Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 04:40, 7 June 2009

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Shortcuts

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.

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

Noticeboard archives
Administrators' (archives, search)
348	349	350	351	352	353	354	355	356	357
358	359	360	361	362	363	364	365	366	367
Incidents (archives, search)
1155	1156	1157	1158	1159	1160	1161	1162	1163	1164
1165	1166	1167	1168	1169	1170	1171	1172	1173	1174
Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
471	472	473	474	475	476	477	478	479	480
481	482	483	484	485	486	487	488	489	490
Arbitration enforcement (archives)
326	327	328	329	330	331	332	333	334	335
336	337	338	339	340	341	342	343	344	345
Other links
Talk Sockpuppet investigations Backlog

Ireland

Discussion hidden for scrollability

Ireland naming/disambiguation

Can we get a couple more eyes on the Ireland/Republic of Ireland articles? A couple of users have taken it upon themselves to "correct" the contents of the articles, in violation of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names#No moves pending discussion. It's a contentious subject, which is why people aren't supposed to be shifting things around at the moment.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:02, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Im stunned a couple of people have thought they should just jump in and make those changes, especially as all of them know there is the ongoing debate at another location about the Ireland naming dispute. Please stop them from making those changes, they keep undoing SarekoVulcans restoration of the correct article. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:11, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't say it was the correct article. It just needs to stand until the Arbcom - directed discussion completes. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:33, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There has been no violation of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names#No moves pending discussion of a discussion. Nothing was shifted around. Your edit warring based on your POV, with no attempt to use the talk page. Now please show which policies have been violated, and start to use diff's to back up any more accusations you want to make. --Domer48_'fenian' 17:29, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note that 50 minutes before this post, he stated that "I placed the correct about the RoI and moved the Ireland text to the Ireland Article". So, what was that about "Nothing was shifted around" again? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:51, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes and your point is....? I put Ireland text on the Ireland article. Were do you suggest I put it? Make up another name for Ireland and put it there? RoI is not the name of the Ireland, you'd know that only you removed the text from the RoI article. --Domer48_'fenian' 17:55, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

His ability to lie like mad despite all the evidence proving him to be guilty as hell is simply incredible, even for an Irish Republican. Whats disturbing is hes still being allowed to run around wikipedia talking nonsense.

In his recent post on the Republic of Ireland talk page he seems to threaten to move the article back to where he thinks it belongs despite this ongoing debate. [1] is nobody going to stop this guy? BritishWatcher (talk) 18:07, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oi. His nationalistic POV-pushing is not okay. Nor is you making comments about 'even for an Irish Republican'. Please refactor, and again, if I had my druthers you would be instantly topicbanned form anything to do with Ireland for a year. //roux 19:13, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Calling me a lier again? Time was when you could be blocked for that! Still does not change the fact that RoI is not the name of the Irish State, and the information which illustrates this and explains the use of the term is removed. So our readers are deliberatly being mislead, or lied to which ever you prefare. --Domer48_'fenian' 19:10, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've warned him on that, but I'd hate to block for something factually accurate.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:12, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was blocked for calling an editor a liar, regardless of weather it was factually accurate or not, but then I was an Irish editor. Must be nice being able to pick and choose --Domer48_'fenian' 19:45, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BW is causing a lot of disruption. If it continues, I'm going to create a file on all his transgressions and present it afresh next time he causes disruption. Tfz 20:32, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can we first establish if there has been a violation, and on which article? --Domer48_'fenian' 00:03, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Revert war on Republic of Ireland (was posted simultaneously to the above)

A revert war has broken out on Republic of Ireland.

The substance of the war is on the name of the article. User:Domer48 opposes the article being located at "Republic of Ireland". He describes the article as a POV fork and says the article should be about the term ("Republic of Ireland") not the state itself.

The revert war involves the article too-ing and froo-ing between a new article by Domer48 and the original article on the state.

So far the revert war is thus:

new article - Domer48
old article - Rannpháirtí anaithnid
new article - Domer48
old article - Rannpháirtí anaithnid
new article - Domer48
old article - SarekOfVulcan (admin)
new article - Daicaregos
old article -SarekOfVulcan (admin)
new article - Sarah777
old article - SarekOfVulcan (admin)

(The article history is here.)

There is an related ArbCom ruling and on-going discussion on related matters.

NB: This is an article that has tens of thousands of internal links pointing to it. It is also a public holiday in Ireland and particularly warm weather so there are few Irish editors online.

--rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 16:18, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the discussion here. No one disagrees with the RoI not being the State. The article content was on the Ireland, and not the RoI. The information I added to Ireland was about Ireland. --Domer48_'fenian' 16:27, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not everyone knew there was a debate on the Republic of Ireland page for such radical change. You knew full well that the debate about the Ireland naming dispute was being held at the wikiproject and not on just one of the articles involved. Your changes were totally out of line. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:31, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ADDS: The edit war is also happening on the main Ireland article. (See article history.) --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 16:32, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know there is a dispute about Ireland. I've not moved any Ireland related articles. What has the Ireland debate got to do with the Republic of Ireland page? Everyone agrees that the name of the state is Ireland, and not the RoI. The content on the RoI article was about Ireland and not the RoI. I placed the correct about the RoI and moved the Ireland text to the Ireland Article. My changes were totally in line with our policies, such as WP:V, WP:NPOV to name but two. Please show me were I did not stay within policy, or were I went against ArbCom. --Domer48_'fenian' 16:39, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As these are Troubles-related articles, Domer48 has breached 1RR. Mooretwin (talk) 16:48, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As ArbCom have yet to agree to the 1RR, no I have not. On a personal note, I wish they would and everyone involved more or less agrees.--Domer48_'fenian' 00:00, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This sort of wikilawyering and gaming is precisely why nationalistic POV-pushers should be booted. //roux 16:58, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a core of British Nationalist POV-Pushers continually causing disruption on Ireland related articles, and it turning Wikipedia into a circus. About time something was done about this. We don't have Irish editors trolling British related articles. It must come to an end soon! Tfz 19:20, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now that comment says it all! --Domer48_'fenian' 17:30, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abuse of WP:TWINKLE

There are two users who are abusing the WP:TWINKLE tools. They are reverting content which is not vandalism. Twinkle is a vandalism tool, and should not be used in a content dispute. User:Rannpháirtí anaithnid has used it twice, both here and here. In addition they will not use the Article talk page to explain their reverts or take part in the discussion. User:SarekOfVulcan likewise is using the tool inappropriately, as seen here, here, and here. In addition they will also not use the Article talk page to explain their reverts, or take it to the article talk page. --Domer48_'fenian' 16:04, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no consensus for such a radical change, you know full well the Ireland naming dispute is ongoing. If anyone is abusing wikipedia its you not SarekofVulcan. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:13, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, only the revert vandalism function of Twinkle is vandalism-only. The more oft-used rollback tool (which allows one to add an explanation) is simply an alternative of the undo facility. ╟─Treasury Tag►hemicycle─╢ 16:14, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) User:SarekOfVulcan appears to be enforcing the Arbcom rulings, which you and others (in depressingly typical nationalistic fashion) seem to be delberately flouting. One of these sets of people is editing in a manner not conducive to continued possession of editing privileges. I leave it as an exercise for the reader as t which is which. //roux 16:16, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a report on the Abuse of WP:TWINKLE, any thing else go to the talk page of the articles. Now please provide a link to the Arbcom rulings. --Domer48_'fenian' 16:16, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Or on Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Domer48, depending on the any thing else... And you know exactly where the Arbcom page is, since you've already supplied a statement pursuant to it. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:19, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) There is no abuse. Sarek provided the link to Arbcom here. Here it is again, but stop the disingenuous act. Since there was no abuse, we may now focus on your behaviour, which you well know is unacceptable. //roux 16:28, 1 June 2009 (UTC) After EC, based on Sarek's links, I move for immediate topicban of Domer from any Ireland-related editing for one year, based on my thoughts outlined here. //roux 16:28, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can move for what ever you want, but you need to establish why first. I have not gone against any ArbCom ruling. --Domer48_'fenian' 16:41, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regular Twinkle reverts may be used in content disputes because it is an alternative to undo. The reason that rollback cannot be used in content disputes is because a) only a small set of users have rollback and b) there is no edit summary. Since any autoconfirmed user can use twinkle and since non-vandalism reverts using twinkle may provide an edit summary, twinkle undos are treated the same as regular undos. Therefore, there is no abuse unless the undo is done using twinkle's "revert vandalism" button. Oren0 (talk) 16:47, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that Oren0, that was very helpful. I'm now stright on Twinkle. Roux open another tread, or join in one of the others which have been open. --Domer48_'fenian' 16:50, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

(Cross-posted from WP:AE) With his edit [2], Domer48 performed what amounted to a cut-and-paste move of Republic of Ireland to Ireland, in violation of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names#No moves pending discussion which forbids such moves. Since he appears intent on repeating this violation of an arbitral decision, I have blocked him for a week. I will lift the block, and I consent to another administrator lifting it, as soon as Domer48 gives credible assurances that he will not repeat such moves, whether by means of the "move" function or by cut and paste.

Whether a topic ban or other sanction is also required is for the community to decide. I suggest that any further discussion takes place here at ANI. Sandstein 20:18, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review, Sandstein. Note that Republic of Ireland was protected for two weeks by Canterbury Tail, so this block might not have the desired effect. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:26, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that we can lift the page protection now through WP:RPP. With Domer48 now either blocked or compliant, it is not necessary any more. Should he or other editors continue to make cut and paste moves, they can be reported to WP:AE to be blocked. That is preferable to protecting a high-profile article for weeks. Sandstein 20:49, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hope that the C&P wasn't an attempt to do an "end run" around the arbcom injunction - not least because it adds a GFDL violation to the mix - but either way the block looks like it should prevent disruption. Assuming that to be the case, a ban probably isn't necessary. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 20:25, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have unblocked Domer48 after he agreed not to attempt to change the subject of the article Ireland from the island to the country until the conditions specified in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names#No moves pending discussion are met. Sandstein 20:55, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"what amounted to a cut-and-paste move" is not the same thing as a cut-and-paste move. Either I made a cut-and-paste move or I did not. I made an edit, a very detailed edit! I removed information which was misleading and wrong on the Republic of Ireland article. I suggested on that Article talk page, to leave it sitting there, pending a discussion and got no response. Rather than just deleting it, I merged it with the Ireland Article of which it is a mirror. Now Sandstein's block is "what amounted to" an attempt by them to prevent discussion, and more importantly my participation in discussion. There was an ongoing discussion about my edit here, and their block is what “what amounted to an attempt by them to prevent me the opportunity of defending myself. Notice how you quickly closed the discussion, with no responce nessary to the questions I posed. Now PhilKnight in that discussion said my edit "went against the spirit of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names." Not that I had violated it! So we have "against the spirit of" and “what amounted to very vague terms used to have me blocked! So Sandstein what we have here by Admin's, is what amounts to arbitrary powers being abused arbitrarily which more than violates our policies, and not just the spirit of them. It might go some way to explain why Admin's are dropping like flies, but none of the bad ones.--Domer48_'fenian' 23:17, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aaaand you go right back to being incivil and accusing admins of being arbitrary? Nice. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:16, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about "go right back to being incivil." Aaaand calling an editor a liar is not, nice bit of slectivity. Or is this a case of felon setting? --Domer48_'fenian' 13:21, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can we archive this Incidents report? Everything seems to have been settled. GoodDay (talk) 14:43, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like the incident I reported originally is settled, and there's another thread down below for people who have issues with my archiving of the discussion. Go ahead and mark it resolved.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:50, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Sheepishly) I don't know how. GoodDay (talk) 15:01, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I was directing that more toward any uninvolved admin who wanted to drop in. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:40, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ireland naming redux

Since discussion of the page move was continuing out of the ArbCom-directed process, I just took administrative action to comply with the directive and archived the discussion page on Talk:Republic of Ireland. Is there consensus to overturn this action?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:06, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Archiving that discussion page, was a logical move. GoodDay (talk) 15:02, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Booooo!) shoy (reactions) 15:57, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes there should be consensus to overturn this actionWgh001 (talk) 18:00, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As an Admin, activly involved in the discussions for you to close it was wrong. Now you did not have to come here to be told that. --Domer48_'fenian' 18:43, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Telling you you're violating an ArbCom restriction doesn't qualify as "actively involved", sorry. Beyond that, I think I've edited regarding the name of the article maybe 5 ~~years~~times over the past three years. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:58, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Right. 3 edits on Talk:Republic of Ireland in August 2008, nothing since.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:13, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And 1 edit yesterday to Ireland. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:17, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You were activly involved, revert 1, revert 2 and revert 3. Now you removed an ongoing discussion on the article talk page. There is no directive by ArbCom preventing discussion. You were involved on the article, and you closed down the discussion. --Domer48_'fenian' 19:39, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Domer, are you familiar with the term "persistent disruption"? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:44, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for a week over this diff -- if he doesn't recognize that ArbCom has put a procedure in place to determine the names of the Ireland articles, then he'll just keep edit warring.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:53, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SarekOfVulcan - abuse of admin tools

SarekOfVulcan (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Domer48 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sarek is currently is a dispute with Domer48 of the naming of the Ireland article - some of the nonsense involved in this argument can be seen above at "Ireland naming redux" as well as yesterday episode here.

During their barney Sarek has used his admin tools to effective silence Domer citing this diff as evidence of Domers attempt to userp the Arbcom system.

I am not interested in getting into the rights and wrongs of the Ireland naming I am here purely to hightlight this OTT and uncalled for block. A. The block isnt warranted, B. Even if the block was warranted it should have been discussed, especially one of that length (1 week) and C. an involved admin shouldnt be dishing out a block against someone they are in dispute with. Deja vu!--Vintagekits (talk) 20:13, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree this is a bad block from an involved admin who is in disppute with Domer. BigDunc^Talk 20:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest the blocking admin unblock, to allow for an uninvolved admin to review and possibly reblock. Cirt (talk) 20:20, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with uninvolved admins reviewing, but they can do it while he's blocked -- his talk page is still live. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:24, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Enforcing the Arbcom ruling is not, by any stretch of the imagination, 'involvement.' //roux 20:27, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense, you were in the middle of a dispute with the editor and were abusing your privilaged tools as an admin. Instead of encouraging wheelwarring you should unblock the editor and see if the block stands on its own to feet by discussing it here! Also is your adminship up for recall?--Vintagekits (talk) 20:29, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These links are helpful: Domer48 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Sandstein 20:37, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In what way?--Vintagekits (talk) 20:39, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because, when reviewing a block, it is helpful to be able to quickly access the block log and talk page of the blocked user. It would have been courteous of you to provide that link in your initial request. Sandstein 20:48, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SarekOfVulcan (talk · contribs), perhaps you could provide more of a detailed rationale for the block, here? Cirt (talk) 20:26, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, it is a joke that Domer is not allowed to come here and defend himself against this farce. This is from his talk page (he should be able to come here and defend himself!) I said the Arbitration Committee has not put in place a structure for determining the names of the disputed articles. This process here before the ArbCom even agreed to here the case. So were is the structure for determining the names of the disputed articles set up by ArbCom? That's disruptive? Check out the section titled Time table, and check out Back-up on this? I said there is no directive by ArbCom preventing discussion on article talk pages. If there is such a directive, provide a diff. Is that disruptive, were is the link? This is just typical of POV warriors riding rough shod over editors who dare challange them. I know Sandstein is going to come along now and back this fucker up. They are just as bad if not worse. There last block was just as bad as this one, again lying. --Domer48'fenian' 20:28, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On the face of it this looks like yet another instance where an otherwise-uninvolved admin engages a problem editor only to be told that he shouldn't do anything because by engaging the editor he became involved. If this point of view keeps gaining support we might as well not have admins at all. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:39, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@ Sandstein How the hell is showing the block l;og of Domer helpful?? BigDunc^Talk 20:42, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quite. The editor was pointed to the correct venue, refused to move, and was - eventually - blocked. Good block, far too late however. If SarekOfVulcan is to be censured, it should be for waiting too long - displaying far more good faith than the situation required. Disclosure: I've posted at Talk:Republic of Ireland, but have no view on the naming dispute - other than where discussion should occur. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 20:44, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(various ec's) I agree that, in general, the mere enforcement of ArbCom decisions does not make an administrator too "involved" to block, and I am not aware - to the limited extent I've been active with respect to this area of conflict - that SarekOfVulcan has expressed any opinion in the underlying content issue. But I am concerned that the reason given for the block is "refusing to acknowledge" by this diff that ArbCom has decided something. Having and expressing an opinion, even (as here) a mistaken one, is not blockable disruption. Only the actual violation of the relevant ArbCom decision is, but Domer48's statement does not amount to such a violation. I think this block is mistaken and should be lifted, though perhaps a briefer re-block is needed for the incivilities expressed by Domer48 above. Sandstein 20:47, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is rubbish to put it politely an editor gets a bad block and when he gets annoyed about it another admin comes along and says block is bad and should be lifted but block him for loosing the head come on. BigDunc^Talk 20:57, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to have to second This flag once was reds synopsis: Good block; if any error occurred, it was extending too much good faith to a problem user. The rest is nonsense and bullshit, so sorry. Anyone who considers Sarek "involved" does not understand the parameters of "involved." KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:03, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sandstein -- I have expressed a preference for the location in the past, and the current location isn't it.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:14, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for providing an extended explanation below. I would not have made that block, but I am now a bit more inclined to view it as reasonably preventative, given Domer48's evident attitude and conduct problems. Sandstein 21:28, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see this as a SERIOUS ABUSE OF ADMIN TOOLS by someone that shouldn't have access to the admin tools. This is the DIFF that he is blocking the user for and all the user really does in that diff is ask for a diff or some proof that he was not allowed to discuss an issue related to article changes on a talkpage. This DIFF show that this was indeed the DIFF that Sarek blocked him for. Since when has asking for proof or diffs become a blockable offence?--194x144x90x118 (talk) 21:03, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I may be off base here, but I am under the impression that Domer should have been blocked just for changing the articles around as he did. Although I'm not quite clear on exactly when he should have been blocked, it doesn't appear that Domer was operating in good faith. [[User:|Hiberniantears]] (talk) 21:06, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you are way off base would you at least read what is going on here before commenting. BigDunc^Talk 21:09, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It does indeed look as if you are off base, the guy was asking for diffs and proof. Wikipedia has rules, policies, guidelines and other such things and when an admin is asked to provide such things then he should assume good faith and do so, not block the user that asks for that for a week.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 21:23, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also like to ask if it's 100% normal that Sarek move my comments from under his Full rationale piece and up here. Am I not allowed to respond to his Full rationale?--194x144x90x118 (talk) 21:22, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure you are -- but that wasn't a response to anything in the rationale that I could see at the time, so I moved it so that I wouldn't be adding material above your response.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:04, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just blocked Domer's talkpage for gross incivility. Feel free to re-enable if I'm mistaken. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:17, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you are mistaken it is against standing policy which allows at least moderate venting w/o further punishment. BigDunc^Talk 21:25, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~I believe you mean the opposite of what you wrote.~~ –xeno^talk 21:26, 2 June 2009 (UTC) now fixed [3][reply]

Yes, but Domer has been reblocked to disallow talk page editing. –xeno^talk 21:36, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are any admins going to unblock Domer from editing his own page per the standing policy? BigDunc^Talk 21:46, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Home now. I didn't block the talkpage for calling me a "fucker" -- that's moderate venting, as above. I blocked for being warned by another editor to tone it down, and then posting "he's not running for a bus, he's running for a shovel", after several other civility violations.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:56, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But you have been pretty uncivil yourself yesterday [4]. Maybe that's where a lot of this stuff started. I notice you didn't apologise yet. If you withdraw what you said it might go some way to calming things down. Would you agree? Tfz 22:11, 2 June 2009 (UTC

Basically, no. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:26, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then you should exempt yourself from all forward dealings with these related issues. Tfz 23:06, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to point to the following as a previous example of bad blocks and immature behavior by the admin SarekOfVulcan Right here.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 22:19, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly Tfz, Sarek accused Domer of being a liar yesterday pretty uncivil in my book. BigDunc^Talk 22:23, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See link above where I decline to apologize. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:26, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which I commented on that your response was incorrect as what Domer stated was that he wasn't aware that he had breached sanctions not that he wasn't aware of the whole process. BigDunc^Talk 22:30, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Again with the "can't follow links", BigDunc? "First off, I was not informed of this discussion!" --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:11, 3 June 2009 (UTC)~~[reply]

Ok, I think I finally understand - you contend that when he said "this discussion", he was referring to the discussion of the name at the WikiProject, rather than the discussion at the Enforcement board? If so, sorry for the incivility struck out above. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:34, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sarek's full rationale

Short form: for disambiguation, the article about the country named "Ireland" is at Republic of Ireland, while the Ireland article is about the island that contains Ireland and Northern Ireland. Domer initiated a discussion at the of Ireland talkpage and decided to be bold and change Republic of Ireland to an article about the term "Republic of Ireland" as used to refer to Ireland the country, and to change Ireland to an article about Ireland the country and the island. I don't remember whether I saw this on my watchlist or if someone else commented on it, but I thought it was too large a change and after Rannphairti reverted and Domer re-reverted, I reverted to the original with the comment that WP:BRD usually involves discussion.

When I went to the talkpage, I saw the banner at the top pointing to the arbitration case and when I checked, I saw that they had directed that there be Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names#No moves pending discussion, as specified in the remedies above it. A cut-paste move is still a move, so at that point, I went into enforce-the-Arbcom-decision mode. I posted to ANI requesting more eyes on the articles, as there were Arbcom issues involved. Immediately afterwards, Domer posted accusing Rannphairti and me of abusing Twinkle. It was explained to him by others that using twinkle to restore a previous version with an edit summary was not abuse, and that was resolved.

While discussion continued, Sandstein blocked Domer48 for his edits on the Ireland side of things, but agreed to unblock provided that Domer did not violate arbitral decisions.

Domer returned to discussing the page move on the RoI talkpage, despite it having been made quite clear that discussion should take place within the Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration. I archived all the current discussions on the talkpage, and told the concerned parties to work it out on IE-COLL. After more discussion on the RoI talkpage, Domer stated:

The Arbitration Committee has not put in place a structure for determining the names of the disputed articles.

Since he was clearly acting in bad faith at that point, I decided that he could not be trusted to abide by the conditions of his unblock -- after all, if it wasn't an arbitral decision, he wouldn't be violating it, and re-blocked for a week.

That pretty much sums things up, except for some minor details -- like Domer previously participating in the process he was now denying existed.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:11, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you step aside at this stage, as you are getting further "involve". Can't be policeman, judge and executioner, it makes bad law. Tfz 21:32, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And that is the central issue here, not the merits or demerits of Domers actions. I would go further - one cant be the "victim", policeman, judge, jury and executioner - makes for extremely bad law!--Vintagekits (talk) 08:35, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You know, calling me judge, jury, and executioner doesn't make me judge, jury, and executioner. For one thing, he's not banned, so there's no "execution". For another, the jury is the rest of the people here, so that part of the analogy falls down as well. And I never claimed to be a victim here, so that makes you... what, 75% off-base?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 11:39, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So Domer asked you for a diff asking where it state that he can't discuss on the talk page and you block him for a week. Since when is asking for clarification a blocking offence? BigDunc^Talk 21:15, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Has ArbCom banned discussion of the RoI naming fiasco on the RoI talk page?". Otherwise SarekOfVulcan is acting "ultra vires". It's a bad block either way, no matter what the answer is. But if SarekOfVulcan has acted outside his remit, maybe he should have his tools nullified. Tfz 21:29, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that the exact same question that Tfz just asked was the one that got Domer blocked.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 21:33, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At the risk of being blocked were is the diff that says no discussions on the article talk paged as layed down by the Arbs? BigDunc^Talk

I think the block is extremely unfair. Domer has been "bold" recently but that is not the same as breaking wiki policy or any Arbcom agreement. He hasn't really done anything wrong per se. I think an unblock needs made to be along with the suggestion that Domer continue his points along side the WP:IECOLL process to help forge agreements on the issues.MITH 21:55, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note also that as shown at this diff, he unilaterally decided that the 1RR restriction placed on articles relating to The Troubles was no longer in force. That's not Bold, that's disruptive.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:02, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing to do with this but I asked Fozz here and he said it was gone nothing unilaterall about that. BigDunc^Talk 22:06, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What, you think I can't follow links? "Right now, a lot depends on the administrator who comes in and views it. I think if the 1RR is useful (and it seems to have been, despite the number of times it was used, being high).. that no matter what you think of it personally, that it would be wise to speak on RfArb in support of it."--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:09, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course you can you are routing around trying to find some to justify your bad blocks and as Sandstein has refused at least 2 1RR restriction cases regarding trouble articles I think it is gone too. BigDunc^Talk 22:15, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Time out

Would both sides please stop sniping back and forth?

Sarek - without comment on the original reblock, I believe that you're displaying clear involvement at this point. I believe you should refrain from further administrative actions regarding that user for the time being or this incident.

BigDunc - please stop pushing buttons.

Others - please respect each other while other uninvolved administrators come in and review the situation.

Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:14, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking as an uninvolved admin, I don't see why the block can't just be reviewed per procedure.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:25, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is exactly what I am currently doing - starting with the talk page no-edit reblock, working out to the larger issues. Anyone else who wants to review is welcome to join me.

However, the large scale flame war that erupted above was counterproductive and uncivil on multiple sides, and needs to end while calmer uninvolved heads get a look at it all. Fortunately it seems to have calmed down now. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:30, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the first thing that could be reviewed is the re-block keeping Domer from commenting on his own talk page. While Domer's language may be angry, I don't see too much to be concerned with there. I don't see any harm to the project permitting him to engage in discussion on his own page, and that could be the first step to resolving this. Rarely does silencing an blocked editor help solve the issue. I would propose that be remedied immediately. Rockpocket 23:51, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I asked Sarek about this several hours ago and have not received any response. I have re-asked on his talk page and am proposing here that we undo the talk page edit section of the block later tonight if there is no objection in this thread, subject to reprotection if threats are made. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:37, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sarek left me a talk page note indicating he does not object to this action, so I have undone the talk page edit portion of the block without changing block duration. I will leave a note to Domer to indicate that if he threatens anyone the editing will be turned back off, and that we'd strongly appreciate if he can discuss the situation politely from now on. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:56, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds reasonable. I would note that Domer is editing from Western European Summer Time (or should I say Am Caighdeánach na hÉireann]] ;) therefore he is unlikely to respond for a number of hours. Rockpocket 02:28, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GWH - agreed not to take further action until fully reviewed.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:56, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just decided I want to be an involved editor after all, so I'm recusing myself from further admin action on this topic.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:44, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would you unblock Domer, first (since you were the blocking Administrator)? Then the other Administrators can decide his status. GoodDay (talk) 15:00, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's one of the admin actions I'm recusing myself from. An uninvolved editor should make that call. GWH is currently reviewing: if he (or another reviewing admin) decides the block was unjustified, or no longer needed, I won't oppose an unblock.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:06, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 15:11, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Review

Domer48 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

This is an extremely complex case, involving multiple administrators, multiple editors, an Arbcom case, an Arbcom-directed community project to attempt to solve the underlying problem, and quite literally a million bytes plus of pages. Putting together the narrative of relevant actions is quite a task.

I decided that the review had to go back to the original problem - so this review covers the totality since Domer48 began actions that could be construed as renaming articles.

Narrative:

The Arbitration Committee did put in place an article name determination process in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names#Community asked to develop a procedure.
That process could reasonably have been interpreted as having been intended to be the one correct place to centralize all related discussions, but did not explicitly say so.
Domer48 participated in that process with two statements Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration/statementbyDomer48 on March 7 and Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration/statementbyDomer48.2 on April 1, and various comments in the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration discussion threads.
Domer48's edits including [5] as previously noted by Sandstein did violate the active Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names#No moves pending discussion restriction. Domer48's subsequent talk page discussion indicates that there's a credible claim that he thought it was not a violation prior to doing it.
SarekOfVulcan reported Domer48 to the Arbitration Enforcement page appropriately Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement#Domer48
Sandstein's block on June 1 was appropriate under the circumstances.
Sandstein's discussion with Domer48, Domer48's responses, and Sandstein's unblock on June 1 were appropriate under the circumstances.
Subsequent to the unblock, Domer48 did not perform article rename or content moves in violation of the letter or spirit of the Arbcom ruling and his agreement with Sandstein to unblock.
Subsequent to the unblock, on June 1 and 2, Domer48 did continue rename discussions on other articles: [6] [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12]
1. Several of those rename discussions were uncivil or assumed bad faith about others' motives: [13], [14], [15]
Subsequent to the unblock, Domer48 did remove other people's comments from talk page discussions related to the rename discussions on several occasions, claiming justification in WP:TPG: [16], [17]
Subsequent to the unblock, Domer48 engaged in aggressive responses on ANI and elsewhere regarding the nature of the first block: [18], [19],
1. ...And some reasonable responses such as: [20], [21],
SarekOfVulcan archived the discussion at Talk:Republic of Ireland: [22]
1. Sandstein supported the archiving: [23]
2. The archiving was consistent with a reasonable interpretation of the Arbcom remedies, and prior Admin discretion history / WP:BOLD accepted practice, but not required by the letter of Arbcom's finding
3. Subsequent to the archive Domer48 responded aggressively to the archiving: [24], [25]
4. ...leading to aggressive responses on ANI: [26], [27]
5. Others also objected to the archiving in depth, which led to a second archiving: [28]
6. ...and further discussion: [29]
7. I conclude that the archiving was done in good faith and consistent with Administrator policy.
8. I also conclude that the archiving had an inflammatory effect on the discussion rather than the desired calming and redirecting effect, and that this was a predictable outcome.
  1. I therefore conclude that the archiving was unwise and should not be repeated further.
Domer48 ultimately posted a comment denying that the Arbitration Committee imposed renaming discussion had taken place: [30]
1. Domer48's comment was ( WP:AGF ) somewhat at odds with his prior involvement in that process including his statements within that process of March 7 and April 1 referenced above.
2. This comment precipitated the second block, by SarekOfVulcan, with block message summary of refusing to acknowledge that ArbCom has set down the conditions for determining the names of the Ireland articles and block summary of ?(Disruptive editing: Refusal to recognize that ArbCom said "don't do that".). Block duration was 1 week, the same as Sandstein's earlier block for violation of the Arbcom ruling.
3. SarekOfVulcan was somewhat involved with Domer48 as of the time of blocking.
  1. This involvement presented somewhat of a conflict of interest under Wikipedia:BLOCK#Conflicts_of_interest
4. A reasonable uninvolved administrator, combining this comment with the other edits since the unblock, could conclude that Domer48 was being disruptive at that time.
5. Prior to the second block Domer48 had not received warnings about disruptive activity.
6. Wikipedia:BLOCK#Education_and_warnings specifically states in part: Warning is not a prerequisite for blocking (particularly with respect to blocks for protection) but administrators should generally ensure that users are aware of policies, and give them reasonable opportunity to adjust their behaviour accordingly, before blocking.
7. Wikipedia:BLOCK#Duration_of_blocks states in part that: incidents of disruptive behaviour typically result in 24 hours blocks, longer for successive violations;
8. Administrators are given judgement about block lengths in general.
9. The context of the earlier 1-week block (violation of an Arbcom ruling) is a factor in block length considerations for the second block.
10. However, even factoring in that earlier block, I conclude that a second block for disruption (not further Arbcom ruling violations per se) should have been based off a 24 hour block basic duration, and that an enhancement to 48 hrs for a recent prior different offense is a reasonable expansion.
Subsequent to the second block Domer48 commented repeatedly on his talk page total diff including some extremely upset language: [31], [32], [33], [34],
1. Lifebaka requested that Domer48 stop using insulting language in the talk page comments in the middle of the above: [35]
  1. This comment could have been phrased in a less confrontational manner but did not violate policy.
2. At that point SarekOfVulcan reblocked with talk page editing disabled.
  1. Blocking policy and best practice limit talk page restrictions to cases where there is serious abuse, such as multiply repeated spurious unblock requests, threats made on the talk page or elsewhere, or other serious disruption. It is expected that a portion of blocked users will be upset to the point of venting rudely on their talk page following the block. A certain leeway for uncivil behavior on the talk page (short of threats or blatant abuse) is therefore given.
  2. The talk page restriction in this case failed to meet the policy and best practice.

As a policy note, Wikipedia:BLOCK#Conflicts_of_interest exists for three reasons:

The appearance of conflict of interest has a strong negative impact on administrators' perceived neutrality and fairness within the community.
Administrators can often be frustrated with editors they are in conflict with, and this leads to bad judgement.
Administrators sometimes do malign things to editors they are in conflict with, in contravention of Wikipedia policy not to use admin tools to settle content disputes and so forth.

My review conclusions:

Sandstein's activities in this case were appropriate, as far as I can tell.
1. With the slight exception that supporting the talk page archiving may have been a mistake, but not in violation of policy
Domer48 engaged in disruptive behavior. An uninvolved administrator could have reviewed the chain of edits and concluded that blockable disruption had occurred by the time of the second block.
1. The block by SarekOfVulcan was problematic in duration, lack of warning, and conflict of interest, but not fundamentally flawed.
2. At the conclusion of this writeup I am going to unblock Domer48 from that problematic block, reblock for disruption with a duration of 1 minute, essentially reducing the block length to time served, as that very closely approximates what I feel would have been an appropriate block duration at the beginning.
3. I believe that Domer48 is currently unable to edit in a constructive manner on the topic of naming of Ireland related articles. To balance protecting the community and Domer48's long term interest in the topic, I am hereby imposing a one week topic ban from Ireland article naming on Domer48, retroactive to the time of the second block. If in the next five days Domer48 engages in any project or article talk page dicussion on the topic he can be reblocked for the remaining time (user talk pages are ok, but not recommended - see below).
4. Personal comment to Domer48 - I strongly urge you to contribute in a more constructive manner to this discussion in the future. You clearly care very much about this topic. When you are this angry over it, your responses are sufficiently aggressive that they are counterproductive, both for the overall discussion and for your own ongoing participation in it. You clearly feel that this is important. You can do nothing better to solve the underlying problem than taking a break, coming back with a renewed respect for WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA and WP:AGF, and applying those policies to how you work on the issue moving forwards. If you reengage in the discussion next week in a hostile manner you are likely to find other administrators willing to block you under those policies.
SarekOfVulcan bent admin policy here
1. Archiving the talk page discussion was not a policy violation but was probably a mistake. Some conversations, we just have to let go and burn out on their own.
2. The second block on Domer48 bent Wikipedia:BLOCK#Conflicts_of_interest and Wikipedia:BLOCK#Duration_of_blocks. A better response would have been to warn on the disruption and report on ANI and ask an uninvolved administrator to block if it persisted, or just refer to another uninvolved admin, rather than blocking yourself. Most particularly, that would have defused further anger among the disputants rather than focusing it on yourself.
3. The third block, restricting talk page editing, established that SarekOfVulcan is by now sufficiently involved and using questionable judgement that the voluntary admin powers restriction agreement Sarek announced above (not to use them against Domer48 again) is strongly recommended going forwards...
A few other editors have acted in mildly to moderately uncivil manners responding to the incident. Several of Domer48's supporters have largely overlooked his disruptive activity prior to the block and feel that there was no factual justification for a second block. Please re-read the diffs and his edit history, and see below.

Per WP:TROUT

Please do not do this again! The Ireland article naming dispute is bad enough. Please refresh your faith in the collective good intent of other Wikipedians and move forwards constructively. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:19, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*is trouted*. Thanks, George: the highly detailed review is appreciated. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:25, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks George, one detail you forgot, I think, SarekOfVulcan's liable. Tfz 01:40, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have read it a few times, and conclude a certain poisoning of the well fallacy in the composition of the summary. I do grant that George is in a delicate position regarding admin 'falling into line', 'police investigation the police' syndrome, and self preservation etc, a practice we commonly witness in everyday structures, and not just at Wikipedia. George has done exactly what was expected of him, produced the report that saves everyone's day, and moves things on until the next ........... Tfz 03:14, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like a reasonable review which addresses the concerns raised by all sides. It seems that the real error was made in removing the block imposed on Domer48‎ for clear violations of arbcoms rulings on the Ireland naming dispute. He was not asked to apologise for his actions nor give any commitment to not seek renaming of the articles on the talk pages in question again, the fact he was going to continue the push for change was obvious.

Removal of the talk page chat was unwise and the safest bet would of been to seek further opinions from others before acting as said in this review, but SarekofVulcans actions certainly dont justify the hateful comments which were made by some editors in retaliation. BritishWatcher (talk) 01:56, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

( Side note: I used secure server URLs for the vast bulk of the diffs above, as that's what I habitually log in to... SarekOfVulcan pointed out that this prevents popups from working, and I have given him permission to change the URLs to use mainsite diffs rather than secure server diffs - Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:57, 4 June 2009 (UTC) )[reply]

Thank you for the detailed review, with which I agree. Sandstein 07:53, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Georgewilliamherbert for unblocking me, I respond later to your review. --Domer48_'fenian' 14:22, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi George, I’m a bit tied up with the elections here at the minute, so I respond to your review on the weekend. There appears to be a number of glaring inaccuracies in your report, could you possibly look it over again? Thanks, --Domer48_'fenian' 08:03, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response:

George you first raise my question which got me blocked. "The Arbitration Committee has not put in place a structure for determining the names of the disputed articles. Please provide a link?" George in your review you say that "The Arbitration Committee did put in place an article name determination process in [Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names#Community asked to develop a procedure]." Now even in the link you provided it states that the The Arbitration Committee asked the Community to develop a procedure. Failing that, they asked in Remedy #2 for "three uninvolved administrators to develop and supervise an appropriate procedure." Which failed! So "the Arbitration Committee has not put in place a structure for determining the names of the disputed articles. The Arbitration Committee did not put in place an article name determination process, but asked the community first to provide a structure and failing that then appointed three uninvolved administrators to provide one which failed also. There is still no structure in place for determining the names of the disputed articles. (for more details on the Ireland Collaboration see here.
Since the Arbitration Committee did not put in place a structure for determining the names of the disputed articles, and attempts by both the community and administrators failed how could it be possible "reasonably" or otherwise be interpreted that the Arbitration Committee wished to centralize all related discussions, but did not explicitly say so. Having not put in place a structure, there was no directive by ArbCom preventing discussion on article talk pages, and if there is such a directive, provide a diff?
I did provide two statements [36] [37] at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration but that process faild, but I did not make various comments in the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration discussion threads never.
The edit which you point to George [38], was only one of two edits I made. You never mentioned this one. This edit resulted from this discussion (which SarekOfVulcan removed from the talk page) which I outlined and explained my rational. Before I made the edit you allude to I had made these comments on the talk page here and here which fully explains my reasons for moving the text. However I was never even given a chance to explain myself before I was blocked. However, when the block was lifted, you note that subsequent talk page discussion indicates that there was a credible claim that I thought it was not a violation prior to doing it. Now just one point here before we move off. On the this tread here I'm called a liar three times [39], [40], [41], with three Admin's and nothing was said. How can an editor try to explain themselves with this going on? But it was not just on that discussion, but here also. It still carried on [42] even after finally being warned. The warning sounded a bit hollow after this comment supporting it.
You go on to say that SarekOfVulcan reported me to the Arbitration Enforcement page appropriately. How could it possibly have been appropriate? I did not violate any sanctions. SarekOfVulcan said they were acting under an ArbCom directive, which we now know there was none. I did not move any page, I edited the RoI article according to WP:NPOV, WP:V based on WP:RS. I explained everything I did on the talk page before I even edited the articles. Not only that but even if there was a violation, you said your self that subsequent talk page discussion indicates that there was a credible claim that I thought it was not a violation prior to doing it.
You then say that "Sandstein's block on June 1 was appropriate under the circumstances" when this flatly contradicts your comments above. Under what circumstances was it appropriate. Deprived of the ability to explain myself, how could I have provide a credible claim? I was reported by SarekOfVulcan who took no part in the talk page discussion on the Republic of Ireland article, but who reverted the article three times [43], [44], [45], on the as we now know spurious claim.
Thankfully you note that "subsequent to the unblock, Domer48 did not perform article rename or content moves in violation of the letter or spirit of the Arbcom ruling and his agreement with Sandstein to unblock." You might add, and had no intension prior to a discussion.
You are also correct that I did continue rename discussions on other articles,
but they were in no way uncivil or assumed bad faith about others' motives. Describing an editors comments as "more prevarication" when refusing to address an argument is not uncivil. Having been discussing the subject with Rock, who's main argument was not that my edit was wrong but "were will we put the current text." He then came out with an argument which had as much substance as "a bottle of smoke" and that is not uncivil. My comments to Sarah were a true reflection of how I felt with the position I was in and is neither uncivil or "bad faith."
You are correct I did remove other people's comments from talk page discussions but they did not related to the rename discussions and if editors read them they will agree claiming justification in WP:TPG: [46], [47] I was perfectly correct in doing so.
I did not engaged in aggressive responses on ANI and elsewhere regarding the nature of the first block: [48], [49], that is over stating. That I was annoyed is natural but to suggest I was aggressive is to contradict yourself again since you use the same diff in which you say I provided my credible claim that I thought it was not a violation prior to doing it. As to the second comment, I was responding to trolling! Read their comments. I would also like to point out to my comments above with me being called a liar, and I'm being called "aggressive," "uncivil" or that I "assumed bad faith."
SarekOfVulcan archiving the discussion at Talk:Republic of Ireland: [50]. Now this was the second part of my question which got me blocked. This is very simple, because we know that there was no ArBCom directive. This was untrue, and they never could and never would have been able to provide a Diff. If anyone has any doubt, they just have to read their post here. To then suggest that "the archiving was consistent with a reasonable interpretation of the Arbcom remedies, and prior Admin discretion history / WP:BOLD accepted practice, but not required by the letter of Arbcom's finding," is lets agree odd. We have already established there was no ArbCom direct. My response was correct and to the point describing them as aggressive is way over the top and wrong. This post here which you used has nothing to do with me, I was blocked at the time. In conclusion you are very much correct, archiving the discussion was "inflammatory" and that this was a predictable outcome. There was not directive by ArbCom and they just done it off their own bat.
This has all been very much covered, but just a couple of points.
1. The reason for the block was "refusing to acknowledge that ArbCom has set down the conditions for determining the names of the Ireland articles and block summary of ?(Disruptive editing: Refusal to recognize that ArbCom said "don't do that".)" We all now know this was not true.
2. "SarekOfVulcan was somewhat involved with Domer48 as of the time of blocking." This is all thrown into stark light, when one looks at SarekOfVulcan most recent contributions here and here. Obviously the most telling comments come from SarekOfVulcan themselves “I just decided I want to be an involved editor after all, so I'm recusing myself from further admin action on this topic.”. So let’s recap, after reverting the article three times, getting me blocked, removing the discussion, blocking me themselves, blocking my talk page, they just decide they want to be an involved editor after all.
3. "A reasonable uninvolved administrator, combining these comment with the other edits since the unblock, could conclude that Domer48 was being disruptive at that time." On this I would have to Disagree. A reasonable uninvolved administrator, combining there comment with the other edits since the 1st block, could conclude that SarekOfVulcan had a WP:COI and was being disruptive at that time while abusing their Admin tools.
4. Both blocks were over the top and wrong! SarekOfVulcan no warning block, based on something that was not true was wrong, and on that we agree, that they had WP:COI I fully support.
My reaction to the block was a natural reaction.
1. Lifebaka requested that I stop using insulting language in the talk page comments, and I did calm down.
2. SarekOfVulcan blocking my talk page was "inflammatory." I do acknowledge your comments on SarekOfVulcan when you said that "the historical level of abuse which we tolerated from blocked users venting is far higher than anything [I] said" and that "simply letting [me] vent there would not have caused any further issues, as [I] was not at any point threatening people and had largely laid off cursing much earlier." That you agree they were wrong and that they had a WP:COI is something at least.

Summary.

SarekOfVulcan has acted throughout this whole affair in an arbitrary and arrogant manner and while having a clear WP:COI. SarekOfVulcan removed this discussion and claimed that they were acting on an ArbCom directive and that ArbCom had put a structure in place which did not allow for talk page discussion, and that if I "don't like it, take it to Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. They repeated these claims at ANI asking was there consensus to overturn it. Funny question to ask, when one reads their comments above. Now Sandstein endorsed this move straight away, which is not surprising, since Sandstein also supported SarekOfVulcan in having me blocked. With SarekOfVulcan post here, we now know there was no ArbCom directive, and removing it according to George was "inflammatory" and that the outcome was a predictable. That they had a WP:COI at this stage is a least supported by George.

I challenged their actions, and responded to this also on ANI. I pointed out that as they were actively involved in the issue, they should not have been the one to remove the discussion. Now SarekOfVulcan tried to suggest that they were not actively involved, pointing to their contributions on the talk page, however they left out the three reverts [51], [52], [53] they had made to the article, not to mention the block on me they were involved in. Their response to this was “Domer, are you familiar with the term "WP:BP#Disruption|persistent disruption"?

This is all thrown into stark light, when one looks at there most recent contributions here and here. Obviously the most telling comments come from SarekOfVulcan themselves “I just decided I want to be an involved editor after all, so I'm recusing myself from further admin action on this topic.”. So let’s recap, after reverting the article three times, getting me blocked, removing the discussion, blocking me themselves, blocking my talk page, they just decide they want to be an involved editor after all.

Since the discussion on the Republic of Ireland talk page, I’ve had to contend with POV warriors and some personal abuse. While I expect nothing less from some editors, Admin’s sitting on their hands (second paragraph) and offering mitigation, does bother me. Considering I was blocked once for calling someone a liar, I discovered, that this sanction is selective. Having been called a liar three times [54], [55], [56], with three Admin's looking on and nothing was said? How can an editor try to explain themselves with this going on? But it was not just on that discussion, but here also. It still carried on [57] even after finally being warned. The warning sounded a bit hollow after this comment supporting it I think editors will agree. Well what else can I expect? All things considered, I think this was just provocative and an attempt at baiting.

All in all the final result was SarekOfVulcan got a bang of a fish and I got two blocks, with them now added to my block log and a topic ban. I don't suppose fish show up on block logs, but then Admin's don't have block logs, which stinks IMO. Having been told that ArbCom had directed that all discussions stay within the "process" and having removed talk page discussions because of this now infamous "directive" what way should I react to this. Clearly outside the "process," and they can't claim not to know this? Maybe my blocks should be reviewed again? --Domer48_'fenian' 21:37, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My review conclusions: will have to be taken seperatly in light of my responce. That my conclusions will be different should go without saying. --Domer48_'fenian' 23:17, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Comments:

Meh. Talk about a house of cards. Your justification is riddled with logical fallacies, misrepresentations and supposition.

Bottom line? You say "A reasonable uninvolved administrator, combining these comment with the other edits since the unblock, could conclude that Domer48 was being disruptive at that time. On this I would have to Disagree." Problem is, Georgewilliamherbert is a reasonable uninvolved administrator and you are you. So whose interpretation of events is most likely to be clouded by a strong POV and who has no conflict of interest whatsoever? If you want a dissenting opinion to be considered, I would suggest getting someone uninvolved to make it. Rockpocket 02:08, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone has a conflict of interests, and to deny that is akin to denying that the wind blows. I do think Dormer has his right to rebuttal, especially that he was not allowed to argue his case during the proceedings. Georgewilliamherbert did pick on some mundane exchanges, and put his own slant on them, thereby building a "case" in advance of verdict, it's called 'poisoning the wells'. By this procedure, everyday actions and words are heavily tagged to lay the foundation for a guilty, or half-guilty verdict. I really do think SarekOfVulcan was far too hasty, and Dormer's blocks should be oversighted. Tfz 03:53, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~There is absolutely no way not to take that as a Personal Attack on Georgewilliamherbert. I invite you to rephrase it.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 05:27, 6 June 2009 (UTC)~~Struck: Tfz removed offensive line. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:04, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, I'm not suggesting Domer should not respond as he sees fit. I just find it particularly unconvincing when a involved participant lectures an uninvolved admin what an an uninvolved admin should make of things. The same principle holds for you, Tfz. I, too, am involved and I, too, don't necessarily agree with SarekOfVulcan's block. But Georgewilliamherbert clearly has a fresher perspective than all of us. Given that he volunteered his own time to review this block so thoroughly - a thankless task if ever there was one - he certainly doesn't deserve your accusations. Show a little good faith. Rockpocket 06:33, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rock you say my reply is "riddled with logical fallacies, misrepresentations and supposition," diff's please! Notice how both George and myself used them to present our views. I'll also take this oppertunity to thank George for taking the time to offer his thoughts and opinions. Rock you are opposed to an evidence based process but that is one of the corner stones of wiki. Talk pages are no different, so please provide diff's. Lets start with a diff for the ArbCom directive which says no talk page discussions, please bear in mind now that editors are looking for ArbCom to give them one. Rock here is your Mountains of evidence. --Domer48_'fenian' 11:31, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your statement can be read in its entirety up there ^, there is little point in providing a diff for it. If you can provide new lines of evidence then I'm all for hearing it. But repeating the same flawed, illogical argument over and over and over - while completely ignoring the fact numerous people have all explained to you why it is flawed - unhelpful. Does it mean nothing to you that there is virtually no-one is supporting your preferred solution? Indeed, that is perhaps the single thing the traditional opposing sides can agree on. Do you just think that you know best and the rest of us simply don't understand our policies? I propose to you that the most parsimonious explanation is quite the opposite. Rockpocket 20:42, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What's the relevance of "a diff for the ArbCom directive which says no talk page discussions"? You were blocked for saying "The Arbitration Committee has not put in place a structure for determining the names of the disputed articles", when, in fact, a structure had been put in place. Right now there's an ArbCom amendment request to make it explicit that that structure should be used. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 12:35, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Domer48 comment deleted

I have read the above discussion ("responce", presumably?) - could you provide a number to help me home in on the relevant part. The reason I'm asking is that I got a distinct impression at Talk:Republic of Ireland that editors felt that you had been blocked for requesting a diff, whereas my understanding is that you were blocked for stating that "The Arbitration Committee has not put in place a structure for determining the names of the disputed articles", when, in fact, a structure had been put in place. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 12:50, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Domer48 comment deleted

It's explained at the top of Talk:Republic of Ireland: "Per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names#Back-up procedure, a procedure has been developed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration". I'm not sure if you require a diff where the backup procedure text was added, or where the WikiProject was created? Let me know and I'll be happy to poke through the history of the relevant page. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 18:49, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry did not realise the above editor had all this explained to them already here, and still claims they do not know the relevance of "a diff." --Domer48_'fenian' 19:27, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I take it you're not going to explain why a "diff for the ArbCom directive which says no talk page discussions" is relevant, then? I'd settle for a diff of the talk page discussion you reference above. Incidentally, once someone's replied to your comments it generally better to ~~strike~~ them out so the context remains - the discussion above now looks like I'm talking to myself, which I'm sure wasn't the impression you wanted! Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 19:37, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just added placeholders with links to the diffs where he added the comments you responded to.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:04, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright input request

Allstarecho (talk · contribs)

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

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

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

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

Although Allstarecho evidently still feels harassed by my overview of his contributions, I have found copyright from diverse sources going all the way back to 2007, with Lanier High School (Jackson, Mississippi), which duplicates this copyrighted 2006 source: [58]. And, in fact, I see he removed a Corensearchbot notice from an article he created here and was advised of copyright policies here. To boot, he still does not accept that this is in any way wrong, per edit summary: as usual, facts can't be copyrighted but whatever. I believe more input might be valuable. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:56, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct in your analysis. Simply remove anything prior to 1976 (as mentioned above) that is not covered by a copyright release statement. If the editor replaces it, then block them. Black Kite 00:06, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That's somewhat easier said than done, given the extensive contribution history, but I'm doing my best. :/ Meanwhile, the more I look, the more I am concerned that this contributor has shown no interest in complying with copyright policy, given the tone with which he's addressed these concerns and previous issues. His attitude doesn't seem to have changed since he was advised in September, 2007, when he said, "I'm not incorrect because I said I don't FEEL text about a public educational institution, especially one my tax dollars help pay for, is copyrighted." In other words, evidence suggests he has not been unaware of these policies, having removed a number of Corensearchbot notices as well as basically shrugging off that 2007 conversation. He seems simply to have not felt inclined to honor them, just as he removed without comment this notice of the issue and request to address it by yet another administrator on May 30th of this year. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:20, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nicely done....we have pushed away ANOTHER good editor over some minor BS. Allstar was and is one of the better editors here at Wikipedia and it is a sad day when the good editors say "to hell with it" and walk away because of pointless minor BS and no one says a damned thing about it. Pathetic. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 06:16, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Copyright isn't minor BS, and he will be back. Viridae ^Talk 07:04, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There's nothing good about pasting text from copyrighted sources onto Wikipedia. This contributor was advised years ago that this was against policy, but as recently as May 24th copied [59] and many of its subpages onto Wikipedia, removing the {{copyvio}} template from the article that was placed by an administrator (not me). That he chooses to view the clean-up of this as persecution just verifies the problem to me. What are we supposed to do when it's been proven that a contributor has pasted text against policy on Wikipedia? Look the other way? He has ignored or rejected correction on this issue with hostility at every point I've seen. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 10:09, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - This kind of thing is potentially a very serious problem. I see that AllStar has been blocked, but that's just the tip of the copyright iceberg. I have seen various articles over time (by many editors) that "read like copyright violations", but how do you go about proving it? Thanks to endless sites parroting wikipedia, finding the original source can be very difficult. You take a suspicious-sounding phrase put it into Google, find hundreds of entries containing it, check each one to see if they are wikipedia parrots or not, and maybe you'll find the original. So you repair the article and hope that's reflected eventually in the mirroring sites. OK, that's 1 down, a few million to go. It's the proliferation that's really the problem - the same problem as with copyrighted images. Someday wikipedia might get sued over this kind of thing, if they haven't been already. But that's also just the tip of the iceberg. It is so incredibly easy to copy-and-paste on the internet, how can an author who publishes on the internet have any realistic expectation of it not being proliferated, regardless of his theoretical legal rights? This will be an interesting issue for the Supreme Court to tackle someday. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 11:12, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - If they ever abolish copyright, my Wiki day will be a lot more fun. :) We are trying to organize this sort of thing. Dcoetzee made a program that surveys contributions, and we've been using successfully at WP:COPYCLEAN. All true, what you say about finding the original source. It's tedious work. There are mechanical plagiarism detectors that I utilize, but they don't eliminate Wiki mirrors. Maybe someday we'll get one of our own that does. Even cutting out the mirrors we know about would simplify things enormously. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:25, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - A number of years ago, probably in the early days of the VCR, comedian Robert Klein was doing an HBO standup special. He "warned" people watching at home not to tape the show, as it was a copyright violation. He then went on to point out that that violation was on roughly the same level of illegality as "tearing a tag off your mattress". And as a practical matter, that's what the internet has done. I have seen occasional images which were protected from downloading, but generally that's not done. Youtube seems to have the right idea - you can view it but not download it (as far as I know). But text is usually written in text form rather than as an image, so technologically (though not legally) you can do anything you want with it. The courts might eventually have to settle question of whether the burden of protection is on the original poster - i.e. if he doesn't protect the text somehow, then he shouldn't complain that it gets proliferated. I suspect the law is far behind the technology on this issue. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 11:37, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        As long as we keep Wikipedia safe while the jurists sort it out, it's all good (from a copyright standpoint that is; the whole plagiarism thing is a different, much debated story). Personally, I think the policies in place do a very good job of demonstrating due diligence, and we've got some contributors who put a lot of time into enforcing them even though I know from past conversations that some of them actually support the abolition of intellectual property laws (or, at least, the radical overhaul and relaxation of them). --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:45, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - When I first saw this thread my reaction was much like Neutral Homer's, & I almost posted something along those lines... but for some reason I sat on my hands & didn't. I'm glad of my silence: repeated copyright infringements does not do anyone any good, & AllStarEcho's best response would have been to say something like, "Oops, I did all of that early on when I didn't know any better. Sorry." And if fixing this got too stressful, take a lengthy break. Most of the regulars here have an otherwise positive opinion of AllStarEcho, & if he were to admit his mistakes, promise not to do it again, I suspect he'd be given another chance. But his ranting above about "wiki-hounding and wiki-stalking" doesn't help his case. (And before anyone thinks I'm without sin, I keep wondering when someone will start looking carefully at some of the first articles I wrote. Especially since many of them are practically identical to what I wrote 6 years ago. If that ever happens, I promise to try to handle that kind of examination with more grace.) -- llywrch (talk) 18:12, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

Good block. Sandstein 14:12, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Indefinite block, reset

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

Odd question re: WP:NLT

Here's an odd one. In this edit, ThuranX, in the course of a discussion over a possibly unfree image, advises another editor to get a lawyer to protect his supposed rights. He writes:

[F]rankly, I'd love to see the Foundation get sued for this stuff a few times, just so that proper guidelines which adhere to Florida and federal law are written, I'll settle for this one person getting a proper hearing from those who have the training the larger community lacks.

My understanding of the purpose of WP:NLT is that the threat of legal action has the tendency to deter free and open discussion. Here we have, not a legal threat from an aggrieved party, but the advice from a commentator to the aggrieved party that he should get a lawyer, with the possible result a lawsuit against the Foundation. My question is: does this skirt the letter of the policy, 'cause it sure doesn't seem in the spirit of it. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 04:49, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While you could probably bend NLT far enough to have that comment fit under it, I don't think that's the sort of situation it should be used for.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:56, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(EC with SofV) No, he's not using the threat of legal action to stifle discussion. If you read the whole conversation, and even his entire post, rather than an out-of-context quote, it seems clear he is reminding people that, regardless of our own opinions on copyright law, the only people qualified to make such decisions are lawyers. Since the OP in that thread is raising a clear legal question (not making a legal threat, just asking a question on the use of supposedly copyright material that requires a legal opinion), then he should consult a lawyer to answer it. ThuranX is being somewhat flippant about the issue, but I don't see this as anything like a WP:NLT violation. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:00, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, although I don't think I agree totally, and apparently I'm not the only person who found the comment problematic. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 06:13, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm starting to be slightly annoyed (It's not directly directed at you, Ed) by the people running like headless chicken screaming WP:LEGAL each time someone raises the question of going to see an attorney. If the user is concerned that his rights (as in IP rights) are being violated and the community disagrees, the next step is indeed to consult an IP lawyer that will assess the situation and contact the foundation through the usual means. Wikipedians trying to do law make me think of Monsieur Jourdain trying to do Poetry. It's not our job, and we are not qualified to do it. Asking for a professional opinion is the right step. -- Luk ^talk 06:49, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your frustration, in some respects I share it. My concern was not so much the suggestion that the editor in question should see that his legal rights were protected (that's simply common sense when it comes to such an arcane matter as copyright law), but really the remarks which followed it, which I quoted in part above. If he had stopped at the former, I'm fairly certain I'd never have raised the issue, but I think perhaps (perhaps) he went too far. I think invoking WP:NLT makes sense when the remarks are in the nature of "if you don't do what I want I'm taking my ball and going home", designed to squealch opposition, and prevent additional editors from commenting because "well, the lawyers are going to decide it anyway, so it doesn't matter what I say." I don't know if ThuranX meant his additional remarks in that way, but it did seem to me to perhaps skirt the boundaries. Clearly, others disagree. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 06:58, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My own opinion is that it would be a legal threat if he was not raising a (perhaps legitimate) legal concern. NLT was designed to prevent real world actions from bending our editorial content, not to deter people the community is potentially "hurting" from seeking professional advice. I would kick the admin that blocked the user per What is not a legal threat if he got blocked :). -- Luk ^talk 07:14, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whether a user comment qualifies as a "legal threat" or not, is answered by the question, "Does that statement intend to intimidate someone from editing?" I don't think advising someone to get legal advice qualifies as intimidation. And expressing a wish that someone, somewhere would bring legal action in order to resolve an issue, strikes me as simply an opinion, not intimidation. But others could see it differently. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 09:59, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When I wrote that, I said to myself, 'Don't write it, someone's going to see 'get a lawyer and go to the people at WMF who can deal with this' and shout " WP:NLT!!!". Knew it. That's why I was careful to make it as clear as I could that he should AVOID our Admin help pages, and go directly to those who CAN fix his issue, or provide a reason why not, based on a clear reading of the law. I did not tell him to brandish a lawyer at other editors, like a stick. I did not tell him to SUE Wikipedia, nor its editors, nor make threats of that ilk. I told him to have a lawyer help him make his case to the OTRS and Mike Godwin - the PAID Lawyer for Wikipedia. If that's a LEGAL violation, then LEGAL needs to be re-written to conform to the laws of the United States, which allow people to retain a lawyer for just about anything, especially the representation of their financial and civil rights.

As for my other comment, I also stand by that. A couple of lawsuits against Wikipedia would provide us with much better bright lines to write into clear, non-lawyer, user-friendly policy, since any time a policy tries to get written about such stuff, the legalese gets blinding, and it would do well for us to lose a case or three and have a new policy - 'If someone says they hold copyright, assume they are right unless you can prove them wrong beyond a shadow of a doubt. In cases of big doubts, erase the material.' Which is what we ought to do anyways if we want to keep operating without constant lawsuits.

So, all I've really said in that section ,to be clear was 'get a lawyer to help you explain this to the Wikimedia Foundation' and 'A lawsuit or two about this would force the Foundation to create a stronger bright-line policy for us'. Neither of those is a legal threat. In the former, I didn't advocate HIM suing anyone, and in the latter, I didn't threaten to sue anyone. ThuranX (talk) 11:41, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And I'm generically raising the same kind of question in the AllStarEcho copyright discussion above. I ain't no lawyer, so I don't know what the courts may have already covered, but someday someone is liable to argue that if you post material on the internet unprotected, then you've implicitly made it public domain and have forfeited your claim to copyright. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 11:48, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Except that currently, once you produce a work, be it text, image, motion or sound, it's copyrighted inherently. Posting it on the internet isn't a waiver of Copyright except if you psot it to an open site like this, where the waiver thereof is explicit. ThuranX (talk) 12:03, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's what the law says, but the nature of the internet may make such a law unenforceable, which might ultimately result in its rejection by the courts. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 12:16, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Inteesting issues have been raised -- and some US and European courts appear to feel that they can enforce the copyright laws even on the WWW no matter where the IP is located. Collect (talk) 13:20, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, and I remember a US court application to have the domain of a UK company transferred to someone who had successfully sued it for defamation. Stifle (talk) 14:30, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So is the lesson the rest of us should learn from this is to never use the words "sue", "lawyer", & "Wikimedia Foundation" in the same sentence? Unless one first talks to one's lawyer, of course. (And no, I'm not going to trout myself for asking that. MuZemike tried to do that above in another thread, & got trouted for doing that.) -- llywrch (talk) 18:34, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While I think Ed got a bit paranoid, I don't think his intent was to create a 'Chilliing Effect'. I'm willing to AGF that far, if we can mark this as an over-reaction and a nothing to see here and move on. ThuranX (talk) 20:15, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I did try my best to express my question in such a way as to be clear that I was uncertain about it, wanted to hear some opinions, and could well be wrong. (That was the point of all the "perhaps" and "maybes" I used.) I even said that if the extent of the comment had been to the effect "you need a lawyer" I wouldn't have raised the question in the first place - it was the ancilliary commentary that provoked my question.

In any event, the consensus seems to be that there's no legal threat, no skirting of WP:NLT, and with the disclaimer of any intent to squealch open discussion (or, on my side, to create a "chilling effect"), it seems as if this could closed as a non-issue. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 21:37, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not that it's a legal threat. It's that it's a case that's so close to the line on what's "public domain" that some legal advice would be useful. The image in question was created by scanning a public domain map from a 19th century Government document and cleaning it up with Photoshop Elements. Whether the cleanup process creates a newly copyrightable image is a real issue. (See Bridgeman vs. Corel if all this is strange to you.) Its an important issue for Wikipedia, because Wikipedia uses cleaned up versions of public domain images frequently. Policy guidance would be helpful. --John Nagle (talk) 03:54, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but considering that a compromise seems to have been reached on the specific image in question, that's unlikely to happen in this instance. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 05:20, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Minnametsa striking out delete votes they don't agree with

Minnametsa (talk · contribs), who appears to be a SPA, has struck out the delete votes of myself and two other editors as well as removed the striking out of IP votes in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SALIN: [60] Could an uninvolved admin please revert this and take appropriate action? Nick-D (talk) 09:06, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To avoid WP:BITE and considering that the user hasn't been warned not to do this, I've dropped a brief semi-protect on the AfD page to cover it to the close. ➲ redvers ^{throwing my arms around Paris} 10:43, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks redvers! :). Ironholds (talk) 11:09, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. Nick-D (talk) 11:13, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is completely wrong-headed, as IPs and new editors have as much right to present meaningful edits, as do long-time editors. And the comment at the top of the AfD page is wrong, and totally against policy. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 17:31, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have unprotected it; semi-protection is absolutely not allowed to be used to exclude IPs or new users from xfd, and semi-protection is absolutely never to be used to give logged-in or established users an unfair advantage in any content dispute-type matters that are "good faith". If there is a sock, puppetry, or any other concern, tag the SPAs and that's it, for the closing admin to weight into his decision. If one SPA is gaming things or removing others' xfd comments, deal with that one account, not penalize all the new accounts/IPs. I have done this preemptively but will notify Redvers to look back on this thread; AFD protections should be sparing at best in the worst of circumstances, for true abuse, which IP edits never are. As xfd is also time sensitive to a degree, that weighed in my decision to unprotect. rootology (C)(T) 17:35, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've also removed this totally wrong warning message from the AFD by Ironholds. rootology (C)(T) 17:38, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather protect a page for a short time (the AfD only had 24hrs to run) than block a new user, and also served to stop the disruptive IP: again better than blocking an IP and excluding x number of potential users. This isn't an unreasonable point of view, I'd suggest, so it's a shame that a wheel war was thought necessary rather than asking me about it first. ➲ redvers ^{throwing my arms around Paris} 19:12, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is it really wheel warring when a violation of policy is reverted? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:17, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Calling the undoing a single action out-of-policy protection one time a "wheel war" may be the most liberal interpretation of WP:WHEEL I've ever seen. If that was a wheel war, we'd have literally no admins left. rootology (C)(T) 19:19, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it would have still neutered IPs, which is always wrong on xfd; and if the user was misbehaving, warn them to stop, then follow up with administrative action if the problem persists. And what wheel war? rootology (C)(T) 19:17, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have assumed that my motivation in protecting the AfD was the same as the message someone posted on the AfD. Interesting assumption. ➲ redvers ^{throwing my arms around Paris} 19:40, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, I just unprotected as out-of-policy actions may be undone once at any time. No assumptions. rootology (C)(T) 20:08, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article was deleted. It seemed to be a borderline call, and it's reasonable to think that the SPA's activities might have actually hurt the article's chances for acceptance. A cousin to "Plaxico". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 08:25, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's good to see that the user concerned was actually considered in all this. Again, NickD (and Baseball Bugs for that matter), I am a newbie to wiki editing, NOT an SPA. You can't prove that I am any more than I can prove that I am not, so I would have thought that benefit of the doubt might have carried some weight. And I don't see how me striking out the delete votes is any different to you stiking out the keep votes! You didn't agree with the Keep votes, so you struck them out. I didn't agree with the delete votes so I struck them out (oh, and btw, thanks for deleting my last comment on that page! Somewhat hypocritical!!) If there is going to be multiple rules for wiki editing depending on your point of view, then I don't want any part of it. In hindsight, I don't know why I even bothered to become involved in a completely un-authoritative source such as wikipedia - which will only remain so if you continue your tactics. Congratulations, you've just lost yourself an editor! Not what I thought wikipedia was about. You continue to flex those big time editing muscles of yours, small man. Happy gatekeeping!!! Minnametsa (talk) 09:35, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where was a Keep stricken out? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 10:18, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nick-D struck out a couple of duplicate keep !votes. Not quite the same as "You didn't agree with the Keep votes, so you struck them out", however; more a case of preventing the old "!vote early, !vote often" ;-) Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 11:21, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, according to Wikipedia:Single-purpose account, Minnametsa is, by definition, an SPA. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 11:23, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Repeated edit warring between two users

For the past several weeks, Rubikonchik (talk · contribs) and Erikupoeg (talk · contribs) have been edit warring on a number of pages. I initially got involved with them when I gave a third opinion on an article. I've since noticed repeated edits and reverts from both of them on at least half a dozen articles. I opened a thread at WP:WQA, but it was turned down since they didn't see it as a civility issue. It just seems that both editors aren't ever going to give up their battles without some type of intervention. I've given my opinion on at least one article, but I'm hesitant to get involved with the others, and I think my voice would go unheeded anyway. Can someone lend a hand to help settle this issue? Should I just leave the two of them alone? What's the next step? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 16:19, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In general, a report should be filed at WP:ANEW with details regarding, especially difs of the reverts and difs warnings given to the users to calm down and discuss instead of edit warring. An admin here can deal with it, but the WP:ANEW noticeboard has the advantage that people that patrol there have the interest and expertise in handling edit war situations. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:29, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've notified both editors that they're being discussed at ANI. If this behavior continues, some kind of admin action may be needed, at least a requirement that they stay away from each other. If either of them comments here, I would welcome a proposal for how things could be different in the future. EdJohnston (talk) 17:42, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for letting me know about this discussion. I think it's a very good idea to involve other editors, and generally discuss together controversial edits and changes before implementing them. I do not know all the rules and their abbreviations, but I have a feeling that providing necessary sources should normally make it for all the "controversial" issues. What to do when the other user acts as if no sources were provided, or gives a false translation/interpretation of those sources, or reverts my edits commenting "do not delete sourced info" whereas no source is given at all???--Rubikonchik (talk) 20:30, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not once have I removed sourced information, unless it was WP:SYN (like this edit based on this concern) or supported solely by unreliable sources. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 16:15, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are referring to my reverts of these edits: [61] and [62]. Are you sure you did not remove sourced info? Because I can see deleted sources in the diffs. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 20:54, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have just noticed new edits of User:Erikupoeg on the article Sofia Rotaru. Like I said earlier, I have suggested numerous times to discuss all changes in advance and not to proceed in a unilateral manner. Obviously, my quest for consensus remains unheard. I do want to improve the article and plenty of sources are available online on Sofia Rotaru, only a lazy won't find them...--Rubikonchik (talk) 20:36, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are not seriously requesting me to stop editing content related to Sofia Rotaru on Wikipedia, are you? --Jaan Pärn (talk) 21:00, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let me describe the general pattern so far (linked to examples): I make original contributions like [63], [64] and [65] with proper edit summaries, Rubikonchik (talk · contribs) blindly reverts them without any comment, I un-revert it and add more original contributions with correct edit summaries, Rubikonchik undoes it all blindly without any comment. I try to open discussion on the talk page, outlining my reasons behind the contributions in depth, and add them back with more original contributions, Rubikonchik reverts, for the first time, with an edit summary. It says: "Please discuss and propose changes on the talk page first." Note that by the time of his demand, my comments have been hanging on the talk page for two days. I add my contributions back, urging him to take look at my comments on the talk page, Rubikonchik reverts. Rubikonchik gets his first comment across to the talk page after ten days of edit warring. We actually get involved in discussion for a few days, which however bogs down in no reply from Rubikonchik to the issues. I assume that he has nothing to say anymore and I react by restoring my contributions. This has gone on and on like this and Rubikonchik has reverted my other contributions on pages linked to Rotaru in a similar maner. I have broken the WP:3RR once, in a clear case of violation of WP:NCF#Foreign-language films on the Mikhail Boyarsky article, which was supported by a consensus on Talk:Dusha page. However, I may be guilty of edit warring, but tell me how to proceed when your comments in the edit summaries and on the talk pages are simply ignored? --Jaan Pärn (talk) 20:50, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Um.. does anyone else here have any thoughts on this? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 14:25, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abd moving straw poll !votes, editing and removing article talk page comments

The article cold fusion has recently been protected, and Abd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) started a talk page straw poll to select a version to return to when the page is unprotected. He listed two versions, neither of which I thought were good reflections of what reliable sources say on the subject, and I voted for neither of them.

Kirk Shanahan commented in the poll section that the version of September 17, 2008 was his preferred version, but didn't list it in the poll as an option. On June 4, Abd removed the comment from the page as "unnecessary." (see edit summary).

Later that day, Abd replaced part of Kirk Shanahan's comment as a listed option on the poll. The option linked to the version of 19:54 September 17, 2008. I went to that version, read it, decided it was a better version (in that it was more faithful to the consensus of reliable sources, though needing some adjustment on weight) than the two previously provided options, and !voted 7 for that version and 0 for the other two versions. (Abd was asking for votes on a scale from 1-10).

Later, Abd added a fourth option to the list of options to vote for, claiming that this version from 15:48 September 18, 2008 was the one he had linked to when adding Shanahan's choice, and so it was the one I'd actually looked at and voted for, and moved my !vote to that option.

I objected in very strong terms to the move of my vote, showing with diffs that the option I voted for was linked to the version of 19:48 September 17, as anyone can see by looking at the diff of my vote, and striking my vote. Abd responded by (1) removing my struck comment leaving the vote in place on the option I hadn't voted for, (2) removing his earlier explanation that I had voted for the wrong option, (edit summary: "Woonpton appears to have accepted move of !vote,") and (3) continuing to insist that I had got it wrong and that I had actually voted for the 15:48 Sept 18 version (which wasn't even an option at the time I voted) suggesting in the edit summary that I was "confused."

I objected again to these new edits, pointing out again that it's easy for anyone to see by looking at the diff of my vote that the version I voted for is the version I said I voted for, and adding, "You do not have permission to (1)move my votes, (2) remove my comments or my !votes. (3) edit my comments. Please cease and desist." Abd then moved my vote back to the version I had originally voted for. At that point, I removed my votes from the poll entirely and went to bed.

These actions are direct violations of WP:TALKO covering editing other's comments, especially "The basic rule is: Do not strike out or delete the comments of other editors without their permission," and "Never edit someone's words to change their meaning.." There has been continuing discussion at the talk page and outside eyes would be welcome. I request that administrators review this situation and take what action seems appropriate. Woonpton (talk) 19:44, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Abd's messing with options and even votes on running polls is unacceptable. I'd like to see some more comments, though - I have a strong prior opinion on Abd. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:34, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to believe in a "good faith clueless bungling" rather than a "sinister attempts to manipulate poll" interpretation. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 20:39, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think SheffieldSteel is likely right about the motivation in this case being above-board; ideally this could be resolved with a simple agreement from Abd not to refactor other editors' comments at the straw poll. I asked for such an agreement at User Talk:Abd, but will leave it to someone more diligent to parse the response. MastCell ^Talk 20:48, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, I haven't characterized the motivation for the moving and editing of my votes and comments; my point is that it's not acceptable for anyone to do that to someone else's comments, regardless of the movitation. Woonpton (talk) 21:01, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Woonpton, my comments at Talk:Cold fusion are rather commonly deleted, it just happened today. Talk page comments are generally subject to good-faith refactoring, and taking someone to AN/I over a transient misunderstanding is a tad extreme. Comments in polls or RfCs are often shifted, deleted, or moved to some other location, where it seems it will serve the community. The goal there is consensus, and getting there efficiently, and it can often help things if adjustments are made, and it works when editors assume good faith. However, you've recently expressed an intention to expose, I'm not sure what, you won't say, some kind of nefarious plot you imagine I'm working on,[66][67] so you were quite predisposed to interpret what I did as hostile or "shenanigans," as you immediately called the very first action. --Abd (talk) 23:32, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, SheffieldSteel. I don't know about "clueless," but I was definitely, for a while, quite confused, with one edit conflict with Woonpton after another. I go into some detail about what happened, how the report is overblown (the "removed" comment was already struck by the editor, not quite the same as gratuitous deletion), and why we have two competing polls, how the article got protected in the first place, the gaming of RfPP to freeze a highly controversial edit (nobody appears to accept it, not Woonpton, not the editor who made it -- at least not openly, though it's clearly the POV of the editor -- nor anyone else -- but ... this is AN/I where a third of the time nothing comes of lengthy discussion, another third, bad decisions get made quickly, with the rest being routine stuff that's quickly handled, so, my complete response is collapsed below. --Abd (talk) 20:57, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned above, an extended comment was originally here, in a collapse box. Collapse was removed and then I was criticized for excessive length. original diff permanent link to this section with the collapse at the bottom. --Abd (talk) 04:39, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to be about time for Abd to receive a community topic ban from articles related to cold fusion. He lacks any sense of proportion and has become extremely hostile to experts in the subject like User:Kirk shanahan. The talk page has been swamped with his often completely irrelevant comments which, whether it his intention or not, drive away other contributors. He also edits other people's comments (e.g. by putting them into collapse boxes). This is unhelpful behaviour from an account that seems to have regressed to that of WP:SPA; he uses the talk page as his blog/forum/scratchpad, even suggesting that science writers like Gary Taubes should be invited to join in discussions there. Abd's machinations already seem to have driven one administrator away from WP. Abd is actively promoting cold fusion on wikipedia as an "emerging science", along the lines of non-scientist advocates like Steven B. Krivit and topic-banned User:JedRothwell, with whom he corresponds. If anybody has a WP:COI at the moment, it is Abd. He has become a fringe POV-pusher. This does not apply to User:Hipocrite, whom Abd seems to be trying to pull down with him. Mathsci (talk) 08:12, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The most important point you raise is that Abd's conduct has driven away other editors from participating (such as myself). The prospect of sifting through incessant multi-kilobyte stream-of-consciousness responses is a powerful editor repellant. Any POV-pushing can be dealt with as a separate issue. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 18:09, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Boris - you have to actually be somewhere in the first place in order to be "driven away". You've never darkened that article's door let alone contributed in a way that could be regarded as a loss. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.125.16.66 (talk) 19:56, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can substitute "deter" for "drive away" if you wish. And please comment using your main account. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:20, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The use of {{collapse top}} and {{collapse bottom}} is a good way to keep a talk page on track by making tangential discussions less visible. Jehochman ^Talk 18:27, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Collapse boxes also make the material unsearchable, and often break the table of contents ("why do I keep clicking this and nothing happens?" the unsuspecting reader thinks to herself) and thus are best used sparingly. The fact that collapse boxes are so often needed is itself a sign that something has gone badly awry. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 18:32, 6 June 2009 (UTC)a[reply]

The extremely lengthy whitelisting discussion on lenr-canr.org required the removal of Abd's collapse boxes by User:Enric Naval in order to reference hidden content on the talk page. Mathsci (talk) 01:08, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To Abd: Your response dated 20:57, 5 June 2009 (UTC) is of excessive length, and I think it unreasonable to expect any administrator to read it in its entirety. Please be succinct. AGK 19:41, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
tl;dr. This is, however, typical of Abd when he's trying to get his way--a wall of text. We've all seen this over and over, and the history of such massive textdumps seems to indicate this one will also boil down to "Because I said so." Support permanent topicban, also, based on comments above about having driven away other editors. Support it even further because Abd thinks that cold fusion actually exists or is an 'emerging science', which betrays an understanding of science rivaled only by the folks who think that Intelligent Design is accurate in any way whatsoever. It really is time for Wikipedia to put its collective foot down, hard, about POV-pushing and fringe crap. //roux 19:51, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tell me if i have this straight: Some editor is rude, moves around other's comments in a contentious area and doesn't leave off. And why? To try to force pseudo-scientific fantasies onto an insufficiently-educated public using wikipedia as his megaphone. Do I have tihs right? If so, topic ban and be done. Wikipedia should not tolerate the, ah, how to put this nicely, the fringers to the extent that their obsessive behaviors drive away physicists and other expert users whose editing assistance is particularly needed in technical areas. Not to get into a "cult of the expert" but we are not all equally-beautiful flowers in the lord's little garden. If you don't prune the weeds every now and again, they'll choke all forms of intelligent life to death.Bali ultimate (talk) 21:25, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Just a note to let people know that Abd has been banned from Cold fusion and its talk page for one month, unrelated (I think) to the thread. Hipocrite was also given the same restrictions. There is also a recent arbcom finding regarding Abd and long posts in the Abd/JzG case tha may be relevant here. Verbal chat 21:31, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2.1) Abd (talk · contribs) is advised to heed good-faith feedback when handling disputes, to incorporate that feedback, and to clearly and succinctly document previous and current attempts at resolution of the dispute before escalating to the next stage of dispute resolution.

Passed 9 to 1, 16:51, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

2.2) Abd (talk · contribs) is urged to avoid needlessly prolonging disputes by excessive or repetitive pursuit of unproductive methods of dispute resolution.

Passed 9 to 0, 16:51, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

The relevant ArbCom finding. These massive walls of text are very, very clearly excessive and unproductive. //roux 01:36, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to add a substantive comment but now find that WMC's bold actions have brought the problems under temporary control. I certainly endorse the topic ban of Abd so that some genuine collaboration can occur, and commend the action taken. Hopefully this will help encourage some more participation on the article. EdChem (talk) 23:49, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, folks, apparently it ain't over. I'd thought this report resolved and hadn't been back here. Now I see that my extended comment in a collapse box was opened up, and thus what was a short report, followed by a collapsed extended comment, became a "wall of text," which I'm then dinged for inflicting on admins. I put it in a collapse box precisely because it wasn't so important here, except for those who wanted more background. I'm going to delete what was in collapse and ref it to history, where editors can see it if they want. And next time, that's what I'll do, since some editors seem to place their convenience for searching above organization of text for clarity. This report isn't related to the ban that WMC declared, I'll be dealing with that separately, summary: highly improper, unnecessary (I'd already declared an article ban), punitive (I'd just questioned WMC's editing of the article, and more, but this isn't the place for it. --Abd (talk) 04:39, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bit of a cheeky IP

Resolved

– Unblock request denied and block extended 48 hours by User:LessHeard vanU--Iner22 (talk) 20:53, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This IP is starting to think he can fool 'crats into making him an admin on his latest unblock request. I wasn't sure if you wanted me to delete it since I wasn't an admin.--Iner22 (talk) 20:42, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I declined it, and restarted the clock to a 48 hour block for abusing the appeal process - and disabled their ability to edit the page during the sanction. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:54, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would score this as a 5.0 for artistic impression, but a 0.9 for technical merit. Definitely a 6.0 for boldness, I'm sure even the Russian judge would agree. :) Franamax (talk) 22:13, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could this be a sock of User:PirateSmackK? --64.85.210.177 (talk) 11:44, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Striking resolved template. I think this is WP:DUCK, IP did same trick PirateSmackK did, then an hour after the IP was blocked, User:Piratesmackkk showed up. IP block, if static, should be extended since PirateSmackK was banned rather than blocked. (I'm the same as the above 64.85.210.177) --64.85.210.49 (talk) 14:03, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Since User:Piratesmackkk edited while this IP was blocked we can conclude it is either a dynamic IP or a different user. Resolved. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 14:10, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

disruptive editor back

Disruptive editor Bulldog123 is active again and making his usual disruptive/POV edits to content and threats to editors on their talk pages, including mine. Please check this out in detail as I will not get involved in edit fights with such a person, which I think WP administrators need to take care of. Thanks Hmains (talk) 21:43, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notified Bulldog123 on his talk. This should always be done if you post about a user here. Exxolon (talk) 22:31, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Right. Telling someone they will take them to "dispute resolution" if they continue to stalk them is a "threat" my foot. Anyone can take a look at this alleged "threat:" User_talk:Hmains#Stalking. There's no issue here except User:Hmains grudges and inability to understand what WP:V means. I shouldn't even respond to this persistent immaturity exhibited by Hmains. Bulldog123 22:40, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. The last time I tried to remind a person who posted on ANI that they should notify the person they were talking about, not only was I berated for it, but not one single person ever notified the subject of the discussion. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 06:30, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Providing more detail. Bulldog123 previous edited and now again is editing 'fooian American' articles to remove all images of people who are not 100% 'fooian', in other words, deleting images of 'Americans of fooian descent' This is in conflict with the contents of the 'fooian American' articles themselves, which include first generation fooian Americans as well as their descendants. Bulldog123 has just done this to more than a dozen articles. Thanks for your review. Hmains (talk) 16:55, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do recommend we get an admin involved. It's about time. Herbert Hoover is being used as a representative American of both Swiss and German Americans, despite zero evidence to that extent and zero reliable sources even calling him a German-American. Jason Mraz is apparently both a Czech and Slovak American because of his surname. When I remove these, Hmains blindly reverts them back, citing "disruption." Bulldog123 18:26, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bulldog123 removed a batch of German-American images based on "lack of evidence". I reverted because the articles for the individuals in question clearly refer to their German heritage. Schwarzkopf's article even mentioned that he had been named "Distinguished German American of the Year" and provided a link to the award. Bulldog123 removed the images again. I've now added citations to easily located sources, including the American Embassy, which states that "Notable among many German-Americans who have shaped our military to meet later challenges were John J. Pershing, whose ancestral family name was Pfoerschin, and Dwight D. Eisenhower, a descendant of Hans Nikolas Eisenhauer. 'Ike' also shared with Herbert Hoover the distinction of being one of our two Presidents of German descent." Now he's left a message on my Talk Page stating "you can't cite a 'German-American' by providing something that says "he had German ancestry." But the article itself defines German Americans as "citizens of the United States of German ancestry". I would consider any further removal of the images to be vandalism. Please put a stop to Bulldog123's disruptions. --Sift&Winnow 19:46, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't matter what the article defines it as. That's an arbitrary definition. It's a simple case of WP:V. The jump from "of German descent" to "German American" is a expressed as WP:SYNTH. Bulldog123 23:55, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, all of this is a content dispute and really has no place in WP:AN/I except as a sort of character sabotage. Bulldog123 23:56, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bulldog is now disrupting the Adam Lambert article, editing against consensus, and claiming that no consensus exists where it clearly does. I'm late to this disagreement, but something needs to be done about this editor. Unitanode 04:36, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lost a Thread

I was adding a response to Wiki something and then the thread disappeard. I did a search with the Wiki Blame and found the last page. I want to enter my response to Material Scientist so I am going to re-post the thread beneath this one. I hope you guys don't mind. It's a positive response BTW Ti-30X (talk) 03:19, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If someone is able to restore the original format of Wiki something (Bold, italics, signatures, etc., etc.) it would be greatly appreciated. Also the links are now gone so those need to be restored, as well, if possible. Ti-30X (talk) 03:32, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki something

Let me state for the record that my Wikipedia ID is Ti-30X

On June 1, 2009 at 01:45 (UTC) (diff here) materialscientist tells me to please use the complicated format that he uses (ref name = xxx) {{cite journal}). Believe me, I tried because it is an interesting way to format. But I also understood that there was no consensus from what I had read in the guidelines up to that point. There is consensus on what information the citations should contain, which I was always careful to provide. I left him a message that I had run into a problem using the citation tags that he recommended. diff here - see yellow block

Then I amended my message. (see green block here) I wrote that I noticed that at the bottom of every edit page the only requirement for reference tags is (ref) (/ref) tags. I wrote that if you look at the bottom of any edit page it says "Cite your source (ref)(/ref). I told him that I believed this is acceptable at wikipedia. I wrote that I appreciated his advice in this matter, but I looked at his way of citing articles as too complicated. If he wished to alter my citation tags, in this article, to suite his preference, he has my permission to do so - I won't mind. In addition,that was the first time I ever encountered materialscientist.

So I figured that was that, and no problem.

Apparently that was not true

On June 2, 2009 at 04:35, after admonishing me for edits that I did or didn’t do with the reference tags on an article entitled The God Particle: If the Universe Is the Answer, What Is the Question?, he then threatens to revert my edits on future work that I contribute to Wikipedia.diff here His edits on the citation tags, in this article, was excellent work. But, after that threat in my talk page I am really uncomfortable. Essentially, materialscientist is telling me that I must prescribe to his method of editing. At this point, I began to feel inhibited about contributing to Wikipedia, and I see in the guidelines, that Wikipedia intends for all of us to have a good experience contributing, in whatever form. In addition, he went over to "The God Particle" on his own, of his own volition. I never mentioned it to him prior to his notifying me of his edits.

At this time, also, I became concerned about another matter. Material wrote to me: ""please avoid personal phrases (such as) Author X observed..." in favor of "...was observed in" link here First of all, I have no idea, at this time what he means but, here’s the point: Either in wiki guidelines, or from advice that I have read from wiki veterans, the articles are in essence reporting. So, in an article, when, for example, I write “Dr. Kaku writes nanotube technology will become useful in the coming decades” This is in essence reporting, and to establish this is not from me as original research. So, when I read part of a message, whcih tells me not to do this from materialscientist, who has threatened to revert my future contributions on Wikipedia, I become overly concerned. Especially, when it can take hours and hours working on articles. So, with this hammer over my head, I feel uncomfortable contributing to Wikipedia.

Another incident happened at on June 2, 2009 at 04:59. Materialscientist signed out on a talk page using my Wikipedia ID. He wrote in the revision history of an article that he signing for user Ti-30x, which is me. He wrote that he was "pretending to be a bot". diff here If you look at the yellow box, there is where I posted without signing. In the green box materialscientist has signed my name with a message stating he did so above the green box. This is inappropriate. I have to ask, so how does he sign my name? Is he able to counterfeit anybody’s name here at wikipedi? Does he have access to my account?

Another matter occurred surrounding an article entitled Physics of the Impossible. This is an article that I have been personally editing. I have been communicating with two administrators, OrangeMike and Gavia Immer, concerning this article. Apparently they understand that I am new to Wikipedia, because I have made some bonehead mistakes. But, they have patiently allowed me to work on the article. One administrator, OrangeMike, is a man of action and few words concerning this article in. But, I have learned a lot from his few words.

One day he abruptly removed a section of the article, and I admit I got upset. I posted a message on the article talk page expressing my ire and trying to cite Wikipedia guidelines that I was right and he was wrong. And, I reverted the article to what I originally had. Then I posted the same message on my talk page, I think.

Then Gavia Immer reverted the article back to what OrangeMike had, saying she agreed with Orangemike. I sent the same message expressing my ire, and included Wiki guidelines to her talk page. Finally, I began to cool down. I only mention this because here is where materialscientist chimes in with ‘’’Could anyone please indicate which notability criteria does this book meet ? Thank you." June 2, 2009, at 03:39 here is the diff

And it doesn’t stop there. He goes over to my talk page and writes: “Could you please indicate which notability criteria does this book meet ? Thank you. June 2 at 03:38.diff here

And it doesn’t stop there. He goes over to OrangeMike’s talk page diff here and writes: “Sorry for butting in. I just came across this article, asked any evidence of its notability and got an answer from user:Ti-30X that he doesn't know, but he believes it is the notability of the book's author. I do disagree with this reason and suggest Afd-nominating the article. What do you think ?" June 2, 2009 at 04:41

In this message he says “sorry for butting in” but that is exactly what he is doing. As I stated earlier, I am communicating with two Wikipedia Administrators, already, about this article. And neither of them was mentioning notability. In fact, I was the one who mentioned notability earlier, but the two administrators let me blow off my steam. And neither of them, had at that time, mentioned Afd nomination for this article. But, materialscientist did. So, not only do I feel that, earlier, he inappropriately chastised me, and threatened to revert my future contributions, as mentioned above – but now I feel that there is something personal in this, but I have no idea what it is.

In addition, I started on Physics of the Impossible with the intention of working with those two administrators that I mentioned. I can’t speak for OrangeMike but I think he has been keeping a watchful eye on the article. I did make a mistake in not conferring with them as I originally intended. But, neither of these administrators have ever belittled me, chastised me, or ever threatened to revert my future contributions, if I didn’t follow their prescribed method.

I have noticed that Materialscientist is very polite at the end of most of his postings. But these polite words do not appear to match his actions.

I started my "Physics of Impossible" protest and revision at approximately 02:18 on June 2, 2009. diff here And 2 hours and 20 minutes later (by 4:41 on June 2, 2009) materialscientist is recommending this article for deletion. I have never seen materialscientist work on or contribute to this article, yet at this time he is deeply involved, but only with concern for notability and recommending Afd.

So, to make a long story short materialscientist now has personally placed one of those templates on the top of the Physics of the Impossible page that begins: This article is being considered for deletion in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy.

I’m sorry but I feel like he is over reaching somehow. You administrators will have to figure that one out.

And related to this he has posted notices of the Afd on OrangeMike’s talk page and Immer gavia, as if they wouldn’t see it when they went to the article. diff here I feel that he considers this an accomplishment – but that is my interpretation of posting this notice to their talk page. It may be wrong.

I feel harassed and uncomfortable so I am placing a complaint here.

I also appreciated the advice on how to deal with harassment in the Wikipedia guidelines They were very helpful to me. I actually took a two day break from Wikipedia (almost two days), so I could cool down and gain perspective.

Thank you for your time. I forgot to sign - here it is. Ti-30X (talk) 04:52, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am making an addition here. One the main points that I was trying to get across is that I am not going to pulled into an editing war with another user. For example, if User(A) flippantly or unjustifiably reverts User(B)'s edits, then User(B)comes back and reverts User(A)'s edits, then he (or she) comes back in reverts that edit, and so on. Then both users end up here anyway. So, I am nipping it in the bud. Also, I am not going to get pulled into a situation where terse or inappropriate statements are flung back and forth between two users. Another thing - before June 1st at 0145, when I was editing Metamaterial I never heard of this guy. I never worked on any articles with him, and I had no knowledge of his existence. Suddenly in the span of about 1 day, he is telling me that if he has edit my citations again he will revert my contributions. Right there, that is telling me this is a potential edit war waiting to happen. That was from his work in "The God Particle." Before June 1st he had nothing to do with "The God Particle" and now its my fault that he went in and chose to streamline the citations? The article, already, had a B rating before he went in there. No one else, before this tried to make an issue of the citations, where it was going to end up in an edit war or terse words. And, like I said, he did an excellent job with those citations. But why make it my fault that he volunteered to do it? Why make it an issue of future consequences? I lined things up in the article, the way I did, to show what this situation was evolving into. It would not have done any good for me to take matters into my own hands, nor would it do him any good to take matters into his own hands. The other point is that in a matter of two or three days, he went from someone I didn't know even existed, to someone who is suddenly very involved in stuff that I am working on. Including the article for Afd nomination. Look, I knew the Afd nominatiion was coming, after he brought it up. The point is - it is one more thing that I was working on, that I have deal with, on an intense level, with someone I didn't know two or three days ago. I expected that an administrator was going to post the Afd nomination, but that is beside the point. Why did this guy jump in, out of the blue, from nowhere, and run with the Afd nomination - an article that I was trying to put together? When he signed a message for me, in my name, combined with all this other stuff is a little scary. Ti-30X (talk) 15:30, 4 June 2009 (UTC) I actually made this addition several hours ago, but forgot to sign.[reply]

Holy tldr batman! Seriously, I did read this, and the editor in question is in NO WAY hounding you. First of all, while Wikipedia does not demand the use of any one particulat format of referencing in any article, the "best practice" is to use a single format throughout the same article; if one format has been established, then there is no compelling reason to add new references under a different format. All he is saying is that; if you are having trouble formatting references correctly, ask nicely at the article talk page or at Wikipedia:Help desk and someone will help you out. Secondly, please remember that assuming good faith is a core principle of Wikipedia. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:38, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jayron - please read the whole article Ti-30X (talk) 04:55, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some quick responses to being named in the above (look it up for yourself; i'm in there): 1.)I am, of course, not an admin, and have not represented myself as one to the best of my knowledge. I hope that Ti-30X hasn't gotten the wrong impression from anything I said. 2.)Materialscientist's admonition to '"please avoid personal phrases (such as) Author X observed..." in favor of "...was observed in"' comes in the wake of Ti-30X's repeatedly phrasing basic physics facts in the form "according to Dr. Michio Kaku, water is wet". It's the constant namedropping of Kaku that's a problem, not grammar per se. 3.) The AfD notifications are a non-issue. Materialscientist notified Orangemike and myself because we had both been giving Ti-30X advice on how to edit more in line with Wikipedia's general policies; I can't speak for Orangemike, but I would have been aware of the AfD regardless. I don't see any Wikihounding myself; if Materialscientist and Ti-30X disagree on basic content issues, that's not Wikihounding, but a normal part of our editorial process. Ti-30X seems overly sensitive in this regard. — Gavia immer (talk) 05:12, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Michio Kaku is mentioned in 81 articles in Wikipedia. This seems excessive. Is there some promotional activity involved? Are most of those refs coming from the same editor? --John Nagle (talk) 07:10, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dunno, but an IP edited him into to Cosmological Argument, and not into any others. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:49, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In response to this:

In the green box materialscientist has signed my name with a message stating he did so above the green box. This is inappropriate. I have to ask, so how does he sign my name? Is he able to counterfeit anybody’s name here at wikipedi? Does he have access to my account?

Ti-30X, adding somebody's signature to a post that they have forgotten to sign (or neglected to sign because they weren't aware that they should), in particular when stating clearly in the edit summary that they add the signature on the other person's behalf, is a courtesy to the editing community. As you know, talk page posts should include the signature of the person posting the message to make communication easier (and in some cases, to make it possible!) The signature is just a string of text, and anybody can add that string representing anybody else's name, there is no need to log into somebody's account to do so. There is even a bot which checks for unsigned talk page posts and posts the signature of the editor to them. To represent oneself as another editor maliciously is of course not allowed, but in this case, as indicated by the edit summary, the intent was clearly not malicious. Because the history of any Wikipedia page is available to everybody, it is always possible to check who wrote what, so serious impersonation is almost impossible. --bonadea contributions talk 09:10, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I made an addition, under my original post, to help clarify why I posted this in the first place. Also I changed the title for this post. Ti-30X (talk) 15:30, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notes by Materialscientist:

User:SheffieldSteel kindly pointed me to the {{unsigned}} template which is a proper way to sign for a user. Thank you. Admittedly, I've been terse to Ti-30X, but I did not mean to be unfriendly; I offered my help and did help. I hope he/she forgives me and returns to the WP learning process. That said, I am worried by the above note showing that The user tends to make dramas out of thin air;

I take his word that he/she will not engage in the edit wars (as he already reverted several good faith edits) and will discuss the issues at the corresponding talk pages. The user has a tendency to rewrite his posts after others have replied on them. Would someone please comment on this (as a general practice). The user is still in the stage of learning how to sign and reference his edits, but he is already keen to track and analyze WP behavior of editors and admins and to criticize that at ANI. With all do respect to professor Kaku (after all, he is a talented popularizer of Science), I do agree with the above note (by John Nagle) that his spread over WP might be excessive and might need to be looked after. I am glad to see that my Afd of the Physics of the Impossible resulted in quick and drastic improvement of that article, so that Afd might not apply anymore. On the other hand, I am worried by the speed and coordination of the rescue effort (just a note, no back thought). To summarize, I am grateful to Ti-30X for revealing some potentially troubling issues and would not waste this thread, but use it as a fixing feedback. Materialscientist (talk) 23:53, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Materialscientist thank you for your response. It appears that I too have some potentially troubling issues. Maybe we can dialogue on my talk page or yours. It seems we both have the same end goal in mind of building a better (perhaps the best) encyclopedia. One thing I didn't know, apparently it is common practice to add the signature on the other person's behalf, but as you say a bot is used. User:bonadea pointed this out in one of the responses above and others have written this as well.

As for this Dr. Kaku that is being discussed, because of my example. It was just an example. It could have been "Dr. Coffeecup".

Or Dr. Bolgna & Dr. Cheese are quoted as saying, " mustard is good. Ti-30X (talk) 03:23, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also I will look at the observation that I may be creating dramas out of thin air.

Several parties seem to be frustrated here, but all seem to be acting in good faith. A bit of guidance: 1) Learning to use the reference templates is indeed a headache. But it's part of learning how to add material to Wikipedia. Footnotes work better if you use the templates. In particular, long bare URLs and multi-column reference lists do not play well together; text displays on top of text, making pages illegible. Someone else then has to clean up the mess, which is a dull janitorial job that makes some editors cranky. 2) This noticeboard is for serious disputes. You might find the Help Desk and the Village Pump more useful for this problem. Thanks. --John Nagle (talk) 03:45, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

tl;dr Viridae ^Talk 03:51, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You John. When I posted it, I thought it was a serious dispute. So it was well intended if, in the end, this is not the right place. Thanks for the note on the templates. I didn't realize certain kinds of references and citations, etc., etc makes pages illigible. Thanks for the tip on the Village Pump and the Help Desk, as well. Ti-30X (talk) 04:13, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Lg16spears

This user created a bunch of bad categories in mid May, almost all of which ended up deleted in CfD. He stopped for awhile, but is now back and again creating bad categories and is recreating all of the ones that were deleted previously, including Category:Xxx films, Category:Transporter films, and Category:Anacondas films. He is also continuing to add inappropriate categories to other articles, such as putting Bourne (film series) in the Martial arts films category. He has repeatedly ignored all messages on his talk page, and his continued actions are very disruptive. Administrative help greatly needed to stop this mess. He is also editing as User:69.124.9.173 -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:59, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Require an admin to close this AfD

Resolved

– Closed as delete.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 05:24, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

to ensure that I'm not contacting any specific admin to do this, could an admin please close Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cyprus–Paraguay relations (2nd nomination), it somehow escaped the 7 day period. thanks LibStar (talk) 04:37, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Legal threats by owner of Graffiti Blasters

Resolved

– Blocks applied by Dougweller to the accounts concerned. AGK 19:36, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Graffiti Blasters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Accounts known to have edited claiming to either be the owner or to be editing on the owner's behalf:

Rudy4400 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
75.3.150.129 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
69.209.77.205 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
76.223.92.89 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)

The owner of the company has been editing the article, wanting to force trademark symbols (in violation of WP:MOSTM), as well as adding promotional text to the article. The user has also been making legal threats in his edit summaries to the article, as well as in his post to J.delanoy's talk page, and even in posts within the article itself. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 05:58, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't seem especially notable to me. I say delete the thing and be done with it. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:49, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Block away. Clear legal threats. The user should have read the the statement right above the "Save page" button: You irrevocably agree to release your contributions under the GFDL. The user does not own the article; once he hits that save button, it becomes the community's article. It is also obvious that the user(s) is/are using Wikipedia for promotion of its product—also unacceptable. Wikipedia is not a publicly-owned entity; it is a website which can be utilized by the public within limitations (that is, of providing encyclopedic information). MuZemike 07:42, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if a rangeblock is in order, since we are dealing with a large area, but can't something set up with the abuse filter be done in this case? MuZemike 07:44, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked 75.3.150.129 (talk · contribs) for the threat - but for only 2 weeks, not indefinitely, as it's an IP. I've semi'd the article for the same period. If any Admin wants to change either of these, go ahead. Dougweller (talk) 09:11, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The complaining party has little to complain about. The article uses the "Graffiti Blaster" name solely to refer to his company, which is a proper use of a trademark. There's no mention of the more generic use of the term "graffiti blaster", a pressure-washing machine using a soda solution to remove paint from surfaces[68], or "Graffiti Blaster", a commercial solvent for paint removal[69], or the Lawrence Livermore Labs laser graffiti blaster.[70] --John Nagle (talk) 19:18, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I found a pair of news stories after starting this thread; I think his actions are a result of legal dispute between his company (based in Chicago), and a program started by the city of Chicago which had the same name (see here and here). According to the news story, the city of Chicago won the right to continue using the name - in part because he "slept on its rights" for too long before attempting to protect his service marks. His actions here may be a mistaken over-compensation in attempting to prevent further loss of control on the name. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:32, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hawaii Five-O and User:WilliamJE

WilliamJE (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
This user is at odds with myself and User:Nicholasm79 in what appears to be a minor content dispute. It's not exactly at the level of a revert war, although it could get that way. For one thing, I don't much care for being referred to as a "vandal". Basically, he won't discuss it, other than to use the "other stuff exists" argument. I would like to know what the best course of action would be. I note that the user has been warned several times for behavior, but has never been blocked. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 08:40, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By the edit history I count three reverts on the fourth, two on the fifth. Looks like an edit war to me.Drew Smith What I've done 09:34, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. WilliamJE posted his uncited and no-context list during May 31-June 4. Nicholasm79 deleted it on June 4. WilliamJE added it back on June 4. I removed it again on June 5 and WilliamJE added it back. I reverted it again and he added it back again with his comment about "vandalizing the page", ignoring the discussion in the talk page. I removed it again and posted more messages to him asking for discussion. Right now we're both at 3 reverts in 24 hours. He's outnumbered and is liable to work himself into a 3-revert violation. I would just as soon avoid that. He's also been on here for 2 years but still hasn't learned to sign his posts. Weird. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 10:12, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I should point out that I'm done editing this article until the issue is settled. 3 reverts in 24 hourse is already too many. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 10:20, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also just realized that it might technically be 2-against-2, as WilliamJE appears to have a shadow Pizzamaniac09 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), so to speak . Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 10:38, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And he again reverted to his version a few minutes ago, and again refuses to discuss it. Technically he is not in violation of the 3-revert rule, as the latest revert came outside the previous three's 24-hour window. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 11:23, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here we go

1 Please cite specifically where a list like the one created is not considered content for a wikipedia page

2 While you're at it, Delete similar sections for shows Law and Order, Gunsmoke, F Troop and others. They're still there, why should you be singling out Hawaii Five 0.

3 The source for the names in the list is the imdb. Do I need to tag every actor on the list with the appropriate episode. I'll do it if that will keep the thing posted. Weird you don't think of the obvious source.

No one is sourced in the other actor's section. Why is that allowed to stand? Where's the proof those people were on the show if sourcing has to be made so crystal clear?

4 I'm not pizzamaniac. Do I sense some paranoia? What's the basis for your allegation? Did you notice pizza signed his post? I don't. You really can't keep a consistent or logical argument can you.

5 I created the list so to show what famous people did appear on the show. I stuck to people who had wikipedia entries,(Australian actor Murray Mattheson of Banacek fame doesn't have a page) and the list isn't complete. Baseball's arguments are the list isn't sourced but anyone with half a brain knows where it had to come from, and that the list doesn't have context. It does have context, actors of note who appeared on the show. He has never once cited where in wikipedia's guidelines that this list isn't allowed just his own criteria for taking it down. The sourcing is easily resolved, and as I said, and the context argument is baloney also. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WilliamJE (talk • contribs) 11:33, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a content dispute and it belongs on the article talk page, where you have refused to discuss it until here and now. And the "other stuff exists" argument is not only invalid in general, it doesn't work here because F Troop, for example, lists the names line by line rather than a single long list, and explains where the characters appear; whereas you've just got a very long sentence consisting of a bunch of names, unsourced as to whatever connection they might have to Five-O. Hence the answer to questions 3 and 5 is YES - at the very least, you need to provide citations for their appearance in the show. That doesn't mean the list as acceptable, but it would improve the situation. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 11:41, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, cite in wikipedia's guidelines where a section like this isn't allowed? I'd like to hear it.

Sourcing. Let me ask you something- Is there anyone on that list you think didn't appear on Five 0? Find one, and post it here. We both know all the people on the list have appeared on the show, the sourcing argument is bogus and just being used as your cover excuse for taking down the section.

I'll cite the episodes for every actor and put in reference tags. That will result in a 200 line reference section. What's that going to accomplish.

I could break down the people by first season of their appearance(s) on Five-0. There's context. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WilliamJE (talk • contribs) 11:57, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did you really write "We both know all the people on the list have appeared on the show..." as a justification for not including references? Really? What in damnation do you think we are writing here? This is an encyclopedia, not the debating group of the Steve'n'Danno Fanclub! The project is written for people who do not know who was in the show or not, and want to be able to find out. Like it was commented earlier, you have been here for two years and are still seemingly unable to sign your posts - I would include also that you appear not to have the faintest idea of what it is that we are supposed to be doing here. If I was an abusive admin I would indef block you for being incapable of understanding the purpose and practices of encyclopedia building. The world of knowledge would be vastly improved by you taking up another hobby, I suggest. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:44, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That last is a bit strong. Uncle G (talk) 14:02, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - "book 'em, Danno, murder 1", (book 'em, vanU, wikiviolation ___ "? (the original poster should do a better job describing the grievance. It's not clear and I'm not going to search for it.) User F203 (talk) 16:11, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I thought abusive admins always spoke like that? LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:41, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the IMDB database was an open database, so not a RS? Dougweller (talk) 14:04, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's borderline. I think it's considered reasonably reliable for cast information, not so much for "trivia". Trouble here is that the editor basically posted a long list of names and said "look it up for yourself". That is a totally inappropriate approach even if the info is notable. Note also his classic "prove it isn't" comment above, which is bogus, and a 2-years-or-more editor should know so. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 14:16, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All the names can also be verified by the book 'Booking Five-0' authored by Karen Rhodes. BTW I have a copy of the book. I rely on it and rather than CBS video boxes for information. Season 6's box misleads people into believing the George Kennedy was a guest on the show. No he wasn't, but an actor going by the name of George M Kennedy did.

IMDB is the authortative database for movies and television casts on the internet. Other sources like TV.com also will back up these actors were on the show. Are they all unreliable and why?

I have set up many win databases for PGA golfers. Tony Lema, Jack Nicklaus, Bobby Nichols, are just three of many where when I could gain no or little information about their pre-1970 wins on the internet(Golfobserver.com's PGA Tour database only goes up to 1970) and had to use a non-internet published golf encyclopedia to fill in the rest of the info. Is data verifiable from published books that aren't accessible on the internet, automatically unreliable? The irony of this is in golf writing circles, I'm known for ripping authors for mistakes in reporting they've done and books they've written and I freely acknowledge the encyclopedia I used for those win databases has errors in it.

You again haven't answered my question as to citing any wikipedia guidelines that say this kind of information doesn't belong. Just that you feel the information don't belong. That and continuing personal attacks are made against me. I don't sign, well I'm not computer savvy but I know how to sniff out bogus info in wikipedia entries as can be seen in entries on Hale Irwin , Juan Pizarro, Kirsten Gillibrand, The Spy who loved me, and others. Plus built a wikipedia entry on Martin Gaffney from scratch. In the real world I've freelanced for Newsweek. See the entry on Young Kim for details.

You should be carrying out this conversation/argument/disagreement on the article talk page, which is Talk:Hawaii Five-O.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:18, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The AN3 complaint has been closed with a warning to WilliamJE not to restore the disputed material again at Hawaii Five-O without first getting consensus at the article Talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 18:00, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mimika Air Flight 514

The English Wikipedia does right now have two articles about the same plane crash. It is 2009 Mimika Air crash and Mimika Air Flight 514. Someone has requested merging witch seems like an good idea. The 2009 Mimika Air crash-article provides more info but Mimika Air Flight 514 is in opinion a better name. What should we do here? Highest Heights (talk) 10:58, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Move all to Mimika Air Flight 514, is my opinion. Please note, however, that ANI is not for working out minor content disputes. Ironholds (talk) 11:12, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to Mimika Air Flight 514. --auburnpilot talk 15:29, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirected technically, not moved... – ukexpat (talk) 15:33, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, I moved 2009 Mimika Air crash to Mimika Air Flight 514 and left a redirect at the previous location. Technically, that is. ;-) --auburnpilot talk 15:39, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request

I don't know if this is the correct place, howewer...can you block till infinite the user Silverglory? I created it in the past but I lost the password! Please, cancel the user page/user talk too. Thanks. Charlote the Harolt (talk) 12:49, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not something that's likely to happen. You need to make an attempt to recover the password of that account and redirect its user/user talk to your new account if you want it. The issue is we can't really tell you are that user. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 12:52, 6 June 2009 (UTC)s[reply]

Ok, I'll do it, thanks. Charlote the Harolt (talk) 13:31, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you still want the username you can post a "usurp" request at WP:CHU Triplestop (talk) 15:56, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Unfrayed

Unfrayed (talk · contribs) claims to be the brother of User:Jsmith 51389, a repeatedly banned user who maintains that editors are being anti-Mormon and prejudiced for accepting as reliable the accounts of the Kansas City Star and Associated Press, which reported that he was convicted of arson in 1990. The article text in question is at Temple Lot#Rebuilt headquarters. In sensitivity to BLP, we removed the name of arsonist and other details of his conviction; they're not essential to the article. However, user thinks that this section is defamatory because it does not mention that he allegedly started the fire as a form of civil rights protest and spiritual rain dance. We have explained to each incarnation of his account that Wikipedia must follow reliable published sources, and that no such sources exist.

User has been very persistent over the last few years, and I think it's probable that this is the same person, not a "brother." See Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Jsmith 51389. At this point, he's just accusing people of being anti-Mormon (see his latest rant). User has repeatedly attacked me and User:Good Olfactory, so an uninvolved admin should look into this. Thank you. Cool Hand Luke 15:41, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked. Nakon 16:22, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fully endorse. I was about to block myself, but Nakon beat me to it. A user just happens to remember where Jimbo's page is after a two-year break? Combined with the rest of the evidence, that sealed it for me. Blueboy 96 16:29, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seems reasonable to me. I tried to reason with the guy and got a verbal lashing. Does seem likely he's a sock. Shereth 16:45, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also ixnayed his old account, Jds (talk · contribs), just in case he happens to "remember" the password for it. Blueboy 96 16:58, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unfrayed's Talk page seems to be a personal attack against an admin. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 20:08, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the content, other than the indef block template, as it had nothing to do with requesting an unblock or any other appropriate use by a indef blocked account. To ensure the page is not misused again I reset the indef block with talkpage access denied. If they wish to be unblocked then they still have the ability to email arbcom. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:49, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Community ban for Jsmith 51389

Do we have a community ban yet for Jsmith 51389? I assume he's de facto banned already, but just in case we don't, let's make it official already. Blueboy 96 17:01, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He's defactoed, with any sock log like that. No need to waste time making it official. Ironholds (talk) 17:54, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm with Ironholds. If Jsmith becomes a more acute source of disruption in the near future, then I would be inclined to consider officially setting a ban. AGK 19:42, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth...

I've been trying to assume good faith that this was the brother and not the older account holder previously multi-blocked.

The older account holder needs to remain very solidly indef blocked for recent legal threats, unless / until Mike Godwin indicates otherwise. I and presumably Mike can provide evidence in private to arbcom if anyone feels like reviewing at this level. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:47, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of atheism and User:24.3.195.100

I don't know if this is the best place to put it, but I feel a bit hesitant putting it on the atheism or religion wikiprojects mainly because of POV problems from both sides that exist on this article.

Basically, the article has sections on different aspects of atheist criticism as well with rebuttals from atheists. Its already a mess as there's a tendency of both sides to add their POV. Right now, what a single-purpose IP is doing is essentially taking all the "rebuttals" and moving them into separate sections that mirror the main article as well as throwing in tons of his own POV and OR. It's not as if I have a problem with rebuttals, but the article already has plenty and what this IP is doing is essentially dominating the article with them. I know that if I were to do this with the "criticism of religion" article, it would get reverted within a second.--CyberGhostface (talk) 18:58, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've issued the anonymous editor with a final warning. If he makes any further POV-pushing edits to articles relating to atheism, he should be blocked for disruption. AGK 19:32, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The big problem over there is a lack of references. It's not like there aren't well-documented criticisms of atheism. I just added a link to the Archbishop of Westminster thundering about it, and took out some of the more vague material. It's a quality problem, not a POV problem. --John Nagle (talk) 19:54, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I said "POV-pushing edits" because a few of the IP's changes have included removing quotations by well-known atheists (Dawkins was one, IIRC) from the rebuttals section of the article. My thinking is that such a removal does nothing but give the impression that pro-atheist arguments are not held by any notable individuals. Poorly-written or -sourced prose may indeed be the article's main problem; however, the anonymous editor's isn't being warned for poor writing—but rather for non-neutral editing. AGK 21:42, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm no fan of Obama, but.......

Resolved

– User indefblocked, authorities notified.

Isn't making threats like this against the law or something? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jojhutton (talk • contribs) 20:58, Jun 6, 2009 (UTC)

I was about to report this myself, this dif, subsequent reversion, his userpage I think are evidence he is isn't here to contribute constructively. Soxwon (talk) 21:01, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User blocked indefinitely, with email and talkpage editing disabled. I also took the liberty of protecting his talkpage and userspace. Given the circumstances, I'm also reporting this to the Communications Committee. Blueboy 96 21:05, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Busted Soxwon (talk) 21:10, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also emailing Godwin as well. Blueboy 96 21:18, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If someone can run a CU, please email me the ip address and I'll contact the FBI. I have reported others like this in the past and they've been thankful. Toddst1 (talk) 21:51, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On it. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:59, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great--and any way you could block the IP as well just in case this bottom-feeder manages to get around the autoblock? Blueboy 96 22:13, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've reported it. Yes, they were very interested. Admini actions carried out. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:18, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ooh. I see waterbaording in someone's future. And I don't mean surfing. HalfShadow 22:19, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget to notify the US Secret Service; they're more likely to be concerned with this than the FBI. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:41, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure the FBI has their number, lol. ;) couln't resist. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 00:49, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it's prolly some bored 12 yr old dip$%!#, whose parents are going to get a suprising visit, lmfao. Whatcha wanna bet he cant sit down for a week?Heironymous Rowe (talk) 00:52, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to User talk:70.26.6.129, 12 yrs old seems to be correct. And the fact that the FBI will be checking into it seems to have rattled him. --auburnpilot talk 01:33, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's a moot point since the IP is most likely just some juvenile, but in the future it's a good idea to check the IP's geolocation and report it to the local national-level authorities- the IP in question happens to be Canadian. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 01:48, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looking more into it, I believe this is the same user as !1029qpwoalskzmxn (talk · contribs), Studentsrulendestroywiki (talk · contribs) and the IP 76.69.90.142 (talk · contribs). Note both 70.26.6.129 and 76.69.90.142 are Toronto area Bell Canada IPs. --auburnpilot talk 01:49, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, lucky guess or what? That or they saw my post here. Anyway, someone gonna learn a serious lesson from this, at least we can hope. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 01:54, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Someone may want to start filing an abuse report and contacting this ISP to try to get the ISP to prevent this kid from accessing Wikipedia (or probably anything else on the Internet for that matter). MuZemike 01:56, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Godwin's probably gonna be on this on Monday, if not earlier ... 10 to 1 Bell Canada and the RCMP will listen to him more than us. Blueboy 96 03:33, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If it was a bored 12-year-old, I have a hunch he's considerably less bored at this point. Vague threats of violence are one thing, but an overt threat like this one needs to be turned over to the authorities. Which it was. Jolly good. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 03:43, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And to answer the original question - Yes, it is illegal. It's a federal crime. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 03:44, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unusual move

Resolved

I just happened to notice the following entry in the move log:

17:51, June 6, 2009 Solisdaniel moved User talk:Solisdaniel to User talk:Pleasedeleteme

I assume this move should be undone, but I wanted to check here to make sure first.

Thanks, ThaddeusB (talk) 21:57, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moved back and left the user a message. Thanks, –xeno^talk 22:53, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rangeblock on 90.193.250.*

I've just issued my first ever rangeblock, to 90.193.250.0/24. This range of 256 IP addresses appears to be used only by a long term vandal who claims there is a cure for various incurable diseases, such as Alzheimer's disease, and also is in denial about the death of Wendy Richards. I've blocked for 48 hours, but my intention is to increase block lengths by the usual doubling scale on each repeat of the vandalism, unless I see evidence of collateral damage. I'm aware that rangeblocks are usually for short periods, so am I out of line on this? How do I check the range for collateral damage? I can use the CIDR user interface gadget, but it doesn't tell me which IP has edited recently, and it also doesn't work with the classic skin, so it's inconvenient for me.-gadfium 00:15, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The CIDR gadget is your best option - it's not too difficult to see recent edits from this range. Alternatively, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations#90.193.250.0.2F24. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 00:29, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks okay to me. WHOIS seems to suggest a wider range, but if the vandal's not active outside that /24... (quick look on my part found nothing to suggest that, but you're more familiar with this one). – Luna Santin (talk) 00:37, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Backlog at UAA

Could an administrator take a look at UAA? There's quite an impressive backlog there. Thanks. -t'shael ^mindmeld 00:26, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 570: / Line 570: @@
 :Thanks, SheffieldSteel. I don't know about "clueless," but I was definitely, for a while, quite confused, with one edit conflict with Woonpton after another. I go into some detail about what happened, how the report is overblown (the "removed" comment was already struck by the editor, not quite the same as gratuitous deletion), and why we have two competing polls, how the article got protected in the first place, the gaming of RfPP to freeze a highly controversial edit (nobody appears to accept it, not Woonpton, not the editor who made it -- at least not openly, though it's clearly the POV of the editor -- nor anyone else -- but ... this is AN/I where a third of the time nothing comes of lengthy discussion, another third, bad decisions get made quickly, with the rest being routine stuff that's quickly handled, so, my complete response is collapsed below. --[[User:Abd|Abd]] ([[User talk:Abd|talk]]) 20:57, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
+<small>As mentioned above, an extended comment was originally here, in a collapse box. Collapse was removed and then I was criticized for excessive length. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=294650502 original diff] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=294650502#Abd_moving_straw_poll_.21votes.2C_editing_and_removing_article_talk_page_comments permanent link to this section with the collapse at the bottom]. --[[User:Abd|Abd]] ([[User talk:Abd|talk]]) 04:39, 7 June 2009 (UTC)</small>
-Vastly overblown. Woonpton has removed the !votes entirely, and there was never anything other on my part than an attempt to make sure that the vote ended up matched to the intended version; I had become confused about some permanent links -- hopefully it's all been cleared up. Woonpton and I were in edit conflict after edit conflict as I tried to figure out what the editor wanted and to restore and undo any damage that I might have done. It looked to me that the editor had !voted on a version that had an incorrect permanent link, and I misread the first comments. Before I read the final request "don't change my !votes!" I had already restored Woonpton's edit to the place apparently intended, but then Woonpton removed them. I'm not sure it's worth explaining the exact sequence, all I can say is that at each point it seemed to me that I was trying to make the !votes match the intention ''always with the assumption that Woonpton would correct me if I got it wrong.'' Even if Woonpton had disappeared, the problem would have surfaced, because the wrong diffs were later examined, and it would have been right in the end.
-And, in fact, it's all moot, because those versions had been proposed by me, simply following the expressed wish of [[User:Kirk shanahan|Kirk shanahan]], a COI editor who sticks with Talk and who has a very strong anti-cold fusion perspective, and who doesn't seem to understand NPOV policy. That editor proposed an old version he had written that was immediately edited down by Pcarbonn to make it neutral (and, regardless of what Pcarbonn might have done later, this was a highly experienced editor who did get it right). The version was unacceptable. Because I'd proposed the versions, and Woonpton has withdrawn the only expressed support for the version, I collapsed it and the one that I thought the editor might have gotten it confused with, due to what I thought at the time was a link error. I had only included it out of a desire to make the options open and complete, and not to personally control them, as
-What I actually removed was a stricken comment, not the !vote, and the comment had been stricken by Woonpton. If my move of the comment was an error -- I now believe it was, but the whole thing rapidly got bloody complicated due to Woonpton's outrage -- it would have been simple to revert me or to place the !vote where it belonged. Nobody had commented on the stricken comment at that point. Because this is a short section intended to gauge current consensus of editors, and not for debate, deletion is preferable to striking (the "basic rule" cited equates striking and deleting), so, by striking, I interpreted Woonpton as consenting to deletion, and, further, by leaving the actual vote in place, as at least temporarily accepting the position of the vote. I have no idea why the editor didn't simply fix the error, and, indeed it was my error.
-Woonpton did not attempt to warn me or negotiate with me on my Talk page. This was all a transient misunderstanding, but, probably due to some prior and very strange conflict, it blew up quickly.
-The editor is quite welcome to return to [[Cold fusion]] and to !vote according to intention and review. The "fourth version" was the version immediately after the third, and I thought I'd gotten the diffs mixed up. If Woonpton really wants to stand on the third version, it can be removed from collapse and I could put the diffs back in the matrix. Except that I think there is ''nobody'' else, other than the COI editor who proposed it -- it would undo about eight months of work on the article -- who supports that version over the other four that are still up for consideration. (Two more versions were proposed by Hipocrite who set up a competing poll; I added those versions to the poll I'd created so that editors can vote in either place and be rating Hipocrite's proposals. Hipocrite did not see fit to include the version that existed before he requested page protection and then, knowing protection would be coming down ''because of his edit warring,'' made a major edit to the article, mangling the introduction in a highly POV way, which was then protected in. He knew exactly what he was doing. This is covered in [[Talk:Cold_fusion#Page_protection]] and on the RfPP permanent link shown there.).
-My goal in this poll was to quickly estimate consensus. Range polling can be faster for this purpose than Yes/No polling, though it often reduces to the same if people just vote max (10) or min (0). The whole point of such a device is to avoid debate. This is standard in deliberative process for motions where debating the motion would defeat the purpose of the motion. We will continue to discuss and debate content in the article; the polls are just to determine a version to revert to by consensus while the article is under protection.
-It looked like Hipocrite and I had negotiated a settlement that would allow the article to be immediately unprotected, making all this fuss about polls unnecessary, but, quite strangely, this wasn't accepted at RfPP. It was quite clearly a settlement to avoid edit warring, and it included the only two editors who had, by name, been accused of edit warring (though I hadn't edit warred in the recent incident). I'd proposed a mutal topic ban pending resolution; Hipocrite accepted, but then made two alternate suggestions that were more complicated. See [[User talk:Abd#0rr]]. Hipocrite has demanded that I not edit his Talk page, so it's been difficult to figure out what his final position is: I accepted his offer, but he didn't acknowledge it and the details I had written to make it work in a clear and practical sense (as well as making it enforceable).
-My goal in proposing a mutual topic ban was to take it outside of any personal conflict and allow other editors to deal with the mess Hipocrite created by edit warring and requesting protection. It really was The Wrong Version (TM), and I'm concerned that RfPP administrators are quite willing to protect when there is a less drastic remedy: a declared, temporary topic ban on alleged edit warriors from editing the article until it can be sorted. The admins allowed themselves to be gamed, quite effectively. A jaundiced eye should always be cast on an edit warrior who has requested article protection for other than vandalism. --[[User:Abd|Abd]] ([[User talk:Abd|talk]]) 20:57, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 :It seems to be about time for Abd to receive a community topic ban from articles related to [[cold fusion]]. He lacks any sense of proportion and has become extremely hostile to experts in the subject like [[User:Kirk shanahan]]. The talk page has been swamped with his often completely irrelevant comments which, whether it his intention or not, drive away other contributors. He also edits other people's comments (e.g. by putting them into collapse boxes). This is unhelpful behaviour from an account that seems to have regressed to that of [[WP:SPA]]; he uses the talk page as his blog/forum/scratchpad, even suggesting that science writers like [[Gary Taubes]] should be invited to join in discussions there. Abd's machinations already seem to have driven one administrator away from WP. Abd is actively promoting cold fusion on wikipedia as an "emerging science", along the lines of non-scientist advocates like Steven B. Krivit and topic-banned [[User:JedRothwell]], with whom he corresponds. If anybody has a [[WP:COI]] at the moment, it is Abd. He has become a fringe POV-pusher. This does not apply to [[User:Hipocrite]], whom Abd seems to be trying to pull down with him. [[User:Mathsci|Mathsci]] ([[User talk:Mathsci|talk]]) 08:12, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 ::The most important point you raise is that Abd's conduct has driven away other editors from participating (such as myself). The prospect of sifting through incessant multi-kilobyte stream-of-consciousness responses is a powerful [[insect repellant|editor repellant]]. Any POV-pushing can be dealt with as a separate issue. [[User:Short Brigade Harvester Boris|Short Brigade Harvester Boris]] ([[User talk:Short Brigade Harvester Boris|talk]]) 18:09, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
@@ Line 609: / Line 596: @@
 :The relevant ArbCom [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Abd_and_JzG#Abd_advised finding]. These massive walls of text are very, very clearly excessive and unproductive. //[[User:Roux|<span style="color:#465945;font-size:80%;">'''roux'''</span>]] [[User talk:Roux|<span style="border:1px solid #465945;-moz-border-radius-topright:10px;-moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px;padding:0px 7px;font-size:30%;">&nbsp;</span>]] 01:36, 7 June 2009 (UTC)</small>
 I was going to add a substantive comment but now find that WMC's bold actions have brought the problems under temporary control.  I certainly endorse the '''topic ban''' of Abd so that some genuine collaboration can occur, and commend the action taken.  Hopefully this will help encourage some more participation on the article.  [[User:EdChem|EdChem]] ([[User talk:EdChem|talk]]) 23:49, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
+::Well, folks, apparently it ain't over. I'd thought this report resolved and hadn't been back here. Now I see that my extended comment in a collapse box was opened up,  and thus what was a short report, followed by a collapsed extended comment, became a "wall of text," which I'm then dinged for inflicting on admins. I put it in a collapse box precisely because it wasn't so important here, except for those who wanted more background. I'm going to delete what was in collapse and ref it to history, where editors can see it if they want. And next time, that's what I'll do, since some editors seem to place their convenience for searching above organization of text for clarity. This report isn't related to the ban that WMC declared, I'll be dealing with that separately, summary: highly improper, unnecessary (I'd already declared an article ban), punitive (I'd just questioned WMC's editing of the article, and more, but this isn't the place for it. --[[User:Abd|Abd]] ([[User talk:Abd|talk]]) 04:39, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 == Bit of a cheeky IP ==

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards