Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→User:Cirt: resolved
→User:Cirt: say who
Line 940: Line 940:
== [[User:Cirt]] ==
== [[User:Cirt]] ==
{{discussion top}}
{{discussion top}}
{{resolved|It seems that the original complaint has been evaluated and there is a consensus that warnings to avoid [[WP:BATTLE]] behavior are sufficient. [[User:Jehochman|Jehochman]] <sup>[[User talk:Jehochman|Talk]]</sup> 04:29, 30 November 2009 (UTC)}}
{{resolved|It seems that the original complaint has been evaluated and there is a consensus that warnings that [[User:Redheylin]] avoid [[WP:BATTLE]] behavior are sufficient. [[User:Jehochman|Jehochman]] <sup>[[User talk:Jehochman|Talk]]</sup> 04:29, 30 November 2009 (UTC)}}
Today I enquired at [[Talk:Osho (Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh)#Alford plea]] whether the article is correct to assert that such a plea necessarily means that the plaintiff admitted there was evidence enough to convict. I noted that the two pages [[Alford plea]] and [[North Carolina v. Alford]] (two overlapping articles) fail to agree on this and were unsourced. Unable to find confirmation on the web, I posted to the Law Project[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Law&diff=prev&oldid=328462300] to request help and also added tags and talk page notes to the two "Alford" pages.
Today I enquired at [[Talk:Osho (Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh)#Alford plea]] whether the article is correct to assert that such a plea necessarily means that the plaintiff admitted there was evidence enough to convict. I noted that the two pages [[Alford plea]] and [[North Carolina v. Alford]] (two overlapping articles) fail to agree on this and were unsourced. Unable to find confirmation on the web, I posted to the Law Project[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Law&diff=prev&oldid=328462300] to request help and also added tags and talk page notes to the two "Alford" pages.


Revision as of 04:30, 30 November 2009


    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

    This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

    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

    Continual re-creation of deleted article about 'Team Touchdown'

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

    I'm not sure if this is the correct place to put this - if it's not, I apologise.

    A group of editors have been trying to re-create the same article, all about a non-notable group/club in NSW, Wales.

    The deletion log entries are as follows:

    The editors involved include:

    One of the variations is already protected from creation:

    Is it possible to SALT using a regexp?
    Something like T[e|E][a|A][m|M][*][T|t][O|o][U|u][C|c][H|h][D|d][O|o][W|w][N|n]*

    I doubt that they are going to stop trying to recreate the article, as they have been so persistent so far!

    Regards, -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 22:06, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I had nuked another variant (same regex):

    Their repeated recreation after salting of previous spelling (after *its* AfD and then recreation) and associated cloning at Touchdown Jesus is what led me to block Deanops. DMacks (talk) 22:41, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

      • Further to 4twenty42o's link, 2 more editors need to be added to the list:
    I have left messages on the talk pages of all except the first, which was indeffed. Horologium (talk) 22:49, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure how much good that will do; I suspect these are meatpuppets, not socks. IIRC, Team Touchdown is a made-up football group; this is probably a bunch of guys trying to get their little club on WP. GlassCobra 23:48, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • They're back...
    User:Monochrome Scope (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    ...and blocked. DMacks (talk) 08:22, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Though the duration of the lock may be effective enough for now, it will not be as effective hereafter, as when ever the lock is then removed, anyone will be able to recreate the article. An indefinite lock is effective and should be done to prevent any future recreations such as this. If only I had the power to block those responsible for the recreations....--Boeing7107isdelicious|SPRiCh miT meineN PiloteN 05:15, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Repeated Reverts at Solid

    User:Logger9 has reverted for the 3rd time certain edits on solid:

    • I moved a figure showing an one-dimensional model of thermal vibrations to the "thermal properties" section; he moves it back to the top of the article.
    You created a new section called thermal properties by copying the text from the image - word for word. Then you placed the image there. That text hardly constitutes section on thermal properties. The image was fine where it was, especially since it is now just a large blank space. -- logger9 (talk) 04:54, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I deleted lengthy explanations of anorganic and organic compounds; he restores them.
    The most basic chemical differentiation of solid matter is in terms of organic vs. inorganic compounds. To say that these sections are irrelavant is absurd, and the section on inorganics is actually quite brief. I don't understand why you are so dead set against them ? -- logger9 (talk) 04:54, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I have explained my edits in edit summaries, in part also at talk:solid; he reverts without entering discussion and even without edit summaries.

    This behavior must seen in the context of a long history of conflicts in which Logger9 has been involved, lately at talk:liquid and at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts#Solid: reverts by user:Logger9. In my humble and partial opinion, time has come for blocking Logger9 for a couple of days. -- Marie Poise (talk) 21:44, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Have you notified Logger9 of this thread? Crafty (talk) 21:46, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    <personal attack removed>.--66.177.73.86 (talk) 21:48, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Logger9 has been notified of this conversation. Crafty (talk) 21:52, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I also am concerned by the long-term edit behaviour of User:Logger9. I dissociate myself from the comment of the anon, though. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:05, 25 November 2009 (UTC).[reply]

    Logger9 seems intent on forging ahead despite the good faith objections of other editors, to the point that it is becoming disruptive. I have suggested at User_talk:Logger9 that more discussion and less editing would be better, and that a response either there or here is required before further editing. If there is no response, or the same editing pattern continues I think a block will be inevitable. Kevin (talk) 22:33, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    At the same time Marie Poise tends to come across as overly agressive, which is not helping the situation. Kevin (talk) 22:51, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Several editors including myself have found the edits of logger9 to be of poor scientific quality and unhelpful to Wikipedia. In view of his continuing practice of ignoring pleas and warnings and ploughing ahead with his often inappropriate edits, for which he has been rebuked and blocked in the past, it is not surprising that irritation is aroused. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:30, 25 November 2009 (UTC).[reply]
    Not saying it isn't understandable, just unhelpful. Kevin (talk) 23:59, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I hardly think she can be held to be at fault after having been called a parasite. Xxanthippe (talk) 08:26, 26 November 2009 (UTC).[reply]
    It may be worth noting here that I am not editing the article. I wrote the article in its entirety, and I am trying to preserve the majority of its content. Paula Pilcher / Marie Poise is obsessed with removing certain sections. In certain cases, I don't see why that is necessary. -- logger9 (talk) 05:03, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I also find it interesting that everytime an article is blocked from editing, it is Paula Pilcher/Marie Poises version that is retained. Conicidence ??? -- logger9 (talk) 05:06, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Comments like this one are most unhelpful. Is this the extent of your response? Kevin (talk) 05:18, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I would like to point out simply that Paula Pilcher or Maria Poise (or whatever name she chooses to be this month) had never even seen this article (nor any of the others she has tried to contribute to) until I tried to make something out of it. Her pattern on Wikipedia is to follow me wherever I go, trash my work (which is largely acceptable to everyone until she shows up), using a blanket deletion mode, then try to make make something completely different out of the article while creating an edit war -- which attracts massive attention. And when I try to make sure that my work is included, I automatically become the bad guy.
    Now she has changed her editorial style in Solids -- thinking that if she takes the trouble to describe in detail each one of her deletions that they will all stand as a whole. The most interesting part is that none of the other educated editors seems to have any trouble with these sections except for her. Her most recent action was to remove the primary figure from the very top of the article, leaving a most conspicuous blank space where before we had a very informative and helpful figure. This figure was placed there by a member of the core of active science editors. As I said, she knows no bounds, and is relentlessly obsessive in her editorial behavior. Futhermore, she vows openly to continue with these editorial antics.
    When questioned, she states simply that : "You are very bold in inserting, so you have to accept that I am very bold in deleting."
    We don't have to accept anything. Her behavior clearly violates Wikipedia protocol.
    Regarding the blanket deletions of my work, she claims that "I haven't done yet" and referes to the article on Solids.
    And when queried by Wikipedia editor Woudloper regarding a more specific discusion of my work, she states simply that "I refuse to answer the above battery of questions."
    She insults me continuously on all sorts of personal levels. Her attacks are continuously obssessive, aggressive, and highly destructive. None of her actions have been appropriate in this context. Just look at what she has published about me personally on Paula Pilcher user page. And somehow, still, she manages to gain the sympathy of those around her.
    She knows no limits, and her technical experise is questionable at best. At one point, she was insisting in putting pictures of peanut butter on a page about the glass transition. I put up with the peanut butter for awhile (as did other polite editors) trying not to hurt her feelings, as she seems to be quite volatile. Her rude behavior has been dismised by others as being due the fact that she knows English only as a second language. What does that have to do with anything ? A personal insult in exactly that-- and it has no place in the educational arena -- anywhere.
    I have never, ever, rejected ANY of her work. And yet her classical motif is to simply blanket delete ALL of my work. She follows the blanket deletions up by bringing in a hoard of sympathetic administrators -- none of whom would ever be able to read the theoretical contributions without a sufficient background in the subject matter. Then she dismisses my work in its entirety as "scientific blunder" (amongst a text full of other insulting adjectives) and continues with the identical pattern of her "Anti-logger crusade" on the next page that I try to contribute to.
    In the case of Liquids, any and all current editing could have all been done without an edit war or any adnministrative intervention. All she have to do is come contribute. My work could easily be included -- and edited-- below all the other material on a section for Theory of the Liquid State. If you wish to dismiss it because it is not accessible to an eight grader (or to Paula Pilcher, for that matter) then you had better go ahead and lay waste to the majority of your articles in science -- many of which I cannot even understand.
    I am here to contribute on that level. And I have been happy to include readable introductory sections on all of the some 15 articles that I have been a major contributor on Wikipedia. My record stands for itself. I am giving you folks the best that I've got. What I can't understand is why she resents that so much. It's like I have this red target painted on my forehead. I really wish that she would contribute what she has to offer, and move on to something else besides what I am working on. It is something like being stalked -- literally.
    I believe strongly in the concept of scientific education. In fact, I have dedicate my adult life to it. I have found Wikipedia to be an incredible resource on my classroom. Beginning this year, I have tried my hardest to make my most quality contributions on your webite. Please don't let Paula Pilcher/Marie Poise destroy that.
    -- logger9 (talk) 05:31, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you able to respond to my request above? It's not just Marie who disagrees with your editing style, so we need to understand how you intend to work better with other editors. Kevin (talk) 05:52, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Do I have to accept being called a parasite ? For the third time, by the way: this text has been pasted elsewhere before. I admit, I have been bold in my choice of words, too, and I am ready to apologize: These days, kind mediators brought to my attention the importance of the good faith / bad faith distinction, and I am ready to retract whatever in my past comments might be understood as assuming bad faith. Yet, Parasitism (social offense) is quite another level of insult, and worse than the word for which just above someone immediately got blocked. -- Marie Poise (talk) 07:31, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Quotes from Paula: (regarding her blanket deletion of several of my articles)

    "It is preferable to slowly collaborate on stubs......instead of accepting in bulk a valueless and uncurable contribution like the present one.."

    "...yet he re-pastes his old stuff literally, including absurdities like..."

    "Folks, you call it "technical" because you think it's your fault if you don't understand it. Please understand: there is nothing to be understood in this text."

    "The point is: the text is mostly off-topic, it's loquacious, partly wrong, bordering theory finding; and from past experience we can be sure that any attempt to improve the text by removing the most blatant nonsense will inevitably to a repetion of the edit war we have had on glass transition. Any attempt to improve this article is doomed to be a waste of time as long as the original author keeps intervening."

    Alternatively:

    "The topic is an excellent one and the treatment is well-written and sourced. Deletion would be contrary to our editing policy. The excellence of the topic for our purposes may be seen by its extensive coverage in numerous books. I have read the article and consider the writing to be of good quality, albeit not yet in our usual house style. The sourcing is also commendable. Your reference to the ARS seems to be some sort of ad hominem incivility but, in so far as it's relevant, my patrolling activities cause me to see great quantities of poor quality articles which do merit deletion. This article is nothing of the sort and the nomination is quite contrary to our deletion policy." -- Colonel Warden

    You maintain the following on your Userpage for all the world to see: "It is very easy to get nonsense in, and very difficult to get it out. See my attempts to stop User:Logger9 from dumping pseudoscientific blunder." Which is worse ?? It was suggested to you by a senior editor that you remove that content as being offensive -- yet you refused.
    You are FAR more aggressive, confrontational, and non-negotiable than I have ever been. I have to do something just to stay afloat. If it were up to you, I wouldn't exist -- nor would any of my "pseudoscientific blunder". How would you feel if someone treated you like that on a daily 24/7 basis ????
    When I sense apologies and/or retractions, than I will consider doing likewise. But as long as you keep that personal statement about me published on your Userpage, it is obvious the extent to which you have always been willing to go to belittle me and my work. It's very insulting. -- logger9 (talk) 17:48, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I have had no serious problems with other editors. Materialscientist did a massive overhaul of much of my early work, and I agreed with virtually everything he requested. We also agreed on a section removal in Solids (Chemical analysis), as per his reasoning. I agree with constructive editing. In anything but extreme cases, I don't agree with removing vital sections "because the article is too long". -- logger9 (talk) 07:04, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Eh, that is not quite true. I have only run into you in liquid, but there your style of editing (replacing an entire article with one of your own devising of a, in my opinion at least, somewhat poorer standard) did make me sad, and we did exchange a few bouts of words. Removing irrelevant stuff from pages is the 2nd-most important part of editing (just after adding important stuff) Esben (talk) 20:36, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I was wondering why you called me a "hotshot" ;-) You were caught midstream, ny friend (as most of Paula'a advocates are). What you did not realize was that she had previously deleted the ENTIRE article -- several times, in fact. I was just trying to put it back. -- logger9 (talk) 22:43, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    While this discussion is still ongoing, Logger9 continued reverting without discussing at page liquid: he restored a subsection with crude speculations, supported by primary sources from the 1920s/30s, without answering to the reasons for deletion I had given in my edit summaries. -- Marie Poise (talk) 07:23, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I added 3 short paragraphs on the effects of association in liquids. My reasons are now stated clearly there for you. I feel strongly that this material is critical for an understanding of the mechanisms responsible for liquid viscosity. The dates of the publications are irrelevant. -- logger9 (talk) 18:08, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    There are multiple issues here, but one just came up to my mind and without judging it, I invite (preferably uninvolved parties) for discussion. Please try your best to be brief.

    Logger9 states that he uses his web-site http://www.wavesignal.com/ for on-line teaching. That web-site cites about 20 WP articles edited by the user as "on-line publications" for the courses. Please state your opinion whether or not this constitutes WP:COI and whether or not this might affect his possible protectionism of those articles. Thank you. Materialscientist (talk) 05:35, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Correction on your assumption. These articles have absolutely NOTHING to do with the courses I teach. They are simply there to show the readers (not just my students) my fields of expertise, and share with them some of my contributions. If this going to be a conflict, I will GLADLY remove them from my website at any time. In fact, at this juncture I will remove my website address (once again) from any text associated with Wikipedia. Thank you. -- logger9 (talk) 05:44, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    In this context it might be interesting to note that one of the threads Logger9 started at talk:liquid is entitled "In Defense of the Realm". According to WP, "a realm is a dominion of a monarch or other sovereign ruler." - Compare this to how physics of glass, ceramics engineering, colloidal crystal, phase transformations in solids and so on are all linked to each other by "See Also" links: it really is a network of private publications, and nobody would have cared, hadn't Logger9 transgressed the bounds of specialist lemmata and tried to incorporate key articles like "liquid" or "solid" into his realm. -- Marie Poise (talk) 07:23, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Nobody would have cared ???????? You have been trashing ALL of my articles since the Physics of glass. The picture you paint is always so devastingly crooked. I have to spend half of my life just defending myself from all the attacks you launch in all directions !
    This discussion is a perfect example. You have them all on a witch hunt again. I congratulate you on your cunningness. But I still don't see any serious work done by you here on Wikipedia. -- logger9 (talk) 17:57, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Logger,you said above "It may be worth noting here that I am not editing the article. I wrote the article in its entirety, and I am trying to preserve the majority of its content. " Nobody here owns a page at WP, (see WP:OWN) and the contents can be edited by anybody. If you disagree with what they have done, it needs to be discussed on the talk page--if you cannot reach agreement, DR is needed--probably starting here with a 3O from some other editor with experience in the subject. Wikipedia does not work by academic credentials, though we certainly encourage people with them to work here, and they certainly have no less right to edit than anyone else. It appears that in this case both you and Marie have credential in the subject. We are not asked to judge between them. At Citizendium, arguments over content can degenerate into arguments about whose academic credential are stronger, but we try not to do it here. We rely on the assumption that the person who understands the subject best will make the best edits, and that other editors will see that. Your attitude here about others' editing is not in the spirit of Wikipedia, and you will need to re-evaluate it.

    Marie, this to some extent applies to you also: you are trying to write a version that you think better. What you need to do is to develop a version that is agreed by consensus to be better. On Talk: Liquid you proposed a vote between the two versions, but this is not the way we do things. Kev in properly protected that article, but as he said, it cannot stay protected indefinitely, and he un--protected it. He seems to be taking responsibility for bringing about a compromise, and I encourage him to continue with it. Kevin, if they both stayed away from boht articles, do uyou think you (with help from NW and others interested) could do what editing is necessary? We need someohow to get a consensus version.

    As a practical matter i am quite prepared to block both parties a short time for persistent edit warring, regardless of merits of the edits--and I see from his talk page Kevin thinks similarly. But I would also be prepared to block Logger for longer periods if needed, until he is willing to engage in cooperative editing and both explains and shows that he has abandoned the idea of trying to own the subject area. DGG ( talk ) 22:49, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not trying to "own" anything. But I can't just sit back and let Paula delete entire articles as she sees fit. And I think that allowing her to do so, while blocking me for a longer period, is hardly what I would call justice. She creates the scene, and I am the one who is punished. -- logger9 (talk) 00:23, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a very good summary of the situation. We're at the point that behavioral changes are needed for both logger9 and Marie Poise. A topic ban is another option I have been thinking about, for both editors. Clearly both have a difficulty in remaining neutral and one way or another they have to stop. My worry with a topic ban is that unless it is very broad the dispute will simply move somewhere else, or the talk pages will be flooded with large blocks of text rather than discussion. Kevin (talk) 23:18, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I will be offline for a week for private reasons. Maybe that's a good coincidence. All the best - Marie Poise (talk) 07:32, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Regarding the concerns of MS below, I want to again make something quite clear (since he has intentionally deleted my message, and ignored its contents). Correction on your assumption.

    These articles have absolutely NOTHING to do with the courses I teach. They are simply there to show the readers (not just my students) my fields of expertise, and share with them some of my contributions. If this going to be a conflict, I will GLADLY remove them from my website at any time. In fact, at this juncture I will remove my website address (once again) from any text associated with Wikipedia. Thank you. -- logger9 (talk) 05:44, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Formal Apology

    I want to take this time to express my most sincere apologies and deepest regrets for any ill will I may have created by way of my deeds and actions here at Wikipedia. In retrospect, I can see now that thru my lack of constuctive interaction and feedback on the Talk pages, my silence has been interpreted as arrogance and/or hostility.

    I am truly sorry for any behavior which has been construed as rude or unfriendly. I am very tired now of laying the blame on any specific individual(s) who may have somehow gotten me 'kick started'. I can see now that it would have been much better for all parties concerned if I had handled it in a more professional manner.

    Being a classical Taurus, I am sometimes particularly headstrong when it comes to the completion of goal oriented activities. (The only person I know who is worse is my 25-year old Taurean son). Once I saw what was possible here, I could not stop until I had done the best job that I could possibly do with any and all articles closely related to my fields of study (Materials Science/Engr/Phys Chem/Mathematics) which appeared either to be in need of creation or service. To be honest, I have virtually completed the job I set out to do. I.E. I have no immediate plans for further article creation, major editing or contribution.

    If anything, I may show some interest in Physical chemistry in the future. But I have already made one serious textbook shot at it, and it became immediately clear that was not what they are looking for to expand the stub. So I cleared out in totality. Solid and Liquid were both pretty much bonuses after the fact. I stumbled on Solid as a stub while searching all articles on mechanical properties. And Liquid has been in the back of my mind ever since one of the major Glass editors asked my why I had not included the Radial distribution function in my description of the Physics of glass. (I am still looking for a better image of g(r) for the Liquid page - concentric rings of high particle density w/ diffuse boundaries).

    As far as I am concerned, my job here is virtually done for now. One thing I have learned while working here is that nothing stays the same. Nothing is carved in stone (like journal articles). Everything changes constantly -- much like a coastal beach which is ravaged by seastorms on a regular basis. And I will surely find it interesting to look back ten years from now and view the evolution of whatever I started here.

    I also wish to thank you for the privilege of publishing my work on the world's largest information source. I have the highest opinion of the work done here @ Wikipedia, and I am very proud to be a contributor and editor. That is why the articles which I have contributed to in any major way are listed on my website. There is no other reason. Other than teaching, this has been my primary work arena this past year -- and I would like to show people what is possible here.

    In conclusion, I would like to wish everyone the best of luck with all of their future activities at Wikipedia. I sincerely hope that you all find it as rewarding as I have. As far as I am concerned, when it comes to the expression and presentation of scientific knowledge, there is no substitute :-) -- logger9 (talk) 02:19, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Possible COI

    There are multiple issues here, but one just came up to my mind and without judging it, I invite (uninvolved parties) for a discussion. Please try your best to be brief.

    Logger9 states that he uses his web-site http://www.wavesignal.com/ for on-line teaching. That web-site cites about 20 WP articles edited by the user as "on-line publications" for the courses. Please state your opinion whether or not this constitutes WP:COI and whether or not this might affect his possible protectionism of those articles. Thank you. Materialscientist (talk) 05:35, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree with MS that some form of COI is happening with logger9 (and not just evidenced by his website, which is overall a minor concern IMO). IMO, it is absurd to think that logger9 purposefully wants to harm Wikipedia. logger9 seems to be used to write journal articles or reviews, and thus apply the same line of reasoning when writing Wikipedia article. The problem is that writing like in a article/review does not translate well on Wikipedia. First is the concern of original synthesis. What would tremendously help IMO is sticking to the ideas and views found in literature reviews and textbooks. AKA if the ideas are not in a textbook, leave them out. Second is that reviews need to cover every little detail and cite everything that's been done on each of the details since the last review plus what's considered to be standard citations for those details. On wikipedia, you are much better off saying "Bob proposed the theory of X, in 1949.[1] The theory explain the implication of X on the first[2] and third[3] laws of thermodynamics." than "Following the work of Claude[1], Suzy[2-3], Paul[4-6], and Jim[7-9], Bob[10] proposed the theory of X,[11] which explains the first[2,6,12-16] and third[4,8,10,17-20] laws of thermodynamics." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Headbomb (talk • contribs)

    Suggestions

    It is quite clear that an administrative action is required in this case. Please place your suggestion here. I understand the solution is not straightforward, but please try to be brief. Logger9 and Marie Poise. Please do not edit this section. Other editors, please move your comments here as necessary. Materialscientist (talk) 23:41, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Topic ban for Logger9. I have expressed the view before that the edits of logger9 are of indifferent quality. They demonstrate little ability to synthesise the material into an effective overview and to distinguish between relevant and irrelevant material. They are sometimes verbose and rambling. While this was not important in the earlier stages of Wikipedia it is becoming more noticeable as WP matures and its overall quality improves. This is a content issue and administrative action is not needed to deal with it. It does explain, though, why other editors are attempting to improve the articles of logger9 and are becoming frustrated at the obstacles they find in doing so. What is more disturbing is logger9's reaction to those who attempt to develop and improve the articles that he identifies himself with on his web site http://www.wavesignal.com/. His standard operating procedure is to revert to his own version. He ignores, provokes, insults (parasite) and drives other editors away. I fear that there is only one way to deal with obsessive and recalcitrant behaviour of this sort (which unfortunately is not uncommon on WP). I suggest an indefinite ban on his editing the articles that he identifies with namely: Solid, Sol-gel, Liquid, Crystal growth, Crystal structure, Kinetic theory of solids, Transparent materials, Transparent ceramics, Ceramic engineering, Nanotechnology, Strength of glass, Physics of glass, Glass transition, Colloidal crystal, Light scattering, Spinodal decomposition, Transformation toughening, Plastic deformation in solids, Phase transformations in solids. Those of his edits that are found to be useful will be retained; those that are not can be improved without the threat of an edit war. An indefinite ban is not a permanent ban and when the articles have settled into a steady state after the efforts of other editors logger9 can appeal for release from the ban. Xxanthippe (talk) 11:31, 28 November 2009 (UTC).[reply]
    • Support: Xxanthippe's proposal of a restriction that would keep User:logger9 from editing the above-listed articles. From the above discussion, it's clear that editing by Logger9 is causing distress among several editors who work on those articles. His responses in this thread seem inappropriate, and don't reflect a sincere desire to reach compromise. The observations by Materialscientist and Headbomb about a COI are sensible. The title of this thread is #Repeated reverts at Solid, so this is a long-term edit-warring complaint of the kind that ANI can and does handle whenever there is a problem affecting many people. Logger9's effort to find consensus for his edits seems weak and inadequate. (If his edits had found support, he wouldn't have to keep reverting them back in all the time). EdJohnston (talk) 19:25, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support restrictions. logger9 does not seem to understand or even care about the nature of the Wikiproject (i.e. what WE is or is not, the concept of consensus, or just walking away from articles when things get tense). Logger9's contributions that I have dealt with have been inferior in quality. The editor is not stupid, just very tone-deaf. The ideal approach (that is impractical) would be that Logger9 be required to submit proposed editing plans and seek some pre-editing consensus.--Smokefoot (talk) 01:20, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • As an uninvolved editor, I will Support, although with the option of allowing him to edit the talk pages constructively so he may learn the way consensus works. This has got to be one of the worst cases of WP:OWNership I've ever seen. Auntie E. 01:33, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Moot - Unfortunately, Logger has decided to leave the project.[4] I suggest we just archive the thread and let things be as they are. NW (Talk) 02:46, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Aside from the decision, he also apologized to all Wikipedians involved. However, as being uninvolved, I would say Dismal Support.----Boeing7107isdelicious|SPRiCh miT meineN PiloteN 06:07, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I am afraid your confidence is misplaced. Since he issued his Apology logger9 has continued to edit the project, making nine more edits to Solid, one to Physics of glass. The sad truth is that people who behave in this manner are unable to control their compulsions. The only way to get them to stop is to apply external constraint. Xxanthippe (talk) 11:18, 29 November 2009 (UTC).[reply]
    • Support. Though still do not believe intentional harm was intended, several articles declined markedly in quality during his "stewardship". I believe this course of actions do seem to be the only way to improve Wikipedia. Though I agree that it appears to be moot from his recent apology. Also note that I was slightly involved in the case, though not in the actual edit-war Esben (talk) 10:58, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Gibraltar

    Can someone take a look at Gibraltar for some time we have had Spanish editors trying to make the article 'more Spanish' involving long discussions which are currently stalling in informal mediation;

    Today we have a repeated attempt to include a long list of allegedly notable Spanish people under the heading who are most certainly NOT Gibraltarian people, as these are by definition British Citizens.

    The editor responsible for this is user:Ecemaml who has previously been blocked for misbehaviour on Gibraltar related issues. User:Cremallera may be a sock of his - can someone check this.

    This looks very much like an attempt to start an edit war. --Gibnews (talk) 01:04, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm involved in trying to help mediate the disputes at Gibraltar. As I'm involved in the mediation and I've been an admin for less than a week I hesitate to use any tools but I've been watching over the situation. The only person who has violated 3RR at this point is User:Justin A Kuntz, but he informed me that he is taking a 2 day Wikibreak so I don't think there's any point in a block. Anyone who wants to help out and intervene, however, is more than welcome, as the heat on this article (and History of Gibraltar) seems to be rising. -- Atama頭 02:02, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Although you are doing a good job in trying to mediate in the Gibraltar article, it looks like there is an orchestrated attempt to disrupt that and other articles on Gibraltar and set up Justin and myself. Its very unproductive but frankly typical of the sort of harassment tactic continually used by the Spanish Government against Gibraltar. --Gibnews (talk) 07:58, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I've fully-protected the article both articles for one week while mediation is ongoing; it might take the heat out of the situation if editors can discuss things without needing to worry about what others are doing on the article. FWIW, I see no immediate reason to think that Cremallera and Ecemamlare are sock accounts, although an WP:SPI might be helpful to settle that. EyeSerenetalk 11:55, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Bad move. Loosmark (talk) 11:59, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Why? EyeSerenetalk 12:01, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Well what if some other serious editors who are not involved in this dispute want to make some good edits? Loosmark (talk) 12:18, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    {{editprotected}}... I hope you don't mind me asking, but you're not a new editor. Is this a serious objection to what you must be aware is standard procedure in hot content disputes? Your userpage notes that you retired a couple of days ago; I can't avoid the impression that either you're making some kind of point, the reason for which is lost on me, or I'm being trolled. EyeSerenetalk 13:01, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Trolled!? I simply wasn't aware it's a standard procedure. Loosmark (talk) 14:17, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, no worries :) I just thought it was a strange objection. I apologise for misconstruing your post. EyeSerenetalk 14:25, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi. So now pointless personal attacks, Spanish bashing, attributing "orchestrated disruptive intentions" to other editors, unfounded accusations of sockpuppetry and vilifying the Spanish Government is considered fair play in the Administrators' noticeboard? Still can't believe it. PS: actually, protecting the articles isn't a bad move given the current climate, in my opinion of course.Cremallera (talk) 14:05, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm happy with protecting the articles. The contentious edits refer to events 300 years ago so there is no urgency. --Gibnews (talk) 20:12, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi, this is Ecemaml, the man who seems to have shot Liberty Valance. Well, I see this is not the place to discuss on the content of the blocked article, but I'd like to make it clear some of the accusations I've received:

    • I've done an only semi-reversion (explaining why, dropping one of the persons in the list and including references to justify notability in those who didn't have an article yet). BTW, the edition summary in the removal of the information I had created was as explanatory and related to the Wikipedia policies as "ridiculous entry". No further information was provided in the talk page (I'm supposedly the disruptive editor).
    • Examples of those that are not deemed as notable are Diego de Astorga y Céspedes (just created).
    • There are solid explanations to my editions in the talk page. You can agree or not with them, but my editions are far from being arbitrary. To sum up, I argue that, as long as there is an only article for Gibraltar (that is, there is no article for the town of Gibraltar and other for the British territory of Gibraltar, much in the like of Taiwan and the Republic of China), it's valid to include in a section named "Notable people from Gibraltar" any notable person from Gibraltar from whatever period, either Roman, Visigoth, Vandal, Moor, Spanish or British. If a list on "Notable Gibraltarians" is wished, its place should be Gibraltarian people. Moreover, from the 13 people currently listed in the section, only 4 or 5 may qualify as Gibraltarian (the rest being British subjects accidentally born in Gibraltar as their parents were military garrisoned in Gibraltar, none of them known to have asked for "Gibraltarian nationality", quite sensible since they're are full British people.
    • An odd sign of what's going on can be seen here. It seems as if any person in the phone directory in Gibraltar is more notable than any Spanish person born in Gibraltar.

    That's all, I'll wait until next December 3, although given the long quarrel in the talk page, the section we're talking about should carry an obvious {{NPOV}}.

    On the other hand, may I ask you which further step I should take. Should I ask for a RFC? Best regards --Ecemaml (talk) 23:00, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Maybe there is precedent elsewhere. Notable members of the British Empire, such as Kipling who were born in India are not described as being Indian, although when listing their birthplace one should correctly say that Kipling was born in Bombay. It follows that Kipling could be included in a list or category of notable people whose birth occurred in India (or even in Mumbai), but not in a list of famous Indians. This would suggest that notable people of any nationality who were born in Gibralter should go in the list or category of people born in Gibralter. To exclude notable persons who are or were not citizens of the current regime in Gibralter would be unreasonable and incorrect.Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:30, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, you've seen my point. The most weird issue is that in the current list most of the people listed cannot be described as Gibraltarians since that term applies only to what was/is the civilian population of the town and not to the members of the garrison and their families (which are obviously only British, even if they could apply, if they had wished, to the Gibraltarian status). That is, in its current status the list only comprises people (either Gibraltarian or not) born in the city since the 18th century, when it was transferred to Great Britain (now UK), but notable people born before are simply "banned". Nobody intend to list Spanish Gibraltar-born people as Gibraltarians, but just as Gibraltar-born notable guys (of course that notability may be discussed in a case-by-case basis, but it has been excluded since the beginning). --Ecemaml (talk) 11:47, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Reinserted reply to HotR after WP helpfully blanked it. EyeSerenetalk 12:48, 27 November 2009 (UTC):[reply]
    That sounds eminently sensible to me. Perhaps splitting the section into "Notable Gibraltan citizens" and "Notable people born in Gibraltar" (or something similar) might also be worth considering, if it's felt necessary to make a clearer distinction? EyeSerenetalk 11:06, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Your proposal also sounds sensible to me. The issue here is that there is no an equivalence between periods in the history of Gibraltar and nationality (that is, although all the notable Gibraltar-born guys in the Spanish period happens to be Spaniards, notable Gibraltar-born guys in the British period may be, usually, either Gibraltarian or British), so that option might be sensible. Other alternative could be including an only list, alphabetically ordered, including the nationality of the notable guy (for instance: "X (1850-1900) - British military engineer", "Y (1900-1950) - Gibraltarian painter", "Z (1600-1650) - Spanish cardinal"). --Ecemaml (talk) 21:37, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


    The very concept of "notable people" in itself could raise new issues, I'm afraid. Like this one, for instance.Cremallera (talk) 15:55, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Removed PROD (reason given "Not notable for English encyclopaedia"). I hold no brief for the Spanish, but there is no way this deletion would be non-controversial. Advise Gibnews to use AfD if he wishes to delete any more Spaniards from Gibralter (as none would be non-controversial) and to consider the content of WP:POINT before making any nominations, particularly of figures who were of any significance in the history of the Catholic Church - which is very much a subject for the English encyclopaedia. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:11, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Good move; that article is in no way a PROD candidate and would certainly get kept, and most likely snow-kept, at AfD. There's also no such thing as "Not notable for English encyclopaedia" outside the normal GNG; Gibnews might like to look at El Señor Presidente, Mario Vargas Llosa and The General in His Labyrinth, to name but three FAs off the top of my head. EyeSerenetalk 17:43, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi, just to let you know that I've reverted the PROD template (which were not removed when Elen explained to Gibnews that his attempt to make Diego de Astorga removed was inappropriate), on the same grounds, in Juan Romero de Figueroa and Gonzalo Piña Ludueña (both, as Diego de Astorga y Céspedes, created by me). I don't know the inclusion of the PROD template is a disruptive action or not in itself. I simply want to let you know that the former, Juan Romero de Figueroa has been in wikipedia for more than a year (I created it in September 2008). The latter, [[Gonzalo Piña Ludueña], had a {{underconstruction}} template as I created it yesterday. In none of the occasions I was notified as the template requires. --Ecemaml (talk) 21:37, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see a problem with this. If Gibnews continues to feel the articles are without merit, he can try AfD - but it would be worthwhile reading Eye Serene's comment's above before he does. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:01, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    These been created by Ecemaml to provoke a dispute by including obscure people from prior to 1704 were born in Gibraltar on the Gibraltar main page. There are a number of articles on Wikipedia about Gibraltarian people however, the list on the Gibraltar main article does not include all of them, just a handful of the more prominent ones.
    Inclusion of obscure people like Gonzalo Piña Ludueña who does not (currently) merit an article in the .es wikipedia simply for the purpose of starting an edit war is something I think deserves looking at carefully. --Gibnews (talk) 09:50, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    If you believe it is of no value, WP:AFD is thataway. Also, per your note on my talkpage - Gibralter is a bloody great rock. Attempts to argue that it did not exist before the Brits arrived is ludicrous. As there is not two articles, one on the current situation and one on the rest of history, or one on the current regime and one on the geographical location, it follows that the article ought to be about the whole history of the rock. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:43, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You miss the point, the article IS about Gibraltar the whole history of the Rock, including periods of occupation by the moors and Spanish is in History of Gibraltar. However the section in the main article on 'notable people' is very restricted and creating nonsense articles to justify adding obscure people of no consequence in the history of the territory is only done to provoke a dispute. And that is why its mentioned on this noticeboard. --Gibnews (talk) 10:11, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    No, you miss the point. I'll assume this is down to my phrasing it badly. The article Gibralter is about the bloody great rock. It's not about British-Ruled Gibralter. It includes information about the current regime, a summary of the history (for which there is a longer article), the geography, the climate etc. By that definition, you cannot define people from Gibralter only as citizens of the current regime. See also the notes above about Kipling - its anyone notable of any nationality who was born on the Rock. I also recommend that you stop being WP:POINTY about people born on the rock before the Brits arrived. Again see the notes above - if you think they are truly not notable, go to AfD. Otherwise, I strongly recommend you let the matter drop. Now I am going to the talk page to recommend that we put the pre British persons back into the article, perhaps using subheadings to distinguish some time periods. Given that I am a Brit and have (as far as I know) not a drop of Spanish blood, nor any political view on Gibralter, nor any reason to advance a pro-Spanish viewpoint, I would appreciate a cessation of the personal attacks. Thank you. Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:52, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Nope, I think you're missing the point, adding a whole bunch of obscure people to the Gibraltar article purely because they are Spanish is being pointy. The purpose in doing so was being pointy and to provoke a dispute, the next stage of which when the people are suggested to not be notable enough to be included in what is an overview article, will be to scream that the Brits are censoring the article. Why else do you think that the editor added a stack of redlinks, how many other articles think a goat herder is of sufficient merit to be included in an overview article, or perhaps the local parish priest of a town with less than 4000 people. Notably there was nothing to even say many of the proposed additions were even born in Gibraltar.
    The same editor who added 5 obscure people to the article, was edit warring the previous day to change the start of the second world war from 1939 to 1940, for an entirely specious reason. That is being pointy. The pointy edits are continuing see this diff [5] and this diff [6], the second is purely intended to be provocative.
    To also make a point, this occurs during mediation at the start of which all of the editors involved agreed to an undertaking not to disrupt the article. They also agreed to discuss any changes in the talk page first. This isn't happening.
    I'd also make the point, that on the British side, the editors involved made a offer to draw a line under any possible misunderstanding from the past and to work together in the future. That offer was flung back in their faces. There seems to be a tactic of disruption, edit warring, talk page posts to escalate tension, then turning round and expecting things to be discussed reasonably.
    And whilst I am a Brit, I'm also half-Spanish my mother being one of the 3000 Spanish refugees who fled Franco's Spain to Britain. You suggest on the article talk page that there should a consensus discussion about who to add, the people suggested might be notable enough to justify a stub article, they're not notable enough to suggest inclusion in the overview article on Gibraltar. Now I would suggest that if you're planning to intervene, you stick around, because when the personal attacks accusing people of censorship and suppressing the truth start I would hope you'll intervene. For me, I've had a gutfull of being attacked as censoring the article because we respect NPOV and refuse to allow the article to be edited to favour a particular viewpoint.
    The second reason I hope you stick around, is that I have a very strong suspicion that there is collusion off-wiki on these articles, because the actions of the editors involved is just too co-ordinated to be co-incidence. There is also an entry on the talk page that alludes to communication by email. I would really appreciate a neutral admin sticking around to ensure fair play. Not a personal attack but for me, writing was the "view of AN/I" on the talk page is questionable.
    Purely for the record, Gibnews use of PROD was pointy and I don't support it. It doesn't help to adopt the same tactic of disrupting wikipedia to make a point. I do support locking the article, I would suggest it continues until ALL OF THOSE involved respect the undertaking they signed at the start of mediation, stop the personal attacks and work toward improving the article, using the talk page to discuss edits and adding consensus material to the article. Justin talk 13:03, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    To be clear, my only accusation relating to WP:POINT was Gibnews's attempts to PROD the articles in order to get them out of the list. This is the very essence of point - it is disruptive because it fails to follow Wikipedia's own rules. Given that as it currently stands neither the short nor the long list contains any Spaniards, the concern that there is a deliberate effort to remove all evidence that Gibralter has ever had any connection with Spain has prima facie validity. A (well conducted) discussion on who belongs in the short list would not be pointy, but should not include "Spanish" or "from before the British arrived" as a category for exclusion. I am not sure that Gibnews would agree to this, but a fruitful discussion could be had by others with knowledge in the various areas, to allow us to compare say Penney with the Spanish Inquisitor - neither of whom I've ever heard of, but at least the Inquisition is something I have heard of, so that's probably influencing my decision at the moment. Personally, John Galliano is the only person on the list I'm familiar with instantly. Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:30, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Prior to 1704 Gibraltar was a small town of a few thousand people, it wasn't exactly a pleasant place to live and the Spanish monarchs had to compel people to live there. To be blunt it was the arse end of the universe. That there may be few Spaniards to go on that list might have something to do with that. Thats a more rational explanation than to assume bad faith and that they've been deliberately expunged.
    A rational discussion on who should be included is perfectly possible but not I fear with the editor who made these changes. They were introduced purely for the reasons of being pointy. Gibnews can be stubborn when his back his up but he is amenable to discussion otherwise. And having Ecemaml tell him that Gibraltar doesn't exist was intended to do precisely that. As I've suggested, any discussion that concluded that some or all of those do not merit inclusion would result in accusations of suppression and censorship.
    Stick around, you might find it interesting. May i suggest that the article remains locked until there is a consensus on the edits under mediation. Justin talk 19:25, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Waiting for more input from mediator I think. And it's very well known that Birmingham is the arse end of the universe. Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:18, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Not if you happen to be an engineer, then its heavy engineering Nirvana. Ciao. Justin talk 20:26, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    unindent

    Would an uninvolved admin please take a look at Spain – United Kingdom relations, history here and Talk:Spain – United Kingdom relations. The same bad tempered exchanges are breaking out there as on Gibraltar. Justin talk 22:08, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, please. --Ecemaml (talk) 22:47, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Going back to the point we're discussing, I'd like to say something:
    • With regard to the mediation process, it was always understood (at least by me) that it applied to a specific disagreement (how the capture and exodus of the Gibraltarian population after the Anglo-Dutch takeover in 1704 has to be described). For me, introducing five "notable" guys that happened to be Spaniards in a list already containing 13 people, was not intended to be controversial. Upon my only reversion I explained carefully my edition and provided references for the articles not created yet.
    • With regard to the five "notable" guys (described as "obscure"), I'll list them just to highlight why they're notable (more verbose explaination can be found in their articles):
    1. Simón Susarte: lead one of the attacks over Gibraltar during the first Spanish siege. He's notable for two matters: it's the only Gibraltar-born guy that lead an attack to the town and the only that did it over the top of the Rock. It fulfills the criteria listed in WP:NOTABILITY. However, as the section under discussion seems to list people that were notable "outside" Gibraltar, I have no problem (and I've said that above) if he's not included.
    2. Juan Romero de Figueroa: the "local parish priest of a town with less than 4000 people". That town happens to be Gibraltar. That town happens not have reached again 4,000 people until the 19th century (that is Henry Francis Cary, John Beikie, Don Pacifico and John Montresor were born in a town smaller than Spanish Gibraltar). That parish priest happens to be one of the 60 people that remained in the town after the Anglo-Dutch takeover. That parish priest happens to be the only eye-witness of the siege and takeover from the inside. That parish priest happens to be the primary source of what happened in those events by all the historians of Gibraltar (yes, including William Jackson, the British Governor of Gibraltar) That parish priest happens to be the responsible of that the current Cathedral in Gibraltar stays where it stays and has kept Catholic worship for five centuries. That parish priest was the first Vicar General of Gibraltar (that is, he was no longer a parish priest). That Vicar General happens to be especially respected by the Catholic Dioceses of Gibraltar and buried in the Cathedral (here). However, same comment applies.
    3. Diego de Astorga y Céspedes: Archbishop of Toledo, Primate of Spain, Grand Inquisitor, sponsor of one of the finest Baroque artworks in Spain (the Transparente). It fulfills the criteria listed in WP:NOTABILITY. I don't think further comments are needed.
    4. Gonzalo Piña Ludueña: Spanish conquistador, governor of the province of Venezuela, founder of several colonial cities in nowadays Venezuela. Founder of the only other town in the world which shares the same name (as it was given it by Ludueña). Same comment as before.
    5. Juan Asensio: General of the Mercedarian order, president of the Council of Castile, bishop of Lugo, Ávila and Jaén. At the moment, as he has no article, I don't object to include it.
    So, to sum up, two guys from the Spanish period (in which, BTW, the statement "it wasn't exactly a pleasant place to live and the Spanish monarchs had to compel people to live there" is plainly false, since it happened only after the first Christian capture of the town in the 14th century). I can't see how such an inclusion may be controversial. Best regards --Ecemaml (talk) 22:47, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    On the other hand, I'm beginning to feel really unconfortable about the constant personal attacks and defamation I'm receiving. I'm trying to stick to a strict "no personal attack" behaviour, but the way I'm being defamating, as if I were a putching ball, seems to be far away from the Wikipedia principles. We can discuss about NPOV, strongly and fiercely support our positions, but personal attacks again and again are simply outside the usual behaviour in Wikipedia. Only in this discussion it's been said that:

    1. "it looks like there is an orchestrated attempt to disrupt that and other articles on Gibraltar and set up Justin and myself" (Gibnews)
    2. "Its (..) typical of the sort of harassment tactic continually used by the Spanish Government against Gibraltar" (Gibnews)
    3. "[Articles have] been created by Ecemaml to provoke a dispute" (Gibnews)
    4. "[Articles have been created] simply for the purpose of starting an edit war" (Gibnews)
    5. "[Ecemaml is creating] nonsense articles (..) only done to provoke a dispute" (Gibnews)
    6. "The purpose in doing so was being pointy and to provoke a dispute" (Justin)
    7. "the next stage of which when the people are suggested to not be notable enough to be included in what is an overview article, will be to scream that the Brits are censoring the article" (Justin)
    8. "The same editor who added 5 obscure people to the article, was edit warring the previous day to change the start of the second world war from 1939 to 1940, for an entirely specious reason" (Justin)
    9. "There seems to be a tactic of disruption, edit warring, talk page posts to escalate tension, then turning round and expecting things to be discussed reasonably" Justin
    10. "I have a very strong suspicion that there is collusion off-wiki on these articles, because the actions of the editors involved is just too co-ordinated to be co-incidence" Justin
    11. "A rational discussion (..) is perfectly possible but not I fear with the editor who made these change" Justin
    12. "[The notable Spanish Gibraltar-born guys] were introduced purely for the reasons of being pointy" Justin
    13. " And having Ecemaml tell him that Gibraltar doesn't exist was intended to do precisely that" Justin

    Most of the items are IMHO at least blatant assumptions of bad faith, but I'd like to highlight items 8 and 13.

    In item 8, Justin claims that I've intended to change the start of the WWII from 1939 and 1940. Here you have my edition (explaining in the edit summary that it intends to talk about the "Gib[raltar] involvement in WWII") and my explaination ("stating that there was no active involvement of Gibraltar in WWII until 1940 is a "disruptive edition" (..) You possibly know about the Phoney War, that conscription was introduced in Gibraltar in 1940, that evacuation plans were drawn up and implemented in May 1940, that Churchill considered the evacuation of Gibraltar in June 1940 or that the City Council was suspended in 1941"). It could happen that, as long as my explaination was in Gibnews talk page, Justin sincerely thought what he misleadingly describes. But I did explain it to him ("Stating that the active involvement of Gibraltar during the WWII started in 1940 is possibly something that could be denied, even if it's true"). Yes. All this seems really stupid, but it's really disappointing to listen to the same misleading description of something that has been already clarified.

    In item 13, Justin claims that I've told that "Gibraltar does not exist". Well, the problem here is that he fails to quote the whole sentence that says "Gibraltar does not exist from the Public International Law point of view, so a sovereign state cannot dispute anything but with other sovereign state)". I clarify that the discussion was about a dispute on territorial waters around Gibraltar. In order to clarify that such waters are British and not Gibraltarian, since only a sovereign state (the only subject, along with supranational organizations, in the Public International Law, the branch of Law dealing with international relationships between states) can "own" territorial waters, I simply mentioned Public International Law. As the statement was shocking (I didn't intend to), I duly provided a verbose explaination in here. Possibly Justin is not aware of this, but anyway, my edition has been misquoted.

    Sorry for the verbose message, but really, I feel upset. May I ask for some shelter from this? Best regards --Ecemaml (talk) 22:47, 29 November 2009 (UTC) PS: Elen, I'd be really glad if you'd stick around the article[reply]

    Actually the above in many ways the above summarises the problem. See [7] you could have just explained, instead you choose to respond with a bad faith presumption. That your edits were reverted might have something to do with the fact that the previous day you changed the date of the start of WW2 and then edit warred to keep it. I find the explanation above less than convincing, particularly when after being reverted you never chose to give it, edit warred to keep it and it only became apparent after it was pointed out as needlessly disruptive. Given your history of a negative interaction with Gibnews, not even a charitable interpretation would assume you were simply misunderstood in your comments about Gibraltar being a none entity. Noticeably you can suddenly become very eloquent when you want to be.
    Seeing as we're listing examples of edits that apparently "upset" you:
    So yes I would appreciate someone sticking around to get the full picture and not the carefully edited highlights. Justin talk 23:55, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, just for information, I'm quite fed up of Justin's personal attacks as well. Some of them can be seen here,here or here. Cremallera (talk) 01:02, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    If you ask me, everybody needs to stop attacking everybody else. Lets leave all the nationalist viewpoints out of this - the rock was once run by the Spanishes, currently the Brits are in charge, perhaps in the future, it'll belong to the Chinese. Our role as Wikipedians is to record the current state of knowledge about the subject.Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:40, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • This thread is getting into tl;dr territory. You're not going to get more than a few, if any, uninvolved editors to read so much verbage and make a thoughtful comment. I suggest you do two things:
      1. Consider recourse to WP:SPI. I think I remember investigating a very tenacious sock puppeteer who was disrupting Gibraltar articles in the past.
      2. If there are disagreements among editors over content, try third opinion, neutral point of view noticeboard, or mediation. This board, WP:ANI is only for issues where administrator intervention is required. I don't see that resulting from this thread.
      My thoughts; yours may differ. Jehochman Talk 01:49, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Edit war developing over EL at Chiropractic controversy and criticism

    The article Chiropractic controversy and criticism is obviously unpopular with chiropractors who edit Wikipedia, and whitewashing has been a problem. When I noticed that there was no External links section, I remembered that the chiropractic article had previously had a very nicely developed section with links that were perfectly on-topic for this article. The selection and wording had been developed after long and intense discussions, negotiations, compromises, and collaborations between editors on both sides of the issues, and the two strongest editors at the time had found a Solomonic solution by following the EL guidelines to an extreme degree, with detailed descriptions of each source.

    I took that list and copied it to the article.[8] Since User:Levine2112 is topic banned from the subject, I hadn't expected another chiropractic editor to take up his whitewashing crusades, but unfortunately chiropractic editor DigitalC decided that they weren't appropriate and started deleting them, and finally made a mass deletion of all the "Internal criticism" links. When he kept at it and was reverted by two other editors, he turned to something that was legitimate - deleting dead links. (Even then, the proper thing to do would be to seek to find active links, not delete.) So far so good, but then he restarted the deletions and I have restored them. I'm not interested in edit warring and would like more eyes on the situation. The links are very much on-topic, pass WP:EL, and have previously been vetted, approved and worded by chiropractic editors, but DigitalC doesn't like them.

    Relevant links:

    Brangifer (talk) 04:30, 26 November 2009 (UTC) (Comment restored after being deleted by DigitalC.)[reply]

    DigitalC notified of this debate. EyeSerenetalk 12:17, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps BullRangifer should have participated in the talk page. Both User:2over0 and myself opined on the talk page that Homola (2006) should not normally be used in the article. It is already used as a reference in the article, and as such shouldn't be repeated in the external links section. I also deny any allegations about whitewashing, although I will point out that the article in question is a blatant POV fork. As for the links being previously being vettted, approved, and worked by editors at Chiropractic, you will notice that the links do not occur there, because they were deemed to violate WP:EL. This is again addressed at the talk page of the POV-fork. DigitalC (talk) 14:19, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Not true. ALL the links (both pro-chiropractic and skeptical) were removed in a major overhaul of the whole section at the other article, not because they violated EL. Your removals were reverted by two other editors, showing that they considered your talk page arguments to be faulty and/or your manner of deletion to be disruptive and destructive. The article was made poorer by their lack. Certain deletions were left by myself because they weren't complete violations of policy, although someone who wasn't intent on whitewashing would have chosen a different approach. Dead links should be fixed when possible, rather than just deleted, and integration should occur before deletion.
    As a courtesy I have removed your profession from my comment, but you had revealed it before, so it was public knowledge and significant to showing your COI. I was surprised you took up the actions typical for the topic banned editor, and am wondering if you shouldn't suffer the same fate for engaging in similar behavior.
    BTW, don't remove my comment again. It is perfectly proper to post here to get more eyes on the situation. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:11, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    DigitalC - do not remove comments from this board again please. It's a great way to get blocked. Plenty of admins watch this board - if someone posts something that is actually out of order, you can be sure it will be challenged. Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:34, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment: Haven't articles about "controversy and criticism of X" been nominated & after discussion deleted in the past? This may be the direction this dispute ultimately takes, & would make the issue of external links to this article moot. -- llywrch (talk) 20:30, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    That's another discussion that hinges on this being an allowed content fork. In fact, editors are warned to "not refer to forks as "POV" except in extreme cases of persistent disruptive editing." DigitalC has repeatedly done this, thus assuming bad faith. While it's a legitimate discussion that has occurred over this article, it is indeed another subject, so let's not let it sidetrack this particular thread. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:55, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe that DigitalC is referring to the comments of other editors at the time of this articles inception. The article still suffers from rather overt POV issues of the main contributors of the article, as an example, the way that the Gallup poll has been used in the article is somewhat misleading as it fails to note that respondents rated Chiropracty on par with Psychiatry. I haven't been following this article closely but I can see that the talk page edit history has now become fragmented between page moves. Unomi (talk) 04:41, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Further, the last time it was up for deletion there seemed to be a number of editors voicing their opinion that it was indeed a POV fork and should be merged or renamed. Unomi (talk) 04:48, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually he calls it a POV fork in THIS thread, so he isn't talking about other editors. Even though it might be considered off topic for the article (which is an allowed "content fork"), the statistics for psychiatrists is actually included, so there is nothing misleadig going on. The inclusion of those significant statistics is buttressed by commentaries from chiropractic sources, where THEY state that chiropractic came in "dead last" among healthcare professions. The statistics aren't presented in a misleading manner, and their significance is affirmed by chiropractic sources. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:33, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    My apologies, my eye caught the following (summary?) line "A Gallup Poll and various research studies and commentaries, some by chiropractors, have pointed out unfavorable facts related to the ethical standards,[20] rampant fraud, abuse and quackery,[21] and unsubstantiated claims[22] made by chiropractors". You are correct the Gallup Poll results are clarified in the article text, this was not previously the case and I am happy to see that this has been incorporated. Unomi (talk) 08:36, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    As an uninvolved admin, I took a quick look at this article and dispute. I'm not really seeing anything that an administrator needs to do, as this seems to be a pretty straightforward content dispute. The article has POV issues, but it did go to AfD a few months ago, and there is no consensus to delete it. So I would point the participants to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution to try and sort things out. The reliable source noticeboard might be particularly useful to get uninvolved opinions on some of the sources being used. I also wanted to point out that there seems to be an odd discussion about whether or not an external link should be left on the article, even if it's a dead link, with some saying, "Remove" and others saying, "Keep it until it's replaced". That one seems a no-brainer to me: If a link is in External links and it's dead, pull it. Anyone deliberately adding a dead link to an article, just to keep it in the EL section, is out of line. If anyone really wants that link around, move it to the talkpage, but don't deliberately put a dead link on a live article. Other than that, I encourage the parties to work through the steps of dispute resolution, especially in terms of trying to get more uninvolved opinions into the mix. Good luck, --Elonka 17:40, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I can assure you that no one was deliberately adding dead links. I assumed they were still working when I copied the list. Removal of dead links is proper, but to avoid the appearance of whitewashing when one has a COI, it would be best to seek to find a live link. That can often be done, but if that can't be done, then get rid of it. -- Brangifer (talk) 22:22, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    List of male performers in gay porn films - WP:OWN issues

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

    • Closed. If you two haven't noticed it's essentially you two having a back and forth. This is because this is not an ANI issue as there's no need for immediate admin intervention. Use the WP:DR process through and seek community input from the appropriate noticeboards, not here. Nja247 13:43, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I may as well start this here, since it will undoutedly end up here anyway (see the completely unnecessary [9]). I have attempted to make what should be a fairly straightforward change to move an image from the lede section of List of male performers in gay porn films to a more suitable location, as documented in this talk page discussion and in the article's history. I believe Benjiboi is engaging in ownership of the article to prevent me from making any changes.

    Allow me to point out that as well as myself, two editors also moved the previous image out of the lede section ([10], [11], & [12]), two editors have agreed that the image is not appropriate in the lede section ([13] & [14]), and now another editor has also changed the caption of the image presently in the lede section ([15]). In each case, Benjiboi has simply reverted to his previous version. Any attempt by me to discuss the issue is met with speculation on my motivation, and comments directed at me personally, but little or no attention paid to the actual arguments made.

    Since Benjiboi has now stated that the image currently in the lede section is only a "stop gap image" I have requested that they remove it so that we can avoid a completely unnecessary discussion about the caption of this temporary image, but they have refused even this. There are serious WP:BLP issues yet to be addressed with this article, but if it is impossible to make even a small change, it is unlikely that the necessary changes can be made to stick. Some admin help and more eyes would be appreciated. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 01:21, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I have notified Benjiboi (talk · contribs) about this discussion. GiantSnowman 01:24, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


    Thank you for the heads up. As I've stated rather unambiguously a few times now I feel Delicious carbuncle is simply WP:Wikihounding me as I have generally stood up for David Shankbone, one of Wikipedia's most prolific image uploaders, in the near past when Delicious carbuncle seemed to be Wikihounding them, which seems to continue against both of us. And the case where I think I first saw this all in play was on Men of Israel, which Shankbone wrote concerning Michael Lucas' latest film. The image Delicious carbuncle wanted removed, or at least moved? The Lucas one from the lede by Shankbone noting he was likely the most accomplished of those we have images available.

    The most worthy comment I can pull from their interpretation of events is they feel there is any BLP violation on the list. If there is this seems the absolutely most counter-productive way to mention it. That should have been the very first issue to bring up, IMHO. Instead they suggested that no images should be on list articles and certainly in the lede, then when that was proven as bogus, they insisted that an image of one person on a list of notable people in the lede was in some way wrong that too was undermined by the fact that many featured lists on people do the very same thing, undeterred they keep arguing. I'm awaiting a valid reason besides WP:Idon'tlikeit to remove the stop gap image - which coincidentally is also about Lucas and by Shankbone - and have waiting from NE2 how WP:Undue can be applied to the image discussion whether one actor or one producer. It fails the WP:Duck of WP:Idon'tlikeit. In fact on the stop gap image no one was even cited in the image nor was it explained whose movie it was, so now these two are tag-teaming to remove high-quality images.

    As for WP:Ownership issues I can certainly see why I'm accused of such but a quick look at that article before I started clean-up five months ago shows why. It's a night and day difference. I have added, I believe, every on of the 200+ references while maintaining the incoming content to weed out vandalism and source anything usable. Meanwhile Delicious carbuncle seems only interested in deleting gay porn content, images and articles. They are certainly welcome to nom articles for deletion and certainly welcome to question images on articles. But when someone gives you an answer, a reasonable and policy-based one no less, and continues to try to understand your concerns. Then just maybe they have a valid point that it's a style issue that is well supported by the Featured List folks who do this work on a regular basis.

    I still feel harassed by Delicious carbuncle and even if they are well within the letter of the policy they certainly seem to be tip-toeing past the spirit of it. Frankly I feel they should likely walk away from the article and focus on some of the 2-3 million other articles that need attention and vigilance, likewise they should probably stay clear of User:David Shankbone who does not need Delicious carbuncle's guidance or suggestions. Delicious carbuncle, who apparently is Carbunkle on Wikipedia Review, also insinuated in a past ANI thread how it was disruptive all the anon's that were harassing me and suggested if I accepted their proposed ban likely the harassment would disappear. And here we are and still they are the only one who seems to be grinding and making editing here quite unpleasant for me. I don't care why they are doing this, I wish Delicious carbuncle would leave me alone. -- Banjeboi 02:17, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Benjiboi, I would very much appreciate it if you could stop attempting to further sully my reputation here by trying to link me to Wikipedia Review and tarring me with the same brush as is generally used for it. Please see my request to David Shankbone on the same issue. I am not especially interested in deleting gay porn articles or images except where they are in violation of WP policy and guidelines. I recently nominated two or three BLPs of gay porn performers for AfD, because they had been completely unsourced for many months if not years. Since changes were made to WP:PORNBIO criteria, dozens of BLPs of female porn performers have been deleted, but the gay male porn performer BLPs are long overdue for a clean-up. Enforcing WP policy is not homophobia or prudishness, despite how it might seem to you. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:51, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I never mentioned homophobia so your motive and reputation are yours to win or lose. And no the image in question did not violate any policy or guideline so your concern here is truly remarkable. What you do offsite generally holds no interest except where it makes editing here stressful. Likewise what you d elsewhere has little interest except when it negatively impacts my editing. -- Banjeboi 04:06, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't entirely disagree, but as i said, it will undoubtedly just end up here anyway. Please see the thread I have started about my BLP concerns: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#List of male performers in gay porn films - the quintessential BLP nightmare. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:09, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You devotion to airing what again seems your keen interest in me is noted. I do applaud your addressing your stated BLP concern although it's unfortunate you again chose an admin board when teh article talkpage likely would have been sufficient. No worries, the alarmist BLP flag-waving has resulted in yet another AfD and hopefully the community will make the best decision again. -- Banjeboi 05:06, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Benjiboi, the thread at the BLP noticeboard doesn't even mention your name (or reference this ANI thread). Nor did I nominate the article for deletion. I am concerned that you are so dismissive of serious BLP issues. If I had attempted to address any these issues or started the discussion on the talk page, I suspect you would have felt that I was harassing you, since that is how you characterize any interaction we have, regardless of the underlying issues. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:04, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I have to agree that there are some serious WP:OWN issues here, as is evidenced by the posts by Benjiboi at the deletion discussion in reply to anyone who dares to argue for a delete. I am particulary concerned about the accussation that the deletion nomination is reactionary [16]. Pantherskin (talk) 09:05, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    That is your interpretation however my answering real concerns is what AfD is for; and I wasn't accusing nom as reactionary but your !vote after all the discussion there. We don't delete lists because there might be a BLP problem, we fix the problems, if somethings needs sourcing ... we find sources, etc. I do stand by my comment that it all seems a bit alarmist. Luckily another editor has started helping disambiguate anything that seems to be pointing to the wrong article. That's regular editing - and per WP:AFD, articles that can be fixed through regular editing are not good candidates for deletion. -- Banjeboi 10:15, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, if you think that AfD nominations are the place to ridicule the arguments of other editors by calling them ridiculous or nonsense, or by attacking other editors, then this is incident report has it place here as we need to discuss your editing behavior. Pantherskin (talk) 12:57, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I think other editors trying to delete entire lists because there might be a BLP problem is ridiculous, apparently others feel similar. You may note I didn't mean to imply they themselves were ridiculous but there rationale may have seemed that way. That these are experienced editors doing this is indeed abominable but at least when AfD #6 rolls around we'll have #4 and #5 to look at and compare how this massive list has indeed improved. For those curious, the most egregious problem seems to have been wikilinks going to the wrong person. I hope it's apparent to everyone else that those were not to cause any confusion but done, I presume, in error. I will personally go through them all to ensure we're on target. -- Banjeboi 20:55, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the largest single concern I have about the list is the inclusion of red links. Not only is this against policy since the links are referenced (thus making them poorly referenced BLPs), but it is also contrary to the guideline for standalone lists which states "Don't use a list as a "creation guide" containing a large number of redlinked unwritten articles". Aside from the immediate BLP concerns, there is the danger that articles will be created for some of those red links, as you mention. For example, Ben Andrews is a common name - perhaps someone will eventually create an article about this Ben Andrews. Yes, renaming the link to Ben Andrews (porn actor) will solve that problem for now, but it didn't help:
    from incorrectly being labelled gay porn performers until just hours ago. You say you have been "cleaning up" this list for 5 months, but you don't seem to have taken even the basic steps required to ensure that it was following BLP policy. I don't expect very many admins are bothering to read this thread (and I fully understand why not) but I hope those who are reading this are taking it as seriously as they should be. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:42, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Outdent, this remains not an ANI issue. Everything you're all hopped-up over seems like regular editing issues. If you are ever so concerned ... why did the BLP aspects of your worries not get mentioned until you engaged an edit war on an image? If you're so concerned why did you not simply disambiguate those entries instead of complaining about it? Frankly your entire tenor in this area - including todays AfD of an article two hours old, including a post here and at BLP when civil talkpage discussion likely should have been the first step - suggests your judgment may be a little cloudy here. Luckily more civil editors have weighed in and several have even started going through to check all the wikilinks. And no, WP:Redlinks are quite useful and every list handles them differently - this list is the middle of a major overhaul and so deleting material is quite premature. And your starting discussion in several places seems rather disruptive to me. And I still see you as simply causing drama where none is needed. I certainly look forward to when that will no longer seem so. -- Banjeboi 03:27, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Benjiboi, I'm getting tired of your distortions here. Check the history of the article - you are the one who was reverting several editors, not me. Have you noted the topic of this thread? I didn't discuss the issues on the talkpage because of your ownership of the article, as you amply demonstrated with a relatively minor issue which is still unsettled. The list is now getting some attention because of the issues I raised on the BLP noticeboard. After 5 months of clean-up, you're only now checking the links? You deserve a barnstar for that! Even now you are arguing for inclusion on this list of porn performers whose articles have been deleted at AfD due to lack of notability. One of is pushing a POV here. I don't think my nominations of poorly sourced or completely unsourced BLPs should be misconstrued as a vendetta on gay porn. I suspect that some people have let things slide with regard to gay porn BLPs because they are either afraid to be seen working on them or they are afraid that they may be labelled as a homophobe. I know I am not a homophobe and while I don't enjoy the insinuation that I may be one, it doesn't deter me. The more eyes on this article and related articles the better. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:51, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    No one is talking about homophobia but you. Really whatever your motivations, I only care as they are causing disruption months after I asked you to leave me alone. And still, you persist raising alarmist concerns and stirring drama, and yes, distorting events to achieve some end which continues to feel like nothing but an interest in deleting content in this subject area. Loads of editors do work on these articles and manage to do so without needless bullying and wikihounding, without crying foul and by actually working with and helping other editors. This just may not be a good match for you if you need to spend so much time arguing. -- Banjeboi 05:00, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User Syjytg requesting unblock

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

    Resolved
     – User has been unblocked and notified. LessHeardvanU and I have both agreed to monitor user.  Frank  |  talk  19:41, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Syjytg (talk · contribs), indef blocked in March 2009, has requested a review of his block at my talk page. You may recall him as a tendentious editor who spent most of his time focusing on having his edits remain on pages, with little regard for consensus, policy, or just plain collegiality. I created this thread on his talk page, outlining a tendentious editing pattern. Later, after being blocked for edit warring, he pointed fingers at others and rarely took responsibility for his own actions. He then started socking, for which he was indef blocked. There's more; a review of his talk page will show others' points of view along the way, not just mine.

    Syjytg has decided he wants to return to editing. I see no evidence of socking, and I do see evidence of reading policies associated with returning, including the "standard offer" and the idea that an admin can open a thread here at AN/I to discuss unblocking the user. He requested (as an IP) that I do so, and I requested he place a statement on his talk page, under his own account, acknowledging past behavior. He has done so, and while I can't say I think it's an overwhelming attempt, I do feel there is some sincerity behind it. I also note that he does not appear to have resorted to continued socking in the intervening months, which is a positive sign (if true).

    I think any unblock must include a tight watch, which I would participate in but not want to take full responsibility for. Other thoughts solicited.  Frank  |  talk  15:12, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    ....Was posting on your talkpage as an IP not itself socking? Just asking. Or do you feel it was justified as a way of attracting someone's attention. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:14, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I think it was a reasonable means of opening communication on the subject. He apparently wanted to contact an admin first, for the purpose of opening this thread.  Frank  |  talk  16:20, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why not? They seemed to have requested an appropriate unblock request, evidencing they have reviewed and understood policy. On that basis any further problems with editing means that they have chosen to disregard policy, and the block can be re-instated. If everyone understands that, then they should be allowed to prove they can contribute to the project in the correct manner. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:14, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • If there is no more input before it is again archived, and you are minded to unblock per the request also, then I suggest you proceed on the basis there was some support and no opposes. If you are not minded, then you may have to approach a couple of experienced editors directly for their comments. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:35, 29 November 2009 (UTC) oh, and I would be prepared to assist in the monitoring of the editor. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:37, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    (Restoring thread for more discussion)  Frank  |  talk  12:50, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    In case anyone needs it, here is validation that a third party agrees with the above opinions and decisions. Unblock with caution. Tan | 39 14:41, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    OK, I guess I'm convinced. LHvU and I will watch. Tan, you're (obviously) welcome to help. Anyone know a suitable template to place on his talk page, at least as a basis?  Frank  |  talk  15:10, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Um, just remove the indef block template and open a new section noting that they are unblocked, that you and I will be watching the page and that we can be contacted if there are any issues that need discussion, and note that they will be expected to initially abide by policy more stringently than would be the case in an editor in long good standing , and end with a wish for a satisfying editing experience from them? Might be best to perform the unblock immediately prior to commenting. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:50, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Canvassing at Crucifixion

    Please see Talk:Crucifixion#Explanation for this situation. A little more than 24 hours ago, a large number of IP editors suddenly began section-blanking Crucifixion#In anime, which, previously, had been stable for quite some time. The vandalism was quickly reverted, and the page has been semi-protected, which has gotten the situation under control for now. However, the talk page has now been inundated with comments calling for deleting the material, mostly (though not entirely) in incivil terms. It has turned out that these editors have come due to an off-site posting calling for meatpuppetry at a link I have provided on the talk page, at the link above. When you follow that link to the talk page, you will see that I have asked editors to stop canvassing and to use RfC or similar mechanisms instead. I am not requesting sanctions against anyone at this time, and I hope that sanctions will not be needed. However, I think it is prudent for me to put this notice here now, even if no formal action is taken right away, so that more eyes than mine can be on the situation. I hope you do not mind that I have reported it now. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:20, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    A couple of them have a point and the dialogue is worth continuing regardless of why it started. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:29, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. Yes, I actually agree, just that the discussion needs to get under control first. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:45, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    And it still does need to get under control, judging by what just showed up. :-) --Tryptofish (talk) 16:50, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    (outdent) I thank Elen for going to the talk and making a helpful effort to get it back on track. An RfC has been opened, which I hope will eventually bring fresh eyes and some constructive talk. However, as of this time, all that is happening is continuing trolling and personal attacks against me by people who have apparently come via canvassing. I'm going to ignore the trolling, but I'd appreciate some continued administrative observation. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:57, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    This is somewhat tricky. Something Awful is a website owned by Richard "Lowtax" Kyanka that depends on stirring up controversy for ad revenue, and often unfortunately they go way too far. A few years ago the SA forum members, referred to by themselves as "goons", blitzkreiged a mentally ill woman who had suffered 14 miscarriages, almost driving her to suicide by bombarding her with rude, cruel comments because she had a website they deemed inappropriate. (They even used the - there's no other word for it - sociopathic excuse that this type of immense cruelty would "snap her out" of her mental illness and show her how wrong she was to grieve excessively over her miscarriages.) They've also suggested that people with serious facial deformities be brutally murdered at birth (often with false expressions of sympathy appended to make it sound as if they were actually sympathizing with the person they intended to have brutally murdered) and have called for everyone with peanut allergies to be murdered so those without allergies could exercise the constitutional right to eat one food out of 10,000,000 on an aircraft. Suffice to say that any time SA features anything, you end up with a lot of people who are, assuming the best of faith, young and easily influenced who think they have to fight Lowtax's battles for him. --NellieBly (talk) 00:38, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Seeing as how this is a forum post not made by Lowtax, it is hardly a 'call to action', so your comments seem a bit off. Pretty much nothing you said has any bearing here; when other groups vandalize Wikipedia, do we go around trying to impugn the group, or do we revert, ignore, protect, and get on with our lives? No one's fighting his battles for him. Goons are, believe it or not, able to think and act independently. You seem to have a personal issue with SA. --Golbez (talk) 16:13, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    One does get the feeling an admin or two with a baseball bat would be useful at this point. Unfortunately, I think they're all sleeping off their Thanksgiving celebrations. The only ones I've seen around are Brits/Aussies. Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:33, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That's very interesting (if disgusting) about SA. There's some hate speech starting to find its way into the talk page here. But it increasingly seems to me to not be "tricky". This has become disruptive editing, period. I think it should be possible to distinguish between editors who are making (or attempting to make) an argument based on content, from those who are only engaging in vandalism or personal attacks, and I think it would be proper to block the latter. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:06, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I see irrelevancies, but not trolling. As long as the discussion remains on the talk p. I see no harm in even newcomers expressing their ideas about what does or does not constitute appropriate content for Wikipedia. Personally, I think formalizing it as an RfC was not really appropriate or necessary. The page itself has been semi-protected, and that seems to have dealt with everything except an ongoing edit war over an image among some experienced editors; since this is now being also discussed on the talk p. I think no admin action necessary at this point. DGG ( talk ) 17:34, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    There is trolling, and I warned one user for personal attacks, but it seems under control. Fences&Windows 18:09, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, there is trolling and personal attacks against me. (It wasn't my idea to start the RfC that soon, and I kind of wish it hadn't happened until things quieted down a bit.) Thank you F&W for that warning, but I feel like there is more than one user going way beyond what DGG calls "expressing their ideas about what does or does not constitute appropriate content", at least expressing it in a civil way. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:22, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I have read the entire thread from the 'Something Awful' website and I see nothing to indicate a call to action on behalf of the site owners. What I do see is page after page after page of legitimate criticism of the way individuals with their own self interests are able to monopolise pages to ensure they contain even the most trivial references by using the Wikipedia rules against itself. Please try and look at this from an outsiders perspective, why would anyone in their right mind be looking for anime references on a crucifixion page? This particular instance was given as an example of how ridiculous this type of behaviour has become on Wikipedia and how negatively the page hoarding and rule manipulation has impacted a non hardcore users ability to feel like they have any input into what goes on here. Unfortunately after reading the outbursts both on the talk pages and calls to action throughout admin and other parts of Wikipedia, I can only agree. Fancy steve (talk) 20:44, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    As an aside, I cannot see how Something Awful is relevant to the topic at hand, nor the relevance of opinions about the web site from some editors above. From my brief review there also appear to be forums within that site containing cooking, home electronics and political debate which are also irrelevant and yet do not add any inflammatory bias to the conversation here. There are many instances of unsavoury content on the Internet and in fact on Wikipedia itself, so cherry picking instances of third party behaviour and ignoring the argument at hand seems ad hominem at best. Fancy steve (talk) 20:46, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You are really missing the point here. A huge number of editors showed up at once, and basically used the occasion to engage in ad hominem attacks on me. Are you saying that my report here is an outburst? Are you saying that I, or other regular editors of the page, have ignored the argument at hand (that there were improvements that needed to be made to the page, and that there is a need for editors to not be insular)? Have you looked at the edits I have made to the page? Have you looked at the page history, and seen that I absolutely did not edit war against anyone? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:16, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not arguing that there are many editors, or that they posted garbage at times. What I am saying is that you in fact are participating in the very same behaviour you are complaining about (without the abusive commentary), by creating RfCs and cross posting the references to different sub sections of Wikipedia to drum up support for your cause. A nice way to end this would be 'Hey, you know what, I had a think about this overnight and came to the conclusion that I can take my anime to somewhere more appropriate', instead we end up with Wikipedia rules wars about attempting to force what is essentially utterly irrelevant trivia to anyone but yourself upon the rest of the community. Fancy steve (talk) 22:30, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Fancy Steve, I made the RfC, not Tryptofish. Gary (talk) 00:07, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Civility at Crucifixion

    (outdent) Enough is enough. I'm all for not feeding the trolls, and I'm fine with welcoming new editors who wish to discuss what they believe is wrong with Wikipedia. But. There's a real problem here. I ask that administrators look at each of the following diffs (more are coming in by the minute), and decide if this is just acceptable discussion:

    Without these, the discussion could actually be rather productive. I do not think that I am being unreasonable in objecting to this stuff. (P.S.: Maybe I lead a sheltered life :-) but it took me a while to realize that all those mentions of "sperg" are derogatory references to Asperger's syndrome.) --Tryptofish (talk) 20:34, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    And: [38]. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:31, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    And: [39]. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:58, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Question Would it be appropriate and within talk page guidelines to remove all of the ad hominem attacks and references to Asperger's syndrome, mental illness, or otherwise disparaging anime fandom? Leaving these comment in place does create an uncivil atmosphere. —Farix (t | c) 01:11, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yzak Jule (talk · contribs) is now restoring a personal attack by an IP editor that was removed per WP:CIVIL and WP:TALK. He/she is calming in the edit summaries that the removal of personal attacks is tantamount to censorship] and the Right to Free Speech. —Farix (t | c) 04:56, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I certainly removed what I saw as the worst one - and Black Kite removed it again when someone put it back. I think it's clear that attacks that insult Aspies and those with mental health problems should go in the same category as attacks that generically insult black or jewish people, and we routinely remove the worst of those. Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:34, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks everyone who is responding here. I saw that there is also a thread at Wikiquette alerts, and I posted there asking that discussion be here instead. And in case anyone is concerned, I'm emotionally just fine. Yesterday, I suggested that the slurs should stay, at least until admins here finally get around to acting more extensively, which is very much needed, as slurs and edit warring seem to be continuing. Since I can't exactly be objective, I'm going to remain neutral now on whether the slurs should be redacted from the talk page or not. Whatever the rest of you choose to do, you have my agreement and thanks.
    What I do ask is that editors who are reasonable, please speak up substantively at the talk page. If someone says something that does not speak for you, say so. There are claims that there has been consensus, even though I know that some editors say they agree with some parts of arguments I have made. The best remedy for hate speech is civil reason. I'm staying off the talk page for a little while, but I'm going to make some constructive edits to the page itself.
    Sorry to shout, but administrators really need to start issuing blocks. At least for the duration of the RfC. I'm a little disappointed that we are now in the third day of incivil talk that impedes constructive editing. I'm no expert on blocking policy, but my understanding is that it supports blocks without a period of warnings when the abuse is serious and disruptive enough. Look at my diffs above. There are more since then. If these do not warrant blocks, I don't know what does. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:00, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Did you to take this to RFPP, where it might have been protected? That's usually what we do when a page is under attack from multiple users, and then sort things out. --Golbez (talk) 17:03, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The page itself was semi-protected promptly after the section-blanking began. No need for full protection, in my opinion, because mostly constructive edits are happening. The issue is the talk page. I thought it was unusual to semi-protect or protect those. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:15, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I mean the talk page. the one all of your diffs referred to. If that was protected as well, I apologize, but I don't see it in the page log, but sometimes these things mysteriously don't show up. --Golbez (talk) 18:05, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Semi-protect the talk page? That's OK by me. (No, it's certainly not semi-protected, thus the diffs.) But I don't think I'm the one who should request it. And to repeat: what really needs to happen is there need to be blocks. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:40, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocks are unlikely to do anything as these IPs are only "drive by", likely from SA, and really don't care about the actual discussion. Besides, there hasn't been any uncivil comments posted in the last since my report above about Yzak Jule (talk · contribs) who is now engaged in another POV edit war on the article, and the previous personal attacks have already been redacted. —Farix (t | c) 20:38, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree. I guess time will tell if they keep on driving by. But I shouldn't have to feel like if I make more comments at the talk page, that I will be met with a barrage of blatant incivility. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:16, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Sheesh! Now there are registered editors edit warring. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:27, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    If you'd let people talk, rather than insisting they be blocked and linking to every disparaging comment, rather than complaining that what increasingly appears to be your personal fiefdom has somehow been violated, this wouldn't be so much of an issue. Delete/moderate the disparaging stuff, and the overall point remains. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.23.165.188 (talk) 21:31, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I have to agree with the anonymous editor above me. The anime section of that page is completely unnecessary (it doesn't exist in the Japanese language Wikipedia, apparently) so I really do not understand why you are so obsessed with retaining a paragraph which lacks anything people outside the sorts of editors who enjoy arguing on the Wikipedia discussion pages about abstruse policy decisions. I read the SA thread, and honestly your behavior has done nothing but confirm their biases. Pompous Trihedron (talk) 21:50, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Just because something isn't mentioned in the Japanese language Wikipedia doesn't really mean anything. However, there are much larger issues with the "In popular culture" section then just anime. However, that doesn't excuse the SA members coming here and starting an edit war and engage in a litany of ad hominem attacks on the talk page. Both are disruptive and both are not tolerated on Wikipedia. Change is better achieved by civil debate, and if need be, asking for third opinion or other dispute resolution process. —Farix (t | c) 22:00, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, Farix. We had an edit conflict that saved me from replying directly, and that's a good thing! :-) For the record, I have absolutely not stopped anyone from talking at any point in this process (I even offered not to have the attacks on me deleted!). And I am hardly obsessed with any of the material, only having argued in talk against deletion. But I hope admins can see from this thread what has been going on. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:08, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    What exactly are they supposed to see? --Pompous Trihedron (talk) 22:36, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I've sliced off the entire section: it's now in Crucifixion in art. Anime is mentioned - but with references, and briefly. Can everyone shut up now? DS (talk) 23:47, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Of course that don't actually fix the problem, but simply moves it elsewhere (out-of-sight) in the hopes that people will stop complaining. —Farix (t | c) 03:28, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Dapi89

    I had left the following note about Dapi89 on this board that Dapi89 deleted [[40]]. Not sure about the "legality" of his action, is a user allowed to delete a post bringing his behavior to admin notice? Here is the original post again:

    This editor has repeatedly indulged in uncivil behavior. He has been blocked 4 times earlier by 3 different administrators but continues to use offensive language.

    Dapi89's block logs [[41]] Last blocked on July 2009

    Since being unblocked Dapi89 has indulged in the following uncivil behavior:

    Calling edit by Slatersteven "nonsense edits" [[42]]

    Calling edit by Redheylin "silly" [[43]]

    Message left on my IP page (I registered this name later) in Dapi89 wrote: "Your 'edits' to the Battle of Kursk and Blitzkrieg are stupid" and "find the appropriate article to do it instead of dicking around". [[44]]

    Message left on my talk page "you are incapable of common sense" [[45]]

    Please note that my responses to Dapi89 have always been civil, I have confined myself to explaining why I was making a particular edit.

    Given that Dapi89 has previously been blocked yet persists in uncivil behavior, I would ask an admin to take necessary action.

    Thanks,

    Steel2009 (talk) 05:35, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Steel2009 (talk) 17:52, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I've left Dapi89 a message re the deletion of discussions from ANI. Mjroots (talk) 18:13, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I am very concerned about this. Basket of Puppies 18:22, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The removal was unacceptable, but I don't see that an admin action is needed against Dapi89. He needs warning about civility, but I don't see that a block would be helpful at this point. Fences&Windows 01:12, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    He has previously been warned for incivility and even been blocked 3 times, with little effect apparently. Steel2009 (talk) 03:52, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I thank the editors who see Steel2009's complaint as nonsense. The removal was in frustration at this 'editors' behaviour. Lack of civility is repeatedly undoing another editors LOGICAL restorations and refusing to negotiate. Military history articles are thought out chronologically. Steel2009 seems to think chronology, his "opinion" counts more than consensus and logic. He has been disruptive, he has used sock puppets to avoid violating 3RRR,m and now he has the cheek to complain - of course he only did so because I filed a complaint. This in itself is puerile in the extreme. I can see the sensible heads here are ignoring his B.S. Steel2009: You are a new editor that has not contributed ANYTHING to wikipedia yet. All bar one of your edits has been reverted, and you are heading down the road of becoming a consistently blocked editor. The previous blocks of mine you notice, were a result of a running dispute with ONE other editor. So keep your erroneous accusations to yourself. 13:00, 28 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dapi89 (talk • contribs)

    Can you provide the diffs showing that I have "used sock puppets to avoid violating 3RRR". This is a pretty serious allegation, and I would like you to follow up on this. Also you continue using abusive words like "puerile", "BS" etc. And really, two editors who disagree with one does not a consensus make. I do think you should apologize to Slatersteven and Redheylin for your incivility towards them. Steel2009 (talk) 17:26, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Note that Steel2009 followed advice given when his edits to Battle of Kursk were brought here, fruitful discussion and good editing appears to have followed. If Dapi89 is still at it, it would appear he is the one causing the problems. Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:16, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Elen, thanks. Also note that besides continuing to use uncivil language on this very page, Dapi is also justifying his earlier improper removal of the posted item on this page by "The removal was in frustration at this 'editors' behaviour." Rather than admitting it was wrong to do so, his position is that it is someone else's fault. Steel2009 (talk) 16:43, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Kosovo article probation 1 RR per week?

    Resolved
     – Cinema C has recognized their error, and pledged to be more careful in the future. Since blocks are not punitive, so long as he keeps his word, there is no need for further action at this time.--Jayron32 04:09, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    In this edit administrator Nishkid put the article on 1RR per week I propose a discussion of this to determine if this restriction still applies. Recently user:Sulmues and user:Cinema C both violated this restriction both making two reverts within a week in a dispute about info boxes. Sulmues [46] [47], Cinema C [48] (also calling the opposing edit 'vandalism'), [49]. However only Sulmues was blocked for the violation, which suggest that the 1RR per week was lifted, as under 1RR per day there would be no violation on the part of Cinema C. Were the terms of the probation modified, is it 1RR per day or 1RR per week??? Any input is welcome. Hobartimus (talk) 05:49, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Seems like this article is under the purview of WP:ARBMAC restrictions; administrators are given a broad leeway of placing reasonable restrictions on articles and editors as needed to slow down particularly virulent edit wars. I see nothing to indicate that Nishikid's restrictions have been lifted. You may want to contact him directly with any concerns. --Jayron32 05:59, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I considered that, however his editing pattern (4 edits in November) does not suggest that he is available for queries. He seems quite busy IRL with not much time for on wiki activities. Hobartimus (talk) 06:11, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that I have broken the 1RR rule. I completely forgot about it and am glad to have been reminded. Although I'll accept any measure undertaken by administrators in this case, I would like to express the fact that I reverted a user who was acting as a vandal, and he has been blocked for 96 hours, banned from Kosovo related articles for 6 months. Still, if the administrators decide to punish me, I'll respect it. I apologize for breaking the rule. --Cinéma C 06:41, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    As Cinéma C has recognised their error, I suggest no further admin action is warranted here subject to no further breach of the rule while it remains in place. Mjroots (talk) 06:58, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Canvassing violation by Cookiecaper in order to reach a false consensus

    Please see here, for the gross WP:CANVASS violation, thank you. I for one believe we should block the editor for such a gross violation. He had before been slow edit-warring on the Sean Hannity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article, and now that consensus is against him, he is trying to tip the scales in his favor. This is unacceptable.— Dædαlus Contribs 09:44, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I've had Sean Hannity on my watchlist and I've seen all the b*tching going on back and forth. I should probably post this over on that page, but I support Mr. Hannity on most issues, am a conservative, and yet oppose the inclusion of this info. The guy says tons of stuff on his shows daily. What makes this event notable? As for the the editor, I'd suggest just warning him on it. It's obvious (from the majority of the comments on the reddit) that the post there isn't going to swing the consensus. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 14:33, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Not a false consensus neither a gross violation. Is a "false consensus" a consensus achieved by more than the regular editors on an article? I posted this to the WIKIPEDIA subreddit, so that people who enjoy this pedantry, ridiculousness, etc., and yet agree that this should be included could contest. I stopped editing WP regularly several years ago because I was sick of this kind of thing happening; anytime someone ventures out of their posse to edit an article with something slightly controversial, the regulars on that article flip out, proclaim their own false consensus, revert, threaten, protect, and ban their afflictors, even though the information added is perfectly notable, viable, and neutral.
    I think the number of times this incident specifically with the Hannity waterboarding has cropped up demonstrates that many people, including those who don't constantly troll Hannity's page to make sure only positive things are said about him, feel that Hannity's statement and subsequent promise are indeed notable. The consensus proclaimed by the regulars is the false consensus; Hannity disciples consent as a group to keep things which may reflect negatively on Hannity off of his page, but that's not how the world sees it.
    My posting follows all rules outlined in canvassing. Note that I didn't post that to a subreddit about liberalism, Democrats, Olbermann, Anarchists, or outright Hannity-hating, I posted it to /r/wikipedia, where people who care about Wikipedia often visit. Its scope was limited; one only subscribes to /r/wikipedia if they want to know about things that are happening on Wikipedia; this is a thing which is happening on Wikipedia. The post was limited (only posted to /r/wikipedia, the relevant subreddit), neutral (I told it like it is without editorializing regarding this specific issue), nonpartisan (posted in a general forum with patrons of many parties, no incendiary political commentary or anything like that), and transparent (links to the discussion posted). There is therefore no violation here, and Daedalus is just annoyed that someone challenged his gang's territory. He fancies himself the gatekeeper of Hannity's article, and supposes that no information may be added thereto without his consent or that of Hannity's other regular editors. Surely this is not appropriate, and surely it's not appropriate to ban me for following rules and responding calmly to threats while not suffering intimidation. cookiecaper (talk / contribs) 19:37, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it doesn't. It falls under the area of inappropriate canvassing, as outlined on the table, as a biased message. You posted, and I quote: Please defend the inclusion of Hannity's promise to be waterboarded "for the troop's families" on his WP page.(title)(message:)I implore all Wikipedians to fight the good fight and keep on Hannity's page mention of his promise to get waterboarded. Oh, and this next part is especially good: But, anyway, I'm trying to tap into reddit to help solidify the mention there and keep it there and outlast the others.
    Followed the rules outlined by canvassing? I don't think so. Your message was biased towards your point of view. It did not ask for more eyes on the topic, it asked for support on your side of the topic. It violated WP:CANVASS, and no amount of spinning will change that.— Dædαlus Contribs 23:54, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It did ask for more eyes on the topic. Of course in my posting I'm going to discuss my favored outcome and solicit its support; you are free to make a posting advocating the other side, or a headline that will be utterly ignored, like "Please view this edit war re: Sean Hannity :)" -- WP is crazy, as we know, and expects people to be robots; people are not robots. No one is going to come defend this just because I posted that, they'll come defend it because they believe in it or not. I gave all of the information necessary for individuals to read and come to their own conclusion, including links to the source material; I'm not veiling my bias behind flowery language as is ingrained in Wikipedia custom, I'm straightforward about it and that's obviously better. I'm sorry if you think that people are so stupid that they'll just come fight for my side because a stranger on the internet told them to do it, but I don't; it's just a way of alerting people in a concise, evident manner that will actually gain traction.
    There's no immorality or crime therein. Do I really have to say, "Some people believe this shouldn't be included" to be unbiased? That's self-evident. Give me a break, and maybe listen to people besides Hannity and his fellow propagandists on either side so you can learn how it feels to think for yourself. cookiecaper (talk / contribs) 04:57, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Please do me a favor, and cease assuming shit about me that you don't know. I'm on this article to simply make sure it complies with WP policy. I care not a thing for the individual, nor any show he has. It isn't my forte.— Dædαlus Contribs 11:36, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Cookiecaper, you are I'm afraid completely mistaken in your reading of WP:CANVASS (assuming you ever read it in the first place). You specifically may not "discuss my favored outcome and solicit its support". It may be straightforward, but it is also a breach of the rules, and makes it likely that the opinion of anyone who posted following your encouragement will be discarded, or may even force an entire process to be run over again.

    You ask Do I really have to say, "Some people believe this shouldn't be included" to be unbiased? The answer is - even including that sentence would not save you from a breach of the guidelines on canvassing. The only thing you are allowed to say is along the lines of 'please give your opinion on X here'. I will leave it for the admins to decide what further action, if any, to take on this occasion. If you do it again, the most likely outcome is that you will be blocked. Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:52, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I feel any sort of block now would be closing the proverbial barn door after the consensus got out. Anyway, this was a clear breach of WP:CANVASS, regardless of Cookiecaper's defensiveness to the contrary. Do not do this again, Cookiecaper, or you will be blocked. Tan | 39 14:56, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    If the only thing I am allowed to say is "Please look at this dispute and offer your opinion", WP:CANVASS should reflect as much; right now, it doesn't. It defines a biased message as "campaigning", which is defined as "an attempt to sway the person reading the message, conveyed through the use of tone, wording, or intent." My post does not attempt to sway any people; it asks those interested to support the position, and that's all. There is no argument for or against included, there is no lambasting of my opposers, merely a notice of what's happening, a headline that implores action, and links to the relevant discussion and article.
    Since the only thing one is allowed to say is, "Please offer your opinion", I shall update WP:CANVASS to reflect as much shortly, and should not be censured for a failure to adhere to an unwritten extremist take on a WP policy. cookiecaper (talk / contribs) 19:18, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't find your edits to Wikipedia:Canvassing useful (they looked more like contentless griping), so I have reverted them. You're free to discuss readding a more polished version of this content on Wikipedia talk:Canvassing, but I doubt you'll see consensus to include it. — Gavia immer (talk) 19:47, 29 November 2009 (UTC
    I see you've now posted on the talk page (see here for those interested); thank you for proceeding that way. — Gavia immer (talk) 20:02, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    This user has made a large revert to the article Stroker Serpentine with the edit summary: Returned site to original condition prior to griefing. Notified admins and attorneys. Requested lock diff. The entire article is a bit of a mess, but this isn't helping. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 16:41, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    (...and no, user did not "notify admins" Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 16:44, 28 November 2009 (UTC))[reply]
    I wonder if "notified attorneys" is really a legal threat. I guess you could argue about a chilling effect, but I think it's too vague. I've warned the user, so let's see how it goes from there. TNXMan 17:36, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I know I'm usually on the hardass side of NLT, but it seems obvious to me that "notified attorneys" is intended to stifle discussion by invoking fear of legal action, preventing which is one of the two direct objectives of the policy. (In fact, I'd be hard-pressed to find another meaning at all). — Coren (talk) 17:41, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Given that their previous two edits had summaries of "Edit is libelous, No references and griefed by porn site Reported to admins" and "Libelous, irrelevant references, points to dead links of porn website", I'd have to take it as a legal threat. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:47, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    In conjunction with the "reporting to admins" comment, I took it as a "I'm telling mom and dad!" kind of threat. I've cleaned up the article some and more eyes would probably be useful. I agree with Bugs below, if they keep up the threat, they can be shown the door. TNXMan 17:54, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    As a courtesy I made doubly-certain no text had been altered after the reverted edits of the previous user. Not passing judgment on that user, but I did need to remove a bit more unsourced BLP material that was ugly bright red lettering in a version comparisons between current and last edits 2 days ago. Anyway, it's the text as-was after the reverts, as desired. Really wanted to make sure I actually found the correct version that was unofficially requested be locked. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 17:43, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    It's a single-purpose account, making legal threats. My guess is that it won't be back. But if it does come back, and it's first edit isn't a retraction, then it should be indef'd. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:48, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Completely agree and that's what I was assuming a bit ago. I just really, really wanted to make sure cited BLP text from before and after the alleged inappropriate changes and reversions were both the same. There was this strange unreferenced line of gushing praise that had somehow appeared in the version with the lawyering edit summary. Figured it had to be a re-reversion somehow since equal and "locked" was the goal, and with it gone there are zero possible discrepancies that might trip up a legal effort. Yup. Zero. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 17:59, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Pardon my ignorance towards proper Wikipedia procedure. I did NOT write this article however it WAS accurate until the editor began their campaign with an agenda to promote their porn site as a reference. The editor has no basis in reality citing heresay articles in his singular pay-per-click blog. I am the subject of the article and I have indeed contacted wikipedia directly because frankly the procedure for doing so here is beyond my comprehension. The following responses were given by direct email through the "Report Libel" interface:

    I have removed the section, as the only source was unreliable (see also <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:RS> for an explanation). If you have any further issues, please feel free to let us know. Yours sincerely, Peter Symonds Wikipedia - http://en.wikipedia.org

    The two amendments you requested have been made.It is not possible to lock or remove the article, but we will be watching it to ensure, as far as possible, that further issues like this don't arise. Yours sincerely,Joe Daly - http://en.wikipedia.org

    A lot of this content appears to have been edited since you wrote to us. Can you please advise whether the article is acceptable in its current form? Yours sincerely, Joe Daly Wikipedia - http://en.wikipedia.org

    In each incidence the editor replaced the changes made by Mr. Daly. If Mr. Daly is not an administrator then I certainly apologize for not using proper procedure. However, the legal reference was made in my edit because I will have no choice but to petition Wikipedia to remove the article entirely before I will allow this editor to continue to use wikipedia as a pulpit for libelous claims against my person with a commercially motivated agenda. I certainly do not need to use Wikipedia as a promotional tool. The article is NOT autobiographical as the original posts will substantiate. I am more than happy to remove the legal comment with cooler composure. I default to the admins here. I appreciate the attention and apologize for the trouble this may have caused. Kevin Alderman/aka/Stroker Serpentine —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stroker Serpentine (talk • contribs) 19:54, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I think the best thing to do in the future is refer to Wikipedia policies (such as WP:Biographies of living persons or WP:Reliable sources) rather then referring to potential legal consequences. Not only is that the best way of not falling into the WP:NLT problem, if a person continues to ignore Wikipedia policies (especially WP:BLP), the community and the administrators will be more appreciative of your concerns. As I said, it's just some useful advice for the future. Singularity42 (talk) 21:27, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you Singularity. I did not post the original article and I am a wiki novice. No excuses, but this is all new to me. Wikipedia can be quite intimidating for non-programming types. I will amend the edits post haste. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stroker Serpentine (talk • contribs) 06:54, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I can't seem to edit the comment without undoing the revert. Any help please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stroker Serpentine (talk • contribs) 07:22, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Tell me what you were trying to do (and please remember to click the signature box at the top of the editing section, or the four tilda symbol at the bottom of same, or just add four tildas ~~~~ at the end of your posts) Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:57, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I am the subject of this article. I did not write it. I have not changed anything in the body of the text. I reverted the page (apparently unsuccessfully) one time. The page is continually being changed by a "MartinBane". This editor has an agenda to change the real biography of a living person into an avatar page. I have multiple characters as part of my business model of User Generated Content in virtual worlds. All of the edits by this person are surrounding a current class action lawsuit. This is a game obviously to this person, yet it has significant impact on pending litigation. The article WAS about a living person until the editor was able to convince an admin? to change it to an avatar name and redirect it. My question here to the admins and volunteers, is how do I go about having the article either reverted to what it was before these edits or removed altogether from Wikipedia. I haven't the time nor the inclination to play juvenile "gotcha" games with this individual. Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated. --Stroker Serpentine (talk) 02:32, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Basically, if another editor is introducing incorrect information then it should be reverted and they should be reported if it continues to happen. Otherwise if the article is deemed noteworthy any decent editor will use available reliable resources to write the article. As far as I know it's not up to you whether or not there is a WP article article about you, so the deletion thing isn't really an option. RaseaC (talk) 02:36, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


    I created the article, I maintain the article, and I have yet to see a legitimate edit of the article that wasn't griefing. Check the IPs. Smiletenshi (talk) 03:05, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Everybody maintains the article Smiletenshi. raseaCtalk to me 03:16, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Bosnia/Herzegovina map dispute

    Resolved
     – Hopefully FPAS can sort this out. Let me know if head-cracking is needed at any stage. Moreschi (talk) 15:05, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Vandalism on Demographic history of Bosnia and Herzegovina

    User Laz17 deleted sourced data (maps, censuses) here [50]. The same map can also be seen in "Povijesni atlas"--Kartografija Učila, Zagreb 1984. It is an elementary history atlas which was made in the time of ex.Yugoslavia. Discussion with the user is not helping [51]. --Čeha (razgovor) 14:09, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Ceha simply has no source. It's as simple as that. We also have no source on the exact borders. (LAz17 (talk) 17:50, 28 November 2009 (UTC)).[reply]
    I have the census data for 1879, 1885, and 1895. The data indicates different results from what his map shows. Until we get an official referenced thing, we should remove all unofficial fantasy maps. (LAz17 (talk) 17:51, 28 November 2009 (UTC)).[reply]
    [52] is a map which can be found in old yugoslav atlas;"Povijesni atlas"--Kartografija Učila, Zagreb 1984. On that map borders of districts are clearly seen. Removing that is considered vandalism.
    Second, Laz borders of districts are clearly seen on that map. You also removed part talking about ethnic structure of those districts. If you had the census, try counting it up. It should get the same results. --Čeha (razgovor) 10:30, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    harassment by user Ceha

    User ceha is haraassing me. Please see , [53] at the end of the talk page. He is insisting that a particular place should be included on yet another one of his fraud maps. No previous map has included this particular town, and maps that we have in high resolution show that the town was not part of what he insists is part of. Upon seeing sources ceha denounces them as false, and claims that his maps that have little detail are still correct. He is very rude and obnoxious. Please can someone help in quieting him? Also, there is the big map problem regarding his 1991 false map... he seems to like to discuss it on multiple talk pages. Could someone educate him as to keep the discussion to only one page? (LAz17 (talk) 17:55, 28 November 2009 (UTC)).[reply]

    I have made Ceha (talk · contribs) aware of this discussion. GiantSnowman 17:59, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for letting us know of these kinds of disgustingly inappropriate personal attacks, though you really didn't need to report yourself. Sigh.
    Content dispute; yet personal enough that LAz17 edits Ceha's posts[54], which by itself is generally not so cool. Besides the colors on a map version aren't so great and you like yours more, what makes today worse than any other? Seriously, content dispute. Tone on both sides is pointed for obvious reasons even the word 'please' looks like an insult now, but I'd highly suggest this ANI today be "resolved" and endorsed as-is by the nominator and walk off lucky to not actually have been caught doing things on the abusive side of tedious. Just as the self-report on the abuse, I see you left out signature edits for trying to hide yourself not logged in as being a sock [55] [56] ... and it would be a great sign of extra good faith if you could stop following User:Ceha around to every single place they post and deliberately post about the map even when that's not the topic of the other conversation? Good time to take a few days off. Another round of ANIs bounced off and you'll be getting away with some pretty questionable stuff. Something goes on forever like this and I'm sure it's common knowledge that at least one person ends up blocked. It's a map. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 19:22, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    If I remember correctly, these two users have been fighting over historical and demographic maps of Croatia for many months. It is extremely confusing, because neither of them are very good at actually explaining to an outsider in a matter-of-fact way what the perceived problems about this or that map are. I'm trying to get them to talk calmly at Talk:Banovina of Croatia now (at least talk to me, separately, if they can't talk calmly to each other); if we fail to sort this out peacefully I am afraid it looks like we will need ARBMAC sanctions for both. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:32, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Datheisen, I usually have log in automatically. This is good for only 30 days. So, I did not notice that I was not logged in. That is why I changed the stuff back. Accusing me of sock puppetry is really outrageous.
    There are more than one map dispute. The map here is involving the Banovina of Croatia. The other, and primary, map dispute is regarding the 1991 ethnic map of Bosnia. FutPerf had deleted ceha's fraud map, which was a reproduction of a 1981 map. Ceha used this source map create another map. This other map is very wrong, and we are arguing about it. Currently the discussion is on hold because Ceha does not accept any criticism on that map and there is no moderator. I do not follow ceha around much. However, the guy is problematic. FutPerf, could you please help mediate in the map problem? User:Rjecina/Bosnian census - it looks nasty, I must admit. Direktor helped gained much ground, as he forced Ceha to stop continueing to take the discussion into circles based on the census. (LAz17 (talk) 20:54, 28 November 2009 (UTC)).[reply]
    LAz, I don't know if you saw my remarks on that article talk page yet. It contained a strong warning to stop making accusatory remarks about each other, and to concentrate exclusively on discussing the facts. This goes for all spaces, not only that page. I see that in the posting just above you again couldn't refrain from accusing your opponent of "fraud" and other such things. This is a final warning, please stop personalising the problem like this, immediately. – On another issue, I do not think you can be blamed for attempted sockpuppetry, don't worry about that one. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:02, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Alright. I'll do my best, but I do hope that there will be some mediator, as that is the most useful way for anything regarding disputes between ceha and me to move forwards. (LAz17 (talk) 23:02, 28 November 2009 (UTC)).[reply]
    Thanks, DaTheisen and Future:), I hope that with help of a mediator we'll finally have a civilized discussion. --Čeha (razgovor) 10:30, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    La Salle Extension University

    There's a brewing edit skirmish at that article, over a number of issues, between Dmadzelanedgov (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who represents himself as a U.S. government employee in the Department of Education; a user calling himself LEU Truth Squad (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), whose point of view is obvious from his name; Jokestress (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who first edited the article long ago and has been dragged back into it; and myself to some extent as I did one reversion to Dmadzelanedgov's unexplained reversions today, and have had talk page discussions with the other three. This apparently has something to do with a political figure (connected with Obama) who is citing LSEU as part of his educational background, but I don't think LEU Truth Squad (who raised the issue) has actually come out and named the guy. In any case, while there has been talk on the talk pages, there is also frequent reversion going on, primarily over the validity of sources. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:52, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I have notified all three users about this discussion. GiantSnowman 20:04, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    So have I. I'm thinking of creating a second user. I'll call it "Redundancy Squad of Redundancy". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:14, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    And I'll change mine to Speedy Gonzales ;) GiantSnowman 20:25, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    From what I can gather, there's an off-wiki dispute over a Virginia healthcare executive claiming to have a Ph.D. from LSEU in 2000, but according to the Bear Guide, LSEU closed in 1982. According to ads and actions by the Federal Trade Commission, LSEU offered Associates and Bachelors degrees, but no ads found to date mention Masters or Doctorates. Unsourced information has been repeatedly added to the LSEU article that supports the claims of the person who says his doctorate came in 2000. Both User:Dmadzelanedgov and User:LEU Truth Squad are using problematic usernames. Someone also created User:LEU Truth Fairy Squad. User:Dmadzelanedgov's name (D. Madzelan at ed.gov) suggests the real name of a real government official, but there is reason to believe this editor is not that government official and may in fact be the Virginia healthcare executive. User:LEU Truth Squad claims to be a consortium of people trying to add the "truth" to the LSEU article. Both are WP:SPAs, both have been warned about usernames, and both appear to have a conflict of interest. Both keep trying to add citations that are not reliable, such as phone numbers or web pages that do not support the statements they wish to add. I recommend blocking those usernames if they are not changed, or if they continue to revert reliably-sourced information. As a veteran of the Pacific Western University WP:OFFICE action, I know that these distance learning articles often attract highly partisan SPAs. These users are bordering on disruption at this point. Jokestress (talk) 20:27, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Addendum: usernames involved in the same series of edits:
    CRITICS
    SUPPORTERS
    VANDALS
    My guess is that a Checkuser would show that a number of these accounts are connected with User:Dmadzelanedgov, with the rest connected to the opposition. Jokestress (talk) 20:53, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I took the liberty of reconfiguring your list to allow easy reference to their activities, and separating by apparent supporters and critics. The IP's geolocate to Monterey, Virginia. LEU Truth Squad stated that that would be an expected location from a person claiming to have an LSEU Ph.D. issued in 2000, when LEU Truth Squad says the school closed in 1982. Also, LEU Truth Squad said he would rename his user ID, but I don't think he has done so yet.[57] ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:02, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    And I took the liberty of notifying the listed users that they're being discussed here in the Thirty-Eleventh Circle of Hell. GJC 23:52, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    ...at least for the ones Bugs didn't get on the first pass. Clearly I am not on today; I didn't realize Turkey Coma could be a chronic disease.GJC 23:54, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't bother notifying the others because they're just drive-bys, some of which have not edited for some time now. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:30, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Checkuser won't likely be able to do anything with the ones from 2-3 years ago, and maybe not even the ones from this past summer as the data is not kept indefinitely. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:46, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Baseball Bugs, Giant Snowman - thank you for the alert of this discussion.

    First - because of the dust-up over the user name "LEU Truth Squad", a change of user name will be done as soon as possible. There have been intervening time-absorbing issues involving the holiday and other responsibilites since that was action was promised. Please be advised that no additional posts under the user name "LEU Truth Squad" will be entered and the change will be done as just stated as soon as possible (and the instructions on how to do it are read through).
    Without being redundant in explaining the reason for the styling of the user name as it has appeared, it was to represent that three individuals who are very familiar with LaSalle Extension University who collaborate on responses (but only one accesses the site and enters text) had the motive and intention of providing verifiable information from the Illinois State Board of Education that the school never offered any degree above a Bachelors (notwithstanding LL.B [law degree] which is at a different strata than an academic degree in say history, math, or other subject.
    Why? Witnessing first hand the struggle to locate information about LEU/LSEU that could be thoroughly researched pursuant to degrees offered (or not), to try and help anyone (such as potential employers like schools or legitimate universities interviewing to hire an academically qualified teacher, medical and industrial organizations hiring for various positions, etc) wanting to verify claims they are being presented with by a candidate claiming an advanced degree. The problem any such organizations face is that there are almost NO internet-based resources available to any such potential employer to research - other than a very few such as like Wikipedia which as you, Baseball Bugs, described as not reliable (because of the open-edit availability to anyone wishing to do that). There are many wonderful sites of information that present accurate information throughout Wikipedia and "our" thought was to add that very tiny bit of information regarding the degrees LEU/LSEU was allowed (and not) to convey by the ISBE to make the site more reliable in the depth of its description of LEU/LSEU.
    Continuing - what if such a potential employer simply does not know (or think) to contact the entity that oversaw the school's degree programs and has actual transcripts? Sounds simple, background-check 101 right?, yet you would be surprised at the number of sophicated "vetting" organization for hire to potential employers that never bother to contact the State of Illinois Department of Education regarding LEU/LSEU ("we" know because "we" asked). In addition, apparently a Washington DC-based "vetting" service as well as a "Certified Recruiter" never bothered to check with the ISBE regarding the claimed Ph.D. in 2000 from LEU/LSEU being made by the Virginia-based health care executive mentioned elsewhere.
    If you do an internet search for information about LEU/LSEU - the Wikipedia site is just about the only one that comes up that has any extended information about LEU/LSEU that attempts to provide definitive information about the school - so that situation which so limits attempts to research information about the school reinforced the decision to add the one bit of information we attempted to do about what degrees the school was and was not certified to convey by the ISBE.
    C.V. fraud attempting to take advantage of hard-to-verify information because a LEU/LSEU is now closed is apparently a more widespread problem that perhaps many are aware (and although down for the moment, the site Ebmnet [58] is down) the site for years provided a "list of graduates" that (a) required no verification of actual graduation from LEU/LSEU to be listed thus providing a claimed list of graduates and (2) showed a number of "graduates" claiming degrees from after the school closed. (Note the other "lists" they offer such as "Directory of Haitian Churches", Directory of University of Montreal Graduates", and of course, the currently "..page is not accessible now pending internal review" for LaSalle Extension University. This site was never a "real" list of LEU/LSEU graduates (such as maintained and microfilm transcripts available through the ISBE) although no doubt some legitimate LEU/LSEU graduates were in the Ebmnet list mix).
    So because "we" had once become involved in the impact a major employer was experiencing from the hiring of an unqualifed candidate (claiming an advanced degree from LEU/LSEU) we decided to add the information accumulated from that process and the ISBE for the benefit of ALL to the Wikipedia LEU/LSEU site as well as to any other such site that allowed for such information to be entered.

    This now moves to the issue of requiring a "published source" before Wiki will recognize comment and/or citation of which Baseball Bugs and Jokestress has made "us" not only aware but stated in no uncertain terms that the entry of that information although backed by direct correspondence from the ISBE (considered "personal research") was not sufficient to be allowed to remain in the article.

    If you check the History - you find "we" have not re-entered anything on the site basically since that alert was received.

    Next - there is a problem with the Wikipedia "vetting" process of what can be recognized as "allowable" material from which to quote.

    Bear in mind that no state agency such as the one that oversaw LEU/LSEU publishes lists of courses it has authorized a school to offer - leaving that job to the school in their promotional material - but the State Agency will respond to inquiry about what the school was authorized and was not authorized to convey.
    The insistance therefore that the ISBE has to have published that LEU/LSEU was not authorized to offer Masters or Doctorate level degrees before it can be referred to or quoted from (documentation responding to inquiry) set up a standard that falls entirely beyond the purview of what a State Agency does and thereby rejects out-of-hand the highest level of authority available.
    An example to illustrate the problem this arrangement causes - if LEU/LSEU entered an ad in a 1946 Popular Science wherein nothing about the type of certificates/degrees was even mentioned - WHATEVER they said in the ad would be accorded more validity from which to quote than a letter from the ISBE on State stationery specifically stating (1) the school could not have ever conveyed any Masters or Doctorate degrees because (2) they were not certified to do so by the State of Illinois.
    This protocol of barring high-value resources because they have not "published" relative to an article's topic does, with all due respect to those dedicated volunteers forming needed protocols, deprive ANY Wikipedia site (potentially) from containing the most accurate information that is available but not allowed to be viewed by anyone attempting to research a topic through the service and most specifically in this instance, the highest level of authority available to verify what the school was authorized by the state to convey and what it wasn't.
    Given that such a scenario (a State agency that does not publish and should not be expected to do so compared with commercial and other organizations) the Administrative Staff of Wikipedia should consider how to accommodate information provided by a State in writing to address such a topic as that of what LEU/LSEU was allowed to convey upon the completion of course work.
    Perhaps even though there is no "heirachy" at Wikipedia, some arrangement can be found wherein correspondence from a legitimate and best source that is a non-publishing entity but which will provide printed correspondence in response to a topic such as being discussed here - and that stored correspondence held by an approved Wikipedia site could then become the "published source" sufficient for the "vetting" process required by Wiki for insertion into an article as a solution to the current vetting process involving a non-publishing but high-value entity such as the ISBE.

    The Illinois State Board of Education, Closed Schools Department, will absolutely confirm that their records show the school actually closed in 1981, that they maintain the only certified transcripts issued by the school, and that no one could have earned any degree above a Bachelors because the school was never certified/authorized to convey a Masters or Doctorate level degree. All anyone has to do - is call and request written confirmation of this fact or write and request same. That is as close to a "published" document that can be expected from a state agency such as one that oversaw a school like LEU/LSEU and continues to oversee every school in the State of Illinois.

    Just "for fun" - why not contact the State Board of Education where any of YOU live and inquire if they publish a list of degrees any of the schools they oversee for the general public to read (or if they leave that job to the school itself in their promotional materials) - and report your findings in this forum.
    Sorry this is so long - but seemed appropriate for a full explanation of the issue, the "vetting" problem of a high-grade source that does not publish as a standard part of its function along the line currently required by Wiki, and a recommendation for a possible modification/arrangement by the Wikipedia Administrative Staff to effect a solution.
    Regards to all - and "we" (usage soon to disappear pursuant to the pending user name change after this exchange has concluded just to be sure it can still be accessed under LEU Truth Squad login) hope this helps understand the issues that have been raised concerning entries by "LEU Truth Squad". (Recent edit this date and time to correct a few typos and hopefully improve structural reading clarity) LEU Truth Squad (talk) 15:42, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Article full-protected for one week--surprised it wasn't full-protected sooner, this has been going on for almost two months. Blueboy96 03:19, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Yikes... is this a candidate for mentioning Durova's WP:WallofText essay? Or just WP:TLDR? I seriously could not make it through 1/4 of the novel posted by LEU Truth Squad. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 17:53, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Disturbing content (report moved from WP:AN)

    From Administrator's Noticeboard: Ks0stm (T•C•G) 20:11, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    From Chris Woodrick: "He seacretly is plotting somthing against the popular kids at his highschool somthing really big that its scary." What should be done about this? MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 20:01, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    (ec)First, find out who taught him how to spell. Something went terribly wrong there. Then see if the supposed threat has anything resembling facts that could be useful enough to report to any authorities. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:18, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    what should be done was to delete it. Another admin already did so. I do not take it as a credible threat, as it was part of a article full of the typical nonsense for an article from one schoolboy teasing another. If anyone thinks it worth proceeding further, they can do so. DGG ( talk ) 20:16, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Who are we to determine what is a credible threat or not? Notifty the authorities with as much info as possible and let them investigate. GiantSnowman 20:27, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    If the threat names a specific school or person, then some followup would be good. Columbine happened because no one took the kids seriously. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:31, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I concur with GiantSnowman. Ks0stm (T•C•G) 20:33, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It does not name a specific school; it does not name a specific person. DGG ( talk ) 20:45, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    From what I saw of it before it was deleted, it had potentially identifying information in it. Ks0stm (T•C•G) 20:46, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Plus the IP can be traced to find a location. GiantSnowman 20:48, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The article gave the person's full name, birth date, physical characteristics and family information. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 20:52, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Since DGG saw fit to delete it, he now assumes the responsibility of notifying the authorities. If he thinks it's not a credible threat and doesn't want to bother, he should un-delete it and let someone else take care of it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:00, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    DGG said "it does not name a specific person" and yet Mandarax said "the article gave the person's full name" - so who's lying?! GiantSnowman 21:06, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    As I thought I said at the beginning, another admin deleted it. I expressed the opinion he was correct in doing so. (I have notified him--nobody else seems to have done that) The person about whom the identifying information is given was the person writing the article, or pretending to write it, not a person about whom a threat is being made. We do not undelete such content--in fact, its the sort of information that really should be oversighted according to our privacy policy. Any of the hundreds of the other admins who wants to do something can do it. DGG ( talk ) 21:09, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Baseball Bugs: I trust admins to act in good faith and I trust that they almost always have good judgment, subject to occasional mistakes or blind spots. If DGG says there was no reason to report, then unless he made an error in judgment there is no reason to report. Given the harm that could happen with undeleting something that should by all rights be oversighted, if anyone has any concerns they should ask DGG to get another admin or functionary to review it. My personal preference would be to send it to someone who can oversight with instructions to review it and to oversight edits that even admins aren't supposed to be able to see, but that may be overkill. It's probably sufficient to have another admin eyeball it in case today is the one day this month that DGG makes a mistake. <-- a little humor there for you davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 21:58, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    what action of mine do you want them to review? I have taken no action at all with respect to the article. I do make mistakes of course, I would say perhaps one a week, not one a month. So undoubtedly does the deleting admin, and all of us. Perhaps you want another admin to review the action of the guy who did do the deletion. I reviewed it, and certainly anyone else can. This page is the place to ask. The normal course if someone does notify is to restore long enough to let the agency see the information, and then delete again. DGG ( talk ) 22:22, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    ← As I read the article, there's no question that the person whose identifying information is provided is absolutely the person who is allegedly plotting to do some big scary thing against the popular kids. There's no indication that this is the same person as the writer, but that may very well be the case. With the full name, birth date, and location information provided by a checkuser, law enforcement authorities should certainly be able to find him. (And, yes, deleting the article was definitely correct.) MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 21:52, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Since when can our checkusers provide name, birth date, and location? At best, useragent and IP. Chillum 22:01, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Let me rephrase: With the full name and birth date listed in the article, which should be sufficient, as well as possible approximate location information based on data provided by a checkuser.... MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 22:09, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Two questions: (1) Is it possible, right now, without the deleted info, to tell who either the intended perp and the intended victim are? (2) From the deleted info, which you have apparently seen, is it possible to discern that info? If the answer to either of those questions is "Yes", then one or two admins' gut feeling, that there's nothing to worry about, may not be sufficient. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:27, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm still not sure that Wikipedia Admins should be deciding whether threats of violence are real or not; we need to inform the relevant authorities and let them take appropiate action. GiantSnowman 22:53, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    In all likelihood, the threat is just a hoax. But, if contacting polices is prefered, no prob. GoodDay (talk) 22:56, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that 999/1000 times these kinds of 'threats' are bored kids having fun; but there is always the chance that one of these threats is real, and if we just ignored it it'd be tragic. Ignore the vandal, and report them to the authorities to deal with as they see fit. GiantSnowman 23:01, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I saw it as well, and from the deleted info, you can discern (as said above) a person's full name, description, and birth date. You cannot tell who the intended victim(s) are, other than the mention "the popular kids at his highschool". The person was named as "seacretly is plotting somthing against the popular kids at his highschool somthing really big that its scary." FWIW, If it was my high school they were talking about, I would want something done about it. Ks0stm (T•C•G) 22:58, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Note that when I say "full name", I mean full first, middle, and last name. In addition to birth date, the article gives his height, weight, and what members of his family are in his household. Although no geographic information or school is mentioned, the data which is present should be quite sufficient for authorities to find him. The chilling note reminded me of the evidence which police and news reporters always dig up after a school massacre, and they always wonder how nobody ever heeded the warnings. I think it would be irresponsible to simply ignore this. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 23:27, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Please report this to the police and let them handle it. I get a chill just thinking that we may have missed something. Basket of Puppies 23:43, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The laissez-faire attitude of a number of editors and admins with regards to threats of violence & suicide on Wikipedia is extremely disheartening, and I feel that this site needs a concrete policy for these matters. I believe that Wikipedia:Responding to threats of harm was previously rejected as policy; how can I nominate a new draft for consideration as acceptance as policy? GiantSnowman 23:49, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I just had a look at Wikipedia:Threats of violence, which seems to be a more recent attempt to codify a guideline/policy. It failed, however. What I did see was statements from police officers asking Wikipedia editors to refer all threats to them. I think that's really good advice to follow. Basket of Puppies 00:05, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The Wikipedia:Responding to threats of harm is not rejected policy - it's an essay, describing administrators' best practice and recommendations regarding the problem. (disclaimer - I wrote most of it). It was not proposed as policy, because there are intractable disputes among the community on what "the right thing to do" is. It's an essay, because essays aren't up for community consensus per se.
    With that said - administrators as a community do that, and follow that, so it's a good idea.
    Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:46, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You are right, however I was referring to something that had been proposed as a policy but rejected. Basket of Puppies 09:02, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Honestly, don't bring things to AN or AN/I if you are going to complain when admins dismiss it as non-credible. If you are convinced of a threat, email checkusers. They can forward the appropriate information to police and we can skip this whole conversation about 99% hoaxes. Protonk (talk) 01:23, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Except that....the last time this came up, MBizanz specifically said NOT to email checkusers, and more or less came straight out that it was the responsibility of the reporting editor to do anything. I'll find the diff in a mo. This is somewhat of a mess.Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:15, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Here it is [59] in response to [60]. Mbizanz (who one would think should know) says "No one (meaning a checkuser) has a more direct route (ie a specific email or other contact for the police). And no one like the checkusers has a Wikipedia email. It is all up to individual editors to decide what they will and will not do." (sections in italics are mine). So that settles that then - it would appear there is no point reporting these things at ANI - either do something yourself, or else forget about it. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:25, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    How are we supposed to do something without the checkuser information to provide location? For example, say a threat comes from a registered account (User:Fake Account) with an IP adress locating to Chicago. Since us non-checkusers can't see the account's Chicago IP address (all we can see is that they are User:Fake Account), we have no location information to give law enforcement without checkuser assistance. Ks0stm (T•C•G) 18:13, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    a law enforcement agency can get beyond the ip's if they think it necessary--they have much more resources that way than we do. (In any case this is something for which resolving the ip would probably not in fact be necessary). Any one of the almost 800 active administrators can choose to undelete the contents long enough to report. the only way it can remain undeleted is if every one of them declines to act. Any one of the people here who think it worthwhile can ask any admin to step in and do this. The easiest way to find what admins are on-wiki at a a particular time is to log at the deletion log and see who is doing deletions. We all act independently here--the reason for not having a mandatory policy is that if it is at all credible, someone will choose to act. DGG ( talk ) 18:57, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I can';t believe we don't have a hard policy on this. Every bomb threat or threat of public violence involving children in a school should have accounts/IPs immediately checkusered and be reported to local authorities. It is not our remit to determine what is and what is not a credible threat. As someone explained to me very well a while back, we are not mental health experts. We're not trained to deal with these situations. Anything less than reporting to the authorities, who ARE trained to deal with these situations, is playing with fire. If not to potentially save some kid's life, then at least to cover our own asses. I can see the headlines now "ZOMG, Kid issues school threats, Wikipedia deletes, 11 children dead." When these kinds of threats are issued in school, the school always takes it seriously and calls the police, even though 99% of them are bogus. In the case of the bogus ones, the kid learns a serious lesson when his/her parents are paid a visit by the police. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 19:06, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    This humble editor's opinion: You have to take online statements much the same as you would offline statements: You have to assess if the level of credibility of the threat times the cost/harm done if the threat is carried out exceeds the cost/harm caused by having the police or other agencies look into it. If someone makes a clearly bogus threat, like "I'm a 12 year old boy and I'm going to blow up the United Nations tomorrow with my atomic ray gun, bwuhahahahaha" it would be a waste of resources to do anything but delete the edit and block the editor for being a twit. If the threat is from editor A to editor B saying "I'm gonna kill you tomorrow asswipe" and the other editor replies "you said that last week and the week before that" and the continuing back-and-forth looks like there is no real threat, it can be handled the same way, per WP:NOTBLOG. It gets much tougher when the level of credibility is much above 1 in a thousand or possibly 1 in a million that something very bad could happen - since the harm from such a threat is so high, it becomes a judgment call on the part of those with access to the information. When the threat level is high enough that it's more than remotely credible, say, a post that passes the WP:DUCK test for a statement indicating someone is in danger, then yes, anyone with good judgment will send that one to checkuser and/or the police directly, in addition to doing any blanking, deleting, or blocking that is appropriate.
    Having said that, any editor who does see information that leads them to think anyone is going to harm anyone else is free to contact the authorities if they do so in good faith - what is obviously a twit to someone who has all the facts and takes time to think about it may not be to someone who acts in the heat of the moment or who only sees part of the information available. Even in obvious/twit cases, the law typically protects them from being charged with making a false police report or from being sued by the person who gets a knock on the door from a well-meaning cop, and the police will probably tell them they did the right thing, even if the police internally know they wasted several man-hours of police time when any reasonable person would've seen it wasn't necessary to call the police.
    I didn't see the post in question, I have no call on whether it was a twit, a credible threat, or a judgment call. Based on the conversation above, it looks like a judgment call and the judgment was that there was no appreciable risk. I trust those making such calls to act in good faith.
    To summarize: Use Common sense and Wikipedia:Common sense and follow your gut when necessary. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 23:22, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Sock at Jim Bowden

    Resolved
     – page semip for three days (oh me of little faith) IP appears to have driven on by

    Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:46, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The Jim Bowden article has just been vandalised twice [61][62] by an IP replacing content with information about a different Jim Bowden who is 20 years younger. Current IP is User:71.129.235.170 but these selfsame edits have previously been made by IP User:71.140.64.15 User:69.237.145.140User:12.33.210.66. Could someone block the current IP for a few hours please - on previous form, they will keep reverting until they get brassed off tonight. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:57, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    As he switches IPs, Wikipedia:Requests for page protection would be more efficient. Page reported for protection. HalfShadow 23:09, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I thought about that, but I'm pretty sure this is just one guy, and RPP will just come back and say that there's insufficient vandalism to warrant page protection. Just blocking his IP for 48hrs is better, because on previous form he's likely to go a way for a couple of weeks.Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:24, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It can't hurt to list it anyway. HalfShadow 23:31, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. Also, I just note that Kevin is undertaking a general clean up of the article, so there's some extra eyes on it anyway. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:33, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Shiron.net

    Resolved
     – Google Translate sucks for proper nouns and titles. References do, in fact, refer to the website in question. Singularity42 (talk) 04:53, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello. Could someone please review the sources the creator of this article added? I used google translate and the recently added sources do not even mention the subject. The other refs are discussed on the AfD. I do not want to get into an edit war with this user and I would appreciate someone intervening between us and give a neutral perspective.--TParis00ap (talk) 23:19, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Use ctrl+F and look for the word:

    שירונט

    in the references. You will find it on each and everyone of them. Eddau (talk) 23:47, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I tried that. I also used Google translate to convert them to English and looked for Shiro as well. I found several times like Lshirot and Bshirot but nothing like Shiron or Shiron.net. Please understand that I approached and article with neutrality and nominated that article in good faith and I am only looking out for the 'pedia. I checked your sources in and could not verify the sources.--TParis00ap (talk) 23:55, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The only things I understand are that you insist talking about things you do not know and to claim that I am a spammer. You do not even recognize the Hebrew alphabet, but you almost deleted an article about a Hebrew website. You deleted sources in a language you do not read. It is about time you start believe in my good faithEddau (talk) 00:37, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, use Ctrl+F to look for
    שירונט
    Not for
    שִירוֹ‏נֶ‏ט

    Eddau (talk) 00:41, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I absolutly believe in your good faith, I just have trouble seeing us working this issue out without help because you don't seem to understand that even though I cannot speak Hebrew, I can still use tools to descern what is said and apply Wikipedia policies. Is there really no one who can help us here?--TParis00ap (talk) 03:25, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    1. On the ref http://www.nrg.co.il/online/10/ART1/047/978.html, the word שירונט appears on the first line of the subtitle, in double quotes. On the ref http://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-3256121,00.html that word is underlined on the first line of the first paragraph. I hope you find it now.
    2. Claiming I'm a spammer is not a belief in my good faith.
    3. Translation machines may do a good job translating from Dutch to English, from Arabic to Hebrew, or from Italian to Spanish. However, the differences between English and Hebrew is way to large for them. If you think you really understand their translation, you are wrong. As you proved, you could not even recognize the main subject of some of those references. Eddau (talk) 04:15, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    If it helps, "Shiron" in Hebrew translates to "Songs". So when you run a Google Translate, the website "Shiron" is translated to "Songs". I believe that is the confusion. Both references refer to the website. How relevant they are to the what they are being used for, etc., is really a content issue. However, I don't mind assisting on that front if needed. Singularity42 (talk) 04:28, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Just to be clear, based on Eddau's third point, this is not an English to Hebrew problem. This is a translation program problem, which could occur with any computerized translation from one language to another. Translation programs have major problems with proper nouns and titles. Singularity42 (talk) 04:34, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, guess what happens if you use google translator to translate the Hebrew Wikipedia article about Shiron.net. If you only look for the word "Shiron" you conclude that the Hebrew article about Shiron.net, is not about Shiron.net. That terrible translation is:
    "'Sing N T "is a Web site that contains Israeli Hebrew by soundtrack. In addition it also has trivia, ringtones, dates of birthdays of stars & info about them, Oidaoklifim, pictures artists, albums covers pictures and ads on impressions battles.
    Songs site currently has the largest legal database on the Internet the latest words of Hebrew songs.
    The site was established in late 2002, began in 2003 with the company operates under license Di.ai. Si Acum. Di.ai. company concerned to Si Acum creators royalties for using the works site."Eddau (talk) 04:47, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    So if I can summarize, since I think both parties are misinterpreting each other. TParis00ap reviewed the Hebrew websites through Google Translate, ran into the problem I described above, came to a reasonable conclusion that the references did not refer to the website, and raised the issue with Eddau who supplied the references. Eddau, who is a Hebrew speaker, reviewed the websites in Hebrew, saw that the websites were refered to, and believed TParis00ap was searching for the wrong Hebrew word writing style of the Hebrew word, rather than having a problem with the English translation - which I believe Eddau has now realized based on his comments above. It is a case of simple misunderstanding, and I think is probably solved now. Singularity42 (talk) 04:46, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd like to point out that I never called Eddau a spammer or even suggested he engaged in spamming. Thank you Singularity, if you feel the sources support the article, I'll back off. I still feel that the first 3 sources I started the AfD with did not support the article because 1 was a blog and the other two were summaries, not reviews. I'll leave the article alone and just let the AfD pan out.--TParis00ap (talk) 13:54, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Keegscee's inappropriate warnings

    Resolved

    User:Keegscee has continued to encourage vandalism to another Wiki after being warned two days ago. Although it is nice to have someone reverting vandalism, a quick scroll through his/her user contributions make me wonder if the user's true intentions is to reroute Wikipedia vandals to another Wiki rather than help this encyclopedia project. He came to my attention asking a question about abuse reports on my talk page. I immediately noticed his user talk page (which I have nominated for speedy deletion, but was asked to take it to MfD) instructing vistors to vandalize this wiki instead of Wikipedia. I also noticed in this person's user contributions that (s)he had been providing links to the site in warnings posted to vandals. This is disgraceful and gives Wikipedia a bad name; people encouraging such behavior fuels pages like this and I can imagine what would happen if someone at the site read his/her immature comments. PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) 00:11, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Notified Keegscee of this discussion. @Kate (talk) 00:16, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    So your issue is that he is using Wikipedia to encourage people to vandalise Conservapedia? Crafty (talk) 00:18, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, mainly, and he's doing it after being warned too. That gives us a bad name, especially to the newbies that he's encouraging to do this. We don't need to end up in somebody's email to The Oreilly Factor saying "Wikipedia is a bunch of biased liberals" over one user. Thank you for notifying the user Katerenka, I forgot to do that. PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) 00:26, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    What's wrong with being a "biased liberal"? @Kate (talk) 00:44, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    So what administrative action do you think should be taken? Crafty (talk) 00:29, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    ec: Not sure if a block is appropriate or not because that has a tendancy to make matters worse. Topic bans have to be done by ArbCom. I personally think the user page meets WP:CSD as an attack page; what he's doing is not far from telling people to vandalize any particular page which would result in a deletion of the comments along with a 4IM warning at the very least. Wikipedia is not 4chan; we cannot allow people to instruct others to inflict damage at other sites. What's next, will the user tell people to bash videos at YouTube or write bad reviews for products at Best Buy's website? And it has nothing to do with the site in question or his political views, it's about malice and immaturity. PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) 00:52, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Has User:Keegscee continued to use those nonstandard warnings since he said "Yeah, I understand. I'll just warn normally, as boring as that is. Thanks." If he hasn't I see no purpose to this thread. ϢereSpielChequers 00:50, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    (←) His userpage has been deleted. If he's not persisting with this conduct, I don't see what more there is to do. Crafty (talk) 00:54, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I have delete the userpage as a clear attack page and have left the admin who declined it a note explaining myself. We don't let pages that exist solely to encourage others to attack another website sit around for 7 days, we delete them on site. As for the user, I have left a firm warning for the user and will block them if they continue to encourage others to vandalize websites. Chillum 00:55, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec)My biggest problem is with his user page which has not been deleted. I figured this would be a better option for reaching consensus than MfD which could take several days. MfD is not for attack pages, which is basically what this was. And dang these edit conflicts PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) 00:56, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that if the behavior does not continue that the issue is resolved. Chillum 00:56, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, I think this is resolved for now. PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) 00:58, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    In response to GO-PCHS-NJROTC (do you have a nickname? please?): "Topic bans have to be done by ArbCom." Nope. We could do it right here, if it was at all germane to the (now not really existent) problem. Tan | 39 00:59, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You can call me "PCHS" if you'd like; I've long since changed my name from GO-PCHS-NJROTC because of claims of it being promotional (it was, really), and yes, I know that. I was "thinking out loud" with that. PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) 01:02, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    What does the "PCHS" stand for? Is that a New Jersey high school? Port Charlotte High School, as per User:PCHS-NJROTC. Roger. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:25, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Louis Lesser

    I wrote the Louis Lesser article, and I was notified that there was a Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents report on this. But I can not find the incident. Is it over? Also, I do not understand the allegations that still are up calling the article a "hoax" that are here [[63]]. Is this the right place to ask these questions? HkFnsNGA (talk) 00:25, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I believe you mean this discussion which has been archived. GiantSnowman 00:28, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Is there more response I need to make? HkFnsNGA (talk) 00:42, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you want to respond to anything? GiantSnowman 00:44, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Not really, since I was wrong and others were right.
    I did try to fix the article, and I understand the initial criticism. And I actually enjoyed spending all those days trying to add sources (I missed Thanksgiving with all my friends doing so). But when people are still calling it a "hoax", or "not notable", so my articles will probably all get deleted, I dont feel like working on any articles anymore. HkFnsNGA (talk) 01:15, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't be disheartened when one of your articles is deleted, I've lost count (probably well over two dozen) of how many articles I created when I first began editing and didn't understand the notability rules properly that have been deleted. But it just encouraged me to be a better editor in the long run! :) GiantSnowman 01:28, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    And please do not assume it will be deleted--it may not be. I cannot at this time predict how the AfD will end. The accusations of hoax, at least, seem to have been withdrawn. What you need to do is the same whether it is deleted or it isn't. If it is, you need to write a better one , following the suggestions made there. If it is kept, you need to improve it similarly. DGG ( talk ) 06:03, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I offered to help the OP improve the article. This person does seem (at least to me) to satisfy Notability. If the AFD results in a delete, could someone move the article to either HkFnsNGA's or my userspace so it can be improved sufficiently? <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 06:49, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Let me know if that's needed. MuZemike 17:42, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Cirt

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
    Resolved
     – It seems that the original complaint has been evaluated and there is a consensus that warnings that User:Redheylin avoid WP:BATTLE behavior are sufficient. Jehochman Talk 04:29, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Today I enquired at Talk:Osho (Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh)#Alford plea whether the article is correct to assert that such a plea necessarily means that the plaintiff admitted there was evidence enough to convict. I noted that the two pages Alford plea and North Carolina v. Alford (two overlapping articles) fail to agree on this and were unsourced. Unable to find confirmation on the web, I posted to the Law Project[64] to request help and also added tags and talk page notes to the two "Alford" pages.

    User:Semitransgenic posted a string of refs to Talk:Osho (Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh)#Alford plea but failed to respond to requests to incorporate these refs into the articles concerned.

    However, User:Cirt, who had been involved in discussion on the above page today and is sole author of several pages on related subjects, then moved the page Alford plea (with 32000 Google hits) to Alford guilty plea (11,000 hits). User added several of the references supplied by Semitransgenic to the page with a view to establishing the assertion that an "Alford" plea entails acceptance of likely conviction. (DIFF[65] and following changes), altering tags requesting refs.

    I then checked the refs and, at Alford guilty plea#Tags posted links to these (which appear on Google books), pointing out that the refs given do not support the article's statements.

    I also checked the same editor's work at Byron v. Rajneesh Foundation International and here too found unverifiable and dubious references for certain key statements, which I noted on the talk page. In this case there is apparent violation of BLP standards, which I noted.

    In both cases the editor has simply issued flat denials - the references DO say, ARE verifiable, ARE reliable and authoritative etc.

    I believe it is apparent that the move of Alford plea was an ill-advised measure undertaken in the course of WP:POINT making and that on this and other articles the editor has used bogus references to shore up inflammatory NNPOV OR. It is the editor's habit to claim that more references are to be added - but this does not excuse the use of inadequate refs.

    Further, I have become aware that the editor concerned has been involved in many previous violations of articles on new religious movements and, when applying for adminship, undertook to refrain altogether from editing this class of article. However, the editor appears to remain more or less a single issue activist, originating and linking together articles with a view to discrediting a few such movements. Redheylin (talk) 02:30, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Redheylin (talk · contribs) is a WP:SPA focused on the topic of Rajneesh movement-related articles. See earliest contribs, and most recent contribs. He seems to be refusing to accept WP:SOURCEACCESS, and claiming that only sources that are fully available online should be used, where Redheylin says Unacceptable, owing to the complete absence of reference to the article on the web. As for the move, I cited it in the edit summary to the WP:RS source, Criminal Evidence: Principles and Cases [66]. Cirt (talk) 02:33, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Further, at Alford guilty plea, I took the article from its previous state of having zero sources when tagged by Redheylin (talk · contribs) [67] - to now having every single sentence in the article cited to WP:RS sources. Please see improved version [68]. Cirt (talk) 02:38, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I suggest the possibility that this report to ANI is motivated by revenge. Cirt recently reported Off2riorob to this noticeboard, who was in contact just today with Redheylin re: off wiki contact via e-mail. Note this diff: [69] where he urges the comment regarding same be wiped, and the discussion between them on the Redheylin talk page at the bottom. NOTE: Full disclosure, Off2riorob reported me today to WP:WKA, but the matter was speedily resolved with no admin action and archived. Suggest same for this, and investigation/report of the possibility of collusion. Thanks, Jusdafax 03:15, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The evidence of collusion there is suggestive but not indicative. Redheylin - would you like to comment on the nature of emails you and Off2riorob exchanged? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:49, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec) Cirt asked me to come take a look at this. I've done a review, of the incident and Redheylin's contributions.
    Re Redheylin, I don't agree that they are a single purpose account. They are clearly someone involved in and with a conflict of interest regarding the Rajneesh movement, based on contributions, but they're also making significant unrelated content edits.
    Re Cirt's sources, Cirt is properly interpreting Reliable source and source verifyability standards. We do not need to have a magazine, book, research paper, etc. online in order to cite it and for it to be a reliable source. Redheylin, your interpretation of policy on that point is wrong.
    If someone is found to be fabricating sources, that's a legitimate problem. However, you have not presented any evidence that Cirt is making anything up, or has any underlying bias or reason to do so.
    Cirt is a Wikipedia administrator and someone trusted by the community. If you do have evidence of misbehavior you need to bring that up - either dig up a copy of a book or article he cites and show he's fabricating information, or prove that a claimed source does not exist using a reasonable bibliographical search. This may require real-world library research, if you do feel that this is going on. I doubt it, personally, but I want to be open about what standard of evidence and type of research we're talking about here.
    We do not consider it appropriate to accuse people of forging references without evidence. You can ask someone for a more detailed cite - which edition of a book, what chapter and page, etc. But you have to then put some effort in and go find the source and verify what it actually does say.
    Lacking any evidence presented, there's no case here for administrator action / nothing for us to do on this noticeboard.
    Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:21, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Reading this thread, I do think that user Redhaylin is correct to have issues regarding the moving of the Alford plea, to..the Alford guilty plea, it looks a bit like it was done to affect the discussion regarding the insertion of the Osho mugshot into the Osho aticle, which user cirt is supporting, as there are objection to inserting the booking picture due to the fact that Osho never actually pled or was found guilty, I do think looking at it the this move was ill chosen by user cirt considering he is involved in the discussion that the move would affect, I know that it is not an administrator move but still imo it was ill advised. Off2riorob (talk) 05:57, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Off2riorob's non-answer ignores the obvious fact that he and Redhaylin had what appears to be an agreement to talk off-wiki only hours before Redhaylin filed his curious notice here. Off2riorob, could you comment on the timing, the substance of your discussion as requested by George Willian Herbert and your comment regarding being taken to ANI by you know who? Jusdafax 06:09, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    ec. I have answered, it is just up from this, I was more hoping to get a reply regarding this issue of user cirt moving the Alford plea article, which I just discovered after being directed here, to me this is the issue here not fanciful accusations without any evidence of off wiki collusion to harass another user. Off2riorob (talk) 06:29, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    There seems to be a legitimate content dispute at the heart of this which is best resolved at the appropriate project page, content noticeboard, or other relevant consensus seeking discussion pages. Editors are allowed to e-mail one another, despite my strong support for disallowing all off-wiki communications. And until my investigation of the Admin IRC channel is completed, we won't know exactly how much inappropriate collusion has been going on there, but in the meantime it's probably best to try to lower the temperature of these feuds and to seek common ground and a more amicable approach to interactions (there are probably enough guilty pleas to go around). If there's no admin action required, I suggest marking this resolved and trying to extend goodwill to one another. We're supposed to be all on the same team here. If I can be of any help, I'm happy to weigh in on the dispute itself and to tell you how it should be resolved. :) That's usually enough to bring the opposing parties together. At the very least try discussing it courteously and respectfully with one another without any accusations or suspicions of malintent. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:23, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    A sound comment by ChildofMidnight (talk · contribs), thanks :). FWIW, I moved the article back to its original title, per some excellent research by Brumski (talk · contribs). Cheers, Cirt (talk) 06:41, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Very kind of you Cirt. I should probably point out that the word I used (malintent) is not actually a word (yet), although it is included in the Urban Dictionary. Thanks for your good faith efforts to work through the content issues raised. I'm sorry to see so much acrimony.
    Malcontent is a word, but doesn't appropriately describe anyone on Wikipedia. We're all well meaning and kind here, if occasionally misguided. Especially GWH. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:55, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    ChildofMidnight, per this I have some concerns. Would rather this thread not yet be resolved, and not by one who is not an uninvolved party such as yourself. Cirt (talk) 07:01, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay. No problemo. What are your concerns? I had noted on that editor's talk page that they seemed to be doing some good work at the BLP/N noticeboard and I think they were just replying. I think we were just trying to be collegial and all. Anyway, good luck. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:07, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I respectfully request that Off2riorob and Redheylin answer the relevant concerns re: the timing and content of their private discussion just hours before the filing of this notice at ANI by Redheylin, as was requested by admin Georgewilliamherbert [70] and [71]. (relevant diffs [72] and [73]) Jusdafax 07:06, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    That line of inquiry seems a little witch hunty. Who are you to ask anyone to disclose their e-mails? Editors are allowed to communicate (again, I have long opposed this and support a ban on all off-wiki discussion) so I don't see the issue. Why not focus on resolving the underlying dispute (which seems actually to be getting worked out?). I haven't seen any diffs of problematic attacks on Cirt or anyone else, just an ANI report that seems reasonable if a bit premature. There's certainly some distrust and assumptions of bad faith on both sides, and I don't think you and GWH are helping with that. Let's try to lessen the drama. There's no way of knowing what anyone is e-mailing anyone else (no legitimate way, anyway). If you're into conspiracy theories I've been hoping for weeks now that someone would restore exopolitics as a stand-alone article and expand its content. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:14, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Admin Georgewilliamherbert's requests for elaboration from Off2riorob and Redheylin are appropriate, and relevant to this discussion. I would like to see a clearer response from both users, and/or a comment regarding their lack of same, from Georgewilliamherbert. Thanks to all parties for their consideration, Jusdafax 07:28, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Unfortunately, I'm going to have to be a jerk and mark this as resolved. It was, mostly, with the article moved back as requested. End! Good job, etc. ...Actually, that's not intended to be sarcastic. This was actually a rather simple and civil ANI if all the uninvolved or non-professionally-related stuff is mentally filtered. If you're digging into chit-chat diffs of a non-involved editor and having internal debates between two different parties not in the ANI, asking for the specifics of emails... well, that's no longer the scope of this ANI and I'm pretty sure you know where to go with it. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 08:02, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Hold on, there. I would like to ask how a non-administrator can close an ANI thread? Can any non-involved editor mark ANI threads as closed, even when questions by an administrator have not had time to be discussed? This is the first I have heard of this. Jusdafax 08:21, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Quite simple for a non-administrator to close an ANI thread: add template and sign. Not to be facetious, but there are experienced non-admins who do it regularly. Best to do so when the issue actually is resolved, though. Durova371 03:06, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Noted. Thanks for giving me a clue! Jusdafax 03:50, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • [Support close/resolved by daTheisen] While I, too, was surprised by an non-admin close, the action is good and well-rationale'd (and appropriately deals with some distracting side issues by moving on). Further comment if necessary, but let us all hope not, if for no other reason than it's the holiday season. Cheers. Proofreader77 (talk) 08:54, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Proofreader77 is not really the most uninvolved to interject here. Here is a comment he made to ChildofMidnight about Off2riorob, The kind and beautiful grace you displayed on Off2riorob‎'s talk at a time.... Jusdafax 09:17, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I support the close. The situation with the offwiki contact is suspicious but this complaint and the situation don't justify pursuing further action. It was a reasonable question to ask. I don't know that I'm entirely satisfied by the answers, but there's a point at which pushing too hard for further info after a relatively minor possible abuse simply becomes harrassing of the other party. Even if they'd said that they'd colluded it wouldn't have been worth more than a warning and future careful watching.
    We have the original issue, the suspicions, and responses on the record. There's no point in making a bigger deal out of this than that. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 09:23, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello - I have received notes of "bad faith allegations" from Cirt and George William Herbert on my talk page and note them here. It will be evident from my contributions that I am not a "single-purpose account". I confirm that I have received a request for email contact from user offtoriorob, but there has been no such contact. I similarly invited user Cirt to discuss the issues of-wiki: I feel this is a reasonable extension of good faith in an obviously fraught environment. Yet the above adds up to a very serious allegation of bad faith that requires investigation, and I call upon the editors concerned to institute such an investigation or else to withdraw their allegations. Since these allegations continue[74] the matter cannot sensibly be considered closed.
    I note that the above matter has been taken as a reason to close this complaint. Yet the references added at Alford plea do indeed fail to support the assertions made, while this[75], which involves BLO consideration, refers to an article of which I stated there is no NOTICE on the web, no apparent connection with subject and no notice of publication: the editor says "I found it on a database" but cannot identify the database: it is not verifiable. The author, Peter Gillins, is apprently an Oregon lawyer. I am aware, of course, of strong negative POV in Oregon re Rajneesh.
    So - I am having slight difficulty here finding a proper investigation of my report in the above and it seems I have to re-open it. It has been said: "We do not need to have a magazine, book, research paper, etc. online in order to cite it and for it to be a reliable source. Redheylin, your interpretation of policy on that point is wrong." I hope I have explained this. A BLP allegation of conspiracy to murder requires sound, verifiable sources: I cannot tell why these allegations are not available in legal proceedings and there is no way to trace the article. "If someone is found to be fabricating sources, that's a legitimate problem. However, you have not presented any evidence that Cirt is making anything up, or has any underlying bias or reason to do so." As I noted, the references added to Alford plea clearly fail to support the statement that such a plea consitutes (in every state) an admission of strong evidence.
    I second Cirt's request that this matter be not considered closed: regrettably, Child of Midnight, the hoped for rapprochement is not there, allegations still stand. I beileve it is clearly unacceptable to present unreliable views of legal terms in pursuit of a single purpose unrelated to the law. I must add that there are previous[76] unresolved issues regarding this editor's use of bogud references which, like this, have been met by a counter-attack combined with admin failure to investigate.Redheylin (talk) 11:35, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Redheylin - In case it was not already clear, it is against Wikipedia policy to repeatedly claim that someone is using false sources without specifically naming what sources are false and what evidence that you have that they are false. It is disruptive behavior and a form of personal attack, alleging that someone else is violating policy without substantive evidence.
    Please either provide those details or retract the claim.
    Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 13:36, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps you mean (without saying so) that it is not enough to direct your attention to diffs given on the talk page (as I did to begin with) but that you require that they be posted here. Very well. Below cut and paste from Talk:Alford plea.
    TRANSCRIPT

    I further note the change of article's name by User:Cirt and the addition of refs. However, Google gives 32000 hits for the former title and only 11000 for the new one. I note that the user has made these changes in the course of a dispute at Osho (Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh) I further note that the cited source[77] fails to back the assertion it references. This is rather serious..... Redheylin (talk) 00:57, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    [78] Second reference also fails Redheylin (talk) 01:05, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    You are incorrect. And I have given multiple sources. And will continue to add more. Cirt (talk) 01:11, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    END TRANSCRIPT

    As stated at the beginning (and many times since), requirement is for refs to cover matter of necessity of compelling evidence and to resolve fork with North Carolina v. Alford I have noted below Cirt's action on the latter page and request that these two entries be synthesised. I have received a note from you that you "are not proceeding" with your allegations of bad faith collaboration made above, and request that you confirm this here and withdraw the allegations. Redheylin (talk) 14:26, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Making it clear this is a cut-and-paste by Redheylin from Talk:Alford plea. Cirt (talk) 14:16, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok. We now have a pair of sources and an article. That's a start. Now please be more specific.
    The first source is used in 4 places in the article. The second source is used in 4 different places in the article. Redheylin, you assert that first source (Criminal Evidence: Principles and Cases) "fails to back the assertion it references". Please list what assertion is made - which instance of its use, or instances - and how the source does not support the claim. You also say that the second source "fails" - again, which instance of its use, or instances, fails to support what claim in the article.
    Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 14:29, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    (Cut and paste from para above, for the nth time) "As stated at the beginning (and many times since), requirement is for refs to cover matter of necessity of compelling evidence and to resolve fork with North Carolina v. Alford" Here's the scoop. Editors at Talk:Osho (Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh) wish to establish that the subject of the page necessarily admitted there was strong evidence against him of criminal acts on the basis that this is the standard definition of an Alford plea. I checked the pages Alford plea and North Carolina v. Alford and found they were unsourced and not in agreement. I tagged the pages contradictory, left talk page notes and requested help from the Law Project. User Cirt then removed tags from the latter page, annotating that the page was improved, whereas no change was in fact made (diff below). User also added refs to former page purporting to support "necessary admission of strong evidence" but not in fact doing so, as the above refs show, and again removed the tag with the contradiction unresolved. I note:
    • 1) That a previous instance of same user's questionable references reported here also resulted in hostile action by admins (see User:Redheylin#Rajneeshee) and that these bad refs still remain in place.
    • 2) That you and other people operating this page made immediate allegations of bad faith against me, which you have not yet withdrawn.
    • 3) That this matter remains tagged "resolved", which was done prior to my answering your allegations and without your present request for detail - and it clearly is not.
    • 4) That user Cirt's application for adminship shows concerns raised about a long history of hostile editing of "new religious movements" articles from which she undertook to desist, but has not.
    I contend that alterations were made to pages giving information about US law purely in pursuit of the aim of providing support for allegations about Osho (Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh), which is clearly a gross violation, as are the the allegations of disruption, (which you appeared to back, see below) when I replaced those tags and requested re-opening of the affair and intervention of further, neutral admins. I am not impressed. Redheylin (talk) 15:17, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Here's a transcript of the page I complained about:
    TRANSCRIPT

    In the law of the United States, an Alford plea is a plea in criminal court in which the defendant does not admit the act and asserts innocence, but admits that sufficient evidence exists with which the prosecution could likely convince a judge or jury to find the defendant guilty.[1] Upon receiving an Alford plea from a defendant, the court may immediately pronounce the defendant guilty and impose sentence as if the defendant had otherwise been convicted of the crime.

    ENDS
    I note these refs have now been replaced with others (which must necessarily now also be checked) I can undertake to show that, without ANI action, such modifications do not happen, which is clearly onerous and disruptive. Redheylin (talk) 15:33, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    ref
    1. ^ Gardner, Thomas J. (2009). Criminal Evidence: Principles and Cases. Wadsworth Publishing. p. 50. ISBN 0495599247. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
    User:Cirt #2

    As this diff shows[79] the complaint I made yesterday, which was tagged "resolved" and closed following counter-claims to which I had no chance to respond, is still drawing hostile and unsatisfactory edits on the pages concerned. Since I have now responded to the allegations made, and have sought neutral admin input, I request that the matter be re-opened and examined thoroughly. Redheylin (talk) 13:28, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    That is not a diff, it is a link to your user talk page history. You started a thread on this board with the exact same name as another one you already started, above. Cirt (talk) 13:30, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    This diff[80] shows removal of a "contradicts" tag claiming article improved. No change to article was in fact made. Please note subsequent edits. Redheylin (talk) 13:35, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: I had already self-reverted the removal prior to this thread, pending further investigation of recent actions by Redheylin. Cirt (talk) 13:59, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The "further investigation" consists of a "final warning" by user GeorgeWilliamHerbert alleging that the above reversion was "disruptive". Cirt did NOT self-revert the above diff. Redheylin (talk) 14:04, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The diff you cited above [81], actually was self-reverted by me, before you brought this thread. See [82]. Cirt (talk) 14:13, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I have not warned anyone for reversion. I have warned Redheylin for accusing another editor of falsifying sources, without providing specific claims of what source is false and what information is available to indicate that it is false. This grew out of the "first Cirt section" above, and on Redheylin's talk page. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 14:16, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Should this thread be merged with the previous, "resolved" thread? :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:07, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes please BB - I requested it above but it has not happened> Redheylin (talk) 15:43, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    What's stopping you from doing it? Although, first, you should focus on trying to fully answer the questions raised by Cirt and by George. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:54, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not know enough about procedures for this page or whether I am allowed. There seems at the moment a deathly hush, so perhaps the full answers are already there! Please feel free to comment. Sorry I mistook your question for a kind offer. Redheylin (talk) 16:05, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You could very easily do it. My comment was more about prematurely closing the issue, trying hard to not quite come out and do the "told you so dance". :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:08, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah I see. Trouble is; the gent who began by making allegations of bad faith, closed the matter as resolved without my reply, issued final warnings for "disruption" when I asled for it to be re-opened and then made repeated demands for more detail has now vanished, leaving the matter still tagged "resolved" (I note this was originally done by a non-admin. It's all very odd). Am I allowed to remove the "resolved" tag, since the editor seems to have conceded that it is not? I do not usually go in for this stuff, since there's so much to do elsewhere. Redheylin (talk) 16:51, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Please note this comment by Brumski at Talk:Alford plea, after a careful analysis of my use of sources: there is no falsification or bogus sources and there is no problem, except that someone who's put a lot of good work into very significantly improving this article has had to waste their time defending their improvements. I'm sorry Redheylin, the fact that this article defines the Alford plea in a way that is inconvenient for your dispute elsewhere isn't relevant to this article; what is is relevant is whether it reflects the reliable sources, which it does.. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 17:24, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    These remarks refer to citations added after this ANI report, the quoted editor being apparently unaware that these had replaced the unsatisfactory references which are the subject of the present case. Since it is demonstrable that, without such action as this, unsatisfactory references remain in place, Cirt's eventual success in finding references to back her position in this case does not alter her evident willingness to use dud references unless challenged. Redheylin (talk) 18:26, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    In what way are these references unsatisfactory? You have still not listed the manner in which the provided references were incorrectly used. Specificity is required. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:53, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't Cirt the one who replaced the references? If so, then the above criticism seems more than a bit lopsided. John Carter (talk) 18:35, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    False assertion, yet again, by Redheylin. See [83] where I commented before this ANI thread was filed, that I was already in the process of adding more sources to the article. Cirt (talk) 18:36, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Redheylin, I understand you're frustrated. It seems that you've rasied some legitimate content concerns. They seem to be getting addressed, but the level of acrimony on both sides isn't helping. All parties need to refocus on the content and sources, and to let go of the animosity and bad faith assumptions.

    Wikipedia can be quite frustrating and baffling. The way things work (and sometimes don't) takes getting used to. The ANI board is to get investigation into editor misconduct. So when a thread is marked resolved, that doesn't mean the dispute is over, but that no further admin intervention is required. While there are allegations on both sides, there is no demonstrable editor misconduct that requires admin intervention. That's why the thread has been marked resolved (repeatedly).

    The appropriate venues to continue the discussion include the Law project discussion page, the WP:content noticeboard, collegial talk page discussion, and/ or a Request for Comment. Patience is required.

    I agree that some very antagonistic and bad faith allegations have been made against you (and you have made some in return). This is very unfortunate and unconstructive, and it would be extremely helpful if GWH stopped inflaming the situation by launching these threats and attacks.

    Cirt is not your enemy. If you slow down, take a deep breath, and try to work with him and others to resolve your concerns I think you will have a lot more success. Try not to make and accusations that can be construed as attacks. Editors are sensitive about having their work called "bogus" "misleading" etc. And please let me know if I can be of any assistance. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:27, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The trouble is, Redheylin (talk · contribs) has been warned at his talk page and here in this very thread multiple times to stop making unsupported claims about other editors that amount to violations of WP:NPA when not backed up by anything. And yet, in his most recent postings, he continues to do so. Further admin actions is needed. Cirt (talk) 22:27, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment: Thread not resolved, as Redheylin (talk · contribs) refuses to stop making and retract his unsupported claims, allegations I have used "bogus" sources, etc, even in the face of above-linked comment by Brumski at Talk:Alford plea, warnings by admin, etc. Cirt (talk) 22:52, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Georgewilliamherbert writes: "In what way are these references unsatisfactory? You have still not listed the manner in which the provided references were incorrectly used. Specificity is required." Bearing in mind that the cited article does not support the text, it would be helpful if you would define the missing detail. It is not clear what you mean. Do you mean that you still allege that the matter is an unprovoked collaborative attack, or that you still allege a disruptive complaint without merit, or are you simply asking for a more exact description of the way the material in the text quoted above is not in the source quoted above? Redheylin (talk) 00:47, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    In what way, exactly and precisely, is the material not in the source quoted. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:31, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    And here yet again, we have more false claims not supported by anything to back them up, made by Redheylin after he was warned against doing this. Cirt (talk) 01:26, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Point of Order Sorry to jump in again, but since when is an editor allowed to edit/censor another users comments? This is another thing in this bizarre thread that I have never seen before: Child of Midnight is cleaning up after Redheylin's admittedly inflammitory statement re: Cirt. In other words Child of Midnight is acting as some kind of watchdog over Redheylin's commentary. What's going on here? Jusdafax 01:51, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Jusdafax is talking about this edit I believe. GiantSnowman 01:53, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Quite right; in my amazement I neglected to post the diff. Thanks. Point being, the deleted comment itself is, I believe, a gigantic violation. Isn't it? Then the deletion. Fascinating! I sit here shaking my head. Jusdafax 02:04, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not usually "proper" to erase part of someone else's comment, but in this case the comment was a clear personal attack and CoM removing it was a valid approach to trying to defuse drama over it. Other admins can respond if they feel it was a problem, but I believe it was a good faith effort and support it.
    I noticed the original comment and warned Redheylin on his talk page shortly afterwards. Further attention on it, lacking any more personal attacks, is not useful. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:10, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Noted. Thanks for clarifying the matter. Jusdafax 02:18, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The relevant guideline is wp:refactor. You'll note that I informed the editor that I trimmed their content. Jehochman made a good point that the comment was already responded to, so I should have left a <trimmed> indicator that there was something else there.
    As we're a collaborative enterprise, anyone trying to help alleviate this dispute shoul dbe encouraged. Perhaps you should consider your own actions and role? Numerous editors have tried to refocus the parties on the relevant content and sourcing issues, instead of the personality conflicts and accusations, and attempted to point the disputant in the direction of appropriate dispute resolution venues. Stirring up the conflict is only going to cause more disruption. There was no reason to reopen this an ANI thread. It's been pointed out again and again that no admin intervention is called for, and that the accusations on all sides need to stop. Jusdafax, your comments were cited in a recent Wikialert page so your interest and engagement in this looks like a kind of vendetta campaigning.
    This thread needs to be archived. This is not the place to discuss the sources and content. Dispute Resolution and mediation are the way to go from here. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:47, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    No this is still an issue where admin intervention is needed with regard to Redheylin (talk · contribs), who has refused to retract and stop making unsupported claims about what he calls "bogus" sourcing, even in the face of comment by Brumski [84]. Cirt (talk) 03:52, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    (edit conflict)

    May I ask why User:Redheylin was called a single purpose account? Looking at their edit history, I don't come to that conclusion. Am I missing something? Jehochman Talk 03:55, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Stricken, and I apologize for that. Cirt (talk) 04:02, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, you've done the right thing. Redheylin hasn't struck anything yet, but I will accept dropping the matter as the next best thing. The fact that Redheylin has made a couple years' worth of productive contributions means that we should extend a fairly good amount of tolerance and second chances. If they were a single purpose account, that would be a different situation. Jehochman Talk 04:07, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Jehochman, that certainly sounds reasonable. I agree with you that if Redheylin drops the matter and agrees in the future to refrain from making attacks in the form of unsupported allegations against other editors as he has done above, then the matter would be resolved. Cirt (talk) 04:12, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:Jahn Henne suspected sockpuppetry

    Resolved
     – Forgetting to log in is not sockpuppetry.  Sandstein  08:32, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    This post may constitute sockpuppetry. While not being logged on, an IP signature has been left on the talk page and it appears that Jahn Henne has been using this IP for responding (a rather late response, though.)----Boeing7107isdelicious|SPRiCh miT meineN PiloteN 06:21, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I had a quick look and Jahn Henne doesn't appear to be engaging in abusive behavior, either with his account or the IP. It just looks like he forgot to sign in, which isn't a big deal at all. Do you have any evidence that he has used the IP to evade a block, or votestack, or engage in any other disruptive behavior? <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 06:32, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I have notified the editor in question of this thread. Basket of Puppies 06:33, 29 November 2009 (UTC) [reply]

    That's happened to me on more than one occasion... Heck, I got logged out in a earlier version of Huggle once. The sock that should not be (talk) 07:05, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    IP/Sock Concerns

    An IP address, Special:Contributions/166.217.214.229, appeared this evening and quickly blanket reverted a number of edits made recently by an established editor, User:Amoruso. The edit summaries it left with each reversion, and its response to my comments on its talk page[85], leave me with a feeling of WP:DUCK. I researched the IP and it resolved to cellphone company. Not sure if and/or how to proceed, since I have been unable to identify a possible "sockmaster". --nsaum75 ¡שיחת! 06:39, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Notice left for IP - [86]
    It may well DUCK like blanketing and really... DUCK-like edit summaries, but technically the IP in basically all cases changed the categories back to what they'd been since article creation and Amoruso was the editor changing their existing content. That user's edit summaries making the changes before these reverts aren't exactly truce-seeking. Established or no means nothing, IP or account means nothing, have to treat it all the same unless you have a sock concern somewhere. I also call your 166.217.214.229 and raise it a 99.253.230.182 from a few weeks ago since it even triggered angry flags like rapid reverts from not-confirmed editors... right. No more of that, since literally it balanced itself out despite it being gapped a few weeks. There's also zero point to arguing either side of that further.
    The only thing I can think of that would just ignore POVs completely would be to remove Syria and Israel of the categories and place/keep any and all of the Occupied Territories; also create a something along the lines of "Category: Mountains in disputed Syrian territory". Ta-da! You have one side, the other side, and Golan Heights already there. Originally I was going to say drop all the tags, but realized it'd be a total waste of an argument to trying to play devil's advocate and argue the UN position of claiming they have it all under control, which persons of any persuasion familiar with the matter consider rubbish. Seriously though, that's my suggestion. This is one of the going-to-be-disputed-'til-the-end-of-time matters if the regional situation never changes. Can we say that any and all discussions about locales, landmarks and other misc places in area are moot for the time being; make sure they all have the 4 tags that balance it out. I see that Category:Disputed territories in Asia is also available so how about we add extra dull neutrality onto that so everyone is hopefully bored to death with these mountains and you can work on the major content. Just my thoughts, and if you've tried something similar feel free to disregard this... it's just all I can think of. Good luck to the lot of you. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 08:53, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You are correct in that the content at issue will not be resolved easily; however my reason for posting here was not about the content issue, but rather my concerns regarding a new IP editor who -- from their edits, edit summaries, personal attacks and talk page conversations -- appears to be an "experienced editor" socking under an IP from a cellphone. --nsaum75 ¡שיחת! 09:22, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Groans* I really don't want to think about Wikipedia edits via a cell phone. You've got a point though. So blah, what would you prefer to see to avoid mutually assured destruction over some small mountains? Include... all 6 categories on all of them (ownership/counter-ownership/heights/asia disputed)? It would look really silly but we could add notes in the category pages about why it's been done that way... I can't see anyone objecting to some bonus canvassing with categories if it even remotely helped a top-10 general controversy area. Really, just spit out ideas on what you think is fair, what you'd like, what you'd think would be generous, etc etc. There has to be a way to sort out ... mountains. Are there any named mole hills to pick up? ♪ daTheisen(talk) 12:41, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Previous comments stricken as new information came to light and makes the statements quite foolish ♪ daTheisen(talk) 13:18, 29 November 2009 (UTC) [reply]
    Ignore that above, since it took more reading for my lazy self to see the detail on that existing RfC partially related to this. Okay, the puppet issue makes a lot more sense now since it would have been in the period after the RfC started, making it particularly open to scrutiny. ... That talk page diff is strange, sigh. If it really is only this instance I don't know if much can be done within reason now. I do hate saying that since I wish it just never happened at all, but blah. That didn't destroy the articles at least, and you're now well within your rights to adjust/add categories to whatever you what you think is fair-looking while the RfC is open. Any pattern-following IP would then be obviously blatant "disruption" (I won't say the V- word on a POV issue like this). Really, if it's the same IP, an old one you recognize and has even a small edit history, things reaching a Geolocate, ISP, timing continuity of edits, anything. One in the group wouldn't be enough but get 2 or 3 "what if's" and I'm sure you know you could get some official help on that.Since the timing on this would show a fresh interest in disrupting the process, that's makes the complete difference between a quick run of category changes ex post facto if a user were to script a larger plan. Aah, theory that is indeed founded on the mighty WP:DUCK test. Because those edits all came in at the time they did, it might be the sort of minor incident that starts a string of mistakes, and perhaps a theoretical disruptive editor or puppet user will forget where those came and when and show their full hand? It's happened. Of course the same goes for you, but there isn't exactly a dangerous lack of good faith floating over for give me a chill. It would be a lot easier with your counterpart here, of course I get the feeling something has to give fairly soon..
    My apologies for my brain not working at first. Hopefully I'm on top of it now. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 13:18, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Block the account, probably fake name, two attack articles on same person

    Resolved
     – indef'ed by Toddst1. DMacks (talk) 21:11, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User talk:Cydneepatterson User just created second attack article on same person. First one speedied (Timothy Borown), second one, spelling variation, waiting to be speedied (Timothy Bowron). The user name is probably some variant on someone's name. This is a quick fix, block/ban user, speedy attack page, mark this closed. Not interesting in the least. Be done already. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 07:22, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    There has been no further attack page creation after your warning. Please report to WP:AIV if disruption continues despite the warning.  Sandstein  08:34, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Gave the person a "first and only warning" against creating inappropriate attack pages like that, upon threat of a block if repeated. MuZemike 09:10, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adam Lyons sock allegations

    There are sock allegations being thrown by both sides of the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adam Lyons debate. I refuse to offer or even form an opinion one way or the other, but intrigued parties may want to drop by and try to sort things out before the AfD closes. And having left you that hand-grenade, my work here is done. Adios. Josh Parris 09:45, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Evidence? A8UDI 11:31, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Tim Ellis

    Resolved
     – Assume good faith and use the talk page A8UDI 13:38, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User 123.243.53.233 has been making a constant flow of changes to the page Tim Ellis http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tim_Ellis&action=history over the last two weeks.

    Some changes have been accepted, but many others are either malicious or incorrect and the user keeps returning and putting them back up again.

    Judging by the IP and the history of this user, he appears to be connected to another Australian magician who has personal issues with Tim Ellis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.139.6 (talk) 09:51, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Best to just assume good faith, and warn when appropriately. You may ask him on his talk page too if the IP is still disruptive. But I'll review the edits.. I don't see anything worthy of a block. Simply discuss the issue on the talk page because it doesn't look like vandalism. A8UDI 11:20, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Wanted: masochist

    Resolved
     – Doesn't take a masochist to close this. Might take one to edit the page.

    Durova371 17:48, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Would someone (who has a high tolerance for boredom) be willing to take a look at this RfC, which has been open for nearly 30 days, and write some sort of closing statement? I realize that WP:RFC says that the opener of an RfC (me, in this case) can close it, but I'd really prefer to have an uninvolved interpretation of the consensus. Deor (talk) 15:18, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I suspect your problem would not be with the closing summary (additions are original research and should be removed from the article forthwith) but with the fact that one of the editors involved has no intention of taking any notice of the outcome. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:01, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Er... agreed. Also, I have serious doubts whether an editor who inserts a huge unintelligible OR mess into an article, then writes novel-length talk page threads defending it, consistently referring to himself in the third person, is an asset to the project.  Sandstein  17:52, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Improper Userpage

    Resolved
     – User page deleted and account blocked by Tnxman307. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 20:44, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Could an Admin please delete this improper User page I've just found, User:JD Gray Associates under guideline advertising or promotion of a business, organization or group unrelated to Wikipedia. This page was created 12th August 2006 and last modified 25th February 2009 with a new phone number. The User talk page has similar content. --kathleen wright5 (talk) 20:37, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Isn't there also a username problem? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:41, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked by TnXman A8UDI 20:43, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    So you are saying, you can block users just because of their username? God help us!.--Big American Buffalo (talk) 21:52, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, ZOMG there be some rules on an anyone-can-edit project. Tan | 39 21:54, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    If they're just here to use Wikipedia as a billboard, yes. Yes we can. HalfShadow 21:55, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    There is nothing wrong with my username is there? Just wondering.--Big American Buffalo (talk) 22:02, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Information on appropriate and inappropriate usernames can be found at Wikipedia:Username policy. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:38, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, but from bad-mark-in-your-wiki-history standpoint this is much less serious than a behavior-based block. If my first choice of name was "AdamSBot" because my name was Adam S. Botteli but my old 8-character-limited username in college was adamsbot and I'd been using it ever since, it would be blocked at Wikipedia. I would request a rename, but the block log would still show the block. If I ran for administrator a year later, I would hope nobody would count that block against me. On the other hand, if I were blocked for behavior 12 months ago.... I pity the next guy James "Jimbo" Wales who tries to register the name JamesJimboWales, he'll have to change his name too. Hopefully people will believe him when he says he registered in good faith. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 23:02, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Not until you start a restaurant that sells buffalo named 'Big American Buffalo'. RaseaC (talk) 22:04, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    With its limited target audience and high costs, he could soon be buried in buffalo bills. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:28, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Request for assistance - deleted page

    Resolved

    Could an admin help me with a query on a deleted page please. I am the secretary of Wikimedia UK and we're doing a seminar on Wikipedia this Thursday. We want to use Kaizo_(firm) as an example of a deleted page under CSD G11 and would like to get a copy of the page as it stood when it was deleted. Could someone copy the page into my userspace? Just to emphasise, this is not a request for deletion review, nor does this request in any way infer that the deleting admin or CSD nominator were in any way unjustified in deleting this page. Many thanks! AndrewRT(Talk) 22:09, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Done - User:AndrewRT/Kaizo (firm). Kevin (talk) 22:16, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    DrV early close review

    Hello, The DrV on Scroogle was closed early due to what the closer saw as a personal attack. See [87]. The closer and I had a brief discussion but they will be off-line for a while now. I personally don't think there was a personal attack nor do I feel that even if there was that it should have been closed early. That said, I'm a biased party and would like to get wider input from the community. Ideally I'd like it reopened and closed after having been open for the standard amount of time. Thanks. Hobit (talk) 22:41, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    It seems quite reasonable to me to close a discussion a little early if the arguments have descended into personal attacks. The closer indicated that the outcome would be unlikely to change which also seems quite reasonable. I should note that it closed in the way I wanted it to. Kevin (talk) 23:18, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    disturbing edit condoning suicide bombing for islam

    this edit condones suicide bombing within islam, something of this type might have been taken from some radical islamic scholor or a jihadist website. can we report this ip adress to the american CIA or something?Carlosiru smith (talk) 23:16, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    by the way, no one has reverted it and it still appears on the article.Carlosiru smith (talk) 23:17, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    ive traced the ip to the state of rhode island in the USA. this editor might post a security threat, i recommend reporting it to the proper authority.Carlosiru smith (talk) 23:20, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • That edit was made over two months ago and is a dynamic IP, so there's no point. And I doubt very much that "condoning" suicide bombing (if that's what the edit even does) is actually a criminal offence. Black Kite 23:21, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The edit does not appear to condone anything but you're more than welcome to report them to the relevant authorities if you wish. Also, if the future you can suggest that 'questionable' edits be WP:OVERSIGHT straight away, but in this case it would probably have been declined. RaseaC (talk) 23:26, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


    • directly taken from the edit-

    Therefore, Islam's view regarding Suicide is purely restricted to an act of greed, or sorrow, or any other way that is not in the cause of Jihad. It was very common to go on "suicide missions", to attain martyrdom, which were encouraged by Prophet Muhammad, as a brave way to attain martyrdom. There's no substantial proof that it is haram to conduct operations in which you are sacrificing yourself to destroy enemy infrastructure, moral, and/or men.

    if you tell me that this edit was not condoning suicide bombing, i recommend read it AGAIN.Carlosiru smith (talk) 23:28, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    No one said it wasn't condoning it. What was said was that a) it was done a long time ago by a dynamic IP, so any action that might have been applicable is long irrelevant, and b) it's probably not a crime to condone suicide bombings anyway. Tan | 39 23:29, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Oklay, so RaseaC said it wasn't. My mistake. The bottom line is that there is no applicable action here. Tan | 39 23:31, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I said it wasn't condoning it and made that ascertion having read it (I do tend to read stuff before I comment on them). As soon as the IP comes back and says 'hey, go blow shit up' or something to that effect he's not condoning anything, I'd say the IP has discussed his view on Islam's take on suicide bombing. RaseaC (talk) 23:33, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    how about removing it, given the fact that it is totally unsourced and that wikipedia might get listed as a terrorist supporting website.Carlosiru smith (talk) 23:34, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Go right ahead. Tan | 39 23:36, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    To me, the only issue to me is that that edit is a case of WP:OR and WP:POV; telling the CIA, "oh em geez, some Americans are Muslim extremists and they use the internet to promote their views" will result in a response of "no shit Sherlock." As said above, no action could or should be taken. GiantSnowman 23:39, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I have reverted a rather large deletion on the part of carlosiru. I am pretty sure the line isn't 'if thine eye offends thee rip off your face' Unomi (talk) 23:46, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    OP didn't seem happy with that so I went ahead and watered it down abit and added some fact tags without, hopefully, changing the meaning. RaseaC (talk) 00:02, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Rotational

    Rotational just returned from a two week block for violating his editing restriction against edit warring over image positioning and heading levels, and has immediately returned to edit warring over the same issues. He has stated that he will revert on sight any changes made to his articles by Jeni, Rkitko or myself.[88] Can anything be done to prevent this promise of disruption? Hesperian 23:40, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Can anything be done about Hesperian's continuing harassment? Rotational (talk) 04:17, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    this user supporting the taliban

    Resolved
     – Userpage Blanked. --Xdamrtalk 00:06, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

    by the way, this user page also caught my attention, in which the user openly supports the taliban, this will make wikipedia look real bad if users like this advertise supporting terrorists on their user page. and he lists some personal information too.Carlosiru smith (talk) 23:46, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:NOTCENSOR. GiantSnowman 23:51, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    wikipedia isNOT A SOAPBOX and i believe the not censored part refers to encyclopedic material, and supporting terrorists is definetly not encyclopedic.Carlosiru smith (talk) 23:53, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Doesn't apply to userspace. ViridaeTalk 23:55, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Does the userpage promote terrorism? GoodDay (talk) 23:56, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Not as such. He offers links to learn more about Islam, so he could be said to be promoting Islam, which does not equate to promoting terrorism. And his support for the Taliban is restricted (on that page, anyway), to a normal (small) user box. Note, however, that he has the good sense to live in Australia rather than Afghanistan. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:01, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Expressing personal opinions on your personal Userpage is fine; letting those views affect your contributions isn't. Do his beliefs affect the validity of his edits? GiantSnowman 23:58, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Which is fairly moot anyway, considering he hasn't edited since April 2007... Black Kite 00:00, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed. GoodDay (talk) 23:59, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    at the bottom of the userpage he encourages you to become muslim and provides links. im pretty sure that wikipedias purpose is not to convert people. and in one of his edits on a talk page he calls people kaffiron- infidels.Carlosiru smith (talk) 00:01, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Per Wikipedia:Userbox:

    * Userboxes must not be inflammatory or divisive.
    * Wikipedia is not an appropriate place for propaganda, advocacy, or recruitment of any kind, commercial, political, religious, or otherwise, opinion pieces on current affairs or politics, self-promotion, or advertising.

    This is, in my view, certainly the case of the former, perhaps arguably the latter as well.

    Xdamrtalk 00:01, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Just wait untill the media gets a hold of this news...I can see it now. "Wikipedia Users openly support terrorist orginizations" If we had a whole userpage nominated for deletion (see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:The C of E) because the user had a userbox that said "this user is homophobic" then this certainlly should not exist! If not then I have a feeling that wikipedia has a bias (what it is, I dont know)--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 00:04, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree with Xdamr. Although the boxes have no affect on his editing (which, as has already been noted, is pretty thin) it certainly doesn't help it at all. Furthermore they do both clearly contravene the two quoted guidelines. The whole userpage is questionable if you ask me. RaseaC (talk) 00:06, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have deleted the userbox, as it violates WP:SOAP in a rather definitive way. I tend to give a lot of leeway to userspace contents, but that is way out of line, and the entire page appears to be proselytism. Since the user has apparently left Wikipedia, I don't see the need to notify the user about the deletion. Horologium (talk) 00:07, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    No prob, the userpage was stale for 2 yrs. GoodDay (talk) 00:08, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed it was. One has to wonder why and how "Carlosiru smith" is finding supposedly problematic user pages of inactive users and questionable months-old edits of IP editors (a few sections up). Is this really a productive use of time? Tarc (talk) 00:11, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    My question also. How did Carlosiru smith (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), supposedly a brand-new user, happen across that old page? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:14, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    i saw it when i was an ip, so i decided to create an account to report it. by the way, that "months old" edits was STILL IN THE ARTICLE WHEN I REMOVED IT!Carlosiru smith (talk) 00:15, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It keeps the media away form hte site so, yes it is.--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 00:12, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    His time, his choice. --Xdamrtalk 00:12, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Not if he continues to spam WP:ANI with things that don't require admin action (as neither have so far). Black Kite 00:14, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    by the way mr. bugs, i found his account on a talk page of an article when i was an ipCarlosiru smith (talk) 00:21, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    "Keeps the media away" ? Please, that is not a valid or helpful rationale. Either way though, I am fairly suspicious of any account whose very first edit is to a policy page, esp AN/I. Tarc (talk) 00:16, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    if i was an ip, you wouldnt be comlaining. i created this account to hide my ip, which i have every irght to do according to wiki policies, and i have edited under ips before.Carlosiru smith (talk) 00:21, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    As long as your edits are appropriate, either way works. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:24, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I was interested in Carlosiru smith's edit history also, there is certainly a common theme there. RaseaC (talk) 00:30, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Semi-protection for talk page?

    Resolved

    Talk:Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident‎ is being heavily targeted by the infamous Scibaby's never-ending series of sockpuppets - another 14 (!) have been identified just tonight and banned.[89] Would it be possible to semi-protect the talk page? I know it's an unusual step, but in the circumstances I think it would be justified; the socks are causing substantial ongoing disruption. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:00, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    It's block-range time. GoodDay (talk) 00:02, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Unfortunately that's not possible. Scibaby uses a very wide range of IPs; the collateral damage is unacceptable. That's how he's managed to get through over 460 socks to date. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:05, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) That's been tried before, and my recollection is that there was an unacceptable degree of collateral damage, though I'll defer to the checkusers. We should just semi-protect the talk page. We've done this in the past, but at some point WP:PROT was updated to state that a page and its talk page should not both be semi-protected at the same time. Which is ridiculous - when would you ever protect a talk page but not the associated article? It's basically a prohibition on semiprotecting talk pages, which is a good general rule but one which should probably be ignored in this particular instance. MastCell Talk 00:06, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It's definitely needed in this particular instance. There are at least two other sockmasters active in addition to Scibaby - Flegelpuss and Tinpac - and the parade of socks is inflaming and severely disrupting the talk page. It's the most concerted sock campaign I've ever seen in my six years as a Wikipedian. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:13, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Unless there are any specific objections here in the next hour or so, I'll be willing to semi-protect the article talk page. How about setting up a talk subpage where IPs and new accounts can be directed (through a editnotice), once the main talk page is semi-protected ? Abecedare (talk) 00:19, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Sounds like a good idea to me. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:26, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    How bad is the collateral damage? Would it be too much work to rangeblock and then whitelist those editors who appeal? Throwaway85 (talk) 00:20, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Given the ranges, yes it would. Black Kite 00:22, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Even if not, most would not appeal, but just turn away, which is too much of invisible damage on its own. Semi-prot it. Materialscientist (talk) 00:25, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Large amount of Rangeblocks by Raul654 might give you some insight. It's been tried but the collateral damage is too great. On a technical point, how does Scibaby get access to so many networks in the first place? -- ChrisO (talk) 00:26, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Without invoking WP:BEANS, it's not to technically difficult. Black Kite 00:37, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Semi-protection is the easiest way, to handle the multiple socks. GoodDay (talk) 00:21, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Support semiprotection of the talk page - that's what it's there for. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:32, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I also created a subpage for IP/new users to post comments. At least a few regulars at the article should watchlist that page. Abecedare (talk) 01:24, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Zach8604

    Zach8604 (talk · contribs) is a very new, apparently very young editor who wants to contribute to the wiki, but doesn't know how yet. He created a number of content forks associated with the BCS National Championship Game, reflecting his idea of how the subject should be organized. I deleted the duplicates or redirected them, explaining why, and blocked him for 48 hours when it became clear that he would keep reintroducing the material no matter what. Our discussion is visible in his talk page history, and here [90]. He has since blanked those discussions and re-created the article on his talk page, with links to his personal website and a stipulation that others not edit his work. His block will expire in 20h or so, and I'm withdrawing from the topic, as I'm unlikely to make more progress, but I would appreciate it if someone could have a constructive word with him that might keep him out of trouble when his block expires. He seems sincere, but hasn't yet gained enough cluefulness to avoid trouble post-block. Acroterion (talk) 02:57, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Apparent return of banned User:Skoojal, now editing as User:22Googoo

    See this edit[91] at Frederick Crews. Edit summary ("This edit is a warning. Semi-protection cannot stop me.") suggests that the banned user has other dummy accounts for use, not that the semi-protection evasion here required much skill. Edits to RPG article Aboleth appear harmless. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:27, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Questionable IP edits on Flip tricks

    An IP user has made questionable changes to this article within the last 10 min. His first edit was some sort of message, His second edit was unexplained removal of content along with removing templates at the top of the page. Then he changes the reference links with apparently one of his own links on almost all of the references, it's the same reference for all of them which leads me to believe he is also spamming this site which doesn't explain any of the tricks mentioned in the article. Any feedback greatly appreciated. Momo san Gespräch 04:23, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=328734292"