talk | contribs) moved Christopher Smart's asylum confinement to Christopher Smart's alleged madness over redirect (Pagemove vandalism cleanup)
12. (Move log); 02:05 . . TownDown (talk | contribs) moved Talk:Christopher Smart's asylum confinement to Talk:Christopher Smart's alleged madness over redirect (Pagemove vandalism cleanup)

Ottava Rima (talk) 02:30, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

For convenience: TownDown (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

It looks like Slackr (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) already left them a message asking them to explain themselves [19] (probably ec'd with you). If they don't respond in due time I gather you can safely re-implement these moves while we await a response (could have been a script misfire, for example). –xeno^talk 02:36, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

And it looks like they've already responded and even apologized [20]. Mistakes happen. Shell ^babelfish 02:38, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't blaming him. I just wanted to make sure that the pages could be restored to their proper names, hence why he wasn't named as causing any problems. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:40, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

So move them back? I guess I don't understand what needed admin attention here. If there's a particular article that can't be moved back, that's one thing but you really didn't given any information about what you wanted. Shell ^babelfish 02:43, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

• I believe soap (talk · contribs) has reversed the moves, but if any targets require g6'ing, let us know. –xeno^talk 02:45, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry for any inconvenience caused. I'm really glad that it was resolved. I'm pretty sure I won't do it again. --TownDown ^{How's it going?} 03:51, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Alleged abuse of admin powers by Stifle

Resolved

 – No abuse here. Icestorm815 • Talk 18:25, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Reopening: the page still needs to be unprotected. Durova^Charge! 22:52, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Trying to end a discussion after just a few hours is inappropriate and goes against WP:CONSENSUS. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:11, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

A controversial DRV was closed, saying it could be recreated, provbided work was done at the time.

Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2009_May_29

This is impossible, because Stifle has protected the page. http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Plot_of_Les_Mis%C3%A9rables&action=history

Surelly, using his admin powers to protect a page like that, to enforce a more extreme view thn the closer of the DRV - but a view he advocated for - is completely inappropriate. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 16:46, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Surely s/he will unprotect on request after seeing the amended and appropriate version of the article? –xeno^talk 16:48, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't see even a hint of admin abuse here. The DRV ended as "no consensus to overturn" and the page was protected as a redirect. If you wish to follow through with the second part of the DRV's result "Editors wishing to recreate this article should so in a way which substantially alters it from its pre-Afd state, making it ineligible for WP:CSD#G4", start an article in your userspace. --auburnpilot talk 16:52, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Exactly, "no consensus to overturn" means "keep deleted". It should not be recreated in article-space until it can be shown to not fall under a speedy criteria. The DRV was very clear. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 17:01, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

It's kind of telling that the user who undid the redirect is claiming that this protection is admin abuse. I don't think the protection is strictly necessary (it's not like anyone was edit warring in the face of the consensus; Stifle's protection was preemptive), but I'm wary of unprotecting it based on Shoemaker's Holiday's request with no draft in place. Mangojuice^talk 17:08, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any abuse of Admin powers here, but I might not be the best person to ask at the moment. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:26, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

This editor seems to have a history of confrontational editing (see contribs, almost any talkspace, no need to post specific diffs). No evidence of admin abuse at all. Tan | 39 17:33, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Sigh. Nice of Shoemaker's Holiday to notify me of this discussion. I don't think I have anything to answer for; if someone presents a draft of a new article, I'll either unprotect or suggest a new DRV. Stifle (talk) 17:53, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree, no abuse here. – Quadell ^(talk) 18:21, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

• P.S. - if people aren't paying attention, it is obvious that Stifle was CoI'd from protecting the page. He voted to "keep as redirect". By protecting the page, he clearly protected to his preferred version. This is 100% abuse of admin tools and a desysop has happened in such cases. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:55, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Content tangentially related to the present topic

Nothing here is actionable. Please move on to more approperiate venues and boards.

The page protection was not warranted and goes against our standards for page protection. Seeing some of the people claiming that it was not an abuse with their tract record (especially Tan) is telling on the matter. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:11, 8 June 2009 (UTC) Ah, quite the accusation. I'll dismiss it, considering the source. For the record, it's "track", not "tract". Unless you were referring to somewhere where you thought I abused a list of land parcels. Tan | 39 21:17, 8 June 2009 (UTC) Coming from the notorious "I lied my way through RfA" Tanthalas, the accusation against Shoemaker above was 100% inappropriate. The fact that you, of all people, would try to smear someone and claim knowledge about how things work around here is highly inappropriate. Then, there the little fact that Shoemaker has actually created encyclopedic content. When was the last time you tried to actually contribute in a worth while manner? Ottava Rima (talk) 21:24, 8 June 2009 (UTC) Where did I say I lied? Can you provide diffs on either my statement of that, or verification that I lied? I'm about to take this accusation damn seriously - and consider it a de facto violation of WP:NPA - unless you can provide proof. Garnering an influential RfA voter's support through ingratiation is a lot different than your accusation. Tan | 39 21:27, 8 June 2009 (UTC) I love how you say that, and yet it has been said regularly at the WT:RFA for quite a long time now. You are -the- example of gaming RfA. Do I need proof? No, as your RfA states many answers that you lied about because you felt that it was best to pretend about what kind of character you have to get through RfA and feed people what they want to hear. My my, you are suddenly unproud of it. I love how you try to call it "ingratiation". If you really believe your actions were right, why not submit yourself for RfA and allow the results to stick? You still haven't answered when you last actually bothered to create content. Do you actually do anything but cause drama and misrepresent yourself to get more power? Ottava Rima (talk) 21:39, 8 June 2009 (UTC) The above isn't helpful. Take it to your respective talk pages, perhaps? –xenotalk 21:49, 8 June 2009 (UTC) Xeno, this deals 100% with credibility of Tan to make accusations against Shoemaker. You are also involved in the discussion above, so your "collapse" is highly inappropriate. You really should know better. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:51, 8 June 2009 (UTC) You assaulting Tan with WR'esque memes adds nothing to this discussion. Several other admins other than Tan agreed that there was no abuse here. Per my usual, you may have the last word on this. –xenotalk 21:54, 8 June 2009 (UTC) I appeal to the community to determine if I should be tolerating these obvious character assassination attempts by Ottava. As far as I've interpreted for the past couple years, this is quite obviously a blatant violation of Wikipedia policy. Tan | 39 21:55, 8 June 2009 (UTC) Xeno, several other admin did not attack Shoemaker's integrity like that. Also, there was a clear CoI, which cannot be hidden behind. He voted and then page protected. That is 100% against the page protection standards. ArbCom has desysopped quite a few people doing that very thing lately. And Tan admits to "ingratiating", i.e. misrepresenting himself to game an election. I wonder what Jimbo would think about that. Perhaps we should just ask him directly - "Jimbo, if someone pretends to feel a way and claims that they wont be doing something at RfA then admits that they were saying that just to be elected, do you feel they should keep the ops? Especially when they have since had a track record of just inflaming discussions at ANI, attacking content contributors, and making it difficult for people to even want to be a part of this community?" I am sure there is one obvious response. Tan, if you feel that you did the right thing, go ahead and relist yourself at RfA. If not, that will be admission that you are a liar and are too afraid of being possibly held accountable. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:00, 8 June 2009 (UTC) If you wish to alert Jimbo, do it. If you wish to start on RfC on my conduct, in my RfA or elsewhere, do it. If you wish to present evidence, do it. However, as it is, these are unsubstantiated, sustained personal attacks, and again, I appeal to the community to judge this. Tan | 39 22:03, 8 June 2009 (UTC) I have to agree with Xeno. It is well-known that Ottava Rima frequented Wikipedia Review and is now making WR-like accusations here. That type of behaviour has no place at ANI. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:14, 8 June 2009 (UTC) In my RfA, Ottava Rima accused me of being a drama queen, so this is kind of fun to watch. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 22:30, 8 June 2009 (UTC) And the community denied you for it. You, like Tan, just sit at ANI and cause problems and attack people mercilessly. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:32, 8 June 2009 (UTC) WR-like accusations? Do a search for Tan's name at WT:RFA. The people who make the claims against Tan are in the dozens. Tan even admitted that he misrepresented himself to the community at RfA. And does WR make content? No. They attack people like Tan attacks people. Gaming the system, making attacks against good content editors, and friends with those like Xeno, a WR member. I wouldn't be surprised if Tan was one. It sure would be interesting. The fact that he wont list himself up for reconfirmation only verifies that he knows what he did was wrong and that the community wont accept him as an admin again. He already admitted to manipulating the community. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:32, 8 June 2009 (UTC) The personal attacks continue. May I please get some intervention/action here? He has presented no evidence of anything, made many accusations, and is clearly in direct, blatant, intentional violation of NPA. I'm clearly not the civility police admin, and it would be hypocritical of me to state that I've never lashed out. However, this is sustained and extremely personal - he is assaulting my integrity. Again, for the third time, I appeal to the community to judge this. Tan | 39 22:38, 8 June 2009 (UTC) Personal attacks? I am attacking your action. Therefore, it does not fit the definition of a personal attack. You know it. I know it. The community knows it. However, making false accusations of personal attacks is a violation of Civil. You have violated it four times so far. That is more than enough for a standard block. Are you going to continue? So far, you have violated Civil against Shoemaker and now me. So, we have you admitting that you misrepresented yourself at RfA, which is the definition of lying, then you are causing problems here and chasing away a content editor (Shoemaker), and you are also attacking people (myself and Shoemaker) in a similar manner that you have attacked hundreds of editors at ANI. Do you really think what you are doing is appropriate? Ottava Rima (talk) 22:40, 8 June 2009 (UTC) I'm just wondering why OR has not been blocked yet. All of this brouhaha over an article about the plot of Les Miserables? Absurd. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 22:42, 8 June 2009 (UTC) Read what Durova stated below. The "brouhaha" is about CoI abuse then a group of admin who don't create content and just stay on ANI acting as if there wasn't a problem. We are an encyclopedia first and foremost, and this was unacceptable. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:09, 8 June 2009 (UTC) I have nothing further to add. My appeal to the Wikipedia community to judge the above precedings stands. Tan | 39 22:45, 8 June 2009 (UTC) It's Ottava's usual bile, and something should be done about it. That admins refuse to do so is highly educational. I'm not sure, but I think the policy runs thus: the more eephants we have in the room, the more weight we have compressing everything we've swept under the rug. //roux   00:41, 9 June 2009 (UTC) Roux, last time I checked you have done almost nothing but cause problems here. Go look up the definition of "ingratiate" and actually pay attention to WT:RFA before you dare try a stunt like that again. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:04, 9 June 2009 (UTC) Proof Because two people above are making it clear that they are unable to see the elephant in the room that has been known about at ANI, AN, and RfA, lets just post it so we can rehash some old business. Now, let see Tan testify for himself (from [http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/User_talk:Pedro/Archive_33#Hmm here): Quote - "While you're right that I did "admit" to gaming the system, I feel that that statement definitely misrepresents me and my intentions here. I spend a lot of volunteer time on here - improving articles, cleaning up, blocking vandals, helping new editors, and generally trying to make Wikipedia a credible place. Sure, I don't agree with some of you guys sometimes, and I've never been one to go out of my way to join any of the Wiki-clubs, except for Keep's now-defunct page (and that was through admin coaching). What did I game? Well, simply put, I needed Balloonman's support in my second RfA, or it was going to fail, regardless of my intent, knowledge, or performance. Was it malicious? No. Was it even totally fake? No. I identified the crux of the next RfA, and solved it. I don't know if my performance since then has disappointed you, and if it has, I hope you would come to my talk page and tell me what the problem is. I've always respected you as an editor and as an admin, and I truly want you to understand my reasons for being here. Tan | 39 21:43, 26 February 2009 (UTC) " Mind you, he thinks that he lied and cheated his way to adminship for the right reasons. What are some of those reasons? Well, inflaming situations and attacking some of our most valuable content editors to the point that they retire. I think it is obvious to everyone that Tan has overstepped his bounds and cost this encyclopedia far more than he can ever give. Anything short of putting himself for reconfirmation would be inappropriate. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:19, 9 June 2009 (UTC) The reason it's so interesting to see you mudslinging with Tan is that the both of you opposed my RfA on the grounds of my allegedly creating drama. You're creating more drama than I can even imagine creating. What a hypocrite you are! This thread is nothing more than a food fight, and should be closed ASAP. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 01:30, 9 June 2009 (UTC) Drama? No. Drama is long term. This is momentary and dealing straight at the issue. You, like Tan and others, respond to many ANI threads and do very little outside of that. Admin shouldn't be those who participate in places like this in a manner that results in chasing our main content contributors off this project. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:33, 9 June 2009 (UTC) Calling people liars and such is unacceptable, and is unworthy of any editor. And no one forced that other editor to leave, he chose to do so because he couldn't get his way. Long term? I have seen you on here many times, and you're always angry about something, always stoking the flames. Anger is not productive, not beneficial to wikipedia. Spare us your hypocritical lectures. Go clean up your own act. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 01:47, 9 June 2009 (UTC) The term "liar" only comes up once, and it was not used to state that I think he is a liar. One can lie without being a liar. Misrepresenting yourself is a lie, regardless if you decorate it as "ingratiate". The above is an admittance that what he did to get Balloonman's support was wrong, and he was called out about it just before. This happened about the same time. It wasn't a coincidence, and people everywhere know exactly what happened. And if I am always angry about something, how come I have so many FAs, GAs, and DYKs? And I am constantly prepping new pages in my user space? Seems like I wouldn't have time to fit that into my busy schedule of being angry. Hell, I find it odd how I can be working on three pages for FAC, 12 for GAN, and another two sets of 8 DYKs right now while being so angry all the time. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:52, 9 June 2009 (UTC) Admittedly, it's a miracle. Oh, hey, I was amused by your earlier self-congratulatory comment about contributing to defeating me (or rather to keeping my plurality too small to win) for an adminship that I didn't want in the first place, and want even less now, as I would have to be dealing with the likes of you on a daily basis. I've gotten that haughty attitude from a number of opposers who thought I might actually care. It turns out I can be a much more effective vandal hunter without adminship. And as one admin I admire told me, I would be a much more responsible admin than many of them here. But you didn't want that, so you've got me as is. You confuse outspokenness with irresponsibility. I have never abused the semi-admin authorities I already do have. So my not being an admin is your loss, not mine. As for you and Tanthalas, hypocrites that you both are, it would be interesting to put the two of you into a fish tank, like a couple of bettas, and see which one survives. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 02:08, 9 June 2009 (UTC) I didn't defeat you nor does my voice have any sway at RfA. My record at RfA can testify to that. So, you have no reason to care about what my response was at your RfA. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:17, 9 June 2009 (UTC) I can care about anything I feel like, but you don't necessarily know what I'm actually caring about at a given moment. Meanwhile, as I said at the RfA, the oppose votes were very useful, some because they were actually helpful advice (which yours most assuredly was not) and some because they revealed a lot about the character of the opposers (which yours most assuredly did). >:) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 02:36, 9 June 2009 (UTC) Ottava Rima: what do you want? Are you wanting Tanthalas39 blocked? Restricted? Admonished? Desysopped? Beaten with a stick? Only a couple of those can be accomplished here. Please, be specific. If you don't like his behavior, or you feel something needs to be corrected, that's the purpose of a request for comment. I'm not seeing the point of this subthread. --auburnpilot talk 01:58, 9 June 2009 (UTC) I want him to apologize to Shoemaker for his inappropriate attack. Shoemaker retired in part over it, and this project needs Shoemaker back. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:05, 9 June 2009 (UTC) I am a bit disappointed that the user in question sees these deletion discussions as a "battle." Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 02:09, 9 June 2009 (UTC) Sorry to confuse you, A Nobody, but this thread is in response to Tan being upset that I criticized the people that were critical of Shoemaker. The first section and the last section deal with Stifle, so you may want to move your comment up or down. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:19, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I still see zero "proof" (the title of this subheading) that I lied, misrepresented myself, or otherwise broke any Wikipedia policy whatsoever. I see continuous personal attacks with zero evidence from Ottava. Apparently, the community wishes to ignore that; I will go with whatever is consensus here. However, I will not respond any further to these baseless allegations. If you wish to do anything formal, go right ahead and let me know about it on my talk page. I'm done here. Tan | 39 03:38, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

You can claim such, but there is a clear admittance that you manipulated and mislead Balloonman. What do you think "gaming the system" means by chance? Playing with words and weaseling with rhetoric does not mean you are innocent. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:36, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Peace, please

Shoemaker's Holiday announced his retirement today. He has contributed three featured articles, nearly fifty featured pictures, and is Wikipedia's most prolific contributor of featured sounds. He was the Wikimedia Foundation's best editor at restoring etchings and engravings, and he was WMF's only editor who digitally restored wax cylinder recordings. For copyright reasons, often the only license-free versions of important music are on wax cylinders, and for historic performers that's all we'll ever have. Because of Shoemaker's Holiday, Wikipedia's readers can not only read about Enrico Caruso but also hear Caruso sing; because of Shoemaker's Holiday, we can listen to John Philip Sousa's music--with Sousa himself conducting.

Can we please learn from this? And would someone please unprotect the deleted page? When two featured article contributors say they can get enough sources to justify notability I think we can trust them. Here's hoping some of the things that were posted above weren't really meant in earnest, but were expressions of frustration by people who--justifiably--thought they had earned more credibility than they were receiving. A few retractions and olive branches would be very timely. Durova^Charge! 22:52, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Did you know that that many or most of Sousa's Band's recordings were actually conducted by Sousa's assistant, Arthur Pryor? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 02:11, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Shoemaker's research was excellent with that sort of thing. If you locate any flaw in his documentation please raise it at featured sound talk and ping my user talk page. Durova^Charge! 03:36, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

If he is a good and reasonable contributor, and if he still believes in wikipedia, then he should come back and try to put the general interests of wikipedia first, and try to ignore specific setbacks. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 03:47, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Bugs, you're a baseball guy. A good coach doesn't use his pitcher every game--especially not after a muscle strain. That might win a couple games but it'll burn out the arm. Same logic here. Give the fellow some water and a pat on the back, even if he lost his cool and shouted at the umpire. He's still a good player. Durova^Charge! 03:54, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I was working on saying and forgot to add that key point: that he should give himself a few days off, or whatever time is needed. Or think of Brett Favre, who has "retired" twice, un-"retired" once, and may be about to un-"retire" again. Time off can be good. It can revive the hunger. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:01, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Shoemaker isn't the kind of editor who retires every month. I'm really worried here. Let's be gracious and show appreciation for his good work, rather than apply additional pressure. Durova^Charge! 04:06, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

No pressure. He should take his time and decide what's best. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:09, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I've unprotected as pages should not be preemptively protected. Starting with "admin abuse" was perhaps not the best way to initiate this request - WP:RFUP would have been a better venue if Shoemaker was seeking a neutral opinion on the propriety of the protection. –xeno^talk 23:17, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your unprotection. Durova^Charge! 23:23, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

• Your first paragraph, Durova, is frankly meaningless. It doesn't matter if somebody has never written a featured article or has more featured stars than anybody else. When an article is deleted, and a deletion review confirms that there is no consensus to overturn the original result, the next step for somebody wanting to create that article is userspace. All the stars in the world do not earn you or anybody else special treatment. This entire episode is drama for drama's sake. --auburnpilot talk 23:25, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Quite the contrary - DRV are supposed to be weighed by quality of the statements, not quantity. We are not a democracy. Those that produce featured content who are weighing in to state that they will do something are given more weight. We are an encyclopedia first and foremost. Those that create content are given privileges because that is our main priority. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:30, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Obviously this situation could have been handled better by several people. Our shared mission, though, is to build an encyclopedia. This person's departure leaves the site poorer in valuable content skills that no one else has. Content work doesn't earn someone tickets to misbehave deliberately, yet his actions seem to stem from frustration rather than malice. Shoemaker's Holiday did major contributions in technical media few editors understood, and the site's consensus model doesn't handle that well: he often got the brush-off undeservedly. Let's learn from this and be better at listening to productive people who bring rare skills. Durova^Charge! 23:55, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

What is to be done about Stifle's protection will be up to arb com, I suppose, for use abuse of admin powers in a field where every knows he is deeply committed. It is every bit as bad as if someone with my views had personally reverted the deletion review close. I do acknowledge, however, that he expressed above his willingness to unprotect, or relist at DRV . Shoemaker did quite right in the manner in which he worked on the article, and was right to come here. This was not a routine matter for RFPP, this was blatant abuse by an administrator. and Shoemaker's departure is something to held against Stifle, and equally against those who defend him here. I am equally concerned about the closing of that DRV, for Sceptre as a non-admin had no business closing that AfD, especially as he did it via G4, which he as a non admin can suggest, but not actually delete under. The only possible result for a DRV in circumstances like that was relisting. That it was closed without any reason given for why that matter was ignored was not helpful of the closer. But even more than dealing with Stifle, we need to deal with get Shoemaker back. DGG (talk) 00:26, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Somewhat related ,but user:ChrisO gave up his admin bits today as well. His last edit was to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sam Blacketer controversy. seicer | talk | contribs 01:50, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Possible ARBMAC issue

Being in a new-user-bad-name-scanning state of mind the past few days, I happened across User:XXxLRKistxXx a short ago. Based on the first two edits (user page and talk page) it appeared to be a possible problematic non-NPOV editor. Following up on subsequent edits showed some possible POV-revert-war problems brewing at Delvinë and Berat, possibly among others. (See Special:Contributions/XXxLRKistxXx.) This led to a look at WP:ARBMAC (and the immediate realization that I don't have six months to make heads or tails of which way is up in that quagmire). Long story short, is there anyone on who is up to speed on the ARBMAC-related pages who I can hand this off to? Thanks in advance. --Ckatz^chat_spy 07:38, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Obviously a meatpuppet recruited by fellow Albanian POV advocacy account Sarandioti (talk · contribs) and friends [21], to help out in an ongoing revert war. Sarandioti was involved the other day [22] in a discussion involving a couple of other Albanian users about organising themselves on MSN chat [23] to push their agenda more efficiently, so the appearance of new meatpuppets is not too surprising. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:46, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

BTW, Sarandioti's response to the new account ("Long live LRK!" [24]) indicates the "LRK" in the user name has a political message; apparently it stands for "Levizja e Rilindjes Kombetare" ('Movement of National Rebirth'), some nationalist advocacy group here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:59, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Yet another example of superb Balkan sleuth work by Future Perfect at Sunrise. I looked up LRK, but came up emtpy. --Athenean (talk) 08:12, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Nationalist advocacy? haha Futperf youre not so good at politics are you? Athenian how is Pontos doing? Athenian is tagteaming with Alexikoua, no one is going to do anything about that? --XXxLRKistxXx (talk) 08:44, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

And im not a meatpuppet. What is the point of this term? Am I not allowed to agree with other users? I have not broken any rules, so stop commneting me like that. This is insulting! --XXxLRKistxXx (talk) 08:55, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for the wiki slang – "meatpuppet" is an internal jargon term meaning somebody who is here only because they were recruited by somebody else off-wiki to support them in a dispute. Which is pretty obviously what happened here. This type of external canvassing is very strongly disliked here, especially if the result is intensifying an edit war. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:12, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I arrived a bit lately to prevent people from arguing, but anyway im here now. Fut. Perfect as a sign of good faith I myself have stopped editing several articles. I took a step backwards, now its the turn of the other side. They keep removing the albanian name of Konica although it is referenced, and they keep adding greek names in Berat which has no greek community, and in Delvine which has greeks in villgaes not in town. What do you think? --Sarandioti (talk) 09:18, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

So, would you guys, as a sign of good will, tell us where and how and by whom *LRK* was contacted and recruited to join the fray here? Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:29, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

By no one, he/she joined with his/her own conviction and decision. Why would you think he was recruited? Because of my salutation? Same football team fans have similar salutations, or because of a meeting that hasnt happened yet? --Sarandioti (talk) 09:43, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure if Balkanian is also involved in this group: [[25]].Alexikoua (talk) 09:47, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

What is your exact problem Alexikoua? Is it not allowed to talk to other users? Maybe you should be blocked for such mud-accusations against your fellow editors--Sarandioti (talk) 09:51, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I would have no problem though to have Future Perfect as Arbitrator. Every party to state its own sources, and why's, and then let him decide. --Sarandioti (talk) 10:06, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Just for the news Saradioti breached the 3rr in Paramythia: [[26]], [[27]], [[28]], [[29]]. Suppose the msn cooperation didn't worked that good.Alexikoua (talk) 11:06, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I told you that it was by mistake, I didnt recognise it. --Sarandioti (talk) 11:37, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

futperf will you become arbitrator in sarande, delvine, berat, konitsa, himare, gjirokaster? or should i ask for arbitration elsewhere or...? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarandioti (talk • contribs) 11:49, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

62.3.107.196 and Xming

General heads-up that this IP (which says it's Colin Harrison, author of the software in question) is going around making legal threats and generally not behaving itself on that talk page (including taking a rather liberal approach to editing others' comments). This has been going on since at least 2007, but the legal threats are a new and exciting addition. (Attempted resolution deleted from user talk.) Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:38, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Blocked a week for legal threats. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:50, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I've also shut off the IP's ability to edit its talk page owing to ongoing legal threats and attacks after the block. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:57, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

The article is mostly referenced to StraightRunning.com. However, if you click on any of those references, you get redirected to File:Chrispirate.jpg. Does this make it unreferencable, and hence not notable? *looks innocent* --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:35, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Looks like he set up some kind of redirect on his server side to disrupt an article he is not at all happy with, I've skived those off, for now they lead to the website's main page. This said, the sourcing does not establish any meaningful notability. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:56, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the "release method" section as lacking any independent sourcing and possible original research. Meanwhile I don't see any meaningful independent coverage of this topic other than listings at software sites and forum/mail comments by some users. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:04, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

He's been obsessed with my pirate picture for two years now. The server-side redirect (which is based on the Wikipedia referer: works fine if you just paste the URL) now goes to one of Gronky's rants about me for some reason. I suppose one day I should get serious about getting that particular piece of soapboxing removed as well. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:38, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Suicide threat

Resolved

 – Declined and moved templated suicide response to block decline notice.  Frank  |  talk  18:30, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Could an independent admin look at User talk:TheChosenEditor please. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 18:20, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Also reblocked to disallow talk page priveleges. –xeno^talk 18:41, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Paid Editing

This is overdue, probably: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Paid Editing. Given that this (and related WP:COI issues) seem to be coming up more and more, I've launched this basic RFC. We've never had an actual community discussion or mandate about this. Please review the statements, leave yours, endorse as you see fit. Should make for an interesting and enlightening discussion. rootology (C)(T) 19:33, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Request for block of user 173.32.21.102 on Seven Sisters (law firms) entry

On the wikipedia page for Seven Sisters (law firms) an anonymous user keeps incorrectly altering the list. There is a reference posted on the page (1) that links to a Macleans article which lists the "seven sisters" law firms. This list includes Torys LLP, and does not include Fasken Martineau DuMoulin LLP.

Contributor (173.32.21.102) has repeatedly changed this list, leaving incorrect information on the wikipedia page.

I have changed it, leaving a note, but it has been changed back by this same user.

As a representative of Torys LLP, we feel that the deletion of our firm name from this prestigious list (the "seven sisters" are the law firms in Canada involved in many of the largest deals" and are often considered the "elite" law firms of Canada) is unfair, and we would like assistance to prevent this annonymous contributor from posting inaccurate information the unfairly punishes our firm (by removing it from the list).

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Seven_Sisters_(law_firms)

My apologies if this is not the correct place to post this request for a block. (My user name: Canmark) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.220.57.173 (talk) 19:49, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

The IP hasn't quite done anything bad enough to get a block for any useful length, and the changes have been few enough and slow enough to make protection a bit notional. I'll watchlist (others should too, please) to make sure that nothing worse happens in the next few days. Independent, third-party references are your friend here: if you can supply them (and I've noted how to request changes on your talk page when reminding you that you have an inherent conflict of interest on the subject) it makes working out who's right and who's wrong a lot easier. ➲ redvers ^{throwing my arms around Paris} 20:09, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Edit war on Roger Federer

Multiple 3RR violations, edit war going on for several days over the phrase "widely considered to be" the greatest tennis player ever. Zohair9034 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and TheTennisObserver (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) are the worst. Lots of redlinked accounts and SPAs, probable mass sockpuppetry. I made an edit or two so someone else needs to purge this mess. Thatcher 19:57, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I've protected it for a week - on a version I don't agree with (I'm such a hero) - to allow others to sort the sheep from the goats at their leisure without the edit war. ➲ redvers ^{throwing my arms around Paris} 20:03, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Could the set of navboxes at the bottom of the page possibly be any uglier? — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 20:35, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

The whole article is a car crash, designwise. But such things are not an admin's job to police. Alas, alas. ➲ redvers ^{throwing my arms around Paris} 20:39, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Isn't there a template for collapsing navboxes that works a little like {{WikiProjectBannerShell}} does on talk pages? – ukexpat (talk) 20:43, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

On the assumption that R's comments above are an invitation for someone to sort this out, I've blocked Z and T under AN3 and unprotected the page William M. Connolley (talk) 22:10, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Tag-team vandalism

• Tag-team vandalism by 142.25.175.224 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), 142.25.175.227 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and 142.25.175.223 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has been going on for several days now on Polystichum munitum. 223 just got blocked, but 227 and 224 should also be blocked. The article has been semi-protected due to a long-term vandalism spree by school kids from British Columbia and Washington state over the last several months. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 21:18, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

142.25.175.0-255 softblocked for 72 hours. Tan | 39 21:22, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 21:28, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Apparent WP:COI issues at West Ridge Academy

I encountered this edit on Talk:West Ridge Academy while reviewing recent edits using Huggle, in which User:Good Olfactory addressed an IP editor who had expressed frustration about edits removed from the article (see here). There are some genuine issues with the article, such as the repeated addition of spurious categories, which I agree are problematic. But the gist of the reason behind the page protection seems to be edits such as this one, which adds sourced material about allegations about the school. I do understand that there are legitimate issues about the tone, but I have far too often seen editors and admins demand that reliably sourced material be removed and discussed at a talk page as a means of suppressing unflattering material regardless of the quality of sources. This may or may not be happening here, and I understand the frustration of the IP editors involved.

While it may be appropriate to semi-protect the article, it appears that User:Good Olfactory has a rather clear conflict of interest issue here. Good Olfactory has edited the article on no fewer than 45 occasions and has been actively involved in content disputes on this article. On the User:Good Olfactory page, he describes himself as "typically active in the areas of categorization and my mainspace edits primarily relate to religious topics (especially the Latter Day Saint movement)...".

As many of the contested edits involve efforts to connect the school to Mormonism, as User:Good Olfactory has expressed a strong interest in LDS-related subjects and as his edit history shows a deep and continuing interest in the subject, as Good Olfactory has edited this particular article a few dozen times and has been actively involved in content disputes in the article in question, it would appear that he has a WP:COI issue with this article and should not have unilaterally stepped in to protect the article. There are well over a thousand admins, and any one of the other 1,659 Wikipedia admins, most of whom are untainted by this conflict, could have been approached and been asked to attempt to address this issue with some measure of remove from this dispute.

Appropriate action should be taken to ensure that User:Good Olfactory steps away from using administrative powers while involved in what appears to be a rather clear conflict of interest violation and to ensure that further measures are taken in the event that any further such WP:COI violations take place. Alansohn (talk) 02:54, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Protection of the page was instituted to stop ongoing edit-warring (not involving me). If the perception of bias troubles Alansohn, I've no problem with lifting the protection and letting another admin decide to reinstate or not reinstate the protection. (In fact, I'm trying to gain assurances that the edit warring will stop, so I'll probably be lifting it shortly anyway.) This complaint could have easily been dealt with by a note on my talk page; I'm not sure why it needs to go to ANI. (Though it may have something to do with the fact that I've blocked Alansohn in the past. This is not the first time since I blocked him that relatively minor issues have been brought up here by Alansohn instead of with me personally.) (Incidentally, I was asked via email by another user to intervene, so my intervention wasn't "unilateral" and I was simply making an effort to assist a user who asked for help.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:04, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I understand that a personal attack is an effective means to attempt to deflect the issue, but the problem of abuse of administrative powers despite clear edit warring by admin has still not been addressed. Sadly, this is far from the first time that Good Olfactory has abused administrative powers to further his own agenda despite clear conflicts of interest. If only these perceived problems could have been addressed by contacting any of the hundreds upon hundreds of admins not directly involved in edit warring here, there would be no issue. Abuse of administrative privileges in this manner directly undercuts the legitimacy of these powers. Admins need to be held to an appropriately high standard in this regard, and this hardly passes the smell test. An appropriate warning to refrain from use of administrative powers in this article, accompanied by escalating action in the event of further problems, will likely address the problem here. Alansohn (talk) 04:34, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

As I said, it would have been both easier and appropriate to just let me know on my talk page that you were troubled by it. Not a big deal. I haven't personally attacked you, just expressed surprise at your reluctance to approach me about a concern through any forum except ANI. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:41, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Looks like a big deal to me. I agree with Alansohn. You're admin'ing with a COI, and need to desist. ThuranX (talk) 04:45, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I meant it would not have been a big deal to just ask me about this, where I could have easily responded to the concern by lifting the protection. I've done so now anyway as we're trying to make progress on the talk page. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:54, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

To be fair to Good Olfactory, I also suggested semi-protection as a result of some edits that appeared to be coming from the school, essentially replacing content with something that looked like it was ripped straight from an advertisement brochure. TallNapoleon (talk) 05:16, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

A big part of the problem with User:Good Olfactory's actions here and elsewhere is a "the ends justify the means" approach in which blatant abuses of administrative powers can be covered up and dismissed by claiming that it's simply "not a big deal" and by cleaning up the problems created by his disruptive points after the damage has already been done and the users involved have been thoroughly intimidated. And this is not the first time. While actively in the middle of an edit war, Good Olfactory protected the same article back in March (see here), and also failed to see the clear conflict of interest then. As someone who is clearly invested in LDS issues and articles with strong opinions on the matter and as someone who has previously been actively edit warring in this article, the question is not if some action was necessary to protect the article. The issues are why would an admin with the clearest possible conflict of interest abuse his administrative powers for the second time in the same article to reflect his personal bias on the subject? Why impose this disruption himself when it would have been "no big deal" to ask any one of hundreds upon hundreds of admins who wouldn't know a Mormon from a foreman who could have been approached on their talk page and asked to intervene without imposing User:Good Olfactory's biases on the entire community? All that was needed in response to a request for intervention from User:TallNapoleon was a response from Good Olfactory that there was no way he could properly get involved here and that a third-party with a small measure of neutrality should be approached. Alansohn (talk) 12:35, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok, so "there are some genuine issues with the article", and "it may be appropriate to semi-protect the article", the issue is with the person who applied the protection, even though that admin wasn't involved in the edit warring, and hadn't edited the article since March? --Kbdank71 14:10, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Frankly, this is the kind of baldersdash that makes editing Wikipedia so discouraging. Good's action of protecting the page was not an abuse of Administrative authority; there was edit warring and appropriate action was taken; end of story. The facts are: 1) there was edit warring, 2) Good was not involved, 3) Good semi-protected the page, 4) silly accusations through a misapplication of policies are made here, 5) Good has now removed the semi-protect, 6) edit warring has returned. I don't care what you Admins do, but get your act together collectively, cast aside these type of silly accusations that don't apply, and semi-protect the page again. Based upon this type of allegation no admin with expertise in a given topic could act as an admin on those topics...let's try not to be silly. Of course admins should act as an admin in their areas of expertise. A COI only exists if the admin herself/himself is involved.

Alan, my advice is to stop stalking Good; it shows up very poorly on you. Just to be clear, I conflict with Good on almost all editing of religious articles; but this type of complaint has done nothing to protect Wikipedia, improve it, or improve the actions of admins.--^StormRider 15:30, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm no apologist for admin abuse, but frankly there ISN'T ANY on this occasion. If Good had been actively involved in the ongoing edit war you might have a case but he wasn't and you don't. Commendation for Good for responding with positivity to this report - I can't fault their actions at all. Exxolon (talk) 16:27, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

As a collective reply to all those who support this abuse: There are a million circumstances under which administrative action may be appropriate. None of them involve circumstances in which the admin has a clear conflict of interest. While he had refrained from editing the article all the way since March 2009, he was actively involved in an edit war in this same article over a similar set of issues just ten weeks ago, providing no evidence that he has the appropriate distance or neutrality to take administrative action in this article. That the edit warring has restarted after the improper page protect was removed only demonstrates that the problem could have been resolved if any of Good Olfactory's admin supporters here, some who might have some neutrality in this particular edit war, might have been able to address the matter on their own without violation of Wikipedia policy in a matter in which Good Olfactory has been directly involved just weeks ago. As to the shameless personal attack from User:Storm Rider in an effort to distract from the violations here that have also been noted by User:ThuranX, I applaud your support for an admin who has taken abusive administrative action in direct support of your edit warring, but you can hardly be neutral in this matter. It reflects rather poorly on any editor for supporting such abuse that benefits your own edit warring and that could have been addressed as no big deal by any admin other than User:Good Olfactory without the clear bias and prior edit warring of his own in the article in question. Alansohn (talk) 16:44, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

You're just not getting it. THIS WAS NOT ABUSE. Admin abuse can be several things - if he'd blocked someone he was in dispute with, if he'd locked the article in his 'preferred' version. If he'd semi'd the article while in dispute with IP editors - then there'd be a case to answer. He might have a point of view about this article but his actions had nothing to do with his personal pov regarding this article - they were a perfectly correct attempt to stop the edit war which he was not involved with and encourage proper dispute resolution. Step away from the dead horse please Alan. Exxolon (talk) 18:01, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

It must be because it wasn't put in BOLD LETTERS before. As an admin you have a choice: You can edit war in an article or you can take administrative action in support of one side and call yourself objective. But you can't do both in the same article. Good Olfactory was actively edit warring just severl weeks ago, and then protected the article once he had imposed his position on the article. While he is not actively edit warring now, he has taken the same action to impose what is essentially the same version he pushed when he was edit warring. You can do one or the other, but not both. I look at this article and I clearly see Good Olfactory as an ardent edit warrior in this article. This horse is very much alive. If you want it dead, any neutral and objective admin would be able to readily deal with the article. It would be no big deal for Good Olfactory to ask any one of the more than 1,600 other admins, preferably one who hasn't been actively involved in removing sourced content from this particular article, to take a look and deal with whatever problems that may exists in the appropriately neutral fashion required by Wikipedia policy. P.S. Incidentally, you're also falling into the edit warring trap on this same article. Alansohn (talk) 19:22, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

We disagree on Good's actions - that's okay, I wasn't expecting to convince you. However your accusation that I'm "falling into the edit warring trap" is totally bogus. I'm reverting blatant NPOV violations - this counts as vandalism and isn't subject to edit warring rules or the 3RR rules. No reasonable editor would consider my 2 reversions of blatant POV insertion as "edit warring" as you do. Exxolon (talk) 21:05, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

You are not working together to address an issue. You are blindly reverting to the ame version over and over again. That is the definition of edit warring. Alansohn (talk) 21:34, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

OKAY guys, this goes to far. Instead of stopping this silliness you have encouraged it. User:Alansohn has now taken to carry on his tirade on the West Ridge Academy article. This is what happens when silliness is not stopped immediately and you guys allow this caliber of editor loose with the impression s/he is right. I have warned him to focus on improving the article and I expect you to stop him from continued harassment to Good or to me now given it appears he now wants to follow me around. Geez, I hate Wikipedia when things like this develop. --^StormRider 19:27, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

• CORRECT guys. This does go too far. After detecting administrative abuse by Good Olfactory I reported the abuse here and added the page to my watchlist in case any further problems arise. As well as seeing more edit warring by Storm Rider and other editors, I see a shamelessly uncivil personal attack from Storm Rider himself on the talk page. I responded. Now we have more incivility and personal attacks from Storm Rider himself. I hate when edit warriors attack others and see something wrong when those they attack respond with requests for some basic decency. While the edit warring for several days on this one article is bad enough, the personal attacks from User:Storm Rider are utterly unneeded. Alansohn (talk) 21:34, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Your repeated usage of the term "abuse" is also bordering on a personal attack. You disagree with Good's actions? Okay. Not okay to repeatedly slam them as "abuse", "abusive" etc. That's not a civil way to categorise his actions. You'd probably get more positive responses if you got down off your high horse about this. Exxolon (talk) 22:46, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I have blocked for 31 hours the IP registered to the Academy which keeps adding advertising copy. It's difficult to determine if additional action is needed. —EncMstr (talk) 20:09, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comment from outside observer: It's not just blatant advertsising. In the last 24 hours they have reverted the page 9 times, each time re-adding [30] a blatant copy vio from here - Voceditenore (talk) 20:20, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Protection policy is rather clear in indicating that "Administrators should not protect or unprotect a page to further their own position in a content dispute." While the argument has been made that Good Olfactory may not be actively edit warring in the article at the moment, he was involved in depth in pushing one side of the argument in an edit war just ten weeks ago. At that time, Good Olfactory made more than 40 separate edits to the article on March 18 alone, edit warring back and forth, culminating with this edit in which he protected the article in direct violation of his clear conflict of interest, locking the article at his preferred version. If this article protection were Good Olfactory's only violation of WP:COI he might have a shred of an argument to wiggle out of administrative measures. What triggered this report here, and the urgent call for appropriate action to deal with this problem, is that this is the second time in the same article that Good Olfactory has refused to respect the need for separating his personal biases on this article from his administrative powers in this one article alone. Alansohn (talk) 16:47, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Yesterday, GO unprotected the article, and has stated he won't step in administratively further on it. Consensus would appear to show that he was stopping an edit war, nothing more. So, what "appropriate action" are you requesting? --Kbdank71 18:57, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

If his protection earlier this week were his first and only action in the article, there would be no issue. The protect he made in March is indefensible and even you have not addressed it let alone offered a rationalization to justify it. This is the second time he has inappropriately stepped in to protect this article, one in which he has been edit warring. That he undid his policy violation after being caught and brought to ANI does not undo the apparent conflict of interest violation. I would back any appropriate remedies by neutral admins to prevent further violations of Wikipedia:Protection policy on the part of Good Olfactory. Alansohn (talk) 20:48, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I honestly can't see a reason that you're still going on about this. How many people saying "this is not problematic" would you require to decide that perhaps you're over-reacting? It has been suggested and Good Olfactory has agreed that it can't hurt to have another admin take a look. If that's not enough, what exactly do you expect to be done here? At present your continuation of this affair is simply reflecting poorly on your ability to handle disputes. Shell ^babelfish 23:23, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

• Let's see if I understand. Gol'f semi-protected a page that was the subject of an edit war. Alansohh, with whom Gol'f has had repeated negative interactions just happens to stumble across the situation and, rather than simply ask Gol'f about it, his first step is to run to ANI to tell on Gol'f. When other editors and admins don't immediately flock to his side, Alansohn digs back several weeks into the edit history to find a questionable act by the same admin to complain about. Was Gol'f first semi-protect a mistake given his involvement? Yeah, I would say it was; he should have asked another admin to look at the situation. Was his second semi-protect a mistake given his past involvement? Maybe, maybe not, but again it probably would have been better for him to have another admin look at it. Does any aspect of this situation rise to the level of an abuse of power that requires intervention? Absolutely not. This complaint is without merit and constitutes an abject failure on Alansohn's part to assume good faith. Were I given to histrionics, I might even suggest that this complaint itself is an abuse of process that warrants administrative action, but instead I'll prescribe a troutslap and express my hope that this gets closed down post-haste. Otto4711 (talk) 22:00, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
  • That seems to be about the size of it. None of us are perfect, me included. I admit I have made mistakes in the past—we all have and a fishing expedition can be mounted for exposition of any editor or administrator's past errors. But on a positive note, in the older incident cited, I made an effort to quickly reverse the mistake and discuss my improper actions with those involved. In this case, I completely recused myself from the situation and lifted the page protection—not because I necessarily agreed with the complaint, but to avoid even the appearance of impropriety. (The page protection was quickly re-applied by another admin.) Those editors directly affected don't seem to have a lingering problem with me as the result of the months-old actions or this immediate one, so I think the real motivation of this ANI becomes more and more apparent. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:02, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Matt Giwer

Resolved

 – Indef blocked by EyeSerene. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:33, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Matt Giwer (talk · contribs) is known on Usenet as a kook and anti-Semite, this editor is trying here what he knows he can't get away with -- in Cyrus (Bible) his edit [31] says "Look folks this is such total bullshit I cannot imagine Wikipedia ever let it be posted. I realize this is not a proper edit and I invite the wrath of the wiki gods upon me for entering this. And they know who I am as I am logged in. I hope this will be eliminated as soon as I figure out how to start a discussion group with addresses all of the bible based religion nonsense" (since reverted of course). I'd appreciate it if other Admins stepped in so he doesn't just think it's me against him. I won't link to his website but it's easily found, as are comments about him on Nizkor.org. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 09:59, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Reverted as completely inappropriate. After reviewing his recent edits, I'm tempted toward a block of undetermined length since he's obviously not performing any constructive edits. Thoughts? — Huntster (t • @ • c) 10:06, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes reverting was the right thing to do, I have to say I am not sure that this anti-Semite claim is appropriate considering the circumstances, after all we are supposed to assume good faith WP:AGF and such here on wikipedia and then there is this no personal attacks thingy WP:NPA so lets just try to be polite here and work in the spirit of wikipedia and such. I took a quick look at this guys edit history 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 and while these don't seem to be the most productive edits made to wikipedia they don't seem to be bad faith edits either, you speak of performing a block of undetermined length on this user and I have to say that I would disapprove of such action at this point since I do believe that every user should be given the opportunity to become a positive contributor to wikipedia. Also an indefinite block at this time would sorta have the feel of admin abuse of power so please lets just handle this in a calm and clear headed way.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 11:36, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh yes I also informed this user of the ANI discussion taking place regarding him here, lets see if we'll get to hear what he has to say about these matters.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 11:37, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I meant to do that but real life today has been hectic, constant interruptions. Having seen his posts for 15 years (according to his edit on my talk page that's how long he's been at it), GF, etc. give way to experience I'm afraid. Googling on his name might give some context to my comments and show his website, etc so others can see where I am coming from, as they say. Dougweller (talk) 11:56, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Considering that vandalism-only accounts are routinely indef blocked, I don't see how it could be construed as abuse of power. Personally, I see these edits as intentional disruption, but as I rarely perform blocks, I prefer uninvolved persons to voice opinions. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 12:05, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Is this your everyday vandalism? It's not like all this user is doing is blanking pages and performing pranks here. I must say that I actually do believe that I am "beating a dead horse" here in a way since I don't really believe that this will end in any other way than a rightful indefinite block but I don't think that this is the time for such a block to be made and I do think that we should give this editor every opportunity to change his behavior before such a block comes along.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 12:16, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

And keep on cleaning up after edits such as this? He's pathological. Has been obsessed with his antisemitic ideas for a long time, without any indications of getting better. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 15:07, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

As I said in a long form post which did not appear here, I have mostly explained why there are no references as noted in the top header. There is no possible references but the bible. Nothing of interest found in the bible appears in real history or in archaeology in Israel.

The first appearance of the OT stories is in the Septuagint. Nothing older is in evidence. The Jews first appear in history in Roman times. This is also a fact.

As most of my edits have been little more than pointing out those facts, why is there a problem?

Now if these articles are to be simply bible study recitations fine with me. I suggest they should say so. But they do not. AND the top header says they do not because they have no references.

As it stands the OT is no different from the Book of Mormon as it discusses fanciful events which are without the least historical or archaeological evidence.

Why do people have a problem with that being identified as the reason there are no references? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matt Giwer (talk • contribs) 12:42, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

• In the face of the diffs, edit history, and the above comment, I don't think that we need to extend good faith to the point of absurdity with an obvious POV SPA. I've indefblocked the account (review welcome as always). EyeSerene^talk 13:26, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Endorse indefinite block. (Full disclosure: I remember him from Usenet, a hundred or so moons ago, when grass was greener, men were real men, and the best of the trolls could take on an Arcturan Mega-Donkey -- and lose with full dignity and honour.) Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 15:01, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse permaban edits like this constitute vandalism in addition to shameless POV pushing. --Miacek (t) 15:35, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

The editor in question has a point, though. The article generally discusses biblical references to events without endorsing their accuracy. But "the Mosaic era" is referenced as if a known historical era, like the reign of Ramses II. It's an open question as to whether Moses existed or was an allegorical figure; scholars disagree on this. Writing about "the Mosaic era" is "in-universe writing" in Wikipedia terms, and we generally discourage that. A bit of rewording there would solve the problem. It just needs a lighter touch than the editor in question is applying. --John Nagle (talk) 17:50, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

That's an argument to fix the article, not an argument to keep Giwer around. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:20, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. Even the most provocative of POV pusher would struggle to come up with something as lopsided as that particular edit. It looks designed to provoke to me, and I find it hard to AGF given the other edits and comments from users in good standing. --Dweller (talk) 22:01, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

EyeSerene just indef blocked him. I Support this action, and am marking this resolved. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:33, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Long-time editor suddenly vandalizing

Resolved

 – Indef blocked. — Aitias // discussion 00:11, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

R.I.P. Makaveli (talk · contribs) has been here for over a year, all of a sudden he's making vandalistic edits. The fact that he knows enough to fix the mistake I made on his Talk page and that he knows how to Undo shows that this doesn't appear to be a compromised account. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 23:48, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, for the time being I have blocked him for being a possible compromised account. Tiptoety ^talk 23:50, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Given that the user in question has vandalised back in 2008 I don't believe this account is compromised. Though, as they received a final warning back then, I support a block — nevertheless, the reason for the block should be changed. — Aitias // discussion 23:59, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

That is fine. I had not really looked that far back yet. Do as you wish with the block summary. Tiptoety ^talk 00:03, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay then,  Done. — Aitias // discussion 00:11, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

tampering with other peoples words

Resolved

 – No admin action necessary, and TruHeir has withdrawn his concern. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 00:48, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

• Catiline63 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

There was a dispute between myself and this editor about an image. I requested for validation on the image and for admins to comment on it. Then this editor goes and change my words in the request I submitted, I reverted it back but I am appauld that this editor can just go on the noticeboard and switch up what I have written and signed. Something needs to be done about this sort of behavior.

http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/History_and_geography&diff=295442005&oldid=295388639 TruHeir (talk) 00:31, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

The change has been reverted and Catiline63 got a warning, I don't believe any other action needs to be taken. If the editor continues to alter comments that's another issue, but for just this one edit the revert and talkpage notice is plenty; Catiline63 will probably not do it again. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 00:34, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

IP Block Request.

Resolved

 – In the future, please use WP:AIV to report vandalism. — Aitias // discussion 01:31, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

User:199.185.67.200 has recently had an IP block lifted up, and is back to vandalism, including clearing pages, and inserting irrelevant, and unnecessary comments into articles. All of these have been reverted, and the user has been warned. This is a school IP address, and many students vandalize. An IP block would be smart to help rid this problem. Thank you. Connormah (talk) 01:25, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Insufficient recent activity to warrant a block. — Aitias // discussion 01:29, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

That sorta message would be appropriate at WP:AIV, but anyways. Before I saw it I blocked the IP for one day. Cirt (talk) 01:31, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Banned user Hayden5650 re-editing

Resolved

 – Hayden4258 (talk · contribs) blocked indef. -download ׀ sign! 04:13, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I suspect that Hayden4258 (talk · contribs) might be the same as Hayden5650 (talk · contribs) based on the similarity of name, apparently coming from the same country, and some similarity of editing patterns, such as the interest in articles on human races. Since 5650 was banned in 2007, I don't believe a checkuser will be useful. Hayden5650 engaged in extensive sockpuppeting.-gadfium 04:17, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I come from New Zealand. Don't know how I can prove it. --Hayden4258 (talk) 04:21, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I am aware that you are from New Zealand. So was 5650, or at least he was interested in New Zealand articles. See for example his edits of late July 2007 to Rotorua Boys' High School, Jonah Lomu and David Bain.-gadfium 04:30, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Without any judgment on whether or not the 4258 version should be blocked, a comprehensive look through both user's contribs pretty much quacks. I'd bet a paycheck these accounts are the same user. Tan | 39 04:43, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I have blocked Hayden4258, between the editing behavior, the nick & the IP range - there was far too much duck like activity. --Versageek 04:45, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks.-gadfium 05:48, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

User Gillea2k8 - Moved talk pages into main space

Gillea2k8 (talk · contribs) has moved a couple of user talk pages into article space. See here and here.

Can somebody put these pages back where they belong? William Avery (talk) 09:33, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

This edit could possibly require oversight as well. -download ׀ sign! 04:25, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Again, needing an uninvolved Administrator

Resolved

Recent activities make me very wary about dealing with something where I've even put a reference. Eye2Eye35 (talk · contribs), also editing from their IP address (they signed it once, as well as Quack test) as 125.196.5.232 (talk · contribs) has been repeatedly deleting text from Talk:Jabal al-Lawz - thankfully I haven't been the only one putting it back. Also, in the article itself, the editor has been changing referenced text from 'almonds', which is what the reference says, to 'laws'. Dougweller (talk) 11:48, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll help you keep an eye on that nut case. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 11:57, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

User(s) blocked.. The only contributions by the account were vandalism and they continued even after their final warning. Clear-cut case imho. Regards SoWhy 12:15, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Kudos. The IP is only blocked for 24 hours, but the behavior pattern is obvious enough to ring a bell the next time. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 12:29, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. It was clear cut, but as I said, I'd edited the article, so I didn't want to do the block. Dougweller (talk) 12:50, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

The simple approach is to report the vandal(s) to WP:AIV. That nearly always produces good and quick results in a clear-cut case such as this one. I have taken the liberty of marking this as "resolved". It it comes back, take it straight to AIV. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 12:55, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Methinks that one takes original research to a whole new level, so to speak. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:53, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

It would certainly be etymologically interesting if the Arabic word transliterated as "lawz" turned out to be from the same root as "laws". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 12:55, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Law is Anglo Saxon (very old) by way of northern Europe. French loi strikes me as an oddly old cognate. Any link these may have with Latin lex (English legal) seems hazy at most, some of these root words do link up way back with ancient Sanskrit. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:11, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Not here though, I think: اللوز means almond and the transliteration to lawz is not all that meaningful or even wonted. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:23, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

The user is trying to make some karmic connection between Mount of "Laws" and the Ten Commandments. He's basically trying to impose a religious viewpoint of some kind. Hence his attempts to switch BCE to BC, and CD to AD. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 15:47, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

In New England liars is pronounced rather closely to laws (cue spooky music and FX, fade to black). Gwen Gale (talk) 15:55, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

No, in New England liars and lawyers are pronounced the roughly the same, that is "LIE-yuz". Laws is pronounced like "lahz". --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:14, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

clone of Portal:Buddhism legal or not?

fyi i found the portal Portal:Buddhism (including edit button) here surrounded with ads and including a paypal donation button (though it seems unclear whom the donation will go to), but without the wikipedia logo and navigation bar on the left, using a php script called wikipedia reflection script. but since ianal can anyone help: is this particular case in accordance with the law and fully compliant with the GFDL requirements, it makes me wonder? oscar (talk) 09:27, 9 June 2009 (UTC) originally posted at [32]

It's legal to reproduce Wikipedia content elsewhere, although that particular site may be a live mirror. Stifle (talk) 09:35, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

meaning it's (il)legal? oscar (talk) 09:57, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

If it's a live mirror, it should be reported to m:live mirrors. It probably isn't illegal, but the WMF doesn't like it. Stifle (talk) 11:30, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

What does that mean, in practical terms? If it "isn't illegal but the WMF doesn't like it", can WMF do anything? LadyofShalott 16:25, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Content is GFDL, so the copy is perfectly legal. The issue with the live mirror is separate. It means they aren't hosting their own copy of the articles, but instead using the live wikipedia page where our servers get hit for the pageloads on their site. Thats against our terms of use, but not a copyright issue. We just politely ask for them to host a local copy (they can have it autoupdate once a day or the like to keep it current) and if they don't, we can fiddle around with technical stuff to make it harder for them to use the live page. --M^ask? 18:19, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the input folks. :) Cirt (talk) 22:55, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

• now reported to meta. thx for the feedback! oscar (talk) 11:34, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

"Fred Bauder" vandal

There's a vandal that has been attacking Fred Bauder, typically by replacing pages with defamatory text. This fellow appears to hit pages at random. Unfortunately, it's past midnight where I live, and I have to go to bed soon, so I can't really keep up with this person.

Any help would be appreciated. Thanks. --Ixfd64 (talk) 07:11, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

This vandal seems to have stopped, but some extra RC patrolling probably wouldn't hurt. --Ixfd64 (talk) 07:16, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Saw him/her earlier, you got there first, but I'm on it :) - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 07:20, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Still at it, using 75.23.228.92 - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 07:24, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Reporting straight to AIV now, they seem to be getting blocked there. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 07:36, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

So far about 10 blocked, can't you do some fancy range block thingy? Or are they not in the same range? - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 07:57, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Fancy range blocks are not a thing I can do or even really understand, but the various IPs doing this seem to be all over the place so I don't think a range block would work. If it continues just keep reporting at AIV for now. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 08:12, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Yup, thought they seemed a bit to different. Ixfd64 is back on again now, and good work by the admins at AIV, so we should be able to manage - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 08:17, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

This is forum vandalism. One numbnuts posts a message telling others to copy, paste, and save, and a bunch of other numbnuts do it. A range block won't help, but this might be a job for the abuse filter, if anyone knows how to work that crazy contraption (I don't). --Bongwarrior (talk) 08:19, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Done. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 08:31, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

If there is a discernible pattern, then a filter could be written if it continues. Fred seems to be a low-key kind of guy who probably isn't bothered by such childish behavior. Meanwhile, vandalizing a checkuser is probably not the wisest approach, but your typical "numbnut" is not known for wisdom. I was wondering if it's really a bunch of characters from different countries, or could it be just one guy using an open proxy? I don't know much about open proxies, but maybe someone who does, could answer? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 08:43, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Filter is already done, about 60 hits (not all the hits are this Fred Bauder stuff, but a few from the ones I looked at) - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 08:52, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Darkfrog24: Tendentious contravention of MoS

Tell me again how vitally important the issue of comma placement is.

Resolved

 – Darkfrog24 said he'll stop.

Darkfrog24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user has been deliberately converting correctly-styled material to incorrect style. The matter has already been discussed here, where there is a brief history and a samping of pertinent diffs. The user erroneously claimed that his position was backed by MoS protocol, but refused to elaborate to any degree. Since that discussion, he has continued to make the same kind of changes. Ilkali (talk) 00:32, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi, everyone. In this case, Ilkali and I are both talking about the placement of periods and commas with regard to adjacent quotation marks. I found a few articles that already used the American style of punctuation (in which periods and commas are placed inside the quote marks) and I moved a few strays commas and periods, usually while making other edits anyway. I do not go around randomly changing styles in willy-nilly. It is my understanding that Wikipedia promotes internal consistency within articles and that there is a policy or at least a tradition of, "When in doubt, follow the original editor's lead."

I have never made secret of the fact that I would support a change in Wikipedia's punctuation policy to permit American punctuation where appropriate, as we do with American vs. British spelling. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:39, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

As I covered in the MoS talk page, there is nothing in any policy or guideline that sanctions changing to an explicitly dispreferred style. Internal consistency is applied in situations where multiple contrasting styles are permitted. It is not there to justify changing from correct to incorrect style. Ilkali (talk) 14:44, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Looking forward from the diff you supply above, I find that I agree with each of his edits. There may be earlier examples that demonstate your point better, but those definitely weren't problematic changes.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:56, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

To be clear: The issue is changing from logical quotation (which is prescribed by the MoS) to typesetters' quotation (which is proscribed by the MoS). The diffs in question sometimes contain other changes that might obscure that point. Can we agree that tendentious editing against the MoS is problematic? Ilkali (talk) 15:04, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok, now I see the edit you mean. I agree that moving the comma into the quoted name of an encyclopedia article was against the MOS -- I just lost it among all the good changes in that diff and the later ones.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:29, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's probably not the best diff to illustrate the problem - it's just the only one since the issue was brought up on MoS talk. I had hoped that that discussion would realign the user's editing habits, and I include the recent diff as proof that it has not. Ilkali (talk) 16:59, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

More evidence. Here are the diffs from the MOS talk page: [33], [34], [35], [36]

As background, in mid-May, User:Mchavez and User:Darkfrog24 proposed on MOS Talk to change MOS's very long-standing guideline that requires the so-called logical quotation style, which prohibits placing punctuaion in a direct quotation unless that punctuation is in the quoted text (most style guides, especially in the US, prescribe placing commas and periods before rather than after a closing quotation mark, even if it is not part of the quoted text, based on typographical considerations). Although a very substantial majority of editors opposed this on the Talk page, Mchavez and Darkfrog24 made edits to the MOS guideline against consensus. Admin User:Rootology has full protected the MOS page twice over their edit warring on this point (Darkfrog24 insists that he did not engage in edit warring, although Rootology put an edit war warning on Darkfrog24's talk page; Mchavez insists the the edit warriors are the ones who revert his and Darkfrog24's counter-consensus changes to the MOS). Darkfrog24 and Mchavez have argued this issue at length under several headings on MOS Talk, but without support from other editors. Mchavez has not been active for the past few days. Darkfrog24 continues to argue, argue, and argue, but finally conceded that there is no consensus for his proposals [37].

Now, Darkfrog24 has evidently decided that having failed in his attempt to change the MOS, he will edit articles to his preferred punctuation style, against the MOS guideline. His pretext is the guideline to follow the style of the original author "when in doubt". But there is no doubt here because the MOS guideline is, and always has been, clear. This is not merely wikilawyering, but bad wikilawyering (wikilawyering malpractice?). The illogic of Darkfrog24's argument was made clear at MOS Talk, but he repeats it here.

This user's deliberate flouting of the MOS in article space to make a point and his disruptive conduct at WP:MOS both warrant some corrective action. Finell (Talk) 17:47, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

This is not the case. I am not working with MChavez. Your discussion with MChavez was already going on when I arrived at the MoS page in late May. There's no conspiracy. I was not involved in the second edit war. Yes, I made one reversion during that time, but it had nothing to do with the issue about which the war was conducted. Duke of Waltham had reversed some changes I'd made--and for which I'd gotten approval on the talk page--and I put them back. I found out later that my "undo" had also restored some of MChavez's things, but I didn't notice this at the time.

I'm not making changes to prove a point. If I were trying to pull a WP: Point, then I'd have deleted existing explanation and waited for the talk page to be inundated by confused editors, not proposed that more explnanation be added. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:29, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

As for "denying the logic of your arguments," and engaging in disruptive conduct, I simply don't agree with you. We haven't come to the same conclusion about whether the MoS is clear or not in its current form. That's not a bannable offense. Asking questions and taking part in debate on a talk page even when other people don't agree isn't disruptive conduct; it's Wikipedia.

The issue at hand is whether or not it is okay to take an article that already uses American punctuation and change the stray periods and commas so that they match the article's prevailing style, making the article internally consistent. And just to be clear, I've been doing it for years. It has nothing to do with you, Ilkali, MChavez, or any of our discussions on the MoS talk page. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:29, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm "involved", so I wouldn't take any admin action here, but I want to opine that Darkfrog24 is deliberately editing against the MoS guideline after he failed to get his changes pushed through. He has been asked to stop, as noted above, and he continues to do so under the guise of "making the article consistent", even if it's consistently wrong, apparently. I consider this a form of disruption since he knows what he is doing and he knows it's against consensus. This needs to stop. The damage is far more subtle than overt vandalism, but it also takes more work and expertise to clean up. --Laser brain (talk) 19:39, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Then the question is what's more important, American vs. British vs. technical or internal consistency. And I don't recall that anyone here actually asked me to stop. There were plenty of attacks, but no requests. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:50, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Please stop making punctuation changes against the MOS. Thanks.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:52, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I take it you interpret this to be against MoS, then? Oh well. Okay. Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:06, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Darkfrog24, please stop with the games! You know perfectly well that the MOS is agaisnt you; that's why you tried to change it. The MOS guideline is clear, and others at MOS Talk told you that your article edits were against MOS. When you persisted, you were brought here. So of course Laser brain and SarekOfVulcan interpret the MOS as against you, just as everyone else has. When you were unable to change the guideline, you went out and made POINTy edits in at least 5 articles that you had no prior involvement in to move punctuation and quotation marks based on what you personally think the guideline should be, but isn't (you also made a few good edits on some of those pages while you were there). Six hours ago you acknowledged that the MOS has been interpreted against your edits, and you said, "Oh well. Okay." But you still haven't fixed the article edits that you made against the MOS. Please go back and re-wikify the punctuation that you unwikified. Also, no one said that you and Mchavez were in conspiracy, only that you two have been advocating and editing MOS against consensus for the same position. Finell (Talk) 02:22, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Finell, I'm not playing games. As I've repeatedly tried to explain to you, I'm perfectly serious about improving the Wikipedia user experience. We just don't agree about the best way to accomplish that. We have an honest difference of opinion about how the MoS should be interpreted with regard to articles that already use American punctuation--and now a neutral third party has given us his. I'm not sneaking around, subverting the system or trying to annoy you personally. Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:41, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Comma placement is important because even though most people don't know all the ins and outs of proper punctuation, they still notice the overall effect. A person who reads a sloppily punctuated document will get a general impression that it is low-quality or amateurish even if they cannot pinpoint exactly why they feel this way.

Comma placement is an issue on Wikipedia because Wikipedia's official MoS expresses a preference for what's called logical style, which differs significantly from both standard American and standard British punctuation, though many American Wikipedians have mistaken it for British. Every few months, someone shows up on the MoS talk page asking, "Why are we using British punctuation?" or "Um, guys? Why is the MoS wrong?" Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:41, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Kingturtle and addresses

Resolved

 – Disputed edits undone and discussion in progress.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:29, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Kingturtle decided that school addresses were not encyclopedic, so he's deleting as many as he can find -- despite the address field in {{Infobox school}} and his not having discussed it there at any point. In the middle of the run, he changed WP:NOT to support his changes. When I challenged him, he stated that he had posted to talk pages with no response -- but Infobox school wasn't one of those places. He has continued the removal run despite my challenge without further discussion.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:54, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

(ecx3)Correction -- he only did one more, then responded again.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:59, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Run continuing -- unstruck comment above.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:01, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I support the removal. This is not a directory. In fact, he could probably do it more quickly by just modifying the template to ignore the address parameter, right? Wknight94 ^talk 18:58, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Old WP:NOT phrasing: Directories, directory entries, electronic program guide, or a resource for conducting business. For example, an article on a radio station generally should not list upcoming events, current promotions, phone numbers, current schedules, et cetera, although mention of major events, promotions or historically significant programme lists and schedules (such as the annual United States network television schedules) may be acceptable. Furthermore, the Talk pages associated with an article are for talking about the article, not for conducting the business of the topic of the article. Wikipedia is not the yellow pages.

Kingturtle's new phrasing: The White or Yellow Pages. Street addresses of stores, schools, fire departments, parlors, etc. are not encyclopedic, unless the building or lot has particular historic significance (such as 10 Downing Street, Raffles Hotel or Palacio Barolo). Contact information (such as phone numbers, fax numbers and email addresses) is (almost) never encyclopedic.

Changing WP:NOT to support the edits you want to make worries me.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:05, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem with his change. BTW, I also support the removal of the names of all the faculty and principal, etc. Who really thinks that an encyclopedia would contain such name-dropping trivia? Wknight94 ^talk 19:37, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

"Principles" and faculty, particularly "principles", can be notable. Many headmasters of say, Eton, are notable people before they become headmasters. Noting who the head is can sometimes be useful. Ironholds (talk) 19:46, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I think that King has a point in that addresses aren't really important and may run afoul of WP:DIRECTORY, but changing the wording yourself is presumptuous. Mayhaps King can start a thread on the talkpage to garner support or opposition to the change. Otherwise such radical rewording should be reverted. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 19:50, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

• Policies and guidelines are generally descriptive rather than prescriptive. The change that Kingturtle seems consistent with the usual standards at Wikipedia. However that discussion belongs on the relevant talk page.   Will Beback  talk  19:56, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Correct, but when I posted here, he was still actively removing addresses, and I have no reason to think he won't resume later, as he hasn't added to any discussions since I brought it up here.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:58, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Discussion started at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not#School street addresses.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:29, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

My "run" was not {{Infobox school}}-specific, nor was it directed specifically at street addresses. My main target yesterday was fax numbers. My article selection was based on results from a search of "fax number." While I was removing phone numbers and fax numbers from articles, I decided to also remove email addresses and street addresses. I did not think street addresses would be a big deal because I broached the issue last year at Infobox_University and Infobox_Restaurant with nary a response, and at Infobox Education in Canada with a single response (which was supportive). I see from yesterday's thread Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not#School street addresses that there is sufficient support to keep street addresses. I will go back and re-add the street addresses I removed yesterday.

I did not change WP:NOT to support my changes; I merged existing parts of two separate WP:NOTs into one and provided particular details. My edits have since been ironed out by other editors - and I think it looks pretty good now.

I do apologize for the street address removal. It was not meant to be malicious, and I will fix the edits later today. Sincerely, Kingturtle (talk) 08:00, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I have now re-added all the street addresses that I removed from school articles. Kingturtle (talk) 13:27, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I apologize for any lack of WP:AGF you may see in my statement that you were changing WP:NOT to support your changes -- at the time, it seemed the clearest way to describe what I saw as the problem. Thanks for the cleanup! --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:54, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I completely understand how you saw it. Thank you for dealing with it tactfully and allowing me to explain myself, allowing a discussion to take place, and allowing me to adjust my edits. Cheers, Kingturtle (talk) 13:59, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Would it make sense to somehow modify the coordinates that appear in the upper right corner to also include the address? It seems like the same sort of metadata. --NE2 15:34, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I think "No", but you could go over to the {{coord}} or {{Infobox School}} talkpages and ask the people who have been working on it for a while... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:00, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Wuhwuzdat

Resolved

 – Biaswarrior blocked as a sockpuppet. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:56, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Wuhwuzdat is reverting all my prod removals. Can someone inform him anyone is allowed to remove prods if they want? -- Biaswarrior (talk) 19:12, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Can somebody please notify Biaswarrior that his war isn't welcome here, as Wikipedia is NOT a battleground? Wuhwuzdat (talk) 19:15, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Being an inclusionist isn't a battleground. If you don't like it, list all the articles for AFD. After following WP:BEFORE, of course. -- Biaswarrior (talk) 19:17, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Same problem with User:Jimbo online. You shouldn't get to list articles for proposed deletion and then edit war anyone who disagrees. -- Biaswarrior (talk) 19:21, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't see what admin action is required here, but FWIW, I do agree that WP:BEFORE only applies to AfD'd articles and not prodded articles. However, WP:CONTESTED would appear to side with Biaswarrior, particularly the phrase "If the edit is not obviously vandalism, do not restore the [prod] tag, even if the tag was apparently removed in bad faith." KuyaBriBri^Talk 19:24, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Amusing that biaswarrior has brought themselves here before anyone else could. Clear single purpose account, probably a sock judging by their acquaintance (if you can call it that) with procedures. Would an admin please have a look at the rest of their contributions in the half hour they have been here. Quantpole (talk) 19:27, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I smell a sock of User:Biasprotector. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:28, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Biaswarrior: read the messages above. Wikipedia isn't a battleground nor is it a place for you to disrupt to make a point. Looking over your contributions it looks like that's what you are here to do and if you continue to do so you will be blocked. Also Biaswarrior's edits so far indicate he's probably a sock of somebody. ThemFromSpace 19:29, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

(after ec) A brand new account called "biaswarrior". Hmm... First edit was to create userpage saying he was an ARS member. Second edit was to jump into some kind of policy debate at the ARS talk page arguing that "we should require that people listen to WP:BEFORE before listing articles at AFD."[38]. He then goes on his de-prodding spree/keep voting at AFD's including an argument of "Failure to follow WP:BEFORE should be considered a violation of WP:CIVIL and against WP:CONSENSUS. A discussion among the people who happen to come here is inadequate. Use the talk page and give it an adequate period of time before deletion"[39] in favor of retaining this article, whose text i will repeat in its entirety: A figure of speech by which the last word of one sentence becomes the first word of the next. For example: "We don't like idiots. Idiots are useless."It is more usually called anadiplosis." To be blunt, Biaswarrior (talk · contribs) is either a sockpuppet of a banned user, or a sockpuppet of a user in good standing who wants to grind their particular axe without the attendant scrutiny that comes with it, and we should not tolerate this kind of nonesense for long.Bali ultimate (talk) 19:34, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

To Biaswarrior (talk · contribs), I note that you have been removing PROD's and !voting "Keep" at AfD's at a rate of several per minute. This suggests to me that you have not looked at the rationale for either the PROD or the AfD and are making WP:POINTy edits in referring to WP:BEFORE - this is disruptive. If you do not cease you are liable to be blocked for the disruption to the encyclopedia. For the sake of clarity, this is an official level3 warning - continue and you will be blocked from editing the encyclopedia. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:36, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

If it helps, this is clearly Hilary T again. Uncle G (talk) 17:53, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Unable to let go of a deleted article

Resolved

 – Article deleted and protected while draft is worked on in userspace; discussion is ongoing there but no further need for intervention here. Shereth 17:28, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

• Cdogsimmons (talk · contribs)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Estonia–Luxembourg relations
• Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 May 20
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Estonia–Luxembourg relations (2nd nomination)

Admin intervention requested to delete this page and probably salt it, given the refusal of some to accept the results found at the links above. 1st AfD was closed as a keep by an involved admin...a decision that was overturned at DRV. Admin then went to another admin with GFDL concerns (which seem to have been alleviated after discussion here, who restored the page as a sort-of disambig/redirect hybrid. This was deleted via the 2nd AfD, but now we have yet another recreation by one of the more ardent "keep" proponents in thew above discussions. Tarc (talk) 21:47, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

It seems very clear to me upon reading the pair of AfD discussions and the DRV discussion that the recreation of any version of this was a bad idea. I have temporarily protected the page against recreation; if User:Cdogsimmons (or any other user) believes a new version can be made, substantially different from either version discussed at AfD, I suggest they demonstrate it in user space and engage in some discussion before jumping the gun and plopping a recreation into mainspace. Shereth 22:00, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Is it the same version or a totally new one? If it is a totally new version, then okay, but if not, then the attribution history would need to be public, or alternatively, a userfied version could be placed in the editor's userspace for now. In any event, it is getting out of hand that we keep having discussions over the same articles. Docu's keep closure probably should not have been followed by a DRV. We would have been better off just letting things be, but we are see a disturbing trend of both 'sides' of these bilateral relations disputes trying again and again with the same articles. Consider this disruptive and pointed renomination for an article closed a mere month ago by a neutral admin as a fairly unambiguous "keep." Can editors move on? In Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chile–Estonia relations, we had a clear "keep" close by as far as I can tell a fair admin and yet, two months later we have Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chile–Estonia relations (2nd nomination), just as happened after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cyprus–Pakistan relations. These renominations are turning AfD into a WP:BATTLEGROUND and we are seeing more and more hyperbole, frustration, etc. in these deletion discussions that is taking us right to an RfC or ArbCom. We are already at a point, where it needs to be a blockable offense to renominate one that closed as keep a mere month or two later, because editors are getting annoyed having to repeat the same discussions and it is plainly disruptive and a drain on our time and server's to have to do so. As I said elsewhere, are we here to build an encyclopedia or play games? Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 22:02, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

By the way, should I have been notified of this discussion? (I wasn't).--Cdogsimmons (talk) 22:20, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

This action is very disturbing and needs to be addressed. I think it speaks for itself as deliberately disruptive. Drawn Some (talk) 22:22, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

If so, then your renomination of an article previously closed as keep a mere month ago also should be addressed as deliberately disruptive. These renominations et al need to stop already, period, that goes for all of us as clearly the discussions in them are only escalating things. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 22:24, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

You most certainly should have been notified, yes. Shereth 22:23, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I provided notification on the article's talk page, which I judged to be a clearer and more visible place for the note than on individual's own talk pages. Tarc (talk) 01:10, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

• The original article closed as Keep. Some didn't like that, and piled on the votes at deletion review, and got it overturned. The article was then replaced with something totally useless, a stub that just links to two other pages, with reverts made to any who tried to change it back. And this useless link stub went to AFD. The page was locked in that useless link stub mode. New people joining the discussion said "delete" based on what was there now, not what was there originally. There should've been an AFD for the original page over again, if there was a reason to undo what the closing editor said. And the page that criticized the closing editor was closed the same day they brought it up, preventing there from being any real discussions [40], and they decided he shouldn't close these articles again, since he twiced said Keep instead of deleting articles they didn't like. Dream Focus 22:39, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

• Er, no. The original article's closure was fraudulent, and that admin is now barred from closing AfDs in the subject area. Characterizing this as a mob rules DRV to overturn a fair AfD result is rather disingenuous. Tarc (talk) 13:13, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Socks

• Bambooowns24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Mapleowns23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I have a few sockpuppets- Bambooowns24 and Mapleowns23 are the same guy- I'm sure. Please do something, it seems that they are creating accounts with similar names. Andrewrp^Tally-ho! 14:32, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Normally requests for help with sock puppets are filed at WP:SPI. Perhaps an experienced user here will step in and help you. I will take a quick look to see if these qualify as obvious socks. (Links at top added by me.) Jehochman ^Talk 14:38, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

They appear to be the same, and J.delanoy has blocked at least one of them. What about Cesarqed (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Bob250 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)? Perhaps a checkuser could help us gather all the related accounts. Would somebody please move or copy this thread to SPI and format it properly? Jehochman ^Talk 14:42, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Done, moved to here Andrewrp^Tally-ho! 14:52, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Bamboo = Bambi? MuZemike 16:28, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

? No, I did not make a mistake typing the username, it is bamboo, as in the plant, NOT bambi, as in the deer in the disney movie. Andrewrp^Tally-ho! 16:58, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking of the Bambifan vandal, but from looking at the contribs there doesn't seem to be a connection. MuZemike 17:02, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

COI issues at ODF being discussed in other media

COI problems at ODF are being discussed on Slashdot[41] and Groklaw [42]. See Talk:ODF#Groklawed and slashdotted!. Groklaw (which has a good reputation) argues that Microsoft is behind some edits intended to make ODF look inferior to their OOXML product. This needs more eyes on it. --John Nagle (talk) 16:10, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Pokista02

• Pokista02 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User:Pokista02 has been quite disruptive in the articles the user edits. For example, in Michelle Williams (singer), this user continuously uploads non-free images to BLPs where replaceable free image exists or can be created, adds images with no license tags, adds non-free images to biographies of living persons and adds unsourced content ([43], [44], [45]), despite being reverted—and that's just in one article. This user has a history of this disruptive editing, even after receiving multiple warnings and even a 72 hour block. User:Pokista02 has yet to change their behavior and is only making it hard to keep articles in good condition with their type of editing pattern, even if it is done in good faith. — Σxplicit 16:31, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Blocked for two weeks. Next block could be indef. Cirt (talk) 16:39, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Cirt, you're too fast for your own good. Thank you. — Σxplicit 16:47, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. Cirt (talk) 16:49, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Concerns regarding removal of info on Sathya Sai Baba

Sathya Sai Baba is a very controversial topic in India. Here, the media remains largely silent about it. All coverage of the individual in reputable western media has been strongly critical. In Sai Baba related pages on wikipedia we are facing some major issues, which I attempt to outline below.

• Continual blanking of critical and well sourced information by IPs, newly registered editors and people who apparently consider sai baba their god ( which can be evidenced by several comments to the effect on the article's talk). This blanking happens completely in violation of wikipedia policies. Some of the recent edit comments include: "I know that the changes I made where right"[46], "I add \ed thta because I know what to do"[47], "I changed it because this is offensive to a lot of people, and it isn't even true"[48], "My dad was in Puttaparthi his whole life and this never happened"[49]- just to point out a few. It is quite difficult, if not completely impossible, to engage in rational arguments with people making changes with "rationale" like these.
• Section blanking, deletion of clips revealing cheating in purported miracles( which can be seen in this version: [50])- the article is continually subject to such attacks. And the way the people who want the info out work make it impossible to fix these without getting quickly reverted and attacked.
• "Info", self-advertisement by any standard, sourced directly to the controversial sai baba organization cover entire sections now. All this material is completely in violation of WP:RS.
• Slander and attack against neutral editors. Almost 100% of info from respectable sources on this person is critical in nature - be it The BBC, The Guardian, The Times or The DTV. Editors adding well sourced material are targeted by and slandered by the Sai Baba group on their websites and blogs. Which makes many editors scared to contribute to the article and just stay away from it.[51]. Even people like Robert Priddy have had their character assassinated by the group's lies and propaganda. I had personally used an alternate account, of which I had informed the arbcom, to edit the article. Mainly because it is an extremely controversial topic in India and there have been attempts at life on many critics including elderly people[52]. People related to the sai baba organization had an SPI slyly raised against me to ascertain my identity. The admin, initially confused my alternate account for a sock and ended up revealing my details. Later investigations revealed that my alternate account was just a legitimate alternate account and was never used in an abusive manner - and thus my account was unblocked. I was further attacked by editors who wanted me not contributing to the namespace - which led to me deciding to stop contributing to the article. Recently I was taken aback by how all well sourced information was being removed and replaced with self-sourced praise and attempted to point out the issue on talk and fix it - with little effect. Even if I try to re-add the well sourced info - it would just be quickly blanked again. Further attempts could only result in an unconstructive edit-war, which, obviously, I want to avoid by all means.

Dilip rajeev (talk) 09:49, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, this has happened before, see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sathya Sai Baba 2 among other pages. I'm not sure ANI is going to be able to help you much, although if you tell us what you want us to do, we might be able to help. Otherwise, WP:DR is where you need to be. Stifle (talk) 10:42, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I dont see any straight forward solution to the problem. If this fails, I'll try WP:DR. I had attempted to restore the June 2nd version of the article - where the images were intact and there was little much less self sourced material. Perhaps, I'll make another attempt to restore the content. Most of the recent onslaught has been by User:Awesome108 ( whose edit summaries I point out above) and User:Sbs108. It might help to inform these editors that wikipedia is an encyclopaedia and the article's content must be based on Reliable Sources. And also that primary sources should be used sparingly - especially when the primary source is considered very controversial nature.

Dilip rajeev (talk) 13:44, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:AE might be able to help, insomuch as your enforcement requests fall into the previous arbitration cases. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 15:20, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Explanations:

• User:Dilip Rajeev using the pseudo account User:White_Adept - now an inactivated account added several unreliable sources and banned material to the Sathya Sai Baba article and made it an NPOV nightmare. He was warned not to add questionable sources in the earlier arbitration enforcement case here - [53]. This edit effort by other editors is part of the improvement effort to clean up the mess in the article left by User:Dilip Rajeev. He had also removed several reliably sourced positive information from the article with out explanation. Inspite of the above warning he created another sub-article adding the same material banned by Second Arbitration commitee and several other unreliable sources.
• I will request you to look at the discussions regarding the improvement edits by involved editors and Admin in the Sathya Sai talk page. [54] and [55] Thanks Radiantenergy (talk) 04:34, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I would like to make a few comments on this. Dilip, under the name (sockpuppet was also used) "white_adept", now "Inactive user account 001" made well over 150 edits to the Sathya Sai Baba page in a 12 day period. [56] [57] In that time, he peppered the article with criticism, greatly expanding the sections by adding information that cast Sai Baba in a negative light, while removing a lot of information that was not critical of Sai Baba. In total, he made some 317 edits to the page in a four month period. [58] In the last week, several editors (including user:Andries, who is a critic of SSB, and is actually banned from editing the article, per the decisions of the second arbitration) have joined together to begin working on the article, replacing info that Dilip removed without explanation, and trying to bring the criticism in the article to a more reasonable level. There were at length discussions here and here that reflect this. After a week of work, Dilip returns to the article and reverts it without discussing these radical changes on the talk page first. [59].

Our justification for removing a large part of the info that Dilip mentions can be found here. And on "I know that the changes I made where right"[60], "I add \ed thta because I know what to do"[61], "I changed it because this is offensive to a lot of people, and it isn't even true"[62], "My dad was in Puttaparthi his whole life and this never happened"[63]

I left a response to Dilip on the SSB talk page, however I dont believe he saw it. None of the edits that that one user made remained on the page. In fact, each and every one of those edits were reverted. There was no "onslaught" (his word) by new editors, all the edits he is trying to revert were made by myself, Radiantenergy, and Sbs108. The editor he is trying to use as an excuse for his reverts has been banned indefinitely.

It is my personal belief that several editors of this page have a CoI in relation to Sathya Sai Baba (It could be argued that I do, although I am not a follower, nor am I a critic. In fact, before a few months ago, I had never heard of SSB.) I became involved in this article because of the shock I felt when reading the page. Not that SSB would do these things, but because of the criticism that dripped from every paragraph. Never had I saw a page with a greater POV slanted against the page topic. I truly hope that Dilip will be willing to join in our discussions about where to go from here with the page, instead of reverting the page back to one that he all but wrote himself, that has an abundance of criticism, but a lack of most everything else. Thanks, Onopearls ^(t/c) 04:42, 10 June 20(UTC)

The article as it stands does not conform to wikipedia's policy regarding the biography of a living person. BLP states 1) "Criticism and praise of the subject should be represented if it is relevant to the subjects notability and can be sourced to reliable sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to take sides." Although better now, criticism still overwhelms the article as anyone with a neutral viewpoint can see. 2) BLP states, "Be careful not to give a disproprtionate amount of space to particular viewpoints, to avoid the effect of representing a minority view as if it were the majority one, The views of a tiny minority have no place in the article." Sai Baba undisputedly has millions of followers in India and abroad, there are critics but they are extremely minute compared to those who have a favorable view of Sai Baba. Just because certain reputable news organizations like the BBC picked up on a smear campaign by a few ex-followers hardly means its a majority viewpoint. Not only that, most of the basis for the criticism was Alay Rahm's failed lawsuit as he had no basis for his claims. Currently the article gives a disproportiate amount of space to a dissenting or critical view. Not to mention that Sai Baba remains completely innocent of allegations as they have never been proven nor is there any pending case against Sai Baba. Given the circumstances, criticism should be limited to 10% of the article based on the above mentioned reasons.Sbs108 (talk) 16:12, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I would also like to not that the "self sourced" information that Dilip wants removed is mainly sourced to the "response to criticism" section of the article. This is most certainly one of the exceptions listed for allowing self sourced material, no? For there is no more of a reliable source to cite than the organization that is being criticized. Thanks, Onopearls ^(t/c) 19:09, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

User:JdeJ

This started when I updated the map and left a comment on the article Algeria, showing the different professional styles of the Algeria maps and previously added on the article where's a administrator allowed it after my edit. But JdeJ was reverting all my contributions....

Article Conflicts;

JdeJ saying "here have been long discussions on which maps to use" here, but I read all the historial before, and there's nothing about, but yes with some european articles maps, so I reverted it saying "In this country not, Africa has not European countries consensus" here, but JdeJ again reverted me saying "Your edits start to look increasingly like vandalism" here. So I reverted saying "don't accuse me of vandalism, there's a consensus about the map" here, and finally an admin came there here, and the user JdeJ didn't revert again.

Article's Talk Page Conflicts;

As I said I wrote about the map here but JdeJ insult my english and accused me to convince others about quality of my maps or dragging in other contributors' nationalities here, then I told him don't accuses me because can be reported here.

Warnings deleted;

Now JdeJ deleted my warnings that I wrote him when he's accusing me of vandalism and dragging in other contributors' nationalities or even of personal attacks as unfounded warnings here, JdeJ is of course well-meaning, but has repeatedly brought in unrelated or personal opinions to a discussion about article content or subject notability.--TownDown ^{How's it going?} 19:32, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, apologies that it's taken a while to address your post. Secondly, irregardless of the content dispute (which is outside ANI's remit), you've both been edit-warring on the article. Please take a moment to familiarise yourself with WP:3RR and WP:BRD. Wikipedia recommends that if you make an edit and that edit is then reverted, don't revert it back. Instead, discuss the edit on the article talk-page (edit summaries don't count). If there's opposition to your edit, you need to convince other editors why it should be in the article, especially if you're seeking to overturn a previously-established consensus. I appreciate that you did open a talk-page discussion, but you were edit-warring at the same time. The three-revert rule will be applied by admins to all reverting editors and the spirit is as important as the letter, so even if you don't cross the three-revert line you may still be blocked.

I can't see anything impolite in JdeJ's post that you've linked. You however made an unwarranted assumption about the motives of other editors based on their nationality, and it was this that JdeJ was pointing out (see WP:NPA). You have also plastered templated warnings over their talk-page, which is considered poor form when dealing with established editors (see WP:DTTR). JdeJ is quite within their rights to remove anything from their talk-page - in fact, removing a warning is taken as evidence that the warning has been seen and understood.

In summary:

• Both JdeJ and TownDown have been edit warring.
• TownDown has over-reacted to the difference of opinion, has misunderstood WP:NPA, and left JdeJ unnecessary warnings as a result.

The edit warring seems to have stopped, so I won't be handing out any sanctions. However, please read through the policies and advice I've linked above, and try not to take differences of opinion personally. If you feel yourself becoming over-involved in a content dispute, step away from the article and find something else to edit for a while. Our dispute resolution advice might also be helpful. EyeSerene^talk 08:32, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Got it, thank you!. --TownDown ^{How's it going?} 08:43, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

This user was pestering Hayden120 ‎ (talk · contribs) with inappropriate templates and reverting the user on his own talk page. Please note that I have warned this user he will be blocked if he resumes such behaviour. [64] Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:41, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

No argument with that. Thanks, EyeSerene^talk 18:48, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

CSI Crystal ball????

Resolved

 – Future articles deleted, author told to use userspace until references available.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:14, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Tv12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) after repeated warnings, is creating pages of the next season(s) of CSI: Crime Scene Investigation and NCIS (please see Tv12's contribs). Unless they work for the studios (and that's a different hairy issue), there is no way this stuff can be accurate. And apparently the requests for deletion have not helped, and this user has just replaced some of these deleted episodes. There is an entire list of CSI: Crime Scene Investigation season 10 episodes with synopses at least 4 months before they even begin airing! Please help. Thank you!! TristaBella (cannot log in at work).

I just did an IAR speedy delete of these pages, as they all were unreferenced and referred to future dates in the past tense.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:55, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Endorse deletion. Toddst1 (talk) 01:02, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

166.217.40.141 (talk · contribs) has added alleged plots until May 2010 to CSI: Crime Scene Investigation (Season 10). PrimeHunter (talk) 01:19, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

And those plots/titles don't agree with a couple of articles I see that I missed. *grr* Toddst1's endorsement above was for the first four episodes of the season. Got some more cleanup to do...--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:21, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I also think some investigation of all the IPs who contributed to the CSI: Crime Scene Investigation season 10 list are going to show there are some socks in there. Some of the same IPs are responsible for changing Lindsay Monroe in CSI: New York to Lindsay Messer 50 or 60 times and uncited information about Khandi Alexander returning as Alexx Woods on CSI: Crime Scene Investigation in Season 10. Sorry to be a witch, but this is getting really bad. I reported the possible socks before, and never got any response as to whether it was looked at or not - it was only archived. Trista 24.176.191.234 (talk) 19:28, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Katari Devi repeated vandalism

I've been attempting in good faith to repair the articles, and issue several notices in the edit regions of watched pages for this user that their info is incorrect, and have corrected on many occasions grossly incorrect info, as well as unneeded, extraneous, and just plain unfounded information. I've viewed their references provided, and those too are incorrect. The pages in question are opioid-related articles: Fentanyl and Sufentanil, which I am attempting to repair now, and have begun an earnest effort to begin rewriting from encyclopedic and well-versed references starting today as well. The pages in question definitely don't need any editing protections, as the vandalism and blanket-rewriting has been perpetrated repeatedly by a single user by the name of "Katari Devi", who has also ignored warnings, suggestions, and repeated advice on their improper references and blanket revisioning of genuine info. I'd recommend either somehow disabling the user's ability to edit the pages in question, or issuing prompt warnings to discontinue vandalism. Thanks so much for your consideration! -TAz69x (talk) 19:52, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Careful on this one: Taz insists that Sublimaze is not Fentanyl, but this and this says it is. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:01, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

TAz, I see no edits from you on any talk page trying to discuss this matter with User:Katari Devi. Perhaps, in the future, you should try to discuss things before bringing them here. Also, I have notified Katari Devi about this thread. -- Darth Mike ^(talk) 20:05, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I've left notification of this discussion for User:Katari Devi--Cube lurker (talk) 20:06, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Too slow I double posted there.--Cube lurker (talk) 20:08, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

On a content note I'm very concerned. I look at this edit [65] and then I see this source on the Fentanyl talk page[66]. I'd like another opinion, but it looks to me like the OP has added dangerous errors onto these pages. Does anyone see it differently? I'll admit this isn't my field, I'm just looking at the sources.--Cube lurker (talk) 20:25, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm convinced enough that i've reverted the Sufentanil page. However i'm going offline. If new info emerges feel free to re-edit the page.--Cube lurker (talk) 20:35, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I just asked TAz to stop editing these articles while we double-check his edits, and told him that I would block if he continued.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:46, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I apologize, I had written a reply, but it seems to have been overwritten or deleted. I just meant the general revisions of the article in entirety without explanation. I've looked over the Sublimaze information (I've even corrected the information, and grabbed several medical texts from my library to see in certitude the correct brand name of "Sublimaze" in the United States). Thanks so much for your help though!
I was just wondering about other things, such as incorrect references to equipotent conversion of diacetylmorphine, obscure references to meperidine - with the prototypical opioid morphine residing as the clinical potency conversion opioid due to its international use, excretion info being removed without any reason listed, etc.). Just wondering a little more about the strange edits. Thanks so much for your help though; please know it wasn't about Sublimaze per se. -TAz69x (talk) 20:55, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Big mistakes call the other edits into question. If you have good references for your additions, there shouldn't be a problem with re-adding them.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:07, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

--Katari Devi (talk) 22:01, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I have not done any such thing. I also provided a reference to the meperidine fact, which has been deleted by TAz69. Numerous sites state that Sublimaze is Fentanyl not Sufentanil, and this user is ignoring this and changing facts, which is the real vandalism. Anyway, I don't plan on making any more changes and wasting my time anymore. Feel free to add false information to the Fentanyl article TAz69.

Block review requested

Re: CORNELIUSSEON (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I've just blocked the above editor indefinitely pending a review of their edits. It seems that they may have been engaged in long-term cut & paste copyright violations (since 2005 according to the first message on their talk-page). From reading the editor's posts on their talk-page, they defend their actions by claiming that all the materials they post are in the public domain.

The most recent example is here (source here). The source website, history.army.mil, states on its Security and Privacy page "Unless otherwise noted, information presented on CMH Online is considered public information and may be distributed or copied for non-commerical purposes. Use of appropriate byline/photo/image credits is requested. If copyrighted or permission restricted materials are posted on CMH Online, the appropriate credit is given. Visitors wishing to repost or use such materials for their own projects should make separate arrangements for permission with the owner." ([67]). The potential problem is the and may be distributed or copied for non-commerical purposes caveat - I'm not familiar enough with the nuances of copyright law to determine whether this is compatible with the GFDL, though from reading around this area in the past I have the feeling that it isn't.

I'd greatly appreciate other input on this, as if the material is copyvio it'll need a significant amount of cleanup and the sooner I can let WP:MILHIST know the better :P I won't provide other diffs (though can if they're needed; googling the text from much of the editor's work throws up many other examples). I've left CORNELIUSSEON a message on their talk-page, and while I'm around will try to cross-post any responses they make. EyeSerene^talk 09:29, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Addendum: Though I don't believe my actions fall under the admin COI guidlines, in the interests of full disclosure I spotted the problematic edit above because I'm copyediting the article in question. EyeSerene^talk 11:27, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Anything for non-commercial use only would not be compatible with the GFDL. I'm not certain that its indiscriminate copying though - it seems that some of the prior complaints were resolved when it turned out the information was in the public domain. CORNELIUSSEON seems to be trying to stick to PD US government sources - its easy to get confused about what government/military works are actually PD and which fall under a more restrictive license. Still, its up to him to verify that sort of thing first. Shell ^babelfish 10:00, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Did he fully copy paste the paragraph or did he used any parasphrasing or editorial work but wikilinking. [68] [69]

Did you block him from US military related pages, mentioned page, or all of wikipedia.

I didn't investigate the user fully, but it appears he might be a long time member of US Army, so he could thought he has the right to post such content to a US military base article. For the license part the copyright warnings except rare cases only put against commercial "work". But taking credit to yourself as an editor without mentioning source is not cool. He should strictly be warned for posting the actual source. Yet blocking should be the last case resort.

This is somewhat US Military POV "advertising", and I really suspect if US Army will ever have any concern about copyright. But other issues like NPOV non sourced copy paste without providing reference might be an issue. Kasaalan (talk) 10:02, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughts. Addressing both the above posters:

• Some of the plagiarised text added by this editor may have been released under a completely unrestricted license, but some (like the example above) clearly isn't.
• The example is a word-for-word copy/paste with minor formatting tweaks.
• My block, which was enacted to prevent edits that could put WP in legal difficulties, is site-wide (there's no other type).
• I agree that there are additional ethical issues, and the content is often unsuitable, but this is strictly about the potential copyvio. I wouldn't have issued an indefblock without warning for anything less.

EyeSerene^talk 10:40, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

It should be noted that the editor seems to edit primarily articles on US military formations, and many of his edits seem to be copy-pastes without any citation - perhaps Moonriddengirl (hopefully that's the user's correct name) should be informed? Skinny87 (talk) 11:18, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Good idea, I've dropped Moonriddengirl a note. EyeSerene^talk 11:31, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Just to drop a note, I've came into contact with Corneliusseon before, as seen on his talkpage, as he's done this kind of thing before; he doesn't seem to communicate very well and he was kinda patronising the one time we debated the matter. But I think he's a good editor who just needs pointing in the right direction over copy-vios. I've offered to help him out on his talkpage if he wants that. Skinny87 (talk) 10:57, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

←Hi. The question is whether the sites that publish the text are the true origin or if they are originally from public domain sources. For example, [70] states that it is originally taken from The Army Almanac: A Book of Facts Concerning the Army of the United States, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1950, pp. 510-592. Since official Army publications are PD via the US Government's choice to opt out of copyright protection for its works, that one is okay. The website that reproduced it can't impose additional restrictions unless they've added new copyrightable elements. Not everything at that website is PD, as it indicates that "If copyrighted or permission restricted materials are posted on CMH Online, the appropriate credit is given. Visitors wishing to repost or use such materials for their own projects should make separate arrangements for permission with the owner." In this case, a proper attribution template should be used. I'll look at some of the other contribs to see if they are likewise PD. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:41, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Just to note that I'm looking, but this is a slow-going process, particularly without edit summaries. If it proves that this contributor is copying from public domain sources without fully indicating that, he should be advised of proper attribution ala Wikipedia:Plagiarism. Current consensus is that even if a source is PD, indication needs to be made that it has been copied. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:54, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I have not yet found any indication that this is public domain, placed here, though I have been looking. (adding: It seems to have been previously published here, but there's no indication that's free for use. It is a private website.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:00, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

After investigation, I don't believe that that page is PD. I believe it's a copyvio, and should be reverted. – Quadell ^(talk) 13:29, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

The book is Thunder from Heaven. It appears to have been originally published by Boots Press of Birmingham, Michigan, as here. I see absolutely no reason to suppose it public domain. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:00, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Nothing untowards about pasting PD content into an article so long as a footnote cites where it came from since a) PD text must be verifiable as such (free of CR worries) and b) all content must be attributed to a reliable source either way. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:13, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

True enough, and addressed in the note I was composing immediately below. :) But I'm still not able to verify that the text immediately above is PD, although it may be. Since this contributor doesn't say where things come from, it's hard to tell. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:20, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This may or may not be PD, duplicated from [71]. While they indicate their material is free for duplication, they don't explicitly release it into PD, and they don't mention modification, which is required for Wikipedia's license. Public record is not automatically synonymous with public domain. We would need to verify that it is in New Jersey to use this text. Note that whether it is copyright violation or not (which depends on NJ's interpretation of "public record"), it was again placed without credit, which Wikipedia defines as "plagiarism", a problem in itself. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:18, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

(ec) If the text is not straightforwardly PD and verifiable as such it can't be picked up word-for-word by en.Wikipedia under GFDL. Instead, the information it carries must be rewritten and the source attributed. Wikipedia:Plagiarism is only a guideline. Ethical worries aside, copy-pasting copyrighted text is a copyvio, which is already verbotten. Pasting it in without a citation is yet another worry, since content must be sourced anyway. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:25, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

(ec) This one is more complicated than that. (And this would be why this is a time-consuming process.) It seems to have come with other material in that edit from [72]. The question: is it reproducing the statutes, which would be free, or describing the statutes, which would not? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:27, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

That looks like a rewritten summary to me and hence (from what you've said about the restrictions) non-GFDL compatible. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:43, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

That's correct. Although laws are PD in the U.S., courts have ruled that summaries of laws may not be, even if they are written by state legislatures. – Quadell ^(talk) 13:31, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

(ec x 3) This assistance is massively appreciated. It looks so far like there may be some concerns with copyright (though not to the extent I had feared), and that plagiarism is a significant issue. Like Skinny I believe the editor is contributing in good faith and has made many useful edits, but apparently has difficulty in following our guidance on attributing the work they've made use of. This could be genuine incomprehension or simple unwillingness; I'm reluctant to unblock just yet without some assurance from the editor that they understand the difficulties that adding plagiarised material to articles, failing to thoroughly check the copyright status of such material, and failing to communicate causes. Skinny's offer of mentorship may be the ideal solution, but I'm open to suggestions (and won't regard any undoing of my block as untoward if another admin thinks it's warranted). EyeSerene^talk 12:38, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd say there must be some straightforward acknowledgement from the editor that there are meaningful worries and that all content contribs (other than cleanups and rewrites of existing article text) will be attributed to a source. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:43, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I think you're probably right, EyeSerene, and I'm with Gwen. (Note: New Jersey has the most unuserfriendly statutes online of any state I've ever checked, but I believe these are probably descriptions and not taken from the statutes themselves.) I don't have time to help out with addressing him extensively myself at this point (I'm barely on top of what I've already got. :)), but I think we have issues here with WP:V and Wikipedia:Plagiarism as well as probably a misunderstanding of our licensing. Even if it is a "public record", we can't copy it unless it's public domain (or we're quoting, as with WP:NFC). I wonder if the military history project can help out with an overview of his contributions? We're currently a bit strained in that department at WP:COPYCLEAN. (Join! </ad>)) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:51, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

You've done more than enough already Moonriddengirl, and have my undying gratitude for taking time away from stuff you'd rather be doing to look at this ;) I think Gwen's suggestion is reasonable too, and I'll leave the editor a note to that effect. I'll also let milhist know. Thank you to all who've commented. EyeSerene^talk 13:03, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Very good. Let the user know that (1) to avoid plagiarism, any cut-and-paste contributions must specify the source, and (2) we may not cut-and-paste from any sources that we aren't certain are in the public domain. I'd recommend unblocking him, but with an unambiguous block warning, and we ought to watch his contributions to block if it happens again. – Quadell ^(talk) 13:35, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I've left a summary on their talk page per the above; if you want to look it over and make any adjustments, feel free. As Gwen suggested though, in the light of their recent non-communication when other editors have attempted to engage with them, I think it would be helpful to get some kind of positive response before we unblock. Besides the above issues, some of the recent edits have been unhelpful (the one I saw on the article I'm copyediting was a text dump near the top of the page; the editor obviously hadn't read the article as all the information they'd added was already covered - with cites - further down). EyeSerene^talk 13:48, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

• Update: Dialogue is underway between Corneliusseon and other editors on his talk-page. As the blocking admin I'm staying out of it for the present (and will likely be going off-line soon), though I'd like to reiterate that bearing in mind the consensus here and on his talk-page about our need for some assurances regarding future behaviour, I have no problem with another admin unblocking if they feel it's justified. All the best, EyeSerene^talk 17:56, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I support EyeSerene's proposal that we wait for an assurance from Cornelius about his future behavior before doing an unblock. If we don't, we should expect to see continued cut-and-paste additions from unattributed sources that others will have to clean up. He doesn't seem to understand WP:COPYRIGHT and he sees no problem with his edits. EdJohnston (talk) 18:33, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I've commented as an uninvolved admin & milhist coordinator on his talk page as well. Cam ^(Chat) 23:11, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

That sounds like a good plan; the lack of communication or acknowledgment of the possible problem is an issue. Shell ^babelfish 01:28, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Eyes on RHAM High School please

RHAM High School. I've had the most troubling diffs oversighted, and now feel able to bring this to administrators' attention.

A teacher accused of paedophile offences' name and address was posted. A number of IP addresses are involved in editing the article, and I think it best if administrators kept an eye on the matter in case of any recurrence.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 01:53, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Seems the oversighter has now protected the article.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 01:56, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

User:PZJTF: silent removal of sourced info, accusing others of being Nazis & several other issues

PZJTF (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been repeatedly removing sourced info or tweaking the text to contradict the sources on John Hunyadi - [73], [74], [75], [76]; and on Matthias Corvinus of Hungary - [77], [78], [79]. Only the very last edit features an edit summary, addressed to me, and which I find highly insulting: "LOL, some nazis are very jealous and envious people, as Romania was always a nazi country, not surpise for me. (Ps Hungary, Slovak, Romania are nazi countries)". This comes immediately after I reverted his unexplained and disruptive changes, leaving edit summaries which tried to explain that, while the Vlach origin of the two characters on whom we have articles have been grossly exaggerated in Romania by nationalists who ignore the fact that they were both political leaders in Hungary, neutrally mentioning that origin among the several theories is not the same thing. Now, not only do I find it highly calumnious when my ability to edit neutrally is questioned by people who falsify data, but for me to be deemed a "Nazi" is exceptionally so, given the nature of my contributions to this project. What's more, name-calling an entire people, particularly with this sort of names, is a gross breach of civility and a serious bias concern. In fact, my motivations are outlined here.

He recently added a message on my talk page, where he uses reverse psychology to accuse me of vandalism, and states a claim (a false claim, as far as I or anyone can tell) according to which I had removed one of the references.

Also note that PZJTF's edits and his summaries come in-between or exactly after similar edits by an IP: [80] (note the edit summaries - "Romanian vandalism and fascism", "Romanian lies, Romanian fascists please leave alone the Hungarian articles!!", "Damned nazis! Romanians go back to India, LEAVE THE HUNGARIAN ARTICLES !!! ). I have personally warned the IP user on his talk page - you will note, from his few but highly disruptive contributions, that he has a history of racist remarks, edit warring and vandalism. I would urge admins to assess the possibility of multiple accounts being used to circumvent wikipedia policies - although I do believe that, in each individual case, the nature of the edits is enough to warrant a block.

In addition to the fact that PZJTF has not learned anything from his previous blocks, I also note that his style of editing also poses serious concerns regarding his advocacy and even his self-declared affiliations, all of which he drags into mainspace: [81]. Dahn (talk) 20:42, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

It is clear that 195.199.142.33 (talk · contribs) = PZJTF. However, it is possible that the user was logged out. MuZemike 21:13, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

For transparency for other readers, PZJTF (talk · contribs) is the recent rename of MagyarTürk (talk · contribs). weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 21:25, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Reviewing... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:45, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok, with the history, that comment was just too far. This user is not here to build an encyclopedia. They're a walking WP:BATTLEfield. I have indef blocked. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:07, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Endorse that block... not that you needed it, but seriously, we don't need that crap around here... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:41, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Suman Ranganathan

There is a user User_talk:Mugur_Chandra, who moves the page to "Suman Ranganath" without the -an ending without a source, where this person saying her real name. I have tried to explain this to this user, but he can't follow my arguments. The user insists, that her real name is Ranganath, moving the page back to this name. I'm not sure, whether the page should be kept in this way, or it should be deleted, because it's a real person. To solve this problem I tried to write in the article, that the real name is not clear from the sources. http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Suman_Ranganath&diff=prev&oldid=295779507 Mugur Chandra even deletes this, claiming this would make her a Tamil person, which is absolutely not the case. --Stopthenonsense (talk) 13:58, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

This is more an issue for the edit warring noticeboard or dispute resolution. You might get more help if you look in one of those places, or find editors at a related WikiProject to offer their opinion. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 14:03, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

(editconflict) In the meantime, I have moved the page back to the name that seems the most common (Ranganathan), and both full-protected and move-protected it. Both of you are involved in an edit war, which needs to be avoided. Please seek out other editors with experience in this area and ask them to comment at Talk:Suman Ranganathan to help you mediate the dispute and reach a consensus. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 14:12, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I will add a simple fact tag to the names. I have better things to do than this. :) --Stopthenonsense (talk) 14:09, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll have to do that for you, since the page is now protected. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 14:12, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Please do it. Thank you. --Stopthenonsense (talk) 14:13, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Disruptive editing and violation of WP:NPA by User:Sampsonite5

• Sampsonite5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This account has engaged in disruptive editing, adding unsourced info to articles, vandalized my user talk page, and finally blatantly violated WP:NPA. Requesting another administrator to look into this matter and take action here.

---

Disruptive editing by the account, repeatedly adding unsourced information to articles about television episodes (example [82]). When this was pointed out to the user, he blanked the warnings from his talk page [83] [84], and changed course, disruptively adding and re-adding information about UK airdates of television programs to articles (example [85]). After this changed was removed from a WP:GA article, the user chose to vandalize my talk page: [86]. I posted to the user's talk page in a new subsection entitled Please stop adding UK airdates. The user's response was simply to violate WP:NPA, with this comment [87]. Note: the user had already received multiple level-3 and level-4 warnings, prior to my getting involved [88].

Thank you for your time, Cirt (talk) 16:03, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Blocked for 72 hours, which is lenient (indef probably would've been fine too). Any repeat of this behaviour will result in an indef block. PeterSymonds (talk) 16:11, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Be nice to that user. He's got a lot of baggage. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 18:17, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Historičar

A quick heads-up: the indef blocked sockpuppeteer User:Historičar is predictably continuing to edit on the Bosnian language article with his IP regardless of the block. His IPs are:

• 85.158.38.4
• 85.158.36.176
• 85.158.39.182

• 217.75.202.131

I recommend a range-block. The man apparently thinks its ok to evade his block. When asked if that is him again, he replied "of course, and I am contributing by Wiki policy, completely by the rules" (see History page of the Bosnian language article [89]). I asked him a number of times to "please stop", to no effect. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 22:43, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect, I have to say that DIREKTOR is not telling the truth. I irronically said "of course", and "I am whatever you think I am just please try not to delete the source". The problem is, that I included the required source, which some users are not satisfied with:

• User:DIREKTOR
• User:Ivan Štambuk
• User:Aradic-es

Those users are probably the same one (DIREKTOR said: "Yes we're all the same user"), because they cover each other on Bosnian language when they want to avoide 3RR.

User:DIREKTOR already broke 3RR:

• Revision as of 10:51, 10 June 2009
• Revision as of 14:37, 10 June 2009
• Revision as of 21:38, 10 June 2009
• Revision as of 22:36, 10 June 2009 etc.

85.158.39.182 (talk) 22:54, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Everyone, meet User:Historičar. The guy who reported me for sockpuppeteering without any idea who my "sockpuppet" is. :) Of course, his allegations could not be more obviously nonsensical. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 22:58, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah. Quack. At least I'm not fooled. MuZemike 23:03, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I recommend semiprotection of the article instead of a range block. That may work better and will have less collateral damage. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:23, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

That works too, I suppose... though it has a downside: it may be necessary to protect other articles as User:Historičar moves on. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 00:20, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

The upside is that semi-protection would suffice (if you want to call it an "upside"). MuZemike 02:31, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm ok with either option. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 08:34, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a month; other articles will be protected as necessary. EyeSerene^talk 18:10, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Kasaalan on RFA, approaching disruption

Kasaalan (talk · contribs) apparently is trying to take some odd ownership of an RFA as seen here, apparently to derail it. Full RFA edit history here; his WP space edits here; his WP:TALK edits here. Evula, a crat, refactored some excessive formatting by him at one point, and he's now apparently edit warring a bit to keep it in, and keeps expanding his Oppose... quite dramatically. Might need some extra uninvolved eyes here. I have no idea why he has such a bee in his bonnet. Talk page chats asking him to please calm down and a vandalism warning on the RFA are here. I'll leave him a note pointing him back to here. rootology (C)(T) 06:51, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

• I concur with Rootology's brief summary. I have also recently left a warning on his page and tried to discuss this with the editor as amicably as possible.--VS ^talk 06:56, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I don't have any edits to the page any further, yet I don't have any objections to ANI either, if the nominated users' behaviour will also be investigated as I discussed in talk page "excessively" [90] based on mentioned users' May 2009 edits and actions. I will just note both parties supportive of the user, while VS is "excessively" involved in previous discussions. Also I will note, I added last comment on user's page, because I don't feel his answer is anywhere accurate. He claimed he didn't recall any recent edit conflict, while we actually had a serious one in May. An independent admin who can read a lot for an investigation will do fine. Kasaalan (talk) 07:21, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I seriously reject vandalism claims. But I do state I made an extensive research (which I spent a about 3 hours cumulatively) for nominated users' integrity and recent behaviour of May 2009, because my religious based edit bias claim, his 3 days long wikihounding and I seriouly claim he doesn't answer 2 of the adminship questions accurately. [91] Kasaalan (talk) 07:31, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
    • If we have a real discussion I can make detailed a defense, if accusations detailed, and my reply needed. Kasaalan (talk) 08:22, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

It appears to me that Kasaalan reverted once to re-add bold formatting to his own comment, and has been quite loquacious (not to say irritating) in his comments at this RFA. But I don't see anything that requires administrator oversight. I don't see vandalism, major edit-warring, or comments in bad faith. – Quadell ^(talk) 13:43, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I haven't looked in on the details too closely, but if I had the time, I would closely examine this user's editing history, just as they have tried to do so with Enigma, but I've spotted issues with this user that are obvious to the eye, so Kasaalan should remove the log from their eye before they remove the splinter from Enigmas. Steve Crossin ^Talk/_{Help us mediate!} 19:28, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

My edit history is open to any user, anyone can track my edits (except comitting wikihounding to delete or reverse my edits with no apparent or good reason and with no clear explanation), to see over 95 percent of my editing is inclusionist and consists of various additions and improvements to the current hundreds of articles. I don't prefer to waste other editors precious time or hard research, by trying to delete the opinions I don't agree with, even the ones I can't stand with. Instead I add counter sources to balance them or criticism, if I feel article has POV concerns. And I can easily say, except the deletionist approachs (generally claiming notability or wikipedia is not a directory in a few cases) and some religio-ethnic sided approachs (mostly by dedicated supporters of Israeli states' every action including apparently wrong ones, again in few cases), my edits generally never get reverse (only 2 of my proposed edits got deleted for original search along with 2 articles for copyright as far as I recall up today), and when they got deleted by editors who feels it needs more reliable sources but do not bother to search for them, I spend my time to find more so readd them by more reliable coverage. Because my edits based on research and reliable coverage, I even had to waste discussing with them weeks of my time to be able to add Human Rights Watch as a source. Also splinters are dangerous if you ask me, you should give out better examples. [92] Kasaalan (talk) 21:25, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

User:USEDfan again

Resolved

USEDfan was indef blocked around a year ago, and since then has created more than two dozen sock puppets (most of which were confirmed by checkuser). His actual master account is User:Xotheusedguyox but he is better known by his sock puppet User:USEDfan. Last month User:Felix 12 22 was blocked as a sock puppet of USEDfan, and just recently User:Hardtosay11 turned up and the accounts very first edits were restoring all of USEDfan's latest socks edits, the edits of the Felix account. Thanks. Landon1980 (talk) 05:06, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

In my defense, every single person who edited the used page over the last year gets their edit reverted by this user and some are most likely regular users that got screwed and didn't know about themselves being reported. Luckily I am smart and know how to see when someone makes an edit. Please take a look into the negative and vandal edits made by ^ the user Landon1980 because all they every do is stalk the page and revert an edit and say USEDfan. -Hardtosay11 (talk) 05:09, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I have never been wrong about a user being USEDfan. In fact, all of the accounts I accused but one (maybe 2) were confirmed by a checkuser. Landon1980 (talk) 05:14, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

(e/c) Quack!. Anyways, the account has been indef blocked by Shell Kinney (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Tiptoety ^talk 05:15, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

• You just don't show up, immediately understand everything that's going on and manage to revert multiple articles to a banned user's preferred version. It quacks, so I've indef blocked. Shell ^babelfish 05:14, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps we could have a checkuser run anyway, just for the record. And it might give us more data for when USEDfan figures out how to be a little more subtle about his approach to things.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:54, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

That, and it would clean out his sock drawer. The last time a checkuser ran USEDfan they found 4 different sleeper accounts, all waiting to be auto-confirmed. He most likely has more sock puppets out there, some of which are editing Ratchet & Clank and it's related articles. At first he would use the same sock to edit all his favorite articles, but he later started creating socks for specific articles he likes to edit. Landon1980 (talk) 21:11, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Grandma Dottie

Resolved

 – Insufficient evidence to tie GD to Axmann8 impostors. User has stopped editing, but will stay on the radar.

Grandma Dottie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Obviously not a new user. First effort was to go to BQ to try to get User:BQZip01's goat. Soon after went to my page and started talking about Axmann8's various impostor accounts. No way a new user would know anything about that. Probably a sock of the one who tried to impostor Axmann8 a couple of months ago. Went to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TomPhan and denied any connection, but conveniently informed us of its IP address (Iowa). In any case, looks to be up to no good. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 11:43, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Concur. IMNSHO, this could also be User:TomPhan: a user who has left death threats and accusations that I murdered someone on my talk/user pages (edits were oversighted). The WhoIs function returned information about the IP address which appears to be registered in New Jersey (not Iowa...???) and several IPs related to TomPhan have also been from New Jersey and nearby areas. Given this person's first edit (clearly not a rookie...lots of evidence abounds that this is not a new user) and their attempts to quickly elicit sympathy ("I am only trying to edit, not cause any problems...This does not seem like a friendly enviroment. I cannot contact the editor here on his talk page. I do not have an 'edit this page' button when there to discuss this with him. BQZip01 what is the issue? It seems like no one else can edit on the 'BQ' page."), this seems to be an attempt at a "good hand" account of someone previously blocked, if it isn't TomPhan. — BQZip01 — ^talk 13:41, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

12.50.75.194 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), which claims to be Dottie, shows NJ from WhoIs but shows Des Moines for Geolocate. If that's actually the Axmann8 impostor, this could give us some possibly useful information in trying to track it down and put a final stop to it. Of course, it could be an impostor of the impostor. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 13:46, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, point taken. It could also be an attempt to bypass WP:3RR, a problem with ThreeE (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). A largely dormant account that suddenly becomes active hours after Grandma Dottie and then compliments this account? On its face, this doesn't appear to be a coincidence. It's a sockpuppet of someone, if not a meatpuppet. — BQZip01 — ^talk 14:35, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I saw that, and that does seem to be rather odd. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 15:04, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Why is it that everytime someone disagrees with BQ, a conspiracy must be involved? Perhaps consensus just doesn't support him? Sounds like the same old temperament issues again. ThreeE (talk) 15:34, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Now grandma dottie is blaming her grandson...

This isn't a conspiracy. It is sockpuppetry, IMNSHO (mind you I didn't start this page). It is only a matter of figuring out who the puppet master is.

I've disagreed many times with many people. But there are only a few people who try to stack the deck and their behavior is pretty obvious and seems to be confined to specific pages.

I've stepped aside when consensus doesn't go my way on many occasions. — BQZip01 — ^talk 16:39, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

This is classic sockpuppetry. Grandma should be blocked immediately, and ThreeE needs to be investigated. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 16:46, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

• Would someone here please take the time to identify edits that were disruptive? I see an awful lot of huff and puff and no evidence of abuse. I don't see anything showing this user accused BQZip of murder, or anything else. What the hell happened to WP:AGF? Zero call for blocking here. Zero. Come up with something that indicates abuse, then you can start making claims. Otherwise, this thread's resolved. So what if this user started off apparently experienced? Just because a person has prior experience doesn't mean they get blocked. That's not a definition of a sockpuppet. Look it up. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:57, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
• Addendum: Glad to see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TomPhan was declined. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:58, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Spare us the naive AGF nonsense. One of the user's first edits brought up the Axmann8 impostoring. There's no way the user knows about that unless the user itself is that impostor. Now the user is invoking the classic sock "someone else must have..." argument. Hopefully this will scare away that obvious sockpuppet, but if not, it will eventually get dealt with. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 17:13, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Sockpuppets need not be disruptive or abusive, but can also be accounts of users that are blocked/banned; these kinds of accounts should also be blocked and blocks extended. Baseball Bugs hit the nail on the head with this one. Hammersoft, you and I have a disagreement on a single issue of which I think we have a reasonable disagreement. I am curious as to how you are involved in this (not saying ANYONE'S comments aren't welcome, but this feels a little like Wikistalking to me). — BQZip01 — ^talk 17:22, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
      • Oh good Christ. Go attack someone else BQZ. All I'm saying is there's no evidence of abuse, and you've now turned this around into me Wikistalking you? WTF????????? Go sell conspiracy somewhere else. We're all stocked up here. Come up with some actual abuse conducted by Grandma Dottie, or drop it. If Grandma Dottie actually starts some abuse somewhere, we'll deal with it then. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:45, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
        • I said it feels like wikistalking. You haven't been involved on any of the pages in which this pertains so without perusing my edit history it strikes me as odd where you found out about it otherwise or why you'd weigh in on the matter. Someone using an account to get around a block or ban is not permitted and is the definition of sockpuppetry, whether abuse occurs or not. — BQZip01 — ^talk 18:20, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
• Pray tell what you are going to investigate me for? Or are you just coming up with a case study for another article? ThreeE (talk) 17:53, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I see that I myself fell into the naive AGF trap by posting this here. I should have taken Grandma straight to AIV, as "obvious sock of the Axmann8 impostor", and let them dispatch that user straight away. No, I had to bring it here to get other opinions. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 18:20, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

LOL. Sarcasm is so useful... :-) — BQZip01 — ^talk 18:22, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

That, and a complete lack of evidence for most of the "wrong doing" you have pointed out. ThreeE (talk) 18:25, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

You've been blocked 4 times for violations of WP:3RR. That's the only wrongdoing of yours I've pointed out. — BQZip01 — ^talk 18:33, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Pot, kettle, and speak when spoken to. ThreeE (talk) 18:41, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm nothing like you or your blocks and you responded to my comment. — BQZip01 — ^talk 19:51, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

How did you come into this discussion out of the clear blue sky? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 18:30, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I used the internets. Why do I have to explain how I got here? ThreeE (talk) 18:41, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Because your activity looks suspicious, and if you provide a logical explanation, it would make everyone feel better. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 18:43, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I have done nothing suspicious, I certainly don't have to explain anything to you, and I can't help you with your feelings. ThreeE (talk) 18:50, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Hammersoft, are you really trying to claim that a banned/blocked user, even if it's proven that they have come back as a sockpuppet, has a right to edit here, even if they're being disruptive as the new account? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 18:33, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

• I'm not saying that have that right. I am saying that until a new account actually does something disruptive, there's no way to tell unless you just assume bad faith and start checkusering every single new user that comes onboard here. This place has become a flippin' witch hunt. Now I find the user in question has been blocked, pending a checkuser THAT HAS ALREADY BEEN DECLINED. What I see as disruptive is users crying foul when there's not one single diff reported as being abusive. Then when someone (me) objects, gets accused of wikistalking [93]. Then when someone else objects, the objector's block history is raised [94] (as if that has anything to do with it). Absolutely unreal. There's a damn good reason the sockpuppet investigation was turned down. Read it, and unblock User:Grandma Dottie now. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:22, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

• The only reason I brought up the user's history is to show that this could be a motive for creating such an account to avoid a violation of policy. Given the fact that this user has only recently become an active editor again, and on the same page, it could be coincidence, but appears suspicious. As for the results of the checkuser, no actions were performed, so no checkuser has been accomplished, ergo, no evidence of innocence and no unblock. — BQZip01 — ^talk 19:49, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

• You have GOT to be kidding me. The checkuser is declined for lack of evidence, but because you have a sneaking suspicion he's someone out to get you (like I'm out to get you apparently), he remains blocked??? Guilty until proven innocent? --Hammersoft (talk) 19:58, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

• After looking at the evidence, the Grandma Dottie account does look suspicious. BQ is editted as the first of a series of disambiguation articles of two-letter acronyms. In fact, the edit seems to conform to the MoS (i.e., one link per line). BQZip01 reverts the edit, citing WP:LINK; okay, maybe I don't know what the current draft of this part of the MoS says. Now if I were in Grandma Dottie's position, my next step would be to post to BQZip01's talk page & discuss the matter; what Grandma does instead is to post on Bugs' talk page, who isn't even mentioned on BQZip's talk page, to ask a question about an editor who hasn't editted any of the pages in question. There's something fishy here, & it's not because of a lot of trout-slapping. -- llywrch (talk) 20:07, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

• The checkuser request having been denied has been reversed after I noted the absurdity of the situation at hand. Given that Grandma Dottie revealed their IP on their own, I strongly suspect that nothing will come of the checkuser. So, baring presentation of evidence of abuse (which has been requested multiple times now without result), there's nothing to do here. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:33, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

"no evidence of innocence and no unblock" -- I look forward to playing that one back right before your fifth RfA is denied. ThreeE (talk) 20:13, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

• The behavior being exhibited of guilty until proven innocent is indeed very shocking. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:33, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

The typical non-denial denial of a sock. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 20:34, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

• Huh? --Hammersoft (talk) 20:35, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I was paraphrasing the blocking admin who stated that the block was indef unless a checkuser was performed. I've NEVER stated that people are guilty until proven innocent. Way to assume good faith and twist it to fit your agenda. — BQZip01 — ^talk 20:57, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

To make this absolutely and abundantly clear, I am not stating nor ever will state that anyone is guilty until proven innocent. I was explaining why (at the time) since no checkuser was performed the block should remain since it was a condition of the block in the first place. That is all. Both Hammersoft and ThreeE seem to have misinterpreted (intentionally or not) what I wrote. — BQZip01 — ^talk 21:48, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

The block was lifted for, wait for it, lack of evidence. I'm sure we'll never see this kind of behaviour again... ThreeE (talk) 20:43, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

The block was lifted because of a lack of evidence linked to a single user, not to any other users. — BQZip01 — ^talk 20:59, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

• What the heck is the purpose of re-opening this thread? There is no active investigation going on with regards to Grandma Dottie. The sockpuppet investigation has already been closed, following a checkuser proving that Grandma Dottie is not a sockpuppet. Why is this dragging on? Why? Should we just block every person that claims knowledge of sockpuppets you had problems with? Where does this end? Give us a closing scenario that would alleviate this for you. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:35, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

• There is still the matter of other users to whom this user is related. As I stated before, Dottie is not a sockpuppet of TomPhan. It does not prove that this person isn't a sockpuppet of someone else. As this issue is still being discussed on other related pages, it shouldn't be arbitrarily closed at this time. — BQZip01 — ^talk 21:48, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

• Specifically, who else do you think this is related to? Or are you engaging in more McCarthyism? Should we just checkuser everyone? ThreeE (talk) 21:53, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

• Can I volunteer to be checkusered? Pretty please? --Hammersoft (talk) 21:56, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

• There is no matter. Had the checkuser found something linking Grandma Dottie to a sockpuppet master, he would have noted it. He didn't. What is it you want to see happen? The checkuser's already been done and cleared Grandma Dottie. Would you please state specifically what you want to see happen? --Hammersoft (talk) 21:53, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

• As far as I know, they only checked against TomPhan. They don't typically look outside the box. They certainly didn't with the Axmann8 impostor. They closed it as fast as they could. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 22:33, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

The checkuser was performed against TomPhan and confirmed-related accounts. It was not performed against, for example, me or you. It was also not performed against other blocked/banned accounts. It could possibly be related to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Axmann8/Archive as these all appear to have the same M.O. Moreover, a checkuser need not be performed as TOR nodes tend to obfuscate the actual IP addresses of users; in such cases a checkuser is worthless and a sockpuppet investigation is warranted (as could certainly be the case here). — BQZip01 — ^talk 22:17, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

• Checkusering against the Axeman accounts would yield nothing. They're stale. Now you're maintaining that Grandma Dottie's IP is a TOR node? Any TOR list I see doesn't have 12.50.x.x. If you're going to start a new sockpuppet investigation, I certainly hope you bring more diffs than one in which the user shows knowledge of a sockpuppet master. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:30, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

• Given the user's disappearance shortly after being brought up here, I doubt we'll ever find out anything. This WP:SPA account seems to have been created solely to be a thorn for Bugs and/or myself (likely the former). — BQZip01 — ^talk 23:05, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

• A thorn that was self inflicted and could have been avoided with some assumption of good faith. Can we please close this thread now? --Hammersoft (talk) 23:09, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

<-There is way too much ing going on here.

• Guys, really - take a step back, you seem to have developed a Siege mentality, it's not good for you, nor for the project. --Versageek 23:25, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Continued disruption by Mr Taz

Resolved

 – Blocked for edit warring to include his made up days

• Previously discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive542#Persistent disruption by Mr Taz

Mr Taz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is continuing to add nonsense in the form of days he has made up to Foundation Day, both yesterday and today (and edit warring to include his nonsense since). He was previously blocked for three days for a pattern of disruption including similar edits to that disambiguation page, please could someone deal with this. Thank you. O Fenian (talk) 18:14, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Continued disruption by O Fenian

O Fenian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is continuing to cut days that are real but not celebrated as close to other holidays to Foundation Day, please could someone deal with this. Thank you. Mr Taz (talk)

Are you saying that Foundation Day (Great Britain) is real, as you seem to imply with this, this and this edit? Do you have any references to support that view? Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 18:38, 11 June 2009 (UTC)Added additional instances of bizarre claim. This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 18:41, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

This is nothing but a troll report in response to my report above. O Fenian (talk) 18:39, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

There are many more diffs This flag once was red, he has been adding this nonsense since March and not once produced a source to prove it exists. See Talk:British Day and Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 May 8 for further information. O Fenian (talk) 18:46, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Heh! I was being cheeky changing the one diff to three (has Mr Taz been warned yet, by the way?) but those two links are worrying. The comment at Talk:British Day ("We need to work on other National days Scottish Day, English Day, Welsh Day and Cornish Day like Ulster Day that cover all the People...") suggests an editor who believes they can change the world through Wikipedia. I have no objection to these articles being created - once the days exist. But there's no evidence that Foundation Day (Great Britain) was ever celebrated in the Kingdom of Great Britain, and I am not aware of Foundation Day (United Kingdom) being celebrated now or in the past. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 18:52, 11 June 2009 (UTC) Striking 3RR comment: Mr Taz has been warned and blocked. This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 18:53, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Mr Taz (talk · contribs) has been blocked for a week. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:12, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

It's a bit late as a contribution to this particular affair perhaps, which I've only just come across, but for the record I'd like to back O Fenian's report and comments above to the hilt. Regrettably, it has to be said that Mr Taz is one of the most disruptive editors I've ever had the misfortune to come across. Not only does he insist that these imaginary days are real but he spends half his time creating other truly ludicrous redirects, some of which are then inserted by him into articles: I had over seventy (yes 70!) of them speedily deleted a month or so back and he continues to create them. His visible edit record only tells half the story. He has wasted the time of a number of editors, myself included, who would gladly do more contructive things than having to sort out this unending flow of nonsense. How long will this be allowed to continue? Rest assured, it will surely recommence when the current ban expires. Enaidmawr (talk) 23:42, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Article "Pseudo-userfied', lost history.

User:TheGodAwfulTruth/A Nightmare on Elm Street (2010) was cut n paste 'moved' after the actual article was deleted. However, if this is moved back, or to anywhere, it will lack its edit history, which, if I understand correctly, violates the GFDL. Can an admin review this, and either restore, move, and re-delete, or just delete the userfied page as a content fork of what's already on the 'ANoES' franchise page? Thank you. ThuranX (talk) 20:37, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

The article wasn't deleted, just redirected. The full history is still in its original location: See [95] --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:56, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

So we'll seam up the histories when they move the userfied in later, or what? Why not handle it now? ThuranX (talk) 00:21, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Well only an admin can move something over an existing article, so there is no way for TheGodAwfulTruth to move his user article over the real one. That said, a polite notice that the history of the article is still in tact under the redirect might be in order. That way the user will know how they can restore the content when the film passes WP:NFILMS. I will go give the user one now. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:40, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I have informed all those involved of the proper way to handle these situations in the future. If admin feels the need to delete the copy & past job it is User:TheGodAwfulTruth/A Nightmare on Elm Street (2010) and hasn't been edited since the transfer. Otherwise, there is nothing else that needs done here. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:49, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

need review of the topic ban of two editors from Cold Fusion

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

Resolved

 – Abd has indicated that he will abide by the page ban, not per the original banning administrator, but per the discussion/straw poll/whatever it was here. Nothing left to do here. Appealing via ArbCom remains an option if people feel that the need exists. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 04:35, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

A topic banned editor is claiming that the banning admin is involved[96], so I'm bringing the topic ban here for review before it becomes a total trainwreck (read below and you will understand).

In the last few days Hipocrite and Abd had both edit warred in Cold fusion resulting in two consecutive protections, and both had started several competing polls at different times, with the last polls finishing in this ANI thread. The last protection was made by User:William M. Connolley (WMC), who later reverted the protected article back to other version after a request on the talk page by an editor(request, acknowledgement of change), and who finally decided to topic ban both User:Hipocrite and User:Abd from Cold fusion and its talk page for one month and simply unprotect the article, (see ban notice in talk page diff full discussion), later noting that it was for an indefinite period and not just for a month[97], pending their behaviour in this mediation process (which is exclusively content issues).

Abd says that "Administrators do not have authority to issue page bans without the consent of the editor"[98], that he can withdraw his consent to be banned[99], that he is not banned [100] and that the best way forward is to defy his ban to see if he gets blocked [101] (I prepared a longer explanation with more diffs, but this is not a RFC/U, it's just to give you an idea). All between constant references to going to Arbcom. This is all worsened by WMC refusing to give a formal policy-based reason and pointing instead to WP:TRIFECTA [102] even although many editors have asked for a topic ban before and have given plenty of material and reasons for it.

As for why the topic ban is good for wikipedia, see the explanation of why the two editors were being disruptive to the project in that page, and how. Also, see the admin who made the first protection of Cold fusion saying that WMC has the situation under control[103], and another admin explaining how he should appeal the ban[104]

So, please could some uninvolved admins review the topic ban and say if it's ok? --Enric Naval (talk) 02:49, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Drama, drama. If I have a complaint, surely I could bring it here. I could have, in fact, gone direct to AC on this one. However, I concluded it was more efficient to just ignore the ban, so I let WMC know, I thought that a courtesy. He disagrees that I can do this. So what? There is a faction of editors who've been agitating for my ban since I filed Wikipedia:Requests for comment/JzG 3 which turned into Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Abd and JzG, WMC among them. I could provide evidence about WMC's involvement, about how he was in dispute with me about an edit he made to the article while it was protected, not only without consensus but contrary to consensus, and then he declared me (and Hipocrite) banned for unspecified reasons -- but so what? The threat could simply be hot air. He hasn't blocked me; his edit-under-protection wasn't worth a filing, and that's the only policy violation so far. If he were to push that button, I do know how to put up an unblock template and to appeal. Enric Naval is one among a few who were thrilled to see WMC do what they'd been praying for, and he's dismayed, apparently, that I'm not going to slink off quietly into RCP, (come to think of it, sounds nice), so he brings this here. If I'd actually challenged it, this would have been ArbComm fodder, and I'd much rather work on articles than compile diffs. The alleged ban is moot unless an admin decides I've violated some policy and blocks me; an administrator can threaten to block someone if they do X, and you can call that a ban from X, but it's not a community ban or an ArbComm enforcement ban, and WP:BAN doesn't contemplate this. WMC invokes IAR, and so can I; and there is no point debating this here, there has been no disruption on my part, there is no emergency, so AN/I is inappropriate. --Abd (talk) 03:42, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with Abd here. Unless and until one side or the other takes some definitive action (i.e. Abd editing against wikiedpia user WMC's claim of a ban, or WMC blocking Abd for something) there's really nothing to talk about. There is no policy against two editors making bluff charges at one another on their talk pages, is there? The current state is that Abd has NOT violated the "ban" and wikipedia user WMC has not enforced the "ban" with a block. So what specifically are we here to talk about at this point? This thread is premature and therefore unnecessarily disruptive in its own right. --GoRight (talk) 04:02, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

There has been definitive action - WMC has banned Abd and Hipocrite from Cold fusion, and thus reviewing that ban before things escalate any further seems wise to me. - Bilby (talk) 04:12, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I guess it depends on what you mean by "definitive action." Technically WMC has simply made some official sounding statements, and Abd has said he doesn't accept those statements as being valid. So what? None of that definitively violates any policy, and is therefore not actionable. So my meaning was basically, that until either one actually does anything to violate a policy in such a way that it requires a remedy there is really nothing to discuss here. Let Abd and WMC bicker amongst themselves on their talk pages all they want. --GoRight (talk) 04:29, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflictx2) (As Bilby says, I'm asking to review a clear action: the topic banning of two editors by an admin that appears to be involved) Since Abd claims that WMC is involved, and since he has explicitely expressed his wish to defy his ban "a little later today"[105] for that reason among others, I brought it here so it's no longer a topic ban by WMC, but a topic ban by the community. Or, if the community thinks that the topic ban is bad, that the topic ban is lifted. This is normal procedure at ANI, even if it's not written down anywhere. I humbly suggest that Abd forgets about WMC and explains to these uninvolved admins why he don't deserve a topic ban on that page. --Enric Naval (talk) 04:18, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Hey, I'm with you on the need to have a definitive policy on whether an Administrator is able to unilaterally declare a ban on some user without direct and definitive community consensus on that point. I tried to get such a statement back when we were discussing the Jed Rothwell "ban" which I still contend is NOT a ban. That case was put to rest by an indefinite block on a user that no one is going to seriously defend. That defense would be the responsibility of the user himself. But unfortunately AN/I is not the place to resolve that particular point because no one here has the authority to declare or implement such a policy change on their own. --GoRight (talk) 04:33, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

About User:JedRothwell, see WP:BAN#Community_ban "If a user has exhausted the community's patience to the point where an administrator has blocked the user long term or even indefinitely, and where no uninvolved administrator is willing to unblock him or her, the user is considered to be community-banned.". --Enric Naval (talk) 23:44, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Which uninvolved administrators have been asked to unblock him and refused? None that I am aware of. The whole point is that there was never sufficient community discussion to call Rothwell banned, and there was never a proper closing and recording of any community imposed ban so, in effect, he is not banned and never really was despite the claims of a few. MastCell has blocked his account, true, but even that has never really been appealed. For all we know that too would be reversed upon examination of a full set of evidence. But we digress. This thread is about ABd, not Rothwell. Feel free to take the last word if you want. --GoRight (talk) 01:11, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Endorse the topic ban for both editors. This is getting tiresome between these two. Additionally, Abd seems to clearly be on a WP:POINT-making streak, and additional action may need to be taken, unrelated to his involvement at Cold fusion, but related to his disruption since than, such as taunting admins to block him and reneging on a perfectly reasonable voluntary self-ban for no good reason. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:39, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm confused, Jayron32. "Between these two?" There has been no dispute between Hipocrite and I over this. What WP:POINT "streak"? All I did was tell WMC I wasn't going to respect the ban, so, if he'd banned me in lieu of blocking, he could reconsider. What disruption? You want disruption, file an AN/I report! Voluntary self-ban? WMC disregarded the self-ban offer and imposed a quite different ban. What admins have I taunted? WMC? How? I'm getting a bad feeling about this, Jayron. What's the basis for the ban? That I objected to being banned? Isn't that a tad circular?

Jayron's comment shows why I try to stay away from AN/I. He endorsed a ban here, without seeing any evidence on which the ban was supposedly based, and showing an unfamiliarity with what had actually happened. That happens all the time on AN/I, people pile in and vote for "their side." Facts? Who cares? Well, ArbComm will care, I assure him. What's the purpose of this discussion? The most likely outcome is no consensus, a waste of time. But if some admin closes with a ban, fine. I would almost certainly appeal, and this time it all gets considered with evidence and procedure and order. For a few days I considered taking the ban to ArbComm directly, there is a basis for that. I concluded that it was much less disruptive to simply ignore it, and I discussed that with a few editors in a few places. Before deciding to not go to ArbComm, I emailed one admin whom I thought WMC might listen to, because I'm convinced that if this goes to ArbComm, the least consequence he sees is another reprimand. He didn't like it, so I let it go. I'm going to bed. You guys can handle it, and if enough people show up, it will be fine, except for the wasted time. --Abd (talk) 03:58, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

It's odd to accuse Jayron/ANI of rush to judgment and acting without seeing the evidence. You just made a long series of charges against William Connolley, and then indicated that you couldn't be bothered to actually provide diffs. This is mostly ArbCom's fault, for not making it clearer in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Abd and JzG that Abd's approach was problematic. But of course, this will undoubtedly end up before them again in short order, which will be punishment enough. MastCell ^Talk 04:00, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

It's not odd that Abd didn't waste time digging up diffs here. Diffs to defend against what? What is he accused of? What policy has he violated by telling wikipedia user WMC that he disputes his right to declare a ban and, therefore, intends to ignore it? Until Abd does something to violate the declared ban and WMC takes action as a result of it there is nothing to do here. There are no diffs to even dig up if one wanted to, are there?

This is the exact same scenario as we saw with Jed Rothwell and you know how that turned out. No one is actually going to seriously defend Rothwell against your indefinite block, that would be for Rothwell to do. But Abd? There would be lots of support to defend him against such a unilateral and punative action. Care to test the waters on that front, MastCell, like you did in the case of Rothwell? --GoRight (talk) 04:19, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I already gave links and diffs in my opening comment, I am not going to repeat them here just because you say that I didn't give any. Uninvolved admins can look for themselves at Talk:Cold fusion or at Abd's contributions, or they can ask for more diffs if they think they need them to form their opinion. --Enric Naval (talk) 04:43, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I think you must have misread my statement. I never claimed that you didn't provide diffs, I said that Abd didn't provide diffs. But just because you provide diffs to point to some related topics, it does not mean that either Abd or WMC have done anything to violate any policies. Until they do there's really nothing to be done here.

On the other hand, if uninvolved admins want to look into this case I don't have any problem with that. The more sunlight the better in these cases. I just don't think that (a) they have anything to actually look into since there have been no policy violations from either Abd or WMC relative to WMC's declaration that a topic ban is actually in place, or (b) the admins here [Update: do not] have the authority to to fix the issue you raise, that is for ArbCom to address as far as I can see. --GoRight (talk) 04:58, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse the current topic ban for both editors as well. As someone who headed up the original mediation for Cold Fusion a long time ago, the current tit-for-tat pointy debates and long-winded tirades have grown tiresome. Additional action in the way of blocks or request for additional sanctions may be necessary if this trend continues, especially in regards to the recent non-Cold Fusion actions. seicer | talk | contribs 04:26, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse topic ban. Hipocrite has raised no objections. On the other hand, since the ban, Abd has gone into full blown wikilawyering mode. His posts are unreasonable, highly provocative and can verge on rants. When he took me to task for being a pure mathematician on the talk page of User:Kirk shanahan, I revealed that, as such, I might actually be familiar with quantum field theory and with discussions of research in chemistry (including fraudulent research). His reaction - quite ill-considered - was to ridicule me. This all arose from a discussion of the use of secondary sources in science, where multiple science editors have explained how this works in practice. Abd would like it to be otherwise for his purposes. He frequently writes that he is working towards consensus, but this does not seem to be the case. He is hostile to most scientists and is slowly, persistently and not-so-politely pushing his extreme point of view. It's time for a lengthy break for Abd from this topic area. He seems to have completely lost track of what is involved in editing uncontroversial wikipedia articles in science. We do not have large speculative sections on poorly understood, unestablished science in wikipedia articles. Abd's editing has regressed to that of WP:SPA. It reflects his active correspondence with cold fusion advocates Steven B. Krivit and banned editor JedRothwell (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). By trying persistently to rebrand cold fusion as "emerging science", he has become a disruptive fringe POV-pusher. The article is progressing quite smoothly without him. Abd does have his faithful supporters (Coppertwig, GoRight, ...), but they are rarely able to justify his stance in fringe POV-pushing. Mathsci (talk) 06:31, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

  Small correction just to keep the record straight in all of this. Jed Rothwell was never banned. The Arbcom specifically declined to endorse such a ban favoring instead that the community use the existing tools at their disposal to deal with him. As a result User:MastCell issued an indefinite block on Rothwell's and immediately recused himself from further action. No one has appealed this action, but it is important to know that a block and a ban are not the same thing. Carry on ...

  "they are rarely able to justify his stance in fringe POV-pushing." - I also dispute this characterization of Abd's actions. Abd has been working to bring the article into conformance with the rulings related to Fringe Science, which is not POV pushing but rather the more laudable goal of supporting Arbcom rulings and Wikipedia policy. --GoRight (talk) 18:22, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse the topic ban. The cold fusion editing environent has improved immeasurably since this block was enacted. Abd's threat of ignoring the ban is simply disruptive, and his baiting of WMC and pointy wikilawyering is just further evidence that the block was justified. Abd is hostile, and longwinded rants such as his were directly criticised recently by ArbCom, as was Abd's failure to use DR correctly. These have both repeated in this case. If Abd continues with this behaviour a full block may be in order. Hipocrite has, on the other hand, behaved properly since the block and engaged in mediation in good faith. Verbal chat 06:42, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support one-month ban. Time to take a break. There's plenty of other things in the world worth writing about. If Abd is really motivated, he/she can spend that time gathering materials to replicate cold fusion... II | (t - c) 06:57, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse one-month. The behaviour on the Cold fusion page looks both tendentious and disruptive, and seems to meet most of the criteria for both per the related pages. I'm hoping a break will give Abd a chance to look at why some editors are finding his behaviour difficult, and perhaps time to consider some of the feedback. - Bilby (talk) 07:14, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support the ban. Abd's comments on the subject seem to be rather poor attempts at justifying his behavior or finding a loophole that would excuse him. If he's interested in resolving the issue, there's a mediation open that he can participate in. Shell ^babelfish 07:13, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comment I'd like to thank everyone who notified me about this thread, via email and my talk page. While I was a little shocked to be banned along with Abd, I decided then I didn't care enough to argue about it, and I still don't. Because Cold Fusion is just one of thousands of articles that have problems on this encyclopedia, I just moved on. I am happy to remain banned from Cold Fusion as long as it gets Abd out of the hair of the editors who appear to be productively improving the article. I intend to continue to work in the hopefully productive mediation, and apologize again to that mediator, but note that I did warn him! In summary, and as I've espoused multiple times (diffs on request, but ask Roux for a recent one)- ban everyone, and then find the person that complains, and keep them banned, because they're the one causing the problem.

PS: Even though I didn't read the walls of text below this from Abd, I'd merely like to say that any conclusions he has drawn about me or the reasons I have done or not done something are disuputed by me. If anyone would like further comment about my specific facutal dispute with whatever Abd has assumed of my motives or actions, I can be reached on my talk page. Hipocrite (talk) 12:44, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

"I am happy to remain banned from Cold Fusion as long as it gets Abd out of the hair of the editors who appear to be productively improving the article." - I am perfectly willing to give you the benefit of the doubt and WP:AGF here, but anyone who thinks about this situation critically does have to wonder if this was not your intent all along (i.e. to intentionally provoke a confrontation and then voluntarily fall on the sword for what you perceive to be the greater good). --GoRight (talk) 19:28, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse. From the back-and-forth I've read, apparently Abd is unable or unwilling to express himself concisely, and has additional problems with bowing to consensus once consensus is reached. The harangues I've waded through add little to the discussion in which they're placed, and seem to serve to quite annoy those who are working to actually improve the article. Unitanode 13:03, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse particularly in the case of abd, about whom i think its a pity this isn't indefinite. Really, some bold admin should do the encyclopedia a favor and just make it a permenant ban from the topic now and save a lot of time and tears.Bali ultimate (talk) 13:06, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support. I've been watching this ongoing dispute since around the arbcom case with Jzg and Abd. I have never edited the article in dispute but I have been watching the developements due to my interest in the WP:REHAB project and doing research for the project. Watching Abd wikilawyering like s/he has been is very sad to watch. I did read all of the threads here including Abd's long response below. I don't understand why Abd keeps bringing Hipocrite into discussions here since he is not disputing the ban. I think from all I've read that Abd has worn out the patience of the editors at this article and pretty much every where else. I find some of what Abd has said to WMC about taking it to arbcom or other places about the ban is crossing WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. Abd has to stop the WP:TE and WP:Wikilawyering. If this does go to arbcom, I am guessing they aren't going to be too pleased to see another case so soon. So yes I think it's time for Abd to find something else to do and leave this alone for awhile. If not, than maybe a wikibreak maybe in order to think about what everyone is saying. Thanks for listening, --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:15, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse. I've also been watching this dispute, and the broader issue regarding Abd's behaviour, for a long time now, though I have deliberately tried to stay out of discussions myself. I basically agree with ChronieGal's comments above. I find Abd's involvement very disruptive and I endorse the topic ban. It's most unfortunate that instead of accepting the topic ban in good faith he chose to waste our time with lengthy attempts at Wikilawyering his way out of it. I'm also very concerned about Abd's behaviour more generally. Every time I see his name he seems to be at the center of some contentious dispute with someone and I honestly feel that he is on a fast track to some sort of broader sanctioning, perhaps even a ban, because of his disruption. It's very sad and regrettable because I do believe that he has good intentions and means well but the community's patience and tolerance for this sort of behaviour isn't limitless and if he continues in his current vein it seems inevitable to me that the community is going to have to deal with much broader sanctions than just a topic ban. I feel the community's patience is starting to be exhausted and I would urge Abd to reconsider his behaviour on this project and to spend some time quietly editing the mainspace in some non-controversial subject areas without involving himself in any disputes and arguments with other editors. Sarah 02:45, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Responses of Abd

To Bilby: Escalating to prevent esclation?

Bilby wrote, There has been definitive action - WMC has banned Abd and Hipocrite from Cold fusion, and thus reviewing that ban before things escalate any further seems wise to me. Reviewing the ban here was escalation and disruption, when it was possible that no escalation was needed and that no further disruption would take place. Had either banned editor acted disruptively, they could be blocked for that, the issue being reviewed in response by a single presumably neutral administrator, examining the evidence. If further escalation was needed, one step at a time. Considering this in the hot environment of AN/I, where editors and administrators, too-frequently, make snap judgments based on AGF of the reporter and some superficial resemblance to cogency, is likely to produce further disruption. Discussion with WMC had completed. He wasn't complaining here. I wasn't complaining here. Why did Enric Naval complain here? We do not resolve disputes by inflaming them with deception, and I will show below that he did just this. --Abd (talk) 11:38, 11 June 2009 (UTC) and

You have been disputing the ban since it was issued, on your talk page [106] and that of WMC. [107] Mathsci (talk) 12:18, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Not to mention on my talk page and my email inbox, Fritzpoll's talk page, and even in the Cold fusion mediation. You included explicit threats of escalation directly to ArbCom, and intimated that WMC was risking his admin bit by crossing you. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:23, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I claimed that WMC risked his bit by acting to edit the article under protection, when the version picked to revert to was not among those which had been proposed and considered by many editors, and with an expressed contempt for "polls," -- whereas there is no controversy over the poll results, they became only more obvious after I was banned -- and which version essentially ratified Hipocrites prior edit warring; the only good thing that could be said about that version is that it was better than what Hipocrite had created while waiting for protection to arrive. WMC edited an article to a preferred version, not only without consensus, but against obvious consensus. To a lesser extent, he risked his bit by declaring a ban when he was involved in a dispute with the editor. However, WMC is not responsible for the disruption here. He did not bring this report, triggering a premature consideration of an issue not ripe for conclusions, thus making an appeal to ArbComm practically inevitable. That appeal might cause consideration of WMC's actions, though I don't consider them the worst part of this affair, and he showed restraint when I rejected the ban. --Abd (talk) 17:40, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify, the action Abd refers to as WMC "edit(ing) the article under protection" was solely to restore the article to the pre-edit war version as suggested by GoRight. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:52, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Further clarification, you are correct however it is also worth noting that wikipedia user WMC took action without any showing of community consensus for my proposal (I had intended there to be some discussion of the proposal) whereas the versions in the polls had already received some level of community support. --GoRight (talk) 19:35, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

However the poll(s) were disputed and had been brought to ANI already. WMC chose a suggest pre-editwar version, and the remaining editors can restore the text (hopefully by consensual editing rather than by a revert) to any version they like, or improve beyond those versions. The revert and banning do not in any way show that WMC is involved or acted improperly, as Abd claims. Verbal chat 19:43, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

The raw intentions of the various editors are duly recorded at the talk page and its history. The simple fact of the matter is that those versions included in the polls had received community support in excess of anything my proposal had at the time that WMC took his action. Does that make WMC involved? Absolutely not, how could it? Acted improperly? Remains to be seen, I guess, not that I suggest any pursuit of that should be taken. I am merely expressing the facts of the current situation. --GoRight (talk) 01:24, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Either you had to bring the ban to ANI or ArbCom, or you had to observe the ban, or you could have flouted the ban. As you made it quite clear that you didn't respect the ban, then option 2 is ruled out. Forcing 1 upon you seems the least disruptive way of proceeding. Hipocrite has accepted the ban, and the community seems so far to have endorsed the ban. WMC is clearly WP:UNINVOLVED. Also, EN didn't complain here - he brought the ban here to see if the community approved of it. Verbal chat 13:18, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Why was he interested in seeing if the community approved of it? Idle curiosity? No, he's wanted this ban for a long time, that can be shown. But not here. I suggest that my editing record stands on its own, and that I should not be banned except for disruptive editing, and upon specific evidence of that. Most of the claims of disruption that have been raised here and elsewhere are old charges, recycled, that have already been presented to ArbComm, which did not accept them. Some of those commenting seem to think that I've misunderstood ArbComm. Consider the obvious implication: perhaps I have, and perhaps I should consult ArbComm to find out, and not a series of editors, some of whom I already know are hostile to relevant ArbComm decisions. --Abd (talk) 17:26, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

"Either you had to bring the ban to ANI or ArbCom, or you had to observe the ban, or you could have flouted the ban. As you made it quite clear that you didn't respect the ban, then option 2 is ruled out." - This logic is actually faulty. Option 2 is not ruled out unless and until Abd takes action to move it to Option 3. He has taken no such action, has he? --GoRight (talk) 19:42, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

If you look at my opening comment, I linked to Abd saying explicitely that he intended to edit "a little later today" in defiance of his ban[108]. I posted in ANI just five hours 17 hours after that post. Also see several previous comments where he concludes that, according to WP:DR, the proper procedure for escalating was 1) editing in defiance of his ban 2) using the unblock template if he was blocked (in order to get an uninvolved admin to review his ban!) 3) reserving his right to go to Arbcom at some point later. Also see the linked posts where he says unambiguously that he is not banned. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:50, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

And how does any of this matter for a hill of beans? Saying you are going to edit later is not the same thing as actually editing. The former is not a violation of anything. The latter may be but that remains to be tested. I am afraid that you simply jumped the gun on this request because, objectively speaking, at this point in time Abd has thus far respected the ban. --GoRight (talk) 01:24, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

On Enric Naval's complaint

Enric Naval (talk · contribs) is a long-term, highly involved editor at Cold fusion with an axe to grind, definitely supportive of Hipocrite. Hipocrite, through the ban, had accomplished his mission at the article, we might notice the total absence of response from Hipocrite to the ban. WMC may have been guilty of an overreaction, an understandable one, but Enric Naval knows what he's doing. To set the stage here, he was, at the least, in reckless disregard of the truth, framing and presenting a highly misleading picture, and disruptively so, because once false impressions are created and editors have committed to them, it can take a lot of work to disentangle the mess.

Claim: "topic ban." Not a topic ban, a ban from editing two pages, Cold fusion and Talk:Cold fusion. The difference is important. I've been in much discussion on the topic, and it was encouraged that this continue; for example, seeking whitelisting of links to lenr-canr.org, which has been almost entirely successful, or engaging in a mediation, or discussing the topic on User Talk pages. Explicitly, this was not a topic ban.

Claim: "In the last few days Hipocrite and Abd had both edit warred in Cold fusion resulting in two consecutive protections, I almost never use a bald revert, or more than once. Hipocrite, however, showed up at Cold fusion about May 1 and began undoing sourced changes to the article, with bald reverts. This triggered much discussion, which is how I normally respond. On May 21, however, I did use reverts, and, while I did not believe that I'd broken 3RR, I had strayed into edit warring, and I responded with gratitude to article protection. I now believe that Hipocrite's goal was to provoke responses from me that would result in a ban or block. I used the time to discuss the changes over which edit warring had taken place. Some of those changes had been accepted. On June 1, however, I replaced two sections that had seen either no opposition in Talk, or where consensus had been negotiated. Hipocrite reverted them. I did not revert. Other editors attempted to restrain Hipocrite, one of them reaching 2RR. Hipocrite hit 3RR, then realized that he was going to be unable to maintain his content position, so he reverted himself down to net 2RR and went to RfPP, claiming I was edit warring, and requested protection. Then he went back to the article and immediately made a major edit to the lead, an edit which he clearly knew had no chance of being accepted, it was long-term consensus not to call cold fusion "pseudoscience" or to emphasize "pariah field" in the lead. Later, when versions were reviewed for a quick-fix edit under protection, nobody, not even Hipocrite, supported the version he created while he knew protection was imminent. He knew that admins there don't dig deeply; I'd say they should be a little more careful when the principal, long-term and immediate, edit warrior is the one complaining. I have to take the kids to school, I'll return, later, with more analysis and diffs. --Abd (talk) 11:38, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I think you mean bold. Verbal chat 13:11, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I think he means that he disguises his reverts a bit (makes them "not bald") by making other, minor changes. I could be wrong here, but I think that's what he means. Unitanode 13:16, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Ha... maybe he means "empirically unsupported", like his attacks on Enric Navel and WMC above. Verbal chat 13:20, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

(ec) If an administrator were to dig deeper, he would discover that it was Hipocrite that requested article protection because of Abd's edits. [109]

He meant just what he said. A bald revert is one that does not even attempt a compromise position, which Abd typically does as a means of seeking consensus. A bald revert merely undoes a user's action in its entirety. --GoRight (talk) 19:54, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

The first step in WP:DR is discussion between the editors engaged. I first disputed the ban, WMC rejected that, and I dropped it while I considered what to do. I realized that it might avoid disruption if I ignored the ban, rather than challenging it up the ladder, I notified WMC. He rejected that, as well, but he did not seem inclined to do anything rash, and he apparently saw no need to escalate. In spite of baiting to violate or escalate, I declined. I did not edit Talk:Cold fusion yesterday because I didn't get to it, and saw nothing urgent. Today I'm not editing the article or its Talk because of this discussion; at this point there is a clear majority in favor of a ban, so I'm bound to respect that pending, even if I think no legitimate basis exists. Due respect for consensus is fundamental, and I appear to dispute it only when I believe that deeper consideration will confirm my position, and that dispute never extends to defiance. Even without a ban, I would not be editing Cold fusion itself at this point except with uncontroversial edits. My approach to Wikipedia involves seeking real consensus, not just an appearance of consensus produced by banning editors with a significant point of view. That's why I don't edit war and why the incident of May 21 stands out as very unusual in my record. Seeking real consensus requires, often, discussion in depth, and where discussion is suppressed, we can expect continued disruption. I try to make sure that the presentation of evidence has been completed before seeking wider attention, if necessary. Often, that presentation is quite enough, as happened at Martin Fleischmann. I'll come back with diffs about that protection "because of Abd's edits." The reality is that Hipocrite gamed RfPP to make and freeze an edit worse than a mere revert, and I was not revert warring. I'll show the history. --Abd (talk) 17:21, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Who baited you? Do you have diffs? In fact it looks as though you have been baiting WMC - I quote from above "but he did not seem inclined to do anything rash". I've only seen people advise you to follow the ban. Verbal chat 17:31, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

To the community that has !voted here

I am ceasing response to this report, because of the WP:SNOW result above, and I ask that those inclined to defend me please cease it at this point. If you want to be informed of further action related to this, which I would expect would only be an RfAr, anything else would be uselessly disruptive, please watch User:Abd/Notices, or my Talk page. If other editors arrive who are familiar with the issues, who know how deceptive the filing here was, and who try to counter it, it would only increase disruption. There are arbitratable issues established here and in prior events, and I could have gone to ArbComm over the ban; I would not have brought it here, AN/I deals with emergencies and does a poor job of making deliberated decisions based on evidence. I see no chance that this discussion could reverse itself without major disruption, therefore, please stop. I will take the issues here, as may be appropriate for ArbComm, there, because it is clear to me that process short of that will lead to simply more dispute, for reasons I will make plain in an RfAr. I request a neutral administrator to close this discussion; even if the admin were to decide that the ban was mass hysteria and not founded on evidence, I would still not defy such a massive expression of support for the ban without finding confirmation in a more careful, deliberative process, as happens at ArbComm. I thank GoRight for his efforts to defend me, and, as to the rest of you, well, see you around. (If the close is a neutral administrator, there would be someone to administer the ban, to decide on enforcement, etc., someone with whom I can negotiate. Given the !votes above, it would be preposterous of me to imagine that an uninvolved administrator had closed with bias. I ask that the close be done by an admin who would be willing to consider evidence that was not presented here, for reasons I've explained. Simply "endorsing" the ban leaves administration in the hands of WMC, a task which he should not have taken on because of recusal policy. That is, the close should confirm the ban, not the banning administrator. --Abd (talk) 17:58, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

• It should confirm both. I do not see anything that WMC has done wrong in this case. He stepped into a sticky situation, as an uninvolved administrator, and handled it with relative aplomb. Hipocrite has accepted the ban (and, by extension and common sense, WMC's placement of it), as should you. Unitanode 21:23, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Abd's editing behaviour seems to have regressed to that of an internet troll. Mathsci (talk) 22:00, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Mathsci is hereby reminded that there are policies related to civility and he is respectfully asked to adhere to them. --GoRight (talk) 01:30, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Abd's only option now is to contest this ban in the US federal court system. Count Iblis (talk) 01:20, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Heh, don't tempt him. I have no doubt that he could construct a reasonable case there as well. --GoRight (talk) 01:30, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Not quite true; ArbCom is always a possibility for an appeal. Anyway, since I think I can safely say I've no bone to pick here, I think I qualify as a neutral admin and intend to grant Abd's request that this discussion be closed. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 04:30, 12 June 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.

JonasanRat7

• JonasanRat7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I'm slightly concerned with this user, over 70% of this user's contributions are in the userspace. The user barely has any mainspace contributions, while many of the user talk edits are either vandalism([110],[111](possibly?)), personal attacks, and a slight amount of harassment/more semi-personal attacks not to mention this misleading edit, which stated the user had rights which he did not(rollback(although, in assuming good faith, it was obviously a copy/paste from another userpage). On top of previous notes, the user also apparently thought that WP was like myspace.

This user was eventually blocked for a day, but edits suggest they wish to close this account and come back as another one. I don't really see any signs we should let them, in regards to their past edits, and habits of treating WP like myspace. Maybe there is hope, maybe there isn't, opinions?— Dædαlus ^Contribs 06:19, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

As blocker, I support Daedalus969's proposal. I thought the same thing when I blocked for 24 hours, but didn't feel like bringing it here. Toddst1 (talk) 06:23, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

As decliner of unblock request, I concur...no evidence intends to build the encyclopedia rather than using it as a chatsite/webforum/etc. Even the unblock request supports this analysis. DMacks (talk) 06:27, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok, that's enough for me. Indefinitely blocked. Toddst1 (talk) 07:02, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

User:James von Brunn

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.

User page has been blanked with appropriate links listed. Discussions about the shooting article belong on its talk page.

---

At Talk:United States Holocaust Memorial Museum the following complaint appeared:[112]

Request that page of User:James_von_Brunn be locked ASAP Billbrock (talk) 18:26, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Although obviously not something for that talk page, the complaint does appear to have merit, so I've moved it here. Rami R 18:57, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

This user's page is on my watchlist (because I reverted his only article edit and issued a warning), so I am aware of the huge amount of edit activity there related to the Holocaust Museum shooting. I full-protected the user page for 24 hours due to the massive interest in editing the user page. There's no reason for anyone to edit the page. The talk page is not protected. --Orlady (talk) 19:12, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Why was the page blanked before locking? There was no activity on the page for a month (hmmm, curious, perhaps?), since the day it was created, ostensibly by the user himself... Then today Billbrock requested that his (Billbrock's) edit be removed and the page locked. After 3.4 zillion anon edits, Hipocrite shows up and blanks the page and Orlady blocks it. Why? Tomer^talk 19:15, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, the blanking has been undone. I withdraw my inquiry. Tomer^talk 19:15, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

The blanking has been redone. The page was a violation of WP:USER or, failing that, good sense and propriety, which are covered under the auspices of WP:IAR. —Animum (talk) 19:39, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Because the insane neo-nazi guy behind the username just shot up a memorial and we're hosting his autobio. It should be reblanked, preferably deleted, post haste. Hipocrite (talk) 19:18, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Here is the story. Hiberniantears (talk) 19:21, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I have blanked the talk page, and Bjweeks has protected. The same has been done to the userpage. I recommend contacting comcom. Tiptoety ^talk 19:30, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I wonder if an abuse filter could be created that caught the phrase "international banker" and warned the editor that they were an "insane neo-nazi"...?! This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 19:43, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Both user and user talk have been blanked and fully protected. BJ^Talk 19:31, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I've e-mailed the Communications committee. They should be apprised of the situation. Valley2city^‽ 19:52, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I should say so! The Times, according to 2009 U.S. Holocaust Museum shooting, has already reported that he maintains a user page on Wikipedia, which (and wait until the howls of censorship start over this one) is even linked to in the article...of course his user page is now blanked and locked, in what appears to be a misbegotten effort by some here to conceal the fact and probably soon to sweep it under the rug. Given the philosophy that supposedly governs the Project, this activity is rather shameful. Tomer^talk 19:57, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

The article from the Times can be found here, by the way. Valley2city^‽ 20:37, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Good call contacting COMCOM, the fact that this guy (apparently) had a Wikipedia user page has obviously already made it into the press. Presumably law enforcement folks will be contacting the Wikimedia Foundation at some point since they'll necessarily chase down every piece of information about their suspect. The situation is well beyond anything that can be taking care of at ANI and I'm guessing we've probably done about all we can now (I don't see anything wrong with deleting the user page - the information from it can easily be recovered, and there's no need whatsoever to continue hosting that hateful garbage, and many reasons to get rid of it), unless there is someone else who should be contacted other than the Communications committee. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:03, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd support undeletion, but keeping it blanked and protected. Martinp23 20:04, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I would have speedy deleted his user page and indef blocked the user if I came across this before the shooting. We have to keep it now because of "censorship"? BJ^Talk 20:06, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Deleting it won't hide anything that the media hasn't already published; therefore, I've undeleted. Feel free to revert me if you wish. —Animum (talk) 20:11, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

This is the right call. I find it amusing that it's almost impossible to get, say, the 46th most important pokemon character's unreferenced article deleted, but that when a real life terrorist chooses to use wikipedia to host info about himself shortly before he commits a horrible crime and gets caught, that our instinct would be to immediately delete the info. Law enforcement will want it, and if it's that interesting (and it is) we shouldn't stand in anyone's way of getting at it. So fully support the restore of the history, and a permanent locking of the page. This guy is about to become the subject of itense, intense media coverage, and his autobio will feature in almost all of it, rightly or wrongly. Wikipedia itself is going to end up with an article about this fellow that sources to the autobio (though of course via the reliable sources that site it and not directly -- the gods of original research forbid!).Bali ultimate (talk) 20:17, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

(ec) It's not about hiding or censoring (as Animum says the information is out there already), it's the fact that we're hosting racial hate speech from an accused murderer - plain and simple. It doesn't matter if it's only in the history and if the page is protected, the old version is still present in Wikipedia user space. If law enforcement needs to look at it they can (any admin has access if it's deleted) and the info can even be released to reporters, but I don't see a good argument for us keeping it visible to anyone who knows where the history tab is, particularly since this is the kind of thing we would routinely delete anyway and particularly since this man has apparently just done something extremely heinous and we're under no obligation him to give him an additional platform for his awful views. But again maybe these are issues that Foundation people should be dealing with, and we might want to hear what they have to say about this. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:20, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Support deletion -- if law enforcement needs it, it's still there, and we wouldn't tolerate it if we had spotted it today for other reasons.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:26, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

The page was mostly about himself (describing his personal history and beliefs) and it was not particularly coherent. The December 2007 edit that I reverted ws more clearly a political comment on a topic other than himself. Perhaps his most significant interaction with other Wikipedia users was this (not much there to see, folks). --Orlady (talk) 20:36, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Hey now... Until ArbCom or someone else decided to start ruling on content, his page isn't exactly extreme by the standards of a lot of other crap on here. Hiberniantears (talk) 21:00, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Did you read the old version of the user page closely? If so you have a different view of "extreme" then I do. I'm certainly not going to quote it, but I see a wildly anti-Semitic statement combined with a plea for eugenics. This isn't a "content" issue (where does that come from?) it's an issue of whether or not we tolerate blatant racism on user pages. Last time I checked we don't. I still think his user page should be deleted, but I think maybe Foundation people should handle this in the end. Regardless, I'm shocked that anyone could suggest that the views on that page are not "extreme," particularly given what just happened today. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:12, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I read it. It is hate filled garbage, no different from many of our articles. My point is not that it is acceptable. My point is that many of our articles are equally unacceptable, but we are too incompetent as a project to clean house. Don't get upset that I'm pointing out that Wikipedia is a vehicle of hate unless you are willing to put in the time to fix it. Hiberniantears (talk) 03:25, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Keep it undeleted. Deleting does nothing more than either damage transparency or create an appearance of damaged transparency. We accomplish zero by deleting the page. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:11, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Following standard procedure, I've deleted the page and also, though not a part of standard procedure, protected it just in case of vandalism by autoconfirmed users. The deleted revisions will be available to the authorities if they request them. The ComCom or Foundation should probably take over from here. —Animum (talk) 21:13, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Can you point to where this is standard procedure? I see neither policy nor good reason to delete. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:20, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

When it came down to keeping the page deleted or restoring it, the ultimate question was, "Do I treat this as I normally would, or do I treat it differently?" One could figure out what was on the page by reading the news articles (and if you didn't know you could, now you do), so it wasn't a big issue of transparency—in fact, probably 80% of the deleted revisions were vandalism or a revert—and this discussion isn't one that involves diffs. As there was no compelling reason to treat the page differently, I defaulted to normal practice, which would have been deletion. —Animum (talk) 22:23, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

(ec with JoshuaZ) I support that obviously, and would hope that other admins would not wheel-war over this. If someone at the Foundation decides it makes more sense to restore the history for whatever reason then we can do so, but personally I feel we should wait to hear from them. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:22, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure all this isn't stopping anyone who wants it from getting it.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:13, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I find the timing of the interest in "waiting for ComCom", to paraphrase, to be a bit peculiar... Tomer^talk 22:15, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I'd agree. The "please don't let us wheel war" comes with the switch sitting comfortably in the desired position. Frankly, there is not much there. I've looked at it. It's brief. There's indications of hatred, but if he hadn't shot up a museum, his statements might raise eyebrows, but would probably not be deleted if it came to official notice. I think what we are seeing is revulsion over having the words of an accused murderer on our pure as driven snow web site. Not sure that's a good enough reason, though I'm not going to take any action myself. --Wehwalt (talk) 22:19, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

(ec with last Wehwalt comment) To Wehwalt, I'm sure it isn't, but I'm also pretty sure that isn't really the point. It's not about suppressing information (the info is already out), it's about removing hate speech by an accused murderer from Wikipedia. My apologies if I'm reading your comment incorrectly, but I just don't think this has anything to do with censorship.

And Tomer you might want to just come out and say what you mean, because your comment is quite frankly rather inscrutable. Hard to tell who you are talking to or what you mean, but personally I've said we should be "waiting for ComCom" from the beginning, both when the page was sitting there undeleted and after it was re-deleted (both actions were taken by the same admin, incidentally). --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:22, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not the one who's crying censorship, for the record, I'm the one who foresees this being used as another example of heavy-handed WP admins basically acting less like good editors, and more like biased schoolmarms. Blanking the article was bad enough, deleting it outright was just a downright bad idea after the page was reported on in the media. The contents of the page speak for themselves, and they're in User space, not article space, so any fear that the page's existence compromises WP's sterling reputation as a source of everything that is known and knowable are trivial. Tomer^talk 22:36, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

So you did. I apologize, I had the timeline confused. Tomer^talk 22:36, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

And I can say that if I had stumbled upon his page, the only thing that would have possibly kept me from deleting it would have been the firestorm of drama that probably would have ensued. —Animum (talk) 22:29, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about the ec. Then why blank the talk page? And why blank the parts of the user page that are purely biographical?--Wehwalt (talk) 22:26, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I presume the above comments are somewhat directed at me, so I'll point out that while the page was sitting there undeleted (after Animum had restored it) I said "I still think his user page should be deleted, but I think maybe Foundation people should handle this in the end." Meaning I didn't like the current situation, but I'll leave it to Foundation. Now I like the current situation, but I'll still leave it to the Foundation. An admin undid their own decision back to their original decision, and I think that's what ought not be wheel warred over. I don't see an inconsistency there.

And, yes, I am concerned with "revulsion over having the words of an accused murderer on our pure as driven snow web site," except without the unnecessary superlative about being pure at the end. Mainly because I can't think how I would justify, to a family member of the victim who was angry that hate speech from this guy was sitting there viewable to the public on this web site, why keeping this crap undeleted is necessary. Kind of a no-brainer to me and it doesn't actually have much to do with Wikipedia. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:34, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

If it was a no brainer, then I doubt if this discussion would have ensued. So instead of having it on our p.a.t.d.s. webs site, now it will be exensively quoted on blogs, news articles, and probably in the wp article on this incident.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:44, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I have to leave off after this comment, but again the issue for me is not that the the information from the user page will exist out there in the world (it should, I'm not interested in suppressing it) the issue is whether we ought to be hosting hate speech from an accused murderer. You seem to be saying this entire discussion is causing more of a problem than the info on the user page (which you deemed something that, in what I would call a large understatement, "might raise eyebrows"), and I just find that strange. It suggests that you wish we had just left the info there without even discussing what to do about it, and that this obscure Wiki thread is somehow going to generate some sort of massive interest in the user page content which otherwise would not be there. That makes little sense given that the info was already being reported on before we started talking about this. To me this discussion is just about doing the right thing at the end of the day and that's what's important.

You didn't respond to my point about the theoretical family member, but I still think that's the way we should be thinking about this. Or you might imagine an alternative scenario: picture a prominent blogger, say someone who blogs regularly about anti-Semitism, getting wind of the fact that we were still hosting a hateful message from this guy and had actively refused to delete it. Said blogger posts the link to the historical diff and tells his or her thousands of readers to ask the WMF why they think it's okay to keep hate speech connected to a murder on their servers. Would you have a good answer for that, or more to the point would you help with the complaints that would follow? Maybe you think it would somehow be unfair for someone to get all righteous about a user page comment that the WMF is not directly responsible for, but in the real world it's quite possible something like that would happen (and really they wouldn't be wrong). To me the better solution is to delete it, make it available to reporters and cops, and put out a statement that "The Wikimedia Foundation has permanently deleted this material as it is our policy to not let our users post hate speech on their user pages. It is available to law enforcement and the media." I think it's kinda hard for anyone to argue with that.

As I said above it's a "no-brainer to me," but as you say apparently not to everyone. Frankly I'm surprised we even have to have a conversation like this, though I guess I shouldn't be. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 23:35, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll take the liberty of placing my comment a bit out of order, since the last was directed to me. There strikes me as some what of a conflict between a fearless encyclopedia which is proudly not censored, and fearing what Mrs. Grundy or a hypothetical relative whose views we have no way of knowing might think. But also, you didn't answer my query. Why not delete any hate speech, leave the rest of it up (much of it is personal biography) and also leave up the talk page, which contains no hate speech? It seems to me that disposes of your hypothetical as well.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:47, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

This is covered under WP:UP#NOT, item 9. Proper procedure is to delete polemics from user pages, independent of the subject matter. It's not normally considered grounds for page deletion unless the user reintroduces the material. There's something to be said for leaving the historical record intact. --John Nagle (talk) 00:01, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Posting a brief note here to say that there has been discussion of this incident (what to do with the user page in question) on the functionaries-en mailing list. I'm posting here to pass on the general tenor of what was discussed and to ask that admins be calm here and not take precipitate action further to what has already been done, or to undo what has been done. One conclusion was that oversight is not needed here, as that would hinder the release of information later if needed. Both Mike Godwin and Cary Bass (both deal with WMF office matters) commented there, and are happy to leave this to the community to deal with. If requests are made to the WMF from law enforcement officers, it can be handled at that end. If individual admins or editors get requests from law enforcement officers or reporters, could they please direct the enquiries to the Communications committee or the WMF (Wikimedia Foundation) office, as needed? Those people will be better able to confirm the identity of those requesting information. When consensus has been reached by the community as to what to do, could this thread be put in archive tags to avoid dragging out the discussion? And could admins and editors keep an eye on the article on the shooting and its talk page? Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 00:29, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

• The actual question is whether we would have deleted the page based on the original contents had it been noticed. If we would have, obviously it should remain deleted. Looking at it, I'm not sure. I also notice [113], replied to at [114], since automatically archived. DGG (talk) 01:16, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

  Now reference to The Times mentioned his having a WP account has been removed from the article altogether. I'm not sure the fact that he had a WP user account, or that someone purporting to be him did, is really encyclopedic content. I guess the fact that nobody's claiming that their acct has been deleted probably means something... Eventually the subject may come back to the fore, but I, at least, am content to move on to more important matters... Tomer^talk 01:46, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) I agree that the question is deletion versus undeletion. My post here was to say that the question of deletion or not is being left open for the community to decide (the WMF Office don't currently want to get involved), but with a caution against wheel-warring over this. Calm discussion for a suitable period of time, and then some judgment of consensus or policy (or a call for some addition to policy to cover this sort of situation). In any case, I'd say protection of the pages is needed. I noticed the archived request for feedback as well. Don't think it is incredibly relevant (unless people want to look at the Willis Carto and Revilo P. Oliver articles). No comment on the user page itself, except to say that only one revision is strictly relevant (the one where the user created the page). The rest is just people adding or removing stuff after the news broke. The only other contribution was this one, removed with these two edits. Those three contributions (one to an article, one at requests for feedback, and one creating an autobio on his user page) appear to be the sum of this user's contributions to Wikipedia. And seeing that there is a federal investigation into the shooting, it is probably best left at that. Carcharoth (talk) 01:59, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Wrong. Delete it. Salt it. Then block anyone stupid enough to revert that action. If the media make a storm about it (the suppression of the page), then use it as an example of how while Wikipedia is open to anyone, we are not a free host for the nutjob extremists of the world. Then we explain that while many of these nutjobs do currently undermine our legitimacy as an encyclopedia, we are taking steps to actively ensure that Wikipedia is not a vehicle of hate... unless of course this isn't the case (as we all know), and we really are a vehicle of hate (which, sadly, is the truth). Hiberniantears (talk) 03:35, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I concur with David (DGG) on this one, in that if this would have been deleted as an unacceptable userpage prior to this morning, it should be left deleted now. In my opinion, the probable reason why this was not deleted prior to this morning was that no one knew it existed. With 61,930,254 pages, it was easy for this to have been missed. -- Avi (talk) 03:41, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I consider it more likely he would have been asked to remove the Judaism reference, and if he had not done so himself, it would have been done for him. The rest of the page probably would have been allowed to stand.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:47, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

The user page was a "self-introduction" to the user, written in the third person and including a short description of his beliefs along with other material. The short "hate speech" statement was presented as a quotation from the user. If this entire user page is considered to have been clearly eligible for speedy deletion, would Wikipedia also delete entire user pages that say (for example) "This user believes in the right to bear arms and always carries a gun"? Or how about "This user believes in the right to bear arms and always carries a gun to protect himself from [fill in name of hated group here]"? Are users allowed to say things about themselves only if what they say is "socially acceptable"? The line is not at all clear. --Orlady (talk) 12:29, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Seems like WP:DRV would be the place to take it to now. Just a suggestion, when I go to the deleted user page and talk page, I do get the deletion log thrown right into my face which could just make it worse. Might I suggest someone now create a blank page so the deletion log doesn't pop up? --64.85.221.124 (talk) 16:11, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I suggest that at this point we leave the situation alone. There is no need for any further action. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:22, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

TShilo12, Wehwalt, as administrators you should be aware of our Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a soapbox official policy. If you are not, please make yourself aware of it, because it is a policy so fundamental that its written form pre-dates even that of our Wikipedia:Verifiability policy. That is what we, as editors and administrators, enforce here. Our actions are always to support that policy, and to keep the project on track. We are not here to pander to people who don't have a correct understanding of what censorship actually is. (The fallacies in the "It's censorship!" argument have been discussed many times before, so I won't reiterate them.) Nor should our project goals be compromised and subverted by the news story of the day. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. It is not a soapbox. What external observers will, or at least should, observe from this is that, either by using the deletion tool or using the editing tool (according to specific circumstances), we will take that soapbox away, when we learn of it, from beneath someone who abuses Wikipedia by using it as such. We will pursue our stated goal, and not let that goal be altered by people coming to Wikipedia for the wrong reasons, be they soapboxers or those who are looking for such soapboxing. This is a project to write an encyclopaedia.

As an aside: Yes, deleting user talk pages is an unusual step. We usually keep those. However note that in this case there was no use of the user talk page to communicate either to or from the user apart from a boilerplate vandalism warning and a notification of this noticeboard section. Some of the edits to the talk page were people posting news reports and writing personal commentary on those news reports, for example. Wikipedia is not a newspaper, either. If anyone is looking for a wiki-based newspaper where such reports can be written, notice that Gunman kills one at Holocaust Museum in Washington is the lead article on Wikinews' main page right now. That's the project to write a newspaper. Uncle G (talk) 16:35, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for the thoughts. It's a good thing I have a thick skin, many would find your suggestion that I and another administrator are unaware of fundamental Wikipedia policies somewhat offensive and patronizing, and I urge you not to repeat it to one less tolerant than me. Leave that aside. Disagreeing with you does not equal ignorance, it simply means we do not agree. I must say, I admire your attempts to shoehorn the result you want (deletion) with WP policies even though you admit that the user talk page are generally not deleted, still you find an ad hoc reason not based in policy for it. Have you actually read what he wrote on the user page? Much of it is biographical. I'm not clear how that falls under soapboxing. Let's face it, the true objection is "we don't want that here", and we have the use of wiki to, as a child would say, "make it didn't happen". Frankly, I would undelete, protect, and preface both pages with a note explaining what it is, that we don't agree with it and that we are appalled at Brunn's actions and our sympathies are with the survivors.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:51, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Of course the reason is that we don't want it. Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and its related policies, of which Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a soapbox is one, is a statement of what we don't want, and what our project is not. We've never wanted this sort of thing, from the very start of the project (hint), and we blank or delete such things regularly, just as other WWW projects, with other goals, remove or erase material that isn't in accordance with what they do. Far from "We don't want it." being a bad reason for removing something, as you have it, it is in fact one of the primary reasons for removing things. We have a formal list of things that we "don't want" at Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (our second-oldest official policy), and we use the tools at our disposal (as appropriate for specific circumstances) for removing such content.

    No, we should not keep such things prefixed "with a note explaining […] that we are appalled". Wikipedia isn't for advocating contrary views on such things either. We are here to write an encyclopaedia, and stay out of such debates and advocacy entirely.

    If, moreover, you don't understand what is soapboxing about someone, with no intention in the slightest of contributing to Wikipedia, creating an account so that xe can write about xyr personal political views (in the entirely unsubtle guise of an autobiography written in the third person) on the user page that that account hands to xem, then you very much do need to familiarize yourself with the policy (which explains it), or at the very least read soapbox.

    By the way: If you view deletion as "make it didn't happen" then you don't understand the tool that you possess. There is an explanation of what actually happens when the deletion tool is used at MW:Manual:Archive table. Uncle G (talk) 18:25, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

In my experience, hate (or at least hateful) speech tends to be widely tolerated on userpages here. I don't agree with that, but it's the status quo. In this case, I think what he wrote should be left up as a matter of historical record, with perhaps an explanatory note "Wikipedia does not condone these remarks" or words to that effect. I know that's unusual, but I think it makes the most sense. IronDuke 17:11, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

• Agree with IronDuke (I often do, he's very sensible). Look, I'm Jewish and a former synagogue president, this thing appals me. But pretending this guy was never on WP is not the answer. We own up when we're hoaxed and mention it when we get media attention. We should put the pages back with a factual comment, fully protect it, and leave it at that.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:16, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
  • It's not a question of "owning up" to anything. Wikipedia isn't involved in this, takes no position on this, took no position on this, and should continue to take no position on this — which includes not taking an "appalled by this" position. Wikipedia is not for any point of view, be it M. von Brunn's, the point of view of the editors who were editorializing on the talk page, or yours and IronDuke's.

    Nor is it a question of "pretending" anything. It is, simply, removal of content that this project is not for — the sort of removal that we do, either speedily or after discussion, hundreds of times per day, using the editing tool or the deletion tool. One editor here used the edit tool. Another used the deletion tool. One can argue as to which tool was the correct tool to use, but let's be clear here: reversal of the actions is wrong. Our project is not for what this person was using it for, not for the responses to it that were made by others on the talk page, and not for the responses to it that you and IronDuke want. It's not M. von Brunn's soapbox. It's not the soapbox for actual Wikipedia editors, either. Our best, and most proper, response, is to remove an improper use of our project, and, as Newyorkbrad said above, do no more. Uncle G (talk) 18:25, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

    Thanks for the excellent example of soapboxing. Tomer^talk 18:59, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Media attention to Wikipedia's actions

This New York Times blog discusses von Brunn's history here and notes the "deep level of removal" that has occurred. --Orlady (talk) 18:56, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Block on James von Brunn, blocking for "crimes"

I left Dragonfly a note about this, but haven't heard back. Is that block log really appropriate?

block log for User:James von Brunn

The last time I checked we don't (and probably shouldn't) have the ability to block people for conviction of a crime, let alone alleged conviction. rootology (C)(T) 17:15, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

• Why would any reasonable person care? Do you honestly believe any editor here should have to interact with a user such as this? Is everything a WP:Point to be covered by some policy somewhere? Is there not any room for common sense actions anymore? Rhetorically, R. Baley (talk) 18:36, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
  • So, rhetorically, if I see in the newspaper that R. Baley of New Orleans (picking that as you the photo on your user page) was arrested and accused of grand larceny, drug dealing, rape, or homicide, and it was obviously you, you can be blocked from editing? The block log itself was oversighted by Thatcher I see now, but I'm asking about the block itself simply because I literally can't recall ever having seen someone blocked for a reported crime before. rootology (C)(T) 18:45, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Whatever. I have neither the time nor the patience to discuss your ridiculous preposterous and hypothetical scenarios. I fail to see how discussing the block conditions of someone -- who literally kills people he disagrees with --is productive. Checking out, R. Baley (talk) 18:59, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I think that Rootology's point is twofold:
    • The "common sense" that you speak of should tell anyone with it that someone in critical condition in hospital is in no position to be using a Wikipedia acount to edit.
    • We don't block accounts because we think that the account-holders are criminals. We block to prevent account-holders from editing the project, to ensure that the project is not damaged.
  • Uncle G (talk) 18:48, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
• The block summary has since been removed from the log. I've taken the liberty of removing it from the hyperlink above, too. Uncle G (talk) 18:48, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Maybe not for the reason Dragonfly gave, but I doubt any reasonable person here would argue he ought to be allowed to edit. (He's definitely not someone I'd risk getting into an edit war with.) I wouldn't object if he was reblocked by another Admin for a more neutral reason, say "performing actions that place users in danger". (That was cut-n-pasted from WP:BLOCK.) -- llywrch (talk) 18:50, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, dear. Should those who blocked him/deleted his stuff ask for police protection? Anyhoo, I suspect that any furhter discussion here is just wheel spinning. If anyone is sufficiently motivated to take this to WP:DRV, go for it.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:19, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

It has been pointed out that one of the more sensible reasons to avoid explicit block log summaries like that is to avoid autoblocks (if that was a dynamic IP) being triggered, leaving some innocent user staring at their screen wondering why Wikipedia is accusing them of being a murderer. Look at the block log, and you will see that Thatcher has reblocked with autoblock disabled. Personally, in a situation like this, I would always keep the block reason vague and generic. No reason at all to be explicit. Carcharoth (talk) 21:00, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Undeleted

Undeleted by User:Y, without, from what I can see, any discussion. Hipocrite (talk) 20:33, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Whoops... I've been alerted that there's an ANI thread on this... Well, I did it in the interests of transparency, in part because NYT has questioned the deletion here: http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/10/traces-of-shooters-online-life-begin-to-vanish/ . I'm gonna read the thread now, and reverse myself if there's consensus to delete. -- Y not? 20:36, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with the restoration for the following reasons:

1. The page is a clear violation of WP:USER
2. The NYT does not determine Wikipedia policy
3. Any admin can see the page, it is not suppressed; thus not deep expunged.

I have asked Y to re-delete it. -- Avi (talk) 20:37, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree that's it's soapboxy, but the page is a matter of public record now anyway (NYT reposted it, for one), and for us to pretend it wasn't here is silly. I just read the thread and it looks like we're divided. Maybe let's MFD the thing? Anyways, a WP:USER violation is not a speedy deletion criterion. -- Y not? 20:42, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion and understanding of wikipedia's policies and guidelines, for what it is worth, public record is irrelevant. We have guidelines on what is allowed or not on user pages, and the editor's legal status (innocent, accused criminal, convicted felon) is irrelevant. Were any one of us to have seen that user page last week, it would have been an MfD candidate, if not a straight speedy. The NYT has a copy; and ArbCom can supply them with one if they need (as it is not suppressed, just deleted). We are not pretending it wasn't here; we are acting on it without regard to whatever other actions Brunn did. It is unfortunate that it took the shooting for any of us to notice it. -- Avi (talk) 20:46, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but to have unilaterally undeleted this without consulting the deleting admin, and without even bothering to look for an ANI thread or some other discussion of something that had made it into the media, was a huge mistake. You cannot come in and say, "Oh, I read the discussion ex post facto, and we seem to be divided" and that suddenly justifies that you undid another admin's action without so much as speaking to them or engaging in an ongoing conversation. Please undo your action - I believe I'm now the third admin to formally request this based on comments on your talk page. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:34, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Possibly the best way forward at this point is to either leave the page blanked (it has just been blanked) or to place a message there explaining to readers arriving from news stories what happened to the content. Explain the content is still available in the page history. Link to our article on the shooting. Direct further enquiries to the communications committee. Carcharoth (talk) 21:40, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I have replaced the blank page with a box explaining our actions, and with a link to the text in the history, now that it has been undeleted, based on discussions on functionaries-en. I believe that this complies withWP:USER while simultaneously allowing access to the original text. It also points to the incident article and ComCom. -- Avi (talk) 21:46, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

(ec with Avi) Perhaps the mistake here was the WMF essentially leaving this up to the community, particularly when multiple users on this thread specifically asked for some guidance (it's not as though it got them out of making a statement to the press, they still did that, it was just wishy-washy, as are the goings-on here). If they would have taken a firm stand one way or another few would have argued with it, but now we have one admin undoing another one without discussion, and the word coming from Carcharoth and other functionaries (and I don't fault you/them for this at all) seems to be "leave it as is," except the status quo keeps changing. We don't need a protracted discussion on this, we just need a decision. Three people, including me, have now asked User:Y to re-delete the article (which would be the second time we've done that), i.e. this is even messier than before. I think the undeletion by Y was a huge mistake (particularly since that admin didn't even read what was going on), but at this point I don't know what the best way to proceed is. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:49, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

@Bigtimepeace - I think the current situation is the best. The hate speech is not visible on the page without deliberately clicking on the link to the history (similar to a courtesy blanking) and the decision is explained in the box itself together with pointers to ComCom and the incident article. -- Avi (talk) 21:52, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Based on all this, I am sufficiently confident in my decision to not reverse myself, but I promise not to do anything else stupid. -- Y not? 21:59, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

To Avi, I don't think it's best, and it was arrived at via an admin wheel warring and ignoring a larger discussion, but at the same time I'm not going to argue against it anymore because this doesn't need to be any more FUBAR than it already has been/is. If some discussion on the functionaries list (alluded to above) decided that we need to host that bile in the page history (which can be linked to directly by any blogger or website on earth, which is what matters), and/or if people at the Foundation have decided that, then so be it (though I have no idea what kind of discussion has been happening or if one actually did happen). But let's not pretend this decision was arrived at by the community because it was not. There was a mini admin edit war and we're apparently just deciding to let the side who did the edit warring win because deepening the edit war is even more stupid and annoying. None of us deserve any credit for how this was handled since the whole thing has been pretty damn bush league, if you ask me. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:01, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd say it's a bit of a stretch to level a charge of wheel warring at this stage... Just sayin'...cooler heads... Tomer^talk 23:16, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Given that "an administrator undoes another administrator's actions without consultation" is a "possible indication" of wheel warring per our policy on that I think it's hardly a stretch that I used that phrase, but in the interest of avoiding less inflammatory language I probably should have said "undid another admin's action without discussion" instead—my apologies. But I'm a bit flummoxed as to why you are more concerned about how I worded something than you are with an admin who undoes another admin's action without discussion and without reading a lengthy thread about the issue in question, particularly if you're looking for folks to act with "cooler heads." If you somehow think I've handled myself poorly here that's probably something you should have taken to my user talk page—I'm not sure what you hoped the semi-cryptic remark above (which picks at two unimportant words in a paragraph long comment) would accomplish. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 02:07, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Bigtimepeace, one of the suggestions was that a change be made to policy (WP:USER or another policy) to cover events like this in future. A standard procedure if you will, when a user page and account may have been created by a person who has gained notoriety. There are several aspects to this that could be profitably discussed at a later date when emotions are not running high. As for the current version of the page, I've changed the link to point to the original version created on 10 May 2009. That way, the notice at the top says "This is an old revision of this page, as edited by [...] at 21:34, 10 May 2009. It may differ significantly from the current revision." Previously, the link was to a version that said the page had been edited by User:Y, which I don't think was the intended effect. The alternative is to serve up the default "deletion log", which is what most people visiting the page would have been seeing, and most of them would have thought "Wikipedia are trying to hide something". Even then, though, it is difficult to keep a page like that stable. The link to the communications committee has been removed, even though I was under the impression that was OK. Anyway, the other point is that this is only temporary. As soon as the news coverage dies down, I am confident the page will be deleted. There are tweaks that can be made - you could have a statement saying that the page will be removed in a few days time. You could also have the page history deleted, and have a statement saying that it had been removed now, and why. The important thing is to have an explanation, rather than leave people guessing and speculating. Carcharoth (talk) 23:52, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Some sort of discussion about a policy change to cover this would probably be fruitful, though this is a rather exceptional case, to say the least. I have no problem with the note on the user page now, I'd just prefer a slightly different one that explains why we deleted the edit in question (i.e. it would have stayed deleted), but again I'm not pressing that issue. I continue to think this was all handled poorly by all of us collectively (not because of the end result per say, rather because of how we got here), but there's not much to be done about it at this point except go with what we have now and do better next time. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 02:07, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I put a NOINDEX on his page, which seems like a decent idea. Reverse if needed. rootology (C)(T) 00:13, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

This seems a reasonable outcome. I would suggest allowing the talk page text to be viewed, though, it is of course not offensive. Also see this article (Washington Post registration required) which makes us look like we're covering up feces with dirt.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:15, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

One more point. Our rules on wheel-warring reward the admin who chooses to act over the admin who refrains from acting. Perhaps it is time to say that if an admin explicitly says that he is declining to exercise his adminly powers, another admin who thereafter acts in spite of that will be treated the same way as an admin who reverses an administrative act of another admin.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:16, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I studied philosophy as an undergrad, but that took one or two too many turns in logic for me to follow! Could you maybe explain what you mean with an example, either in the context of this situation or in another specific, but theoretical, case? The above is perhaps a bit too general to parse, particularly at the end. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 08:33, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry. OK, look at this situation. People are looking at this, and an admin acts to delete. Now, if anyone moves to undelete, he might be considered a wheel warrior. But if an admin looks at the original situation, and doesn't act, anyone else can feel free to delete without risk of being accused of wheel warring. What I would like, in this and other situations, is if an admin rules "No action necessary", if another admin acts, he does so at the same risk of being accused of wheel warring. Is that better?--Wehwalt (talk) 09:12, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm also thinking of the incident earlier this year when Aitias blocked RHMED, even though several admins were discussing it at AN/I and several admins were aware of the situation but didn't feel that RHMED should be blocked. It seems to me that an action, rather than a refusal to act, carries more weight in the process, and I'm wondering if something shouldnt' be done about that.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:17, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I see now. That makes sense in a way if we interpret the first admin's "no action necessary" as an action (which it obviously is in a sense), but I'm not sure how well it would work in practice. I think the current thinking on wheel warring (though admittedly we seem to have trouble defining that, and even now the policy on it as written remains a bit vague) is that it only happens when admin tools come into play—and are used by more than one admin (otherwise obviously there's no "warring"). If the admin who first uses tools was going against a prior consensus to not do anything adminly then that's a problem, but I think they would (or should) already be chastened for that regardless of whether or not what they are doing is considered "wheel warring."

So maybe simply defining/knowing what's acceptable or not is more important than what we call it. As such coming into a situation where the consensus is "don't delete that" (or don't block user x) and where admins have weighed in and agreed on that course of action, it's obviously wrong to go ahead and delete whatever it is (I don't think that's really what happened here though). Likewise it's wrong when an admin "undoes another administrator's actions without consultation" which is a more traditional example of wheel warring. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 09:43, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. Anyway, I think this imperfect process has come out with an answer that people can live with, so why don't we mark this resolved and move on to the next crisis? Don't look back, something might be gaining on us.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:46, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

The user was apparently a supporter and practicer of racial white supremasism, which condones (my english really fails time to time I would near pick another word in reverse manner) hate violance over civillian people (mostly) because of their ethnical origin. He also advocates white-racist-KKK conspiracy theories that even relates counter theories like Marxism (atheist) and Judaism (religious) in the same pot. I read some of the views, deletion might be considered but possibly not good for researchers and readers, but we may add some wikilinks to anti racist articles over his talk page (stating wikipedia added them) or front page if rest of you would agree. On the other hand, placing such links might not be a best solution since it somehow relates wikipedia user intervention, but my view is that only way to solve racism issues is leading them to read some general anti racist sources. Kasaalan (talk) 11:25, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I added some details for his "racialist" and "all things anti racist should be Jew" book about precious "white gene pool" in the article. Kasaalan (talk) 11:55, 12 June 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.