Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive660

Violent threats via email user

Please refer future questions from this editor to the Arbitation Committee, and/or Philippe or Christine at the WMF. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 20:22, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm frankly a bit astounded at this whole situation and not sure what to make of it or how to handle it, but in a four hour span this afternoon I received a series of extremely vulgar, angry emails from (according to the footers), user:Erik fielding (with whom, as far as I know, I have never had any dealings, especially since their join date was today). The subject lines were all along the lines of "Fucking garbage with many artists's descriptions" and "Are you a fucking piece of shit, not replying to me?" and the last email of the series culminated in the following threat: "If you continue to ignore my two very nice letters (one via email and one in your sick forum), I will find you, regardless of what I have to do to accomplish that, and assuredly put you in the hospital. [...]I am totally honest and trustworthy and never lie or go back on my promises. And, I assure you that if you persist in ignoring me, refusing to reply to my questions via email, and causing me pain and suffering, I will put you, whether you are male or female, in the hospital." The email also expresses regret that it should be necessary for him to have to physically harm anyone right before Christmas. The sender provides what he claims is his real name, email address, phone number, and address. Could very well be false info or him trying to get someone else in trouble, or could be real, I guess. I'm at a medium level of freaked-out-ness right now and not sure what to do from here. Request admin action to block user? Contact police with the identifying information given in the emails? Is this something that goes to the foundation? Checkuser? Arbcom? I have the emails and can forward them as needed if someone lets me know where to send them off to. I am not attempting to inform the user of this discussion. I'm sure that makes me a bad Wikipedian and I'm aware it's not obeying the giant orange banner, but I'm a little scared right now and I will not be contacting him, period.keɪɑtɪk flʌfi (talk) 04:11, 25 December 2010 (UTC) Notified, though I suspect the account was set up solely to gain access to the emailuser function. — Gavia immer (talk) 04:23, 25 December 2010 (UTC) Risker has blocked the Erik fielding (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) account, so I will merely note that that account is surely [suggestion that turned out to be incorrect redacted]. Gavia immer (talk) 04:53, 25 December 2010 (UTC) I guess it could be them as much as anyone, Gavia immer, but what makes you think that particular user is the culprit? (ETA: I ask because the emails the user sent me did not mention that article, and were mostly focused on various musician and song articles that they thought were wrong, unlinked, or such things) keɪɑtɪk flʌfi (talk) 05:00, 25 December 2010 (UTC) He's the article creator and is probably angry that you "de-rhapsodized" it. False alarm. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:05, 25 December 2010 (UTC) No relationship between ... and the person behind the threatening account; also no reason to think that there is a relationship there. Contrary to the belief of some, threats of violence toward specific users because of article edits are quite rare. Incidentally, I concur with Chaoticfluffy that there is absolutely no benefit in notifying those who are making email threats; this is a situation where block first, ask questions later is entirely appropriate. There may also be no relationship between the username and any person with that real name; however, given the circumstances I have blocked with an informative summary, recognizing that it may require suppression in the future. Risker (talk) 05:07, 25 December 2010 (UTC) (edit conflict)Well, you know the email contents and I don't - I was guessing based on their ownership behavior on that article and the fact that it's recent enough to have inspired an attempt to contact you. That account does not seem to have an interest in music, though, so it's not them. (After ec): Risker has the bits to know what's up. I'm completely wrong. — Gavia immer (talk) 05:16, 25 December 2010 (UTC) Did the OP consider writing back with a 'de-escalating' email simply to say that s/he didn't mean to offend the other editor, that s/he doesn't own the article or control its contents, and that policy governs changes though they're open for discussion'. I don't think anyone should have to cower to threats, but sometimes ignoring someone who is yelling at you and not totally with-it is not the best short term strategy. Ocaasi (talk) 10:23, 25 December 2010 (UTC) Replying to the email would disclose your own email address to them, which is not a good idea - as well as then having more personal information about you, they could also carry on the harassment and threats by ordinary email, without having to use the Wikipedia mechanism and without being able to be blocked from it. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:43, 25 December 2010 (UTC) I don't use anything but a throwaway account for Wikipedia email, so I wouldn't be too worried about that myself. Still, it's just as reasonable a strategy to ignore it and let the higher-ups handle whatever is necessary. Ocaasi (talk) 11:22, 25 December 2010 (UTC) Yes, many people do use a throwaway account - I use a disposable one myself. But it can be inconvenient to actually have to throw it away, as quite a few of us do communicate with others using our Wikipedia email. Also, I've been working in online communities for a good few years, and I honestly think the serious nut-jobs are best ignored - the psychologies of such people are so different to most of us, that trying anything we might deem rational usually only leads to frustration -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:59, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Range block request

Resolved

See WP:ANI#Would a rangeblock work here? above. Since my last post there he's come back with another IP. I don't want to sp my talk page, but I'm going to if we can't range block - which I think we should if feasible since he's impersonating and vandalising other editors. Dougweller (talk) 15:27, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

An e-mail to the checkusers mailing list might get faster attention on this than the post here. Unfortunately from a timing perspective, also, a number of people are going to be away or busy for the holiday. Nonetheless, hopefully this can be looked at very soon by a CU with the right expertise. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:30, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

True. I took your advice and emailed the cu list, and my email was automatically rejected as evidently I'm not allowed to post to it, although it should be open to anyone to post to. Dougweller (talk) 15:51, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

That's bizarre. Please send the e-mail to me and I'll forward it, along with a request to figure out what the heck is going on. (And now I really must be out the door soon or I'll miss my train.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:01, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Three different accounts/IPs on three different ranges, albeit similar ISPs. Unless massive disruption occurs a range block doesn't seem possible. Brandon (talk) 00:35, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Internal Server error wikipedia

See WP:VPT
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Getting a error on various Wikipedia pages. IT has to do with a COM of somesort. Sorry if this is the wrong page, it most likely is, but what is it? --Hinata talk 21:36, 25 December 2010 (UTC) Weird, I've been getting this a lot too. — Moe ε 22:03, 25 December 2010 (UTC) The databases on most smaller wikis have been locked for now; synchronization issues, some diffs have been lost over the past two hours. I checked on IRC, they're working on it. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 22:06, 25 December 2010 (UTC) IRC is the best place to go with that kind of thing (#wikimedia-tech on irc.freenode.org). Alternatively, WP:VPT or bugzilla.wikimedia.org. Bugzilla should usually work even if Wikipedia itself is down. 67.117.130.143 (talk) 22:25, 25 December 2010 (UTC) I reported this on VPT hours ago. No one said anything yet. Not sure why this is at ANI. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 23:53, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Bondiveres/User:64.85.252.225/User:Sgaran

• Bondiveres (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 64.85.252.225 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• Sgaran (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I became aware of this user - and I will demonstrate that it is very likely the same user - when I blocked the IP for 72 hours for vandalism and edit warring at Paola S. Timiras on December 19. At the time I blocked only the IP because he was deleting content, and at the time I didn't know any of the story I'm about to relate. It was simply another response to an WP:AIV report, and I didn't think any more about it.

About 24 hours later, User:Bondiveres added this statement to my talk page, complaining about the IP's block and that Wim Crusio, who edits here as User:Crusio, is on some type of vendetta against him about the use of 'phenomics' instead of 'phenotype'. This goes back to these two AFDs, as far as I can tell - the IP is trying to get information into the Timiras article that was deleted by consensus at AFD. Quack, quack.

Several hours to my involvement in this mess, Bondiveres sought help and advice from User:Gnowor, and you can find their conversations here. Gnowor clearly is trying to give the editor some advice, but Bondiveres seems like a classic case of WP:IDHT. Tonight Gnowor's patience finally wore out, and he's told Bondiveres again that he's going about this the wrong way and that he's done with dealing with Bondiveres's issues.

But this is why I'm here now: yesterday, Bondiveres started plastering this diatribe on my talk page and the talk pages of several other editors. He also stuck it into Talk:Wim Crusio over several edits. I think he's trying to demonstrate that the Crusio article should be trimmed because all the Nobel laureates' articles aren't as long, or something. I responded on his talk page to not take the size of articles in KB as some weight of importance or notability.

Meanwhile, the 72-hour block of the IP expired, and after it did the IP added the same screed to the talk page of User:Colonel Warden - word for word. Quack, quack, quack.

It's obvious to me that the IP and Bondiveres are the same person. I also suspect that User:Sgaran, the Steven A. Garan of one of the AFD discussions, is the actual sockmaster here. And it's plain that he's not here to add to the encyclopedia - he's here to harass Crusio in both real life and Wikilife. I'd like a checkuser run to see if these three are indeed the same, and if there are more.

In addition, I believe we should restrict this editor at least from User:Crusio, Wim Crusio, and Paola S. Timiras. There may be more articles and problems of which I'm not aware. And it goes without saying that he's not to do this canvassing on talk or user talk pages again.

I'm notifying editors who have received that long message and may know more - Gnowor, Crusio, User:OrangeMike and User:Nuujinn. I just discovered Nuujinn opened an SPI on Sgaran in May 2010.

This is nonsense and it's spreading. It has to stop. Thanks. KrakatoaKatie 08:29, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Given the length of the discussion that started on my talk page and has now moved here, I'm guessing it's helpful for a quick summary.

I was Huggling. I noticed an edit by Bondiveres (BV) to Paola S. Timiras. It was the same as an edit that Crusio had reverted. The edit in question looked like some shameless self-plugging, along with something that defied WP:MOS guidelines on bolding the subject of the article. I reverted. Although the edit was by an IP editor, BV was the one who alerted me on my talk page that it was constructive. I took a closer look, and tried to restore the info without the MOS violation.

Crusio notified me there was history and linked me to the AfDs above. I tried to act as an unofficial mediator between Crusio & BV and also educate BV as to WP policy. Eventually, I proposed a solution that avoided any potential plugging of articles which I believe BV contributed to off-wiki that are not notable (I defer to Crusio on notability standards on scientific articles based on my only physical science class in undergrad being Astronomy). BV had insisted that the name of a device (AIMS for short) was very important to Paola S. Timiras prior to her death, and that it was not the same as the ATIS it redirects to. I proposed we change the name on the PST page to AIMS with a cite to one of the non-notable papers for reference. Crusio didn't like the cite. I figured, if BV is really looking out for PST's interests, he won't care about the loss of the cite. He did.

After this, BV started to attack the Wim Crusio article which is a bio of Crusio. Based on the early edits to the page, and subsequent block of that user, it looks like the article's creator was a student of Crusio's (possibly). Regardless, Crusio himself at one point nom'd the page for AfD and succeeded.

Bottom line, despite the gentle hand I tried to treat BV with as he is a new editor, and a fairly stern warning by myself, BV is unhappy that he can't use Wikipedia to plug his non-notable off-wiki work. He's proceeded with a vendetta against a veteran editor who (understandably) lost patience with the situation long ago, as I feel I now have.

I sincerely apologize to the community if my handling of the situation has resulted in this escalating to this point. Please understand I intervened with best intentions. I thought I was dealing with two brilliant and reasonable individuals who would accept a fair solution (and Crusio did). In the future, when I see myself investing this much time in a matter with little progress, I'll hand it over to the pros.

Based on my time invested, I don't intend to return to this discussion, as I feel that is all the background I have. If more information is required, feel free to notify me on my talk page and I'll happily return. Thank you in advance for your time.--Gnowor^T_C 09:07, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

BV's actions seem similar to Sgaran's to me, but then, the ips in the SPI seemed similar to Sgaran as well, so take that with a grain of salt. This conversation may be useful for comparison, but other than that I have nothing to add really. --Nuujinn (talk) 12:27, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Here's a further demonstration that I don't know when to quit. Interesting tidbit I just discovered: The Paola S. Timiras article that the IP and BV are trying to add info to was actually created by Sgaran. Perhaps this user is unaware of WP:OWN as well?--Gnowor^T_C 12:35, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks Katie for taking this to ANI. I had some tough traveling days here with only sketchy Internet access and only just now got back to my office (you may have heard about the travel problems in France). I think Katie and Gnowor summarized the situation very aptly. Gnowor was very patient in trying to get BV to behave in a more constructive way (see User talk:Gnowor/P.S. Timiras, which also has links to the AfDs that are at the basis of this affair). I have removed BVs diatribe from my own talk page. I would appreciate if this personal attack could be removed elsewhere, too, but as involved party will not do this myself. As for my bio, this mess illustrates why I took an earlier bio to AfD. Fortunately for me, that previous bio missed a lot of info, so that the AfD succeeded. I did not take the current bio to AfD, as my experience with academics AfDs tells me that this time around, that wouldn't fly. Despite itching fingers, I try not to edit it and hope some other editors will put it on their watchlist and keep an eye on it. As for its size, I couldn't care less, as long as what is in the bio is accurate. Thanks. --Crusio (talk) 15:54, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

First I have been asked by Garan to be an advocate for him since he no longer has the time nor the energy to address what has happened. Second I would like to thank Gnowor for his time and effort in this matter. And now I would like to address the issue at hand. This entire issue was started when Wim Crusio's actions failed to redirect the wiki entry Phenomics to Phenotype on April 27, 2010, please look at the edit log for Phenomics to verify the dates and actions. Please look at the change log for Phenomics and you will observe Crusio repeatedly tried to redirect the site and failed. After Wim Crusio lost the "battle" to redirect Phenomics to Phenotype, he started a vendetta against my friend Garan, who advocated for keeping the page, and as of today the page is still there. After this loss Wim Crusio took a sudden interest in deleting/redirecting/removing content from the following entries: Automated Imaging Microscope System, Paola_S._Timiras, Aging Research Centre. I am not sure what the afore mentioned wiki pages have to do with "Phenomics"? Crusio even admitted that "There is a connection", these are his own words. A very long discussion took place with Gnowor regarding the restoration of information that Crusio deleted and as of this time of these comments, the restored item, is still on the site. Wim Crusio has removed quite a lot of information from wiki and this is all documented. He has deleted this information under the false pretense, just as he did with the information Gnowor restored. I have tried to restore the information Crusio has deleted but he has blocked every attempt but for one. Why is it that when Gnowor adds information to a wiki site and when the same information is added by BV it is considered "continued vandalism"? Crusio even removed the following item that was well referanced: "In 2001 at age 78, Timiras and her former Ph.D. student Paul Segall founded the Center for Research and Education on Aging at the University of California, Berkeley[5] of which she served as the first chair". Why would he do this? I am not sure if Gnowor wants to spend another hour of his time on defending this addition and that is perfectly understandable. I started to wonder of Crusio practiced a similar level of editing on his own site. I noticed that his own wiki page, Wim Crusio is more than twice the size of an average Nobel Laureate in Physiology or Medicine from the past 14 years. If people think that Wim Crusio should have a wiki page larger than that of any of the previous 32 Nobel Laureates in Physiology or Medicine, then that is great! I would support that my self. But let the discussion take place, do not delete the question and the responses to them. My posting of this question was deleted by him, and now no discussion can take place regarding this matter. I thought wiki was a place where good information that is referenced, can be posted, so that others can learn from this information, and discussions can take place with out fear of being stopped. I would like to know how I have restore referenced information that Crusio has deleted.? Without him blocking every step? And without people like Gnowor having to spend a great deal of time backing me up? Bondiveres (talk) 21:59, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

The issue is not the size of article, which has been explained to you as irrelevant, nor is it the use of phenomics and phenotype. The issue is your behavior. You are causing problems by canvassing, edit warring, and stalking User:Crusio. It's been explained to you that your information is not notable. Stop it. KrakatoaKatie 23:09, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Regarding my success where you have failed, BV, I'd like to think that's from following WP guidelines about editing("being bold"), reverting, and discussing. You made an edit, I reverted, you and I discussed. I made an edit you and I agreed upon, Crusio reverted, then the three of us discussed. Where you're running into trouble is that when the discussion doesn't go your way, you've tried to insert non-relevant material in order to avoid the decision in the AfDs (prior to my involvement). When the discussion didn't go your way our interactions, you've proceeded with the canvassing, stalking, and editwarring that Katie mentioned.

Katie, Crusio, and myself could be contributing this time to improving this and other areas of the encyclopedia. Rather than joining us in that bold endeavor, you hang on to the hope that you can get your way with this one specific set of articles. You're running into trouble because we're trying to make the encyclopedia better, and you're trying to get what you want.

Additionally, regarding your size of Wim Crusio argument: I believe you have a flawed premise. That premise is that a more important article should be longer. If we accept that premise and act upon it immediately, I'd argue that Wikipedia would be immediately blank. We'd have to have a discussion about what article is most important, 2nd most, 3rd most, etc, and then proceed with restoring pages and trimming to appropriate size. And given that I don't believe the 100k+ active editors are going to come to an agreement on that any time soon, I believe that Wikipedia would remain blank for quite a long time. Wikipedia is a work in progress. Viewing your argument about size of article's in the best light, your conclusion is that Nobel Laureates should have longer pages than Wim Crusio. So take it upon yourself to make them longer. If Katie, Crusio, myself, or many other experienced editors were to make that argument, that is what we'd do. Why? Because it improves the encyclopedia, rather than taking away from it by deleting content from an article.

You're a scientist, BV. I guarantee you're a lot smarter than a lot of the people that Katie and I deal with when we normally fight vandalism. As such, I ask you to take a step back and evaluate your actions. Are you doing what's in the best interest of the encyclopedia? Or are you doing what's in the best interests of BV/Sgaran? I've spent the time engaging in this dialog with you because unlike users that make edits like this I believe you have valuable contributions that you can make to the encyclopedia if you choose to do so. Whether you choose to do so is up to you.--Gnowor^T_C 23:57, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you once again for your great comments Gnowor and for your time. I completely agree with what you said regarding the fact, that it is better to contribute to the wiki encyclopedia than to delete as has been the case with Crusio and the afore mentioned pages. I am sorry for bringing him into this again, but this is why we are all here. The only reason I mention the page size issue, was to provoke a response. It appears I have done so. Please read what James Cantor said: "The problem you are describing seems to me to be a reason to add good material to the pages on your list.". James mirrors, what you said, in that it is better to add information than delete it, and once again I agree whole heartedly. But I am afraid that puts me into a bit of a catch 22 situation, and takes us back to when a certain person removed the content for the Automated Imaging Microscope System. Details of the system have been published in many peer reviewed journals, and I would like to share information about this system to the rest of the wiki community. But Crusio can blocked this, even though hard copy publications have published details of this system he does not want to allow the information to be put on wikipedia. He has made repeated attempts to suppress this information. I could play the same game and remove information from his page and say: "The information in the page was self promoting and superfluous and many other things" but as you said this would just deplete wikipedia. I would like to restore the page for the Automated Imaging Microscope System. Listed are the journals in which details of the AIMS system and the it's results are published:

Long list of journals cited by BV, removed by Katie, restored by Gnowor

Estrogen receptor-alpha immunoreactivity in the arcuate hypothalamus of young and middle-aged female mice; Neuro Endocrinol Lett. 2010 Feb 16;31(1):15. Age-dependent loss of insulin-like growth factor-1 receptor immunoreactive cells in the supraoptic hypothalamus is reduced in calorically restricted mice; Neurology & Neurosurgery, Para. 488, Page 99, Sec. 8, Vol 152.2, 2007 Novel methods in computer-assisted tissue analysis: Customized regional targeting of both cytoplasmic and nuclear-stained tissue; Experimental Gerontology, Volume 42, Issues 1-2, January-February 2007, Pages 141-142 Tracking changes in hypothalamic IGF-1 sensitivity with aging and caloric restriction; Experimental Gerontology, Volume 42, Issues 1-2 , January-February 2007, Pages 11-12. Insulin-like growth factor-1 receptor immunoreactive cells are selectively maintained in the paraventricular hypothalamus of calorically restricted mice; Int J Dev Neurosci. 2007 Feb;25(1):23-8 Age-dependent loss of insulin-like growth factor-1 receptor immunoreactive cells in the supraoptic hypothalamus is reduced in calorically restricted mice; Int J Dev Neurosci. 2006 Nov;24(7):431-6. A study of insulin-like growth factor-I receptor immunoreactivity in the supraoptic nucleus of young and old female B6D2F1 mice; FASEB Journal, April 2006, 357.5 Caloric restriction reduces cell loss and maintains estrogen receptor-alpha immunoreactivity in the pre-optic hypothalamus of female B6D2F1 mice; Neuro Endocrinol Lett. 2005 Jun;26(3):197-203. A survey of estrogen receptor-alpha immunoreactivity in the hypothalamus of young, old, and old-calorie restricted female B6D2F1 mice; Experimental Gerontology, Volume 39, Issues 11-12, November-December 2004, Page 1771 A comparison of estrogen receptor-alpha immunoreactivity in the arcuate hypothalamus of young and middle-aged C57BL6 female mice; Experimental Gerontology, Volume 38 (2003), Issues 1-2, Page 220 Creating Three-Dimensional Neuronal Maps of the Mouse Hypothalamus Using an Automated Imaging Microscope System; Experimental Gerontology, Volume 35 numbers 9-10, December 2000, page 1421 Automated Imaging Microscope System; Linux Journal 2000, Issue 70, Februrary, Page 32-35 Why is it, that the details of the Automated Imaging Microscope System are published in these journals and yet details of the AIMS system are not fit for wikipedia? Is it not worthy because I only listed 12 publications and the minimum is 15? I only say this tung and cheek. Or is it that wikipedia has higher standards than the following journals: Experimental Gerontology, Neuro Endocrinology, Internation Journal of Developmental Neurosciene, FASEB Journal, Linux Journal, Neurology & Neurosurgery If the answer is yes, then I think that says volumes about the people making the decisions to remove content from wikipedia.

I am sorry for my tone and if seems to be a little too direct, and if I have provided too much information, I only did so, to provide as much information as I have available; but when I see injustice I think it is the obligation of all of us to shed light on it and to educate and to inform, and I feel that is the best way to go forward. Bondiveres (talk) 02:18, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I've blanked the section you added (restored within collapse by Gnowor), BV, and it's now apparent you just don't understand. KrakatoaKatie 02:58, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Discussion on topic ban for User:Bondiveres/User:64.85.252.225/User:Sgaran

Based on his lack of understanding and continued refusal to abide by WP:N, WP:NPOV, and WP:V, and his ongoing harassment of User:Crusio, I propose a topic ban for Bondiveres and his IP from Wim Crusio, Talk:Wim Crusio, Paola S. Timiras, automated tissue image analysis, AIMS microscope and their related articles, broadly construed. He should also avoid interaction with User:Crusio and is not to edit the pages or talk pages of articles Crusio edits.

I need a checkuser to determine if these three accounts are related. If so, he must agree to edit from only that account.

Since it's the holidays, I may timestamp this to keep discussion going. If admins want to reword or change my proposal, propose away. I'm very tired and I need to rest a while. Thanks. :-) KrakatoaKatie 03:04, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Hello Katie,

I thought the purpose of wiki was to share information and not to suppress it. A "Discussion on topic ban" this sounds like something that takes place in China or North Korea. Please restore my comments and let this discussion take it's natural course. I am not sure if your actions are what Jimmy Wales had in mind when he created Wikipedia. Please do not suppress the free flow of information and thoughts. If your reply to my statements are "you just don't understand", you might at least be a little more specific and engage in a civil discussion that pertains to the topics at hand. I have taken the time to discuss the events that are outlined and I think I have brought up a number of valid points. I thought people such as your self would be willing to talk about these points so a mutual understanding can be reached. I am afraid the statement "you just don't understand" is not very constructive. Please outline your point of view and if I am unable to dispute your statements I will, agree with you, and I hope the reverse is true as well. All the best. Happy Holidays. I await your reply. Bondiveres (talk) 03:50, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support see the following:

I removed the aforementioned content from the Wim Crusio talk page ---,[1], and BV restored it [2]. He began a disscussion on my talk page [3], to which I responded [4]. I again removed the irrelevant personal commentary and attack from the Wim Crusion Talk Page [5].

Hence, based on the discssion in the previous section, and what I have added here, I think an indefinite topic ban is in order, until this user is able to state their case for having the ban lifted. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 03:44, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Hello Steve

Once again, the reason that this entire series of evens has taken place is because of deletion of information. I had hoped the free flow of thoughts and opinions and allowed to be expressed. I fear this may not be the case here. I would hope if someone disagrees with something can freely discuss issues without fear of being censored. If you disagree with someone, then please says so and give the reasons and less the other person reply and so on. That is how a civil society is supposed to function, even one that is online. I await your reply.

I did read your comments on your talk page and can I assume that this is the correct place to discuss this topic and if it is, then why did Katie place a ban on it? If this is not the correct place please let me know where the correct place is. Bondiveres (talk) 04:13, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support per free speech/China/Korea arguments here. And Bondiveres, if you disrupt this discussion with attacks like that again, I'll block you temporarily so the discussion can proceed in a reasonable manner. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:13, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Sarek thank you so much,

Thank you for a well put statement. Please tell me how else I can refer to system, where comments are removed from an open discussion? I am open to all suggestions. I only made reference to the afore mentioned regimes, because this is type of information deletion and blockage that takes place on a routine bases, and has been in the news of late. I would welcome your suggestions on how to classify this action. All the Best. And thank you once again from a well put comment. I await your reply. Bondiveres (talk) 04:25, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support:

By directing BV away from this given topic, it will give him an opportunity to constructively contribute to other areas of the encyclopedia and learn WP policy. Refinement of Steve Quinn's application for lifting of the ban: After several months BV of active constructive participation in other areas of the encyclopedia according to policy, I think that BV should have the opportunity to argue from policy for the lifting of this ban. I propose this as a one time opportunity, with a bad faith request by BV of the lift of this ban being grounds for this ban becoming permanent.

Additional IPs with similar behavior and Articles that might be subject to Topic ban:

(This info found via Article Blamer upon inspection of Articles currently on WP that have cites similar to the ones used by BV)

Extended content

71.133.206.3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) Additions of similar links to Preoptic area[6](2007), and Insulin-like growth factor 1 receptor[7](2006). Edit history also includes edits to Paola S. Timiras(PST) and AIMS, although edits outside of this subject area as well. Public computer? Last edits by IP are to PST in 2/2009. 4.42.226.40 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) Addition of similar links to Estrogen receptor[8](2006). Edits to Phenomics, Ageing, Estrogen receptor, Calorie restriction, Insulin-like growth factor 1 receptor. Last edits May 2006. 84.63.16.247 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) Addition of similar link to Australian Plant Phenomics Facility[9](11/2010). Only edit by this user. In addition, Sgaran had this edit to Calorie restriction. I realize the first two IPs are too stale for a block, and the single edit by the last IP isn't very troublesome. Still, based on similar edit pattern, I propose the following pages be specifically included in the topic ban (although they probably would've already fallen under a broadly construed ban): Australian Plant Phenomics Facility Estrogen receptor Ageing Estrogen receptor Calorie restriction Insulin-like growth factor 1 receptor Preoptic area

Thanks for everyone's time on this.--Gnowor^T_C 04:33, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

• Inspection of BVs edit history shows not a single edit that was not related to the Sgaran walled garden or made to harass me. A topic ban would therefore in practice not be much difference from a block. I also add that BV has "seeded" his personal attacks against me over several pages and I repeat that I would greatly appreciate if somebody would remove these. Thanks. --Crusio (talk) 13:49, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Note restored after redaction by BV.--Gnowor^T_C 18:14, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Gnowor, perhaps you would be so kind to restore the redaction that was made by Katie as well. Crusio's comments are false and inflammatory. I would like to place this on the record and hope that these statements are not redacted. Crusio's false statements of walled garden's are personal attacks on me and I strongly protest, and I wish them to be removed. I can not stress this more strongly. I can not abide his presumptuous and false statements. Bondiveres (talk) 18:49, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Done. I believe that Katie's removal was to try to keep this discussion short and readable rather than listing several journals. You've asked, I've restored. Your removal was another attack on the user you're accused of attacking.--Gnowor^T_C 19:01, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Gnowor for restoring a part of this section. Crusio's statements regarding walled gardens are clear attacks on me and I would like him to stop this reprehensible behavior. I find it perplexing how a man who is purportedly a Director at a french research institute can make false statements and put them on the record. And the evidence of these actions are written by him just above my comments here, and the statements are signed by him as well, and therefore there is no doubt of his guilt. I can not understand how someone like that can engage in such actions. I ask him most kindly in light of the holiday season to reconsider his behavior and to act more becoming of a person of his rank. I ask him most sincerely to stop his attacks. Thanks. Bondiveres (talk) 19:10, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Walled garden is a technical term used here on WP that you can read about via this link. It is not an attack. His statement that you don't have a single edit outside of the arena is accurate. His accusation about your dissemination of attacks on him and the article about him are also accurate according to your edit history.

More importantly, your continued contributions to this discussion focus on Crusio. This discussion is currently about your actions, and in every post, you try to deflect by saying "he did it first". Regardless of who started what/when, you need to take responsibility for your actions, which are in violation of a number of concrete Wikipedia policies, and for continuing to take up the community's time.

Also, notice: Despite having every opportunity to present your case via this discussion, users with no prior involvement are siding against you. This should be another reason to reflect on your actions.--Gnowor^T_C 19:52, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support topic ban BV's conduct seems to be the problem at the moment. He appears to be using this internet site as a WP:FORUM for making personal attacks on an editor through his real life position in the CNRS. That is completely at odds with the purpose of wikipedia. Mathsci (talk) 19:48, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

One more note. Crusio's dislike of my comments regarding the size of his personal wiki was greeted with thanks by the user Katie. She wrote the following after a very nice comment that explained the issue, she wrote: "Thanks again for the message." Please refer to my talk page in order to see her comments, they are very well thought out and written down. Thank you Katie. Bondiveres (talk) 19:57, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

• It should be clear to all involved and uninvolved editors by now that BV is just playing with us. Somebody block him already, this has gone on long enough. --Crusio (talk) 20:03, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Bondiveres, why don't you go see how many times I've typed 'Thanks again for the message.' It's called 'courtesy', not 'I agree with everything you've ever said'. KrakatoaKatie 20:05, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Comment see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Sgaran#24_December_2010. I was so tired I forgot to hit the save button and request the CheckUser. That's fixed now. :-) KrakatoaKatie 20:02, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Dear Crusio, Please do not refer to me as "this guy", I take the greatest offense, from your comments. I can not imagine using such a term, in order to refer to you, because I have more respect for the people that have taken time to look at the issue at hand. Once again I would hope that others can see the level of your discourse. I ask most kindly to change your tone. All the best. Bondiveres (talk) 20:14, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

BV's manner of posting comments here is unhelpul. Using the phrase "this guy" was clearly not an attack. Mathsci (talk) 20:19, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Mathsci, I beg to differ. It is a most offensive form of disrespect. I am quite certain you would not refer to Dr. Wim Crusio as "this guy", I most certainly would not. Please comment. Bondiveres (talk) 20:38, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

That is an unreasonable interpretation, particularly when referring to non-native English speakers. Mathsci (talk) 20:47, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

"This guy" is slightly pointed slang, but it's nowhere close to a breach of civility. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:50, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Maybe Crusio was listening to Jimi Hendrix and got in a romantic mood ;-). Anyway it's about the last thing I'd get upset about. 67.117.130.143 (talk) 06:57, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

I would like to say that I have devoted a great deal of time and energy in order to participate in this forum. I respect all those that have taken the time to do so as well. I find it very very offensive that Wim Crusio says otherwise. There are many other activities that I could be engaged in at this time of year, but I feel very strongly that I can not just bow to injustice. Once again I ask you please stop your attacks on me and try to act more in accords with the members of this forum. All the best. Bondiveres (talk) 20:27, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

This is not a WP:FORUM. You have been told that on multiple occasions. Mathsci (talk) 20:34, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I sincerely hope your next comment, BV, responds to the last two lines of this post by me.--Gnowor^T_C 20:36, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Good to hear from you Gnowor. I tried to look for the two lines you referred to, but I can not see which are the once the you mean. Please post this here, or just post a few words so I can search for them in your link. Thanks Bondiveres (talk) 20:44, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Comments below.--Gnowor^T_C 20:52, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Extended content

More importantly, your continued contributions to this discussion focus on Crusio. This discussion is currently about your actions, and in every post, you try to deflect by saying "he did it first". Regardless of who started what/when, you need to take responsibility for your actions, which are in violation of a number of concrete Wikipedia policies, and for continuing to take up the community's time. Also, notice: Despite having every opportunity to present your case via this discussion, users with no prior involvement are siding against you. This should be another reason to reflect on your actions.--GnoworTC 19:52, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Propose Full Ban

Despite the situation escalating to a Topic Ban discussion, BV continues to focus on matters unrelated to the Topic Ban. I propose this now be escalated to a full permanent ban. I feel that a permanent ban is appropriate as BV's only contributions have been to matters related to this discussion. I also propose that users associated with BV according to the results of the checkuser be included in the ban.--Gnowor^T_C 20:47, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Support:

1. As nom.--Gnowor^T_C 20:47, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
2. I honestly thought a topic ban would do it, but he just doesn't understand how much disruption he's causing and he shows no signs of backing off. He's made no article edits since October and he's using the servers to cause trouble instead of improve the articles he claims don't have enough detail. We've tried to show him the light but it's futile, it seems. KrakatoaKatie 21:45, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
3. Per almost everybody else commenting here, BV simply does not get it. His attitude towards wikipedia seems to be disruptive at the moment. Unfortunately an indefinite community ban seems to be the only alternative at this stage. Mathsci (talk) 21:50, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
4. I have no prior involvement with this editor or this specific issue, but I've read the commentary here and on various talk pages referenced here. Either BV doesn't get what he's been told over and over again, or he's deliberately ignoring it to press his agenda, but in neither case does it help the project to have such a person editing. My feeling is that unless he shows immediately that he's capable of editing in a collegial manner according to our policies, he should be shown the door until he can prove that he can. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:57, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Oppose:

Neutral/Comment:

1. I respectfully disagree. I have put forth a large body of information that supports my position. I am willing to answer any questions that are put forth, but I only ask this they be put in a respectfully manner. I have taken a great deal of time to provide as much information as possible. And ask that you consider both sides to this issue equally. All the best. Bondiveres (talk) 21:02, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

It so happens that people who edit Wikipedia and are wiki-notable tend to have more detailed biographic articles than those who don't edit here. But Bondiveres has been harassing Crusio about this issue and a few other issues, for instance proposing for deletion a bunch of biographies started by Crusio (e.g. [10] [11] there are some more in his edit history.) I find these actions troubling. If Bondiveres cannot find something else worthy of his attention on Wikipedia shortly, an indef block or ban for harassment seem inevitable and warranted. Tijfo098 (talk) 21:22, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Tijfo098, as you can imagine I would like nothing better than have to reply to comments that are posted here. But the fact is, is that comments are being posted here and I assume that you expect a reply to them. Please do not chide me for responding to comments directed towards me, and say me time would be better spent updating wiki. I would like very much to do so. I hope you understand this, I think most people would. 64.85.252.225 (talk) 23:56, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

• "I would like very much to do so". Well, then start doing that and show us what you can. I have worked today, went shopping, posted here on this board, and in between created 3 new articles and edited/expanded several others. You can do that, too. --Crusio (talk) 00:09, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
  • So you're admitting, IP, that you and BV are one and the same? Because if not, your comment here is a little odd since you haven't responded to anything as yet. KrakatoaKatie 01:27, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

I would not support a permanent ban, because BV is very capable of making useful contribution here, once he learns not to make edits on his own projects and not to engage in quarrels with other editors. But at this point I see no prospect that a topic ban will work, for too many other pages are getting involved. In order to prevent further disruption, and what seems to amount to harassment of at least one of our best editors, I suggest a block for one month, including ip addresses used, and the ip address above. At the end of that time, if the ed. should return and make useful contributions--great. If he continues as he is doing now, a permanent ban will be in order. I am slightly involved as I closed one of the afds in question, so I ask any other admin to review and do the block. DGG ( talk ) 00:11, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

First I would like to thank Crusio for his comments and I agree with him, and as a result I would like to propose the following:

1. I will honor and adhere to a 6 month self imposed moratorium on any changes to the wiki pages that are in question.
2. I will devote my time and energy to upgrading other wiki pages.
3. In 6 months time I will start a dialog with Crusio and work with him in order to arrive at a status quo that both of us can agree with.

I sincerely hope this proposal meets with your approval, and if so, I hope all of us can consider this matter closed. All the best. Bondiveres (talk) 02:57, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

• BV, I am personally willing to accept this (let's keep the spirit of Christmas alive). However, you might first convince us of your good faith by removing the personal attacks on me that you put on several talk pages (insofar they haven't been removed yet). If you do that, I will support this solution and I'd even be willing to help you edit articles in the coming 6 months with advice on WP policies/habits/guides (but there are many good editors all over the place, so I'd understand it if you'd rather work with them than with me). However, despite all holiday spirit, I do want to add that I have no more patience with personal attacks, so at the first recurrence, we'd be back here. I don't like to be at ANI (for one, all the changes here clutter up my watchlist), so I do hope that you're sincere: WP can use more academics willing to share their knowledge. --Crusio (talk) 11:45, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

• I agree that BV should remove the inappropriate material placed on several talk pages. After that I support BV's three part proposal, with one exception. Although, Crusio is willing to help out, there are many good editors from whom advice and guidance can be sought. Hence, there is no need for BV to focus soley on Crusio for this, especially given the situation. I have to admit I have misgivings about BV "starting a dialog with Crusio and working with him in order to arrive at a status quo that both of them can be happy with". The status quo appears to be is Wikipedia guidelines and policies, and from experience I know that Crusio supports these. Editing is not really about what certain editors are happy with; and being in agreement with guidelines and policies is satisfying. I am sorry to bring that up, but in advance it may be best to bring it out in the open. Problematic editors in the past have used this "happy" justification, or a some similar variation, for contradictory editing and argument. I bring it up so Crusio, and other editors don't get caught up in having to fend off additions or deletions that each can be "happy with", as a justification. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 16:32, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

• Wise words, Steve. You're right that just a compromise between BV and me would not be enough to restore any of the deleted material. After all, I didn't delete that stuff, I proposed it for deletion and after hearing the arguments from both sides, the community decided to delete. Anyway, let's see whether BV shows good will and removes those personal attacks. If that shouldn't happen, then I won't have much faith in this solution either. --Crusio (talk) 16:48, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

• I started removing the inappropriate material from the User talk pages. I had to make sure I have definite grounds for removal. My justification is "Remove inappropriate content. Please see edit history and content removal per WP:TPNO, and User:Bondiveres/User:64.85.252.225/User:Sgaran, specifically no personal attacks, and do not misrepresent other people. It might also be considered vandalism.

So everyone can see what I am doing, here is the first removal [12]. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 17:46, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

As per Crusio's request, I have initiated the removal of the material he has requested, starting at his talk page. I then went to a subsection of Gnowor's page and the message says "The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it.". Please advise me as to what to do regarding the afore mentioned message. I await your reply. but in the mean time I will continue the clean up. Bondiveres (talk) 18:21, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

I have removed all the material I could find, excluding the material in the Gnowor subsection, because of the message stated above. I will deleted the material, but I await your instructions on this matter. Bondiveres (talk) 19:12, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

My apologies that I haven't been able to participate in this discussion over the past couple days. Been a bit busy with Christmas. I'm assuming that BV is referring to the dialog here which was immediately antecedent to the discussion here at ANI. I put an archive box on it, but if Crusio would prefer that the content on that page be removed, BV can feel free to do so. Additionally, per all of my previous comments, I'm looking forward to BV constructively contributing to the encyclopedia. I do agree with the modification that changes to the contested pages should be done by consensus and not by BV & Crusio alone. Hope everyone is enjoying the holidays!--Gnowor^T_C 20:16, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

I have also changed one of the points of my proposal, and replaced the words: "happy with" to "agree with". I reference to Steve Quinn's and Wm Crusio's comments. When two people agree upon a compromise, it is not always the case that one or both are "happy" with the agreement, but it is something that they can accept in order to move forward. Bondiveres (talk) 20:29, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Gnowor for your guidance, I have removed the material. In response to your comments regarding an agreement between Crusio and my self. This is to avoid the voluminous amount of discourse that has taken place thus far regarding the contentious wiki pages. If we can agree on the content of a page or if it should be re-instated, it then will be commented on by the larger Wiki community. I very much would like to avoid, and I am sure Wim agrees with me, this endless stream of content that does not enlighten the general public. Bondiveres (talk) 21:15, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

I also apologize for coming in late today (Santa brought Katie one of these and she's still setting it up! such problems Katie has, I know... :-D) Looks like the spirit of Christmas has sprinkled charity and goodness all around! That's what I hoped would happen by bringing this to the attention of the community, and the community didn't let me down. BV, I could give you a kiss, and I'll shut up now so I don't mess up the work! Yay! :-) KrakatoaKatie 02:58, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Katie, but please don't tell my wife. :-) To all; it's getting late here and it's time that I get to sleep since my better half is already partaking in that activity as I write these words, and tomorrow we head for the mountains for a few days of skiing. I wish all a very happy new years. Bondiveres (talk) 05:07, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Glenn Beck Article

I believe that the Glenn Beck article page is the subject of editbullying and a place where many well meaning editors are driven off by partisans on both sides. There is a small group of regular editors there, who essentially police the page, and remove reasonable content. Given the controversial and public nature of the subject, I suggest more rigid third party mediation on that page. As it is now, it is essentially impossible to contribute anything meaningful. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 20:01, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Has mediation been considered, either via the Mediation Cabal or the more formal Mediation Committee? –MuZemike 03:51, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

The other participant in the Glenn Beck discussion refuses to enter into mediation. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 22:04, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Canvassing, personal attacks, and a general lack of attempting other solutions does not leave me inclined to participate in any such process with the editor.Cptnono (talk) 22:07, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Then the article continues to be at the mercy of Cptono's blockage. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 02:34, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

You do wonders for my ego. And you continue to canvass, BTW. Cptnono (talk) 02:38, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Since no one has done this today...

Merry Christmas! Thanks to everyone for helping keep us sane over the past year and for allowing for fun on this noticeboard. Have a great holidays! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 17:05, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Off topic canvassing. This should be a the miscellaneous village pump, you won't get any support by canvassing here. </sarcasm> Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 18:57, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Oppose Cavalry's off-topic vote (for this user is clearly voting, which violates at least 18 acronyms that I can't be troubled to remember now) and encourage Santa and his elves to leave Cavalry a very large lump of coal. :P Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 19:36, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

On the 1st day of Wikipediamas, my stalker linked to me: a WP:CANVASS!

On the 2nd day of Wikipediamas, my stalker linked to me: 2 WP:VPMs, and a WP:CANVASS!

On the 3rd day of Wikipediamas, my stalker linked to me: 3 WP:AAANIDs, 2 WP:VPMs, and a WP:CANVASS!

for the curious, AAANID is similar to WP:AAAD and WP:AADD.

On the 4th day of Wikipediamas, my stalker linked to me: 4 WP:CIVILs, 3 WP:AAANIDs, 2 WP:VPMs, and a WP:CANVASS!

On the 5th day of Wikipediamas, my stalker linked to me: 5 WP:NPAs! 4 WP:CIVILs, 3 WP:AAANIDs, 2 WP:VPMs, and a WP:CANVASS!

I'm out of ideas now. (X! · talk)  · @988  ·  22:43, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Aye, and a Merry Yaksmas to all! —DoRD (talk) 22:53, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Merry Christmas to all and to all "where's the ham?" :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:40, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

I suppose that "WP:AAANID" stands for "Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in A.N.I. discussions". X-D Who knows, we may even need something like that. :-D ;-) [|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 03:07, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, everyone! Hope Santa was kind to you all! Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 06:12, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

RfC has been closed prematurely

The RfC, which was started by me on Dec 22 [13], has been closed on Dec 24 [14]. The user who closed this RfC referred to the fact that initial discussion started on Dec 2 [15]. This rationale is flawed in my opinion, because the normal RfC duration is 30 days (calculated from the first timestamp after the RfC template), this dispute has not been finished and the discussion was not dormant. More importantly, the RfC has not achieved its initial goal, namely, the outside input was minimal by the moment of its closure (mostly those users who took part in the previous discussion expressed their opinion there). My requests to self-revert the RfC closure have been ignored [16][17].
In my opinion, the RfC, which has been closed prematurely, should be reopened and the user who closed this RfC should not be considered as an uninvolved user any more.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:38, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Please tell the whole picture, you started this topic on December 2, you made no progress let the discussion be archived because you where the sole person with your point of view which goes against policy. You re-started the same discussion again and others have stated its just beating a dead horse which I agree and why I closed it. WP:SNOW may also be relevant too. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 20:09, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Note: I commented on both discussions. Yep. The issue has been debated on and off for 23 days (for anyone else looking, this was the previous discussion) and practically every editor who has commented has explained (in some cases, they've had to do this multiple times) why your proposed addition to NFCI is not tenable. Clearly, if someone thinks there is still useful debate to be had, then re-open it, but I think that the closer's rationale that WP:DEADHORSE is being invoked here is correct. Black Kite (t) (c) 20:11, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

The RfC is supposed to proceed according to some formal rules, and these rules state the time is calculated based on the the first timestamp after the RfC template. In addition, the reference to the discussion that lasted from Dec 2 is quite illogical: obviously the reason behind RfC (that, by the way, was initiated following the advise of another participant of this discussion, Hammersoft) was to involve new users, whereas most users who expressed their opinions during this two-days-long RfC were the same users who participated in the previous discussion. In addition, from my previous discussions on other talk pages I know that the point of view expressed during this RfC is not shared by a significant part of WP community, however, I couldn't address directly to those users, because that would be canvassing. However, we definitely need to give enough time for these users to join this discussion.
Obviously, the RfC hadn't achieved its primary goals by the moment of its closure, so to close it now is both against the rules and common sense. --Paul Siebert (talk) 20:28, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

As I said, I wouldn't object to it being re-opened on purely procedural grounds, but I do feel that the discussion has run its course, because the RfC has just ended up re-hashing all the viewpoints from the previous (longer) discussion - with the same result. (Incidentally, if you really wanted more eyes on the issue, it would've been better to post it at WP:CENT). Black Kite (t) (c) 21:09, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that during the discussion about the same subject on other talk pages the opinions differ considerably from those expressed during this discussion. Based on that I conclude the preliminary results of this RfC hardly reflects the opinion of WP community.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:20, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

I think the close was fine, per Black Kite. From what I've seen, there is nowhere near consensus to change the NFCC, and this has been made clear since earlier this month. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 21:11, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

From your comment I conclude you hardly read the discussion carefully. I never proposed to change NFCC.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:20, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Effectively you are, though, because your proposed NFCI#9 (and remember NFCI is only a guideline, not a policy) would conflict with various parts of NFCC, notably #8. Black Kite (t) (c) 21:30, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

I am afraid you are wrong. I explicitly wrote that the proposed NFCI #9 (as well as already existing examples) is supposed to deal with only those images that meet all NFCC criteria, including the criterion No 8, so such conflicts are impossible by definition. The problem is that current NFCI list covers not all major cases of acceptable use of non-free images, and this leads to prolonged disputes on other talk opages.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:43, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

If an image meets all the NFCC criteria, including 3a and 8, why does it matter if that type of image is explicitly mentioned at NFCI anyway, though? And NFCI is only a guideline anyway. Could you give an example of such a dispute over an image that meets all of NFCC? Black Kite (t) (c) 22:14, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Good question. The reason is simple. I faced the situations when the NFCI #8 has been used as a pretext for removal of non-free images that had a strong contextual connection to the sourced discussion in the article's text and served as an illustration for significant historical events. These images were removed because they were not a subject of commentaries per se, despite the fact that NFCC were met (and despite the fact that NFCI is a non-exhaustive list of the examples of acceptable use of NF images, so if they do not meet NFCI #8, it is not an argument per se). To avoid similar problems in future, and because the cases described by me are the examples of acceptable use (per NFCC policy), I propose to include this example into the NFCI list. If someone believes that NFCI #9 can be misused (only good things are possible to misuse), let's re-word it to make it stricter.
In addition, the WP:NFC#UUI example #5, that de facto prohibits to use non-free images as illustration of historically significant events, is in direct contradiction with the Foundation's stance on the non-free content and applies the restrictions on the usage of non-free photos that do not exist in the policy. We need to re-examine this issue and to decide if that really serves WP purposes.
I would say, the main advantage of the NFCI #8/WP:NFC#UUI #5 is that the combination of these two examples simplifies the life of those users who specialize on removal of inappropriately used NFC: these rules are rather formal and, as a result, they are easy to implement without going into the details of the concrete article's content. However, this medal has a reverse side: these examples create problems for the users who work on historical articles, and the balance between the interests of these two groups (which currently is shifted towards the formers) should be observed. --Paul Siebert (talk) 02:47, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

I simply made a typo. Is that a crime, now? /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 23:53, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

No crimes, I just thought you made your conclusion without reading the discussion carefully. I am glad I was wrong.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:47, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

The objective of RfCs is to attract outside editors if there is a dispute. In some cases this results in a change in consensus and should be allowed to run its course. If the editor making the RfC is clearly wrong then the RfC will establish that. I would let it run its course. However it could be rephrased because it seems hard to follow. TFD (talk) 21:44, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Despite the fact that I feel I fall on the same side of opinion on the issue of the RFC like with Black Kite or Delta, as Four Deuces points out above, the RFC is to gain wide consensus on an issue instead of limited set of editors (in this case, most that have strong interest in maintaining the NFCC the way it is). NFCC and NFCI reflect consensus, and while I know how most of the NFC regulars feel, they're not the only voices. The only thing we have to watch for is the Foundation Resolution on non-free images, what Paul is asking for doesn't seem unreasonable to consider within that. (This situation is reminding me very much of the date delinking issue with a limited set of voices claiming they were right). This is not to say Paul's attitude is helping, but the RFC should run the course. --MASEM (t) 21:54, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

I've only just become aware of this discussion, and I'd like to comment on it. I'll go and ask the closer if they are willing to re-open the discussion to allow comments to be added. Carcharoth (talk) 03:59, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Carcharoth. --Paul Siebert (talk) 05:01, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

75.65.40.180/Xinbei/New Taipei

I blocked 75.65.40.180 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) for 24 hours for what I considered to be disruptive editing (including copy-and-paste moves) regarding the Xinbei/New Taipei controversy. (For the underlying factual dispute, see Talk:Eric Chu (the mayor of Xinbei/New Taipei) for more details.) But now I am not sure whether I was too embroiled. I'd appreciate it if someone else not otherwise involved can review the situation. Thanks. --Nlu (talk) 00:19, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Looks fine to me - stopped the edit warring. KrakatoaKatie 04:59, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Server errors

Resolved

 – I should have read up the page. Kelly ^hi! 05:16, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Is it just me, or has anyone else noticed an increased incidence of internal errors from the servers tonight? I have been doing a lot of fast editing on images and am seeing it pretty frequently. Kelly ^hi! 05:02, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

See the above thread "Internal Server error wikipedia", which has been closed, as the discussion is currently at Wikipedia:VPT#Weird_error_on_loading_WP:VPT. Regards. [|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 05:05, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh, thanks. My bad. Kelly ^hi! 05:16, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Mbz1 starting up a dispute that was 6-months gone past;

Unresolved

 – Mbz1 (talk · contribs) blocked indefinitely by Gwen Gale (talk · contribs). HeyMid (contribs) 12:20, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

but reviewed below. Tijfo098 (talk) 13:54, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Mbz1 (talk · contribs)

6+ months ago, this user was banned from interacting with me, and I guess that interaction ban has now ran out.. Noting this, Mbz1 immediately jumped in in an issue they were not, by any stretch of the imagination, involved in, with the sole purpose of baiting me with a personal attack in the form of an unsubstantiated accusation that I 'wikistalked them all over wikipedia', when such never happened. As they are clearly just trying to start another argument, I request the expired ban be re-instated. I didn't mention them, didn't talk to them, didn't do anything in regards to them, and then as soon as it end, they go on the offensive and attack me?

Per the above, I request that they be given a short block for a clear WP:BATTLEGROUND violation.— Dædαlus^{+ Contribs} 06:07, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Editor has been notified and removed the notice.— Dædαlus^{+ Contribs} 06:44, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Make that a long block, since they aren't going to leave this issue alone. Either that, or they are banned indefinitely from interacting with me. I haven't uttered a word since the 6 month ban all those weeks ago, and yet here, some time after the ban, they try to start another fight?— Dædαlus^{+ Contribs} 06:44, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Mbz1 removed a templated message notifying him of this thread with the edit summary "removed garbage"? That's interesting behavior right there. [|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 06:48, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Which is fine. I left him a note asking him to avoid interacting with Daedalus969 unnecessarily, which I is something I expect Daedalus969 to follow as well. Prodego ^talk 07:02, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Does that really do enough to address the complaint, though? She (not he) fresh off the interaction ban just went and...interacted. When users right off a topic ban go back to the topic and engage in the same behavior that let to the ban in the first place, that's usually leads to something more severe. Tarc (talk) 15:57, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Wow, agreeing with Tarc -- I think a block for WP:BATTLEGROUND has been solidly earned by Mbz1 for general pugnaciousness and incivility and some of the rudest edit summaries I have ever read. betsythedevine (talk) 16:03, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I'd support a block, and I would suggest a substantial one. Another incident where Mbz1 seems to be digging up long-dead incidents is currently here at AE (where Mbz1 seems to be a regular visitor), where there are also suggestions of Mbz1 engaging in outing of another editor. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:35, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

And yet more WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality... assuming bad faith and describing another editor's conduct as "disgusting" because they suggested controversial material shouldn't go on the Main Page on a sensitive date [18]. (Surprise surprise, this too is related to the Israel/Palestine/Arab topic area.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:41, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Counting on my fingers, ok, WP:BATTLEGROUND with Daedalus, Supreme Deliciousness, Chem Ed, and I would point to even a fourth Wikipedian Bali_ultimate here and here, all examples just from the first 100 of Mbz1's Contributions linked to above. betsythedevine (talk) 18:01, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

It would have been nice if somebody is to block user:Demiurge1000 if for nothing else then for canvasing--Mbz1 (talk) 18:06, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Betsythedevine is also [canvasing once and canvasing 2. Is this only me who sees something strange here? Just asking.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:16, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Yet another instance of not knowing what canvassing is. Bulldog123 20:04, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

You are supposed to notify people when they are under discussion at ANI or elsewhere, or am I mistaken about this? betsythedevine (talk) 18:19, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Just to inform everyone, Mbz1 created a sockpuppet case for this. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 18:10, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

And why haven't you blocked exactly? Seems like a fishing expedition to me— Dædαlus^{+ Contribs} 18:30, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Mbz1 has been blocked for a week by Gwen Gale for harassment and disruption, and I've closed the SPI case. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 18:40, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Can we seriously consider a community ban on this user? Checking her block log, we have a whopping 10 blocks already. If this doesn't exhibit a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality, I don't know what does. A few days ago, I got a mysterious message [19] on my talkpage. Mbz1 (a user I never interact with outside of AfDs where we always disagree) "reverted" it as vandalism [20]. Considering she doesn't seem to have any association with this troll account (or at least I hope not), I can only assume she regularly patrols my talk page. This "patrolling" has been going on ever since I actively participated in the AfD for List of Jewish Nobel laureates (a list she has contributed to significantly). Thereafter, she's been hounding my contribs, jumping in on discussions she has nothing to do with only to reprimand me whenever I make a mistake, like this unintentional case of outing. Bulldog123 20:04, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I know nothing about these other editors, but if Daedalus969 doesn't receive a very long block for his various actions then the system has failed. Kuguar03 (talk) 20:08, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Back up your accusations or they are personal attacks. You also know nothing of this situation, so your request for a block can really be taken as a grain of salt. You're only here because I dared tell you that your actions were attacks themselves.— Dædαlus^{+ Contribs} 20:13, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

No, I'm here because the extreme hostility you continually display towards other editors is disruptive. Kuguar03 (talk) 20:50, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Diffs or it didn't happen; you can't just claim something of someone and refuse to back it up; it doesn't work that way. I left your thread alone, I dropped the stick, but now you have chosen to pick it up again.— Dædαlus^{+ Contribs} 20:56, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Gwen Gale changed the block on Mbz1 to be indefinite. Now can we put an end to this discussion? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 20:16, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

No problems here.— Dædαlus^{+ Contribs} 20:34, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Long overdue. Bulldog123 21:00, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I imagine this discussion will be moved to a different forum, because the ban by Gwen Gale, the ban's upholding by a different admin, the ban's extension by Gwen Gale, the examples I gave at Mbz1's request, and perhaps other matters as well are all being strongly protested on Mbz1's talk page, with calls for uninvolved sysops to step in. betsythedevine (talk) 00:03, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

• Like Black Kite (talk · contribs), Prodego (talk · contribs) and Jehochman (talk · contribs) (see here), I too agree with the block. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:28, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

This outcome is sad and grotesque. At her best, Mbz1 is a luminous Wikipedia contributor. She is also volatile and periodically high maintenance. But that is a small price to pay for the value of the content she adds to Wikipedia. Genuine content editors are now bizarrely at the bottom of the Wikipedia food chain. They should be at the top. It would be great if Wikipedia administrators had the motivation to identify editors who, although sometimes problematic, are nonetheless high performing contributors, and if these administrators had the skills to accommodate such editors. Instead, administrators too often treat such editors with contempt, as Mbz1 has been here, as though they were mere vandals who should be squashed.

Personally I feel embarrassed and ashamed when I see stuff like this. It is such a conflict. Wikipedia is a massively significant project, yet our administrators are letting the project down so badly. No doubt there are many benign administrators who simply don't intervene because they are afraid. But other administrators seem to have the goal of blocking (demeaning) as many high performing content editors as they can. Most content editors will not speak out now about stuff like this. They are afraid. They know how vulnerable they are now.

Mbz1, if you happen to read this, you need a rocket up your arse for the silly ways you overreact. You definitely need a severe rapping on the knuckles. Grow up. But you were, are, still one of the more creative valuable content editors Wikipedia has had the privilege to attract. Ultimately, the value of Wikipedia is just the sum of genuine and creative content editors, such as yourself, that it was privileged to attract and nurture. We attract a lot of such editors, but then we most dismally and stupidly fail to nurture them. Instead we savage them. If Wikipedia lacks the skills to create a space where content editors such as Mbz1 can flourish and continue to contribute her periodically luminous offerings, despite her somewhat flawed interpersonal complications (and don't we all all have them, however we cover them up), then really, what hope do we have as a species. Why do our administrators make mere interpersonal flaws so fatal? This is a collective craziness and failure on the part of our own unaware Wikipedia administrators, and not for the first time, a jewel creative editor, has stupidly and unnecessarily been strangled. --Epipelagic (talk) 11:52, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

But not that unusual in cases where user conduct and content contributions conflict dramatically. See User:Ottava Rima, (this was brought up on WP:AN for review not so long ago.) Tijfo098 (talk) 16:30, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Let the celebrities get off with a slap on the wrist, and treat the common-folk harsher? That doesn't sound right; treat them the same as everyone else. Content contributions don't make you exempt from the rules.— Dædαlus^{+ Contribs} 21:01, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Block review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

This doesn't seem to be helping any at this point. I've asked the blocking admin to clarify issues some more - that's probably the necessary dialogue at this point since the intention was clearly not for the indefinite block to be permanent. Perhaps I shouldn't have started this thread in the first place, but it did at least give a temperature reading that the community isn't obviously ready to give up on this user at this time. Rd232 ^talk 02:33, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

---

• Mbz1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I would suggest that whilst a week block might have been appropriate to allow the user to reflect on how they're going about things, an indef block of an established contributor really requires rather more discussion. I think Gwen Gale's indef block needs to be reviewed, and if there is a move to formally community ban Mbz1, record that appropriately. Rd232 ^talk 12:58, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

• Agree. A reasonable and sensible comment by Rd232.--Epeefleche (talk) 13:16, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support block. This editor constantly causes problems, and the lengthy block log is evidence of inabilty to reform. I could say more, but won't. This was an enough is enough moment.Bali ultimate (talk) 13:20, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support review This was grossly disrproportional and misguided sanction against an estiablished and useful contributer. The admins should AGF like all of us. - BorisG (talk) 13:36, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
• Comment (adapted from my post on mbz1's talk page before this review was started): Topic or interaction bans require cooperation from the banned editor. All that admins can do to enforce those is to block (globally) for violations. Unlike parking tickets, which are for the same amount every time, it seems that blocks in Wikipedia are escalating in length. So, Mbz1 is the only one who can improve on this situation. The significant amount of administrative complains from Mbz1 against editors with whom she had a long term conflict, some of which were unfounded or retaliatory (recent SPI against Dedalus, recent AE against Supreme Deliciousness), need to weighted against her content contributions, some of which I am fond of myself. At least a topic ban from all Wikipedia namespace seems appropriate, but that probably won't help with the other interaction issues. Perhaps reduce the block length to a month or so would be more appropriate. Tijfo098 (talk) 13:51, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
• The indefinite block is technically correct, since indefinite is not infinite and is not a ban - it means that the block lasts until the problem that triggered it is satisfactorily addressed by the blocked user. But I suggest that an indefinite WP:ARBPIA topic and interaction ban would be more appropriate in this case. Mbz1 is apparently a valued contributor in other areas, but in my experience she does not interact collegially and usefully with many people in the Arab-Israeli conflict topic area.  Sandstein  13:58, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Sandstein, you may be right about interaction, but topic? Is there a pattern of disruptive editing in article space? - BorisG (talk) 14:04, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

To my knowledge, all of her many blocks were a consequence of inappropriate interactions with other editors in this topic area. But a broad topic-area interaction ban implies an article editing ban, because article editors need - and are required to - communicate with each other. I should add that a similar indefinite ban would probably be a good idea for several of her regular opponents and allies for much the same reasons. One need only look at the top ten usernames that keep fighting with each other in the regular WP:AE threads about these issues.  Sandstein  14:13, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) One doesn't seam possible without the other in this case. See this AE thread where both the reporter the reportee were blocked: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive71#Mbz1. I don't know what the beef between her and Dedalus is. The problems seems to be WP:BATTLE conduct stemming from the I-P topic area that gets personalized and becomes a series of interpersonal disputes that overflow in other articles. So, I agree with Sandstein, both topic and interaction bans are needed, but those have been issued before. The question at hand is their enforcement. At what point "enough is enough" and an indef is warranted despite other content contributions. YMMV as they say. Tijfo098 (talk) 14:15, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose the block I have never seen more unwarranted block than this one was.--Broccoli (talk) 14:21, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support finding an alternative. Don't wish to criticize the admins who took the action that they did (other than blocking the talkpage, which was MHO a less than obvious call), but guys, can we find a better way. I think every time one of these rows blows up, the parties on all sides have seemed just as bad to me - that's the problem where people are arguing from the soul, everything looks different. What is going to work, what tools and solutions do we have, that we can use to resolve this so that Mbz1 can continue contributing, other people can continue contributing, no foolish accusations are made etc. Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:23, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Do you have anything specific to propose? Tijfo098 (talk) 14:31, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
• Comment on the involved votes. The for/against the block split is as predictable as ever for the I-P regulars. Tijfo098 (talk) 14:26, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

• Tijfo, I think this analogy is superficial. The arguments here are more colleagial, nuanced and reasoned, on both sides. In particular, I take your and Sandstein's point that contribution to articles is impossible without interaction. However I disagree that the problem is enforcement. I understand (correct me if I am wrong) that Mbz1 did not violate her topic ban or interaction bans, at least not in a persistent manner. She started interaction soon after an interaction ban expired? That's not violation, and a simple remedy is to extend the interaction ban. - BorisG (talk) 14:44, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

• Do you think that editors need to be specifically forbidden from repeatedly filing vexatious reports before they are blocked for the eleventh time? Tijfo098 (talk) 14:48, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

• A ban on all AE, AN/I etc pages may be useful. Yes, creative solutions are called for if we care about Wikipedia content. Blocks, and especially long-term blocks, are a very blunt tool and should be used as a last resort. Too often we see the opposite. As an extreme case, I saw a comment during the recent ArbCom election, where one editor said a candidate was inexperienced because while he had been an admin for a long time, he did not issue many blocks. - BorisG (talk) 14:44, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support indef - As I usually note at these reviews, any action which pries yet another tendentious editor out of a heated topic area is a good thing. Indef is not for forever, so the user is quite able to be unblocked given a clear "I fucked up, here is what I will do to avoid fucking up in the future" unblock request. Tarc (talk) 15:01, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
• Comment As an editor who has had a number of run-ins with mbz1 in the past I think that a further review of her actions is necessary before lifting the ban, I also think that we should give Mbz1 the chance to respond in a reasoned manner to the concerns leading to her current block. As I understand it, the initial block was precipitated by her immediate engagement of a party with which an interaction ban recently expired, continuing with an SPI even after she was urged to not seek further involvement. Also cited was what has been characterized as a "retaliatory filing" (by uninvolved admins) at AE which seemed to include material from literally years ago. I would like to hear Mbz1 respond to these matters on her talkpage. As Mbz1 has appealed to a number of admins seeking an interaction ban between the two of us, most recently here I am obviously an interested party to this, nonetheless I think that it is hard to argue against a review of her actions. Based on prior experience I would support a ban on ANI / AE etc pages, however I think that the root cause is her personal investment in the I/P area, where, I must say - positive contributions from her are more difficult to find. un☯mi 15:03, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

• Comment I would just like to review the history of the block we are being asked to support or not support. Initially, this thread began with a request that Mbz1 get a one-week block, citing WP:BATTLEGROUND and the text of a very uncivil edit Mbz1 made concerning Daedalus, an editor with whom she had just come off a 6-month interaction ban. Several people supported a one-week block, citing even more clear examples of WP:BATTLEGROUND from recent Contributions by Mbz1. Mbz1 filed an SPI against the editor she had just been reminded not to interact with and accused two other editors who were doing ANI-notification of canvassing. Gwen Gale imposed a one-week block but did not specifically mention WP:BATTLEGROUND. Mbz1 appealed saying she had done nothing wrong. A second admin approved the one-week block. Mbz1 continued to protest that she had done nothing wrong and did not plan to change her behavior. Gwen Gale changed the ban to indef, saying that automatically unblocking after a week would clearly not get the desired result of Mbz1 changing behavior. Mbz1 revamped her talk page from top to bottom, displaying a large collection of the DYK and Featured Picture prizes for which she works so hard, and topping the collection with a block-notice of her own. Gwen Gale removed the block notice but left the brand-new display of Mbz1's trophies. Mbz1 undid that edit. I forget at which point in this discussion she stated that Gwen's admin tools should be removed. But after this piece of edit-warring, Gwen removed Mbz1's talk page access, which she had declared she did not want to use to defend or apologize for ANY of the behavior others had cited. Then Mbz1 canvassed Sandstein and possibly others by email asking for intervention on her behalf. So the question is not, do we support an infinite community ban for an editor who has done nothing but create wonderful content. The question is, was Gwen's initial one-week block appropriate? Is it appropriate for that block to become indefinite if Mbz1, supported by her claque, continues to assert that all her behavior has been wonderful and she should only continue to behave in exactly the same way? Is it appropriate for an indefinite block to be lifted if Mbz1 agrees to stop WP:BATTLEGROUND tactics that hurt the project. I would support all three of those. betsythedevine (talk) 16:00, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Since canvassing was mentioned, I'll just make it clear that Mbz1 didn't contact me. (Given our prior history, it's hardly like they would.) Rd232 ^talk 18:47, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support indef or at least support indef in the same way Tarc does. Unblock reviews like this just pave the way for Mbz1's very obvious cronies to come and sway consensus toward "blind miscarriage of justice!" (a case of trading favors whenever a wiki-friend goes too far). Fact is, user has 10 blocks in her block log and appears to regularly hound more than 5 users. What does someone have to do to exhaust community consensus these days? Bulldog123 17:33, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

• Agree with Rd232. Mbz1's vast contributions to this project require that she treated better then with an indef for this one incident. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 17:20, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support indef. Not infinite, but until they get the all-important clue. Brewcrewer above refers to Mbz1's "vast contributions to this project," which seems to indicate that if an editor has added quality work in the past, they should get some kind of conduct pass. With all due respect to Brewcrewer and other editors using this argument, there's no (official) policy giving some kind of sliding scale that allows editors to reach a certain level, then ignore Wikipedia's rules. Dayewalker (talk) 18:19, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

if she were to be indef blocked it would not be under any specific policy, so no "sliding scale" exception is needed. It's a community decision that allows someone to be indef blocked via an ANI discussion. Thus it would only make sense that all editors offer their opinions on this user, and the overall contributions of this user be taken into account.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:07, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate the clarification, but I still disagree wholeheartedly. If Mbz1's behavior is deserving of an indef block, the actual quality of her contributions shouldn't come into play. If they deserve to be gone because they're disrupting the project, they should be gone. Dayewalker (talk) 23:01, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

There is a distinct difference between policy not allowing for an editors overall contributions to be taken into account before an indef block and your opinion that an editors overall contributions should not be taken into account before an indef blocked. Now that you have apparently moved from the former position to the latter position, I believe we are on the same page. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:57, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

You seem to be under the false impression that good behavior excuses bad behavior. It hasn't, and it never will.— Dædαlus^{+ Contribs} 23:42, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

If anyone is under any false impression, it's you, my dear. I never said good behavior excuses bad behavior. My position-and the position of most people, i think-is that an editors overall contributions are taken into account before she is indef blocked.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 23:47, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

You see, here's the thing; content contributions don't matter in a thread that explicitly discusses behavior in regards to other editors; you can argue semantics all you want, but you're clearly trying to use their content contributions as some kind of get-out-of-jail-free-card. You clearly said as much on your first post here, This was grossly disrproportional and misguided sanction against an estiablished and useful contributer. The admins should AGF like all of us. A misguided block? Really? She was on an interaction ban and forbidden from commenting on me. Fresh off of it, she does exactly that, then subsequently files an SPI on me.

In the perfect world, editors who are personally involved in threads should recuse themselves from commenting.. like you, some of Mb's other supporters here.. that have so far said nothing to explain why her behavior is okay. The only thing you've so far done is continue to mention their content contributions. Content, in a discussion on behavior, means zilch. Her content may have been great, but it doesn't excuse her behavior. I await your reply that finally addresses the behavior, and not the content.— Dædαlus^{+ Contribs} 01:30, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

That makes sense to me. [|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 01:44, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict; responding to Daedalus969); I did not want to clutter this long thread with any more comments, but at this point I feel compelled to clarify a few points (1) the above cited comment was from me, not from Brewcrewer; (2) I did not mean the original block was wrong, I meant indef without userpage access was disproportional (3) I agree that editors like you who are personally involved in threads should recuse themselves from commenting. However if you want to exclude all editors who have an opinion then there will be no one to comment. And finally, (4) and most importantly, it is my firm belief that content contributions do matter everywhere on Wikipedia. Sure it is not a free pass, but any conduct issues should be weighted against user's contributions (which determine the value of a contributer to the project). I understand that no explicit policy says this and that you disagree but I hope there are enough sensible people here who share my view. Cheers. - BorisG (talk) 02:00, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how you can argue that; by your logic, if a user had created 10k featured articles, they would be able to call people rapists and get off scot-free. Content is only relevant in issues about content. Not conduct. The only type of contribution that should be weighed in a conduct discussion is conduct with people she hasn't gotten in fights with, who are already uninvolved.— Dædαlus^{+ Contribs} 02:27, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

• Comment I've had some interactions with Mbz1, some positive, some negative, some neutral, and she's definitely a more productive editor than I'll ever be. That said, content production can only outweigh so many behavioral infractions before the balance goes into the red; disciplinary actions, edit warring, etc., suck up editor/admin time. Given the problems in the I-P area, I think a very long topic ban/interaction bans would be appropriate but looking at the block log . . .is that going to work? The ban's been imposed and broken on multiple occasions. There's been no acknowledgment from Mbz1 that the original 1 week block had any basis, something it's pretty clearly got. If someone doesn't acknowledge/understand why their actions are problems and has broken the same rules after promising not to in the past, I'm less than hopeful that topic/interaction bans will work. If they can work then I'm all for them. Sol (talk) 18:14, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
• There will need to be an indefinite ARBPIA topic ban should the user be unblocked, with respect to which I voice no opinion at this moment. T. Canens (talk) 18:44, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

this brouhaha did not arise from anything related to the A-I conflict, as far as I can see.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:01, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

• Unblock after a week. He/she is a good content contributor. Give him/her second chance, please. As about ARBPIA topic ban, this needs to be properly filed and discussed at AE, but it was not. Biophys (talk) 00:09, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support blocking, but start out with a week first. We should do a week's block right now, not indef, to see if Mbz1 will get a clue and quit the harassment. If that does not work, then we should consider longer blocks or a long-period interaction ban, etc. Some people are defiant and just refuse to get it and stop. If Mbz1 is one of those people, then she may be asking for us to do something about it. [|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 01:28, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

You do realize that she just came out of an interaction ban? and upon re-initiating interaction she was asked to refrain by prodego, yet she continued still? I don't think there is any good reason to set a time period on this, it could be within the hour as far as I am concerned, if she shows some understanding of why people are concerned and states that she will seek change. So far her talkpage reads like a WP:NOTTHEM best-of. I want her to come back to the project and work in a constructive manner, so far we seem to have failed in letting her understand there are limits - we will continue to fail in this manner if we just let it expire without her taking responsibility. I have previously asked for someone to mentor her - but no one seems to want the job, I urge those of you that argue for clemency to consider taking on that post. un☯mi 02:15, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Whatever, as long as Mbz1 learns to leave people well enough alone, as far as the harassment, etc. goes. ;-) [|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 02:47, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

• Comment While Mbz1 does not admit she has committed a blockable offfence, she does promise she won't file AE, AN/I, and SPI reports in the future. On this ground, there appears to be a good prospect of maintaining her productive contribution to the project without those actions that the community considers disruptive. I see no faults in I/P article space but I have not done extensive research. - BorisG (talk) 03:54, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Given your message near the top of this sub-section, it's difficult to not take your comment with a grain of salt; promising they won't file reports doesn't solve the problem of their treatment of others in general, and refusing to admit, or understand for that matter, why their actions caused them to be blocked only promises one thing: it will just happen again.— Dædαlus^{+ Contribs} 06:04, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Failure to admit wrong doing is a big part of this. If she doesn't think she did anything improperly and uninvolved editors are coming out to say "Yeah, the original offense is block worthy" then there's a disconnect between community standards and her's. Judging by the block log over sanction violations, it's been a problem. The talk page section in which she offers her terms (a good move) isn't helping; it's largely a glutinous mixture of accusations, flat-out denials, wiki-lawyering and cringe-worthy statements. If she'd just said "I'm sorry, I know what I've done and I won't do it again, etc, etc." then great, we could move on. Threatening to WP:TROUT your banning admin if you ever get unblocked may be the least helpful thing to say in this situation closely followed by indulging in the same behavior that got you blocked in the first place. If Mbz1 doesn't understand why all of this is a problem then it doesn't matter what sanctions are in place, we'd still wind up back here. Sol (talk) 06:30, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Since Mbz1 continues to discuss my behavior and that of others on her talk page, I will re-post here a response I left there, which she immediately undid with the summary "reverted without even reading . stay off my page".

From WP:BLOCK: "A usual block prevents users from editing all pages except their user talk page. Users are allowed to retain editing access to their user talk page, in order to have a chance for appeal, and so that they are not shut out completely and are able to participate at least to some degree in Wikipedia, while the block is active...A minority of editors who are blocked use these privileges poorly, for personal attack or to play games and make a point. Inevitably the response to such actions is simple – editing access is blocked in its entirety and without further discussion, whereas if the user had been responsible and reasonable, an entirely different result might well have happened." I did not assert you were not within your rights to edit your own talk page, I merely listed a few of the many actions you engaged in there that A) were far in excess of your claim in the canvassing email to Sandstein that you "only added the template" and B) might lead a reasonable admin to feel you were using it "for personal attack or to play games and make a point" and thus were by policy likely to be blocked from using it further.

I have little doubt that she will sooner or later wheedle somebody into unblocking her without any promise of change in her behavior. betsythedevine (talk) 15:25, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

• • From that (immediately reverting someone's commenting on her talk page, with the edit summary "reverted without even reading . stay off my page" (!!)), it is pretty obvious that she has not chilled out yet. We need to wait until it is obvious enough that she has gotten the point about all this before unblocking her. Right now, it could well be just another case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, so it may very well be a waiting game until she gets the point and cools off. [|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 23:54, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
    • WP:COOLDOWN?Cptnono (talk) 00:01, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
      • L.O.L., I think what I meant by "chilled out" or "cool off" is "lose the harassing, etc.". [|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 00:05, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose indef per Elen. Mbz1 has issues, sure; deal with them. But per WP:Boomerang consider that Dae is here for the 'hunt' as he clarified to me, recently (the latter part of the thread, specifically). This is part of all this; it's 'toxic-wiki' shite. Deal with all *that*. Cheers, Jack Merridew 16:21, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

  Nice lie there. I told you I hunt sockpuppets because it's the only thing I'm good at, and that has absolutely nothing to do with this at all.— Dædαlus^{+ Contribs} 20:57, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Comments made after thread archived, and better placed on user talk page, where discussion continues. Rd232 talk 09:27, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Dae, have you read Wikipedia:Here to build an encyclopedia? Hunting sockpuppets is *not* about being here to build the encyclopedia. If you are here only to hunt sockpuppets, then you you should read the other sections of that essay by a former arb. Merry Christmas, Jack Merridew 04:31, 26 December 2010 (UTC) I'm going to paste what I did at your talk page(you may delete it after all, and it would not be seen by anyone else): For the last time, I am not here 'only to hunt sockpuppets', 'hunting sockpuppets' is just 'the only thing I'm good at'. I never said I only hunt sockpuppets; I do other stuff, I browse for random articles and make minor fixes when I see them, I remove original research that's been unsourced for a year or several months, I keep watch over several BLPs to counteract vandalism, as well as several highly-vandalized articles. I sometimes new page patrol, tag for deletion, or approve. If a source is brought up on an article I watch concerning a specific bit of information, and just the url doesn't look reliable to me, I do check it out, and if I can't find something that signifies a RS, I take it to RSN. How many times do I have to say that I am not here to only hunt sockpuppets, but hunting sockpuppets is the only thing I'm good at. Large, very very large, distinction.— Dædαlus+ Contribs 06:29, 26 December 2010 (UTC) Can't drop teh stick, huh; ok; I'll paste my reply here, too. Sheesh. “You want a pig,” said Roger, “like in a real hunt.” “Or someone to pretend,” said Jack. “You could get someone to dress up as a pig and then he could act — you know, pretend to knock me over and all that —” “You want a real pig,” said Robert, still caressing his rump, “because you've got to kill him.” “Use a littlun,” said Jack, and everybody laughed. Ch. 8: Gift for the Darkness Lord of the Flies by William Golding “only” “hunt” You're not listening. You're good at “hunting” *people* — sure a lot of socks are disruptive, are trolls, but they're all human beings. This is an encyclopedia, not a fucking game. See also: s:The Most Dangerous Game. Jack Merridew 08:30, 26 December 2010 (UTC) How about you drop the stick? You only commented in this discussion to snipe at me. Give it a rest, you know nothing about me.— Dædαlus+ Contribs 09:12, 26 December 2010 (UTC) You're not listening either, you seem to be stuck on the false assumption that I think wikipedia is a game; I don't. You also are again, assuming bad faith as usual; you're assuming I don't think they're human beings, despite the fact that I've never said anything close to that. Yes, they're human, but that's rather irrelevant in the scheme of things. I call them sockpuppets because that's the terminology used on this website, just as a homicide detective tracks down a serial killer; calling the committee of the crime a 'serial killer' doesn't make them any less human, it simply groups them into a category of similar traits, such as killing in a recognizable pattern, like the Zodiac Killer for instance. It's the same with alternate accounts, 'sockpuppets'. This account that you now edit under is a sockpuppet, so I'm quite sure I don't need to explain to you the name semantics. Do I really need to explain to you why I call a sockpuppet a sockpuppet? Its easy for me to type out, I don't always know their real name.. not like they would give it out, and even if I did, more often than not, 'sock' is much shorter than anything I've seen. Jaraxle.. something. I don't remember his last name, the first 'vandal' of wikipedia, operating through page-move vandalism by moving various titles to 'x on wheels'. Either way, sock, being only four letters, is easier and quicker to type than 'Jaraxle', every single time they are referred to, or even WoW(Willy on Wheels, etc). To using 'hunt' to track down socks.. again, assuming bad faith, and too much bad faith on a single word. It's a word, it isn't some easily identifiable trait that you can use as an excuse to assume bad faith. I didn't put much thought into using it, it seemed rather natural. I'm sure you know what hunting is... finding your quarry by tracking down the evidence that it was there, the eating habits, the foot prints, the behavior. I know they're human, but what I know most of all is that they are mentally children, at least by my standards of what an adult should be, such as learning when to drop something.. and on that note.. In various discussions in which you were not involved, you have told me to 'drop the stick'. Well, I have an all-resounding question for you: Why haven't you dropped it. Again and again you bring up your bad-faith, false assumption that I think wikipedia is a game. Why don't you give it a rest and drop it yourself. ..Further, for again, someone who tells others to 'drop the stick', or tells others they are 'treating wikipedia as a game', you are doing both of these things. You are first of all continuing with the bad-faith assumptions on myself, instead of assuming good faith, so why don't you drop that stick. On the subject of 'games', in a discussion that has absolutely nothing to do with you, you make a comment that has naught to do with the topic at hand, by a snipe aimed directly at myself. Perhaps aimed to 'get my goat', to 'piss me off'. You should try taking your own medicine sometimes; drop the stick, and stop commenting in issues which concern me, only to snipe at me without addressing the real issues at hand. Your bad faith assumptions about what you think I do, and why you think I do it really don't have any place in a dispute that has nothing to do with you.— Dædαlus+ Contribs 09:14, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

• I am not comfortable with an indef. Mbz1 may need to change their approach, true, but indef? No, this seems a hasty rush to judgment to me. Support 1 week and some work to try to modify behavior. ++Lar: t/c 16:50, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Indef is not the same as a community ban etc, it simply means that they are asked answer to the concerns raised prior to being unblocked, hardly a too onerous imposition. Setting a set time on the block seems to have the effect of giving the user the impression that they were treated unfairly by people who are 'out to get her'. un☯mi 22:12, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm aware of that, yes. Nevertheless I'm concerned. Mbz1 at this point has gotten a reputation that will be hard to overcome, they need to be on their best behavior all the time even if others get away with stuff. Is that fair? No, but it is how things are. First impressions are hard to shake. ++Lar: t/c 23:39, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

What exactly have I gotten away with Lar? I haven't mentioned her, before she mentioned me some days ago, in close to a year. I didn't message her, I didn't email her, I didn't mention or comment on her, I didn't edit any pages she did.. I didn't have anything to do with her, and yet, when the interaction ban finally ends, she immediately jumps into a thread that has nothing to do with her to only comment on me, and then subsequently files an SPI on me. Tell me, what precisely have I gotten away with here? I left her alone and she comes out to attack me, and I've gotten away with something? I really can't wait to read what that something is.— Dædαlus^{+ Contribs} 02:04, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Era warring

Earlier today I found a series of edits by Scoobertjoo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) at Hanukkah in which he changed the era style from BCE/CE to BC/AD first diff, second diff, third diff. I checked his contributions and found a few other examples of the same thing, so I reverted them all. He responded by reverting all my changes to his preferred era style (diffs:Hanukkah, Begging the question,Yemenite Jews, Rainbow, Humanism) and leaving this unhelpful dissertation on my talk page explaining why he's right and the guideline is wrong. I've dealt with this kind of disruptive editor before and nothing ever convinces them to stop, short of an indefinite block only to be lifted upon a promise to stop changing era styles (which they never agree to). --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 19:30, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I have left a note on the user's talk page. Steven, there is no reason to assume this person is going to behave a certain way, or to call them disruptive right out of the gate. You need to assume good faith. The person thinks they are doing us a favour, and they have not read our style guidelines. Regards, --Diannaa ^(Talk) 19:53, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Changing BCE/CE to BC/AD on articles connectred with Judaism does not strike me as a "good-faith" activity. Those changes should be reverted, if they haven't been already, and if he keeps it up, throw him to the wiki-lions. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:02, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Agree w/Baseball, above.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:04, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I also note that his user ID looks like a subtle slam at Jews; and that he's got a peculiar editing history, of which spot-checking indicates no useful edits at all. He started this BC/BCE thing in the fall of 2009 or so, so he's obviously come to wikipedia with an agenda, and might well also be a sock of other editor(s) who've been on this rant in the past. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:11, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I am pretty sure all the changes got reverted. You make some good points, and the editor should be watched. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 20:15, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Saying that he hasn't read our style guidelines and is trying to help us goes far beyond any reasonable assumption of good faith, since he made that post on my talk page and reverted back to his preferred era style after I pointed out the guideline to him. Please take time to look into the history of a notice before replying. As I said, I've dealt with this kind of problem before, and I've only ever seen one course of action that resolves it. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 20:16, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

His username is a semi-subtle way of saying "Dog Jew", which is unacceptable, and I've reported him to WP:UAA for it. As I said there, I think he needs to be not only indef'd, but also SPI swept for socks. But one thing at a time. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:20, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Steven, Baseball, and Epee. The editor in question is using WP as a battleground and self-righteously showing no consideration for other perspectives. The WP policies are designed to keep such behavior in check. This looks like a clear case where strong sanctions should be applied. Hertz1888 (talk) 20:23, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

May I also point out that the rant he posted on my talk page is copy and pasted word for word from this article on an online encyclopedia project for right-wing Christian home-schooled middle schoolers. Checking his edit history will also show that he prefers American spellings over British (a favored hobbyhorse of the Schlafly crowd) on an article about Formula One racing. Nope, nothing disruptive about this guy, it's just a perfectly innocent attempt to improve the encyclopedia. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 20:28, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I had noticed his change from "tyres" to "tires" just to Americanize it for no good reason. He also posted a number of editorial remarks about cars, with no supporting source, but that's minor stuff. His first time messing with the BC/BCE thing came in October of 2009,[21] and he's only edited sporadically, at least under that ID. Since that rant is a blind copy-and-paste, maybe its contents could be looked for in other places in wikipedia? In any case, thanks to his editing topics, we've got a pretty good idea where he lives. If he won't stop, maybe I should send my cousin Vito up the Hudson, to "explain" a few things to that boy. >:) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:34, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Probably not necessary, Bugs, but I'll say one more thing. Dianaa, I just noticed that your account was only registered in October of 2009, so you may not be familiar with the history behind this. There was once a HUGE battle on Wikipedia about this very topic. It went on for weeks (if not months) and the only way anyone could find to stop it was to declare a cease-fire, leave all existing era styles as they were and deal harshly with any cease-fire violations. This whole thing was a large part of the reason Andy Schlafly and his allies decided to take their marbles and start Conservapedia in the first place (that and American v. British spellings - I know, lame). Anyway, the basic policy (as far as I understand it) is that to keep this kind of thing from breaking out again, it's necessary to come down hard on anyone who tries to reignite it. Suffice to say the copy-paste from Conservapedia and the nature of the edit-warring make it pretty clear to me where this guy comes from and what he's trying to do.

But, you're the admin. I trust your judgment. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 20:45, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

The subject of this inquiry has now been escorted away by the Indef Angel. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:10, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, guys; good catch. I guess I was being a little naive, as the battle of which you speak was before my time. Regards, --Diannaa ^(Talk) 21:16, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

There's no harm in assuming good faith. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:29, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Not to drag this out unnecessarily, but I figure his copy/pasting the entire text of a Conservapedia article to my talk page is some kind of copyright violation, so I redacted it. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 23:02, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Good point. Might it be worthwhile to see if that copyrighted text appears elsewhere within wikipedia? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:35, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

I doubt it does. I found the Conservapedia article by doing a google search on the first paragraph in quotation marks and got this one hit, so I figure it's ok. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 04:27, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

If it did, it might have led us to some socks. Or lemmings, at least. No such luck, it seems. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→

Looking more closely at the quote he cribbed from fascio-pedia, he copied it so blindly that he failed to notice a typo where they said "rules" instead of "rulers". What a loser. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:46, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

I googled [common era has no real meaning "common era has no real meaning"] and found a number of entries in various websites that had parroted that site, many of which seem to be based on earlier versions of the article or on the original version from that Aschlafly character almost exactly 4 years ago (which figures).[22] However, only the site itself turns up when I google the mistake: [birthdate of one of their rules "birthdate of one of their rules"] The mistake was introduced on May 21, 2010, by a user named WillS.[23] Looking at the article's history, it's interesting that one valiant user said Aschlafly's original work read "like a Cotton Mather sermon."[24] Now, having been to that site a number of times, I must go get some Lysol and disinfect my machine. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:09, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

There's one thing they apparently do that I agree with 100%. They apparently require registration to do any editing, even on talk pages. On that score, they've got wikipedia beat. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:14, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not as convinced as you are that IP edits are evil. Conservapedia these days make it very hard to sign up at all, and their rules about blocking are draconian. I made one, only one, post to Conservapedia ever: Someone asked whether its founder actually went to Harvard Law School. I said, "Indeed he did, and he in fact worked under Barack Obama". Five-year block from Andy himself. PhGustaf (talk) 07:48, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Hoaxes

Unresolved

 – Activity continues, apparently.--Diannaa ^(Talk) 19:06, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi, ClemmingsEnd (talk · contribs) needs an indef block and all edits removed as they are blatant hoaxes. They are very elaborate, but links provided as "references" go nowhere and are there purely to deceive. Thanks, AD 17:37, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, ClemmingsEnd looks like a sock of Jake Picasso (talk · contribs) to me. They seem to share the same M.O. - JuneGloom Schmooze 00:31, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually, they haven't all been checked. (I tagged a page of his for speedy deletion as vandalism not long ago.) Reaper Eternal (talk) 03:55, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

This is the same person, right? DarrowFebal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Is there a checkuser in the house? Are there other sockpuppets spewing similar hoaxes? I strongly suspect that Gary Howard is a hoax like the others. Antandrus (talk) 18:50, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

I hope I have not gone overboard, but I have blocked User:DarrowFebal and deleted the new article. This is likely not a coincidence. Review welcome --Diannaa ^(Talk) 19:06, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

You were right. Turn over a log and see only one bug, and you're probably not looking hard enough: look at this for the archive, and check out these enormous categories: [25], [26]. Looking at a few of the contributions, it's obvious that it is all one person. Apparently a range block is impractical. Antandrus (talk) 19:14, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

It looks like this one is the earliest known account. Reaper, the picture is on Commons, and has been there for a long time. It was probably chosen randomly for the hoax articles. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 19:28, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

 Confirmed the following are the same person, and indeed, Jake.picasso:

• ClemmingsEnd (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Ken Donovan (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• DarrowFebal (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• PoleKobe (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• SherbotLemon (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) TNXMan 15:24, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! To anyone else helping with this -- always remember to check what-links-to for anything you delete as a hoax; this person often adds those links using an anon IP (typically BT Internet), for example most recently 86.170.56.159 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and you can catch a lot of other nonsense that way. Antandrus (talk) 17:18, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

That is a really good idea. In fact it was the re-use of the photo that tipped me off that this was another fake article, so I checked to see if the pic was in in any other articles. We could watch-list the whole set of vandalised articles and get alerted to further activity that way, too. You should come to ANI more often, Antandrus. Verrrry helpful stuff. :) --Diannaa ^(Talk) 18:12, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Tendentious AFDs

Matthewignash (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has nominated two articles for deletion, and then immediately opposed the deletions and accused himself of being a sock. see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lugnut (Transformers) (2nd nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rapid Run. Don't know if it's just plain dickery, or a compromised account, or what. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:48, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

It's one of our standard trolls (Wiki brah/Rainbowwarrior1977/Courtney Akins etc.) Note the extra "t" in the username; it's not Mathewignash (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). This kid's usually a number 7. I'll block the latest if no one else gets to it as I'm posting this. Antandrus (talk) 16:55, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Wow, I really like the April-Fools-Day-featured observations Antandrus just linked to and apparently wrote! Especially #60. betsythedevine (talk) 17:37, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

That was quick, thanks -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:05, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

And I've closed both deletion discussions per WP:SK #3. —DoRD (talk) 17:13, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Ironic that both deletion rationales are absolutely accurate as regards these articles, though... Black Kite (t) (c) 18:35, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

It's been one of Wiki_brah's recent practices to make sock puppets that are one letter different from another user's name to harass them. He did the same to user NotaRealWord by making a sock puppet called "NotaRealWorld". Mathewignash (talk) 18:41, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Interesting, thanks - it fooled me. I'll keep my eye open for that next time. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:54, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Lanternix

A few days ago I opened a complaint here about Lanternix (talk · contribs) and their continual and repeated edit-warring and use of unreliable sources (archived here). In that thread Vassyana (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) wrote further incidents of edit warring should be rewarded with week-long plus blocks and/or month-long plus topic bans. Since then, Lanternix has continued to edit war at a number of articles, and has repeatedly used unreliable sources. In the article Arab Christians and Arabic-speaking Christians, Lanternix has continued the edit-war he had been carrying on with another user. Reverts since the prior ANI are [27], [28], [29], [30]. At the article Criticism of Muhammad, Lanternix has revert-warred to maintain unreliable sources, rvs [31], [32] (that reverted the prior 2 edits), [33], [34]. Included in the "references" Lanternix added is the website answering-islam which has been called a hate site by more than a few people. On Egypt Lanternix has also been edit-warring to maintain a collection of unreliable sources and op-eds and ignoring the complaints of several users on the talk page. The latest reverts are [35], [36] and [37]. Finally, on the talk page for Egypt, a sock of a banned user had made a comment. I, as is common practice and in keeping with WP:BAN, struck those comments. Lanternix has edit-warred to remove the strike-through, effectively meat-puppeting for a banned user. The reverts are [38], [39], [40]. Within the last week, after being given a "final" warning, the user has continued to edit-war and has even violated the 3RR yet again. A very long block of this user is long overdue, and I request that it finally be made. nableezy - 21:16, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

• I became aware of User:Lanternix on a WP:AE request about Nableezy, where Lanternix removed all Egyptians from list of Arabs [41]. Lanternix appears to be the garden variety of nationalistic/ethnicity-focused edit-warring POV pusher who spares no bullets [42] in his WP:BATTLE. Someone Wikipedia could well do without. Tijfo098 (talk) 21:54, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

An additional revert at Arab Christians: [43]. This user has demonstrated that they will revert to no end, restoring non-neutral material sourced to unreliable sources. The user was just warned about continuing these actions with the warning saying that further incidents of revert warring would be met with extended blocks. nableezy - 23:23, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

And you demonstrated that you would lie to no end. The revert was accompanied by this.--λⲁⲛτερⲛιξ^[talk] 23:27, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I request that the user be blocked for an unambiguous personal attack. I did not lie, and I do not appreciate being called a liar. That you left a note at the user's talk page does not magically make it so that you did not edit-war at the article. nableezy - 23:29, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

If you block people for saying that others lied on Wikipedia, then I would request that User:Nableezy be also blocked for accusing me of lying, accusing me of meatpuppeting, (twice), insulting me by accusing me of working out of retaliation, and for blatantly insulting me in edit summaries by calling my changes tendentious bs and vandalism. --λⲁⲛτερⲛιξ^[talk] 23:39, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I did not accuse you of lying, and the edits you made were tendentious bs, arguably vandalism, and you were meatpuppeting for a banned user by repeatedly restoring the comments made by a sock of a banned user. None of this changes the fact that you made an unambiguous personal attack, and did so here of all places, and should be blocked. But that is the minor point, the larger one is that you deserve a very long block for continuing to edit war following a warning that if you did so you would be looking at week-long blocks and month-long topic bans. nableezy - 23:51, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

You did accuse me of lying as stated above, and all the above are examples of personal attacks on me and insults against me, none of which were appreciated. Mind you that other Wikipedia administrators have already expressed concern about the incivility of your insults against me! --λⲁⲛτερⲛιξ^[talk] 23:58, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Saying that a statement you made is false does not in any way compare to calling somebody a liar or saying that they lie. Also keep in mind that another admin wrote the edits that I called "tendentious bs" and "vandalism" are inexplicable. But this is getting way off topic, which I imagine is the point of all this. This section was opened to deal with your repeated edit warring and generally tendentious behavior. I await an admin to comment about this and I am on pins and needles to see if [this warning meant anything at all. nableezy - 00:02, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

My experiences with this user are limited to Criticism of Muhammad. There, when I attempted to delete some paragraphs which seemed to be novel or unsupported interpretations of primary source material, I met resistance from three other users, including Lanternix. Though I admit I have been somewhat aggressive in attempting to rid the article of this material, I believe I am acting fully in compliance with Wikipedia's policies. Initially, Lanternix argued that the sections were appropriately referenced. When I pointed out that the sections used no secondary sources, he seemed to relent, but responded by introducing a number of self-published and unreliable sources (e.g. [44], [45], [46], [47]). Thus far, he argues that "these sources are perfectly reliable" though he has not used any Wikipedia policy or guideline to support his statement. I'm not sure whether this user is simply ignorant of Wikipedia's reliable sourcing standards, or simply chooses to not abide by them. Planuu (talk) 08:16, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

I dealt with Lanternix at Pan-Arabism, where she/he engaged in exactly the same behavior: Lanternix edit-warred to preserve a poorly written polemic chock-full of WP:OR that was sourced to web forums and opinion columns at non-reliable sources. For an editor who has been here since 2006, Lanternix demonstrates a tremendous ignorance of WP:V and WP:RS. Lanternix seems more interested in promoting her/his POV than in following our policies and guidelines. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 16:04, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Comments by User:Lanternix

User:Nableezy continues their edit warring on this site, either expecting everyone to agree with them, or going around filing complaints about them. Of note, the user was blocked for 72 hours, only recently, for edit warring with other users. The user's block history for edit warring speaks for itself.

Recently, User:Nableezy has been insisting to removed a very relevant section from the article Egypt, in accordance with this user's general trend of downplaying any relevant information pertinent to minorities in the Arab World and Israel. In fact, User:Nableezy is currently topic-banned for a few months from all articles, discussions, and other content within the area of the Arab-Israeli conflict, as defined in WP:ARBPIA#Area of conflict, and I believe this includes Egypt. The user has been repeatedly violating this ban, and a complaint was recently filed against them because of this. No action has been taken yet with regards to this complaint.

Regarding the user's recent complaints about my edits on Egypt, please refer to the page's Talk Page, where you will find that multiple users have been arguing against the reverts that User:Nableezy insists on instating. After the user called all the references provided unreliable, we (myself as well as other users) proceeded to add what we believe are definitely reliable sources including CNN, BBC, der Spiegel, the Associated Press, ABC News etc. Unfortunately, User:Nableezy continued to insist that these sources were unreliable, and as a result went ahead today - in spite of all the discussion on the talk page - and again removed the entirety of the disputed section, including all of the aforementioned sources added on the talk page by multiple users. Admin Vassyana was made aware of this problem on their Talk Page#Egypt.

The other pages on which User:Nableezy is accusing me of edit warring do not even deserve a reply. On Arab Christians and Arabic-speaking Christians, this is clearly reversion of vandalism from a single user whose contributions are EXCLUSIVELY reverts of my edits on the same page (the user refused to even participate to my complaints about their edits on the Talk Page). Moreover, my edits on Criticism of Muhammed are hardly an edit war, as can be seen from my contributions to the article's Talk Page. On neither of these pages did I, at any time, violate the 3RR rule.

I have had it with User:Nableezy making the environment on Wikipedia hostile for a number of users. I believe it's about time for them to be undergo a long-term bloc (longer than just 72 hours this time, since this clearly did not change their attitude). I will be filing a complaint about the user shortly with the evidence provided above. --λⲁⲛτερⲛιξ^[talk] 21:52, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

You realize the block you reference was not related to edit-warring and was lifted by the blocking admin as a "fuck up" (his words) on his part (see here)? This is typical of the above, bogus assertions made that any person that looks at will quickly see are false. nableezy - 22:00, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Lanternix and Nableezy blocked

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

I have reviewed the evidence provided by Nableezy. It shows that Lanternix has edit-warred at Arab Christians and Arabic-speaking Christians and at Criticism of Muhammad (in both cases the user with whom Lanternix edit-warred has not yet received a 3RR warning; I've now warned them), as well as with Nableezy at Egypt.

Taking into consideration that Lanternix has had seven previous blocks for similar edit-warring since 2007 (!), and agreeing with Vassyana's assessment and warning from the previous ANI thread, I am blocking Lanternix for a month. Any subsequent edit-warring should result in an indefinite block.

I would appreciate opinions by editors not involved in disputes involving Islam, Egypt or the Arab-Israeli conflict about whether a community-imposed topic ban against Lanternix about anything involving Copts, Arabs, Egypt and Islam might in addition be useful.

Nableezy was the other party to the edit war on Egypt ([48], [49], [50], [51], [52], [53]). Nableezy has a history of four (non-overturned) edit-warring blocks. Consequently I am blocking Nableezy for a week.  Sandstein  16:53, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

• Unconvinced by the block of Nableezy - six reverts over a period of nine days, one of which was reverting an edit by a sock of a banned user, and two were reverting the addition of very dubious and completely unreferenced material? Black Kite (t) (c) 17:36, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
  • I agree, sorry Sandstein, on those diffs alone, it's a terrible block, seemingly a mistaken attempt at "plague on both your houses" evenhandedness. You could block most active contributors on Wikipedia with this level of proof. Rd232 ^talk 02:14, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Well, six reverts of substantially the same material is still edit-warring, no matter whether over a period of six hours or six days. The quality and sourcing of the material is not a factor in edit-warring blocks, except in BLP cases. But I'll be mostly offline for the next few days, so as far as I'm concerned any admin is free to lift this block if they feel it is not or no longer necessary. The reaction of the blocked user is at any rate encouraging, as is the fact that they stopped edit-warring and brought it here. (Addition: I agree that the revert of the sock is less of a problem, but the sockmaster NoCal100 (talk · contribs) is not currently marked as banned, and WP:EW has an exception for reverting banned users only.)  Sandstein  05:31, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
      • The sockmaster has been indeffed since June 2009, so for these purposes should be considered banned. The six reverts are not "substantially of the same material". And we're not talking about exceptions for WP:3RR, we're talking about whether to interpret something as slow-motion edit warring, for which relevant talkpage discussion (as exists here) should be material. Bad block, please don't do the like again. I've unblocked Nableezy. Rd232 ^talk 08:46, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
      • Support Rd232's unblock per Rd232. Nableezy's conduct wasn't disruptive, and the block was punitive rather than preventative. THF (talk) 23:02, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Lanternix in his request for an unblock states that he "would LOVE to see what material was completely unreferenced..." and hasn't broken the 3rr rule. When I pointed out what material was unreferenced and that he did indeed break the 3rr rule at least twice, he proceeded to delete the comment as unwelcome on his talk page. I guess he wouldn't really "LOVE to see what material was completely unreferenced..." Planuu (talk) 20:36, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Legal threat on User talk:Stephen

Hi. User:Barnaby1919 makes what appears to be a legal threat on User:Stephen's talk page with this edit and this edit. The edits are long; the relevant parts are "so have a think about whether you want legal action to be taken against you or not" and "of course if i have to persue a human rights violation action against you the costs of the verification process involved in the case will be charged to you. not to me." As a side note, I have no idea what this is about. ClovisPt (talk) 21:05, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Blocked per NLT. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 21:08, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Cheers for the quick action. It seems like User:Stephen gets a lot of hostile traffic on his talk page, he could possibly use more talk page stalkers, at least to throw some NPA warnings around. Merry Xmas, ClovisPt (talk) 21:18, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, this person may be a BLP subject. Possibly? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 21:19, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Reading the Google cache of the article he wrote about himself, I'm inclined to think that he hasn't yet met the notability requirements, although that could of course change as his career advances. I am sorry to hear about his car, however. ClovisPt (talk) 21:41, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Having said that, we could learn something here - we could certainly cut down on the unreferenced BLP backlog if the references just said "My article was written by me and is verifiable by asking me". Pure genius :) Black Kite (t) (c) 22:25, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Support change in policy. Per Black Kite.--Gnowor^T_C 20:32, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Beeblebrox, noted genius, world's strongest man, philosopher, ladies man, and the brains behind Large Hadron Collider, which to him was as easy to engineer as a doorstop, came from humble beginnings.... Just ask me, it's all true. Contradict and I'll sue your pants off. (and I really don't want to see most of you with your pants off) Beeblebrox (talk) 00:41, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

The deleted BLP he wrote on himself is certainly interesting reading. If you find utter bullshit to be interesting. Good deletion, good block, case closed for the moment. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:46, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

User Smokefoot called me a nutter

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

Resolved

 – WP:BOOMERANG Jehochman ^Talk 22:09, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

User Smokefoot called me a nutter and violated the Wikipedia:Five pillars User Smokefoot http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Smokefoot User Smokefoot undid my good contribution to the Fluoride talk page twice and called me a nutter when user smokefoot undid my contribution the first time. User Smokefoot should be reminded of the Wikipedia Wikipedia:Five pillars and User Smokefoot should be punished for disregarding the Wikipedia Wikipedia:Five pillars. See where user called me a nutter on this page when user Smokefoot undid my good contribution the first time. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Fluoride&action=history —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.44.123.5 (talk) 18:48, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

And you falsely accused him of vandalism, a serious charge. Between the two I'd say that your offense is by far the more serious. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 18:50, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Sock

It appears we possibly have a sock at work here. Compare with this IP:

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

See also Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Freedom5000, several of whom are anti-fluoridation activists at work here recently. -- Brangifer (talk) 19:27, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

• /me laughs uncontrollably at the Fluoride Song, another good contribution by another IP.[54] Tries to sing the line "Fluoridation started in 1952". Bishonen | talk 21:38, 26 December 2010 (UTC).

• The mention of 1952 reminded me of "I Hear You Knocking". The phrasing of the Smiley Lewis version actually gives a reasonable match to the meter of the Fluoride Song. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:57, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

• Yeah? It gave me associations to Ottava Rima's poetry. [55] Bishonen | talk 00:37, 27 December 2010 (UTC).

That's User:Freedom5000 on one of his roving IPs, WP:RBI. I've seen enough of him to say, the PoV isn't the worry, his behaviour and socking have brought all the woes, he's never given policy here the slightest heed. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:47, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Vintagekits seeks unblock

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Such a poor unblock request probably didn't merit more than a swift WP:NOTTHEM. Anyone keen to help Vintagekits formulate a proper unblock request is welcome to do so. Rd232 ^talk 11:07, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

---

Vintagekits (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has requested an unblock.

There is a long and contentious history here, so may I suggest that it would be best if this unblock request is not hnandled by any single admin? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:49, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

The unblock request should be summarily declined for not addressing the block reason and in particular per WP:NOTTHEM. No opinion on the merits so far.  Sandstein  17:04, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Sandstein, here. I see no hint of a change in behavior. T. Canens (talk) 17:32, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Oppose unblock. Given all the hassle and disruption this user has given us over the years, and given the sheer number of absolutely final no-going-back last chances this user managed to game his way out of before he was finally shown the door (at least three), I see no reason why we should have to go through the whole rigmarole again. That's aside the issues that Sandstein notes with the unblock request. Pfainuk talk 17:37, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Non-admin comment: "The actually block was malicious in the first place" should not be accepted as part of an unblock rationale. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:37, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose unblock No compelling reason given, user was hugely disruptive (possible record for most blocks?) and the community finally decided that the bad outweighed the good. No reason given to re-consider that position "Time served" is a completely invalid reason and the accusation of bad faith on the behalf of the blocking admin (not sure if that was aimed at me or whoever the now-vanished final blocker was) seals the deal. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:01, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock (non-admin) "time to unblock I think. The actually block was malicious in the first place but I think time has been served anyway" is a ridiculous unblock request, especially when many of the problems that lead to the block seem to have involved incivility and a refusal to work with other editors in a respectful or productive manner. ClovisPt (talk) 21:35, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support extremely conditional unblock - sorry, but yeah. While I'm not overly impressed with the unblock rationale or lack thereof, Vintagekits has had a history of positive contributions to many articles, especially professional boxing. Were he to be unblocked, I'd require a complete and absolute topic ban away from articles directly connected to Irish or British politics, as well as articles that are Troubles-related. Furthermore, he'd need a community-appointed mentor that would be not of his choice. Were this to go ahead, I'd like to see 3-monthly community reviews and if there were any shenanigans he would be banned from the project. This would need to continue for a year at least. In short; VK is capable of collegial and positive editing - I've seen him do it before, He would, however, need to be extremely restricted in what he could be allowed to participate in. I know this is going to be an unpopular opinion, but I've worked with VK (not always cordially) for a long number of years now - have blocked him, have argued with him, and have been involved in dragging him up in front of ArbCom for one of the longest Arb cases we've had on the project. Nobody is beyond redemption & by way of illustration, I've recently un-indefblocked his POV-pushing counterpart on the other side, with noted success. I'd like to see more discussion and debate before this is summarily closed shut - I can see it heading that way already - and I'd like to invite more admins who have been involved with the Troubles dispute to take part and weigh in here - Alison ^❤ 23:21, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support per Alison but those editing restrictions are going to have to be nailed down really tightly. The Troubles, obviously, and I would probably suggest anything to do with the BI dispute as well, just in case. Also, no editing of projectspace pages at all unless directly related to him (per previous issues at AfD/ANI etc). I'm sure there's more, but it's late here. I'd like to see a decent unblock request though, with an idea of what VK intends working on if unblocked. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:00, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock Though I respect Alison tremendously, I think that unblocking any user who throws this much blame around and refuses to acknowledge that their own actions are their own responsibility serves no net benefit to Wikipedia. Good, quality edits can be made by users that do not behave like Vintagekits, whose actions only serve to drive away those very editors. --Jayron32 01:07, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose The unblock rationale has no trace of any desire to change their ways, quite the reverse.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 01:09, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
• Question for Alison and anyone else supporting an unblock: just how many times do you want the community to have to repeat this cycle?
  The WP:NOTTHEM unblock request announces a continuation of the WP:BATTLEGROUND mindset, but that alone is a relatively minor point in this case. Surely there is a limit somewhere to the amount of drama that the community has to endure from any individual. Vintagekits has has numerous final-final chances, and has blown them, despite explicit warnings that he was getting an absolutely final and irrevocable last chance. Yes, VK has made some great contribs to boxing articles, but Jayron32 is right to note that drama such as VK's drives away other editors, who don't want to give their time to such a hostile environment. The endless dramas also waste hours of other editors' time in discussing and invoking the admin processes, and in monitoring and reading the many huge threads it generates at multiple locations; VK-style drama imposes huge costs on wikipedia. As to Black Kite's suggestion of editing restrictions nailed down really tightly, well ... we've tried that several times before. Despite having been involved in several disputes with VK, I strongly supported the first such unblock-on-strict-terms (see User talk:Vintagekits/terms) on the strict understanding that it really was a final chance. Why repeat this cycle when we have so much experience of where it leads? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:53, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
• Opppose The proposal to unblock Vintagekits only reinforces the idea that productive, conscientious editors are expendable peons, whereas troublemakers like Vintagekits deserve to be mentored, cultivated, and lavished with our time and attention. It's time for that to stop. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:59, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
  • To be fair, VK is both productive and a troublemaker. If we could ensure he's only able to be the former and not the latter, I think it's worth a try. Black Kite (t) (c) 10:34, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
    • But it has already been tried, at least twice, with a huge effort put into drawing up the conditions set out at User talk:Vintagekits/terms (which itself followed even lengthier discussions about whether to try this path). Why do you believe that a further attempt is any more likely to exceed than the hugely time-consuming efforts so far? Is there evidence of a change in VK's attitude? Or some great idea for new terms? Or some better enforcement mechanism?
      Note that so far I have just asked, and not opposed, because I am assuming that you and Alison would not want a return to the Groundhog Day cycles of the past ... but so far I don't see anything from either of you explaining the basis for what looks to me like a triumph of hope over experience. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:07, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock per Boris and BHG. I see no indication in the unblock request of a more collegial attitude -- quite the opposite, actually. The correct "time to unblock" will come when the editor indicates their understanding of the disruption they've been responsible for in the past, and makes a credible pledge not to do so in the future. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:46, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
• oppose unblock No. No. No. I remember all too well the drama. Coupled with "the actually (sic) block was malicious in the first place"? He needs a heavy dose of clue first. KrakatoaKatie 04:50, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock There is nothing in the request for unblock that acknowledges their past behavior. MarnetteD | Talk 06:35, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - a block log as long as your arm and over a year to contemplate, and he still doesn't get it? Bettia (talk) 17:34, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support as we've no evidence of socking since his indef-block, no evidence was presented that MFIreland was his sock (SPI since closed). Colourful langauges in posts and/or edit summaries aren't a problem with me (though I'd recommend the pratice be dis-continued, if an unblock is granted). GoodDay (talk) 18:32, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
• Postpone Not enough eyes on this for ANI's lifecycle, especially with the traditional drop off in activity at the end December. Will comment on the particular merits later.--Tznkai (talk) 19:56, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

We've already got about twenty different users participating here, despite it being a slow time on WP. I think that's a pretty decent group to determine a consensus on the matter. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:06, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Twenty users is not an indicia of consensus. Its not even a decent sample, being as this sample is not sufficiently large, random, or representative. If we think that our decision making should be in part based on what the people best informed have to say (and I think it ought), then no number will be sufficient.--Tznkai (talk) 04:03, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Huh? Are you really saying that no matter how many editors share a particular view, there cannot be a consensus? Or that we should disregard all except a few chosen voices? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:38, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose Unblock. That's not even really an actual unblock request, it's more like a muttering. Dayewalker (talk) 20:00, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose This user just doesn't get it. If he'd posted something along the lines of "I screwed up. Foul language, posting when drunk and insulting other posters is never acceptable behaviour on Wikipedia. Therefore having had a year to think about it I'll change if reinstated" I'd support. But posts along the lines of "I did no wrong, the admin not me is to blame for my block" suggest that after an unblock we'd be here again and again and again. Why waste time? Valenciano (talk) 20:19, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock per NOTTHEM. Not a net benefit to the project. --John (talk) 20:53, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support per Alison - I usually take a hard line on these types of cases, but I think this may be an example of someone who should not just be written off. I grant you that the unblock request is most unpromising, but close mentoring per Alison could be worthwhile. I have seen much uglier cases than this one get the same kind of deal. Call it the holiday spirit that moves me, but let's think this over. Jusdafax 23:46, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

  As above, how many times should he be offered such a deal? And why do you think that yet another absolutely-unequivocally-final chance will be more successful than the previous absolutely-unequivocally-final chances? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:06, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

  I admit the block log is unbelievable and is the longest I have seen. And yet... Alison, who, like you, has blocked him, has some good points, as does Black Kite. Also noted is the argument that he's been blocked a year, and appears not to have attempted to come back via a sock. (As soon as I see sockage, I go hard core punitive.) Sounds to me like you want a ban. I admit I have not gone through every edit he's ever made, just a sampling... it appears he has issues with some topics... and I noticed his detractors include some names who I judge as dubious. This just seemed like a good case for a conditional "pardon", but again, I get a little soft around the edges on the holidays. I daresay I might feel differently if I had been threatened by him. And I again note that the unblock request is pathetic. Jusdafax 02:26, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

  I understand what you say about him having not socked this time, and I agree that he has some done some good work as well as cause untold drama ... and we agree too about the unblock request. But you don't appear to have answered my two questions, and while you obviously don't don't have to answer, it would help to know how those supporting an unblock can address those concerns. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:40, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Before we can even seriously consider the byzantine unblock scenario proposed by Alison we should probably ask if he would even agree to such a firm set of conditions, given the continued persistent denial of ever having been at fault for any of his blocks and the fact that he has actually bragged [56] about being blocked so many times. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:04, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

(ec - @BrownHairedGirl) Fair enough. How many times? If I understand WP:STANDARDOFFER correctly, if the community has not banned VK, there is no limit. I respectfully suggest you may desire to start a ban discussion to put an end to the unblock discussions. After all, even Charles Manson gets parole hearings every couple years! As for your second question... I admit to being troubled. No way would I care to mentor this character. Yet, I spent another 30 minutes poking around, and looked at the facts of the case including VK's talk page. It appears there were certain irregularities, which I find disturbing. The bottom line: this does not seem to quite be the open and shut case some here make out. Yes, he takes a number of highly unpopular stands, has a potty mouth, has pulled some fast ones and is a damned slow learner and dramamonger. But again, over a year later, the policy that most seems applicable is the Standard Offer. Finally: this is all moot unless VK can write a sincere unblock request, agree to mentoring, topic bans etc. and win consensus here... none of which seem in the offing anyway. Jusdafax 03:08, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

From the essay WP:STANDARDOFFER: "On the other hand, if the indefinitely blocked or banned user continues to be especially disruptive then some may become unwilling to consider a return for a much longer time or, quite possibly, ever." I'm not quite in such a hardline camp, but I also don't see any point in endless re-runs of the same cycle, so I guess I'd summarise my view as being in favour the current de facto ban (that's policy) unless and until a better option comes along. I haven't entirely ruled out the possibility that a better option may exist, which is why I was pressing you and other supporters of unblocking to explain how and why you think it can be different this time.

You are right that there have been irregularities in how VK's antics have been handled. However, given the heat and volume of the dramas VK stokes, it would be quite surprising if everyone trying to restrain him got everything right all the time. But it rather reminds me of a workplace law case between some friends of mine, where the court found for the claimant because the defendant had made some serious procedural errors, but awarded zero damages because the outcome would have been the same if they had done things properly. And I do wonder whether VK ever intended this unblock request to be taken seriously: it has none of the characteristics of a request made in any hope of a favourable response, which as you says renders most of this discussion moot. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:43, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

And Beeblebrox's note re: VK's brag about being blocked is a major stopper. I'd now strike my support if this discussion was close, but I leave it as is as a record of the reasoning. Jusdafax 04:02, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose Content creation doesn't act as some kind of counterbalance on behaviour: if an editor cannot behave, he's gone, without regard to whether he created on article on Winnie-the-Pooh's belly-button lint or a dozen featured articles. Good behaviour is a prerequisite that cannot be waived.—Kww(talk) 00:11, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Unblock:The long standing sock master who taunted and provoked most of VK's worst behaviour has now been unblocked following a long ban [57]. Therefore, it seems rather strange that VK should remain banned. One law for all, is the custom here - so perhaps that needs to be applied.  Giacomo  11:09, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Serious discussion of that might make a serious unblock request slightly more convincing. You're welcome to help VK on or offline in formulating one. Rd232 ^talk 11:19, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Offline? Too much seems to happen offline here, far too much. It seems to me this whole matter is being dealt with offline. There is no justification for unbloking his opponent, who behaved worse and leaving him blocked. You need to learn to judge things in a fair and even manner. Something I see no sign of here at all.  Giacomo  11:23, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Sigh. As I just said on VK's talkpage, I had no involvement with his "opponent"'s unblock. If there is anything offline going on here I'm unaware of it. And I don't see how you or anyone else helping VK draft a request offline (for posting onwiki in the usual way) is a bad thing, seeing as it would minimise drama and maximise his chances of creating a request that might succeed. And to reiterate what I said elsewhere: taking such a crappy unblock request seriously does no-one whatsoever any favours, least of all VK. Rd232 ^talk 11:41, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

re-archiving after Giacomo re-opened: this discussion isn't helping Vintagekits. Rd232 ^talk 11:45, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

You are not supposed to just descend on a case, like some second rate Fairy Tinkerbell alighting on a Christmas tree, but to reveiw the case properlyand thoroughly - this you miserably failed to do.  Giacomo  11:57, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT much? If an experienced user doesn't take the unblock request seriously, there is zero reason anyone else should. And I did take it seriously enough to read this ANI discussion and highlight key concerns for them and their supporters to address. You asked for "One law for all" above - but now you seem to be asking for some kind of special treatment for VK. Rd232 ^talk 12:10, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Quite the contrary. Uninvolved editors and admins are Wikipedia's rarest and most precious commodity. There's no reason to believe that Rd232 is uninformed. The facts of this case are undisputed.   Will Beback  talk  12:09, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

We're already past the HAT. Let's let this sleepy matter lie for another while. Perhaps Giacomo could proxy-upload good articles on boxing in the meantime.   Will Beback  talk  12:13, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fictional history of Wolverine (2nd nomination)

Normally this is the sort of thing I'd fix myself, but unreliable power/internet service is making it tricky. We are accidentally on the third nomination of the fictional history of Wolverine, not the second. My guess is a relatively new user just made some formatting mistakes when doing the nomination. If someone could move the new discussion to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fictional history of Wolverine (3rd nomination) and restore the result of the second I would really appreciate it. AniMate 05:59, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

 Done - for future reference, this requwst belonged on WP:AN, not here. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:08, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Agdaban massacre DRV

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 December 24 has gotten out of hand. The original Agdaban massacre DRV listing was non-admin closed because the deleting administrator reverted the Agdaban massacre deletion.[58] A new editor (editing since 6 December 2010) reopened the non-admin closure and added a few more articles well after discussion had taken place.[59] The original DRV nominator is under A-A2 restrictions. An admin should close the Agdaban massacre DRV because the deleting administrator reverted the Agdaban massacre deletion and a consensus can't be developed on the late additions since the participants who posted prior to those listings didn't comment on them. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 08:09, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

And the titles all seem pov - I couldn't find any books or news sources to verify them. I realise that's a different issue but if they are restored I hope someone looks at it. Dougweller (talk) 08:26, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

All three articles were mentioned in the nominator's statement [60] as being considered for restoration at the DRV. I merely clarified the header. The only way the deleting administrator could have missed the presence of the request to restore the other articles is if he didn't read the statement by the nominator. A comment by another user participating in the DRV, prior to my fixing the headers, also recognizes that the nominator's statement requests the restoration of three articles [61]. And moving pages to correct titles is more efficient than rewriting articles from scratch. Chester Markel (talk) 14:32, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Can anything be done about this?

This is getting old [62] and I really hate to see a sock making up an account with my name (plus mangled swear words) and using it to vandalise. See my earlier requests at [63] although a range block doesn't seem feasible, see [64], so maybe nothing can be done. Dougweller (talk) 13:22, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

• Added your name to edit filter #102. NawlinWiki (talk) 13:24, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks very much. Dougweller (talk) 13:35, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

J. Hartwell Harrison

User:Carmarg4 insists that the lead sentence in J. Hartwell Harrison must be the form that was used by the subject, and the citation be removed for fairly fixable reasons. I have directed him/her to WP:MOSBIO in edit summaries, and even posted a note on his/her talk page, but it has since been removed and ignored, and my edits undone. Since I don't want to start a WP:LAME edit war, I've decided to bring it up here. Thanks. Connormah (talk) 15:35, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I've reverted Carmagh4's last edit, protected the page, and posted the following on his talk Please stop removing information. The correct first name is better than an initial, and a cite without an author is better than none at all. I've protected the page pending ANI. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:11, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Indefinite full protection seems a little excessive. Was that what you intended? I think Carmarg4 needs to be encouraged to discuss issues like this before we reach ANI. Could the article be unprotected now and we see how things go on? Adambro (talk) 16:53, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Aside from this action being perhaps too big a hammer, the way it was handled (reverting to a version that appeared in the middle of the edit war and leaving a talk message that supports one side) feels contrary to WP:PREFER. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 23:00, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

In my view, we have no source showing Dr. Harrison used the name John himself, and therefore we cannot assume that his first initial stands for John. Also, in my opinion, a cite without an author cannot be evaluated on reliability or verifiability, and is therefore not acceptable.Carmarg4 (talk) 16:32, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm quite sure tat this isn't a matter for ANI - it's more a content dispute. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 16:58, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

This is definitely a content dispute - a warning to the editor and an instruction to discuss the matter on talk before making any more reverts would have been appropriate. Changing the page to your preferred version and then fully protecting it is not. Trebor (talk) 17:44, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

It's in the citation I added - I can look for an author, but I'm not sure why you just couldn't look - it seems to be a book that it's from, which should be reliable.. Connormah (talk) 18:45, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

If you scroll up of the PDF, you can clearly see 6 authors listed - S. P. Desai, M. S. Desai, D. N. Wood, R. Maddi, S. Leeson and N. L. Tilney. Connormah (talk) 18:56, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Considering that was a valid cite, and the claim that there was "no author" was completely spurious, I see no problem with the revert-then-protect.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:14, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

No, read WP:PREFER. If a user's edits are "wrong" then talk/warn/block the user, don't protect the page. Trebor (talk) 00:24, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

It was only my intention to protect until the matter was dealt with here. It was not a matter of "preferring" a particular version, I've never heard of this guy. It just seemed to me that repeatedly removing information and a citation was not good faith editing unless the name or cite were obviously improbable or wrong. Anyone here can remove the protection if they wish. I'm being to remember why I normally only visit this page if asked to do so. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:05, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

I apologise, I was being a bit blunt and focused on procedure. Assuming both editors were acting in good faith, I'm not thrilled by a revert and protect (just because it makes the "losing" editor feel a bit powerless); but you explained your reasoning (which was perfectly sound) and said it was temporary "pending ANI" so it was fine really. It's not exactly a critical issue. Trebor (talk) 02:24, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

The protection on a preferred version was a minor procedural error. I wouldn't worry about it too much. If someone really wants to be fussy, then revert Jimfbleak's edit through the protection, leaving the "wrong" version protected. The protection itself might have been slightly out of order too, but in this low-activity article, since the protection is already there, I'd say to minimize drama by leaving the protection in place (up to a day or two) while the issue is sorted on the talk page. That avoids a lot of hostility such as 3RR warnings, blocks, etc. 67.117.130.143 (talk) 21:07, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

I have reduced it to a one-week full protection. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 22:52, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Fine with me, Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:22, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Carmarg4 has done good work on the article and shouldn't get discouraged. S/he just has to understand that a biography normally documents all of a person's names. 67.117.130.143 (talk) 17:48, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Added: A slight oddity--it's not obvious where most discussion related to this took place? It doesn't seem to be in the article talk page or Carmarg4's user talk history (I see a few removed ANI notifications but no real discussion). 67.117.130.143 (talk) 18:14, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Here is a removal as noted above. And it's these removals, (and claimed refusal to discuss) rather than the "content dispute" itself that made this a reasonable matter for ANI. Rich Farmbrough, 16:53, 27 December 2010 (UTC).

SPA promoting Dana Ullman at Charles Darwin article and elsewhere

A single purpose account, User:BeatriceX (Contributions), has read a Dana Ullman speculative commentary linking Charles Darwin to Homeopathy and Homeopathic dilutions and is spamming talk pages to point out, against community consensus, that the Ullman article and a quote from Darwin should be included somewhere in wikipedia. She refuses to read or understand the fact that the Ullman article is listed by its journal as a speculative commentary ("Evidence-based CAM will publish in the section Hypotheses-Conjectures-Comments papers proposing hypotheses that are interesting but still lack certain evidence. The paper can be purely speculative, ....").[65][66][67][68] She says she's not attempting to promote homeopathy and that what she is adding is not about homeopathy, but her first section title on Charles Darwin talk was " Darwin and Homeopathy ,"[69] and she is posting on the Homeopathy talk page[70] and the Homeopathic dilutions talk page.

She has been asked and warned to stop her WP:Disruptive editing.[71][72][73]

She is spamming talk pages at Talk:Charles Darwin (→"Darwin and Homeopathy ", and ‎→Darwin experiment on High Dilutions, when the first attempted failed), Talk:Dana Ullman (→Ullman's article on Darwin and Homeopathy - wikipedia), Talk:Homeopathy (→High Dilutions and Darwin's experiments), Talk:Drosera rotundifolia (→Darwin and Drosera), and Talk:Homeopathic dilutions (→Darwin's book on his experiments with Drosera and Ullman's article). She has posted the same passage from Darwin at least 4 article talk pages seeking a place in wikipedia to add this quote.[74][75][

The Homeopathy and Dana Ullman articles have both been the subject of arbitration hearings.Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Homeopathy I think a ruling in the Homeopathy case is applicable to the current situation:

"1) The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Use of the site for other purposes, such as advocacy or propaganda, furtherance of outside conflicts, publishing or promoting original research, and political or ideological struggle, is prohibited."

This user is a single purpose account, single-mindedly devoted to adding Ullman's interpretation of Darwin to any possible article on wikipedia.[76] She's making personal comments about people, bringing up other stuff, and generally disengaging editors from editing and into arguing with her. It's disruptive, completely. Considering the nature of the arbitration proceedings, the amount of time wasted on pointless discussions, her refusal to read wikipedia policies, her game playing with other stuff, and her subsequent failure to understand policies from her not reading them, I think it is time for a non-involved administrator to step in.

--Kleopatra (talk) 11:50, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

To be fair, she registered only two days ago so perhaps she's just a bit over-enthusiastic. Maybe some uninvolved, experienced editor could offer to adopt her?Six words (talk) 12:01, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

And encourage her to read a single paragraph of policy, rather than arguing against all the ones she hasn't bothered to read.... --Kleopatra (talk) 12:05, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

I think what's needed here is a bit of coolness and calmness. We have a new user who may just be enthusiastic about something she thinks should be included, so we should assume good faith. What I think we should do is back down from shouting at her and criticizing her style, and demanding she reads this and that page of the rule book. We should just state clearly what is wrong with including this material, and not just keep repeating ourselves. And then back off a bit and give others time to join in - it's still a holiday, and not much time has passed yet since the start of the discussion, and as long as there's no edit-warring going on in the actual articles themselves, there's no urgency. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:47, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

I've already stated clearly and multiple times that the source she is using, Ullman's speculative commentary, is just that: a speculative commentary, according to the journal it is written in (see link to journal above). She has turned this around and stated that means we think Oxford journals or Charles Darwin are unreliable, something no one but BeatriceX has said. In other words, she'll just continue talking and ignoring and misstating, but not reading, anyone's clear statements about what is wrong and about what is wikipedia policy. And, yes, although I agree with you that outside of article space most matters on wikipedia have little urgency, there is no reason to provide her with article talk pages as her personal soapbox as long as she is not willing to listen to other editors, or understand policy, as indicated by her purposeful misreading/unreading of others' comments and non-reading of policy indicates she is doing. --Kleopatra (talk) 18:30, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, she does appear to have stopped for now, and surely that's what we want - let's not condemn her for what she's going to do next, and let's wait and see if she does it first. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:38, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

1. BeatriceX (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) could be a ban evading sock puppet.
2. I am going to notify them, per Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Homeopathy#Discretionary_sanctions, that they will be topic banned if all the soapboxing does not stop.
3. We don't need users who come here to Right Great Wrongs and import real world battles. Jehochman ^Talk 14:08, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Probably one admin watching is sufficient at the current level, although still necessary. --Kleopatra (talk) 18:39, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm 99% sure I know who "BeatriceX" really is, but would rather not say. Even sockpuppets have a right to personal privacy. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 19:57, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you. The sockmaster edited within the last 60 days, so I think we can resolve this with a little technical help. Jehochman ^Talk 22:13, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

This has parfum de "Bald DUCK" sprayed all over it....;-) -- Brangifer (talk) 22:31, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Not quite sure why User:Loeny021, an editor with a single edit, was included in and then removed from this. Or why I was included for that matter. I have notified the editor in question. Brunton (talk) 23:51, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Bizarre! Also that it was started as the first edit by a "newbie"?!! Include them in the CU. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:27, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Truth be told, the SPA is exhibiting the classic "I'm a block evading sock" behavour. While I don't have a problem with any proposed edits to articles they may have, they haven't proposed any but just seems to be interested in lots and lots of heat with little to zero light :-( Shot info (talk) 05:51, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Since these account appear to be up to some sort of mischief, I am going to block them, that is BeatriceX (talk · contribs) and Loeny021 (talk · contribs). Jehochman ^Talk 15:34, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Blood libel

There's a user at this talk page who talks like he's spoiling for some kind of a war (Btmaisel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)). The latest thread began when another user suggested the removal of the antisemitism template. The response to this occasioned a long rant from Btmaisel devoid of reference to policy or reliable source on why the phrase "almost always Jews" should be removed from the article. When reverted at the article, he responded with another rant on everything he sees as wrong with the article and Wikipedia generally that includes this gem.

If I had the time, I would just improve the article by reorganizing it completely, with citations, including ten or fifteen other minorities, log in to an account with page-locking privileges, and tell everyone to sit and spin on the final product.

He goes on to inform us:

I'm not against referrals, I just find it to be a hypocrisy for you to refer me to a policies that I can edit and have been familiar with for years, especially when I cite a reliable source in my argument. Not only that, but I've been a registered Wikipedian (in this account) for around a year longer than you, number of edits on this particular account notwithstanding. I've been a registered user since before there was a reliable source policy.

Now, this guy has exactly 61 edits and is doing a lot of bragging about his wiki-powers, including an apparent claim to control an administrator account and maybe some others. I think, at minimum, he should be required to disclose his other accounts and perhaps a checkuser should be run.

Just as a point of information, we used to have two articles, Blood libel and Blood libel against Jews, but when no one could come up with any sources for accusations against others being called "blood libels" the articles were merged, with the content from the second article placed under the first article's name (not that the content dispute is relevant here).

Also, I don't know if this matters, but he's taken to signing his posts with this: O sibili, si ergo! fortibus es inero. O nobili! demis trux! Si vats inem: caus en dux. a bit of Dog Latin that is explicated here--Steven J. Anderson (talk) 02:27, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

• Claiming to be able to log into an administrator account seems to me to be a clear invitation to be blocked. In fact, I see a clear history of tendentious editing and beligerent battleground mentality that shows that he's not likely here to be a positive contributor to Wikipedia. Any objections to that assessment? --Jayron32 03:14, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to see a CU done, certainly. I think we can ignore the dog latin, though! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 03:25, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I had better own up to my mistakes here, now that I'm sober. I'll admit I screwed up pretty badly. I just went on a 2-week bender, idiotically trying to chase my father's memory away, among other things. My life generally falls apart this time of year. My father died on Thanksgiving a couple years ago, I lost my job this past week, I'm losing my apartment at the end of this week, and my car has no heater in a mountain town in Colorado. I apologize for being disruptive and taking it out on Wikipedia. I can guarantee it won't happen again. I'm actually thinking of either going on wikibreak or requesting my user and talk pages be deleted, anyway. It's not like I'll have a whole lot of Internet access while I'm homeless. O sibili, si ergo! fortibus es inero. O nobili! demis trux! Si vats inem: caus en dux. (talk) 14:33, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Whatever regarding the rant. The basic premise of it though seems to be not entirely devoid of reason. This notes that the lie has been used "against lepers, Jews, heretics, Cathars, Knights Templar, and Witches." It really doesn't take much to discover that "almost always Jews" is factually incorrect. The article lede also has an unreferenced assertion that "These libels have persisted among some segments of Christians to the present time, and recently Muslims as well." The modern accusations from some Muslims appear to be plainly rhetorical (they accuse Americans, and others too). Unfortunately as with the article here some are taking the rhetoric literally, when in fact to do so would be just as contrary to Muslim law, as it would be in Jewish law. It was taking that sort of stuff at face value that got us into the Iraq War. An encyclopaedia deserves better. John lilburne (talk) 15:35, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

AfD closure after 5 hours

Resolved

User:DragonflySixtyseven closed this Afd Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ghada Abdel Moneim 5 hours after it started. The AfD had 4 responses in that time 2 for deletion and 2 against, so why did this admin close it after 5 hours? They also used the edit summary of "as per AfD" I have asked them to explain but they haven't responded dispite having made edits since I asked the question. So should this article be re-instated and the AfD re opened or can admins just close an AfD when they feel like it? Mo ainm~Talk 17:43, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I got sidetracked - cat problems, plus my browser crashed; by the time I got started again, I'd completely forgotten about your question. And I think I may have misread that AfD... let me check. DS (talk) 17:49, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Okay, that was an error on my part. I've restored the article and re-opened the AfD. DS (talk) 17:58, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm So Happy I Can't Stop Crying

Can someone put an end to this? A user keeps somehow thwarting Xlinkbot by throwing an unnecessary YouTube link on I'm So Happy I Can't Stop Crying. It's nothing but spam. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 04:04, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

That aggravation is the price you pay for being a deletionist. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:10, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

What?! Corvus cornix_talk 19:13, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

I was commenting on his deletion, today, of an image I had posted 3 years ago. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:44, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

How is that relevant to this discussion? Corvus cornix_talk 19:57, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

• Council45 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

(edit conflict) The user in question is Council45 (talk · contribs). This user has made only about seven edits since January 2010, all of them edits to add a link to the video on that same article TenPoundHammer mentions above, so it looks like this could be called a single purpose account. The user has a red-linked user page, and the entire contents of his/her talk page are notices about the link he/she has been trying to add to that article. Who knows, this may even be the person who made that video, and wants to put a link to it on Wikipedia. [|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 04:16, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Blockable or no? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 04:20, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

I do not know. However, considering the number of reverts he made on the article within the past few months to get his link back on there, he may well be violating WP:3RR.

Note: The user under discussion here had not been notified yet, so I just notified him/her a few minutes ago. [|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 04:26, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

He hasn't violated 3RR, but he's an SPA who's waging a slow-speed edit war. If he reverts once more he should be dispatched. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:58, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

It might be that Council45 is also user:Rossdv. In the talk archive: Talk:Sting_(musician)/Archive_1#Invited_fans_on_stage, and in the mediation archive:Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-11-15_Sting_(musician)_trivia. It looks like simple self promotion to me. HumphreyW (talk) 10:35, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

It's a WP:LINKVIO. Taping musicians in concert may be common, but that doesn't make it legal. I'll explain. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:16, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Youtube will take down copyrighted stuff if the violated copyright holder complains. Instead of fighting this character directly, would it work to report that violation to the folks who run Youtube? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:58, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

It's not the responsibility of a Wikipedia editor to patrol YouTube. It is the responsibility of Wikipedia editors to patrol copyright violating links on Wikipedia. Corvus cornix_talk 19:13, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

I didn't say it's our responsibility; I asked, "Would that work?" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:46, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if YouTube will respond to any John Doe off the Net with copyright concerns, I think the copyright holder would have to be the one to make the first move, and that doesn't address the problem that as long as the copyvio is there, it should not be linked to from here. Corvus cornix_talk 19:58, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Of course, some artists are fine with people sharing audio and video of their concerts, but I'm willing to bet that Sting isn't one of them. Black Kite (t) (c) 14:07, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

I checked both youtube and Sting's own site, and I didn't see anything about "how to contact", so I reckon they're on their own. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:16, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

So are we gonna keep beating around the bush or do something? I'm hearing lots of blah blah blah but I'm not seeing any action. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 18:52, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Action has been taken. I explained the copyright situation to him yesterday. He hasn't edited since the 16th of December. So far as I am concerned, nothing else is necessary or appropriate at this time. If he doesn't restore the link, there's no more problem. (I've put this thread back in sequence. There's no reason to move it.)--Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:57, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Sock of banned user Dodona wreaking havoc

Pelasgon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), an obvious sock [77] [78]of the banned Dodona (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is wreaking havoc on various articles, falsifying sources [79], trolling [80], etc...He is even taunting users about getting a CU [81], once he became aware of it [82]. This account is also almost certainly him [83]. The only reason he has gotten away with this much is because Future Perfect at Sunrise, the admin most familiar with him is away at the moment. I should add that this is a particularly prolific sockpuppeteer, with hundreds of blocked socks for something like 3 years now. The disruption is ongoing, any help would be greatly appreciated. Athenean (talk) 18:25, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I've blocked Pelasgon and Albani82 (talk · contribs). SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 19:59, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Unblock request

I placed an indef block on Someone65 (talk · contribs) last week because of his disruptive editing. However, I never intended it to be an infinite block, and was hoping for more input after an unblock request. However, the unblock request has been sitting untouched since the 23rd. I know it's a holiday weekend, but I thought there'd be someone around to look at them.... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:37, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Done. Dougweller (talk) 19:09, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Dartford Grammar School

Could somebody revdel these diffs please?

[84] [85]

Thanks. a_man_alone (talk) 22:23, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Done. Nev1 (talk) 22:27, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Requesting review of recent request for input

It has been alleged at Talk:Ebionites that my recent requests for additional comments on the restoration of a quality template to that article was a violation of WP:CANVASS. I would request input on that page from anyone here regarding that allegation. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 22:53, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

This wasn't neutral, so yes, such posts do stray somewhat from Wikipedia:Canvas#Campaigning. If there's a need to say so much about why the input is wanted, one should put forth, in a neutral way, all the outlooks in the disagreement. Rewriting those posts should fix any worries, though. Also, it's not taken as neutral in such a post, to bring up an earlier sanction: That has nothing to do with the content, so it doesn't fit in a neutral post about content. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:07, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

An honest account (from your POV) of what has occurred but I agree not neutral. I agree Rewriting it would be advisable and fix the problem. I think a Trout might be in order but no immediate Admin action. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 23:38, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

User:ChrisMcQuillan and Chris McQuillan

Resolved

 – Trebor (talk) 00:20, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

ChrisMcQuillan (talk · contribs) is requesting the deletion of the article about himself, which he created. What's the policy on such things? Corvus cornix_talk 23:29, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm attempting to remove my digital footprint, and this is part of it. The page is redundant, and is merely used by friends to vandalise. ChrisMcQuillan_talk 23:36, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

So you were notable yesterday, but today you're not??? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:47, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't have any problem with deleting this article. It was a subject-created article of dubious notability, the two sources are purely local in scope, and the subject really doesn't look to be notable to me. Of course, if we want to run it through WP:AFD, that's fine by me. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:51, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

His 'notability' seems very marginal to me; he's written three scripts for plays and is writing another sums it up. One ref is to a local newspaper and the other is a primary source, the website of the theater that he is associated with. Could be speedy deleted using CSD A7. Perhaps you could get your admin tools out, Bunny. 217.42.50.236 (talk) 23:57, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Deleted G7. Trebor (talk) 00:20, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I hope this thread is recalled in the future if this person changes his mind and decides he should have an article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:30, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Outing by User:LegitimateAndEvenCompelling

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

LEAC indefinitely blocked, not permanent, but without expiration while the nuances of this are reviewed and a more final outcome resolved. Further discussion should take place in a new thread. unomi 10:42, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

---

Is this outing [86] of an WP editor, by User:LegitimateAndEvenCompelling appropriate? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.95.83.51 (talk) 16:12, 27 December 2010 (UTC) — 208.95.83.51 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Is there any evidence that this indeed LAEC's blog besides the self-assertion? NW (Talk) 16:16, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Links to it on his userpage (Blogger userbox), and in his conflict of interest notice. --208.95.83.51 (talk) 16:18, 27 December 2010 (UTC) — 208.95.83.51 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Ah, yes. That is true. On the other hand, he is "outing" three to five year old IP edits. I'll leave it up to the rest of you to determine whether or not that is sanctionable. NW (Talk) 16:35, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

It's also claimed in the blog post itself, so probably pretty certain. However, it's not done on Wikipedia. And, of course, this probably has drawn more attention to the blog post than it otherwise ever would have gotten. Ravensfire (talk) 18:08, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Does the policy Wikipedia:OUTING#Off-wiki_harassment apply here? "Harassment of other Wikipedians through the use of external links is considered equivalent to the posting of personal attacks on Wikipedia." 98.92.184.204 (talk) 18:57, 27 December 2010 (UTC) — 98.92.184.204 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Perhaps some admin would like to revert this thread, to reduce on-wiki outing? But it seems clear that a blog publicly claimed by User:LegitimateAndEvenCompelling has attempted some major off-wiki harassment, and to quote policy, Wikipedia:OUTING#Off-wiki_harassment: "As is the case with on-wiki harassment, off-wiki harassment can be grounds for blocking, and in extreme cases, banning. Off-wiki privacy violations shall be dealt with particularly severely." betsythedevine (talk) 19:28, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I gather that the ALA leader in question owned up to the claims, so in essence she outed herself. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:34, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree, as hinted by Ravensfire, that the blog post is now getting a lot of attention it might not otherwise have gotten. And I agree, as stated by betsythedevine, that reducing this on-wiki outing (not by me but by an IP addy on his first edit ever) would be a great idea.

That said, I am in no way harassing an account that has not been used for about 2 1/2 years but for a single edit about 1/2 year ago. It has made only about 86 or so edits ever. Further, as NW said or as I inferred, is it even possible to out IP addys or to even care since they are years old?

In addition, even on the blog post itself, I admitted my one and only outing years ago was due to my inexperience: "I exposed her true identity on Wikipedia, something I learned later I should not have done...." There's no outing, neither will I be outing anyone now or in the future. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 19:48, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

is it even possible to out IP addys[?] For what it's worth, WP:OUTING does not make a distinction between usernames and IP addresses, so I don't see why outing IP editors would be any more excusable. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 20:01, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Excuse is not the issue. The issue is IPs don't have identities. Is it possible to out IP addresses that have no identities to out? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 20:04, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

If you don't feel its possible to link an IP address to an identity, then the entire premise of your blog post (that those IP addresses are an ALA employee) is nullified. You can't have it both ways. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.2.107.243 (talk) 20:08, 27 December 2010 (UTC) — 76.2.107.243 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Note well the person who first filed this complaint, the person who then added the off-wiki comment, and now this third person are all IP addresses, all making their first ever edits right here, all about me, and all seeking the same goal. Know that there has been a series of users who have created accounts solely to harass me and some have already been indefinitely blocked. Other editors harass me regularly as well. With 3 IPs making their first ever edits here as they did, consideration should be given to the possibility that Wikipedia is being used in a manner that violates Wiki policy and this outing claim may itself represent harassment. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 20:17, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

LAEC has shown a clear pattern of harassment and advocacy, both on-wiki and off. He always resorts to playing the victim card, lawyering policy, and/or manufacturing some ad hominem reason why it's not really his fault; I submit that none of these violations are helpful to Wikipedia or towards building a consensus-based encyclopedia. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:34, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Blaxthos is one of my harassers, and others have told him to stop it. He doesn't. The problems he raises here are not only untrue, but are irrelevant to the issue at hand or merely conclusory. And I am not "playing the victim card", the claim itself being a possible WP:AGF violation. After 3 IP addys have worked together to pursue this complaint, only then did I raise a concern. It is acceptable to advise the community of the history of various socks harassing me. They may not wish to be involved in such a case if indeed it is occurring again. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 20:43, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

There seems to be an assertion here that this can't be outing if it's not against an active user; I don't see any support in policy or precedent for that assertion.

There seems to be a further assertion that outing a user in the real world as part of an external campaign shouldn't be an on-wiki violation, which seems to me to simply be ignorance of policy and its underlying goals and values, which are to protect Wikipedia contributors and encourage open discussion here.

There seems to be an additonal assertion that IPs cannot legitimately report abuse incidents and therefore some sort of untoward activity must be present in the complaint; I am somewhat suspicious of the IPs motivations, but what they have pointed out has been pointed out politely and with factual reference and seems legitimately to be a problem.

We have previously established policy extensively that Wikipedians using Wikipedia to fight external battles (WP:BATTLE) is an improper use of the encyclopedia and an abuse of the community. It appears that both the off-wiki harrassment and battle policies were violated here.

It would be legitimate to report such an identified COI to Arbcom for private review; it is not legitimate, under our policy, for a Wikipedian to do what LAEC has done elsewhere.

We have no control over Wikipedians' activities off-site. However, it is long established policy that we can take reasonable administrative, arbcom, or community action in response to off-wiki activity which specifically violates policy. Some off-wiki behavior is incompatible with ongoing on-wiki participation.

I am imposing an indefinite block on LAEC - not permanent, but without expiration while the nuances of this are reviewed and a more final outcome resolved. Any admin may overturn it based on your judgement or a community consensus. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:06, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I am concerned that we are now sanctioning LAEC for an incident that ocurred over two years ago. Are we sure that we are stopping disruption to the project going forward by this action? Has there been similar (or even dissimilar) disruption in the intervening period that indicates we must remove LAEC's editing privileges now? Would it not be less contentious to issue an only warning regarding such major violations in the future? I think a block is excessive and disallows LAEC from contributing to the discussion. (Disclaimer - I have suppressed the edit summary containing the outing content, and can only confirm that it was comprehensive.) LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:25, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

LAEC's blog post (still linked from OP) is from 7 days ago, so that is current. The recent FCC statement on Net Neutrality probably prompted this, and may serve as a disincentive for future edits related to that subject that might be contrary to LAEC's views. I think LAEC has a valid point that there is an undisclosed COI from those editors, but it's not like that doesn't happen anywhere else. Ravensfire (talk) 21:36, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

LAEC is an advocate. He operates a website and is quoted in newspapers advocating a position, and he also promotes that view here, using Wikipedia as his soapbox. In dealings with other editors he commonly fails to assume good faith and charges other users with hidden motives. Last month I began to prepare diffs to make a case for community sanction, but got distracted by the holidays and other projects. At a minimum, I believe LAEC should be topic banned from articles related to libraries and censorship, his primary areas of advocacy. However his behavioral problems are not limited to those topics and those are even more serious than his soapboxing.   Will Beback  talk  21:49, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Obviously, POV-pushing can be a problem. LAEC apparently does it openly. Can the same be said for the ALA folks? Or do they all hide behind random IP's? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:21, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict × ~400 billion)Alright, everyone, I am very familiar with the situation surrounding LAEC. Let me summarize:

• LAEC recently ran into trouble, so I've done a low-key sponsorship of him; nothing formal, but I've given him a lot of advice on how to edit Wikipedia in a way that a) is not obnoxious POV pushing, and b) isn't edit warring. He's been surprisingly amenable to my advice; most editors with troubled editing history don't just take advice sitting down. I note that he has not edit warred or been blocked since this began, rather he's done the right thing and used the talk page. Among other things, I've let LAEC know that if he sees non-neutral content, it is good to point that out and work to refine it, but it is not OK to brow-beat his own POV into articles.
• LAEC runs an external organization, SafeLibraries.org. One on hand, I've heard that it's an organization designed to make a profit via selling software to block inappropriate content in libraries; however, I'm not sure if this is its main purpose or even any function of it at all (it's hard to sort it out). What is clear is that it acts as an advocacy group encouraging the blocking and/or removal of controversial content (e.g., controls to block pornography). It is a Christian based organization, I believe.
• SafeLibraries campaigns vigorously against ALA. From what I can see, this may be the company's main purpose.
• LAEC either has at worst a lot of enemies, or at best one or two very prodigious sockpuppeteering enemies. There is no question whatsoever that there has been off-wiki coordination against LAEC. We know of at least one bad-cop sock whose only purpose is to discredit LAEC. Then we have another editor whose first contribution was to revert LAEC, and whose only edits have been pushing the opposite POV. There are other examples too. At least one of these editors has been blocked and at least one still remains in good standing. LAEC contends these people are an orchestrated campaign from ALA; I have no way of confirming or denying that. But the fact that another SPA editor has snuck up to post this on ANI without any prior contributions doesn't surprise me at all. In fact, it was quite predictable, and predicted.
• Recently, many editors have tried to "out" LAEC. Confusingly, he has been very sensitive about it; it's confusing because he makes his identity known on his external website, and has done so on his userpage in the past. My reading of the situation is that it's been an attempt to cut down on the harassment he's received. But I don't know.
• Given that LAEC is running an advocacy group, he's very much walking a fine line between conflict of interest and genuine interest in writing the encyclopedia. However, it is my contention that editors with an outside POV can edit Wikipedia, but they need to do so in a way that puts the encyclopedia first. To date, LAEC has improved, so I've had no problem with him. User:Westbender has borderline harassed LAEC on occasion [87], but has improved his behavior as well, so I've had no problem with him.
• Off-wiki behavior, of course, must conform to our standards. IMHO, LAEC's blog post runs the fine line between outing and keeping someone accountable. Much like Wikileaks, when is it whistleblowing, and when is it harassment? I'm not going to make that call (even if I could); it's not even appropriate for me to try. It seems like that this is yet another example of the tit-for-tat going on between these two sides. "You out me so I out you."

There, if you can read all that (good luck), you will surely have a better understanding of the history of the situation. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:20, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't condone the activity of anti-LAEC editor(s). However when an editor comes to Wikipedia and treats it as a battleground to further his advocacy, it's not surprising that opponents will follow him.   Will Beback  talk  22:55, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Can we get a better, neutralish party review of the anti-LAEC anon editors behavior? I haven't seen good coverage of that aspect of it and would like to review that as well... Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:08, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I have tried to maintain my neutrality, although as someone who's both blocked and mentored LAEC, I have probably lost it (to clarify: I have one time I inappropriately blocked LAEC, I concede, and one time I inappropriately unblocked LAEC). I'll come up with more, but I will be away for a bit - real life and all. I have no opinion on a solution right now. Normally I'd be for a topic ban but I think he's actually been contributing well as of late. As such normally I'd be for a mentorship with another admin, but now we have this blog post complicating everything. Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:58, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Just a comment -- I never heard of LAEC before encountering this thread and I have no connection to the ALA either. I am an uninvolved non-admin. It seems to me that LAEC's blogpost needs to be looked at on its own merits. It looks like a serious attempt to harass somebody in connection with her Wikipedia work. The IP who started this thread may also deserve criticism. But I don't agree that people should be given a pass on serious infractions based on the defense that their critics are terrible people. betsythedevine (talk) 00:10, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

2007

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive272#Mentors wanted
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Community sanction/Archive12#Proposal to ban User:LegitimateAndEvenCompelling from library-related topics
  • Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive38#User:LegitimateAndEvenCompelling reported by User:ElKevbo (Result: 8h)

2009

• Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 37#Banned Books Week
  • Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive93#User:LegitimateAndEvenCompelling reported by TharsHammar (talk) (Result: both sides warned for edit warring)
  • Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive111#User:Bibliolover reported by User:LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (Result: 24h to submitter)

2010

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive625#Is this linkspam?
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive626#Are IPs allowed to edit here?
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive629#Numerous systematic removal of Media Matters citations
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive645#LegitimateAndEvenCompelling pushing POV/COI
  • Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive129#User:LegitimateAndEvenCompelling reported by User:Blaxthos (Result: Protected)
  • Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive132#User:LegitimateAndEvenCompelling reported by User:North Shoreman (Result: Protected)
  • Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive144#User:LegitimateAndEvenCompelling reported by TFD (talk) (Result:72 hours and protected )

Some relevant threads from the past concerning LAEC.   Will Beback  talk  07:45, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

• Note - He already blocked indefinitely. What next? "I say we stomp him! Then we tattoo him! Then we hang him! And then we kill him!" Doc talk 08:00, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

"Indefinite" means that any admin can unblock him at any time. I believe it's useful to have a clear record should an admin contemplate unblocking the user.   Will Beback  talk  08:13, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

"Can we get a better, neutralish party review of the anti-LAEC anon editors behavior? I haven't seen good coverage of that aspect of it and would like to review that as well..." - okay. I don't know squat about LAEC except that he's been harassed by a few editors that could be considered "SPA"s: PrBeacon and Westbender (I crossed paths with them all recently concerning a different editor). I have "admonished" both of them to stop harassing LAEC in this little POV-festival they are all warring over, and they will acknowledge that I did so. I could care less what their POVs are: creating SPA accounts to "focus" on an editor or group of editors is disruptive. LAEC is wrong and so are many of these accounts against him. Jus' sayin' Doc talk 08:32, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

1. Doc9871 is not neutral here. His involvement is indicated by his attempts to justify LAEC's poor behavior at a recent ANI [88] and another [89] as well as his attempt to weaken ideological opponents by falsely accusing us of socking [90]. Doc did not 'admonish' me for any harassment. After his attempt to discredit my support of another editor, he continued to carelessly speculate that I was following LAEC around Wikipedia -- based on his incomplete, misleading tools and unqualified probabilities. He is misrepresenting my own involvement with LAEC, again. The truth is that I have seen LAEC's disruption escalate over the past few weeks since he was encouraged to "enjoy the battle" [91] at the SPLC article by another tendentious editor. When it spilled over to two previous ANI threads about another editor, LAEC inappropriately piled on there -- so I called him out on his hounding and challenged his reporting of events.
2. I am no SPA. I have no history with ALA. I can only assume that Doc is jumping to that conclusion based on his hasty reading of LAEC's new list [92] and cursory awareness of the underlying issues with LAEC. Until recently at the SPLC article and the two aforementioned ANIs, I've had limited contact with LAEC over content disputes at Media Matters (and possibly Fox News, I dont recall). -PrBeacon (talk) 09:51, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

The problem with LAEC is larger than his interactions with supposed ALA members. He accuses all sorts of editors of harassing him, seeing conspiracies against him on all sides, and routinely fails to assume good faith.   Will Beback  talk  08:56, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I notified the two I mentioned here. Westbender (talk · contribs) is certainly a "harassment-of LAEC-only" account, and I have openly accused them as such before and told them to move away from this activity. There are two sides here: and as I have said both are guilty of "bad things". Doc talk 09:23, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I think that such a discussion is better suited for another thread, that evidence can then be brought for an unban discussion as potentially exculpatory of what seems to be an outing violation and perhaps wider issues. un☯mi 09:23, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I fully agree, which is why I pointed out the futility of this thread remaining open. "Unban discussion" is not there: is this a "ban discussion" evolving? He is indefinitely blocked for the outing violation, not banned. The thread is resolved for LAEC's punishment unless a new "banning" section is created. I think. And the SPAs will "dry up", I assume. Doc talk 09:33, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I miswrote, I was referring to what I imagine will be a discussion regarding lifting his block. un☯mi 09:50, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I hear ya! @PrBeacon: responded on your talk page. I never said I was neutral (or "neutralish"), but I do have some knowledge of the "anti-LAEC" editors. This thread should be closed or a new section started concerning a ban if that is what is sought. Or an RfC/U: the diffs provided above are for those purposes. He's indeffed for outing - end of thread. Doc talk 10:24, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Nah, that's not good enough. Since you brought it up here, I think you should either explain why you called me an SPA (which you didn't do at my talkpage, either) or retract it. -PrBeacon (talk) 10:32, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Crusade initiated?

I have come across Rkononenko talk who appears to be on a crusade to right wrongs in reference to Ukrainian connections on Wikipedia. These changes are dramatic, arbitary and never explained, sourced or verified. See: list of previous contacts with other editors. The editor appears particularly concerned about spellings and useage:

1. warning about deliberate errors introduced,
2. major changes to article regarding loan words from Ukrainian
3. change to name of person Bzuk (talk) 19:12, 27 December 2010 (UTC).

Can you help me see which changes are incorrect? Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:55, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Virtually all of the changes involve Russian to Ukrainian spellings, but in the case of Igor Sikorsky, he somehow becomes a Ukrainian, and the helicopter is changed to a Ukrainian invention. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 06:43, 28 December 2010 (UTC).

Conservapedia copy and pasting

Resolved

 – All his own work. Rich Farmbrough, 21:30, 27 December 2010 (UTC).

I have noticed over the past few months copy and pasting of text from Conservapedia. What seems to be happing is an editor is was editing Conservapedia articles in its American conservative Fundamentalist Christian point of view. Then simply pasting those edits here (copyvio?). Let me give you an example History of Newfoundland and Labrador (secure) and its counter part text from conservapedia (User:Rjensen) and User:RJJensen. Before i go on i am wondering if others see a problem here. Not sure what others think of Conservapedia, but its bias simply by its mandate. Moxy (talk) 23:16, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

• Personally, I don't care where it comes from, as long as it adheres to our guidelines and policies, especially NPOV and V. Of course, coming from Conservapedia, that's unlikely, but possible. Another question, which I'm not qualified to answer, is that of attribution: if it's wholesale copy/pasted from somewhere else, that may not be in accordance with our licensing policies. --Crusio (talk) 23:32, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

• Unless the source article was written entirely by the same person moving it over here, it is a copyvio and has to be removed. Prodego ^talk 23:35, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

• Per Prodego. I checked and there are a few names in the Conservapedia article edit history, and it is unlikely that such copy'n'pastes would therefore be the work of one individual. Per AGF, it may be that the copier, whether a substantive contributor to the Conservapedia article or not, is not familiar with the issues. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:48, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Question: how do you violate this copyright? BE——Critical_{__Talk} 23:58, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

I think this has more to do with our licensing, which says that all writers must receive attribution. AniMate 00:14, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Unless the Conservapedia article is cited as the source, it is plagiarism: "...public domain content is plagiarized if used without acknowledging the source, even though there is no copyright issue". AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:16, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I see, thx BE——Critical_{__Talk} 01:04, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)It says right there "This license is revocable". We can't use text under such a license on Wikipedia, so the only way we could use text from Conservapedia in Wikipedia is via a separate permission from the creator(s) of the material. — Gavia immer (talk) 00:19, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

So should someone revert this edits? The editors has been informed of this conversation, but continues editing.

Gava, that is somewhat cherry picked :) because it invokes a slightly more exclusive scenario (and entirely shoots itself in the foot with the wording). More importantly #3 invokes normal copyright which means we need to attribute source. However, given the idiotically bad wording of the license (it is stupid, and has been written by a grad law student without a doubt) we can't really make a solid judgement so I guess... kill it. --Errant ^(chat!) 00:40, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

It is cherry-picking, and it's definitely a badly-written license, however noble the intent is - but the badly-written "this license is revocable" clause really does express a right to revoke the license. Even apart from the worries we would have about revocation of our own permission to use the material, we cannot redistribute material that might be subject to unilateral revocation of the permission to use it, because our own license conflicts with that clause. — Gavia immer (talk) 00:48, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

It's entirely unsurprising that CPs copyright policy is as contradictory and nonsensical as it's actual content, which we certainly do not want here. From their main page right now: "Barack Hussein Obama, the arrogant liberal elitist, may get off his high horse and mingle more with other US politicians in the near future" and the even more ignorant "Atlanta will see its "first white Christmas since the Chester Arthur administration" in 1882. [20] Global warming???" Licensed properly or not, CP was not, is not, and in all likelihood never will be an appropriate source. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:56, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

• Just to confirm, on advice of counsel, we can't import content from Conservapedia. (I queried just to be sure in November, as I had frankly forgotten that we had prior conversations on the subject.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:02, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

That's a shame, we won't be able to have this gem [93] of unbiased recording of just the hard facts. By the way, unicorns are real and you are all banned for five years for questioning anything CP does or says. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:07, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

AIR, Associate Counsel's reply also included a whiff of "And why would you want to?" about it. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:14, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

The big concern now is how many articles have been infected with this fantasy additions by this cross over editors from Conservapedia.Moxy (talk) 01:16, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia and Conservapedia have very different standards, and editors who contribute to both sites need to be very careful when editing Wikipedia, particularly regarding NPOV.   Will Beback  talk  01:25, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Completely unacceptable. I reverted it. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 01:28, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Conservapedia has standards? There was something a few days ago about an SPA called "Scoobertjoo" who had copied-and-pasted a section from CP about the BC/BCE subject, complete with that site's spelling errors. I wonder if it's a group of users, or a single user? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:28, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

With 39,895 edits hope theres not to many more. Glad i am not a part of WP:USA looks like they have lots of clean up for there articles.Moxy (talk) 04:04, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

• I really hope that RJensen's Wikipedia additions don't include gems like this Conservapedia "reversion of vandalism". I would be surprised if someone with views that wacky was able to edit Wikipedia neutrally (kudos to them if they have been, though). Black Kite (t) (c) 04:25, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
  • And the "vandal" was blocked afterward by RJJensen for five years!!!!! If blocking people for five years for little stuff like that is "Christian", then no peanut butter cookies for me tonight! :-( I guess they can be downright nasty sometimes. >:-( They really need a some whale-whacks for their behavior. >:-P [|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 04:33, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
    • I actually looked through some of their other contribs but it started to scare me that someone educated could be so ignorant, so I stopped. I suppose I'm somewhat naive; over here in Europe we tend to only have a fraction of the number of right-wing fruitcakes that the US does. Black Kite (t) (c) 04:39, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
      • That looks familiar Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 05:23, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

We should see if this problems are systemic. As i am the one that mentioned this user -I think its best a second part looks at the edits. Top 100 edits in the Mainspace namespace by Rjensen.Moxy (talk) 05:31, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

A quick look reveals that Rjensen is an established historian with conservative views, and a prolific Wikipedia contributer. As an example, he made many contribiutions to History of Scotland. History of Scotland at Conservapedia is entirely written by RJJensen but is very short. - BorisG (talk) 05:57, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I have come across Rjensen in many articles on U. S. politics and found his editing to be relatively neutral and he has always shown a willingness to discuss differences of opinion. I wish more editors were like that. The "History of Newfoundland" article in Conservapedia was substantially written by him and is informative and written in a neutral tone. The only issue for concern is copyright, which probably did not occur to him. TFD (talk) 06:06, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

• As I said above, kudos to him if he has managed to resolve his obvious IRL biases with Wikipedia NPOV. If that's the case, we don't have a major issue here. Black Kite (t) (c) 06:13, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but that just isn't relevant. Regardless of the merits of the person who makes the copy and paste, there are still possibly issues of copyright, and definitely issues of plagiarism if the article has more than one author. There is also the more general issue of 'sourcing' from another Wiki. An editor writing an article on Wikipedia can be at least assumed (per WP:AGF) to have looked at the sources, but if something is copied wholesale, there is little reason to assume this will occur. For this reason alone, Conservapedia cannot be seen as WP:RS, and therefore cannot itself be used as a source. I'd also point out that Consevapedia may be using Wikipedia as a source, with the obvious hazards this implies. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:27, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't think anyone has used Conservapedia as a source. If material is properly attributed to reliable sources, there is no way to check whether the author had actually read the source. - BorisG (talk) 06:34, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, sorry I was unclear there, there is obviously still a possible copyvio/plagiarism issue, I was referring more to the bias issue. Black Kite (t) (c) 07:22, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

The discussion is about my Wiki edits dealing with Newfoundland. I wrote those passages originally for Citizendium in March 2008. In summer 2009 I copied them over to Conservapedia (citing Citizendium on the Talk page http://conservapedia.com/Talk:Newfoundland) and added some new text. In 2010 I copied my own writing to Wikipedia. For the Citizendium history see http://en.citizendium.org/wiki?title=Newfoundland_and_Labrador&limit=250&action=history For the Conservapedia history see In any case, I wrote the entire text myself under my name (RJensen, RJJensen, Richard Jensen). I also provided numerous specific footnotes and bibliographies to published books and articles for RS. There is no political POV in my Newfoundland material--it's straight political and economic history. Meanwhile, this month, I expanded the History of Newfoundland text with new material that was never on Conservapedia or Citizendium. Rjensen (talk) 13:11, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I just checked the Conservapedia history--I wrote every single word of the history section that got ported here (it was originally written by me at Citizendium). (that is, I did NOT carry over any text written by anyone else). see http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Newfoundland&action=history Rjensen (talk) 13:34, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

In that case - No objection from me. Good work, btw. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 15:33, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Good work?? Moxy (talk) 16:51, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

As has been noted, if the text is referenced and Neutral - yeah, good work. It seemed like the objection was to the source (Conservapedia), not the content - and that objection has been addressed, at least according to the diffs I'm reading here. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 18:02, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Lets be carefull here as to what we are saying. So you think its ok to add all the reverted text back? Is it ok for editors to do this - that is copy and past from many wikis to make articles if they are the original creator of the text. Moxy (talk) 19:13, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it is. Due to the explanation above, I will restore it. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 19:50, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Seb - We have identified the original author, who would retain copyright to the text in any case under any of the site licenses. They're the one who did the copying in here. If they do so, they have a complete right under their copyright on their work to submit it to WP under our CC licensing. Unless they sold or gave away the rights somewhere that has a more restrictive license, the situation as explained here is fine. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:40, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

With the spelling, format errors in citations and bibliographical notations, it should be clear that the editor has not copied from anyone else, since there are wholly made-up styles of referencing that are present, and probably do not exist in any other publication extant. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 20:46, 27 December 2010 (UTC) (excuse the snark).

Has this donation been verified? We need to confirm that RJensen there is RJensen here. An acknowledgment at the Conservapedia userpage by the logged-in Conservapedia account that the accounts belong to the same person ought to do it. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:22, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok then just needs a over all clean up and find sources for the huge amount of text added with no references (not a big deal as per Wikipedia:IMPERFECT nothing outrageous added dieing for references).Moxy (talk) 01:44, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

@MRG: I have little doubt that it's the same person. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:31, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't doubt it either. But if it's the same person, it should be little to no problem for him to verify that; we typically require verification. As WP:C says, "If the material, text or media, has been previously published and you wish to donate it to Wikipedia under appropriate license, you will need to verify copyright permission through one of our established procedures." In this case, the site can't be licensed, but he can easily enough verify that he is the copyright holder without even the need of going through OTRS. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 02:59, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Is he the copyright holder though? Even if he wrote it, by submitting it to Conservapedia, he may have handed over copyright to them? I can't say for sure (I'm no lawyer), but this may well be the case (it seems to be so with Wikipedia for example). AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:15, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

No; you maintain copyright to any content you add to Wikipedia. Quoting from the edit box license info - "You irrevocably agree to release your contributions under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL". That's a licensing agreement on your contribution, not in any way a copyright assignment. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:37, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) Let me affirm that RJensen at Wikipedia = Richard Jensen at Citizendium = RJJensen at Conservapedia. it's me :) (as is clear from the user page at each encyclopedia). I wrote all of the text under discussion here and have the copyright; I made that acknowledgement at the time (17 June 2009) on the talk page of the Conservapedia article on Newfoundland. see Jensen statement of authorship June 17, 2009 Rjensen (talk) 03:49, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Could you just login to your Conservapedia account and add a note to your talk page indicating its you with perhaps a link to this page. See also Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials Moxy (talk) 06:34, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

At Citizendum, writers who contribute articles do not transfer or share their original copyright with them.[94] TFD (talk) 17:02, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Tendstruth

Anybody know who this admitted sock is and whether they're evading a block? Tendstruth (talk · contribs) Their first edit was rather tendentious. Corvus cornix_talk 00:40, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Ah, it's apparently blocked Sêmîazâz (talk · contribs) Corvus cornix_talk 00:42, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I believe it is a banned user. --Bsadowski1 00:45, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/NoCal100  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 00:53, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

• Guys - based on the dates that a lot of these accounts were created, as well as the edit pattern and the nasty racism, these are the latest incarnation of User:JarlaxleArtemis aka Grawp. Please block on sight with email and talk pages blocked as well. NawlinWiki (talk) 04:00, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Are you saying that this latest batch are not, as they have been tagged, puppets of NoCal, but rather of Grawp? In that case, is Grawp picking up on the edit patterns of unrelated sockmasters? There is some evidence (I would have to dig to find it) of Grawp mimicking Runtshit edits some time back. . RolandR (talk) 16:13, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that is exactly what I am saying. NawlinWiki (talk) 16:23, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Terra Novus

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Terra Novus topic banned. Further discussion should take place in a new thread. --Dougweller (talk) 19:11, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

---

Resolved

 – See Topicban section --Dougweller (talk) 19:13, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Terra Novus is a creationist editor who has been topic banned form broadly defined "Young Earth Creationism topic ban" Terra Novus has recently created an WP:SYNTH/WP:NOR article called Interpretive science where the entire thesis is

"Though it (Interpretive science) originated in the field of Sociology, applications in the natural sciences can yield insight into the process of forming a scientific theory, and some of the fallacies that persist in consensus ideas.[9] Interpretive science calls into question the ability of an individual to accurately assess all of the data that is processed, without first making a value judgement.[9]"

This pretty obviously once you see the context of his past editing in creationism its a pretty meant to be a round about attack on "Normal Scientific consensus of a 4.3 billion year earth."

Given his past ANI visits in topic area after a [95] [96][97] and misuse of retirement and Clean start. We need to have another talk The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 00:26, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

You have provided absolutely no connection with how Interpretive science is related to my Young Earth Creationism topic ban. When it comes to the WP:SYNTH issue with the above article I have actively requested and approved the proposals for merging and removing the problematic content. I believe that my recent editing history will show that I have complied with the topic ban while focusing my contributions on editing and improving the article in question.--Novus Orator 00:36, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

indeed even more explicit evidence of the article purpose from the FAQ on the talk page "Yes, Interpretive Science is the study of how preexisting philosophy influences the development of certain scientific models to the exclusion of alternatives." The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 00:56, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Let me add wikilinks to the statement to make it more clear what i am reading " "Yes, Interpretive Science is the study of how preexisting philosophy influences the development of certain scientific models to the exclusion of alternatives." The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 01:00, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I am afraid that you are extrapolating without sufficient data.--Novus Orator 02:35, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I am also surprised that ResidentAnthropologist instantly elevated this conflict to an ANI without going through the proper dispute resolution process. Perhaps his edit history would yield some insight into this odd behavior...--Novus Orator

This is not content issue its a violation of your topic ban. Please Specify an accusation rather than make vague statements The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 00:53, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

My original question remains unanswered.--Novus Orator 02:35, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Issues with Terra

(ec-od) I am not aware that a formal topic ban was ever enacted. There have been various agreements, all of which Terra Novus has not really adhered to. The discussion of the article Interpretive science started on WP:FTN; at present Terra Novus is disrupting the merge/deletion discussion on the talk page of that article. He is equally well being disruptive by not recognizing criticisms from multiple editors. Personalizing this as a dispute with ResidentAnthroplogist is a completely unhelpful strategy and just more disruption. There are several other issues. He declared himself a co-organiser of WP:WikiProject Cryptozoology.[98] when he made a WP:CLEANSTART. Just recently he has been active with that WikiProject.[99] And he has made several abortive attempts at starting Wikiproject Jupiter. He himself does not seem to have edited any articles related to Jupiter, so the many structures he has put in place for Taskforce Jupiter are perplexing. Mathsci (talk) 01:00, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I concur. I read the archived material, and I noted several supports for a topic ban, but no formal discussion of one was started (e.g., under that heading), nor did any administrator conclude that a topic ban proposal had reached consensus. Jclemens (talk) 01:04, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

He does not seem to have disengaged from the article Cryptozoology as this edit in support of an edit-warring IP shows [100]. The IP 68.224.206.14 (talk · contribs) has broken 3RR on the article and the normal reaction would be a request for semiprotection and/or a report at WP:AN3. Instead he requested Dougweller to impose a sanctions template. Mathsci (talk) 01:18, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

In support? No, I merely requested that all of the editors involved seek a more collaborative solution.--Novus Orator 02:40, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Somewhat predictably, as on each other occasion when he's caused disruption, he has now diseppeared for a while, hoping that matters will settle. This is the fourth time this has happened. Isn't it time to say "enough is enough"? Mathsci (talk) 07:45, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Disappeared? I am right here if anyone wants to comment.--Novus Orator 02:40, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Indeed that is frustrating, on a side note I have a hard time seeing how Speedy deletion under Blatant Hoax should not be used on Interpretive science. It seems pretty clear with the from my interpretation of his FAQ that its merely that... a WP:SYNTH Hoax to push a POV The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 15:35, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps because you have still not provided evidence for the original reason of this ANI.--Novus Orator 02:40, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

After an absence from the discussion, I looked into things again when I bumped into Terra Novus on other science-related pages, including Climate Change Denial. I had quite a history with his editing a few months ago (under User:Gniniv), but specifically chose not to participate in the ANI threads under this new account name. Having looked at the archives, particularly the one Jclemens alludes to, I've seen several instances where either a topic ban or outright block reached near-unanimous support, but nothing was enacted. Is there a reason for that which I've been unable to track down?

As I've mentioned before, I have no issues with the idea of Terra working collaboratively, or having a 2nd chance, but I've become fully convinced that's not possible after he blew through his 10th+ chance some time ago. Unfortunately, it is still the case that the overwhelming majority of his edits to mainspace are reverted for POV issues, and he seems to be increasingly encroaching on his self sanction by creating YEC wikiprojects and contributing to physics and pseudoscience articles. These issues have been going on for 7 1/2 months, and the only dent in WP I see that he's made is to frustrate and waste the time of other respectable editors. One of the reasons I took a wikibreak some months ago was due to frustration stemming from this issue. From the responses of other editors I've seen, I'm undoubtedly not alone. Is it appropriate that we lose editor time, or editors all-together, in order to salvage some hope Terra will finally turn around and work constructively despite mountains of evidence to the contrary? I know we all want to assume good faith - I did it working with him every day for months - but good faith or not I'm having a hard time finding value in this user's history.

This discussion is fully warranted, and I think it's about time we act on what appears to be consensus support. Jess_talk|_edits 20:34, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

The above assessment seems reasonable. Terra Novus has been given umpteen second chances but despite that has shown little sign of changing his attitude to the project. He appears to be somebody not cut out for editing wikipedia. Mathsci (talk) 21:09, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Note that the problematic article he created, Interpretive science, is being discussed here, on WP:FTN, at its own AfD [101] and at a merge discussion on its own talk page. I'm not sure that spreading round like discussions in this way was the best procedure. Mathsci (talk) 07:31, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Topic Ban

Resolved

 – Terra Novus is indefinitely banned from all articles and discussions relation to the topics of Creationism or Pseudoscience broadly construed. Ban logged at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions Dougweller (talk) 18:54, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

After the above discussion and past discussions on Giniv/Terra Novus and any future identities from editing articles or participating in discussions involving the topic of Creationism or Pseudoscience broadly defined.

• Support as proposer The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 21:11, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
• Comment Unfortunately I think an indefinite community ban is more appropriate, considering his conduct and past attempts to impose topic bans of this kind. There seem to be hardly any redeeming features in his editing. Mathsci (talk) 21:17, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
  • I dont blame you an indefinite community ban is jumping the gun. We have never formally given out a topic ban as the ANI threads have shown. Lets give him WP:ROPE, I hate to say but I think he will hang himself with the rope. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 21:26, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Requests of this type have been started before, as Jclemens correctly commented. If anybody can point to a body of useful edits, that might be helpful. Mathsci (talk) 21:30, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
      • Thats why the community imposed ban rather than one he agrees to. bottom line he break the one we are imposing right now we will adress the next step.
• Support and Comment I think his long history of self-imposing topic bans and breaking them makes a strong case against another one being effective. I also think his history of editing other topics to include wording which relates to, but doesn't directly involve, creationism or pseudoscience makes the case for casting a wider net than those two topics alone. Therefore, I (very unfortunately) think a community ban is preferable to wasting more editor time reviewing contributions and inevitably discussing this again later. However, I would change my position if someone can find a string of useful edits he's made in the year he's been editing which we'd be remiss for losing. If they exist, I would encourage changing the topic ban to also include Science, generally. Jess_talk|_edits 21:53, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
  • I thought of that but thats far too broad to be reasonable. His only issues in Science are when brings in Creationism or Pseudoscience into play... at least that I have observed The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 23:14, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support expanded topic ban per Jess, at least. If a formally imposed ban is ineffective, as seems very possible, then a community ban would be appropriate to consider. This needs to be truly his or her last chance to contribute productively, though. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:12, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support the original proposal, with a caveat that if Terra Novus is unable to abide by the topic ban and contribute to other areas of the encyclopedia, any further disruption will result in a full community ban. —Torchiest ^talk/_edits 22:19, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support I thought I was abiding by a topic ban on the above subject already. I am surprised that Interpretive science is considered to be under that umbrella, but I will stop contributing to this area of Wikipedia if my behavior is viewed as disruptive. Taskforce Jupiter keeps me pretty busy anyways. I would leave with the note that perhaps some of the editors involved in this ANI are going on a wild goose chase without substance.--Novus Orator 02:31, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
  •  Note: since Terra Novus has added support for the ban would someone do the formality of offically closing this? As the last topic ban discussion went the archive with support but no formal topic ban was implementedThe Resident Anthropologist (talk) 15:23, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Query Can I close this although I've been involved in the past? Dougweller (talk) 13:25, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
      • I think so. (Note there is a duplicate earliet version in the archive, I'm not quite sure why.) Mathsci (talk) 13:47, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
        • I think so, Terra Novus added his support to his own topic ban so I dont think you could be grilled for being involved at this point The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 18:39, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

IP 'flouride' conspiracy pusher on WikiLeaks talk page

We've been getting problems with an IP-hopping 'fluoride' conspiracy theorist here: Talk:WikiLeaks#WikiLeaks_Fluoride_Document. Can someone take a look, and also if possible confirm that it is ok to delete these comments, as of no relevence to the article without evidence that external WP:RS have shown an interest? AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:47, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

We had someone just a day or two going on and on about water fluoridation. They were eventually blocked. I think it's safe to revert and block here. NW (Talk) 18:59, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not an administrator, so I can't block, though given the IP-hopping going on, I don't think this would do much anyway. It will be ok to revert/delete these edits though, will it? AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:04, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I presume it's the same person accusing Admins and experienced editors of being sock puppets, I've reverted at the SPI talk page and that IP was blocked. Go ahead and revert. Dougweller (talk) 19:11, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll cut the lot out. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:18, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

All these need semi-protection

.... permanently!

• Fluoride
• Water fluoridation
• Water purification
• Water fluoridation controversy
• WikiLeaks
• Fluoride Action Network
• Information published by WikiLeaks
• Water fluoridation in the United States
• Dean Burk

Brangifer (talk) 20:10, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

But you're one of the sock puppets editing there. Honest, an IP told me you were! :-) Dougweller (talk) 20:27, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

LOL! And they even added you. The list of socks is getting quite long and they're hitting many articles, but these are always the main targets. -- Brangifer (talk) 21:42, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Clearly this is all a Communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 18:51, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Menikure

User:Menikure pulls out the image that i add on gallery section of Ankara article everytime and also reverts my edits on the talk page of same article and also writes on my talk page that i will be blocked if i put the gecekondu image once again. Have i done something wrong? 212.156.67.30 (talk) 09:07, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I think that this IP user may have a point about Menikure. Check out this diff. The IP had posted on the talk page of the article for discussion on the image (as he was supposed to, see WP:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle), then Menikure reverts his comment without any edit summary, but did mark his edit as minor (as shown in the diff)! And Menikure did not even link to any possible relevant Wikipedia policies in his warning to the IP user. It may be that Menikure is trying to push his point-of-view on the image in question. [|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 09:20, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. But, the image in question, File:Viewfromoldankara.jpg shows Annkara in somewhat of an impoverished light, so one can understand Menikure's POV, right or wrong. In any case, the gallery is too large and one wonders if it is really needed at all given the link to commons at the bottom. I had a similar discussion with User:I dream of horses a while back, and she said she removed galleries whenever she found them. I think there are reasons to use galleries, but this isn't one of them. Viriditas (talk) 09:27, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

It's a requirement to inform editors when they are reported here, so I have now informed User:Menikure. I've also warned them not to remove other people's Talk page comments. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:29, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

See also Menikure's latest contributions: 1, 2, 3, and 4. 1 and 2 are where Menikure has warned IP users not to add the image, 3 is where Menikure posts on an editor's (User:Omulazimoglu) talk page claiming they were "engaging in disruptive activity" under the IP that started this thread here, and 4 is where he posts about this issue on User:Hersfold's talk page. [|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 09:45, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

User:212.156.67.30 whom I suspect is the same user User:Omulazimoglu when he/she is not logged is engaging in edit warring in the picture gallery in the bottom of the Ankara page, by insisting of putting a particular photo of a slum in the city that is normally reserved for landmarks of that city. Picture galleries of city articles in Wikipedia ara usually reserved for landmarks rather than slums. Pictures of non-landmarks such as slums for example can be put separatly in other areas of the article. This user started the edit war when he/she was logged in as User:Omulazimoglu and continues it while being unlogged under the same I.P. number User:212.156.67.30. I have observed this edit warring and other anonymous users have joined the edit warring as well on this picture of a slum, but yesterday (27 December 2010) in exasperation I reverted his/her latest edit and personally warned him today about this, even though I am not an administrator nor have the authority and do not visit Wikipedia very frequqently.The administrators should issue a warning to this double user on his/her senseless and futile edit war. Menikure 15:25, 28 December 2010

Can you show us a policy, or a consensus, anywhere, that picture galleries are reserved for "landmarks" and must not include slums? If not, then you shouldn't be using it as a reason to remove photos and issue warnings to people. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:20, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

No pictures of slums are present in such other city articles such as Rio de Janeiro or Cape Town for example, even though they do have slums with their respective articles like the "Favelas" of Rio and the "Township (South Africa)" of Cape Town. There is already an article in English Wikipedia on Turkish slums which is called "Gecekondu" with that contientious photo already appropriately put there by the user User: 212.156.67.30 who seems to be the same User:Omulazimoglu who as uploaded his/her photos in Commons:User:Ozgurmulazimoglu. The user seems to advertise the photos he has taken and/or uploaded from My pictures on Flickr to Wikimedia Commons. There is nothing wrong with that, but his insistence and probable use of two identities and previous edit warrings is the problem. Menikure 16:47, 28 December 2010

Your personal observation of other articles does not constitute either a policy or a consensus, and you should not hand out warnings to people for violating a non-existent rule that you just made up yourself. If you disagree with the inclusion of the image, you should discuss it on the article Talk page in a civil manner and try to achieve a consensus. And, even though your other concerns should be addressed, that IS the topic of this report. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:52, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Menikure again pulled that image out. I am adding the image once again. Because there is no policy, or a consensus, anywhere, that picture galleries are reserved for "landmarks" and must not include slums. Pls help me against user:menikure. Thanks. MULAZIMOGLU (talk) 16:37, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Uninvolved (up until this point) but I disagree with the removal of the picture. For many of the reasons pointed out above - the slum is part of the article in question, and there's no policy stating that galleries should be all happy-happy and joyful - although it's nice to present soemthing in the best possible light, that's no reason to exclude the less salubrious parts of a city. The only defence to me is that the gallery is rather large, but if anything, I'd remove some of the other pictures, and keep the slum. There's plenty of landmark pictures, but only the one detrimental picture. a_man_alone (talk) 16:58, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Side note : Do we realy need 50+ pictures in this article?? This types of gallery section are somewhat discouraged as per --> Wikipedia:Image gallery?Moxy (talk) 17:05, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

No we don't - that's what interwiki links to Commons are for. Wikipedia is not Flickr... – ukexpat (talk) 19:25, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Soft Block of 207.151.38.178?

Is it possible to get a permanent soft block on 207.151.38.178? Tons of vandalism and spam comes from this address all the time. - Doctorx0079 (talk) 04:42, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

207.151.38.178 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

The IP address is registered to an educational institution, so a soft block probably would be appropriate. [|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 04:48, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Anyone? - Doctorx0079 (talk) 21:38, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I notified the IP of this discussion. And may I point out that if a soft block goes through, we might miss gems like: "If I had dime for everyone who said: 'If everyone would just give me $0.25, I wouldn't have to ask anyone for money anymore'; I'd be a well-respected millionaire by now." Well-respected indeed. Cheers, ClovisPt (talk) 22:12, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Go for it. No great loss. -- Brangifer (talk) 23:34, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Blocked for three months; registered users can still edit. An indef isn't appropriate, as we don't indef IPs except for proxy servers. Nyttend (talk) 23:49, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

LouisPhilippeCharles avoiding block 3rd time

Despite still being under a one-month block during which time LouisPhilippeCharles has, at least twice, been brought to the attention of this board for editing articles by sockpuppet -- without any additional sanctions for disruptive behavior being applied yet (see here) -- he has yet again used one of his recently-unblocked sockpuppets to violate the block here. FactStraight (talk) 07:57, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

IP sockpuppet has been reblocked for 2 weeks. I would support a reset of the 1 month block on User:LouisPhilippeCharles for repeated block evasion, but don't want to act unilaterally on this. Trebor (talk) 17:24, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I would say that's the very least we can do in response to LPC's persistent demonstration of his disregard for the blocks and the community discussions. Favonian (talk) 17:57, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Soon after his block on the 8th, the user asked how he could do test edits, since he couldn't get to his sandbox page. I and another editor told him, in explicit detail, how he could create edits on his PC, "review" them for syntax within his talk page, and then back out of edit mode. His first step was to go ahead and save the edits in his talk page, which he had already been told not to do (by an admin). Then he took it upon himself to start using IP's to edit in defiance of the block. At this point, it's reasonable to conclude that the editor doesn't care one iota about sticking with the rules. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:08, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I have reset the block for one month, and have notified LPC of same. This is a standard penalty for block evasion. Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:36, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

If it happens again, what's the standard penalty? Dougweller (talk) 18:38, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

At that point I'd indeff him. Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:40, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Umm, why hasn't that happened already? Agree with you, Elen, that it should be an indef next time. Nyttend (talk) 23:45, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I was pretty much the only respondent who wasn't suggesting indef block the last time LPC was reported to ANI, but neither the indef block or the 1 month reset I suggested was taken up before the discussion was archived. Since EotR has reset I accept that action, but my reaction in reading this was "I was wrong then, and the others were right" - this person has no interest in abiding by project policies and guidelines, and I suspect that we will be removing editing privileges indefinitely in the near future. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:04, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

AndresHerutJaim and fair use images again

Resolved

 – Blocked - and unblocked per a promise to stick to the rules

AndresHerutJaim (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has previously been discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive640#User:AndresHerutJaim and images and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive650#AndresHerutJaim and repeated copyright violations, and it has been explained on his talk page at User talk:AndresHerutJaim#Using fair use images as icons and User talk:AndresHerutJaim#Images. This has been ignored again and we have this edit and this edit, both of which add a non-free image violation to an article. Thank you. O Fenian (talk) 09:18, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

• I think that's enough - the user has never indicated that they understand the warnings they're being given (indeed they hardly ever use talkpages [102]) yet their standard of English, judging by edits and edit summaries, is fine. This is therefore a WP:COMPETENCE issue and I have blocked them indef until they indicate they understand the problem and won't repeat it. Black Kite (t) (c) 12:45, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
  • The user has emailed me and promised not to do this again. I don't see a problem with giving them another chance, so I have unblocked. Black Kite (t) (c) 01:11, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Mozart fanatic 77

Mozart fanatic has been tagging random people as sockpuppets. I'm an editor in good standing with no history of so much as a warning. Needless to say, getting pulled into this drama irks me a bit. I recently underwent a sockpuppet check, which cleared. I resent the accusation. But socking seems to be an endemic problem in the transformers area, so I understand where it comes from.

Mozart fanatic is being checked as a sockpuppet himself. But regardless... between the accusation and his sarcastic AFD comment, I doubt that account is going to be used for anything more than harassment. So I'd ask that he just be banned and be done with it.

Also, I'd kindly ask that a kind admin deletes the disruptive edit from my userpage history. I don't want people opening up my userpage history only to find that I've been tagged as a sock in the past. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:23, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Sadly, we cannot do anything to stop the sockpuppetry, they will continue to harass and attack the Transformers WikiProject and continue to disrupt Transformers-related AFDs indefinitely. As Wiki brah said here, he is probably right. If editors are that determined to edit Wikipedia, then they will, regardless of any technical restrictions we put in place. –MuZemike 18:38, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Misplaced priorities much? Sheesh... - Burpelson AFB ✈ 18:43, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

It's very frustrating. Most of us just want to edit with no drama. I don't suppose it's possible to find a range of IPs and block them? Or even to find a range of IPs and put an editing restriction on new accounts? Shooterwalker (talk) 18:48, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

No, it's not possible. –MuZemike 19:32, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Then I guess that's it... thanks for responding quickly. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:33, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Blocking an IP range is not technically impossible, but it's done very sparingly due to potential collateral damage. There are many of us and only one of the troll, and he'll eventually get tired of the constant revert-and-block game, and move on. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:51, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

No, I mean he is IP-hopping all over the place (and abusing open proxies), making blocking IPs and ranges useless. –MuZemike 20:23, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Right. IP-hoppers can't be blocked effectively or range-blocked unless you shut down all internet access, which might be a tad extreme. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:03, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry about it overly much, Shooter -- I've been tagged as a sock in the past. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:30, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

By the way, in case anybody looks at the post linked to by MuZemike above and wonders about the "conspiracy" mentioned there, don't worry. The alleged conspiracy seems all made up.

Soft Block of 207.151.38.178?

Is it possible to get a permanent soft block on 207.151.38.178? Tons of vandalism and spam comes from this address all the time. - Doctorx0079 (talk) 04:42, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

207.151.38.178 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

The IP address is registered to an educational institution, so a soft block probably would be appropriate. [|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 04:48, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Anyone? - Doctorx0079 (talk) 21:38, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I notified the IP of this discussion. And may I point out that if a soft block goes through, we might miss gems like: "If I had dime for everyone who said: 'If everyone would just give me $0.25, I wouldn't have to ask anyone for money anymore'; I'd be a well-respected millionaire by now." Well-respected indeed. Cheers, ClovisPt (talk) 22:12, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Go for it. No great loss. -- Brangifer (talk) 23:34, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Blocked for three months; registered users can still edit. An indef isn't appropriate, as we don't indef IPs except for proxy servers. Nyttend (talk) 23:49, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

LouisPhilippeCharles avoiding block 3rd time

Despite still being under a one-month block during which time LouisPhilippeCharles has, at least twice, been brought to the attention of this board for editing articles by sockpuppet -- without any additional sanctions for disruptive behavior being applied yet (see here) -- he has yet again used one of his recently-unblocked sockpuppets to violate the block here. FactStraight (talk) 07:57, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

IP sockpuppet has been reblocked for 2 weeks. I would support a reset of the 1 month block on User:LouisPhilippeCharles for repeated block evasion, but don't want to act unilaterally on this. Trebor (talk) 17:24, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I would say that's the very least we can do in response to LPC's persistent demonstration of his disregard for the blocks and the community discussions. Favonian (talk) 17:57, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Soon after his block on the 8th, the user asked how he could do test edits, since he couldn't get to his sandbox page. I and another editor told him, in explicit detail, how he could create edits on his PC, "review" them for syntax within his talk page, and then back out of edit mode. His first step was to go ahead and save the edits in his talk page, which he had already been told not to do (by an admin). Then he took it upon himself to start using IP's to edit in defiance of the block. At this point, it's reasonable to conclude that the editor doesn't care one iota about sticking with the rules. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:08, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I have reset the block for one month, and have notified LPC of same. This is a standard penalty for block evasion. Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:36, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

If it happens again, what's the standard penalty? Dougweller (talk) 18:38, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

At that point I'd indeff him. Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:40, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Umm, why hasn't that happened already? Agree with you, Elen, that it should be an indef next time. Nyttend (talk) 23:45, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I was pretty much the only respondent who wasn't suggesting indef block the last time LPC was reported to ANI, but neither the indef block or the 1 month reset I suggested was taken up before the discussion was archived. Since EotR has reset I accept that action, but my reaction in reading this was "I was wrong then, and the others were right" - this person has no interest in abiding by project policies and guidelines, and I suspect that we will be removing editing privileges indefinitely in the near future. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:04, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

AndresHerutJaim and fair use images again

Resolved

 – Blocked - and unblocked per a promise to stick to the rules

AndresHerutJaim (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has previously been discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive640#User:AndresHerutJaim and images and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive650#AndresHerutJaim and repeated copyright violations, and it has been explained on his talk page at User talk:AndresHerutJaim#Using fair use images as icons and User talk:AndresHerutJaim#Images. This has been ignored again and we have this edit and this edit, both of which add a non-free image violation to an article. Thank you. O Fenian (talk) 09:18, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

• I think that's enough - the user has never indicated that they understand the warnings they're being given (indeed they hardly ever use talkpages [103]) yet their standard of English, judging by edits and edit summaries, is fine. This is therefore a WP:COMPETENCE issue and I have blocked them indef until they indicate they understand the problem and won't repeat it. Black Kite (t) (c) 12:45, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
  • The user has emailed me and promised not to do this again. I don't see a problem with giving them another chance, so I have unblocked. Black Kite (t) (c) 01:11, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Mozart fanatic 77

Mozart fanatic has been tagging random people as sockpuppets. I'm an editor in good standing with no history of so much as a warning. Needless to say, getting pulled into this drama irks me a bit. I recently underwent a sockpuppet check, which cleared. I resent the accusation. But socking seems to be an endemic problem in the transformers area, so I understand where it comes from.

Mozart fanatic is being checked as a sockpuppet himself. But regardless... between the accusation and his sarcastic AFD comment, I doubt that account is going to be used for anything more than harassment. So I'd ask that he just be banned and be done with it.

Also, I'd kindly ask that a kind admin deletes the disruptive edit from my userpage history. I don't want people opening up my userpage history only to find that I've been tagged as a sock in the past. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:23, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Sadly, we cannot do anything to stop the sockpuppetry, they will continue to harass and attack the Transformers WikiProject and continue to disrupt Transformers-related AFDs indefinitely. As Wiki brah said here, he is probably right. If editors are that determined to edit Wikipedia, then they will, regardless of any technical restrictions we put in place. –MuZemike 18:38, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Misplaced priorities much? Sheesh... - Burpelson AFB ✈ 18:43, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

It's very frustrating. Most of us just want to edit with no drama. I don't suppose it's possible to find a range of IPs and block them? Or even to find a range of IPs and put an editing restriction on new accounts? Shooterwalker (talk) 18:48, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

No, it's not possible. –MuZemike 19:32, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Then I guess that's it... thanks for responding quickly. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:33, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Blocking an IP range is not technically impossible, but it's done very sparingly due to potential collateral damage. There are many of us and only one of the troll, and he'll eventually get tired of the constant revert-and-block game, and move on. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:51, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

No, I mean he is IP-hopping all over the place (and abusing open proxies), making blocking IPs and ranges useless. –MuZemike 20:23, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Right. IP-hoppers can't be blocked effectively or range-blocked unless you shut down all internet access, which might be a tad extreme. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:03, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry about it overly much, Shooter -- I've been tagged as a sock in the past. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:30, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

By the way, in case anybody looks at the post linked to by MuZemike above and wonders about the "conspiracy" mentioned there, don't worry. The alleged conspiracy seems all made up.

Re-Creation of ISEKI Food Network

Resolved

 – Page deleted, account blocked - 220.101 talk^\Contribs

Under the name The ISEKI Food Network this article was speedily deleted on the 21 December 201 by User:NawlinWiki "because the page appeared to be blatant advertising which only promotes a company, product, group or service..." etc. It has apparently been re-created by Isekifood (talk · contribs). - 220.101 talk^\Contribs 18:41, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I tagged it G4. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 18:44, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict):Editor Isekifood advised of this post. - 220.101 talk^\Contribs 18:49, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

It is the same article, word for word, and the earlier one has been recreated as a redirect to the subsequent one. It is presently being requested for speedy deletion under G11 ("advertising") criteria rather than G4, I suppose because speedy deletes do not have a discussion? The question is, what do we do about an editor whose name indicates a COI and who is not prepared to accept that their article is not compliant with WP's criteria? LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:02, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Has anyone checked for copyvio - I suppose the editor may have simply kept the text on a word processor, but it may have come from the company's own literature...? LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:04, 28 December 2010 (UTC) Checked. Paraphrases but does not violate copyright. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:18, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I was able to find most of the text word for word here; I've removed it for now as copyvio. It's possible the org has some grant of free use somewhere, but the home page indicates a clear claim of copyright. Let me know if you're not seeing it on that page and we can compare notes. Yes, G4 is only for xFDed material. Not sure what to do with the editor; let's see if he responds to his talk page. Kuru (talk) 20:24, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I only checked the ISEKI Food Network website after Google failed to find a good match for the first two sentences of the article - didn't find Worldfoodscience in my brief search. The choices, should there be further creations, are salting the article or blocking the account. Both are problematic in their own way, since I suspect that ISEKI may be notable - if written in an encyclopedic manner. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:11, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

(←) The Isekifood (talk · contribs) account has been indefinitely blocked by Alexf (talk · contribs) "because it appears to be mainly intended or used for publicity and/or promotional purposes", and, username policy violation. Thank you 'Burpelson', 'Less Heard' and 'AlexF' for your attention. I do agree with 'Less Heard' though that ISEKI may be notable, and worthy of an encylopaedic write up. - 220.101 talk^\Contribs 04:54, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Death threat on Tim Gay

Hello, I just came across an edit containing a death threat in the edit summary. [104] The user is blocked, so does anything else need doing? I don't know what I'm am supposed to do in the case of death threats, so I brought it here. Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:29, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Get a CU to do a check and geolocate the IP and contact the local authorities? --Addihockey10^e-mail 01:30, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Though i'm no admin, i agree, and i also say that blocking them was a vary smart move, good job! N.I.M. (talk) 01:37, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I didn't block (I am not an admin), but Soap (talk · contribs) did. Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:42, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Looks like more or less puerile vandalism. Just ignore it. –MuZemike 01:43, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I really didn't take the death threat seriously. As for the IP's, there were two of them posting the same thing, one from Colorado and one from Texas (if I remember right). There could be a proxy involved, but a CU probably won't tell us much since we already have the IP's.—Soap— 01:45, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

A quick look fails to show either as obvious proxies, although the editing pattern is suspicious. Sailsbystars (talk) 03:57, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Weiterbewegung, Maurice J. Halton and revocation of licensing for posted text

Weiterbewegung (talk · contribs), a relatively recent editor, has recently contributed fairly substantial pastes of useful content to articles on engineering history in North West England.

• Dean, Smith & Grace (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Rothwell Cars (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• John Musgrave & Sons (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Churchill Machine Tool Company (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Unfortunately (but not unusually) their experience of the "Wikipedia editing experience" has been rather poor (Yes, we do still regularly WP:BITE the newbies) and this has prompted a change in their editing behaviour. They are now proceeding to tag these same articles for speedy deletion on the grounds of "mainly adevertisimg; lack of substance" — an article that they themselves had created, not a week beforehand. This has been followed by tagging articles as copyvios, see Wikipedia:Copyright problems#29 December 2010, on content that they added and also listing these same articles at AfD: AFD: Dean, Smith & Grace, AFD: Churchill Machine Tool Company. Several of these are accompanied by comments such as, "it is very unlikely that it will attract sufficient interest from historians capable of expanding it in any meaningful way. ", the clear implication being that no other editor is capable of carrying out the same work. We also find comments such as this and this, with a somewhat arrogant tone again implying that they are a proper academic whilst the rest of Wikipedia are incompetent amateurs. Sadly though, "Free lessons in historical research are not something I offer.", so we're unable to benefit from their vast experience.

A few edits are more specific, such as this removal of a reference, an MA Dissertation by Maurice J. Halton. There's also this, where Maurice J. Halton's website is described as "my website". This is relevant, because the claimed copyvios are from sources such as this, publications by Maurice J. Halton, previously added by this editor.

In comments at the Dean, Smith & Grace AFD, they (quite correctly) point out their right to anonymity and refuse to confirm or deny that they are Maurice J. Halton. A right we ought to support, but it does have some relevance here in relation to their recent attempts to undo their own contributions.

• If this isn't theirs, then it shouldn't have been used (and is indeed a copyvio). They've committed a number of significant copyvios, but are now acting as if it's nothing to do with them.
• If it is theirs, and they're the copyright holder, then they've (by posting it) licensed it to WP under GFDL. Such licensing has to be irrevocable, otherwise the whole project would be under permanent threat. This attempt to renege on it by denying their identity since is an even more serious and harmful action.

Their responses to such questions have taken the form of hiding behind anonymity and AGF. Andy Dingley (talk) 03:12, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

What happened to that poor guy is depressing. Could we please delete all those damn usertalk templates and stop using auto-editing scripts (huggle etc) on anything other than actual vandalism? That guy's page is so cluttered with templates that it's hard for any humans to maintain any continuity of communication with him. I understand how we have to monitor image licenses carefully, but it leads to huge hassles for new editors who make mistakes and get clobbered by officious and semi-threatening templates. I begin to think we should stop allowing new users to upload files: they should have to first request a permission flag (like rollback) from an admin, who would then be expected to mentor the user through their first few uploads to make sure they understood all the issues. Anyway, I left Weiterbewegung a talk message hoping he'd stay around, if that helps. It will probably get lost among the templates. 67.122.209.190 (talk) 04:47, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Stop letting new users or autoconfirmed users upload files? Because (in either case) that would mean that you... ahh, forget it. You're that San Francisco "IP-only" guy that no one is allowed to question for switching IPs all the time, right? My mistake... Doc talk 05:10, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Re your mistake: the pipelink you wanted is here. 67.122.209.190 (talk) 05:45, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh, then it is you! Just wanted to be sure: it's often hard to keep track. Was it "new" or "autoconfirmed" was my main question. You put forth the proposition, not I... Doc talk 05:48, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

The suggestion/thought/idea was that file upload permission could be like rollback: you'd have to get a permission bit manually activated by an admin before you could upload files. This (like rollback) would normally not be granted until the user had enough editing experience to seem to know what they were doing. The admin would be expected to engage in some discussion with the user before granting the flag, to make sure the user understood WP's image license practices, and also to check on the user's first few uploads and give feedback and/or guidance. That would seem to be friendlier than what we do now, which is have bots bombard the person with obnoxious templates when the inevitable mistakes happen. I'm not saying this is necessarily a great idea, but just that what we currently do has enough problems that it's worth giving some thought to alternatives. More detailed discussion belongs at WP:VP or the appropriate policy development page if it seems worth pursuing. 67.122.209.190 (talk) 06:09, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Could be a "red tape" nightmare - but who knows. I've basically been told on my last few CU's "not to bother" because vandals and trolls won't stop doing their thing: even before the CU was conducted. One area of WP may lose the red tape... but it's gotta go somewhere! I was trying to point out the irony of your account asking for extra loopholes for "new" accounts to jump through: but it's a "tough crowd". Cheers, "SF67" (the "Summer of Love")... Doc talk 06:22, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I see the current process of expecting the user to read a mile of mind-numbing policy pages unassisted, then deal with a torrent of impersonal templates and biting, to be much worse as "red tape" than making it so that anyone wanting to contribute images gets some actual personalized handholding from an admin familiar with the various pitfalls before they upload. Did you look at User_talk:Weiterbewegung, the talkpage of the subject of this thread? That is a potentially good editor who has apparently been run off of the project by our current procedures. I hope we can get him back despite our screwups. Anyway, an encyclopedia is primarily a work of text. WP is not Flickr, and if we can gain more good text contributions by losing some image uploads, it's a good trade. 67.122.209.190 (talk) 06:38, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Here's an editor right out of the gate that I recently helped (along with another editor) "chase off". Potentially good? Who's to say. If they keep editing along those lines? Never. Will they "get it" and learn to edit here after reading a few rules? I truly hope so. He got "bit" hard with warning templates straight away, and hopefully he will heed them. We don't need to "coddle" editors here - the cream rises to the top. "Please stay and edit Wikipedia, you content-creating rascal!" sounds like an advert we don't need. He can "hack it" or he can't, and they come to us, remember... Doc talk 07:06, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

We (supposedly) don't do it that way here. See WP:BITE. 67.122.209.190 (talk) 07:35, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Seen it. Level 1 templates are worded specifically to "welcome" first-time offenders that are unfamiliar with policy/guidelines. Should we not template the "irregulars"? We'll keep this on the issue at hand to avoid "hijacking" by me (which I've been accused of more than once). I'll disengage and you can continue to discuss the editor "on the grill". Doc talk 07:45, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Templating vandals is fine, as I said at the outset. We should not template editors like Weiterbewegung, when they are obviously trying to contribute good content. Human-written messages go a long way to decreasing the hostility level like what drips off that page. 67.122.209.190 (talk) 08:35, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

"Humans" leave those warnings: are you saying "user-written" customized warnings should be used instead of the ones we have in place? Not in a "broad" sense. This is getting off-topic: and I don't think you want it to here. Doc talk 08:45, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

The thread is about Weiterbewegung and discussing the causes of the incident, such as him getting (possibly) too many templates, is on-topic. And yes, I believe he should have gotten individualized communication instead of templates. Your attitude of "[h]e got 'bit' hard with warning templates straight away, and hopefully he will heed them. We don't need to 'coddle' editors here - the cream rises to the top" is not in keeping with our behavioral guideline WP:BITE, which in turn follows from #4 of our Founding principles, "The creation of a welcoming and collegial editorial environment." (Another principle listed there is the right to edit without an account, which you seem to also have a problem with).

As that page says, "People who strongly disagree with [the principles] are nonetheless expected to respect them while collaborating on the site. Those unable or unwilling sometimes end up leaving the project." If you are having unresolvable difficulties respecting Wikipedia's basic principles, perhaps you should rethink your involvement with it. That, too, is on-topic, in that the problem we're discussing is caused in part by attitude problems such as yours. 67.122.209.190 (talk) 09:19, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

(Chuckle) We'll see you at my RfC/U (with bells on, I hope) :> Doc talk 09:30, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) If we do adopt a policy that requires users to get permission to be able to upload media (which is not such a good idea, in my humble opinion), then it would be madness to have to make all experienced editors who know what they are doing suddenly have to request permission to upload media. Media that is freely licensed should go to Commons anyway. Personally, I do not see why we would need to put such a limitation on our community. Who said that the ratio of good versus bad media uploaders shows more bad than good? [|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 07:09, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not very active on commons so I don't know if they have this problem as bad as we do. It seems to me that uploading non-free images can reasonably be treated as an "advanced" form of editing, so I don't see anything fundamentally unreasonable about requiring editors to get some experience before they can do it. But, I can see that the idea isn't getting any traction here, so it doesn't seem worth pursuing. 67.122.209.190 (talk) 08:27, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

With regards to his conduct, I do agree that he does sometimes come across as quite arrogant (see [105][106] [107][108]). He doesn't seem to be capable of working in a collaborative enrivonment, where everybody works together and is on the same level, WIth regards to WP:Bite problems, I know that loads of generic template messages aren't nice for new editors, however he has received praise ([109][110][111]), and advice on how to deal with image problems. I really hope Weiterbewegung can put this behind him, and continue to make productive edits. Thanks, Acather96 (talk) 07:10, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Lots of users get off to rough starts. Some don't get over it, but others do. I've had some successes with abrasive users from simply asking them nicely to tone it down. In Weiterbewegung's case, I tried steering him to some wikiprojects where he might be able to find editors he has more common ground with, than the ones with whom he's previously been interacting. I thought RedRose's advice that you linked[112] was not very friendly, and the problem it addressed (the bot response to the image upload) could have been avoided in the first place. More generally, it seemed to me that the bot notices and templates overwhelmed the actual human dialogue on his talk page. That is a sign we are not doing something right. 67.122.209.190 (talk) 07:35, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

My mistake on the last diff, it was this one. Thanks, Acather96 (talk) 07:45, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I think ClemRutter's msg could also have been written a bit more reassuringly, but we can't always expect that. 67.122.209.190 (talk) 08:28, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

• Whilst I do have great sympathy for his poor reception at the start (although I hadn't encountered him until recently) his editing behaviour at the moment in throwing around copyvios and deletion requests becomes a risk of losing other people's work too. As this is an editor who has presumably already achieved a PhD in the type of history we're setting out to record, then that's just the sort of editor we want to attract. However when it gets to this point, we have to act protectively, not just make the apologies and hope we can recover. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:31, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for inviting me to comment on this page. I am not an administrator and have no aspirations in that directions. I first met Maurice when he made a substantial edit to a page on my watchlist. For a new editor the quality was outstanding, and fully referenced- referring to to his thesis which I had had cause to refer to previously- this immediately indicated to me that this guy was top in his field. Like many people in the engineering field he co-operates by working on a task- perfecting it and presenting it. Nothing strange in that- I know that is not the way that people in the arts and media work. It also appears that Maurice has a vicious sense of humour- and that is what we seeing at the moment. At no point has he confirmed his identity: I hake that inference from the evidence available.

The way he has be treated has been appalling- though as Andy said not unusual. I just don't think Wikipedia is designed for cerebral contributions in the field of engineering history. These wretched bots seem to be designed to cope with deliberate copyvios- particularly in the field of media- PR, TV characters, manga, film and music, and cannot cope with with false positives.

Fair use images from catalogues of defunct companies- or ones that have been subsumed in parts in to multinationals- are of zero commercial interest, but essential to the list or article. Trying to get your head round some film buffs interpretation (backed no doubt by case law- in a province of a overseas jurisdiction) of a list of rules that are only referred to by numbers is nigh impossible- and totally impossible to do before said film buff zaps the file.

We who have been around for years appreciate the subtle nature of the argument- but a guy who comes on board with the intention creating missing articles wont. If we get back to basics, that is creating content, the system needs a drastic overhaul to encourage this type of editor. We need a system, where editors are helped to achieve their goals. If we could have less of these bot generated threats- and subsequent policy backed vandalism. For instance, all the bots that write abusive and patronising messages on the user page (usually started with the words- Welcome to Wikipedia...) could first do a checkon how long the guy had been editing (from the datafile) and if it was less than 3 months- abort. Especially irritating are the ones that point out a minor error which they would be perfectly capable of fixing-- like please sign your posts.

The tags and advice messages break every rule of UI design, cluttered, overworded, patronising and not targetted at the potential audience - the editor and imply guilt- they are amateur and not fit for purpose.

So because of all that harassment, Maurice has quickly learned the system, and made fools of a large number of people- particularly humorous was realising you could falsely accuse yourself of a copyvio. I realise that not everone understands or appreciates irony. We are now looking for a way forward, (or in German ein Weiterbewegung). Not easy- and I doubt if anyone will agree with me-

• A very big apology
• A group to get together to assist Maurice to upload and correctly document all the photos he needs
• Maurice to be invited to write a whitepaper on a better approach to using a new editor with top rate academic credential, listing the bots and gudelines that need to be overhauled.
• A wizard or whatever the term is that writes these fairuse statements

I leave you to your deliberations, but please try to find a solution where I end up with more articles on defunct engineering companies in Greater Manchester.--ClemRutter (talk) 12:16, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I would support efforts to get this editor to stay. He's clearly very clever and knowledgeable, and would be a great long-term contributor to his favoured areas of the project. It's very unfortunate that Wikipedia's strict copyright rules led to so many templated warnings which, individually, were perhaps ok, but together looked like a major assault against his efforts. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:27, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I have tried to help this editor. It was me who kicked off his talk page, first with this, and then I added this, at which point his contribs looked like this: something like 120 edits to just two articles was IMHO a watchlist-clogger. 24 minutes later he was slapped with this. Since then I have seen his reactions to various templates, and have tried to assist: he's clearly frustrated, but at the same time seems unwilling to ask for advice, or even to act on advice offered to him. I even tried to demonstrate that we have something in common outside Wikipedia, with the intention of showing him that we're not all faceless, that we are trying to be friendly, but with no positive response. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:22, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

ClemRutter has it right. A potentially great editor has been royally bitten, not intentionally perhaps, but by processes and automations designed assuming deliberate flouters of policy rather than new editors struggling with the complexities of copyright and the rigid ways WP responds to it. Kudos to those who have already lent a human voice. Let's start by trying some more to recover his/her goodwill. After that... well, a white paper from Weiterbewegung about how we could do better would be interesting. How about somebody writing a bot or whatever that combines subsequent copyright warnings into the first one, rather than listing one after another? It's a different case, but this user page of full of warnings is also ridiculously off-putting. Slp1 (talk) 13:55, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Note to admins: Please watch major templates for a potential vandal

This notice is being cross-posted to the major administrators noticeboard (incidents or alerts) style pages on all the major projects.

Earlier today, a User:Meepsheep2 was blocked here on English Wikipedia. Apparently in reprisal, he vandalized a major template on English Wiktionary with a fake fundraising banner that he photoshopped. Someone reported it on IRC, and we blocked him quite quickly for this time of night, but we want you to be on the lookout for future similar incidents. Please help keep an eye on major templates for vandalism specifically related to the fundraiser banners, and if they occur, globally lock their accounts (if you do not have that access, please block them locally on the wiki they vandalized, and then find someone on IRC who can globally lock the account). Stewards can assist with this. I know you guys all watch the high value templates anyway, and I'm not asking you to do anything different with those. I'm specifically referring to incidents that spoof the fundraising banners. Please keep an extra careful eye out for those, and take the extra step of globally locking the account to prevent future recurrences of this specific kind of vandalism. Please send any questions to drosenthal (at) wikimedia.org, or use my English Wikipedia User Talk page as I cannot respond locally on all projects. ⇒DanRosenthal ^{Wikipedia Contribution Team} 07:04, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I do echo Dan's concerns above. We have already blocked several of these accounts here on the English Wikipedia; this user is certain to be out for more. –MuZemike 10:05, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Sri Lankan Tamil people

There is an issue where an anon with multiple IP accounts is trying to insert a completely inaccurate but inflammatory statement into the lead of the article. He/She is also using a reference in an original research manner. For example see this diff. The ref from a online dictionary says that Eelam may mean 4 different things (as indicated by the Wikipedia article itself) and one of them is Sinhala, so the anon creates a sentence saying Sri Lankan Tamil people who are known in their native Tamil language as Ilat Tamilar (or Eelam Tamils in English) as "Sinhala Tamils". "Sinhala Tamils" has no real RS references and is never uesd to describe Sri Lankan Tamils. Given the political situation in Sri Lanka (Sri Lankan civil war) and the tenuous relationship between majority Sinhala people and minority Sri Lankan Tamils, this is potentially carrying the battle into Wikipedia. Also thsi is inflammatory and not directly from the source itself. We used to have a forum to sole these issues, WP:SLR but it is no longer active, hence I bring it here. Thanks. Kanatonian (talk) 08:22, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I also informed the anon's one of the IP accounts about this Ani notice.Kanatonian (talk) 08:29, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, it doesn't even say that in the Dict. entry. (, n. < Pāli, Sīhala. < Siṃhala. 1. Ceylon; சிங்களம். (திவா.) 2. Gold; பொன். (இரகு. நகர. 68.) 3. Toddy, arrack; கள். (சூடா.) 4. Spurge, Euphorbia; கள்ளி. It merely suggests that ilam comes from sinhala. So misread source, I removed it. Later on, IP removed what I was about to remove anyhow as it was not needed. As you noticed after reverting IP ... :) Looks like you mistook IPs edits at that time for already disruptive. Good call on self-revert. Let's just watch that IP. I think it still as potential to become an encyclopaedic editor. After all, it did try to source the statement. छातीऀनाएल - chartinael (talk) 10:49, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Possible libel of Pakistan's president

This section added by User:76.184.139.231 may be referenced to unreliable sources and constitute libel against living persons, although I am not expert in the subject.--Charles (talk) 11:00, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Correct conclusion in my opinion. The paragraph was sourced to a blog and a probably not very NPOV book by a relative. Favonian (talk) 11:12, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

This edit by the IP is somewhat questionable too... Sean.hoyland - talk 11:16, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Correct revert as Section does not fulfill encyclopaedic standards. However, other, more reliable sources are not far off. Compare: Deadly Embrace: Pakistan, America, and the Future of Global Jihad by Bruce Riedel Brookings Institution Press, 2011 - 200 Seiten. See page 44. So the allegations have been put in writing and can be used. छातीऀनाएल - chartinael (talk) 11:18, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Try WP:BLPN rather than here for further discussion. The edit looks mostly reasonable but has some dubious cites, so your revert was justified. Please try to get in a friendly discussion with the contributor about acceptable sourcing for BLP's. I think The News International (cited as "The News", one of the questioned sources) is ok, but others need more discussion. The book by Fatima Bhutto (the relative) ok as a POV source if its notability can be established. NPOV means all significant points of view are supposed to be represented, not that each cited source is supposed to be neutral in its own right. Fatima Bhutto's POV probably counts as significant. 67.122.209.190 (talk) 11:19, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I would imagine that it only counts as significant if the information being sourced from the book has significant coverage in secondary sources. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:23, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, better to take it to BLPN and let the specialists figure it out, but I'd say to the extent that the book is the author's interpretation of events reported elsewhere, it's already a secondary source, which is good enough for us. What we'd do next is assess it for due weight by checking published reviews and references by other sources and seeing what they say about its reliability as a whole. "Significant" means something straightforward in plain English, and the assessment process should try to implement that straighforward meaning in a reasonably faithful way, not use wikilawyerish contortions to make the word mean something completely different for the sake of removing controversy from WP articles. 67.122.209.190 (talk) 11:57, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

User:TeleComNasSprVen

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

General lack of CLUE and misuse of the XfD process. His talk pages are riddled with declined PRODs and notes on how inappropriate his XfDs are by numerous editors; his XfD requests have become disruptive and a waste of community time. In addition, he has taken to removing other uses talk page comments on third-party pages here and here and then edit-warred with a sock accusation here and here; even though he has been warned in the past about such edits. Not to mention he's HOUNDed me on two different Wikipedias. I could go on Purplebackpack89 06:24, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

• What are you looking for here? Nakon 06:25, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
  • I think he perhaps needs editing restrictions regarding the deletion process (to prevent additional unnecessary XfDs), and/or a block of some kind Purplebackpack89 06:34, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
  • You might also want to look at this previous ANI thread involving him. It was suggested then that he be blocked if problems continued, IMO the problem of bad AFDs, CLUEless edits, and removal of other peoples' talkpage comments has continued Purplebackpack89 06:40, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
    • I think he is looking for a siteban, given that this is the "community forum", after all. –MuZemike 07:11, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
      • I've reverted the removals of those SPI notifications from other people's Talk pages. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:02, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
        • Mu, my proposal is below. Purplebackpack89 17:43, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
• Boing! said Zebedee and MuZemike (and indeed any other administrator reading this), you might want to go and see exactly whose user talk pages TeleComNasSprVen's edits to which Purplebackpack89 is fixating upon. Yes, that's right. TeleComNasSprVen is removing notices from Willy on Wheels' user talk page, where any sockpuppet investigation notice is, at this point some several years down the line and goodness knows how many "on wheels" accounts and copycats later, laughably silly. Remember Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Willy on Wheels 2. We actually do deny recognition here. Uncle G (talk) 23:47, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Uncle G, my proposal is about a lot more than removal of talkpage comments (and note that he has done this on pages other than Wheels). It's also about the large number of bad XfDs, CSDs and PRODs he's made, some of which have been downright outrageous Purplebackpack89 05:58, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Fair enough, the notices were pretty pointless - but they're at worst trivial and harmless, and he shouldn't really be edit-warring about them (and if there's good reason to remove them, we should get a better summary than "not a good idea".) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:34, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Notice where "not a good idea" linked to. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 19:05, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Proposal

This is somewhat based on what was discussed in the earlier thread here

• TeleComNasSprVen is forbidden from starting new XfDs, CSDs, or PRODs, but can still comment on existing ones
• Any failure to abide by that would result in a block
• Any additional removal of TP comments, or edit-warring involving TP comments, would result in a block

I'm not a one for making proposals, but you wanted one, so here it is Purplebackpack89 17:43, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

• I don't really know at this point. Perhaps it's a CIR thing really, and I hate dealing with those, but I recommend writing articles, regardless of how bad a writer he/she may claim to be. Editing restrictions don't work well with the whole competence thing, IMO. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 21:12, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
  • It's not a competence issue. It's excessive literalism. I've noticed it for some time, now, and have tried to nudge TeleComNasSprVen at RFD and MFD several times. TeleComNasSprVen reads and applies the rules, but apparently doesn't (or at least didn't) understand why the rules are as they are. So the application doesn't actually achieve the desired result that the rules are only a best written approximation for. In fairness, my general impression, albeit formed without in depth scrutiny, is that TeleComNasSprVen has been getting better at this, as other people have pushed back against xyr deletion nominations and explained why they are wrong where they are wrong. But again, note exactly whose user talk page TeleComNasSprVen is removing a downright silly sockpuppet investigation notice from before buying into Purplebackpack89's rather superficial description of the edits and proposal. Uncle G (talk) 23:47, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Still inappropriate for him to edit-war, and this is hardly the first time he's removed TP comments Purplebackpack89 01:40, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Yes, I think "excessive literalism" is a very good description. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:37, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
• Nope - I've seen that you have a grudge, but get over it. Rather odd timing, too; he hasn't done anything majorly wrong recently. Mono (talk) 21:40, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Um, his removal of talk page comments within the last 48 hrs. or so? Also see Betsy's point below; a restrictions proposal shouldn't be decided on the merits of the proposer. My "grudge" stems from his continual HOUNDing of me on multiple WPs, another thing to consider in his restrictions Purplebackpack89 22:40, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Stop citing those diffs. You have been told by Uncle G above in no uncertain terms that those removals are good; and I agree. Sockpuppet notices for User:Willy on Wheels and copycat? That's got to be one of the silliest things I've ever seen. T. Canens (talk) 04:25, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
      • Um, I made that comment before Uncle G decided to evoke DENY. So, you're saying that Fr33kman's edit was silly? I respect him, and therefore doubt that. And the fact is, he still edit wars on removing TP comments and he still makes bad XfDs, PRODs and CSDs, and that's got to stop Purplebackpack89 05:55, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
        • Didn't notice the timestamp, sorry. Yes, it is silly (notifying someone who was banned like 5 years ago and has had countless socks and copycats since then? ), and I suspect that Fr33kman did it because Twinkle automatically did that at the time. Do you have some other example of him removing TP comments? T. Canens (talk) 13:01, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
        • Credit should be given where credit is due: It was TeleComNasSprVen who brought up WP:DENY, linking to it in the edit summary of the very first of xyr edits to Willy on Wheels' user talk page that you reverted. Uncle G (talk) 19:05, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support this proposal would ban his junk edits but allow good ones. Many ANI reports get filed by people who have some history with the person being reported; if we discarded all such reports I don't think it would benefit Wikipedia. betsythedevine (talk) 22:01, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Page moves and subsequent abusive move protections by Ruud Koot

Ruud Koot (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has decided to unilaterally move many pages based on his own reasoning located at User:Ruud Koot/Biography of historical scientist, and subsequently protected them from being moved by non-administrators. For example Al-Kindi has been moved to Yaʿqūb ibn Isḥāq al-Kindī (a similar move was tried by the same editor in April 2007, and quickly reverted). A request to unprotect the pages was ignored, so bringing this abuse here to be dealt with please. Thank you. O Fenian (talk) 22:08, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

• Moving them and then protecting them in their preferred version? I would say this admin needs to explain themselves very quickly, and I have done so at their talkpage. If they do not undo the protections (the moves themselves are another issue), they need to be undone for them and I would guess an RFC/U started. Black Kite (t) (c) 22:17, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Further - I note he's also set pending changes on the articles, despite the fact they don't have any contentious histories. Black Kite (t) (c) 22:21, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Yes, I was extremely pleased with how my experiment at Muḥammad ibn Mūsā al-Khwārizmī turned out. Unfortunately these articles about relatively "boring" scientific topics often turn into some kind of nationalistic battle ground. Please see the revision history of the mentioned article to see how effective pending changes is to prevent this unproductive phenomena. —Ruud 22:32, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
      • There is no apparent move vandalism prior to your implementing move protection at Muḥammad ibn Mūsā al-Khwārizmī, nor any rejected changes since you implemented pending changes protection at Yaʿqūb ibn Isḥāq al-Kindī. Are you referring to another article? jæs (talk) 22:42, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
        • No stance on the moves, but I've removed the move protection and pending changes as the activity on all of those pages (with the possible exception of Āryabhaṭa) does not come close to justifying either move protection or PC, which shouldn't be being applied to articles that weren't in the PC trial yet anyway. Prodego ^talk 22:51, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
          • For example [113]. My observation over the past few years has been that these biographies are on far to few watchlists to have them degrade in quality. In my opinion pending changes is a very good solution to draw additional eyeballs to these articles. —Ruud 22:58, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
            • Moving articles? Not a problem. Move protecting them afterwards? Not cool - this breaks the BRD cycle completely. I would suggest the Ruud reverts himself and goes to Requested Moves to gain consensus to rename the articles to his preferred fashion rather than trying this kind of unilateral approach. Exxolon (talk) 22:54, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
              • We're discussing this now right? In my experience not enough people are interested in these articles to have a good discussion. So I'm throwing some oil on the fire to get it started. —Ruud 22:58, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
                • *cough* 12.234.39.130 (talk) 23:07, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand all that protection, lifting it was the helpful thing to do. Ruud Koot, whatever you had in mind, I think it would look to many editors like you were trying to heavily shield your own content edits with the bit. I would agree that in the aftermath you should also revert all those moves and gather consensus for them on the talk pages. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:59, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

That would be like shouting in an empty room. I'd rather like to hear arguments on why any of the renaming where incorrect instead of maintaining the status quo. —Ruud 23:13, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

As I said below, that has aught to do with policy. As for "arguments," you should gather consensus for moves like that. Please undo those moves and do that. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:16, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

But that is part of the problem here. The are low-traffic articles, but with an even lower number of people watching them. Pending changes would be a great solution for the types of biographies which tend to lose quality over a long span of time. —Ruud 23:09, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Low traffic and however many editors watch those articles have nothing to do with this. I do think you should undo all those moves forthwith and try to get meaningful consensus for them. In the meantime, you can always setup redirects if you like but I think it's highly, highly unlikely readers will be searching for those articles on en.WP by typing in all those diacritics. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:13, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

But al-Kindi still takes you the article as it has always done. But it might just give another editor the incentive to write al-Kindī or Yaʿqūb ibn Isḥāq al-Kindī instead, and increase the quality of Wikipedia a little. —Ruud 23:16, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Wonderful. Gather consensus for it first. You should undo those moves in the meantime. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:19, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Why should I undo the moves in the mean times? Where should I try to gather consensus? —Ruud 23:23, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Meantime. You're an admin and you're asking that? More than ever, I think you should undo those moves now. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:25, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I honestly believe that reverting these renames would decrease the quality of the encyclopedia. I'm not going to do that. Clearly if someone else decides to rename them again I'm not going to revert war over this. —Ruud 23:31, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

It looks like you laid on all that protection because you were canny worried about reverts. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:34, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

The move protection is only helpful against preventing very inexperienced users from renaming an article without much though. Any other user could have easily asked the nearest administrator. —Ruud 23:49, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Who? You? Gwen Gale (talk) 23:53, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Observing this from a lowly user's standpoint: The moves seem to have been harmless, other than possibly skirting "common names" guidelines. The pending changes are probably no big deal, especially if he's the only one watching them. The move-protection is absolutely un-kosher. As I understand it, the only circumstance when protections are supposed to be applied to anything is when there have been problems; not pre-emptively as the admin seems to be arguing for. This looks like an attempt at "ownership" by an admin. I don't know when he became an admin, but even if it was just 15 minutes ago, he should know better. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:00, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Let's hypothetically say I've been here for a few years and during that time observed that:

1. Many of these articles get renamed once a year by a relatively inexperienced user to a name that is not an improvement.
2. Very few users besides me have these article on their watchlist and access to source material to judge whether this renaming was good or bad.

Would it not make sense to ask of that user to discuss the renaming first and perhaps even enforce this using move protection? In the end nothing is ever absolutely permanent on Wikipedia including administrator actions. I think it is clear what my current position is on this issue (but would love to here good counter-arguments), but I would really like to spark a wider discussion about this issue. —Ruud 00:08, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Have you in fact observed improper moves with these articles? If not, then you've taken the wrong approach. You should have taken your attempt to "spark discussion" to a project page that's connected in some way with these articles. Ending up at ANI is not the way to do that, as you could start heading down the path to ruin on wikipedia. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:13, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, for example scientist which are ethnically Persian but published in Arabic often have articles moved between a version which does contain the article "al-" and one which doesn't, presumably by editors belonging to one of the two groups. Now all this renaming and fighting in the lead sections of the articles really distracts from writing on there scientific achievements, which is the important part of the article.

Realistically speaking, as I'm well aware that my position on this issue is rather controversial, I don't think my actions would be accepted if not discussed here. —Ruud 00:25, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

• I've looked at these articles now. For someone who has been on Wikipedia since 2005, and an admin since 2006, to violate WP:COMMONNAME ("Articles are normally titled using the name which is most commonly used to refer to the subject of the article in English-language reliable sources.") and then use admin rights to protect them as a name which is directly opposed to that policy, and then try to defend it with "I'm clearly well aware that I'm doing something wrong in the "legal" sense of the word. However I believe my actions are morally right", suggests a little bit of a problem. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:18, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
  • You must have missed where it says that wikipedia editing is required to follow The Ten Commandments. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:24, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Common name on Google, or common name in academic literature? I think the "reliable sources" part means we should look at the latter. —Ruud 00:27, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Well, in the Al-Kindi article, practically all the references call him just that - Al-Kindi. Are you saying they aren't reliable sources? Black Kite (t) (c) 00:29, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
      • See the discussion at my talk page. —Ruud 00:34, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

This is pretty out of line. Either you hoped this would go unnoticed (in which case, this is serious misuse of the tools), or you used it to try to get wider input on the issue (see WP:POINT). Neither is remotely appropriate. And despite unanimous disapproval here, you are still defending your actions. Do you seriously consider your judgement to be so perfect? Trebor (talk) 00:51, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I have some sympathy with Ruud, who has done a very good job contributing to those articles, and isn't always around to defend them, not only from vandals (and there do seem to have been some weird editing wars too). There was an incident at Muḥammad ibn Mūsā al-Khwārizmī (an important article about the inventor of algebra) that I came across only because of some weird accident. In the #Geography section there an image of a reconstructed map, that Ruud in 2006 managed to find in an obscure academic book and upload, and write about in the article.[114] This was some really superb, erudite editing on Ruud's part, the type of thing that Wikipedia's high reputation rests on. Earlier this year, someone MfD'd the picture[115] saying just "copyvio", even though the file had a perfectly good fair-use rationale and was one of the better uses of a non-free image in the encyclopedia. Only one other person (besides me and the nominator) commented at the MfD and that was almost 2 weeks later, so I think we might have lost that image if I hadn't happened to be looking at the article for some weird reason at that particular moment. Ruud is perhaps showing some WP:OWN issues, and the move protection was certainly inappropriate, but I take it seriously when he says not enough other editors are monitoring the articles and they are getting messed up. Could some more editors please update their watchlists and keep an eye on them? That might help alleviate the issues Ruud has brought up. 67.122.209.190 (talk) 08:20, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't have much in the way of opinion on the naming of these articles, but if Wikipedia:ANI#Pmanderson and Byzantine names has anything we can learn from is that mass renaming articles with ancient names when multiple variations exist is bound to be controversial. Protecting to one's preferred version on top of that seems to invite controversy to an even greater degree. Tijfo098 (talk) 19:03, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Speaking from an outside perspective, I have to agree with the numerous other editors: the naming issue can be taken up on the individual pages, but they should not have been move-protected, nor put under pending changes. The latter two should only happen when there is obvious, repeated vandalism, not "it could happen someday when no one's looking." It's rather upsetting that Ruud doesn't see it that way. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:23, 29 December 2010 (UTC)