Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Preciseaccuracy (talk | contribs) at 05:53, 11 August 2010 (→Proposal: topic ban the user on Art students scam article: It was also already mentioned in the version of the article that existed right before I started editing.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


    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

    Wikihounding and disruptive editing?

    Crossposted to WP:VPM

    I just tagged every single subpage and article in progress within my userspace as {{db-u1}} and if things continue on as they have been I suppose I'll be posting a {{retired}} notice soon as well. Despite repeated AN/I reports regarding the disruptive and tendentious editing behaviours of Theserialcomma, Miami33139, and JBsupreme over the last year and a half, it seems I still cannot edit without these editors wikihounding me while working together as a group.

    My main editing focus had been to topics related to computing and online/electronic forms of communication. These were not areas in which these three individuals previously edited (the sole exception being Miami33139's prods/AfDs of multimedia-related software articles).

    Even after taking the behaviour issues all the way to ArbCom, where the case was unfortunately delayed and overshadowed by the EEML case (which was in progress at the same time), very little was addressed. [1] [2]

    I personally made a huge mistake in allowing myself to be baited by Miami33139 and Theserialcomma who were editing my comments on an article talk page [3] (where they then also edit warred with others [4]) and reposted parts of my comments out of context (and in a manner in which made them appear to have been posted that way by me) on a talk page that was part of the ArbCom case. [5]

    Allowing myself to be baited resulted in ArbCom handing out a "civility restriction" for me, [6] (which maybe I really deserved for allowing myself to be baited in the first place) with the behaviours of the three individuals largely still not addressed. [7] The case evidence I presented [8] was not used by the drafting arbitrator and no mention of Theserialcomma's disruptive behaviours were brought up in the proposed decision he drafted. (I suspect this is because I was the only editor who presented evidence of Theserialcomma's behaviours.) The omission in the proposed decision was openly questioned by others but was still not addressed. [9] The way in which the case name was chosen most likely did not help matters all that much either. [10]

    After the ArbCom case was closed, the wikihounding increased and I finally took a break from editing articles. I tried doing Commons work for awhile but I found I still needed to update pages on Wikipedia which used the images. In doing so I found that just making those small noncontroversial edits was enough to trigger the wikihounding so I cut back on my editing even further.

    I made another huge mistake when I vented some of my frustrations via email at Sandstein with being wikihounded and harassed off-wiki by Theserialcomma. He responded by blocking me for 18 days. [11] After I was unblocked by another administrator who reviewed what was said and had transpired, I immediately apologised to Sandstein for the venting [12] [13] as I had already realised that venting my frustrations at him really wasn't the right thing to do and I felt bad about it. This incident generated an enormous amount of email discussion.

    While blocked for 18 days, I spent the better part of it reviewing my own behaviours as well as my interactions with Theserialcomma, Miami33139, and JBsupreme. While doing so I also began to review their interactions with other editors. [14] I documented Theserialcomma's interactions with others in detail [15] and began to do the same for Miami33139 [16] and JBsupreme. [17] Due to time constraints, I stopped work on this and never picked back up on it after I was unblocked.

    A civility restriction was later put in place for JBsupreme [18] due to his continued behaviours but it really doesn't seem to have had much of an effect. [19]

    I just took an entire month off from editing due to both the continued wikihounding and my workload. [20] In that month, Miami33139 regained his internet access and picked right back up where he left off. [21] Some of his very first actions were to MFD and CSD pages I had sandboxed, [22] including one which JBsupreme moved from the sandbox to mainspace. [23] [24]

    Some of Miami33139's next actions included MFDing subpages from within my userspace, [25] [26] (which both Theserialcomma and JBsupreme then became involved in as well. [27] [28] [29] [30]) Miami33139 then restarted his previous behaviour of going though my contributions and removing/prodding/AfDing things which I had edited many, many months earlier. Miami33139 has done similar things to editors other than myself (such as Beyond My Ken/Ed Fitzgerald and others), but like Theserialcomma and JBsupreme, Miami33139 seems to try to make just enough non-controversial edits or edits to related/similar pages to disguise his other actions.

    A number of editors and administrators contacted me via email and let me know of Miami33139's return and subsequent MFDing of subpages within my userspace. Several further suggested I not become involved in those MFDs as the actions by Miami33139 and Theserialcomma appeared to be an attempt at baiting me shortly before my civility restriction expired (see above).

    I really have tried to do some good here on Wikipedia and improve coverage of computing topics which have been in dire need of expansion. Due to the wikihounding however, I'm beginning to feel as though my efforts have largely been a waste of time.

    As I finish writing this, I also note JBsupreme removed my CSD tag from one of the in-progress subpages within my userspace, moved it to his own userspace, and then blanked it. [31] [32] [33]

    Sigh.

    I think I'll take another short break from Wikipedia as my workload really hadn't decreased just yet anyway. --Tothwolf (talk) 19:32, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • just one preliminary point--moving the material and then blanking with the history intact preserves the content, and I think it's acceptable behavior. At least I hope it is, because I once did something similar myself to preserve content for future use. However, surely he should have notified you he was going to do it. DGG ( talk ) 23:48, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • It doesn't really tally, though, does it? JBsupreme wants the page deleted because it "borders on abuse of userspace", but will go to all of this effort in order to retain it under xyr own user space, including reverting a deletion request by the person who is, purportedly, "abusing" xyr user space with it in the first place. This just doesn't add up. Uncle G (talk) 01:26, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Something else I noticed after posting the above is that Hm2k did something similar with another draft I had within my userspace. What was odd is after he moved it to his userspace, Miami33139 immediately initiated a MFD for that in-progress article. [34] I know Hm2k has good intentions as far as improving the draft article so if he wants to work on it, he has my support. The immediate MFD by Miami33139 is certainly strange though. (It is probably also worth noting that Theserialcomma wikihounded and baited Hm2k previously as well, eventually leading him to lash out and be blocked for a short while. Theserialcomma is also the one who initiated an AfD for mIRCStats in the first place, when the wikihounding by Theserialcomma first began.)

          Shortly after JBsupreme moved the above mentioned draft from my userspace, he also removed the majority of the content of Comparison of mobile Internet Relay Chat clients [35] just before initiating an AfD. [36] This is actually the second time JBsupreme has attempted an AfD for this page and the MO of blanking the article before nominating it for AfD is one of his regular tactics. Considering how JBsupreme argues against reliable sources and so on in AfDs [37] and considering that even an ArbCom restriction has failed to curb his behaviour, I honestly don't see any point in even trying to participate in that AfD because I feel he would just attack me (as he has done previously) anyway.

          Sigh. What a complex, tangled mess. --Tothwolf (talk) 04:44, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

        • Given this edit [38] I moved the page back to my userspace and redirected it for the time being. --Tothwolf (talk) 06:17, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Nothing for admin to do here, this has been to Arbcom

    This is wrong forum. Arbcom is over here. Paranoid ramblings of Tothwolf that everyone is out to get him were not found credible by Arbcom. I went through and suggested deletion for two of his walled garden of previously deleted articles, which were stale from 6 to 15 months. 6 months is normal timeframe at MfD to improve deleted content or have it thrown out. This is normal followup on the deletion process of things I have been keeping track of. Other than his walled garden, I ain't following his editing or hounding him. He thinks anyone who edits his toys is hounding him. Enough paranoia.

    Thank you to all who previously commented for letting those mentioned in the paranoid ranting know about it, as expected by the header on the noticeboard. Miami33139 (talk) 04:36, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    While not meaning to be a prosecutor or some such, but isn't calling the fellow's comments "paranoid ranting" a violation of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL? I am sure it can be described with a bit less crass? Basket of Puppies 07:24, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Persistent unfounded accusations also a violation of NPA and civil. It is not ad hominem to say he is paranoid. It fit pattern. You see above he accuses three editors of persecuting him. What shown in previous dispute resolution was all disagreements result in Tothwolf writing long screeds about being persecuted. For two years when someone edit his articles in a way he don't like he runs to a noticeboard talking about people out to get him. Enough of that! Paranoid is simple adjective succinctly describing situation. Miami33139 (talk) 07:48, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    So then there should be two blocks- one for him and one for you. And how is it not ad hominem to call him paranoid? It's minimally NPA. Just don't do it. Basket of Puppies 08:08, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    BOP, paranoid can describe a pattern of behaviour as well as a mental illness. It would be better if Miami says "displays paranoid behaviour" but I can't see it as a PA myself.Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:45, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I think intent also has a lot to do with whether or not something can be considered a personal attack. Shortly before Jehochman tried to help me with filing an ArbCom case, [39] Miami33139 made this comment [40] in which he also called me "paranoid and delusional". While the term "paranoid" can be used in a way in which it isn't a personal attack, I think the way in which Miami33139 uses the word both above and in previous discussions really does seem to be meant as a personal attack.

    I believe this comment made by Miami33139 yesterday could also be considered a personal attack. It is also clearly an attempt at escalation, which is something he been warned for previously. [41]

    To refocus this back on the behavioural issues (which as I noted above is why I brought this here), Miami33139's current behaviour seems to fit the very definitions of tendentious and disruptive editing to the "T". I found that the only way Miami33139 and the other two named above would leave me alone was to be completely "absent" from Wikipedia and not edit anything. This doesn't seem right.

    Disruptive editors who engage in tendentious editing, wikihounding, bullying, etc have a history of being restricted and eventually blocked if restrictions fail to curb such behaviour. Unfortunately, it seems like many times such disruptive editors end up doing a lot of damage to the community (often including the morale of other editors) before the community notices and finally decides to take action. It seems like the random page blank/junk text/explicit image type vandals, etc (which in general really seem to do far less overall long-term damage to the encyclopedia) are dealt with much faster than those who take steps to attempts to evade detection and scrutiny of their actions. --Tothwolf (talk) 17:32, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:AGF applies here. From what I can tell you have a prior history with Tothwolf, so your objective judgement is questionable. Simply express your concern and don't make asumptions about other users behavior. Hasteur (talk) 17:25, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Elen, calling someone paranoid is a violation of NPA any way you look at it. It's not appropriate at all for this project. I'll have a look at the NPA policy, but I doubt there is an exemption for calling someone paranoid. Basket of Puppies 22:06, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd agree with this. In the circumstances, its also baiting. I would be somewhat reluctant to block on the basis of what's said at this intrinsically contentious page, but I think it's way over the line. Tothwolf is certainly entitled to come here and say that disruption has continued even after an arb com decision which should have put an end to it. The question is whether we can do anything about it without a second arb com. DGG ( talk ) 23:11, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes it is and combined with the tl;dr comment above, I'd say a block is in order. It's very obvious that he's come here to try and inflame the situation, troll and harass the other user.--Crossmr (talk) 23:56, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Don't use NPA as a bludgeon. The whole statement above was basically baiting (as DGG says) and shouldn't have been said, but we are getting really parsimonious in referring to words describing actions (paranoid ramblings) to mean words describing actors. when accusing someone of making personal attacks, a semantic discussion shouldn't be necessary. If you find yourself in a good faith semantic discussion after leveling an accusation that someone is making a personal attack, they likely haven't violated NPA. Remember, NPA is a big stick in policing discourse, don't use it unless it is abundantly clear that it is necessary. Protonk (talk) 01:47, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    No, you misread DGG's comments. DGG says that calling Tothwolf paranoid is baiting and that he is entitled to make his statement. Stop calling other people paranoid. As far as I can see, there is a concerted effort by at least JBsupreme and Miami33139 to hound Tothwolf off Wikipedia, so I wouldn't say Tothwolf is at all paranoid in suggesting this. Miami's comments to "Call the Waaaambulance"[42] are crossing the line into mocking. Fences&Windows 03:15, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. Tothwolf is not being paranoid in suggesting there is an attempt to hound him off Wikipedia, it's a reasonable perception of what is going on. See the comments at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment#Arbitrator views and discussion. Dougweller (talk) 19:28, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    It was not my intent to "bait" so I have removed my statement and will restate it. This accusation that I am hounding him is false. I work on deleting a lot of articles and it is not a personal crusade against him. Arbcom listened to him bring this argument months ago, maybe even a year. They found it baseless. I am tired of hearing this accusation. Making persistent unfounded accusations is against NPA, That Tothwolf violates NPA by making persistent unfounded accusations is part of Arbcom finding of fact. Miami33139 (talk) 04:21, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    What was your intent with the "tl;dr" comment? Did you think that was a helpful comment to make towards someone you're engaged in a dispute with? Do you honestly think that could be reasonably seen as anything but?--Crossmr (talk) 04:28, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Just a note, Miami33139 removed that statement you are referring to along w/ his strikeout of the above remarks. So it might be right to assume it to be retracted. Protonk (talk) 04:30, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I would consider his statement "It was not my intent to "bait"" to be a bald-faced lie. Taken in conjunction with the previous tl;dr post, his nomination of articles in Tothwolf's userspace and his canvassing of cohorts JBSupreme and Theserialcomma with blatantly taunting language (whaaambulance, whine one one) , there should be no other interpretation of his behavior. Redacting a comment days later in an effort to avoid being blocked is not a real redaction. Seth Kellerman (talk) 05:32, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Placing {{[[wikipedia:Substitution|subst]]:[[Template:ANI-notice|ANI-notice]]}} on their talk page not canvassing when they are mentioned here by the original poster who did not follow instruction do it himself. I use joking language with people who have been through this accusation before on their page, because it would be inappropriate here. I am obvious frustrated after ArbCom say Tothwolf should stop making these accusation, and here he is still making accusation. Miami33139 (talk) 05:39, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm yes perhaps canvassing isn't the proper legal word for it. Though there must be a wikipedia policy out there which discourages contacting your cohorts so they may participate in a pile-on against your rival. WP:TAGTEAM, perhaps? (I am of course aware that citing WP:TAGTEAM may itself be considered incivil; I feel that there is adequate evidence of malicious collusion between Miami and JBSupreme targeting Tothwolf to justify the citation)
    But more obfuscation from you - you didn't use Template:ANI-notice, did you? No, you accused Tothwolf of "dialing whine one one" for the "waahmbulance".
    Let us read WP:CIVIL#Identifying incivility, section 1d. belittling a fellow editor, including the use of judgmental edit summaries or talk-page posts
    Would you care to explain how your tl;dr post and your posts to JBSupreme and Theserialcomma's talk pages were not gross violations of civility? Seth Kellerman (talk) 06:41, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You miss the part that I did use ANI-NOTICE template and it was Tothwolf responsibility, not mine, to apply that notice. The pile-on here, is on me, even after Arbcom found six months ago I was not hounding him. What is your part here, Seth, to inflame against me? Miami33139 (talk) 07:07, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    That was 6 months ago. That isn't a carte blanche to do whatever you want for the rest of your wikicareer with impunity. Just because you weren't hounding him 6 months ago doesn't mean you aren't now.--Crossmr (talk) 13:52, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Retracted or otherwise, it goes to his claim that he wasn't trying to bait. There is no other way to see it. Using joking language with a user that you're that embroiled with is just inappropriate. It can do little beyond inflame the situation.--Crossmr (talk) 06:25, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I did not use joking language with a user I am embroiled with. I used it with users who were similarly accused without being notified of the accusation. Miami33139 (talk) 07:07, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Tothwolf seems to have taken great issue with you and you replied to his comment with "tl;dr" I asked you specifically how that could be seen any other way. If it isn't joking language, and it wasn't baiting and it wasn't hounding, what was it?--Crossmr (talk) 13:49, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    So what is the appropriate public/admin response to a comment like that after it has been retracted? Protonk (talk) 06:29, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The question is how and why it was retracted. The retraction seems just as bad as the comment as his reasoning is quite poor and comes across as disingenuous. The appropriate response is to determine whether the user actually acknowledges the problem and if there is a likelihood the behaviour will continue. So far he seems to be attempting to excuse it away and deflect blame and not genuinely own up to it which is an indication that the behaviour may continue at a future date to me.--Crossmr (talk) 13:49, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't even notice the section header Miami33139 used in this edit until Seth Kellerman linked to it: "==W<span style="background:white; color:white; ;">h</span>ine suggestion==" [43] This renders as "Whine suggestion" with the 'h' in white text on a white background. It seems to fit the same pattern of the other edit. [44] --Tothwolf (talk) 21:59, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Just for transparency I want to mention here that someone posted this strange message on my talk page today: [45] --Tothwolf (talk) 22:25, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    About 2% of my editing since June overlaps with Tothwolf. I am tired of his accusations. I wish to ignore him. I'm sorry you think 5 characters an exasperated comment is capital crime on Wikipedia. Miami33139 (talk) 18:43, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    5 characters, your reference to him as paranoid, your inappropriate comment here[46], here [47] and then your disingenuous attempt to cover it all up. If you are saying you made all of those edits unintentionally then I think you should be blocked because it is quite apparent you are not in control of your actions.--Crossmr (talk) 00:16, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I have requested Amendment from Arbcom Miami33139 (talk) 07
    07, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

    Moving on - to block Miami33139?

    There seems to be a fair amount of consensus among administrators and regular editors that Miami's actions warranted a block. As such, I would prefer this discussion not die with no action being taken.

    Since one of Miami's collaborators, Theserialcomma, was blocked 5 days for baiting, I propose that Miami also be blocked for 5 days. Seth Kellerman (talk) 18:08, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    To add to the above, Beyond My Ken made a statement on July 16th regarding Miami33139's wikihounding behaviours which I think will be of interest to the rest of the community. --Tothwolf (talk) 20:24, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I think an interaction ban including a ban on nominating articles or user pages for deletion that were created or significantly edited by Tothwolf would be a good idea, but events may be moving on regardless of the decision here, as Miami33139 may have chucked a WP:BOOMERANG: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Request to amend prior case: Tothwolf. Fences&Windows 23:00, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I noted my concerns with a simple interaction ban in my reply to Carcharoth [48] on Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment: "Jehochman and I discussed just such a potential solution before the original ArbCom case was filed [in November 2009]. I have a strong feeling that if a simple interaction-type restriction were put in place, these editors would still follow my edits in order to remove content from or nominate articles and pages for deletion, or attempt to superficially involve themselves in related topic areas such as technology and computing where they did not edit previously (as they've already been doing) in order to block or restrict my edits while claiming they were already editing articles in those topic areas."

    One example I noted in my statement [49] is {{IRC footer}}, which the edit history will probably explain far better than I could here. There were also events like these diffs document which I'm not sure a simple interaction ban as proposed would prevent: [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] There are also other examples such as Category:Internet Relay Chat games (CFD) and others which I did not note in my statement. I had been in the process of populating them when the wikihounding began and Miami33139 attempted to depopulate them in order to have them deleted via CFD. Sigh.

    I really do wish Theserialcomma, Miami33139, and JBsupreme would stop the personal attacks though (calling me "paranoid", "delusional", etc and claiming WP:OWN, WP:COI, etc). --Tothwolf (talk) 05:03, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    the reviewing arbitrator is apparently waiting for further comments. [57] DGG ( talk ) 04:32, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Klaus Ebner: Wikicrossing, spam, conflict of interest and puppet users

    After a problem in Galician wikipedia related with Klaus Ebner, I have found a complexe network of editors (probably fake or puppet editors) aiming to overpromote the name of the Austrian translator Klaus Ebner. These are some of the proofs:

    An exploration: French Wikipedia

    I will examine the French wikipedia

    Other Wikipedias

    There is an article about Klaus Ebner in 78 different languages.

    Puppet Users

    I'll list here some users having editions in more than 3 Wikipedia projects and all of them Ebner related.

    --Xabier Cid (talk) 19:43, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • I see that users with the names Irina Walter, Torsten Wittmann, Claudia Nittl, and Bogdan Dumic all posted positive reviews of one Ebner's books at Amazon.de around November-December 2007, around the same time that the Klaus Ebner article was created here and on the German and French Wikipedias. Looks like a coordinated promotion effort. ThemFromSpace 00:44, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments

    Hello to all. I've just been informed on my discussion page about this discussion. To be frank, I am overwhelmed by this bulk of information and the many coincidences (and evidencies), although I am surprised that an engagement for a specific topic (this author in this particular case) is automatically damned and regarded as overpromotion or puppet activity. The date of the beginning of my editing activities on Wikipedia is not a coincidence because it was shortly after the publication of Ebner's first book. (My review on Amazon is mentioned above) Yes, of course, I like the books of this author. If not I wouldn't have collected information and written about him. My involvement does even look more as there had been discussions around the GA status where I heavily involved myself because I was angry about the argumentation. If it is not wanted (any more) to work on Ebner then I will concentrate on other authors. But they will always be from Austria or Germany. And if I misunderstood all the criticism above and it is not wanted that one person edits in several languages, then please put that clear. Greetings.--Torsten Wittmann (Karlsruhe) (talk) 11:33, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    The suspicion is sockpuppetry on a grand scale, i.e. one person using more than one account to give the false appearance of consensus, including to gain good article approval. The timing of the registration of the accounts strongly suggests coordination of these many single-purpose accounts. So - have you edited from any other accounts on Wikipedia? Fences&Windows 20:43, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi. Hope this is the right secton for my comment. Thanks to user Fences&Windows to inform me about this. Im impressed by this thread, must have been 30 min or so to read through and to re-read some of the passages. I comment because I think two parties go against me. First, the base tenor of this thread, led by Xabier Cid. Second, the answer of Klaus Ebner that drags me in closely. Yes, it's true, I know Ebner. I met him the first time at a public reading back in 2007. I loved his funny stories and his ironic style to write. Bought his book and wrote a review for Amazon - oh yes, you already noted that. Then I began to do my edits in Wikipedia. Primarily Ebner's article, in the German Wikipedia. Then in the English Wikipedia. Thought it would be cool. I talked with Ebner at the reading, and again at another reading. So he knows who I am. Maybe we also talked about Wikipedia and about my activities here, I don't remember that. Xabier Cid says I am a Single Purpose Account (didn't know this expression before). I am contributing very little to Wikipedia, don't even have this Sichten-stuff on the German Wikipedia. And I am editing only authors I really like or where I found out something which isn't mentioned. That was primarily Klaus Ebner in the German Wikipedia. I wouldn't have written about someone I don't like. In the English one - I checked this after having read this thread - it is more Austrian literature in general I would say. So what does Single Purpose Account mean? Contributing only to one topic? Yes, this is definitely Austrian literature. I am Austrian. So this is a natural interest, isn't it? Even though our bookshops are drowned in translations of American novels, this is not the entire world. Ther is an Austrian literature, I love going to public readings and I love to discuss with the writers after the reading. This is absolutely normal in Vienna. I think I already know dozens of Austrian writers that way. But I only wrote about Ebner. Shame on me. In case of course it wasn't about Austrian literature in General. Ebner is only a tiny portion of it - oh, you noted that too. And oh yes, I am also living in Vienna. Like Ebner. Shame on me? Some say Vienna's population as already about two million or so. Hm. I understand that this is a severe case, and I understand that Ebner edited his own article and lied several instances. To the Wikipedia community, of which I am a member I think. But some arguments made me laugh. The Single Purpose Account is one of these. My somewhat obvious engagement for Ebner and the Austrian Literature make this plausible, ok. But did you really check the contributions of the main contributors? Someone named Torsten Wittmann a Single Purpose Account. Sorry, this makes me laugh. He's a German, and his "home" Wikipedia is the German one. Did you check his contributions there? Xabier Cid found out that his first contribution was to the article of Ebner, yes. As mine - wooo. Maybe Ebner shouldn't have written his books. But it looks to me that all these contributions are not known - and it's so easy to look them up in the German Wikipedia, even when you don't speak German. Or the "fake article". Maybe I'm too stupid to understnd what a fake article is. I thought it would be an article that describes somthing that is not real. But Ebner is real, and his books too, and the information in his article too. Of course I can only judge the German and the English Wikipedia articles, no idea what the French and the Catalans and whoever wrote about him. There are some other items don't seem right to me, but I don't want to write so long. But I'm really not happy about the allegations against me. I met the writer about who I contributed some times and spoke with him. So what? Who wants to forbid that? I am writing about Austrian literature. Of course this has something to do with Ebner too since he is Austrian. And if I write about the GAV or the PEN or the ÖSV then it also has to do something with Ebner. All Austrian writers are organized in one or two of these organizations, there is no other. Why did I contribute to GAV and not to PEN or the other way round? Because I read more books about it? Because the quarrels in the 70s were so interesting? Why do I have to justify that? Am I not allowed to contribute where I want? If I overreact now, because perhaps I misunderstand some of your sayings, then I beg your pardon. As Fences&Windows informed me about this I saw a finger pointing at me. What I don't like. --D. Bogdan V. (talk) 20:14, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Dear Bogdan, I would like just to clarify some points. First, I've never said that you were a single purpose account. Secondly, it is not importante whether you like Ebner or not, or whether you live in Vienna for that purpose. The only important thing is if you have edited the Ebner's article adviced, pushed or lobbied by Ebner himself. I have spend last minutes checking again the main editions of Klaus Ebner in many wikipedias between the 20th and the 23rd December. This is the result.

    I would say that it is an extraordinary coordination for acting five people on their own, editing in different wikipedias and never overlap. I am not trying to accuse anyone: my aim is to provide some data for everyone reach their own conclusions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xabier Cid (talk • contribs) 01:30, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    More evidences in cyrillic wikipedias

    This is a message left by East of Borschov on my talk page:

    All articles were created by their authors as mere lists of works, no free-flowing text.
    This is a meat grinder of editors. They just disappear one after another. Only User:Winertai of zh-wikipedia appears to be active (and "real"). Where's my conspiracy microscope? Cheeers, East of Borschov 16:49, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    --Xabier Cid (talk) 17:07, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Checkuser request

    If anyone doesn't mind, I'm going to open a case at WP:SPI and request checkuser with a link to this discussion. elektrikSHOOS 02:41, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Answer from Klaus Ebner

    Good morning. As the accused and in many (but not all) cases guilty I want to make my statement which I kindly ask you to read. During Fall 2007, Wikipedia was something totally new to me. I created my personal account with my own name and started to create articles about myself in German, English, French and Catalan - because there was none and I thought that would be ok. I had no ideas about the rules - and I was beaten for that very quickly by some people (maybe admins) of this English Wikipedia; they even had some difficulty explaining all this to me because in the beginning I didn't even understand what they were talking about. But of course I understood very quickly that it was not allowed to write an article about oneself. So I stepped back but I asked friends and colleagues if they could step in and continue, what they did, and shortly after some other people, whom I do not know, began to support the articles, too.

    I did not see anything wrong to involve people who know me. But I have to admit that I did two things that were not correct: First my alter ego Littera/Litteralittera - I did not want to leave Wikipedia completely because I wanted to contribute, mostly concerning other writers, publishers, magazines and other literature related topics, but unfortunately I also contributed to "my own" article. The second thing is the account of Irina Walter - it is my sister who stands behind this account and we often worked together, sometimes even from the same computer.

    I always wanted to contribute to Wikipedia, especially to the German one, because Austrian literature has a hard stand there and there is much wrong information and bias, because it seems that some Germans are still dreaming of a "Greater Germany". E.g. to define Franz Kafka as "German writer" and Elias Canetti as "Bulgarian writer" is not only wrong but very offending. Sometimes I had the impression that some old "Nazi conceptions" were still defended in this area, and I wanted to help to get rid of this. Or another example: it is known from public speeches of the writer Franzobel, that much of the Wikipedia information about him is wrong - and I cannot understand why nobody feels responsible to fix that. I was very surprised and pleased about Torsten's contributions because I've never seen a German before who is so engaged in favor of Austrian literature.

    You gave me the feeling that I am not allowed to create any article in Wikipedia simply due to the facts that I am, as a writer, part of Austrian literature and that there is one article about me. I did not want to accept that. In addition, I saw on the German Wikipedia that some of the rules, especially the criteria of relevance, were often not observed, even by administrators. I saw articles of writers with five and more books (not self-published!) be removed and on the other hand there was one case where a writer with only one book was kept, only because her father was a well-known author in Austria. So there was my impression that some long-term contributors and administrators are interpreting the rules as they like. Maybe this led me also to the conviction that it would not be so severe to contribute under a false account.

    What certainly went wrong was my own engagement with the different Wiki languages. You know that I speak several foreign languages and that of course I liked them, and I was (and still am) fascinated by the multilingual possibilities, and with hindsight I believe that this became a kind of drug for me. Yes, the account Ennius, Smetana, Veronika, Livia Plurabelle, Aranka, Manuela, Kevin M, Doron, the Russian JurijVV and Christoph are mine (my socks, as you say). When I found out the possibility to create an Inter-Wiki account on the French Wikipedia (which however does not work on Commons), I stopped creating new accounts. I think it was at the same time that we discovered the possibility to place a translation request, which eventually my sister used heavily. (Before we had even used automatic translators and then tried to improve the translation with the example of existing articles on writers).

    There are several people I am acquainted with, either friends of mine or colleagues. I personally know Marco Zitti, Svartvicks, Bogdan, Anne-Claudine, Francesca la Bola, Linda Auerbach, Frodon, Drusio, and also Helmut Bihy - in these cases I still think that it should not be forbidden to involve acquaintances or friends (and I also believe that this is a usual practice at almost all articles about living persons).

    In spite of my breaking the rules I want to urgently ask you to distinguish between my punishment and encyclopedical facts. The articles that I or my sister were involved in or have even been created (or by acquaintances who did so) have always been written following the rules of Wikipedia. We have tried to make them as neutral as possible and we always indicated all sources and only mentioned information accessible through these sources. Many of the authors in whose articles I or my sister were involved, don't even know that we wrote them (and I estimate that I know at most about 50% of them personally). I can even say that some of my friends whom I involved, learned through me how to write good Wikipedia articles.

    Concerning the case of Fátima Rodríguez, I still cannot understand why this article must disappear. If I cannot contact a subject person, how should I get e.g. to a photo (which improves the article)? Of course I contacted her, I wanted to have a photo for my article (and who else but her should have a photo which can be released to Wikipedia?), I asked her to point me to some Internet links which I didn't find at once (e.g. the articles in a Galician newspaper) and finally I let her check the language of the Galician article, because I had to compose this one with an automatic translator and some corrections I could do on my own due to my knowledge of several other Romance languages. But I sticked to the rules - the article is neutral and all sources are indicated and there is no information which only she could know. BTW, I am NOT her translator - there must have been a misunderstanding. I only asked her if I could translate one or two of her poems to German for an Austrian literature magazine (for which I would not get any money, so this is not a "professional connection" in its usual sense) - so if this happens, it would only be the future (and this is not clear so far because her publisher didn't release the right to do so).

    Of course I must accept all verdict over me and I feel that a kind of boycott of my name will arise, but please leave all the other articles intact that I or my sister (and especially my acquaintances when the wrote on other articles) were involved in. Deleting them would not improve Wikipedia but destroy a lot of (neutral!) information due to a kind of personal vendetta.

    I did not want to do any advertising (Wikipedia is no advertising, not at all), I wanted to give information, even when it came to myself (I don't want to end up like Franzobel who has to explain publicly to journalists that his article in Wikipedia is garbage). And I never wanted to hurt someone. Now I have to apologize to all people who invested time to write on the articles on me, and I am sorry for the inconveniences that I have caused with my "over-involvement".
    I guess this will be my (and my sister's, Irina Walter's) last statement on Wikipedia.--Klaus Ebner (talk) 09:39, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    "Yes, the account Ennius, Smetana, Veronika, Livia Plurabelle, Aranka, Manuela, Kevin M, Doron, the Russian JurijVV and Christoph are mine (my socks, as you say)." Are you sure this will be your last statement (from you or "your sister") on WP? Disgusting: seriously... Doc9871 (talk) 10:03, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I am sure. Because I don't want to have this shameful gauntlet run a second time. --Klaus Ebner (talk) 10:52, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't Sock. If your edits didn't make it in the first time, creating sock accounts probably won't help get them in any more successfully. Work with the other editors here... Doc9871 (talk) 10:58, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Klaus, alternate accounts are prohibited on Wikipedia save for a few legitimate purposes, and even then only if they're clearly linked to the master account in question. The fact that you have edited articles under multiple accounts on your articles, on various wikis, to edit articles solely about yourself, is a flagrant violation of Wikipedia's sockpuppet and conflict of interest policies, two core ideas any Wikipedian editing for three years should have known. By doing this you have egregiously misrepresented yourself to the community. In addition, recruiting others to edit articles on your behalf - referred to as 'meatpuppetry' - is just as bad as editing it yourself. I have to be honest, with this admission you will likely be indefinitely blocked from editing Wikipedia. elektrikSHOOS 10:14, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I understand. --188.22.167.199 (talk) 10:47, 7 August 2010 (UTC) (Lost my login) --Klaus Ebner (talk) 10:48, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Six-month block

    Given the above, I'm proposing an indefinite block for the above user and all socks, for abusing multiple accounts and flagrant violation of WP:COI, and possibly a community ban if abuse continues (though that may not be immediately necessary). elektrikSHOOS 00:43, 8 August 2010 (UTC) [reply]

    Oppose for now The editor has given an undertaking that he will not do so anymore. I'd give him the chance to break his word first. I do not think he will break the wiki if he does, and we can easily block him then.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:49, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    True, ignore the above. However, given the editor did admit to using at least seven (!) socks, and encouraged others to write on his behalf, I find it difficult to just let him go with a slap on the wrist. Given this and his admission of guilt and subsequent apology, I'm proposing a 6-month block, after which the user agrees to no more sockpuppetry and can contribute again constructively to the community, as a pre-emptive WP:OFFER. elektrikSHOOS 05:37, 8 August 2010 (UTC) (retracted in favor of the below elektrikSHOOS 07:05, 8 August 2010 (UTC))[reply]

    Probation

    Honestly, while I admit socking is bad, I also know that in my experience issuing blocks are easy. I propose an alternative.

    1) Klaus Ebner (talk · contribs) is to be put on probation for a period of 6 months, and is restricted to one account. He is prohibited from editing from other accounts without the knowledge and consent of the Arbitration Committee, and is topic banned from any articles relating to himself, broadly defined. He may also be the subject of random checkusers, to ensure he complies with the restrictions of his probation. If it is found he is in violation of his probation, he may be blocked, for up to 1 year.

    I haven't done any proposals like this for a while, but I think it works. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 05:48, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support but with the addendum that he is topic-banned from editing any articles about himself for any reason during that probation, as this is the main reason for the sockpuppetry in the first place. elektrikSHOOS 07:06, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'd probably take out the stuff on ArbCom. I'm pretty sure the only people who can make those decisions on behalf of the Arbitration Committee is the Arbitration Committee. As of right now this is all community-based. elektrikSHOOS
    • Neutral - I'd lean towards "Oppose" considering this editor's socking and COI involvement as possibly "incorrigible". But... hey! If the community will watchdog him, leave him be, right? Doc9871 (talk) 07:13, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Sounds OK, so long as we can bind the Arbitration Committee in that manner to pass judgment on his theoretical use of a sock.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:14, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak support. Better than nothing, but I'd go for an indefinite topic ban (talk page editing allowed). After all, shouldn't one avoid or exercise great caution when editing articles related to oneself? MER-C 13:27, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    i don't know how things work here (then, sorry if I say something totally wrong), but I think there is also a problem related with the fact that a translator has achieved articles about himself in 78 wikipedias, i.e., his work is already done. He was not working mainly in improving his article (only here and there) but in consolidating a network of references. Will those articles be removed from every wikipedia? --Xabier Cid (talk) 20:27, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    They should certainly be carefully examined, and checked for neutrality at the very least. Has anyone had a look at Klaus Ebner? I don't see any major problems but I know nothing of the subject. Rehevkor ✉ 20:57, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    He is an author with 4 published books, none of them a best seller. Most of the article is about translations and paid stays in other countries. But he has more wikipedia articles than German Nobel Prize Günter Grass. --Xabier Cid (talk) 21:07, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I think at the very least we need to get a good article reassessment going at Klaus Ebner since the last one was tainted by socks. ThemFromSpace 05:17, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support A block would work as well, but if he is willing to work constructively away from his article we shouldn't prevent him from doing so. ThemFromSpace 05:17, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weary support: I've been peripherally involved in Ebner's article (and several others related) for the past two years. While Ebner's admitted sockpuppetry is regrettable, I feel I must point out that his actions (as well as those by editors affiliated with him) were seemingly well meant. Ebner's English Wikipedia article is not fantastic, but I feel it's a strong-enough GA. All comments, concerns and suggestions I've made over time have been taken into account, and I've found most editors involved (especially Torsten Wittmann (Karlsruhe), who has contacted me several times for help) to be dedicated to making sure the articles are not only well written, but that they fulfill the GA criteria. One such article, Hominid (novel), was just nominated at GAC after extensive work and a copyedit by the GOCE. Yes, I recognize that sockpuppets are bad news, but it's not like they're causing kerfuffles; procedures are being followed, and there is an obvious desire for the articles to be good, not just existent. Note, I'm only speaking of the English Wikipedia articles here; there was definitely a large push to include Ebner and his works on other Wikis, but is that a punishable offense if he's a notable figure? We're not talking about a MySpace band or something, after all; Ebner is an award-winning author. Obviously he shouldn't be editing his own article, and I support probation to ensure that doesn't happen anymore, but let's not punish other editors for their hard work. María (habla conmigo) 14:07, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi, Maria. I disagree with you in two little aspects. First, any kind of punishment or probation is addressed to User:Klaus Ebner, not to other editors; if someone made bona fide contributions to a fake article, the article would be removed, even if these are good editors, with large experience through the whole Wikipedia (and that is not the case; as you can agree, the Torsten Wittmann (Karlsruhe)'s is, at least, a WP:SPA). The second aspect is the aim of User:Klaus Ebner: to promote himself quite beyond his personal achievements. He has created articles about himself in 78 wikipedias, he has created articles about his only novel in 9 wikipedias, he has promoted or lobbied the creation of GAs at least in the English and the Catalan wikipedia (no wonders someone achieved it) and edited list of Austrian editors writers and other articles to include his name. But when it comes to achievements, there is only one novel and a couple of very local awards (not much more than a MySpace band, as you say). He has tried to overpromote himself using every method available and the result is that anyone reading his name's articles on many wikipedias would think that he is a very relevant writer. So, at the end of the day, he achieved his basic purpose. And bona fide editors, as much as the readers were cheated --Xabier Cid (talk) 06:11, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Kerfuffles? One important procedure has very clearly not been followed. Can any editor please explain how any of these socks are legitimate? e.g.: User:Livia Plurabelle is an admitted and blatant SPA sock who hasn't edited for awhile: but is still free to add to this thread. I'm sure I am I missing something, again. I don't believe it's appropriate to downplay the level of possible misconduct with the socking, which is against one of WP's core policies for very good reason. A SPI is still open on this case[58]. If you combine sockpuppetry with a healthy conflict of interest, what do you have? (shudder) Doc9871 (talk) 07:11, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Strong Word Rant

    WP:DRUNKEDIT. No harm done, user advised to put away the keyboard before he has a few next time. :) — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 19:48, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I feel I ought to bring this up. On this discussion page an editor has taken a strongly worded rant against vandals who attacked the page. I'm not sure if this is a policy violation or not but I think he could do with some reminding that that kind of language is unacceptable on Wikipeda. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 17:15, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    A note has been added to his/her page as a warning and log of the indecent. It was added by Jmlk17 [59]. If this reoccurs pls let us know. Moxy (talk) 17:20, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You're kidding, right? MtD (talk) 08:24, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:NPA is the policy that would cover that rant. -- Atama頭 17:30, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It's over the top, sure, and I think you'd be fine to redact part of it, especially the section header, or to ask Willy to do it (I'm fine with SoV's removal of the whole thread too for DENY reasons). But remember, ANI is not the civility police though and there's no prohibition against swearing.
    But let's put this in context. We've got an established 4 year+ editor getting fed up with a lack of progress from, not a dispute, but blatant vandalism. Going off like that isn't effective, maybe even counter productive, but it's not an attack in the sense we usually use that term on here, and frankly, it's stretching good faith to bring it here.
    Finally, don't forget to notify people when you bring up issues here (I did that for you just now), and Willy's not had a chance to respond here and hasn't made edits since more than 12 hours before this was brought up here. Shadowjams (talk) 18:26, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Yeah, so I agree the tone of my comments was innapropriate. Sorry. In mitigation I was very drunk. The comments have since been removed, so no harm done? Im actually rather pleased that no-one disagreed with my point, just with the admittedly crude way I expressed it. I am an experienced, normally very consciencious editor, but once in a blue moon if editing whilst drunk I go of on one. I hope you can appreciate how frustrating it is to have put hundreds of hours work into an article, then find that no-one else is willing to lift a finger to maintain or improve the page, and that the vast majority of edits actually make it worse. Willy turner (talk) 19:11, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    We all have those days. Obviously, WP:DTTR came into it, but sometimes it's better to take a break from the Wiki when drinkin'. I learned that one the hard way myself. Jmlk17 17:05, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    another User:Mario96 sock

    Resolved
     – IPs have no choice but to report sock puppetry here, some admins will happily deal with WP:DUCK blocks here anyway, and if we keep this thread open any longer 69.181, Jpgordon and me will continue to agree/argue with each other ;-) TFOWR 08:46, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Is this the best place to report User:hauntedUser, another quacking sock of Mario? Has anybody looked into the possibility of a rangeblock on this rather obtuse editor? 69.181.249.92 (talk) 21:57, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:SPI is generally the place to make such reports. I've taken care of this one. A rangeblock would have too much collateral damage. --jpgordon::==( o ) 22:04, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    As an unregistered editor, SPI is useless to me. I can't create pages. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 22:09, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    That's sure a pain. I guess here is the best you can do, then. --jpgordon::==( o ) 22:41, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm happy to be shot down, and I'll acknowledge that 69.181 is a wikifriend, but for WP:DUCK cases I believe ANI is the best venue - WP:SPI being more appropriate for cases that require investigation or a checkuser. But... 69.181 - SPI isn't semi-protected as far as I can see - have you tried it recently? I'll try it signed out when I get a minute, but the protection log suggests you should be OK. TFOWR 22:49, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, but but starting an SPI case involves creating a page. --jpgordon::==( o ) 23:19, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Doh! I knew that... (honest!) I'm trying to avoid telling 69.181 to create an account (good faith IPs hate that...) You're right, of course, though there's always Wikipedia:SPI#Quick Checkuser requests... TFOWR 23:25, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Which specifically states that it's not for sock cases... Oh, well, I guess this is the best spot then. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 20:57, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Long term edit warrior has now become abusive

    Akuvar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who has been edit warring for months on Tom Van Flandern, has now decided to be abusive and hostile to me on the talk page. I suggested that he take concerns to an appropriate venue, but he instead has placed an off-topic rant along with a long and equally off-topic cut and paste from my talk page history into the article talk. Please take a look. Tim Shuba (talk) 03:07, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Launching an attack on a talk page, combined with a profound failure to appreciate removal of such things. Looks legit... ;> Doc9871 (talk) 03:26, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    He can't edit war all by himself, can he? You've been warring against him. If that link shows the worst he's posted, you're wasting our time here, as there's no attack there. That's not an off-topic rant, he asserting (correctly) that you are hostile to the subject of the article. You've been repeatedly abusive about the subject, despite knowing that his son is reading and contributing to the talk page. And you did remove someone else's comment, instead of moving it as would have been the wise action.[60] Fences&Windows 15:25, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Ironically enough, you linked to WP:SEEKHELP five days ago. AN/I isn't on that list. Please take your own advice and follow dispute resolution. Fences&Windows 15:30, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Um, I have not been edit warring, please check the history. The situation is a complete farce and is not conducive to positive article development due to longstanding behavioral issues, which I don't believe will go away without sysops involvement. If other admins also don't find the level of abuse, ownership, conflict of interest, and edit warring there to be worth addressing, then fine. Tim Shuba (talk) 16:14, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Tim, what is it that I have been abusive to you about? We strongly disagree about the content of this article, that is for sure, and I and the subject's son have repeatedly asked for your cooperation, and all we get is a rant about how horrible a person the subject was. When YOU posted in the discussion board that your non-NPOV was "a fiction invented by Akuvar without any basis" I had every right to post your non-NPOV comments to defend my statement. And it is NOT a personal attack to point out to other editors that you deleted discussion page comments by another editor against wiki policy. If I attacked you some how, I apologize, but I just don't see it. I think because of your comments about the subject you ought to recuse yourself from that page entirely. Akuvar (talk) 21:23, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You claimed to be "shocked" that I would post to the talk page, saying I "removed myself" from the page. That is simply a lie. I found Mikevf to be reasonable and told him as much, and our exchange on my talk page was rather cordial. Cherry-picking quotes from it and using them to malign me on the article talk page is an attack. Sure I think Tom Van Flandern was an extreme relativity crank, so what? Yes, it would be convenient to ban everyone with that view from the article, since it's also a widespread view among mainstream experts, and excluding technically competent people is important for pushing fringe claptrap on the general public.

    Anyway, the note from the administrator above is clear. I am edit warring (never mind that I have made only three edits to the article ever, all of which were immediately reverted by Akuvar months ago without me reinserting them). I am hostile and abusive (for stating an honest opinion shared by numerous experts). And I am unwise for removing text that obscured the first post I've made in months on the talk page (as if it couldn't just be reposted properly, without posturing and fanfare).

    So there you have it. I have been chastised. This has been great entertainment, beyond my hopes, and now ought to be closed so sysops won't be wasting time on frivolous whiners like myself. Tim Shuba (talk) 02:20, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I think that the next corrections to Tim Shuba's post are needed:
    (i) Akuvar did not said that you removed but that he "thought you had removed yourself". Therein the reason which he said that he was "shocked" seeing you editing again. Maybe he was wrong about your self-removal but he did not lie about this because he did clear that was his/her though.
    (ii) You say now that your exchange with tvf's son was rather cordial but you have deleted your talk page. In an archived version we can read the parts that you omit to quote now. In that link you show your non-NPOV on the subject that you are editing. For instance, this is an extract from your deleted talk page that reveals your intentions:
    Same goes for the incompetent, dishonest crank Tom Van Flandern. My primary interest in Van Flandern and the development of the article is personal amusement.
    (iii) You are clearly hostile and abusive as several editors have noticed in several places. For instance, this is what a third editor said to you:
    You are maligning an honest, decent, hardworking man with a solid resume and credentials.
    (iv) You claim now that you "removed text that obscured the first post" that you had done in months. Again this is false. You removed the text added to your contribution and you removed also the text added to a last contribution by Urgent01. You claim now that you "removed text", but in the editing page of the article you wrote in the edit summary that you had "removed junk". What you called junk were just extracts from other Wikipedia pages that were being misquoted in the article by both you and Urgent01. For instance, Urgent01 said to Akuvar:
    regarding the "Gravity Research Foundation Award", you should be aware that it is a crackpot organization. Read the Wikipedia article on it. Loony tunes. To get SECOND prize from a crackpot organization is a highly questionable "honor",
    and I added just after the following Wikipedia text that corrects Urgent01 biased and inaccurate statements:
    The annual essay prize drew respected researchers who didn't mind a shot at a few thousand dollars—including physicist Stephen Hawking, who won several times [...]. Recent winners include California astrophysicist George F. Smoot, who later won the 2006 Nobel Prize in physics.
    You named that info as junk and deleted from the page, violating basic guidelines as was properly noticed by several editors JuanR (talk) 10:45, 10 August 2010 (UTC).[reply]

    Userbox problem?

    Not sure if this is the best place to bring this up, but rather than jump straight to an MfD: is User:Template555/Lies appropriate? I find it quite offensive,so obviously I'm recusing myself from the discussion. I'd like to test the community's waters though: Is this OK? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 18:25, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I think its pretty good. Certainly doesn't seem to be singling any person or persons out for critique. Nothing at all like this one. Unomi (talk) 18:35, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You're right, it is nothing at all like that one, which begs the question of why you chose to mention it in the first place. SnottyWong express 19:16, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, I didn't catch the link to Atheism till just now, as an agnostic I can only say I am undecided leaning towards meh. Unomi (talk) 18:37, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I dunno. I didn't see the link to Atheism before reading Unomi's comment either. If there wasn't a link, I would be fine with the userbox, but with the link being there, it seems to be kind of inflammatory, because it is directly calling Atheism "lies". That is rather rude and I don't know if we should support userboxes that directly call a form of belief a lie. I'm fine with saying that you believe in something, but making derogatory statements toward other beliefs shouldn't really be allowed. SilverserenC 18:53, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    MfD, definitely.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:55, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I've had a look at Wikipedia:Userboxes/Philosophy and User:UBX/Userboxes/Religion for comparable boxes and don't seem to find many. Some people may take umbrage with a number of boxes on those pages, but they mostly seem to stick to expressing the user's own opinion, rather than casting judgements on other users. User:Jeff dean/Userboxes/Atheist may come close to the same kind of sentiment. However User:Template555/Lies differs, as it identifies a belief position as "lies" rather than "myth", or whatever. IMO, there is an important distinction between claiming someone is wrong and claiming they are lying. In the interest of openness and transparency I will acknowledge that I am an atheist, but had this userbox said "Keep your [[Christianity|lies]] to yourself." my response would have been the same.
    There are a few other boxes on the Religion page that may bother some people of opposing viewpoints, such as those which proclaim a belief that religion causes harm. I've also known people to be bothered by the FSM ones too as they can be seen as pejorative, even if only by implication. The only other I spotted that makes an explicit statement about the reader was User:Template555/UserBibleStudy. I hesitated in bringing it up as it was created by the same person as "Lies" and I didn't want to appear to be picking on one specific user, but again I don't think it is appropriate to make these kind of sweeping judgements about other contributors, even if it is not directed at a named individual. AJCham 18:58, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Template555 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    That edit to scape is kind of...ironic. I wonder if that's supposed to be toward Christianity. SilverserenC 19:06, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    No doubt related to User:Template555/Scapegoat. –xenotalk 19:11, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Could this account be an undeclared sock/role account? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 19:31, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that is a pretty safe bet. Unomi (talk) 19:40, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    That's what I wondered, but no one user uses all of their userboxes (and some are unused). –xenotalk 19:40, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think the number of people using a userbox means it is a bad userbox. I have a couple on my userboxen page that aren't used, doesn't mean they are bad, just means either people haven't seen them, don't know they are there, or a number of other reasons. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 20:02, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    What I meant was that, if this were an alternate account used to hold userboxen (a la User:UBXeno), you would think that the owner would be using some or most of the userboxen it is hosting. That does not appear to be the case here, so the owner of the account (if it is an alternate) is not immediately apparent. –xenotalk 20:04, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll MfD it now. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 20:22, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Template555/Lies. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 20:34, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Some of this editor's user boxes express views on theism, atheism and religion that contradict some of the other user boxes. I would guess s/he felt there were gaps that needed filling in the are of religion oriented user boxes. I don't think the box in question is particularly inflammatory, but all user boxes are pretty silly so why not MfD it.Griswaldo (talk) 20:36, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Leopard Capital

    I am looking for some help, and am not sure the best way to proceed. I have found myself crossing paths with a very determined WP:SPA who is using multiple accounts. His primary connection is to a small private equity firm Leopard Capital that invests in Cambodia. The article / subject is barely notable firm with some scant independent coverage. My inclination at first was not to try to run the article off through a WP:AFD becuase I tend toward the inclusionist path. The user has also created a network of articles relating to Leopard Capital's portfolio of investments. These companies range from not-notable to barely notable. My primary issue across the articles is the content of the articles which is generally a problem from a WP:ADVERT and WP:NPOV perspective. Given that the author is using multiple accounts, I wanted to address this issue before any WP:AfD discussions to avoid suckpuppetry.

    The articles that I have identified as problematic are Leopard Capital, ACLEDA Bank, Kingdom Breweries, Nautisco Seafood, CamGSM.

    It is relatively clear that the following editors are linked in their singleminded interest in Leopard Capital and its portfolio companies, close proximity / interconnection of edits, etc.

    I don't know what is the best course of action. I have already tried leaving friendly messages and warnings for a number of the sock puppet accounts. Maybe a more strongly worded warning would be merited. |► ϋrбanяeneωaℓ • TALK ◄| 21:26, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations is that way. If you have any questions, feel free to ask. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:13, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    as for the articles, though the bank's capital is only $900 million, it's quite large for Cambodia as judged by the other Cambodia bank articles; the brewery has good refs; the tel;ecom seems v. large or the area also; the seafood company is less obviously notable , but does have 3rd party refs.. I think they will all stand. I wish we had people writing equally good articles for other business concerns in the area, COI or no COI. DGG ( talk ) 05:36, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Problem with User Removing Images

    I'm having an issue with a user removing a relevant image to three articles, Van Helsing (film), Dracula in popular culture and Count Dracula. I don't know what the issue truly is about, but their excuses for removal have be futile. I have no interest in self-promotion, I have released the image into the public domain to add to the quality of these three articles. I'd like to request protection from this anonymous user and another user (MarnetteD) in the Van Helsing article seems to be joining in. Editor182 (talk) 01:52, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    It seems they've been discussing Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films, I made a comment there. If the image is deemed inappropriate, unsuitable, etc, for whatever bogus reason, then I'll want it removed from commons. Editor182 (talk) 02:01, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    It appears to me, after looking at the Van Helsing page, that you're edit warring to keep your art in the article. I suggest you unlink the image as a show of good faith and discuss the matter on the article talk pages. There's no need for admin action unless someone calls you on 3RR. PhGustaf (talk) 02:07, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    COncur with PhGustaf. You want "protection" from MarnetteD and an anon IP? Sorry, but the way it looks to me if there's any protection that's needed, it's against you. You've spent the last two weeks edit warring trying to get your picture onto the article. Nobody seems to be agreeing with you. You should also have a look at WP:BRD, and start a discussion on the article talk page. That hasn't happened yet. --Hammersoft (talk) 02:12, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Since I'm one of the editors who removed the image, I'll explain my views.
    1. It's fan art. I don't see the purpose of having fan art on Wikipedia. Even if the editor didn't illustrate it and there wasn't a potential conflict of interest, I'd still be against it.
    2. Richard Roxburgh's depiction of Dracula was simply not notable when viewed in light of the larger picture. He starred as Dracula in a film that has since been widely considered a failure and he has received little discussion after the film was released. To put him up there with Bela Lugosi and Christopher Lee is absurd. There is no good reason for him to be on an article such as Count Dracula.--24.147.231.200 (talk) 03:05, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    This is stale now, but if I'd seen this at the time - edit warring over multiple articles (I count five reverts at Van Helsing) together with this gem - I would certainly have blocked Editor182. Hopefully xe has learnt from this. Black Kite (t) (c) 11:36, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Possible widespread spamming

    I was working at NPP earlier and I tagged Neelwafurat.com with CSD A7. The author contested and placed the following link [61] on the talk page to attempt to assert notability. From the author's poor English, I can determine that this website is sort of like Amazon. But what his link showed me is that this website is being used throughout Wikipedia as a reference when it really should not be. I'm actually going to try and improve the article if I can find any references I can understand, but I'm thinking someone ought to check out those links. Burpelson AFB (talk) 02:54, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    This is the link I think is being referred to(?) It looks like an unreliable source. I've notified the reported user of this report... Doc9871 (talk) 03:09, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Just a note: I don't think that the creator of this article has been spamming the links necessarily. I also don't think he understands English very well, so he may not be by here. My concern was more with the fact that lots of other articles have URLs in their reference sections pointing to this website, which is pretty much like using Amazon.com as a reference. It looks like there are 7 articles using it as a reference currently. I was wondering if we have a bot that disallows links like these being used as references? Burpelson AFB (talk) 03:14, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    There is always Wikipedia:Spam blacklist if you want to apply for addition there. If the website's article is kept, then you may want to find some kind of subdomain of the site to blacklist so that linking to the home page still works. — Huntster (t @ c) 04:06, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Not much here by the looks of it but there could be a problem on the Arabic Wikipedia (see the COIBot link in the template above). MER-C 13:32, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    It may not be a huge deal. I manually removed the ones from the link summary and filed an XLinkBot request. A local blacklist request would probably be denied since it's not widespread on en-wiki and I'm not sure how to request it on the meta global blacklist (and it may be trying to shoot a turkey with an ICBM anyway). Burpelson AFB (talk) 23:18, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Erik Veland

    OTRS ticket 2010081010008547 raises a concern about the personal website linked from User:Erik Veland, which apparently has links to sites seen as spam/attack sites by fFirefox. I've told the respondent that I'll inform the administrators noticeboard and that they can decide if there's a case for removing the link to http://erikveland.com/. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 13:35, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    It's not seen as an attack/spam site by my Firefox. I don't see any need to remove the link. -Atmoz (talk) 17:53, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    cmpfilmtv.com.au, which is linked from the user's website, was showing as such a link earlier.[62] It seems a bit far away to worry about here. -- zzuuzz (talk) 18:03, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Admin action needed to correct possible BLP violation of a high profile person

    Resolved
     – Fixed long before you started complaining. Refresh the page. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:17, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Is this normal to spam like this?

    I have a question again about adding links ...I have come across and editor Kumioko (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi) with a long history here (he is simply fixing them). However this has made me aware of all the bios with this link and i question the need to add Find a Grave link to every dead persons bio on Wikipedia. The majority of the time the linked page does not provide any more info then the article in question. What i see is a mass attempted to link every dead person to the site just to generate traffic to the site. As i am saying it just does not feel right.. i am here looking for comments about this. I do see its mostly a fix but still.Moxy (talk) 15:15, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    There has been relatively little traffic on the Find a Grave page in the last year, and almost none on the talk page, but what's there is somewhat revealing. I also have a vague recollection that the use of Find a Grave has come up before, and not just on its own talk page - I think there were spam concerns, so your question is deja vu. The trouble with Find a Grave is the same issue with IMDB, namely that there's inconsistent sourcing for the information. IMDB is considered reasonably reliable for cast lists, but not necessarily for trivia. Likewise, Find a Grave does provide what appear to be reliable locations for graves. The rest of it is questionable. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:32, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    This editor is not adding all this as it looks like hes simply fixing the links..I just question Y are they all linked...Not sure that a grave site is needed on every bio especially the first external link. Were should i bring this up to get a bigger view on the matter.Moxy (talk) 15:37, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Not trying to be defensive here but since this is about me I would like to take this opportunity to explain my actions somewhat. I have not been "adding" mass links to the find a grave site. In fact the only time I "add" this link is for Medal of Honor recipient articles I create. What I think this user is referring too is the edits I have been making to cleanup some of the links to Find a grave and Hallofvalor. With the help of a couple other editors (because I do not have admin rights) we made some chanegs to the structure of the Find a Grave link (we added author, date, work and accessdate) so I have been going through them and restructing the link to match these changes. I did not think these edits to be controversial but if the consensus is for me to leave the somewhat disorganized state of these links be, let me know. Below are some of the changes I have been making to the link for clarification. Please let me know if you have any questions.
    • Add work=Claim to Fame: Medal of Honor recipients for Medal of Honor recipients (was going to do this for other groups as well time permitting)
    • replace }} Retrieved on XXX date with |accessdate=XXX date}}
    • add accessdate equals current day if no accessdate is present
    • converting bare http links to the Find a grave site to the find a grave template
    • replace findagrave with Find a Grave
    • remove the id=, grid= or name=
    • make sure that the find a grave link is under external links (unless it falls into a citation) --Kumioko (talk) 15:41, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    And yes Baseball bugs your right, the site has come up several times before. --Kumioko (talk) 15:41, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry Kumioko i have reworded the above statement as i know its not you adding them ...Moxy (talk) 15:48, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Its no problem Moxy, I just wanted to clarify. --Kumioko (talk) 15:51, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Middle 8's talk page comment

    Resolved
     – Take it to WP:WQA

    if you really want to - User:WLU

    Middle 8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Sample.

    I think administrative attention may be appropriate. This user has a tendency to leave and return.

    ScienceApologist (talk) 15:59, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    He seems to have called someone an idiot on a talkpage and retired...what kind of Admin action are you requesting? Off2riorob (talk) 16:06, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I've seen a variety of admin actions happen in these situations from nothing to warnings to bans. There's a bit more in the contributions boiling-over-wise and I just fear that people who leave Wikipedia in a huff sometimes return and do damage. Analysis by those who are not close to this situation is appreciated. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:57, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Let's be clear here, this user has gone through a number of identity switches and has been embroiled in controversy over acupuncture for some time now. This kind of activity makes me extremely uncomfortable, but unlike Off2riorob, I don't believe in WP:PUNITIVE. What I think might be appropriate is an administrative warning. If I give the warning, he'll just dismiss it as hounding. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:23, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Don't speak as if for me, your report is rubbish. Utter rubbish and nothing more that reporting an opponent. You are edit warring to keep your worthless report open it is hilarious. Off2riorob (talk) 21:26, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Is this satisfactory...middle 8 you naughty little boy, if you don't stop calling people idiots I will put you on the naughty step for five seconds. Off2riorob (talk) 21:29, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    You aren't an administrator. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:42, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    No but I am the next best thing. Off2riorob (talk) 21:54, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    reporting your opponents

    Users that make weak reports when they are in content disputes or opponents of users such as this should be blocked for wasting the communities time. Off2riorob (talk) 21:32, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Does this comment give a reason for why you've taken a peculiar interest in this thread? ScienceApologist (talk) 21:40, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    No, so what, its more rubbish, get over yourself, take five seconds on the naughty step yourself. Off2riorob (talk) 21:41, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I look forward to you asking for your own blocking, then, per the comment you made in this section. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:43, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You can look forward to whatever you like, if this is a school project I have some stickers you can have. Off2riorob (talk) 21:44, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I love stickers! How do you want to get them to me? ScienceApologist (talk) 21:47, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Please be nice here. And this certainly looks like good reason for administrative action to me. BE——Critical__Talk 21:52, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    What kind of Administrator action are you suggesting? Off2riorob (talk) 21:55, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I thought blocks of various lengths were traditional for such things. BE——Critical__Talk 21:59, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not a police state, it is a contributory website. Users should be aware that teacher and mummy have left the building and they should use adult type discussion in an attempt to work things out with their opponents. Off2riorob (talk) 22:01, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Certainly, however, the current discussion is occurring, it seems, because such idealism has broken down. I was referring to the actions usually taken after the ideal is already broken. Further, the opposite of a "police state" is not anarchy or license. BE——Critical__Talk 22:25, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, i see nothing weak about this report, considering the diff provided. I do not necessarily recommend blocking, but just closing it as if there was nothing worthy here seems wrong to me. BE——Critical__Talk 22:28, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree, this sort of thing shouldn't be allowed and passed over. Calling someone an "idiot" and using the F word in the context that they did is a blatant break of civility. SilverserenC 22:29, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    A third-party warned him, so I think this is pretty good. He may never come back, in which case, no harm no foul. If he does come back and continues to be uncivil, well, then we have evidence that we at least went through some sort of due process. Thanks all! ScienceApologist (talk) 22:33, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not an admin either, but in my opinion this belongs on WP:WQA and not here. Salvio Let's talk 'bout it! 22:36, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    You may be right about that. It just occurred to me moments ago. We should make some sort of flowchart to keep these things straight. I just plumb forgot about WP:WQA. Sorry. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:44, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    As the one called an idiot, I don't really care. M8 does make good faith suggestions that I think are misguided and incorrect, and it can be frustrating. He can leave and come back if he wants, so long as he honestly attempts to improve the wiki - which he does try to do. There's a lot of strong opinions on acupuncture, but overall there's little to suggest in my mind that M8 consistently engages in personal attacks to the detriment of pages. I've dropped more than a couple f-bombs in my time and had to deal with the consequences - usually the fact that my editing is more difficult. Personally, since I see no patter I see no reason to make a big deal of this. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 22:59, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Ted Stevens

    Resolved

    Wikinews has related news:

    Eyeballs are going to be needed on the Ted Stevens article. KTUU-TV is reporting he has died in a plane accident in Dillingham, Alaska. I would put his name up on the Recent Deaths only after family confirms, right now it is just a "family friend". Diff: 1. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 16:26, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Ted Stephens is fully protected and there is a comment about the possibility and if and when it is officially reported then he can be added to here and there but not until. Off2riorob (talk) 16:39, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Okie Dokie. I haven't seen anything, officially from the family, yet from any of the news outlets in Alaska or the networks, just this "family friend" reporting it. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 16:42, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Beeblebrox added the "family friend" info through the protection. I think it should stay out completely for now -- anybody who hasn't been reverting all morning want to grab it, or do you think it's neutral enough to stay in? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:49, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't think a "family friend" is official enough. The official word should come from his office (whatever that is now) or his family....not a "family friend". Anyone could be a "family friend", his neighbor he hasn't seen in 4 years could be that "family friend", too vague, too unofficial. I would revert just that section but leave that he was involved in the crash (because that is known) and that his "condition is currently unknown". - Neutralhomer • Talk • 17:11, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I just heard on CNN (via a KTVA reporter) that while mourning is going on in the state, the Stevens family is saying he was not on the plane, while others are saying he was. So I would definitely remove that he had died from his article and give the conflicting reports, give that he might be on the flight and "condition is currently unknown". At present, CNN, MSNBC/NBC News and Fox News are all not reporting anything on anyone's condition from the flight. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 17:28, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The reports are conflicting; I've edited accordingly. Plenty of time to put details in...when we can cite them properly.  Frank  |  talk  17:35, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Multiple sources are confriming now. Can someone with tools please correct the article?--Jojhutton (talk) 18:35, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks like it's been done now (sorry, no diffs). TFOWR 19:07, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Update: as of now, this and this source speak of official confirmation by a spokesperson of the family. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:13, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Please block user Cumanche for personal attacks

    user:Cumanche has accused me twice of not editing in good faith on the Genizaro article. Admin user:Dougweller warned him after the first incident to remove his comment or elaborate on it but he didn't respond. I then warned Cumanche if he didn't strike or delete his comment I would report him for a personal attack. Cumanche responded by making a nearly identical statement and then went on to repeat a point he has made many times in the past: that I lack sufficient knowledge to edit this article. Note: Cumanche's second comment came from an anonymous account. But the tone and subject matter of the post make it easy to identify as Cumanche's. Below are the diffs:

    • Cumanche's first accusation reads as follows: I have questions regarding your intentions by making changes that alter the meaning of the Genizaro page and then having the page frozen. [63]
    • Cumanche's second baseless accusation reads as follows I have a legitimate question as to Lechoneros intentions.[66]

    Lechonero (talk) 16:44, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    A request to block for a personal attack must, at the very least, include a diff showing the personal attack. Another editor questioning your intentions may lack the assumption of good faith we request around here, but it's far from a personal attack. I would add that Doug's "warning" was a request to fall more in line with AGF, not a threat to block, as you seem to have interpreted it.
    I'm not saying the attitude being displayed here by Cumanche is exemplary, but it isn't block-worthy by what has been provided above.  Frank  |  talk  16:48, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Brews ohare is being hounded by a few editors

    Related ArbCom case

    User:Brews ohare has come back from a Physics topic ban (which was overturned after intervention by Jimbo Wales, who instructed ArbCom to pass a motion to let the sanction expire) and since then there have been a few problems that seem to be escalating. For sure, Brews has made a few mistakes, but I now see clear evidence that there is now a concerted effort to hound him away from Wikipedia. Since Admin Jehochman has now become involved here, issuing a threat to Brews, I think this merits discussion here.

    Unfortunately, it is a bit difficult to simply point to a few diffs here, I need to explain the background a little before I can give some relevant diffs. The main issue with Brews is that he has difficulties with avoiding being caught up in long winded talk page discussions on issues that are far less relevant than he thinks they are. Especially when editing an article outside his expertise, like the speed of light, that can lead to problems. After coming back from his topic ban, an article ban for speed of light was imposed by Sandstein and this is now under discussion on the relevant ArbCom pages. On this issue, I've told Brews to be mindful of consensus, however frustrating that can be.

    Now, Brews expertise is mainly in topics such as classical mechanics and electical engineering (he is a retired engineering professor), and before his topic ban, he had conributed to a large number of physics articles on such topics. These articles mostly still exist with Brews contributions in them; so there is no issue with pseudoscience or very problematic conttent lke that in these artcles.

    Brews is now editing some of these articles and it is there that he is now being hounded. On the Centrifugal force (rotating reference frame) article, Brews' new edits are being opposed on OR grounds by a few editors (User:JohnBlackburne and User:DVdm), even though that very strict a reading of OR by them, where you can't even freely give examples, would make practically the whole article in violation of that interpretation of the OR policy. In the way it is written now, you can give general citations, but you cannot give citations to every babystep in the article.

    For sure, there are other more valid grounds on which his edits to this article can be opposed (like article bloating). But the particular way way OR is raised here, and the failure to then discuss this properly with Brews, leads to Brews being caugh up again in long winded discussions that go nowhere. I have a strong feeling that this is a deliberate attempt to provoke a problem and then let an Admin who is already critical of Brews (i.e. User:Jehochman ) to ban Brews on the remaining ArbCom sanction. This would then make it impossible for the issue to be reviewed by other Admins (as overturning an ArbCom related sanctions is not allowed). So if it is then later pointed out that actually Brews was not blame, it is too late as you need a very strong community consensus to overturn such a ban.

    In support of my allegations, let me point to the following facts:

    1) User:JohnBlackburne decided to bring Brews before AE, mainly on the grounds that Brews had started too many discussions on the speed of light talkpage . But after Brews stopped editing there, some of his discussions and some new discussions have grown beyond all proportions judge for yourself here, but User:JohnBlackburne is nowhere to be seen there (I think he made one or two short comments there after Brews left).


    2) Not discussing a perceived OR issue properly. E.g. when Brews raises the point that the whole article is already writen in this way, all that User:DVdm can do is warn Brews about WP:POINT, even though WP:POINT says that if there is a point to be raised, please raise that point, just don't act on it (and Brews was never going to delelete any sections of the article, as DVdm surely knows).


    3) Then Admin Jehochman, who already at the recently initiated AE disussion by User:JohnBlackburne, asked for Brews to be permanently banned, exaggerating the real issues there (I can't find the diff right now), comes to Brew' talk page giving warnings to Brews based on merely taking note of the fact that an OR issue was raised at the discussion at Talk:Centrifugal force (rotating reference frame) and that the discussion there is quite lengthy.

    Now, let me let me make it very clear that the issue I'm rasing here is not at all a content dispute. While I'm more in favor of Brews' edits than the other editors there, my opinion on the edits is that they can be shortened. Also, it is entirely legitimate for the other editors to rewrite the whole article, remove lengthy examples, or bring the whole article in line with a very strict interpretation of OR where even simple examples need to be taken almost verbatim from textbooks. What is not ok., however, is to follow Brews around and only raise objections to his edits, while turning a blind eye to other similar edits, even on the very same page, refusing to discuss Brews edits in the context of how the article is presently written, thereby provoking problems to erupt and then threaten ArbCom enforcement based on those problems. Count Iblis (talk) 17:13, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I'd like to also point out that the normal has happened here, except one key factor. Brewsz supporters have been blamed previously for supporting brews, the reason we do is because people gang up on brews. my personal favorite is the pre-emptive warning Jehochman has placed on brews page [[67]], this doesn't sound like a nuetral admin nor does [[68]]. That doesn't sound nuetral or fair, sounds like a threat that at the thinnest excuse he will block brews. Don't we have rules preventing the admin from blocking someone they have a content dispute with? Hell In A Bucket (talk) 17:36, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Count Iblis, would you please supply a link or diff showing Jimbo Wales instructing ArbCom to pass a motion to let the sanction expire? Thanks, EdChem (talk) 17:40, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:TLDR. Please edit your posting to just the relevant points. I will also note that Count Iblis has been Brews habitual wingman, so it is not surprising that Count steps in to interfere with any attempt to limit Brews disruptive behavior. Jehochman Talk 17:43, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    what a awesome why to attack him Ad hominem and completely ignore your own bias. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 17:49, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Did you ever consider that if you are averse to reading, an online encyclopedia might not be your thing? Unomi (talk) 17:51, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe the online encyclopedia is why some of us don't want to waste lots of time reading interminable dramaboard posts. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 02:01, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I would expect you to provide diffs to support your accusation that I am "hounding" Brews, not vague accusations. As for arbitration this is not the proper venue for appealing arbitration decisions.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 17:44, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    On viewing this unfold, I think personally that the Centrifugal force "OR" argument is silly. Most Wikipedia articles and sections, on first draft, are written that way. In my skimming, I saw nothing wrong with what Brews wrote. We should instead use common sense and allow time for sources to be provided; any intro-level classical mech textbook should have a relevant page.
    DVdm's interpretation of WP:POINT is obviously incorrect, per Count Iblis, above, and my re-reading of the guideline. Internal consistency is necessary, and this is what makes it look like he/she is simply hounding Brews instead of enforcing policy. If DVdm were really interested in strictly, strictly enforcing WP:OR (which I think is overkill here), then all of that material would have to go.
    My greatest concern here is that Brews is starting to try to make contributions again, and is being stymied. The thing that is unfortunate is that, from looking at DVdm's contribs and talk, it seems that he/she is a good, helpful editor in general, as is Brews. Since they are both going for the same goal -- improving the encyclopedia -- there must be some way that this can be resolved. Awickert (talk) 17:44, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I would like very much for the following:
    1. Brews stays away from speed of light and the definition of length of a meter. These are the areas where Brews has gotten into difficulties before. Brews recent return to this area, resulting in controversy and disruption is an ominous sign.
    2. When another editor requests citations for what Brews is adding to Wikipedia, Brews either provides acceptable citations and works towards agreement with other editors, or else removes the challenged content, stores it in sandbox, and goes and does something uncontroversial.
    3. I am very happy to leave Brews free to edit, and will encourage other editors to do same, so long as Brews abides by the spirit of 1 and 2 on this list.
    Hopefully this will help. Jehochman Talk 17:49, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    So as long as he doesn't disagree with you he is fine? Hell In A Bucket (talk) 17:50, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I am perfectly OK with Jehocohman's requests above, so long as in #2, that request for citations is applied in a common-sense way (which I would expect from any good Wikipedia editor). I would also like to note that when debates become heated, the best thing is to say "chao, buddy", and leave it for tomorrow when tempers are back down; very large comments usually just exacerbate heated discussions. Awickert (talk) 18:02, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Jehochman is a bit out of touch.
    • At the behest of Blackburne, Sandstein has imposed a page ban that enforces my avoiding Speed of light. Whatever the merits of that action, it is clear.
    • There has been no refusal to provide citations on my part. Rather, I did query Blackburne and DVdm as to what was to be established (never answered), as sources could not be found when their purpose was unclear. All attempts to get an answer were stonewalled, and as my requests were sharpened to specifically relate to particular text to evoke a response, becoming thus unavoidable, claims of disruption ensued rather than answers.
    • The material appeared on the Talk page as an RfC, so there was no material to "remove". There was no "challenged content", only a challenged proposal for content.
    Jehochman is arguing about imagined events, and is unfamiliar with the real proceedings. Brews ohare (talk) 18:36, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    EdChem, see here. Motion 3 was passed not long after this intervention by Jimbo. Reading the comments of the Arbitrators, it should be clear that this wasn't exactly something they decided to do all by themselves. Count Iblis (talk) 20:33, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Jehochman, I'm sorry about this long posting, but if I were to have limited to mentioning just the recent problems, then that would obviously have created the perception of me being "Brews' wingman". I'm not, there are issues with Brews as well and everything has to be placed in its proper context. About providing citations, I agree with AWickert that such requests be made with common sense.

    I would also ask Brews to be mindful that his vision of a perfect Wiki-article may not be shared by other people. Then, before spending a lot of time offline working on a figures etc., only to find out later that inclusion in an article is opposed, he should try to determine if his proposed edits fit in the article and if it would be welcomed in by the current editors. Count Iblis (talk) 20:50, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Count, if you are sorry about the long-winded (and short-evidenced) posting,fix it. Don't add to the length of the thread with more empty words. Jehochman Talk 21:15, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    So what would you be willing to read and respond to Jehochman? I'd be interested to know because all you are doing now is sidestepping the issues. Can you account for yourself? Hell In A Bucket (talk) 23:11, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]


    Advocacy

    Forget I brought it up. Protonk (talk) 23:06, 10 August 2010 (UTC) -- uncollapsed by Jehochman Talk 23:44, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Count Iblis, David Tombe, Likebox, and Hell in a Bucket are indefinitely restricted from advocacy for or commenting on Brews ohare, broadly construed. Should any of these editors violate this restriction, they may be blocked for up to 24 hours by any uninvolved administrator. After three blocks, the maximum block length shall rise to one week. (motion link)"

    Has this motion been superseded? Protonk (talk) 21:47, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, see the motion below that one: Amendment 4 to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed of light ("Brews ohare advocacy restrictions") expires concurrently with remedy 4.2 of the same case ("Brews ohare topic banned"), as amended by amendment 3 ("Brews ohare"). (motion link)". Since 4.2, as amended by amendment 3, expired at the end of June, that remedy is technically no longer in effect. Which, of course, does not preclude an administrator taking any action that they feel would be appropriate to maintain a proper editing environment. NW (Talk) 22:19, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, right in front of me, thanks. Protonk (talk) 22:23, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Subsequent events show that relaxing this restriction has not been beneficial. It is virtually impossible for any administrator to even warn Brews ohare without his wingmen swooping in and starting a dogfight. I hereby propose that the community reinstate the above advocacy restriction. Jehochman Talk 22:36, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I find this extremely funny, you can't reply to arguments so you try to silence people. Typical behavior,I wouldn't expect anything less from you. {erhaps you can back up why this would be needed but i doubt it. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 23:01, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I closed this for a reason. Dueling advocacy bans are a waste of everyone's time. My proposal is that everyone here who was party to (or listed in the final findings) of a giant arbcom case ought to take 10 steps back. Is this really a serious problem? Can discussion occur without sniping? Is there anything to be gained from admin attention. If this circus continues, I'm liable to prevent all parties from continuing to bicker over this. Protonk (talk) 00:02, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Negative advocacy

    Proposed editors John Blackburn, Jehochman and DVDm indefinitely restricted from harassing brews ohare or bringing Arb action unless uninvolved editors or administrators agree.

    Question from a confused arbitrator

    Is there a reason that this issue is not capable of being resolved at WP:AE? Steve Smith (talk) 22:34, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Ask Count Iblis. I am not sure AE would work, because various remedies from the case were terminated, apparently prematurely. Jehochman Talk 22:37, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Unless I'm terribly mistaken - which happens from time to time - all remedies providing for discretionary sanctions remain in effect. Discretionary sanctions seem to be what are being sought here. Steve Smith (talk) 23:08, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    So you mean I can just reimplement all the original sanctions, to remain in effect until the original expiry date of Oct 29, 2010? Seeing how Brews, Count and Hell IAB have all resumed exactly the same pattern behavior that lead to the sanctions, this would seem to be a fitting result. Comments from uninvolved editors please. Yes, I realize this discussion could be had at WP:AE, but the most convincing evidence is immediately above. I do not think there is a strong enough reason to move the conversation. Jehochman Talk 23:44, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I haven't sanctioned anybody in the long history of this dispute. I'd rather not start now. How about Brews voluntarily avoids conflict on physics articles, and Count and HIAB voluntarily avoid getting involved in and Brews-related warning or sanction discussions. This would ease my concerns. Stay far away from the behavior patterns that lead to the arbitration case. Jehochman Talk 00:07, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd still like a question answered. How is our advocacy less valid because we agree with brews. You are putting us in a role that you have labeled us part of the problem but you have not answered any questions posed to you. How has Iblis or my own behavior violated policy? Face it your beef with us is disagreeing with you. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 02:22, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Comments by uninvolved editors
    Comments by involved editors
    My impression is that at AE you would take a very procedural approach and that would then also frame this issue very tightly to the Speed of Light case. But the issue I'm raising here is separate from this, although it may look similar at first sight. Here one can consider what is going on in the broader context of editing the articles in question. This AN/I page is being watched by many editors, so they can then give their opinion based on their editing experience on similar articles, as Awickert has done above. This sort of feedback is i.m.o. more useful than imposing sanctions on editors. Count Iblis (talk) 23:47, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Please delete this

    Resolved
     – Deleted per request.  Frank  |  talk  17:25, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I created it through clumsiness. Sorry

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Editing_User:FormerIP/MOMKre-arrange2

    --FormerIP (talk) 17:21, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks. --FormerIP (talk) 17:27, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Misuse of rollback, edit-warring by User:Sulmues

    Resolved
     – Rollback revoked. PeterSymonds (talk) 18:38, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Sulmues (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), a user with a loaded history of blocks, topic bans and whatnot, was recently granted rollback. As I expected, he is misusing it [69] by using it to edit-war [70]. He has done so in the past as well [71] [72]. I can't understand why a user with such a history of disruption was granted rollback in the first place, especially considering he was on an ARBMAC 1R restriction until the end of June. If not blocked for edit-warring so soon after the expiration of his revert parole, he should at least be stripped of rollback. Athenean (talk) 18:08, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    If he is edit-warring then he isn't edit warring by himself. You and Alexikoua have also been very disruptive in removing the Albanian name of the subject in one of the usual edit-wars. Btw it should be noted that since you couldn't revert him again because you're on 1RR[73] Alexikoua(who was also on 1RR) reverted him continuing the edit-war you initiated [74] in the usual approach. Edit-wars aren't started or continued by 1 user, it does take at least two users. As for the content dispute itself its a pointless one, since the name is the native language version name of the person and Sulmues actually improved the article in many ways but you and Alexikoua are edit-warring just to keep a name off the article without actually doing anything to improve it.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 18:16, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) I would add this as well. I also told him on the Sarande talkpage about misusing the rollback tool but obviously he hasn't listened. Rollback is only meant to revert obvious vandalism. It is a serious offence to serially revert good-faith edits even after being warned. I tried to give him the benefit of the doubt back then but obviously this is getting worse. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 18:22, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Rollback revoked. PeterSymonds (talk) 18:38, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It is unfortunate it had to come to that but rollback cannot be used for editing disputes. Maybe in a few months Sulmues can reapply. I wish him the best. Thank you Peter for letting us know. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 18:56, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Preciseaccuracy

    User:Preciseaccuracy continues to attack other editors. The editor is relatively new and has been focused on including material on allegations of Israeli espionage at Art student scam. Things have not gone in their favor and the editor resorts to using multiple talk pages and noticeboards to accuse others of grouping together in scandalous manner. I had provided the editor with yet another reminder but the behavior continues.User talk:Preciseaccuracy#Reminder.

    • [75] "It is clear what is going on here. A group of users pass through and do drive by delete votes. You are using this page as a weapon to delete reliably sourced content" at their talk page
    • [76] "It is clear what is going on here. A group of users pass through and do drive by delete votes. You are using this page as a weapon to delete reliably sourced content" at AfD
    • [77] New section titled "Band of users coordinating to delete reliably sourced article on inconclusive espionage allegations, external input requested" at Jimbo Wales' talk page
    • [78] Refers to another editor's "phony drama" at the NPOV noticeboard
    • [79] and [80] accusing others of diluting the discussion and making misleading comments at the NPOV noticeboad
    • [81] and [82] Saying that Huey45 is a liar at Rschen7754's talk page
    • [83] Saying that those at the AfD are only "politically motivated" at Fences and windows' talk page
    • [84] A new section titled "Government Propaganda Organizations and Wikipedia" at Jimbo Wales' talk page
    • [85] Says that it seemed that I "pretended to give in a little so that you could later recommend the deletion of almost the entire section at the article's talk page after I denied allegations of whitewashing and said that the editor needed to stop making such accusations.
    • [86] An ANI titled "user:mbz1 colluding with user:broccoli"
    • [87] "user:mbz1 colluding with user:broccoli" section at the article talk page
    • [88] user:mbz1 colluding with user:broccoli at RomaC's talk page
    • [89] Attempt to make Shuki look bad (pointing out the unrelated blocks) after Shuki removed potentially inappropriate talk page material[90] (a warning instead of removal would have sufficed, IMO)
    • [91] Accusing Mbzi and others of "ganging up" to whitewash the article at Edit warring board.
    • [92] Repeatedly calling Huey45 a liar at ANI
    • [93] Saying Huey45 lied at article talk
    • [94] Saying there was "politically motivated collusion" at the article talk page
    • [95] Saying users are "colluding to sabotage article" at ANI
    • [96] Section at ANI titled "User: Huey45 acting in “bad faith” and colluding with others to sabotage article “Art Student Scam” about the Suspected 2001 Israeli “art student” scam and spying"
    • [97] and [98] Accusing editors of "ganging up" during an unblock request

    I understand that the editor is new and actually think some pointed words are sometimes necessary. However, to continue to assume the worst of faith from other editors after being repeatedly asked not to is simply not acceptable. There is also behavior that borders on forum shopping with inquiries at several different noticeboards and talk pages. I understand that it can be hard for a new editor to take in all of the dispute resolution process but copy and pasting the same sources in at all of these noticeboards and talk pages is disrupting any chance that uninvolved editors will even look at what is going on. And they are certainly not worded as neutral requests for feedback.

    It is my opinion that a block is necessary to encourage a rapid understanding that this cannot continue. A firm reminder from an admin might be a little less knee-jerk so that would be cool instead.Cptnono (talk) 20:13, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Of note, User:Preciseaccuracy has posted his version of events to User talk:Jimbo Wales#Band of users coordinating to delete reliably sourced article on inconclusive espionage allegations, external input requested (say that three times fast!). I'd say forum shopping is a given. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 22:40, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    If nothing else he should get a warning for his personal attacks on Huey45 (calling him a liar), a warning for canvassing on Jimbos talkpage, and a warning for disrupting wikipedia by repeatedly accusing anyone who disagrees with him of forming a cabal and being part of a conspiracy against him. Burpelson AFB (talk) 23:56, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I also see on Preciseaccuracy's talk page that someone else seems to think Preciseaccuracy is a reincarnation of Factsontheground (talk · contribs) (who also edited as Factomancer (talk · contribs). Maybe a checkuser is in order? Burpelson AFB (talk) 00:03, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    My Defense

    Jimbo's page is the most neutral place on wikipedia. That is why I posted there. Before I began editing, an article about spying allegations in the U.S. had been twisted into being about a chinese tourist trap in China. This group of users is once again using the articlesfordeletionpage as a weapon to remove reliably sourced allegations and whitewash an article of references to Israel the spying allegations. Below is a partial list of misleading tactics the group of users applies to the article "Art student Scam"

    1. Continually Referring to allegations documented by reliable sources as myths and wingnut conspiracies.

    2.Saying that the israelis were only typical israelis when they had military training that is far behond compulsory.

    3. Saying that the allegations were completely dismissed when sources point to the allegations as inconclusive.

    4. Saying that the Forward dismissed the spy ring when it was dismissing an entirely separate incident in Canada in 2004 while treating spying on the United States as inconclusive.

    5. Users saying spying has been thouroughly debunked when only a one lone 12 sentence article claims to debunk it while later articles treat the allegations as inconclusive.

    6. Saying art students are not Israeli.

    7. Continuously attacking the reliability of the salon.com source while ignoring other reliables sources.

    8.Forming polls in which friends of other users show up to leave three word or one or two sentence wp:idontlikeit comments as demonstrated on the talk page and more glaringly on both the first and second articlesfordeletion pages. Most glaringly on the first.

    9.Users insulting me and linking to conspiracy websites on the talk page.

    10.Users mistating information and then faking confusion.


    It is very difficult for one user to continually have to correct the misrepresentations of a large group of other users. Especially, when they are constantly trying to have me blocked and my ai noticeboard and neutral noticeboard requests seem to have only been viewed very passively by other admins

    The user above cptnono, at first pretends to be interested in adding reliably sourced material about the spying allegations to the article and then suddenly claims that the spying allegations portion should be cut down to only two sentences. Note: I only recently found out that meanwhile she had been attempting to get me topic banned.

    Response to more of cptnono's links:

    User huey 45 was directly lying

    Huey45 says…

    “I called it "the fake Israeli thing" because all of the previous sources (yes, you're not the first person to mention this) suggested that the salesmen weren't even Israeli, let alone art students.”

    In fact, all of these sources unequivocally state that they were Israelis, and mention art students. Huey 45 was repeatedly deliberately lying about the content of the sources, but my ai complaint didn't receive any attention due to friend of mbz1 gilisa showing up and diluting down the discussion declaring that most of the sources were unreliable. She was referring to haaretz, the Forward, the sunday herald, the newspaper creative loafing, Janes intellgence digest, salon.com, ect.

    • With regards to mbz1, the comment about mbz1's "phony drama" was in reference to his above quote where he stated that I am making him sick with my additions to the article. Mbz1 is an editor whose block log goes off the page and has a history of harassing other editors, in some cases so much that they seem to have quit editing wikipedia and that mbz1 is banned from interacting with them. On my first day editing on wikipedia mbz1 goes out of his way to try to get me blocked, he completely deletes direct quotations, I even make concessions and agreed to leave out some of the direct reliable sourced quotations but mbz1 continued to revert. He said to address the issue on the talk page and stated that there had been some consensus, which as user:binksternet later pointed out, there was no consensus. I had carefully taken my time to read through the numerous sources in depth and had logically reasoned why the spy ring allegations don't fit the description of “urban myth” on the talk pages and the discussion board. Whereas mbz1's only response along with other users had been.

    “I agree it is fine as it is.--Mbz1 (talk) 01:08, 14 July 2010 (UTC)”

    He then completely deleted a direct quote from a salon.com article. He didn't even bother to trim it down. Later mbz1 was blocked for 48 hours for edit warring because he continued to remove the very same salon.com quote when user binksternet added it back in.

    • With regards to my comment about shuki deleting my comment. My comment was about jiujitsuguy who suddenly showed up to vote without any previous involvement in the article and made a misleading statement that the salon.com quote was from a blog. I've done some digging since then and apparently jiujitsuguy is good friends with above user cptnono. I questioned why shuki is deleting my comments, apparent he is currently topic banned from editing articles about land and places in and around the country of Israel. He also seems to show up to make short agreement comments with mbz1.

    My accusations of user broccoli colluding with mbz1 were justified as well. Only a few weeks before my accusation, on a completely unrelated article another editor had made these same accusations in detail.

    With regards to the article "art student scam," Until brocolli nominated the article for deletion, his only two comments were 3 or 4 word votes stating his agreement with mbz1. Its interesting after months of no interaction with the article, brocolli suddenly showed up and stated his agreement with mbz1's proposal very shortly after mbz1 proposed it. Since then, the only other action that brocolli has taken is to nominate a reliably sourced article for deletion.

    Once again, It is very difficult for one user to continually have to correct the misrepresentations of a large group of other users. Especially, when they are constantly trying to have me blocked and my ai noticeboard and neutral noticeboard requests seem to have only been viewed very passively by other admins. Jimbo's webpage is the most neutral place on wikipedia. Hence I made my appeal for external input into the articlesfordeletiong discussion there.00:24, 11 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Preciseaccuracy (talk • contribs) Preciseaccuracy (talk) 00:33, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposal: topic ban the user on Art students scam article

    Last warning , short block? The user is a single article account. 99.99% of her edits are in one way or another connected to the article in question, and at least 80% of her contributions are either forum shopping, or personal attacks,or filing unwarranted AN/I reports or jumping to Jimbo talk page (today's post was not the first one), and so on, and so on, and so on. The user should be topic banned for that single article she spends so much time at. It is only for her own good because sometimes she takes only 4 hours break in 24 hours. On August 1 she was given the last warning by User:Fences and windows "I chose what I respond to, and when. You need to stop badgering people including me, and you need to stop forum shopping. If you do not voluntarily take a break from editing and discussing this article, then I will request a formal editing restriction to temporarily ban you from the page. The amount of time and energy you are spending on this single article is completely unhealthy, and you are becoming increasingly disruptive to collaborative editing". So how many more "final warnings" the user should be given?

    more context on user mbz1 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User%3AMbz1 Preciseaccuracy (talk) 03:41, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    And this is relevant because...? Broccoli (talk) 03:43, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Preciseaccuracy, I have already told you once: stop counting my blocks. It is none of you business. Better count your positive contributions, if any. have you heard about WP:NOTTHEM?--Mbz1 (talk) 04:02, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Wow brocolli, your managed to comment only 11 minutes after mbz1 this time. I wonder...Preciseaccuracy (talk) 03:51, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Have you ever heard of wp:AGF?--Mbz1 (talk) 04:02, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. I'm not sure what Precise's prior block history is if he/she ever used another account or IP address, but expect that bears little on the proposal. Seems like a red herring, given his response above. If someone agrees, I invite them to delete his comment and Broc's response ... and, as a sign of good faith, encourage him to do it himself. If Mbz were the subject of this proposal, I would of course have had a contrary view.--Epeefleche (talk)
    Red Herring, that's the word for it, the allegations of spying were pushed to the bottom in favor of an almost unnotable chinese tourist trap. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Art_student_scam&diff=370397930&oldid=370397250

    Preciseaccuracy (talk) 05:09, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment I think it is disappointing that PA has failed to acknowledge that the behavior may not be acceptable. Choosing to deflect is even worse. A short block might be a great idea but I might be overreacting. We should probably not restart the mudslinging and let some admins take a look.Cptnono (talk) 04:12, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    And since it can be hard to AGF sometimes: No, I did not email anyone or ask for any assistance.Cptnono (talk) 04:42, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Wow mbz1's other friend/defender epeefleche stops in only a few minutes later. Just like this other time mbz1 was accused of collusion by another user....http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know&diff=next&oldid=372294357 Preciseaccuracy (talk) 04:15, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    You edited at this discussion before I did. Are you suggesting that Mbz notified you, or that Broc did so? Or ... is this just a red herring, to deflect attention away from the focus of this thread?--Epeefleche (talk) 04:56, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    "malignancy toward the article"? What in the world are you talking about? This is proposal about a disruptive user, not about the article. I find your comment completely offline.I do not hide my dislike of the article. That article should not have been written in the way it was. That article is a bunch of non confirmed conspiracy theories as it is clearly seen from this document see page 18. Please also notice the name of the document. It is how that article should have been named. And it was my last comment here.--Mbz1 (talk) 04:36, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The information about the 9/11 link should probably be spun off into a separate article and have a link to it from the appropriate summarized section in Art student scam. But the rest of the article itself seems appropriate to me and doesn't appear to be unbalanced at all. From what I saw on the talk page, parts of the article were continually being picked at and dismantled and there were comments made, like yours, about deletion of the article. It is understandable for Preciseaccuracy, as a relatively new user, to worry and panic about the integrity of the article and I can easily see how s/he came to the conclusion that there is a "cabal" of users out there that are against the information proposed in the article. I think people on all sides need to tone things down and everyone should have a cup of tea, yourself included. SilverserenC 04:48, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with the split. However, I do not agree with your assessment. The article was relativity stable until PA read the Salon piece and decided to change the scope. There was no evil shenanigans. I even attempted to expand the espionage bit but realized it was not possible to make the editor content and reversed my position. I received a little personal attack for that. So even if PA was right in feeling that editors were ganging up, it is not appropriate to handle it with personal attacks, filibustering, and forum shopping. PA's transgressions need to be looked at by themselves, but even if the perceived faults of others are considered it does not excuse the behavior.Cptnono (talk) 05:01, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Your twisting the argument mbz1, this article is about spying allegations and not 9/11. You added an entire section about 9/11 to the article about spying allegations.

    The adl is part of the pro-israel lobby, right now it is campaigning to have a mosque removed from new york, once again your whole argument rests on one or 2 sources and ignores these.

    http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=20020307&slug=notspies07 washington post, this was written before many of the other articles and is the only one to claim to dismiss the allegations, however; the post admitted to not bothering to obtain the 60 pg. Dea document

    Preciseaccuracy (talk) 04:52, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • "adl is part of the pro-israel lobby, right now it is campaigning to have a mosque removed from new york" Oh, thank you so much for opening my eyes on that matter. How that "pro-israel lobby" could even think about campaigning against building a mosque at ground zero, where 3,000 innocent people got murdered by Islamic terrorists?! If I only new how sinister that adl really is, I would have never ever linked to it site.--Mbz1 (talk) 05:44, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Question for you, Preciseaccuracy. Since it wasn't you that added in the 9/11 info, would you be fine with that info being removed and split off to its own article? SilverserenC 05:01, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course she would not mind to split, after all instead of one conspiracy theory there will be two. I assume you were so busy looking for "malignancy toward the article" in my edits that you have missed this very interesting exchange, and now I am really outtahere, go to have a cap of tea before an admin would offer to me something much stronger.☺--Mbz1 (talk) 05:51, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Would be better answered at the article's talk page?Cptnono (talk) 05:02, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It's just that a major part of PA's panic from what I can see, besides that about the AfD, is about the addition of material that makes it that much easier to say that the article is unreliable. Which the 9/11 info does. SilverserenC 05:04, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    But the panic should not have lasted this long or been vented as it has been. We can discuss 9/11 at the talk page where sources correlating the two can be provided. Actually, the source was first presented by PA.Cptnono (talk) 05:10, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually 9/11 was first referred to in march http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Art_student_scam&oldid=347356423#September_11_allegations

    Preciseaccuracy (talk) 05:42, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    It was also already mentioned in the version of the article that existed right before I started editing.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Art_student_scam&diff=370397930&oldid=370397250 Preciseaccuracy (talk) 05:53, 11 August 2010 (UTC) I added this quote from Haaretz regarding the washington post article. It seems relevant to the Israeli espionage allegations. What do you think Silver seren?[reply]

    " Haaretz treated the spying allegations as inconclusive and noted with regards to the Post article. "Even this report was not enough to finally kill off the affair. Two weeks later, the New York Jewish weekly, Forward, published a report connecting the spy affair with the arrest in New Jersey, on September 11, of five Israelis whose behavior was defined as suspicious. The five were employed by a moving company and did not have valid work permits. According to Forward, the FBI concluded that the five were on a spy mission on behalf of the Mossad, and that the moving company was nothing more than a front. This story also died out quietly."[7] " Preciseaccuracy (talk) 05:13, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Mbz1's 9/11 section has already been removed http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Art_student_scam&diff=376086286&oldid=376086173 Preciseaccuracy (talk) 05:19, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    What if the haaretz quote was trimmed down to

    " Haaretz treated the spying allegations as inconclusive and noted with regards to the Post article. "Even this report was not enough to finally kill off the affair. Two weeks later, the New York Jewish weekly, Forward, published a report connecting the spy affair with the arrest in New Jersey ... of five Israelis whose behavior was defined as suspicious. The five were employed by a moving company and did not have valid work permits. According to Forward, the FBI concluded that the five were on a spy mission on behalf of the Mossad, and that the moving company was nothing more than a front. This story also died out quietly." " Preciseaccuracy (talk) 05:30, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Or how about this version

    Haaretz treated the spying allegations as inconclusive and noted with regards to the Post article. "Even this report was not enough to finally kill off the affair. Two weeks later, the New York Jewish weekly, Forward, published a report connecting the spy affair with the arrest in New Jersey ... of five Israelis whose behavior was defined as suspicious.... According to Forward, the FBI concluded that the five were on a spy mission on behalf of the Mossad.." Preciseaccuracy (talk) 05:49, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:SexyKick

    Hello there,

    I would like to report User:SexyKick for initiating edit wars by continuously reverting valid edits made to the Mega Drive article. Details can be read here on the article's talk page.

    My attempt to contact this person via his/her talk page remained fruitless. He kept reverting edits (even those by admins, removing the non-free & cleanup tag, repeatedly: August 10th A, August 10th B, August 8th, and I am sure several times more).

    Prior to that, this person contacted me accusing me of vandalism when I tried to reword a few sentences of a section of the article ("Console Wars") with the goal to eventually clean the entire article of bias, speculation and weasel words to focus on facts alone.

    Here's the edit in question. I have observed that since I made that edit (made June 28th), practically every single edit made to the article was reverted by this person.

    I hope you can help. I really don't know what to do with this guy. DCEvoCE (talk) 21:01, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    To report edit warring, see the administrators' edit warring noticeboard.--SexyKick 21:04, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Threat of physical violence...

    Going through WP:RFU, I came upon this. If I'm doing this right, the IP originates to Dover. Anyone in England able to give the local authorities a little phone call? --Smashvilletalk 21:14, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • As the target, I don't think there's any point following this up with the authorities; but a longer block than the current 12 hours might be in order. JohnCD (talk)
    • Probably not worth it; this ISP operates a lot in wifi spots as diverse as airports, hotels, or even your local Starbucks; whoever was using that particular dynamic IP will be long gone when the block expires. Even if they're still there, they'll get a new IP address when they log back in. Black Kite (t) (c) 21:37, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I think this disgusting user should be showed.86.176.76.190 (talk) 21:38, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Black Kite is right. Just let it go. JohnCD (talk) 21:40, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: I semi'd the talkpage for 12h so they can't post anything else there either. Black Kite (t) (c) 21:43, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Showed what? The door? The error of their ways? The Zapruder film? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:45, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the first 30 minutes of From Justin to Kelly would be an apt punishment. --Smashvilletalk 21:49, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Or being forced to listen to Jerry Vale records for all eternity. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:30, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Requesting closure for an archived discussion

    Hello - I would like to request that an admin review and close a fairly recent and currently archived ANI discussion (which, as I see it, has a pretty clear outcome, per the input of several users and an admin at the bottom of the discussion). The discussion, to date, has been automatically archived three times and restored by me two times, and the first two times after I restored it, I requested that an admin close the discussion at the bottom of it (due to it seemingly slowing down and a decision for action being evidently clear), but that had no avail. As a result, I'm opening up a separate thread to request that an admin close it as they see appropriate. Just as a note, I am not (unless someone objects) notifying anybody of this discussion, as it is not related to a certain user, but rather, a discussion itself. Thanks, ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 22:03, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Very complex case of sockpuppetry and playing the system for years

    User: Not specified, uses multiple anonymous IP. Seems to be using two registered accounts recently User:Chipmunkdavis and User:Superluminary.

    First I want any administrator reading this to note that this case is very complex because the person involved in this knows the system very well and knows how to avoid punishments. Usually he gets benefited from administrators that are not willing to "dig in the history" of his accounts and behaviour because it is lenghty, and the problem ends with banished accounts. However this person always return with new accounts and most recently using anonymous IP to avoid blocks and being easily recognized. However, edit pattern and POVs are consistent, since he always return to add the same changes, creating edit wars. Highly uncivil, he uses profanity even in edit summaries.

    This problem has been peristent for 4 years now. Administrator EdJohnston is well informed about this case and has been personally dealing with his multiple anonymous IP edits in the recent months.

    I have a well documented guide of his behavior, edit pattern, confirmed past accounts as well as other evidence in my talk page. Please note that some of the evidence is from other years and sometimes is written in the form of conversations with other admins.

    At the end you will find the new accounts and IP he's using now. This situation needs to be stopped. What can be done? CheckUser to block his registered accounts? I think he'll return. AlexCovarrubias ( Talk? ) 22:48, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    It would seem you're looking for SPI, which is this-a-way. They can probably deal with this best. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:35, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Modification of a closed RAE.

    I just would like this comment to be removed http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=378076864&oldid=378076239 together with any other comment added to my statement after the RAE was closed. Moreover this comment cites a part of a section that is itself hidden and closed because "bizarre". I am not interested in sanctions or even warnings or anything like that to anyone who might have added comments to my statement after the RAE was closed. I just want these comments to be removed. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 23:06, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    It was I who added this comments. I am unsure why they would / should be removed? --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:39, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    An alternative would be to allow me to add two diffs to my statement: [99] and [100]. In my opinion, it is clear from the diffs what I meant and the insinuations of Doc James (that I twisted the words of another editor) will have no consequence. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 00:13, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah I missed the note that said these were not to be modified and thus removed my comments.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:33, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Users User:Heritagesoccerpro and User:Zombie433

    I want to report users User:Heritagesoccerpro and User:Zombie433. They seems to be a football agents related to Heritage Soccer Agency. They are creating an articles about footballers with false informations. Most statistics they inserted to the infoboxes was fake and unsourced. I spent two hours to remove fake and pov informations from some articles, but this User:Zombie433 seems to fake most articles he edited. Please do something about these two, because wikipedia isn't a place for cheaters.--Wrwr1 (talk) 23:30, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Look at this edit by Zombie433 [101], he start to fake articles in 2008, I don't want to think how many articles he faked since then. Please block this user permanently beacuase he made huge damage to wikipedia by posting fale information in articles.--Wrwr1 (talk) 00:34, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Am I missing something? I don't see what is fake about that edit. Burpelson AFB (talk) 00:45, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    He inserted in this edit false information to infobox. Number of matches Angan played in U-17 and Entente Sportive de Bingerville are Zombie433's fabrication. And he's doing the same thing to every article he's editing. Also youthyears are pure fiction. Look at my Special:Contributions/Wrwr1, since few hours I'm reverting his false information in Ivorian footballers articles. But he did the same thing to thousands of articles. Reverting all the dameges he made will take months.--Wrwr1 (talk) 01:38, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Look at this fresh article made by him: Soumahoro Johnson. And this is the same fake edit as above. Youth years are fake, matches and goals in Stella Club d'Adjamé, Pol. Andorra and US Chantilly are fake as well as in Côte d'Ivoire U-21. He's fabricating every article since 2 years, I think that only permanent ban can stop him.--Wrwr1 (talk) 02:01, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Someone with more knowledge of football than I will have to have a look at this. Burpelson AFB (talk) 03:38, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Resolved
     – Ken6175 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) blocked indef. -FASTILY (TALK) 03:11, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I am involved in something of a content dispute with a representative of a US firm producing an electrical stimulation device. This editor claims my edits at electroanalgesia are in violation of US trademark law. On my user talk page, this editor has related the opinion of that company's IP law firm, and stated that they will "strongly defend" their trademark (diff). This is a thinly-veiled legal threat in my eyes, and certainly seems worded to strike fear into me. I replied, and stated that I would be bringing this to the greater community (diff). While I am not sure if a WP:NLT block is required at this point, I would like some additional eyes on this situation. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 00:06, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree, it looks to me like they want to spam an article about a medical condition to market their product and are edit warring to try and force their preferred promotional version. I say block them per WP:NLT and direct them to OTRS. There is nothing libelous or trademark violating in your edits. Trademark law doesn't enable marketers and other company representatives to force encyclopedias to accept their preferred promotional marketing lingo. Burpelson AFB (talk) 00:43, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. Block 'em, Dan-o. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:07, 11 August 2010 (UTC) 01:07, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Indefinitely blocked for the legal threat. User cannot edit while the legal threat stands. –MuZemike 01:47, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks all, for the response! I'm going to review the page that prompted the threat in the next few days anyway. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 02:20, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Block-evading IP

    Apologies if this is the wrong venue, but there is an unregistered editor (75.51.166.54 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)) who is jumping IPs to evade blocks for edit-warring at Artsakh (originally blocked under 75.51.175.247 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)). Dabomb87 (talk) 01:09, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. and User(s) blocked. -FASTILY (TALK) 03:12, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Bad edit

    Resolved
     – Edit hidden and oversight requested. - Burpelson AFB (talk) 03:36, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    [redacted] should be looked at. We might not want to have that laying around. Dawnseeker2000 02:03, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I've emailed Oversight. For the future, please use Wikipedia:Oversight to report this kind of thing. Linking it here brings more attention to material that should get no attention at all. — Gavia immer (talk) 02:16, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    OK Thank you. Dawnseeker2000 02:25, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I went ahead and hid that revision until oversight has a look at it. —DoRD (talk) 02:52, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I emailed Oversight about it as soon as I saw it, too. I'm sure it's been taken care of by now, so marking resolved. Burpelson AFB (talk) 03:36, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I found several more of these identical edits also simply by googling the contents of the edit, but found someone on the oversight list to notify by email. Thanks for your help. Dawnseeker2000 03:41, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    For future reference, oversight requests can be emailed directly to oversight-en-wp@wikipedia.org. Thanks —DoRD (talk) 04:19, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for that tidbit. Dawnseeker2000 04:25, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=378314250"