Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive543

Caroline Cossey

An anon user has been repeatedly removing Ms. Cossey's birth name from the article, apparently on the grounds that a) the information is already in the infobox and does not need to be duplicated, and b) that this information somehow violates BLP and constitutes some form of "humiliation" towards the subject. This in itself is nonsensical because the two arguments are incompatible, and I have reverted several times now because a) an infobox summarises article content, it does not replace it, and b) the details of Ms. Cossey's childhood are public knowledge and are covered extensively in her own autobiography. I think I'm right in saying that there are no BLP issues here and I think I'm right to revert, but I have no desire to edit war and would appreciate some input from a third party. PC78 (talk) 14:57, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Maybe request a "semi-protect" at WP:RFPP? Just a thought. Commented on talk page. — Ched :  ?  15:18, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Currently under discussion at the article's talk page; looks like a content matter, more than something needing admin intervention just yet. – Luna Santin (talk) 20:49, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Threats from User:Mathsci

Resolved

 – TheThankful indef blocked as sockpuppet of indef blocked User:Gregory Clegg

I would like to ask for someone's assistance in dealing with User:Mathsci who has used threatening and belligerent language since I began attempting to edit the article Europe. Initially refusing to dialogue on the talkpage, the user repeatedly reverted my edits without discussion, with the result that I was blocked for 3RR. I am, as has repeatedly pointed out by User:Mathsci , a relatively new editor to Wikipedia, so unfamiliar with many of it's conventions. However, I understand the topic, and I do not understand why I would get blocked for posting numerous sources that support my position. The European article as it currently stands is at worst in error, and at best only providing one side of a contested understanding. I would like to rectify this. I find the agression and threats quite disturbing, and were it not for the fact that I care about the correct facts being presented on Wikipedia, would have left ages ago. I realise this may well not be the place to voice my concerns, but I honestly do not know where else to put it, or what to do. Thanks in advance for any help you can offer. Regards--TheThankful (talk) 21:20, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

User:TheThankful resuming preblock behaviour

TheThankful (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive542#Edit_warring_on_Europe
• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/TheThankful
• Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#Threats_from_User:Mathsci

This user was blocked for 24 hours for edit warring on Europe and Western Culture. This block was extended for a further 48 hours for block evasion through a sockpuppet. His proposed edits to the lede of Europe have been rejected by all editors. As soon as his block expired, he resumed arguing the change to the lede that had been rejected. When I explained why his change was POV-pushing and might if he continued reverting result in a future block, he made a report on WP:WQA about me without informing me. He interprets my explanation that his continued pre-block behaviour could result in further blocks as a threat. He is continuing to argue tendentiously. Mathsci (talk) 22:06, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

In the meantime I see he has posted here as well, so he seems to be forum shopping. Please could someone reblock him for disruption and harassment. Mathsci (talk) 22:10, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

While I sympathize with your situation, it seems to me that it'd be premature to block for either of those reasons, as he could just not know the proper way these kinds of things should be handled. If he is as you say continuing pre-block behavior (edit warring/use of sock) report him for that. If he's not gone that far yet, maybe the situation can be defused instead of escalated. DreamGuy (talk) 22:29, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Please see my above request. I have not made any edits to the Europe article, so I do not see how I should be blocked for returning to an edit warring behaviour. I have posted sources on the talk page that support my contention that the article is in error. If someone could explain how I am able to present and discuss such information in a manner that does not get me blocked, that would be awesome, as I was under the impression, this is what the talk page was for: discussing ways to improve the article. If Mathsci is in fact in error about my "disruptive" posting I'd appreciate that being made clear also.

Thanks again.--TheThankful (talk) 22:25, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

i think both of you need to cool off a bit here. Mathsci was right to warn you about your behavior in general, and you shouldn't have been posting the same complaint multiple places (personally I think the WQA one should have been left open and this one closed). DreamGuy (talk) 22:29, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Please see the last report [1] where TheThankful lied about his sockpuppetry. He is continuing to lie. Mathsci (talk) 22:31, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

DreamGuy, please don't comment if you have no familiarity with the previous recent event. This is quite unhelpful on your part. Leave this to the two blocking administrators and the third administrator who said they would watch TheThankful's behaviour. Mathsci (talk) 22:38, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Dreamguy, I certainly didn't close the other thread. As I stated I was unsure about where to post.

This is an example of the personal aggression from Mathsci This is just your own personal synthesis. If you cannot distinguish between the cradle of civilization and Western culture, I don't think there's anybody here that can help you. You seem extremely confused. Until you find some way to come to terms with classical antiquity and how it is represented on wikipedia, you are probably best off not trying to edit here. At the moment you just seem to be trolling on this page. Please go somewhere else.

I don't see how calling me confused or telling me to "go someplace else" is in any way civil. I am asking for assistance in dealing with this. If it belongs on another forum, please direct me there. As for the warnings about my behaviour, could you please elaborate? I don't see how posting sources on a talk page constitutes reverting to a 3RR behaviour.--TheThankful (talk) 22:40, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Mathsci, I am certainly not lying. Anyone can go and check the words that have been written. Lying just isn't an option. ;-) --TheThankful (talk) 22:42, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

You resumed the same disruptive behaviour prior to your block and are now POV-pushing in exactly the same way that led to your previous block. You lied about not using a sockpuppet User:LemborLembor, which has been indefinitely blocked. I cannot threaten with a block, but can warn you that if you resume the behaviour that led to your first block, you will receive even longer blocks. That is it is not an uncivil threat; it is wikipedia policy. In that sense you chose deliberately to misrepresent and harass me by forum shopping. Your activities on the talk page were a resumption of the arguments you were making prior to your block about the edit you were warring over which has been rejected by mutliple editors.Mathsci (talk) 22:53, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

The precise place where TheThankful is lying is in saying that I reverted his edits several times. In fact five or six editors reverted his edits. I composed the new compromise sentence which is now in the lede, was sourced and which has acquired consensus. (See the ANI report cited above for a record of TheThankful's previous disruption and lying.) Mathsci (talk) 23:02, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes it's a resumption of the position I took, because I was not blocked for taking that position, but for making 3RR. I have ADDED to the position with many sources, where previously there was one, which you disputed. How is this not kosher? It seems odd that rather than argue the position and the references concerned, you're arguing with ME and seeking to have me blocked. This to me feels like unnecessary aggression, which is why I posted here.--TheThankful (talk) 23:20, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Your behaviour continues to be disruptive. Multiple editors disagree with the sentence you want to include and yet you p:ersist. You are arguing tendentiously on the talk page. If you wanted to add substantial sourced new content to the main body of the article with precise page references from sources, that would be a different thing. Instead you want to insert an improperly sourced sentence in the lede that you concocted yourself, that nobody else agrees with. Remember the lede is a summary of what is in the main article. But your disruption didn't end there. It consisted of you reporting me twice by forum shopping, which precipitated this report. You also followed me to Cailil's talk page, which seems to be harassment/bullying. Mathsci (talk) 23:36, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I do want to add substantial new material. But if I can't even fix one sentence, why would I try?--TheThankful (talk) 23:51, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

The normal method with a big established article like this is to add sourced content to the main body of the article first and then possibly adjust the lede afterwards if need be. Removing sourced content, however, is not usually an option. I understand that you have edited very few wikipedia articles. You have edited some articles connected with a church in Singapore, where some of your edits were based on personal communication with members of that church. This is not usual WP sourcing policy and you might have got the wrong impression from that. Mathsci (talk) 00:02, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

How is my editing of the Singaporean article pertinent? For the record, I was replacing a reference from an alleged private email, with known facts which included a newspaper interview. In the end a neutral statement resulted. But that's completely beside the point and a straw man. The ajustment of the lede was a precursor to any further edits. Bear in mind, the initial lede which I changed credited WESTERN Europe as the origins of Western Culture, before it settled on the Greece sentence. I went for a neutral statement. If there wasn't such a broohar I would have written both positions, and sourced the Mesopotamian origin position. --TheThankful (talk) 00:22, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

It was improperly sourced for a BLP. [2] Mathsci (talk) 00:28, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

• First off both of you disengage. Second Mathsci's warning was appropriate and the above thread by TheThankful is not constructive. I'll warn you once TheThankful to reflect on the tendentious behaviour that got you blocked previously and not to repeat it. Also TheThankful forum shopping is not impressive please stop it--Cailil ^talk 00:27, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Cailil, thanks for that. If you'll notice I have not edited the article at all since being blocked, so why am I being warned not to tendentiously edit it again? Am I being told not to post sources and argue how the Europe article can be made better? Is there something on the talk page that contravenes Wikipedia law? If so, I would appreciate being informed so as I am, as Mathsci likes to point out, a complete novice at Wikipedia and somewhat confused. Thanks for your contribution. --TheThankful (talk) 00:37, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:TE applies to comments and talk page discussion also. These comments are not civil or constructive [3][4]. Please read WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL - just becuase you've got sources doesn't mean you can ignore behavioural and/or talkpage guidelines--Cailil ^talk 00:47, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

<-While looking into this, I rechecked User:TheThankful to make sure he hadn't resumed using sockpuppets. Much to my surprise, I discovered that he IS a sockpuppet from the Gregory Clegg family of puppets. I have blocked him. --Versageek 01:13, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

All's well that end's well :-) Mathsci (talk) 02:50, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I have blanked User talk:TheThankful, as he was using it to soapbox while blocked. It may be necessary to lock that page if this continues. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:03, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Block evasion

See [5]. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 23:18, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Tony Maggs

Hi - can an admin put this page on his/her watchlist. For some reason over the last 48 hours persistent attempts have been made to indicate that Maggs is deceased. There is no evidence on the Net to this effect not has any proof or reference been made to support this. It has not been restored to the Deaths in 2009#June 2009 but the page is subject to this ridiculous vandalism. I left a polite warning to the last individual to engage in this behavior (User:BleuDXXXIV). Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 23:46, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Semi-protected for three days. Tan | 39 23:54, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Just for the hell of it I checked here, which you would think would have his death listed if true. Anyway, I've watchlisted.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:55, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Request for comment on administrator

Resolved

 – No immediate administrative intervention required here. — Aitias // discussion 00:53, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I have filed an RfC regarding administrator User:Ryan Delaney, whom I feel has committed misconduct by abusing his administrative tools in an excessive and punitive manner, contrary to several policies. Please consider commenting or possibly asserting at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ryan Delaney. I am having serious problems with Internet Explorer 8 and will temporarily be unable to respond to comments. I hope I filled out the RfC correctly. Thank you for your time, again comments are appreciated. Some guy (talk) 00:16, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

This appears to be part of a series of forum shopping edits. 8-( Toddst1 (talk) 00:42, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I am not familiar with the term "forum shopping edits". I was advised by Ryan Delaney that I could place a notice here requesting comment on the issue. This is not part of a "series" of anything; I have requested comments on no other pages, though I asked for clarification of policies in compliance with dispute resolution steps. Some guy (talk) 02:02, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

User Born2cycle, tendentious editing and a flat refusal to engage in any sort of mediation

Born2cycle (talk · contribs) is engaged in a long-running edit war in Lane-splitting. Take a look at the talk page and you will see that this editors actions are classic for a tendentious editor. A great example is the merger discussion in that article - you will see that rather than just file a concise objection to to the proposal this editor has argued with each and every contributor to the proposal. Then, when it seems the majority view has been reached with regard to the merger this editor then attacks (me) when next steps are discussed. Read the whole talk page, my own, those of User:Dbratland and you will see a user who consistently refuses to get the point and who continues to be disruptive and is close all the time to making personal attacks. Mediation clearly won't work so I would appreciate some insight or actions from admins to improve or control this editor's behaviour. --Biker Biker (talk) 21:21, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I protected the page while this is sorted out. I'm sure it's the wrong version though. Toddst1 (talk) 23:36, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I've attempted to step in, both on the user's page and on the lanesplitting article, and I've followed his drama on this article, its talk page, and the AfD for it. The wikilawyering this user has done over the years is astounding; this isn't a content dispute so much as a tendentious editor. The lanesplitting issue has been posted to ANI before, as has another issue (see also: 1 2). Note I've tried not to get involved- my opinion here isn't because I feel "wronged", it's just because I've seen it as a bystander. tedder (talk) 23:52, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

In looking over user talk: Born2cycle, there does seem to be a pattern of WP:TE there. Toddst1 (talk) 23:57, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Yep, and I'll restate what I was trying to stay above- handling this as a content dispute or edit warring is simply treating the symptom, when the cause is a large amount of wikilawyering. tedder (talk) 00:06, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

In which case a more organized review is called for. The place for this sort of review is an RfC which at least provides some structure. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:25, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Casliber, I am opening a user RFC for this: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Born2cycle. It'll take a while to gather everything together. tedder (talk) 00:47, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I am not engaged in an edit war. Please note the lack of any links to evidence of an edit war. I hope everyone will agree that the burden is on those who accuse me of edit warring to show that, a) there is an edit war, and b) that I'm engaged in it. Some editors seem to imagine there is an edit war, perhaps based on my comments on the talk page, but that's not evidence of an actual edit war, much less one I'm engaged in. I try very hard to not make article edits for which there is no consensus. The last time I edited the article in question was simply to add a {{fact}} tag to a recently added statement that I believe reflects a POV not supported by sources, much less reliable, authoritative ones. That edit was soon reverted, and I did not insist on putting it back (though I've said I will in a week, if the statement remains without citation). Most if not all of my edits to the article have been relatively minor and not even questioned. All of this doesn't even amount to anything close to three reverts, much less an edit war.

I am not engaged in tendentious editing, which is defined at WP:DISRUPT as "editing an article or group of articles in pursuit of a certain point for an extended time despite opposition from one or more other editors". I admit to trying very hard to address all points raised on talk pages.

The one thing I might be guilty of is this kind of disruptive editing:

• their edits are largely confined to talk-pages, such disruption may not directly harm an article, but it often prevents other editors from reaching consensus on how to improve an article

I'm just one person. If my edits on talk-pages are preventing other editors from reaching consensus, I'm not sure how that can be, but I apologize. I assure everyone involved that is not my intent. I'm quite open and willing to agree to disagree. What I try perhaps too hard to correct is when apparent disagreement is really misunderstanding. When I see evidence of that I try to explain (and re-explain) what I'm saying, in the hopes of either reaching the point of agreement (through me coming to understand what the other is saying, in case I was the one misunderstanding, or vice versa), or at least agreeing to disagree. I thought that's how we developed consensus in Wikipedia... "Wikipedia works by building consensus, generally formed on talk pages or central discussion forums. ... When conflicts arise, they are resolved through discussion, debate and collaboration."

The only real issue in dispute here is about who has the burden to provide citations when material in an article is challenged. Dbratland 1, Tedder 2 and Biker Biker have argued or at least implied through their edits that it is the one challenging the material that has the burden, or at least a share of that burden. I think it's clear that it's the one who adds or supports the challenged material who has the full burden. That's certainly the way I am with respect to material I add to articles. I suppose one can view this as wiki lawyering, but it seems to me that a fundamental principle in Wikipedia, per WP:BURDEN, is that the editor adding material to an article must provide the sources supporting it, not the editor who challenges it. If anyone wants to have mediation on this issue, I'm open to that. Every time I raise this issue, I'm accused of.. well, see above, rather than anyone discussing this issue.

Other than that, I see no point of contention. I disagree with the proposed merger, but I can't do anything to stop it, and I won't. But when faulty arguments are made in favor of the merger, I do point out those faults. Is that a problem?

I will continue not attacking anyone personally, and will do better at not getting as close as I did earlier today (sorry about that Biker Biker). --Born2cycle (talk) 01:26, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

RFC ready

The RFC is ready for endorsers. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Born2cycle. I notified previous users who have had similar interactions, and will notify Born2cycle if it proceeds. tedder (talk) 03:27, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

For crying out loud. I have better things to do. You know how many times I have made edits to lane splitting? 23. Twenty-three! And how many of those edits have been reverted? 1. One! How many of my edits have been reverts of others? One, maybe two. The rest of it has been harmless discussion and debate on the talk page. And because of that two ANIs and now an RFC? Pardon me for seeing this as a case of "we can't refute his arguments, so let's refute him".

Once again, I suggest we all focus on article content, and finding sources that establish the veracity of any material in the article that is challenged, or might be challenged, per WP:BURDEN. Every else is disruption. --Born2cycle (talk) 05:11, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

The pattern has been established. I'm putting the RFC live, and (considering this) will consider posting here enough notification. tedder (talk) 06:23, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Legal Threat

Resolved

 – Blocked by Juliancolton (talk · contribs). — Aitias // discussion 01:11, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm reporting a legal threat on the Wikipedia:Help desk by an ip, User:67.212.60.13, seen here. The ip is apparently upset that it's article on a company was deleted, and is threatening legal action if an article about the company or anything related to it is ever put on the site. I do not know how serious this is, but I thought that it would be better to be safe than sorry.Fingers^OnRoids 01:06, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

This is a rather empty threat from an IP with one contribution. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:07, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

As a regular editor, I propose that the IP be blocked from editing for a period of one year to prevent the user from editing. How about it? Opinions? —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 01:05, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Blocked for 31 hours. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:09, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh god, complains WILL be filed. What have we done?! -- Darth Mike ^(talk) 03:14, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Based on the ip's remarks at the help desk earlier tonight, I found this in the deletion log and subsequently blocked User:Fingercallous indefinitely for that legal threat.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:37, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

New Zealand Parliament IP removing critical material from an MP article

I note that 203.97.232.81 (talk · contribs) has five times removed sourced critical material from Sam Lotu-Iiga, while also making apparently benign but unsourced changes to the article. This IP address is currently assigned to Parliament of New Zealand, so there may be a conflict of interest. I have now blocked the user. Since this is potentially newsworthy, I am reporting it here. Note that we had a somewhat similar incident at the beginning of April, when an MP was criticised in Parliament for editing his own Wikipedia article. See Talk:Richard Worth.-gadfium 01:54, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

You'll also want to give a heads-up to the Communications committee. They have a noticeboard on Meta, here, where you can leave a note. --auburnpilot talk 02:19, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I've reported it there.-gadfium 03:18, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

User:NBeale

I'd appreciate some assistance regarding Nicholas Beale. It was created on April 1, 2007 by Chiinners (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)—a suspected sockpuppet of the article's subject, who edits as NBeale (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and who wrote most of the article. [6] It was deleted as non-notable after an AfD on April 30, 2007. [7] NBeale complained that correct procedure hadn't been followed, and a second AfD was held on May 11, 2007. The result was delete again. [8]

The subject posted the article to his userspace at User:NBeale/nclb. Laura H S (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), an account with very few edits, moved it back into mainspace on March 24, 2009. [9] I restored it to userspace on March 29. [10]

Today, Sofsonline (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), another account with very few edits, moved it into mainspace again. [11] I restored it to userspace [12] and advised Sofsonline and NBeale to go to DRV. [13] [14] NBeale has now moved it back into mainspace. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nicholas_Beale&diff=293996705&oldid=29396177

Some more discussion here from March this year, where Snalwibma, Plumbago and I advise NBeale against recreation.

There's a clear conflict of interest, not only because the subject has written and keeps restoring the article himself, but also because most of the sources were written by him too. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 19:20, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

As far as the article itself goes, I'd say that if you're concerned about notability AfD is the best place to go now. It should've been taken to DRV before it was moved back (and I'll say as much to NBeale), but now that it's in article space there's no point going to DRV just to have DRV say "Go to AfD". Cheers. lifebaka++ 19:46, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

It looks like a speedy WP:CSD#G4 candidate to me, unless there is a valid DRV overturning the previous AfD. I don't see a point in going to AfD just to have the consensus there be to speedy it and take it to DRV. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:02, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

The subject has hinted that I have some ulterior motive for wanting it deleted (for the record, I'd never heard of him before March this year), so I can't speedy it myself. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 20:50, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I've tagged it with {{g4}} (and warned NBeale) rather than speedying it myself. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:21, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

• My concern is if the edits to the article from being userfied to when they were placed back in the mainspace constitutes the "explicit improvement" caveat of CSD#G4 noted above. Is there a notability indicated now that was not apparent when the article was AfD'ed? If not, then G4 speedy would be in order - if not apparent then another AfD seems to be the solution (I am assuming that notability is not obvious otherwise there would be no discussion here). The actions of a couple of accounts who fortuitously "found" this article, after varying spells of not editing at all - but on related topics when they did, and moved it into mainspace may appear suspiciously opportune in their timing, but AGF dictates we consider the content primarily. While not anticipating an AfD, the question is if notability has been established while the content was in userspace. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:24, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

FWIW the stated reasons by the editors for moving it back were that the subject had co-written Questions of Truth which was not the case when the earlier article was deleted 2 years ago. (BTW FWIW none of the editors mentioned is a sock-puppet, it was a 3rd party who put the article in my userspace, and the only time I moved it was to undo the 2nd unilateral reversion by SlimVirgin (who had clashed with me on another matter) NBeale (talk) 21:44, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I note that the a major contributor to Questions of Truth is one NBeale, and I would comment that being the author of a notable (in the Wikipedia sense) book does not confer notability upon the author. As regards the other editors who unilaterally decided to move the content into mainspace in their first edits for a greater or shorter period of inactivity... do not protest too much. I note the article is again tagged for speedy deletion, and it may be wise if Laura H S or Sofsonline - should they be reading this - were not to remove the template. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:54, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I can't say that I'm surprised this has happened again. But I'm disappointed that NBeale persists in getting involved with his own article so flagrantly. We've warned him time and time again not to get involved on grounds of WP:COI (and plain common sense), but it would appear that he can't stop himself. It's bad enough that he's vainly edited his own article so thoroughly, but to restore it to mainspace is frankly ridiculous. Especially since WP:DRV, at least as I read it, requires more than this. As for the new user who restored him, they're another of these "light" editors with only a handful of edits to their account. I'm certain that they're not a sockpuppet, but previous attempts to create/restore Nicholas Beale have involved meatpuppet-like editors with similarly "light" contributions. (As an aside, NBeale has solicited for the restoration of his article on his blog.) Anyway, I'm not sure of the best way to proceed from a policy perspective, but a review along the lines indicated by WP:DRV may be in order, and I would (again) strongly advise NBeale to watch from the sidelines. Not least because his activity to date is exactly the sort of behaviour that's liable to turn editors against him and prevent an objective assessment of the notability of Nicholas Beale. --PLUMBAGO 22:19, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

It looks as if Nicholas Beale may be borderline notable – but (assuming that User:NBeale is indeed the same person) what makes it so difficult to tell is that the article is almost entirely written by the subject himself, based on sources (his recent book, his blog) written and controlled by the subject himself, and bootstrapped into notability by (a) wikilinks to and from other articles largely created by the subject himself and (b) a claimed association with number of moderately well-known people (he once dedicated a book to Charles Handy, we are told!). There is almost nothing outside this self-generated web of material to support the claim of notability, and almost no external evidence that he has done anything of note in “social philosophy” or “management consultancy” (the two phrases he uses in his article to describe himself). What is really worrying, however, is NBeale’s obvious burning desire to be the subject of a Wikipedia article, the massive conflict of interest involved, his blatant canvassing of support for his “cause” on his blog and on WP user talk pages, the massive contributions of single-purpose accounts and meatpuppets to that cause, and the subject’s breathtaking arrogance and refusal to follow the advice he has been given and stay out of the discussion. He is trying to bully the Wikipedia community into submission, and this misuse of the project should not be tolerated. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 06:25, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Snalwimba. Is fair to make so many (demonstrably false) accusations and then demand no response on the grounds of COI? The article should surely be considered on its merits. I am certainly not seeking to "bully" anyone. NBeale (talk) 16:37, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Which of the things I have said is false? SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 16:41, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

• These accusations are very concerning and if NBeale is in fact violating policy action should be swift. However, in regards to the article, I think there is a marginal level of notability, especially following the release of Questions of Truth. That book has gained recognition by the mainstream media and has put the author ahead of most in his field popularity-wise sayeth Amazon.com. I would hate to see an article be punished by the actions of an editor. God knows how many popular wikipedia articles have been created by banned users. Wikifan12345 (talk) 07:15, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Notability is not popularity. Don't conflate the twain. Uncle G (talk) 11:19, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Hardly a fair assessment. Wikifan12345 (talk) 12:28, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I move that NBeale be sentenced to indefinite blocking per his years long insistence on engaging in COI (he created the article on his book as well). I also move that his sentence be suspended per his making no edits to any article subject in which he has any involvement. Should he violate this condition... "Hammer Time". ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:58, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

• I see the CSD template has not been decided upon by an admin. I will watch the page for developments. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:43, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

An indef block is essentially a death sentence for the article. I don't see anything truly controversial about his edits and while COI is definitely an issue, a permanent block is extreme and unnecessary. Wikifan12345 (talk) 21:14, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

• The speedy request has been declined. I should think that either an AfD is filed, or it is let to be. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:18, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I have declined the G4 speedy on the ground that the article has been expanded and one possible reason for notability has been added, coauthorship of an apparently notable 2009 book with Polkinghorne. This does not mean he had a major role, but it does justify another discussion at afd. I said "very week keep" at the previous afd, but i would rather someone else bring the AfD so i feel freer to comment at it DGG (talk) 00:21, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I've opened the 3rd AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nicholas Beale (3rd nomination). SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 15:27, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Continued incivility and baseless accusations from User:Jayhawk of Justice

Resolved

 – OK .. nothing more left to see here, enough drama for all - time to move on back to building the 'pedia — Ched :  ?  06:57, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

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

Some of you may remember this user, some of you may not, either way, awhile ago he was blocked, mainly for saying stuff like x is on the side of vandals, x is trolling. This user, after almost half of a year of inactivity since their block, has started up again, and is on relatively the same path, calling editor's opinions and reasons 'agenda driven'. Besides that, after their half-year of inactivity, they immediately come to my talk page in order to taunt me and accuse me of things without citing evidence, which, by policy, is a personal attack. Clearly this user has not learned from their first block.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 04:27, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

• People can hopefully see through this. I've created some articles on Wikipedia and I try to keep an eye on them. Within the span of six or seven months, Daedalus has attempted to delete one of my articles four times. One of them, he attempted to delete as soon as I returned to editing yesterday. He has me on some sort of list of people he "hates" (I know that's not the right word, but I don't know what else to call it.)

  He is also obviously trying to bait me into an argument by posting an ANI about me and leaving a template on my talk page threatening me with a block. Why is Daedalus allowed to do this? Look at his edits. He always drags people to ANI. He accuses what seems like every vandal or uncivil editor in Wikipedia history of being one of his or Gwen Gale's stalkers (why does she need him to keep a list for her...).

  If you don't believe this guy is a loose cannon, look at all of his requests for checkuser. It's not for fishing, and yet he has incorrectly attempted to link vandals together dozens of times in some bizarre effort to claim that numerous editors are all actually one person stalking him. Isn't that odd?

  Note how about once a week he gets reminded to tone it down. When will the warnings cease and the blocks begin?

  Jayhawk of Justice (talk) 05:32, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

  • They are not YOUR articles. Once you hit that "save page" button, it becomes the community's article; if you don't wish for your stuff to be mercilessly edited by others, then you shouldn't submit it. Also, looking at your contributions since your last block, things are not looking good, especially vilifying Deadalus969 of hooliganism and using non-English terms Internet slang like lol in edit summaries. MuZemike 07:06, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
    • I don't know what prompted this response. I said I created some articles and keep an eye on them. I never said I owned them. I mean, as far as I knew, creating articles and keeping an eye on them is what people were supposed to do here. Jayhawk of Justice (talk) 01:03, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Um... not in any way commenting about the pros and cons of either editor here but ... since when is using an abbreviation like "lol" in an edit summary a transgression? BTW and FWIW, AFAIK abbreviations and initialisms are NBD. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 07:22, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
      • It's how it's used as opposed to when it's used. MuZemike 07:24, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
        • Oh sure, I've got no problem with the idea that innocent words or expressions can be used in ways that are meant to be biting or insulting, I was just thrown a bit by the use of "non-English terms" in your description. As my mother always told me: it's not what you say, it's how you say it. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 07:32, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
          • Made more clear above. MuZemike 07:36, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
            • It is still in error, however. Note that "I see you've got me on some sort of list of hooligans." is not a statement that the person being addressed is a hooligan. Uncle G (talk) 11:15, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I see that at the AfD, four editors are making note of the repeated attempts by a single nominator to get the article deleted, and multiple comments run towards observations of a very personal nature to the nomination. It's hard to not see harassment in four nominations of a single article by one person. ThuranX (talk) 09:05, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

• I totally agree with this assessment. The same editor nominating an article 3 times in less then a year is bad faith in my eyes. If the article truly deserves deletion someone else will take care of it. I can understand why someone would feel harassed and make accusations about another editor, I don't see a failure to cite evidence, the 3 AFD's speak for themselves. Ridernyc (talk) 09:17, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
• Seems right. @JoJ; it's late here, but if you'd like to have a chat tomorrow, I'm up for it. It looks like you could use a few pointers. Cheers, Jack Merridew 15:59, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

It seems reasonable to ask these editors to avoid one another and to enjoy collaborating and engaging in civil discussion with the many other editors here on Wikipedia. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:47, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

JoJ's edit summaries leave a lot to be desired, they obviously have a problem with Daedalus and it would be best if they not ineract. Having said that, I strongly disagree that the AfD nomination is bad faith. Have you read it? Since when do we give "a pass" to somebody with the hopes that someday they become notable? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 18:00, 3 June 2009 (UTC)!

Since when do we keep nominating an article in a short period of time which such an overwhelming amount of consensus to keep it? Ridernyc (talk) 19:27, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Strikes me that there is more to this than just enjoining the two of them not to interact. While it is true that JoJ is not perfect, there's a pattern of behaviour that is a bit concerning to me. Looking at some of the interactions here, I am troubled. Daedalus969 gives the appearance, at least to me, of picking at JoJ until JoJ snaps... not good. I would again caution D to try to edit more collegially. (starting with the choice of topic headings... contrast "Continued incivility and baseless accusations from User:Jayhawk of Justice", which is rather strident, with more neutral ones that might have been chosen. I'd also like to understand more about this list ... I find it somewhat concerning. ++Lar: t/c 19:44, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Care to elaborate?— Dædαlus ^Contribs 20:42, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

About what? I think your nominations of this article give the appearance of bad faith, and it is indeed at best an odd coincidence that you chose to renominate the article shortly after the return of a user that was blocked in large part due to interactions with you. I think keeping lists of "bad users" tends to be discouraged absent some clear explanation of purpose and a timeframe for the use of the list. Further, I think your interaction style could be more collegial in general. So please explain why you are keeping the list, what the long term goal of it is, and please explain why it's a coincidence that you nominated the article when you did. That would be a start to assuaging my concerns. ++Lar: t/c 21:24, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I nominated the article because it is clearly about a non-notable figure, as to the timeframe of when I nominated it, it is because it has been seven months since the last nomination. As to the list, maybe you should try reading it, instead of taking a passing glance and expecting others to explain it to you. It is obviously to keep track of problem users who have shown they have no qualms about violating policy to get what they need. If a user has a history of incivility, it is to keep track of them should they continue on that path, it is for building evidence against them, and most of all, it is for keeping track of the numerous stalkers myself and Gwen have acquired. To the long term goal of the list, it is hopeful that, if my stalkers slip up and use regular IPs, a rangeblock could be issued, given enough IPs to help narrow it down so there is no collateral.

But do tell me, Lar, how would you keep track of a user without any visual aid. Will you remember why you even watched their page ten years from now? I wouldn't think so, given various variables.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 21:31, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

So you nominate an article that you feel fails meet notability even though it has been kept on 2 previous occasions. You track users who you feel cause problems. But then you freak out when someone claims you have an agenda against them? Sorry but you are far from the innocent bystander you try to claim to be. Ridernyc (talk) 22:10, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I feel that it fails WP:ENTERTAINER, which it does. I don't think an article about an actress who has had a single role in a single movie is not notable. As to freaking out, yes, I get angry when someone personally attacks me without a shred of evidence to back up their claims, like you appear to be doing right now. Do tell me how I am not innocent here.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 22:15, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I think enough people have already pointed out to you how you are not innocent. If you choose not to listen, there is really no reason for me to continue. Ridernyc (talk) 22:41, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

No, people have said that they think the nominations are bad faith. That is not pointing out fact. You, nor them, have yet to cite any evidence that I am other than what I say, so either put up, or leave.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 23:26, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

There is a lot of evidence. It isn't normal procedure to nominate an article for deletion four times, especially one that has been kept quite easily each time. As has already been pointed on the deletion page, you didn't even wait the length of time that had been recommended before returning. You're being uncivil with other people right now on this thread even though they are just asking you to explain a few things. Plus, there is no denying that you constantly drag people to ANI, and there is no denying that you have a very poor record at verifying all your alleged stalkers. Even on this very thread, you claim to be stalked by someone who will eventually get sloppy and all the dominoes will fall in place. Isn't it much more likely that you've decided a bunch of people you don't like are all just one person? Isn't it more like that you're just paranoid? And pardon me for breaking the rules a bit here, but isn't it just a tad bit possible that you enjoy the attention all this drama brings? Jayhawk of Justice (talk) 01:09, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

If there is a lot of evidence you shouldn't mind linking it with WP:DIFFS, along with pointing out specifically which sentence/phrase was uncivil. Otherwise, they constitute personal attacks, and you should remove them. Perhaps you would also like to back up your accusation that I constantly drag people to ANI, or perhaps you would like to accuse everyone that does the same thing. Yes, I take users here that breach policy, do you have a problem with that? Why don't you take it up with every other person that does it instead of nitpicking everything I do.

Now I am going to be uncivil. Yes, I claim I am stalked by someone, as they have posted a blog addressing mistakes I have made, and listing my real name against my wishes. They have gone out of their way to stalk me off and on wiki, and harass me, on and off wiki. Why am I not allowed to keep track of someone who does that, hmmm? I'm not paranoid, the not all of the stalkers listed are related to each other, such as my most recent one, an IP user from New York who thought it was a good idea to harass me off-wiki. As to the drama, I don't enjoy it, I am however sick of your continued incivility and refusal to take back your personal attacks.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 01:20, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand how you can claim Jayhawk of Justice is making random personal attacks when, after reading some of the posts you've made on his talk page, it appears that you've been doing your fair share of harassing as well. I also don't understand how you can claim he's "stalking" you when you continuously post on his talk page. I think if someone were to look into your other "stalkers" it would become apparent that you kept up communication with them as well. I'm not sure what you think stalking is, but what's going on here is not stalking. It appears to be more like a flamewar. Wikipedia is not a forum. Please take your flamewars somewhere else.  Anonymous  ^{Talk  Contribs} 02:35, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Please do tell me

Am I paranoid, for thinking that the following accounts are related, given the information linking every account:

• The Rusty Trombone (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Only contribution is harassing me on my user talk page

• BeenieWeenie969 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Contributions first are in tie with an article I tried to delete, later, and final, contributions directly mention me in way of an insult.

• Gaydalus969 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Username that above account used to insult me, contributions are harassment of me on my talk page.

• Stinky Cadaver (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - First contrib is to nom me for adminship. Clearly not a new account.

• MentalHomeEscapeInTexas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Harassment again, of me, out of nowhere. Claims of referral do not add up, IP user references only has single edit, and therefore could not have run into me.

• Tookhand (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Again, harassment, maybe he isn't related to the other accounts, but it rather seems out of nowhere.

• Flying Cactus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Again, harassment out of nowhere, no prior contribs suggest I ran into this user during editing, obvious sock, but of who, is the question.

So, tell me again, why am I paranoid for thinking that several users who all show up out of nowhere to harass me are related?— Dædαlus ^Contribs 01:34, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Aren't you the least bit embarrassed that other people are reading this? This is lame. You've tried to delete one of my articles four times, and now you're trying to get it redirected because the fourth deletion attempt is going to fail. You repeatedly post on my talk page, and you have me on a list of people you don't like. You claim to have a stalker or stalkers, yet an overwhelming majority of your checkuser requests have failed. Why not just take me off your list and leave me alone? In fact, why do you keep in contact with people you claim are stalking you? Honestly, nobody is being fooled by any of this. They can look at my edit history and tell that I started out pretty poorly. Now I'm just keeping track of the articles I created and trying to get one guy to take me off his list of villains. Your talk page and edit history however are filled with warnings, requests that you remain calm, and weird, dramatic spats. I don't know what will rehabilitate your editing other than a block. 98.163.96.217 (talk) 02:53, 4 June 2009 (UTC) (Uh oh...I used my IP address instead...this could be the evidence you've neeeded... Jayhawk of Justice (talk) 02:55, 4 June 2009 (UTC) )

An overwhelming majority of my CU requests have failed. Care to cite specific cases? Otherwise, I'm pretty sure you're wrong, I've dealt with many sock cases, and many of them have been sucessful. It hasn't been 100, like you say above, so you're just pulling numbers our of your ass. Again, and again, and again, you say a whole lot of stuff, but yet again, you fail to back any of it up. What a surprise. Further, it isn't a list of enemies, as I stated above, it is to keep track of problem users, like yourself, you continuously personally attack others. Like that blatant lie about my talk page history. Care to link the specific diffs, or are you just going to continue to fling your non-existant mud like some little kid?— Dædαlus ^Contribs 03:41, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Daedelus969: Are you here presenting all of these as socks of Jayhawk? If so, please request a Checkuser, so that we can block him and all his socks indefinitely. If not, then this is a distraction, or a play of 'No, no! Pity me more than you pity him!' Either way, you don't look better for it. I'd say the simplest explanation is you've pissed off a few people, or one OTHER person. Jayhawk seems quite willing to stand here himself without socks. Given the length of your Hit List, I'd say odds are good you've got two or three people pissed at you. One socked to harass you, and a few others followed suit. You need to establish that the above list IS Jayhawk, or withdraw the implied accusation. ThuranX (talk) 03:06, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

There is no implied accusation. JoJ said I was paranoid for having a list of stalkers, the list above is showing why I think the accounts are related. JoJ is not related to the stalkers, I never said that, but he has continued to insult me and others without backing up what he says with diffs as evidence. He continuous says I'm incivil. I have yet to see a single post that provides the evidence that proves that. I'm not going to sit here while someone hops around and tells me I've violated our civility policy without providing evidence to prove it. As I have learned such a is a personal attack.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 03:41, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Dædαlus, in the three days that JoJ has starting editing again, you have threatened to have him blocked[15], left multiple messages (dare I say provoking?) on his talk page[16][17][18][19], brought an AFD (for the 3rd time)[20] against an article he started and brought this user to ANI[21]. All because he commented once[22] about his name on a list that you keep and because he claims you have an agenda against him. You claim no one is providing diffs therefor you claim these are personal attacks. Material has been presented, which you've disregarded or dismissed, and I've presented more. Further, having his name on this list [23] leaves the impression you have an agenda against him. - Josette (talk) 04:21, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Threatening to have him blocked? Maybe you should say the same to every single person who leaves a level four warning on a user page of users who are personally attacking others, as JoJ has done. I left multiple messages as he has refused to respond to any of them, leaving edit summaries which lable my posts as something they are not. He has repeatedly said I have violated the civility policy, along with other accusations, without evidence. I'm not denying anything, he has yet to provide any, period. The evidence you provide simply doesn't count, as all of JoJ's claims of incivility appeared before the diffs you provided occured, therefore, if he is going to provide any diffs, they are going to have to have been in the past.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 04:52, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Again another giant list of differences and evidence that you keep requesting and you ignore all of it.Ridernyc (talk) 05:19, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Again another bad faith accusation by a user who doesn't even bother to read my posts. I told you that originally, JoJ accused me of being uncivil. That is why I went to his talk, and demanded that he retract the accusation, as, he has not cited any evidence. The evidence you cite does not count, as it occurred,(now please read this) after the initial accusation. In order for JoJ's accusation to not constitute a personal attack, it must contain evidence to what he alludes to.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 05:53, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

No it all started when you put his name on a list then nominated his article for the 3rd time in 7 months. He then justifiably asked you what your problem with him was and you then started this whole mess. 05:57, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

For reference, I have nominated User:Daedalus969/list for deletion

Please see: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Daedalus969/list. I believe this page is inappropriate and should not be retained. Since the page was mentioned in this thread, more than once, I've made note of this nomination. ++Lar: t/c 04:13, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Break

I'm going to be trying to take a break in a bit, very soon. I'm going to seek admin assistance in this as I am addicted to this website.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 06:13, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

There's a tool for self-enforcement; I used it to take an enforced month-long wikibreak awhile back... Tan | 39 06:17, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

That would be this. //roux   06:18, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I hope I set it up right. Just check my most recent contribs after this one. Admins, I've set it for june tenth. I hope I have that correct.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 06:25, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia does indeed have an addictive quality to it Daedalus. Enjoy your time off, soak in the sun, smell the flowers, and when you get back, you are welcome to visit my talk page if I can be of any assistance. I suspect that a passing admin would prefer to close this bit of a drama now .. and we can wll get back to business. Cheers to all. — Ched :  ?  06:48, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Not sure this archiving wasn't perhaps a bit premature... there are loose ends. I shan't unarchive, but I do want to close with this thought... feedback has been given to Daedalus969 from many participants here that a change in their approach is needed. This matter is now put in abeyance, not settled, as if the pattern of attacking everyone who gives candid feedback we saw above continues, there will need to be further discussion. But I hope that after a break, a fresh start will be made and Daedalus will become more collegial and less combative in his approach. ++Lar: t/c 11:19, 4 June 2009 (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.

User:LibStar

LibStar (talk · contribs) posted the following comment to this forum:

“ [..] It should be noted that following this deletion review, Docu not so subtly tried to restore the article, circumventing DRV, AFD and not actually consistent with WP:DAB. see [24]. This is echoed by [25] and [26] and [27]. [..] LibStar (talk) 02:15, 3 June 2009 (UTC) ”

This summary is misleading, as the disambiguation page was created by User:King of Hearts, the admin that closed the DRV. In no way did I "circumvent DRV". LibStar is aware of this [28], but still persisted. -- User:Docu 20:56, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Which summary? Libstar is indicating that four individuals have agreed that [[29]] is the correct sequence of events based on their reading of the logs. If you think the summary is misleading, then you should address the summary by Tarc, not the demonstration by Libstar that people agree with Tarc. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib)

I don't see how this requires an admin intervention? for the full story I invite anyone to read here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Estonia–Luxembourg relations (2nd nomination). LibStar (talk) 01:29, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I think this is in a new thread because the previous thread was closed. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 17:36, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Agilo for Scrum

Resolved

 – see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Agilo_for_Scrum. Not appropriate for ANI. Toddst1 (talk) 15:08, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

why is this article being deleted. i use this tool all the time and people deserve to know more about it. if you have trac on here, then agilo deserves to be here too.

If's that the case,reliable third party sources are available and if you add them to the article it will becomes undeletable! Otherwise, when that AFD concludes, that article will be deleted, regardless of what other articles we have. --Cameron Scott (talk) 13:44, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry/vanity coupled with possible notability

I'm at somthing of a loss as to how to proceed here.

User:Sitharama.iyengar wrote and reposted what was clearly an article on himself, several times and through a sockpuppet account as well despite warnings I gave regarding COI and potential copyright issues. No response on his talk page, which really steams my fleckmans. The material doesn't Google out, but it appears to be a direct copy of what may be his bio on a university's faculty guide.

He does seem to be notable, but there are no references to back the claims. Frankly, I think the article should be deleted, salted and both accounts blocked, but this is kind of a gray zone. Any suggestions? --PMDrive1061 (talk) 16:13, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

PS: I Googled just the name and I only got a couple of relevant hits. He teaches at Louisiana State and has a page on the LSU website along with his CV, which is here. If he passes the WP:PROF smell test, I'm all for an article, but it's coming off as self-gratification at this point. Just my proverbial $.02 if I may. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 16:18, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I blocked this account for 72 hours, with an explanation, and salted the article. Tan | 39 16:18, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Tant.  :) --PMDrive1061 (talk) 17:25, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Oxana879

I have brought this here regarding this Wikiquette alert. The relative links are visible on that alert, but basically user:Oxana879 responded uncivilly to a deletion nomination of an article, and then responded likewise to two editors warning them about civility policy and the personal attacks policy. I followed up with this edit warning them of the consequences of refusing to comply with our wikiquette rules, and they responded with this edit. Since warnings and suggestions linking policy have no effect on this editor, I believe only administrator intervention can have the desired effect at this point. Thank you. The Seeker 4 Talk 16:24, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Blocked 24 hours for violation of WP:NPA. Tan | 39 16:30, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. It is unfortunate as she seems to want to contribute constructively, but she can't keep accusing those who disagree with her of bias. Hope she realizes that Wikipedia doesn't allow this type of behavior after this block so she and everyone else can get back to contributing. The Seeker 4 Talk 17:00, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Oversight abuse

Resolved

 – Oversight complaints are handled by Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Audit Subcommittee. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 17:46, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Please see [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&old id=294318683#Possible_oversight_abuse_and.2For_mistakes this]. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.91.229.222 (talk) 17:34, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Do you mean this? Not sure why the edit was reverted (something about the user)? Feel free to delete this if someone sees fit. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 17:40, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Would this qualify as a legal threat?

Resolved

At a closed AFD, an IP deleted the content and wrote that "further action will be taken" if all mentions of the person in question aren't removed from Wikipedia, also suggested that there was some defamation of character there. (The article was deleted in February.) Dawn Bard (talk) 19:39, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

It's a legal threat, but as this comes from an IP, a forewarning may be enough. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:46, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I've courtesy blanked the AFD, which resulted in a delete. That should be enough. –xeno^talk 19:47, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I was curious, so did a wiki search and found a redlinked mention in the KOR dab page. As it was redlinked and unsourced, I also removed that entry. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:50, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Good lookin' out. –xeno^talk 20:35, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Barek. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:40, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Renewed edit warring by User:Balkanian`s word

Resolved

 – Blocked, Tiptoety ^talk 18:43, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

On June 1st, this user was blocked for 55 hours for edit warring on Illyrians [30]. No sooner had this block expired that he immediately resumed edit-warring, reverting here [31] and here [32] two previous edits of mine in Himare [33] and Andros [34]. He then proceeded to become involve in an ongoing edit war on Igoumenitsa [35], Parga [36], Paramythia [37], and Margariti [38]. In Paramythia, he also performed the following partial reverts [39] [40], which are partial reverts to this [41] version. Similarly, in Margariti, he performed this partial revert [42] to this version [43] (re-adding a notable person). He has since begun participating in discussions, and I was prepared to drop the case, but he again reverted in Andros just recently [44]. So we have 1RR in Himara, 2RR in Andros, 3RR in Paramythia, 2RR in Margariti, and 1RR apiece in Parga and Igoumenitsa. There is clearly a pattern of disruptive edit-warring behavior here, and it needs to stop. --Athenean (talk) 18:37, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 1 week Tiptoety ^talk 18:43, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

--- Apparently not resolved. There is discussion on the user's Talk page about whether the block was appropriate, but now there is an SPI investigation going on as to whether a new IP user is Balkanian's word editing while blocked. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:16, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Inglourious Basterds and a brain fart.

Resolved

 – Page moved back over redirect.  – ukexpat (talk) 20:07, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Could an admin help out with reversing a page move please. Being in pedant mode and thinking that even Tarantino could spell correctly I moved Inglourious Basterds to Inglorious Bastards (2009 film) only to find out immediately afterwards that "Inglourious Basterds" is in fact the correct spelling. So could some kind admin please reverse my brain fart. Ta very muchly. --WebHamster 20:01, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

 Done - no admin intervention is required, marking as resolved. – ukexpat (talk) 20:07, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much, and so quickly too :) --WebHamster 20:08, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for letting Quentin mis-spell as he pleases :) Gwen Gale (talk) 20:10, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Wiki something

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

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

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

So I figured that was that, and no problem.

Apparently that was not true

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In response to this:

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

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

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

Notes by Materialscientist:

• User:SheffieldSteel kindly pointed me to the {{unsigned}} template which is a proper way to sign for a user. Thank you.
• Admittedly, I've been terse to Ti-30X, but I did not mean to be unfriendly; I offered my help and did help. I hope he/she forgives me and returns to the WP learning process.

That said, I am worried by the above note showing that

• The user tends to make dramas out of thin air;
• I take his word that he/she will not engage in the edit wars (as he already reverted several good faith edits) and will discuss the issues at the corresponding talk pages.
• The user has a tendency to rewrite his posts after others have replied on them. Would someone please comment on this (as a general practice).
• The user is still in the stage of learning how to sign and reference his edits, but he is already keen to track and analyze WP behavior of editors and admins and to criticize that at ANI.
• With all do respect to professor Kaku (after all, he is a talented popularizer of Science), I do agree with the above note (by John Nagle) that his spread over WP might be excessive and might need to be looked after. I am glad to see that my Afd of the Physics of the Impossible resulted in quick and drastic improvement of that article, so that Afd might not apply anymore. On the other hand, I am worried by the speed and coordination of the rescue effort (just a note, no back thought).

To summarize, I am grateful to Ti-30X for revealing some potentially troubling issues and would not waste this thread, but use it as a fixing feedback. Materialscientist (talk) 23:53, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Requesting deletion of image file I contributed because of vandalism

Resolved

 – Being discussed elsewhere. –xeno^talk 21:12, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I am requesting that the File:US_Transcontinental_Railroads_1887.jpg that I contributed on June 2 now be deleted because of vandalism attacks. Please see here for discussion of this matter. Thank you. (Centpacrr (talk) 17:03, 4 June 2009 (UTC))

There's no way uploading a higher-quality version of a public domain map is vandalism. Please discuss this at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2009 June 3#File:US Transcontinental Railroads 1887.jpg. --NE2 17:47, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

That discussion is proceeding, but meanwhile, Centpacrr (talk · contribs) has been trying to make the image go away by adding speedy deletion tags and deleting the high-resolution version of the image. They may have hit 3RR on the image history. It looks like that editor is very unhappy; they've just discovered that their claim of copyright on a restored versions of a 19th century U.S. Government document isn't as strong as they thought it was. --John Nagle (talk) 19:11, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

The issue about which I am unhappy is not the copyright of the lower resolution of the restoration which I gladly released under GDFL. That is a straw man.

The issue is that I am raising is that User:NE2 has replaced that file with a copyrighted higher resolution version of my digital restoration which he pirated from a privately owned and operated website in violation of terms of that site's user agreement to which all users of the site are required to agree in order to access. Despite explaining this too him in great detail and pointing out that the higher resolution image was an illegally pirated file which by accepting that agreement he was not authorized to either download from that site or upload to Wikipedia or anywhere else, he has continued to substitute it for the lower resolution version which I had freely contributed and released to the Wikipedia community. The only reason that I have asked for the file I contributed to be deleted is because this user keeps replacing it with the different, pirated file. The rights to that file have not now, nor have they ever, been released to Wikipedia.

I am perfectly willing to leave the file I originally contributed and released to Wikipedia in place. However the file that User:NE2 substituted for the file I uploaded is a completely different file to which he did not have the right to either upload or release. See here for a more detailed discussion of this matter. (Centpacrr (talk) 20:11, 4 June 2009 (UTC))

(Non-admin disclaimer) If the issue is already being discussed via the WP:PUF process, why are you bringing it here too? – ukexpat (talk) 20:42, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

What is there for admins to do here? This is clearly forum shopping as there is already a valid discussion going regarding this. Please let the other discussion play itself out, and don't try different locations if the original discussion is not going your way. See [45]. Also, please do not mischaracterize the edits of others as vandalism. Use of that word is loaded, and only actions to emotionalize the discussion in ways that are inappropriate. This is a civil disagreement over the copyright status of an image; and the discussion over that situation is already happening in another venue, so is inapprorpiate here. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 21:09, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I have never asked for a page deletion before (let alone one which I created) so was unfamiliar with the procedures. I am now making all comments in the other location, and humbly withdraw the claim of "vandalism" which was the incorrect and inappropriate term for me to use in this instance. (Centpacrr (talk) 23:07, 4 June 2009 (UTC))

Page blanking by apparent COI editor

Resolved

User Cofcmarketing (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), apparently affiliated with the College of Charleston School of Business and Economics, has blanked that page with the statement "This page is not an authorized page of the College of Charleston and needs to be deleted". I wasn't sure how to handle it, so here I am. Dawn Bard (talk) 19:10, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

• User got blocked. Nothing more needs to be done. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 19:19, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Sad to see a new user shoot her/himself in the foot with a first edit. After reading the page in question, I'm not sure the subject passes the notability standards. Cofcmarketing probably could have gotten the page deleted if she/he had listed it at AfD, & had not blanked it. -- llywrch (talk) 19:31, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Not really; with a name like that, they're clearly only here for their interests. We're not losing anything. HalfShadow 19:32, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
      • See User:MuZemike/Plaxico (I should really make that into some sort of an WP essay someday as opposed to a separate article). In all seriousness, they have no grounds to revoke contributions made under the GFDL, and this is not a BLP issue, so good block. MuZemike 21:29, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
      • Maybe, HalfShadow, but this case is much like the thief who robs a food bank to feed his hungry children. It's such a dysfunctional way to solve the problem, one either laughs -- or loses hope for the human species. (And if the staff of this institution can't figure out how to produtively contribute to the encyclopedia "anyone can edit", God help their students!) -- llywrch (talk) 23:41, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Indeed. There's the issue of the article being sourced to unpublished firsthand interviews, for example. Uncle G (talk) 02:11, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

CSI:New York edit war

IP's 78.52.171.107 (talk · contribs), 74.69.35.238 (talk · contribs), 86.130.177.122 (talk · contribs) and Hornean (talk · contribs) are engaging in repeated changing without citation and sometimes blatant fiction on the CSI: New York pages, including list of characters. (there will be a long list of these edits by one of them, then it is another, etc). There has also been similar changes in the CSI: Miami list of characters which has included listing former characters as dead by suicide when they have not, and speculation of a former cast member returning. I do not want to get blocked by the 3 revert rule, so I am having to keep my hands off the articles. Can this be investigated as I do think I've given enough information to do so. Thank you. TristaBella (cannot log in at work) 24.176.191.234 (talk) 22:50, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Segregated into its own section. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 23:20, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I didn't know there was a CSI: New York Edit War. Is that about Wikipedians out of New York? **slap*. MuZemike 23:27, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and everything looks a lot cooler and gives you a lot more information. The checkuser function for example has a massive computer screen with all sorts of weird multicolored lights. Then it outputs the IP address, user agent, name of the individual editing, their date of birth, and any criminal records they have. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:39, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Also shoe size, favorite Stars Wars character and preference for plastic or paper. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 02:41, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I came back and tried to do the linking right. I am not as experienced and I do think an offer of help would have been better than a trout slap. Trista 24.176.191.234 (talk) 23:47, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I was trout-slapping myself for the intentional Freudian slip I made above. MuZemike 00:08, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Alright, then. Trista 24.176.191.234 (talk) 00:18, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Gergana30 removing constantly referenced text and pushing POV

Gergana30 (talk · contribs), who appears to be a sockpuppet, has removed referenced text (including Britannica) several times and has pushed unsourced fringe theories in the article Bulgarians repeatedly. She also just broke the 3RR rule there. Please take the necessary measures. Thank you. Jingby (talk) 10:38, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I see no 3RR violations. However, I've protected the page for a week to allow the content issues to be argued out on the talk-page instead of in edit summaries ;) WP:SSP is the place to go if you have sock concerns. EyeSerene^talk 13:22, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Bakhack creating new pages without any content

User:Bakhack has created (by now) three new articles, all variations of the original HAJİZADEH Elshan Mahmud oglu (now deleted). I've just warned him. If he continues, I'm afraid I'd have to request a block. Cheers. I'^mperator 13:11, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

He's also moved on to removing the speedy deletion templates :/ [46] Cheers. I'^mperator 13:22, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I've issued a short block to slow them down, and encouraged them to take the time to read the relevant policies (which they have already been given links to). EyeSerene^talk 13:35, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Probable block evasion

There's a user on a static IP at 93.86.201.173 (talk · contribs) that's acting very strangely and fairly disruptively.

• This is obviously not a new user. Their first edit (June 1) was to place a template in an article, and then they started getting into a fairly sophisticated deletion discussion [47][48]
• 93.86... then moved onto making onerous requests at a cold fusion related article (now entering the pseudoscience trend)...
• followed by edit-warring at Scientific skepticism and Free energy...
• a preemptive claim that they are not a POV pusher [49]...
• and a sprinkling of wiki-lawyering and personal attacks (eg [50] and "no attack, just a word/concept to read about")

Does anybody with experience with past pseudoscience related arbitration and blockings recognize this person? NJGW (talk) 21:21, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

NJGW, please show slightest decency and honesty, and also point to your edit diffs, where you bait and cherish me with petty remarks. Also, I am trying to understand why supplying my edits with arguments and references means 'behaving strangely and fairly disruptively'. I am sure other will look at more diffs than those provided here and judge by themselves. 93.86.201.173 (talk) 21:34, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring and attacking editors while wikilawyering is disruptive to the project. Appearing from nowhere, with full knowledge of policies, while ignoring questions about your prior editing history is strange. NJGW (talk) 21:48, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

You obviously misunderstand your role as an editor here on Wikipedia. You ARE NOT an inspector. You are doing more edit warring then me because unlike you, i provide arguments in my summaries and talk pages when i make a revert. 93.86.201.173 (talk) 21:51, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

ps. what you asked me about my past is a borderline harassment 93.86.201.173 (talk) 21:53, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

The difference between NJGW and you is that he has diffs corroborating his claims. Show me proof he is in the wrong, posthaste, because I'm more inclined to believe him based on his evidence. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 21:58, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

ok, i'll post diffs in a minute93.86.201.173 (talk) 21:59, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

petty remark [51] and almost a haressment [52] as proving him i was not blocked would reveal my real name, then argument that he keeps ignoring [53] showing 100+ books in favor of my categorization, and 1 book in favor of his. i can post diffs for his other accusations too -- pertaining to other articles. 93.86.201.173 (talk) 22:03, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

another example Talk:Free_energy_suppression#anyone_can_find_better_source, as you can see, i don't edit war, i discuss, but unfortunately, there don't seem to be many others interested in discussion. 93.86.201.173 (talk) 22:11, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

How do reconcile [54][55][56] and [57][58][59][60] with "i don't edit war"? Please leave your content issue (that "free energy" is not a pseudoscience) out of this area. NJGW (talk) 22:23, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

You missed to post diffs of arguments posted on talk pages in between of above diffs. Also, i never claimed 'free energy is not pseudoscience', i claimed 'alternative energy is not, and neither is free-energy suppresion'. do you get the difference? 93.86.201.173 (talk) 23:32, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Also, edit warring is reverting without discussion, and you may notice from my contributions that in between article edits, there are quite a few talk page edits. 93.86.201.173 (talk) 23:37, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Patently wrong. Edit warring is edit warring regardless of whether you stop to make talk page edits or not. Declaring your intentions on a talk page does not give you carte-blanche to force your particular version of an article to be the one that is visible. WP:3RR does not list the use of talk pages as an exception to edit warring. The correct pattern of behavior is Bold. Revert. Discuss. Not "Bold. Revert. Discuss. Revert. Discuss. Revert. Discusss. Revert. Discuss. Revert. etc." Once an edit has been challenged, stop making it over and over. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:52, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

ok, so i guess others can revert without discussion, but i can't even with discussion. i'll have that in mind. 93.86.201.173 (talk) 07:30, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Wrong again. Others are not allowed to edit war either, whether they discuss or not. No one is. If you feel that another person is violating a standard of behavior, the proper response is not to violate the same standard of behavior yourself. "Oh, look, someone else is edit warring. That means we can all edit war!!!" It doesn't work that way. Only you are responsible for your actions. Don't violate the standards of behavior and you will not get blocked. It's not that complicated. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:39, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

revert wars: If someone challenges your edits, discuss it with them and seek a compromise, or seek dispute resolution. Don't just fight over competing views and versions. you see, on three articles I challenged their edits, and my objections went unanswered, while my edits were reverted. 93.86.201.173 (talk) 07:36, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

If you are concerned, seek dispute resolution. Perhaps a third opinion would help break the dead lock. See, here's the neat bit. The edit war stops when you stop. If you don't revert them back again, there is no edit war. If you think your version is better than theirs, there is a right way to go about it. Seek a consensus by using dispute resolution. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:39, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I will when I have more time. Not today though. ps. the edit war also stops when they stop, doesn't it? 93.86.201.173 (talk) 21:18, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Can another Admin please deal with IP changing cited text?

125.196.6.186 (talk · contribs) continues to change cited text at Jabal al-Lawz (Lawz means 'almonds', not 'laws', this is probably a supporter of Bob Cornuke). I gave him a final warning this am and he did it again. As I'm the one who added the citation (to a stub with a citations needed tag), and have been giving the warnings, I am involved and thus I presume shouldn't block him/her (I presume I can continue reverting without getting caught by 3RR, right?). Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 08:54, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Blocked the IP for one day. Cirt (talk) 08:55, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 19:18, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Request for abuse filter

Hi, I would like to request that an AF that detects pages created with delete tags (eg /\{\{db.*\}\}/ or /\{\{hangon.*\}\}/) as this is improper use of a delete tag and is a common problem. I posted a request at WP:AF/R but it seems not to be watched. Triplestop (talk) 15:33, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

No, it's a good faith mistake by new users, and we shouldn't "hold their feet to the fire" and scare them off even more with an abuse filter. MuZemike 15:57, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

...and in future, please request filters at WP:RAF. –xeno^talk 17:48, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Attacks and vandalism on the Mungiu pages

The Cristian Mungiu and Alina Mungiu-Pippidi pages (both BLP) are being repeatedly attacked by a single-purpose account, User:Anarchistificationer86, and what I can only presume is the IP behind it. This started as apparent and obsessive death threats in February ([61], [62], [63]), and continued as bogus claims of homosexuality ([64], [65], [66], [67]) or hate messages ([68]). Presumably, there is a person out there who feels very inclined toward vandalizing these articles, and these articles especially. I did not previously contact the user, because this looks like clear-cut blocking material. Dahn (talk) 17:58, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any warnings on Anarchist's Talk page. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 18:14, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I indicated as much, but at this point one has to ask himself if there is anything constructive about whatever edit this user has made. What's more, note that, when confronted with a revert, this user has [apparently] switched to his IP, which means that he is well aware of doing something disruptive. And, lastly, you will see warnings on the user's talk page, relating to the other mainstay of his edits: uploading copyrighted material under false pretense. Dahn (talk) 18:24, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Given the obviously malicious intent of this editing and its long-term nature, I think we may just as well block without warning first. There's no way this user didn't know what he was doing was wrong. Account blocked for a week, both BLP articles semi-protected for a month. Thanks to Dahn for being watchful. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:48, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

No, thank you. Dahn (talk) 22:22, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Endorse block, though I would have done indef instead of one week. Cirt (talk) 22:35, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Meatpuppetry (again)

Resolved

 – Puppets blocked by another admin. MastCell ^Talk 20:48, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I ask an admin to review this case to see if it passes WP:DUCK? We have linked now 4 accounts to User:SonofFeanor as being meat/sock puppets. Soxwon (talk) 18:44, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Admin Jéské Couriano has blocked all 4 already. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:00, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I saw, disregard this then. Thanks. Soxwon (talk) 19:02, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

No response from IP who might be causing disruption

User talk:70.106.219.216

A bit of upheaval at Portal:Current events/2009 June 5. This IP is not using edit summaries and will not respond to warnings or questions. Not sure what to call this, an edit war or vandalism or what? --candle•wicke 20:03, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Never mind. Go to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#70.106.219.216 reported by Jolly Janner (Result: ). --candle•wicke 20:08, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, nothing is needed here at least. In regards to this situation, nothing else besides blocking the IP for edit-warring/3RR can be done. MuZemike 20:09, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Recreation of Fledgling Jason Steed

Resolved

 – Extra eyes obtained. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:17, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I need an independent evaluation of this recreation. Fledgling Jason Steed was deleted in this AfD for reasons of notability. The primary author has been working on it in userspace, and recently pasted it over a redirect to the WWII hero the main character was named after. I speedied it as a recreation of deleted material, but Beehold (talk · contribs), insisting that it was not substantially identical to the earlier version, recreated it again. It's currently sourced to (among other things) Barnes and Noble messageboards, which had been removed in the deleted version, and Nancy Pearl's Book Lust wiki. By this point I think I'm too close to the topic to give an unbiased assessment of its notability and whether there have been sufficient changes, so I'd greatly appreciate it if someone else could take a look. Thanks.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:17, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

It's all puff and this version seems no different from the version that I know was deleted and then the author asked for help with getting upto standard (even ARSErs couldn't help with that one). --Cameron Scott (talk) 13:37, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

(ec)The primary difference, as I understand it, is that the author now has an agent and the book has been picked up by a publisher, so it's no longer self-published.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:41, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

As far as I can determine the publisher is someone who prints the books pretty much on demand and if they sell some, they give you some money. Sounds like straight vanity - if it's *not* it's not indicated in the sources I have checked so far... --Cameron Scott (talk) 13:43, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I have put a CSDG4 tag on it on the basis that it is same material and b)and any changes do not address the reasons for which the material was deleted.. --Cameron Scott (talk) 13:41, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Just for the record, the new publisher of the series is Sourcebooks Inc[69], which publishes the Horrid Henry kids books, Georgette Heyer, Mark Twain, Anna Sewell etc and has had numerous contemporary books in the New York Times bestsellers list. I don't think the word 'vanity' press can be attributed to this firm - it's not a self-publishing company.--Beehold (talk) 14:05, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Twain and Sewell are public domain: bad examples. Also, their edition of An Infamous Army by Heyer is listed as a reprint edition -- another bad example.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:12, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I just picked random books whose authors I knew the name of. Chances are, I passed over huge American best sellers, cos I'm in the UK and never heard of them. Horrid Henry, however, is one of the biggest selling kids books in Britain - so I imagine that is a major name. Anyway, I am happy for you to speedy close the AFD if you want. Now that the publishing deal has been announced by Publishers MarketPlace it is likely that the book will be mentioned in more 'Wikipedia reliable' publications over the next few days. Then, perhaps, I can recreate the article without causing any problems. (Teen Vogue - edition end of April, beginning of May. The same Malia Obama details also mentioned on a US show called Teen Zone apparently at beginning of May - but I'm in the UK, so don't know this programme.)--Beehold (talk) 14:35, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

FWIW I took a good look at Sourcebooks' website, and it seems like a legit publisher to me. True it does "custom publishing" and bulk corporate orders, but it has numerous imprints, which it obtained by purchasing them from elsewhere, has a number of NYTimes Best Sellers and other best selling books, and generally does not at all look like a vanity press operation. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 07:30, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I !voted delete at the afd, but I acknowledged that this might be an exception to unpublished books being nonotable, and that if there were additional evidence there might well be an article. I' see the article is now at AfD, so I think the discussion here can be marked as closed. DGG (talk) 19:42, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Can we indef block ip User talk:74.94.160.85

The above IP is registered to a school and has been repeatedly blocked for vandalism. The Operation Repo page is the most recent offense but for the amount of warnings on that page enough is enough, let them register for an account if they want to edit. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 18:03, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

74.94.160.85 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is actually very light on block logs relative to other schools. Not much in quality edits, but not that much overall. Indef would be way overkill. rootology (C)(T) 18:05, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, a year at most, but they've only vandalized once today. –xeno^talk 18:08, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

And their last ten edits overall stretch all the way back to October 2008, an eight-month duration. rootology (C)(T) 18:10, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, the 6 month block they were serving might have something to do with it. –xeno^talk 18:12, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I see like 5 blocks in the last year, I'm not sure what standard levels of vandalism is on other sites but can we at least temporarily get this to stop? Hell in a Bucket (talk) 18:09, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

As I said they've only vandalized once today and that was about half an hour ago. If they re-offend then yes, I'd say a schoolblock would be in order. In future, you can report stuff like this at WP:AIV –xeno^talk 18:12, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

(EC) Each time they were blocked they were doing multiple bad edits, and then they appear to have picked up standard school-term blocks. IPs in general have 100% as much right to edit as anyone else; we don't permanently block out IPs like we do bad usernames or their operators. If he starts doing multiple bad edits in more frequency, sure, block out again for school term. That's how we do it. We don't indef IPs. rootology (C)(T) 18:13, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Have there been any useful edits from this IP? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 22:30, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Blocked for one year. Cirt (talk) 22:32, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

TY, if they are good contribs they will register an account and no one will behurt. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 02:33, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Revert war and BLP over Marc Stuart Dreier

I've locked the above page, as a revert war between two involved parties is in place - one works for the man concerned, and one seems adamant on 'getting the truth out' - respectively, W Cwir at Saylor (talk · contribs) and Furtive admirer (talk · contribs). I've locked the article without the BLP in, but it's well sourced, if badly worded, BLP. Ideas? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 20:57, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

It appears that Saylor is Saylor Public Relations hired to 'spin'. Toddst1 (talk) 21:12, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

True, but he's being honest about it, which leads me to believe that he may have a valid point. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 21:14, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I've left a polite note about how to handle such issues about folks constructively and within our rules. Toddst1 (talk) 21:15, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Laserhaas (talk) 21:22, 5 June 2009 (UTC) Stipulating that "he's" being honest about it, because he/she confessed to being a hired agent seems a little quilted to me. You have a situation here - akin to Madoff - where there are confessions to false affidavits, deliberate deception of the court and the Dept of Justice personnel in DE giving such a cake walk. Yet Martha went to jail for one spoken falsehood. Traub confessed to 17 deliberate false affidavits to the court. Then, after receiving the DOJ promise of willful blindness in 2005, his partners Dreier and Petters are arrested for $700 million and $3 billion in fraud. My suggestion is a Paul Traub page that reports all the "well sourced" items and let the public make its own conclusion.

What say ye?

Laserhaas (talk) 21:22, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I suggest that we keep this to a discussion about the BLP issues, ideally from uninvolved administrators, not from involved parties such as yourself ;-) Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 21:48, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I voiced my opinion on the talk page. ThuranX (talk) 21:55, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

admitting you are enriching yourself by deleting court documents sources and transcripts of perjury and orders of disgorgement because of that perjury is no affirmative defense. it is naivete. wikipedia does not allow any companies let alone their representatives to contribute. last week when ms. cwir deleted the entire section upon logging in, she was warned.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Saylorcompany

she simply changed her screen name a few days later See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:W_Cwir_at_Saylor

and began to delete line by line with only a personal opinion as an explanation. she was up all last nite. check out the history: 5 or 6 hours, possibly because of a deadline. she didn't like the facts or the source. I suggested she have Paul Traub assist in correcting the facts, but he has learned to keep quiet. he is obviously not only concerned about his reputation, being partners with 2 indicted criminals, dreier and petters, but his own sleight - of - hand malfeasance that continued while sojourning at dreier llp. the wall street journal reported his shenanigans. so too findlaw.com. both were posted and documented. there was more going on at dreier llp than simply a one-man moneylaundering operation.

Furtive admirer (talk) 23:26, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Odd question re: WP:NLT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lost a Thread

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

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

Wiki something

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

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

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

So I figured that was that, and no problem.

Apparently that was not true

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In response to this:

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

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

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

Notes by Materialscientist:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:Lg16spears

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

Require an admin to close this AfD

Resolved

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

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

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

Minnametsa (talk · contribs), who appears to be a SPA, has struck out the delete votes of myself and two other editors as well as removed the striking out of IP votes in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SALIN: [70] Could an uninvolved admin please revert this and take appropriate action? Nick-D (talk) 09:06, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bit of a cheeky IP

Resolved

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

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

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

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

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

Repeated edit warring between two users

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

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

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

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

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

You are referring to my reverts of these edits: [71] and [72]. Are you sure you did not remove sourced info? Because I can see deleted sources in the diffs. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 20:54, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

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

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

Let me describe the general pattern so far (linked to examples): I make original contributions like [73], [74] and [75] with proper edit summaries, Rubikonchik (talk · contribs) blindly reverts them without any comment, I un-revert it and add more original contributions with correct edit summaries, Rubikonchik undoes it all blindly without any comment. I try to open discussion on the talk page, outlining my reasons behind the contributions in depth, and add them back with more original contributions, Rubikonchik reverts, for the first time, with an edit summary. It says: "Please discuss and propose changes on the talk page first." Note that by the time of his demand, my comments have been hanging on the talk page for two days. I add my contributions back, urging him to take look at my comments on the talk page, Rubikonchik reverts. Rubikonchik gets his first comment across to the talk page after ten days of edit warring. We actually get involved in discussion for a few days, which however bogs down in no reply from Rubikonchik to the issues. I assume that he has nothing to say anymore and I react by restoring my contributions. This has gone on and on like this and Rubikonchik has reverted my other contributions on pages linked to Rotaru in a similar maner. I have broken the WP:3RR once, in a clear case of violation of WP:NCF#Foreign-language films on the Mikhail Boyarsky article, which was supported by a consensus on Talk:Dusha page. However, I may be guilty of edit warring, but tell me how to proceed when your comments in the edit summaries and on the talk pages are simply ignored? --Jaan Pärn (talk) 20:50, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

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

• The desire of Jaan Pärn to delete the contents and then the article Sofia Rotaru goes a little too far, even when users vote for keeping files. Do you think this deletion was done in accordance with the Wikipedia rules?--Rubikonchik (talk) 21:44, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Mimika Air Flight 514

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

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

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

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

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

Request

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

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

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

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

Ireland

Discussion hidden for scrollability

Ireland naming/disambiguation Can we get a couple more eyes on the Ireland/Republic of Ireland articles? A couple of users have taken it upon themselves to "correct" the contents of the articles, in violation of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names#No moves pending discussion. It's a contentious subject, which is why people aren't supposed to be shifting things around at the moment.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:02, 1 June 2009 (UTC) Im stunned a couple of people have thought they should just jump in and make those changes, especially as all of them know there is the ongoing debate at another location about the Ireland naming dispute. Please stop them from making those changes, they keep undoing SarekoVulcans restoration of the correct article. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:11, 1 June 2009 (UTC) Didn't say it was the correct article. It just needs to stand until the Arbcom - directed discussion completes. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:33, 1 June 2009 (UTC) There has been no violation of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names#No moves pending discussion of a discussion. Nothing was shifted around. Your edit warring based on your POV, with no attempt to use the talk page. Now please show which policies have been violated, and start to use diff's to back up any more accusations you want to make. --Domer48'fenian' 17:29, 1 June 2009 (UTC) Note that 50 minutes before this post, he stated that "I placed the correct about the RoI and moved the Ireland text to the Ireland Article". So, what was that about "Nothing was shifted around" again? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:51, 1 June 2009 (UTC) Yes and your point is....? I put Ireland text on the Ireland article. Were do you suggest I put it? Make up another name for Ireland and put it there? RoI is not the name of the Ireland, you'd know that only you removed the text from the RoI article. --Domer48'fenian' 17:55, 1 June 2009 (UTC) His ability to lie like mad despite all the evidence proving him to be guilty as hell is simply incredible, even for an Irish Republican. Whats disturbing is hes still being allowed to run around wikipedia talking nonsense. In his recent post on the Republic of Ireland talk page he seems to threaten to move the article back to where he thinks it belongs despite this ongoing debate. [76] is nobody going to stop this guy? BritishWatcher (talk) 18:07, 1 June 2009 (UTC) Oi. His nationalistic POV-pushing is not okay. Nor is you making comments about 'even for an Irish Republican'. Please refactor, and again, if I had my druthers you would be instantly topicbanned form anything to do with Ireland for a year. //roux   19:13, 1 June 2009 (UTC) Calling me a lier again? Time was when you could be blocked for that! Still does not change the fact that RoI is not the name of the Irish State, and the information which illustrates this and explains the use of the term is removed. So our readers are deliberatly being mislead, or lied to which ever you prefare. --Domer48'fenian' 19:10, 1 June 2009 (UTC) I've warned him on that, but I'd hate to block for something factually accurate.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:12, 1 June 2009 (UTC) I was blocked for calling an editor a liar, regardless of weather it was factually accurate or not, but then I was an Irish editor. Must be nice being able to pick and choose --Domer48'fenian' 19:45, 1 June 2009 (UTC) BW is causing a lot of disruption. If it continues, I'm going to create a file on all his transgressions and present it afresh next time he causes disruption. Tfz 20:32, 1 June 2009 (UTC) Can we first establish if there has been a violation, and on which article? --Domer48'fenian' 00:03, 2 June 2009 (UTC) Revert war on Republic of Ireland (was posted simultaneously to the above) A revert war has broken out on Republic of Ireland. The substance of the war is on the name of the article. User:Domer48 opposes the article being located at "Republic of Ireland". He describes the article as a POV fork and says the article should be about the term ("Republic of Ireland") not the state itself. The revert war involves the article too-ing and froo-ing between a new article by Domer48 and the original article on the state. So far the revert war is thus: new article - Domer48 old article - Rannpháirtí anaithnid new article - Domer48 old article - Rannpháirtí anaithnid new article - Domer48 old article - SarekOfVulcan (admin) new article - Daicaregos old article -SarekOfVulcan (admin) new article - Sarah777 old article - SarekOfVulcan (admin) (The article history is here.) There is an related ArbCom ruling and on-going discussion on related matters. NB: This is an article that has tens of thousands of internal links pointing to it. It is also a public holiday in Ireland and particularly warm weather so there are few Irish editors online. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 16:18, 1 June 2009 (UTC) Please read the discussion here. No one disagrees with the RoI not being the State. The article content was on the Ireland, and not the RoI. The information I added to Ireland was about Ireland. --Domer48'fenian' 16:27, 1 June 2009 (UTC) Not everyone knew there was a debate on the Republic of Ireland page for such radical change. You knew full well that the debate about the Ireland naming dispute was being held at the wikiproject and not on just one of the articles involved. Your changes were totally out of line. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:31, 1 June 2009 (UTC) ADDS: The edit war is also happening on the main Ireland article. (See article history.) --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 16:32, 1 June 2009 (UTC) I know there is a dispute about Ireland. I've not moved any Ireland related articles. What has the Ireland debate got to do with the Republic of Ireland page? Everyone agrees that the name of the state is Ireland, and not the RoI. The content on the RoI article was about Ireland and not the RoI. I placed the correct about the RoI and moved the Ireland text to the Ireland Article. My changes were totally in line with our policies, such as WP:V, WP:NPOV to name but two. Please show me were I did not stay within policy, or were I went against ArbCom. --Domer48'fenian' 16:39, 1 June 2009 (UTC) As these are Troubles-related articles, Domer48 has breached 1RR. Mooretwin (talk) 16:48, 1 June 2009 (UTC) As ArbCom have yet to agree to the 1RR, no I have not. On a personal note, I wish they would and everyone involved more or less agrees.--Domer48'fenian' 00:00, 2 June 2009 (UTC) This sort of wikilawyering and gaming is precisely why nationalistic POV-pushers should be booted. //roux   16:58, 1 June 2009 (UTC) There is a core of British Nationalist POV-Pushers continually causing disruption on Ireland related articles, and it turning Wikipedia into a circus. About time something was done about this. We don't have Irish editors trolling British related articles. It must come to an end soon! Tfz 19:20, 1 June 2009 (UTC) Now that comment says it all! --Domer48'fenian' 17:30, 1 June 2009 (UTC) Abuse of WP:TWINKLE There are two users who are abusing the WP:TWINKLE tools. They are reverting content which is not vandalism. Twinkle is a vandalism tool, and should not be used in a content dispute. User:Rannpháirtí anaithnid has used it twice, both here and here. In addition they will not use the Article talk page to explain their reverts or take part in the discussion. User:SarekOfVulcan likewise is using the tool inappropriately, as seen here, here, and here. In addition they will also not use the Article talk page to explain their reverts, or take it to the article talk page. --Domer48'fenian' 16:04, 1 June 2009 (UTC) There is no consensus for such a radical change, you know full well the Ireland naming dispute is ongoing. If anyone is abusing wikipedia its you not SarekofVulcan. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:13, 1 June 2009 (UTC) Also, only the revert vandalism function of Twinkle is vandalism-only. The more oft-used rollback tool (which allows one to add an explanation) is simply an alternative of the undo facility. ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 16:14, 1 June 2009 (UTC) (edit conflict) User:SarekOfVulcan appears to be enforcing the Arbcom rulings, which you and others (in depressingly typical nationalistic fashion) seem to be delberately flouting. One of these sets of people is editing in a manner not conducive to continued possession of editing privileges. I leave it as an exercise for the reader as t which is which. //roux   16:16, 1 June 2009 (UTC) This is a report on the Abuse of WP:TWINKLE, any thing else go to the talk page of the articles. Now please provide a link to the Arbcom rulings. --Domer48'fenian' 16:16, 1 June 2009 (UTC) Or on Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive41#Domer48, depending on the any thing else... And you know exactly where the Arbcom page is, since you've already supplied a statement pursuant to it. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:19, 1 June 2009 (UTC) (edit conflict) There is no abuse. Sarek provided the link to Arbcom here. Here it is again, but stop the disingenuous act. Since there was no abuse, we may now focus on your behaviour, which you well know is unacceptable. //roux   16:28, 1 June 2009 (UTC) After EC, based on Sarek's links, I move for immediate topicban of Domer from any Ireland-related editing for one year, based on my thoughts outlined here. //roux   16:28, 1 June 2009 (UTC) You can move for what ever you want, but you need to establish why first. I have not gone against any ArbCom ruling. --Domer48'fenian' 16:41, 1 June 2009 (UTC) Regular Twinkle reverts may be used in content disputes because it is an alternative to undo. The reason that rollback cannot be used in content disputes is because a) only a small set of users have rollback and b) there is no edit summary. Since any autoconfirmed user can use twinkle and since non-vandalism reverts using twinkle may provide an edit summary, twinkle undos are treated the same as regular undos. Therefore, there is no abuse unless the undo is done using twinkle's "revert vandalism" button. Oren0 (talk) 16:47, 1 June 2009 (UTC) Thanks for that Oren0, that was very helpful. I'm now stright on Twinkle. Roux open another tread, or join in one of the others which have been open. --Domer48'fenian' 16:50, 1 June 2009 (UTC) Blocked (Cross-posted from WP:AE) With his edit [77], Domer48 performed what amounted to a cut-and-paste move of Republic of Ireland to Ireland, in violation of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names#No moves pending discussion which forbids such moves. Since he appears intent on repeating this violation of an arbitral decision, I have blocked him for a week. I will lift the block, and I consent to another administrator lifting it, as soon as Domer48 gives credible assurances that he will not repeat such moves, whether by means of the "move" function or by cut and paste. Whether a topic ban or other sanction is also required is for the community to decide. I suggest that any further discussion takes place here at ANI.  Sandstein  20:18, 1 June 2009 (UTC) Thanks for the review, Sandstein. Note that Republic of Ireland was protected for two weeks by Canterbury Tail, so this block might not have the desired effect. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:26, 1 June 2009 (UTC) I think that we can lift the page protection now through WP:RPP. With Domer48 now either blocked or compliant, it is not necessary any more. Should he or other editors continue to make cut and paste moves, they can be reported to WP:AE to be blocked. That is preferable to protecting a high-profile article for weeks.  Sandstein  20:49, 1 June 2009 (UTC) I hope that the C&P wasn't an attempt to do an "end run" around the arbcom injunction - not least because it adds a GFDL violation to the mix - but either way the block looks like it should prevent disruption. Assuming that to be the case, a ban probably isn't necessary. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 20:25, 1 June 2009 (UTC) I have unblocked Domer48 after he agreed not to attempt to change the subject of the article Ireland from the island to the country until the conditions specified in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names#No moves pending discussion are met.  Sandstein  20:55, 1 June 2009 (UTC) "what amounted to a cut-and-paste move" is not the same thing as a cut-and-paste move. Either I made a cut-and-paste move or I did not. I made an edit, a very detailed edit! I removed information which was misleading and wrong on the Republic of Ireland article. I suggested on that Article talk page, to leave it sitting there, pending a discussion and got no response. Rather than just deleting it, I merged it with the Ireland Article of which it is a mirror. Now Sandstein's block is "what amounted to" an attempt by them to prevent discussion, and more importantly my participation in discussion. There was an ongoing discussion about my edit here, and their block is what “what amounted to an attempt by them to prevent me the opportunity of defending myself. Notice how you quickly closed the discussion, with no responce nessary to the questions I posed. Now PhilKnight in that discussion said my edit "went against the spirit of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names." Not that I had violated it! So we have "against the spirit of" and “what amounted to very vague terms used to have me blocked! So Sandstein what we have here by Admin's, is what amounts to arbitrary powers being abused arbitrarily which more than violates our policies, and not just the spirit of them. It might go some way to explain why Admin's are dropping like flies, but none of the bad ones.--Domer48'fenian' 23:17, 1 June 2009 (UTC) Aaaand you go right back to being incivil and accusing admins of being arbitrary? Nice. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 13:16, 2 June 2009 (UTC) What are you talking about "go right back to being incivil." Aaaand calling an editor a liar is not, nice bit of slectivity. Or is this a case of felon setting? --Domer48'fenian' 13:21, 2 June 2009 (UTC) Can we archive this Incidents report? Everything seems to have been settled. GoodDay (talk) 14:43, 2 June 2009 (UTC) Seems like the incident I reported originally is settled, and there's another thread down below for people who have issues with my archiving of the discussion. Go ahead and mark it resolved.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:50, 2 June 2009 (UTC) (Sheepishly) I don't know how. GoodDay (talk) 15:01, 2 June 2009 (UTC) No problem, I was directing that more toward any uninvolved admin who wanted to drop in. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:40, 2 June 2009 (UTC) Ireland naming redux Since discussion of the page move was continuing out of the ArbCom-directed process, I just took administrative action to comply with the directive and archived the discussion page on Talk:Republic of Ireland. Is there consensus to overturn this action?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:06, 2 June 2009 (UTC) Archiving that discussion page, was a logical move. GoodDay (talk) 15:02, 2 June 2009 (UTC) (Booooo!) shoy (reactions) 15:57, 2 June 2009 (UTC) Yes there should be consensus to overturn this actionWgh001 (talk) 18:00, 2 June 2009 (UTC) As an Admin, activly involved in the discussions for you to close it was wrong. Now you did not have to come here to be told that. --Domer48'fenian' 18:43, 2 June 2009 (UTC) Telling you you're violating an ArbCom restriction doesn't qualify as "actively involved", sorry. Beyond that, I think I've edited regarding the name of the article maybe 5 yearstimes over the past three years. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:58, 2 June 2009 (UTC) Right. 3 edits on Talk:Republic of Ireland in August 2008, nothing since.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:13, 2 June 2009 (UTC) And 1 edit yesterday to Ireland. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:17, 2 June 2009 (UTC) You were activly involved, revert 1, revert 2 and revert 3. Now you removed an ongoing discussion on the article talk page. There is no directive by ArbCom preventing discussion. You were involved on the article, and you closed down the discussion. --Domer48'fenian' 19:39, 2 June 2009 (UTC) Domer, are you familiar with the term "persistent disruption"? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:44, 2 June 2009 (UTC) Blocked for a week over this diff -- if he doesn't recognize that ArbCom has put a procedure in place to determine the names of the Ireland articles, then he'll just keep edit warring.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:53, 2 June 2009 (UTC) SarekOfVulcan - abuse of admin tools Relevant discussion at → Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names#No moves pending discussion SarekOfVulcan (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) Domer48 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Sarek is currently is a dispute with Domer48 of the naming of the Ireland article - some of the nonsense involved in this argument can be seen above at "Ireland naming redux" as well as yesterday episode here. During their barney Sarek has used his admin tools to effective silence Domer citing this diff as evidence of Domers attempt to userp the Arbcom system. I am not interested in getting into the rights and wrongs of the Ireland naming I am here purely to hightlight this OTT and uncalled for block. A. The block isnt warranted, B. Even if the block was warranted it should have been discussed, especially one of that length (1 week) and C. an involved admin shouldnt be dishing out a block against someone they are in dispute with. Deja vu!--Vintagekits (talk) 20:13, 2 June 2009 (UTC) I agree this is a bad block from an involved admin who is in disppute with Domer. BigDuncTalk 20:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC) Suggest the blocking admin unblock, to allow for an uninvolved admin to review and possibly reblock. Cirt (talk) 20:20, 2 June 2009 (UTC) I have no problem with uninvolved admins reviewing, but they can do it while he's blocked -- his talk page is still live. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:24, 2 June 2009 (UTC) (edit conflict)Enforcing the Arbcom ruling is not, by any stretch of the imagination, 'involvement.' //roux   20:27, 2 June 2009 (UTC) Nonsense, you were in the middle of a dispute with the editor and were abusing your privilaged tools as an admin. Instead of encouraging wheelwarring you should unblock the editor and see if the block stands on its own to feet by discussing it here! Also is your adminship up for recall?--Vintagekits (talk) 20:29, 2 June 2009 (UTC) These links are helpful: Domer48 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).  Sandstein  20:37, 2 June 2009 (UTC) In what way?--Vintagekits (talk) 20:39, 2 June 2009 (UTC) Because, when reviewing a block, it is helpful to be able to quickly access the block log and talk page of the blocked user. It would have been courteous of you to provide that link in your initial request.  Sandstein  20:48, 2 June 2009 (UTC) SarekOfVulcan (talk · contribs), perhaps you could provide more of a detailed rationale for the block, here? Cirt (talk) 20:26, 2 June 2009 (UTC) Comment, it is a joke that Domer is not allowed to come here and defend himself against this farce. This is from his talk page (he should be able to come here and defend himself!) I said the Arbitration Committee has not put in place a structure for determining the names of the disputed articles. This process here before the ArbCom even agreed to here the case. So were is the structure for determining the names of the disputed articles set up by ArbCom? That's disruptive? Check out the section titled Time table, and check out Back-up on this? I said there is no directive by ArbCom preventing discussion on article talk pages. If there is such a directive, provide a diff. Is that disruptive, were is the link? This is just typical of POV warriors riding rough shod over editors who dare challange them. I know Sandstein is going to come along now and back this fucker up. They are just as bad if not worse. There last block was just as bad as this one, again lying. --Domer48'fenian' 20:28, 2 June 2009 (UTC) On the face of it this looks like yet another instance where an otherwise-uninvolved admin engages a problem editor only to be told that he shouldn't do anything because by engaging the editor he became involved. If this point of view keeps gaining support we might as well not have admins at all. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:39, 2 June 2009 (UTC) @ Sandstein How the hell is showing the block l;og of Domer helpful?? BigDuncTalk 20:42, 2 June 2009 (UTC) Quite. The editor was pointed to the correct venue, refused to move, and was - eventually - blocked. Good block, far too late however. If SarekOfVulcan is to be censured, it should be for waiting too long - displaying far more good faith than the situation required. Disclosure: I've posted at Talk:Republic of Ireland, but have no view on the naming dispute - other than where discussion should occur. Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 20:44, 2 June 2009 (UTC) (various ec's) I agree that, in general, the mere enforcement of ArbCom decisions does not make an administrator too "involved" to block, and I am not aware - to the limited extent I've been active with respect to this area of conflict - that SarekOfVulcan has expressed any opinion in the underlying content issue. But I am concerned that the reason given for the block is "refusing to acknowledge" by this diff that ArbCom has decided something. Having and expressing an opinion, even (as here) a mistaken one, is not blockable disruption. Only the actual violation of the relevant ArbCom decision is, but Domer48's statement does not amount to such a violation. I think this block is mistaken and should be lifted, though perhaps a briefer re-block is needed for the incivilities expressed by Domer48 above.  Sandstein  20:47, 2 June 2009 (UTC) That is rubbish to put it politely an editor gets a bad block and when he gets annoyed about it another admin comes along and says block is bad and should be lifted but block him for loosing the head come on. BigDuncTalk 20:57, 2 June 2009 (UTC) I'm going to have to second This flag once was reds synopsis: Good block; if any error occurred, it was extending too much good faith to a problem user. The rest is nonsense and bullshit, so sorry. Anyone who considers Sarek "involved" does not understand the parameters of "involved." KillerChihuahua?!? 21:03, 2 June 2009 (UTC) Sandstein -- I have expressed a preference for the location in the past, and the current location isn't it.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:14, 2 June 2009 (UTC) Thank you for providing an extended explanation below. I would not have made that block, but I am now a bit more inclined to view it as reasonably preventative, given Domer48's evident attitude and conduct problems.  Sandstein  21:28, 2 June 2009 (UTC) I see this as a SERIOUS ABUSE OF ADMIN TOOLS by someone that shouldn't have access to the admin tools. This is the DIFF that he is blocking the user for and all the user really does in that diff is ask for a diff or some proof that he was not allowed to discuss an issue related to article changes on a talkpage. This DIFF show that this was indeed the DIFF that Sarek blocked him for. Since when has asking for proof or diffs become a blockable offence?--194x144x90x118 (talk) 21:03, 2 June 2009 (UTC) I may be off base here, but I am under the impression that Domer should have been blocked just for changing the articles around as he did. Although I'm not quite clear on exactly when he should have been blocked, it doesn't appear that Domer was operating in good faith. [[User:|Hiberniantears]] (talk) 21:06, 2 June 2009 (UTC) Yes you are way off base would you at least read what is going on here before commenting. BigDuncTalk 21:09, 2 June 2009 (UTC) It does indeed look as if you are off base, the guy was asking for diffs and proof. Wikipedia has rules, policies, guidelines and other such things and when an admin is asked to provide such things then he should assume good faith and do so, not block the user that asks for that for a week.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 21:23, 2 June 2009 (UTC) I'd also like to ask if it's 100% normal that Sarek move my comments from under his Full rationale piece and up here. Am I not allowed to respond to his Full rationale?--194x144x90x118 (talk) 21:22, 2 June 2009 (UTC) Sure you are -- but that wasn't a response to anything in the rationale that I could see at the time, so I moved it so that I wouldn't be adding material above your response.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:04, 2 June 2009 (UTC) I just blocked Domer's talkpage for gross incivility. Feel free to re-enable if I'm mistaken. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:17, 2 June 2009 (UTC) Yes you are mistaken it is against standing policy which allows at least moderate venting w/o further punishment. BigDuncTalk 21:25, 2 June 2009 (UTC) I believe you mean the opposite of what you wrote. –xenotalk 21:26, 2 June 2009 (UTC) now fixed [78] Er, User talk:Domer48 (edit | user page | history | links | watch | logs) is not protected.  Sandstein  21:30, 2 June 2009 (UTC) Yes, but Domer has been reblocked to disallow talk page editing. –xenotalk 21:36, 2 June 2009 (UTC) Are any admins going to unblock Domer from editing his own page per the standing policy? BigDuncTalk 21:46, 2 June 2009 (UTC) Home now. I didn't block the talkpage for calling me a "fucker" -- that's moderate venting, as above. I blocked for being warned by another editor to tone it down, and then posting "he's not running for a bus, he's running for a shovel", after several other civility violations.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:56, 2 June 2009 (UTC) But you have been pretty uncivil yourself yesterday [79]. Maybe that's where a lot of this stuff started. I notice you didn't apologise yet. If you withdraw what you said it might go some way to calming things down. Would you agree? Tfz 22:11, 2 June 2009 (UTC Basically, no. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:26, 2 June 2009 (UTC) Then you should exempt yourself from all forward dealings with these related issues. Tfz 23:06, 2 June 2009 (UTC) I'd like to point to the following as a previous example of bad blocks and immature behavior by the admin SarekOfVulcan Right here.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 22:19, 2 June 2009 (UTC) Exactly Tfz, Sarek accused Domer of being a liar yesterday pretty uncivil in my book. BigDuncTalk 22:23, 2 June 2009 (UTC) See link above where I decline to apologize. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:26, 2 June 2009 (UTC) Which I commented on that your response was incorrect as what Domer stated was that he wasn't aware that he had breached sanctions not that he wasn't aware of the whole process. BigDuncTalk 22:30, 2 June 2009 (UTC) Again with the "can't follow links", BigDunc? "First off, I was not informed of this discussion!" --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:11, 3 June 2009 (UTC) Ok, I think I finally understand - you contend that when he said "this discussion", he was referring to the discussion of the name at the WikiProject, rather than the discussion at the Enforcement board? If so, sorry for the incivility struck out above. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:34, 3 June 2009 (UTC) Sarek's full rationale Short form: for disambiguation, the article about the country named "Ireland" is at Republic of Ireland, while the Ireland article is about the island that contains Ireland and Northern Ireland. Domer initiated a discussion at the Republic of Ireland talkpage and decided to be bold and change Republic of Ireland to an article about the term "Republic of Ireland" as used to refer to Ireland the country, and to change Ireland to an article about Ireland the country and the island. I don't remember whether I saw this on my watchlist or if someone else commented on it, but I thought it was too large a change and after Rannphairti reverted and Domer re-reverted, I reverted to the original with the comment that WP:BRD usually involves discussion. When I went to the talkpage, I saw the banner at the top pointing to the arbitration case and when I checked, I saw that they had directed that there be Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names#No moves pending discussion, as specified in the remedies above it. A cut-paste move is still a move, so at that point, I went into enforce-the-Arbcom-decision mode. I posted to ANI requesting more eyes on the articles, as there were Arbcom issues involved. Immediately afterwards, Domer posted accusing Rannphairti and me of abusing Twinkle. It was explained to him by others that using twinkle to restore a previous version with an edit summary was not abuse, and that was resolved. While discussion continued, Sandstein blocked Domer48 for his edits on the Ireland side of things, but agreed to unblock provided that Domer did not violate arbitral decisions. Domer returned to discussing the page move on the RoI talkpage, despite it having been made quite clear that discussion should take place within the Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration. I archived all the current discussions on the talkpage, and told the concerned parties to work it out on IE-COLL. After more discussion on the RoI talkpage, Domer stated: The Arbitration Committee has not put in place a structure for determining the names of the disputed articles. Since he was clearly acting in bad faith at that point, I decided that he could not be trusted to abide by the conditions of his unblock -- after all, if it wasn't an arbitral decision, he wouldn't be violating it, and re-blocked for a week. That pretty much sums things up, except for some minor details -- like Domer previously participating in the process he was now denying existed.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:11, 2 June 2009 (UTC) Maybe you step aside at this stage, as you are getting further "involve". Can't be policeman, judge and executioner, it makes bad law. Tfz 21:32, 2 June 2009 (UTC) And that is the central issue here, not the merits or demerits of Domers actions. I would go further - one cant be the "victim", policeman, judge, jury and executioner - makes for extremely bad law!--Vintagekits (talk) 08:35, 3 June 2009 (UTC) You know, calling me judge, jury, and executioner doesn't make me judge, jury, and executioner. For one thing, he's not banned, so there's no "execution". For another, the jury is the rest of the people here, so that part of the analogy falls down as well. And I never claimed to be a victim here, so that makes you... what, 75% off-base?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 11:39, 3 June 2009 (UTC) So Domer asked you for a diff asking where it state that he can't discuss on the talk page and you block him for a week. Since when is asking for clarification a blocking offence? BigDuncTalk 21:15, 2 June 2009 (UTC) "Has ArbCom banned discussion of the RoI naming fiasco on the RoI talk page?". Otherwise SarekOfVulcan is acting "ultra vires". It's a bad block either way, no matter what the answer is. But if SarekOfVulcan has acted outside his remit, maybe he should have his tools nullified. Tfz 21:29, 2 June 2009 (UTC) Please note that the exact same question that Tfz just asked was the one that got Domer blocked.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 21:33, 2 June 2009 (UTC) At the risk of being blocked were is the diff that says no discussions on the article talk paged as layed down by the Arbs? BigDuncTalk I think the block is extremely unfair. Domer has been "bold" recently but that is not the same as breaking wiki policy or any Arbcom agreement. He hasn't really done anything wrong per se. I think an unblock needs made to be along with the suggestion that Domer continue his points along side the WP:IECOLL process to help forge agreements on the issues.MITH 21:55, 2 June 2009 (UTC) Note also that as shown at this diff, he unilaterally decided that the 1RR restriction placed on articles relating to The Troubles was no longer in force. That's not Bold, that's disruptive.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:02, 2 June 2009 (UTC) Nothing to do with this but I asked Fozz here and he said it was gone nothing unilaterall about that. BigDuncTalk 22:06, 2 June 2009 (UTC) What, you think I can't follow links? "Right now, a lot depends on the administrator who comes in and views it. I think if the 1RR is useful (and it seems to have been, despite the number of times it was used, being high).. that no matter what you think of it personally, that it would be wise to speak on RfArb in support of it."--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:09, 2 June 2009 (UTC) Of course you can you are routing around trying to find some to justify your bad blocks and as Sandstein has refused at least 2 1RR restriction cases regarding trouble articles I think it is gone too. BigDuncTalk 22:15, 2 June 2009 (UTC) Time out Would both sides please stop sniping back and forth? Sarek - without comment on the original reblock, I believe that you're displaying clear involvement at this point. I believe you should refrain from further administrative actions regarding that user for the time being or this incident. BigDunc - please stop pushing buttons. Others - please respect each other while other uninvolved administrators come in and review the situation. Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:14, 2 June 2009 (UTC) Speaking as an uninvolved admin, I don't see why the block can't just be reviewed per procedure.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:25, 2 June 2009 (UTC) That is exactly what I am currently doing - starting with the talk page no-edit reblock, working out to the larger issues. Anyone else who wants to review is welcome to join me. However, the large scale flame war that erupted above was counterproductive and uncivil on multiple sides, and needs to end while calmer uninvolved heads get a look at it all. Fortunately it seems to have calmed down now. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:30, 2 June 2009 (UTC) Perhaps the first thing that could be reviewed is the re-block keeping Domer from commenting on his own talk page. While Domer's language may be angry, I don't see too much to be concerned with there. I don't see any harm to the project permitting him to engage in discussion on his own page, and that could be the first step to resolving this. Rarely does silencing an blocked editor help solve the issue. I would propose that be remedied immediately. Rockpocket 23:51, 2 June 2009 (UTC) I asked Sarek about this several hours ago and have not received any response. I have re-asked on his talk page and am proposing here that we undo the talk page edit section of the block later tonight if there is no objection in this thread, subject to reprotection if threats are made. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:37, 3 June 2009 (UTC) Sarek left me a talk page note indicating he does not object to this action, so I have undone the talk page edit portion of the block without changing block duration. I will leave a note to Domer to indicate that if he threatens anyone the editing will be turned back off, and that we'd strongly appreciate if he can discuss the situation politely from now on. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:56, 3 June 2009 (UTC) That sounds reasonable. I would note that Domer is editing from Western European Summer Time (or should I say Am Caighdeánach na hÉireann]] ;) therefore he is unlikely to respond for a number of hours. Rockpocket 02:28, 3 June 2009 (UTC) GWH - agreed not to take further action until fully reviewed.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:56, 2 June 2009 (UTC) I just decided I want to be an involved editor after all, so I'm recusing myself from further admin action on this topic.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:44, 3 June 2009 (UTC) Would you unblock Domer, first (since you were the blocking Administrator)? Then the other Administrators can decide his status. GoodDay (talk) 15:00, 3 June 2009 (UTC) That's one of the admin actions I'm recusing myself from. An uninvolved editor should make that call. GWH is currently reviewing: if he (or another reviewing admin) decides the block was unjustified, or no longer needed, I won't oppose an unblock.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:06, 3 June 2009 (UTC) Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 15:11, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Review

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

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

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

Narrative:

1. The Arbitration Committee did put in place an article name determination process in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names#Community asked to develop a procedure.
2. That process could reasonably have been interpreted as having been intended to be the one correct place to centralize all related discussions, but did not explicitly say so.
3. Domer48 participated in that process with two statements Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration/statementbyDomer48 on March 7 and Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration/statementbyDomer48.2 on April 1, and various comments in the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration discussion threads.
4. Domer48's edits including [80] as previously noted by Sandstein did violate the active Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names#No moves pending discussion restriction. Domer48's subsequent talk page discussion indicates that there's a credible claim that he thought it was not a violation prior to doing it.
5. SarekOfVulcan reported Domer48 to the Arbitration Enforcement page appropriately Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement#Domer48
6. Sandstein's block on June 1 was appropriate under the circumstances.
7. Sandstein's discussion with Domer48, Domer48's responses, and Sandstein's unblock on June 1 were appropriate under the circumstances.
8. Subsequent to the unblock, Domer48 did not perform article rename or content moves in violation of the letter or spirit of the Arbcom ruling and his agreement with Sandstein to unblock.
9. Subsequent to the unblock, on June 1 and 2, Domer48 did continue rename discussions on other articles: [81] [82], [83], [84], [85], [86], [87]
   1. Several of those rename discussions were uncivil or assumed bad faith about others' motives: [88], [89], [90]
10. Subsequent to the unblock, Domer48 did remove other people's comments from talk page discussions related to the rename discussions on several occasions, claiming justification in WP:TPG: [91], [92]
11. Subsequent to the unblock, Domer48 engaged in aggressive responses on ANI and elsewhere regarding the nature of the first block: [93], [94],
    1. ...And some reasonable responses such as: [95], [96],
12. SarekOfVulcan archived the discussion at Talk:Republic of Ireland: [97]
    1. Sandstein supported the archiving: [98]
    2. The archiving was consistent with a reasonable interpretation of the Arbcom remedies, and prior Admin discretion history / WP:BOLD accepted practice, but not required by the letter of Arbcom's finding
    3. Subsequent to the archive Domer48 responded aggressively to the archiving: [99], [100]
    4. ...leading to aggressive responses on ANI: [101], [102]
    5. Others also objected to the archiving in depth, which led to a second archiving: [103]
    6. ...and further discussion: [104]
    7. I conclude that the archiving was done in good faith and consistent with Administrator policy.
    8. I also conclude that the archiving had an inflammatory effect on the discussion rather than the desired calming and redirecting effect, and that this was a predictable outcome.
       1. I therefore conclude that the archiving was unwise and should not be repeated further.
13. Domer48 ultimately posted a comment denying that the Arbitration Committee imposed renaming discussion had taken place: [105]
    1. Domer48's comment was ( WP:AGF ) somewhat at odds with his prior involvement in that process including his statements within that process of March 7 and April 1 referenced above.
    2. This comment precipitated the second block, by SarekOfVulcan, with block message summary of refusing to acknowledge that ArbCom has set down the conditions for determining the names of the Ireland articles and block summary of ?(Disruptive editing: Refusal to recognize that ArbCom said "don't do that".). Block duration was 1 week, the same as Sandstein's earlier block for violation of the Arbcom ruling.
    3. SarekOfVulcan was somewhat involved with Domer48 as of the time of blocking.
       1. This involvement presented somewhat of a conflict of interest under Wikipedia:BLOCK#Conflicts_of_interest
    4. A reasonable uninvolved administrator, combining this comment with the other edits since the unblock, could conclude that Domer48 was being disruptive at that time.
    5. Prior to the second block Domer48 had not received warnings about disruptive activity.
    6. Wikipedia:BLOCK#Education_and_warnings specifically states in part: Warning is not a prerequisite for blocking (particularly with respect to blocks for protection) but administrators should generally ensure that users are aware of policies, and give them reasonable opportunity to adjust their behaviour accordingly, before blocking.
    7. Wikipedia:BLOCK#Duration_of_blocks states in part that: incidents of disruptive behaviour typically result in 24 hours blocks, longer for successive violations;
    8. Administrators are given judgement about block lengths in general.
    9. The context of the earlier 1-week block (violation of an Arbcom ruling) is a factor in block length considerations for the second block.
    10. However, even factoring in that earlier block, I conclude that a second block for disruption (not further Arbcom ruling violations per se) should have been based off a 24 hour block basic duration, and that an enhancement to 48 hrs for a recent prior different offense is a reasonable expansion.
14. Subsequent to the second block Domer48 commented repeatedly on his talk page total diff including some extremely upset language: [106], [107], [108], [109],
    1. Lifebaka requested that Domer48 stop using insulting language in the talk page comments in the middle of the above: [110]
       1. This comment could have been phrased in a less confrontational manner but did not violate policy.
    2. At that point SarekOfVulcan reblocked with talk page editing disabled.
       1. Blocking policy and best practice limit talk page restrictions to cases where there is serious abuse, such as multiply repeated spurious unblock requests, threats made on the talk page or elsewhere, or other serious disruption. It is expected that a portion of blocked users will be upset to the point of venting rudely on their talk page following the block. A certain leeway for uncivil behavior on the talk page (short of threats or blatant abuse) is therefore given.
       2. The talk page restriction in this case failed to meet the policy and best practice.

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

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

My review conclusions:

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

Whack!

Per WP:TROUT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Response:

1. George you first raise my question which got me blocked. "The Arbitration Committee has not put in place a structure for determining the names of the disputed articles. Please provide a link?" George in your review you say that "The Arbitration Committee did put in place an article name determination process in [Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names#Community asked to develop a procedure]." Now even in the link you provided it states that the The Arbitration Committee asked the Community to develop a procedure. Failing that, they asked in Remedy #2 for "three uninvolved administrators to develop and supervise an appropriate procedure." Which failed! So "the Arbitration Committee has not put in place a structure for determining the names of the disputed articles. The Arbitration Committee did not put in place an article name determination process, but asked the community first to provide a structure and failing that then appointed three uninvolved administrators to provide one which failed also. There is still no structure in place for determining the names of the disputed articles. (for more details on the Ireland Collaboration see here.
2. Since the Arbitration Committee did not put in place a structure for determining the names of the disputed articles, and attempts by both the community and administrators failed how could it be possible "reasonably" or otherwise be interpreted that the Arbitration Committee wished to centralize all related discussions, but did not explicitly say so. Having not put in place a structure, there was no directive by ArbCom preventing discussion on article talk pages, and if there is such a directive, provide a diff?
3. I did provide two statements [111] [112] at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration but that process faild, but I did not make various comments in the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration discussion threads never.
4. The edit which you point to George [113], was only one of two edits I made. You never mentioned this one. This edit resulted from this discussion (which SarekOfVulcan removed from the talk page) which I outlined and explained my rational. Before I made the edit you allude to I had made these comments on the talk page here and here which fully explains my reasons for moving the text. However I was never even given a chance to explain myself before I was blocked. However, when the block was lifted, you note that subsequent talk page discussion indicates that there was a credible claim that I thought it was not a violation prior to doing it. Now just one point here before we move off. On the this tread here I'm called a liar three times [114], [115], [116], with three Admin's and nothing was said. How can an editor try to explain themselves with this going on? But it was not just on that discussion, but here also. It still carried on [117] even after finally being warned. The warning sounded a bit hollow after this comment supporting it.
5. You go on to say that SarekOfVulcan reported me to the Arbitration Enforcement page appropriately. How could it possibly have been appropriate? I did not violate any sanctions. SarekOfVulcan said they were acting under an ArbCom directive, which we now know there was none. I did not move any page, I edited the RoI article according to WP:NPOV, WP:V based on WP:RS. I explained everything I did on the talk page before I even edited the articles. Not only that but even if there was a violation, you said your self that subsequent talk page discussion indicates that there was a credible claim that I thought it was not a violation prior to doing it.
6. You then say that "Sandstein's block on June 1 was appropriate under the circumstances" when this flatly contradicts your comments above. Under what circumstances was it appropriate. Deprived of the ability to explain myself, how could I have provide a credible claim? I was reported by SarekOfVulcan who took no part in the talk page discussion on the Republic of Ireland article, but who reverted the article three times [118], [119], [120], on the as we now know spurious claim.
7. Thankfully you note that "subsequent to the unblock, Domer48 did not perform article rename or content moves in violation of the letter or spirit of the Arbcom ruling and his agreement with Sandstein to unblock." You might add, and had no intension prior to a discussion.
8. You are also correct that I did continue rename discussions on other articles,
9. but they were in no way uncivil or assumed bad faith about others' motives. Describing an editors comments as "more prevarication" when refusing to address an argument is not uncivil. Having been discussing the subject with Rock, who's main argument was not that my edit was wrong but "were will we put the current text." He then came out with an argument which had as much substance as "a bottle of smoke" and that is not uncivil. My comments to Sarah were a true reflection of how I felt with the position I was in and is neither uncivil or "bad faith."
10. You are correct I did remove other people's comments from talk page discussions but they did not related to the rename discussions and if editors read them they will agree claiming justification in WP:TPG: [121], [122] I was perfectly correct in doing so.
11. I did not engaged in aggressive responses on ANI and elsewhere regarding the nature of the first block: [123], [124], that is over stating. That I was annoyed is natural but to suggest I was aggressive is to contradict yourself again since you use the same diff in which you say I provided my credible claim that I thought it was not a violation prior to doing it. As to the second comment, I was responding to trolling! Read their comments. I would also like to point out to my comments above with me being called a liar, and I'm being called "aggressive," "uncivil" or that I "assumed bad faith."
12. SarekOfVulcan archiving the discussion at Talk:Republic of Ireland: [125]. Now this was the second part of my question which got me blocked. This is very simple, because we know that there was no ArBCom directive. This was untrue, and they never could and never would have been able to provide a Diff. If anyone has any doubt, they just have to read their post here. To then suggest that "the archiving was consistent with a reasonable interpretation of the Arbcom remedies, and prior Admin discretion history / WP:BOLD accepted practice, but not required by the letter of Arbcom's finding," is lets agree odd. We have already established there was no ArbCom direct. My response was correct and to the point describing them as aggressive is way over the top and wrong. This post here which you used has nothing to do with me, I was blocked at the time. In conclusion you are very much correct, archiving the discussion was "inflammatory" and that this was a predictable outcome. There was not directive by ArbCom and they just done it off their own bat.
13. This has all been very much covered, but just a couple of points.
    1. The reason for the block was "refusing to acknowledge that ArbCom has set down the conditions for determining the names of the Ireland articles and block summary of ?(Disruptive editing: Refusal to recognize that ArbCom said "don't do that".)" We all now know this was not true.
    2. "SarekOfVulcan was somewhat involved with Domer48 as of the time of blocking." This is all thrown into stark light, when one looks at SarekOfVulcan most recent contributions here and here. Obviously the most telling comments come from SarekOfVulcan themselves “I just decided I want to be an involved editor after all, so I'm recusing myself from further admin action on this topic.”. So let’s recap, after reverting the article three times, getting me blocked, removing the discussion, blocking me themselves, blocking my talk page, they just decide they want to be an involved editor after all.
    3. "A reasonable uninvolved administrator, combining these comment with the other edits since the unblock, could conclude that Domer48 was being disruptive at that time." On this I would have to Disagree. A reasonable uninvolved administrator, combining there comment with the other edits since the 1st block, could conclude that SarekOfVulcan had a WP:COI and was being disruptive at that time while abusing their Admin tools.
    4. Both blocks were over the top and wrong! SarekOfVulcan no warning block, based on something that was not true was wrong, and on that we agree, that they had WP:COI I fully support.
14. My reaction to the block was a natural reaction.
    1. Lifebaka requested that I stop using insulting language in the talk page comments, and I did calm down.
    2. SarekOfVulcan blocking my talk page was "inflammatory." I do acknowledge your comments on SarekOfVulcan when you said that "the historical level of abuse which we tolerated from blocked users venting is far higher than anything [I] said" and that "simply letting [me] vent there would not have caused any further issues, as [I] was not at any point threatening people and had largely laid off cursing much earlier." That you agree they were wrong and that they had a WP:COI is something at least.

• Summary.

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

I challenged their actions, and responded to this also on ANI. I pointed out that as they were actively involved in the issue, they should not have been the one to remove the discussion. Now SarekOfVulcan tried to suggest that they were not actively involved, pointing to their contributions on the talk page, however they left out the three reverts [126], [127], [128] they had made to the article, not to mention the block on me they were involved in. Their response to this was “Domer, are you familiar with the term "WP:BP#Disruption|persistent disruption"?

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

Since the discussion on the Republic of Ireland talk page, I’ve had to contend with POV warriors and some personal abuse. While I expect nothing less from some editors, Admin’s sitting on their hands (second paragraph) and offering mitigation, does bother me. Considering I was blocked once for calling someone a liar, I discovered, that this sanction is selective. Having been called a liar three times [129], [130], [131], with three Admin's looking on and nothing was said? How can an editor try to explain themselves with this going on? But it was not just on that discussion, but here also. It still carried on [132] even after finally being warned. The warning sounded a bit hollow after this comment supporting it I think editors will agree. Well what else can I expect? All things considered, I think this was just provocative and an attempt at baiting.

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

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

• • Comments:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Domer48 comment deleted

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

Domer48 comment deleted

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

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

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

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

Legal threats by owner of Graffiti Blasters

Resolved

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The complaining party has little to complain about. The article uses the "Graffiti Blaster" name solely to refer to his company, which is a proper use of a trademark. There's no mention of the more generic use of the term "graffiti blaster", a pressure-washing machine using a soda solution to remove paint from surfaces[133], or "Graffiti Blaster", a commercial solvent for paint removal[134], or the Lawrence Livermore Labs laser graffiti blaster.[135] --John Nagle (talk) 19:18, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

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

Hawaii Five-O and User:WilliamJE

Resolved

 – Consensus seems to have won out.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here we go

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Criticism of atheism and User:24.3.195.100

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

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

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

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

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

Unusual move

Resolved

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

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

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

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

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

Backlog at UAA

Resolved

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

User:Unfrayed

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

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

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

Fully endorse. I was about to block myself, but Nakon beat me to it. A user just happens to remember where Jimbo's page is after a two-year break? Combined with the rest of the evidence, that sealed it for me. Blueboy96 16:29, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

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

I also ixnayed his old account, Jds (talk · contribs), just in case he happens to "remember" the password for it. Blueboy96 16:58, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

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

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

Community ban for Jsmith 51389

Do we have a community ban yet for Jsmith 51389? I assume he's de facto banned already, but just in case we don't, let's make it official already. Blueboy96 17:01, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

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

For what it's worth...

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

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

For the record, the older accounts were also involved in multiple attempts at WP:OUTINGS and even threats of violence at one point. (Details can be provided upon email request.) But I agree that the de facto ban is probably sufficient right now. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:14, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Rangeblock on 90.193.250.*

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

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

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

Checkuser indicates no obvious collateral damage on 90.193.250.0/24. In the future, you can ask for a quick check at Wikipedia:SPI#Quick CheckUser requests. Thanks. -- Avi (talk) 05:47, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Behavior of User:Jezhotwells

Resolved

 – Deferred to Wikiquette alerts. and the reliable sources noticeboard. MuZemike 17:12, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I’m concerned about the civility of the actions of User:Jezhotwells relating to Eurovision Song Contest articles. WikiProject Eurovision had two similar articles nominated for Good Article status that would have become the ninth and tenth such Good Articles for the project. They had been awaiting reviews for more than a month, and an hour or so before Jezhotwells decided to take them on, an ip adds a comment stating that the reviewer should check the reliability of two of the sources [136]. When the review started, Jezhotwells decided to quickfail and claimed that the sites are blogs and therefore unreliable [137]. I came online right after he failed the first and sent him a message asking for clarification of why he would fail and pleaded for him to discuss this before he take anymore action. [138]. In what I feel to be a gross violation of assume good faith, he quick-failed the other article. From then on, a discussion began where I was lectured on what blogs and reliable sources are and a thread at the reliable sources noticeboard was started. Though there was an overall lack of participation in the discussion, two outside editors responded. One told me that Jezhotwell’s actions were uncivil and I should try a reassessment with another editor, [139] and another told me that the only problem he sees with the sources is that they may be overused and that I should diversify them before GA status is granted. [140]. The uncivil behavior continued when Jezhotwells informed me that he will reassess all of the other GAs of the project to make sure that the sources are reliable [141]. This action is highly POV as there is still no consensus that the sources are unreliable and it is highly unlikely that the many GA reviewers who reviewed the other Eurovision articles just made a mistake about the sources. I was just going to let this whole thing go and submit the two recent articles for reassessment, but the incivility continued this morning when he decided to tag several Eurovision articles with unreliable reference tags [142] [143] and then opened a reassessment on an article and decided to delist as a GA within minutes of starting the reassessment using his personal belief that the sites are blogs [144].

I ask administrators and other editors to look into this matter and determine if the actions of Jezhotwells were civil and determine if he assumed good faith. Most troubling to me is that after waiting so long for these articles to be reviewed, he failed them without even inquiring about the reliability of the sources, without asking for a second opinion, and without waiting for any response from the editor as is routine. I don’t see why they could not have been put on hold while a discussion of the reliability took place. He had a preexisting view on the subject and is carrying on with his edits as if he is right even though there is no consensus on the matter. I find it difficult and frustrating to edit and improve Eurovision pages knowing that he will be there to make a scene about the sources, or request a reassessment and motion to delist based on his personal beliefs once again. What use is having these two recent articles reassessed as he mentioned [145] if he will just personally reassess them later and fail them once again? What’s to stop him? He is going around telling me on a dozen or so articles that I have the burden of proof (which i do) yet there is a rough consensus that the sources are in fact reliable (also see here for a project-wide discussion on the reliability of Eurovision sources. His editing is disruptive and must stop. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 16:12, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Disclosure: I've worked with Grk1011/Stephen on Eurovision articles.

Are OikoTimes and ESCToday blogs? They both have a long history of being regarded as WP:RS in Eurovision articles, and don't seem to me to be "blogs" - readers can comment on the main article, but that's possible at mainstream newspapers' websites too.

No comment on Jezhotwells's behaviour as I'm unfamiliar with this incident.

Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 16:22, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Have you tried taking this to Wikiquette alerts, yet? If not, I recommend going there, first. Otherwise, I do not see an immediate need for admin action. MuZemike 16:24, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Or, just looking at the second comment, the reliable sources noticeboard? MuZemike 16:25, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

If you read carefully, I said we already had a thread on the reliable sources noticeboard ;) I'll copy paste the whole discussion to wikiquette alerts then, please put further responses here. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 16:26, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh. Sorry :) MuZemike 16:31, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Petermopar

Can someone please take a look at the contributions of User:Petermopar?

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

He seems to be rapidly creating nonsense articles and/or articles on non-notable subjects. Some have been deleted already, apparently, or marked for speedy deletion, but I'm not sure how some of the others should be handled. Perhaps an admin could help out. Thanks. Peacock (talk) 18:07, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Cleaned it up and will keep an eye. --John (talk) 18:23, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

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

Resolved - User indefblocked, authorities notified.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Resolved  – User indefblocked, authorities notified. Isn't making threats like this against the law or something? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jojhutton (talk • contribs) 20:58, Jun 6, 2009 (UTC) I was about to report this myself, this dif, subsequent reversion, his userpage I think are evidence he is isn't here to contribute constructively. Soxwon (talk) 21:01, 6 June 2009 (UTC) User blocked indefinitely, with email and talkpage editing disabled. I also took the liberty of protecting his talkpage and userspace. Given the circumstances, I'm also reporting this to the Communications Committee. Blueboy96 21:05, 6 June 2009 (UTC) Busted Soxwon (talk) 21:10, 6 June 2009 (UTC) I'm also emailing Godwin as well. Blueboy96 21:18, 6 June 2009 (UTC) If someone can run a CU, please email me the ip address and I'll contact the FBI. I have reported others like this in the past and they've been thankful. Toddst1 (talk) 21:51, 6 June 2009 (UTC) On it. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:59, 6 June 2009 (UTC) Great--and any way you could block the IP as well just in case this bottom-feeder manages to get around the autoblock? Blueboy96 22:13, 6 June 2009 (UTC) I've reported it. Yes, they were very interested. Admini actions carried out. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:18, 6 June 2009 (UTC) Ooh. I see waterbaording in someone's future. And I don't mean surfing. HalfShadow 22:19, 6 June 2009 (UTC) Don't forget to notify the US Secret Service; they're more likely to be concerned with this than the FBI. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 00:41, 7 June 2009 (UTC) I'm sure the FBI has their number, lol. ;) couln't resist. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 00:49, 7 June 2009 (UTC) Actually, it's prolly some bored 12 yr old dip$%!#, whose parents are going to get a suprising visit, lmfao. Whatcha wanna bet he cant sit down for a week?Heironymous Rowe (talk) 00:52, 7 June 2009 (UTC) According to User talk:70.26.6.129, 12 yrs old seems to be correct. And the fact that the FBI will be checking into it seems to have rattled him. --auburnpilot talk 01:33, 7 June 2009 (UTC) Well, it's a moot point since the IP is most likely just some juvenile, but in the future it's a good idea to check the IP's geolocation and report it to the local national-level authorities- the IP in question happens to be Canadian. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 01:48, 7 June 2009 (UTC) Looking more into it, I believe this is the same user as !1029qpwoalskzmxn (talk · contribs), Studentsrulendestroywiki (talk · contribs) and the IP 76.69.90.142 (talk · contribs). Note both 70.26.6.129 and 76.69.90.142 are Toronto area Bell Canada IPs. --auburnpilot talk 01:49, 7 June 2009 (UTC) Wow, lucky guess or what? That or they saw my post here. Anyway, someone gonna learn a serious lesson from this, at least we can hope. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 01:54, 7 June 2009 (UTC) Someone may want to start filing an abuse report and contacting this ISP to try to get the ISP to prevent this kid from accessing Wikipedia (or probably anything else on the Internet for that matter). MuZemike 01:56, 7 June 2009 (UTC) Godwin's probably gonna be on this on Monday, if not earlier ... 10 to 1 Bell Canada and the RCMP will listen to him more than us. Blueboy96 03:33, 7 June 2009 (UTC) If it was a bored 12-year-old, I have a hunch he's considerably less bored at this point. Vague threats of violence are one thing, but an overt threat like this one needs to be turned over to the authorities. Which it was. Jolly good. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 03:43, 7 June 2009 (UTC) And to answer the original question - Yes, it is illegal. It's a federal crime. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 03:44, 7 June 2009 (UTC) Okay Admins. I am actually the same person as 70.26.6.129 and asdfzxcvqwerty and am here to deeply apologize for my actions. Please don't report me anymore to any authorities and please tell the authorities that there are no issue from 70.26.6.129. I actually like Barack Obama as a president and think he is doing a fantastic job and I was no where even close to being serious when I made the threat. Please tell the authorities that the person in the IP has no serious intentions. Also, I wish to have my IP hard blocked idenfinetely so that I can never disrupt wikipedia ever again. sometimes my IP changes so please do a block in a way that will permanetely disallow me from editing wikipedia (I still want to right to READ page since I USE wikipedia for many assignments mostly geography and science) To Sum it up I am requesting 2 things: 1. for an admin preferbally the one who reported me to tell the authorities that the IP has no serious intention 2. for my IP or IP range to be hard blocked permanetely so that I can never edit wikipedia ever again. but not blocked from reading pages I made a terrible mistake and regret it strongly. I learned a valuable lesson, which is not to make threats that cross the line and to be behave over the internet. Please consider about the two requests above. Thank You.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Brave warrior (talk • contribs) 11:26, 7 June 2009 (UTC) Way too late for not getting reported. Threatening to kill someone, esp a head of state, is not a matter to make jokes about. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:31, 7 June 2009 (UTC) Yes I realise that now. Death threats are taken seriously over the internet. But I have 0 serious intentions when I made that horrible threat. So please tell the authorities that i have no intentions. I honestely don't, don't any of you admins believe that i don't? I am only a kid, I don't even have a gun.Please don't make any of those authorities like FBI or other police coming to my house! It will have a negative mental impact on me for years to come.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Brave warrior (talk • contribs) 11:35, 7 June 2009 (UTC) Who says WP can't be educational. Someone here seems to have learned something today. :) --WebHamster 11:36, 7 June 2009 (UTC) Interesting that the editor now posting as Brave warrior has a previous history and was unblocked in January - the block was for abusing multiple accounts. EdChem (talk) 11:45, 7 June 2009 (UTC) This might turn out to be the mother of all "Plaxicos". And as an American, I say he should be turned in, because while his threat might have been false, it's also possible that his claim it was false, is false. Take no chances. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 12:34, 7 June 2009 (UTC) The above retort is absolutely disengenuous as according to the edit record, this is a insidiuous and persistent troll with a previous record of making disclaiming statements. Despite the country of origin, there should be no question that the authorities (police and legal) should be involved, especially when there is a threat made to use violence. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:35, 7 June 2009 (UTC). Yes, as I said, the authorities should be notified. If it takes the threat of prison to make that guy clean up his act, then so be it. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 13:49, 7 June 2009 (UTC) Actually, I think he came here specifically to shoot himself in the leg on purpose (or have some gullible admin do the shooting). I'm not sure if "Plaxico" applies here as he showed no intent on defending himself. MuZemike 17:16, 7 June 2009 (UTC) Was having the cops drop by also a part of his master plan? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 17:36, 7 June 2009 (UTC) Well, since this user was kind enough to admit his crime, I have reblocked him with email and talkpage editing disabled, and protected his userspace. I'm also adding an entry for him at WP:LOBU, as it's pretty safe to say that no administrator will unblock this user who doesn't want to be immediately desysopped. El fin. Blueboy96 13:55, 7 June 2009 (UTC) This user has numerous aliases and sock accounts, which one is he being listed under? FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:02, 7 June 2009 (UTC). Good call on reporting it, and the IP address. If this *was* some kid, they will have Secret Service speaking to their parents. You'd be frankly surprised how many of these the Secret Services does in fact run down. I chatted once with a SS agent that I met in passing, for 5-10 minutes, and actually asked--do you guys actually run down a lot of the "BS" level complaints, or that appear to be? And he said yes, it's rare for one to not be looked at, since how do you know if its BS? He actually made the point that even he'd (and this was a SS agent in Connecticut, that had only twice ever even seen a President in person) gotten kids "severely grounded". Too funny, and good call reported. rootology (C)(T) 18:23, 7 June 2009 (UTC) The Secret Service runs down every threat to the President that they hear about. As the agent pointed out, you don't know which ones are just cranks and people blowing off steam unless you run them all down. Indeed, every one of them sees a personal visit at some point, even if it's clear from the initial investigation that it wasn't anything serious--they want to make sure the person knows they weren't amused. (It also lets them do a brief evaluation of the subject to see if s/he may have a mental health issue that means they need to take the "crank" threat more seriously...) rdfox 76 (talk) 18:42, 7 June 2009 (UTC) This user's Canadian, so more than likely it'll be the RCMP knocking on his door sometime in the next few days. In any event, I wouldn't want to be there when his parents find out why Bell Canada nuked their Internet. Blueboy96 18:55, 7 June 2009 (UTC) I would, it'd be hilarious! ╟─TreasuryTag►Africa, Asia and the UN─╢ 18:59, 7 June 2009 (UTC) And I'm guessing that Mountie won't exactly be grinning like Dudley Do-Right. If the Mounties show up at that character's door, all the better. "Scared straight", so to speak. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 19:05, 7 June 2009 (UTC) People like this guy are why the rest of us hate Toronto. HalfShadow 19:17, 7 June 2009 (UTC) As opposed to the theory that 'threats' like this are made because the US is the most hated country in the world? --WebHamster 19:21, 7 June 2009 (UTC) The biggest and strongest is always hated. Instead of the U.S., you could hate Finland, but what would be the point? That would be like protesting the slaughtering of cattle and potatoes, and instead of taking it to McDonald's, you picket White Castle. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 19:26, 7 June 2009 (UTC) << OK, this isn't going anywhere, so I'm closing per DFTT. ╟─TreasuryTag►prorogation─╢ 19:29, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Signature spam

Resolved

 – Signature amended. –xeno^talk 19:52, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

• Vojvodaen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has a link to their own wiki in their signature.
• istorijska-biblioteka.wikidot.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

There's currently 115 instances of it.--Otterathome (talk) 13:37, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

• I didn't see where anyone has asked him on his talk page to stop. That would be the first thing to do (hint), instead of ANI. They probably are just unaware they should not use their signature that way. --64.85.216.245 (talk) 13:56, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

It's posted here in case any users feel that removing/blacklisting the 100+ links would be appropriate.--Otterathome (talk) 14:22, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

The problem with the spam blacklist is that it will then prevent anyone from editing those pages with the links until the links get removed - and it's not always clear what link is the problem or where on the page it is. Try talking to him about it, as the IP recommended; if he removes the link, it shouldn't be an issue from here on. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 19:42, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

The existing links should be ok but they could also be AWB'd out if someone felt the need. I left a follow up message for the user informing of this discussion. –xeno^talk 19:46, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Sock war?

Hello, kind editors. I have just stumbled into a curious situation. After what I thought was a minor clean-up of the Illegal immigration to the United States article [146] a couple editors began accusing each other on my talk page of being socks of banned users.[147] This doesn't particularly bother me, but I do not wish to host any sock wars.... Any thoughts? Wikidemon (talk) 15:17, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Wrap the section with {{discussion top}} and in the closing, kindly ask them to discuss the issue at the article talk page or file an SPI if they feel the need. –xeno^talk 19:47, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, that's a good idea. I'll do that. Wikidemon (talk) 20:55, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

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

The following discussion 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.

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I would agree, Abd's intentions are good even if his execution is a bit dicey. He is not making any changes that truly affect the results of anything as far as I can see and he actively encourages people to correct any errors or draw his attention to them so he can fix them.

That having been said I would (and have already) discourage Abd from making any changes to the raw tallies. Post process the raw data all you want, but leave the tallies alone. --GoRight (talk) 05:50, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

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

Woonpton, my comments at Talk:Cold fusion are rather commonly deleted, it just happened today. Talk page comments are generally subject to good-faith refactoring, and taking someone to AN/I over a transient misunderstanding is a tad extreme. Comments in polls or RfCs are often shifted, deleted, or moved to some other location, where it seems it will serve the community. The goal there is consensus, and getting there efficiently, and it can often help things if adjustments are made, and it works when editors assume good faith. However, you've recently expressed an intention to expose, I'm not sure what, you won't say, some kind of nefarious plot you imagine I'm working on,[148][149] so you were quite predisposed to interpret what I did as hostile or "shenanigans," as you immediately called the very first action. --Abd (talk) 23:32, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

While Abd's text can be daunting at times, he always makes thorough and well reasoned contributions on both the content and the process in these cases. At least that's been my experience. Don't feel obligated to even look at his comments if you don't want to. Ignoring them leaves you in the same space as would a topic ban but allows the project to continue to benefit from his efforts. --GoRight (talk) 05:52, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Well, darned if he does and darned if he doesn't? You complain about the length of his posts, say you don't want to even look at them (by proposing a topic ban) then complain when he takes your issue and actively tries to address it with collapse boxes. Why is that? And SBHB complains that he doesn't want to see Abd's comments at all but then complains that he can't search through them. I find that stance a bit curious, actually. --GoRight (talk) 05:53, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Ahem, GoRight, Abd can put collapse boxes round his own contributions as much as he likes. In this case he collapsed several consecutive threads into one box, including one started by me where I discussed a new secondary source by Sheldon that I had found, downloaded through a university account and made avaliable on request at http://mathsci.free.fr This thread is about Abd playing around with other people's contributions, resulting in the unreadability of the talk page. [150] It was undone later [151]. Similarly this extraordinary edit [152] to this thread was not helpful, even for Abd himself. Mathsci (talk) 07:36, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, so it was. As Abd points out below and I was planning to do anyway, a review of the page history shows that the incident you are referring to was actually precipitated by Hipocrite when he archived an entire set of discussions, including the one that you reference above. Doing so is a normal enough activity on Hipocrite's part, I suppose, but if others disagree that the discussions are actually closed, as did Abd, it appears to me that Abd's action to covert to a set of collapse boxes was actually a good one. It keeps the talk page tidy and leaves the discussions open for those who wish to continue to engage them. The entire incident appears to be completely mundane maintenance of a busy talk page, IMHO.

You specifically point to [153] as being the reason for your objection. Is there more to it than that one "adjustment" by Eric who labeled the change as minor. Your use of the term "undone" is not actually an accruate description of Eric's edit, IMHO, since it did not atually restore the article to a previous state but instead extended the same approach that Abd had started. Regardless, unless you have something more than this one edit by Eric to demonstrate the scope and impact of Abd's changes in this case I would have to question why you would view this as being a bannable offense. Please explain how this should even be on the radar screen of bannable offenses, maybe I have missed something. --GoRight (talk) 21:06, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

The first diff made discussion more appropriately visible, by topic, in the TOC, not less. That series of discussions had been closed, en masse, by Hipocrite (improperly -- involved editor closing discussions). Look at the edit immediately preceding the one Mathsci shows.[154]. The claim by Hipocrite was that the discussion wasn't about improving the article. All I did was to break the closed material, covering many subsections, into a series of collapsed discussions, thus accepting, provisionally, Hipocrite's claim. Then as some of these became obviously relevant, they were uncollapsed. Anyone could have done that at any time. But Mathsci is looking for reasons to claim I should be banned, it's been obvious for a long time; but it's moot here. This report was about my behavior in an incident of misunderstanding, and the incident is resolved and moot. This discussion should really be closed. It wasn't the basis for my ban, which should be separately discussed if it's going to be. I'm banned, and whether the ban is proper or not shouldn't be confused with a farrago of other complaints. Don't beat a dead horse. I have not reviewed the other diffs, but the heaviest use of collapse at Talk Cold fusion is by other editors collapsing my discussion and that of others. --Abd (talk) 13:19, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

• To Abd: Your response dated 20:57, 5 June 2009 (UTC) is of excessive length, and I think it unreasonable to expect any administrator to read it in its entirety. Please be succinct. AGK 19:41, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, AGK. That response was quite brief, then an extended comment that explored issues surrounding the situation was summarized, and the vast bulk of it put into collapse as being peripheral to this report. It was then uncollapsed by ShortBrigadeHarvesterBoris, who then, with others, complained about walls of text. Transparent, I'm afraid, but not for here. I didn't "expect" administrators to read the extended comment unless they were interested. --Abd (talk) 13:23, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

• tl;dr. This is, however, typical of Abd when he's trying to get his way--a wall of text. We've all seen this over and over, and the history of such massive textdumps seems to indicate this one will also boil down to "Because I said so." Support permanent topicban, also, based on comments above about having driven away other editors. Support it even further because Abd thinks that cold fusion actually exists or is an 'emerging science', which betrays an understanding of science rivaled only by the folks who think that Intelligent Design is accurate in any way whatsoever. It really is time for Wikipedia to put its collective foot down, hard, about POV-pushing and fringe crap. //roux   19:51, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

  In constrast to your post here, Abd is NOT pushing a POV. He assiduously sticks to Wikipedia policies and norms in terms of content and sourcing, and as the recent Arbcom case demonstrates he takes WP:DR to heart. Given this, are you really suggesting that he should be banned because he writes long posts? Excuse me if I don't think that is in the best interests of the project. --GoRight (talk) 05:55, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

• Tell me if i have this straight: Some editor is rude, moves around other's comments in a contentious area and doesn't leave off. And why? To try to force pseudo-scientific fantasies onto an insufficiently-educated public using wikipedia as his megaphone. Do I have tihs right? If so, topic ban and be done. Wikipedia should not tolerate the, ah, how to put this nicely, the fringers to the extent that their obsessive behaviors drive away physicists and other expert users whose editing assistance is particularly needed in technical areas. Not to get into a "cult of the expert" but we are not all equally-beautiful flowers in the lord's little garden. If you don't prune the weeds every now and again, they'll choke all forms of intelligent life to death.Bali ultimate (talk) 21:25, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

  No, you do not have this "straight" if you are trying to apply that characterization to Abd. He is not rude nor is he trying to force anything on anyone. He is positing legitimate material and working to achieve consensus on it. This is what the Wikipedia editors are supposed to do. As for your attempt to "put this nicely", in my very humble opinion you failed. Your POV is clearly visible and if rudeness is a rationale for banning as you suggest, I hereby suggest yours. --GoRight (talk) 05:56, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Which is, of course why he is placing large partions of his posts within collapse boxes. Isn't that an example of "heed[ing] good-faith feedback when handling disputes"? That is, of course, if one seriously wants to consider "you write too much" to actually be a legitimate "dispute". People talked. He listened and acted upon what he was told. --GoRight (talk) 06:00, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

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

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

(ec)I'm not sure how, or even whether, Abd's topic ban from cold fusion will affect this review, since the notification above says that the ban was unrelated to this report, but just for the record I think it's important to point out that many of the assertions in the response above are not consistent with the record. There are many, but I will only take one assertion to rebut,as I know your time and patience are limited.

(Note, first, that this report isn't just about Abd moving and reverting and editing my edits; it's about Abd moving and reverting and refactoring "other people's edits" and the first couple of diffs are for a comment of Kirk Shanahan's that Abd first removed, then refactored and turned into a poll option, apparently without consulting with Shanahan as to whether that was what he wanted done with his edit.)

Okay, here's the one asertion in the responses above that I've chosen to rebut; it was made twice in two different messages:

Woonpton and I were in edit conflict after edit conflict as I tried to figure out what the editor wanted and to restore and undo any damage that I might have done.

I was definitely, for a while, quite confused, with one edit conflict with Woonpton after another.

This twice-made assertion is simply untrue. It took about an hour for this incident to unfold; I edited once at 03:48 and again at 04:51. During the hour between, I did not edit the page. After I registered my first objection, I went out for a walk; I wasn't even at the computer. Here's how it unfolded:

03:48 June 5 I posted a strong objection to the move of the vote, and in the same diff I struck the vote and its accompanying comment, saying I was striking it for now while I thought about what to do about it, and then I took a break and went out for a while. That post included a diff of my vote, which showed clearly that I had voted for the 19:54 Sept 17 version, as I had said, not for the 15:48 Sept 18 version Abd was claiming I had really meant to vote for. All Abd would have had to do to verify what I was saying, was click that diff. But, that's not what happened.

During the next 45-50 minutes, Abd removed my struck comment, indicated his belief that I had accepted the move, and posted a long lecture about how I had got it wrong and voted for the wrong thing. During that time, I was not editing. There were no edit conflicts between us as Abd "tried to figure out what the editor wanted and to restore and undo any damage that I might have done;" I wasn't even there.

04:51 I came back, and at that point I was, yes, outraged that my objection had gone unheeded and even disputed at length and repeatedly, and at that point I posted a stronger objection. But that was an hour after my first objection, which had been my most recent edit. Yes, I did get an edit conflict with him that second time, but just one. During that hour, the only person escalating this dispute was Abd; the only person editing the page during that hour (7 edits) was Abd. The only edit I made after that was to remove my votes. To portray this as me taking a misunderstanding and immediately escalating it into a big deal, editing so furiously as to cause constant edit conflicts, is to misrepresent what happened profoundly.

I have not edited cold fusion and had only made a couple of comments on the talk page before this incident, because I was so appalled at the disruption on the page. After this incident I had decided to unwatch the page and stay clear away, but if Abd is banned, I would be willing to participate. Woonpton (talk) 04:59, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Cutting through all this drama ... I have a question or two for you, Woonpton.

1. After all has been said and done, do you believe that the current CF talk page misrepresents your most recently stated intent relative to the !voting in any way?
2. Do you believe that it was ever Abd's intent to actively mischaracterize or misrepresent your position?

--GoRight (talk) 06:25, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

1. How could I possibly know? I have no idea what the current CF talk page looks like. When I last saw it, it was a complete mess. After our dispute, Abd moved the poll out of the section where it had been, leaving my comments orphaned, then he deleted the option that I had originally voted for, the day after he had put it in, saying that no one had voted for it so it could be eliminated, then Hippocrite started another poll, then Abd put the two different polls together into one, even though they were scored differently; it was just total wall to wall disruption. If my last comment I made there (in which I made it very clear that my withdrawal of my vote was not an expression of withdrawal of support for the version I had voted for; it was an expression of withdrawal of support for Abd's poll) is still in place where I put it, then I would say that the current talk page accurately represents my most recently stated intent, which was to boycott the poll because it was being conducted so disruptively. But I don't know if it is or not, so I couldn't answer the question even if the question weren't beside the point.

"I have no idea what the current CF talk page looks like." - This is a rather telling comment, IMHO. It does draw into question your actual motives from bringing this to WP:ANI. Regardless, I will take this response to indicate that either (a) that the page currently reflects your most recent stated desire, or (b) that you don't care enough about CF or its talk page to even bother to check. --GoRight (talk) 21:35, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

or (c) he got burned out by the experience and doesn't want to get involved further on that page, not even to check its current state. --Enric Naval (talk) 02:41, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

2. I have no idea, and don't care, what Abd's intent was; as I said above on the page, my purpose here was not to characterize intent, but simply to register concern about disruptive behavior. My point is that regardless of intent, he had no business deciding on his own that he knew that I really intended to vote for that other option (that I hadn't even seen!) and change my vote; he had no business editing my comments. I have always been taught that we don't do this on Wikipedia. At any rate, I'm a data person and have been for my entire professional career; the integrity of data is a core principle with me. When something (in this case, consensus) is being measured, I don't want someone messing with the data. It's just really that simple.Woonpton (talk) 07:01, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

"I have no idea, and don't care, what Abd's intent was ..." - Another interesting reply, IMHO. Abd has openly stated "I apologize to this editor for any offense, and for my confusion," see [155]. Given this, are you seeking any other redress from the Administrators in this matter? If so, what is it? --GoRight (talk) 21:35, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose topic ban. Abd made an honest mistake. Moving others' comments is not forbidden; comments of mine have been moved at times on other pages to what someone considered a more appropriate place. On an unrelated page I've just put peoples' comments into collapse boxes and added a comment above another comment to try to restore its context after I had changed the text the person was commenting on ([156]): not much different from what Abd did except that I didn't happen to make a mistake (as far as I know!): but it's a wiki: mistakes can be corrected! Abd has been making contributions to the cold fusion articles based on RS and helping to clarify the issues and negotiate consensus among other editors. It will only further skew the collective POV of editors at the cold fusion page if yet another editor is banned who is trying to enforce NPOV by ensuring that the cold fusion controversy is accurately presented in the article by properly including, among other POVs described, the significant pro-cold-fusion POV as it is expressed in reliable sources including both the scientific literature and the media. (involved editor) ☺Coppertwig (talk) 10:07, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

  On the contrary, this interchange on the talk page of User:EdChem shows that Abd is actually quite uncooperative when discussing sources, particularly with expert editors with far more RL experience. Mathsci (talk) 11:02, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

There is a mediation where such discussion is beginning. The discussion at EdChem's page was a mistake, I'd thought he was interested, and he appeared to be. At the same time he was preparing evidence against me to present here, and I'd originally gone to that page because he'd made noises to that effect elsewhere. Complaining because I withdraw from a discussion I see as probably going nowhere on a user Talk page, and apologizing for the waste of time? Really, Mathsci, your POV is showing. --Abd (talk) 13:29, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

The mediator has accepted that WMC's bans are independent of mediation. As far as point of view is concerned, until Abd learns how to use scientific sources appropriately, I welcome WMC's ban. Mathsci (talk) 23:06, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

My work on Cold fusion has been in pursuit of implementing RfAr/Fringe science, and specifically Science is not a point of view, Prominence, and Advocacy. From the latter: In particular, conjectures that hold significant prominence must no more be suppressed than be promoted as factual. If it's in any reliable secondary source, it has "significant prominence," but editors like Hipocrite, Verbal, and to a lesser extent, Enric Naval, with Mathsci firing cover, have been tendentiously arguing and revert warring to the end that anything that appears to support cold fusion, no matter if properly attributed and framed, is removed, through bald revert, even if the sources are peer-reviewed journals, academic publications by mainstream organizations, any excuse that could be imagined has been concocted to keep this material out. ("Author is scientist employed by company researching cold fusion." Even though he isn't.)

Again, would someone please close this discussion, it's wandering way afield, it's a coatrack for whatever editors like Mathsci can dream up. The ban was not imposed based on this discussion, and this is not the place to challenge it, nor is it the place to debate content. --Abd (talk) 02:00, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I also support this topic ban, not because of any comment moving in the poll, but because of massive disruption in the talk page that was preventing any sort of reasonable discussion. Abd was asked many times over the last months to make shorter comments and keep them on-topic, and he has always declined to do so.

See, Abd's long comments do scare editors away even if you tell them not to read them. And his acts are based on what he puts on his comments, which means I am forced to read almost every comment in its enterity. And he is not simply providing additional information, he's directly challenging stuff, are we supposed to ignore him? And what do we do when he makes a change to the article that is based in one of his comments? And how are we supposed to discuss with him if he discards everything that is told to him with longs walls of text? And, if we don't need to read his long meandering off-topic comments, why does he even post them in the first place? Abd has been using the talk page as his personal blog for too long. --Enric Naval (talk) 02:41, 8 June 2009 (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.

disruptive editor back

Bulldog123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

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

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

For the record, Hmains and Badagnani stalk by contributions list and revert basically every bold edit I make, citing "no consensus," as if you need a consensus on everything you do before editing. I'm saying maybe they or someone else I'm in an edit dispute with are canvassing people to come and try to attack my character. It's simply a method by which to "quiet me" on those pages. Look here: User_talk:Jeanne_boleyn#editing_disruption. Bulldog123 23:31, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I posted a warning on Bulldog's talk about his disruption at Adam Lambert, but it was swiftly removed without explanation in a minor edit.[157] Bulldog's entitled to do what he likes with his talk page, but he needs to know the seriousness of his disruption, and that he will be blocked if he disrupts Adam Lambert again. I posted that warning not to be malicious but to try to save him from his seemingly inevitable block.--Yolgnu (talk) 05:12, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

• I don't want to get involved in this, but I think it is worth mentioning that on Talk:Adam Lambert, I only see User:Yolgnu and User:Unitanode making the personal attacks ([158]), accusations of bad faith ([159]), and threats of blocking ([160]), which appear to be more disruptive than Bulldog's actual editing. Horvat Den (talk) 06:56, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I have made no personal attacks, and find it odd that you would claim so. I called an IDEA "nonsensical", so perhaps that's what you mean? Bulldog is being disruptive, and you're claiming that I am the problem. That seems odd. Just checked your diffs, and it makes even less sense than I first thought. I made no "threat" of blocking. I was -- as a relatively unbiased observer (I actually removed the "Hebrew singer" category") -- letting Bulldog know that if he kept edit-warring and editing against consensus he could be blocked. Where's the problem with that? And it is CERTAINLY not a personal attack in any way, shape, or form. Unitanode 14:04, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
• diff I'm not seeing a productive editing pattern here. — Ched :  ?  20:43, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Toolserver seems to be down, so I can't get a precise figure, but by my rough count, User:Bulldog123, who's been editing since 2005, has about 2500 edits, only about 550 of the are to articles - the majority are on talk pages and the WP-domain. It doesn't seem like this person is here to build an encyclopedia, but instead to push a PoV. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 21:26, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Where in the "editing rulebook" does it say I need to edit the article mainspace in order to be a constructive editor? Bulldog123 22:31, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I found it in another volume, the "Book of Wiki-Common Sense." If memory serve, it goes something like this: "The purpose of Wikipedia is to build an encyclopedia. The primary means to go about this is to write or edit articles. If an editor spends that large majority of his or her time posting on non-article pages, and is not an admin (who has a legitimate excuse to do so), then perhaps he or she is not here primarily to help build an encyclopedia, but has other motivations." If I recall, it was only a "Rule of Thumb"^TM so it's not guaranteed to be accurate, just a good early-warning system. When you combine that with an extremely tight focus on one particular subject... well, that's another warning sign that perhaps pushing a point of view, not building an encyclopedia, is the primary motivation. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 05:19, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Ed. Yep, I looked at the Soxred one, and I left a warning on talk page. Sooner or later though, I suspect an admin is going to have to have a talk with this one. Given the sensitivity of some of the topics, I'd think the sooner the better. — Ched :  ?  21:31, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Sensitivity? What does that have to do with anything? You're saying I should avoid editing "sensitive" subjects or else face blocking/banning? Bulldog123 23:00, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Let’s be clear about what Bulldog123 has done. He has removed dozens of names from ethnic-American lists, e.g., List of Hungarian Americans, List of French Americans, List of Estonian Americans, List of Danish Americans. Within the past few days, he has also engaged in wholesale removal of images from ethnic-American articles, including:

• Albanian American
• Basque-American
• Bulgarian Americans
• Croatian American
• Czech American
• Danish American
• Dutch American
• Estonian-American
• Finnish American
• French American
• German American
• Hungarian American
• Lithuanian American
• Norwegian American
• Slovak American
• Slovene Americans
• Spanish American
• Swedish American
• Swiss American
• Ukrainian American)

Each time, he has been involved in an edit war in doing so. He has failed to check the history of the involved articles and their talk pages to see what consensus about ethnic-American definitions exist, insisting that his definition is the only legitimate one. He has refused to acknowledge legitimate, reliable sources for ethnic group membership, insisting that they aren’t good enough. Example: Norman Schwarzkopf, Jr. was named the Distinguished German-American of the Year for 2006 by the German-American Heritage Foundation of the USA [161], yet he demands “better, sourcable examples” [sic]. He has been involved in innumerable debates about ethnic articles, with virtually no support from other editors. There is not one single constructive contribution to date among his 2000+ edits. --Sift&Winnow 21:49, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

First of all, I've known you for approximately two days, and you seem to have my whole editing history all figured out and judged. That's fascinating. Secondly, it's not Schwarzkopf that's the main problem but Hoover and Eisenhower, which I have written here: Talk:German Americans and which you have ignored. I have explained to your numerous times that you need sourced that explicitly call them German Americans, not "of German descent" or "with German fathers." You ignore it, remove my comments from your talk page, and yet deem me as "uncooperative." In other words, I only remove unsourced or poorly sourced material, User:Hmains and Winnow return them without the proper sources, often without any sources at all. Consensus is not immutable. Direct quote from: WP:CONSENSUS. It doesn't matter what "previous consensus" was. Bulldog123 22:31, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

In response to User:Bulldog123 request that I expand on my warning left on their talk page, I respond here. The areas that you are editing in are often considered sensitive topics. It is my opinion that your editing pattern is of a disruptive nature. We are here to "build" an encyclopedia, not engage in forumish discussion which often fuels the fires of discontent. I believe that many editors may have employed WP:DENY tactics to this point, but it appears that community patience is wearing thin. Let me be blunt: If you do not stop poking at topical areas, and start contributing in a constructive manner, I suspect that you will be addressing WP:BLOCK and WP:BAN issues before long. Hopefully, I have made my views clear. — Ched :  ?  22:42, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Talk about an Assume bad faith bonanza. The paradoxical irony of your comments don't go unnoticed. There's no reason for me to stop "poking around" topical areas if I feel those areas need improvement. There's no designation of how and where I should edit, and your opinion of what's constructive is not the objective opinion. I think ridding wikipedia of unencyclopedic material is more constructive than editing punctuation mistakes. Yet, I get complaints for not discussing my changes, and the toolserver proves the majority of my edits are to talk pages. However, after pages of discussion with stubborn editors who refuse to see anything except their way, anybody's patience runs thin. Every edit I make is supported by WP:BOLD. If something is improperly sourced or not sourced at all, I remove it. If I feel Category:Gay musicians needs to be discussed, whether it offends or not, I'll open up discussion. Bulldog123 22:52, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

• reposted from my talk: You mean conversation? No, I'd like to know in what possible way my edit to the LGBT talk page was "disruptive," since you seem to have cited it as a diff. If you're going to gang up on me without any knowledge of my editing history, and contact buddies to come and comment, I'd like a more detailed explanation. Does this have something to do with personal offense at my comment? Bulldog123 22:37, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
• The comments made in [this diff: The topic heading Is there really a "gay way" of being a musician? and the ensuing comments which I view as trolling, or a total lack of clue. If you feel that other editors are "gang[ing] up" on you, I suggest that you start to listen and take heed of their words. My "buddies" are the collaborative editing group with which I contribute. As far as any "personal offense", My interest in that project is an attempt to establish a guideline that adheres to our MOS, and addresses specific issues which came to light in my work in the BLP project. Any other implication you wish impart with that statement, I'd simply deny comment. In other words Bulldog, I suggest you get your act together - or get gone. One way or another, this situation will be resolved. — Ched :  ?  22:59, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this just shows that you compeltely misunderstood the comment. It wasn't trolling in any way, it was a reference to this: WP:OCAT where it states Dedicated group-subject subcategories, such as Category:LGBT writers or Category:African American musicians, should only be created where that combination is itself recognized as a distinct and unique cultural topic in its own right. So the point was to start discussion on why Category:Gay musicians isn't considered WP:OCAT. You got offended by it, sorry, but the burden is on you to assume good faith and not make these continued baseless threats like "it will be resolved." And no, by buddies, I mean your buddies like Ed, who was clearly asked to comment here, either by you or someone else, as he seems to have no idea what any of this is about but magically supported your misunderstanding. Bulldog123 23:06, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I personally was not offended, but found it likely to be offensive to others. As far as "Ed", I don't believe I have ever made a single post to his talk page. May I ask, If your concern is truly the categories themselves, why do I see no questions posted by you at Wikipedia talk:Overcategorization? — Ched :  ?  23:22, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Because I wanted to bring it to the LGBT project before nominating it for deletion, seeing as there might be a reason for it I don't understand. I'm saying Ed was canvassed here by someone, not necessarily you. Bulldog123 23:36, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

If by "Ed", you're referring to me, I was not canvassed by anyone. I regularly peruse AN/I (a guilty pleasure), and, in fact, have posted here fairly regularly (for me) in the past week or so. I am not familiar with you or Ched or anyone else involved in this discussion. My conclusion that you do not appear to be a productive editor, but are here to push a specific point of view, is mine alone, arrived at by looking at your edit history. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 23:57, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay then. In your opinion, the only way to be a productive editor is to add to wikipedia and not to subtract from it. I disagree. I think it you need "garbage men" so to speak to make sure wikipedia doesn't become a playground and maintains itself as a source of encyclopedic information. I only push what is supported by policy/guideline... which in the case of Fooian-Americans (which I assume you're referring to)... is the simple fact that as editor we can't and shouldn't be allowed to determine who is a Fooian-American and who isn't, but can only leave that up to outside references. On all those pages I edit, editors flagrantly add names and pictures of anyone they please arguing "Hey, here's a link that says they have Dutch ancestry, let's put add them to List of Dutch Americans and put their picture on Dutch Americans." It's their PoV how far back you can go before a person of Dutch ancestry becomes a Dutch American. Martin van Buren is being used as a posterchild for Dutch Americans despite "..his great-great-great-great-grandfather Cornelis had come to the New World in 1631 from the Netherlands." You could argue Van Buren potentially has more English ancestry than Dutch. So why is he being touted as a "Dutch American?" That's the problem. It's not my PoV, it's a simple matter of proper representation. On the same note, Paul Newman has been invariably on Slovak, Jewish, Hungarian, Polish, a posterchild on each because of his parent's various backgrounds. It becomes one big joke after a while. That's why we need explicit references calling them Fooian-American by reliable sources. Instead of following this (as detailed in WP:RS and WP:V), people get offended, report me to AN/I as disruptive, and then canvass others I've been in disputes with to come and argue for my block. Bulldog123 00:47, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion you're not a productive editor because your edits are all in futherance of your own personal definition of what make a hyphenated American, which differs from what the rest of the world thinks, and what the consensus at Wikipedia is. Therefore, although it certainly is possible to improve Wikipedia by removing things (who could argue otherwise, considering vandalism), your edits do not improve it, because they reduce information rather than increase it. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 02:31, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

• I have only recently come into contact with this editor, but have had nothing but negative experiences at Adam Lambert. It's editors like this that make it less rewarding to work on Wikipedia. We had worked out something of a compromise at that article, and he just refuses to abide by what we've discussed and decided. Something certainly needs to be done. Unitanode 01:05, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

• This disruptive editor continues on the course he previously pursued in regards to people in ethnic-related articles and lists. Namely, his view of WP is the only way. His most recent edits are the waste-of-time denials that a child of a 'fooian American' is also a 'fooian American'--demanding reference citations proving the child is 'fooian American' even after he grudgingly admits the parent or grandparent has a 'fooian American' citation he accepts. I asked several times on his talk page for him to stop all this activity of his; his only reaction has been to quickly delete my statements from his talk page. I asked several times in my reversals of his edits that instead of doing his removals of persons from articles that he should discuss each such person on the article's talk page so, one-by-one all his numerous objections could be looked at. His edit-war comments in these cases has been that he does not need to discuss anything since he is right in removing the names. Since this editor has nothing to contribute, since his edits have the same nuisance effect as pure and outright vandalism, since every amount of time we have to deal with his edits is just a waste of time that we could be using to improve WP, is any purpose served by having him as a WP editor? Hmains (talk) 01:29, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I've dealt with Hmains for months, and all he does is filibuster Fooian articles, using the same cyclical, scripted complaints, none pertaining to guidelines/policy. So yes, after I while, I begin to ignore them. Hmains continues to call for "discussion" on articles where only he appears to revert. At times that there are other users who don't understand why I removed a name or picture, he just uses their confusion as ammunition against me, instead of letting me explain it to them. Most of the time, nobody really cares about the lists, as they'be been in a sourceless, confused limbo for years now. So these "calls for discussion" are nothing more than filibusters. Half the time a message is left on the talk page, nobody responds to it. That's why we have WP:BOLD. If anything, Hmain has WP:OWN issues with these articles, and still doens't understand that "His Dad had German heritage, so he must be German" is not acceptable. It's a synthesis of information, partly from articles written by editors themselves. If we allowed this, there's no limit to who could be placed on these lists. Like I said before, there can be arguments to be made that Martin Van Buren is a Dutch American (supposedly he still spoke some vulgarized variant of hte language as a child), but it's not our decision to make whether he is or isn't. Bulldog123 02:09, 8 June 2009 (UTC)