This user keeps ignoring warnings. He removes them by blanking the page, which I have been informed it OK (that was my mistake earlier by restoring them. Nevertheless, this user keeps getting himself warned and I am under the impression that he would receive a final warning/type of block at this point.--Christopher Kraus (talk) 01:09, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi, CK! Do you think you might be able to point us in the direction of what he's doing wrong? Specifically, WP:DIFFs would be really helpful. When you can post back here and we'll have a look see. Thanks!! Basket of Puppies 01:24, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Those diffs are of him blanking his talk page, any diffs of his actual wrongdoings?-- Darth Mike (talk) 01:36, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Comment I know nothing about the underlying issues here, but I thought that I should add that this section was blanked by Lordvader2009 [1]. Apparition11Complaints/Mistakes 02:17, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Hmmm, that is quite concerning. Perhaps we can ask him to comment here on why he made such an edit? Basket of Puppies 04:03, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Truthfully, AGF and all, about the only edits I've seen him do are mass upload untagged unfree images (which I've brought up before and he got warned and then blocked for) and blanking his talk page (ignoring all comments automated, handwritten, helpful and/or informative). Just seems to take WP:IAR a bit too seriously. QTC 04:57, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Some of his recent contributions seem to be, well, not so wonderful in language: 1 and 2. It seems he's not keen on communicating about these issues and at the same time he's making some poorly worded statements. On the other hand his content contributions are generally constructive. I am not so sure how to handle this other than to monitor his contributions and handle the issues as they come up. Thoughts? Basket of Puppies 06:12, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Warn him that if he continues he will be indefinitely blocked until he is responds and then do it? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:14, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Aren't we getting just a teensy bit carried away? The original complaint raised here was a total non-issue. Blanking the section wasn't great, but could easily be justified. Now we're switching to a completely different issue and talking about indef blocks? William M. Connolley (talk) 09:07, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps, but a year of warnings and requests to use edit summaries? How many warnings does a guy need?[2][3][4][5][6][7][8] (a number of probably duplicates and some are minor), all from a guy with ZERO talkspace and pretty bad user talkspace edits. I don't know how great his editing is but there's a real civility issue with him and a tendency to edit war. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:12, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
I'll toss in my two cents on this item since I am one of the folks who is often keeping an eye on User:Lordvader2009. I realize that the complaint that spurred this discussion was not valid (it is okay to blank one's own talk page). However, working with User:Lordvader2009 is a frustrating experience. I'll preface what I'm about to say with, User:Lordvader2009 for the most part stops, at least temporarily, the activities we warm him of. They are very good about not continuing activities often enough to be blocked by a strict interpretation of Wikipedia policies (as I understand them). With that in mind, here's a list of recent things I've seen this person do that are.... frustrating:
User never uses an edit summary to explain edits though they've been asked to: [9] and [10]
User has removed maintenance templates (deletion tags in particular) with no reason: [11], also occurred with File:Avera.jpg
Creating of articles of questionable worth and/or with little content: Edgar Garcia, Levi Avera
Rarely responds to talk page comments, and when they do it is not the most helpful: [14]
With the exception of the edit war on Levi Avera, nothing that is really blockable, but all of it is very frustrating. Okay, I've had my vent. Thank you. --TreyGeek (talk) 14:43, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
My experience with him is similar to the above. The main problem is edit warring when he apparantly doesn't agree with something, creating a very difficult situation since he's unwilling to discuss or even explain. --aktsu(t / c) 17:41, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
My experiences are in line with what has been posted above. I'm not sure how positive his contributions are overall, since my main focus on Wikipedia are UFC related articles, but I can say that of the edits he makes that I see a very low percentage are constructive. Some edits make no difference either way like random reordering of bouts due to personal opinion without reference: [15]. Or reordering bouts despite there being a reference to bout order: [16], then being warned: [17], and then having an apathetic reply: [18]. I have referenced WP:SPECULATION and WP:CRYSTAL to him with little effect as well. It seems to me that he is playing a game. He's being less than constructive, collecting warning after warning and backing off just before he gets himself banned/blocked. He then behaves until he thinks things have cooled down and starts all over again. It is a repeated pattern of abuse. While he may have not done any single thing to warrant harsh measures, there has to be some sort of judgment made on him cumulative record. --Drr-darkomen (talk) 18:49, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
I should add that most of his contributions are in fact constructive, though they consist mostly of repetitive tasks like updating fight records and adding posters to upcoming fight cards. --aktsu(t / c) 19:36, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Since I'm the one who's suggested the harshest measures, I think I'll explain. In my view, not discussing things at all is very disruptive and I have been willing to put indefinite (emphasis strongly to the user on indefinite, not infinite) blocks with a statement that "we simply want an acknowledgment that you are paying attention to us." It's been somewhat effective in my mind, some people respond quickly, others walk away and never return. Users are not allowed to create more work for others and just go do whatever they want. With him, I say you don't get the right to go right up until the edge of getting blocked, stop a few days, and do it again. That's just aggravating for others. If some of the users who work with him could inform him that he should look here and see that there is a serious discussion about him, maybe he'll stop. However, it looks like I'm in the minority and he's not that disruptive, so I'll leave it alone. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:05, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
There has already been a notice on this person's talk page about this discussion. Their "response" was to blank this discussion out [19]. --TreyGeek (talk) 20:27, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Well he certainly creates unnecesary work for me and other when he does things like creating new articles without any categories even though he was just notified about it (Jared Hamman and Edgar Garcia in the last two days after being notified about it after creating Levi Avera)... --aktsu(t / c) 21:10, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
I really do not know what to do at this point. I have been informed (and understand) that I was incorrect to revert his talkpage. What I really was trying to point out is that if he has been warned MANY times, he may (I guess you would say) 'Qualify' for a block at this point.--Christopher Kraus (talk) 20:56, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Blocks are preventative, not punitive though - so he'll have to continue doing something wrong to get blocked. It was right to bring it here though (I was thinking about it also) so we get more eye on him. --aktsu(t / c) 21:10, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Blocked indefinitely
I've indefinitely blocked him here for his behavior at Levi Avera. He doesn't get to remove AFD notices, say the "page is staying up no matter what" and otherwise annoy other people anymore. The moment he shows an interest in working with the rest of us, he's free to edit again. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:26, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Historical Jesus: religion class accused of sockpuppetry
Sorry, if this should go to some sock-puppetry project page, I'm not very familiar with proper procedure, but could someone clear up the situation at Talk:Historical Jesus#Latest edits; I asked the blocking admin to comment, but haven't heard from him. If a mistake was made, they should be unblocked. I didn't look at all their edits, but this one looks very good to me, although maybe be better suited at Quest for the historical Jesus. What is needed is simply someone to comment on that talk page to explain whether it was a case of genuine abuse or apologize and unblock if it wasn't. Thanks, Vesal (talk) 18:32, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
This has been resolved though mailing lists, probably shouldn't have brought it up here. Still, people with experience from WP:SUP who are interested in the topic might want to assist in suggesting ways forward, although it's a fairly small class. In any case, no further admin intervention is required, so this can be checked off. Thanks, Vesal (talk) 20:35, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Just to confirm resolution - two of the students emailed us at unblock-en-l, the first one without mentioning the class project, the second one did. We asked him to have the professor contact us. The professor did - from his school email address, which is clearly visible on the college website, along with the course information.
After verifying that this was a class project, it's clear that this was a moderate case of WP:BITE and inadequate out of band communications all around. Nobody left good talk page warnings for the class accounts, and they didn't use talk pages at all.
All of that said, now we know what happened, the class members have been unblocked, and given pointers to the various policies which seem to apply (from SOCK to EDITWAR and RS and V). The latter two seem to already be class focuses, trying to get better sources and better citations into the article, which was good to hear. Hopefully everyone can communicate better going forwards.
Jay32183(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log) - edit warring against other editors to add image deletion tags,[20][21][22][23][24] and [25][26][27][28] (among others), including deleting use rationales and source statements in support of deletion efforts, accuses editors who remove tags of "vandalism" (see edit summaries). I've given multiple warnings to the editor to tone it down, stop edit warring, don't accuse good faith editors of vandalism, etc.[29][30][31][32] to which the editor responded by filing a retaliatory / pre-emptive WP:AIV report against me[33] (which I removed as process gaming). That's obviously not working. I'm not the uploader of these old images, and in one of the two cases I'm not 100% sure the image is okay (the other is pretty obvious). But that's why we have process, right? I'm not going to engage with or revert this editor further. Please clarify the procedure and behavioral expectations for us and encourage the editor to be civil, avoid edit warring, etc. Any help is appreciated. Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 07:09, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Incidentally, from the reversion summaries it looks like the editor is improperly using rollback to accuse other editors of vandalism. They ought to be cautioned against that too. Wikidemon (talk) 07:49, 12 May 2009 (UTC)Stricken in light of below - thanks. Wikidemon (talk) 08:25, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Jay32183 does not have access to the rollback feature, h/she is using Twinkle. Landon1980 (talk) 07:53, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
We have here an editor who up until the end of last year edited as Tcob44 (talk·contribs) but since then has been using 2 IP addresses (at least) - and never signing with tildes but to give them some credit puting Tcob44 at the end of their posts. The pattern of personal attacks from last year has continued this year from both IPs - 67.34.225.133 (talk·contribs) and 68.217.45.11 (talk·contribs) and various warnings have been given. The problems this year have been at Talk:Triple Goddess and I also raised earlier this user's addition of an internal comment about me in article space[34]. As I am very involved I'm not going to take any action, but I would like some uninvolved eyes on this editor. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 07:40, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
I have to agree with Doug. The user also clearly has a specific POV they are trying to push (somewhat civilly at time), but completely refuses to acknowledge that they need to provide sources for it. I have given a final warning to the user over the personal attacks, but I wonder if someone else could help out. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:31, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Editing familiar subjects and already upsetting other editors [35]. I'm reporting here first because Lucy is so well known and prolific. However I can file a sockpuppet report if that would be useful. Regards Bksimonb (talk) 08:44, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
A Case of wiki-Hounding
Editor FyzixFighter (talk·contribs) has been engaged in a prolonged campaign of wiki-hounding. Since I opened my account last April, FyzixFighter has only ever come to physics pages to undermine my edits. There are no exceptions to this rule. This wiki-hounding has taken place on a number of pages including centrifugal force (rotating frames of reference), Kepler's laws of planetary motion, and Faraday's law of electromagnetic induction. His style is to claim not to have any opinions on the topic and then to proceed to undo the coherence and contents of my edits by purporting to quote from reliable sources. Recently he has been distorting the facts. At centrifugal force (rotating frames of reference), he attempted to turn the centrifugal force into a centripetal force. He has now followed me to the combined centrifugal force page and yesterday he undid a sourced edit of mine and replaced it with false information. On having this false information pointed out, he admitted it but nevertheless continued to undo my edits.
I can give a list of dates that will help to confirm this allegation,
25th April 2008
28th April, he went to the administrator's noticeboard and accused me of disruptive editing. Arguments continued into May and June.
23rd July 2008, he reverted an edit of mine on centrifugal force which has now finally been accepted in the light of sources provided.
23rd October 2008
31st January 2009, "Faraday's law of electromagnetic induction".
16th February 2009, "Kepler's laws of planetary motion".
22nd March 2009, "Kepler's laws of planetary motion".
23rd March 2009,
24th March 2009 "Faraday's law of induction".
A few days ago, he returned to centrifugal force (rotating frames of reference). When I deserted that page and went to 'centrifugal force', FyzixFighter also deserted that page and followed over to 'centrifugal force' were he has continued to undermine my edits. David Tombe (talk) 19:08, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Please provide diffs, not just lists of dates--it's highly time-consuming for everyone to try and hunt down the specific edits you're talking about. //roux 19:18, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm not seeing evidence of hounding here. But perhaps if you provide some diffs things will look different. Disagreeing with you isn't the same as undermining you. Theresa Knott | token threats 19:29, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Here is my take, based on looking at talk pages and contribs. David Tombe (talk ·contribs) has been blocked repeatedly for edit-warring, disruptive OR, and sock puppetry; he received a "last chance" unblock in October 2008. He is once again trying to insert his opinions into articles with no support from other editors, and is frustrated by the opposition. I don't see Wikihounding -- what I do see is an editor who is being kept on a very tight leash because of past misbehavior. I also see that David Tombe is an SPA who has very few edits outside the topic of centrifugal force. Ironically, some of these few edits were stalking of editors he disagreed with, notably of edits by FyzixFighter relating to Mormonism, but this has not happened since May 2008. Looie496 (talk) 19:57, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Looie496, you obviously didn't look at the whole picture surrounding that incident with FyzixFighter last May 2008. It began when FyzixFighter reported me for disruptive editing in relation to subject matter which has now been accepted into the article. FyzixFighter began at that time to revert all the edits which I was making in an attempt to suppress a perfectly legitimate viewpoint on centrifugal force. That's how that incident began. And you have obviously failed to note that I have edited on many topics other than centrifugal force. David Tombe (talk) 01:01, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
David Tombe also raised this on Jimbo's talk page [36]. Dougweller (talk) 20:57, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Out of curiosity, and as a question to the responding editors, what should be my appropriate action with regard to this thread? That is, should I provide rebuttals or any other types of responses to the accusations in the thread? I really don't want to turn this into a accusation/counter-accusation mess. --FyzixFighter (talk) 03:08, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Why not start by looking at the edits which FyzixFighter made yesterday to the centrifugal force page? You'll find the evidence if you want to find it. David Tombe (talk) 00:54, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
We will probably start by examining any evidence you present, in the form of diffs. Asking admins and uninvolved editors to wade through hotly contested physics articles to substantiate allegations of hounding will not avail you. If you don't provide evidence the most likely outcome is that your complaints will go unanswered and this thread will be archived. If you feel you have a long term problem with this user, please pursue dispute resolution. If you have an incident that requires immediate admin attention, please detail it here with diffs and we will try to sort things out. Protonk (talk) 01:23, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
That's a good one to start with [37]. He had no reason to alter the edit which I had just made and his alteration introduced an error. This has to be considered in light of the fact that he regulary arrives on physics articles which I edit and often reverts them without discussing the matter. You would have a hard job finding a physics edit that he has made that hasn't been for the purpose of undermining my physics edits. You've only got to look back over the last week. He came to one centrifugal force page (rotating frames of reference) and when I deserted it for the other page, he followed over. David Tombe (talk) 01:43, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Here's another example. He arrived out of the blue at 'Kepler's laws' and did this [38]. He had not been previously editing on the page. David Tombe (talk) 01:50, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
And here's another, [39]. He arrived out of the blue for that regarding a fact which was being denied then but is now accepted. David Tombe (talk) 01:56, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
I looked at two of your examples -- one is from 2008, and in the other the passage that FysixFighter reverted doesn't make sense. You're not going to get anywhere fighting this out on your own. Unless you can persuade other editors that you are right, it's a losing cause. Looie496 (talk) 03:07, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Looie496, could you elaborate on the passage which you say that I wrote which doesn't make sense. Can you explain exactly why you think that it doesn't make sense? David Tombe (talk) 16:41, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
This does not seem to fall under WP:HOUND, which says "The important component of wiki-hounding is disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing, or to the project generally, for no overriding reason." A lot of editors track problematic users, this can be to the benefit of Wikipedia. I certainly do at times. If David Tombe can provide evidence of "tendentiousness, personal attacks, or other disruptive behavior" as being the reason, we can examine them, but if not, I suggest he drops this. Dougweller (talk) 04:52, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
I never said that this would be an easy problem to solve, and I didn't come to this page eagerly to report it. What finally prompted me to report this issue was the fact that the basis of a settlement had been reached on the centrifugal force page with the assistance of a neutral arbitrator (Wilhelm-meis). The situation looked promising, but then FyzixFighter came in again and trampled over all my edits and essentially removed them. The edits in question were actually my contribution to the alternative point of view which I am actually opposed to, and I was supplying interesting information regarding its development. FyzixFighter's alterations were factually incorrect and he did later admit that and thank me from bringing the matter to his attention. But the overall effect has been that, as on the Faraday's law page and the Kepler's law page, it became clear that I wasn't going to be allowed to edit without FyzixFighter unnecessarily trampling over those edits. I can list alot more cases. But I think that the most recent case is sufficient evidence in its own right, as it exposes the sheer emptiness of FyzixFighter's intervention. If the whole matter were to be fully investigated, I think that you'd all find that FyzixFighter played a major role in getting me brought to the attention of the administrators in a bad light, this time last year. And it was in relation to my attempts to insert the planetary orbital approach into the centrifugal force page. That approach has now been accepted, but the arguments continue on a more subtle level due to certain editors trying to play it down by subsuming it into their own point of view, or by relegating it to the history section.
At any rate, the important thing is that the matter has been brought to your attention. I will continue trying to improve that article, and other physics articles, and indeed other articles generally. I hope that the situation will be monitored with impartial eyes.
I would however like to say one thing in FyzixFighter's favour. I can see from the arguments on the talk page that he has clearly learned alot about these topics as a result of his interventions. Often he was forced to research the issues subsequent to his reversions. There was a time (see his talk page) when I thought that maybe he had realized that he had been prematurely intervening. I thought that some kind of understanding had been reached over the issue of the Stratton reference (Faraday's law page) (see his talk page). FyzixFighter clearly does have the ability to comprehend complex physics subjects. But unfortunately the last straw came when he trampled over my edits on Saturday. His intervention was totally pointless and he does not appear to be willing to discuss the wider aspects of the subject with an open mind even though I'm sure that he is fully capable of understanding the issues. For some reason, he wants to bury Leibniz's approach to planetary orbits. David Tombe (talk) 10:06, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
This edit reveals that David Tombe has some fairly non-standard ideas about physics, and seems to show that he is attempting to use Wikipedia to promote them without quite breaking the letter of the rules. Cardamon (talk) 07:53, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Cardamon, No. I have been attempting to bring coherence to topics in physics in which I have done alot of research, and as you say 'without breaking the rules'. I stumbled across a number of topics such as Faraday's law, Kepler's laws, and centrifugal force. They were in a total mess. These are very tricky subjects and I wanted to expose the underlying patterns such as to make them more easily accessible for the average reader. As regards Faraday's law, I was trying to clarify the unity behind the two aspects of electromagnetic induction. Why should you find that to be such a big problem?
Brews ohare seemed genuinely curious about all the same physics subjects that I was editing on, and you have now dug up a conversation between myself and Brews which has got absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the subject matter of this complaint. I suggest that you go to FyzixFighter's edits on Saturday and see if you can find out why he did them. David Tombe (talk) 11:47, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Could I get a neutral admin to try and calm this user down so that he actually talks calmly instead of accusing everyone within reach of conspiring to ban him? -Jeremy(v^_^vCardmaker) 04:09, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
This would certainly be great, as the user in question has basically promised to sock. A Checkuser, who I believe is capable of reviewing individual users' send e-mail logs, may want to check Popartpete's to confirm his use thereof, considering this edit. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 10:36, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Not only that, but he has done done almost nothing except to try to promote his film and online book. —Travistalk 12:48, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
I had a look at (Aa45955 (talk·contribs)} contributions summary. When I checked about a minute ago, they had only made about fourteen edits. I agree with whoever sensed an act of sockpuppetry on the articles for deletion page.--The Legendary Sky Attacker 07:09, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
AfD just closed with OTRS involvement. -Jeremy(v^_^vCardmaker) 07:54, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Glancing over the ticket, I just want to point that this is a normal speedy keep and not an OTRS response to complaints. -- Luktalk 12:13, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I have been involved in a dispute with User:Schuminweb for over two years and yet the user still ignores me. Can someone have a look? Its infuriating because he keeps on blocking me when all I try to do is reach a conciliatory measure where both of us have closure, but he insists on ignoring me time after time after time. I don't want to come back to edit here, I've made it very clear that once he recognises that I exist - as in, a comment in an edit summary telling me to go away would satisfy me - that I'd go away for good. Can someone please help him to stop being so obtuse? Its unfuriating. 86.40.101.207 (talk) 11:19, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
diffs to some of these comments would help. rdunnPLIB 11:27, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
There are literally thousands. I've been banned for Gods sake by this zealous user. You'll really need to force him to engage, he is being obtuse as per usual. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.101.207 (talk) 11:28, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Calling him a imbecile isn't helping your case at all. The fact of the matter is, your IP has changed and your contributions no longer show us the history between you two. Unless you have any proof that anything at all has happened in the form of diffs, or previous accounts, theres no point being here because no action can be taken. Matty (talk) 11:32, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Well thats what he is. I have dynamic IPs, I'd safely say I've contacted him well over 1,000 times to bring this to an end. A quick search in history would be illuminating. 86.40.101.207 (talk) 11:42, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
help!
i've recently been the victim of another attack by a sockpuppet of User:Anti Manchu Lobby, the attacks stopped a while ago but now his new account, the username of which insults me directly, is attacking me again simply because i'm a manchu and i am proudn of being chinese at the same time, the attacks has gone too far and kept repeating, and i have enough of it, please check my talk history, as well as the hist ory of Template:User Manchu Chinese, this guy and his IPs has done too much aganist me, i'm afraid that any further attacks might make me snap and start cursing and insulting him, please help me! i can't stand this rasist any longer, please help me! Btzkillerv (talk) 12:50, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
In the meantime, I have semi-protected your user talk page for a year, so that new editors and IP's can't post to it. If you don't want this, just let me know and I'll obviously undo it. Fram (talk) 13:00, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
JBsupreme was the subject of a recent AN/I thread (found here) of which the result was a message being left on his talk page, advising him to stop his “problematic edit summaries” or stop using edit summaries altogether, and to report problems to administrators directly rather then in his edit summaries. Anyway, since then I've kept half an eye on him, and for a while he seemed to improve. But recently he's managed to stack up quite a few (some more serious then others):
I attempted to leave him a message regarding this, which he promptly deleted and left me this message. So basically, continuing from the last thread which obviously had little to no effect, this is a shame because he does do good work. Also, could someone notify him of this please? (although he can't stop me from posting at his talk page, he has asked me not to) - Kingpin13 (talk) 13:59, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
the last one is internet speak for 'die in a fire please' Syrthiss (talk) 14:03, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Ah, thank you, couldn't find any google hits - Kingpin13 (talk) 14:05, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Edit summary example: this goddamn article is getting semi-protected RIGHT FFING NOW. Out of step with the appropriate tone: imagine if everyone wrote that way? DurovaCharge! 14:34, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
What bothers me most out of the above, is this. I believe a block may be appropriate? - Kingpin13 (talk) 14:39, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Overuse of punctuation is a horrendous offense against good taste. ;) Seriously, that's no way to write a warning. The reason behind the warning may have been correct, but it's much better to go with a simple template. If the vandal was a troll that only encourages more trouble. DurovaCharge! 15:07, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Agree with Durova. However JBsupreme's only left one ALL CAPS edit summary today. A block would seem a little punitive to me. I agree this is incredibly disruptive behaviour and if it happens again then it'll be time to block, but the diffs look a little on the stale side. I suggest we give a last and final warning and monitor his use of edit summaries and if they are in any way problematic in the future go ahead and block starting with a week's duration--Caililtalk 15:12, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
The thing is that he's been given plenty of warnings, and still doesn't seem to be about to stop. However, I'm happy with a final warning, on the basis that it is a final warning and this is made clear to him. Naturally, the best result would be for him to keep up his good work but stop with the uncivil behaviour - Kingpin13 (talk) 15:26, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
I would say that a final warning accompanied by a 20 minute block would drive home the point. He probably won't smarten up until he sees that the warning is clear.--Iner22 (talk) 16:49, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
His tone sucks (allcaps is usually perceived as shouting). But with the exception of DIAFPLZ ("die in a fire", whose tone I don't really know; is this meant in jest?), I'm not so bothered by any of this that I'd block him for it. It doesn't seem to affect the people it is directed at, but rather offends our sensitive sensibilities. Somewhat unrelated, this guy is doing BLP patrolling and he's frustrated. So while his edit summaries may be inappropriate, let's please keep in mind that he is a valuable contributor that we should be trying to keep around. I'd be inclined to warn again, more sternly.--chaser (talk) 17:33, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
I do and have said that his edits helpful and welcome, and certainly we want to "keep him around", but preferable without his uncivil edit summaries. If you could warn again, that would seem to be the best track. A 20 minute block seems inappropriate, and I doubt it would help. - Kingpin13 (talk) 18:08, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
I believe that if applied at the right moment, the block could be useful, but that's me. I guess we could do with a final warning, and hopefully someone will be watching his contributions carefully.--Iner22 (talk) 18:21, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Well, he appears to have stepped back from the cliff's edge for the moment. He presents the symptoms of a WikiBurnout, & hopefully will take the appropriate steps to cure it. -- llywrch (talk) 17:23, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Agre22
Agre22 (talk·contribs) has been warned numerous times about making useless edits to talk pages, as can be seen on the editor's talk page. The last warning, by Beeblebrox on May 10, said, "This is the fifth time you have been warned about using talk pages as a forum. Consider it your last warning, do it again and you will be blocked". Now today we have these edits. I will notify the editor of this thread. Looie496 (talk) 02:32, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
I would say block away. This user has been doing it over the past several days on dozens and dozens of talk pages and one GA nomination page. Clear disruption and unwillingness to change, especially after several warnings given. MuZemike 03:36, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Agreed, I warned Agre22 earlier this year [50] He must know it is wrong by now, so I suspect he is attempting to troll. Ryan4314 (talk) 08:08, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
This case is clear-cut, would somebody with buttons pull the trigger please? Or is it being left as a counterexample to DougsTech? Looie496 (talk) 14:34, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Blocked for 72 hours for disruptive editing. TNXMan 16:35, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Anon 71.17.72.143
71.17.72.143 (talk·contribs) has been trying to use the talk page of Supernatural (TV series) as a forum, constantly making the posts asking which character users would rather have sex with, and in the most recent edit also added a list of spoilers. The anon was previously at a different IP address, and had been warned multiple times, and the final warning was issued recently for the anon's newest IP. Ophois (talk) 03:33, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Block away. See same reason as in the above section. MuZemike 03:38, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Do I have the ability to block an anon? I thought only admins could do that. Ophois (talk) 03:41, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Only admins can block anyone, including IPs. -- Darth Mike (talk) 03:49, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
In that case, can an admin please settle the situation with the anon? Thanks. Ophois (talk) 04:13, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
The anon appears to have stopped (from that IP, anyway). In the future, you may want to consider listing this at AIV. TNXMan 16:41, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
In a search for info on the Legion, I found this wikipedia entry. However as soon as I started reading, it seemed that some dubious editing has been done.
e.g. in the first line:"The French Foreign Legion (French: Légion étrangère) is a unique unit of strapping gay harry men in the French Army, established in 1831. The legion was specifically created as a result of violent sodomey with foreign volunteers, to be commanded by French officers;"
Actually, with nine incidents of vandalism straight after the expiration of a one-year {{schoolblock}}, I have imposed a further year's block on this IP address. Rodhullandemu 16:13, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
His homepage contains an e-mail link, and a link to his sockpuppet account. This e-mail appears on his talk; he put it there.
He's still a threat to the community. Per StrategyWiki delete log, a ton of welcome spam pages were removed. His rationale was to flood recent changes. Even though events on other Wikis is not the direct concern of Wikipedia, he seems to demonstrate a pattern for disruption.
He's made at least one edit like that on Wikipedis: diff for a user with no contributions.
With this edit, he seems to already be aware of the WP anti-spam system.
My assessment is that a sock is likely. --75.119.225.33 (talk) 16:45, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
No only is it backlogged a bit, but there's a serious formatting problem that's making everything look closed when it isn't, which probably contributes to the backlog problem.—Kww(talk) 16:48, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
The formatting error is fixed, it was an editor's subst'ed signature that included an unclosed div statement (a great argument for disallowing substitution; malformed HTML is allowed to make its way through). –xenotalk 16:52, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't see the formatting problem, and there only appears to be two unclosed MfDs that I'll take care of... — Scientizzle 16:52, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
MRDU08 (talk·contribs) has uploaded hundreds of images that appear to me to be clear copyright violations. There is a history of notice messages on his/her talk page (all of which MRDU08 has ignored), but he/she is now tagging images with "I created this work entirely by myself" and licensed with {{self|cc-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}}, which will make the bots stop. But it seems terribly unlikely that this user took original photos of all those beauty pageant contestants, and also drew hundreds of flag images. I have previously tried to engage this user on a related issue, but MRDU08 has never replied to any message left on his/her talkpage. I'd like another set of eyes to look at those image contributions before going ahead with deleting the images and perhaps blocking the user. Thanks — Andrwsc (talk·contribs) 03:45, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
I am going to guess that with just this image that the maps are taken probably from Wikipedia and the colors added in with MS Paint. They just look like they are made on VERY quickly. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 03:52, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Looks like a good faith user who's just uploading images of his own work. Although there's some suspicion as some images look extremely professional, such as File:MRD 1991 Melissa Vargas.jpg.jpg, there could be a chance that he's a proffesional photographer. -download ׀ sign! 04:01, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
@Neutralhomer: I'm not worried so much about that kind of image; it's the claim that images like File:Mía Taveras.jpg and File:Flag of Paris.PNG are self-created. — Andrwsc (talk·contribs) 04:08, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
@Download: I'm more inclined to believe WP:DUCK than WP:AGF here... But that's why I wanted more opinions. My guess is that the user has good-faith intentions to add pictures to his/her favorite Wikipedia topic, but isn't concerned about copyright. — Andrwsc (talk·contribs) 04:08, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
I disagree with that assessment entirely. The image file size and ratios are indicative of being grabbed from web-pages. If he were a professional or amareur photographer it is more likely that some much larger file sizes and much more consistent aspect ratios are being used. My guess is that he is a good content contributor who doesn't understand the copyvio policy. I'm going to look more at the images to see which ones are really obvious. Protonk (talk) 04:09, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't think I'd characterize the user as "a good content contributor." He's already created a number of hoax articles dealing with beauty pageants and Dominican Republic provinces that have been deleted at AfD.[51][52][53] It's a wonder that he hasn't been indefinitely blocked before this. Deor (talk) 15:07, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
No metadata, claims images from a 2005 beauty pageant were created by himself this month. Nuke. DurovaCharge! 04:45, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Given User_talk:MRDU08#Your_moves, it's clear this is not a user who pay much attention to what others are requesting of him. This many months of violations should be enough for most people. I suggest a strong warning that the next copyright violation he has uploaded will result in a block. At the very least, given the ones we clearly know about, he needs to explain to use whether images like File:City Hall in Moca.jpg, more difficult to determine, are really his or he's just been lying the whole time. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:47, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Actually, I think the fact that he has zero talkspace edits (all page moves) and minimal user talkspace edits (majority actually in Spanish) should clarify. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:50, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
I randomly fed some images into Tineye and got:
File:MRD 2005 Renata Soñé.jpg <= [54] - might find a few more here as well
File:Municipalities of the province of San Pedro de Macorís.jpg <= [55] - is this a Wiki mirror? What is the license? MER-C 07:06, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
First one deleted, second one sent to PUI. Protonk (talk) 02:29, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
contributions is a pretty obvious role account for the Miss República Dominicana Universo, likely created for the 2008 pageant. It's likely they own the copyrights to the images being uploaded, but they're giving no evidence of permission. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 15:05, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Also, judging from MRDU08's user talk page, he/she likely does not speak English (or at least does not speak it as a primary language). It might be worth asking someone to translate a necessary request for confirmation of permissions. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 15:09, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
I disagree w/ that conclusion too. I think it is obvious that the account was named in the fashion you describe, but it is not obvious at all that this means the account owner is the pageant operator. Furthermore, there is no indication that the pageant owns the copyright for the bulk of these picture (rather than the photographer at the shoot). And again, if they were the pageant operator and did own the photos, why would they upload compressed jpgs in sizes and ratios common to websites or promos? Protonk (talk) 19:13, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
I've seen similar behavior before in role accounts. I've got a couple thoughts as to why this is. First, organizations have press kits and promo materials made to standardize their appearance in the media, and to make it substantially easier for media people to write about their organization. Second, it's likely that the agent or agents responsible for editing Wikipedia on behalf of this organization do not have access to full-resolution images, and likely wouldn't seek access because of the extra time and trouble involved for their superiors/clients and themselves. But, I agree, it's not blatantly obvious that the account is related to the pageant.
But... if the account isn't a role account, then the username itself is inappropriate per WP:IU, as it is deceptive (leads outsiders to believe that the account is being operated by the pageant operators). Yet, if it is a role account, it's in violation of m:ROLE. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 19:35, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Uploaders have a proactive responsibility to demonstrate that the images they contribute are legal. AGF doesn't mean assume competence; it only means we assume the intention to comply. There is no evidence at all that this person has a right to upload this material, which is presumptively under full copyright. DurovaCharge! 16:48, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
I've asked for a fluent spanish speaker to leave a message on his talk page. I don't hold too much hope, but we should exhaust that option before moving to the next step (blocking and working backward through the uploads to remove likely copyvios). Protonk (talk) 22:02, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
User:Jmabel has been kind enough to translate the warning. I'm going to give things a day or so for a response. If the warning is ignored then I plan to block the account and start tagging images. Protonk (talk) 05:07, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
In regard to the above, the image File:Miss France 2009.jpg would appear to have been taken from Reuters. While I can't confirm it, it appears as a Reuter's image in a (now inaccessible) database that Reuters had been supporting in the past. It may be significant that this is from the Miss France 2009 competition, rather than the Dominican Republic. - Bilby (talk) 06:20, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
The user has received two warnings in Spanish and has failed to reply. Has continued to edit without responding. Although the new edits aren't uploads, WP:COPYVIO authorizes blocking until the user acknowledges the existing problem and helps to remedy it by disclosing which sources were used. DurovaCharge! 15:14, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Added a third request in Spanish for this user to begin a dialog. DurovaCharge! 15:19, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
I'll block him tonight if there isn't some pressing reason to do it earlier. I welcome anyone else doing it earlier should they feel that the situation merits more urgency. Protonk (talk) 16:00, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
I looked a little deeper into this, and I think we may have some more cleanup work to do. Basically, this user has two types of questionable image uploads, around two topics of interest: beauty pageants and flags. I believe that a few different accounts were used along the way:
from April 7 to August 14 2007, Cmm 394 (talk·contribs) uploaded several images purported to be flags of provinces of the Dominican Republic, and created List of Dominican flags to display them. There is a note on user talk:Cmm 394 claiming it is a sockpuppet of "DominicanBoy", although I can't find any links to that username.
edited as 24.190.179.181 (talk·contribs·WHOIS) on similar articles from March 22 to June 3, 2007
edited as 24.190.187.93 (talk·contribs·WHOIS) from December 9, 2007 to February 12, 2008
On January 28, 2008 (only), Las Provincias Dominicanas (talk·contribs) was created and uploaded 32 flag images, all with the source and author fields of the image summary template set to nothing more than "Carlos". Several of these images were later modified by the MRDU08 account.
Based on the long list of unanswered comments at Talk:List of Dominican flags and the various user talk pages, I believe that the Dominican province flags are original research. None appear to have any reliable sources. In addition to the rather apparent copyvios of the pageant contestant photograph images, I believe most if not all of these flag images also have reason for deletion. I also note that MRDU08 has been editing after the talkpage requests (in both English and Spanish) were posted, but did not reply. I think a block is in order until we get explanation for both types of his/her image uploads. — Andrwsc (talk·contribs) 22:25, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Sheesh... the flag stuff had sort of set off a little alarm in the back of my head but I didn't think much of it at the time. But looking at how it's presented here... yeah, looks like a block might be the right thing to do. It would also be a good idea, considering this possible past of sockpuppetry, to keep an eye on the images in question and have a CU run if new accounts show up. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 23:56, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Ok. I deleted some pageant images and listed some others for deletion. I'll work on this tomorrow. I don't even know what to do about the flags. There are hundreds of them. Protonk (talk) 02:53, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
But wait, there's more! Check out commons:Special:Contributions/MRDU08 for a hundred or so more flags and the occasional beauty pageant photo upload. In those instances, it is crystal clear that the flags were lifted directly from the "Flags of the World" (FOTW) website, and are certainly subject to speedy deletion from Commons for that reason. I have requested help there. — Andrwsc (talk·contribs) 06:01, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
If there was some rough consensus here to simply delete all those images, then I'd certainly be willing to do the grunt work. But strictly speaking, there is no CSD criteria to do that, and I think tagging everything with {{pui}} and listing them all for discussion is a large and unnecessary effort. I'm looking for an endorsement here to delete the images based on the evidence we have so far. — Andrwsc (talk·contribs) 19:42, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
I think the images fall into three categories. Recent pageant images, where some copy of the image is easy to find. Old pageant images, where a copy o the image is difficult to find, and maps. I suspect that the maps are from 1-2 sources (like FOTW) and once we find sources for the proponderance of them we can nuke the rest. The new pageant images will be looked at (at least by me over the next few days) and deleted if possible. The old pageant images will be sent to PUI, because that lets us delete them after a period of time unless someone can show they are free images. Protonk (talk) 20:07, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
I presume you meant "flags" instead of "maps". (Although, MRDU08 also uploaded some maps!) I think it will be easy to find FOTW versions for many of the countries, but I think the real head-scratcher might be what to do with the flags of Dominican Republic provinces. My suspicion is that he/she actually did create most of those images, but by pasting (possibly copyrighted) coats-of-arms images over easy to draw backgrounds. For example, File:Flag of Paris.PNG seems to be a paste of File:Paris coa.png from Commons (which actually shouldn't even be there, as it looks like a thumbnail lifted from http://vector-images.com/image.php?epsid=1675 !). That makes them somewhat of a blend of copyvio and original research, I suppose. I find the comments on Talk:List of Dominican flags and various user talk pages to be revealing, that there doesn't seem to be any reliable sources that many (all?) even exist. I would have to believe that most of these would not survive a trip to WP:IFD, but that is a lot of work to go through that process. — Andrwsc (talk·contribs) 20:24, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Could an admin please undo this user's move of Heredia, Costa Rica to San Francisco de Heredia? The new title is not supported by the source cited by MRDU08, and a glance at the es.wikipedia page, as well as reliable sources elsewhere on the Web, confirms that "Heredia" is the official name of the provincial capital. (San Francisco de Heredia is merely one of the five districts of the city.) I realize that most folks here are, understandably, concerned about the user's image uploads, but it seems to me that someone familiar with the topics will have to review every one of his content edits as well. I would have taken this to WP:RM, except that an alert about MRDU08's non-image edits needs to be sounded somewhere, and I don't know where else to do it. Deor (talk) 19:25, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Done. But the article may need some copy-editing in the intro to reflect the move. — Andrwsc (talk·contribs) 19:42, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, Andrwsc. Deor (talk) 20:11, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
User:Landon1980 Incivility/Personal Attacks
– Closed by agreement of the submitter. EdJohnston (talk) 19:56, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
User:Landon1980 has been attacking me recently. The issue began with an editor who wanted to change a lead sentence for Thousand Foot Crutch to say they are Christian rock instead of just rock. Landon responded claiming that "When a band is listed as being many genres you put the most general one in the lead sentence, not pick on of the many and place it there." Seen toward bottom of this thread. I responded that "I'm certainly not opposed to keeping it as just "rock" if it is indeed policy to list the most general one in the lead sentence." I went on to say that I did agree with the other editor, but I would side with policy. Here's where Landon gets offensive.
Landon stated:"I'm not having another brick-wall discussion with you, nor am I taking the time the educate you regarding the common practice of genres on wikipedia. Use some common sense, Christian rock is one of three genres that are listed for the band, all which are some type of rock. I will not sit here and beat a dead horse, engaging in some pointless discussion with you. If you have problem with the current version request a third opinion, or seek some other type of dispute resolution. Now I think I'll go pound on my foot with a hammer."
Describes my point of view in discussions as being consistent with a brick-wall.
Insults my knowledge of Wikipedia policy/practices when I simply/politely asked for the policy he was claiming.
Said I don't use common sense.
Compares our discussion as beating a dead horse and pointless.
Ends by implying he'd rather bang his foot with a hammer than have a valid conversation about article content with me.
I responded and told him that the comment was disrespectful and told him not to insult me again. I also left a comment on his talk page stating:"I would appreciate it if you would not insult me by categorizing my input and consensus in discussion about an article (which was entirely appropriate and polite). I honestly have NO PROBLEM at all adhering to any policy (whether it by spirit or letter of policy) that specifies to word the lead sentence a particular way. I do, however, object to you just blurting out that this is how we do it without any justification or grounds. Have a great day."
He then removed the comment from his user page, which I understand is allowed although not preferred. However, in the edit summary he insulted me again by writing "I would appreciate if you would learn how to read, and how to use a talk page."
He implied that I do not know how to read (although I'm not sure what it is he was expecting me to have read).
He also implied that I was incorrectly using the talk page, by warning him of his incivility. However, he has in the past used my talk page to warn me and falsely accuse me of incivility. (This was quite some time ago, and this complaint is not related to or in response to that event).
Also, he went on to respond to my comment on the Thousand Foot Crutch talk page by stating:"Seriously though, I'd rather shoot myself in the foot as talk to you."
There have been other, recent personal attack incidents involving Landon's hostility. They were filed in the wrong place and may or may not have been correct, but it might be beneficial to look at. This can be seen here.
None of this is helpful in fostering a hospitable environment for editors. It should be noted that Landon did go on to revert my edit without gaining consensus (the only two opinions other than his were mine and the editor who originally suggested changing the lead-in sentence). Thanks. Wikiwikikid (talk) 21:24, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
The archived ANI thread was dismissed as being eseentially not serious enough to merit admin intervention (the exact phrase used was "WP:TROUT for all") and to be honest I'm not seeing anything dreadfully serious here either. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 21:41, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
I will be avoiding this thread, the one at editor review, and at WQA if at all possible because I admittedly have a hard time keeping my cool when dealing with this particular editor. I'll monitor the thread(s) and will be around if needed. Landon1980 (talk) 21:46, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Which one should we keep open for the forum-shopper...this one? The WQA?? Neither??? (talk→BWilkins←track) 21:54, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
I am not a "forum-shopper." I initially posted in one location. I was directed to 2 other locations. I am not sho[ping for a forum and am happy to keep it in one place. I simply wasn't sure which was the correct location. Wikiwikikid (talk) 04:04, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Ok, so I closed the WQA thread, since there had at least been a couple of replies here, and I gave the OP my brand new User:Bwilkins/forumshopping template (talk→BWilkins←track) 23:53, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
As you can see, the editor admits that he can't keep his cool with me. I'm honestly not sure why. We've disagreed on some articles before, but we've also agreed on others. Also, Sheffield, I did concede that the previous attack accusations may or may not be correct. However, it bears credence that he is having issues with multiple editors. As for my personal problems with him, I am not claiming that it is "dreadfully serious." However, a user doesn't need to be subjected to "dreadfully serious" harassment to have a valid complaint. Wikiwikikid (talk) 04:04, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
I did go to dispute resolution which guided me to WP:Editor assistance first. At that forum, it was suggested I come to here by one editor (the editor who the complaint is against). Another editor suggested WP:WQA. I (incorrectly) posted at both. The WP:WQA post was closed because this one already had replies, so it was decided to keep this one open. Also, while the incivil action is not "dreadfully serious" (resonates with threats or terrorizing implications) my complaint certainly IS serious. Thanks. Wikiwikikid (talk) 14:58, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) Let's go 1 thru 7 (first 5, plus last 2)
"Brick-wall discussion" - not uncivil, it's descriptive of a level of receptiveness to discussion.
"nor am I taking the time the educate you" - could have taken the time, but obvious elevated frustration level, but not uncivil
"Use some common sense" does not mean that you did NOT use common sense, not uncivil
"I will not sit here and beat a dead horse, engaging in some pointless discussion" We talk about dead horse discussion all the time in ANI - not uncivil, merely a descriptive term about a discussion that is not going anywhere, and is well past going anywhere
"I'll go pound on my foot with a hammer" - good for him, hope he enjoys it. Not uncivil.
"I would appreciate if you would learn how to read" - well, if someone points something out, and you ignore it, what else can he say? Not uncivil.
"...how to use a talk page". You did not use his talkpage properly - you posted your message at the TOP instead of at the bottom where it belonged. He was advising you to learn that - not uncivil, and indeed trivial.
Perhaps you should have taken the time to review the links rather than just the post. The accusations of my engaging in a brick-wall discussion, lack of common sense, and deadhorse discussions are ALL unsubstantiated and therefore insulting (and incivil). As for him saying he'd appreciate if I learn to read, clearly I can read, or I wouldn't be participating in this conversation. Further, your assertion that I ignored something he pointed out is false. He did not point anything out, and he did not instruct me on what I had done wrong or needed to improve (which I gladly would have done/have done). I don't understand how you can say that someone saying having a conversation with you is pointless (without merit) or that you don't have common sense or that you are illiterate are not "insulting." Again, these aren't dreadfully serious accusations, which is why I would have rather solved between the editor or at dispute resolution. However neither of those methods worked. Just because the accusations aren't dreadfully serious does not mean they are not insulting or incivil. Wikiwikikid (talk) 16:01, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
After further discussion with Landon, and after reviewing the purpose of WP:ANII would like this thread closed. My intention was not/is not to have him blocked. I'd much rather just have an administrator take action to encourage him to work collaboratively rather than insultingly with myself and other editors. The Wikipedia community and the articles are greatly improved by collaboration rather than insults/arguments. Wikiwikikid (talk) 16:10, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
libelous material posted to talk page after explicit warning
Over at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/West Bank - Judea and Samaria/Proposed decision a debate had been on-going regarding a Norman Finklestein. An editor made the claim that no seriously literate person holds the position that Finkelstein is a Holocaust minimizer. It was pointed out to that editor that that claim is false, and examples of a couple of intellectuals and academics who hold that position were provided. Knowing that editor's editing history and her numerous blocks for incivility, personal attacks and harassment I cautioned her that WP:BLP applies on every project page and that she should refrain from making potentially libelous claims against living people. The response was this, in which a living person, who is a professor at a notable university was called "a convicted libeler and an intellectual incompetent". NoCal100 (talk) 04:31, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Is the person in question convicted of libel? Because referring to someone as intellectually incompetent in a talk page is bad but not bad enough that I'm going to stifle debate because of it. Protonk (talk) 04:42, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Ok, in that case I don't think we should seek to block this editor for that comment. Protonk (talk) 04:55, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, Protonk. The focus of this "libel" discussion has been most peculiar. We have editors calling a notable living academic a "Holocaust denier"; when it's pointed out that this is false, they say alright alright, we'll settle for "Holocaust minimizer"; when it's pointed out that this too is rank balderdash, that "no serious literate person" believes this, the thought of "libel" first enters the minds of these fine fellows, these schoolboys who throw around accusations of Holocaust denial like firecrackers on the fourth of July. The schoolboy is now very serious: it seems that my rhetoric ("no serious literate person") was too hard on his favorite convicted libeler, whose libelous statements he then quotes in full, in order to demonstrate, presumably, the convicted libeler's literacy, which I had libelously maligned. Or something.--G-Dett (talk) 12:44, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Libel is not a criminal offence (well except in very limited circumstances). This was a civil action for damages not a trial on a criminal offence so referring to it as a "conviction" is misleading. He was found liable for damages, not convicted of a criminal offence. Picky point but IAAL and the distinction is important. – ukexpat (talk) 16:59, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
This is spillover from a 2007 effort by Alan Dershowitz to keep Norman Finkelstein from getting tenure at DePaul University, the main issue being Finkelstein's book The Holocaust Industry. See this New York Times article. The NYT writes "If the longstanding fight between two professors, Alan Dershowitz and Norman Finkelstein, was under the jurisdiction of family court, a judge could issue restraining orders and forbid inflammatory statements. But, alas, this nasty and zealously pursued feud is taking place in scholarly precincts, so each protagonist is continuing his campaign, unhampered, to destroy the other’s professional reputation and career." That's the underlying problem. The Wikipedia problem is a spinoff of that one. The events should be written up as a political controversy - "A says B about C", avoiding generalities and using reliable sources. --John Nagle (talk) 17:22, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
So, given this result from that arbcom case, I'm going to assume that means both of you guys are going to avoid these articles in the future, correct? Protonk (talk) 18:43, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Edit warring, ownership issues, disruption
Regarding an image at Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 May 7#LawrenceFobesKing.jpg (an image twice now nommed for deletion by this user), Damiens.rf (talk·contribs) seems to be having some serious issues regarding the image and articles it's being used in. Edit warring at Violence against LGBT people to remove the image, removing required Fair Use Rationales from File:LawrenceFobesKing.jpg, removing the image from 2008 in LGBT rights, apparent agenda issue here with editing of articles about gay people killed because of their sexual orientation. All the while claiming some big gay conspiracy on my talk page. I filed a 3RR report much earlier today but nothing came of it, except him accusing me of being a sockpuppet. His editing is disruptive and needs to be addressed. -ALLST✰R▼echowuz here @ 05:52, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
All of the other tendentious editing is in his contributions log. -ALLST✰R▼echowuz here @ 05:59, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
And now edit warring at File:LawrenceFobesKing.jpg, removing Fair Use Rationales again, which are required for non-free images used in articles. -ALLST✰R▼echowuz here @ 06:11, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Well that seems silly. Why is he wasting his time screwing with FURs when he's trying to get the image deleted at the same time? It's rather like arguing about what color you want to paint your house this week when you know full well that you're planning to tear it down next week. 68.43.196.251 (talk) 21:43, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Are admins sleeping? Hello? Knock knock? :P -ALLST✰R▼echowuz here @ 07:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
[56] I'd talk to SoWhy if you want article protection. Try settling things with him (the other user, not the admin) first. As for sleeping, actually most likely. :) It's 1 am -4 am (depending on your time zone) in USA, roughly noon - 1 pm in Europe, so most admins are working/school. And those aussies are somewhere.. :D As for me, I'm an insomniac. jk. Icestorm815 • Talk 08:11, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
I've tried directing him to the talk page but he refuses. -ALLST✰R▼echowuz here @ 08:22, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Alright, I've reverted his actions at the image and gave him a note about it. I'll leave the disruption be and watch him for a little while before I head to sleep. Allstar, feel free to notify me if he continues on his rampage and I'll start protecting the pages and hard warnings, if not blocks, if he doesn't stop. At least from the FfD discussion, he isn't alone which is good or bad. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:11, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
That was silly. What was the point of reinstating broken fair use rationales for articles the image is not use in? Are you seriously planing to use that boy's non-free mugshot to help the understanding of 2008 in LGBT rights? --Damiens.rf 13:38, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Deal with that later. You can't honestly ask that the image be deleted completely because it doesn't have a use and at the same time remove all its uses as evidence. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:11, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
No clue needed. This is Canvassing by cross-posting at its finest. Too many are !voting instead of giving cogent reasons. As it now true on far too many AfDs entirely. Collect (talk) 11:33, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
This is crazy. Maybe we should at least deal with the two editors who are causing the problem? Disruption? Dougweller (talk) 11:46, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
I concur with the diagnosis of disruption. KillerChihuahua?!? 11:49, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
It's not really his fault that the editors now commenting aren't doing it properly, he hasn't sought out anyone in particular. From what I can see you haven't really brought this up with him before coming here or informed him of this discussion on his talk page which is what ideally you should do. If you've discussed this with him off his talk page then I retract my previous statement as thats the only place I looked. I'm not an admin, but i'd suggest simply reverting the entry on categories that don't fit and then asking him to be more careful in further. WP:CANVASS doesn't seem to solidly apply here as he doesn't look like he's trying to attract a certain group of editors to sway the debate, and he's not cross-posting per the definition on WP:CANVASS either. He's simply using the AfD category pages to inform editors about an AfD they may be interested which is what they're supposed to be used for (granted some of the categories might be inappropriate). Matty (talk) 11:55, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Never mind, I think I was looking at the wrong editor. I'll change things around once I look again. I was looking at Ism schism's talk page, not TharsHammar's. Sorry. Most of my points still apply though, it seems like he's just included a popular topic in a lot of categories. The AfD should be deleted from some of the unrelated catergories, and someone needs to have a chat to him about how it's not helpful to add the discussion to mildly related categories. Matty (talk) 12:03, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
I agree that the last set of deletion discussion additions were unnecessary. I'm not sure how they were really disruptive. In any case I suggest that they be undone. Tnegnitally-related topics aren't needed. Yes, everybody is an organism, and another editor joked about adding that the AFD to that list, but I don't think it should have been taken literally. Will Bebacktalk 12:07, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Someone should remove them, they're unhelpful and pointy. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:11, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
I agree, but again, as the nominator, I am not the person to address this. KillerChihuahua?!? 12:13, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
One good way to figure out what is going on is to inform me that you are mentioning an issue I am involved in. I was following the suggestions of "Hoary" [57] and was certainly not canvassing. I will remove now if people feel as though they are unhelpful. TharsHammarBits andPieces 12:21, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Please! :) Gwen Gale (talk) 12:23, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
They're definitely unhelpful. Organisms??? Seriously, how could you even think that would be helpful? --SB_Johnny | talk 12:24, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
And someone already beat me to it. All of the categories I added it to have now been removed. TharsHammarBits andPieces 12:23, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
It wouldn't cause a disruption of every !vote for keep or delete wasn't met with endless bickering. Seriously once you've said your piece 10 times is the 11th going to change any minds? If anything I was the one trying to un-disrupt the afd by trying to move off topic discussion to the talk page [58] where 1 editor followed and the rest keep bickering and disruption the main page. TharsHammarBits andPieces 12:32, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Comment I added Mr. Johnston to Alaska, News and Popular culture. Those three seem pretty related to Johnston as he is from Alaska, been in the news for 8 months, and a pop figure (even if one believe his 15 minutes are up). These three are related. The others, I only noted them on the page as they had been added to those various listings. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 12:35, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
I had not deleted him from any of those other than Popular Culture where he does not, in fact, fit, unless you count every single BLP as "popular culture." I suggest you remove that one. It is for "Britney Spears" sort of stuff, not for any name in the news. Unless, of course, the canvass issue is of no import. Collect (talk) 12:38, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
I am fine with Alaska and News, and will remove the rest from the discussion. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 12:45, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
– Idef blocked for violation of NLT KillerChihuahua?!? 18:37, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
See Talk:Lester Coleman#Dawholetruth. This article is about a convicted con artist, and Dawholetruth (talk·contribs), who previously edited as an IP, appears to be trying to use the article to establish a false identity, something we obviously cannot allow to happen. I don't take the legal threat seriously, but it has been repeated after a clear warning. I have notified Dawholetruth of this thread. Looie496 (talk) 17:09, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Idef'd, NLT still applies. "Lawsuits are about to fly!" indeed. Seems to be here merely to troll and cause trouble anyway. Any admin may unblock if he strikes his legal threats, and they are convinced he'll behave; no need to discuss with me first. KillerChihuahua?!? 17:19, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
I tired to indef the account for threats of violence but I keep getting a timed out error. If somebody else would try blocking, I think that would be preferable with the stern word coming afterward. The diffs above are never acceptable regardless of how familiar or unfamiliar you are with this project. --auburnpilottalk 18:19, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
This is very upsetting and plain wrong. How do we respond to something like this? Basket of Puppies 18:22, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
We had a conflict of interest where I improperly used the warn templates as he continued to ignore WP:DATE, then when he ostensibly realised his error he left a message on my page then removed the extract from WP:DATE which I had put on his talk page two months ago. I restored this and then he placed a warn template on my talk page. The latter is what I am reporting. Dark Prime (talk) 20:56, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Anyone is free to remove whatever they want from their own talk page, you should not have reverted. -- Darth Mike (talk) 21:11, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
I assumed that the information had to stay there for reference particularly as user talk pages are generally not deleted. In any event, I found it very cheeky for him to remove that message and accuse me of being unfair to him by not warning him beforehand. Dark Prime (talk) 21:18, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
In any case, there is no issue here. I'm marking as resolved. -- Darth Mike (talk) 22:11, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
72.199.110.160: topic specific ban request
– A six-month topic ban of this IP from Ayn Rand related articles has been enacted. The editor may still contribute on the Talk pages of these articles. EdJohnston (talk) 22:46, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
The Ayn Rand article has been viewed over 136,000 times in the last 30 days alone [59]. It is viewed more than articles of far greater importance to the Western canon of philosophy such as Rene Descartes [60], Immanuel Kant [61], or Jean-Paul Sartre [62] and is curiously viewed almost as much as the articles on Plato [63] and Aristotle [64].
To be sure, the article attracts its fair share of partisan traffic, tendentious editors and single-purpose accounts. (NB: almost 30% of the article’s edits come from anon IPs.)
The original intention of the ArbCom ruling for the curious case of Ayn Rand and related articles was to stop all of the bickering and disruption. ArbCom issued the following relevant enforcement points:
1. “Editors not specifically named or sanctioned in this case are not excused or exonerated for any inappropriate conduct. Administrators and the community may choose to enact additional topic bans, blocks, site bans, or other sanctions, as necessary to prevent disruption and ensure a productive editing environment.” 2. “Uninvolved administrators are encouraged to respond to further disruption with escalating (in scope and duration) topic bans.” 3. “Uninvolved administrators are encouraged to use escalating blocks, as necessary, to enforce topic bans and prevent disruption.”
Now consider the case of 72.199.110.160 (talk·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log). The anon IP has been editing Wikipedia since 7 October 2008. The user has roughly 1,300 edits under its belt, dispelling any notion of being ignorant of Wikipedia’s policies and guidelines.
An analysis of the user’s edits reveals that it is largely a single-purpose account used for the editing of Ayn Rand-related articles [65]. Indeed, 160 has edited the Ayn Rand article more than any other editor [66]. By themselves these facts would not be problematic were it not for the following:
1. The “abuse filter log” indicates the new user has removed verifiable content over 30 times in the past few months alone. 2. The user has been blocked for edit warring and disruption. The first time on 26 April 2009 by MBisanz for a period of 31 hours. The measure was ineffective. 3. The user does *not* discuss its edits on Talk pages. Rather, it chooses to edit unilaterally forgoing discussions leading up to WP:CONSENSUS. 4. The user persistently and aggressively reverts edits it dislikes. example, example, another example . (Note: there are many more examples). 5. The user has been asked multiple times by multiple editors to take its contentious edits to the talk page for the purpose of discussion and consultation. [67][68][69][70][71][72] 6. The editor is known to be uncivil, rude, and disruptive.[73][74][75][76] 7. If it disagrees (which is often), the anon IP loves to shout at other editors in BOLD CAPS. One of too many examples to cite here: [77] 8. The user assumes bad-faith of others who edit collegially. [78] 9. Now there is talk on the Wikipedia Review that anon IP 160 is none other than James S. Valliant himself, the author of a minor partisan work, The Passion of Ayn Rand’s Critics, which received absolutely no attention in either the media or academe according to JSTOR, LexisNexis, Google News and Google Scholar. Should this IP verification prove correct, anon IP 160 might be in breach of a conflict of interest. 10. Indeed, should this IP trace prove correct, anon IP 160’s repeated re-insertion of Valliant’s work throughout the Ayn Rand-related articles makes a great deal of sense. The conflict of interest alone should garner serious consideration as the user is unable to edit neutrally.
Overall, my recommendation is to enact ArbCom’s ruling and ban anon IP 160 from Ayn Rand-related articles. Currently, the user is blocked for a period of 1 week [79]. The block is insufficient. The history of this user suggests that further disruption to Ayn Rand-related articles is inevitable. Thank you for your time. J Readings (talk) 23:45, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Note that a ban is a social mechanism. If he breaks it, it needs to be immediately and strongly enforced. TallNapoleon (talk) 03:58, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Comment This ip is currently blocked for a week, following a discussion on my talkpage. It should be noted that the article is already semi-protected, so the block on the account is in respect of the civility, WP:OWN, and other issues. The tariff of one week was agreed since the previous block was for one day and the suggested 1 month block was felt to be too large an escalation. The ip has been notified by the blocking admin EdJohnston(talk·contribs·blocks·protections·deletions·page moves·rights·RfA) that the block may be lifted if they agree to use the talkpages and obtain consensus for their preferred changes. Any discussion here that may vary these actions should be promptly notified to the ip. LessHeard vanU (talk) 09:58, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
The IP won't engage with anyone. That's the problem. Maybe the threat of dropping the block-hammer on him every time he tries to edit a Rand-related page will fix that. I don't know... but I doubt it. TallNapoleon (talk) 12:07, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
But that's the way things work. First, talk to the editor, then second, enforce our editing norms with escalating blocks. An eventual topic ban would be difficult to enforce (since it would largely rely on the WP:DUCK test and similarity of IPs) but not impossible. Thatcher 13:39, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
In this case, though, we do already have the ArbCom ruling which prescribes topic bans, enforced by blocks, for the conduct of the IP editor.KD Tries Again (talk) 16:56, 10 May 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again
Other editors have expressed some opinions on this issue at User talk:EdJohnston#Lock down of Objectivism article. It's worthwhile to keep enforcing the rules against disruption, since this is something that admins can correctly do, and it is likely to be beneficial in this case. Since this editor is a fixed IP with 1,300 edits, a topic ban could have some effect. The ban could be lifted if he will agree to change his behavior. The 'talk to the editor' option doesn't work for this guy, since he never responds. EdJohnston (talk) 17:28, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
How about a six-month topic ban on all Ayn Rand and Objectivist-related articles? The anon IP cannot edit the mainspace articles, but would be free to participate in talk page discussions to express concerns and suggestions about content improvement. This way, the restrictions can lead to an evaluation of whether the desired behavioral changes take place. Of course, should it be proven that anon IP 160 is in fact James Valliant, I would seriously recommend that he be banned outright from Ayn Rand-related articles. The conflict of interest would pretty much guarantee the user cannot edit neutrally. Thoughts? J Readings (talk) 00:36, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Absolutely. I would also, as I have asked before, greatly appreciate it if an admin or two would take it upon themselves to watch Rand-related articles. TallNapoleon (talk) 21:34, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
I suggest that consensus has been reached for a six-month topic ban of 72.199.110.160 from Ayn Rand related articles. EdJohnston (talk) 13:41, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
I would propose he is explicitly allowed to edit on the discussion pages. --Karbinski (talk) 14:17, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
User:Roaring Siren was warned earlier today about copyright violation after I discovered that the plot summary of Terror Inside was cut-and-pasted verbatim from IMDB. Since then, they have added more copyvio to Al Farooj Fresh (copied from here and here). The original version of the article appears to be copyvio from those same sources. They have also just created Mimi Lesseos, which contains copyvio from here and likely other places. Can someone deal with this in whatever manner is appropriate? Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:54, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
What's that you say? Simple copyright violation doesn't have enough drama enough for admin attention? No problem! I'm sure the editor has seen the error of their wys now. ;) Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:45, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
It seems that there is a case to answer, although I'm not sure of the extent. The plot summary from Pushed to the Limit (now removed, but old diff seems to have originated with Sandra Brennan according to the NY Times); while with In My Sleep there are lines that are very close (and in at one case identical) to MovieWeb's synopsis (MovieWeb is listed as a ref, but the wording is insufficiently altered). It may be worth digging further. - Bilby (talk) 02:41, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
I'd like some input or help, not wanting to get deep into 3rr territory. Please see recent edits, typified by these diffs: [80], [81]. I am trying to remove promotional and peacock text, as well as consolidate news articles into one section. In the past few days it appears that some contributors are editing so as to publicize dissatisfaction with the school, of which these are a few examples: [82], [83]. Any help appreciated. JNW (talk) 03:22, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
NFCC issue on Spain article
There was recently a discussion at Wikipedia:Non-free_content_review#Image:PicassoGuernica.jpg about the image of the Guernica painting, which is overused. Several accounts, including User:Provocateur, have been re-inserting the image. I could use some help in explaining that this isn't appropriate. — Carl (CBM · talk) 11:40, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Multiple problems, starting with the title which should probably be expandedDone by Toddst1 (talk·contribs) with thanks -- 91.85.160.75 (talk) if the subject is notable enough. Then, Timbuktu09 (talk·contribs) (formerly Bamboocracker (talk·contribs)) is continually adding the contents of this page (or other places they are promoting the site on the internet [84][85]) to the article even after being warned by bot and by human. The information is also being shoved into [86]Port Eliot itself. Can you do anything to stop this? 91.85.160.75 (talk) 12:53, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
A report at WP:AN3 would be most appropriate here. Nja247 20:12, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
User:Roberto212 is continuing to make distruptive edits (adding unsourced speculation to articles)[87][88] despite previous warnings on his talk page. Once more and he'll breach WP:3RR. Dalejenkins | 17:30, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
How to figure out status of IP used for block evasion?
This is really more a desire for education than a call for action. Dawholetruth (talk·contribs), indef'ed for legal threats, is block-evading to continue the legal threats. The new posts come from 206.223.206.112 (talk·contribs), which localizes to an ISP called KPU Telecommunications in Ketchikan, Alaska. I think it's unlikely that the poster actually lives in Alaska, and what I'm wondering is how to check whether the IP is some sort of proxy. An RBLs search shows it as blacklisted in several ways, but I'm not sure whether that means anything. The legal threats are too silly to really worry about, I'm more interested in educating myself on ways to detect proxies. Looie496 (talk) 18:45, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Editor is adding POV to Delara Darabi and using edit summarys to attack editors. Now, I have no interest in the subject at all; I'm simply reverting the page back to NPOV, I'm just bringing this up here and backing away. This guy's clearly got an axe to grind. Perhaps an admin could have a word? HalfShadow 20:04, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Validity of Youtube References
– Directed to appropriate page. -download ׀ sign! 01:35, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Need verification of something. Assume a wiki uses a nightclub's Myspace page as a particular reference. On that Myspace page, there is an embedded video hosted on Youtube. The Youtube video was not filmed, uploaded nor owned by the nightclub. There's no way of confirming how the video has been edited, or where it was shot. Is the video thus a reliable reference for a Wikipedia article? 74.248.89.150 (talk) 23:21, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Vanadalism on the DOG (Half-Life) article of Wikipedia.
– warned IP editor Toddst1 (talk) 23:51, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Hello, could someone please warn the vandal on the wikipedia "DOG" article. His edit is marked as "characteristics" which is pointless and trivial and uncited info on DOG "being a horny medle ... almost always humping objects near him, including himself and DK".
I have already removed the vandalism but using he history section, administrators should be able to warn him. Note that I am not sure myself who is the vandal. Bahahs 23:36, 13 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bahahs (talk • contribs)
Do realize that you could have left the editor a note, just like I did? Toddst1 (talk) 23:51, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
(e/c) Hello Bahahs. I have warned the ip. This is something you can do as well. There is no need to be an administrator to warn users and if only administrators could warn, and we wanted to do a halfway decent job of it, we would all have to quit the rest of our lives and lay in ample supplies of bandaids for our bleeding typing fingers. Various warning templates can be found at Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace. Note that these templates should be substituted. By the way, please sign posts to internal boards such as this and to talk pages (but never in articles) by typing four tildes (~~~~) after your post, which automatically formats to your signature when you save.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:57, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Duck hunt
– Bang. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 01:11, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
This is not a policy issue as far as I can tell, but I'm bringing it here just because...well, it's a bloody mess. Swimmerfreak94 (talk ·contribs) is an admitted thirteen-year-old editor, but is rather outspoken about his religious beliefs. From some of his comments on someone else's talk page, he's now attracted a string of IPs attacking him on his user page, and a whole lot of religious arguments filling up his talk page. None of this seems like it'll be constructive to the encyclopedia, especially if the editor is actually thirteen. It might be time for an admin to step in with a word or a semi-protection before things get too ugly. Thanks in advance. Dayewalker (talk) 22:32, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
While we don't have a rule about contributions to articles vs talk pages etc this editor has only contributed 3 minor article edits out of 41 edits - all the others are to talk pages etc. I'm not convinced this user is here to help build an encyclopedia. Exxolon (talk) 22:59, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
A quick glance at the user'scontributionsshows that they are not here to contribute constructively. I'll issue a final warning. Nakon 23:10, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Excuse me, but I think that some of these arguments against me are not factually based...well...most but not all. this encyclopedia is for all ages. I do try to make good additions and/or contributions without inserting POV or bias. I don't mind any attacks on my page, and I never ever call anyone any bad names, cuss words etc. on theirs. I merely argue against them. I even get my totally UNBIASEDcontributions deleted...I think that I should be a little upset too, but am I? no. I'll tryy to stop...I've also been told that rules on talk pages are more lax and I have more freedom. MY BAD. Swimmerfreak94 (talk) 00:23, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
See WP:NOT. Among the many things Wikipedia is not, it is not a web forum. If you're here to primarily argue religion on talk pages then you've come to the wrong place. TallNapoleon (talk) 00:41, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
I've been WP:BOLD and removed the bait from the user page, and the soapbox discussion on the user talk page. I've left the most helpful note I know how to as well. Continued soapboxing should yield a block or topic ban. Toddst1 (talk) 01:04, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Oppose I disagree with the way that this young man is being treated it isn't his fault that other users are harassing him on his talkpage and he is free to feel however he wants about religion.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 01:49, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
You clearly have not actually looked into this. I was one of the people that supposedly "attacked" Swimmerfreak94 when in fact all I did was state that I was also religious and asked her the same questions she was asking atheists. She responded to this by attacking me on my talk page and spamming my talk page with religious stories. Please look at facts before assuming everyone is "attacking" this "innocent" user. Anonymous Talk 05:09, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
actually, 194x144x90x118, I'm a girl...haha. but no biggie. Thanks alot for your kindness. Swimmerfreak94 (talk) 02:48, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
He's free to argue about religion, sure. Just not on Wikipedia. Thats not what we're for. Matty (talk) 04:34, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
As far as I can tell the only thing approaching a mainspace contribution is this little doozy and this pov-pushing. That doesn't read as neutral editing to me. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, but his talkpage shows this user may hold a different view. If he does, Wikipedia is not for him. Ironholds (talk) 05:35, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Logged out edits of the same behavior
See this, reference more here. The last IP edit was just a couple days ago. This is not appropriate and the young lady needs to shape up, and fast. Keegantalk 21:16, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
ugh* I TOLD you guys that I would try to stop. :Please just wait and see and DEFINITELY don't jump on a very old post-especially my first. And Ironholds, the "This" that you referred to was NOT pov-pushing. It's what Mother Teresa referred to herself as. Therefore it is factual and not pov. the same could be said about "anti-abortion stance", couldn't it? Mother Teresa referred to herself as "pro-life" and not "anti-abortion". Swimmerfreak94 (talk) 15:45, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
If she also opposes war and capital punishment, then it could be fair to label her as "pro-life". Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots 23:58, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Looks like he's just doing cleanup... -download ׀ sign! 21:29, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Who for? I reverted the edits and noted few pages were inactive since 2007; I just get a sense of someone wanting to hide something, and losing it in a bunch of similar edits. I have left a note with a unblock template in it on the talkpage, and I suspect they may be as familiar in using it as they were in locating indef blocked/banned user talkpages and editing out certain messages. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:40, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
User: S-MorrisVP and duck-like IP alternatesUser: 69.172.84.98 and 69.172.85.86, 67.204.1.129 (all from the Toronto area) have returned after a long gap to edit war on Parental alienation syndrome today [90].
The combination of them are at 4 5 reverts [91][92][93][94], [95] in which sourced (negative) material is deleted and inappropriately sourced (positive) material from the website of an activist organization of which S-Morris is the vice president.[96] is inserted instead. The reverts charge vandalism in the edit summaries. 3RR warnings were given to the apparent main account and one of the IPs [97][98].
S-MorrisVP has been blocked (briefly) for edit warring, been the subject of a posting on the conflict of interest noticeboard,[99] and has a listing of suspected sockpuppets.[100] These discussions (a year ago) on the Children's rights talkpage are also informative,[101][102][103] as is this one on the Paternity fraud talkpage [104].
There was also s discussion and explanation of the objection to today's edits on the talkpage by other editors, but to no avail.[105]. At the very least this is edit-warring, but I think the conflict of interest, POV editing, as assessed by multiple editors, warrants a close look by others. --Slp1 (talk) 21:32, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
I see that in the interim another editor has listed this at WP:3RR [106]. Perhaps that's the way to go, but with so many complicated aspects, I decided to post here.--Slp1 (talk) 21:41, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Done under 3RR. Anyone want to re-do it, feel free William M. Connolley (talk) 22:00, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Just on a point of WP:COI isn't there a more significant issue here: User:S-MorrisVP is editting in violation of WP:COI and using sock IPs to push a pov (ie remove sourced material and published material that doesn't conform to WP:RS). If this behaviour continues we'll may need to take more drastic measures--Caililtalk 00:16, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Adding another possible linked account, User:Smith research, who has just begun editing the article, and who also has a history of adding material sourced to the Canadian Children's Rights Council website, and has just done so again.[107][108][109][110][111] etc etc and who also likes to post at the top of talkpages --Slp1 (talk) 02:58, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
This user has long been vandalizing the page of List of best-selling music artists. He/she keeps changing the country of artists as he/she believes we are to state the nationality rather than the origin of the acts. On the recent occasion, he claimed that Bee Gees should be listed as UK act rather than Australian regardless of the fact that they have formed in Australia. I have on several occasions tried to explain to him that there is a difference between origin and nationality [112]. Unfortunately, my efforts have gone in vain as he won't even try to have a decent discussion with others, instead he/she prefers reverting and edit-warring and leaving messages of this kind. I would appreciate if someone could talk some sense into this person, or perhaps, if he/she needs to be blocked to get a message through. Thanks.--Harout72 (talk) 00:39, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
1. I have not been vandalising that page and have never done so, please don't lie. You are the one who continues to vandalise.
2. The article states country rather than origin. Where on wikipedia does it say that the bands in the article are to be listed under origin instead of nationality? It states COUNTRY, and considering that none of the Bee Gees are from the country of Australia, it would be incorrect to state that they are Australian. Have I made a mistake, have I vandalised? Obviously not.
3. I won't enter a decent discussion? What the hell are you on about? You and two other users have changed the article without consulting the talk page, as per the guidelines of wikipedia. I suggested to take it to the talk page, and I have offered to Marcus2 that we enter discussion as you can see on his talk page. He has yet to reply. So then, why should I create a section for YOUR edits? I am still waiting for you to open up a section so we can talk, and I shall continue to revert the article to its correct state until you at least decide to talk about your edits first.
4. You act as if I've broken the rules with that message. I have not. Instead I pointed out the fact that you are the vandal here, not me, and that all my edits thus far have been constructive.
5. Talk some sense into ME? That's rich. You're the one who's not seeing sense here my friend; a wise user would see things my way, and talk some sense into you instead.
6. O Fenian, it is rather hypocritical to suggest that someone else has nationalist bias when you yourself are an Irish nationalist. I know you won't deny it. You just have to look at your own edits to see just how biased you are.
7. The edit war was RESOLVED. Dear God, I hope you realise how ridiculous you sound. We came to a conclusion 10 days ago and I agreed to leave things until they have been resolved on the talk page, how can you have forgotten? Your criticisms can thus be disregarded; this is a non-issue. 8. In the edit war, were my edits disruptive? No. Did I break any rules? No. Was I wrong? No, in fact I had multiple reliable sources backing me up. Did I persist with it? No, but I shall if you do. Did we come to a compromise and a sound conclusion? Yes. So how dare you try and suggest that this is some kind of evidence against me. It all seems rather conceited.
8. Am I breaking any rules by trying to persist with logical, reasoned debate with you? Of course not. Is it so wrong to try and talk to you directly about the issue? If it is, this site needs a huge rethink of its rules.
Do not hope that any bans will resolve the issue; they shall not. This is not something that can ever be smoothed over and brushed under the carpet. If the administrators can't even discuss this in a civil matter, then I shall not either. If the results of this bogus posting are the same as the last time then I shall persist with this by any menas necessary. I mean, I even tried to discuss this by contacting the administrators who banned me and they outright ignored me. That is a green light for pursuing the issue; if you can't even be civil about it then don't think for even a second that I should be. Suicidal Lemming (talk) 02:33, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Oh, and I'd also like to point out that I have compromised on the edit war rather than continue as before, as you can see. I even have a reliable source backing up my point of view.
So I have compromised in BOTH examples put forth to ANI. Hardly a vandal now am I? Suicidal Lemming (talk) 02:41, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
It seems like you decided somewhat to compromise only after you noticed through my contributions that you have ended up here for the third time [113], [114]. And yes, there is a section on this very matter within the talk-page of List of best-selling music artists.--Harout72 (talk) 02:53, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Not webhost
I could use some input about User talk:Captainbarbell. This user has been unresponsive to questions about the purpose of his talk page. It appears that it's being used as a webhost for movie information. MfD seems an odd choice for a user talk page though...so what's the next step here? --Onorem♠Dil 02:53, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
I've issued a warning and will block if they continue without comment. –xenotalk 03:11, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for looking into it. --Onorem♠Dil 03:17, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Just a note from a bystander here, but, his block log shows he was indef blocked for vandalism on 1 June 2008, with no sign he was ever unblocked. I also note 2 IP edits to his talk page by 222.127.223.71 (talk·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log) which also had 2 vandalism blocks, and quite a few edits to a rather bizarre user page User:Jase 17, which has an edit history including many different IP edits. perhaps I'm putting 1+1 together, and comming up with 4, but it seems a bit socky to me. 07:03, 14 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wuhwuzdat (talk • contribs)
Oops...I thought I'd checked the block log. I suppose just locking the page if they continue would be the next option since the user has been indeffed for nearly a year and doesn't appear to be about to request an unblock.
No comment on the possible sockiness of the IP and Jase 17, but both at least appear to be making edits to article space regularly. I haven't looked at any specific edits, but if the user is quietly being productive on a new account.../shrug. --Onorem♠Dil 11:58, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Heh... Good point, I didn't even see that they were blocked (reblocked to disallow talk page editing). –xenotalk 13:19, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Interesting. The guy was blocked in June and sat dormant (at least under this ID) until January when he started up again. Under the radar for 4 months. I would suppose the original blocking admin took him off his watch list. Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots 14:05, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Yea, that's why I keep all indef blockees on my watchlist... If they go away forever, then there's no impact on my watchlist, but if they come back and carry on like this, I'll probably notice. –xenotalk 14:08, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
The IP in question resolves to the Philippines. The theater stuff on the named user's talk page also seem to connect to the Philippines. I've crossed out the "resolved", since we might have some block evasion going on here. Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots 14:13, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
222.127.x.x also has a good number of non-rolled-back edits to the article space. If the IP isn't actively causing disruption, I'm inclined to let them continue as they were, whether or not they are indef blocked Captainbarbell (as long as they don't resume keeping a theatre guide). I also looked at User:Jase 17's page, and it just looks like a sandbox being used to keep track of the regional amazing race they are following. –xenotalk 14:18, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
user:Teqaxe, threat of legal action
– User indefinitely blocked for making legal threats. MuZemike 08:28, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Blocked him. Spammers don't have a legal right to spam here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:29, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
I added some education for him in addition to the above. Dlohcierekim 04:35, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
I suspect the only he'll learn is if his site is added to the spam blacklist. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:36, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Cool idea. Dlohcierekim 04:45, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
false claims of vandalism
– User has apologised for their approach and a link to relevant policy has been provided for reference. In the future, try to handle these types of issues directly on the talk pages of the user or article in question first. Nja247 12:06, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
My good faith edits to the paroxetine page have been improperly categorized as vandalism. The article suffers from bias and any attempt to improve neutrality is reverted instead of attempting to reach consensus. Additionaly, I received an unfounded warning.
Coincidently I am on this page to do with another problem but I recall the problem on that page. I believe I reverted one of your edits as well because you were using a general article on antidepressants in general during pregnancy to remove and trump specific updated guidance from the FDA on paroxetine specifically. Thus you were whilst probably in good faith misusing references. please try and find references specific to paroxetine which are at least as reliable as FDA guidance, eg up to date guidance from other regulatory bodies. I agree with the other editors revert of your edits. Sorry. I did try and explain this to you in the edit summary and also the other editor who you are complaining about did raise the problems on the article talk page if I remember correctly.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 11:09, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
I think the complaint is mostly about the warnings. Literaturegeek, you left a {{uw-error1}} on Ddave2425's Talk page over a good-faith edit that Ddave2425 did cite, per the template's admonitions. You also left a {{uw-3rr}}. Now, granted, three reversions in 24 hours is just the absolute ceiling, but that shot-across-the-bow of a template is kind of a harsh thing to drop on a user who's been around for less than three weeks and who's done four reversions in 11 days. It just seems sort of WP:BITEy. Is there a gentler way to bring someone to the article's Talk page? --Dynaflowbabble 11:23, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
On reflection I think that you have a point. Whilst I did initially explain in the edit summary why their edits were incorrect and not productive as a new comer they probably wouldn't have known to check the history of the article to read edit summaries. Thus I should have made my first approach to them more diplomatically in regard to their edits.
Dave please also read this WP:MEDRS. Primary sources should not be used to delete or challenge secondary sources. Neither myself or the other editor was biased nor the section on pregnancy. It is cited to FDA guidance.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 12:01, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
My quacking chum, User:Nimbley6 has a new sock: Noyougirls55 (talk·contribs). Could a considerate admin aim their WP:DUCK-shooting shotgun and dispatch Noyougirls55 to the great duck pond in the sky?
Background material for the novice hunter may be found here.
(Groan!) Well, thanks for sending the sock down the river. Hopefully the sock master will go south for the winter. Thanks again! Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 12:41, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Oh how I hate weekends and school holidays. It's back, editing as 78.144.83.232 (talk·contribs). Could a WP:DUCK-hunting, WP:BLOCK-wielding, WP:SOCK-cleaning admin stomp please? Nimbley6 appears to be unsure what "indefinitely blocked" means. Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 11:33, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Done. Now if I could only find where I put my light gun . . . TNXMan 12:39, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Many thanks! Alas, no light-gun puns from me, I'm all out of photonic puns. Thanks again, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 12:46, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Hey, at least tomorrow is Monday, right?! The little troll will be back at school (and, apparently, the school are wise enough to forbid access to computers. Anyhoo... a fresh IP has popped up: 78.144.95.111 (talk·contribs). Could some kindly school-master or school-marm educate my school-chum? 1000 lines - "I must not sock when indefintely blocked..." Thank you! This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 18:23, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
I keep on having to do this - to whom do I send my bill? LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:43, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Your bill? Are you a duck too? ;-) (talk→BWilkins←track) 19:12, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
You mean you've not got the cheque from Student Awards Agency for Scotland? It should be in the post, I'll chase them in the morning. Meantime, many thanks. Unfortunately a rangeblock is probably out of the question, because the ISP uses several ranges. My hope is that with enough blocks, and enough reverts, the silly little troll will get bored and go off and find a more suitable activity for a Scottish youth. Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 18:46, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Betcha all thought I'd forgotten about you, eh?! It's Friday Monday, it's five to five, it's time for socking! Yes, sock fans, Nimbley6 is back - and today's contestant IP is 78.150.231.233 (talk·contribs). Could someone dole out the cabbages? Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 15:49, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Quiet for hours, I suspect the sock's run away for the night. Marking as resolved (again). This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 00:44, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
IWannaHaveFergie'sBabies:) (talk·contribs) registered in order to create an article - admirable, no?! Except the article is a list of tour dates that a Nimbley6 IP sock was desperate to link to here. Username registered a minute or two after the IP's last edit. I hear quacking, and bring it here so that a prophylactic can be applied to save poor Fergie from unwanted babies socks. Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 16:18, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
This time I'm not just in it for the blocks, honest
OK, I'll admit I'm now squatting. I've broken the locks and taken up permanent residence. About that, I'm looking for advice. Clearly Nimbley6 is dead-set on returning every time its latest sock is blocked, and it seems somewhat pointless maintaining a permanent thread here devoted to one fairly minor (in the Grand Scheme of things) little annoyance. So... I'm looking for ideas as to a more permanent solution. I've jotted a few below, and would welcome input from admins:
Ignore entirely.
Ignore while active, then revert.
Ignore IPs to a greater or lesser degree, report usernames at WP:ANI (list at WP:SPI).
Easy answer - further reports belong at SPI, not AN/I. No sense in taking up threads on multiple forums, and this sort of thing can be and usually is handled at SPI. Nathan T (formerly Avruch) 18:26, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Nope, because SPI will direct me straight back here as too WP:DUCKish. That's why I'm here, and not there - I've filed numerous SPI reports in the past, and the registered usernames listed above have also been listed at SPI, e.g. IWannaHaveFergie'sBabies:). In any event, once SPI has confirmed that a sock-is-a-socking, I would still need to come here to request a block. Additionally, I'm ideally looking for a solution that minimises disruption to boards; posting a new SPI report everyday doesn't really meet that criteria ;-) Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 18:39, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
No, a CU will be declined but an admin will still come by and issue the block. SPI is a pretty standard way to handle this, unless you have an admin you can just ping on their talkpage about it. Nathan T (formerly Avruch) 18:44, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
I would like to request a correction on the Boron page. In section "Characteristics" there is a phase diagram reproduced from our paper (Oganov et al., Nature 2009), but this is not reflected in the caption. qUnfortunately, the editor NIMSOffice has personal interests not to give us credit. I am investigating possibilities to block NIMSOffice from editing Boron page due to conflict of interest (any suggestions welcome). In any case, if a figure is reproduced from our paper, we hope that proper credit can be given.
Furthermore, NIMSOffice made another sentence (also against us): "It is not clear yet whether the atomic bonding in this phase is partially ionic[11] or covalent[12]. " In fact, it has been shown by us [11] that while bonding is predominantly covalent, the partial ionic character is surprisingly important. I suggest a sentence like this: "Chemical bonding in this phase, while predominantly covalent, has a surprisingly important partial ionic component [11]. "
Thanks a lot!
Artem R. OganovAoganov (talk) 13:36, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
From what I can tell, the phase diagram that appears in that section does cite your 2009 Nature paper as one of the sources (#11 in the references section) (at least from the current revision of the page, I haven't checked further back). It is also not an exact copy of the one in your paper, which is a subset in a larger diagram and in color.
In general, the second part of your complaint appears to be a content dispute. Syrthiss (talk) 13:49, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
On the phase diagram - our paper is the ONLY place where this diagram was published. NIMSOffice gives lots of references, none of which contain this diagram. Yes, he also cut our diagram, presenting only the lower-pressure part of it. Even that part appeared only in our Nature paper.Aoganov (talk) 14:49, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, thats what I get for quick checks... I've removed the other sources. I was able to view all of the other papers save one, and none had even anything close to your diagram. Syrthiss (talk) 15:00, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks a lot! I find it quite hard on Wikipedia, being a new user. NIMSOffice consistently edits the page on Boron in a way unfavorable to us. The example with the phase diagram illustrates it very clearly.
Being a new user I cannot edit the semi-protected Boron page and NIMSOffice just ignores my corrections. Is there a way also to correct the wrong statement "It is not clear yet whether the chemical bonding in this phase is partially ionic[11] or covalent[12]"? The controversy alleged by NIMSOffice is non-existent: it has been shown by us [11] that while bonding is predominantly covalent, the partial ionic character is surprisingly important. I would suggest a sentence like this: "Chemical bonding in this phase, while predominantly covalent, has a surprisingly important partial ionic component [11], which explains rather strong infrared absorption and splitting of the longitudinal and transverse optical modes." Artem R. OganovAoganov (talk) 16:26, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
(Tangentially related) You'll be able to edit the article soon, once you're autoconfirmed - this happens when your account is 4 days old, and you've made at least 10 edits (including edits to this page!) Hope that helps, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 16:29, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
It might very well not. The situation is not quite as it would seem from the above.
It's a fair bet, for example, that Aoganov and the several IP addresses (24.186.165.248, 129.49.95.70, 129.132.208.225, and 194.254.166.46) and single-purpose accounts (ESRFBeam, GFZLab, and Dian john1) that have been edit warring on the article are one and the same. The edits and talk page accusations are the same. Two of those IP addresses have outright self-identified as M. Oganov on the article's talk page (here and here).
Similarly, whilst M. Oganov asserts above that "The controversy alleged […] is non-existent", xe is at the same time busily editing away at Gamma boron discovery controversy (example, example, example).
And finally, whilst M. Oganov states that xe is a "new guy here" since "8 May 2009" who writes "under my real name", 129.132.208.225 made this edit and this edit back in March, and on Talk:Boron the self-identified IP address talks of editing on the 6th of May. (The … confusion as to when xe actually started editing may be caused by the typing difficulties that are frequently incurred when one is wearing socks on one's hands.)
It's probable that all that auto-confirmation will do is allow the edit war to resume. This edit and this edit don't bode well for the future, moreover.
I sense another Bogdanov affair brewing if we let it. I recommend that we take the same line here as was taken then, and ban people involved in this external dispute from carrying it into Wikipedia. Uncle G (talk) 20:50, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Uncle G, what I wrote is true. I edit always under my own, real name. I believe that editing under fake names is not only cowardly, but ineffective as well. Indeed, I am a new guy. I don't really know how to properly edit pages. You can see how many formatting mistakes I make... and more experienced users give me useful tips, so that I get better with each day. I also learn, little by little, about WP-policies.
In any case, I can guarantee to you that if I edit Wiki-pages, there will be no puppet accounts, no incorrect information etc. If one edits under real name, there is a great sense of responsibility. On the other hand, I suggest we look closer into the identity of NIMSOffice. This anonymous user clearly has interest in the boron story and misuses his anonymity and editorial privileges. In one recent case it was all too obvious - he reproduced a graph from our paper without giving the source. I contacted NIMSOffice, requesting a change - but to no avail. Another editor made the correction, after a careful investigation concluding that I was right. Aoganov (talk) 00:09, 12 May 2009 (UTC) Artem R. Oganov
Uncle G, the Gamma boron discovery controversy only discusses a controversy in who discovered what. It doesn't establish that there's a controversy about whether "the chemical bonding in this phase is partially ionic[11] or covalent[12]". I'm not saying one doesn't exist. I have no idea but the Gamma boron discovery controversy doesn't discuss or establish any. Also I'm not sure whether linking to the Bogdanov affair is a good idea. That was about something that is widely believe to be a hoax or otherwise other nonsense with a lot of potential fraud in perpetuating that hoax. This as I've said appears to be solely a dispute about who discovered what and when Nil Einne (talk) 11:40, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
I completely agree with Nil Einne. I've read on the Bogdanoff affair, and it's a totally different case. We talk about the priority in a discovery, and the correctness of the discovery itself is not disputed. Aoganov (talk) 13:39, 13 May 2009 (UTC)Artem R. Oganov
You clearly haven't read the talk page discussion and edit histories. I don't blame you. I have, however. This isn't a controversy about chemical bonding. It's an external dispute, between two (possibly more) academics, each side accusing the other of being unethical, that has spilled over into Wikipedia in the quite silly form of long user space and talk page harangues accusing named living people of academic fraud and edit wars over whether a source from academic group A can be cited next to a source from academic group B or even anywhere in the article at all (example of an Oganov edit removing such a source, example of another source removal made in Aprilexample of another source removal made in March), edits (example) disparaging the work of one of the parties involved in their biographies, and now an entire article in the article namespace itself sourced to non-independent sources. It has been compounded by gross assumptions of bad faith, explanations of the history of the dispute that are clearly not in accord with the actual article and talk page edit histories, attempted outing of other editors, and sockpuppetry.
This is very much a Bogdanov affair in the budding, if we don't nip it now. It aligns almost completely with the Bogdanov findings of fact. Participants in an external controversy (at least from one side) are editing Wikipedia to further their claims in that controversy, and there has already been sockpuppetry. The remedy here is the same as there: External academic conflicts may not be brought into Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not to be a middle-man in such conflicts. Uncle G (talk) 12:44, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
(unindent) Well, I took a look at the discussion pages at Boron & Gamma boron discovery controversy, & there obviously is some kind of dispute there which makes no sense. (No, don't explain it to me -- it makes no sense because the reason for the dispute makes no sense to me. I'm willing to agree with Uncle G that it's an external dispute between two academics & leave it at that.) Carl/CBM is keeping an eye on things, & I'm willing to back any decision he makes on the matter. It's the least I can do for someone trying to keep a weird situation under control. -- llywrch (talk) 17:13, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Thinking about this more, and reading the above, I believe my position is this (regarding the diagram only, not the greater conflict): being that the diagram that exists on the article is a synthesis of information from published works (no slight to NIMSoffice, it was a good faith attempt to add information to the article), and that the article doesn't totally hinge on that diagram (the article is on Boron, not on the phase complexity of Boron), and in my opinion having a stable well sourced article is better than a hugely reverted article with a nuclear sock cloud around it (not saying this is the case currently, but that could be an outcome)... I believe the diagram should be removed from the article. We most definitely do not want an external academic dispute to spill over into the encyclopedia, and if that means curtailing the article to a less controversial state then I am all for it. This is my opinion only, so if consensus leans to another solution I will support whatever other resolution we find. (slightly refactored from my talk page to fit in here) -Syrthiss (talk) 12:36, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Uncle G that the whole dispute clearly damages wikipedia, flooding its pages with offensive and unsourced information. This can only undermine the trust in the wikipedia as a whole. In this sense, Syrthiss is probably right that deleting information, even if it is correct, but causes bitter dispute and can't be stopped, might be wise after all. Moreover, regular wikipedia editors are getting dragged too. There is no secret that I and Aoganov are in personal conflict over the ways to behave on wikipedia and I won't comment on that here. I just wanted to tell the community that there is no "scientific war" here, simply because only one party is being represented on wikipedia. As far as I can tell, the other party was asked to join, but is silent. I myself got dragged into this too and by all means will leave the dispute for the sake of wikipedia. The whole story does look real nasty, and thus natural suspicions may fall on me too, as I am being put forward as its cause. Thus please look at the facts, not the words; scrutinize me to the bones if necessary. Aoganov did already list my email ladarabara(atatat)yahoo.com and I am happy to reply here or there.NIMSoffice (talk) 01:20, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
NIMSOffice, I just wanted to tell you what I told you before (in response to your anonymous emails to me): I have no conflict with you, but I do oppose your actions and consider them as biased. I have no hard feelings against you and I hope that with time you will understand the situation of a scientist whose friend attempted first to steal, and then to discredit his work. This is unacceptable, and I did not enjoy the fact that you tried to help them in both of their directions (first stating their priority, and then copying their statements damaging our work). I would be happy if an investigation is launched into your identity and relations with Dubrovinskaia's group. I know that some people who are currently at NIMS even collaborated with Dubrovinskaia (I emailed one such person recently, and got no reply... I think it was you!). Such behaviour of editors as what you displayed damages Wikipedia for sure. The only way to make Wikipedia viable is to stay objective and within one's expertise. By now I've edited a lot of pages, but as you can see I only edit those pages, where I am 100% competent. I suggest you do the same.
P.S. I gave your email address, from which you wrote me - but it's a fake one, so there should be no problem making it available. My real (i.e. not fake) email address is easily retrievable from Google. We obviously play different games, mine being way more open (and, by implication, more vulnerable). I accept this game only because what I do is correct, and each statement I make has waterproof documentary support.
P.P.S. Another thing - it is not my intention to damage anybody's reputation. I was dragged into this dispute only by (1)Dubrovinskaia's attacks on us, and (2)your bias. From what I read on talk pages, Dubrovinskaia, Dubrovinsky and Filinchuk were indeed contacted and told their story that was different from what I wrote. I am not sure what it is, because it is certainly some untrue story (there is only one truth and a million possible lies - which one they chose, I don't know). However, I am confident that they are unable to produce any documentary support whatsoever. To me at least, this explains why they did not get back to Wikipedia on this issue. But let's see - maybe they can fabricate something.
Aoganov (talk) 01:40, 14 May 2009 (UTC)Artem R. Oganov
I would welcome a pledge from all the members of the rival teams of boron scientists that they will stay off the article and limit their editing to the Talk page. That would overcome any concerns about WP:conflict of interest. It might also avoid having to get the admins involved. EdJohnston (talk) 18:57, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Will to Power (band)
On the page for the musical group Will to Power and its talk page, a few editors who may be one and the same have been vigorously trying to discredit a former member of the group, Suzi Carr. I've been watching the page for a while and keep seeing this editor and this one removing or rewording edits, some of which I've made. The talk page is a bit creepy with the level of anger directed towards her, and one of them uploaded an image a while back (since gone, license request ignored) that attempted to show what she looks like without being airbrushed. My hunch is that these editors are affiliated with the group, which I'm not, and it's a COI, but I have no way of knowing. I posted about an edit reversal on the Editor Assistance board, and it was suggested I post it here. My most recent edit to the article was undone earlier tonight by Global and un-undone by another user. Some of the edits are [115], [116], [117], [118] for the first editor and [119] and [120] for the second. Thanks for looking into this, and I hope I posted this in the right place. Zephyrnthesky (talk) 04:59, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Isn't she alive? BLP applies to talk pages too. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:34, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Ok, BLP does apply. I've archive the nonsense, warned both users and will see if they calm down in the morning. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:46, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your intervention in this, Ricky. I've been getting myself agitated about this whole situation, and I think it needed some objectivity. I'm pretty sure BLP applies to her, and to Bob Rosenberg and most of the rest of the musicians. Thanks again. Zephyrnthesky (talk) 16:05, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
The editor in question has made a reply, which... is frankly suggestive of several misconceptions, that I've attempted to rectify with some good faith advice. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 01:58, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
User:Zephyrnthesky has been trying to improve the article on Will to Power (band) by adding pertinent well sourced information about one of the singers, Suzi Carr. User:GLOBALCREATOR has been mercilessly reverting these edits, porbably to the point of an edit war. User:Zephyrnthesky revised the addition, and added more sources everytime this was done. Recently, I reverted the edits of User:GLOBALCREATOR (I came into this on a call for help on Editors Assistance requests). The next day my edit had been reverted, and User:GLOBALCREATOR's edit summaries were almost personal attacks. He has never once tried to explain his actions on the talk page, and when confronted ignores the confronter. This seems to be a single purpose account as his only edits are to the will to power article.Drew Smith What I've done 01:24, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
I personally agree with you, but his/her edit summaries don't really seem like personal attacks. He/she, however, could be mistaken; "Add important info taken out by unauthorized person who is vidictivly making changes to this page daily". -download ׀ sign! 01:59, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Warned and watchlisted. I agree that it doesn't quite cross the the NPA line, but it is certainly an uncivil display of ownership. —Travistalk 02:04, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
As noted above, this comment is concerning and it's clear this editor takes a WP:OWN attitude to the article. See his further edits removing content yet again. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:46, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
User has again removed perinent information, including, oddly enough, a birthdate for a singer, even though the date is in the URL of the reference given!Drew Smith What I've done 03:33, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
OK, I guess I'm the one who "turned up the heat" on this, but I'd like to explain my intentions. I've been watching these two editors, GLOBALCREATOR and AKATheBeast (plus the occasional anonymous IP) trying to turn the article on this group into promotional material for about a year. Originally I just focused on re-adding one sentence regarding Suzi Carr, only to keep watching it taken out repeatedly. I'm going to phrase this delicately: it's clear to me that the information presented in the article should be written by a) someone who is not and never has been in the group, b) someone who has never met (or has any desire to meet) anyone ever in the group, and c) someone who is or was not in any way affiliated with the group. I fit the bill on all of these, and I give a damn enough about this group to try to improve the article. Although my original intention was to credit Carr since I thought she deserves it, beginning yesterday I really made a good-faith effort to improve the whole thing. Apparently at least some of my edits met with the approval of those who feel they own this information, because it's still there, but the slant (pro-this member, anti-that member) is obvious to me after the amount of time I've spent on this. I went to EAR a week ago, took the advice and posted civilly on the article talk page what my intentions were, and now I'm pretty fed up with this. This is going to be a challenge for me, though, because now I've gotten others mixed up in this as well. Have I been too assertive in my overhaul of the article? Should I ask for other opinions on another forum? Thanks for any advice, no matter what. End rant. Zephyrnthesky (talk) 03:40, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
No need to explain. It's clear what's going on. Frankly, no band page should have this much inane details about the background of individual members. If the members are notable enough, they deserve their own page. Perhaps it's time to lock those characters out and start rewriting to something sensible. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:51, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Believe it or not, rewriting it and making it sensible was my intention beginning last week, although I'm now so involved in this (as are you and others) that I'm starting to doubt myself. I replied on Global's talk page to a comment addressed to me, but I'll take the advice of the experts and elders on here or elsewhere. Thanks. Zephyrnthesky (talk) 04:10, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
He's gone and taken everything out yet again. I'm just gonna leave it alone until and admin does something about, I don't want to be part of an edit war.Drew Smith What I've done 05:00, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
I moved this section into the above one so we don't have parallel discussions on what is basically the same subject. Protonk (talk) 09:55, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
I think we've reached the limits of AGF here. I've blocked GLOBALCREATOR for one week; hopefully this will allow those interested editors above to knock the article into some sort of shape without having their every edit reverted or contested. EyeSerenetalk 10:02, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
OK, I'm close to signing off for the night, but unfortunately the drama continues. I completed my effort to improve the article earlier tonight and left a note on the talk page re: comments, etc. GLOBAL is blocked, but AKATheBeast just logged in for the first time since March and undid about 48 edits at once to the last version they edited, which I then undid. And this was after I had just read an odd-sounding message on Ricky81682's talk page that made me think it had to do with all this, although it was from a "new" user. I hope I didn't make this situation worse. Zephyrnthesky (talk) 06:55, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Uh, and there's [121] this, which goes a few steps too far. Zephyrnthesky (talk) 07:07, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
AKATheBeast has joined GLOBALCREATOR on their Wikibreak. If this continues I'm quite happy to indef both accounts, and we can always apply semi-protection to the page in the case of socking. I'll keep the article watchlisted; please feel free to nudge me on my talk-page if it looks like I'm not paying attention ;) EyeSerenetalk 07:36, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Thank you, EyeSerene, for your intervention. I'll keep watch on the page myself (trust me, after all the time I've spent on that group this week!) and let you know if any further problems arise. Lots of thanks to other users I've never talked to before all this who gave good advice. I may try to find some feedback from a music-type editor who could compare the previous version to what I've tried to do and get some objective and constructive criticism. Cheers. Zephyrnthesky (talk) 17:14, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Edit warring and Disruptive editing by user Luis Napoles
– editor blocked 72 hours for WP:TEToddst1 (talk) 15:46, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
This user has been edit warring on Chile for quite sometime, and has previously been blocked for it. I have added some information on the history section of Chile and he keeps deleting it.[122] I used the talk page to discuss the relevance of this information and how the neutrality of previously added sources was compromised but instead of discussing, he just reverts. He also reverts my edits because according to him I should do edits one by one, like everyone else. I don't want fall in his game of edit warring but someone needs to do something about it. He's reverting and deleting sourced information.
This is a content dispute, and this is not a place for dispute resolution. I would comment that Likeminas has also been blocked for edit warring (upon review) removing sourced information, and it was against the same editor. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:57, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Not it's not. And it's very interesting that you happen to answer this. It's also very interesting that now you're using different standards to measure content dispute and disruptive editing, because when user Luis Napoles reported me for deleting his Youtube source (which you wrongly called Vandalism) you said it was not content dispute but instead disruptive editing and proceed to block me right away. It's also interesting that despite that user being reported before me, by another administrator, followed by complaints by another two users[123] you decided to ignore it and quickly answer his petition.
The diff you gave is not removal of sourced content, if is difference in emphasis (pov) of the sources given = content dispute. You have failed to show your allegation. You, in the instance where I blocked you, simply removed sourced content without discussion or comment. (I recall another admin reviewed Luis Napoles at that time and decided it was edit warring and blocked them, too.) It is now apparent that the two of you are minded to have admins resolve your content dispute by attempting to have the other blocked.
Ummmm, cos I am brilliant? LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:38, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Well when you blocked me you did a very poor job at investigating, that's why another administrator had to step in apply the rule.
In fact, you even refused to block him saying it was only content dispute despite clear evidence to the contrary.
What's funny is that you didn't even look at what my removal of "sources" (aka Youtube) were.
You have also failed to even look at the link I posted showing how Luis Napoles deletes sourced material.
Having said that, and experienced on my own your lack judgment, I would like to request for a neutral administrator to look into this.
In any case, I don't think you're brilliant at all. Somewhat biased maybe...But, thinking it over, You did fooled the people that named you an administrator, so I'll give you that much.
Even people who might be sympathetic to your arguments won't feel much urge to help you if you write in that tone. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 03:02, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes, you're right. I shouldn't but that administrator's previous actions were rather questionable and perhaps one-sided. What's worst is that he's even being sarcastic about it, as it if it was a joke. That's not the right approach to take.
I just wished a netraul administrator would look into that user's contributions. His talk page (which he has blanked) speaks for itself.
This thread caught my eye since Luis Napoles' edits have also raised concerns at the Fidel Castro article. This editor may be bringing a little too much one-sidedness into the fray. That said, looking at the Chile article history, I'd pretty much just call edit-war on the whole thing. Neither of the protagonists here, Luis and Likeminas, are showing a whole lot of inclination to actually discuss things on the article talk page. Nor do they show much inclination to ask others for opinions.
I'd say maybe some warnings are warranted, a few more eyeballs, and some prompting to start talking rather than reverting. Franamax (talk) 04:37, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
I hope you looked into the talk pages of the articles I've edited.
Removal of sourced content (an article from Counterpunch) from the Censorship in Cuba page on 11 May on the basis that is "Conspiracy theorist Barahona's theories belong to the main article"[127] . Luis is aware of the veracity of the source since he referred it to the Reliable Sources Noticeboard.[128] himself on and added WP:SPS tags to the Reporters without borders page regarding the source. After a response from other uses rejecting Luis's complaint he then withdrew the WP:SPS tags from the RWB page [129]. Therefore, he understands that the source meets wikipedia's standards but has knowingly removed it anyway from the Censorship in Cuba page. The content removed by Luis is highly relevant to the page and plaining doesn't belong in an unspecified 'main article'.
On the Reporters without borders page he has constantly tried to remove content and apply tags in a long running edit war. I have responded to every one of his points, and when I respond to one of his reasons to delete content, he merely comes up with another reason to do the same edit. I then have to address this reason and then there's another reason...and so on. For instance going back to the Counterpunch source mentioned above he's removed the WP:SPS tag but then replaced it with new tags demanding that the source be verified[130].
I've been very patient with this editor and sought to respond to each of his claims however spurious or unwarranted I (and others) consider them to be, but I would urge action to curtail this pattern of behaviour, especially since he has been blocked before, warned again and failed to change. Every editor who has dealt with him has a similar story to tell.
I originally posted a version of this on the complaint above about Luis Napoles raised by User:Likeminas but I received no response. If I was a carpenter (talk) 12:00, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
This appears to be a long-term multi-party, multi-article edit war where there have been numerous blocks. It appears at least:
are involved. I've reblocked Likeminas for continuing an edit war which s/he was previously blocked on (Chile), warned Carprenter, and issued a broad warning on edit warring against Luis Napoles. Toddst1 (talk) 13:02, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
The editor "If I was a carpenter" has repeatedly deleted citations and has not participated in the talk page. Earlier, he inserted torture and similar allegations about Otto Reich. Their sources did not mention Reporters Without Borders, or anything related, at all.
In the controversy section, citations about Cuba-RWB conflict are reliable and should be in the article.
However, an undue weight on claims by Barahona, who writes (rather partisan) stories to a political online newsletter. Per WP:FRINGE, coverage on Wikipedia should not make a fringe theory appear more notable than it actually is. A fringe theory can be considered notable if it has been referenced extensively, and in a serious manner, in at least one major publication, or by a notable group or individual that is independent of the theory.
The account "If I was a carpenter" has been used since 2007 solely to associate Robert Menard (a living person) with torture and Reporters Without Borders with CIA. Unlike he claims, I have not removed any citation from Reporters Without Borders (same cannot be said about him), only added NPOV templates hoping that "If I was a carpenter" would participate in the talk page.Luis Napoles (talk) 13:14, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
(e/c with below) I also observe that Luis Napoles' edits seem to be almost uniformly strong-POV pushing and even WP:POINTy. This is indeed a problem. Toddst1 (talk) 13:28, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
I have addressed issues in articles when the statements 1.Are completely unverifiable 2.do not resemble what is said in major sources or Encyclopedia Britannica.
There is nothing with it, indeed, I believe it is encouraged. I have always adhered to core policies.Luis Napoles (talk) 14:27, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Luis' POV edits speak for themselves - complaint #3
His Edits = Within the past month or so Luis Napoles, has edit-warred or come in conflict with not only myself, but with User:Likeminas, User:If I was a carpenter, User:Grsz11, User:Rsheptak, User:Andy Dingley, User:MarshalN20, and User:Cosmic Latte. In my view, he readily violates Wp:Undue and WP:NPOV while trying to disruptively edit to make a Wp:Point. He is also the embodiment of the advocate in violation of Wiki's Wp:NOTADVOCATE policy. His modus operandi appears to be the following. -(1)- Create anti-Castro articles on barely notable individuals imprisoned in Cuba (usually based off of a single report) - this also includes alleged crimes by Fidel Castro or movements against his rule. -(2)- Furiously rewrite those articles on Cuba with an extreme partisan slant. Thus far he has already violated Talk Page Wp:Consensus at Fidel Castro by basically making that article into an attack piece. This is usually followed by inserting anti-Cuban govt views into fairly innocuous articles like Civil disobedience, nonviolent resistance, Demonstration (people) etc - he even tried ---> inserting anti-Cuban pov into a basic article on librarians-(3)- The only areas he seems interested in editing are those against Cuba, or against Communism. He will also occasionally edit in support of anti-Communism. The result is massive revisions on Augusto Pinochet, Chile, Fulgencio Batista etc where he makes 20 edits at once, and then when someone reverts him, he requests that they revert his edits one at a time (this is where users like Likeminas have gotten caught violating 3RR, as Luis is very savvy with templating, Wp:Wikilawyering, and staying perpetually at 2RR). I have NEVER seen him collaborate or work with another editor (ask him to show one person he has collaborated with). -(4)- Moreover, his plan is usually to selectively delete material based off of his own pov, and then insert bias material in favor of his point of view - which leaves articles he touches resembling very little of the majority of sources. They will be ref'd when he is finished, but completely in violation of Wp:Undue and written in his Wp:Pov with overt bias. I used to doubt how much damage one person could do to the overall wikipedia project, but I now worry that someone with the drive and obvious "mission" to pov push as Luis, can dramatically affect the overall quality of this endeavor. I am sure that in response to this that he will file a report on me, or throw out his usual accusations that I or everyone else doesn't follow Wp:V, which is his usual fall back plan when he enters an article and begins selectively chopping it based off his political view - but please admins review his posting history - it will be clear that what I say here is true. Redthoreau (talk)RT 13:27, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Take his words with a grain salt. Redthoreau has been consistently assuming bad faith when someone has asked references. Too often, the response has been attacks on editors rather than addressing the encyclopedia. Recently, he has used edit summaries such as "hopefully your reading comprehension will improve with time" and has modified - and even removed ([131]) - other users' messages on talk pages which are not his own. He uses worrying amount of his energy on attacking editors with messages like one above, instead of improving Wikipedia.Luis Napoles (talk) 14:16, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Admins, notice how there is no refutation of the above accusations? That is because Luis knows that the reality is right there in his edit history. Any Admin who spends 30 min looking over his edit history would instantly see that he deserves at the least a 7-30 day ban, if not indefinite. The diff he refers to was when I removed his usual practice of templating those he is edit warring with 5 warnings at a time, so that when an admin looks on the others page he can say "look at how many warnings he has." The tactic has been effective as it has gotten Likeminas banned every time he has tried it - meanwhile Luis deletes his warnings from his TP. Redthoreau (talk)RT 14:27, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
I know little of Luis Napoles, our editing areas don't overlap beyond a couple of articles. However even this little exposure has shown me some of the most blatant POV-pushing I've ever seen on WP. What surprises me though is how his tactic of rapidly removing any criticism from his talk page has been so effective at rendering him immune from any block, despite one of the worst edit histories around in terms of POV and refusal to act in a consensus-based manner. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:42, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
I appreciate the more thorough investigation done by Toddst1. And as it can be seen from the talk page of user Luis Napoles (which he has now blanked) and this discussion, I’m not the only one having serious difficulties with him. Luis, unfortunaly has a very strong POV and that shows significantly on his edits. I should say, though, that after getting blocked last time, he has used the talk pages more than prior to that. I hope that with this second block he will reconsider his behavior and compromises to cooperate and discuss certain issues rather than engage in edit-warring and POV pushing. Likeminas (talk) 14:52, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Let's keep in mind, however, that he has done some contributions to the project. Luis obviously holds plenty of knowledge on the topics he wishes to edit, but the obvious problem (obvious since everyone has already mentioned it) is that he also includes information that is more like propaganda than actual encyclopedic material. Moreover, the non-propaganda contributions he makes then happen to be overshadowed by an obvious PoV against anything related to Socialism (mainly communism) and Fidel Castro. As of now, Luis is the clear example of a person who has clouded the knowledge in his mind to the point where he might even think that his contributions to Wikipedia are actually benefiting the project. I doubt blocking him will open that "cloud," just as I doubt he will stop including information that he thinks is correct.--[|!*//MarshalN20\\*!|] (talk) 22:01, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
I would agree with MarshalN20, in the sense that I have no doubt that Luis is a sincere "true believer" in the material he adds. I would postulate that he most likely views himself as being some sort of "protector" of the truth, who is battling the proverbial "leftist/socialist/Marxist/Castroist" matrix of "false facts" - for instance he has used the term "invented" previously when he did not agree with the majority of verifiable and cited material. I believe that a topic ban will inevitably be needed in the future (which is unfortunate because it will only become a self-fulfilling and confirming action) further convincing him that he was right in his "noble" crusade against the aforementioned 'cabal' of "evils" and systemic biases of Wikipedia and printed material. When his block ends, I believe that an administrator or two should watch his edits carefully, not only for tendentious pestering & tagging (how he reacts when frustrated and outnumbered) but for large systematic and selective deletions of unreferenced material from articles, wherein he then inserts highly pov & undue (but yes ref'd material) - which under his own understanding of Wp:V he finds acceptable and defensible. Redthoreau (talk)RT 19:35, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Blocked User:NanSYoung as User:Bov
That's what I did. Review welcome; undo if appropriate - no need to ask me. Tom HarrisonTalk 20:42, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Possible COI, incivility, &c.
Post was recently archived, but it appears THD3 posted on it today, and the subject of the complaint hasn't had a chance to respond. Moved it to the following subpage.
Resolved. Blocked for 24 hours. KillerChihuahua?!? 22:40, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
resolved
an editor has brought the i/p conflict to the jerry seinfeld page of all places! going off on soapbox rants and calling editors antisemites. fun diffs: [132][133][134][135][136][137][138]untwirl(talk) 19:34, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Hm. Drone2Gather (talk·contribs) first appeared on Wikipedia on May 6, 2009. By May 7, they were making edit comments like "Moving unsourced statement to talk page until can be sourced, as per WP:BLP". By May 9, they were editing on AIV. By May 10, they were involved in an edit war. Somehow, I don't think this is a new editor. --John Nagle (talk) 20:00, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Exclaiming BITE and using it for leverage is not going to work. Especially when the user already finds WQA in that short of time. MuZemike 02:36, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
really, is this user doing anything but being disruptive and creating animosity? here are some more of his comments:[139][140][141]
a new user handing out barnstars, opening a wqa, linking to policy, etc? i smell poultry. untwirl(talk) 23:16, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Someone else needs to take a look at this guy's contribs. IMO he's a troll, plain and simple. I wash my hands of him. KillerChihuahua?!? 19:57, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Personal attacks have continued [142] after a final warning was given. [143] Can we have this dealt with as the user is severely disrupting the discussion. He's already all but admitted a agenda but the civility is the serious problem. --neon whitetalk 20:57, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
This user has just done a copy and paste move of FOX FM (Melbourne) to Fox FM (Melbourne) and I have now tagged the appropiate page. The reason I bring this here is that when I went to their talk page to advice them against this style of moving pages I notice they've already got two notices about it on their talk page and so I feel that it needs something a bit stronger but don't know how best to proceed as none of the warning tags really apply. Dpmuk (talk) 20:40, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Cheers. That's much better put then I could ever have managed! Will hopefully also carry a bit more weight coming from an administrator. Dpmuk (talk) 12:46, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Stub templates are always placed at the bottom of articles. It says as much on WP:STUB, and there are good reasons for them always being there. One editor, User: Postcard Cathy, is persistently putting stub templates at the top of articles - which makes editing harder for stub sorters, and also decreases the readability of articles (the main reasons for the bottom-placing rule in the first place).
Not a big deal in itself, only Postcard Cathy has been politely asked to persist on several occasions. These requests have been met by one of two responses: 1) silence, and the removal of the request from her user talk page; 2) uncivil responses and a declaration that she will continue to do it her way because she doesn't like the guideline. The latest "discussion" on the subject came today - I again asked her to stop (a little more firmly than perviously, as this has been going on for some time). Her response was to blank my message and reply in a way that was not in keeping with WP's civility standards.
I'd have posted this at WP:Wikiquette alerts, but the lack of civility is not the major problem here - the wilful ignoring of guidelines is. It isn't vandalism pure and simple, but it surely is disruptive - and WP:pointy, as well. What would be the best course of action to take? Grutness...wha? 02:51, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
so that's how they have been getting there. I saw some, was puzzled, but didn't check the histories.DGG (talk) 03:12, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Cool! In that case, I'll just blank this page... :) (see how long that would last...) Grutness...wha? 06:03, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
I too have asked her to put stubs at the end, as it makes it so much easier for stub-sorters if they're in a predictable place (and in the place where we want to leave a sorted stub tag). Her reply, after I'd raised it perhaps twice and she'd blanked and ignored, was "I am trying to politely agree to disagree with you. You made your point the first time and have no need to repeat it several times. We disagree and that is it. I will continue to not reply in the future because I don't think it will benefit either of us to discuss the issue further." She does not appear to understand consensus. It's disruptive, in a low-level way - and surprising from someone who seems to be working hard to improve WikiPedia. PamD (talk) 11:54, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
And the positioning of stub tags is confirmed in Wikipedia:Layout too. PamD (talk) 12:02, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
I've notified the contributor of this thread. It seems like you're both already on the dispute resolution path. If the problem represents a serious enough concern, you might want to consider requesting other feedback, such as at the talk page of Wikipedia:Layout or Wikipedia:Stub or some of the other venues in DR. I know this is another venue, but I don't know if you are suggesting admin intervention is necessary at this point, since at least you, PamD, characterize this as "low-level". Rejecting community input and refusing to talk on any matter aren't generally good signs, but some kind of mediation may yet resolve the matter shy of tool use. (I know that ANI is recommended early on at WP:DE, but that seems to be under the assumption that articles are being broken, rather than malformed.) --Moonriddengirl(talk) 21:25, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Admin intervention is exactly the reason I came here - or more to the point, finding out what the correct admin intervention should be, given that I'm an admin myself. It is disruptive editing, and is creating more work for editors who could be better employed elsewhere. It is not, however, at the level where I would consider it vandalism. As such, I'm looking for advice as to what to do. It's not what I'd consider a blockable offence by some distance, but it is still a major annoyance in terms of the extra work, and the lack of civil communication from Postcard Cathy is a serious concern. There has already been some discussion of this on other stub-related talk pages, so querying the possibility of admin intervention (and coming to this page) was the next obvious step. BTW, it looks like you forgot to notify the contributor of this thread, since I came here via checking my watchlist, not via any message from you :) Grutness...wha? 21:55, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
No, I didn't forget. I presume you're familiar with this discussion. I'm talking about the editor under discussion here. That's the contributor I notified about this thread. (Evidently, she remains uninterested.) What other kind of tool use is there for a situation like this, aside from blocking? (My advice remains to involve the wider community, through mediation or other processes.) --Moonriddengirl(talk) 23:27, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Ah - apologies. When you said "contributor of this thread" I though you'd meant the person bringing it to AN/I. BTW, I had informed Postcard Cathy of this thread here, but she simply blanked the message. Perhaps mediation is the best thing, but it's hard to mediate when one side of the argument is incommunicative. Grutness...wha? 02:07, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
I can see why my language would be misleading. :) Sorry; I didn't think about it that way. True enough that mediation won't work if she won't talk...but failing at the attempt takes it a step closer to demonstrating a kind of disruptiveness that demonstrably isn't low-level: "repeatedly disregards other editors' questions or requests for explanations concerning edits or objections to edits;" "Rejects community input: resists moderation and/or requests for comment, continuing to edit in pursuit of a certain point despite an opposing consensus from impartial editors." Hopefully it won't come to that. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 02:18, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
John R. Talbott
The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Following discussions with Keegan as to the best way to proceed, and after correspondence between Mike Godwin and the subject, I've decided — with Keegan's full consent — to undelete the article, reopen the AfD to let it run its natural course, and archive this section based on the developments in discussion between Mike and the subject. Thanks to all for their input. Regards, Daniel (talk) 01:08, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
After trying to mediate this dispute off-wiki, I have deleted the article pending BLP and basically legal threats. This isn't meant to be a give in, but there is simply no other option. Please keep an eye out for article recreation any time soon. Keegantalk 05:57, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Please note that this is a notice, and I intend to notify our legal about this. As I am going to bed, please do not expect a reply from me until a long while tomorrow. Keegantalk 06:12, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
I hadn't voiced any opinion in the AFD, nor had I edited the article but it doesn't seem that there was any consensus at AFD. I don't understand why the AFD was closed as Delete. The obvious other option is Keep and no reason except a threat of the legal boogeyman has been given to close and delete. Clearly G7 doesn't apply as others have edited the article. Bad close and bad deletion is my read based on the info presented here and at the AFD. Toddst1 (talk) 07:00, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
I agree that this should not have been deleted (after only 24 hours at AfD as well) with the information available. Camw (talk) 07:36, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
I have had a look at the OTRS ticket in question (Ticket:2009051110022742). I would be in favour of restoring this page, but without getting into a hurry or a wheel war. Stifle (talk) 08:22, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
By all means, if you were to undelete I would not consider it a wheel-war and will not reverse your actions. Mine stemmed from non-OTRS emails that I'm passing along to the legal beagles. Keegantalk 14:31, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
I participated in the AfD and I expressed confusion regarding why the article was viewed as a problem. It clearly identified its subject as being a notable writer -- his books are released by major publishing houses -- and its references appeared to be in order. Mr. Talbott was not maligned, nor was the article slanted in an unflattering manner. I could not see what kind of legal case he could present, since there is no evidence of libel in what is basically a benign encyclopedia article. Pastor Theo (talk) 09:23, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. The article was not in any way malicious, it seemed quite valid. Does Wikipedia have a policy concerning non-libelous BLP articles where the subject requests (or in this case, legally demands) it be deleted? Has anyone looked through the history to see if there was a potentially inflammatory statement before? I'm curious here as I would almost have thought having an article would be a point of pride, unless bad press about Wikipedia had been taken to heart. --BlueSquadronRaven 14:25, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
I too am puzzled by this outcome and hope that the article will be restored. The claim that Mr. Talbott is not a public figure is absurd, he has published multiple books without using a pseudonym and appears voluntarily in print and broadcast media. The claim that he is not notable because his books are not widely held by libraries is equally absurd. Let's hope the lawyers are able to deal with this quickly. Drawn Some (talk) 15:24, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
What an utterly bizarre situation. The article looks entirely benign, especially compared to some of the articles we've had subjects frothing over in the past. Could any of the OTRS types involved here give us peons a little more detail as to what the problem was? Because otherwise, I'm going to have to go with the above comments and call this a very questionable delete. Tony Fox(arf!) 16:08, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Paying such a degree of attention to the desires of the author is ridiculous, as is giving in to legal threats (unless there were such instructions from the WMF Counsel; the reply to email insisting it be removed --in the absence of actual libel or a court order--should have been "I will consult our lawyers".) It was bad judgment to go ahead on one's own. This is a man with multiple highly notable books, several of which could probably have articles of their own. He write about highly pertinent topics--he's the best known of the people who predicted the housing crash and consequent financial crisis. (there's a wonderfully negative review of one of his books in the Wall Street Journal in 2003 . It would help if Keegan gave the reason the subject specified. (it may be something other than invasion of privacy). DGG (talk) 16:35, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
OTRS comment: For clarification, here is a run down of the events (or as close as I can get to them without violating the privacy policy). Person:X contacted OTRS and requested that John R. Talbott be taken down as it violated their privacy and was posted without their permission. OTRS agent Y replied back stating that the deletion could not be carried out as they were notable enough to have a Wikipedia article about them. Later he (Person:X) was advised that a AfD discussion could be started if he wished, that is where Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John R. Talbott comes in. Following that, the author of the article contacted OTRS and stated that they had no issues with it being deleted from our site, and even specifically asked for it to be deleted (hence the AfD request reason by Daniel). Later that day Keegan(talk·contribs·blocks·protections·deletions·page moves·rights·RfA) was contacted via Special/Email user where the subject of the article apparently threatened legal action (I have not seen the email). The legal threat was no issued via OTRS, nor has it been confirmed by them (yet). It is my understanding that Keegan has or will be forwarding the email to the legal queue. Tiptoetytalk 18:06, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Here's the rundown
Tiptoety basically has it correct, but with the exception that I initiated contact with Person X regarding trying to resolve the dispute of the article and an explanation as to how it may be maintained should it be kept, and what we can do to amicably resolve this. After several emails back and forth, it devolved into what is not a legal threat, but a legal promise should the article continue to exists with myself involved. I basically then said fuck it, and deleted the article, left the notice here, and went to sleep knowing that I would have to deal with this today. I have no time for a deposition, I have no desire to be involved in this any further, and any admin is welcome to undelete the article or other editors are welcome to create a new article, devoid of an edit history that goes against Person X's wishes. I would like to make it clear that this was not an intent to abuse my sysop access as judging consensus or in deleting the article.
I hope that you all will consider my contribution history and history here, and please understand that the action taken was for a specific reason of which the full details cannot be disclosed. I am not trying to keep secrets or be glib, it is binding by the privacy policy.
Now that I have deleted it, do whatever you want with it. Please note that I did not use G7 as my edit summary, so another administrator may be more than willing to provide a copy that can be recreated. With all this said, I wash my hands of this case and go about other business. Happy editing to all. Keegantalk 19:44, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
...and oh yeah, I forwarded one of the two specific emails to legal, I can't find the other and I hope in my haste I didn't delete it. Anywhose, I absolutely expected this response and I understand it (especially DGG). I hope that we all AGF that I knew what I was doing. Keegantalk 20:10, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
So should someone go and undelete this now, or should it first be taken to DRV. Given that the AfD was clearly going towards keeping and that we don't have any substantial policy reasons to keep it deleted...? JoshuaZ (talk) 20:33, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
My deletion summary per OTRS was only partly correct, because it was also by private email. My deletion was totally against policy and process, and summarily incorrect. I am not going to undelete the article. Any other administrative action by anyone else would not be contested by me. That's as about as clear as I can make it without making my position clear... Keegantalk 21:23, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
No intention of being too critical of you - it sounds like someone was in full bluster mode. If getting involved with the article is an invitation to be the target of litigious screaming, then perhaps it's best to wait for the legal folks to comment on the situation. (And hopefully they comment here so those of us going "wtf?" get a response...) Tony Fox(arf!) 21:29, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Just fine saying it Tony Fox, my lesson is learned. Keegantalk 21:34, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Update: If/when/should the article be created, all concerns of the plaintiff will be addressed by our very congenial Foundation attorney. My apologies for ZOMG drama. Keegantalk 23:06, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Because I got a talk page notification about this thread given I was mentioned, here's my piece: basically, I told the subject via OTRS that we couldn't summarily delete his article, but I'd be happy to nominate the article at AfD for him and let the community decide. The relevant part of my email I have uploaded at http://pastebin.ca/1423225 . I had no part in, nor knowledge of, the actual deletion of the article, as I just woke up. Daniel (talk) 00:33, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
I opened a discussion at DRV of this situation: [144]. I guess we have to move over there to keep the conversation going. :) Pastor Theo (talk) 00:42, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Is it better from a copyright viewpoint to undelete the article or to paste the old information as a re-creation? I can paste it if that is preferred and legal says go ahead. Drawn Some (talk) 00:43, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
PS This is the first time I listed an article at DRV - it is under May 15 if you click on the day, but I don't see it on the main DRV page. I would appreciate if someone more knowledgeable with that type of listing could please make the article visible on the main page - I think I did something wrong, but I cannot figure out how to fix it. Thanks! Pastor Theo (talk) 00:48, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This new user has continued concerns that this article has been unfairly treated. She claims expert knowledge on the subject and is dissatisfied with the removal of WP:BLP content. See permanent link to my talk. She commented at BLPN here. I got dragged into this as I was concerned with the BLP aspects of the thing, reduced it to a stub after declining to speedy delete the thing, and placed a note on Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Hakan_Yalincak_article_issues. It has been redirected to Yalincak hedge fund scam. About two days after proposal it was them merged and redirected to List of Ponzi schemes. She does not seem to understand concerns related to WP:BLP, particularly 1E, and sees the removal of content and stubbing as part of a conspiracy of Wikipedia editors or on the part of Wikipedia as an organization to suppress the truth of this subject. Please see User_talk:Marymccully and the above link to my talk. She has presented her case at Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests, but was not satisfied. She is now attempting to file a Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations. There does appear to have been an edit war with Mary as a new player? late arrival? Perhaps an outside look from someone unconnected with the article can help sort things out for her. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 00:18, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
One place to discuss it is enough, and the BLP noticeboard would seem the place. I've given my opinion there. DGG (talk) 02:00, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Its apparent this marymccully user has either a personal connection to yalincak or is yalincak himself sockpuppeting to protect some piece of his notoriety/use wikipedia to harass and implicate others publicly (shouldn't be shocking considering his history). Mary's sage-like knowledge of this character and somewhat bizarre bias/sympathy to his story points to this conclusion (she's apparently read everything about him, even got herself a pacer account to read court documents). Reading her posts, it becomes evident she's very concerned with edits that blanked out content about yalincak's numerous civil suits. The historic importance of Yalincak, let alone the intimate details of his legal efforts, is arguably low, so her defense of this content (and the lengths she's gone to protect it) seem to indicate that mary, whomever she may be, has some interest in insuring those yalincak disliked are associated with his crime regardless of the facts. One of these people clearly stumbled upon this and made it clear that it was legally inappropriate to post this content and thats when Mary stepped in to protest, making an unrelated argument about the historic merits of the yalincak story and the importance of maintaining the page.
I see the article was merged, as i had suggested, into a list of ponzi schemes which is obviously the most appropriate place for the content. There are far more notable schemes on that list that don't have separate, nevermind extensive BLP's and I believe this is how this whole stupidity should end. -Yu. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yulin23 (talk • contribs) 16:31, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Forgive my bringing this issue here, I just by chance stumbled over this page dated ~27 april. 1 May End of yarn volunteered to review Physics and astronomy: Liquid crystal, left a brief note and was gone. Any problem-solving advice or action is welcome. My concern is that other potential reviewers might get distracted by the "review" note on the GAN page. Thanks.NIMSoffice (talk) 23:26, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
End of Yarn was reported here not too long ago because of his doing seemingly fake GA reviews. I'm not sure whether its an administrator issue at this point, though, as he didn't actually pass this one. Still, he should probably be watched/consoled as he doesn't seemed to have learned from the earlier thread. -- Collectonian (talk ·contribs) 05:30, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Thank you all (including GAN:talk page). No further administrative help required on this.NIMSoffice (talk) 06:16, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Are we ever going to do anything about Rotational? This user wars interminably over two layout issues, upon which he disagrees with both consensus and the Manual of Style: he hates "=="-level headings because they put a thin grey line across the page, and he hates right-floated right-facing images.
He was blocked indefinitely for socking under his old username "Paul Venter", but talked his way out of the block by denying he was the same user—a denial that is now obviously, even openly, a lie. He was reported for edit warring here, and here, and here, and here. He has been warned on his talk page innumerable times. A great deal of time has been wasted arguing with him. He has even been blocked once. But the warring just goes on and on and on. Hesperian 01:10, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
This is the discussion from November 2007 where Rotational gets unblocked, after indignantly protesting the assertion that he is Paul venter, but without actually denying it: Rkitko's accusation of my being a sockpuppet is based on purely circumstantial evidence with possibly a touch of vindictiveness.
I suggest that we impose an editing restriction. Admins could tell Rotational he must stop revert-warring against other editors who are formatting articles in accordance with the Manual of Style. In particular, he must not revert war on heading levels or on the issue of right-facing images. (He strongly opposes the standard formatting of the header line of reference sections: see this edit from May 11. He is relentless on that topic). EdJohnston (talk) 04:45, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Support restriction. Rotational has been warned far too many times now, and as far as I can tell, they are not a benefit to the encyclopaedia. -- Darth Mike (talk) 04:55, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Support restriction as one of the editors who frequently has to clean up after him. It is also worth noting he has several pages in his userspace, which at one point he created cross namespace redirects to, and had categorised, though quickly the redirects were speedy deleted and the categories removed a couple of days ago. I suspect this action was to circumvent the MoS. Jenuk1985 | Talk 09:41, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
IP address is a DSL line. Appears to be somewhat dynamic but not terribly so so no reason we can't block the user. The behavior certainly seems disruptive. Threatening people in this fashion may not be a legal threat but it is clearly designed to attempt the same sort of result. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:57, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm probably too involved, but I can live with that. I hope we don't have to lock down the talk page when he rotates IP addresses again. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:00, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
That looks more stupid and childish than real intimidation. We are well into "my big brother will beat you up" territory. Protonk (talk) 21:11, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
To whom it may concern: Please feel free to read Talk:Triple Goddess in order to place the above comments in the proper context. And FYI- You might need a substantial chunk of time to do so. Cheers. tcob44 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.158.203.66 (talk) 01:09, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
A "documentary" about wikipedia? Alright! Oscar material! To be narrated by Leonard Nimoy, and to be entitled In Search of... An Audience! Yes, alas, this documentary will only be seen by a limited viewrship. Specifically, it will be used as part of the interrogation process at GTMO. They'll be forced to watch it over and over, until they confess. Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots 12:41, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
keeping deleted fringe articles on user pages.
After the articles Iberian-Guanche inscriptions and Iberian-Canarian scripts were deleted as self-published nonsense, their author, User:Iberomesornix, posted them on his user page.[145] Other than correcting the double posting and cleaning up some of the formatting, it is there still in the same form. Now another user, who had fought to keep the original article (perhaps one of Iberomesornix's several socks, perhaps a "persecuted" colleague), has used the user page as a source for adding some of the content back into mainspace.[146] Would I be out of line in deleting the contents of this user page? kwami (talk) 06:24, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
I've blanked it, without deleting it. Do you think that'll be sufficient? Fut.Perf.☼ 06:34, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes. "Blanking" was the word I was searching for when I said "deleting the contents". If he edit wars over restoring it, I can always protect the page. (I don't like messing w people's talk pages, and I'm already part of the anti-intellectual cabal out to hide the Truth, so I wanted to air it out here before doing anything.) kwami (talk) 06:43, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
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.
Debresser expressed a good faith concern that the term 'homophobia' might cause Wikipedia legal difficulties. This was interpreted, again in good faith, as a legal threat. The consensus here is that it was not. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 14:55, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
In seeking to force a name change for the category 'homophobia' this user has made a second legal threat if we do not do as he says:
I still propose renaming to Category:LGBT rights opposition (or should that be Category:LGBT-rights opposition?). If nothing will change soon, I think we have to take this to an official "category for deletion" discussion, as a category name that is a potential source of legal action against Wikipedia. Debresser (talk) 10:50, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Could somebody have a look at this please. Mish (talk) 11:09, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Anybody having a look will see that there is no truth to his words. I propose reprimanding Mish instead for wrongly accusing fellow editors. The diffs are 1 and 2Debresser (talk) 11:21, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
per those diffs I don't see anything that is a legal threat. what are you proposing Debresser?HellinaBucket (talk) 11:23, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
also to clarify I am not admin just a neditor with a will to helpHellinaBucket (talk) 11:27, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
I propose to kindly tell Mish on his talk page that he should be a little less agressive, both in interpreting the words of others and in his own words. Furthermore, I'd like the part of the discussion mentioning this accusation removed from the talk page, or at least an admin marking it as closed by ruling them wrongfull. Debresser (talk) 11:30, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
I can't see how using an English word that's in common usage could possibly be a matter for legal action; why would you say that, other than to create a chilling effect on the discussion? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:28, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Isn't "whore" "an English word that is in common usage"? Obviously all depends on how it is said, and how it can be interpreted. In this case, the definitions mentioned before on the talk page are so different that they allow for people being offended according to one interpretation, while he really would be a homophobe according to another. It is in the best interest of Wikipedia that I think this category name should be changed. Debresser (talk) 11:34, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Mention of potential legal problems doesn't necessarily indicate legal threat. I mention potential legal problems quite often in the case of talking to people about copyright problems, but it doesn't follow that I intend to sue Wikipedia. Whether his arguments have weight or not, he seems to be suggesting that there are potential BLP issues in the category name "homophobia". I think it's a reasonable misgiving for an individual to have, whether the matter represents a serious legal concern or not. He's not the first ([147][148]) to have it. With respect to "legal threats", the first comment linked above is clearly not a legal threat. The latter link still seems to me to be emphasizing his point: "I'd sue Wikipedia for being categorised a homophobe, possibly." (Is anyone here proposing that we start categorizing users as homophobes? If so, I think we have bigger problems than this statement, hedged & subjunctive as it is.) --Moonriddengirl(talk) 11:44, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
The category is, as you say, 'homophobia', not 'homophobe', and there will be people who campaign on LGBT human rights who would fall under this category, just as those who oppose them. Being placed under an established category that exists in the real world is not libellous, whereas seeking to assert it is is a veiled threat in order to have a term that is not used (and that nobody would ever search under) replace it. Alternatives have been suggested, such as 'hetersosexism', but they are not what one editor wants. This is just an edit that seeks to eliminate a common term used as a category because somebody doesn't like it. The legality is thrown in to give a spurious argument more weight than it deserves. It is a waste of time. Mish (talk) 12:02, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
The merit of the argument is not our concern here. Our concern is whether this user has issued a legal threat. If he hasn't, this isn't a matter for administrators, but for consensus. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 12:06, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm only an editor but I don't take that as a legal threat, slightly passive aggressive but I think Assume Good Faith. The editor seems to have kept their cool here.HellinaBucket (talk) 12:09, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
(ec)The wording doesn't look like a legal threat, it looks like a concern or a fear that wikipedia might get sued. And he has a point. It's why BLP rules are fairly strict. "Homophobia" is not a neutral term, it's a politically charged term, and it would be wise to look for something that's less so. Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots 12:11, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia is safe folks, sometimes these defintions are unflattering, until 1994 homosexuality was considered a mental disorder by the medical community. These things change with time but keep in mind the medical people didn't get sued when they finally changed things.HellinaBucket (talk) 12:13, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
I think the point was that some individual might decide to sue wikipedia over being labeled homophobic. Of course, they also might sue over wikipedians posting tourist-quality snapshots of themselves. Some public figures can be very touchy about these things. Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots 12:34, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
"I'd sue Wikipedia for being categorised a homophobe, possibly. In conclusion, we absolutely MUST rename this category ASAP. Debresser (talk) 22:34, 14 May 2009 (UTC)"
"If nothing will change soon, I think we have to take this to an official "category for deletion" discussion, as a category name that is a potential source of legal action against Wikipedia. Debresser (talk) 10:50, 15 May 2009 (UTC)"
While this discussion is not about the category, but the introduction of possible legal threats to influence discussion, the issue is not about labeling somebody as homophobic (or a homophobe), that is disingenuous, the issue is the category 'homophobia'. This is a category which exists in human rights, academic, legal and common discourse. It may be imprecise, but the way to deal with that is not by insisting a descriptor which (frankly) only exists in Wikipedia and a few interest-group sites opposed to LGBT human rights, be used - and threatening to submit the category to CfD because the individual cannot get their own way and they (or some hypothetical group or individual) might sue were they to find themselves located within that category. In a discussion which has civilly sought to separate out the category into homophobia and some novel construction like 'LGBT opposition', or replace it with 'heterosexism' (also recognised in academic discourse, though less widely elsewhere than 'homophobia'), the editor has decided to ignore consensus in pushing for his POV on the matter, in the context of threatening a CfD with reference to spurious legal arguments. He will be incapable of citing any such litigation of this kind, just I doubt he will find a reputable source for the term(s) he is proposing as an alternative. Most gay people do not appreciate the category 'homosexual', yet it exists, and is reflected here as Category:Male homosexuality, yet nobody has threatened legal action over it. The introduction of possible libel actions into the call for removal this category simply de-rails a discussion that was approaching a consensus. Mish (talk) 13:28, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
It's not up to you alone to decide what this discussion is "about". BLP is a serious matter, and labeling people is hence also a serious matter. The probability of wikipedia getting sued is fairly remote, but BLP rules don't take that chance. "Homophobia" is not a neutral term. It labels someone in a certain way, and runs the risk of violating BLP rules, which require a conservative, cautious approach when stating facts about living persons. "LGBT opposition", while it might sound a bit unwieldy, also sounds like a more neutral term, provided you have citations that confirm the person in question has some connection to that subject. Either way, though, you can't label someone that way unless you have citations that prove it. Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots 13:38, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
After reading the page, while MishMich is (in my experience) an activist who's activities aren't always in line with core policy (because they have a bias they wish to push - an understand bias but still a bias) I'd have to agree with them over this - Homophobia is a mainstream term used in the media, academia and the discourse around this subject. We simply cannot whitewash it out of wikipedia. The legal action stuff is not worth even discussing. --Cameron Scott (talk) 13:40, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
"Homophobia" is a left-wing, politically-correct term that implies that anyone who opposes anything to do with the "gay agenda" is opposing based on fear rather than on reason. The fact it's mainstream makes it no less pejorative. Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots 13:49, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
And? We use reliable sources and present a mainstream view - homophobia is a mainstream and accepted term to use in the context of those discussions. --Cameron Scott (talk) 13:59, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
If I'd be uninvolved I'd start removing comments that are off-topic. This is not the CfD of Category:Homophobia. This is a discussion about that I have been accused to have issued legal threats. Debresser (talk) 13:58, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
It seems consensus is that I have been falsely accused. With all due respect, perhaps close this incident? May I remind you of my proposal:
I propose to kindly tell Mish on his talk page that he should be a little less agressive, both in interpreting the words of others and in his own words. Furthermore, I'd like the part of the discussion mentioning this accusation removed from the talk page, or at least an admin marking it as closed by ruling them wrongfull. Debresser (talk) 11:30, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
In the spirit of assuming good faith, I don't believe that he should be cautioned about overly-aggressively interpreting legal threats. We don't want people fearing to bring up problems in that area because they might be misinterpreting. However, I agree that this thread should be closed, and I think it's reasonable to note at the discussion page that consensus did not find legal threat here. I'll do so. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 14:04, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. I can't say the very cautious wording of the remark there sooths my offended soul. In real life, I'd expect an apology or a disclaimer of a little more personal content. After all, I have been personally accused, and personally threatened with sanctions if the accusations were to be found correct. Debresser (talk) 14:13, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry if it doesn't satisfy you. It wasn't offered in the spirit of caution, but accuracy. So long as this thread remains open, I can't know that consensus will remain as it is. It seems clear to me, but consensus goes that way. While I understand that you may feel offended to have had your words intepreted as a legal threat, I see nothing uncivil in the other user's note here, nor any threat of sanctions. He brought up what he apparently believed to be a legal threat and requested that administrators evaluate it. I did not notice any kind of uncivil behavior at that category talk, but if I've missed something you may wish to consider WP:WQA, if you can't resolve it between the two of you. I don't personally think that the listing here rises to the level of "Ill-considered accusations of impropriety"—it seems possibly a legitimate misinterpretation of your words—but you can certainly request an apology of the user if you like, as it says at Wikipedia:Civility. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 14:21, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
I certainly do not want to drive things to the top. And his tone here was definitely appropriate. Assuming good faith seems in place. On the other hand, I have yet to find an editor here who agreed with his interpretation of my words. A personal apology of some kind would be in place.
So any admin willing to close the discussion? Debresser (talk) 14:45, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
To correct a few inaccuracies, I am an academic, not an LGBT activist. I may be involved in some form of activism, but not LGBT, L, G, B or T activism. I am involved in a very specialised area of medical human rights, not political rights. Homophobia is not a left-wing term, it is a term used in legal as well as academic discourse - whereas the view that it is left-wing is itself a political one. This is why I am concerned about editors introducing novel constructions into public discourse via Wikipedia, as if they were neutral, without proper sourcing, in place of more widely-accepted terminology. If 'homophobia' were that problematic, I would not expect it to be referred to legally.Mish (talk) 14:39, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
P.S., while I don't have too much problem with being referred to as 'he', and cannot be offended about people assuming it, I would prefer it if you used my legal and medical gender, which is 'she'. Mish (talk) 14:46, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Please note that I said a CfD should be started. I am not pushing the introduction of any specific other term, although I have mentioned a few reasonable alternatives IMHO. So your worry seems to have little to do with me. Debresser (talk) 14:52, 15 May 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.
I'd appreciate if some more people watch this: I just discovered that whole sections were copy-paste quotes, some unattributed, some attributed in a ref, but making up so much of the section that we'd never get fair use.
This gutted the list, though, so make sure that people don't revert it to the copyright-infringing version. Because you know someone will.
Frankly, I half-wonder if the whole list should be deleted, but... Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 16:08, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
– User linked to the most appropriate forum, ie WP:COIN. Nja247 21:54, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
62.117.66.228 (talk·contribs) seems keen to promote the otherwise non notable Moscow Calligraphy Museum. Just in case someone finds this interesting. --RCS (talk) 13:12, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
– Blocked and directed to contact OTRS --Dynaflowbabble 22:05, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
See edit summary in this edit: "Removed at the site owners request who had nothing to do with this. I posted this link thinking it was relevant. If posted again legal action will be taken against all parties including this website."
From the edits both by FOCCONLINE (talk·contribs) and also by 66.242.207.210 (talk·contribs) (who appears to be the same user), it appears that they were contacted by focconline.com - who gave them a legal threat. Presumably this was done off-line, as I can't locate any evidence of it on Wikipedia. The user then begin removing posts which mention the url - not all of which were made by this user (for example, the one they were removing in the above diff was posted by a third party) - and posting their own legal threat in the edit for the removal. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:17, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
And a second threat in the edit summary from this diff: "The words have been edited due to copyright infringement. If this is posted again legal action will be taken. This is your last warning as a community and website." --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:20, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
I have blocked FOCCONLINE (talk·contribs) for making legal threats. Tiptoetytalk 21:21, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
So according to the posting deleted here, 66.242.207.210 (talk·contribs·deleted contribs·filter log·WHOIS·RDNS·RBLs·http·block user·block log) would be his or her roommate? Judging from the edit summary for that post, FOCCONLINE seems to have been goaded into a panic by someone else's legal bullying, and might conceivably be in quite a bit of trouble if this is true and he or she is not the sort who can afford decent legal representation. Blocking is appropriate here until the threats are retracted, but we may want to show good faith and meet him or her halfway (keep Wikipedia:Don't overlook legal threats in mind). Perhaps he or she can be referred to OTRS. --Dynaflowbabble 21:43, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Please see the block message I left, in it I have directed them to contact OTRS. Cheers, Tiptoetytalk 21:55, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Ah, good. We're on the same frequency. =) --Dynaflowbabble 22:05, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
The above user in one day has introduced more then five inappropriate pages to the encyclopedia. Many of his articles have been sent to AFD or have been Speedy Deleted. See his talk page.--gordonrox24 (talk) 21:37, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Big sockfarm -- but why?
I've noticed a weird pattern happening on certain financial-sector articles, appearing most clearly at Medium Term Note (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). It seems fairly obvious the following usernames are socks, but I can't figure out what they're trying to do and whether it's benign or malevolent. Can somebody else take a look to check if my paranoia is justified, and if so, what is the payoff the puppeteer is going for?
I didn't see anything blatantly bad, although I didn't look through every edit. What is striking is that each account is only active for less than a day, and none of the contribs lists overlap. I'm guessing it's just someone who thinks he needs an account to edit, but can't be bothered to actually remember his password. It wouldn't be the first time I've seen someone like that. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:14, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I was thinking they looked like throw-aways. I just want to be sure that their overall pattern is okay. I noticed, for example, that the names of certain firms were being added and removed here and there. --Dynaflowbabble 08:21, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
This seems to me to be an obvious case of conflict of interest by a privacy-aware professional in the finance industry, with some slight promotion of terms going on. The sockpuppetry doesn't seem too problematic to me (no different to using IP addresses), but I think some independent citation requests may be called for, for example who are the largest providers of MTNs, and who invented the Proof of Funds. -- zzuuzz(talk) 08:29, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Compare Siufdnnv's edits to Medium Term Note with this at Google books. The editor's contributions are obviously not original (unless he is the writer Leland E Crabbe, of course). Mr Stephen (talk) 10:25, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Socking, whether deliberate or not, is still socking. Someone should have a word with them at least and advise them to either stick to one account, or stay anonymous. C.U.T.K.DT | C 10:31, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
If they're abandoning each account after one quick spurt of editing, I don't see any reliable way to communicate with them, short of embedding commented-out messages in the raw text of their favorite articles. Might this be worth a checkuser request to see 1) if there's a stable sockmaster account that we can communicate with and 2) if there are any more socks doing similar things elsewhere (the listed socks may only be the tip of the iceberg)? We already know that sock puppetry is going on here -- we just don't know the extent of it -- and if there's good cause to believe plagiarism is involved and we have no way to tell this person to knock it off, it behooves us to get as complete an inventory as possible of this single user's fractured, widely-dispersed editing history. --Dynaflowbabble 11:05, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. Has anyone submitted an SPI request yet? C.U.T.K.DT | C 12:08, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
I'd suggest that looking at Proof of Funds, which begins "A Proof of Funds (POF) was invented by Kai Lassen of Rockwick Capital", might prove useful. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:49, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
After reading through the changes, there's definitely a promotional flavor to this. Cohen and Stein (as a securities dealer, and one I can't find in Google) and Rockwick Capital are made more prominent, while Goldman Sachs (a huge company) is removed. The text is altered to indicate that the "better" forms of certain kinds of securities can only be obtained through key dealers. Some kinds of securities are made to look better, and others made to look worse. None of this is backed up by references. Multiple accounts with dummy names are editing the same articles. Edit summaries are random strings. Everything associated with these accounts could be reverted without loss of useful content. Also, chase down all mentions of Cohen & Stein. Who are they? Are they for real? --John Nagle (talk) 20:03, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't want to violate guidelines here, but it appears to be a deliberate promotional effort by an individual rather than a Primetime vandalism spree. Note the username of the editor who created Proof of Funds - Kierulff666. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:39, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Each account is used less than ten minutes. Internet cafes?LeadSongDogcome howl 21:10, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
This is starting to look like a scheme to use Wikipedia to promote a scam. The Proof of Funds thing is a vehicle to assist in obtaining financing by creating the appearance of phony assets. Uh oh. I just edited the Proof of Funds article to reflect this, citing a Wall Street Journal article reporting the arrest of 7 people on Federal charges for doing this sort of thing. There's apparently a whole racket promoting this scam online; the WSJ article says "Apogee allegedly recruited clients through advertising on online services, such as Craigslist.com". Everything in this area needs a good hard look. --John Nagle (talk) 21:34, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
I think this is a slightly different thing. See also report here. As I understand it, Proof of Funds means Rich Uncle deposits $$$$ in a bank account in your name, for a fee. The $$$$ is never available to you, but the bank will affirm that you have the money thus increasing your good standing. In this particular scam, no money was ever deposited (read the report), but bank staff were persuaded to issue letters anyway. Mr Stephen (talk) 22:10, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
This appears to have been going on for a while - the history of Demand guarantee] shows four visits by our "Rockwick Capital" sockmaster between January and April. If they were better at coming up with sockpuppet names, it probably could have lasted longer. Is there an SPI case open yet? There are plenty more puppets and articles (I particularly enjoy Mt760). Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:45, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
The more I look at this, the worse it gets. "Cohen & Stein", is, according to some of the edits made by these socks, a big financial company. I don't think so. They have no hits in Google other than to copies of Wikipedia. I checked the SEC's EDGAR system; they're not listed, and they would be if they were legit. I looked them up in Dun and Bradstreet; the only hit with that name is a "Cohen & Stein" in Flushing, NY. Google StreetView indicates that their address is above a discount computer store in Queens, NY. This is looking very bad. I just rolled Medium Term Note (which claimed that Cohen & Stein was one of the largest dealers in medium term notes) back to September 2008, to get rid of all edits from the sock farm. I have to go out now, so I'd appreciate it if others would follow up. Also check for all mentions of "Rockwick Capital"; they do exist, but they're being promoted in Wikipedia in at least ten articles. Thanks. --John Nagle (talk) 21:55, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
More scam: Al-Waleed bin Talal, Ng Teng Fong, and Andrew Forrest, articles about real billionaires, were edited to make it appear that they were behind "Rockwick Capital". Major WP:BLP violation. I've removed the promotional material from those articles, and a few others. Try this search to find appearances of "Rockwick Capital" in Wikipedia. I've fixed most of those. --John Nagle (talk) 01:48, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
They're still at it. See this recent edit by Insfdiub (talk ·contribs)to United States Treasury security: "They cannot be bought through TreasuryDirect, but only through a specialty T Strip broker, the largest brokers being Rockwick Capital & Cohen and Stein." Reverted spam. Keep watching. Thanks. --John Nagle (talk) 07:24, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
The Financial Express (India) used the lede from the spammed version of Al-Waleed bin Talal in an article in their newspaper.[150]. So Wikipedia spam for "Rockwick Capital" made it into a "reliable source". --John Nagle (talk) 07:39, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
The RFCU has been completed, but Dominic says that the accounts' underlying IPs span at least four ISPs, and possibly multiple states. He suggests that more than one person may be behind this thing, and it is conceivable that a company might tell a few of its telecommuting employees to create random usernames and insert pre-decided material into these articles. However, I suspect that it's one person using proxies or travel to obscure the source of the edits. Aside from the surface similarity of the usernames and contribs, my reason for believing this is that there seems to be a distinctive signature in how this person's fingers fall on the keyboard when he or she generates his or her "random-character" account names and edit summaries. There is a tendency to mash down with the right hand somewhere in the arc made by four fingers resting on Y U I L, and this person also seems to rest his or her left hand on S D F V, and usually mashes down keys on that side second. Finishing the names seems to usually entail moving the right hand down the keyboard from its starting position, pressing keys at random. This is definitely the same person making these edits. I propose calling him or her "Rockwick" rather than Lifnlsdlsdnf, as the former is much easier to remember. If we are in agreement that Rockwick is not helpful to the project -- and indeed seems to be abusing it -- and if we believe that Rockwick is a distinct individual, would discussion of a community ban be appropriate at this point? Not that that would stop Rockwick from editing, but at least it would allow us to issue a protocol like "revert and block on recognition." It kind of sucks to suggest doing this to someone who we can't even try to politely warn off, but the inability to communicate is the result of Rockwick's methods, and is no fault of ours. I imagine a caveat to a banning decision could be that the ban might be lifted if communication is established and Rockwick either has a good explanation for all of this or shows an appropriate level of penitence when things are explained to him or her. What do you all think? --Dynaflowbabble 08:21, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Use the abuse filter to communicate with him/her check for new account and "Rockwick Capital". --Stefantalk 08:47, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Good thought. Please put "Rockwick Capital" and "Cohen & Stein" in the abuse filter, with the latter using a regular expression that captures variations on "&" and "and". I'd suggest action "abusefilter-disallowed", in article namespace only. That should slow them down. --John Nagle (talk) 15:48, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Filed an abuse filter request at Wikipedia:Abuse filter/Requested. I've also cleaned up all the damage I can find from this spammer. Once we have a filter in place to sound the alarm if they try this again, we should be done. --John Nagle (talk) 17:37, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
I have sent an e-mail to the editorial staff of the Indian Express notifying them of the misinformation their hapless, plagiarizing writer allowed to be incorporated into their article on Prince Al-Waleed. Hopefully they can get that corrected on their end, which will help prevent this from echoing through the Internet and eventually coming back as a cited addition to our Al-Waleed bin Talal article. What a mess. --Dynaflowbabble 18:39, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
On top of the abuse filter, I think we can all agree that a site ban is appropriate here and I would support a formal ban being put in place. Tiptoetytalk 19:22, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. Down with the Rockwick spammer. --Dynaflowbabble 05:21, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
After reading over the whole thread and looking at the support for a ban here I have been bold and implemented one. I also created User:Rockwick with a link to User:Lifnlsdlsdnf seeing as that is what we are calling him. Tiptoetytalk 05:47, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
IP talk used for tracking good faith editor's logged-out edits?
I was rather surprised to be informed of Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Bluedogtn, which is populated by IP addressed marked in the manner of User talk:71.231.58.8. Bluedogtn has a number of legitimate alternate accounts, but as far as I can tell, is an editor in good standing. I would normally do a mass-MFD of the pages, however, after having been informed that no policy seems to exist governing the use of sockpuppet templates in a related issue (see here, here and here), I have no idea where to go with this. While the other dispute may be one way, this use of IP addresses to track an editor in good standing, using the blatant bad faith term "sockpuppet", is just wrong.
However, I'm not sure how to proceed. I'm reasonably sure administrative action is necessary here (e.g., speedy deletion of the IP talk pages). I'd simply use AWB to depopulate the categories in question, but I know from the related dispute that Tennis expert will simply repopulate them within one or two days... and I don't have the intent to engage in an edit war here. I just want to see the right thing done. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 21:25, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Is there any allegation anywhere that Bluedogtn, et. al. has used any of the IPs in an abusive manner? —Travistalk 21:54, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
If I may chime in here, I remember this incident; or more specifically I remember it occurring with BlueDogtn's "TennisAuthority" alternate account, which (fairly obviously) he uses only for tennis-related posts. One of BlueDog's first posts (as TennisAuthority) was attacked by Tennis Expert here (part of said attack included accusing the editor of being a sockpuppet of me). He was attacked by Tennis Expert again here for the same reason; neither instance seems to me to have been a provokable instance. I do not have knowledge of his other alternate accounts but in my experience, his BlueDog and Tennis Authority accounts have only been used positively. AlonsornunezComments 23:09, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
All IP talkpages in above category deleted because there is no evidence that BlueDogTN has used them in an abusive manner, thus making the sock notice-laden talkpages borderline attack pages. —Travistalk 23:31, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the help, Travis. For the record, I've never seen any suggestions that Bluedogtn has engaged in any actual abuse- all I've ever seen is Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bluedogtn/Archive, which didn't end up doing anything at all. But in any case that seemed to come after the tagging happened. In fact, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive530#No, IPSock! seems to explain the problem, though it appears not to have resulted in the desired outcome. At worst, there's some sketchy behavior from around that time, which quite honestly could be assumed to be caused by confusion and/or frustration at being labeled as an abusive user. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 01:17, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
There's another category that refers to an editor who is not blocked and from all appearances hasn't engaged in abusive sockpuppetry: see Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Jeffreyneave. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 02:08, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
What about cats related to blocked editors?
In relation to this, might I ask what the appropriate steps to take would be when I come across an IP talk page tagged with {{IPsock}} when there's no clear evidence of abuse (or specifically, what form such evidence would need to take)? To be more clear, I'm asking with reference to the plethora of IPs tagged in Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Musiclover565 and Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Korlzor (and their duplicates; e.g., this, this). —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 01:26, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
By the way, in asking about this I'm not requesting that someone from here dig through everything and start deleting. I'm more than willing to go through these myself and tag those pages where there's no evidence of abuse as {{db-attack}}, if that's the appropriate move; I understand there are quite a lot of pages in these cats (I believe more than 400), and in very few instances were any ever mentioned at a SSP/RfCU/SPI investigation. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 17:26, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Bluedogtn
Hello, I was just going on editing on wikipedia, and Tennis expert made these IPSOCK pages, which was because I made and have many accounts which do not violate wikipedia guidelines. I have been taking OrangeMike Admins advices and just letting it go knowing that it would get brought up later, which he was right. I have done what ever anyone has ever requested of me on here. I have with my GolfAuthority Account been doing many works for golf specific articles, and you can ask Wjemather how diplomatic I am working with the Golf Project, and how hardworking I am in bring things to the attention of the community, when I don't understand! I have done all the major champions on the womens side the infobox golfer and made major championship navboxes for the two oldest majors, and made for all of the major champions the wikitable for the majors they have won to make it sort-of like the men's, but could not find info on the oldest two on wiki or elsewhere. I love this site, and was and would not be detered from helping out on the subject areas that I love! Good Day Peace Out!BLuEDOgTn 01:40, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
You don't really need to worry about this at this point, Bluedogtn. The category tracking your logged-out edits has been depopulated, as it should be. However, it's probably a good idea in the future, if you do make logged-out edits on accident, to come back and sign them as being from an account. I don't have a particular opinion on your use of alternate accounts... beyond that it's a little extreme in my view, but well within policy limits. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 02:13, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Crazy block by Connolley
Why was Peter Damian blocked for reverting the insane edits of an anon IP on the Objectivism (Ayn Rand) article? Why has the article been locked down ostensibly to protect against the IP edits, but the IP not been blocked? Why was Damain (myself) blocked? Madness. See my remarks on Jimbo's page (he is protecting these lunatics, it seems). 86.132.248.254 (talk) 00:17, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Since you pre-announced your intention to get yourself blocked, it isn't all that surprising. I think you're one of those people for whom drama is like cocaine, and you started feeling withdrawal symptoms. Looie496 (talk) 00:50, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
To be honest, protection and blocking is overkill. Only one of them, please, when dealing with edit warring. Sceptre(talk) 00:51, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Isn't it normal for a blocked editor's block to get extended for blatant block evasion? In addition to posting here, this IP posted twice to the article talk page and then to a user page within the space of less than ten minutes.[151] Even if the block is wrong, there's no excuse for complicating matters by evading it. Surely this experienced user knows how to use the unblock template. DurovaCharge! 01:03, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
This is true. Although I believe Peter has done this before... I think. Sceptre(talk) 01:05, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
I blocked the IP for block evasion, and anybody is free to extend Peter Damian's original block. --auburnpilottalk 01:06, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
The article Objectivism (Ayn Rand) is only semiprotected, for the benefit of the highly-persistent IP who will not discuss. This action was unrelated to Peter Damian's editing, and his recent use of a sock to evade his block. Damian went to great lengths to violate 3RR, apparently trying to prove a point, and was blocked by WMC. EdJohnston (talk) 01:35, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
"…and his recent use of a sock to evade his block."
What sockpuppet?
More generally, is it our job to run Wikipedia without reference to, interest in, or opinions about content?24.18.142.245 (talk) 09:13, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
I am concerned that only one party to an edit war is blocked, especially as the unblocked party has previously been blocked for their editing of the same article and is apparently a pov warrior, and specifically it is WMC who actioned the sanction. WMC is now responsible for 3 of the 5 blocks on the Peter Damian account. I note that WMC took no other action, leaving it for another to sprotect the article nor - as noted - sanctioning the other edit warrior. I feel that this gives the impression that WMC acted disproportionately in sanctioning an editor with whom they have a history regarding blocking. I shall ask WMC if they wish to comment here. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:42, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for asking, I do. Your impressions are incorrect. PD broke 3RR, so I blocked him. As far as I'm aware, no-one else did. I'm fairly sure that PD intended to merely tweak our noses by using his "quota" of 3R/24h (in which case I would probably have blocked him for edit warring), but mistakenly went over the line. As you'll have seen from PD's subsequent contributions, he did all this to make a point and appears to have succeeded, so is presumably happy with the outcome William M. Connolley (talk) 18:24, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
You noted edit warring in the block log, but took no action other than to block PD - subsequently the ip with whom PD was warring has been blocked for a week for their general pov warring behaviour and the article the two were involved was sprotected; if you are going to refer to edit warring (rather than disruption, also available from the same menu) it behoves an administrator to review the culpability of all involved, or to address the edit war otherwise. If you are going to be inattentive as regards the block reason placed in the log, then you will have to accept that people are going to get the wrong impression. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:16, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm pleased to note that you've realised you got the wrong impression; sadly you are still making mistakes; there was no inattention on my part. PD, as far as I know (and no-one has challenged this) was the only one to break 3RR (and did so in a deliberately provocative manner - a point that I don't think you have acknowledged). Your apparent belief that if one person needs to be blocked for edit warring, then so should someone else, is completely wrong. I suggest you review the history of WP:AN3 if you're unclear about that William M. Connolley (talk) 21:26, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Really? The other party to the edit war (not disruption or another reason, but edit war) was subsequently blocked for a week for their practice of reverting other peoples contributions without seeking consensus or even discussing the matter back to their previous edited versions after a discussion between me and another sysop. You have been around longer than I have, but it seemed like an edit war - over several Ayn Rand articles - to us. We didn't need to look very hard, either, since the ip already had a 24 hour block a few days previously for that same behaviour. I cannot believe you could have missed it had you looked, so I therefore conclude that you didn't. Also, the page being warred over was sprotected a couple of hours after the PD block to stop the continuing edit war. As I said, possible inattention to matters outside of blocking PD (which I have noted was appropriate on this page) gives rise to these unfortunate impressions. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:39, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Peter Damian edit warred with summaries like "about the 6th revert" and then flaunted this on an administrator's talk page, twice. Further he turned the question of whether the administrator would block him or not into a way to make a WP:Point confirming that "I don't have to 'discuss' with lunatics." which constitutes both a personal attack and a stated intention to edit war more in the future, with the assertion that not-blocking would be taken to be implicit permission to do so. How is anyone surprised that this resulted in a block? He begged for it. The semi-protect was done by a different admin for a different reason. Mishlai (talk) 20:27, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
As I have commented in an ongoing discussion on my talkpage, there are no problems with the block of Peter Damian for the policy violations but I have a concern that there was no other action taken in regard to an edit war (plus the fact is was GMC again who blocked PD). If the block was for disruption, one from the drop down menu I use where other policy violations do not suffice, then there would be less concern; edit warring does require other parties, and resolving edit wars usually entails either sanctioning more than one party or protecting the article involved. GMC's action has, as I said, the appearance of being disproportionate. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:42, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
WMC, you seriously don't see the other edit warrior at Objectivism (Ayn Rand)? I just popped in, and noted it off the bat. If you need your hand held to see that, and you refute comments by others in that regard, then why perform the block? You should be asking for review and for assistance. seicer | talk | contribs 21:44, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Block evasion
Peter Damian has continued to evade his block using 81.151.180.208 (talk ·contribs) and Peter Damian (temporary) (talk·contribs). Both are blocked, but if this continues, the original block will have to be reset. --auburnpilottalk 16:47, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
I think perhaps resetting it now would be appropriate. PD is well aware that block evasion is not permitted. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:46, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
I just added 72 hours. This kind of stuff is tiresome. Protonk (talk) 20:54, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
This guy is just yanking our chain. He went to Wikipedia Review admitting to being a previously blocked user (by Jimbo, no less) and claiming that he would sockpuppet but adding good content (which he did, up to a point), and use that to attempt to persuade financial contributors to desist from doing so. However, no admin, including myself, was prepared to give him that satisfaction; we do not dance to the tune of blocked users. However, knowing something of this guy IRL (a minor academic, but no more than that), I suggest it's about time to bring this to an end as far as we can, and I propose a formal ban of User:Peter Damian and all his sockpuppets. A plague on all their houses. Rodhullandemu 23:08, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
When his siteban was lifted it was against my better judgment: per Wikipedia:Standard offer I prefer to see banned editors demonstrate a fundamental respect for our standards by refraining from evasions of their ban; after several months of that most of them can earn another chance. This one tried to earn his way back through persistent ban evasion, and the block history since his return is not encouraging. Nonetheless, let's give him a fair shake if he's willing to give us one. If he posts a statement acknowledging that site policies apply to everyone (including himself) and pledging to abide by this and any future blocks (or appeal them by normal means)--then I would support a good faith reduction of 24 hours from his current block. DurovaCharge! 00:34, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't know if linking off-wiki discussions is appropriate, but since you seem to be trying to evaluate intention/attitude [152]Mishlai (talk) 00:41, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
A post at his user talk would be adequate. We've all had days when we saw red for a while and then thought better of it. A clear demonstration of that is all that's needed here. DurovaCharge! 00:59, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
And he referred to me as a member of The Cabal. Nonetheless I am willing to let bygones be bygones if he is. What could be fairer? After all the dry cleaners returned my black velvet cabal robes three days late. I was forced to attend last week's Cabal Cocktail Party in a black silken dress--so 2006--so I'm not in a mood to toe the party line today. DurovaCharge! 01:41, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
⬅I'd suggest a slightly less holier than thou attitude than evidenced above. Peter does hard graft on articles, and is prepared to take on many articles that attract high levels of POV editing. he also does rigourous research and references his material. The complete absence of admin intervention on the IP editor involved in this and the failure to deal with editors who play to the limit of WIki rules while refusing to deal with questions was a contributory factor here. Peter has a short fuse but that tends to go with the territory. If you check the edits he made :evading" they were to talk pages only not the articles. We need to spend a bit more time understanding the context in which these actions take place. Peter is easy to provoke, and doing it is a "game" for some. Verdana comes closest to a mature attitude above, what would be nice would someone with admin powers spending some time looking at the content debates and then checking the behaviour of editors who keep to the letter of the law while driving others to frustrated excess. --Snowded (talk) 06:51, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Agree with Snowded. Peter needs to learn to keep his temper under control, but he makes tremendous contributions to the project. The talk of banning is absurd. Seriously, if we perma-banned every snarky user the place would be a ghost-town. Those of you who think Peter should be banned need to ask yourself if it's worth losing his contributions. TallNapoleon (talk) 12:05, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
You know, we have plenty of great article contributors who don't feel the need to either get in trouble or wear the fact that they are article contributors on their sleeve when they get in trouble. I don't understand the mentality that if you rack up enough article edits, block evasion isn't block evasion anymore. Protonk (talk) 17:11, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Then point a few of them at highly troublesome articles like the Ayn Rand ones, NLP and others which have fan clubs of editors, it takes a stubborn personality to stand up to that and a bit more attention to the context should (in my opinion) have resulted in at best a token block, but with a linked block/admonishment to the other two editors. extending the ban when no edits were made to any articles, just a few talk pages was petty. --Snowded (talk) 21:22, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Hold the phone. I can't for the life of me understand how extending a block for block evasion is petty. Maybe I'm still nursing this grudge that Peter has imagined, but I am having some trouble. PD gets blocked for edit warring. As is his MO, he makes obvious attempts to evade the block and either post on talk pages or make article edits presumably so that this exact conversation can be repeated each time. People can come here and complain that "ignorant admins have blocked a hardworking content contributor, see look at how ludicrous blocking someone for good content edits is!" and ignore (pretty blithely if you ask me) the basis for the original block or the block extension. Blocks, as a technical measure, only block the account, but we are interested in preventing the human behind the account from editing during the block duration. So we do two things to prevent technical blocks from being gamed, one which is unambigously preventative and one which might be seen as punitive. The first is that we block the accounts used to evade a block. I don't see that being called petty here, though I don't imagine it is too far fetched for an accusation like that to be thrown about. The second is that we occasionally, but not always, extend the block for the main account. I'm fully prepared to discuss the validity of the block extension but I refuse to do so if we are just going to toss off words like "petty" and pretend that a discourse is in progress. Do you want to tell me under what conditions block evasion is ok? Maybe that can start us off. Protonk (talk) 21:52, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
I can only answer for my own comments not those of others. The only edits Peter made were to talk pages (some of which namely his own he could have made any way), no edits were made to articles. The issue I am raising is that the block was on Peter in isolation and no action was taken against the other two editors (not even a mild warning) (now corrected in the case of the IP). Peter was not the only one frustrated by that. Extending the block TWICE was I think petty, its a legitimate point and you are of course free to disagree with it. It is related to the block extension (your second point). I'll happily change "petty" to "an over reaction" if you want. --Snowded (talk) 04:27, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Don't feel compelled to change the wording to assuage my concerns. It appears we aren't going to come to agreement. I didn't block PD for edit warring and I don't much care whether or not the IP should be blocked (the article is semi'd so I don't know what a block would do). All I did was see if PD had evaded the block, noted that he did rather obviously, and extend the block. You remark above that the only edits he made were to talk pages, but that is the point. PD doesn't have a history of evading blocks to do nefarious things. He has a history of evading legitimate blocks (no comment on the legitimacy of this precise one) to perform innocuous edits in order to somehow show that the block itself is ludicrous. That's fine if you like civil disobedience and all but civil disobedience still lands you in jail. Letter from Birmingham Jail was not written at the Hilton. Protonk (talk) 04:45, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
It was an offer as you didn't like the "petty" word. As you say we are not going to agree on this and (if its any comfort or if you are concerned) I think its no an issue with you per se. I think its a significant issue with the tendency in WIkipedia to ignore context on contentious pages. Its too easy just to play to the letter of the law, and that is exploited by editors more experienced in playing the game to the letter of law. Editors who really care (and Peter for all his faults is one of those and i have been on the receiving end an attack or two from him in my time) are punished. The net effect is that it all gets too hard and we end up with corralled articles where attempting to deal with cultists and POV pushers just gets too hard and good editors go elsewhere. --Snowded (talk) 06:21, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Snowded, dealing with POV pushers is a goal we all share. The distinction you're trying to draw about block evasion is not the way it's usually defined. If Peter was blocked wrongly in the first place then the unblock template usually straightens out the error, or if someone else should've been blocked too then a separate thread on the other individual's behavior would be more likely to resolve that. A good way to get attention for priorities is to minimize side issues. DurovaCharge! 14:28, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't disagree per se Durova, however I think we have a wider problem here on articles which attract cultists etc. Its too easy for either numbers, or intelligent gaming of the rules, or simple noise creation to try and get a plague on both your houses response (a good example below of re-spinning, to use a british political phrase can be found below). Its not just Rand pages, we have seen similar things on a range such as NLP (to take another where Peter did good work). Where you get a lot of admins involved (Intelligent design for example) the system just about works, but on the edges its more difficult. We won't get anywhere with it here today, but I'm working off line on some ideas and will post when I have worked something out. Wikipedia is a great example of a complex adaptive system, but the constraints used may in some cases have reached their limits. --Snowded (talk) 06:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Peter has posted in reply to the offer above.[153] Apologies aren't needed, btw--just a commitment to avoid the same problems in future. Also agreeing in principle with Protonk: good content work doesn't generate an exemption from policy (think how many policies I'd be breaking if each featured credit earned a get-out-of block free card). So in good faith let's take a day off the block; Peter's met us halfway. DurovaCharge! 18:41, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Peter's conduct on the discussion page is evidence of being disruptive, not being productive. If this process is sensitive to character assesment, lets toss out character witnesses in favor of the facts. Recent "discussion" activity follows for Objectivism (Ayn Rand) --Karbinski (talk) 01:40, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Despite his edit persisting in the article:[155][156], he campaigns against WP:SYN
He then abandons the existing thread [157],[158] without any answer to the request to support his edit.
He carries on ignoring the request to support his edit [159].
I try, for the second time to point him back to the open discussion [160] but he continues to evade the call to support his edit [161].
I call for a resumption of peaceful discussion [162] and complain about the branching into multiple threads [163]
He creates another thread [164]. I therefore bring a summary of the original thread down to the new one [165].
He puts it to me to treat the paragraph piece-meal instead of as a whole [166] and I respond that its the paragraph being contested [167]
Now he gives his support [168] broken down sentence by sentence. But this doesn't follow the structure of the actual paragraph [169]. Further, it does nothing to answer my often repeated original complaint [170].
And now he flaunts the need for discussion and civil discourse [171]
Another user summarizes all this quite clearly here.
Now I'm further denegrated by user Peter Damian [172]. It seems that accroding to user Peter Damian only he has standing for what passes or fails as good content [173].
I essentially repeat myself [174] about how the paragraph in question is OR, and express some frustration over user Peter Damians behavior so far [175].
PD now thanks me for being specific about objecting to 'it follows' (recall this oft repeated comment [176]), and tells me how I failed to identify even more OR in his paragraph! [177] - did you catch the small personal attack?
Now user PD invites an analysis of Rand in favor of discussing the article [178] followed by more campaigning against WP:SYN and admonishing me for not doing likewise [179]
I attempt once again to bring the discussion back on track, and try to ensure my objection is clear [180]
An outside perspective is given on the issue here--Karbinski (talk) 01:40, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
As for being nothing more than a POV pusher of an editor we have this as an opening section for the article --Karbinski (talk) 01:40, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Other blocks by Connolley
If we're allowed to even question this admin's actions without risking further blocks, I'd appreciate comment as to whether this or this is considered appropriate admin behaviour, (background is here). Andy Dingley (talk) 22:42, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Imho it is not because WP:BLOCK says that blocks can only be issued "to protect Wikipedia and its editors from harm" and I see nothing of that in this block. While the section about self-requested blocks was removed, I think any admin should be very careful not to take remarks on any other talk page as a request for a block. Especially not when the user they are blocking just criticized their admin actions, because then it's unlikely they are impartial enough to judge this situation correctly and should not perform further admin actions on users involved. Regards SoWhy 22:54, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
That block strikes me as a bad decision. Protonk (talk) 23:01, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
I would say that blocking someone because they asked you to is about as bad as a decision as asking to be blocked. Chillum 01:37, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
I'd say it's far worse, because the blocking admin ought to have known better. --MalleusFatuorum 01:43, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
I didn't ask to be blocked, I certainly didn't intend for this to be read as a request to be blocked - Why?! and had I (maybe I could use an enforced wikibreak), I would have written "Could some admin please block me, thankyou". However the whole PD saga seems to have too many admins over-reacting because they can, not because they should. Making any sort of comment on this is the behaviour that attracts blocks for the wikicrime of lese majeste to admins, I posted a tongue-in-cheek recognition that I knew this was likely to happen (and felt the point about PD was worth making anyway) and then this admin was foolish enough to think that such a mis-use of a block, even when the target had already raised its likelihood, was still a valid action.
I'm required to WP:AGF, so my bock must have been for one of four reasons.
1. Preventing imminent or continuing damage and disruption to Wikipedia.
2 Deterring the continuation of disruptive behavior by making it more difficult to edit.
4 Encouraging a more productive, congenial editing style within community norms
Now please, if I have damaged WP, please point out my error. If I was critical of an admin's actions over PD or their right to act in that way, beyond reasonable and fairly tactful discussion of whether we couldn't find a more productive way to act in the future, then please point it out.
Now I can't see any such thing in my recent actions, which leaves only:
3 Encouraging a rapid understanding that the present behavior cannot continue and will not be tolerated.
So admin Connelly's block is only explicable by either assuming his bad faith (which is impermissible), or a new interpretation of blocking policy such that any discussion of admin's actions, no matter how measured, is reason for an immediate block.
That is not, I believe, how an open system of governance is meant to work. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:48, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't think we credit Andy by assuming he is somehow less capable of knowing better than an admin. Admins are just people not infallible gods, they don't always get things right. While the block was not the brightest move, requesting it to make a point was about on the same level. Chillum 01:45, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
So your defence of a bad block is that the blocking administrator is more or less dim than the editor who (s)he blocks? --MalleusFatuorum 01:48, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Honestly, I don't see a defense for this one. Permit me to be crude. Andy was either fucking around or spoiling for a fight. In either case, WMC shouldn't have taken the bait. It's his responsibility to refrain from doing so. Period. I don't like "requested blocks" one bit, but this plainly wasn't one. However, on the grand scale of things we ought to be caring about, this ranks relatively low. Protonk (talk) 03:07, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
I'd like to echo but state more strongly what a couple of other editors have already mentioned—this was just a horrendous block, and while it's over and done with now I'm astounded that William M. Connolley seriously thought it was a good idea (but then again maybe he wasn't taking it that seriously). It's pretty difficult if not impossible to read Andy Dingley's comment as a serious request for a block, and even if Connolley thought that's what was going on he should have at least clarified it first. I have no idea what the backstory to this is and don't particularly care, but whatever it is it does not excuse or justify a block of this nature. I don't think there's anything further to do with this right now, but unfortunately William M. Connolley has made some poor decisions about his use of the bit in the past and now we have another example. At a minimum I would ask William to please stop and think for about 30 seconds before doing something like this again. There is no universe in which that block would have ended up as a good thing for the project. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:41, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
It has long been my opinion that William M. Connolley is quite unsuited to be an administrator. I recomend that the Arbcom releive him of his responsibilities before further disruption is caused by his attention seeking blocks. Of course, they won't and his bigoted and narrow minded interpretation of his duties will continue. This is to be regretted. Giano (talk) 17:39, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Dispute resolution
It's clear that WMC has acted inappopriately during this episode (if for the simple fact he removed someone's comments in this thread a few revisions back). I think that we need some DR step to ascertain what should be done, but an RfC would probably not be certified and I'd not want to go to RfAr if we had other options. Thoughts? Sceptre(talk) 19:06, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
I thought it was more odd that the anon made the original comment [182], and then made these posts at Giano's talk page [183][184] before Giano signed the above comment [185]. Can this be clarified so we can be sure - was the comment made by Giano when he didn't sign in, or was this Giano endorsing the comment of someone else? Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:14, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Giano added it first. The anon was simply putting it back after it had been removed earlier. --Onorem♠Dil 19:18, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Ah ok; thank you for clarifying. Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:20, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
For an admin to remove critical comments because he doesn't like them is way out of line. I've never had any interactions with WMC before, but I must say that this episode has not favorably impressed me at all. TallNapoleon (talk) 00:52, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you hoped to accomplish by first removing a critical comment about you written by another editor and then labeling this entire discussion "boring," but it is an interesting strategy on your part. No one's forcing you to participate here, so if you find the comments of (as I read it) 8 editors suggesting that you erred in your actions "boring" then feel free to ignore them. The fact that you deleted one such comment and then made a meta-comment about the entire discussion suggests you find the whole thing to be at least a little bit titillating, n'est-ce pas? I guess I come from a different school of thinking when it comes to adminship whereby admins should take seriously good-faith criticism of their actions from other editors, even when they strongly disagree with it. Based on this thread and one or two incidents from the past that does not seem to be your view. Personally I find that troublesome, but maybe that's just me.
My apologies for this soporific comment, and by all means feel free to gently (gently) belittle it. But please don't delete it because it's so seldom that I get to use the word soporific in casual conversation, and more importantly because I think there are real issues with how you've handled, and continue to handle, this minor situation. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 03:43, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
What version of Wikipedia are you from? Unfortunately, very few admins take criticism of their actions at all. Most think they're above us all. Sceptre(talk) 11:52, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
I grew up on Rural Wikipedia way back before the railroad changed everything and am still trying to learn En.Wikipedia's big-city ways, what with the fast talk and fancy shoes and everything (I'm still getting used to the fact that they have Wikipedia on computers now!). But seriously, regardless of how many admins do a poor job of taking criticism while simultaneously feeling all high and mighty relative to others (I have no idea whether or not it's actually "most," though that seems a bit of a stretch), the fact is that in theory all administrators should be very willing to listen to critics. When they don't I think it's a good idea to point that out. Now don't you dare criticize the view I just expressed since I do not handle criticism well. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:18, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Thoughts - Peter violated 3RR, as it was a content dispute and not vandalism. He should have known better, so the 24 hour block was right. WMC's other blocks should be dealt separately. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:54, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Warning Called For Collectonian
Collectonian'sremoval edit was uncalled for as the RfC was uninflammatory in any way and requested outside opinion on the dicussiontopic at hand. Can someone please give him a warning?68.148.149.184 (talk) 08:20, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't think the RFC was especially relevant. Stifle (talk) 08:53, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for notifying me of this thread (except, of course, you didn't). The RfC was unnecessary and completely irrelevant to the topic at hand. RfCs are not for trying to help a single person understand consensus, something you continue to refuse to do. For disclosure, the IP added TWO more to the guideline, again calling for Scientists, and I have removed them. I also noticed he is now making thinly veiled personal attacks, implying the unanimous voice against his inappropriate conduct are caused by people "have a problem with reading tables". This came about after the IP began mass changing film articles from the MoS preferred list format to tabular format and was reverted. In response, he came and modified the MoS without discussion to try to claim that it supported his preferred format. -- Collectonian (talk ·contribs) 14:58, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
If anything, I should like to call for administrative action against the IP. I believe that his edit history with relation to the film style guideline and its talk page should be most illustrative, and would like to request a neutral admin to examine it. Many thanks, Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 01:58, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. As a side note, I am not the only one who has rejected his attempted at doing an RfC of scientists on the Film MoS. -- Collectonian (talk ·contribs) 02:12, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Even is that was the case, you have started an edit war. The tags are not vandalism and inflammatory in any, which seems to be have misread. Instead of putting {{rfcmedia}}, I have put {{rfcstyle}}, per Stifle above, yet you seem to be unopen to outside opinion and spearhead with your personal vendetta (so it seems) so silence your opponent.
Now you are claiming that I am "... a single person ..." "... trying to ... understand consensus ...", which you have no proof of. But just so you know for your information, I am not.
Not only have you been engaged with an edit war, the pretense is that you did of 3 of these 4 edits were done before the page was listed on the linking rfc page. I really do not want to continue this edit war. If you continue to remove my tags without any meritable i.e. good reason to do so, I suggest you be forewarned.68.148.149.184 (talk) 02:44, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
You're not what? You're not one person? Its against guidelines to share accounts, so presumably multiple people grouping up to share an IP would b ethe same. Or you're just not trying to understand a clear consensus you've had multiple people explain to you? Adding irrelevant RfC's may not be text book vandalism, but it is disruptive and pointless, and that is good reason to remove it. As another person who removed your ridiculous RfC tags noted "this is borderline gibberish and has nothing whatsoever to do with this guideline" [190] -- Collectonian (talk ·contribs) 02:55, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
You are entitled to your own opinion. Those rfc tags are disruptive, but so far, you are the only person to think so. But removing the tag repeatedly and repeatedly, is OUTLINED as vandalism. If you continue to do so I see a block in the very near future.68.148.149.184 (talk) 03:18, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
As a side note, the only injured parties in this section are from Wikiproject Films, of which were the ONLY aggrieved parties I have worked with. I.e., Girolamo Savonarola seems to be in collusion to silence me.68.148.149.184 (talk) 02:49, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
For any admins looking, the IP has now violated WP:3RR on the Film's MoS, after having already violated and been warned for the same issue on Watchmen (film). He is being completely disruptive. -- Collectonian (talk ·contribs) 02:59, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
And after receiving the warning, the IP added the tag back yet again. Despite his claim below, he has made six reverts: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6. -- Collectonian (talk ·contribs) 04:06, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
And any reverts on Watchmen (film) are not reverts on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films/Style guidelines, and which I have not been warned of the same issue, because the issue SHE has, I will repeat, SHE has, is that I am repeatedly posting the tags on to the talk page, only because she has repeated taken them off, WITHOUT ANY discussion. I see nothing wrong with getting an outside third opinion.
If Collectonian is mistaken, this may be because she mistook my adding both {{rfcmedia}} and {{rfcstyle}} and then just {{rfcstyle}} as edit waring. I apologize for that mistake. I will say it out here: I did not intend to vandalize, or disrupt, and I apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused.68.148.149.184 (talk) 03:13, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Then why do you keep doing it when you yourself just admitted to being disruptive and edit warring? -- Collectonian (talk ·contribs) 03:23, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
I did not admit to being disruptive. You started the edit war.68.148.149.184 (talk) 03:35, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
IP is also doing the same edit warring without discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, trying to change the page. When he was reverted and requested to discuss it first, he simply redid his edits again without appropriate starting a discussion about his proposed changes. -- Collectonian (talk ·contribs) 03:48, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Once again Girolamo Savonarola has removed my request for comment. I want to ask, why can I not ask for outside comment? Maybe you feel that scientists will not contribute anything to a discussion, but this is an open discussion and I am inviting scientists for the opinion. I request that scientists come and discuss the topic, but they are not the only demographic who are entitled to voice their opinion. Why would you even think that. Where in wikipedia is there censorship? Per his edit summary, you might be confusing your "8 opposes" with the section above. Do you know what systemic bias is? In this case, I want to get (hopefully more) unbiased contribution to the project. If your wikiproject has exclusive membership, I'm sure you project will be closed down for sure. I ask you to NOT REMOVE MY TAGS FOR OPINION. I HOPE I have explained this VERY CLEARLY.68.148.149.184 (talk) 03:52, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
In case no one got the idea, yes, he just did revert #7 [191]. Can we please get a block? -- Collectonian (talk ·contribs) 04:06, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Now #8. -- Collectonian (talk ·contribs) 04:43, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
It reads like an unsourced assertion of threats of legal action by a third party, which is well into the "huh?" zone for me. "I'm not going to make a legal threat, but they will!" kindof thing. KillerChihuahua?!? 22:45, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Except that the person making the threat claims to be speaking for the people who would file the charges. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:55, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry, where does he claim that? thanks - KillerChihuahua?!? 23:05, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Have verified with appropriate government and accrediting agency and the information captured is defamatory as the schools stated in history are two different schools. The Accrediting agency is threatened to pursue further if the information is not removed immediately.Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 23:08, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
That's a legal threat, i.e. it's intended to intimidate by talking about legal action. Warn the user to retract it, and if he doesn't then indef-block. Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots 23:16, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
While I am skeptical of Mistro12's motivations, I should point out that he/she does not have much experience here. I suggest warning (which has been done) but not blocking for now. --A. B.(talk • contribs) 23:18, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
What I was about to say also. No legal threats. PERIOD. The user has two choices: (1) Retract or (2) Be indef'd. Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots 23:21, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I think Mistro12 is off-line. I suggest those with torches and pictchforks wait until tomorrow. I may be editor he most disagrees with, but I suggest just taking this in stride for now. --A. B.(talk • contribs)
If he doesn't respond within 24 hours, bring the hammer down. He can always appeal the block, and it can be rescinded if he promises to withdraw the threat (which would probably kill the AFD, but that's show biz). Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots 23:46, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
I went ahead and speedy kept the article. If s/he doesn't like the article the way it is, s/he can fix it, within consensus, of course. (Assuming they don't find their editing privileges curtailed.) —Travistalk 23:58, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but my sock-sonar is going off. Compare this user's contribs with Amithani (talk·contribs), in particular, this diff [192] and this diff [193] after the indef block was made. What arouses further suspicion of exclaiming proudly on his userpage I'm the new kid on the block. If I'm off on my assessment, I'll apologize and recalibrate the 'ol sonar. MuZemike 01:02, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Ding-ding-ding! You may well be onto something. Socks often make a point of announcing that they're new. "On the block" is a potentially ironic choice of words, though. Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots 01:08, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
They're both single-purpose accounts, and Mistro12 started later the same day, March 28, after Amithani made its last entry. Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots 01:20, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Although there is the minor issue of why the one would create the article and the other try to delete it. That bears further investigation. Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots 01:25, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
And the answer appears to be that he's miffed about article content added by others, so his AFD was strictly "pointy". Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots 01:47, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
I think it's more than pointy; the proprietors of this school have financial reasons to want to see this article disappear. Compare the article Amithani wrote against the current, well-referenced version. Mistro12 (and some mysterious Ugandan IPs in the 196.0.7.x range) are pretty worried about this article. I've repeatedly said that we'll use all the "good news" they can provide that it's backed up by independent sources that meet our reliable source requirements. --A. B.(talk • contribs) 04:54, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
The IP 12.22.184.3 which I just added geolocates to Atlanta and added its own name to Amithani's signature on the whitelist page on 12/16 and 12/19. Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots 01:40, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Also similar typing styles - mostly lower case, numerous transposition and other typos, and tendency to drop "a" in front of names. Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots 01:44, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Okay, the above conversation(?) between BB and himself makes an interesting case. The above IP hasn't edited since December, but there are overlapping edits between 74.190.36.18, which also happens to geolocate to Atlanta, and Mistro12. BB and his carrots might want to take this down the hall. I'd look into this more if I weren't about to fall asleep on the keyboard... —Travistalk 02:21, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Your ball, Bugsy. Can you do it without making another 'axcident'? MuZemike 02:27, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Too soon. First the user needs to address the legal threat, assuming he even shows up again. Then we'll see where it goes. Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots 02:30, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Mistro has replied on their talk page. [194] I'm not sure it's a very helpful reply. Edward321 (talk) 04:45, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
I advised him to withdraw the legal threat, and also informed him of this discussion. If he refuses to withdraw the threat, he should be indef'd pronto. Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots 04:54, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
I would at the least wait until a response is given before anything. If anything else, then start the SPI. MuZemike 06:58, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
OK, I have been involved here since the beginning of the article. A. B. a bit earlier, as he blacklisted uofa.edu as an SEO was spamming related sites. I removed from the blacklist, upon request from a SPA, User:Amithani. That immediately resulted in promotional material being inserted. ufoa.edu was re-blacklisted, and the AboutUs was whitelisted. This did not stop the situation, promotional material was still being inserted, now without the link. The article has since been semi-protected, protected with an abusefilter (Special:AbuseFilter/36, which was disabled when there were no hits after quite some time).
User:Mistro12 was already active by then, but did not edit the article himself. I had at that point no reason to suspect that this would be another sock/meat-puppet.
Accounts used (some typical diffs, general, tag deletion or deletion of the "not to be confused with" are common. Removal of referenced parts, insertion of peacock sections (contents the same over and over), etc. etc.):
diff (COI?), diff (tag deletion), diff ("University of Atlanta" rename to "U of A"), diff (see the "recently developed" section which reappears over and over)
diff edit summary "University of Atlanta - Where New Intellectual Journeys Begin")
In short, we are talking here about a long time disruption, promotional edits, sockpuppets and IPs from over the world, and starting off with the SEO-edits on related domains which suggest they are only here to promote. I would really suggest that Mistro12 retracts the threat (or is blocked until he does), and that other socks are monitored and/or blocked at sight here (maybe do a checkuser to tie it all together?). I've had enough of this rubbish to work on it further (and probably should recuse from further action). --Dirk BeetstraTC 09:22, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
It's amazing what can turn up overnight. :) I'd like you to stick with us, as we might need you further. I think we should give the guy the workday to respond. If his next edit is not a retraction or clarification, he should be indef'd. And if he doesn't respond by end of workday, he should be indef'd. Then an SPI could be attempted, although if the IP's are truly worldwide that could be a futile effort. Keeping the article semi-protected is good. Also, the notion of wikipedia being sued for "defamation" due to allegedly having its facts wrong on a school, is patently absurd. It's nothing more than an attempt at intimidation - which didn't work, as the RFD was rejected. Although if he could provide a citation backing up his claim, it could make for interesting reading. Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots 12:19, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
It's worth pointing out that the 196.0.7 IP's geolocate to Uganda, and the others to Atlanta. Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots 12:25, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Oh, I am still here for discussion and keeping my eyes open. There are no protections on the article at the moment, and no edits to the article to 'clean' it have been performed in some days. A. B. and Abd have been asking for a long time for more info from the accounts (and I believe there has also been off-wiki contact), but nothing turned up. It is worth going through the article edit by edit, it was started quite promotional, cleaned, and notability was questioned. Notability was found somewhere, but that seems not te be what they want from this article .. obviously.
I suspect it are two 'sock-farms', one located in Atlanta 'close to the school', and the other may be the SEO that was the original reason for the blacklisting. --Dirk BeetstraTC 12:57, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
The blacklisting of uofa.edu
A. B. blacklisted the following links in one go, according to a WT:WPSPAM item:
Some of this predates my database, I will work on getting a fuller picture. This looks like a third sockfarm (I suspect the uofa.edu case now to be two meatpuppeting sockfarms). --Dirk BeetstraTC 12:57, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Lots of IP's, and IP's are typically not given lengthy blocks. Semi-protection would seem to be the better option, if the trolling becomes more persistent. Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots 13:05, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
I would suggest to re-enable the Abusefilter. --Dirk BeetstraTC 13:09, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
I agree, I don't think this is a retraction of the legal threat. But as I said, I am not going to take admin action in this case anymore.
A. B., could you look if those links that DTAD added in 2006 are related to these cases? --Dirk BeetstraTC 17:40, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
I have recognized my legal threat entry was out of line. I have struck through the statement. Intention is only to improve this article. See my notes under the Article’s talk page. --Mistro12 (talk) 20:19, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
SPI
I went ahead and started an SPI on this. I have referenced to this ANI section and the WT:WPSPAM diff for brevity. I have also naturally requested CheckUser to confirm the connections between the socks and the IPs and to see what else are in these sock farms. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Amithani. MuZemike 17:55, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Socks have been blocked, and the legal threat has been withdrawn (diff). Time to close this. --Dirk BeetstraTC 13:21, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Copyright/promotional material on user talk page
– copyvio material removed and page protected by Stephen. JohnCD (talk) 11:16, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
What is the position about copyright material on user talk pages? Aubergedusoleil (talk·contribs) was blocked yesterday as a promotional/role account after posting spam material copied from http://www.aubergedusoleil.com/html/story.shtml; he has now posted it on his talk page, replacing the warnings and block notice. He may well own the copyright, but it has not been properly released, and anyway is inappropriately promotional. JohnCD (talk) 09:36, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
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.
Over the past few months all of my edits on the Falun Gong series of articles has been systematically reverted by a tag-team of Falun Gong single-purpose accounts. [196], [197], [198], [199], [200].
This stuff has been going on for 2 years now, basically the pro-FLG editors maintain a cabal over the FLG series of articles, maintaining a illusion of consensus so that FLG POV material can be freely added, and yet adding material critical of FLG need their "consensus". They seemed to be unaware that the arbcom enforcement [201] calls for the articles to be conformed to a POV standard, yet the articles themselves say otherwise. Their editing style provides a large amount of undue emphasis on pro-FLG media such as the Epoch Times and FLG-apologist academics, yet sources by the mainstream media and cult critics are dismissed as Chinese propaganda.
Reports of organ harvesting from Falun Gong practitioners in China - A conspiracy theory claiming that the PRC is running concentration camps for FLG practitioner and harvesting their organs while alive, while over 50% of this article comes one source, David Kilgour and Matas, two FLG-sponsored politicians from Canada who never set foot in China, while other relevant sources, including visits by US embassy officials and Chinese dissident Harry Wu gets sandwiched in between.
Academic views on Falun Gong - basically a whitewashing essay of FLG by FLG apologist sources to push the view that the PRC is evil and that FLG is widely accepted by society. Earlier versions had sources from Chinese academics and American cult critics that were systematically removed.
Tiananmen Square self-immolation incident - A former good article nominee that has been withdrawn due to one editor's insistance in adding opinions and commentry to suggest that the incident is staged by the PRC government. [202]
Persecution of Falun Gong - another article on the ban of the FLG practice in China. Was renamed from Suppression to Persecution to suggest that the PRC government are criminals. Article currently is full of attacks on the PRC government by questionable sources, including a whole section on former Chinese PM Jiang Zemin that possibly violates WP:BLP.
Is wikipedia supposed to be an encyclopedia or an opinion column? Because after 2 years dealing with users that have a strong conflict of interest and violating policies of WP:NPOV and WP:SOAP, (including several editors who practice and protests for FLG personally [203][204], and spread their soapboxing to other users [205][206]) I had enough with assuming good faith on these editors. All of my edits, whether minor or major, has been systematically reverted by these overzealous editors regardless of content. Their tag-teaming meant that no sooner than one editor finished, another resumes editing on their behalf. Most good faith users has stopped editing because of their behavior, and these users basically claim a ownership, de-facto control over what get and doesn't get written by other editors shows a serious concern in interests and POV. This type of behavior would only lead to further edit warring and violations of WP:NPOV and WP:SOAP--PCPP (talk) 05:32, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Please note that the above user has been systematically removing information, as may be verified from his edit history, from almost all articles related to CCP's Human Rights violations, Xinhua(CCP controlled news) news agency, Tiananmenn Sq incident etc. Often, blanking pages of highly sourced info from some of the articles and resorting to misleading edit summaries to cover-up the nature of his edits. Here the above user blanks out pages of info from an article, reducing it from 67 K to 34K, without a word of discussion, while covering up the nature of the edit with a misleading edit comment.Here the same user again blanks out a significant portion of anothr stable article, reverting to a version almost a year old, again with no discussion. Three different users - User:Benjwong[207],User:HappyInGeneral[208] and myself[209][210] attempted to fix this - but the user has been continuing to revert attempts to restore the blanking- characterizing these attempts as "reflexive edits". On top of all this, when these edits of his are countered by other editors, the user resorts to baseless personal attacks of the sort.
Took Antilived (talk·contribs) to the ANI, and insists on removing a source he views as propaganda, despite user consensus [216]
Continously removing tags from article headings without discussion
Edit warring on the Sathya Sai Baba article [217] and continously tried reinserting controversial material in dispite of arbcom result.--PCPP (talk) 08:20, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
There are a series of discrete issues. I'm not going to bother with a recrimination (like saying all the things you are saying but opposite), what it comes down to are what sources you can muster, and how you conform to wikipedia's content policies and guidelines. You say there are systematic problems, so why don't we try to solve it in a systematic way? I agree that the current approach is simply counterproductive: you come along once a month and do a big stack of reverts that leave the articles in a mess and delete swathes of well-researched information, then just get reverted. One thing is, if these discussions are to be fruitful, is to not divide people into camps. Painting a number of editors with the same brush is immediately unhelpful, and in this case also quite inaccurate. One thing: I look at every edit you do and basically only revert in the egregious cases where you've deleted stacks of info or offered no explanation or engaged in no discussion. I've also apologised in the past for reverting without being proactive in discussion, and since then I don't believe I have reverted without enhancement to the edit or something. There's also a certain onus on you, who is deleting information, to explain the reasons for it and be prepared to be challenged. You can't not respond to the arguments that are put up against you and then complain that it's unfair.
What we need to do is pick a place to begin and start scrutinising things carefully, deal with it article by article. You need to gather a whole lot of high-quality sources to back up what you're saying. The ideological and conspiracy themes you are raising are a waste of time. At the moment most of the articles are very carefully referenced to very high-quality sources; the only problem is that you don't like what you read. So pick an article to start and we'll do it section by section, looking at sources, referencing, and counter-arguments. I've always been a vocal advocate of this sort of careful, considered, and intelligent discussion, and I don't think I've ever pulled out the ideological brush to try to characterise your editing style, or dismiss what you are saying. What it needs is actual discussion of specific issues, rooted in policy and with strict reference to the highest-quality sources. If you are up for that, then let's get to it, because I also look forward to working produtively on these articles, too. Or it's just going to go around in circles. And believe me, I could write several long tirades in response to what you say, but what it still needs is to hash it out--so let's get down to it, and let's hash it out.--Asdfg12345 07:00, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
No, you're the one using your so called "high-quality material" as a way to promote your personal pro-FLG agenda. These sources has no problem if they're simply taken as statements on FLG. But when they're quoted en-masse and presented as factual evidence, this becomes a serious cause of concern. Your editing style consists of pushing a large amount of pro-FLG sources in order to squash any criticism. The several article mentioned above have more quotations from those so-called academics than than reported facts, and just because XXX academic said YYY about FLG doesn't automatically warrant inclusion into wikipedia.
And what of the articles themselves?
Reports of organ harvesting from Falun Gong practitioners in China - material from Kilgour and Matas outweight any criticism of the claims, including those by US Dept of State and Harry Wu. This is not an essay on Kilgour and Matas, and therefore does not need three sections devoted to their allegations, especially unproven ones.
Academic views on Falun Gong - earlier material from FLG critics such as the Chinese Buddhist Association, the US Anti-Cult Movement, and Maria Chang and several other sources has been mysteriously removed.
Persecution of Falun Gong - material relating to the Chinese view and justification has been removed into an attack page against the PRC government. There's more commentary than facts in this article, including ludicrous material on jiang Zemin's state of mind.
Falun Gong outside mainland China - again, is there any justification for asdfg to insert whole sections on FLG demographics entirely based on claims entirely from Ownby?
I had enough of this "masquerading opinions as facts" BS. Several of my edits have been reverted when I only changed one goddamn word or sentence [218], [219], [220]. You're a single purpose account that edits wikipedia solely to promote your real-life personal practition.
We are saving people. You are right: it is a sinking ship. We are trying to get as many people off the ship before it sinks. That is our purpose for doing all these things. The destruction of the CCP is inevitable because it has persecuted the Buddha Fa. Now we are trying to save as many people as possible before it is eliminated; all those who can still have a sense of justice woken up inside them, some righteous thoughts, and who are willing to listen to their consciences. [221]
So there you go. I've addressed the issued in the past 2 years with little result. It's up to third party intervention from now on.--PCPP (talk) 08:20, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Speaking as a third party, this is clear pro-FG POV pushing. I mean, no neutral person would suggest the title contain the word "genocide" without a multitude of sources. Sceptre(talk) 19:42, 15 May 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.
For those not following UK news, David Chaytor was recently suspended from the British Labour Party while his expenses claims are investigated. User:81.100.190.97 has been persistently making unsourced edits that allege that the expenses claims are fraudulent andI have been reverting him (3RR exempt).
However, because there is the possibility that, because I am a member of the Labour Party, there is the potential for the appearance of a conflict of interest here, I would be grateful if someone else could take over monitoring this article and take whatever steps seem necessary with respect to 81.100.190.97. I certainly wish to avoid taking any admin-capacity actions here, but will put the protection of the article subject above all else, if necessary.
I'll happily keep an eye on this since I am not a member of any organised political party (cue Will Rogers joke....). WP:BLP will be rigorously enforced. Rodhullandemu 17:53, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Could someone please block this guy. I believe this IP is the same person as Inhwiki (talk·contribs), but I don't really think it's worth taking to SPI, since his only interest on WP seems to be promoting his gin operation, and once the train-wreck of an AfD closes we'll probably not have to deal with him again (except perhaps for repeated recreations of the article). Deor (talk) 02:34, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Since we don't indef IPs, I have blocked for 1 year or until the legal threat is credibly retracted. CIreland (talk) 02:38, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm taking this to SPI. The disruption at the AFD needs to be addressed, and I have strong suspicion that all those SPAs are the same user. MuZemike 06:02, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Notice of an editor who is vandalizing multiple pages
– blocked indefinitely pending commitment to policy Rodhullandemu 14:58, 16 May 2009 (UTC) – Directed to proper venue. -download ׀ sign! 03:18, 16 May 2009 (UTC) It's back. LadyofShalott 04:02, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
I hve a concern about a Wikipedia "editor" named MetalMagnet1987. This user first came on my radar when I noticed he removed information about one of the singles in the Jane's Addiction discography article. I have followed some of his edits and noticed he is vandalizing multiple articles. He is removing factual data with no explanation, such as changing the status of the Aerosmith song Fever from "single" to merely "song" repeatedly. He is apparently removing chart positions relating to charts he doesn't consider legitimate. One of his most recent vandalism efforts was to the U2 discography article. A glance at his talk page reveals multiple frustrated editors tired of him removing and altering chart information without cause or explanation. His purpose on Wikipedia is clearly only to vandalize articles and he makes at least a dozen edits a day. He should be banned immediately. Nightmareishere (talk) 03:10, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
You could consider reporting this user to WP:AIV or, as the user has not received sufficient warnings, can warn him/her. -download ׀ sign! 03:15, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Notice of an editor who has vandalized multiple pages
I have a concern about a Wikipedia "editor" named MetalMagnet1987. This user first came on my radar when I noticed he removed information about one of the singles in the Jane's Addiction discography article. I have followed some of his edits and noticed he is vandalizing multiple articles. He is removing factual data with no explanation, such as changing the status of the Aerosmith song Fever from "single" to merely "song" repeatedly. He is apparently removing chart positions relating to charts he doesn't consider legitimate. One of his most recent vandalism efforts was to the U2 discography article. He just vandalized the Saliva (band) article a few minutes ago.A glance at his talk page reveals multiple frustrated editors tired of him removing and altering chart information without cause or explanation. His purpose on Wikipedia is clearly only to vandalize articles and he makes at least a dozen edits a day. He should be banned immediately. Nightmareishere (talk) 03:23, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
How about if you ANI and AVI folks stop bouncing this notice back and forth between each other and deal with this issue I have reported? Nightmareishere (talk) 03:29, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
This user has only received two warnings. It is usually standard to give an editor 4 warnings before blocking. -download ׀ sign! 03:35, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Now he has three warnings. Nightmareishere (talk) 03:46, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
You also need to fill out a TPS report and deliver it in triplicate to the Wikimedia Foundation offices. Good luck finding them --NE2 08:29, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Four warnings are not always necessary. A review of this editor's contributions show that the problem has persisted for six months, and/he has been made aware of it. Accordingly, I have blocked this editor indefinitely, or until a commitment to follow WP:V and WP:RS is demonstrated. Rodhullandemu 14:56, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Thank you, Rodhullandemu. I have gone back and undone many of his most recent edits, but I imagine there could be hundreds of articles over the past six months that contain inaccurate information, or had useful information removed. I don't know if I have the time or the desire to spend hours and hours reviewing all his edits to correct any uncorrected vandalism, but maybe I will. Maybe some of us could split up the work? Nightmareishere (talk) 18:42, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps a mass rollback could work? -download ׀ sign! 21:42, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
![[20]](https:https://www.search.com.vn/wiki/index.php?lang=en&q=File%3ASzapinka.jpg&diff=288360296&oldid=280804734){kind=link}
![[21]](https:https://www.search.com.vn/wiki/index.php?lang=en&q=File%3ASzapinka.jpg&diff=289204515&oldid=289024091){kind=link}
![[22]](https:https://www.search.com.vn/wiki/index.php?lang=en&q=File:Szapinka.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=289313914){kind=link}
![[23]](https:https://www.search.com.vn/wiki/index.php?lang=en&q=File:Szapinka.jpg&diff=next&oldid=289409369){kind=link}
![[24]](https:https://www.search.com.vn/wiki/index.php?lang=en&q=File:Szapinka.jpg&diff=next&oldid=289414113){kind=link}
![[25]](https:https://www.search.com.vn/wiki/index.php?lang=en&q=File%3AConyza_bonariensis.jpg&diff=288639076&oldid=33531123){kind=link}
![[26]](https:https://www.search.com.vn/wiki/index.php?lang=en&q=File:Conyza_bonariensis.jpg&diff=next&oldid=288660459){kind=link}
![[27]](https:https://www.search.com.vn/wiki/index.php?lang=en&q=File:Conyza_bonariensis.jpg&diff=next&oldid=288990226){kind=link}
![[28]](https:https://www.search.com.vn/wiki/index.php?lang=en&q=File:Conyza_bonariensis.jpg&diff=next&oldid=289411807){kind=link}
