Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Read these tips for dealing with incivility If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page Try dispute resolution Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight. When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. You are not autoconfirmed, meaning you cannot currently edit this page. Instead, use /Non-autoconfirmed posts. Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
Start a new discussion

Jehochman and David Boothroyd censorship

User:Jehochman is preventing editors from working on David Boothroyd (aka former arb Sam Blacketer) in userspace (on my user page and most recently at User:JoshuaZ/David Boothroyd) despite the existence of multiple reliable sources from the British press addressing the controversy. He has suggested he will block anyone who includes the material and will only allow selectively restored versions of the Boothroyd article that do not mention his Wikipedia controversy. Coverage in the British national press includes:

• http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1191474/Labour-councillor-David-Boothroyd-caught-altering-David-Camerons-Wikipedia-entry.html
• http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/wikipedia-sentinel-quits-after-using-alias-to-alter-entries-1698762.html
• http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/05/26/wikipedia_westminster_councillor/

Jehochman is now clearly dedicated to preventing any development or discussion in spite of reliable sources. This censorship must end. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TAway (talk • contribs) 21:40, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

• This has already been through three AFDs (1, 2, 3 with 2 and 3 closed as delete), one very lengthy DRV (Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 May 27#David Boothroyd). All have been rooted in extreme BLP concerns, which has led to its recent deletions, salting, and DRV. Please do not throw the word "censorship" around, especially when the intent is to prevent and negative unsourced information from being added to the userfied copy. MuZemike 21:51, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
  • With 2 and 3 both having been closed after almost no discussion by Jehochman. This is not about preventing unsourced information -- all the information is sources -- but protecting a former Arb and Wikipedia's credibility. The media has covered him on other issues, they are now covering his Wikipedia activities, and we even use Boothroyd's election guide as a reliable source in over 700 Wikipedia articles. The media coverage is there, and this is censorship. TAway (talk) 22:39, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
    • The problem is that there is at least the appearance that what's being protecting isn't BLP concerns, but Wikipedia's rep. The story is out, in reliable sources, the only question is about notability, not verifiability. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 22:21, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
      • Yes - and isn't it odd how long we had an article on David Boothroyd BEFORE this controversy broke? The article survived the first AfD, then was bought two more times in rapid succession in violation of WP:NOTAGAIN. "Censorship" isn't quite the right word - but it closely resembles a whitewash. Snarfies (talk) 22:42, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
        • August 2005 to May 2009 is not most people's idea of "rapid succession". Uncle G (talk) 12:33, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
• Jayron32 has userified the article to User:JoshuaZ/David Boothroyd. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 22:13, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
  • After userification, Jehochman selectively re-deleted any versions noting the Wikipedia controversy. He also threatened that any re-creation that included the Wikipedia controversy was a "potentially a blockable action." TAway (talk) 22:39, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Correct - repeatedly re-creating deleted material is blockable, especially when it involves BLP concerns. I'm unsure what the problem is here. Black Kite 22:44, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
      • How is it restoring "deleted material" when the new sources are appearing after Jehochman's inappropriate speedy deletions? Why is it that the article was immediately speedied after Boothroyd resigned from ArbCom after years of existing, then deletion is accepted as the "status quo" when the media picks up on the scandal? He has salted an article and blacklisted an entire issue under threat of ban regardless of how it develops and continues to appear in the media. That is censorship. TAway (talk) 23:26, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
  • as the references accumulate, the material is no longer deleteable. I have respect for Sam for his work here, but neither he nor anyone is actually helped by censorship. That he was an admin here is relevant to his possible outside notability. Jehochman is operating beyond the limits of consensus here. DGG (talk) 23:54, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Is it true that there was an article on David Boothroyd before the controversy? If so, for how long? ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:28, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

• Yes. And David Boothroyd effectively wrote it.

  The article that was created in article space was a simple copy and paste, by an editor without an account, of the autobiography that User:Dbiv had had on xyr user page since 2004-03-31. M. Boothroyd didn't write xyr autobiography in article space, and nominated the copy and paste for deletion in the article's second ever edit. The only significant subsequent expansion of the article came from an IP address assigned to Westminster City Council. If that wasn't M. Boothroyd himself, it was someone who was using M. Boothroyd's autobiography as xyr source, because it gave that autobiography as an external link in the edit. Uncle G (talk) 02:05, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

• The article would be deletable with or without the Wikipedia scandal - it isn't censorship to say someone isn't notable, nor is it censorship to argue that involvement in one significant event (related to Wikipedia or not) doesn't change that essential fact. He wasn't notable at all before, and the scandal qualifies as his 1BE. I don't think it is Jehochman that is overly focused on the scandal element here; its the folks who insist on recreating this article only to focus on the scandal element of it who need to find other work to do. Nathan ^T 00:30, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
• There shouldn't be an article on Boothroyd or any other marginally notable living person until Wikipedia implements an effective mechanism for protecting such articles from malicious editing. Cla68 (talk) 00:33, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
  • So consensus was that he was notable enough for an article until there was substantial coverage of his getting caught sock puppeteering and violating Wikipedia's integrity by engaging in conflict of interest edits? This is fascinating. I move that anyone encouraging this kind of policy violating behavior should be put up for recall. We can't have this kind of censorship and bias on Wikipedia especially not from Admins and ARbcom member. It fosters rot right at the core of our trustworthiness and undermines the integrity of Wikipedia as a quality information source. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:52, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
    • That of course presupposes that there isn't already rot right at the core. --WebHamster 01:03, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
      • Actually, it pressupposes something rather different. See below. Uncle G (talk) 02:05, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
    • No, that was not the consensus. The first AFD discussion really didn't apply our primary notability criterion at all. No rationale for keeping makes any mention of reliable sources. We kept the article because it satisfied one of the other, secondary, notability criteria that we had at the time: an arbitrary number related to book readership.

      I suggested a complete rewrite from reliable sources, but that didn't happen. In retrospect, that could well have been because there weren't actually any to be had. The source of all of the content was, indirectly, M. Boothroyd documenting himself, throughout the entire life of the article, and the second AFD discussion can well be regarded as doing the right thing, in accordance with Wikipedia policy and guidelines on reliability and independence of sources, albeit four years after the subject himself first requested the right thing to be done. Uncle G (talk) 02:05, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

      • That's interesting because I'm finding lots of sources that discuss his political activities before his indiscretions were covered very substantially. I'm also finding he was VERY active in working on political subject including some that are very negative in tone about Conservative politicians. Where is the accountability? Where is the investigation and clean up that needs to be done? Do we know all the sock accounts he used? Have we asked if there are more? Who knew what when? Are we to believe that Arbcom was completely in the dark about his true identity? Stop trying to sweep this under the rug and let's root the rot out. If we spend half the time trying to make things right that we do trying to cover up the impropriety, maybe we wouldn't have this problem all the time. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:10, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
        • It doesn't look good to make wild and foolish accusations of sweeping things under a rug when people are doing nothing more than straightforwardly answering your questions. If we'd spent the effort to make things right, by the way, the copy of the autobiography wouldn't have stood in article space for four years, based upon nothing except what the subject claimed about himself. That is what would have been right. Uncle G (talk) 02:39, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
• TAway appears to be a sock puppet account or somebody with an axe to grind. The matter of deletion was dealt with at WP:DRV. It is not proper to continue badgering to get one's way against consensus. I hope that TAway stops disrupting Wikipedia to make a point before somebody else blocks them. They did not notify me of this thread. Apparently. Their goal is to stir up drama, not to resolve a problem. Jehochman ^Talk 00:49, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
• I'm not a sock puppet and I have no axe to grind. I simply stumbled upon this mess when commenting upon a different mess after finding this board recently. It appears to ME anyways that this is not about protecting a BLP, but is a CYA for Wikipedia. From what I can gather, Boothroyd's article had existed for several years before this last bit of trouble. How does it become deleteable only after it's discovered that Boothroyd had managed to somehow attain a position of trust and power on the project, and then abused that power using sock puppets? The situation -- and Boothroyd -- have been dealt with in reliable sources. Why is this even an issue? It seems obvious that the article belongs on the project. Unitanode 02:08, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
  • To be clear, the above regarding my not being a sock puppet was in regards to Jehochman's apparent ad hominem against the originator of this thread. Unitanode 02:09, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
  • The reality is that it was deletable right from the start, had we applied our sourcing policy properly at the time of the first AFD discussion. But we didn't. We applied a notability criterion that we no longer have, and the existence of what was effectively an unsourced autobiography in article space for four years is an example of why that criterion, and others like it, were and are bad ideas. Uncle G (talk) 02:39, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Whatever the reality of the policy issues, this bears the distinct odor of a coverup. I'm not well-versed in the ins-and-outs of policy here, so I'm commenting simply on the appearance of things. Unitanode 02:50, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
      • Then you are creating confusion, and are not being helpful to the process of writing an encyclopaedia. Wikipedia editors, at least, should be capable of getting the facts straight in this affair. Look what happens when one doesn't. TAway has created an entire house of cards in this section predicated upon false information about when M. Boothroyd nominated the article for deletion and what it was that Jenochman deleted from the userfied article. The consequence is that xyr repeated protestations and accusations here look rather silly when compared to the actual MediaWiki logs and edit histories. Uncle G (talk) 12:33, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
        • You're being something of a bully with your accusations of "not being helpful to the encyclopedia." My contention is that the continued removal of any reference to Boothroyd, when he has been prominently featured in several reliable sources now, has whiffs of a CYA by those with much more power on this project. Your accusations notwithstanding, all I care about is whether or not the encyclopedia is comprehensive and accurate. Unitanode 12:40, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
          • No-one is bullying you, and that mischaracterization isn't helpful, either. The fact remains that "commenting simply on the appearance of things" is not helpful to the process of writing an encyclopaedia. Stick to the facts, to what the edit histories and logs actually say, and to the policies. Don't build and encourage fantasies based upon "appearance", such as the one that you put forward above based upon the false notion that the article "became deletable". They waste an awful lot of everyone's time. If anything, entirely the reverse of your notion is true: The article, being based upon nothing but autobiography, was deletable for almost four years, and it is only now that it is possibly, as DGG points out above, becoming not deletable. Uncle G (talk) 16:00, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
            • Appearances are important, whatever you may think. And your characterizing people as being "not helpful to the encyclopedia" appears to be bullying, whatever you may intend it to be. Boothroyd is now notable, and deleting and salting the target page appears untoward, and looks like a CYA move. My saying so is not unhelpful in any way. People disagreeing with your take doesn't make them unhelpful, by the way. It just means we disagree about the importance of the appearance of things. I think that the appearance of things is quite important. Interestingly, and tangentially, the Supreme Court of the United States seems to agree with that view as well. Not that what SCOTUS thinks really matters here, I just found it interesting that they don't simply discard the appearance of impropriety. Unitanode 17:53, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
• Just for the sake of comparison.. the political office held by Boothroyd in the UK is on par with a US "city councilman" - Apart from the bad press for getting caught with "wiki-fingers" (pardon the bad pun).. I don't see how he qualifies for an article. The fact that it was here before just means we have a huge problem with borderline BLPs that noone bothers to read. - and we already knew that. If we had an article for every US city councilman caught in a compromising position - we'd really be screwed. --Versageek 02:11, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Actually, the problem of the article existing before is that AFD didn't come to the right conclusion the first time around, because we applied a bad notability criterion. It has been partially addressed by the fact that we don't have that particular criterion any more, but constant vigilance is required to ensure that we don't slip back into applying such faulty notability criteria at AFD, and don't formulate such criteria. Uncle G (talk) 02:39, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
• The article clearly passes the GNG guidelines based on very substantial coverage in numerous reliable sources. It was borderline before this incident, but there's no question now. There's coverage of his activities as a politician, coverage of his activities in private enterprise it look like, and there's now quite a bit of coverage of his subterfuge in editing under aliases against our policies as he sat on our highest administrative body. We are a major information source, we aren't censored, and we shouldn't pretend that he's non-notable now to hide the truth. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:53, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Before this incident it was not borderline. It was an unsourced autobiography, and should really have been deleted alongside the other unsourced autobiographies that we delete all of the time here. The subject even asked us to delete it. Uncle G (talk) 12:33, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
    • As per precedent, and possibly a guideline (can't find one at the moment, but I think one does cover this issue), the wish of a subject of an article for the article to be kept or deleted is irrelevant. AdmiralKolchak (talk) 13:41, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
      • That's certainly true, because an editor is not allowed to own an article. The real question is whether the article should have existed in the first place, regardless of who wrote it. What I'm seeing here among some of those pushing for keeping it, is as coatracking for criticism of wikipedia. There's already an article on criticism of wikipedia, and that's where this situation belongs, if anywhere. It's likely nothing more than a blip in the real life of the subject. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 14:01, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
        • Without making comment as to this article, this can depend on the level of notability. We now and then do delete BLPs whose topics are at the very edge of notability if the subject asks for this to be done in a verifiable way. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:06, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
          • Ah, I didn't know that. Thanks for the info. AdmiralKolchak (talk) 14:16, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
      • Nonetheless, it was autobiography, without independent and reliable sources, and the subject asked us to do what, in accordance with our content and deletion policies, we should really have done at the time. AFD came to the wrong result, and that wrong result stood for four years. The arguments being made by two editors, that that wrong result somehow proves notability, when there was no evidence presented either at that first AFD discussion or in the intervening three and a bit years that multiple reliable and independent sources covering this subject in depth exist (because, as can be seen if one actually reads what is cited below, they did not exist), which is the definition of notability, are clearly fallacious arguments. The existence of an unsourced (in effect) autobiography for four years only demonstrates that AFD went wrong. It doesn't demonstrate notability during that time, and both that thesis, and the further thesis (also propounded) that the subject was notable and now is not notable, are predicated upon a falsehood. (As DGG points out above, if anything entirely the reverse is true.) Uncle G (talk) 16:00, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
        • For those of us too lazy to look up what actually happened, but not lazy enough to refrain from repeating misinformation:
          • WP:Articles for deletion/David Boothroyd "I am nominating this article about myself for deletion as I don't think I make the notability criteria (although possibly verging on them). However I reserve the right to become notable in the future. David | Talk 22:02, 8 August 2005 (UTC)" KEEP
          • WP:Articles for deletion/David Boothroyd (2nd nomination) "Non-notable, lack of sourcing. Does not meet our present notability standards for inclusion as a WP:BLP. Last AFD was nearly four years ago. rootology/equality 19:34, 23 May 2009 (UTC)" DELETE
          • WP:Articles for deletion/David Boothroyd (3rd nomination) "The individual does not meet our criteria for inclusion. --MZMcBride (talk) 06:44, 27 May 2009 (UTC)" DELETE

--Hans Adler (talk) 16:16, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Administrative action v. outcome

Actually there are two separate questions: whether the article was deleted correctly and whether Jehochman's post-deletion actions were appropriate. The complaint regarded Jehochman's actions, not the deletion itself. So let's break this down:

1. The poster lists three sources and calls them reliable: The Register, Daily Mail, and The Independent. Would an editor who knows British periodicals please weigh in?
2. What is our general practice on userspace recreations of courtesy deleted biographies?
3. The poster asserts He has suggested he will block anyone who includes the material and will only allow selectively restored versions of the Boothroyd article that do not mention his Wikipedia controversy. Yet no the poster provides no diff of this assertion. If Jehochman actually did suggest that blocks would be forthcoming, we need clear answers to the first two questions.
4. If at least one of those three sources is reliable, and if userspace recreations are allowable in this situation, and if Jehochman selectively deleted that news and threatened blocks--then a problem exists. Otherwise there's probably little problem, except for one thing:

This issue is developing news, and arguably a reputation management issue. Jehochman is a reputation management professional who appears to have acted boldly without requesting the review and assistance of fellow administrators at the admin boards. It wouldn't be good to see this spin out of control with claims of 'coverup', and if mud gets thrown it might possibly stick. So respectfully requesting that Jehochman seek community consensus before taking further action. Durova^Charge! 03:17, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

There is absolutely no doubt that the Mail, the Register and the Independent qualify as reliable sources. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 04:14, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh? Had thought there was doubt about citing the Register. Anyway if at least one of them is then question 1 is answered. How about the userfication question? Is it permissible to develop BLPs in user space after deletion and DRV? Durova^Charge! 04:27, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

You make some good points, but let's be clear. This is NOT just developing news. This is a subject we've long had an article on, who has been covered in the media for years. There has recently been a major surge in coverage due to policy violating behaviors that are also unethical for a politician. So he's under fire. Not only are we subject to allegations of a cover-up, so far we are guilty of one. All of a sudden the subject was no longer notable right when lots of coverage was occuring that wasn't favorable? This is the worst kind of censorship and it puts us in a very bad light. It also comes at a time when Arbcom is already involved in coddling POV pushers, bias and NPOV violations. So we have a major problem that needs to be fixed. So instead of attacking anyone who questions those trying to sweep things under the rug, we need to take a step back, take a deep breath, restore the article, put in a few sentences about the issues involved, and see what happens. We have this rush to action any time there's a controversy, but cooler, more rational, and more reasonable heads should prevail. Let's do the right thing instead of engaging in subterfuge to cover up for those violating our policies. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:47, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

As the person who had the article usefied, I'm currently thinking about this with both the Mail and Indepdent as reliable and the Register as a source only as a matter of last resort for uncontroversial details. The Mail and Indepdent are pretty clearly WP:RS. Regarding the matter of development in userspace, there's a variety of conflicting precedents about that. Given that the closer of the DRV made the decision that userfication in this case was ok that seems ok. He's given one week to work on it as a time limit. Given that, I see it as very hard to see a problem with working on a userfied version. I haven't seen Jehochman claim that he will delete/issue blocks for any mention of the controversy in question although I've already asked him to clarify what precisely he considers to be a BLP problem. It might help matters if Jehochman would have other arbs or admins take a look at this in more detail since a variety of users seem to be upset with his handling of the matter. In any event, it would be appreciated if users would help contribute to a draft rather than attacking Jehochman or stirring up further drama. (Oh, and the next time something in my userspace is the center of an ANI thread could someone please do me the courtesy of letting me know?) JoshuaZ (talk) 04:42, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually Jehochman wrote in an edit summary to your user talk page: "(WP:BLP1E enforcement -- blocks will be issued if same old problems are reinstated.)"[1] Durova^Charge! 04:49, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but I don't know what he meant by that. Is the problem using The Reg as a source? Is the problem the Wikipedia matter as a whole. Is the problem some of the unsourceable details about his career that were in the earlier version? Needs clarification. JoshuaZ (talk) 04:53, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

It's one in the morning in Jehochman's time zone. So he probably isn't available to answer that right now. Was it only a citation to The Register that he removed? It's a long page to scour and you're more familiar with it. Durova^Charge! 04:59, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

If the recreated page is turned into an attack page, I predict the editors who are responsible will be blocked by somebody else. It won't be me doing the blocking, but I am pretty confident that an uninvolved administrator can be found to review the evidence if a block is called for. Jehochman ^Talk 11:15, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, it is 1 AM here too... :). Anyways, I can't tell since he deleted the offending edits [2]. But I believe that was the only material in question. I do of course understand the late hour and don't have any issue waiting for his clarification. (Indeed, I sent him a note. I still see this ANI thread as unnecessary). JoshuaZ (talk) 05:02, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually this is developing news. That's not the only thing it is, but it certainly is that. Do you have an analysis of the numbered questions, please? Durova^Charge! 04:08, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

It's not just developing news. Here are a few of the sources that Google News search comes up wit (the first 10 or so predating the latest controversy):

• 1) [3] Fox News
• 2) [4] The Guardian
• 3) Time/CNN [5]
• 4) [6] The Independent
• 5)The Argus [7]
• 6) Wood and Vale [8]
• 7)Westminster’s Icelandic folly - PressDisplay.com - Oct 13, 2008 has a story on him.
• 8) Westminster affordable housing row

PlanningResource - PlanningResource (subscription) - Oct 23, 2008 Labour member of the committee Cllr David Boothroyd, has branded the move as “a smash and grab raid”. He said: "So many people are waiting for transfer to a ...

• 9) Local elections good for gay Labour

PinkNews.co.uk - May 5, 2006 Gay councillors, Matt Cooke and Alan Dobbie held seats in Labour controlled Haringey and David Boothroyd held his in Westminster.

• 10) And then of course there's the very substantial coverage AFTER his latest controversy [9], [10] Daily Mail
• 11) The Register [11]

And then there are other stories that I'm not sure are related. There are several tech stories. Is he David Boothroyd, Contributing Editor to Vision Systems Design? Does he write on wireless standards?

And I understand he's also an author. So there's more notability based on his book and writings and presumably more sources available on Google Books.

And to answer your other questions, Jehochman needs to stop acting unilaterally and in haste. And other veteran editors need to stop covering this up and maintain what's left of our integrity by doing what's right. There's no need for userspace recreations, because the article should be recreated in main space and protected with a couple sentences covering the latest issues so we can all get back to editing and expanding the encyclopedia. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:33, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

• Childofmidnight, those are all very interesting sources. Would you move them out of this subsection to the previous subsection please? For purposes of this subthread, all we really need to determine is that at least one of the new sources is reliable. We're already there. The second question is whether it's ok for users to recreate BLPs in user space after they've been deleted. And looking into this a little more, there's also a subquestion: if it's ok to do this in userspace, are editors prohibited from starting work before DRV? Durova^Charge! 04:42, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I can answer questions 1 and 3, Durova. Question 1, yes, the Daily Mail (second most-circulated paper in the nation) and Independent (a past top British Press Awards recipient) are both ironclad reliable sources. We use the Register as a source in the Essjay controversy article so I am assuming it is fine. TAway (talk) 04:56, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Question 3: I was incorrectly blocked by Jehochman for "WP:POINT violations" for having the article (entirely sourced) in my userspace (it was in my user space prior to his inappropriate speedy deletion, but he claimed I had restored it post-deletion), and only unblocked if "you will not restore this content anywhere on Wikipedia." When the article was userfied to JoshuaZ's userspace, Jehochman appeared and re-deleted, then selectively restored revisions without the Sam Blacketer controversy material saying, "Attack page or negative unsourced BLP: Deleted revisions were improperly restored" (it was not unsourced, and only "negative" in that it certainly reflects poorly) and "blocks will be issued if same old problems are reinstated." He then left a message on the userfied article's talk page making clear what he had done: "there were a bunch of WP:BLP problems in the deleted history. These were accidentally restored. I have deleted and selectively restored revisions I think may be acceptable."

Let's face it, had the evenly split post-speedy-deletion discussion at the Boothroyd deletion review been allowed to take place as a normal 7-day Article for Deletion it would have been a clear "no consensus" outcome. He has used his ability to speedy-delete and thus force DRV discussion instead of AfD discussion to claim that the book on this issue is now closed. He completely ignored administrator User:SoWhy's attempt to approach him on the matter and instead dismissively pointed to the DRV. By my count, three sysops (SoWhy, Sandstein, and now DGG) have commented with concerns about his protective and anti-consensus behavior during the developing Boothroyd situation.

Jehochman has openly stated "our website with its search-ranking-fu does not need to be made available to those who wish to amplify his (David Boothroyd's) problems" (assuming bad faith of those who hold the story with its coverage to be verifiable and notable). It is my contention that Jehochman is a search engine optimization expert who wants to keep the story out of the search engine results for the sake of Wikipedia and Boothroyd's reputations both. He is obviously about as far from a neutral broker of the Boothroyd situation as one can get right now and is in fact editing with a declared agenda: to minimize the search engine imprint of this story. His actions during AfD (speedying a deletion and denying a full AfD despite substantial new media coverage of a new development) and actions to suppress development of the issue's media coverage on-wiki via blocks and block threats are censorship. TAway (talk) 04:56, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

• Well, let's not rush to conclusions here. Or at least please excuse the ignorance of an editor who doesn't spend much time at AFD. In good faith, Jehochman might have been thinking of the editors David Boothroyd had voted to ban during his time as an arbitrator, who might add frivolous accusations to the substantial material. A portion of editors believe in being generous with courtesy deletions upon the subject's request. Regarding the block of May 27, could people who are familiar with AfD standards comment on the practice of recreating a BLP in userspace before DRV gets underway? Is that an ok thing to do? Durova^Charge! 05:04, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Not enough in the way of precedent. If it were an unambiguous attack page then recreation in userspace would have clearly been blockable. However, the deletion reason seems to be primarily BLP1E which is not sufficient reason generally to argue against a userspace recreation. I'm not aware of any similar block occasions for such more or less borderline situations such as BLP1E, or courtesy deletion requests. (There may have also been a GFDL violation in TAQway's actions but I'm not sure). JoshuaZ (talk) 05:08, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
    • I'm leaving a whole mess of things to the side here and just offering my own view on Durova's second question. As a matter of commonsense, if we in fact do courtesy deletions of not-well-known BLPs (as has happened here) then it strikes me as the acme of foolishness to turn around and allow recreation of said BLP - even in a different form - in userspace. Leaving the specifics of this case to the side, let's think of this from the perspective of the subject of a theoretical article similar to the one we are discussing. The article subject comes to us and says, "Hey, I'm a local politician in Topeka, KS who is barely notable and I don't want a Wiki bio because I'm worried about defamation and having an article about me is not important for Wikipedia/the world, so can you delete it?" We say yes and then do so, but then we allow an editor to develop a new article in user space, presumably for the purpose of one day importing it into article space (otherwise why would would it be there?). At a basic level that strikes me as illogical, and I think the BLP subject in question would be understandably agog that we deleted it and then let it be created again in some other part of Wikipedia for it to be worked on and then maybe moved back into article space later. The particulars of this case are more complex (and I'm intentionally ignoring them to make a general point), but personally I feel "our general practice on userspace recreations of courtesy deleted biographies" has to be "we don't do that." If not then courtesy deletion is effectively meaningless. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:22, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
      • Well, couldn't userspace be noindexed? The DRV closer in this instance specifically allowed userspace drafts with a time limit. So the post-DRV recreation seems ok. Not sure about the other one. Striking for now. Need to reverify: thought that was written, but having trouble finding it. Durova^Charge! 05:31, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
        • I suppose that helps, to the extent that average people know what "noindexed" means and/or are comforted by some techie's explanation of it (I barely know what it means, to be honest). Again I'm just thinking about this from the perspective of a the subject of the BLP who asks for deletion—presumably (most of the time) a person who is not familiar with Wikipedia or even maybe the workings of the series of tubes in which this web site lives. If we say, "Sure, we'll delete that!" and then in following up the person in question somehow sees (maybe on the talk page of the admin who did the deletion) that the article we just deleted has been recreated at some random user's user page....well let's just say it probably wouldn't be fun to respond to that OTRS ticket. The moral component of our BLP policy is (or should be) as much about perceived harm as actual harm—i.e. if a BLP subject says "I'm an unimportant person and this article has done and/or might do me harm" we probably are not going to fight with them about that but rather will largely take their word. Similarly I would not want to get in a conversation/argument with such a person about how they don't have to worry because it's in userspace which is "different," something something something "noindexing," etc. etc. And it still doesn't deal with the fact that an article in userspace is, by definition, something that is being worked on to be put in article space, otherwise we wouldn't have it there in userspace.

          Like I said there are different aspects to this particular discussion that might complicate matters, but in general I really cannot imagine a compelling argument for saying we can delete a BLP based on a real life request from an article subject and then turn around and put it in user space to work on it so we can later re-create the article we just deleted. In all seriousness I might be missing something but that strikes me as the rub of the matter. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:49, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

          • What you are missing: that almost immediately after Boothroyd's deletion request he became the subject of national media attention. National media attention in multiple sources completely changes the ballgame. TAway (talk) 06:54, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
            • Like I said above, "Like I said there are different aspects to this particular discussion that might complicate matters..." This case might be slightly different for the reason you suggest (though this supposed "national media attention" seems, at a glance, to be quite minimal). My two previous comments gave my view on Durova's general question about userfying BLP articles that have been courtesy deleted rather than engaging with the specifics of this situation. I think it's obvious that userfying BLP articles that have been courtesy deleted is, as a rule, a definite bad idea. Perhaps this is an exception or perhaps not, but if it's the former I think it would be a very rare one. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:35, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
            • 3 years 9 months is not "almost immediately". M. Boothroyd asked for the article to be deleted on the 8th of August 2005. This is one of the errors of fact upon which you have built your house of cards. Uncle G (talk) 12:33, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

The content related to the recent scandal can be added to Criticism of Wikipedia, as there are reliable sources. My concern about the biography is that it was, and would be if recreated, a serious WP:BLP1E violation. We cannot write a biography based on a person being involved in one event when there is very thin coverage of the rest of their life. Unless there is enough substance to the rest of the person's life, the scandal would have undue weight. That's the problem. A public figure, like Chris Dodd can have some scandal content in their biography because there is enough substance to provide balance.

I'd very much like an answer to the question of whether it is kosher to userify a deleted WP:BLP. My initial feeling was against undeletion, but I did not outright delete the article again because I wanted more input, and did not want to generate more shrill comments about coverup. I did delete selected revisions which either 1/ I recalled having been previously deleted by other administrators before I ever set eyes on the article, or 2/ represented WP:BLP1E violations that had been discussed, and the deletion of which had been sustained at WP:DRV. Basically, I think the undeleting administrator was not fully aware of those circumstances and would not disagree with what I did. Jehochman ^Talk 10:27, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

On a side note: Jehochman involved admin?

Another problem to ponder, which I have so far not considered, but which strikes me now is this: If Jehochman closed the second AFD as delete (very quickly without the usual 24h SNOW waiting period that admins usually apply), doesn't this mean he is now involved? Imho SNOW, unlike consensus judging, requires an admin to decide that deletion is the correct thing to do. SNOW is an interpretation of WP:IAR as we all know and IAR requires a decision by the one applying it, i.e. one should only ignore the rules if they think it's best for the project. But if SNOW/IAR requires such a decision, it means the person ignoring the rules (here the SNOWing admin) has effectively taken a stance on the issue. But if they have taken a stance on the issue by doing so, they are now to be considered an involved administrator and should not take administrator actions regarding the same subject again, especially not closing a new AFD (like the third one) or selectively deleting revisions of the userfied article) based on said close. Opinions? Regards SoWhy 07:33, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

• Trying to solve a difficult problem does not disqualify somebody from continuing to try to solve that problem. You can't just scream "involved!" to get rid of an administrator who disagrees with your point of view. Most of the revisions I deleted had been previously deleted (as best I can remember) before I was ever aware of the article. When the article was userified, I don't think it was the administrators intention to restore those revisions. They included some edits by the HAGGER vandal, for example. I also removed the WP:BLP1E violation that was the immediate cause of the article being deleted (which was upheld at WP:DRV). Jehochman ^Talk 09:59, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I understand that you probably do not view yourself as an involved administrator while I think in the spirit of the reasons you cited on your first close that you were from then on, now having an opinion about what should stay and what should be deleted. A deletion by an involved administrator can be upheld, so pointing at DRV is not really an argument. But my posting was a question to those not involved in the issue at all (unlike you and me) whether my interpretation of IAR/SNOW leading to a seperate decision and thus more than just being judgment of consensus is correct, so I'd like to invite those people to consider this thought/problem (regardless of the issue at hand if possible).

    From you I'd like to request that you recuse yourself from taking any further administrative action towards this article (userfied or not) and allow an administrator previously not involved in the issue at hand to decide the further fate of the article (you can tag it for speedy deletion as G4 for example and someone will make a decision). It would serve both you and the project as a whole if any rumors of whitewashing can be avoided and not having the same admin repeatedly deleting an article is imho a way to achieve this. Regards SoWhy 10:10, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

    • I'd be happy to have nothing else to do with this stinking mess if an uninvolved administrator would step forward and promise to keep an eye on it. Whatever leads to the smoothest operation of the project is fine with me. Jehochman ^Talk 10:16, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
• My opinion is that this side-issue that you have created only serves to confuse, not to enlighten. The specifics of the case at hand are that the userfied edits that were deleted, as you can see for yourself, with the sole exception of TAway's contributions were all BLP vandalism making various libellous statements about the subject's sex life and sexual orientation. Abstract notions of "involvement" are irrelevant to that, and only serve to further muddy waters already muddied quite a lot above. If an abstract notion prevents someone from reversing/removing an edit where a BLP has been replaced with the word "cunt" (the one piece of vandalism here that I think to be safe to explicitly describe) then the abstract notion is directly enabling the existence of damage to the project. Uncle G (talk) 12:33, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Applying some simple logic here from my simple mind: (1) If this guy Boothroyd is notable, then he could qualify for a bio article. If not, then delete it. (2) If his own life and career are affected by his abuse of wikipedia, then it could merit a sentence or two. If not, then it doesn't belong in his article. That's not to say it might not belong elsewhere, such as the Criticism of Wikipedia article, as it illustrates some of the flaws in wikipedia's premise, which have been exploited by many, not just that one guy. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 11:38, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Is Jehochman involved 'now'?

It's a simple test.

The level of involvement is simple to determine: is there consensus that Jehochman is involved now? If so, he is, and can't use the tools again without risk of the usual risks that come with that. If there isn't consensus he's involved, he's not. If it is gray or borderline, you probably are. It's fairly simple, everyone. Make your case either way with evidence, or stop alluding to it. rootology (C)(T) 13:14, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

• My case is above. It's an irrelevant side-issue given the actual specifics here, and extra section headings don't change that. Uncle G (talk) 16:00, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

• Yeah, I know, I was just emphasizing that if someone thinks he's involved to just spit it out already with a valid reasoning or evidence, rather than us wasting time more on that bit. I'm actually with you on this. rootology (C)(T) 17:00, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Notability of the event in the context of the rest of him and BLP

This is getting pointless in particular. If he's notable, he's notable. If he's not, he's not. You either are, or you aren't. The sourcing IMHO is beginning to look like he is. I will say again what I said before: the fact Boothroyd is or isn't a Wikipedia user is 100% irrelevant in anything. The fact he screwed up here has zero value in any decisions we make. If the Wikipedia Event he caused gets coverage, there is no BLP violation at the least a one-sentence mention of it, relative to what has been reported so far. None. To totally suppress it from David Boothroyd, should it be created, is laughable and not a defense of anything under BLP, but a defense of a Wikipedia user. Given that it's a single notable event in the life of an apparently notable person's diverse biography (and yes, it looks like as a politician he is notable) a one-sentence mention is not harmful. If the news and the event is harmful as an event to the person, that's not our fault; like any other embarrassing event, he regrettably brougnt it upon himself and it's in the press already. rootology (C)(T) 13:14, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

What is the process for restoring an article after it has been to deletion review and the deletion was sustained? WP:DRVRV seems to be a redlink. Jehochman ^Talk 13:36, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

There is no process, as far as I am aware. An article on Boothroyd can be recreated, but like a case involving just an AFD, it must not fall foul of the reasons why the original article was deleted, otherwise it can be speedily deleted. AdmiralKolchak (talk) 13:47, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Typically, someone does a noindex userpage draft, gets a working model that would 'pass' AFD trivially, and brings it back to DRV. If When DRV signs off, someone kicks it back live, and sometimes the old history is merged in (if old content is used) otherwise, new history. Since the draft in Josh's side is used, the history needs to be merged in fully I think when it goes live eventually. Given Boothroyd is a notable politician in the UK that is apparently even getting all over the news for events unrelated to Wikipedia after that mess, I think it's inevitable. rootology (C)(T) 13:44, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

As rootology says. Although, if one thinks the closing admin of the DRV made a mistake in judging consensus, DRV should be the right avenue to contest this as well, although it usually is brought to AN or ANI. Regards SoWhy 13:46, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Tweaked from if>when DRV, any article that would trivially pass AFD can't under policy fail DRV (politics, social reasons, sure, but we can't judge content inclusion based on such factors outside of policy). 0:) rootology (C)(T) 13:50, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yea, I don't think this was a request to overrule the DRV. Rather a comment about how BLP is being used here as a means to suppress unfavorable information. For example, this threat to block over the reintroduction of the WP controversy is completely inappropriate. This is not a BLP issue, and citing BLP where it doesn't apply does the project no favors. لennavecia 13:50, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I said, Recreation in the same form is potentially a blockable action, or perhaps the article will just be deleted again. I really hope it does not get to that point. Not sure I'm seeing a threat there as much as a statement of fact or a warning. I'm not going to block anybody or delete anything further, as this issue is now on the radar of multiple administrators. At the moment I am digging through the deleted edits and some other history where I've found multiple accounts and IPs that appear to be connected to an infamous banned editor. Jehochman ^Talk 14:25, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether David Boothroyd should be a red or blue link, but it's odd to suggest that there are not BLP issues here. Leave all of the Wikipedia stuff to the side for a minute. The subject of the article requested deletion—once four years ago (I think before we did that kind of thing, i.e. courtesy deletions) and once more recently. Regardless of how big of a deal this recent controversy is (and I think it's not nearly as big of a deal as some suggest—as of now there are a whopping seven news articles on the issue that I can find, few of which seem to contain any original reporting), Boothroyd is most definitely "relatively unknown" in my view. I'm not sure what the current thinking on deleting BLPs at the request of such subjects is at this point, but in the past my understanding was that this was something that is acceptable and somewhat up to admin discussion per various ArbCom rulings. Maybe the consensus now on this particular case is that there is too much coverage now to not have an article on Boothroyd, but let's not lose sight of the fact that: A) the subject has repeatedly requested deletion; B) the key subject matter can easily be covered elsewhere (since the key subject matter is the Wiki controversy, not the fact that he is a local politician, of whom there are hundreds of thousand across the world); C) BLP is something we all obviously care about—even when it comes to Wikipedians who have articles. To suggest that there is no BLP issue here at all is just bizarre in my view, and I think it would be easier to see that were there not concerns about a coverup of information relating to Wikipedia. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 15:03, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I already commented in the MfD of the userspace draft, which didn't look at all like a NOINDEX draft to work on a better article, but a parking place for the article because it had been deleted at AfD against his own opinion. I already commented on the MfD about how the sources before the wikipedia "incident" only quote him to show the opinion of a member of the Westminster Council, and how he didn't take any of those controversial decisions himself, it was the council that made them. TAway can make as many claims of censorship in his user page as he wants, but those are not supported by evidence, since both the MfD and the DRV were closed by uninvolved admins. Sooo, I'd suggest that is marked as resolved and that TAway heads to WP:DRV to contest the DRV close, and that trying other noticeboards should be considered forum-shopping (and give him +1 kudos of unnecessary drama for every claim of censorship that he makes, please). --Enric Naval (talk) 15:11, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Maybe another Essjay-type scandal

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

Resolved

 – Not going anywhere productive, no administrative actions are required here, and this is not an "incident" ╟─TreasuryTag►sundries─╢ 16:51, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

With the already existing coverage of the Sam Blacketer controversy in the media, and on Wikipedia in the form of the relevant article and various discussions such as a large one currently going on above, the apparent news that The Times is preparing a new piece on what's happened and with ABC having caught wind of the story, I'm concerned this controversy may escalate into something, whilst probably not as grand as what happened with Essjay, rather bad. What should we do if this happens? OpenSeven (talk) 15:07, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a new and weak project anymore. It needs not shake over any possible negative mention in media.

Just do as instructed in Yes Minister, and everything will be fine. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 15:23, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I think it's great if the media wants to cover sock puppetry. This sort of problem is a big issue for many websites, not just Wikipedia. Jehochman ^Talk 15:25, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

As a criticism of wikipedia, all it proves is that being totally open to the public can bite you, and that wikipedia might need to become more restrictive, maybe not as restrictive as citizendium, but maybe some steps in that direction. This so-called "scandal" only shames the sockpuppet, not wikipedia. But it should be a wakeup call to tighten the reins a bit, somehow. I wonder what Wales' take is on all this? Has anyone asked him? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 15:37, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm shocked... shocked to hear that sockpuppets have been editing en.Wikipedia. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:39, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

We could rename it "shockpuppetry". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 15:50, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

And every time we see it happen, it's a case of shock and 'Aw, damn...' HalfShadow 16:17, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

It seems that the politicos and mainstream media have taken a fancy to this controversy. The Daily Mail report a few breathtaking inaccuracies, but this goes a long way toward making this situation a lot more complicated. Jehochman ^Talk 16:13, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

To be honest, they're lambasting Boothroyd (fancy the newspapers chastising Labour party members...) much, much more than they are Wikipedia. ╟─TreasuryTag►Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster─╢ 16:20, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

As if he's the only one to have done it. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:22, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Still, at least they're aiming at the right target; this is the fault of the editor, not the site. HalfShadow 16:24, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

If he's suffering slings and arrows in real life, it's a fitting punishment, although it still doesn't make him notable enough for his own page. It could be a footnote in the Criticism article. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 16:30, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Fitting punishment? Gross. Who elected you, or indeed any of us, judge and jury? The user known as Sam Blacketer clearly erred here, but it was hardly the most dastardly thing we've ever seen on Wikipedia, and now the real-life person might be facing very real-life consequences based in part on some unsurprisingly sloppy reporting by a British tabloid. I hardly think that's something to celebrate, and a bit more sympathy for the actual living person affected by this - regardless of mistakes they made - would be appropriate (and I say this as someone who has never interacted with the person in question on Wikipedia or anywhere else). This isn't a goddamn video game, and this discussion is rapidly moving in an unseemly direction with little regard for real-world consequences. If there is continuing coverage then presumably Sam Blacketer controversy or something similar will stay an article and we'll talk about this situation there. All I see here right now is unhelpful, and not very thoughtful, speculation. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 16:48, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Sam is going to initiate an admin recall of himself on June 15. Do people think his adminship should go? OpenSeven (talk) 16:49, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

This is not an 'Incident' and it doesn't require administrators' technical action. Closing, there are other venues for this, if it must go on at all. ╟─TreasuryTag►sundries─╢ 16:51, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

David Boothroyd deletion - do we have a process or not?

One of the most annoying things about the Wikipedia community is the desire to have instant outcomes when we are supposed to be deliberating thoughtfully. We can see this at Articles for Deletion, where the guideline says:

When an article is nominated for deletion, the Wikipedia community may discuss its merits for a period usually no less than seven days, in order to come to a public rough consensus about whether the article is unsuited to Wikipedia. Following seven days of discussion, an experienced Wikipedian will determine if a consensus was reached and will "close" the discussion accordingly.

This rarely comes into practice. The idea that we discuss whether to delete an article for a length of seven days is pretty much non-existent. Case-in-point: the recent AFD for David Boothroyd. There were three for this article as follows:

1. First AFD on August 8-August 14, 2005 - 7 days, KEEP - 10 votes total
2. Second AFD on May 23-May 23, 2009 - not even one day. DELETE - 6 votes total
3. Third AFD on May 27-May27, 2009 - not even one day. DELETE - 7 votes total

There is no way--no way--those last two deletion discussions should have been closed on the same days that they were opened. The third one was open for an hour and a half. The second one for less than that! The admins closing and deleting under these circumstances are derelict in the guidelines that this community has set up. If there were problems with the articles, they could be addressed. This is a very problematic trend for people to enact WP:SNOW, often not even citing it, to close off debate. Censorship, indeed. -->David Shankbone 17:18, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes it should have run the full period, and yes it was, in my view at least, a mistake to cut it off after one day, and yes it is annoying when we don't deliberate thoughtfully. Jehochman could have handled this better. But crying "censorship" is a major failure to assume good faith and is not really borne out by the facts. In both AFDs Jehochman cited BLP enforcement as his rationale and I see no reason to not take him at his word on that (i.e. I think he had good intentions here), particularly as the article subject requested deletion (twice actually, counting four years ago). We do do, or at least have done, deletions of marginal BLPs when subjects request them, and I think the real issue here is whether or not that was appropriate in this case. If you want thoughtful deliberation, let's stick to that rather than making unfounded accusations of censorship.

Also, there's a very related AfD still running and I have a feeling the Boothroyd issue will be resolved over there eventually. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 17:38, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

The article was userfied to User:JoshuaZ/David Boothroyd. —EncMstr (talk) 17:38, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Nobody cares that Boothroyd asked for his article to be deleted, just like we don't care that Don Murphy wants his deleted (also for BLP concerns). It's irrelevant. As far as I'm concerned, this is Wikipedia self-censorship, removing articles about incidents that cause us embarrassment. The article existed for four years after a seven-day long deletion discussion. The last two AFDs are completely illegitimate. They weren't open for one day. They were open for less than two hours. There is no possible way that we gained any consensus in that time frame, especially given that there was consensus reached to KEEP when the process was done properly. Admins have to follow the guidelines we set up, and not go around deleting articles based upon their own judgment. I take extreme issue with Jehochman over how he has conducted himself with these AFDs. There is no AGF when our governing policies and guidelines are shirked so heinously. -->David Shankbone 17:43, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

• I concur that the two last AFDs were closed too soon. AdmiralKolchak (talk) 17:51, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Deletion Review is that way. I don't think getting worked up about "censorship" issues is very constructive at this point; if these closures were outside of process or otherwise erroneous, then they should be reviewed by the normal process, not at this noticeboard. Shereth 17:48, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Wrong - this is an admin issue about not following guidelines, procedures and policies. DRV is separate. -->David Shankbone 17:51, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the larger issue of percieved malfeasance by one editor is a seperate issue from the deletions themselves, but the above statements seem to be conflating them. The closure of these discussions has already been mentioned in the deliberation about the larger issue at hand; I'm not sure what this new subsection is adding to the argument. It reads more like a request to review the closures rather than contribute to the discussion about a user's behavior. Shereth 17:55, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Like you David I don't agree with the last two AFDs, as I already said. But also bear in mind that Boothroyd asked that the article be deleted back in 2005 in the first AFD, well before any of this stuff went down. At the very least, there is a split in the community about whether we do courtesy deletions of BLPs when the subject requests it, and when the subject is of marginal notability. Don Murphy is not marginal because he produced a massively successful Hollywood film and someone wrote a book significantly about him, Boothroyd is marginal because he is a local politician who has recently achieved some (at this point) minor notoriety for one incident. We can debate about whether we should take the subject's wishes into account in the latter circumstance or not, and we can agree that Jehochman did not handle the AFDs well (though I'm less concerned by that than you are apparently), but don't pretend that "nobody cares that Boothroyd asked for his article to be deleted" because some people clearly do, and because we have done subject-requested deletions before (though I don't have an example at hand). There is a larger BLP debate here which remains unresolved, but things like WP:BLPBAN and the Badlydrawnjeff ArbCom suggest that Jehochman's actions were not completely off-the-wall. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 17:57, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

There was a lengthy discussion at WP:DRV, at least a week, and the deletion was sustained. How many more discussions are needed? Why don't we just let the matter lie for a few weeks and then see if there are enough sources to write a proper article? What's the rush? Wikipedia is not news, and if you want to write news, try WikiNews. Jehochman ^Talk 17:58, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Why are WP:SNOW closures even permitted? What is the point of establishing policy if nobody is required to follow them, or even remarked on when they don't? ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 17:59, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

• I've tried Wikinews; an article that was around for four years after a KEEP AFD, and whose subject only became more notable recently, is a problem for you to delete in under two hours, Jehochman. I don't see how you could possibly defend your actions here. It's a slap in the face to the community that has given you trust to follow how we write how things will happen. -->David Shankbone 18:03, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

If you feel that way than take this to another level of dispute resolution, but please have a bit of respect for the BLP issue, which is clearly present, and by which these actions are at least somewhat defensible. You seem to be plowing right past that (along with some others). This is a fairly complex situation (particularly as its literally still unfolding in the news and in an active AfD), and I'm skeptical of anyone who tries to make it sound simple. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 18:09, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Bigtime, I see no BLP issues mentioned in this thread that would excuse this behavior. If I want to discuss article content, I will do so at DRV or on the article Talk page. Yes, I think it's irrelevant that the subject wants their article deleted (or doesn't want the New York Times to write that story about them, etc.), and I always have (but I also think FlaggedRevs is long overdue). Here, the issue is with Jehochman deleting, twice, in under two hours, an article that was previously kept--strongly--by consensus. This is not the way we do things. -->David Shankbone 18:15, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

That first RfD, 4 years ago, was hardly a ringing endorsement. Notability questions arose even then. After that, the article skated mostly under the radar for nearly 4 years, with only about 80 or 85 edits during that interval. Once the user got himself in trouble and that became public knowledge, then there was a revived move to delete it. You can claim wikipedia is protecting itself, but it's actually that guy who is shamed, not wikipedia, and making a big thing out of it in his article raises questions of BLP violations; undue weight; coatracking; and, frankly, wikipedian narcissim. Unfortunately, the quick closure of the RfD's looks fishy. But the DRV was open for a week, so there was ample opportunity to defend the article. It did not, and does not, belong here. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 18:12, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

There are several highly problematic deleted edits to that article by Grawp. The situation here is more complex than meets the eye. I've got a checkuser working on this. Jehochman ^Talk 18:14, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Jehochman has asked me to inform the community that he and I have had prior conflict. That said, questions about the above comment: were the edits to that article substantially more problematic than edits to other borderline notability BLPs that get a spurt of negative attention in the press? Durova^Charge! 18:28, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

There are edits in the history that are as problematic as edits can get. As in, worst I've seen on Wikipedia. This article is a very high risk of doing serious harm to the subject. You've seen the sloppy reporting at The Register and the Daily Mail. Do you want to pick up one of those papers tomorrow and see them repeating an unsubstantiated allegation of pedophilia or bestiality? I know for absolute certainty that Grawp has edited this article at least twice, and there are a bunch of other edits that appear to be coming from his sock puppets or friends. Jehochman ^Talk 18:59, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

• The normal way of handling AFD vandalism is semiprotect, watchlist, and ask for assistance at ANI to deal with remaining vandalism. Isn't that true? BTW there's a question at my user talk also. Durova^Charge! 19:10, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
• So...you close two AFDs when they've barely been opened instead of asking for oversight? -->David Shankbone 19:13, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

By the way, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sam Blacketer controversy is ongoing in case people want to debate whether the content should be in Wikipedia and where it should go. I don't think WP:ANI is the correct venue to resolve content disputes. Thank you. Jehochman ^Talk 18:21, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

JE, even if there were BLP problems, you could have removed those problems and allowed the AFDs to proceed. Do you or do you not see why your closing two AFDs, in the midst of recent news events, is a problem that violated your responsibilities as an admin, when you should have followed the guidelines and just removed problematic material from the article? -->David Shankbone 18:27, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I think the whole point of closing the third AFD according the WP:STEAM was done to force a DRV which by default deletes where an AFD keeps. On a whole this is a matter of admin conduct and not anymore about if DB should have an article or not. Agathoclea (talk) 18:55, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Agathoclea has hit the nail on the head with this comment. A 50-50 no consensus AfD defaults to keep, but the same at DRV defers to the deleting administrator. Why can we not have a normal, 7-day AfD discussion on a public figure who has and continues to be covered extensively in the press? TAway (talk) 20:17, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

This is not about a content dispute, Jehochman. This is about your involvement in manipulating the encyclopedia via

1. speedily deleting out of process twice in a row
2. incorrectly blocking with false rationale
3. threatening editors with blocks
4. selectively restoring versions without certain reliably sourced content
5. wiki-lawyering editors out of a real AfD by throwing DRV in their faces
6. trying to change the BLP and Speedy deletion policies to accommodate and validate your actions

to (by our own admission as a search engine optimization expert) obscure search engine results. You were approached by other uninvolved editors (including another sysop) over these past several days and ignored them, so it is now here where it cannot be ignored. TAway (talk) 20:17, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

The purpose of this thread needs to be clarified. Expressions of concern about Hockman's conduct belong at certain forums, and debate over the articles' existence or non-existence belongs at certain other forums. As of now, this discussion is an unproductive amalgamation of the two. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 09:01, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

No, they belong together. Because if there was no debate over the article's existence, there would be no debate over its allegedly too-rapid deletion. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 09:11, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

No, I still disagree. We have AfD for a reason. And we have <a large number of abuse forums> for allegations of administrator abuse (not that I'm asserting this has happened here, but it's the fact of the matter). To assert there should be unnecessary and encouraged cross-over is not tackling the situation properly. Of course, the problems with Jehockman's response to the content might be referenced in some discussion about Jehockman's conduct, but we should separate talk of the content itself where possible. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 15:23, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreeing with Anonymous Dissident. The opening poster raised admin conduct issues, and it was necessary to ask questions about process and policy in order to explore that. Was a bit hard to keep that on-focus. Durova^Charge! 18:46, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I sometimes feel that Durova has a longstanding grudge against me. I'd really appreciate if she stopped engaging in dispute intensification. Durova, how about you stop commenting on me. There are plenty of other editors who can provide useful feedback, when needed. Jehochman ^Talk 19:32, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

• My initial reasons for starting this thread were 1) to express extreme dissatisfaction with Jehochman's premature closures of the AfDs; 2) to express discontent that our rules of governance were not followed with a "hot" issue; and 3) to raise the larger problem of way, way too many WP:SNOW closures on AFD. On Durova's talk page, Jehochman expressed regret over how he handled the early closures, and it's my opinion that he did so with only good, if misguided, intentions. He would not repeat these actions. That he had good intentions, and would not repeat, is good enough for me to feel that continuing the pile-on is WP:STICK. -->David Shankbone 20:50, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

• Thank you, David. To give credit where due, Durova above suggested protection as a better solution to the problem, and I think that is good advice. Jehochman ^Talk 20:54, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

• Sorry, David, I just discovered this thread and feel like I should pile on. This happens when admins don't follow process. I'm really annoyed with those of us, like Jehochman, who occasionally believe that they don't have to follow process because they know better. (Although I may have been guilty of this once or twice, too.) Seriously, AfDs are supposed to run for seven days. If the first or even the second one had been allowed to, or if DRV contributors had remembered that it is DRV's job to examine violations of process exclusively and restarted the AfD, we would not have this drama. What we should consider is a rule, similar to WP:DP#NAC, whereby any premature AfD closure can be undone and the AfD relisted by any other administrator.  Sandstein  18:15, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

A reminder

While it may be fun to devote time to drama about Jehochman's actions, editors who wish there to be a Boothroyd article are better served trying to work on actually improving the draft. I'm not at all convinced there should be an article but every pair of hands helps make it better. There are now roughly 6 days remaining until this is going to go to the community for some form of decision. Effort should be made into allowing the community to make that decision with the best possible version of an article on Boothroyd, not in bickering. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:05, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd be happy to, but I've been told by Jehochman that he will block me again if I "restore this content anywhere on Wikipedia." It is not "drama" when a user has been blocked for developing content and told they will be blocked again for continuing anywhere else on the project. Will he rescind his threat and agree to recuse himself from taking actions against editors working on the Boothroyd article? TAway (talk) 20:23, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I've already said that I'm not going to involve myself further in this matter. I am happy to let others deal with it. Please mind WP:BLP and other relevant policies. Before moving that article into mainspace, get some sort of community consensus to do so. Jehochman ^Talk 20:36, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Your recusal is too late. The damage is already done. The draft you thought could not possibly exist won't now get the same attention in obscure user-space for improvement as a proper AFD'd article would have, and due to the massive amounts of half-truths and smoke and mirrors already put out there over this article and its previous histories and 'precedents' at AFD/DRV, any future attempt at resurrection (presumably at DRV?), is just going to resemble nothing more than a procession, fed by ignorance. Too late. Far too late. The job is well and truly done and dusted. MickMacNee (talk) 21:01, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Recreated article

See User:JoshuaZ/David Boothroyd. Is that a WP:BLP violation due to WP:UNDUE weight given to the controversy? Jehochman ^Talk 15:42, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

In spite of being apparently asked to review this I hadn't paid attention to it the past couple days and began gutting that section. He's plainly notable, but for whatever reason Joshua is homing in on the WMF stuff which is a tiny fraction of the work and press this guy has gotten. The event is obviously notable as an event in the context of his life and should get a due course mention, but not 1/4 of the page's real estate. rootology (C)(T) 15:55, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Not the intention. I'm simply filling out the article as I get sources. That matter has the most easily accessible sources so it is getting addressed first. Pairing it down is of course reasonable. I don't know why Jehochman thinks that a draft article can have an UNDUE weight problem (it is after all a draft). That's a matter for its talk page, not for ANI. And it presumably isn't a serious BLP violation if the separate Sam Blacketer controversy article(currently up for AfD) isn't by itself a BLP problem. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:11, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I posted so people would be aware of the issue. We seem to be having the same debate over and over again in multiple venues. Let's not do that. Let's leave pointers so everybody comes to the same place and we can generate a lasting consensus. Jehochman ^Talk 22:13, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Just a side comment since Joshua mentioned Sam Blacketer controversy: if that article is kept at the close of the AfD (and it's going to be one helluva an AfD close, however it turns out) I would strongly recommend that we not have an article on Boothroyd. Said controversy is likely the thing that has received the most coverage, and we'll have an article on that. We also have an article on his book which itself is probably notable. Otherwise he's a local politician, of whom there are literally hundreds of thousands, and he's asked to not have a bio article, which for figures of peripheral notability is, I think, a request we can honor. So if we end up with two articles covering notable aspects of Boothroyd's life, I would hope that JoshuaZ and others who are interested in re-creating the bio would think about whether that's really necessary for our encyclopedic coverage, and if instead we could not do what we have already done for other un-famous BLP subjects and keep the bio article deleted. I think it's a good compromise. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:26, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

The thing is, a lot of the coverage about him is about his work as a politician and political analysis. His books may make him meet WP:AUTHOR by itself. Indeed, it would seem BLP problematic to me if we keep the main article on the controversy to only keep that. It would be unfair in the extreme in portraying what we all agree is only a small part of his activity. He's really quite accomplished. Such a decision would almost make a BLP problem in the other direction (if one believes that he is notable. I'm not convinced of that myself yet. We'll see). JoshuaZ (talk) 22:31, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I feel having an article about the person is better than the article about the event. This would address the problem of WP:UNDUE as there are far more items available about DB than just his Wikipedia life. If the book is notable so is the author who has gotten more mention than the book. Agathoclea (talk) 23:53, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Those are not unreasonable arguments, but the subject had previously asked that his bio be deleted, and it's also quite reasonable to consider that fact, which neither of you mention. I don't know if that request still holds in a situation where an article on the controversy exists (assuming it is not deleted) and it might be worth asking DB once the AfD closes. If he still wants the bio deleted, then JoshuaZ's comment above has the (no doubt unintended) effect of essentially telling the article subject that he's better off having a bio article, and that JoshuaZ knows more about what's fair for the article subject than the article subject himself. That would be odd, but as I said it's possible Boothroyd will feel differently about his bio if we decide to keep an article on the controversy. If he still wants it deleted, we need to address the question about how much we take the wishes of the article subject into account. This is not a trivial question, and we have done these kind of deletions before for persons of marginal notability.

It should also be admitted—and I really defy anyone to argue otherwise—that we would never, ever be going into this level of detail about this were it not something related to Wikipedia. I think that's undeniable. So we're currently going down a road where we might have as many as three articles relating to someone of marginal notability who has asked that his bio be deleted, and the only reason we have so many articles and so much detail is because Wikipedia is involved (if the controversy involved Facebook somehow, we simply are not having this conversation). Again I think it's pretty hard to honestly argue otherwise (e.g., there's no way the article ends up userfied in JoshuaZ's userspace if he wasn't who he was), and I think the BLP issues that result from that fact are pretty obvious. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:34, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Can you provide links to where the subject requested deletion of the article? I didn't see any objections when it was kept in 2005 and there has been much improved notability since then. And I don't think it sets a very good precedent if we delete articles whenever there's a controversy, especially not when we have a COI regarding the controversy. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:03, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

The subject started the first AfD. --Enric Naval (talk) 05:09, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

And he recently requested deletion again. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:59, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Bigtime, what you say is almost completely reasonable except that a) I don't think in any final accounting anyone is going to be in favor of having three articles on this subject. Obviously, much merging would occur if any or all of them are accepted. Also, the problem regarding this having to do with Wikipedia can be run in the other direction: We would likely have just had the article kept and not be having this discussion if it weren't for it having to do with Wikipedia. In that regard, the best thing we can do is to treat the article like it has nothing at all to do with the project and make our judgments either way independent of that. 05:28, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

You're probably right (I hope) that merging would happen once this is all settled, but the fact remains that we're creating a lot more content than we normally would were this is a non-Wiki related situation. I fully agree with your last point about treating the article like it has nothing to do with the project (and that's definitely how I'm trying to think about it), but in a hypothetical situation where that was actually the case I think the article would have been deleted, not kept. If we were speaking of a similar figure (local pol, wrote a book and has been quoted in the media, we had a small bio on them for years) who received some embarrassing press about some actions she took on MySpace (nothing illegal, just embarrassing), and if said person then came to us and asked for a courtesy deletion, I think the odds are very good (though not guaranteed) that we would have done just that and that little more would have been said. I think that's quite analogous to the situation here, except the website in question is not MySpace but rather ThisPlace^TM, and that has made all the difference, to coin a phrase. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:59, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Nassim Nicholas Taleb

Stalking and Harrassment of Nassim Taleb by Ulner

I am a connected to the Taleb family (Nassim Nicholas Taleb) whose living biography wikipedia is handling; I only act to correct distortions and harrassment and do not add new material. I would like to report userUlner as obsessed with Taleb and making every single change possible on every item and bickering, in a way that exhibits web stalking of a living person, causing much DISTRESS to Taleb's family. I would like to seek Ulner refrain from further harassment of Taleb. —Preceding unsigned comment added by IbnAmioun (talk • contribs) 21:41, 8 June 2009 (UTC) IbnAmioun (talk) 21:43, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Have you tried discussing this with User:Ulner? I don't see any messages on their talk page, but I may be missing something. -- Darth Mike ^(talk) 23:08, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Have you considered that you might have a WP:COI conflict of interest and that maybe you shouldn't be involved with the Taleb articles? Who cares about minor misrepresentations on wikipedia? They hardly matter but having someone so dedicated to observe your articles sorta raises the suspicions of users that there really might be something unwritten worth knowing regarding the matter. Anyway I'll be keeping a closer eye on Taleb related articles from now on.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 23:23, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

194x144, that wasn't entirely helpful. Please WP:AGF

IbnAmioun - Also, please assume good faith about other contributors. You seem to be reacting very defensively to other editors who want to help improve the article. I've reviewed a dozen or so changes and none of them seem to be abusive or vandalism. If you have specific examples that you're concerned about, either on the article or the talk pages, please provide them here.

Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:41, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks everyone for the help. My problem with User:Ulner is that he seems obsessed (to make 50 entries in such a short span betrays obsession) and he bickers over the smallest thing as he is doing now --any small detail seems to be a stumble to him. There is no problem if you have editors going back and forth on a point but you should realize that someone FROM THE QUANTITATIVE FINANCE INDUSTRY (of which Taleb is extremely critical) making 50 edits on a living person without others intervening can be extremely distorting. IbnAmioun (talk) 23:58, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

This basically seems to be a content dispute at Nassim Nicholas Taleb. That article seems over-written, and might be trimmed down a bit. It is a bit laudatory; the guy tanked two hedge funds with his strategy, but that's not mentioned. (His basic concept was kind of cute - buy options on both sides that are way out of the money, on the theory that the market underprices options far from the current price. This pays off when something drastic happens, and bleeds money when markets are relatively stable. Hence his paper "Bleed or Blowup", and his "Black Swan" book.) This needs attention from someone who understands derivative strategies. Is there a laid-off quant in the house? --John Nagle (talk) 06:15, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

The trading strategies are marginal to Taleb thought books and papers. While Taleb published a cherished book about options 12 years ago, his later two books (Fooled by randomness and The Black Swan) are about knowledge, science and making decisions in life. He is mostly known for his books. His sceintific works are also much about knowledge extremem events and risk, and rarely touches the hedge fund strategy. Yechezkel Zilber (talk) 00:04, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

The situation is far more serious than you think. Taleb and the Taleb family has been getting threats by unemployed finance people who have been stalking them both PHYSICALLY and on the WEB. These threats have been reported in the WSJ journal. <ref.http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123457658749086809.html?mod=rss_topics_davos#articleTabs%3Darticle</ref> —Preceding unsigned comment added by IbnAmioun (talk • contribs) 08:34, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I find the following text from the talk page of Taleb to be a personal attack in violation of Wikipedia policy: "The harassment situation is far more serious than you think, which is why we worry about such obsessive users as Ulner . Taleb and the Taleb family has been getting threats by unemployed finance people who have been stalking them both PHYSICALLY and on the WEB. These threats have been reported in the WSJ journal.". Ulner (talk) 11:03, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Legal threat

IbnAmioun seems to be making legal threats on the Nassim Nicholas Taleb talk page: "You should look at the consequences of obsessive stalking a character" [12], and "When someone like Ulner spends his ENTIRE time obsessed with a subject, this raises issues of stalking that may play a role in a COURT of LAW". [13] He's also accusing the other user of mental disorders. --Anderssl (talk) 21:01, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

• Discussed above somewhere.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:04, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
• "Legal threats on talk page of Taleb" and "Stalking and Harrassment of Nassim Taleb by Ulner" are the two I see at the moment.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:06, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes, sorry, my bad. There was no notice of this at the talk page of the article, so I didn't realize this was already being discussed here. --Anderssl (talk) 21:20, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Threats from associates of Taleb are apparently a known problem. See [14], where J. Barkley Rosser, Jr., a well-known economist, describes his run-in with Taleb and his supporters. Some short-term blocks may be in order here. --John Nagle (talk) 15:44, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Repeated unprofessional administrator conduct.

Recently I was banned for 24 hours for incorrectly posting to the wrong notice board personal attacks on me and edit warring on the Talk:Ayn Rand. At least two other high level administrators pointed out that the action of me being banned was questionable. It pissed me off enough to believe that wikipedia is corrupt. Enough to get me to retire. Now when a Professor whom I am an fan of and have no connection with in my personal life gets another set of Axe to Grind harrassing Editors on his article when I comment on the inappropriateness of their conduct. Not they, but me get a singled out of the blue with a completely erronious comment posted on my talkpage. 1.[15]

For the comment above and as a by product of my past banning, I have went and attempted to address this with the administrator on his talkpage. Rather then note their oversight and actually reign in other editors who are attacking the Taleb estate rep and are incorrectly using Wikipedia policy to do it. This administrator blamed me and has and obviously will do nothing to address the inappropriate behavior even as it appears to continue. If the administrator was concerned as they claim why no more involvement in Taleb's issue? Say on the talkpage? Why was the issue allowed to be escalated to an WP:Office? Well I think that no administrator cared to stop the behavior and would rather comment at the time on mine.
I would like an apology from the administrator in question. Do not bother to blame me or attack me with for this nonsense. I have no control over administrators here in wiki. Their short sightedness and knee jerk and incorrect reactions do not belong to me as I did not have control over them and make them screw up. I would like an apology first for being blocked arrogantly and unjustifably. Also an apology in relation to the Nassim Taleb article for being separated out from pack for direct and very public criticism, for comments that where completely restrained and appropriate. Comments in hindsight that most definitely were within reason in light of recent information posted to the article.

LoveMonkey (talk) 15:09, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

• Since I don't know how to defend myself against a statement that telling him to comment on the content, not the contributors, is a threat, I'll just sit this out for now.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:43, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
  • It's just bizarre. There are serious problems at Nassim Nicholas Taleb and its talk page that might use some more Admin eyes, but no apology is required here from you. Dougweller (talk) 16:35, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

• LoveMonkey, you need to provide evidence and links and diffs. I honestly can't understand the point that you are trying to make. Jehochman ^Talk 16:37, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Why has SarekOfVulcan singled me out and make no attempt to stop the harassment on the Taleb talkpage? LoveMonkey (talk) 16:55, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Taleb has already contacted the Wikipedia office. And yet nothing is being done to stop the harassment. Look at the ANI on this page where the editor is reporting Taleb's legal representive for Wikipedia Policy violations. LoveMonkey (talk) 16:57, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Why was I singled out? Taleb has a WSJ article about potential death threats. I post a defense that inappropriate behavior is going on by other editors on the article and I am the only one getting comments posted on their talkpage. Why? LoveMonkey (talk) 16:59, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Why has SarekOfVulcan not addressed the other editors misuse of Wiki policy to frustrate and discourage Taleb representative from posting to address their percieved harassment? LoveMonkey (talk) 17:04, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
    • SarekOfVulcan's note to you seems quite mild and entirely appropriate to me. Even if there were other issues with the page, if it was yours that he saw, he was right to remind you of Wikipedia behavioral expectations: WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA are standards which every editor is requested to follow, even if he or she feels others are not. Perhaps you did not intend it that way, but the statement that he pointed out to you seems like a very loaded one that could perhaps be paraphrased as "You must be deliberately subversive, because you can't be that stupid." Wikipedia requests that we point out the errors in somebody's reasoning, not suggest that either they have (a) deficient understanding or (b) are faking it so they can get away with something (unless we have very strong evidence, it's best to assume good faith in conversations). If Sarek had blocked you for incivility without investigating or noticing if others also needed to be addressed, that would be one thing, but a mild reminder seems well within reason. If you feel that others are harassing you, you have the same recourse to remedy as any other contributor, as set out at WP:DR. Administrators, too, are human and not all-seeing. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:06, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
      • I am requesting an explaination on how a talkpage can prompt the living breathing human being it is about to pick up the phone and call the foundation. And the only person who get commented on isn't even the target of the living persons complaint.[16] I have every right and justification to complain.LoveMonkey (talk) 17:10, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
        • SarekOfVulcan has done nothing to clean up the mess. Why are opposing editors allowed to misuse WP policies to attempt and silence someone's restate representative? Where is SarekOfVulcan at? Making remarks about me on my talkpage. One of the editors had already filed an ANI on here as can be seen above. Where is SarekOfVulcan's involvement. Where is his comments to them? Nowhere. LoveMonkey (talk) 17:18, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
          • I do not know what drew SarekOfVulcan to the conversation, but unless SarekOfVulcan is the individual who received that phone call and unless he responded to an investigation only by singling out your edit specifically, I'm not sure that the two situations are related. If he has not accepted responsibility for investigating and addressing any global issues, then he is not solely responsible for addressing the BLP concerns in the article. Such concerns should be taken very seriously and investigated with due diligence, but if Sarek may be approaching your comment as a separate issue. I have read his note to you, and, again, it seems mild; it even says that your comment "is probably on the wrong side" of the proper approach in conversations instead of flatly accusing you of incivility or a personal attack. Certainly, if no other attention is paid to BLP concerns, I would see why you might be upset, but demanding it of this administrator in particular may be misguided. Perhaps if the whole situation were less emotional and you had not recently been blocked by another administrator in a way you felt unfair, Sarek's behavior here might not seem so extreme and objectionable to you? If the BLP concerns are not being addressed, they should certainly be pursued, but you might find it more productive to focus on that rather than Sarek's concerns with this one statement. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:27, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
          • (Your repeatedly asking your question may be preventing responses. I got three consecutive edit conflicts in my attempts to answer you and would have given up if I had gotten a fourth. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:28, 10 June 2009 (UTC))
            • OK now that is exactly the reasonable and respectable response I have been seeking. I am not OK with getting called out and then having my grievences ignored or sarcastically rebuffed. THANK YOU. LoveMonkey (talk) 17:41, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
            • I apologize about the edit conflicts I have been getting them too and they have really made me frustrated. You are an angel. LoveMonkey (talk) 17:44, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Sarekofvulcan seems to be the spotlight of many unsatisfied editors and complaints, Please see this for other examples of Sareks misconduct here on wikipedia. It is my honest opinion that this user should indeed not have access to any admin tools and I am going to have to file a review of conduct regarding this admin at a later time but in the meantime I'd ask you LoveMonkey Please to discontinue posting messages here for the time being and to let uninvolved administrators review your complaint in peace.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 17:43, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

• Who is this editor. Who are you to speak to the process and the policies here? Are you still keeping an eye on Taleb's representive? Are you still pursuing getting him blocked from the article or banned. For WP:Policy vios? LoveMonkey (talk) 17:47, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
  • It's a little difficult to figure out from the above exactly where things are. If somebody has physically called the Wikimedia Foundation and a Wikimedia Foundation representative has indicated that they will investigate and/or deal with this, then this matter is out of the community's hands and even administrators should leave it to our legal representatives to address. Almost everyone you encounter on this page, administrator or not, is going to be a volunteer, and few of us are empowered to address concerns at that level. If, however, there has not been contact made to the Wikimedia Foundation or a Wikimedia Foundation representative has advised that the community must resolve this, it would probably be best to open a section at a forum established to address these situations, like the biographies of living persons noticeboard, if the material being introduced to the article is libelous. I have to admit that reading the notes above doesn't help me see the core issue here. If the problem is simply that a contributor is editing the article too much, I can't think of any policy we have that would forbid it, as long as (a) material meets the core policies of WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:OR, (b) the content is consistent with WP:BLP, and (c) the editor works within behavioral guidelines to build a consensus with other contributors consistent with those policies. If an editor is not meeting these three points, but is exhibiting ownership of an article, dispute resolution may be necessary (though unless material is poorly sourced contentious text, immediate admin intervention may not be). If there are concerns that material being added is libelous, it may be very helpful to point out a specific problem so that other contributors who do not know who the subject of this article is (like me) would better be able to see why there are concerns. Not knowing anything about him, I mean no disrespect when I say that even if material is negative, it's not a violation of policy if it is (a) verifiable and (b) not overly emphasized. I am very sorry if the subject of this article and his friends and family are feeling unsafe, and I hope that your concerns about the situation can be swiftly resolved. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:22, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Since diffs have been requested, here are some that a quick review turns up:

• "Please stop making the unneccessary attacks on Ulner, he is not a stalker but working hard, in good faith, on a wikipedia article […] If you do want to contribute, please do so in a positive way - you are more than capable - and use reliable third party sources to bakc your arguments. Thank you."
• "Your pedantic wrangling is nothing but a ruse you are here to defame."
• "Do you agree with Ulner on all points there? Why are you defending him?"
• "You know what you are doing, you are all grown up and your motivations can not be masked by your seemingly deficient understanding. I bet your probably abit more then just someone with a passing interest. "
• "Please clarify why you are responding to my comments as such. It appears as if the very devil himself has materialized."
• "Please clarify why you are responding to my comments as such. It appears as if the very devil himself has materialized."
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SarekOfVulcan&oldid=295584044#Your_comment_on_my_Talkpage
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SarekOfVulcan&oldid=295584044#Wall_Street_Journals_comments_on_Death_Threats_to_Nassim_Taleb

This may shed some more light, here.

The actual dispute at hand in the article itself? Apparently it's over whether this person is a "writer" or "literary essayist", and whether he is a "scholar". SarekOfVulcan has no involvement in the dispute whatsoever that I can find. Uncle G (talk) 18:32, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Nassim Taleb picked up the phone and called the foundation (or had legal rep do it) because of the dispute over him being a "writer" or "literary essayist". Gee could someone wonder why I might be frustrated at the handling of this? How does that address why Sarekofvulcan just addressed me? Did nothing before or after until I raised caine?

Anybody? This above appears to diminish the gravity of the situation? And also grossly mispresent it.LoveMonkey (talk) 18:41, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm still not sure what your question is here. It seems to be, "Why was the issue allowed to be escalated to an (sic) WP:Office?" Which, we have no control over. If Taleb called the Office, that's beyond our control. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:04, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Stop

We have been allowing this to continue for some time, in the interest of giving those associated with Nassim Nicholas Taleb an open forum on issues related to our policy for biographical articles.

However...

LoveMonkey - you have made numerous threats and negative comments about other editors and about administrator SarekOfVulcan's involvement here. This must end immediately. Wikipedia policy is clear: you must edit in a civil and collegial manner, and personal attacks against other editors are unacceptable behavior. Editors should assume that others are working in good faith, unless there is compelling evidence to the contrary. Comments and warnings made earlier all appear to be consistent with Wikipedia policy and in direct response to your series of threats and abusive messages.

IbnAmioun - this warning applies to you as well. You have described as threats, harrassment, or stalking edits which to others appear perfectly reasonable attempts to improve articles and follow Wikipedia policy. Attacking other editors in this manner is unacceptable behavior, and it has continued for some days.

If there are further abusive comments or personal attacks in this discussion editors will be blocked from editing briefly. This discussion cannot happen in a reasonable and constructive manner if key participants refuse to communicate in an adult manner.

Please communicate what each of your relationships are with the article subject.

LoveMonkey - you refer to being blocked earlier today or yesterday, but there is no block log record of that. Please clarify.

There has been extensive mention of real life threats. However, there is no evidence presented that anyone participating in Wikipedia is connected to those. If Taleb or a representative called the Wikimedia Foundation, please let us know if you have evidence of or asserted any such relationship between editors here and actual real life threats.

Please explain, briefly, and without any further attacks or insults to other users / editors / administrators.

Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:45, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

There are serious problems with the article, about both unreferenced puffery--and the practice of trying to balance it with negative comments about the subject. Rather, a NPOV article needs to be written. A editor who lists "Fields: Scholar, Essayist, Public Intellectual, Statistician, Risk Engineer and Trader" in the infobox is not following NPOV policy, and neither is one who selects negative quotes from reviews. I'm not that happy with Taleb distribution either, which includes the phrase "The term is therefore increasingly used" , wording that typically indicates using WP for original research. I gather from the article on the person that there is criticism to be added here for a balanced article. I would suggest that both Ulner and those who have been called here the Taleb representatives stay clear of editing these articles. Whether or not people with COI should start their own bios, once neutrality is questioned, then they need to refrain. IbnAmioun's complaints amount to a claim of OWNership. DGG (talk) 02:48, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I have made no threats to anyone. Please clarify.

"LoveMonkey - you have made numerous threats"

LoveMonkey (talk) 13:17, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

DGG it would be an honor to have you edit the article. The issue is that a very busy editor (with a buddy or two defending him) is editing the article in a negative direction. Fights and questions when their edits are shown to do that. No administrator got involved and or has addressed this. They seem to like to comment on my behavior exclusively. And you know I think no one would really be that up in arms with the editwarring (enough to make the issue WP:Office) but the questionable editor is not only misrepresenting Taleb but a Nobel Peace Prizing Winning Myron Scholes. Bad bad misrepresentation of allot of important persons getting inappropriately thrown in the mix, and it really doesn't belong here. Now this in real world context with the WSJ mention of potential death threats to Taleb&family and I would imagine him abit antsy. So much for sympathy for living people, policy here is more important. LoveMonkey (talk) 13:40, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

(I mentioned this above in a previous Taleb section. We probably need to consolidate Talib discussions on a subpage.) See [17], where J. Barkley Rosser, Jr., a well-known economist, describes his run-in with Taleb and his supporters. This is a must-read for anybody dealing with this matter. --John Nagle (talk) 15:52, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Fascinating. Thanks for the link, John. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:58, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

The article from Rosser mentions no supporters at all. Why the assertion? LoveMonkey (talk) 18:37, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I recently got interested in this article (beginning of June) and I thought it had some NPOV problems. To try to balance the article I added a reference to a short criticism from Scholes. This citation of Scholes is a fair quote from [[18]], and is not as sometimes has been claimed, taken out of context. I tried to explain my reason for making this edit after complaints by IbnAmioun. Later this section about criticism from Scholes was rewritten by Yechezkel Zilber, and I responded that the new sentence written by him was good. This follows the usual procedure of making edits, discussing, thinking, reaching a compromise - which is characteristic of Wikipedia. In addition to the major edit above, I have made some minor edits trying to change the tone of the article to be more compatible with NPOV.

The users IbnAmioun and LoveMonkey have, instead of discussing the content of the article and trying to reach a compromise, responded with personal attacks. IbnAmioun has as well responded with legal threats. IbnAmioun have recently made a very serious personal attack which in the same section talks about "obsessive users as Ulner" and "threats by unemployed finance people who have been stalking them both PHYSICALLY and on the WEB." I would like the personal attacks and legal threats to stop. Furthermore, I would kindly ask IbnAmioun to delete his comment linking me to "threats by unemployed finance people". Ulner (talk) 23:17, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

These matters seem very complicated and Ulner is correct regarding his complaint this indeed is uncalled for and a personal attack. The section needs to be removed and IbnAmioun needs to be warned regarding this type of behavior, a short length block might also be in order since there seem to be other instances of personal attacks present from this user on the talkpage. Ulners complaint regarding LoveMonkey seems to me to be mostly without merits, some of LoveMonkeys edits may not be 100% civil but they seem to be good faith edits, if Ulner has any definite proof of Lovemonkeys conduct then I ask that he provide diffs. If these matters continue to haunt the Administrators noticeboard then I suggest that the article and its talkpage be Locked for a week to allow parties to cool down.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 01:02, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Having read the talk page of Taleb again ([19]) I agree with 194x144 that the LoveMonkey's edits have been made in good faith. Ulner (talk) 06:11, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

OK. Now in reflection I ask Ulner to go back and look at the Criticism section on the talkpage and how Ulner joined the discussion appearing to argue on behalf of Elroch. Elroch who had just gotten criticized for strongly showing a very nasty personal bias toward Taleb. Elroch's comments and conduct are, or where and could be the cause of such a stir with the Taleb estate. Ulner tacked his comments on at the end of the discussion. This gives the impression that Ulner is now a continuation of elroch.

LoveMonkey (talk) 12:58, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Again could someone actually address Ulner? And please tell Ulner to address the issues here. Ulner is now making this two discussions one on my talkpage and one here which confuses the whole thing even more.LoveMonkey (talk) 14:19, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Having realized that the LoveMonkey's edits was made in good faith; [20] - I tried to respond and explain the reason for filing an ANI report against IbnAmioun on LoveMonkey's talk page - but he thinks the discussion should take place here - so I post my response here: "I would like to reply to your comments on the Taleb talk page: [21].

I added the Scholes criticism into the article, and this section was discussed and subsequently given a new formulation of Yechezkel Zilber [22]. I stated that I thought his new formulation was good.

Anyone who does not agree that this new formulation is good can continue to discuss it in the talk page: [23] - state exactly which sentence they think violates NPOV and propose a solution (for example delete the sentence). Anyone who thinks that a sentence in the article constitutes libel can according to the WP:BLP delete or change the sentence immediately.

Instead of following any of these possible routes of action, IbnAmioun has responded with personal attacks of differents kinds and legal threats. You write "...AND THEN CALLED INTO QUESTION ANOTHER EDITOR FOR ADDING BALANCE AND NPOV BACK INTO THE ARTICLE." This is not correct - I called into question the personal attacks and legal threats of IbnAmioun - I have not criticised him for trying to add balance and NPOV back into the article."

Regarding your recent comment: "This gives the impression that Ulner is now a continuation of elroch." I have no connection to Elroch - but I probably share some of his opinions about the article. However, this impression does not justify personal attacks or legal threats in any case. Ulner (talk) 14:38, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Ulner notes I wrote "You write "...AND THEN CALLED INTO QUESTION ANOTHER EDITOR FOR ADDING BALANCE AND NPOV BACK INTO THE ARTICLE." This contradicts Ulner comments here[24][25]. Ulner posted at the end of a discussion where editor Elroch made claims that Taleb was patently wrong about some pretty big things [26]. Ulner's criticism appears in context to be attempting to justify what Elroch did and stated. This is the edit where Ulner is critical of User:YechezkelZilber's attempt to balance and be NPOV[27]. Ulner is in essences stating that the obvious mistakes that Elroch made (which are bad) are not mistakes and are justifiable to be included because they are in American Stat (which I believe they are not).LoveMonkey (talk) 15:40, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I really believe that this argument should be placed on mine or LoveMonkey's talk page, but following his suggestion I place it here:

I thought you were refeering to this edit [28] but I realize now that you are refeering to my edit [29].

Yes, I wrote that "But, by claiming that any statements critical of Taleb are defamatory, you are in effect keeping the number of critical statements of Taleb in the article at a minimum". I thought that IbnAmioun's use of language (example: "user beware") and immediately starting to discuss me, not the content ("By posting an ad hominem attack by Scholes you appear to be part of that wave"), suggested that he was attempting to discourage me from making further edits; see nr 3 here [30]. Ulner (talk) 16:15, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Note Elroch wrote these whoppers of comments against Taleb and by proxy his place of employment and institutes of his accreditation.
"Taleb is blind, or chooses to be blind to the absolute nature of mathematical truth. It is unlikely that he has ever put in the time (supposing he had the ability) to develop the necessary level of understanding of the theory of distributions and measure spaces, still less their natural context in functional analysis."
And
"Taleb indicates by what he writes that he does not understand either the precise meaning of the theorem or the concepts which are used in its statement, but in his naivety he feels qualified to assert its falsity."
And
"These are rather advanced topics only reached at the end of a good mathematics degree course or in a graduate course, which Taleb lacks."
And
Here Elroch takes a veiled swipe at Taled's ancestry.
"Taleb may be proud of his distant ancestry from an Middle Eastern potentate, but it is worth remembering the anecdote about Euclid who reportedly patiently explained to the first king of Egypt that "there is no royal road to geometry. These days it would be appropriate to replace the word "geometry" by mathematics". Hmmm this one implies that Taleb by being Arab is stupid and not sophisticated enough to know the difference. Go Wikipedia!

Ulner then tacked on the end of this list of very inappropriate comments that the American Statistics Journal was validating some of what Elroch was saying [31].
These comments are defamation to Taleb and the academic institutes that gave Taleb his accreditation. After this Ulner then added to the article the Scholes comments out of context and asked YechezkelZilber for sourcing the context YechezkelZilber added to the article.
LoveMonkey (talk) 16:16, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I wrote that "I guess that some ot the comments of Elroch above has been mentioned in the articles in American Stat, and hence are candidates for inclusion in this Wikipedia article". I found that Elroch's comments about Taleb's critique of the normal distribution interesting, and I thought that this issue is probably mentioned in American Statistician. This is what I meant when I wrote "some of the comments of Elroch". I never intended to support Elroch's sentences about Taleb's education. Ulner (talk) 16:35, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

YOU JUST NOW CLARIFIED THAT. After Ibn addressed you in good faith on the talkpage.[32] You never made such a distinction. You just kept editing and arguing.[33] You stated you read and understood and that how dare anyone be upset.[34] You and Editor User:AleXd[35] appear to be tag teaming for elroch. Ibn -again- in good faith pointed this out to you [36]LoveMonkey (talk) 16:41, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

It is easy to misinterpret when discussing non-verbally on the Internet. Still, even when suspecting bad intention of an editor, one should avoid personal attacks, legal threats and try to keep the conversation calm. One should try to be respectful in all communication - for example, on your talk page, you recently wrote "Oh look Ulner is still arguing. No surprise." Ulner (talk) 19:44, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Still can't take responsibility. Still arguing, still.LoveMonkey (talk) 00:28, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

LoveMonkey, could you please try to make fewer edits? It makes it very difficult to follow the history like that. Do you not use Preview, or do you just not spot problems until it's too late?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:14, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

And could you address the substance of this ANI? Or again are you still only interested in me and not that Wikipedia is being misused. Your comments and behavior are very frustrating and do nothing to address the substance of this. LoveMonkey (talk) 17:22, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

The last edit to the article was on June 10. Since then, there have only been 8 edits to the talk page, all of which appear to be well within norms for discussion. Therefore, there is nothing to address at the moment.

You, on the other hand, have posted almost 100 times, in several venues, since you first contacted me on the 10th, all regarding this issue. So yes, yours is the behavior that I'm commenting on.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:43, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Really then you notice I have already apologized about the repeat edits before your interruption? [37] This previous diff was my second. Nice to see were your focus lies. Low edits without you ever doing anything other then harass me, interesting. The low edits are due to the spotlight now on it. Good you exploit that. As I am done arguing with you, you as a representative of Wikipedia (you are an administrator) have made it quite clear that no matter how obvious or valid the points I make, you will continue with your ridicule and chaste me. Your singling out of me, is not fixing anything and does nothing but frustrate and distract. LoveMonkey (talk) 17:48, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I have no interest in this debate whatsoever but I'm dearly hoping the next section will be entitled "Hammer Time" --LiamE (talk) 17:37, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

There ya go. Egg it on. After I got banned for trying to post ("to the wrong place") when someone made personal attacks (it was called shopping). And with the admins here shooting first and then never finding out. I bet me getting a second hammer is all but done. The policies work in fairly tale land but will get you the hammer when you use them in reality. Oh how dare anyone point out defamation and administrator abuse. God help me for coming to this Professor's defense, stupid stupid me.LoveMonkey (talk) 18:02, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Way to miss the joke there. As I have pointed out I have no interest in this debate and in fact I dont even know what its about. I was was just scrolling down and passed the heading and a whimsical notion came over me so I expressed it in my post above. If you want to take that as a personal dig feel free to, but as I say I neiher know nor care what has been posted in this discussion so I dont know how you could possibly think it was aimed at you. --LiamE (talk) 18:55, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. But with the comments about Taleb allowed to stand and not getting addressed and with the way that administrators have harassed and accused me, forgive me for being abit "sensitive".LoveMonkey (talk) 19:50, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

When you write "But with the comments about Taleb allowed to stand and not getting addressed" I guess you mean comments on the talk page of Taleb. If you want certain parts of the talk page deleted because it constitutes libel, I suggest you open a second ANI section where you post exactly which parts you want deleted. If you mean comments about Taleb in the article itself, I suggest you make a suggestion at the talk page of Taleb. Ulner (talk) 21:36, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I put in some information about Talib's hedge funds ("Lackluster returns" - WSJ) which was immediately reverted by 83.236.135.58 (talk · contribs). Twice. That IP address edits only the Talib article. There does seem to be a defense system in place. --John Nagle (talk) 19:22, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

John Nagle, you cited "lackluster returns" without explaining that the fund made 60% before that --and around 100% AFTER that. You should read the full articles before posting matters like that out of context. This is why I reversed. Also I provided gated articles. I saw a comment of yours above saying "the guy tanked two hedge funds with his strategy, but that's not mentioned." WHERE DID YOU READ THIS ? WHERE? WHERE? Do you realize the gravity of what you wrote??????83.236.135.58 (talk) 21:15, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

You act as if Wikipedia is in a vacuum and no one has noticed any of this. As if Wikipedia isn't famous for big nasty issues with WP:BLP.LoveMonkey (talk) 19:50, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Rotational, again

Note, this user was last bought up here in May, due to MOS conflicts Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive539#Rotational.

This user has taken to creating articles in his userspace, which I feel go beyond using it as a sandbox, I feel that it is being used to create his preferred versions of articles, as he does not wish others to edit them. He creates articles in his userspace every few days, edits them for a while, and rarely goes back to them later, this suggests that it isn't just a sandbox.

On 10 May, he created redirects from the mainspace to his userspace articles, which were speedily deleted by User:Rkitko and he was warned about this. Three of his original pages were originally categorised, which I commented out per WP:BADCATS.

WP:USERSPACE states: "While userpages and subpages can be used as a development ground for generating new content, this space is not intended to indefinitely archive your preferred version of disputed or previously deleted content or indefinitely archive permanent content that is meant to be part of the encyclopedia. In other words, Wikipedia is not a free web host. Private copies of pages that are being used solely for long-term archival purposes may be subject to deletion."

This discussion on his talk page suggests this, though he refuses to give a definitive answer. Note these are all in his preferred format, which is not MOS compliant.

This is a list of the offending articles, in order of when they were created

• User:Rotational/Berthe Hoola van Nooten - Created 29 April, last edited 1 May
• User:Rotational/Charles Telfair - Created 3 May, last edited 23 May
• User:Rotational/Benjamin Maund - Created 4 May, last edited 5 May
• User:Rotational/William Clarke Wontner - Created 13 May, last edited 13 May
• User:Rotational/Ambroise Tardieu - Created 5 May, last edited 12 May
• User:Rotational/Alan Cunningham - Created 17 May, last edited 17 May
• User:Rotational/Agnes Goodsir - Created 18 May, last edited 21 May
• User:Rotational/Henri Meunier - Created 21 May, last edited 2 June
• User:Rotational/Henri Gabriel Ibels - Created 22 May, last edited 27 May
• User:Rotational/Felix Pfeifer - Created 26 May, last edited 26 May
• User:Rotational/Jeremiah Gurney - Created 29 May, last edited 29 May
• User:Rotational/Loÿs Delteil - Created 5 June, last edited 6 June
• User:Rotational/Louisa Anne, Marchioness of Waterford - Created 6 June, last edited 9 June
• User:Rotational/Lady Trevelyan - Created 9 June, last edited 9 June

I haven't nominated for MfD as they are useful articles, and its about time most of them were moved to the main article space so that they are useful to everyone. Jenuk1985 | Talk 20:32, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, s/he doesn't seem happy about having them in the mainspace. But they seem good articles. How awkward. I'd be inclined to suggest someone - you? - be bold and move them to the mainspace and wikify them. S/he can then show her/his hand by moving them back or unwikifying them. Either would thus provoke a community response. S/he should be trying to get the MoS changed rather than creating a shadow 'pedia in userspace. ➲ redvers ^{throwing my arms around Paris} 20:37, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it would be appropriate for me to move them, as I have been involved with the issues with Rotational for a while. However, if a few people here are happy for me to go ahead and do it, on that basis, I will Jenuk1985 | Talk 20:43, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

My view, which is taken from the "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it" message in the edit page, is that the content can be placed in article space - and modified to suit the current MoS. Providing that the origin of the content is acknowledged then it is license compliant. It may be that this scenario may be mentioned to Rotational in the hope of more co-operation, but if there is no such interaction forthcoming we might consider using this editors use of WP space for the benefit of the project regardless of their wishes. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:11, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Around about the same time that Jenuk posted this thread (and whilst I was unaware of it) I began moving these into the mainspace. I didn't (and don't) see any need for discussion on this. Rotational has made it clear that he retains them in his mainspace for reasons that are a violation of our ownership of articles policy,[38] so ignoring his wishes on this point is hardly controversial. Hesperian 00:00, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Of the articles you have moved, I have now bought them up to the MOS guidelines as much as possible. Now we wait for the proverbial to hit the fan ;-) Jenuk1985 | Talk 01:39, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

When I consider the options before Rotational at this point, I can see little prospect for anything hitting the fan. His editing restriction prevents him from reverting your edits; reverting my page moves will achieve nothing, as his editing restriction still prevents him from reverting your edits, and I don't imagine he fancies hosting MOS-conformant material in his userspace. All we can really expect is a talk page rant; and whilst I welcome scrutiny and discussion of my edits, and I'm sure you do the same, we're under no obligation to respond to him if all he has to say is the same old stuff with a few new insults. Hesperian 02:38, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Rotational has now moved them all back into his userspace. I think it is time an uninvolved administrator had a close look at this. Hesperian 06:39, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I am uninvolved and made a polite request there. --John (talk) 07:00, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Heh. User is making conspiracy charges.--M^ask? 07:15, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Also, since it'll have to be cleaned up, the editors reversion of the move left an absurd number of cross namespace redirects. --M^ask? 07:25, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Oi, this has definitely moved into the area of WP:OWN. While I applaud the work that has gone into creating these articles, user *must* understand that he can't retain indefinite and unquestioned control over content here. If they are good enough to be mainspace articles, and most appear to be so, that is the appropriate place for them. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 10:33, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

The fact the user has made no attempt to make any comment on his actions anywhere other than on a random users talk page, says it all really! Jenuk1985 | Talk 12:54, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I've moved the articles back into the mainspace and protected them from being moved again until Rotational comments on the matter on their talk page or here. ➲ redvers ^{throwing my arms around Paris} 14:18, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I support this action. --John (talk) 18:23, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

There was peace and quiet until Jenuk1985 and Hesperian decided to stir up trouble - again. The guideline quoted states While userpages and subpages can be used as a development ground for generating new content, this space is not intended to indefinitely archive your preferred version of disputed or previously deleted content or indefinitely archive permanent content that is meant to be part of the encyclopedia. In other words, Wikipedia is not a free web host. Private copies of pages that are being used solely for long-term archival purposes may be subject to deletion. Does "indefinitely" mean more than a week, a month, a year or perhaps even a lifetime? - it is not stipulated, leaving any interpretation open to administrators with impaired faculties. My reasons for working on the articles in my userspace were clearly stated on my talkpage: "They're created in my userspace because that is the only way to edit in peace without being harassed by a band of 8-10 editors who don't like my layouts and have made a crusade of stalking my contributions." There is an implied sanctity about one's own userspace which should not readily be invaded without a compelling reason - it is tantamount to WP rape. The unfortunate combination of over-achieving and impoverished intellect seem to crop up frquently whenever these editors are involved. Improvement of WP is the last thing on their minds. Rotational (talk) 09:30, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Would you like to write that again, without the attacks and hyperbole, so we can see exactly what the issue is? ➲ redvers ^{throwing my arms around Paris} 09:38, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Would it not have been a good idea to look into the issues before you "moved the articles back into the mainspace and protected them from being moved again" or -radical thought- protected them from being moved from my userspace? The automatic assumption that I must be in the wrong places a great strain on your being seen as a disinterested party Rotational (talk) 10:17, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Let's be quite blunt, shall we? Userspace is intended as a collection of personal thoughts and correspondence, as well as an off-the-beaten-path area for working on projects. It is not intended that it be a locked door closed to everyone else. Quite the opposite; as with any other location in Wikipedia, it can be edited by anyone. Let me put it this way, Rotational: if you want to keep a copy of those articles in your Userspace (best an earlier version that only you had edited) to change around at your leisure, that is your prerogative. But you cannot forcibly keep these articles out of the mainspace if editors feel they are ready for inclusion. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 10:13, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

What Huntster said. I note you haven't withdrawn the attacks (I hoped you'd pick up the hint) and are now spreading them around to include me and my actions. This is not the way to make friends and influence people. ➲ redvers ^{throwing my arms around Paris} 10:48, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

As I've stated repeatedly - my aim on WP is to contribute material. It is one of the tragedies of WP that little seems to be possible without cementing alliances, joining gangs, fraternising, sucking up, awarding and receiving barnstars and generally treating the place like a Country Club. All of which is very useful when seeking that Holy Grail of Wikipolitics: community consensus, which means nothing more than getting a few of one's buddies around to register support. Look at how extensive the involvement is of editors in the present discussion - are any really concerned or is it more a case of grandstanding?. No doubt at the end of this the cry of 'consensus' will go up and this issue will be marked as 'resolved'. So are you surprised that I label Jenuk1985 and Hesperian 'trouble-stirrers' - at the end of this exercise WP certainly will not have gained anything. Rotational (talk) 11:24, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Right, you have issues with Wikipolitics. I can understand that, I think most of us around here do. But there's a specific issue here that I'd like you to address. From what you've said, it sounds to me like these articles you have written - and they're good, very good - are not intended for the mainspace. Or are intended for the mainspace when certain editing styles/patterns/techniques/cliques/etc are changed or abandoned. Am I right so far? Now, you and I both know that change in this place is pretty well impossible. So these articles are planned to sit in your userspace forever, to make the point that you disagree with the Manual of Style and its enforcement. Wikipedia therefore has in its grasp some great articles, but can't have them.

If I'm right, and I'm no stranger to making a stand on similar matters myself, then I can see where you're coming from. Alas, Wikipedia cannot and will not: the system here is "contribute or go away" (I'm not celebrating that or telling you to do that, I'm just saying, that's how it works). The policies and guidelines we have are designed to stop people from making the type of point you want to make. So, and I'm sorry, I really am, you'll need to find another way of making it. You have to play the system to win against it. You can't fight the system and win. So, WP:RfC is the place if you truly have evidence (actual diffs) that your articles are being targeted; WP:DR is another route to consider. You might like to build a userspace essay on what is wrong with the Manual of Style and specifically what should change and why. But fighting the existing model of collaborative editing is a very big thing to take on, and keeping articles in userspace is not the way to do it. ➲ redvers ^{throwing my arms around Paris} 12:36, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, of course the articles were written for mainspace - I'm not a tycoon who hides the good art in a cellar so that he may gloat over it at midnight. But that is not the issue - the issue here is whether any editor, and in particular one who has made a crusade of stalking me, has the right or wit to override me and decide when an article is ready to be transferred to mainspace. If you have ever created an article in your user subspace, I am sure you would be heartily offended by such an action. As for "contribute or go away" try to apply that to Jenuk1985, Hesperian and their cronies and see whether they measure up. I enjoy contributing to WP, but not with their likes peering over my shoulder. As I have stated elsewhere, if they have issues with my layout style and truly believe that they have the support of the community at large, then let them step back and allow the chance editor to modify the articles to conform with MoS, but not dog my contributions and pounce the moment I leave. Rotational (talk) 13:14, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Golly, what a great idea, Rotational! Yes, do let's apply "contribute or go away" to Hesperian, and see if he measures up: 125,000 edits, of which over 100,000 are to the mainspace; well over 1000 articles created; 5 featured articles; and a tiny fraction of the drama generated by Rotational in half the time. Over 20,000 Wikisource contributions; over 7000 Commons edits and over 8Gb of Commons uploads. But apparently Hesperian doesn't contribute; Hesperian has nothing better to do than stalk Rotational. Poor Rotational, who merely wants Wikipedia to use a layout that everyone but him finds butt-ugly, and who has the integrity to stop at nothing to achieve that humble goal. Hesperian 13:37, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Dear Hesperian, if your 125 000 edits are of the same quality as the ones I've been subjected to, then you shouldn't shout it abroad. Rotational (talk) 13:50, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, indeed. My edits are all crap. Yours are much better. Like this stunningly beautiful sequence of eleven reverts:[39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47][48][49]. You must be so proud. Hesperian 14:26, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

If you would like to bring my actions/contributions up then I suggest you start a new ANI thread! I have nothing to hide. Jenuk1985 | Talk 13:40, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

You may have nothing to hide - you also have little to show. Rotational (talk) 13:50, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL Jenuk1985 | Talk 13:55, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Jenuk985, Hesperian, & Rotational, your comments here are becoming unproductive. (Especially Rotational.) Either discuss the issue -- whether Rotational can store articles indefinitely in his userspace -- or take a break from this thread. Squabbling like this will only lead one or more of you being sent to the penalty box. -- llywrch (talk) 17:57, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

If you can help resolve the issue, then do so. Gratuitous pontificating from the sidelines doesn't help anyone. Rotational (talk) 07:59, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I am giving all three of you a warning: work harder to find more moderate language. Discuss the issue, not each other. If that is "gratuitous pontification", then referees calling fouls in a sports game are guilty of the same thing. -- llywrch (talk) 19:28, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

If reminding a user to be civil is unproductive, then I'm guilty! Jenuk1985 | Talk 00:22, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Editorial styles vary. Some editors create new articles as stubs. Other editors create new articles in user space, editing then in bits and pieces, fits and starts, sometimes taking months or even years to finish (I myself have done so). We should bend over backwards to accommodate both styles. The oldest of Rotationals articles moved is only six weeks old! Rotational has said these articles are intended for mainspace, and assuming good faith I take him at his word. I think these articles should be moved back to Rotational's user space, and he be allowed to work on them in peace. Paul August ☎ 20:19, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree the age of the oldest userspace article does seem quite young, but this is Rotational's style in building an article. He'll edit it consistently for several days and then won't return to it. If he ever does, it's only to edit war on style or make a minor change. Good faith wears thin when the editor in question admits the bad faith motive (explained above). --Rkitko ^(talk) 21:26, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Bobak's block messages

Bobak (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has designed some custom-made block templates that he uses after blocking vandals, and I believe they are not constructive. Here are some examples: [50][51][52][53] These sorts of templates go against our guideline of RBI and not feeding the trolls—everyone knows that a large number of vandals do it because they like to see if they can get us Wikipedia nerds riled up, and responding to them in this fashion just encourages more disruption. Furthermore, they reflect badly on Wikipedia, giving people the impression that Wikipedia is ruled by all-powerful admins who are rude and dismissive like this.

A couple weeks ago User:GnarlyLikeWhoa raised this concern with Bobak (see the discussion here), and Bobak was not very receptive. I also chimed in just today, and Bobak responded by archiving the talk page. Is there any way the community can ask him not to use these kinds of block templates and messages? rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 23:58, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi there. I use the more humorous blocks in two cases: specific (not range) IP blocks and blatant vandals. I keep all my blocked pages on my watchlist, and I have not seen any uptick in post-ban problems --at least no different than when I used the sterile templates: I receive the same number of personal email insults and talk page vandals (if not a little less). GnarlyLikeWhoa was slightly different, and claimed that I was out of place to note that the IP address of a military base shouldn't be used to vandalize wikipedia (which is wasting tax payer dollars... gee I wonder how he found out the IP was blocked?), and included a veiled e-thug threat (which I tend to see in web forums, not here). It is not the responsibility of an admin to please everyone they ban --as WP:RBI notes, there are opposing views to Rjanag's. As such, there are fans of my templates (Rjanag isn't one of them, but I respect that). Honestly, an ANI like this reflects badly on how Wikipedia can be used to punish creativity and put undue pressure where it is not required. To think, this was all started because I nominated an article for DYK! :-) --Bobak (talk) 00:28, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

aside I didn't notice this before, but particularly disturbing is this block, which happened 5 days after the user had last edited and the user had never been warned. Because the user's offense was spamming, rather than vandalism, it's also possible that the user just didn't understand Wikipedia's spam and EL guidelines, and Bobak's block message may well have driven away a potentially constructive user. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 00:03, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Did you look at his contribution history? The ability to request an unblock is still available. I haven't seen an attempt yet. Or perhaps I could've used the also-popular method of simply not notifying him of the block or doing massive collateral damage with sloppy IP-range blocks (which I think is are much greater problems). I make a lot of blocks, so if this one is so terrible, you're an Admin, go ahead and unblock --I'm not saying I'm the ultimate authority on that. Will this negatively affect my DYK nomination? :-p --Bobak (talk) 00:28, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of the user's contribution history, there's no reason for blocking him with a message like this. Yes, he's a commercial spammer who will probably never make any constructive edits, but the sarcasm is still unnecessary. That goes for your blocking templates, too...I think they're funny, but I doubt the blocked users do, and blocking and joking don't mix very well. --Akhilleus (talk) 00:37, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Neither does lawyering and humor, but god knows we try. I can see how the block on Matthewkbaldwin was perhaps too much, so I've lifted it (hurray? Is that a victory?). I got curious so I checked myself: I've instituted somewhere in the range of 700+ blocks, and about half were with the funny templates, and half weren't. I can say, without hesitation (and a user page history to back it) that I have seen no extra uptick in anything since I started letting vandals know that we have the ability to block now and often. Honestly, I can respect that some of you, like Rjanag, can find this stuff not to your own particular style, but that doesn't mean that those of use who are a bit WP:ROUGE are causing any serious harm to the project --especially without any serious evidence. As for the blocked users not finding the templates funny... did they before? Here's an aside: Rjanag, I noticed you've blocked 29 times since you joined the project 9 months ago. Did you know that if you block 1000 people you get a free toaster? Get cracking. --Bobak (talk) 00:51, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Hey, no fair. Non-admins can't get free toasters? The Toaster Cabal must be stopped! --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:30, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Non-admin view? This is clearly inappropriate. What is the policy basis for a block on the grounds of idiocy? Look, I fight this stuff every day too, and I think a lot of it is pretty funny - but that's an inside joke, not something a professional organisation presents as its outward face. Laughing at misguided fools should only be done behind the curtain - lord knows we could all make the exact same comments in orange boxes on quite a few admin talk pages...

Blocking is srs biznes - please keep it that way and use proper templates. Adminship is not a platform for dispensation of ridicule, it's a crappy job. Save the humour for the lunch-room. And idiotic editors need even more love than the normal ones. :) Franamax (talk) 01:55, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I understand the sentiment here by Bobak, but I would caution against continuing this level of sarcastic commenting at blocks. Sarcasm is a skill that is hard to pull off well when speaking; it is impossible to do so when typing. In the course of blocking users, there is no need to be rude and insulting. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:10, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Endorse the above comments. Think it if you must - most of us have - but Wikipedia is a highly public site closely watched by the press (amongst others). If you feel tempted in future, I'd recommend a spot of self-flagellation ;) EyeSerene^talk 08:03, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I would have to agree that Bobak's block messages are highly inappropriate. To me they don't come across as sarcastic, but rather as simple childishness. Wikipedia already has somewhat of a reputation as a place run by kids, and if hundreds of people are being blocked with Bobak's messages, that bad reputation is just being reinforced. We need mature admins, not apparently childish ones. Deli nk (talk) 10:46, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

One thing should be beyond dispute here, I think, is that these messages should never be used on IP talk pages, where an innocent user may be on the receiving end. Personally I feel that they're also inappropriate for registered users. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 13:29, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

The community have said plainly more than once that block log entries and user talk notifications of blocks should, except under special circumstances (which don't seem to apply here), be serious, and especially should not mock affected users. One may think that injunction to be unnecessarily rigid, but it is plain that it is one for which a consensus exists, and inasmuch as no encyclopedic purpose is served by the jocularity, there is no reason to act in a fashion inconsistent with it. Joe 17:10, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Looking at this just a tiny bit further:

• Bobak is basically accusing GLW of "wasting taxpayer dollars", implying above that GLW is the vandal associated with usage from a US military IP address. I believe this is the reference ABF from an admin, that's great. I'm unable to find the SPI/CU case establishing the linkage.
• You know what? None of my taxpayer dollars were wasted, I live in Canada. Why are administrators of an international project pursuing their own notions of waste using the bully pulpit?
• ArbCom has previously considered this notion of "you're using an American military IP connection, I must expose you!" and arrived at a definition of good-faith concerns. I see no such good-faith in the message to the IP talk page linked above. "Stop wasting taxpayer dollars" is not a valid leadin to a block message. Discussion at the time of the cited AC case was relatively clear that US military personnel have wide latitude, despite the written regulations, to use the Internet (note the exception for "when authorised"). I don't find it acceptable for an administrator of a supposedly international project to bring their own personal view of what constitutes "waste" within their own government onto en:wiki, much less under the official guise of admin status. Besides, use of an IP connection in an idle moment, even if it's for vandalism, costs far-far-far less than a dollar. Far less, micro-pennies maybe.
• And I've just removed Bobak's year-old "VANDAL IDENTIFICATION" message from the IP talk page in question. [54] If anyone wishes to replace it with a proper template, please do so, but hopefully avoid using the term "vandalicious".

I have the uncomfortable feeling that this admin has somehow discovered the golden sword with which to smite their enemies. This is not conduct becoming of a site administrator, it looks more like having fun blasting down the next monster who shows up in the corridor. Franamax (talk) 20:36, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

As an outsider looking in, these blocking templates come across to me as childish and mean-spirited. Humor may be subjective, but I don't see why anyone should be subjected to such puerility. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:10, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with what everyone else is saying here. These "funny" blocks are completely inappropriate and should not be used any more. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:28, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. –xeno^talk 14:30, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Focusing on the wrong problem

Extended content

This entire thread reflects one of the weaknesses of wikipedia - being polite to belligerent users, and being belligerent to those who try to defend wikipedia against vandals. The admin should probably tone down the sarcasm a bit, but frankly they are no more offensive than those sternly-worded boxes with the big red X's in them. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 13:02, 11 June 2009 (UTC) Characterizing the above conversation as belligerent seems quite inaccurate to me. If anything, there is quite a bit of sympathy for Bobak despite disagreement with him over his block messages. Deli nk (talk) 13:18, 11 June 2009 (UTC) "...I think they're funny, but I doubt the blocked users do..." News flash: Who cares what the blocked users think? They are blocked because they damaged wikipedia in some way. Whether they get a cute comment or the standard, sternly-worded blocking box, either way they're typically not happy about it. Many times they will blank the page to get rid of those standard messages, and fill the page with rants. So a lot of good it does to "play it straight". Maybe the right thing to do, if you're wanting to take the "coddling" approach, is to re-word those sternly-worded standard messages to express deep regret that we have to do this: "This hurts us more than it does you", or some such. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 13:31, 11 June 2009 (UTC) Blocked users still go around and talk to their friends. They might grow up and, a few months after their block, realize that yeah, they had it coming. Or they might go tell their friends that Wikipedia is just a bunch of dicks who don't let you have any fun and are rude to you. I wonder which they'll be doing more often after getting one of Bobak's messages/ Consensus is clear that he needs to stop using them. The only question now is, as Deli nk asked, whether the templates should be replaced. Personally, I don't think that is workable, since they are not transcluded templates—it looks like Bobak copied and pasted the code of the regular block messages, because I don't see any user subpages that he could have been subst'ing. I think it should be sufficient just for him to stop using them in the future. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 13:49, 11 June 2009 (UTC) That's a bogus argument. The belligerent users out there who go running to wikipedia review and the like, have nearly all been recipients of the standard, sternly-worded message. Rather than picking on this flea, you should be picking on the elephant that the standard messages are. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 13:53, 11 June 2009 (UTC) Too little, too late. I count 9 editors in good standing above who say they don't want Bobak using these messages anymore. It seems pretty clear to me that a decision has been reached; I don't see much more to discuss, and will just sit back and hope he has gotten the message and doesn't use them in the future (he hasn't used them since this started, so hopefully everything is already resolved). rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 14:54, 11 June 2009 (UTC) Sure, you've won this little battle, and have accomplished nothing that will benefit wikipedia. Good for you. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 15:11, 11 June 2009 (UTC) Hey everyone! This crap has been going on for ages and you only notice it now! Here's a message for you, courtesy of a long-time admin: Congratulations! You've won yourself a short break from editing the encyclopedia! Go down to your local shop, buy yourself a crate of Bud, and have a drink - you deserve it! He delivered this message to four IP users in 2007. Ergo, it is allowed. 129.49.7.125 (talk) 15:25, 11 June 2009 (UTC) I would think a lighthearted message like that would be much more likely to be received positively than the "Bang! You're dead!" standard notices. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 18:15, 11 June 2009 (UTC) Bugs, I seem to recall having briefly tangled with you before in this venue over your penchant for poking fun at those brought to administrator attention. Whether the end result is better or not, and your own opinions on what is lighthearted fun that most people will receive more positively is irrelevant. The point is that we need to deliver a professional message. When an admin makes a block, they're not entitled to deliver their opinion on the supposed idiocy of the user in question. They're "an errand boy, sent by clerks" (or whatever the fat guy said), they're not there to opine on intelligence or fitness for life in general, they are protecting the encyclopedia from damage. That's all, there's no entertainment value included, or perhaps they shouldn't be admins after all. As far as Ryan P's block notices, they were long in the past, but you know what? How 'bout I trot on over and ask for a comment? Franamax (talk) 02:41, 12 June 2009 (UTC) The argument made was that sarcastic messages will cause blocked users to go tell their friends how lousy wikipedia is. And I say that's a bogus argument. Nearly every indef'd vandal has gotten the standard "Bang! You're dead" message, and all indications are that they go tell their friends how lousy wikipedia is. So instead of only picking on that handful of block messages, you need to also focus on the flaws in the standard message. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 02:48, 12 June 2009 (UTC) Yeah, you may well have a point there, but this is not really the place to raise systemic issues. I appreciate your message but in reality I think you're just confusing up a behavioural issue by bringing up a longer-term problem. I personally don't use many of those boilerplate templates, since I have to actually hold down one key whilst typing another, twice, then figure it all out again at the end but the squiggly has to frown at the first one. It's like, totally confusing. I don't think I've ever dropped an actual {{uw}} or {{test}} or whatever the vandalism template thingy is. I prefer a quiet (and non-humour/sarcasm/acerbic) personal message to vandals, it works 99.5%. But that's a whole different issue - we're talking here about an admin choosing to use their granted powers to make personal commentary about other editors, in the ultimate power situation, the one where they revoke the other editor's privileges. That's just not on. There's a whole IRC channel for admins to let off steam, no need for it to happen on editor talk pages. Franamax (talk) 03:10, 12 June 2009 (UTC) I'll admit that some of them are a tad bit over the line. One that I would be tempted to use when indefing would be something like "you've made some good edits at times, so I'm subtracting a day from your indefinite block". It's a good fantasy, anyway. Maybe a good start would be some better illustrations. I like the one with the illustration of a block. That's better than the scary big red X. Maybe for spamming, an actual spam can would be the ticket. It's also important for the block notice to emphasize that they can appeal the block. It already says that, obviously, but maybe that could be illustrated too, with an open cell door or something. (Ain't I creative? A right brain is a terrible thing to waste, you know.) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 03:22, 12 June 2009 (UTC) Like Franamax and others have said, regardless of what its effect on vandals themselves is, it's childish to use your admin position of power to rub everything you can in people's faces. We're supposed to be acting like adults here. I certainly don't want people I know to come in and get the impression that this site their friend/brother/son spends so much time on is run by a bunch of children. As for being creative with block messages...yes, Bobak made the same argument up above. If you really want to exercise your creative juices, I'm sure AFC could find a great outlet for your energy. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 07:08, 12 June 2009 (UTC) Aha, you're the one that made the silly comment about vandals telling their friends about what a terrible place wikipedia is. Yet I would guess that Grawp got the standard message. Lot of good it did. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 11:38, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Replace them?

There seems to be a clear consensus that these block messages are completely inappropriate. According to statements above, they have been used on hundreds of pages. Since these messages may be doing harm to the project, should they be removed or replaced with a more appropriate standard block template? Can a bot do this, perhaps (if necessary)? Deli nk (talk) 12:57, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd have to agree, both with the above that these shouldn't be used and the above suggestion to replace them. Anyone object? –xeno^talk 13:46, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I said above that I imagined cleaning them up would not be workable (since they're all copy-paste versions of regular block templates, modified by hand; there's not transcluded, subst'ed, or in any way identifiable to a bot...although I suppose a bot might be able to comb through all of Bobak's user talk contribs) and that I figured it would be enough if Bobak just agrees to stop using them. But if you know a way to replace all of them, be my guest! rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 15:33, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

 Doing... I find the use of sarcasm in these templates disgraceful, antagonistic, and an embarrassment to the project. They do nothing to rehabilitate vandals and encourage them to return to vandalism after the block expires. I'm amending them as we speak. –xeno^talk 15:53, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

That criticism is largely true of the standard templates also. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 16:36, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

No, it isn't. "Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions." –xeno^talk 16:39, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Some of the messages are not 100% horrible, and could perhaps be made more appropriate. The one about being blocked due to Wikipedia's policy on idiocy is atrocious, however. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:41, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

You're onto it. Some of them are cute and funny, some are over the line. And every one of the long-term abusers would have gotten the standard block messages, so Xeno's argument is fallacious. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 16:43, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

An administrators' remit is not to be "cute and funny" when blocking vandals. It certainly isn't to be snarky and condescending. We didn't give him the mop so he could moonlight as a comedian. –xeno^talk 16:47, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

So you prefer the "serious" way, which spawns the likes of Grawp. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 18:10, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I partially agree with Bugs here: some of the standard templates are not great. "Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions." is patronizing. But I'm not in favor of Bobak's messages (even though I do find some of them funny). --Akhilleus (talk) 02:01, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Wrap-up after replacements

I've gone and amended most or all of the templates. [55] Here are some examples of the text the was removed or replaced with more appropriate language and tone.

Examples of removed text

• "Congratulations! You have been blocked from editing with a (length) time-out :-)"
  • Congratulations to Bank of America!
  • Congratulations, a special block for "special people"!
  • Congratulations, non-UC students!
  • Congratulations, users at the online "University of Phoenix":
  • Congratulations, your spat of stupidity has landed this ramblin' wreck of an IP address into Blocksville.
  • Congratulations, you've been "pwn3d"!
  • Congratulations, you've now got the attention of the wrong person!
• "Lucky for you I give out blocks like they're going out of style"
• "If/when you continue your vandalism (if/when you return), we'll be more than happy to grant you another vacation, this time for a longer period --at no extra cost-- guaranteed!"
  • ...Now get back to "studying" at the "university"; maybe you can to to the student union or library?
  • ...*Next time, you'll probably get at least a month off.
• Welcome to Blocksville, population: You.
• Duration: ????
  • Duration: Too short? We shall see.
  • Duration: You'll figure it out (pwn3d).
• I guess it should be called Block Haven... Population: You.
  • Block Haven RETURNS!
• "Haha" blocked for three months.
• "Stay in school, kids."
• 1 whole week :-)
• 3 whole months, kids.
• 6 month time out for the kids "studying" at the University of Phoenix.
• All this over an Italian chain restaurant. LOL.
• and general stupidity
• Back to studying, LOL.
• Cinnamon Toast Block!
• earned a 2 week vacation.
• FLUSH!
• for rampant blanking, cry me a river, etc. etc..
• Have a nice vacation, LOL...
• I guess they don't raise them as smart down there.
• idiocy
  • • Corndog... You have been blocked indefinitely from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for idiocy.
• If you're having girl problems, I feel bad for you son/You've got 99 problems and this block is one...
  • You got 99 problems and this block is one!
  • You've got 10,000 problems and this block is one!
  • You've got 2191 problems and a block is one...
• Is this the first of many? We shall see...
• LOL.
  • LOL... see you next semester.
• loooooong length
• Maybe its you who should "get a life". LOL.
• Na Na Na Na, Na Na Na Na, Hey Hey-ey, Goodbye!
• Oh, and stay in school kids, you need it...
• Playtime's over, you get to go back to work! Lucky you
• See you in 1 week, kiddies. We'll be happy make the next one longer. Until then, read a book or something.
  • See you in 2014.
  • see you in three months, kiddies, where the blocks get longer.
  • See you next semester, kiddies.
• Shouldn't you guys be solving those two wars we're in?
• Since we clearly haven't been paying enough attention to your vandalism habits, I promise to keep and eye on you ;-)
• So long, farewell, Auf wiedersehen, good night/I hate to go and leave this pretty sight/So long, farewell, Auf wiedersehen, adieu/Adieu, adieu, to yieu and yieu and yieu!
• Sorry, we're allergic to crazy
• Stay in school.
• Top o'the mornin' to ya, lassie!
• with a loooong length
• You have a problem with listening, so why not take several months off, and we'll even grant the option to extend the break!
• You kids were blocked for 6 months, unfortunately I didn't get the opportunity to make the move --but have a great time in the far north.

The above protracted display of behaviour unbecoming of an administrator goes back to May 2008. Bobak was approached in October 2008 over the templates, but brushed aside the concerns. I've half a mind to ask Bobak to step down, but since he has actually received encouragements from several users over these which must have spurred him on ( User talk:Bobak/June 2008 - December 2008#Hello there, User talk:Bobak/June 2008 - December 2008#November 2025, User talk:Bobak/June 2008 - December 2008#teh block, User talk:Bobak/January 2009 - June 2009#LOVE your template! ), I'll just point him to the above consensus not to use this type of tone in his blocking endeavours and use standard blocking templates without additional colour commentary. –xeno^talk 18:19, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree that nothing needs to be done just yet. Since this discussion started he hasn't blocked anyone and hasn't done anything unsavory, and so far I'm taking that as tacit acknowledgement that he understands the consensus here. If he starts using the block messages again I'm sure we can do something more formal about it, but I'm sure he's smart enough not to do that, and as long as he doesn't do it again I don't think there's any need for special action. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 18:37, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. –xeno^talk 18:41, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Fixing something that's not a problem

Congratualations on fixing something that's not a problem. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 18:23, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I am now under orders from Xeno to stop watching ANI. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 18:28, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

You're under no such orders, but it would certainly be appreciated. –xeno^talk 18:35, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

(ec)To be honest, it's not a bad idea. Bugs, you're a good guy and I've even got one of your funny posts linked from my userpage, but as far as I can tell all you're accomplishing at ANI is stirring up or prolonging drama. Surely there is a more productive and fulfilling use of your time. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 18:37, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I raise questions that some people don't want to hear. They label it "drama". I've been told that the most infuriating thing about the issues I raise is that I'm usually right. That's the best kind of compliment I can imagine. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 18:43, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

You are probably right about that. However, my experience has shown that spending too much time on WP:AN & WP:AN/I warps one's sense of what Wikipedia is about, as well as proving to be, in the long run, not all that productive. Take a break from here, Bugs, & find another part of Wikipedia to contribute to. WP:AN/I will still be here when you come back, with the same troublemakers & jerk Admins; they'll just have different user names. -- llywrch (talk) 20:11, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Let me be clear that I'm not going to fight any of this ("consensus" of a half-dozen editors reigns supreme), but this ANI is obviously a group of editors with the same opinions, and I do point out that there are a lot of people who feel the way I do: that so-called "fixes" like this are ultimately pointless (storms in a teacup) that do more to harm to productive (non-bureaucratic) editors than any alleged "embarrassment" they save for those unable to have a sense of humor. But carry on... just don't forget that this is a project about compiling information, not silly little crusades. I am not going to take the time to look up the various contribution histories in this discussion, but I hope some of you have done remotely the same amount of work people like Baseball Bugs and I have done --otherwise why participate? --Bobak (talk) 19:26, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I can't comment on appropriateness of the blocks as I'm unfamiliar with the cases, but I don't think it's appropriate to condemn the funny messages. I don't know for sure if they're up to par for a Good Humour Barnstar, but they're certainly useful in countertroll situations. After all, Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy; our templates need not take the form of a triplicate form letter together with an OMB tracking number. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 21:24, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

There's a time and a place for humour. And not all vandals are trolls, some might even become positive contributors with a little coaxing. It's not entirely out of the question. A sarcastic block template isn't likely to bring about that end-result, and is more likely to encourage further vandalism. –xeno^talk 21:29, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

The use of sarcasm is absolutely and completely inappropriate in a block message. We should all act like adults (even if we may not be) and administrators especially are expected to always act in a professional manner, acting otherwise reflects badly on our encyclopedia, this project and all of us, and can be grounds for having admin privileges withdrawn. Paul August ☎ 04:09, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Calm down --MZMcBride (talk) 04:14, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• I really think I need to leave ANI for awhile. This nonsense that treating vandals with some kind of faux politesse will help them see the light and become valued contributors seems silly to me. If anything, a spot of humor might do the trick better than some form letter-style block template. Bobak is blocking vandals, so Paul August feels the need to issue a veiled threat of removal of administrator status? Who's running this place anyway? Unitanode 04:26, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Ice Cold Beer

Can an admin just call another editor a dunce in an edit summary here and here where they exlained and not be sanctioned all because an editor doesn't agree with the blatant POV they have shown. BigDunc^Talk 08:12, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Not very nice for an admin or any editor to behave but nothing that requires immediate admin actions. I suggest you take it to WP:WQA. Regards SoWhy 08:16, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Why is there a POV tag on the article? What is the specific issue? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 08:17, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

See here possible BLP issue. BigDunc^Talk 08:29, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I see. This is not a POV issue, it's a wording issue due to the fact that the sources are in conflict with each other. As regards the "BigDunc(e)" issue, yeh, that was tacky, and WQA is the right place to take it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 08:38, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes is the wording POV or not, I did not add the tag to begin with I reverted it's removal on spurious grounds IMO. BigDunc^Talk 08:41, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Some users will add a POV tag just because they don't agree with the consensus in the article. I assumed it had to do with someone claiming that not enough (or too much) weight was being given to the conspiracy theorists. If it's just about whether that one guy was "alleged" or "admitted", that's not a POV issue, it's a conflict among reliable sources. And if the guy admits it (whether he's telling the truth or not), then it's not a BLP issue either. What's he going to do, sue somebody? All they have to do is say, "Well, here's where you said you did it," and that would be the end of it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 08:46, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

As far as I understand user removed NPOV tag against 2 other users will. And replied kindly for a question for comment about notability of the article. If any more "wrongdoing" than that, can you possibly refer more clearly. Kasaalan (talk) 09:27, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

It is not about the removal of the tag it is the personal attack from an admin. BigDunc^Talk 09:29, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

If so might not be so cool, but I am not a native English speaker so can you possibly explain what "you're missing an 'e'" means as a personal attack. Kasaalan (talk) 09:51, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Dunc + e = Dunce, which is a word for a stupid person. So BigDunc + e = Big Dunce - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 09:55, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

This is spelled out by Ice Cold Beer here. Unomi (talk) 09:57, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

(EC) I would say that the edit warring over removal of the npov tag warrants a bit of looking at as well. Removing an npov tag with what could be construed as a personal attack as the only ES is unbecoming of any editor, an admin who has previously brought this very sphere of articles to arbcom should be especially careful to live up to arbcoms admonitions regarding maintaining an editwar free and collegial atmosphere. In this case it seems (I haven't been following this closely) that there is a conflict between what various RS state. The correct solution, in my mind, would be to state that there is such a conflict or to choose the more careful wording available. The version that Ice Cold Beer is editwarring to keep is in conflict with text carried by BBC, Reuters, navytimes, fox news, washington post and others. This is silly in the extreme. Unomi (talk) 09:55, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Please don't prolong the disruption instigated by the banned user. Ice Cold Beer has not been edit warring at all. They are trying to defend the article from a serial puppetmaster who has been banned from this topic, and then banned from Wikipedia. There is no bona fide content dispute here. Jehochman ^Talk 15:03, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

(Outdent) I took the liberty of informing User:Ice Cold Beer about this ANI topic. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 10:05, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't know what that means, thanks for the explanation. The word is not cool on the other hand their personal or page based conflict history should also be well investigated. Saying "someone not getting it" in an indirect way definately not nice, and possibly a priviledged user should care better in conflict like this, but not sure if it should result "depowering". Being nice is nice, but wikipedia is not a kindergarten either. Sometimes voicing conflicts openly is better. Kasaalan (talk) 10:15, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Excirial I had informed Ice Cold Beer in my last post on their page. BigDunc^Talk 10:35, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

The posting of the tag was, itself, a form of POV-pushing. There is no POV issue with the article, nor any BLP issue. It's just a couple of editors trying to prove a point. And trying to get an editor blocked for making a childish play on your name is, itself, childish. "Mommy! He called me a dunce!" Gimme a break. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 12:28, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure how you are reaching your conclusion regardin POV, feel free to explain your reasoning. Furthermore consider what you stated as the first lesson from your previous rfa Spend less time on ANI and more time on other work. Telling an editor that it is 'ok' for an admin to call someone a dunce as the sole message in an ES in the middle of an edit war is just plain wrong. Ice Cold Beer seems to be an experienced editor who is deeply involved in the 9/11 articles both now and while it was under arbitration, indeed he seemed to be one of the parties bringing it to arbcom. Arbcom explicitly stated that these articles should be free from edit warring, respect NPOV and attempt to be as non adversarial as possible. You yourself state that there seems to be a conflict in RS', so surely edit warring to keep in a particular wording which does not respect the sources and is objected to by multiple editors signifies a departure from NPOV. Best, Unomi (talk) 13:20, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

The POV tag was used inappropriately, and your comments about by RfA are of no importance, since I did not seek that job in the first place. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 17:43, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

To start off: should I have used that edit summary? Of course not. Was it childish? Sure. Do I feel bad for BigDunc? Not at all. BigDunc is one of a number of users who, when unable to gain consensus for their nonsense, edit war to add a NPOV tag. This is not the first time BigDunc has done this and I'm sure it won't be the last. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 17:00, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

What are the claims you are talking about and what is the nonsense? It appears at least 4 editors have reservation about the neutrallity of the article, so again you just appear and throw accusations around as some sort of justification for you actions. BigDunc^Talk 18:32, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

There is no "neutrality" issue. It's a bogus claim. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 19:54, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Not speaking for editors but it appears TheFourFreedoms , Wayne, John, Unomi and myself have some kind of concern. BigDunc^Talk 19:58, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

That doesn't make it a neutrality/POV issue. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:21, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

It's unremarkable that admins and others occasionally lose their temper with conspiracy theorists, fringers, and other purveyors of The Truth^TM. In fact the remarkable thing is that it doesn't happen more often. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:28, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

No comment on the content issue, which seems relatively minor and should be easily resolved with a bit of willingness to work together (the proposed versions are not really that far apart). The edit summary in question was unfortunate, but as long as it's not an ongoing, escalating problem I see no need for urgent admin intervention here. Actually, strike that - someone should probably work out which banned user is operating TheFourFreedoms (talk · contribs), and block accordingly, but I'll leave that to someone more familiar with the behavioral quirks of 9/11 agenda accounts. MastCell ^Talk 20:43, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

@ Boris who would you be talking about with your flippant remark conspiracy theorists, fringers, and other purveyors of The Truth^TM comments that make sweeping generalisations like that are far from helpful. BigDunc^Talk 20:47, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

To BigDunc; with regards to ICB's edit summary, walk it off. Yes, lame joke at your expense, but what's the better reaction? Umbrage or a chuckle? —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 21:54, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Conspiracy theorists just try to bring out info on governments' covert actions to public view, whether they are successfull or not with the theories they argued. Kasaalan (talk) 21:38, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

User:TheFourFreedoms is "a pretty good match" with User:Tachyonbursts (indef blocked), according to a private checkuser I requested. Jehochman ^Talk 22:45, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:DUCK as well. Why not just block and be done with it? JoshuaZ (talk) 22:50, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I edit 9/11 articles, so I'm not an administrator as far as this thread or user are concerned. Jehochman ^Talk 22:53, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Obvious, checkuser and DUCK confirmed socks can be blocked by any admin. It falls under "blatantly, clearly obvious" actions in WP:ADMIN. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:59, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

That may be, but 9/11 is such a highly contentious area that I'd rather let somebody else place the block. This is not an emergency. Jehochman ^Talk 23:00, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

You might want to ask User:TAway first. :) At your leisure, as the sock is ducking out. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:06, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

So here we are, in the rabbit hole that is. We have all the usual mishaps, foremost, the failure of logic. It is not logical to call the whole mainstream fringe; it is fringe to do so. You boys and girls are discussing well accepted terminology which we avoid for the reasons unknown and you refer to this well accepted terminology with most unfortunate terminology which holds libel and defamation of ugliest kind. This sort of conduct is pitiful, to say the least. Now, user User:Ice Cold Beer will act on the related page as it is his own, he will ignore the discussion, he will not participate in building consensus, he'll revert without any valid explanation and break each and every principle stated in ArbCom decision and he will show needless incivility and this appears to be accepted behavior worth of praise and applause? Why in the world the term with thousands of references cannot be added to article, why in the world would the facts about waterboarding of alleged suspect which are topic of news reports over and over and over again be omitted (yes, that is the word) from the article and how in the world can such suggestion succumb to 'twoofer conspiracy talk' and 9/11 agenda? As you examine the 'behavioral quirks' of this post, I'll bid you farewell. Good riddance. TheFourFreedoms (talk) 23:03, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

And no, I'm not the user who has been blocked; I'm the user who endorsed the block forced upon him by the people who are at this point in time banned from 9/11 articles themselves. I've never committed any crime but apparent 'though crime' and I've never broke any rules. And that is a rock solid fact. I felt the need to state it as it is, for those long-lasting editors and administrators to hear, and feel. TheFourFreedoms (talk) 23:13, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

• Since no one stepped up, I've gone ahead and indef'd TheFourFreedoms as a sock. Shell ^babelfish 01:34, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Thank you. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 02:02, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
    • I don't know the users at all or know the case much, but what proofs you got from check user can you possibly share with the community, since the user apparently denied having double accounts. Kasaalan (talk) 21:38, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
      • Details of checkuser analysis are not available to the general audience. That's partly for confidentiality of the user, and partly to not give other potential sockpuppets information that could help them try to beat the system. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 02:53, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
        • If you are sure by check user without doubt then it is fine by me, but any editor deserves a defense before getting blocked (naturally 1 would deny claims whether they are guilty or innocent, but he may be innocent or guilty untill it certainly proved). If he has given an opportunity for his defense on block before I am fine, if he didn't have such a chance and his block is permament, can you at least ask for a defense via mail and discuss with him in private. Kasaalan (talk) 10:48, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Great. Another three weeks of disruption by another Truther. Next week, or the week after, we can do it all again - assume good faith, discuss, compromise, fill out requests for arb enforcement, etc. Or rather, someone else can do it all again, because I'm heartily sick of the whole business. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:02, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

They're counting on that, don'cha know. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 03:06, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Just gather up the socks and when the laundry basket is full I have a friendly CU who will match them up. Jehochman ^Talk 02:56, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't know that you even need to bother him/her. It took about 12 seconds of reviewing that account's contribs to identify them as a sock with 95% confidence. Checkuser evidence increased that likelihood from 95% to 97.5%. Hypothetical: if the checkuser came back "unrelated", that would actually lower the probability from 95% to about 92.3%. In Bayesian terms, the checkuser is largely superfluous when the pre-test probability is that high. On the other hand, I can understand the desire for technical backup, given the career arc of admins whose judgment of sockpuppetry is only 95% accurate, rather than the 100% which is the baseline expectation. I guess what I'm saying is, feel free to bring these sorts of cases back here, or I'd be happy to look them over if you drop me a note on my talk page. MastCell ^Talk 03:12, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

MastCell, I think your critical reasoning skills are in some doubt. Consider your last contribution in this area. You manage to characterize a post where Tom Harrison clearly states "I see grounds to justify it" as Tom Harrison stating he "sees no grounds to justify", as well as stating that 'ignoring discussion is 'constructive'. I do not mean this as a personal attack, but I honestly do not think that your interpretations show you as being wholly impartial. Unomi (talk) 14:56, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I'm sure I've provided ample reason for people to doubt my critical-reasoning skills over the years. In the case in point, I did make a mistake, which I thank you for catching. I'm sure it won't be the last error that I make. On the other hand, my overall judgment - that your filing was frivolous, misleading, and an improper use of dispute resolution - was rather soundly endorsed. MastCell ^Talk 18:31, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I sympathise with Tom Harrison and agree with Bugs. That's what they do. It wears good editors down, often involves false accusations (presumably with the hope that mud sticks), and it's making me stay away from such articles, I've got better and more productive things to be doing. Dougweller (talk) 05:56, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Which false accusations? Ice Cold Beer was clearly making a personal attack, admitted to it and made a half hearted attempt at an apology steeped in more bad faith accusations. In truth there should never have been an edit war over the NPOV tag, it should have been left in and discussed properly, but somehow this is being overlooked. Unomi (talk) 14:56, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Did it look like I was making a "half-hearted apology"? In that case, I've been unclear because I wasn't trying to apologize at all. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 00:58, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Above, Kasalaan expresses some doubt. How do people interpret this edit of his [56] asking for his 'original page' to be unlocked so he can start an ArbCom hearing? Dougweller (talk) 11:10, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

He claims he has accomplished thousands of edits "whether as account, or more often as IP", during the years. He claims, he recently has wrote a letter to the administrator who helped him when he was forced out of community, for unlocking his original page which was locked on his request, so he can initiate ArbCom hearing "which is due to begin for a very long time" however "there was no reply". So as far as I read, if he has taken an account, because his locked account on his own request didn't replied or unlocked, would be a valid argument to create a secondary account, since one cannot use his primary account. But if he tells the truth or not should be seriously investigated. He also made some historical criticism of the admins from user view which is interesting to read. Kasaalan (talk) 01:20, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Hard to tell, but I do like his comment that weeding out vandals of his type is a "tremendous lose for the project". Yup, we need more users with good larnin'. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 11:58, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Bugs stop being a smart arse correcting errors made by other editors I assume your qoute above is a dig at another editor who you are far superior too with your good larnin. BigDunc^Talk 12:09, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I think "smart ass" refers to donkeys, not anatomy. In any case, I humbly accept your analysis of the sitchyation. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 12:32, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Anyway, yes, the blocked editor indicates he has, or has had, more than one account. Checkuser could probably figure it out, but the way it works is that it's up to the vigilance of the user community to connect the dots and then submit checkuser requests. That can be frustrating (don't I know it), but there is a degree of fairness in that policy. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 12:37, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

This is one of the most pointless discussions ANI has had this month.--The Legendary Sky Attacker 03:51, 13 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:[57]

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 [58], replied to at [59], 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 61,829,358 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. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Facto socking to create disruption

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

The second listed user has been found to be a sock of the first, per this CU request. Now, what is troubling here is the apparent purpose of this account. Sure, they start off making some constructive edits, but the main ones that concern me are the blatant personal attacks, as seen here, calling me racist, and here, calling me insane. Perhaps I am a little paranoid, but it isn't without merit. If this second account is just going to be used to avoid scrutiny, it needs to be blocked. Opinions?— Dædαlus ^Contribs 23:40, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

That's standard procedure: they do enough edits so they have autoconfirmation, then they go nuts. HalfShadow 23:48, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. And obviously they should all be blocked. Presumably that will happen in due course. The admins are on a retreat at the moment. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:50, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Block the sock indef and block the user for a few weeks. Nothing to talk about. Syn 01:14, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Both accounts blocked indefinitely. Tan | 39 01:31, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

The only reason I brought it here was because it was stated in the SPI that Facto was an established user.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 19:29, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Facto had not edited in almost 3 years. Favortie was created shortly after Facto's last edit. I do not believe that the indefinite block on Facto may affect his editing practices.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 15:16, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Possible COI at Montana Meth Project and Thomas Siebel

Ongoing low-level edit war at Montana Meth Project between User:FirstVirtual and several other editors. FirstVirtual is the name of the company chaired by Thomas Siebel which apparently funds the Montana Meth Project ads. Since September 2008, several editors have expressed concerns at article Talk about possible COI between FirstVirtual and the Montana Meth Project article, yet editor FirstVirtual invariably returns to heavily edit the page, removing all criticism of the ads and of their efficacy in reducing methamphetamine use among teens. A similar edit pattern has emerged at Thomas Siebel, with FirstVirtual's edits dominating the page. FirstVirtual also made a minor edit to Siebel Scholars. (Possibly of note: these three articles are the only articles that FirstVirtual has ever edited.) Please assist us with restoring NPOV and addressing possible COI at Montana Meth Project and Thomas Siebel. Thank you. Whatever404 (talk) 11:03, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Not commenting on the edits, but the username is that of a company, and it should be reported at Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention, and that username will be blocked per Wikipedia:Username policy#Company/group names, unless an admin so choses to block them here and now for other reasons. --64.85.214.230 (talk) 11:27, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I chose to notify the user of the username issue with a comment at their Talk page; in order to give them a chance to change their username and retain their edit history. Whatever404 (talk) 12:18, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

FirstVirtual continued deleting sourced criticism of their project after your warning, so I blocked them under the username policy.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:31, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, SarekOfVulcan. As this problem may resurface if FirstVirtual chooses to rename or form a new account, I would appreciate it if additional contributors would add Montana Meth Project and Thomas Siebel to their watchlists. Is there any specific place that I can go to request that people do this? Thank you. Whatever404 (talk) 11:20, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Loosmark Gross incivility

User:Loosmark is engaging in edit warring by removing referenced, consensus edits in articles he otherwise refused to take part in the consensus finding process in a meaningful way, and has lately resorted to grossly uncivil 'arguments' on the talk page. In a related article, an RfC was requested, and soon afterwards he resorted to even more personal attacks in that sections.

This user was already warned to refrain from incivility and to engage in meritful discussion and consensus finding. Kurfürst (talk) 11:59, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

This looks like forum shopping. You are edit-warring against a consensus of half-a-dozen other editors, and since it isn't working, you are trying to exploit the signs of frustration that the other editors are showing -- that's how it looks. Looie496 (talk) 17:03, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually its a Polish tag team whose members appeared shorty after a Polish editor started reverting sourced edits with the blunt pretext of 'German war propaganda'. The members of the tag team refuse to discuss any specific concerns they may have about the content on the talk page, apart from labeling them variously as revisionism, nazi sources (NB: the sources used were all written by British historians, one from Sandhurst, one from Jane's etc.), controversial or just flat out uncivil burst outs on the talk pages. Their only activity is stonewalling sourced edits. It seems a Request for Arbitration will be necessary because of this attitude. Kurfürst (talk) 20:34, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Polish "tag team"? whatever. The sources were discussed at some lenght but i vaguely remember that in one of the talk pages a non -polish editor said that he has the sources you cited and that the things you claim are in the book aren't really there. Was he also a part of the "Polish tag team"?Loosmark (talk) 21:07, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Please also note that user Kurfürst made other bogus reports in the past.[[60]][[61]].Such behaviour is not only unfair to the falsley acused but also to the Administrators who are wasting their time reviewing. There is also this[[62]][[63]] for some background information if somebody is interested in going into it further. In my opinion user Kurfürst should be warned regarding such conduct.--Jacurek (talk) 18:22, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Kurfürst seems to be in disagreement with almost every editor on both of those two articles, constantly pushes unreable sources or puts the sources out of contest. He also repeatedly makes controversial edits lying that a consensus was reached for his claims when in fact exactly the opposite is true. Worse than that when somebody reverts his edits he accuses them of removing things for which consensus was reached. Among other things Kurfürst also inserted a completely scandalous claim in the Strategic bombing during World War II article that the Polish Air Force bombed Berlin and his source was that Goebbel made an entry about that in his diary. Loosmark (talk) 18:51, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Please note that the claim about the 'Goebbels source' is untrue, the source was Willmott's Great Crusade, considered by one of the most balanced account of WW2. Willmott himself teaches at the King's Sandhurst military collage. Kurfürst (talk) 20:38, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

You wrote this on talk page: For example, Goebbel's personal diary notes several air raids on Berlin in September 1939. which indicates that you think that the Nazi minister for propaganda, a notorious liar, is a relible source. Loosmark (talk) 20:49, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

The history of the Strategic Bombing article [64] easily shows that there are at least 9 (nine) editors that disagree with Kurfurst's edits. Out of those 9 I think 3 are Polish (myself included). For Kurfurst to claim consensus for himself is just the height of arrogance (and it is, in plain language, called "lying"). This is like a 5th bogus report that Kurfurst has filed on involved editors.radek (talk) 22:54, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Who are these nine (LOL) editors? Actually, the only ones that keep reverting the same information are Radeks (Polish), Piotrus (Polish) Jacurek (Polish) and Loosmark (Polish). They all started to appear in the article, which they never edited before, shortly after the first one, Radeks deleted some 3000 characters of sourced material, with the comment of 'German war propaganda'. Anyone who bothers to check the discussion page of the article sees that they are refusing to enter into any meritful discussion, give their sources, they simply stonewall any constructive work. Anyone who checks their private talk pages will certainly see that they have plenty of blocks, and they are actively supporting each other on any and all disputed edits, or when one of their buddies gets perma-banned, or restricted from bewhich seems to happen often. Also take note that their 'edits' - see a typical example - are merely blatant removal of sourced statements and are aimed to to create an anti-German atmosphere in the article, which also characterized their edits in other articles. Also take note, that at least 3 other editors opposed or reverted their 'edits'. Note that one administrator also reverted their edits, see: [65].

In addition to the four editors you mention above, in the past two weeks you have also been reverted by Hohum, Ja 62, Phillip Baird Shearer, an anon account, Depi89, and Dawn Bard which, counting the anon, makes it 10. Hohum and Depi89 have also questioned your use of sources and your misrepresenting them. So you're very clearly editing against consensus, and pushing POV based on a misuse of sources. For you to take that and turn it around and claim that your edits are being reverted "against consensus" is really something. There is in fact a pattern here: bogus 3RR reports, misuse of sources by pretending they say what they don't say, claiming consensus when it's 9 v. 1, filing false ANI reports. Like I said above, in plain language this is called "lying". (If someone is planning on throwing the AGF back at me, please read the second para under "About good faith" [66] in the relevant guideline).radek (talk) 16:56, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

These four Polish editors are quite clearly organized and wish to own articles by sheer force of numbers. Kurfürst (talk) 10:26, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Kurfürst would you please stop with personal attacks against Polish editors? Thank you. Also stop repeating that we "refused to enter meritful duscissions", it was already explained to you that there are problems with your highly selective use of sources. You seemed to started editing those articles with the sole purpose of trivialising the crimes of the Nazi's Luftwaffe which bombarded cities killing innocent civilians. And yes no other editor seemed to agree with your claims, non-Polish editors too. Loosmark (talk) 11:21, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

For the sake of a drop reality being preserved, I have used the 1994 E.R. Hooton book, a military historian and expert of Jane's, to describe the events of the strategic bombing in the Polish and other air campaigns in WW2. The Polish editors mentioned have no problem when Hooton describes this or that attack, or when I used Hooton to describe some LW were asking for 'terror attacks' (selective, am I?) but they tendentiously remove when Hooton states that a particular bombing was in accordance to international law, or when Hooton notes that some subordinated LW officers sabotaged the higher orders, and changed the targets for military ones, and were sacked for this soon after. So when Hooton describes what they want to hear is OK, when he does not, Hooton is suddenly not OK. Kurfürst (talk) 12:32, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Kurfurst is a POV editor who has caused massive trouble on various articles. Just today, he vandalised an article (which I have not edited) which had information he didn't like, and it was cited. He has been blocked more than enough times, at some point, enough becomes enough. Dapi89 (talk) 01:45, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Take note for context that Dapi89 is a highly confrontational editor who seeks to stalk members he had edit disputes, which he readily admitted himself. He actively seeks confrontation on all all discussion pages, see [67] Also take note that Each and every one of Dapi89's blocks were due to seeking an edit war and personal attacks against me. Kurfürst (talk) 10:36, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Kurfurst, stop lying. The feebleness of your position is evident to everyone. Its you that is the problem Kurfurst, I have never ever had any trouble with any other editor for this long (in fact not at all). And you Kurfurst, have been blocked eight or nine times - once indefinitely, (for Gross incivility) which was reduced to a month on the condition you reformed - which you have not. And six of those blocks were for warring with me.

You only compromise when it is on your terms, otherwise you edit war and make false complaints about those you are attacking. Your edits are distinctly appologist and pro-Axis, and you have been called out on this god knows how many times over these past 18 months.

And that rubbish about me being confrontational is just that. And its fantastically ironic. Your behaviour stinks and you are agenda driven Is is anywonder your edits are policed Kurfurst, and that you simply don't have a good reputation here. Dapi89 (talk) 11:34, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I think it speaks for itself that Dapi89 dares to resort to this kind of behaviour even on the Administrator's noticeboard... Kurfürst (talk) 11:51, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

As several editors pointed out, this thread is nothing but block shopping. The only incivility (and a ton of edit warring) I see here is coming from Kurfürst. Further, I find his incivility against ethnic groups ("Polish tag team", etc.) highly offensive and in blatant violation of Wikipedia:DIGWUREN#Discretionary_sanctions. Therefore I suggest that an uninvolved admin (as a Pole, I can be considered involved here...) takes appropriate action, starting with listing Kurfürst on DIGWUREN's restriction list. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 14:44, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

The crocodile tears are somewhat unconvincing. I have reviewed your talk pages - the coordination between is evident. See: Loosmark [68] See: Jacurek, and [69]. See Piotrus and Piotrus when Jacureck's roll back rights were revoked. Secondly, in the said article, one Polish editor turns up, reverts a mass of sourced statements, with the commant of 'German war propaganda'. Curiously, immidiately afterwards, 3 other Polish editors turn up, they keep deleting sourced statements, but refuse to discuss it on the talk page. Coincidence. When consesus is formed via discussino with other, reasonable editors, they still keep reverting, and the only comment they gave for their reverts are 'no cosensus', 'controversial sources' and 'POV pushing'. Who are we kidding, really? Its the same song every time - and yes, the DIGWUREN listing is one these tricks, you seem to try to use it against all editors you have dispute with - a rather ironic suggestion from an editor who otherwise simply refuse to enter any kind of meritful discussion on talk pages on the actual content of articles. Kurfürst (talk) 15:00, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

ok I've to agree with Piotrus: some admin should act. Kurfürst is constantly lying that a consensus was reached when it is 100% clear from the talk page that's completely untrue (unless consensus for him means he's in consensus with himself), plus the repeated baseless accusations against Polish editors are simply defamatory. @Kurfürst: how is the editing of the Battle of Belgium (1940), Supermarine Spitfire operational history, Messerschmitt Bf 109 going? Are you still arguing and removing sources there? Loosmark (talk) 16:34, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I checked the diffs, and I'm not really convinced they constitute "gross uncivility". Proper block shopping needs much better diffs. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 21:29, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

edit-warring over flags

• Lucy-marie (talk · contribs)

The user above is edit-warring about the use of flags on dozens of Formula One related articles. This stems back to this discussion at WT:F1 where it was in general agreed (after a very long discussion) to have flags distingushed for where the race was actually run, i.e. races in Germany would have the German flag in the infobox, regardless of the official race title (i.e if it was under the European Grand Prix title). This appeared to be OK until Lucy-marie began edit-warring and changing them back to the original version despite the consensus. I told her to stop here and she appeared to have stopped. However, despite being in knowledge of such discussion, she appears to have started edit-warring again, see [70][71] and even marking a controversial change as minor.

It appears Lucy-marie has edit warred before, see this discussion on her user page from March. I don't know if a block is in order here, but I don't think Lucy-marie's actions are construction. I would revert, but don't have any intention of getting into a revert war. D.M.N. (talk) 12:14, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Please see the discussion on the talk page it was partly-resolved and the use of the national flags in place if the EU flag was discussed and deemed to be inappropriate and confusing. The user who reverted did so against the consensus of the discussions on WP:F1. Please before Jumping to conclusions do background research first and contact the user(s) concerned before making a big deal out of something which can easily be resolved.--Lucy-marie (talk) 12:22, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Speaking as a casual viewer on this particular subject, if the purpose of the flag is to show where the race was run, the specific national flag would surely be better than the EU flag. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 12:31, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

The flags concern the European GP and not a second German grand Prix or Second Spanish GP. The San Marion GP took place in Italy, but the San Marino flag is still used.--Lucy-marie (talk) 12:33, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Then it sounds like the dispute is not so much about which flag to use, but about what the actual purpose of the flag is - to indicate the location, or to indicate the "sponsor". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 12:47, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

What is the purpose of the flag supposed to be? What information does it add? --John (talk) 13:24, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Formula one rules prohibit the use of the same race name more than once throughout the season, e.g. no 2 Italian Grand Prix, so we Have the San Marino GP and the Italian GP and accordingly the flag of San Marino is used to represent the name of the country in the race title. This is the same principle for the European GP the FIA use the European Flag on their international broadcasts for the European GP just as they used the San Marino Flag for the San Marino GP even though it was actually in Imola, Italy. as such we need to be consistent and follow the same rules as the sport uses or we are misrepresenting the subject.--Lucy-marie (talk) 13:27, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

A nation's flag is not the name of a race. The original complainant states that the purpose of the flag is to indicate the physical location of the race. You're saying its purpose is something to do with the name of the race. Obviously, there is disagreement about the purpose of the flags. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 13:34, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

The original complaint surrounded a nation or nation-like entity which does not exist, the pacific. The discussion evolved into use of lags in general and it was concluded that the name of the race was the flag that should be used. This is not possible for the Pacific Grand Prix so has no flag attached.--Lucy-marie (talk) 13:46, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

If the flag does not show the physical location of the race, what useful information does it provide? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 13:49, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

It indicates which Grand Prix it represents rather than where the race physically held, this is done to enable easy identification of the races in lists and to disambiguate from other races held in the same country.--Lucy-marie (talk) 13:55, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Obviously the complainant disagrees with what it means, and as a casual observer, I would lean toward his argument. For comparison, consider the 1992 and 1993 World Series. It would be liking placing the U.S. Flag next to the games in Toronto just because MLB is based in the USA. It's useless in that case. But in any case, this looks like an unsettled content dispute. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 13:59, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Would you put the Spanish flag next to the Catalan Moto GP, us because it was held in Spain, I do though see your point with world series but that is a wholly different sport.--Lucy-marie (talk) 14:02, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

It depends on what the purpose of the flag is. That's what seems to be in dispute. Presumably at some point the original complainant will come back here. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 14:59, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I should note the person that first changed the flags on Formula One articles was Andrwsc on March 20th, see here for an example of his edit. The reason given was "use flag of Japan for Pacific Grand Prix, instead of inappropriate Flag of the Secretariat of the Pacific Community, of which Japan is not even a member". He's been doing this for dozens of articles outside of Formula One and sport as a whole, which suggests to me it is a Wikipedia wide issue - has a central discussion taken place about flag issues such as this one? Besides, it doesn't lean away from the fact that Lucy-marie appears to have edit-warred, against consensus on the above articles. D.M.N. (talk) 14:34, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

The changes I made were in-line with consensus and why wast the other editor not pulled up on their reversions on 22 May, this strikes of one rule for me and one rule for the other user.--Lucy-marie (talk) 15:07, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

The complainant claims you are acting against consensus. You can't both be right. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 15:12, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

The complainant is wrong, in this instance, the discussion is long and complex and has not reached any consensus to change the use of the EU flag, it has though agreed not to use the flag of the secretariat of the pacific community.--Lucy-marie (talk) 15:16, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Lucy-marie, please stop edit-warring. I've told you to stop and discussion yet you are carrying on reverting: [72][73][74][75][76][77][78]. Please stop otherwise an adminstrator could block you. The WT:F1 discussion has AlexJ, Cs-wolves, Chubbennaitor, myself, Falcadore, Petera93, and some others agreeing with the changes (look at the table halfway down that section to prove this). Some disagree, but the majority agree. D.M.N. (talk) 15:22, 11 June 2009 (UTC)#

I am simply restoring the original consensus, there currently appears to be little support for the edits which I have reverted, the current discussion are focusing on the inclusion of the use of Flags at all. I also say please stop with the double standards of only singling out my edits and not the other user from May 22. The people you are talking off are opposed by numerous other editors and their voting does not change the consensus, that take virtual unanimity e.g. over 80% of all involved editors.--Lucy-Marie 16:36, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Lucy-marie, can you see the following bit in the WT:F1 discussion?

My proposal is that we adopt the following.

• If a race is named after a geographical entity that is above the level of a country, no flag will be used in the main article and the flag of the host nation shall be used for individual races. Example: The Pacific Grand Prix has no flag in the main article and the Japanese flag is used in 1995 Pacific Grand Prix.
• If a race is named after a country, then said country's flag will be used in the main article and elsewhere, even if the race takes place in a different country. If a flag is required to denote the location of an individual race, the flag of the genuine host country shall be used. Example: The Luxembourg Grand Prix article uses the Luxembourg flag. Individual races use the Luxembourg flag, although if the Nurburgring circuit requires a flag, the flag of Germany shall be used.
• If a race is named after a geographical entity that is below the level of a country, the flag of the country containing said entity shall be used in both the main article and elsewhere. Example: The Abu Dhabi Grand Prix uses the United Arab Emirates flag, because Abu Dhabi is below the level of country.
• If a race is named after something else, no flag will be used in the main article and the flag of the host nation shall be used for individual races. Example: The Glover Trophy shall have no flag in the main article but the flag of the United Kingdom shall be used for individual races.

Would this have support? Readro (talk) 17:19, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment this was discussed before I entered the discussion so to claim that that is the basis of the consensus is a misrepresentation.--Lucy-marie (talk) 17:19, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

No it isn't. You were opposing the above, hence the reverts as far as I can tell. D.M.N. (talk) 17:26, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

When I originally reverted I was unaware of this proposal as it was buried in an unwieldy and rambling discussion/vote/mob rule.--Lucy-marie (talk) 18:39, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

After that bit, I count the following that support (or appear to) and oppose (that appear to) :

• 9 Support (Readro [proposer], Bretonbanquet, Diniz, Chubbennaitor, D.M.N., Alistairjh, Cs-wolves, Petera93, Falcadore
• 3 Opposes (Cybervoron, Mattomatteo27, Lucy-marie)

So, I struggle to see what the problem is seeing as we have a majority *new* consensus. Therefore, you are reverting against consensus. D.M.N. (talk) 17:09, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

The discussions you are talking of are old and have moved on to discuss the inclusion of the flags at all, the original consensus was reached through voting which is not a substitute for debate, I have yet to hear a coherent argument stating concisely why we should baffle and confuse readers by using a flag that does not correspond to the name of the GP. This hough is not the place and should be discussed on WP:F1. Can you also please stop with the accusations that I am at fault either all reverts are at fault or nobody is. It appears as if there is no consensus as to weather there is a consensus so there is no consensus.--Lucy-marie (talk) 17:15, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

It is not as of old. Even if discussion moves on, it doesn't mean consensus disappears. Besides, I only see 3/4 people supporting no flags, so the majority would still be with above. This is (for the time being) my final comment here as I'd appreciate some input from outside parties on the above. D.M.N. (talk) 17:26, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Some favour no flag at some favour the Europe flag for the European GP and some favour the daft suggestion of national flags for the European GP. Also a vot wastaken on that proposal before numerous editors had contributed.--Lucy-marie (talk) 17:35, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

A continuation of this discussion can be found on WP:F1.--Lucy-marie (talk) 17:35, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not at all happy you've closed this discussion considering you are in it. D.M.N. (talk) 17:49, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

It's about the user's edit-warring. They aren't allowed to close it themselves. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 18:28, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

This is one sided and borderline POV pushing as the complainant is on the other side is the discussion and is in favour of the national flags, rendering them un-impartial. and has descending into a content discussion and should be discussed in the appropriate location on the WIki project talk page not here. Also there is no edit warring occurring, it is a fabrication to state that there is.--Lucy-marie (talk) 18:37, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Regardless, the original complaint was about you edit-warring, so you have no right to close the complaint yourself, without consensus of some kind. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 18:42, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough (even if the discussion has descended into a content dispute).--Lucy-marie (talk) 18:44, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

The other user is now edit warring or at least attempting too I strongly suggest an admin rapidly protects all of the involved pages or this will get out of control very quickly.--Lucy-marie (talk) 19:22, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Strongly recommend at least 24-hr block for Lucy-marie. Just have a look at the user's contribs and you'll get an idea of project-wide edit warring and showing no indication to stop. This one was less than 15 mins ago even after this and discussion at WT:F1 was started. And the edit summary shows no remorse for editing behaviour. ^LeaveSleaves 19:28, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me in my opinion i am maintaining original consensus, if you block me you need to block the other user as well or it is double standards just look at the edits which have been undertaken in the last 20 mins, also taking into account the 24 related article edits is wrong as that was a long time ago and have apologised for them.--Lucy-marie (talk) 19:32, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't know were or how (or if) was the consensus about flags reached because i always found the discussion about it a bit boring (and it started already in April if i'm not mistaken). But having said that, in my opion Lucy-marie is 100% correct that we can't have for example a German flag for the European GP, it just doesn't make any sense.Loosmark (talk) 19:33, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

This isn't about the content but about Lucy-marie's editing behaviour, which is clearly unacceptable. ^LeaveSleaves 19:42, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll offer a viewpoint as an uninvolved observer (having watched the initial discussion regarding flag usage with F1 races). How the flags should be used is not the reason for this ANI. Rather, it appears to be here because User:Lucy-marie has edited F1 articles resetting flags to their liking, even though it is not what the F1 Wikiproject decided. Their initial edits that occurred a month ago (such as [79]) were reverted[80] and the user was directed to the discussion at the F1 Wikiproject[81]. The user has apparently come back this week and made the same edits that they were previously warned not to make as per that discussion. More disturbing, in my opinion, is that User:Lucy-marie made yet another round of similar edits after they were informed that this ANI was created. It's these edits that seem to be non-constructive and a problem. --TreyGeek (talk) 22:02, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

She is known for doing this. I have previously intervened when she was edit warring against a few people, claiming that there was no consensus simply because she disagreed with them. --Deskana, Champion of the Frozen Wastes 22:13, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Lucy-marie's editing does indeed seem to be problematic, and sanctions may be in order. As for the topic at hand, I don't have any clue about Formula One, so I'm eminently qualified to make recommendations under Wikipedia customs. I recommend that flags whose relation to the events is not intuitively obvious are confusing, do not serve WP:Dear Reader, and should be taken out. Four-point listings of flag usage rules may be fun to compose and apply, but the're obviously non-obvious, and thus should not be used to decorate an encyclopædia. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 21:38, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism by DreamGuy, and assumption & accusation of bad faith

Resolved

 – IP blocked for two weeks as a sock puppet of User:Esasus. MuZemike 23:51, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I am reporting violations of wikipedia policy by Dreamguy which are vandalism and assumption of bad faith.

1. Dreamguy vandalized the talk page of an IP user’s talk page by his unauthorized and unwarranted removal of the public terminal notice here which was placed on the talk page by the administrator Xeno.

2. Dreamguy left a very nasty accusation against the IP address here showing his very strong assumption of bad faith. I request that Dreamguy face sanctions for his negative polution of the wikipedia community. 207.34.115.78 (talk) 23:01, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

No one is going to give you what you want over this ip. Well done finding your way here so fast, though.Bali ultimate (talk) 23:06, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, to be fair, with a click on the WHOIS link at the bottom of the talk page, DreamGuy could have confirmed that the IP is, in fact, assigned to the Calgary Public Library. I've therefore restored the shared-IP tag. Deor (talk) 23:17, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Further vandalism to IP talk page by Dreamguy here 207.34.115.78 (talk) 23:22, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Quack. MuZemike 23:24, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

And blizzocked. MuZemike 23:51, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Quack for sure. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 02:37, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

"Blizzocked"? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 02:50, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

-izzle, I believe. - 2/0 (cont.) 06:53, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Wow. I wonder if you know that the word "izzard" is an old-fashioned term for the letter "Z". Combining that with this embedded "izz" biz, if you try to spell "blizzocked" using "izzard", you could have an infinite regression. I bet Snoop Dogg never thought of that. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 11:52, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Contract Editing Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Let's keep the discussion where it belongs. WAS 4.250 has been given a notice about forum shopping. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 15:10, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

No good will come of Wikipedia:Contract Editing Review. Please delete it. WAS 4.250 (talk) 07:06, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Admins can't just delete it, but you can nominate it yourself. ╟─TreasuryTag►duumvirate─╢ 07:11, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Wait, there is already a page for discussing this, at this RfC. Let's try to avoid spreading the discussion across multiple projects. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 07:12, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Similary there is also a discussion at Jimbo Wales talk page regarding this matter. I would advice against simply removing this page as discussion is currently underway, with no consensus reached for either allowing, allowing with restrictions, or denying paid editing. Likewise, you already made a statement on the RFC so you already knew about this discussion. I would advice against even giving the idea of evading discussion regarding this matter, as it can be seen as point pushing Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 07:23, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

This feels like forum shopping, though this should be deleted. This is a horrible idea, but this isn't a speedy candidate... though I'd love to see what admin would delete a good faith, if misguided, WikiProject created by a sitting Arb. AniMate^draw 08:14, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with your stance on paid editors, but i don't deem this page such a bad idea. As clearly stated it's intention is to "Test the water" and can therefore prove valuable, even if only for the sake of finding a neutral middle ground in the paid editor discussion. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 08:31, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Vandalism and personal attacks by IP editor

Resolved

 – Balkan-blocked, topic ban Toddst1 (talk) 19:05, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

94.54.228.174 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) was recently warned for removal of sourced information and attacks on Kansas Bear (talk · contribs). The IP received a 12 hour block but has returned and picked up right where it left off. Could someone please take a look? Thank you, Kafka Liz (talk) 11:24, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I've re-blocked the editor and per the 2007 arbitration case imposed a topic ban on all Balkan-related articles from that IP. This sanction has been recorded here and users of the IP address have been notified here. Toddst1 (talk) 19:21, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for checking this out. Kafka Liz (talk) 19:25, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Another new issue surrounding the AC, Sam Blacketer, and the Boothroyd article

Details here and weigh in there on the AC notification page, alleged pressure by Arbcom members in e-mail in regards to the disposition of User:JoshuaZ/David Boothroyd before User:Sam Blacketer's reconfirmation RFA in 3 days' time. I was asked to help "resolve" the issues of the article due to pressure from "Arbcom members". I have absolutely no idea what is happening and have no time to sort it out today. I have a (I thought!) rather well-known strong dislike for back-channel dealings, so I have no idea why I was pulled into either a good-hearted or nefarious scheme rather haplessly by someone. Please check my bolded link, I'm baffled by this. rootology (C)(T) 13:45, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

No offense, but we're all baffled too. Is there anything here that requires administrator attention? It seems that a non-Arb sent you a somewhat confusing two-sentence email. Perhaps you should ask him exactly what he means? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:44, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

User changing cronology of albums to ep's

Resolved

 – IP blocked and message left. Mfield (Oi!) 19:40, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

• 201.240.89.160 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) – vandalism, controvertial edits, as on my talkpage by another user, not sure what to do., including 1, 2, 3 – Andrewrp^Tally-ho! 15:59, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

There is the user, as seen on my talkpage, another editor has expressed concern. Andrewrp^Tally-ho! 16:32, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

As the user has failed to engage or acknowledge any of the comments left for them, I have blocked them for 24 hours for disruptive editing and left them a block warning explaining the reasons and that they should spend the time they are blocked reading the guidelines that they have been directed to. Mfield (Oi!) 19:40, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Can a Admin call a user a asshole?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Resolved

 – Moved to WP:WQA, it's not on to call someone an asshole on this website Gwen Gale (talk) 21:18, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

This is not a good image for Wikipedia [82]. Honestly I am not mad because the insult its behind a computer but what should I do? Thank you --Taulant23 (talk) 20:19, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

See the big banner at the top when editing this page: Issues with incivility, while unfortunate, should be raised at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts. Regards SoWhy 20:21, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Yep, list this at WP:WQA. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:25, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you guys,It's kinda messed up though.--Taulant23 (talk) 20:27, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

If you're saying it's "messed up" because he called you that, yes, very messed up and untowards. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:33, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Looking into this a bit more, I see he unblocked you 2 days ago, after blocking you for edit warring. I'll let him know about this thread so he can say something here if he likes. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:37, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Usually admins just block people that are bothering them or that they don't like, so they rarely feel need to call people names, prefering more subtle abuse like snarky arrogance and rudeness. Have fun in the other queue. I guess it was easier to send you elsewhere than to address your question. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:30, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

ChildofMidnight - that is not a helpful comment. Pedro :  Chat  20:43, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Let's assume that admins are inclined to treat people with subtle abuse, snarky arrogance, and rudeness. One could either a) preemptively practice snarky arrogance and rudeness oneself, or b) try to model the sort of behavior one would like to see from others. I'd rather admins didn't call people names. I'd also rather people didn't hector others on their talk pages. Both of those acts are uncivil. I'd rather everyone were civil. As a result, I try to model at least the minimum level of civility I'd like to see from others, though I've been slipping recently. It hasn't worked so far, but it seems like a better bet than option a). MastCell ^Talk 20:47, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

PLEASE ALSO SEE WP:DICK.Hell in a Bucket (talk) 20:34, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

What is it with all the talk about body parts? At least be original; call someone a pathetic fractured calcaneus or a festering islet of Langerhans. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:20, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I prefer the classic expressions, "crazy den of pigs" and "bucket of ringworm snot". Oh S-J, where art thou now? :) Franamax (talk) 21:31, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Midnight has a point, his "openness" should deserve some credit. However he most certainly shouldn't. Being rude is fine (it is somehow widely practiced wikiwide anyway), but swearing is not cool and strictly forbidden. On the other hand most american people are like that, not counting that word as a swear. Or maybe he is an international user that learn english from movies. Just tell him to stop calling you, and ask him to strike or remove the word according to your preference. If he insists you may take other precautions. Noticeboards should be last case resort, on the other hand admins should care better than regular users. By the way what is your dispute. Kasaalan (talk) 20:35, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I just don't feel I did anything wrong to be called like that.He wants to use Genetics and I am saying let's use linguistic, books and other sources.Maybe the mighty Jimbo can help?--Taulant23 (talk) 20:44, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

ANI is not for settling content disputes, nor is Jimbo's talk page. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:48, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

No. We have a bunch of noticeboard to deal with these issues. Give poor jimbo a break before we break him though overusage :) Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 20:47, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Why even bother, apparently he is untouchable!! Sad I thought Wikipedia had some kind of justice--Taulant23 (talk) 21:01, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

The complaint about the asshole slur has been moved to here..[[83]] . (Off2riorob (talk) 21:13, 12 June 2009 (UTC))

Inspired by Mastcell's example, I would like to suggest that the admin involved would do well to apologize. My understanding of our policies is that it's not acceptable to call other editors assholes, even when they're causing frustration. Telling them to drink tea or take a nap might be okay though... depends who you ask. ;) I think expressions of satire and sarcasm are best kept among friends. So, I would avoid snide remarks to disputants who are upset and encourage restraint wherever possible. But sometimes on the rarest of occasions even I slip! ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:34, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, yeah ChildofMidnight., Fine words from someone who but a few edits up came up with Usually admins just block people that are bothering them or that they don't like. You're really one to talk about snide remarks aren't you. If you don't like snide remarks please strike the one you made above. Pedro :  Chat  21:38, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

No apologies and move on?? What kind of admin calls editors asshole?? What kind of admin does not even say I am sorry man??

OK let's move on and let's block Taulant in 3 days so he can shut his mouth. Thank you guys.--Taulant23 (talk) 22:01, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I think most editors will understand why I'm archiving this thread. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:05, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Jackiestud

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

User has been repeatedly adding the exact same stuff about Adam and Eve on several articles related to Feminism and is at 3RR on the Feminism article itself (see contribs). MuZemike 20:24, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

See user's additions to Feminist theology, Goddess movement, Christian feminism, Goddess, and more. She's adding the same thing to multiple articles, creating real undue weight issues; no attempt is being made to seek consensus, she is replacing the text even after other users have reverted her and tried to initiate discussions. It seems like POV pushing, maybe OR or original synthesis, not to mention the etiquette problems. Dawn Bard (talk) 20:37, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, I tried many times to show that WP already cites Campbell and this very same chapter (see feminism_and_neopaganism), there no orginal synthesis, only etimology, pre historical goddess and teh Bible. No original research at all. Jackiestud (talk) 20:53, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

And I've been trying to discuss this (including the OR issue) with her on my talk page [84]. She's added it to Women in the Bible, adding Goddess as a see also for Dolmen because she read something on the web that mentioned Dolmen and Goddess although our Goddess article won't help readers learn more about Dolmen, etc. There were problems like this in April that led to a short block. Dougweller (talk) 20:59, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

If I may borrow a metaphor, the problem here isn't as much OR but a sort of tunnel vision. An encyclopædia is about a particularly wide field of vision -- to horizon and beyond. Your edits have concentrated on certain small issues, which you apparently consider particularly important. It is against the Tao for me to try and convince you that you should neglect these issues, but at the same time, the Tao of Wikipedia is clear about WP:UNDUE, too. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 21:49, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

(ec) I'm still AGFing that jackie is working in good faith and may just be a little inexperienced, but I don't know how any of us can make things clearer than we already have. The information is ok (not prooperly cited but ok) it's just being given too much emphasis and is being placed in the wrong articles. The issue we all have with the edits is based on the core policies of WP:V and WP:NPOV (specifically WP:UNDUE). I'm sure if Jackie goes through the policy they'll understand our objections --Cailil ^talk 21:03, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Callil. Thank you very much for your words. No doubt about my good faith. Iam jut trying to make it avaiblable in some of these articles because the are related to the text. So, no maybe not all of these but one or two... Adam and Eve is the correct one, as much as feminism. And I would thank if someone can help me with a better english instead of deletion. Jackiestud (talk) 21:07, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I dont knwo if you have Campbell´s book, but my text only cites him: Adam was born out of a red clay (and the etimology of his name is red clay, or blood (dam)); a such respected scholar like Campbell is only saying that pre historic religion( and art) worshiped the so called Mother Goddess and this goddess is still there in the Bible. Adam comes from, was born, from this Goddess myth. The Hebrew Goddess book says esaclty the same thing. Jackiestud (talk) 21:18, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Having found the Truth is all fine and dandy, but this sort of proselytism does not really go well with encyclopædia-building. Dear Jackiestud, please don't do it. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 21:44, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

• I made a statement on User talk:Awadewit about this. The individual uses a poor quality reference, has bad grammar, and insists on repeating it without discussion with others. How to handle? I don't know. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:16, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Perhaps some sort of block to prevent further article disruption? :O—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:18, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Iam sorry if I disappointed you. I don´t know why does WP offer a whole life abt Joseph Campbell (since this is poor quality reference (sic!), why would Adam ´s etimology (copied from WP) be also of such a poor quality...And by the way, as for my bad grammar, I coudl very easily improve the text...but anyway, since english is not my mother language, I´d love to see your grammar in portuguese, french (which is my third language)... Jackiestud (talk) 00:24, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
      • Perhaps you should be primarily editing the Wikipedia of your mother tongue instead of the English Wikipedia. I'm sure you'll be more help to the French and Portuguese projects.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:41, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
      • You know what's interesting Jackiestud? You were blocked for similar reasons at the Portuguese Wikipedia. Edit warring at their articles for chaos theory and mother goddess only over two months ago.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:44, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

LOL, Yes...see above? Maybe I was blocked for the same "REASON" (!!) I could now be blocked here (as you suggested)... You see, lots of "reasons". Feel free to block me... What kind of human being are you? Go read some Campbell...Why do ~you waste yr time with a freak like me...?? Jackiestud (talk) 00:58, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Jackie that isn't helpful. We've pointed you towards the policies and guidelines that govern how articles are written and what material is included in them. Please read them. And yes I have read Campbell along with many other works hence I see how little weight it deserves in the context of a global overview of the whole subject of feminism, or indeed an article on feminist theology. I've advised you a number of times taht a smaller better sourced version of the material you added would be useful in another article like Feminism and Religion. Also please redact your comment to Ryulong as it is both incivil and a personal attack which against our rules for talk page communication--Cailil ^talk 01:16, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

See this? These are the many refused, deleted actions of this editor at the WP-PT (loads of admins expressing their perplexity with your "requirements": http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usu%C3%A1rio_Discuss%C3%A3o:Ryulong. Campbell is cited in MANY feminism related articles all over WP-en (as I offered many links). End of talk for me. Bye, bye. Jackiestud (talk) 01:22, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Ottava?? Are you there?? You would love to see his gramar back there on the WP-PT...All admins and denials; you can check for yr self on the oage I linked above (his "talk" page!!!!). See the last msg, the adin says: "Iam sorry, Id didn´t knwo you don´t speak potuguese" (LOL). See?? Can you imagine his grammar?? LOL. What was he doing there? editing??Jackiestud (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:26, 13 June 2009 (UTC).

Jackiestud, stop now. My actions at the Portuguese Wikipedia are of no importance here (because I really don't do anything there unless I've found vandalism here that poured over to the other language projects, which happens every now and then). Your actions here are at question. If you continue to edit war on the English Wikipedia you will be blocked from editing the English Wikipedia. If you cannot act accordingly here, you should stay on the Portuguese Wikipedia.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:07, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Wow, got nervous? Very bad and histerical words words (horrible and disuptive agressive, unethical, rude, unpolite summaries). You should be blocked for personal attacks! I have many articles here on the Wp-en. Many. As for the Wp-pt (since 2006) there are hundreds of articles and NOT A SINGLE COMPLAINT. All of yr requirements there were denied!! All of it. Jackiestud (talk) 02:25, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

(Warning on ANI and user talk page)

Jackiestud - you are clearly being too rude in responding to your critics here and elsewhere. This is not appropriate behavior on the english language Wikipedia. Please review WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, WP:AGF, and edit in a more collaborative and friendly way moving forwards.

Regarding your content edits, you appear to be repeatedly reinserting material which a consensus of other editors believes is fringe material, not mainstream, and you are trying to give undue weight to it. This is against policy. You are also conducting a widespread edit war over that material. Once you were made aware that many other editors (all of them, on those pages, apparently) do not agree with you including it, you are required to stop reposting it over and over again and to discuss the issue on article talk pages. You appear instead to primarily be fighting in other venues.

This all is very disruptive, taken as a whole.

I am assuming good faith and giving you some credit for not having english as your first language. But you are pushing too hard here, and this is not ok. I or other administrators will block you if you continue this behavior. You need to calm down your edit tone and respond more politely, and discuss your edits in good faith on article talk pages.

This is an encyclopedia, and a project dedicated to building one. Please participate here in an adult and constructive manner. We expect positive collaboration from all participants.

Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:45, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

She has also put this [85] into a number of articles. Most of the Adam & Eve stuff, if not all, is hers, but the rest is clearly copy and paste from another article without attribution (the writing, the different forms of citation, and the fact tags point to it being from one of our articles and not written by the editor) - and this breaches our GFDL licence of course. I've asked her about it on her talk page after failing to find the source. Dougweller (talk) 04:59, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

And her response was to blank the page. Her right, of course, but not very constructive. I hope she will reply here about the licence issue. Dougweller (talk) 05:26, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Golden0098 - Moved from AIV

• Golden0098 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) deletion of content on Michael Husbands after final warning. An IP has been doing the same up to final warning. IP claims to be subject of article and deleting untrue facts. Have suggested they take to talk page or WP:BLP/N but deletions continue. Struway2 (talk) 20:33, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

This noticeboard is for obvious vandals and spammers only. Consider taking this report to Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Do not block yet! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 20:42, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

• Note: User claims to be Michael Husbands (This is michael husbands and the info on here about me is not correct and I would like it changed or deleted please) Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 20:44, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

---

Thread above moved from WP:AIV. Cirt (talk) 21:25, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Get a lawyer. It's a complex issue, for all the nasty nuances. It's time for WMF's lawyer to earn his keep and assess the situation. This clearly is not something that can easily and safely be decided by volunteer administrators. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 21:53, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I protected the page and left notes for the alleged Michael Husbands on his user talk page and on Talk:Michael_Husbands. The alleged subject was the last editor of the article, so I'm not sure how much of a beef he can have with the content at this point and he's been pointed towards Wikipedia:Contact us/Article problem/Factual error (from subject) and info-en-q@wikimedia.org. I'm not sure how much more there is to do, except unprotect the article. Note: the subject seems to have removed cited information about himself. Feel free to unprotect it if so inclined. Toddst1 (talk) 22:26, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I didn't take a look at the citation but as long as controversial information is accompanied by a reliable source, then there shouldn't be any problem. If he has a beef with the content, then perhaps he should contact the source rather than trying to whitewash his own article.--Jojhutton (talk) 23:32, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

For the record, the source was the BBC. Toddst1 (talk) 23:40, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

As a matter of good form, I decided to take a look at the citations. User:Golden0098 may actually be correct (at least partially). He made three distinct deletions, so I cross checked the information with the citation and discovered that at least one piece of information is not even included in the citation. It may be original research and should be removed ASAP. The second piece of information is correct and cited properly. The third is questionable and may be just a unique interpretation of the citation, but still may be correct. I would have at least fixed the poorly cited sentence, but alas the page is protected. There was a fourth sentence removed, but that sentence was never reverted back into the article. As of now, the fourth reversion is still not in. As a side note, an anonomous IP was deleting information prior to Golden0098. I can only assume that this is still the same editor, but I only looked at edits made by Golden0098.--Jojhutton (talk) 03:31, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

P.S. The full page protection is a bit extreme considering Golden0098's account is only half a day old and he would not have been able to edit a semi-protected page anyway, semi-protection would have done the trick.--Jojhutton (talk) 03:31, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Ramu50 Is Back

Resolved

 – Talk page blocked, original one month block on IP restarted. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 05:29, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• Ramu50 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 75.154.186.241 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Ramu50 is an indefblocked user that has been using the IP account 75.154.186.241. The anon has admitted to being Ramu in this post and has said he will be editing on that IP for "1 year+". This is a clear-cut case of block evasion and I believe the IP should be blocked for that year that Ramu plans on using it. If not, some other form of block should be issued to stop the block evasion. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 01:50, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

It would not hurt for someone else to review the case, but I'll block tomorrow if nobody else reviews. Ramu50 exhausted the communities patience quite badly earlier and seems to be up to old tricks with this IP. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:51, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Block on IP 75.154.186.241 was restarted (for 1 month) and the talk page was blocked as well by User:Rootology. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 05:29, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Allstarecho is Requesting an Unblock

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

After stating he will not copyvio any other pages (which is what got him blocked in the first place) and that his previous "retirement" is a moot point, ASE is requesting to be unblocked or would like a path to be unblocked. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:32, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Can you put in a pointer to the recently archived discussion? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:52, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Sure, please see here. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:58, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• The difficulty is that Allstarecho's comments after he was blocked have tended to suggest that he does not recognize that his copyright violations are wrong; for this reason, his protestations that he will not continue to disregard copyright have not been wholly credible. He could begin to restore this credibility by starting to go through his past contributions and identifying all edits which used stolen text; this, at a bare minimum, would be an essential component of any path to eventual unblocking. CIreland (talk) 03:16, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

  This seems a bit pointless - he's identifying himself as "retired", so why the heck is an unblock needed? Ironholds (talk) 03:22, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

  Because a retired user can un-retire themselves at any time. CIreland (talk) 03:25, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

  Is everyone stuck on retirement? ASE has stated before and I have above that retirement is a "moot point". He wishes to come back, which would mean he isn't retired. Let's focus on the unblock and not on a retirement that the user has said is "moot". - NeutralHomer • Talk • 03:26, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

  Concur with NeutralHomer; retirement is not and never has been relevant to Allstarecho's blocking or unblocking; really only Allstarecho seemed ever to think it made any difference. CIreland (talk) 03:29, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• support unblock At this point, I don't think it is imperative that he is kept blocked, given that he has expressed clearly that he understands why he was blocked, and has promised to change his behavior. Blocking him again would be trivial at this point, and he should know he is being closely watched. Making him jump through some arbitrary hoops to get the unblock seems pointless given the ease with which any admin could block him again if he screws up the copyright thing any further. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:30, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

  User:Akhilleus has unblocked ASE. He left a lengthy post on ASE's talk page as well. Shall we call this resolved? - NeutralHomer • Talk • 03:32, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict x2) I've unblocked him. The declines seemed excessively wiki-lawyerish to me; Allstarecho wants to edit and promised not to violate copyright anymore. I trust that his contributions will be closely watched, and if anything even smells like a copyright violation, he will be indef blocked again. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:33, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• Hmmm. I still think he has an ethical obligation to assist in cleaning up the mess, simply because it's far easier for him than anyone else to identify which edits amongst his very many otherwise excellent contributions were theft. I don't think that's at all an "arbitrary hoop" since someone else is going to have to jump through it if ASE is unwilling. CIreland (talk) 03:44, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• • I agree that he has an ethical obligation to assist in cleaning up the mess. I also note that ethical obligations are often unmet on Wikipedia. Since I unblocked him, I'll ask him on his talkpage to help us clean up the copyvios. Since I unblocked him, it's only fair that I help in doing so also. Please give me some pointers--is there an organized effort towards fixing the problem? --Akhilleus (talk) 03:49, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• • • Wikipedia:WikiProject Copyright Cleanup/Contributor surveys has some details. CIreland (talk) 03:56, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Based upon the massive disruption he made to Wikipedia (knowingly adding copyright violations for years because he disagrees with copyright laws), and especially with his completely unapologetic tone after his block, he needs to stay blocked for a good long while to realize that this kind of behavior is unacceptable. A couple of months minimum is reasonable, or at the very least until all the damage he caused is undone. Akhiklleus should have waited for more input before unblocking, because jumping ahead to do it before there was real discussion or any way to gauge consensus just puts everyone in a bad spot. People have been permanently banned for less than what ASE did. DreamGuy (talk) 03:41, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

If what you are suggesting is done, that would be punishment and that is not what blocks are meant to do. They are preventive not punishment. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 03:45, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

DreamGuy: maybe you're right. If so, discussion here should establish a consensus against my unblock, and I won't stand in its way. Until then, I hope that community scrutiny will stop further copyvios by Allstarecho, or lead to his block. I don't really care if he apologizes, expresses remorse, or so forth--forced apologies don't strike me as useful. The important thing is that he stops the objectionable behavior. If he doesn't, then he gets blocked again. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:52, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• I agree that Akhilleus should have waited for more community input and especially for the opinion of the blocking admin, Moonriddengirl. I find unilateral unblocks of this sort rather uncollegial, I am sorry to say.  Sandstein  05:33, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I have notified Moonriddengirl of this post. I apologize, I should have done that first, as she was the blocking admin...that is my mistake. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 05:41, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• This unblock was a bad call - there was no need to rush and I'm not certain Akhilleus is actually familiar with the situation and how these matters are typically handled. I think that Allstarecho has been the one splitting hairs and wikilawyering since this problem was noticed - quite a few editors have tried to get a straight answer and his responses have been petulant and unhelpful. This issue was so widespread that it required not the usual one, but three pages at the copyvio project for tracking. While I agree that forced apologies are useless, if a contributor shows no remorse and has to be forced to admit they were wrong, isn't that just a useless? I have zero confidence in this unblock and I resent the fact that the unblocking admin's solution is that someone (other than themselves of course) should closely babysit Allstarecho. Shell ^babelfish 05:42, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I have already said, I will be happy (even as a non-admin) to mentor ASE as necessary and to make sure that his edits are within the letter of the rule and that no copyvio edits are brought in, but I think we need to give ASE a chance to edit first. It is 3:29AM EST, so he isn't online, probably asleep. Let's let him edit first before going all "bad block" "let's reblock him" on the whole thing. Remember, AGF. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 07:30, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
    • I'm going to guess you're not aware that I assume good faith, usually till my eyes bleed :) Even so, there's a point where it stops being an assumption of good faith and instead becomes turning a blind eye to a problem; that's where I have to get off the bus. If you're aware of this case, surely you're aware that this wasn't just limited to article space, included difficult to detect copying of just sentences or phrases and that the only response has been "yeah, so what?" until an indef block was in place? I don't see anything in ASE's response that would make me comfortable that he won't continue the same behavior, maybe not at first, maybe not while he's being watched but I'm confident he would have no qualms repeating the behavior if he thought he could get away with it. I don't even see anything about him being interested in contributing further, only that he'd rather not be blocked. I would consider this an excellent example of a block intended to prevent further damage and disruption to the project and the unblock before allowing some semblance of discussion here was unwise. Shell ^babelfish 08:33, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
    • WP:AGF says, "Unless there is strong evidence to the contrary, assume that people who work on the project are trying to help it, not hurt it." The cleanup of this offers plenty of evidence to the contrary. Just yesterday I came upon this edit from April of 2009 while evaluating contributions, pasting several paragraphs of material by Dr. Carl Edwin Lindgren (material which archives to 2004). There can be no question that much of the language was the same; origin seems clear. Keep in mind that Allstarecho was notified of copyright policy several years ago and one of his responses on noting these concerns was to indicate that "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"[86]. His primary interest during the whole of this clean-up is arguing about whether the copyright infringements removed from articles were actually placed by him. While he's very vocal when he thinks somebody has removed something in error, I've yet to see him say, "Oh, yes, that one was mine. My bad." Does he still believe that material like this and this, also from April of this year, are not copyrightable? Copyright infringement is a grave misuse of the project, one which can put it in legal jeopardy, and whoever is watching him, Neutralhomer, needs to do so not so much with an assumption of good faith, but from a position of objective scrutiny. Akhilleus, I hope you plan to keep an eye on the situation. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:29, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock, bad call, particularly without bringing the initial blocking admin into it. I support a reblock - he's never made any statement to indicate what he did was wrong, and has been particularly offensive to those users like Moonriddengirl who take the time and effort to chase people like him. An offensive, disruptive serial copyright violator who now expects us to trust him? By this point good faith has been thrown out the window, and I see no reason to believe he's truly changed - rather I see his apology as not "sorry I violated copyright" but more "sorry I was blocked for violating copyright". Ironholds (talk) 11:14, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock. Three pages of copyvio's? What's next, unblock User:Primetime? For me this block is not punitive, this block is to protect the encyclopedia. From reading his talk page I am not convinced he will not eventually continue the same behavious as before. Garion96 (talk) 11:28, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

72.231.253.33 / 74.78.20.70

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Resolved

 – IP blocked for 3 months by VirtualSteve

김 위원장의 브로큰 엎드려 로켓 (talk) 10:42, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• 74.78.20.70 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) began to vandalise articles like Guns N' Roses in March, mostly by changing dates. They got blocked two times for doing so.
• 72.231.253.33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) followed in April, making the very same type of edits and got blocked four times since. They continue to vandalise articles like Tracii Guns and Iron Maiden up to this day. They do not talk and do not make any edit summaries. Any ideas? --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord² 21:38, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

• IP is still trolling around. Why is Wikipedia's admins not doing anything against the vandal??? See 72.231.253.33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Consider choosing a username (talk) 07:34, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• Has this been reported to WP:AIV?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:47, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• As you might see, they have been blocked five times before, but no admin seems to be willing to block them for more than a few days. How could WP:AIV help then? 김 위원장의 브로큰 엎드려 로켓 (talk) 07:51, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• With more blocks, they escalate in length. The last block on the IP that this user has issues with was blocked for a month at the end of April.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:53, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• Just stop talking and start blocking. 김 위원장의 브로큰 엎드려 로켓 (talk) 07:57, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• I cannot block any IP or user. If you post this IP on WP:AIV and state that it is a returning vandal, it will be answered by an administrator much faster than anything happening on this page.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:58, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• btw: the longest block has been 7 days. Why are you even answering if you're not an admin? 김 위원장의 브로큰 엎드려 로켓 (talk) 07:59, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• I am giving advice as a former administrator. There is nothing on this page that says I cannot act in such a way.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:01, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Consider choosing a username

I'm a little worried about what this user has said. User talk:Consider choosing a username.--The Legendary Sky Attacker 07:50, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Is clearly related to above problem. 김 위원장의 브로큰 엎드려 로켓 (talk) 07:52, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

But read what they wrote on the talk page. A concern!--The Legendary Sky Attacker 07:54, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, they are angry about nothing been done against that IP vandal for months. 김 위원장의 브로큰 엎드려 로켓 (talk) 07:56, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

There's no need to be concerned over the user's comments. I'm a bit suspicious of the username as well as this' user's actions. Consider choosing a username (talk · contribs) has been here for a little over two weeks, and this is his third edit (citing "MoS"). A similar user would be Underscores will be converted to spaces (talk · contribs), who also performed these reverts and in his first edit refers to the edits as reverts and vandalism. This terminology I was not even sure of when I first joined Wikipedia.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:57, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

The user "retires" saying "I can't stand those lazy Wikipedia admins anymore. Let people destroy the project!". Does this not concern you?--The Legendary Sky Attacker 07:59, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

He left having a little hissy fit. He'll be back, or not if I figure out if the account belongs to a previously blocked user.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:00, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

CheckUser?--The Legendary Sky Attacker 08:01, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I will be attempting to contact one.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:03, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be more useful to do something against the IP vandal? 김 위원장의 브로큰 엎드려 로켓 (talk) 08:06, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I personally cannot do anything in either situation. Post the IP at WP:AIV. I'm not going to.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:07, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

What a waste of time... 김 위원장의 브로큰 엎드려 로켓 (talk) 08:09, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

If you don't like it, remove your involvement.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:17, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Are there any CheckUser's around?--The Legendary Sky Attacker 08:11, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I know a few, but they must be asleep at the moment. But this isn't urgent. Post the IP he's complaining about on AIV and things will resolve themselves in the other thread.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:17, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

A new account has just appeared and signed an unsigned comment by Consider Choosing A Username. [[87]]--The Legendary Sky Attacker 08:20, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

The username "Acedia Accidia Pigritia" is apparently three Latin synonyms for Sloth (deadly sin). Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 08:37, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

(e/c)Which is clearly a reference to "lazy admins", and the user has now added a welcome to Underscores will be converted to spaces (talk · contribs). Seems a pretty clear case of same user, but... the user hasn't really done anything disruptive ...yet. Mfield (Oi!) 08:42, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

The user has now added the welcome templates to some user talk pages including User talk:Underscores will be converted to spaces.--The Legendary Sky Attacker 08:40, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, regardless of not doing anything on articles being disruptive, the user is instead being disruptive by making so many useless accounts. I have a feeling all three of these users are one in the same. I am just waiting on a message being returned.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:47, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Is that a message returned from a CheckUser Ryulong?--The Legendary Sky Attacker 08:48, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I posted that message one minute before you did. Nothing's happened. Be patient and go edit an article.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:51, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

It turns out User:Consider choosing a username, User:Underscores will be converted to spaces, User:Kim's Broken Down Rocket, and User:Acedia Accidia Pigritia are all in fact User:Juvenile Deletionist, as are a few other user names. These accounts have been indentified by Dominic. Someone should block them so the tags I put on all of their user pages are correct.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 11:20, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I can confirm that the accounts Ryulong mentions are all the same. They are also the same as Jungfrau'n Töter, Vördschin killa, and Schweinchen Fick, all blocked already. In fact, having checked the range, I can say with a high degree of certainty that these accounts are all were all created by HexaChord, along with his other accounts Hexacord, Hexachord, and Ashba 6. Dominic·t 11:44, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Narnbread

User talk:Narnbread. This user has already been blocked, but Mentifisto suggested that I bring them to ANI to discuss some of their edits that may be of interest to the New Zealand Police. Mentifisto blocked this user and deleted most of their edits but what remains is an exmaple [[88]] of not only strong damage to various Wikipedia articles, but also the posting of somebody's personal details, racist comments and personal abuse, threats of violence amongst other things. This is a very serious issue and I don't think it should be ignored.--The Legendary Sky Attacker 10:00, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Possible Legal threat on Talk:Supermarine Spitfire operational history

User:Kurfürst, as part of an ongoing contact dispute, made this comment on Talk:Supermarine Spitfire operational history, which appears to threaten legal action if alledgedly copyright violating info that is referenced is not removed from an external website. Is this a breach of WP:LEGAL?Nigel Ish (talk) 10:32, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Looks to me like they say they will report the copyright violation here (Wikipedia:Copyright problems for example), rather than taking legal action. Anyway, if it is certain there is an actual copyright violation, it should be removed immediately. There's no need to wait (in fact, it cannot wait) 24 hours. Chamal ^talk 10:40, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Legal threat? No, an editor, probably in good faith, linked a picture from a website which has been branded with the name of the website's ownerer as copyright holder - I assume the editor believed that the website owners also hold the copyright, and I have made that clear to be wrong: "The documents you have linked are from the National Archieves, Kew, and are protected by copyright. The webpage you have linked them from also shows this in the references, giving the AIR referneces in the NA at the end of the page. All of these images are from the National Archieve, Kew. These images are copyrighted, and cannot be published or used with the consent of the National Archieves. Remove them immidiately. That some digitial brand these documents "Archives of M Williams" or "Courtesy of Neil Stirling" may have some unfortunate legal repercussions to these persons, but in no way generate a copyright for documents that were copied via a digital camera in the archieve, and published without consent of the archieve." Its quite clearly referenced to the website owners, and not the editor.

I am familiar with the material and I know also that it comes from the National Archives, Kew, UK, and also familiar with their policy on copyrights - also cited it for the editor - I have ordered many documents from there myself, there's clear (c) notice on each copy. I have absolutely no intentions for a legal action against the editor (how, BTW, I dont even know his name etc.) but warned him to remove the report which I have already removed because of copy vio; he restored it, and if I would remove it would lead to an edit war. But given the copyrighted nature of the image, if he not removes it, I will have to report it through proper wikipedia channels, see: [89] Kurfürst (talk) 10:47, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

From the Terms and conditions for the supply of copies of records

Terms and conditions for the supply of copies of records

• 1.Copies of Public Records in Crown Copyright
• Most public records in The National Archives are in Crown Copyright.
• There are no restrictions on the use of copies for non-commercial research or private study. Copies, and copies of those copies, may be made and used for education purposes. This covers both teaching and preparation for teaching and/or examination by either teacher or student.

Applications for permission to use copies for publication (including website publication), exhibition or broadcast or any other purpose must be addressed to: The National Archives Image Library The National Archives Kew, Richmond Surrey TW9 4DU

• 2.Copies of Public Records in privately owned (ie not Crown) Copyright

There are no restrictions on the use of copies for non-commercial research, private study or education (as defined above) within the limits set in UK Copyright Law. Copies of non-public records and of published Copyright works held in The National Archives These are supplied subject to the customer completing a declaration form and observing the conditions it contains. Any infringement of these conditions may result in legal action. Any use other than for non-commercial research, private study or education, if approved by the copyright owner, may also require the permission of the image library. The National Archives Copyright Officer will provide further information on request.

This legal threat is a blatant and shameful attempt at intimidation by Kurfürst and is part of a consistent campaign by Kurfürst to discredit a rival website to his own http://kurfurst.org/. His attempts at using Wikipedia policy as leverage in his attempts to discredit a rival website are equally shameful. He has no idea of the arrangements made between Messers Williams and Stirling and the National Archives and, given his propensity for attacking the websites run by Messers Williams and Stirling (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/ -http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spittest.html) and for attacking them personally at every opportunity he has has a clear vested interest in this matter, which should preclude him from any further participation in this "discussion". Minorhistorian (talk) 10:58, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

There seems to be an awful lot of hot air being vented here. What happens to 2 'opposing' websites is irrelevant here. Either the image meets WP standards for copyright, or it doesn't. If it does, fine. If it doesn't, delete it. Leave your website rants somewhere else, both of you. --WebHamster 11:31, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I got things a bit arse about face, but if there are any reservations whatsoever about a link on WP pointing at an external site that may contain copyright infringements then simply remove the link. It's better to be safe than sorry and if there's one link to the subject matter then there will be more. Also if there's CoI associated with the said links then all the more reason for nuking them. --WebHamster 11:39, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

The images you have added to the article are simply copyrighted as Kew's policy clearly shows, moreover, the images are branded with the name of the copyright violator, while giving no credit to the actual coypright hold of the collection (the NA) which is pretty clearly requested by NA and copyright laws all over the world. What they do on their site is their responsibility, but Wiki's regulations for copyrighted images are quite clear - even if there would be doubt, as there is none, it is still you who have to prove that the images are permissable for free use and distribution (nb - something profoundly different from making copies for personal use), but it is absolutely certain that an image containing no clear credit to the (known) copyright holder is not possible to use. Your attitude to portray this violation as some sort of personal feud is simply shocking, but understandable, considering your close association with the said website owners. Kurfürst (talk) 11:21, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• There's no legal threat here at all. The use of references such as the one removed here is not appropriate; the reference should point to the original document in the archive, not to a photograph of unclear provenence on some random amateur website. CIreland (talk) 11:52, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Suicide question

Sorry for being extremely cautious, but I just wanted to make a note of this posting. It seems, and almost certainly is, completely innocuous but something in the wording made me uncomfortable enough to post on the user's talk page (no response yet) and also make a note of it here. Frank Bruno's Laugh (talk) 11:43, 13 June 2009 (UTC)