Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive549

Michael Jackson cardiac arrest / reported death

Per the reports in the UK regarding Michael Jackson being found "not breathing" and taken to hospital I have protected the article for 6 hours, so we can make sure we get proper sourced comment and no rumours. Feel free to unprotect/vary as required. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:48, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Reuters has just reported believed (my emphasis) dead. Fully support full-protection until it's clear what's going on. – iridescent 21:50, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I expect Talk:Michael Jackson to get busy. Will watch, but will only be online for a while. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:52, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

TMZ reporting he's dead, but they've missed before. No reputable news source reporting it yet. Watching is a must, and protection probably a good idea. Dayewalker (talk) 21:55, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Definitely a situation where I favour pre-emptive protection. We'll know quickly what has happened, at which point it can be opened back up to the masses for ...tasteful... editing. Resolute 21:58, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Miami Herald reporting that Michael Jackson is dead. seicer | talk | contribs 21:59, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, Miami Herald is citing TMZ. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:02, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, seems everyone is picking up the TMZ report. CTV.ca is reporting it as well, again as a "report". Resolute 22:04, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

They have now sourced TMZ; it was omitted when I first clicked on it. seicer | talk | contribs 22:08, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Note: I've taken the unusual step of semi-protecting the talkpage as well, before it becomes a BLP nightmare (if the allegations aren't true). Any admin who disagrees has my explicit consent to revert. – iridescent 22:00, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Have added an invisible note to Deaths in 2009 as well; I remember several past cases where horrible revert wars broke out there over celebrities taken suddenly ill. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:05, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Both LHvU and Iridescent's protections were a good idea. I'm sure we'll have more info in the very near future and can proceed accordingly. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:07, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Endorse both protections, obviously. See what happens in the news. Ale_Jrb^talk 22:09, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Only a note, USAToday got a confirmation he was taken to UCLA MC in cardiac arrest, before they stopped talking. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:09, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I want to register my disagreement. Pre-emptive full protection is going to far. There were a total of 5 (FIVE) reverts today. This is not a lot. Per WP:NO-PREEMPT, "Persistent vandalism, or the possibility of future vandalism for highly trafficked articles, rarely provides a basis for full-protection. Semi-protection is used for articles, such as Barack Obama, that have a pattern of heavy sustained vandalism." Full protection is overkill. --Elliskev 22:10, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

There were 5 reverts before the story broke, but when there are sufficient editors to patrol it we can drop the level down a bit - I am a veteran of the Sarah / Bristol Palin news frenzy, and this has even more potential of swamping. If it was the wrong decision I am making it for what I consider the best of reasons and I will accept the consequences. Also, I have enacted the same protections at Michael Jackson's health and appearance (following a request). LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:19, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Agree. WP:NO-PREEMPT is no substitute for long-ingrained experience. Nobody could sensibly argue that any of these articles would not be the target of editors unaware of our various policies here. And that's aside from the "anti"-factions who would use the opportunity to add all sorts of other nonsense. Can't argue with LHvU's actions here, except that I might have tried semi first; but then, perhaps I am unusually optimistic. Rodhullandemu 22:30, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

When there is a bit more clarity in news accounts, we can lower the protection level. I'm sure there will be lots of eyes. Jonathunder (talk) 22:21, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I think avoiding a potential B(L)P crisis before there's a little more information is the correct course of action. Ale_Jrb^talk 22:23, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

LA Times called it independent of TMZ, I'd say that's it. Soxwon (talk) 22:24, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I think the protections are absolutely in accordance with policy. The problem here is not with likely vandalism of the articles, but of almost certain revert wars and disputes over how exactly to describe his state of health and prolonged issues over whether an 'unconfirmed report' appearing in a normally reliable source is admissible etc etc. No-one is going to suffer if, by insisting on reliability, we are 'last with the news'. There are people who may suffer if unreliable information is stated as fact. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:23, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Can someone protect Michael Jackson (writer) as well? It's getting damaged by misfires.—Kww(talk) 22:28, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

That's now been protected, and I had to protect Michael Jackson (disambiguation) for the same reasons. Acalamari 23:04, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

If the consensus is that this particular article falls under IAR, I'm fine with that. But I will ask that full protection rules are followed - meaning absolutely no edits by admins without talk page discussion. --Elliskev 22:29, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Seems like a bad precedent if it's going to apply more widely to other reported deaths and emerging news generally. But if you guys think it's best and do it under IAR, fine. Wikipedia follows the sources, it doesn't need to be ahead of them. Wikidemon (talk) 22:31, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd definitely agree with that. Things like this are not helpful. – iridescent 22:31, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, but I fully support and endorse the actions taken to fully protect the article (and semi-protect the talk page). Michael Jackson is a huge public figure, and news like this is sure to attract all sorts of vandalism. Especially given the problems with WP:BLP recently, this is a very, very good idea. Dr. Cash (talk) 22:30, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, I agree with preemptive full protection in this case. Wait until it's confirmed in multiple, reliable, and independent sources. — Becksguy (talk) 22:31, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

LA times?[1] Wikidemon (talk) 22:32, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Already got that, NBC has as well. Soxwon (talk) 22:35, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Agree - a *lot* of people are going to be coming here looking for information - do we want people's first view to be "lol! he's dead!". Protection at this time is in the best interests of the project. We aren't a news source, slow and steady confirmation of sources is the way to go. --Cameron Scott (talk) 22:34, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comment (multiple e/cs) Declined unprotection on the Michael Jackson article and fully protected 2009 for six hours. All proposed changes should be discussed on the talk page until this settles down. Enigma^msg 22:34, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I support the block, even if it is a technical violation of PREEMPT, this would be a clear case where IAR applies... also, I wonder if this might be reason why I am having trouble with my Wikipedia account. keep getting timed out, too many people looking at MJ? ;-)---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 22:47, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I find it rather amusing you fully protect it to stop WP:BLP problems yet you have admins using blogs as sources for his death.--Otterathome (talk) 22:44, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

That's been fixed; no need to hold a grudge. wadester16 01:58, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Confirmed dead. I still support leaving the article protected per Cameron Scott's arguments above. – iridescent 22:45, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Death of Michael Jackson

Death of Michael Jackson - Please protect. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:47, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree. That page should be salted. Unitanode 22:49, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Salted for 24 hours. By then it should be clearer what exactly has happened. Until then, Michael Jackson is possibly going to be the single most viewed page on the entire internet and we need to be careful exactly what it does and doesn't say. – iridescent 22:53, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Malcolmxl5 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) salted it indef.[2] Dabomb87 (talk) 22:55, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, did it at the same moment as Iridescent. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:58, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I think it should be salted indefinitely. There's absolutely no need for a new page to discuss his death Corpx (talk) 23:19, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Guess all the other 'Death of' articles should be deleted too. It's the biggest death since Princess Diana (which has its own article), and probably bigger than some of ther other 'Death of' stories. 82.31.164.37 (talk) 22:14, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if I'd call it as "confirmed", as we still have information second hand with no-one speaking formally and on the record about it. But it's sound more and more likely: The LA Times and the Associated Press are both running stories to that effect, and NBC News has joined in as well. Tabercil (talk) 22:52, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

BBC is as well, and they're the most cautious of them all. I think we can call it confirmed. – iridescent 22:53, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

BBC's live reporter in LA just said they rely on reputable sources such as AP so it's no more confirmed because they say so. leaky_caldron (talk) 22:58, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I dont get why this article is fully protected. I can understand semi-protection since IPs and new accounts would probably vandalize this, but I dont agree with locking it down so that only admins can edit it. If established registered users vandalize the article, then warn/block accordingly, instead of preemptively locking down the article so that only a select few can edit it. I dont foresee a large attack by established/registered users, so I dont see a need for full protection Corpx (talk) 23:02, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree, Welcome to Wikipedia. Anyone can edit, unless the admins want to edit it first.--Jojhutton (talk) 23:06, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Protecting this page is setting an incredibly bad precedent. --Susan118 ^talk 01:48, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Very very stupid. It was deleted out-of-process. Given that he is dead, there are no BLP concerns, and this should be done properly. What possible justification was there to delete and protect the article when the admins concerned knew that he was already dead?82.31.164.37 (talk) 22:14, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Our actions are being noted

See here. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:58, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Real good article, but it says that the article was protected for six hours, yet we just learned about all of this about two hours ago.--Jojhutton (talk) 23:04, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I assume it meant 2009, which has been protected for six hours: that's how I interpreted it anyway. I see the article also picked up on the technical issues that interfered with editing earlier and at the moment. Acalamari 23:11, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

The Michael Jackson article was fully protected for one hour and 17 minutes (77 minutes); talk page different. Now it's semi-protected. — Becksguy (talk) 23:33, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

But unfortunately there was a big template at the top of the page telling administrators not to edit it for quite a while longer than 77 minutes, which could have misled some people. Dekimasuよ! 07:24, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Not all that bad

Some sites are having the biggest flame war ever about it. PXK ^T /_C 23:17, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Admin edits

OK. This is crap. Why is there a flurry of undiscussed admin edits to a fully protected article? WP:PROTECT says, "Changes to a protected page should be proposed on the corresponding talk page, and carried out if they are uncontroversial or if there is consensus for them." There is no discussion. Admins are not super-editors. There aren't two classes of editors on Wikipedia. This is totally inappropriate. --Elliskev 23:06, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed; I posted pretty much the same thing below. But TerriersFan has unprotected. Mike R (talk) 23:07, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. — Aitias // discussion 23:11, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Agree also. Preemptively moving the article to full protection was a bad decision. Corpx (talk) 23:14, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

• While I understand the thought behind the protection, I completely agree here. Either the admins need to start discussing edits to be made at the talkpage, or the protection level should be changed from full to semi. Unitanode 23:09, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

It's at semi now, but it's no doubt true that admins should not have made significant changes without discussing, but I think we should just move on at this point. Not a huge deal. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 23:13, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, your fellow admins abusing their positions IS a big deal. How is it not? Auntie E (talk) 00:09, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Actually it is a huge deal. It shows that a helluva lot of admins don't have a clue about the nature of full protection, or of the nature of their status as admins. This isn't the first time I've seen this recently. The same thing happened with the David Carradine article when he died. Preemptive full protection, admins editing without discussion... However, I'm not really up to pursuing it now. I'm just a little disappointed. --Elliskev 00:15, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

You really should not be disappointed. Going through an RfA these days involves not just an appreciation of policy, but also of article creation within those policies. I would be unhappy about Admins editing content through protection, particularly those they have applied themselves, and I have done that myself, in the best interests of this encyclopedia; but only to revert vandalism, or apply core policies. Sorry, I don't make any apology for that, since at the back of my mind, I retain some consideration for our readers (remember them?). We owe it to our readers, rather than ourselves, to present unbiased and reliably-sourced facts. That is what an encyclopedia IS. If that means preventing people from adding half-assed nonsense, then I, for one, am perfectly happy with that. We're an encylopedia, not a free-for-all. Please rememeber that. Rodhullandemu 00:27, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

What the hell is that supposed to mean? What the hell are you talking about? That sounds very....creepy. I did it for the common good. God grant the common folk the wisdom to accept what they do not understand.??? --Elliskev 00:33, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

How refreshingly naive. What's wrong with the "common good"? Is it not what we are ALL here for? And if Admins fuck up, they lose the bit. Meanwhile, we work silently behind the scenes, minimising the damage, with little kudos but much responsibility. If you've a problem with that, change it. As for my Admin decisions, from protections to blocks, I'm fully prepared to defend them all, and to the hilt. That's how seriously I take my role here. Would that others would do the same. Rodhullandemu 00:41, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Amen brutha'. wadester16 02:32, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

And if Admins fuck up, they lose the bit - uh, no, not really. not saying it's a bad thing, but admins fuck up regularly and get to keep the bit. 82.33.48.96 (talk) 10:36, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

(reset indent) I still don't know what you're on about. Do you have no problem with admins making major content edits to a fully-protected article without discussion on the talk page? --Elliskev 00:46, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

It is actually a violation of WP:PROT for an admin to edit through a full protection, but in some circumstances, per IAR, what the rules say and what common sense says vary. I basically agree with Rodhullandemu. Orderinchaos 07:43, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:IAR. In this case it appears fully protecting the article for a short period of time was best for the encyclopedia. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:40, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:IAR because some admins are too lazy to ask for consensus on the talk page? I don't think so. Auntie E (talk) 05:05, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Resp to Juliancolton. That is a separate issue. I accept that full protection of the article was best for the encyclopedia. My concern is with the editing done by admins while the article was fully-protected.

Editing Wikipedia is a privilege for all of us—including admins. Admins are by necessity granted additional privileges. That's fine. However, super-editor status has never been one of those additional privileges. There are times when circumstances necessitate an article being "shut down" to editing. Privileges are withheld for the good of the encyclopedia. There should be absolutely no changes made other than what is absolutely necessary for the good of the encyclopedia—things like spelling corrections, grammar corrections, vandalism removal. Any content edits and style edits should be discussed, since they aren't really vital.

That's not what was happening. The article was protected from editing by non-admins. Admins continued adding content, removing content, making stylistic changes. All as if the article wasn't protected.

Anyway, I think this horse I've been beating is beginning to rot. --Elliskev 12:47, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Full protection for article is probably fine. Semi-protection fo talk page is weird UNTIL there's a bunch of IP vandals to that page, and edit conflicts would have prevented many of those anyway. It's NOT ACCEPTABLE to have a fully protected page with a semi-protected talk page combined with admins editing the article without discussion. They're not discussing, and some editors are unable to dicuss the edits any way, and most editors are unable to revert possibly really bad edits. Lucky this is a BDP not BLP, but still. 82.33.48.96 (talk) 10:36, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

List

• Removal of a reference by an admin while fully protected - no discussion
• Addition of content about record ticket sales by an admin while fully protected - no discussion
• Addition of an inuse tag to a fully-protected article. Are you kidding me?
• Unnecessary and probably not the best edit by an admin while fully protected - no discussion

I really feel like I'm wasting my time, so I'll stop. I am very disgusted at the way this is being handled. The article is closing in on 30 edits since the latest full protection with little discussion. Why do admins think that it's okay to make any edits to a fully-protected page without any discussion whatsoever? --Elliskev 01:48, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely. Some admins really think they're better editors than non-admins and to lock down a page permanently due to two vandal edits is disgusting Corpx (talk) 02:31, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

What's even worse is the group of admins who think it's "no big deal." Auntie E (talk) 05:05, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

This is a big issues that says allot about admins attitudes, I am thinking on initiating an RFAR into the conduct of the administrators in question but more importantly whether or not it is right for an administrator to edit a fully protected article for non administrative reasons.   «l| ?romethean ™|l»  (talk) 05:46, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I am an administrator who has not participated in the MJ article in any way. I reviewed the list of changes presented above and found that none of them were edits that required any discussion, with or without protection. Removal of an EOnline reference when a Reuters one was already cited seems routine. The other two edits were simple copyediting. (The In Use" tag is hard to judge as I do not know the activity level at the time the tag was placed). None of what I reviewed required discussion or consensus as they were all non-controversial changes. If you can provide links to other edits I will gladly review them. Manning (talk) 06:16, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

As a fellow non participating admin I endorse Manning's comments, after reviewing the edit history myself. Orderinchaos 07:45, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

As another non-participating admin, agree that these were non-controversial edits and hence allowable, with the caveat that it's courtesy to report such edits on the talk page. That was evidently done in at least one case, and in a couple of cases admins erroneously thought it was semi rather than full protection, and apologised for that misunderstanding shortly after the initial report above was made. Admins should be aware of the need to make such reports, even though these were clearly difficult circumstances due to the sheer pressure of a breaking news situation and edit conflicts on the talk page. Care also needs to be taken in making accusations without carefully checking the talk page archives. . dave souza, talk 10:03, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Manning, what about this edit, which was done after locking the article saying "Edit warring / Content dispute: need time to update the death facts. will lower protection when done" and was later justified as a necessary evil. I'm absolutely disagree with the usage of admin powers to protect articles to push your edit through. As for the non controversial edits made by admins when it was locked, it was exactly what was done by regular users prior to the locking. There was no real edit warring and very little vandalism and there was no justification to lock it in the first place. Other reasons to lock it range from blaming a good faith edit that accidentally broke a table to the "higher server load" to non existent BLP issues. Locking it down and then proceeding to make "uncontroversial" edits just screams elitism and conveys the notion that admins are better editors than regular users Corpx (talk) 10:19, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

OK. Sounds like the consensus is that admins can edit a fully-protected article whenever they want, as long as they can justify it. Of course, everything is justifiable with IAR.

Why don't we just go ahead and change the term "full protection" to "reserved to editing by admins". Or should I bring that up at WP:PROTECT? --Elliskev 12:32, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Thankfully an event of this magnitude only occurs once in a blue moon. Our policies are good and generally work, but they are designed to work for 99% of circumstances - this is the 1%, a VERY high visibility page which is being watched microscopically by non-Wikipedians who visit our site. It's almost a designed case for IAR, but one should call upon it thoughtfully and carefully. Orderinchaos 16:28, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Protected again

[3] Dabomb87 (talk) 23:37, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Here we ago again. I like how the admin proceeds to edit the article right after fully protecting it. As mentioned before, admins are NOT super editors! I also fail to see any "content dispute" There were no real edit warring prior to this lock down Corpx (talk) 23:44, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

23:36, 25 June 2009 Wadester16 (talk | contribs | block) m (120,713 bytes) (Changed protection level for "Michael Jackson": Edit warring / Content dispute: need time to update the death facts. will lower protection when done ([edit=sysop] (expires 00:36, 26 June 2009 (UTC)) [move=sysop] (indefinit) ... Sorry, but what? — Aitias // discussion 23:48, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

It needed to be correct. There were many easily cited, verifiable, reliable sources that needed to be included. The state of that section before wasn't great and it needed cleanup. wadester16 01:46, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

It's back to semi. — Satori Son 00:07, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Looking at Today's Featured Article, vandal fighters are going to be busy. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:10, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

The Huggle Brigade™ should be able to handle the vandalism; admins should keep an eye on AIV if not on vandal-patrol already. —Animum (talk) 00:30, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Protected once more

I'm tired of this roller coaster ride. This time, by User:Cenarium, for excessive vandalism, even though I see just two instances of vandalism in the first page of the edit log. On top of that, these vandals were not warned for their edits, because I guess its easier to just lock down the whole page? Corpx (talk) 00:55, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Three vandalism in the latest seven minutes. I didn't warn them because I was too occupied to refresh the history to rollback new vandalism or fix infobox screw ups. It got circa 1 million hits per hour in the latest hours. Cenarium (talk) 01:02, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

There were two vandal edits in the whole first page of the edit log, which is really not that hard to revert. On top of that, I'm baffled at your reversion of this edit and further classifying it as "vandalism". High visibility does not mean that you should preemptively lock it down. Corpx (talk) 01:06, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd also like to note that there have been 8 edits by admins since the latest full protection went info effect. I dont think they get the concept that admins are not super editors Corpx (talk) 01:09, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

That was obviously not preemptive, and I could have waited a couple of new vandalisms or BLP violations to make my protection even more justified, but I excluded this due to the extremely high visibility, and also due to server difficulties due to the extremely high traffic making quick reversions difficult. Fo this edit, super BLP violation if you prefer. And that protection was due to vandalism, not content dispute, so they can edit with caution. Cenarium (talk) 01:15, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Exactly where is the BLP violation in the edit? To me, it seems that everything stated is referenced from the associated citation. The edit was made in good faith and is definitely not vandalism. Not counting that edit, you're justifying your decision to apply full protection based on two vandal edits over a period of 7 mts? Corpx (talk) 01:29, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

That wasn't properly sourced, the reference was to the primary source, it was giving an entire paragraph and was obviously WP:UNDUE, and it was negative, thus it's a WP:BLPVIO. My protection was not justified only by those two vandalisms and this BLPvio, but all the previous ones in the history and the multiple infobox breaks; but also by the traffic and the ensuing server instability making editing and reversing more difficult. Cenarium (talk) 02:50, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

What part was not sourced properly? What is wrong with referencing primary sources, as long as it not used to cite "interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims" ? "it was negative, thus it's a WP:BLPVIO". I dont think you understand WP:BP if you think that anything negative is a BLP violation. Criticism can be added to articles as long as it is cited from a reliable source, as it was in this case. I dont think server instability should be a factor in locking an article. What proof do you have anyway that just semi protection was causing server instability? Corpx (talk) 03:01, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Everything was sourced to the organization's press release, go read Wikipedia:BLP#Sources. I didn't say "it was negative, thus it's a WP:BLPVIO", I said "That wasn't properly sourced, the reference was to the primary source, it was giving an entire paragraph and was obviously WP:UNDUE, and it was negative, thus it's a WP:BLPVIO.", which is not the same (my conclusion came from the combination of all previous statements, not just the last one). The server instability was caused by the extreme traffic, and that instability slowed down the acceptance of edits, and thus reversions, considerably decreasing our ability to deal with vandalism and BLP violations, and other infobox screw ups, and so showing the reader a correct article. Cenarium (talk) 03:18, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

It isn't for you alone to decide what is a BLP violation and what is not. Remember to Revert and discuss, not revert to the version that you prefer and then protect your version, which is exactly what you did. Your actions are very questionable to say the least and although I truely want to believe that your heart was in the right place, your reversion of a good faith edit and immediate protection of the article does not look good.--Jojhutton (talk) 03:25, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I had already reverted two vandalism edits, attempted to fix the infobox that was repeatedly broken, and this one came up. I had to act quickly with the high traffic, and it really looked like a BLP violation, and BLP applies to persons dead just now, so I rvt'd that one and protected, this is the default action per Wikipedia:Blp#Semi-protection_and_protection. Propose to reinstate the edit on the talk page if you think it should be. Cenarium (talk) 03:36, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't care about the edit. What is important here is that you reverted a good faith edit, then protected the page so that your version would stick. A poor series of edits that many other have noticed as well. Perhaps you should have reverted and then gotten consensus to protect. Admins are suppose to help and work with other editors, not make the decisions for them.--Jojhutton (talk) 03:53, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Everything sourced to the press release was stated as such. Press releases from organizations can be used as reliable sources to cite content from. I'm still wondering which parts of the edits violate BLP. First sentence is "n early 1996, the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) issued a press release charging Jackson with antisemitism regarding lyrics in the song "They Don't Care About Us", the fourth single from HIStory.". I dont see any violations here since the claim is directly attributed to the press release and states as such. Next is "The song had originally been recorded with lyrics that included the phrase "Jew me, sue me", and "Kick me, kike me". This is a fact and is also said so in the link. Next is "The ADL complained and Jackson responded by saying he would re-record the lyrics before the album went into production." Again, this is a fact that can be attributed directly to the link. Next is "But the ADL's press release charged that Jackson had performed the song live and included the lyrics in question during the live performance" I fail to see anything wrong here either. It just states a complaint that ADL had and is said so in the document.

As for the negative part, you clearly implied that the content being negative constituted to a BLP violation. Why else would you throw the "and it was negative" part?

As for the server load issue, there is absolutely no policy here that justifies protection for an article because of the impact edits would cause on the physical server. You reverted two blatant vandal edits, a number that will not even get you semi-protection for an article at WP:RFPP. I guarantee you that those edits would have been reverted quickly in an article like that. As for the breaking the tables, they were caused as a result of a good faith edit, and not vandalism. Mistakes in good faith edits should not be used as an excuse to lock up a page. Corpx (talk) 04:03, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

To Jojhutton: as you put it here, spam is spam, even when in good faith; likewise, blp violations are blp violations, even when in good faith. I had to act quickly due to the server troubles and extreme traffic, proposing a full protection on the talk page or at ANI then waiting for the decision would have been too long. The cache couldn't follow the traffic and users were seeing outdated revisions [4], I experienced this, even when purging the page, it was not updated. This explains why so many users complained about the broken infobox and vandalism while it had already been fixed (sometimes a dozen of minutes before). And additionally to that, there were database errors when editing and reverting. I hadn't realized the full consequences of this at the time, and now I feel even more justified in my protection. That was an extraordinary situation, and my protection was certainly done in the spirit of WP:IAR. For the two vandalism edits, they were not reverted that quickly, especially in light of the traffic, a dozen of seconds for the first one, a few seconds for the second one (so a thousand of readers saw those based on the traffic per hour, probably more due to the server issues), estimation based on the intermediary edits on the site, and that only because I refreshed the history non-stop. With the server issues at the top of that, it's clear we couldn't cope up with vandalism and other disruptions, and many, many of our readers were seeing bad content. I didn't block the most egregious vandal immediately because I was too occupied to check the history and in my experience, those edits are not repeated, or not immediately at least. When I moved to block, the user was already indef'd. The second one didn't deserve a block. For the disputed edit, BLP is not just about facts, but also balance, and 'worthiness of bing mentioned'. That's a self-published source, a press release, so obviously not enough to support an entire paragraph of negative information. Now it's been lowered down to semi and I fully support that, there's no extreme traffic any more (although still very very high) and the devs are working on the server issues (they applied some patches to improve performance and redistributed resources, some wmf sites of lower priority are down, eg the techblog), so most of the vandalism and disruption by autoconfirmed users can now be contained, and is not so frequent as it's too late for drive-by vandalism. Cenarium (talk) 20:55, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

The server issues are even in the New York Times: With Jackson Entry, Wikipedia May Have Set a Record. Cenarium (talk) 21:01, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

IP request to unprotect talk page

Please resolve. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:22, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I've obliged. If needed, revert me. —Animum (talk) 00:48, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

For reference: 00:47, 26 June 2009 Animum (talk | contribs | block) changed protection level for "Talk:Michael Jackson" [move=sysop] (indefinite) ‎ (Preemptive protection only goes so far. Until we have an idea of the degree to which this page may be vandalized, IPs should be allowed to comment; revert me immediately if necessary. BLP-violating IPs can be blocked.) —Animum (talk) 00:52, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Quick note relating to Michael Jackson

(ec X infinity) Since I edit-conflicted non-stop in the main thread, I'm posting this in a new section; apparently the news is being spread to completely unrelated pages as well; see this edit to WP:PERM/R by Texas Ty (talk · contribs). → Dylan620 (Toolbox Alpha, Beta) 22:36, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Pls Unprotect Michael Jackson

It would be one thing if the article were fully protected and the only edits being made were after extensive discussion on the talk page, but what's happening is that admins are editing away willy-nilly, while everyone else is locked out. That creates a divide between admins and non-admins that has heretofore not existed. Admins are chosen to be janitors, not elite editors. Mike R (talk) 23:05, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

TerriersFan has unprotected. Mike R (talk) 23:06, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

There's work to be done

It's not particularly productive to indulge in discussion right now over whether Wikipedia administrators did a good or a bad thing in protecting a high profile biographical article, and whether specific edits under protection were within the letter of policy. People, there's far more pressing work to be done right now. Discussion can wait a few hours, or a day. Remember that this is the incidents noticeboard, and we have an incident here.

As you can see from the news, the news about this event has caused a noticable spike in traffic for several WWW sites. The WWW site for The O2 Arena (London) is currently unresponsive. And there are other side-effects. I strongly urge a lot of BLP-knowledgeable eyes to keep watch for BLP vandalism related to Jeff Goldblum and Harrison Ford, for example. I also strongly urge administrators to remember that many of the novice editors and editors without accounts are here to help and will help if you let them.

Work to protect the encyclopaedia now; blame-throwing and squabbling (if you really must) later. Please? Uncle G (talk) 04:47, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:IAR and Time is of the essence sound like sound concepts here. We can tar and feather people later. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 04:57, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I will echo Uncle G resoundingly. Sure I have seen a handful of things I do not necessarily agree with occur, but I have not seen a single action taken that was not entirely in good faith, and done with a view to preserving the encyclopaedia. Let's move on and get the job done. Manning (talk) 04:56, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Couldn't have said it better myself! –Juliancolton | ^Talk 05:03, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Good comment. Dekimasuよ! 06:34, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

the problem arises when Admins use their capability in an inappropriate, pre-emptive or preferential manner, thereby denying others the opportunity to edit in "good faith". Is an Admin's "good faith" in some way preferable to any other editor? I think not. leaky_caldron (talk) 10:19, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

corrupted edit history

Don't know if this is the right place to put this but it is obviously michael jackson related. At the time this was happening I was editing George Tryon. Today i look at the edit history and see it says '23:18, 25 June 2009 (hist) (diff) George Tryon ‎ (moved to royal albert) (top) (Michael Jackson vandalism)' [5]. The 'moved to royal albert' bit is what I wrote and has nothng to do with page moves but rather what I was writing about. I don't understand why the edit history has acquired a note saying 'michael Jackson vandalism'? Has it been vandalised somehow? Sandpiper (talk) 06:37, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

This is the result of a hit from an abuse filter (#195). It's already been noted that there were some false positives and the filter has been adjusted to prevent recurrence. It isn't anything to worry about. Dekimasuよ! 06:58, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Pre-emptive blocking (protection)?

While I'm here I am a bit puzzled about what has been going on. Admins seem to have blocked this page pre-emptively with the result that it could not be updated at a reasonable rate for breaking news. From the argument above it seems people did not agree about this, and also were editing through the blocks to try to insert something. Why exactly was it necessary to interfere with what seems to have been basically accurate updating of a page? Obviously no essentially false informaton had been posted! Sandpiper (talk) 06:53, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

As a side note, Wikipedia is not a news webiste, it is an encyclopedia As such we do not need to (and more than likely should not) have information up the moment it breaks. Accuracy is important, not reporting the news. Wikinews on the other hand is a news webiste. Matty (talk) 07:16, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Surely all those people trying to make edits don't agree? You are proposing that wiki should by choice be inaccurate just at the moment an article is getting a vast amount of attention. Um. Sandpiper (talk) 08:39, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

There were not many vandal edits, or BLP violations, or content disputes. Some admins felt that it would be for the "good of wikipedia" to restrict access to only admins, due to high visibility and "server load issues" so that only they could make edits to the article in its locked state. There was certainly abuse of admin powers, albeit in good faith. What made is worse was the back and forth switching from full protection to semi, without any prior discussion by anyone. Corpx (talk) 09:54, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I think the protection was fine, personally. While we shouldn't protect pre-emptively, we also shouldn't refuse to pre-emptively protect when we know that there is a high-profile situation with a great deal of confusion abound. This was one of the times when reports of his death could've been an exaggeration, and a trigger-finger addition by a good faith editor could land us in potentially hot water. This is why I feel it was necessary to protect the article, to ensure that we didn't get wrapped up with the mass-confusion on the world's seventh biggest website, but instead took it slow and ensured that we were certain before calling it ourselves (like the BBC did). Sceptre ^(talk) 19:52, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

This Michael Jackson situation is a bit of a thriller--The Legendary Sky Attacker 10:54, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Are you channelling Baseball Bugs this morning, or competing? I bet you can't win by a nose. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:11, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Death of Michael Jackson (stub)

I just created a stub so we can have a separate Death of Michael Jackson page, which we're obviously going to need for the future. Just before saving, I noticed the title had been protected. Can someone unprotect, please, or is there a reason we don't want a separate page? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 01:19, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Done (autoconfirmed users only). Gwen Gale (talk) 01:22, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

No objections. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:28, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 01:36, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

TMZ

Despite the dismissal of TMZ as a supposedly unreliable source, seems to me like they had this story right on the money. They were among the first, maybe the first, to break the story, and everyone picked up on it, and it turned out to be true. Was this a case of the blind squirrel finding the occasional acorn? Or should they be re-evaluated as to their worthiness as a source? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 03:16, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

A singular event is not something that can earn a site approval as a reliable source. The question here is whether TMZ is viewed to be accurate and reliable. Sure, they got this one right, however if they report many rumours that turn out to be false, then they would have to be considered unreliable for our purposes. Resolute 04:55, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

TMZ seems pretty reliable to me. When they report rumors they generally make it pretty clear that it's just a rumor. For example when they supposedly saw 2Pac in a club the article about it said something along the lines of "we believe we saw 2Pac". They also pretty much always have pictures to support their claims. Even with the 2Pac thing they had pictures of a man that did look very similar to 2Pac. You make it sound as if this is the first time they've had reliable information. A few somewhat recent things I can think of that they reported correctly include the ShamWow guy beating up a hooker and Chris Brown beating up Rihanna.  Anonymous  ^{Talk  Contribs} 06:41, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Of course they get things right, and not infrequently. There could be circumstances in which we could use them as a source. But in general they are a gossip site and TV show, and are not committed to high-quality journalism, rather to sensational scoops that may or may not have been fact checked. Unfortunately there are a lot of newspapers and television networks which are not committed to high-quality journalism either, but that's another topic. In general I do not think TMZ should be considered a reliable source, certainly for something as critical as the supposed death of a living person. I was not at all surprised that they knew what was going on with MJ before everyone else and I figured they were probably right in what they were reporting, but I would never source a claim of someone's death to them. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:47, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't really care about TMZ one way or another, but it would be interesting to see if someone has done any study to see how accurate their reporting is compared with the "reliable" sources. Being a gossip site does not mean they're getting it wrong. It doesn't mean they're getting it right, either. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 06:59, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

It's an interesting question. Even if they have a reputation for accuracy in juicy celebrity gossip, WP:SOURCE tells us that "Questionable sources . . . include websites and publications expressing views . . . which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions." When push comes to shove, I think it's far better to use a reliable news source instead; in the case of Michael Jackson's death, for instance, many editors were of the opinion that the announcement by CNN was the moment of reliable verification. Exploding Boy (talk) 07:06, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

(ec)If a source is proven to be reliable when reporting facts, and assuming they make it clear when something is a fact vs. a rumor, they are by definition a "reliable" source. It would be interesting to see if TMZ just happened to get this one right, or if they have a good track record where facts are concerned. As the MJ story started to make the rounds, TMZ was the first thing that came up on Google. Then a number of standard reliable sources started parroting the TMZ story, with the caveat "reportedly". When the exaggerated rumors about Cronkite were circulating last weekend (and I have no idea what TMZ had to say about that) I was reminded ironically of the careful way he covered the JFK assassination. There were all kinds of bits and pieces and rumors and facts coming in, and he hedged on all of them - until he got the "apparently official" word - when it became real, and only then did he almost lose it on the air. As a seasoned reporter, he knew how to separate fact from rumor. Presumably, rumors connected with up-to-the-moment news stories belong more in wikinews (which, ironically, still said "reportedly" for awhile even after it was confirmed here) and wikipedia articles should be more restrictive, to confirmed or official facts. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 07:20, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

• To outline it from a more pragmatic point of view:

• If something notable and encyclopedic is covered by TMZ, chances are it will also be covered by several other news outlets which are superior to TMZ both in the quality of authorship and in the lack of lurid sensationalism and ethically-murky-at-best disregard for the privacy of human beings in a madcap drive to tickle the fantasy of the most wretched and lowest of the wretched lowest common denominator.
• If something is only covered by TMZ - with no alternate sourcing options - the overwhelming odds are that it is either completely non-notable (List of restaurants Celle McBrity ate at in March 2008), or embarrassingly tangential to the scope of a notable individual's career (Michael Jordan's favorite flavor of tea and his weekly NFL picks).
• In the extremely far-fetched hypothetical scenario where TMZ is truly the only outlet for a notable concept or useful addition (i.e., imagine it's the only site which listed Model Von Modelstein's height, weight, and true birthdate), Ignore All Rules remains a possibility.
• Disallowing TMZ is not only a good choice from both a journalistic and a journalistic ethics perspective, but also had the side-benefit of discouraging the addition of the sort of minutae that would only be cited by TMZ - it's a lot more elegant a process to remove User:Gnarly Newbie's tea-flavor edit on grounds that TMZ is not a Reliable Source™ than it is to bicker with Mr. Gnarly Newbie about why favorite flavors of tea have no place in an encyclopedia article about a basketball player. It also provides a gentle point in the right direction for all editors - rather than lecturing about what is and is not appropriate for an encyclopedia until we're blue in the User:, newbies can potentially figure out, individually and introspectively, what is and is not encyclopedic on the basis of what is and what is not sourcable. In general, "why"s are much better learned on one's own than directly taught by another - as I'm sure anybody who's spent time in the sometimes-infuriating company of a two-year-old can surely understand!

• Ergo, we are a lot better off - for multiple reasons - considering TMZ "guilty until Ignore All Rules proves innocent (that is to say, 'necessary')", and invoking IAR in whatever isolated situations where it is needed; than we are opening the floodgates to Wikipedia's Celebrity BLPs becoming WiGossipedia, the Free Tabloid that Anybody Can Edit, and wasting countless man-hours trying to explain when TMZ-sourced information is and is not appropriate for the encyclopedia. In short - the tl;dr version of the above: The TMZ business is ethically bankrupt, the quality of journalism sucks, and 99.9% of TMZ-sourced and only-TMZ-sourceable information is completely inappropriate for an encyclopedia. Easier to have the 99.9% fall under a "default ____" blanket, and spend our time evaluating the remaining 0.1%, than it is to deal with the alternative. Badger Drink (talk) 07:16, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

It strikes me that using the claim that TMZ is not reliable, as a way of weeding out minutia (hey, maybe I want to know where Celle McBrity has lunch, even though I don't know who Celle McBrity is), is rather dishonest. Practical, I understand. But not very honest or ethical - more like the "lazy way" of handling the fact that redlinks and IP's and even regular users might think something trivial is something important. What color pajamas MJ is wearing qualifies as trivial. But a story that he's been rushed to a hospital following cardiac arrest is most assuredly not trivial. Ah, but what if he's revived and goes home and everything's fine? Does the story go back to being trivial? I'm not sure. What say you? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 07:28, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I quite like Badger Drink's reasoning (and their username, incidentally). I think that inherent in the consideration of whether a source is reliable is whether it's encyclopedic. Juicy celebrity gossip sites by their very nature aren't encyclopedic. Also by their very nature juicy celebrity gossip sites rely on rumours and personal opinion. A good test is to ask oneself: would this source be considered appropriate for a paper submitted for credit in a university course or in an article in a scholarly journal? TMZ as a source about itself probably would. But as a source about the death of a public figure? A known, reliable news source like CNN, the New York Times, the BBC or similar would be much more appropriate. Exploding Boy (talk) 07:38, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I would respond to your broader claim, Baseball, that honesty is very much worth striving for, but inflexibly clinging on to any single given principle is never the solution, no matter how noble the intent. As for the specific hypothetical - as I said, if Celebrity X is rushed to the hospital, it will be a news item in more reputable outlets. The encyclopedia is hardly damaged by waiting, at most, a day for such information to be included. This is Wikipedia, not WikiNews. Badger Drink (talk) 08:18, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

So-called "reliable sources" are also filled with stuff that's non-encyclopedic. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 07:47, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

...like the weather reports and horoscopes. But that's not their primary stock in trade. Celebrity gossip is by its nature unencyclopedic; it just happened that the gossip TMZ was reporting yesterday was notable, because it regarded the sudden death of a very famous person. Exploding Boy (talk) 07:51, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

What are saying? That horoscopes are not reliable? Next thing, you'll be telling me there's no such thing as Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, and a smart Blonde. (How's that for an oldie?) However, you've hit upon the inherent flaw in the concept of the so-called "reliable source" - basically attacking the nature of the source rather than the specific fact. Maybe that's just not practical. Maybe the next time they come out with so-and-so rushed to the hospital and apparently at death's door, it will turn out to be only a severe hangnail. It seems like the lazy way - but I recognize that it could be a practical necessity, or there would be an even greater amount of time spent debating reliability of specific facts. I don't inherently agree with that approach, but I understand it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 07:59, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

[somehow this post, which I made several hours ago, was deleted. I'm restoring it now Exploding Boy (talk) 17:56, 27 June 2009 (UTC)] Far be it from me to crush anyone's fondly cherished delusions :) Anyway, that's the nature of scholarly writing: sources are evaluated partly on what they are. Even now online sources in general are widely considered a little unscholarly, and manuscripts that rely on them too heavily may be criticized. It's still considered better to get the information from an academic work. An online academic journal will probably be considered appropriate, more so if it's peer reviewed, and the online edition of a respected newspaper or news source will probably be considered appropriate too. An academic journal (say, the Journal of Developmental Psychology) will always trump a lay magazine like Psychology Today. Information about celebrities is by its nature less likely to be found in scholarly sources, but truly notable facts about them can be found in slightly more journalistically respectable places than celebrity gossip sites. Despite the unencyclopedic minutia some users insist on inserting into every article, Wikipedia is supposed to be a scholarly endeavour. Exploding Boy (talk) 08:11, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

it could be a practical necessity, or there would be an even greater amount of time spent debating reliability of specific facts - exactly. As far as TMZ v. NYT - I'd offer that a stopped clock may be right twice a day, but that doesn't mean we should switch to a static timeserver. Badger Drink (talk) 08:18, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I was going to jump in here, but you took the words out of my mouth. --Susan118 ^talk 15:03, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

changes needed

In regards to the Michael Jackson article, I see a huge discrepancy in policy and performance. WP policy dictates that a page may not be protected to prevent disruptive changes. Personally, I believe this needs to be changed, because it has not been followed. In any case, the page was protected, and sources reported his death. many of the first reports were from unusable sources, then possible verifiable sources, administrators did not wait for a consensus before editing the article, resulting in the current report of a death that has not been confirmed by official sources. Changes are needed. Sephiroth storm (talk) 23:20, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

It's all over TV news, well-confirmed. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:35, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure that we need to make a mountain out of a mole hill on this, but I agree that it was bad form to fully protect the page, yet continue to edit the article as an admin. There is no policy nor precident to use preemptive protection. Although I do agree that the admins heart was in the right place. I haven't seen any abuse since the protection level was lowered, but its still too early.--Jojhutton (talk) 23:36, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Bugs, it was not confirmed, it was a bunch of news that was taken from other sources, look over the talk page, TMZ reported death, state and local news reported the TMZ piece, AP reported, CNN reported the reports of death, and yet we have experienced editors soliciting admins to make changes to the article! As for the article's current state, the death section is not written correctly, and is still fully protected. Sephiroth storm (talk) 23:49, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

As outlined clearly in policy here, "Pre-emptive full protection of articles is contrary to the open nature of Wikipedia. Brief periods of full protection are used in rare cases when a large number of autoconfirmed accounts are used to make a sustained vandalism attack on an article." No autoconfirmed account, or IP has vandalized the page. This is unnecessary and is "against the nature of Wikipedia." I would somewhat go as far as to say that it is an abuse of administrative power. A semi-protect, per policy, would be helpful. If the problem escalates, as everyone fears, then we can do something. Otherwise, you're only fearing a problem that doesn't exist. --Blurpeace (talk) 23:52, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

It was confirmed at least an hour and a half ago, and the known facts are already in the article. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:57, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

That gives reason for why it goes against policy? I think not. Things can be edited and expanded upon. What I'm really trying to get across is that it was wrong to fully protect on first sight from the news. Sorry if I come on a bit agitated. I'm never known to edit while annoyed or agitated. --Blurpeace (talk) 00:00, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

It wasn't wrong. And it's moot anyway, as it's no longer fully protected. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:06, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, it probably was wrong to fully protect the article so quickly, but BB is correct that the issue is now moot. We should move on. — Satori Son 00:11, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

It wasn't wrong until admins decided they could edit as they pleased without consensus on the talk page. Auntie E (talk) 00:12, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

AuntiE, let's not make drama. The problem has been resolved; discussion is no longer needed. --Blurpeace (talk) 00:16, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

In what way has this been even remotely resolved, or is this unecessary drama? IMO this was unacceptable. I have never, to the best of my recollection, edited a fully protected article without an {{editprotected}} request with full consensus on the talk page. I believe I have made three such edits; one to Intelligent design, and two to Sarah Palin (I hope you'll forgive me if my memory is playing me false.) I had no idea any admin considered any other approach acceptable, and am quite troubled by recent events. Note that I am speaking only of intentional edits to fully-protected pages; the admins who were under the erroneous assumption the protection was semi- are certainly entitled to our understanding. Those who are arguing that their edits were "uncontested" are making specious arguments unless the edits were spelling or odd characters; they didn't give anyone a chance to object, as they didn't discuss prior to editing! What happened to The world will not end tomorrow? KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:57, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

There's enough ambiguity in Wikipedia:Protection policy#Full protection "Once consensus has been established for the change, or if the change is uncontroversial, any administrator may make the necessary edits to the protected page." for some admins to apparently have assumed in good faith that minor uncontroversial edits were ok, but the preceding sentence "Any modification to a fully protected page should be proposed on its talk page (or in another appropriate forum)" should be enough to ensure that care is taken to at least provide prior notification of intent, and doing it properly by using the template is the right thing to have done. Is some rewording needed, or some other way of ensuring that all admins take more care in future? These were particularly difficult circumstances for edit conflicts, but all the more important to do things right. . . dave souza, talk 18:10, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I have always been of the understanding that policy is descriptive, not prescriptive; what needs to be determined here is, has consensus changed regarding editing protecting pages? If so, we need to argue this out and clarify where and why; if not, then those admins merrily editing away on a fully protected page have committed a grave error in judgment. KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:32, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

To KillerChihuahua: Thank you, thank you, thank you. --Elliskev 18:18, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

You are more than welcome, Elliskev - coming from such a long standing user, this is much appreciated. But why? KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:32, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

See my diatribes above, in the Admin edits subsection of the Michael Jackson cardiac arrest / reported death section. I was starting to get the idea that all admins were of the opinion that editing a fully-protected article is perfectly fine - no problem. So, thank you for supporting the idea that this is, at least, something that needs to be discussed. --Elliskev 19:12, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

(to KC) I whole-heartedly agree that the administrators editing the page had made a grievous error by not discussing the changes first on the talk page, but I believe they made the edits under the sanction of IAR. At this point in time, the article had overloaded Wikipedia's servers, and millions of people were loading up the page, per hour. Thus, edits had to be made quickly to ensure the integrity of Wikipedia to the public (thus the protection policy was overlooked). In all truth, the changes were mostly uncontroversial, and with edit conflicts from IP addresses and the page slowing down to a crawl, it is an understandable desire to update the page as fast as possible. Though I don't believe this was the best course of action to take by the offending administrators, you have to see that even CNET had wrote about the bickering on protection (and addition of unverified information), here. My opinion is to let it go, under these special circumstances, but there may be other differing views from my own. –blurpeace ^(talk) 18:56, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

That's actually quite a complimentary article on CNRT, admins did the right thing in stabilising the situation until there was proper verification, and though there appear to have been server problems, even "The [LA] Times' Web server was overloaded and could only be reached intermittently". So, well done everyone, it's appreciated that these were extreme circumstances. The reminder stands to ensure that there is a talk page template before edits, or at least put notification on the talk page of uncontroversial but essential changes. .. dave souza, talk 21:12, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Michael Jackson

Resolved

 – User blocked 24h for edit warring - Fritzpoll (talk) 21:38, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Could someone get ahold of the edit war on the talk page there? My watchlist is making me dizzy. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 21:05, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, I tried… It seems to have put a stop to the editwar if nothing else. Since I count six reverts by Shiggity of the paragraph in question, with no effort to add any sources for the theory he's trying to promote, there's only one way this is going to end if it doesn't stop. – iridescent 21:23, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

To be fair though, the user has only been active for about 2 weeks and has made less than 200 edits. I think the block suits, but the admins could have used WP:BITE a little better.--The Legendary Sky Attacker 21:31, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Huh? He's been active since 2006. – iridescent 21:35, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Whoops! I saw June 12 and assumed 2009. My mistake. But he has still made under 200 edits, he is hardly what you would call an experienced editor. I agree that the block was needed though.--The Legendary Sky Attacker 21:37, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I page contribs on 500 per page - he has between 500 and 1000 according to my page. Fritzpoll (talk) 21:39, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, I get 181 here + 1 deleted edit technical error?--The Legendary Sky Attacker 21:42, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

No, it's Fritzpoll being suitably inept as usual Biggest Critic of Fritzpoll (talk) 21:48, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Misuse of admin powers

User: Enigmaman has been abusing his position as an admin. On this page: :http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1972_in_metal I have been formatting in what I feel is a better manner. If he, or any other user, disagrees then they are quite welcome to discuss it with me, but no attempt to do so has been made.

Instead, he and Wiki Libs have been consistently reverting me, giving no explanation as to why. I'm not removing any sources or inserting any new information: I'm literally just formatting. Then, just now, Enigmaman reverts again and locks the page for A WEEK.

This is yet another example of wikipedia admins abusing their positions. Yeah, yeah, I can hear it already: "But you were edit warring, he did the right thing." Wrong. Page locking is not there so an admin can selfishly and arrogantly lock a page in a format they like best. If either of them feels there is a problem, they can contact me, or use the talk page, or just put something in their edit summaries. Instead, they've simply been undoing over and again, giving no explanation for their actions, while I have repeatedly said why I am doing what I am doing.

This is misuse of the locking function. I know of course that nothing will be done about it, because on wikipedia nothing ever is. Admins abuse their powers every day, and nothing is ever done about it. But hey, you never know, there's always the chance a random sensible person like myself will see this and take some hope from it. 86.129.199.181 (talk) 20:05, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:BRD

You have to discuss if people don't like your "bright idea" – edit-warring will lead to page protection, and is not allowed. OK? ╟─TreasuryTag►consulate─╢ 20:07, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Unless the IPs' edits are actually vandalism or there's something else I'm missing, I think this is a kind of sketchy use of WP:SEMI as Wiki libs is definitely autoconfirmed. It would also seem there are a lot of article being affected by this user, and it seems definitely related to Talk:1960s in heavy metal music#Semi again. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:13, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

looking into this some, I have a few comments: 1) The IP has a dynamic IP and at least one of which was contacted and warned. 2) The IP's edits are on numerous pages and they are all being reverted. I don't necessarily think the IP is wrong in his edits, but would encourage the IP to discuss them. It is clear from the number of pages/editors involved that the IP's change does not (yet) have broader community support on making these changes. Is a week reasonable? I personally wouldn't have protected for that long, but I do think this edit should be discussed as it is obviously not shared by others.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 20:21, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Answering your query Balloonman... the main page the IP is warring over (the 1960s page) was already protected before for a week by Sir Scarian.. and then again for a month by WilliamConnelly. The IP sock continued his war (even declaring on the talk page a few days before the prot ran out that he intended to continue his war) so the page should have been protected for an even longer period. Through his edit war he has continued to ignore the fact the the page history and the talk page discussion all show a clear consensus to keep the content which he keeps blanking. Hope that helps. The Real Libs-speak politely 20:51, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I've never touched any of these articles before, so I semiprotected the rest of the 70s for a week as well. If an agreement is reached, either unprotect or let me know so I can.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:29, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

If I'm reading this right, Enigmaman reverted to his preferred version in a content dispute, and then used semi protection to lock out IPs (one person in particular) from the edit war. So, basically he violated the protect policy twice: protecting his preferred version, and using semi to block out IPs when autoconfirmed editors are also warring. ÷seresin 20:40, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Looks that way to me. Tan | 39 20:51, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

See my comment above that should clear your mud. The Real Libs-speak politely 20:53, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

It's fun that your signature says "speak politely", and you are anything but. Please let this discussion/investigation continue without your sarcasm, snark, or pithy comments. Tan | 39 20:57, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

My comment is not snarky, sarcastic or pithy. Previous comments showed that a few users were unfamiliar with the situation and I left a helpful comment to help them out. They were meant to be 100% helpful to everyone who is commenting based on this little puddle IP here and not knowing the whole sh-bang. I could have put a happy smiley at the end of my sentence if that would've helped. The Real Libs-speak politely 21:08, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I must have misinterpreted your intent on that comment. I apologize, and withdraw the admonishment. Sorry about that. Tan | 39 21:11, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

It's never a good idea to pithy-offy the people who might just help you... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:59, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment - protection may have been technically the correct action (possibly) but to avoid any appearance of impropiety should've been brought to the attention of an uninvolved admin to administer. Exxolon (talk) 20:54, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually E_man was an uninvolved admin. He only stepped in to assist in an obvious/ongoing IP war when it was brought to his attention. Looking at the page edit history it looks, at first, like a back-n-forth between 2 IP users. In fact it is an ongoing battle between 1 solo IP sock and a whole series of IPs that originate from numerous locales (if my geolocate is working correctly) The Real Libs-speak politely 21:03, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I think the problem is that he didn't step in to block edit-warring users or fully protect an edit-war-torn page; he reverted the IP and then semi-protected the page. As the IP edits were not blatant vandalism, I really can't see how this admin action was justified. Tan | 39 21:04, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

When a user has been blocked from editing and chooses to use an IP sock to evade his block in order to continue editing... I don't see where his actions were questionable at all. The IPs edits weren't vandalism... they were a single user using a series of IP socks to revert an article(s) away from an established consensus because they disagree with the consensus themselves. And, as mentioned, evading a block to do so. The Real Libs-speak politely 21:11, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Concur with Wiki libs - had the IP not been dynamic, it might have been arguable that the best solution would have been to block the IP for edit warring. As that is not feasible, semi-protecting the page is justifiable. Those arguing for misuse of admin functions are, pardon me, behaving like process supercedes everything - rules-wankers, as it were. Suggest they take a step back and try to view the Big Picture. Puppy has spoken; puppy is done. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:43, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

"rules-wankers"???? - is this really an appropiate way to describe editors? Exxolon (talk) 21:52, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Please review the situation before you call us "rules-wankers". The IP address was formatting. He was being reverted, either without explanation, or as Wikilibs said in an edit summary, "removal of cited material". I could be wrong, but I do not see any removal of cited material. The IP may not have gone about this the right way, but 3RR was not broken, and he was reverted with either disingenuous edit summaries or no explanation at all. This really is a matter of "I like this way more than your way", and semi-protection of the page as a way of stopping it was not warranted. None of the editors attempted to discuss this. Enigmaman, as much as I like him, stepped into an edit war between an established user and an IP account. The fact that the IP was dynamic is irrelevant. Siding with the account on the edit war, and then protecting his preferred version, was very poor form indeed. I am removing the resolved tag that that was capriciously put on here. KillerChihuahua, you apparently did not review this situation - at all. Try to view the big picture? Try to understand what's going on first. Tan | 39 22:08, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Tan. You don't revert and protect an article because you don't like the formatting. Clearly a bad move. Law _{type! snype?} 22:22, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I counted the albums on that page a couple of different ways -- Wiki libs' version had 11 albums, the IP's version had 10.-- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:34, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Update: I admit perhaps I was a bit over-enthusiastic with reverts. But Wiki Libs and Enigmaman are just as guilty of it as I, and at least I am making an -attempt- at explanation. Oh, and in response to the "dynamic IP" issue, there's nothing I can do about that: My IP seems to change all the time, it's not being done out of malice or ill-will. It just happens.

Thank you to those who have actually shocked me by being rational. Oh, and yes my version has 10 albums: you'll notice this is because I'm removing one album that doesn't appear to have any source. So I'm still not removing any cited content. As I say, it's just formatting, and if anyone disagrees with that I'm perfectly happy to discuss it.

Oh, and Enigmaman has now done the same over at the 1960s in heavy metal music page. That one is slightly different because it's not formatting but it -still- doesn't involve removal of any sourced content. What I'm removing there is unsourced content, and I have explained several times on the talk page how this is in keeping with wikipedia's rules. Thus far the only responses I've received boil down to "We, a couple of anonymous people on the internet, think it's good this way. So there." I have asked time and time again that they simply provide sources, and in the past day or two with every revert I've used an edit summary asking that they look at the talk page. These have received no response whatsoever, and once again Enigmaman has locked the page simply to prevent me from doing anything.

This is not what the protection system is there for. It is there to keep a page stable while things are discussed and sorted out. But given the lack of any attempt at discussion, it would appear Enigmaman is just using it to force the page how he wants it. That's not on. 83.218.158.202 (talk) 07:42, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Admitting that you were overzealous in your reverts is a nice step. But claiming that I was just as guilty??? I really do not see where you are getting that. Prior to your edit war yesterday which went against consensus (where I reverted you twice) I had not viewed the page until back on June 18. And prior to that I had not made an edit to the page unless you go way back into April. So please stay focused on what events actually transpired and don't try and create some sort of false editing history. The Real Libs-speak politely 15:51, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

• Generally speaking, I do not like to see semi-protection used to lock out IP editors in a content dispute, nor do I think an admin should impose semi-protection after reverting good faith edits. If there is ever any question whether an admin is involved, they ought use WP:RFPP. –xeno^talk 14:04, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with xeno. Semi-protection should not be used to end a content dispute between registered and IP editors. Policy doesn't exactly make this clear, but does say that it should only be used to resolve a content dispute if all parties are non-autoconfirmed. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 14:15, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

A lot of the edit-warring was actually between our genre troll and various other IPs. Wiki Libs was just one of the editors he edit-warred with. I can provide links to other articles, if you'd like. Enigma^msg 17:32, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I see a bit of a bandwagon developing here without a key piece of information. Wikilibs makes a comment above that this is a "blocked editor", and a section on Enigmaman's talk page seems to indicate that this is a long-term problem with an editor who has been blocked multiple times for similar edits. If this is true, I've seen several admins semi-protect articles from an IP-hopping long-term problem editor, and reverting their edits if they really are against consensus before protection is SOP. If it isn't true, then someone is being maligned unfairly and we have a problem.

Could someone who's been involved provide links to previous blocks on the IP addresses of this editor? Assuming for the moment that Enigmaman isn't power-tripping right out of the gate, it's quite possible this is a case of him knowing more than we do. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:47, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

That's why I spoke generally; I am working with only bits and pieces of information. –xeno^talk 14:53, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Here's another bit/piece of information: This thread] from a few days ago seems to be related. The IP isn't changing from 86.56.100.100 to 86.56.100.101 to 86.56.100.102, so it's too hard for my little brain to figure out whether this is all the same person. I've asked Enigmaman to come to this thread and provide some background, it appears he assumed yesterday it would be more obvious to everyone than it actually is. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:11, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

If this helps here is William M. Connolley's block on the same IP sock albeit for edit warring on a different page then the most recent ones (the edit history of the IP shows a habit of edit warring across several pages). The previously mentioned J.Delanoy sock block. The user switched to a different IP and went back to edit warring while still within the block time frame set by J.Delanoy. This sock cat including an 86.X IP may also be related link. The Real Libs-speak politely 15:39, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, this is an editor who has been socking for months. His claim of "unintentionally" switching IPs is not so believable when you see his last IP was just used by him a few days previously. Note above that Sarek did the same thing as I did. He reverted and then semi-protected. The editor in question is a classic genre troll and has been abusively socking and edit-warring for months over a slew of articles. My error was in reverting before semi-protecting, I suppose (I only did this on one of the articles I semi'd). I could have left that to someone else, but again, I wasn't the only admin to do that. Unless a checkuser is approached about a rangeblock, semi-protecting is the only thing we can do. This is not a new problem. Wiki Libs knows more about this than I do, but this has been going on for quite a while, and I'm disappointed in the rush to judgment without having all the facts. As Floquenbeam pointed out above, the editor in question just started a similar AN/I thread alleging abuse by J.delanoy two days ago. He has a habit of doing this whenever admin action is taken against him. I think you'll find a bunch more if you look back in the archives. Enigma^msg 17:29, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

To add on top of that, there is not much use of placing warning templates or blocks on IP. All he needs to do is unplug the modem, replug it and get a fresh IP. Oh, did I mention that he won't even able to find out what messages was left on his old IP's talk page because his IP has shifted? Sometimes you have to be a bit imaginative when dealing with vandalism from dynamic IPs, as blocking it has little to no effect. And we don't want to induce collateral damage by rangeblock. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 17:18, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

This users changing IPs are not random. If you follow the pages he tends to edit the most you will see that he is able to get back to IPs that he has used previously. Likely just moving around inside of a school or workplace. He does not have an endless list of IPs. I have noticed at least 5 that he seems to be able to use over and over. Even the IPs he posted with on this talk page are IPs that he has had access to in previous months of trolling. The Real Libs-speak politely 17:36, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Then I would like to hear about your action plan on how to deal with this. Certainly letting the otherwise-edit war continue onwards is not the right approach. We're choosing between the lesser of 2 evils. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 06:30, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

The IP user has an account but chooses not to use it for the pages he wishes to edit war over. Putting a semi-P on the articles that the user refuses to acknowledge consensus on is an easy/effective fix for the situation. If he really wants to work within the community he can simply start using his account for these pages. He knows he can side-step WP:3RR, WP:BLOCK and WP:SOCK if he just keeps using the IPs. And he knows he can just keep playing the system and whining here and wasting everybody's time as long as he keeps pleading his 'innocent IP' case. Keep the Semi-p's until the cows come home. The Real Libs-speak politely 12:41, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Unrelated, but hang on a sec .. am I crazy here? Wiki libs sig above is [[User:156.34.142.110|The Real Libs]]-[[User talk:Wiki libs|speak politely]] and logged in as User:Wiki libs. So, the sig User: refers to an IP address, pipe's an unknown nick, then links to the correct User talk. Is it only me that finds this strange (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:38, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, I suppose you could ask them about it if it bothers you, but if you follow the link, the relationship between that static IP (with a long history) and their account is pretty clearly linked, and linking to both old and new accounts in the signature is more transparent, not less transparent. "Non-standard", maybe, but "strange"? No. I don't understand why this is being raised here. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:40, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

It is unrelated but, yes, my sig links to my noble IP page (the static one). I was/am the champion of the anon (when they don't troll/edit war) and from the 156.X range I made over 30000 valuable/constructive edits before relenting to pressure and switching to this stupid account. I would still prefer the purity of anonymous editing if I could, BUT, as a wise administrator friend told me, "you kick a lot more troll/vandal ass with the silly login name" And so I do. :-) The Real Libs-speak politely 01:25, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Bullocker The Blue Bull

Resolved

 – 2 unblocks declined, reblocked with talk-page access blocked by Netsnipe. This fellow isn't going anywhere. ~ mazca ^talk 13:23, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Bullocker The Blue Bull, a SPA created only today, first edit today, is constantly screwing up the WP:SANDBOX so that no one is able to use it, and it is pissing me off. Could something be done about this? The only edits this user has done is on the page WP:SANDBOX, and today there has been hundreds of edits on that page by this user, see Special:Contributions/Bullocker_The_Blue_Bull. ₪—  李博杰  (Talk·contribs·email·guestbook·complaints) 19:42, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Also note that he appears to be a bot, making 5 edits per minute on WP:SANDBOX. ₪—  李博杰  (Talk·contribs·email·guestbook·complaints) 19:42, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely as an unauthorised bot. Clearly running it for nefarious purposes, too. ~ mazca ^talk 08:44, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Also could you please think about changing your signature a little Benlisquare? It makes it impossible to read the line above it, thanks :) Spitfire^Tally-ho! 08:47, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email guestbook complaints 08:51, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Signature remains too long. 76.199.155.12 (talk) 17:53, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Looks fine to me now, plenty of people on here with worse than that current version.Heironymous Rowe (talk) 20:47, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, you know ...I read this part of WP:SIG to be preventing links to guestbooks: "Do not place any disruptive internal links, such as SIGN HERE!!!, which refers to an autograph page." (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:04, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

It was 418 characters, well in excess of the 255-character informal maximum on which the community has settled (that number, it is my understanding, followed from technical restrictions, but a consensus exists for its being roughly a useful limit). The current version remains suboptimally long, but it is manageable, and I don't expect that anyone will complain about it. 76.199.155.12 (talk) 02:16, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

He's requested unblock, claiming not to be a bot. I need to disappear for a few hours; if anyone feels the block should be overturned or adjusted then they should feel free to do so. ~ mazca ^talk 08:53, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

PZJTF sockuppeteering, evading block, being just as abusive

Resolved

 – User blocked, CU confirmed sock. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 20:59, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

User:SmitBenMoshe made his impressive appearance today, with, as I am writing this, two edits, of which one is a gross insult aimed my way: see here. This, from style to page in question (John Hunyadi) matches to a tee the behavior of User:PZJTF, who was blocked just a couple of days back for doing exactly this (see here, here and here). Dahn (talk) 20:30, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

 Confirmed SmitBenMoshe=PZJTF. Sock already blocked. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 20:59, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Block plz

Resolved

 – IP blocked for 31 hours by NawlinWiki. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:20, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

74.60.91.2's edits on Criticism of Bill O'Reilly are nothing but disruption. Soxwon (talk) 00:13, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Have you made a report on AIV? -T'Shael, Lord of the Vulcans 00:17, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

• faceplam* sorry. Soxwon (talk) 00:24, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Death of Baby P

GranvilleHouston (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is persistently adding the surname of this child, unsourced or poorly-sourced and apparently against consensus. He appears to be on some kind of crusade to have this name included. Since I have expressed an opinion on content, I bring this here for fresh minds to tackle this issue. Rodhullandemu 15:23, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

We all know his name anyway since it's all over the Internet, he deserves the dignity of at least being accorded a proper name. This is not a UK-based site so there is no reason at all not to name him. (GranvilleHouston (talk) 15:25, 24 June 2009 (UTC))

• I've no objection in theory, though I think the addition is unnecessary and tacky. A decent reference would be essential - I've just reverted the addition of a reference from a site that proclaims "The Daily Squib is a curious satirical publication and should therefore be taken fu**ing seriously ;)" - to be fair that's at the bottom of the page, so it's maybe not as obvious as, say, The Onion, that it's satire... Incidentally, I'm UK-based and I guess I don't fall into the "we all know..." category since I tend to get my news from TV, radio, and those newspapers I can buy at my local Co-op ;-) Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 15:34, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

• We do have precedent for names of minors unreleased because they are minors: Nevada-tan. The argument in the RfD was that, often, (fairly) reputable news sources will respect the legal system and not disclose names, which leaves the ones that do to be unreliable and unusable. Sceptre ^(talk) 15:48, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

• Some comments:
  1. The people best placed to judge the wisdom of publishing the name are the UK courts; whilst they may be slow, they are not capricious and if they believe that publishing the name is not appropriate then I see no reason why we should doubt their judgment, even if non-UK editors have no legal obligation to follow it.
  2. Contrary to some of the vile nonsense on the talk page, BLP applies to everyone equally - guilty, innocent and victim alike.
  3. I am inclined to indefinitely block rather than debate with editors who advocate for the murder of the guilty and then pursue a campaign to include court suppressed names in the article. CIreland (talk) 15:51, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Point of order: while BLP applies to everyone equally in theory, you'll get more praise for vigorously applying BLP on a barely-known person than a really famous person. Sceptre ^(talk) 16:11, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

The courts are a load of rubbish from Europe anyway and executing child murderers is not murder. There are NO reasons at all not to name the murdered child and the murderers, it must be done at once. (GranvilleHouston (talk) 15:55, 24 June 2009 (UTC))

Blocked for 72 hours for disruptive, tendentious editing. Tan | 39 15:56, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

• The child has siblings, and there are apparently other pending court cases against the parents, these two factors resulting in a UK order to suppress the name. Oversight has been dealing with this repeatedly; I originally questioned the rationale for this (as Wikipedia is not UK based) but the other factors are sufficient to convince me to at least leave the decision in the hands of other smart people. The general consensus on oversight-L is that it is acceptable to suppress this information, at least for now. Thatcher 16:21, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of that- thanks. Perhaps I should send recent diffs to be oversighted, or is this already in hand? Rodhullandemu 16:29, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

• I've been at this article for a while now, and since it seems to have spilled over here, I have a few remarks.
  1. Despite GranvilleHouston's pugnacious attitude, he raises several valid points. We do have a policy that Wikipedia is not censored, which has been blithely ignored in this matter. By no precedent which any have raised has WP:BLP extended to the censorship of the names of adult criminal suspects, much less convicted perpetrators.
  2. I previously agreed not to strongly contest this matter while jury proceedings were ongoing. That is, to the best of my knowledge, no longer the case.
  3. Peter does have siblings (one of whom is a rape victim), which is the current sole remaining WP:BLP rationale for restricting his last name. However, this argument is being made in a vacumn. It seems unimaginable to me that, after a case of this degree of publicity and magnitude, that the siblings' name would not be changed. Furthermore, the last name at issue here is a common one, and its power of identification without a first name is insignificant. Without putting out forbidden information, let's just say that it's more common than Thatcher and less common than Sheridan.
  4. Wikipedia should not, indeed cannot if it is to remain true to its mission, get into the business of deferring, sight unseen, to the logic of courts which do not have authority over it. I trust the current business in Iran, and frequent cases in China, provide ample reason why. We can only reason on the information given to us, which is thus far grossly lacking in details about practices, and seems to reflect a "censor in deference to the courts" attitude. Ray^Talk 16:33, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
• I'd agree, based on CIreland and Sceptre's points, that the name shouldn't be disclosed at the moment. I think that GranvilleHouston's last point undermined his credibility quite nicely (The courts are a load of rubbish from Europe? What tosh. We don't have a single European court in the English legal system). I appreciate Ray's argument, however, and I'd be quite happy to support inclusion if a reliable source can be found. Ironholds (talk) 16:37, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Reliable sources are the key. I recall a case awhile back, where a couple of paroled murderers had somehow swung a deal to allow them to "restart their lives", and there was a brouhaha about wikipedia carrying their names. However, reliable sources had the names, so the BLP argument failed. Similarly here - if reliable sources have the info, and if those sources have not been enjoined from publishing that info, then there is no reason wikipedia can't publish also. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 16:45, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Reliable sources aren't the problem here. [6], [7], [8], [9] (not English), [10] have all been posted to the talk page in the past. Ray^Talk 16:55, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
      • Like I said, if the courts have enjoined the media from publishing the names, then in theory the media don't have the right to publish the names. So how are they getting away with it? Or did the court issue an order that it had no right to issue, and is thus leaving such publication unchallenged? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 17:06, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
        • Also, presumably the BLP issue is about identifying the parents, right? BLP obviously would not apply to the dead, unless it would compromise BLP rules for the living. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 17:08, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
          • No, the BLP "issue" is about identifying Peter's unnamed sister. Custom and common sense is that convicted criminals do not enjoy the right not to be named. Ray^Talk 17:31, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
            • Convicted criminals do enjoy the same protections under our BLP policy as everyone else, Ray, no matter how terrible their crimes. CIreland (talk) 17:36, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
              • Yes. They have the same rights, including the inalienable and mandatory exercise of the right to be named if they commit a serious crime that is relevant and encyclopedic to report :) Ray^Talk 17:48, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
            • (ec)The court placed an order that the mother's and her boyfriend's name not be disclosed; this isn't for the sake of them, but because the mother has other minor children, and the court felt they would be harmed by the inevitable exposure. The court didn't make a similar order against the third adult involved in the case, because he wasn't a member of the family (and, their reasoning went, this wouldn't lead to the children being identified). This Newsweek story goes in to more detail, and it answers Bugs' question - those that have published are risking prosecution, but many internet sources have, so they're going on the theory that there's so many that they won't. 87.115.17.119 (talk) 17:43, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

We should make these decisions based on our own policies. Who cares what the UK courts think? Their opinion is irrelevant here. -Chunky Rice (talk) 17:46, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Our own policies include taking into account the opinions of those more fully acquainted with the facts and with greater experience of dealing with such issues. For example, the UK courts. CIreland (talk) 17:57, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

But the issue here isn't a legal one (something the courts would be experienced in) but an encyclopedic one. Unless you want to call up David Eady the opinion of the courts is irrelevant. Ironholds (talk) 18:20, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

In contrast to the case of the two paroled murderers that I was talking about earlier, this involves protecting the innocent. Sounds to me like wikipedia should not be in position of putting the kids at risk, if in fact that is a legitimate concern. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 18:32, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

What policy says that? As far as I know, the policy here is that legal issues are the domain of the Foundation and unless Mike Godwin tells us to do something, we should simply continue to follow our own guidelines without trying to worry about the opinions of various courts around the world. -Chunky Rice (talk) 20:52, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I think, legal issues aside, the question is do we really want to come over as a bunch of insensitive pricks over the death of a child? Does the name's inclusion, right now this instant, add anything to the value of the article that we can't possibly live without? It strikes me that, just because we can do something under cover of our policies, it doesn't mean we should. EyeSerene^talk 18:32, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

This. //roux   18:58, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Naming the dead child, by itself, has nothing to do with BLP, as the child is dead. The parents do not warrant censorship either. But the innocent children do, if in fact they could be at risk. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 18:51, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, though I was trying to avoid the 'c' word ;) I think this is one of those situations where common-sense can usefully be applied for now, until the whole issue becomes moot when (presumably) the other children are resettled under new names and the reporting restrictions lifted. EyeSerene^talk 19:06, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) If it didn't matter, the courts would permit the release of the name. While the court's decision may be predicated on matters unrelated to our own WP:BLP's concerns which may moreover have been made moot by the apparent non-mainstream release of such information, that doesn't mean we should necessarily go against such a media blackout.

Furthermore, WP:DEADLINE people; there isn't one. This is a common problem with articles on developing events, and while it's made all the more controversial by the distasteful nature of those events, I don't see any compelling reason to treat it any differently than another article on a current event. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:12, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm of this opinion that this falls under the "do no harm" principle and "presumption in favour of privacy" principle. When we are talking about minors we MUST be extremely cautious and prudent. Better to omit information than potentially cause harm. Exxolon (talk) 19:39, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I second Chunky Rice's " Who cares what the UK courts think? Their opinion is irrelevant here." As internet nerds, we're surely better placed than anyone to make such judgements. I propose we form a Council of Brights, chosen from those wikipedians whose World of Warcraft characters have the highest INT scores, and have them decide such matters. I'd trust their judgement over any mere court. 87.115.17.119 (talk) 19:00, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

• I wonder if I call Granville a little shit if I will be capriciously blocked for 3 hours without attempt at discussion? Just wondering, mind you. Not actually doing so. KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:39, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
  • That's not relevant to this discussion. And yes, if you do call an editor that expect to be blocked. We don't tolerate personal attacks. Exxolon (talk)
    • Clearly, you are clueless as to the incident to which I refer, as well as to the point which I am making. This comment was not intended for you, I assure you. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:18, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
      • If you'd done a little more research, you'd know I'm fully aware of the incident you're referring to for a very good reason. Let me reiterate - the rights or wrongs of that incident are irrelevant to this discussion and debate should probably be continued elsewhere, however using that kind of language about other editors is clearly a blockable violation of WP:NPA - this is a serious project demanding a certain minimum standard of behaviour which that kind of act falls well short of. If we're not sanctioning editors who use that kind of language we definitely should be. Calling me 'clueless' isn't particularly civil either and in posting to this public noticeboard you're inviting a reponse from any editor, not just the one(s) you were attempting to get a reaction from. Exxolon (talk) 20:27, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
        • Then I stand corrected - you are aware, therefore being deliberately obtuse rather than innocently clueless. Thank you for clarifying your position. I am done. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:36, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
          • 'Obtuse' now - again not very civil. Exxolon (talk) 21:06, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

• • • • • • • KillerChihuahua, Exxolon, this thread has gone from a silly joke to a disruptive squabble, that has no bearing on any actual issue for administrators. Please both immediately WP:DISENGAGE from this daft pissing contest; it's conduct unbecoming of you both. 87.115.17.119 (talk) 21:22, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I was already done, see the "I am done" in the message above? Feel free to chastise others who have already ceased behaviors which bother you, though, if it makes you feel better. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:38, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

87.115.17.11 you are correct - I'm moving ongoing issues to KillerChihuahua's talkpage and will try and resolve them there instead. Exxolon (talk) 22:19, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

As one of the oversighters involved in this, I have been waiting for some current reliable source to stick their neck out and include the name. We should not be the first. Barely a day goes by without new news articles going to print, and yet news sources across the globe are choosing to not include the names. We should follow their lead. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 22:54, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Whereas the order issued by the UK courts applies only to UK newspapers, and not UK websites, and many of the UK newspaper website items cited above predate that order, the bottom line, as as I see it, is that when WP:BLP issues arise, it is our duty to minimise harm, not only to those mentioned within our pages, but also to those who might be identifiable through what is published here. That's an issue of our responsibility as opposed to reporting what we might; the truth might well be a virtuous motive, but we are not investigative journalists, nor are we scandal-mongers, especially in the context of editors whose only apparent motivation in this context is bloodthirsty and ill-considered revenge. The two-year old girl who was raped deserves better than that reaction. Rodhullandemu 00:12, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

If it lacks WP:RS on a BLP, that is one thing. If a reasonably-sized consensus supports suppression of the info per WP:BLP, that's another thing (though I would consider such a decision to be incompatible with the text of WP:CENSOR. But, not to put too fine a point on it, I'll eat my damned hat before I see EnWiki supporting automatic knee-jerk obedience to the laws of any foreign country, including Britain, based solely upon somebody's unofficial Euro-centric "interpretation". For the hundreth time: Wikipedia exists in the US and has a full-time lawyer whose job description is to "supervise [Wikipedia's] legal policy". If some questionable issue arises with the British legal system, its his job to determine whether or not we are obligated to make any changes. That's why he gets paid. For the record, he has previously stated many times that we don't answer to them. CIreland: your statement that "The people best placed to judge the wisdom of publishing the name are the UK courts" shows a fundamental disconnect with WP:CENSOR and a (thankfully rare) misconception as to what Wikipedia is not. You argue about second guessing the UK courts; how about not second-guessing the Project's lawyer, first? Or would you rather simply fire him and make all our legal decisions based on whatever Euro-centric viewpoint you come up with? Bullzeye ^contribs 03:18, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

That kiss-up-to-authority-they-know-what's-best viewpoint was also attempted with the murder case I was talking about earlier, and was defeated. That vaguely fascistic mindset is scary, frankly. In this case, supposedly there are kids to protect, so BLP actually does come into play, assuming that the kids could be harmed if their parents' names were publicized. This is a little different from O.J. Simpson, a very-public figure whose kids were already well-known, so there was no protecting them this way. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 03:25, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

While "think of the children" helps in this case, BLP also protects adults, including criminals, and the main reason why BLP comes into play is that no reliable source has yet knowingly printed the names after the court order. If the news had died down, it would be appropriate for us to make our own decisions in this matter, however every day new articles go to print ... without the names. This is a conscious choice by reliable sources to not include the names, so I view naming them on Wikipedia as ignoring the decision by reliable sources to not name the people. Once the papers start breaking the court ruling, we can follow their lead because we can reference them. Or if a reliable source reports that the court restrictions have been lifted, then we know - otherwise we are just guessing. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 08:12, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

What is "scary, frankly", Baseball Bugs is that when weighing the opinion of people who work daily with such issues and who are in full possession of the facts against the opinion of a bunch of amateurs (myself obviously included) with limited access to any details, you would defer to the latter. You may choose to describe giving more weight to the opinions of those with obvious expertise as "fascistic"; I, however, would prefer the adjective "adult" to describe the recognition of our own limitations.

Bullzeye, I don't understand what you mean by "Euro-centric viewpoint" - the issue is about knowledge and expertise, how is location relevant? And whilst the foundation lawyer may be well placed to determine what we can (legally) do, he has, so far as I am aware, no special qualifications that to advise on what we ought to do; just because we could, it does not mean that we should. If WP:CENSOR starts being used to justify "whatever we can get away with" then either it or WP:BLP has to go. CIreland (talk) 11:58, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that a UK court has more "knowledge and expertise" with our BLP policy that we do? I find that hard to believe. -Chunky Rice (talk) 16:40, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Excellent point. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 18:31, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the "Euro-centric" view, but what I'm seeing in some editors here is the same as with the previous case, that we the citizens should kiss up to authority. Maybe that's how they are used to doing things in mainland Europe, but not so much here in the USA. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 18:35, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

CIreland: To answer your question re: "Euro-centric", I would be less offended by this nonsense if it wasn't such a prevalent manner of thinking amongst certain members of our European editor set. Unfortunately, there has been repeated issues with UK editors attempting to boldly enforce their personal lay interpretations of UK censorship law on the US based English Wikipedia without any prompting from Mike Godwin. The Roger Took case and the Virgin Killer fiasco both featured heavy lobbying from European editors who felt ("as a courtesy") we should simply knuckle under any time the UK decides they want to censor EnWP. If a US judge cut an order demanding censorship of a UK-based Internet publication, he would immediately (and rightly) be given a tall middle finger from the other side of the pond. I am baffled why anyone would think EnWP should voluntarily act otherwise. Pretty sure there's a reason why US citizens aren't legally obligated to bow to the Queen. Bullzeye ^contribs 18:48, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

The present article is almost unreadable because of the avoidance of names. The first thing we're supposed to do is be an encyclopedia & convey information, not confusion. There can be no further harm done to the child, and the other parties are convicted felons. I can so no rational basis for not simply using them. Am I saying the UK attitude is irrational--yes, I certainly am. I would feel very differently if the child had survived. We apparently need a policy specifically about our willingness to follow the UK rules on publication of names, and I have no doubt what will be the view of almost everyone at WP, except perhaps a few people who have unfortunately grown accustomed to censorship. DGG (talk) 01:26, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

It's not just UK citizens. As I said earlier in the thread, we did the same for Nevada-tan, the reasoning being that most, if not all, reliable sources will do the ethical thing and respect the legal system by not disclosing the name. And our rules for biographies, whether alive or dead, say that we have an ethical consideration above and beyond reliable sourcing. Hell, it's the decent thing to do. That said, the only source given in this thread that actually gives the infant's name as "Peter Surname" is, AFAIK, the Evening Standard, which was published a year before the court order came into effect. I think that we should take the ethical considerations into account and wait until the court order is lifted, and also warn UK editors that mentioning the name may make them liable for contempt of court. Sceptre ^(talk) 17:38, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

we can certainly warn UK editors, in the same way we warn editors from countries like the PRC, that their editing here in an objective manner may cause them to come in conflict with the law of their area. Non UK editors, just like non-PRC editors, can report things properly. I'd like to know what ethics has to do with it exactly. My ethics is to tell the truth, unless living persons will be harmed, and that's the basis of our BLP policy. People in the UK may have assimilated their countries legal policy as "ethical" and I do not hold it against them--we are all influenced by our environment and people around us. DGG (talk) 09:15, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Were you aware that Baby P had a sister, a minor? Revealing her surname at this point could not, by any stretch of the imagination, be justifiable. I don't need the Law, nor do I need a BLP - and I would hope you don't, either - to tell me that exercising self-censorship right now is the decent thing to do. If that's still not enough, have you considered the negative impact on this project that we all care about, if the gutter press were able to headline "Wikipedia outs Baby P's sister"? --RexxS (talk) 02:36, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Redux

Back off his block, and adding the name again. Would someone care to keep an eye on this? Rodhullandemu 17:25, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Nobody has raised any valid reason at all why we should not immediately give Peter [redacted] the dinity of his real name. (GranvilleHouston (talk) 17:29, 27 June 2009 (UTC))

I can certainly give you yours, a fucking troll. Your above post proves it. --WebHamster 17:34, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I redacted the name which I'm sure you added inadvertently. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 17:37, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

In a discussion about whether adding the real name should be done, is it a very good idea to blurt the name out here? Do you feel like you have gained anything by doing this? I'm glad someone else beat me to removing it really. Arriva436^{talk/contribs} 17:40, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Why does the name need to e added now? Wikipedia will still be here next year; it's not a news reporting site; there's no pressing need for the name. 82.33.48.96 (talk) 21:18, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Why? Everybody in the world knows his nbame was Peter [redacted] and there are NO reasons at all why he shouldn't be named on this site at once. (GranvilleHouston (talk) 17:41, 27 June 2009 (UTC))

I didn't know. I didn't really want to know. Until you blurted it out in some kind of "stunt". Arriva436^{talk/contribs} 17:43, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

...and I redacted it again. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 17:45, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Everybody knows, it's all over the Internet, all the legal business is finished, this is not a UK site, the murdered child deserves the dignity of a name, end of story. He must be named NOW. (GranvilleHouston (talk) 17:49, 27 June 2009 (UTC))

I have requested oversight of the edit- again. This situation cannot continue. Rodhullandemu 17:52, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

That's right, you can end it now by naming him. (GranvilleHouston (talk) 17:56, 27 June 2009 (UTC))

Actually, it can ended now by simply blocking you indefinitely and having done with it. Which would be almost inevitable if you continue on your course, and quite soon, too. --Calton | Talk 18:01, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Then I would just create another account. (GranvilleHouston (talk) 18:06, 27 June 2009 (UTC))

"must"? You are aware of the actual meaning of that particular auxiliary verb? --Calton | Talk 17:52, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh yes I most certainbly am, and anyway the legal business is over and what the UK courts said doesn't apply here. (GranvilleHouston (talk) 17:55, 27 June 2009 (UTC))

No, you "certainbly" don't appear to understand the meaning of "must", as you have not even hinted at the faintest rationale why it "must" be included. --Calton | Talk 18:01, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

...and I see no reason why Granville (who I think is already a sock of a previously-banned user) should also continue to edit at Wikipedia if most simple of rules around consensus cannot be followed. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:57, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

There are no rules because this is not a UK site. He must be named at ONCE. (GranvilleHouston (talk) 18:00, 27 June 2009 (UTC))

"at ONCE"? Is there a deadline? Is there some sort of ticking timebomb? Do you have a bet going? --Calton | Talk 18:02, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Since there are no reasons at all why he shouldn't be given his full name then it certainly should be done at once. (GranvilleHouston (talk) 18:03, 27 June 2009 (UTC))

BZZZT, another vocabulary failure. "must"? "at once"? Could you demonstrate your understanding of those words by using them in a different sentence? Because I don't think those words mean what you think they mean. --Calton | Talk 18:07, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Can we all keep it civil, please? Exploding Boy (talk) 18:31, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Block Review

On the basis of this edit in the face of consensus, I have now blocked GranvilleHouston indefinitely for continued disruption. Doubtless I will be considered an involved admin, and invite anyone to overturn this or unblock and reblock as appropriate. Meanwhile, I take the view that WP:BLP exists for a reason and is not to be flouted by unsourced additions of names, even to Talk pages. Rodhullandemu 18:28, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

When it comes to such flagrant BLP issues, you cannot be "too" involved as an admin not to make this block. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:39, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, and given your previous comments, I think filing an RFCU or a WP:SSP might be advisable. I think I have an idea who this is. Rodhullandemu 18:46, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I just put {{sockpuppet}} on both User:JohnRedwood and User:GranvilleHouston's User pages. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:48, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

...and {{ipsock}} on User:92.15.9.8 (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:53, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Excellent block - there's a big difference between arguing your point and repeated trolling; clearly a WP:BLP issue. – Toon 21:51, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

As a side, that should be oversighted... I'm guessing someone's requested it already? weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 22:05, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Concur, as an uninvolved admin. However, those UK editors who want the name removed for reasons other than no reliable source has named it should be reminded that that is not Wikipedia policy; and, although they might be in violation of law to add the material, they would be then in violation of Wikipedia policy to remove it. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:01, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

BLP is, however, Wikipedia policy. In this case it's BLP-by-implication; the surviving sibling has a right to privacy and so on. So there is actually no violation of Wikipedia policy in removing it. In any case, this is one of those situations where IAR absolutely applies: how would you like to grow up knowing that not only was your sibling horribly murdered, but your name also got plastered all over the internet? Come on. → ROUX ₪ 03:08, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

BLP for the sake of the kids is the sole, and sufficient, reason to keep the info out. If there were no other living kids, there would be no reason to keep it out. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 03:19, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

And if the name were published by generally accessible reliable sources, there would be no reason to keep the info out. We shouldn't be the first to publish potentially damaging information, but we shouldn't be the last. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:22, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm guessing you're not familiar with the concept of two wrongs not making a right, then. → ROUX ₪ 03:33, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

As I understand it, BLP trumps reliable sources, at least where the innocent underage are concerned. However, I wonder if wikipedia is consistent in this regard? I was thinking of the Ramseys, which is a little unfair since they were never convicted of anything, but I think their surviving kid(s) names were well-known. However, that was also a much higher profile case. (Or was it?) Likewise with O.J. Simpson. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 03:38, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I misread WP:BLP#Privacy of names. My apologies. However, I would side with that policy not being ethically sound if the name really did appear in generally available reliable sources, but I'm willing to follow the policy anyway. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:30, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

socks

We have an editor who does virtually nothing except add strange refs to physics articles, sometimes valid but usually bogus. The editor has operated as Uruk2008 (talk · contribs), Gil987 (talk · contribs), Three887 (talk · contribs), and most recently Casimir9999 (talk · contribs), all doing exactly the same stuff, and blanking talk-page warnings without response. An RFC was started at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Uruk2008, but hasn't accomplished anything. I will notify the editor in question (in his newest guise). Looie496 (talk) 01:12, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I've removed most of the bogus third party links added recently, will stick to valid first party material and sources from reputable journals in the future. Casimir9999 —Preceding undated comment added 01:49, 28 June 2009 (UTC).

Given the unresponsiveness until an ANI thread was created, the editing pattern that does not contribute to building an encyclopedia, and the unjustified usage of multiple accounts, I hope that this thread will at least result in the delivery of a very serious warning by an admin. I don't insist on a block at this point, but the tolerance for further abuse should be very low. Looie496 (talk) 02:37, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Personal info revealed?

Resolved

Not sure what to do about this, but there appears to be personal information (email addresses, etc.) showing in Bank Menatep that was probably added misguidedly, but in good faith. Could an administrator have a quick look at this? -- Scjessey (talk) 03:48, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, deleted those revisions - they weren't encyclopedic anyway - and semi'd the article for a short time. Black Kite 03:52, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

  Thank you for the prompt resolution. -- Scjessey (talk) 03:53, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Be On The Lookout

Resolved

 – Indef'd by an admin

Admins might want to watch out for this user, User:WlKlPEDlAADMlN68, the user is obviously trying (poorly) to pass themselves off as an admin. Some of the newer users might fall for it. They have already vandalized the Nine Inch Nails article, so they it doesn't look like they are here for encyclopedic reasons. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 06:01, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

In an obvious case like this, you can get quick results by turning them in to WP:AIV, which I did, except they had already indef'd that character. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 06:07, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

A more appropriate place is WP:UAA as their username obviously violated WP:U. ···日本穣^? · Talk to Nihonjoe 07:36, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Spammer

User talk:WinsonYeung is creating spam pages and has conflicts of interests with articles. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 14:04, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Spam deleted, user warned. Seems to have heeded the warnings and stopped. CIreland (talk) 14:33, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

User::Stakingsin‎

Resolved

 – Newbie editor; HellinaBucket has posted them a Template:Welcome and is giving them sound advice on editing. This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 15:16, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Four attempts at vandalising my page. Says will persistently recreate article with no sources and promising to disrupt process. See Talk:Todd Friel and history for hellinabucket.Hell in a Bucket (talk) 14:32, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

This should be reported just down the hall at WP:AIV. Chamal ^talk 14:34, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

issue has been resolved, ok to remove f needed. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 15:12, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

File:CP24 Breaking News vehicle.jpg

User:AlexRampaul continues to upload copyrighted images after dozens of repeat warnings. The message is not getting across, and I am not sure how to handle it.--Svgalbertian (talk) 14:37, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Article spamming Generation Jones wikilinks

There are a couple of apparent SPAs article spamming wikilinks to the above article, using either very poor sourcing (opinion pieces, mainly), or no sourcing at all. I first noticed this at Michael Jackson, when they tried to force it into there. I then checked this page, and found that the same SPAs had been inserting the wikilink into other articles with similarly poor -- or non-existent -- sourcing. I began culling through the articles, pruning the non-supported wikilinks. One of the SPAs is now mass-reverting my work, and isn't (per Talk:Michael Jackson) willing to discuss it. Would someone with a bit more oomph than me discuss it with him/her? Or, if I'm out of line here, just let me know. I'm not going to edit war about it (I may remove them one more time, if that's deemed acceptable here), but I thought it might be important enough for administrator attention. Unitanode 02:10, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm trying to understand what you are saying here, Unitanode, but I'm genuinely confused. What do you mean this is "article spamming"? On what possible basis can you say these are poor sources? Generation Jones is a term and concept which has received significant mainstream acceptance, and is discussed in many major media outlets (Newsweek, NBC, Wshington Post, New York Times, etc., etc.). It certainly should be included in relevant articles in Wikipedia, like other bona fide generations. There are many, many unequivocally reliable sources in various articles referencing Generation Jones. Article spamming?! I urge you to please do some research on this topic. A good starting point may be this page which has an overview of recent stuff: http://generationjones.com/2009latest.html. You can find tons more on Google. And if an administrator wants to discuss this, I'm certainly more than happy to.TreadingWater (talk) 02:40, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

• There's a reason I haven't AFDed the article. However, the fact that the neologism has achieved a modicum of notability doesn't mean it needs to be spammed into every article it could even tangentially be related to. You have been mass reverting the removals I made, without even attempting to discuss, and made it clear you weren't interested in discussing it at the MJ talkpage. That's why I brought it here: to find out if my take on this is correct, and -- if so -- what my next step should be. Unitanode 02:43, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

(ec 2) You might have informed the SPA (at the moment, I only see one). If you see others, please add them, and it might be worth checking whether they've conspired to violate 3RR. I agree that he spams Generation Jones, but there is some justification for his spamming them accross articles on generations, if the term really is actually used. I quite agree that Michael Jackson and Farrah Fawcett should not have generation names.

I don't see any administrative action required. Yet.

I'll reply to TreadingWater later. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:44, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

• This user is pretty new, and was one of the ones trying to add it to the Jackson article. Unitanode 02:51, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I spotted this as well, and think that we can WP:AGF on this one. I had never heard the term myself before, but upon reviewing the Generation Jones article, it seems legit. However, if the name of the generation seems relevent, in most cases one should probably substitute Baby Boom Generation in place of it; since that term is much more widely used; and it would not be inaccurate to use that name instead. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:03, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

• In short, the people who are trying to shoehorn it in won't allow "Baby Boomers", instead demanding that it be included as a separate generation, of the same standing as the Boomers, Gen-Xers, et al. Unitanode 03:06, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I think that THAT level of acceptance is unreasonable, as the term is clearly not in common English usage, and at Wikipedia we have a long-standing policy of using the most common terms when feasible. I will concede that the term has gained a small level of acceptance among certain academics, but to claim that that sort of acceptance is enough to claim the term should be used on equal footing with, say, Generation X or Baby Boomers is unreasonable. It is patently clear that the world does not hold it on equal footing, and Wikipedia should not as well... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:25, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
• I just reviewed the last AfD, and there were several "new users" and Anon IPs that mysteriously showed up to recommend keeping that article. In many cases, the edit to the AfD was wither their only edit, or one of only a few that they have made. It seems very suspicious to me. Unitanode 03:22, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Yeah, that AFD was a bit sketchy. If we throw out the obvious SPAs, there does not actually seem to be as wide-spread support as the article creator wants everyone to believe. Still, I am not complaining about the existance of the article, but there are some serious WP:COI problems with it and with the way it is being used around Wikipedia... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:27, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
    • I opened a discussion at Talk:Generation Jones, and as long as I have administrative approval, I'm going to prune a lot of the nonsense where it's treated as being on the same scholarly plane as the Boomers, Gen-Xers, etc. Unitanode 03:31, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
• This is out of control. He won't discuss it at Talk:Generation Jones, and keeps reverting. I'm done trying to clean up these articles until I get some clear administrative direction here. Unitanode 03:49, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
• This is just one example at Generation Y. He insists on elevatinng a pop culture neologism to the level of scholarly, accepted Generational splits. I'm on the edge of 3RR now, so without direct admin intervention, I'm done here. I have to say, this is my first full-on run in with an SPA, and it does take the fun out of editing this wiki, that's for sure. Unitanode 03:54, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
• I've got to take a break from this, as it's starting to really beat me down. I'd also encourage an admin and a checkuser to take a look at the AfD on Generation Jones, as looking at the contribs of many of those voting "keep" are iffy to say the least. Unitanode 04:07, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd say, considering the block and edit histories of the user and other related users, either block away or consider an RFC/U against all of them. Such warring without discussion is unacceptable here, and I would personally support the former. MuZemike 07:56, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Which users are you referring to? I hope not me, since blocking me would be completely unfair and unwarranted. I'm a big fan and believer in Wikipedia and I have been very careful to play by Wikipedia rules. The one time I was blocked before was by mistake; the blocking administrator apologized for his honest mistake. I have spent a huge amount of time discussing these topics on talk pages, so your claim of "warring without discussion" certainly doesn't apply to me. And my edits are done carefully and thoughtfully and in good faith.TreadingWater (talk) 15:02, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not an administrator. The reason I brought it here was so that someone who IS could deal with this stuff. Unitanode 14:22, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm an involved admin, so I can't help you. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:28, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Administrators: please carefully review these claims made by user Unitanode before considering taking any action. With all respect to this user and assuming good faith on his part, I strongly believe he is way out of line in his behavior about this in the last 24 hours. He discovered Generation Jones yesterday and immediately began removing references to it in a bunch of articles in which it is clearly relevant. When I returned GenJones to these articles, he became very upset and quickly posted here trying to get an administrator to intervene. I believe it would have been more appropriate for him to do some research on this topic, both in and out of Wikipedia, so that he would have more of a basis to make informed edits. I have politely encouraged him repeatedly to please do that research, so that he could see for himself that his claims are incorrrect, yet he apparently continues to resist this suggestion. If he were to do this research within Wikipedia, he'd find that there have been many many editors who have weighed in on this topic, and the articles he so quickly changed were the result of an evolution of collaboration over time. He appears to believe that his view must be right, and he seems to be indignant that I dare to disagree with him. But he is just one editor, with his one opinion, and it would be more appropriate for him to consider the long history of other editors' opinions on this topic, and through discussion and compromise and a collaborative spirit, have his views factored in to these articles, rather than immediately trying to innapropriately take up the time of administrators with a situation that can, and should, be resolved through the normal collaborative Wikipedia process. I, and others have, and continue to, discuss these issues in detail on the relevant talk pages, and I encourage Unitanode to join us.TreadingWater (talk) 15:44, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

• I have no problem with the article Generation Jones (though there was some really chintzy stuff happening at the 3rd AFD from the keeps). Rather, I have a big problem with your attempts to equate the neologism of one social commentator, which was picked up by some pundits and marketing firms, with established, scholarly categorizations like Generation X and the Baby Boomers. Your article spamming (and that of a few other SPAs as well) is out of line, and your edit warring to enforce it is equally out of line. Civil POV-pushing is still POV-pushing. Unitanode 16:21, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

TreadingWater: My take on this as an uninvolved non-administrator: Unitanode's major complaint is that you are refusing to discuss your edits on the relevant talk pages. If someone in good faith objects to your edits, you need to discuss the problem. It is your responsibility to defend any additions you make to any article, especially any addition that doesn't have reliable sourcing. Auntie E (talk) 16:46, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Aunt Entropy, for your observation. I completely agree that it is important to discuss these issues on the relevant talk pages, which is why I have spent so much time doing exactly that. I don't know why Unitanode keeps pretending that I don't when it is easily provable that I do. If you'd like to confirm this, I invite you to please look through my contributions, and you'll find that I spend an absolutely huge amount of time discussing these issues on talk pages, and have for a long time. Not only does Unitanode keep pretending that I won't discuss, but now he has begun erasing my discussions! (see below)TreadingWater (talk) 17:34, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

• Now he's claiming he has consensus to add it based on talkpage discussions that have either never happened, or that developed no consensus. He's also hounding me at a userpage I created, and leaving odd warnings on my talkpage. This is very discouraging, and needs to stop now. Unitanode 16:49, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

TreadingWater: having looked over your contributions, I see you editwarring with many editors (and yes, it takes two to edit war) with minimal talk page discussion by you, none of it productive: gaining consensus does not consist of saying "I'm right, do some research." You've yet to show why your sources should be considered reliable, and you've failed to gain consensus for your promotion of this concept. This diff of yours where you mention the money sunk into promoting this concept and consider that a viable reason for doing so as well I find troubling as well. Auntie E (talk) 19:16, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Aunt Entropy, these comments by you are so strange that I can't help thinking you are a sock puppet of Unitanode, but I will assume good faith and assume that you just didn't look at very many of my contributions. "Minimal talk page discussion" by me?! Are you joking? Look at the talk pages of these relevant pages, and you will find extremely long discussions by me throughout these pages. Some of these talk pages are filled with dozens of paragraphs of my thoughts. I think it's fair to say that there is more discussion by me on these relevant pages than any other editor. You cannot possibly have really looked through a significant number of my contributions and conclude that I only "minimally discuss" on these pages. Why don't you just scroll through the relevant talk pages and look for my name--you'll see more discussion by me than anyone else. And just by judging by this section on this page, is it really plausible to make the argument that I'm not willing to discuss these issues? Is there anyone who has contributed more discussion in this section than me? Further, I, and many other editors, have provided a long list of reliable sources. A clear consensus of editors have repeatedly agreed that there are more than enough reliable sources which have been provided. And lastly, I don't understand why you are troubled by my pointing out that various companies and pollsters have spent a lot of money on researching Generation Jones. That feels relevant both in terms of credbility (ie. would people spend a lot of money unless they thought it was a credible concept?) and in terms of showing that there is serious research being done on GenJones.TreadingWater (talk) 19:53, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Administrators: User Unitanode, who created this section, is now blatantly breaking Wikipedia rules, and I urge you to please carefully review his edits and block him from further editing. He is aware of the 3RR rule; he acknowledged such in this section yesterday when he wrote "I'm on the edge of 3RR now...", yet today he made a fourth edit within 24 hours on this page: List of United States Presidents by date of birth. I placed a 3RR warning on his talk page, asking him to please self-revert his fourth edit. Not only did he not self-revert, he erased my warning from his talk page! I do not want to revert his fourth edit because I've already done three edits in the last 24 hours and I believe it's important to follow Wikipedia rules. He also is trying to prevent discussion on these issues from happening. He created a page in which he tried to make the case that a few editors in a past AFD discussion were somehow problematic. I posted a thoughtful constructive response to this, which he keeps erasing from that page. He has repeatedly insisted that I'm not willing to discuss these issues even though I have, and continue to, discuss these issues at great length. Now he erases my discussions! He apparently only wants readers to see his views and is trying to prevent readers from seeing alternative opinions. Will an administartor please intervene and stop this user from making these blatantly bad edits. Thank you.TreadingWater (talk) 17:19, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot to put in the link to this page where Unitanode keeps reverting my attempt to have a constructive discussion, here's the link: [[11]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by TreadingWater (talk • contribs) 17:25, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

• Hopefully this wikilawyering will be seen for what it is. TW's tendentious editing has consisted of simple reversion of my changes. My last one there was a switch (per discussion at the talk) to the correct "X" designation. I had previously -- and mistakenly -- changed it to "Boom." TW is revealing himself here, not only as an SPA, but also as a (somewhat) civil POV-pusher. Unitanode 17:29, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Changing your opinion doesn't allow you to break 3RR with a fourth edit within 24 hours! It is your responsibility as an editor to know and obey Wikipedia rules. This page clearly spells out 3RR rules: [[12]]. Please respect Wikipedia's rules and self-revert that fourth edit immediately.TreadingWater (talk) 17:42, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

With all your wikilawyering, POV-pusing, and the badgering you've done to me this last 24 hours or so, you should probably refrain from giving me orders, and let some administrators weigh in here. Unitanode 17:46, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Unitanode, your edits over the last 24 hours are frankly the worst I’ve seen on Wikipedia. I’d like to offer a few more thoughts here, in a constructive spirit, with the hope that you can be open minded and stop making bad edits which are against the interests of Wikipedia readers. Please be aware that I’m not personally attacking you, but rather focusing on your edits. Since you have begun the practice of erasing my discussion contributions, I will place these thoughts in a few relevant places.

You edit in a way that suggests that you have difficulty accepting that your opinion isn’t the only opinion. You apparently have an extremely narrow definition of the word “scholarly”, and believe anything that doesn’t fit your definition should be ignored. But that’s not the way Wikipedia works.

The truth is that Generation Jones has gained much widespread acceptance by very reliable sources. You dismiss the opinion of “pundits” as not being of value. But there are many pundits who are supportive of GenJones who are very credible and scholarly, like Jonathan Alter (Newsweek), David Brooks (New York Times), Clarence Page (Chicago Tribune) and Karen Tumulty (Time Magazine). They are widely viewed as deep thinkers, and their analysis is respected at the highest levels. Huge market research companies have invested many resources into researching GenJones, firms like Saatchi & Saatchi and Carat and Scarborough Research. Several of the largest political polling firms now regularly break out their voting data to include GenJones voters separately from Boomers and Xers. Big polling firms like Mason Dixon, and Rasmussen have spent time and money doing special research studies about GenJones. Many of these references can be found in the Wiki GenJones article, and other related Wiki pages. Many more of these can be found through Google.

Yet you somehow dismiss all this, and keep insisting that if experts don’t fit into Unitanode’s definition of “scholarly”, their opinions don’t count. On what possible basis did you arrive at the notion that you are the arbiter of what is considered credible on Wikipedia?

Further, you seem to think that if GenJones is mentioned in an article, that that must mean it is being equated at the same level as Boomers or Xer. Obviously, the terms Boomers and Xers have been around much longer and are much better known than GenJones. Saying, for example, that GenYers are the offspring of Boomers and Jonesers doesn’t imply that the GenJones term is as established as the Boomer term. But if accurate and relevant, the Jones reference should still be included.TreadingWater (talk) 20:38, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

• If accusing an uninvolved admin of being MY sockpuppet isn't enough to get this guy blocked, I don't know what is. He's been badgering me for the last 24 hours isn't enough, maybe that is. Unitanode 20:13, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Unitanode, perhaps you'd find it helpful to read comments carefully. I did not accuse him of being a sockpuppet, I said I would assume, despite the strangeness of his comment, that he is not a sock puppet and assume good faith on his part. And I'M badgering YOU?! I ws minding my own business when you initiated an assault on GenJones with a series of uninformed and innapropriate edits and tactics. I have been strictly on defense to your offense. If you don't want to be doing this, then stop it. I'm happy to walk away. You are the one who keeps pushing this.TreadingWater (talk) 20:38, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

• Okay, this is really it for me in this thread. Make all the accusations (even with your little "I'll assume good faith" caveats, that's what they were) you want. AuntieE is an uninvolved admin, and hopefully someone (anyone!) will step in and put a stop to this. (BTW, how is "Unitanode, your edits over the last 24 hours are frankly the worst I’ve seen on Wikipedia" acceptable in any way?) Unitanode 20:52, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

No, Unitanode, I didn't accuse him of being a sock puppet and I don't appreciate you trying to twist my words into meaning what you want them to mean. I clearly said that I would assume good faith on his part. Are we to take your interpretation of my words over my words' literal meaning? I choose my words carefully, and if I said I'm assuming good faith on his part, that's what I meant. And my comment about your edits being the worst I've seen is sincere. It was said in the spirit of trying to show you that your edits are hurtful to the mission of Wikipedia. I was careful to point out that I was not personally attacking you, but rather discussing your edits themselves. As far as I understand, it is acceptable to frankly discuss problematic edits, but not to be critical of editors themselves. I really do feel like your edits have been deeply problematic, and as someone who cares a lot about the integrity of Wikipedia, I think it's fine for me to point out those problems. I did so without any of the angry insulting words that editors sometimes use in these situations. I simply civily pointed out what I saw as problematic in a constructive spirit. Anyway, if you really mean it that "this is really it" for you, that's good news. I sincerely hope in the future you will choose to make edits that involve research and discussion and collaboration. I'd be happy to be collaborative with you if our paths cross.TreadingWater (talk) 21:17, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I honestly had never heard of the term until this thread, and frankly most people in the subject group (myself included) consider ourselves as “Boomers” and are comfortable with that. “Keeping up with the Joneses” was an attribution made more to our parents’ generation during that time; our generation was seen as rebelling against that, not yearning to imitate it. Frankly, the description of the term provided in the article’s lede seems to make it sound like a pejorative neologism, so I can’t see recommending that it be broadly applied to other articles. Askari Mark (Talk) 21:41, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Interesting observation, Askari. I'll take a good look at the lede of the article to see if it's representing the term accurately, since the term is certainly not meant to be pejorative. Here's an op-ed in USA TODAY written by the person who coined the term, which fills out the meaning of the term, which again is meant to be positive: http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/20090127/column27_st.art.htm TreadingWater (talk) 21:55, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

User reinserting copyvio at Strikeforce

I've told Sea888 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) multiple times on his talkpage that his copy-pasting of material from press-releases and other website to the Strikeforce article is not OK.

The current text in the article:

The agreement reunites Showtime and Strikeforce following their successful "Shamrock vs. Baroni" telecast in 2007. In the main event, Frank Shamrock submitted Phil Baroni in the second round giving Shamrock the Strikeforce Middleweight championship title. The event was followed live on Showtime by one of the sport’s most anticipated fights, Strikeforce: Shamrock vs. Le featured Frank Shamrock versus the undefeated world kickboxing champion Cung Le on March 29, 2008. In a fight that has since been proclaimed “Fight Of The Year” by industry experts and the like, Le won the Strikeforce middleweight championship title by putting on a relentless offensive and fending off Shamrock’s counter attacks before breaking the defending champion’s arm with a hard roundhouse kick late in the third round. The kick forced Shamrock to retire from the fight in between rounds three and four

... and the text in Strikeforce's press release:

The agreement reunites SHOWTIME and Strikeforce following their successful “Shamrock vs. Baroni” event, presented by SHOWTIME PPV® in 2007. In the main event, former UFC middleweight champion and MMA legend, Frank Shamrock, submitted knockout artist, Phil “The New York Badass” Baroni, in the second round of action whereby Shamrock became the first-ever Strikeforce World Middleweight Champion.

The historic event was followed up with a live SHOWTIME telecast of one of the sport’s most anticipated showdowns of all-time—Shamrock versus undefeated world kickboxing champion Cung Le—on March 29, 2008. In a battle that has since been proclaimed “Fight Of The Year” by industry experts and critics, Le seized the Strikeforce middleweight crown by pouring on a relentless offensive and fending off Shamrock’s counter attacks before breaking the defending champion’s arm with a hard roundhouse kick and forcing Shamrock to retire from the bout between rounds three and four.

Diffs: him adding itrestoring itand again. He has also introduced other copyvios, such as this and this.

I'm obviosly not getting through here, so some assistance would be appreciated. --aktsu ^(t / c) 04:38, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

This example is completely exaggerated and taken out of proportion. Please read the current content on the page to the alledged copyrighted material. The example above was corrected to remove WK:PEACOCK words and is no longer in question. Please see the current article. Cheers.Sea888 (talk) 04:44, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

The edits since I pasted the above is: "industry experts and the like" -> "MMA critic", "relentless offensive" -> "relentless arsenal of kicks", "fending off" -> "avoiding", "he defending champion’s" -> "Shamrocks'" and "retire" -> "quit". --aktsu ^(t / c) 04:57, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Why did you add it to the article at all? ⟳ausa کui ^× 04:49, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

The material is to highlight the history of the company. Here is the current version in its entirety.

Strikeforce partnered with Showtime to televise an all new series of MMA events that will air live on Showtime.[12] The agreement is to have a three- year broadcast deal in which will see mixed martial arts return to the premium pay channel. The much-coveted deal, which has been quietly negotiated since December of 2008, proposes up to 16 live events per year.

The agreement reunites Showtime and Strikeforce following their successful "Shamrock vs. Baroni" telecast in 2007. In the main event, Frank Shamrock submitted Phil Baroni in the second round giving Shamrock the Strikeforce Middleweight championship title.[13] The event was followed live on Showtime by one of the sport’s most anticipated fights, Strikeforce: Shamrock vs. Le featured Frank Shamrock versus the undefeated world kickboxing champion Cung Le on March 29, 2008. In a fight that has since been proclaimed “Fight Of The Year”[14][15] On June 6th 2009 with the purchase of ProElite assets finalized, “Ruthless” Robbie Lawler collided with fellow superstar Jake Shields in a 182 lb. catch weight battle at the Scottrade Center in St. Louis, Missouri that aired live on Showtime.

Where is the violation? Is this fine? Please look at the timeline of my edits, clearly I am still in the process of editing. See my discussion with Aktsu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Sea888 (talk) 04:59, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I am beginning to look into the above. I see that you seem to have added text here from Encyclopedia Britannica. Though you cited a source, that material is under copyright protection and cannot be pasted into the project. It seems it may be necessary to look into this more deeply. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:27, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I have left a note at user talk and will be evaluating contributions for other concerns. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:50, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I have found text copied from at least four sources and have restored to the last version of the article that is identifiably clean. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:20, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not marking this resolved, as conversation is (hopefully) ongoing at his or her talk page, but I have evaluated the contributions and found evidence of some substantial confusion about what we can and cannot use (including, of most concern, this article established on 31 March entirely from an essay (?) by John Walsh). I think this contributor is operating in good faith and hope he will take on board information about how to utilize sources within our copyright and non-free content policies. He has been advised that persistent infringement may lead to an account being blocked. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:37, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

• This looks like a patent copyvio to me. You cannot simply copy-paste content and then paraphrase it. That is a derivative work and it is in contravention of US copyright law. ⟳ausa کui ^× 20:29, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

User Off2riorob, Disruptive Edits

There has been a dispute, posted on the BLP noticeboard which the user Off2riorob has now dubiously closed as 'resolved'. I'll post the info here, as I'm not sure if that was the correct page to air my complaint against the editor. Whilst I no longer intend to edit, I still wish to ensure the complaints against the user Off2riorob are heard. This is what was posted, with my complaint about the user underneath. If an admin could take a look at some point, that would be great. 2writer (talk) 16:23, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

regarding: Tony Blair / war crimes [From the BLP noticeboard, minus the 'resolved' tab]

Hi, There has been a debate at Talk:Tony_Blair#Regarding_the_war_crimes_accusation over the value of keeping the exact details of a speech in the article or to remove it as contentious and that the details of the speech add nothing of value to the article. Would an uninvolved admin evaluate the debate and make a decision on the result. Thank you.User:Off2riorob|Off2riorob User talk:Off2riorob|talk 13:12, 27 June 2009 (UTC))

The above editor Off2riorob has again deleted the quote being discussed. This is the forth time. Three without any discussion. It took several attempts (on my talk page) to persuade him to take it to the subjects talk page in the first place. He has also arbitrarily removed, without discussion, a whole host of 'negative' yet fully cited info on the subject. I tried to revert two of them (there were several dozen at least) but he reverted my reverts. He then followed me to another article and did the same, arbitrary removal, trick. We were supposed to be waiting for an admin regarding this one, but he seems to just do what he likes. I'm sick of this edit bully. He can keep wiki, but I thought I’d make my complaint clear. Having never needed to complain about a fellow editor before I'm not sure if this is the right place but hope an admin can at least take a look. User:2writer|2writer (User talk:2writer|talk) 22:14, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Not taking a position either way, but I see that the talk page section dealing with this "issue" was closed/collapsed/hatted/whateveryoucallit. Was that the right thing to do? I was going to give my 2 cents but couldn't? Anyways, --User:Threeafterthree|Tom User talk:Threeafterthree|(talk) 23:30, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

That was Off2riorob doing. The continual blanket edits by Off2riorob are disruptive in my view, not least because he steamrollers on regardless. Even trying to get the guy to the talk page in the first place is a huge battle. He's a disruptive bully. See WP:DIS. In any case, he can force his edits on others from now on, I'll find something else to do outside Wikipedia. I don't need the grief. And next time someone else in the pub mentions the nonsense of Wikipedia, I'll nod, along with everyone else. User:2writer|2writer User talk:2writer|talk 13:47, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

---

I have informed User:Off2riorob of this report, in case he wishes to respond. Abecedare (talk) 17:20, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

After lengthy discussions on the talk page I felt there was consensus and changed the comment in question

from this ...

On 1 August 2008, former Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohammad issued a statement calling Blair a war criminal for his role in initiating the war in Iraq. Mahathir said, 'I am disgusted that Tony Blair has been invited to Malaysia. This man, to me, is a war criminal. Through instigating the war in Iraq, he has killed more than (former Bosnian Serb leader) Radovan Karadzic and (former Iraqi President) Saddam Hussein.'[9]

to this....

On 1 August 2008, former Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohammad issued a statement calling Blair a war criminal for his role in initiating the war in Iraq.[9]

Removing the mass murder claims but leaving the comment and a link to the speech. I hatted the discussion to preserve the discussion as 2writer commented he was going to complain and the next day 2writer added retired to his page and as he was the other editor in the disputed change I then added a resolved tag to the request for comment that I had opened. (Off2riorob (talk) 17:35, 28 June 2009 (UTC))

As far as I can see there is nothing to answer here. 2writer can not just come along and dump his complaint and go, he either is here to give some detailed explanations and cites to his accusations or this thread should be closed as no complaint to answer(Off2riorob (talk) 19:16, 28 June 2009 (UTC))

This is addressed to any Admin looking into this. First, it may be worth noting that there has been further talk on the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard regarding this. I should note that I'm not familiar with all Wikipedia guidelines and initially complained because I feel edit bullied and generally hassled by the editor in question. I have taken a look at some WP guidelines and WP:DIS seems the most appropriate here, though there may be other examples.

Re WP:DIS and Signs of disruptive editing These points include:

1. Is tendentious: continues editing an article or group of articles in pursuit of a certain point for an extended time despite opposition from one or more other editors. Tendentious editing does not consist only of adding material; some tendentious editors engage in disruptive deletions as well.

This has happened numerous times. Any reverts (two) I made to his arbitary changes were reverted by him. trying to persuede the editor to take just one of his edits to Blairs talk page took some doing. This exchange can be seen on my own talk page.

1. Does not engage in consensus building:

repeatedly disregards other editors' questions or requests for explanations concerning edits or objections to edits; repeatedly disregards other editors' explanations for their edits.

He initially denied there was any previous consensous, as seen on my talk page, yet implied the consenous had changed in his favour later, as seen on the Tony Blair talk page. His reasons for continual arbitary removal of cited 'negative' info appear to be picked from a hat. POV, COATRACK, UNDUE or some none specific reason, of which many are dubious claims. His reasons for objection can change from the edit statement on the history page, to the talk page. It's as if the reason for objection is less imprtant than him getting his way.

1. 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.

I'd suggested artbitration to resolve this dispute (as seen on the Blair talk page). We were then waiting for an impartial admin. The editor in question then deleted the quote being disputed, archived the relevant talk section, then claimed on the BLP Notice board the dispute had been 'resolved'.

1. Campaign to drive away productive contributors: act in spite of policies and guidelines such as Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia:No personal attacks, Wikipedia:Ownership of articles, engage in sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry, etc. on a low level that might not exhaust the general community's patience, but that operates toward an end of exhausting the patience of productive rules-abiding editors on certain articles.

The editor followed me to another article James Purnell and engaged in the same 'arbitary removal' trick. He has engaged in wholsale 'negative' yet fully cited edits on the Tony Blair page and has generally acted like an edit steamroller. Getting him to discuss just one of his edits on the Blair page was a battle. The last straw was after agreeing to wait for an admin to take a look, the editors decision to just delete it again anyway and archive the relevant discussion. He engages in low level intimidation. Previously suggesting I hadn't read his edits before reverting them (as seen on the James Purnell page). Implied I am the only person who is not following the discussion properly, as seen on the Tony Blair page and generally doing all he can to intimidate me whilst skirting the civility rules. 2writer (talk) 21:45, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Please see my high levels of contributions as regards to talk page edits to demonstrate my commitment to talk page discussion [[13]] (Off2riorob (talk) 21:54, 28 June 2009 (UTC))

There are a lot of broad accusations here, but nothing specific, please provide exact cites to your accusations. And please stop cut and copying material from other pages, it's enough to provide a link. (Off2riorob (talk) 22:31, 28 June 2009 (UTC))

BET Awards

I saw an announcement today that the BET awards tonight had been changed to a Michael Jackson tribute with added performers and some awards presented along the way. I removed some unsourced info on Friday, and there's been some increased IP activity in the last few hours -- adding performers, some blanking etc. The article could probably use some more eyes, but I'm not sure if this is the correct place to ask. Flowanda | Talk 21:35, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Longterm abuser User:Nangparbat

Resolved

A long term Islamist banned abuser, called Nangparbat (see User:Hersfold/Vandal_watch#Nangparbat) uses dynamic ip addresses to evade his block, and has been vandalizing numerous South Asia-related articles with Indophobic and anti-Semitic bias. Several articles have been sprotected because of his actions (for background, consult User:Thegreyanomaly). His recent attack has consisted of egregigious holocaust denial and pro-Nazi POV in Dalit Voice (see contribs, and [14], and [15]). Simply blocking the ip does not help, as he merely switches over to another dynamic ip in a matter of minutes. I appeal to editors to maintain the integrity of the encyclopedia and prevent this abuse to continue.Todaymiddle (talk) 13:14, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

While you are likely a sock of Hkelkar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), the opposing banned editor in conflict with the above individual. Blocks all round, I suggest. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:27, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Fine. A "ban" means nothing anyways. However, Nangparbat has a large gang of sympathizers among the far-left and Islamist edit gangs on wikipedia, particularly abusive are pro-nangparbat admins like User:Nishkid64. If the antisemitic version of Dalit Voice is enforced by technical means due to the intervention of the pro-nangparbat camp, I will proceed to notify editors who are more intimately familiar with the dynamics of such things as antisemitism. This time, the bastards have bitten off more than they can chew. Besides, blocking will not help, as all users concerned have dynamic ip addresses. The only solution is indefinite semi-protection of targeted articles. Todaymiddle (talk) 13:40, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Sigh. Nangparbat accuses me of being pro-Hkelkar and Hkelkar accuses me of being pro-Nangparbat. Oh, how will I ever obtain the approval of two banned nationalist edit warriors? WP:RBI. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 15:21, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Nishkid64: Prejudiced Against All Races! ~ mazca ^talk 20:08, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Go play yur dramuz someplace else, please.Heironymous Rowe (talk) 20:50, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, they are all equally worthless :) MuZemike 01:25, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

What a joke this is! Nishkid blocks Nagparbat and slocks the Nangparbat articles everyday YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 01:14, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Battle of Warsaw 1920

This requires rapid administrator investigation and response, possibly oversighting or office actions also. Exxolon (talk) 21:38, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Oversighting and office actions? For what purpose? As I said here, the person in question doesn't seem to be correctly understanding the discussion he is complaining about. There's nothing we should do, as his claims are baseless. --auburnpilot talk 23:08, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Not really; the most significant part of the complaint follows from a misunderstanding (the complainant construed an assertion at FAR that an article too closely paraphrased his work [i.e., that we had plagiarized him] as an assertion that he had plagiarized, a misreading that is not easily made). Courtesy blanking suffices. 68.76.156.73 (talk) 23:10, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Returning vandal

Judging from their contributions Capetown Jones (talk · contribs) would appear to be a returning vandal (and rather a nasty piece of work). Does anyone recognise them? Could someone familiar with persistent vandals follow-up with checkuser/WP:LTA if appropriate? Any help appreciated,  Skomorokh  22:29, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Their modus operandi bears similarity to that of King of Sing Sing (talk · contribs).  Skomorokh  22:34, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Capetown Jones (talk · contribs) has been blocked by another admin, and I have blocked King of Sing Sing (talk · contribs). You may want to file a quick case at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations#Quick CheckUser requests. Tiptoety ^talk 22:45, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the assistance Tiptoety (and thanks also to User:Kurt Shaped Box). I've filed the sock case as you have advised, though I'm not au fait with the process. Mahalo,  Skomorokh  22:56, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Also blocked The Lion Bear (talk · contribs) and the underlying IP. I thought this was Fclass (talk · contribs), but it appears to be someone else. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 23:40, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Michelangelo24

May I suggest a banning of one week? Please see: [16]. Created many pages (some multiple times) over a period of several months that get constantly deleted. I am no music expert so I wont comment on his edits to already created articles, but I do note a COI in his edits (i.e. adding his own music/creation in places like 2009 in music etc.). Cheers.Calaka (talk) 08:34, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

In theory, he warned to stop back in February, for what that's work. Alternative could be to just blacklist his website or really someone should just talk to him first. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:04, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I seem to notice a pattern (since working over at the new articles created page for the past few days) that if these users talk after writing them a message on their talk page (e.g. please add refs), they talk/do as you requested straight away. However, others no matter how much you litter their wall with speedys or warnings, they seem to be completely non responsive and just continue doing what they were doing (basically ignoring the talk page/not bothering to read the messages). I agree that communication is key to solving a lot of these problems, but I am unable to suggest a way of better improving this barrier between the regular wikipedians and the newbies. Some sort of chat feature might need to be implemented/enabled (unless there is already such a thing somehwhere)??!? I know there is IRC chat but are newbies given notice of that being available? Furthermore IRC is not something everyone uses (since you need to download a client to get onto it first) etc. Cheers!Calaka (talk) 10:51, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

It's a human thing, not an interface problem. One problem is that a lot of the newest users love getting Huggle and the like, doing vandalism fighting. Those are precisely the type of people who need to interact one-on-one, not use automated tools. At the same time, most admins (the most experienced users) like myself tend to deal with so many users who are completely a wreck that a simple conversation just seems like a waste of time. Besides, <sarcasm>it's just a name on the talk page anyways. It's not like it's a real person.</sarcasm> -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:24, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it is never black&white. With newbies that make new articles (that lack cats, refs, etc.) I usually do an automated welcome and then write a little note underneath to tell them to add a reff or to fix up the article or to add more sources etc, and I try to do the same for users that make speedy worthy cruft (that is not vandalism). Stuff that is pure vandalism though, I feel that there is no point in even communicating with them. They either get over it and might one day contribute (after growing up?) or will go at it for a while, get banned multiple times and eventually stop bothering. Anyway, if there are no further disruptive edits by the above user, then maybe we can leave it be? Hopefully he sees this. Cheers!Calaka (talk) 09:14, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Open WP:Wikihounding by User:Viriditas

Resolved

Brought as an RfC here by request of admins here and other users here and here
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I apologize in advance for the long posting, but understand that it's actually a tiny fraction of what's been going on, making it virtually impossible to edit on Wikipedia. I and other editors need admin help regarding some openly brazen WP:Wikihounding that literally takes up now several hours a day over numerous articles and boards. In fact, it has just caused one excellent editor (Wildhartlivie) to declare that he is "Done" attempting to edit an article, wondering "I keep wondering why an administrator hasn't intervened with what is being said and the attacks upon me and the two of you." This Wikihounding campaign intensified after Viriditas was blocked from editing for 48 hours six days ago for WP:Edit Warring on Human rights in the United States, including falsely accusing at least two editors of "NPOV" and "plagarism", the Wikihounding, which had existed before, was increased. Spread to Jonestown - After his/her block time ran out, Viriditas then began a series of tagging and openly combative Talk page sections at the Jonestown article, which I had previously edited mostly a year or more ago and Viriditas had never before edited, with three editors. When another editor raised his suspicions that this was part of Viriditas' continuing attempted dispute with me, Viriditas actually admitted "yes, my attention was drawn to this article due to the actions of another user who has been active here, referring to me. Viriditas' most sizable campaign there involved the inclusion of a POV tag over the entire article because the article did not do more than discuss for one sentence and link to the article Jonestown conspiracy theory, a fringe CIA conspiracy theory first espoused by cult leader Jim Jones himself to hs followers. Spread to Noticeboards - Unfortunately, it has now spread even further, to a baseless Neutral Point of View complaint lodged by Viriditas on the same conspiracy theory, wherein it was again explained to this user -- over more combative commentary -- by a yet another univolved editor "I see no real NPOV issue here" along with the same statements by the other three editors. The uninvolved editor, now the FOURTH editor to say this, stated "the (correct IMO) point was made repetitively by others that the content under debate best belonged in the conspiracy article - and User:Viriditas refusal to accept that seems to have consumed a lot of effort that could have been better spent improving that article and the short mention of it in the main article". Talk Page Comment Deletions of multiple editors - The WP:Wikihounding includes repeatedly deleting my comments on Article Talk pages -- along with those of other editors -- in gross violation of WP:TPO, so much so that Viriditas was seperately made to stop such Talk Page comment deletions by an administrator at ANI-3RR here in a separate instance. Combative, Uncivil Accusations and Charges to nearly every editor - Unfortunately, in the Jonestown article, which has now suffered from this new part of the WP:Wikihounding campaign, the Talk page alone has ballooned in size by over 1,100% in three days -- from 10K to over 115K -- by the now highly combative many-hours/day Talk page campaign that Viriditas is waging with me and other editors. Just one click on the page reveals the now nightmare state is has become. This includes violating WP:Assume Good Faith and further WP:Disruptive editing on that page and other talk pages: to editor Wildhartlivie - I see you are still chewing on sour grapes from the shortened footnotes discussion. My neutrality here has never been in question. to editor radek - "you have shown that you are intellectually dishonest" edit comment re me and Yachtsman1 - "crud posted by disruptive crudités attempting to distract and change the subject. Your crud is not needed" to me - Because of your documented history of poor editing involving cherry picking of primary and secondary sources, undue weight, NPOV violations, and plagiarism to editor Wildhartlivie: Sorry, but none of what you say makes any sense. to editor Yachtsman1 - You are a tag teaming meatuppet for Mosedchurtre, the editor who refuses to allow a discussion of the classified sources and conspiracy theories in the article, and you are not neutral. You have the same documented NPOV issues as Mosedchurtre. to editor Wildhartlive - You're not following the discussion. To refresh your memory, to editor Yachtsman1 - "you aren't the first civil POV pusher/wikilawer to try it, nor the last" to editor Yachtsman1: You aren't paying attention. Understand that this is just a TINY SAMPLE of the combative bloat that the Talk:Jonestown has assumed since Viriditas brought the Wikihounding campaign there three days ago. Disruptive Editing and Baiting - The WP:Wikihounding also involves WP:Disruptive editing that was open outright WP:Harrassment, including several false accsations repeated, ignoring all statements made, just to attempt to bait some aggressive responsve, such as the following (just one of many examples) regarding the potential citation of an article by Dr. Rebcca Moore, which I never opposed: Viriditas - "Why isn't this source allowed to be used in the article? . . . What is your objection to using this particular source?" Me -"No editor, including me, has disallowed this (Rebecca Moore) article, and I in fact have cited Dr. Moore's books in this article. I have no objection to the source, or many thousands of other books and articles on Jonestown" Viriditas - "Why will you not allow a scholarly article written by the chair of the Department of Religious Studies at San Diego State University, Rebecca Moore, to be used in this article" Me - *Please stop making false statements such as "Why will you not allow a scholarly article written by the chair of the Department of Religious Studies at San Diego State University, Rebecca Moore " , each continued falsity is a further indication of WP:Disruptive editing. The brazen falseness of this charge is especially telling for future ANI action where I directly stated above, ""No editor, including me, has disallowed this article, and I in fact have cited Dr. Moore's books in this article. I have no objection to the source, or many thousands of other books and articles on Jonestown." Viriditas - "Please explain why you will not allow a scholarly article written by the chair of the Department of Religious Studies at San Diego State University, Rebecca Moore, to be used in this article" Me - Third time now, please stop making false statements such as "Please explain why you will not allow a scholarly article written by the chair of the Department of Religious Studies at San Diego State University, Rebecca Moore, to be used in this article " Viriditas - "What is it that you find objectionable about citing this academic paper" Me - Fourth time now, please stop making false statements, each continued falsity is a further indication of WP:Disruptive editing. The brazen falseness of this charge is especially telling for future ANI action where I directly stated above, ""No editor, including me, has disallowed this article, and I in fact have cited Dr. Moore's books in this article. I have no objection to the source, or many thousands of other books and articles on Jonestown." . There is ZERO issue with citing this article. Again, this is merely one example of combative disruptive editing and baiting via false statements that occurs throughout the Talk page. Threats - The campaign also includes numerous threats, such as "Please stop ignoring my questions per talk page guidelines. Failure to answer them but continuing to make the same points will get you in trouble." HUSH practices - The campaign also involves engaging in WP:HUSH, leaving numerous warnings on both my talk page, as well as user:Yachtsman1 here, here, and here False Plagarism Assertions/Forum Shopping - The campaign further includes makinge false "plagarism" accusations, at times as an attempted pretext to delete text, including at WP:Content_noticeboard, where he/she was told "If it's paraphrased sufficiently, it isn't plagiarism. It is paraphrased sufficiently." For the record, as Viriditas was told by others, it is plainly obvious that it was not plagarism, yet Viriditas repeatedly deleted the text based on this false basis, such as here, here, here, here and here. Note, he/she continued the false accusations of "plagarism", here, with [As for your continued plagiarism of content, that is a fact that is not in dispute. In fact, she did so an another board not just about one editor, but about two here: Both the content noticeboard and the copyright cleanup board agreed that you (another editor) and Mosedchurte are engaging in plagiarism. Openly admits to POV in editing - Viriditas also overtly admits POV in editing, such as with regard to the tendency to include violations over advances in Human rights in the United States, where he/she admitted "Mosedschurte, do you understand that the positive advancement of human rights in the U.S. has come out of the criticism of negative incidents?" Attempts to Resolve before coming to ANI - Please understand, and I cannot stress this enough, that I have hestitated to bring this to the attention of ANI for days, fearing that it will just draw even more aggressive WP:Wikihounding from this editor. Two days ago, I placed the following "Sincere Request" on this user's Talk page stating "Honestly, this is not some attempt at snarky sarcasm by me, but a sincere request. just a consideration that we not let any dispute (between us, content or otherwise) spill over into other articles? . . . I truly believe -- all B.S. aside, and no blame on either party in this particular statement -- that we would both be happier and more productive both on and off of Wikipedia without spending time and energy continuing disputes across multiple articles." This was ignored. I then yesterday again renewed my request with "Please, I wanted to renew the original request, a consideration that we not let any dispute (between us, content or otherwise) in Human rights in the United States spill over into other articles. We would both be happier and more productive both on and off of Wikipedia without spending time and energy continuing disputes across multiple articles." This was again ignored. I simply have no other avenue in which to turn other than this board. I can no longer edit on Wikipedia without facing literally many hours a day of WP:Wikihounding including overtly combative talk page comments and reverts, much less do so enjoyably. In fact, I didn't even go into the rest of them, simply scan the now massively bloated Talk:Jonestown for many more examples, because I felt that this complaint was already too long. I am not sure what the proper remedy for such harrassment is -- whether it be an outright block, or just an order to not particiapte in articles in which I (and perhaps Yachtsman1) edit, or something of the like. Honestly, whatever remedy will make it go away is preferrable. Mosedschurte (talk) 09:59, 28 June 2009 (UTC) When the complaint is this long, perhaps it should have involved an WP:RFC/U instead? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:53, 28 June 2009 (UTC) I could have shortened it to just the talk page deletions/abusive commentary/etc., but I thought that an administrator would want more info to work with. Again, this is just a tiny fraction of the problematic WP:Wikihounding. We really have no where else to turn at this point.Mosedschurte (talk) 11:01, 28 June 2009 (UTC) Note - I have notified Viriditas about this thread. ANI reports about users require notification to them. Exxolon (talk) 12:59, 28 June 2009 (UTC) Thank you, Exxolon. Since I never even glance at Mosedchurtre's contribution list, I would never have known about this report. To address this allegation of "hounding": Mosedchurte was not actively editing Jonestown when I arrived on 25 June. In fact, before I arrived, his last edit to the main Jonestown article was on 30 March 2009[17], and his last edit to the talk page was on 5 January 2009[18] My first edit was on the talk page on 25 June 2009.[19] Mosedchurtre didn't even show up until a day later. However, I did come to the article because he had recently plagiarized material on Human rights in the United States. After trying to address the issue of plagiarism with Mosedchurtre on the talk page unsuccessfully for days, I began to look at his contributions using Soxred93's tools. Looking further, I found that issues related to problems with sources, cherry picking and NPOV were previously discussed on the noticeboards concerning his edits to Jim Jones/People's temple topics: [20], [21], [22], [23]. I then decided to check up on his contributions and look for copyvio. Shortly thereafter, I requested an analysis by WikiProject Copyright Cleanup of one of Mosedchurtre's edits I found problematic (I'm looking at many more right now). The project reported back that "this passage is a problem under Wikipedia's policies as it takes creative elements (both language and structure) from a non-free source in a manner inconsistent with the non-free content policy & guideline. From a legal standpoint, close paraphrase of a single passage is unlikely to clear the de minimis threshold, whether or not the material is defensible as fair use. But Wikipedia's own policies do require that non-free content be plainly marked." I have recently submitted Jonestown for peer review and hope to help improve it. I would appreciate more eyes on the article, especially the talk page, where the tag team of Yachtsman1/Mosedchurtre has followed me over from Human rights in the United States. Viriditas (talk) 13:13, 28 June 2009 (UTC) I'll let most of the falsehoods stand (anyone can simply clink the links above to reveal their wackiness) but: When another editor confronted Viriditas about aggressive commentary and edits at Jonestown merely because I had edited there, Viriditas actually admitted "yes, my attention was drawn to this article due to the actions of another user who has been active here. I won't repeat the massive bloat, abusive commentary and tendentious editing then ramped up even further. The primary focus of Viriditas since beginning the Jonestown leg of the WP:Wikihounding had zero to do with "plagarism" at all, but an accusation that the entire Jonestown article violated POV because of the lack of discussion regarding the Jonestown conspiracy theory, for which all three editors at the article told Viriditas he/she was incorrect. This was followed by yet another leg of the WP:Wikihounding campaign of Viriditas' immediate complaint at the Neutral POV Noticeboard, where the Noticeboard editor (now a fourth editor) also Told Viriditas that "the (correct IMO) point was made repetitively by others that the content under debate best belonged in the conspiracy article - and User:Viriditas refusal to accept that seems to have consumed a lot of effort that could have been better spent improving that article and the short mention of it in the main article". Regarding the false "plagarism" charge leg of the WP:Wikihounding, Viriditas was told by the editors at the first content board in which he/she lodged YET ANOTHER complaint that, bluntly, "If it's paraphrased sufficiently, it isn't plagiarism. It is paraphrased sufficiently.". Alleged "plagarism" was also the same false pretext used before that did not work when Viriditas was blocked for 48 hours for editing six days ago. Regarding a second editor's consideration that the original paraphrase was too close -- but she refused to state that it "plagarism" as well -- the text was [plainly fixed and paraphrased even more since then and is no longer an issue. Note that that editor also directed Viriditas, when she comes across any problems, to simply "rewrite that passage to address the problem", which Viriditas has repeatedly refused to do as part of the WP:Wikihounding, instead deleting the text wholesale REPEATEDLY (see above), continuing to use the false "plagarism" charges as a pretext to delete text -- both by me and at least one other editor (Yachtsman1), furthering the WP:Wikihounding campaign. In addition to the huge number of examples above, I would like to state that this WP:Wikihounding campaign literally consumes, no exaggeration, hours/day and has alredy forced one editor (Wildhartlivie) to consider himself "Done" in disgust in the Jonestown leg of the WP:Wikihounding. I'm not even suggesting that some sort of block is mandatory -- even just some kind of admonition to stop editing/following/hounding me in articles besides Human rights in the United States (the original article kicking off the WP:Wikihounding) would be enough. There is literally no other remedy aviable to any editors of these articles/noticeboards besides soem adminstrator action (or unilateral action by Viriditas, whom I have TWICE requested to stop with a "Sincere Request" on his/her Talk page, and a follow up plea). Mosedschurte (talk) 15:01, 28 June 2009 (UTC) This should be a user conduct RFC. ⟳ausa کui × 20:31, 28 June 2009 (UTC) An RFC would probably be shorter. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 02:13, 29 June 2009 (UTC) My issues regarding this user came about as the discussion on Talk:Jonestown progressed. When I looked at the contributions history and realized that Viriditas had been in some lengthy and what appeared to be contentious disputes with Mosedschurte, I immediately voiced concern that it was not being carried over to previously uninvolved article [24]. Despite assurances to the contrary, [25] [26] it became apparent from statements Viriditas made early on that the intent was not necessarily a neutral one, but based on preconceived notions that were not later supported by dispute pages diffs that the editor posted. At least the resolutions did not reflect the outcomes Viriditas claimed that they did. Dispute itself isn't an issue, miscontruing the results is, however this post more concerns the behavior that Viriditas displayed against me specifically and statements that misrepresented previous comments, incivility and flat out rudeness. As discussion went on, Viriditas's responses became more aggressive, confrontational and incivil. When I addressed the manner in which he/she was posting and that he/she had repeatedly expressed doubts about the editor reviewing the article neutrally [27], he/she responded incivilly, dismissing my statement, making a personal attack in stating that I was "still chewing on sour grapes" and claimed that his/her "neutrality here has never been in question" [28], despite my having asked at least three times for an outside reviewer or dispute resolution be sought instead [29] [30] [31]. I responded [32], posting diffs to 5 previous posts I'd made questioning his/her neutrality on the article to that time [33] [34] [35] [36] [37], and once again expressed my concerns with his mission on the page. Viriditas made made increasingly incivil posts and personal attacks to and about me. "You're not following the discussion. To refresh your memory... My next post objected to tone and requested that it stop, and explained that the editor's posts were bereft of diffs to check what was being posted [38]. The response was to finally repost the diff that had been posted some 150 posts earlier and suggested I "try to read the discussion". I protested the tone and incivility and again requested that the "contentious and attacking" posts stop. That post provoked a response that included "You must be kidding. Please do yourself a favor and actually read what you wrote above, at 03:27, 28 June 2009. Your entire comment was one long demeaning commentary, contentious, and attacking ... Seriously, take a break or something because you aren't making any sense at all." Later, when I again challenged the editor's ability to conduct a neutral assessment of content involving Mosedshurte, the editor denied issues with neutrality and claimed that I would have to show "a non-neutral concern or edit" and referred to my repeated expressed concerns as "a neat trick, but it's painfully transparent". The editor claimed "there is a mandate to discuss the conspiracy theories here, per Wikipedia:NPOV#POV_forks", I responded with a somewhat thorough examination of that here, which Viriditas dismissed in a demeaning and patronizing manner, saying "My concerns were directly addressed by a neutral third-party from the NPOV noticeboard, so I have no idea what you are going on about now." The attacks and incivility actually worsened at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard, where I made this initial statement. My involvement on Talk:Jonestown was dismissed and characterized as stemming from my being "very upset at [Viriditas because I pointed out that your chosen referencing format was unwieldy and inefficient and I recommended the use of shortened footnotes in its place. You then threatened to leave the article if I changed anything"], both of which were factually untrue. The editor then posted this, which effectively minimized my overriding concern with the actual involvement of the editor him/herself constituting an issue with POV, trying to direct the discussion back to only what points he/she wanted to cover, frankly ignoring that larger issue. Viriditas then mischaracterized my statements and POV concerns with his/her involvement on the article at the noticeboard as "an angry response from Wildhartlivie" and dismissed all the other editors' posts as "more POV crud". At that time, an uninvolved editor reviewed the page and claims being made and concluded "I see no real NPOV issue here" in response to Veriditas charge of NPOV violations. Even after that, Veriditas continued contentiousness, stating "The burying of comments under repeated "crud" without actually addressing the topic or saying anything is a common tactic of POV pushers." I again posted a protest regarding the personal attacks, mischaracterizations, and contentiousness [39], to which Viriditas replied "I have no idea what you are talking about, but that's an interesting fantasy world you live in." Viriditas attacked a source linked to a caption on a photo essay on the Time magazine website [40], claiming it could have been plagiarized from Wikipedia, that the Time content was "backward sourcing" and attacked the reliability by demanding an author's name and dating from the site, although the photo essay was clearly titled "Mass Suicide at Jonestown: 30 Years Later". I stated that "the event happened in November 1978 - when then would 30 years later be?" The response was patronizing and quite odd and ignored the clear evidence of the date of the essay [41]. A different source was then found, and Viriditas refused to support or discuss her/his rather odd claim that Time magazine was plagiarizing content from Wikipedia by copying from here and publishing it without proper terms of use attribution, despite being repeatedly asked. Based on the gross incivility, personal attacks, bad faith assumptions and contentiousness shown by Viriditas, I would request that he/she be admonished for this gross violation of Wikipedia behavioral principles and suggest that he/she be banned from conducting "POV, cherry-picking sources and plagiarism" reviews on pages in relationship to editing by Mosedschurte and topic banned from articles concerning Jim Jones, Jonestown and Peoples Temple related subjects. This is simply outrageous and unacceptable and editors should not be required to endure personal attacks, incivility, contentiousness or confrontation of this scope. Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:09, 29 June 2009 (UTC) I would invite anyone interested in the facts to take a look at all of my edits to Talk:Jonestown beginning with the thread Talk:Jonestown#Cherry_picking_of_primary_sources. It is clear from that first discussion and until the end, that as a primary contributor with 95 edits to Jonestown, Wildhartlivie has ownership issues, and instead of directly addressing my concerns, chose to assume bad faith about me, treated me with incivility, made many personal attacks against my character, and for the most part, avoided addressing the discussion. All of the links above are responses to incivility and fails to show the initial comments. This would be like me saying "Look, Wildhartlivie is rude, he told me to eat my shorts" while omitting the fact that I told him his mother wears army boots and snake skins. It's not honest to show only one side of the dispute. I have made a total of 11 edits to the article, all of which were maintenance-related and connected directly to discussion on the talk page. I have made no additions or deletions of content, nor did I intend to do so as I stated on the talk page. For example, when Wildhartlivie became upset when I questioned his referencing format, I assured him, "I have not said that I'm going to implement the referencing proposal without your support, I've merely tried to discuss it with you to find out why you oppose it." A NPOV incident report was filed when consensus could not be reached, and User:Jaymax, a neutral editor, successfully carried out the changes I requested. This is exactly how I intend to continue working: 1) Use the talk page to raise the problem 2) Engage in discussion 3) Reach a consensus for a change. 4) If consensus cannot be reached, contact a neutral third-party on a related noticeboard and request the changes. Anyone who is interested is welcome to examine my edits on both the talk page and the main article. Viriditas (talk) 09:18, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Admin eyes would probably be a good idea

It's already semi'd, but Billy Mays just died, and according to a friend of mine who frequents the place (seriously, an actual friend) /b/ is having a minor paroxysm. The article has apparently previously been a target for move-vandals. → ROUX ₪ 17:36, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

It was protected here but I don't see any actual vandalism. Of course, admins seems to enjoy doing that now so what difference does it make. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:30, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I know it was protected. My guess is that the first recent protection (March) was while he was alive, thus a BLP, and the revs have probably been removed from public view. The second one seems to me to be a very smart move in the case of deaths of high-profile people. There is no rush, so a short bout of protection while the furor dies down is probably a good thing. However, none of that is why I posted this, I just wanted to make sure admins were watching for sleeper socks, given /b/'s attention to the issue. Also, given that the original protection was by NawlinWiki, I'd be willing to bet that /b/ and/or he who must not be named were involved. → ROUX ₪ 19:33, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I just have to disagree with protection "while the furor dies down" when there hasn't been any vandalism out there. I know Jackson's article regularly is protected but seeing that something like 2009 Iranian election protests has lasted pretty well without any protection at all, I guess I'd rather we wait until someone actually happens rather than keeping new users locked out under fears of potential abuse. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:44, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Death of Michael Jackson part 2

Foregoing archived to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive549#Michael Jackson cardiac arrest / reported death

A contributor created the article Death of Michael Jackson, under the basis that they're expecting future information about a current event. In the talk page, I've already explained about the WP:NOTCRYSTAL policy, as well as using other high-profile deaths as examples of precedence. We're recommending that the content is merged with the main Michael Jackson article, rather than building this article up, and then end up merging later on if the death was indeed natural with no foul play involved. groink 02:40, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

See Death of Michael Jackson (stub) above. This isn't really an admin issue, but one of content, and should be worked out on the talk page. --auburnpilot talk 02:58, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Umm, Death of Michael Jackson was deleted and salted. Now it's an article, especially after being used as a fork example in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reaction to the death of Michael Jackson? Was there a discussion to un-salt? - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 03:52, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

That's what I'm getting at here. The admin who unsalted the namespace is sympathetic of the MJ situation. But the reason I think this is an admin-related issue is that, whenever Wikipedia policy is bypassed under an assumed special circumstance like this, it should've been discussed somehow. Especially when another admin is the one who is circumventing the policy. Groink (talk) 04:49, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Here is the link to the delete. [42] Groink (talk) 04:52, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I just want to add here for the record that I created the article, but I did not unprotect it. I posted a request on AN/I. And there clearly is a need for such a sub-article, given the length of Michael Jackson, and given that we should follow WP:SUMMARY STYLE. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 01:44, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

There appears to have been no discussion other than that tiny bit above. Guess that passes for consensus these days, multiple deletion discussions aside. There's a vigorous merge discussion on the talk page of the unsalted and recreated article; see how that goes, I guess. Tony Fox (arf!) 05:54, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

There does not even appear to be a Death of Elvis Presley article, and that story was certainly a media sensation - for awhile, at least. I doubt very much there's enough info on the death of MJ to fill an article, even if it turns out he was taking 100 different pills and had 100 different illnesses and that the FBI and CIA and Oliver Stone were somehow involved. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 07:02, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Try to use examples that occurred during Wikipedia's lifetime. –xeno^talk 15:00, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I won't dispute your hint that wikipedia suffers from recentism. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 15:05, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Most sources do. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:10, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

As long as it's not recant-ism, it's probably ok. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:14, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Those who cant, do. Those who can't, recant. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 15:20, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

How about Death of David Carradine? That was totally out of the blue. The death of MJ shouldn't have been such a surprise. Meanwhile, there is nothing officially known about MJ's death yet beyond the fact that it occurred. Maybe Reaction to the death of Michael Jackson would be more appropriate, since it's everyone's reaction that makes it special - as with Elvis. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 15:13, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Being a modest 32k, David Carradine's article can accomodate for this. Michael's was ~95k pre-death. –xeno^talk 15:18, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Besides, it's the coroner's job to split Carradine :-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:23, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Xeno. Also, MJ is a FA. There is likely to be reisistance to putting as much in the article about the death as some people will want. I think that having a Death article is a good safety valve.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:22, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

/me runs off to create Death of Farrah Fawcett and Death of Ed McMahon - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 15:35, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

We have Death of John Lennon (but I suppose that was an interesting and unusual death, as assassinations usually are). Dendodge _T\^C 15:38, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

And it was obviously also out of the blue. Curiously, the article fails to mention the dotted line connecting that assassination to the attempt on Reagan. Supposedly the guy who shot Reagan was devastated by Lennon's death, and that helped to put him over the edge. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 16:05, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Meh, and people wondered what my motivation in locking down the MJ article when the first unconfirmed reports started coming in about a heart attack was - 29 years later and there are still people trying to portray Lennon's murder as "assissination". LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:39, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Would Death and state funeral of Ronald Reagan be comparable (death by natural causes, major figure, relatively recent w/in WP's lifetime?) Based on that, this would mean that there would need to be a lot of coverage of his funeral and memorial services, since the actual cause was not significantly noteworthy (assassination is one thing ala JKF or Lennon). As this stuff is yet unknown, and in the case of Reagan given the fellow being a President and all that, it's CRYSTAL to assume there's enough for an article at this point. The only thing that I've seen noteworth on his death includes: false scarcity of his music, the Internet being hit hard when news broke, and people jumping on fake death sites to try to complete the death trifecta (see Jeff Goldblum), and only one of these really deserves a mention. --MASEM (t) 15:51, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

As Wehwalt suggests, the presence of that article, which is really a violation of wikipedia guidelines, serves a practical purpose, and after the furor dies down it can be trimmed back and re-merged. It wouldn't be the first time. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 16:02, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Which guidelines? The only one anybody has mentioned, is NOT#NEWS, which they are quite literally interpreting as 'Wikipedia does not create articles based on events in the news, period', which is beyond ridiculous. I cannot fathom, when we we so much non-notable dross and crap created on the pedia every day which can never simply be deleted at Afd under NOT#NEWS due to the 'reliable sources - notable' defence, that this global event is the one thing people choose to wake up and enforce a brittannica type standard on. Wikipedia has really screwed up this whole episode, from locking the article, from making his bio unreadable due to its woefull lede and 'NPOV' but unreadable chronological format of his article, and now, by inisting on being second best to all credible and non-credible information sources for properly covering the notable events relating to his death. MickMacNee (talk) 19:20, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Precisely. This is where the pie-in-sky ideal of "anyone can edit" starts to break down. The fact of so much hemming and hawing over protection levels, while funny to observe, really makes wikipedia look stupid. Above all else, we should try not to make wikipedia look stupid. It only further undermines wikipedia's credibility. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 19:40, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

We might as well archive this section. It's obvious that the consensus has been decided on by the folks who are editing the new article, so further discussion is probably moot. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:41, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I wish I understood why this was not allowed to go through the AfD process. A lot of people want to see the "death of" article merged or deleted. --Susan118 ^talk 01:06, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

The contributor who was behind un-salting the namespace is an administrator. User:Gwen Gale is a fan of Michael Jackson, and took it upon herself, with no AfD or any other discussion. I see it as a total conflict of interest, and abuse of her admin privileges. I didn't want to state this out in my opening statement, but I'm left with no other choice. We can't undo the damage and delete the article now. I would highly recommend that a higher authority look into this issue, and explore to see if the right procedures were followed. In the end, all I want to see is a warning sent to the people involved Groink (talk) 07:50, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

You may get more traction if you appeared to know what you are talking about; there was a request by SlimVirgin (talk · contribs) further up on this page to unsalt the title, and Gwen Gale was the admin who responded. The article was salted at the time of the MJ announcement so editors could not circumvent the protection of the main article to prevent the use of unreliable sources, and had no content - therefore there was no need for discussion to unsalt; reliable sources are now available. If you wish to warn SlimVirgin, you go to it (but it may help if you could give the appearance of knowing what it is you are talking about.) An apology to Gwen Gale may also help. LessHeard vanU (talk) 09:28, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Warn me about what, LessHeard? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 01:47, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm still wondering why it did not go through AfD discussion. There was much discussion on the talk page about the possibility of merging the article, someone archived it as "no consensus", but I would have liked to see that discussion on AfD, where it would have had visibility to others who might not even know the article exists. The article has been expanded, with sources, but it is heavily dependent on quotes and media speculation, and has no real substance. --Susan118 ^talk 14:45, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

There was no need to go through an AfD. Article clearly warranted by any standard. In fact, I'm quite certain it's going to end up being split up even more: investigation into death, reaction to death, funeral, probate, custody battle, etc. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 01:47, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Go ahead and list it. I've wanted a week-long drama fest for so long, and none of the new admins are obliging by deleting the main page or blocking Jimbo. More seriously, I think in this case, the community has spoken. And if being a fan is a disqualification, well, we better find some admins who live in monasteries. Monasteries with wi-fi, of course.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:55, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Hey I'm a fan, too, and I still don't think we need an article that devotes several paragraphs to statements by his family, and even less relevant people like Jesse Jackson. But not having nominated anything for deletion before, I'm not starting with this one. --Susan118 ^talk 15:11, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

The article is going to exist. The community has IAR and ignored all procedures and decided that one, for better or worse. You can yell at the tide to turn back, but it just ain't gonna. Suggest we close this and move on. There is no need for administrator intervention in this matter.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:15, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

There is no consensus to invoke WP:IAR as a lot of people here are opposed to it. This rush to create new articles to document current events is getting crazy around here. Death of Michael Jackson, Michael Jackson's health and appearance...where is the Birth of Michael Jackson article? I see absolutely no need for this to be forked off the main Michael Jackson article. He collapsed, then he died. Who cares what Al Sharpton/Jesse Jackson says? This rush to create forks has to stop. Corpx (talk) 02:47, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Nice...now I went to archive my talk page and my cut/paste archive got tagged as "possible Michael Jackson vandalism". I should note there is no discussion related to any of the Michael Jackson articles on my talk page; this leads me to believe that I've been labelled a vandal. Guess I disagreed with the wrong person/people? I am highly offended as I have spent a lot of time fighting vandalism on Wikipedia. I wish I knew (for certain) who did this, as I'd like to open up a separate incident. I would also like to request this removed from the edit history of my archive.--Susan118 ^talk 04:10, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

It's not you, Susan, that's just the Abuse Filter picking something up it doesn't like. That's an automated thing, not a person - don't worry about it. The filter can be cranky sometimes. Tony Fox (arf!) 04:45, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Yea, don't sweat it. That filter is too wide right now. See the note Entries in this list do not necessarily mean the edits were abusive at the top of [43] –xeno^talk 13:19, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Tony and Xeno. Sorry if I seemed overly paranoid, but it looked very odd to me, and it seems there's a lot of secrecy around how the abuse filters work (which I understand there has to be, otherwise people could easily find ways around them). I know they do sometimes flag good edits. I reported it as a false positive at the tag discussion page, so I'm not going to push the issue any further here. Thanks. --Susan118 ^talk 16:37, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Main_Page#Link_on_Jackson.27s_death

Resolved

 – Thanks. Pyrrhus16 08:02, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Can an admin see to this please? Pyrrhus16 20:54, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Time to split

This entire section has more subsections than ANI does now. It's time to split off this section into it's own sub-page.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 02:10, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I've archived the first part of the thread, I don't think we need a subpage for an issue that should quiet down fairly quickly. –xeno^talk 02:05, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Greek love

Things are becoming distinctly unWP:Cool at this article and its talk page. There was a recent afd where the consensus was to keep. I was aware of some heat at the time and wanted to keep half an eye on what was happening to the content but the proliferation of silly section titles in the talk page: Talk:Greek love#Absurd, Talk:Greek love#21:07, Talk:Greek love#21:09 Talk:Greek love#questionable" and Talk:Greek love#Editor admits original research, point of view, and referencing personal letter. etc. and the deletion of large chunks of text in ther article followed by reversion means that I've lost the will to keep up. Could a kind admin be so good as to consider protecting whatever the wrong version happens to be at the time they get there and encourage more constructive use of the talk page, please?--Peter cohen (talk) 18:07, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

• I've reviewed the edit history of the article, and whilst there are a lot of edits, there's also a lot of talk page discussion accompanying them. There's some reversion going on, but there's also some constructive editing going on, as well. The problem here appears not to be the article, but the talk page, with edits such as this one and this one, for example. Protecting the article won't address this talk page etiquette problem.

  As for the "silly section titles", at least one actually is not silly. Talk:Greek love#questionable" is, as the section title states, about the use of the word "questionable" in place of other text. Far from being "silly" it seems plainly denotative, and indeed far less problematic than editors using section titles to call each other dishonest.

  You have a talk page etiquette problem. Page protections and blocks are too blunt tools for this. This is especially so given that the page to protect would be the talk page, which would be entirely counterproductive for the writing of the article proper. The talk page is being used. It's even being used extensively. It's just not being used well. The best course of action is to ask for third party editors to step in with quiet words to all parties on user talk pages at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts. Uncle G (talk) 14:53, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Max Mux

User:Max Mux has requested a more public review of his block and ban - in the interests of sorting this all out, I'm willing to comply. In a discussion here (under the heading Abuse of Wikipedia:Guidelines) Max was put under a set of restrictions to do with creating articles. This was because of a continued and consistent failure to understand the reliable sources policy, far beyond the point where language problems (Max is a german speaker) could be used as an excuse. After repeated failure to use Reliable Sources, Max was indefinitely blocked and community banned as per the original agreement. This is slightly problematic, since the original agreement prohibited the creation of new pages (even though that wasn't the main problem) but said nothing about the use of Reliable Sources. I expressed slight misgivings at the time, and max has now requested a more public review. The question, then, is twofold: firstly, whether you agree that max's behaviour on top of that expressed in the last thread is such that he deserves an indefinite block, and secondly whether you think this block fell under the community agreement in the last thread. Ironholds (talk) 19:30, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

• I remember the discussion, as well as--if memory serves--evidence of shenanigans on de.wiki. To answer your questions: yes and yes. → ROUX ₪ 19:39, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
• The reason I went ahead and instated the community ban was because I believed that the spirit of the last discussion was about the inability to understand and follow policy. Yes, he stopped creating articles at a break-neck speed, but then started up again in his userspace. When told to stop creating them willy-nilly, listen to his mentor and fix the ones he already created instead, he dropped them completely and blithely went back to adding unsourced information to various biographies. I think it is clear that at best, Max absolutely cannot understand what's expected of him; at worst, given his participation at de.wiki, he simply has no interest in following policy. Either way, stopping someone from running amok in biographies is prevention at its best. Shell ^babelfish 19:52, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
• Yes, the block was deserved, but no, it did not fall under the remit of the discussion regarding a community ban. From a purely technical standpoint he did not violate the restrictions placed on him by the community; that said, it is pretty obvious that Max Mux seems to have a fundamental inability to "follow the rules" so to speak. I do not know whether this inability is intentional or otherwise but the problem is egregious enough that his continued editing here is a net drag on the project. Making the jump in logic to apply a "community ban" for something not directly related may be a large leap indeed and I can see how one would make the case that he should not be considered "banned" per se, but I for one would be unwilling to unblock him either way. Shereth 14:47, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

James P. Barker unresolved

This has been here a few days ago clearly not an article for speedy deletion and is still unresolved. I have asked user Manning to restore the page, disscussion and full history but he has not gotten back to me. The speedy deletion was obviously wrong so that the article and history should be fully restored. I am asking you to do it now because it is a mess and people even use the deletion that violates normal procedure as an example in another ongoing afd. There would be also no harm to reopen the Afd for James P. Barker as it was wrongly cut off and let the community have their say on an 3 year old article. I think it would be more harm and wrong if it would be simply redirected without giving the wider community the chance to have their say. Iqinn (talk) 00:14, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

If you think the AfD was closed incorrectly, the place to discuss this is at deletion review. A number of editors might agree with you on that, and if so the AfD could be relisted. Incidentally, I was the person who mentioned it in the Steven Dale Green AfD, and I was not mentioning it "as an example," but rather making the point that if WP:BLP1E applied to Barker, it should probably apply to Green as well. In any case, deletion review is the place to make your case on this. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 00:22, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

For the deletion review i need access to the article and it's history. So i can make my case that it has been wrongly speedy deleted under A7. Only administrators have access to it now. If you think deletion review is the best way that's ok but i and people need access to the article to do so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iqinn (talk • contribs) 00:41, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

If you feel you need access to the article, email me or another administrator and we can send you the most recent revision by email. Once the deletion review is started, the history may be temporarily restored for that purpose. We usually don't restore prior to the DRV being filed. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 01:39, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

The result of the previous discussion seemed to be that the article shouldn't be restored and that a bare redirect was the correct outcome, even if the process that reached it was wrong. Is there a specific reason why the full history needs to be restored? SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 14:39, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Alex contributing

Alex contributing (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
User is coming off a recent block for "Personal attacks or harassment: obscenities in edit summaries, disruptive editing" and this is apparently their way of moving on. I understand the idea of letting users blow off some steam on their own talk page, but this seems to be a bit much after a week.
I don't have time to dig out diffs of the original trouble tonight, but will later if necessary. From what I remember, they're upset over a category being deleted. --Onorem♠Dil 00:16, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

• good lord no, "I can only hope he will listen to that admonishment: not to be a faggot." as the capstone to the rest of the homophobic filth--and the day after the 40th anniversary of Stonewall, no less! Pride day for me--is completely unacceptable. Ban. → ROUX ₪ 00:21, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

• Indef blocked. There is absolutely no reason for this guy's continued attacks to be tolerated. --auburnpilot talk 00:24, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I would also suggest talk page protection, no reason to let the user have a soapbox to spread homophobia. -- Darth Mike ^(talk) 04:17, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

...along with deleting the talk page per deny recognition. MuZemike 06:02, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

• Both done.  Sandstein  15:30, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support indef and deny. Completely unacceptable behaviour. Ironholds (talk) 06:45, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Re: User talk:Kingweenie and Richard Perry

Resolved

 – Article blanked pending verification of copyright permission -- œ^™ 21:49, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Would like further instruction on how to properly handle this matter. I'm unsure whether this is a copyright violation, a conflict of interest, or a BLP issue, or all three. User keeps removing the tags I placed at Richard Perry and states he has "tried many times to contact Wikipedia about the various changes that need to be done but we get no replies". -- œ^™ 16:24, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Problem user on 112.201.*.* range

I've noted that several users from the 112.201.*.* range have been vandalizing several articles, especially on articles and related pages connecting to Filipina singer Regine Velasquez. I'm thinking that vandal who used those IP address is also the vandal who originally used 202.138.180.35 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and you may find that some of the pages vandalized by this user are being vandalized by the vandals on 112.201.*.* range.

The following are the ones from which the user vandalized the articles. The vandal also says the opposite of what he did on the edit summary:

• 112.201.24.74 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• 112.201.71.111 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• 112.201.100.245 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• 112.201.12.192 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• 112.201.43.234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• 112.201.58.66 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• 112.201.48.41 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• 112.201.85.248 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

What can be done against this guy? - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 16:29, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:RFPP is probably your best bet, given the limited range of articles he/she hits. Tan | 39 16:32, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Those are for the articles hit. But they're numerous, and the user seems to be range-hopping. Is a rangeblock also possible? Also, can I list the all of the articles hit? - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 16:36, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Given the length of time that this user has been editing, and that 65,000+ IPs would be affected by an effective rangeblock, I don't see a rangeblock as a possibility. Regarding what to list at RFPP, I would start with perhaps the three most "popular" targets, and add the rest as they are vandalized. Note: I have not looked into any pagehistory at all to determine the scope of the alleged vandalism; that will be up for the addressing admin at RFPP. Tan | 39 16:40, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

They're all within 112.201.0.0/17 if that narrows things down any better (but only down to around 32 000 IP addresses, unfortunately). MuZemike 16:47, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, that's assuming that the lower and upper IP addresses above define the "limits". I would say it's a good possibility 112.201.11.xxx pops up, etc. Blocking the whole 112.201.xxx.xxx range seems to me to be the only effective block; but it's a moot point - as you said, 32K IPs is still probably unacceptable collateral damage. Tan | 39 16:49, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I am personally not involved in developing the articles, as I am personally not a huge fan of Velasquez. Also, it seems that most of the vandal's edits are reverted by MS. But still, I will keep an eye on the articles vandalized by the user for future reporting. I brought this up because the this vandal's MO is almost the same as the one on 202.138.180.35, as well as many other IPs (some at the 124.104.16.0/21 range) that vandalized the related articles. (Considering 202.138.180.35 hasn't been used since last January because of the block imposed on that address, it seems the vandal has now found a new bunch of IPs to vandalize from.) - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 16:52, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Edit war over a cleanup tag

DocKino (talk · contribs) is continually reverting my addition of a cleanup tag to Film noir. I've explained the issue on the talk page but he is reverting with summaries that have devolved to "It's been removed. Accept it." I didn't want to make a federal case out of this but he has chosen to revert war rather than discuss... rather than trying to get him blocked I thought I'd bring it here, where hopefully someone can tell him the best course of action might be to actually address the considerable issues with the article, rather than angle to prevent people from putting the appropriate cleanup tags on. --Chiliad22 (talk) 18:11, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

That is probably the most accurate use of {{essay}} I have ever seen, FWIW. → ROUX ₪ 18:19, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Probably best to try 3O first, and if that's not successful try WQA. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C18:27, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointers... sorry if I was abrupt in coming here. I will remember WP:3O next time (although I always hope there won't be a "next time"). --Chiliad22 (talk) 18:31, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Personal attacks in article mainspace

I'm having a bit of a dispute with User:Russellfl5, in the article John Russell (Florida politician) and outside. I listed the article for deletion, and actually filed a sock puppet report, thinking that they were the same as User:Baxterword, and I'm still not convinced that they are not the same (the report is at [[44]]). Now, after cleaning up a coding error by Russellfl5 in that SPI, I saw some nasty, nasty things, and to my surprise they had repeated accusations of terrorism (yes, indeed) in the article mainspace, here. I can't rightly tell if I'm being "outed" here or not--I guess not, since the user doesn't seem to understand UTC, but I'm certainly being insulted as an Israel-hating terrorist. Do I need to explain here that my interest, as you'll see from the article history, was to remove trivia? Your attention is appreciated. Russell is aggravating me a little. Drmies (talk) 04:41, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

It seems that Russellf15 is claiming to be John Russell (Florida politician). I removed his rant from the article and left a standard COI warning on his talk page. If it continues, he'll likely be blocked. --auburnpilot talk 05:03, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

After making this edit, one minute after the COI warning, I've indef-blocked the user. It's a bit faster than usual, but this type of harassment isn't indicative of someone who wants to edit constructively. I trust that's not overly controversial. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 05:12, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

No arguments here. Somebody might also want to keep an eye on PuddyKat (talk · contribs). The account has the distinct trademarks of a sock/meat puppet. --auburnpilot talk 05:25, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Good block on Mr. Russell; [45] is deserving of an automatic indefinite disruption block. MuZemike 05:49, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I have also requested CheckUser in that SPI per the likelihood and evidence of further abuse via sockpuppetry. MuZemike 05:57, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

From the SPI report: Russellfl5 (talk · contribs) is  Unrelated to Baxterword (talk · contribs).  Confirmed PuddyKat (talk · contribs) = Russellfl5 (talk · contribs). (Check done by Nishkid64) Icestorm815 • Talk 14:56, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you all for your quick action. Reporting someone at AN/I does not make me feel real good about myself, but I guess I am glad I did it. I do appreciate, from all of you, your serious consideration, which led to the block and the unmasking of a sock puppet--I wouldn't have thought of that myself. Which is why you guys have the admin job and I correct comma errors! Thanks again, Drmies (talk) 15:45, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

By the way, I received an email message from Russell, accusing me of lack of balls and inviting me to call him and all that: "If you have the BALLS why don't you call me RIGHT NOW AND WE'LL TALK?" (He included his cell number...) I don't know if, after the block, he still has email privileges. Also, I should just ignore this, right? Or should I just call the local newspaper, haha? Thanks, Drmies (talk) 16:01, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Local newspaper would be more satisfying, but ignoring is best -- unless he starts slinging legal threats around, in which case you should let us know again -- you shouldn't have to stand alone for good-faith edits.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:20, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Block his ability to send emails, please. MuZemike 16:49, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, that was apparently already done, and the user still was able to send an email. MuZemike 17:38, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Which account did you receive the email from? User:Russellfl5 has email sending blocked. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 18:02, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

• Whoa, I never thought to check. The email came from his own email account, not through Wikipedia. So he had my personal email address already at Monday, June 29, 2009 12:27 AM. No wonder he had my work phone number at 10AM. This is creepy, but as I understand it's been 'handled' already at the sysop level. Brrr. Drmies (talk) 21:16, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Adjusted block on PuddyKat to do the same. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 18:04, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Longstanding edit war on Syrian/Egyptian articles

Hey. I wasn't really sure where to post this since it's been growing in the past few days, so if it's in the wrong place, please let me know and I'll take it elsewhere.

Basically I became involved in this issue as a third opinion to settle a dispute. Two editors have been going back and forth on Asmahan and articles related to that one about whether she was Syrian, Egyptian, or Syrian-Egyptian, or some combination involving Lebanon as well. Turns out that one of the editors was battling on the page as an anon IP before he registered as Arab Cowboy. Either way, this issue has been going on for nearly two months and resulted in an admin fully protecting the page. The editing has recently spilled over into other articles.

The reason I wasn't sure as to where to post this is because it touches so many different issues. It largely looks like one user being a tendentious edit warrior, but maybe not. And it is a content dispute, but after two months of issues, I don't really get the sense that this one editor is going to respect any sort of consensus that comes out of an RfC. The main discussion I've been involved with is at Talk:Asmahan. But I'm really not sure how to proceed from here, so any advice would be helpful. Thanks. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 13:38, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Um, just as a follow-up, the two editors are Arab Cowboy (talk · contribs) and Supreme Deliciousness (talk · contribs). — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 18:16, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

"She was born on a ship heading from Greece to Lebanon." In other words, she was born in international waters -- which is going to complicate even a civil discussion of the matter. Aiyaiyai. Annyong, my advice is to get the parties to supply reliable sources which show that this is a point of contention beyond Wikipedia's little world; if they exist, use what they say. If none are forthcoming -- that is, except for these two, no one actually argues over her nationality -- then use Occam's razor & go with the simplest statement, such as she was Egyptian citizenship of Lebanese (or Syrian) parents -- or simply have the article state she did most of her shows in Egypt. (Even better, use what the reliable secondary sources say.) But getting a pair like these to accept that Wikipedia's not going to print The Truth -- only statement of what notable people think is The Truth -- will require a lot of patience & tact. Good luck. -- llywrch (talk) 23:20, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Two IP editors reverting each other, possible inaccurate edit summaries

IP editors 70.112.199.125 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and 86.158.237.39 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) are reverting each others' edits to a wide variety of pages. I specifically noticed them putting multiple sockpuppet templates on each others' talk pages. --A More Perfect Onion (talk) 17:26, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

• Now add 86.151.126.4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), after 86.158.237.39 was blocked. --A More Perfect Onion (talk) 17:33, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah, two banned users... 70.112 is Hkelkar and 86.158 is Nangparbat. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 17:42, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Is there a reason why we don't ever report long-term abusers like these two to their ISPs citing breach of TOS? With most ISPs that is cause for losing access. → ROUX ₪ 18:12, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

In theory it is, and people have done so in past cases, but there's not a very good track record of this actually working when the ISP gets contacted by a random person with no official status on the website affected. — Gavia immer (talk) 18:38, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

So why don't we have Cary (second choice) or Mike do it? This sort of long-term abuse is detrimental to the entire project, and I suspect something on WMF letterhead coming from the legal counsel to one of the largest websites in the world would make them sit up and take some notice. Fill the appropriate CU information into a form letter and send it off. → ROUX ₪ 18:42, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

• Two reasons that the Foundation does not pursue these problems more aggressively. One, it could be seen as undermining WMF's section 230 immunity, under which individual editors and not the WMF are responsible for content and management of the site. Two, if an ISP ever refused, the WMF would either have to launch a legal offensive that would cost a considerable fraction of the budget (for being the 8th or whatever biggest website in the world, WMF is run on the ultra-cheap) or admit to being a paper tiger. Besides, if the WMF ever did decide to man up and take on a problem editor, these two are way down on my list of targets. Thatcher 19:09, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
• I'd just like to add that it would be bad PR to do this-- headlines would argue that Wikipedia vandals are so out of control we are resorting to legal action. We need to show that we can take care of this sort of thing "in house". ⟳ausa کui ^× 22:06, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Compromised account, AgoINAgo

Resolved

AgoINAgo (talk · contribs) claims that they picked up the account name and password from a website. —LOL ^T/_C 18:29, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Blocked as a compromised account - seemed to be a bit of trolling as well. Thanks for the report, LOL. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 18:38, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Hmmmmm "Thanks for the report, LOL" - your account name makes it particularly hard to sound sincere! ;-) Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 18:39, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

User talk:70.189.122.208

Resolved

I've block this IP address indef due to someone creating numerous talk pages with no articles; obvious vandlaism. Bearian (talk) 20:19, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

It appears to be a dynamic IP, I've set the expiry to 2 weeks. No prejudice for reblocking if they re-offend after that, but we should not block IPs indefinitely. Please see Wikipedia:Blocking IP addresses & break your habit of blocking IPs indefinitely. –xeno^talk 20:23, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

O.K. Bearian (talk) 20:34, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

cheers. =) –xeno^talk 20:36, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

• My first legitimate use of Special:Nuke. Very special. ;-) It seems to be a repeat vandal who has also used the IPs 70.234.105.193, 70.142.52.40, 70.128.106.25, and 70.234.150.190. They all appear to belong to AT&T's DSL service in Tulsa, Oklahoma. --auburnpilot talk 20:59, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Final conclusion about Google hits

Resolved

In the recent AFD discussions, the problem of Google hits was really intriguing. In some discussions 80 google hits were considered as proofs of notability, in others, 300 google hits were judged meaningful; what about this.?,Rirunmot (talk) 13:32, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

That is interesting. My understanding is that Wikipedia:GOOGLE#Notability dismisses the entire idea of establishing notability with hits, so I don't know why these arguments are still being used. Viriditas (talk) 13:37, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Google hits are rightly listed as an argument to avoid in deletion discussions.  Skomorokh  13:39, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

It's because many who make such arguments do not care about or otherwise outright dismiss the notability guidelines. MuZemike 17:23, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Skomorokh, how can anyone remember all of these arguments to avoid? Can anyone come up with a mnemonic? Viriditas (talk) 09:35, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Why remember when the Internet can remember everything for you?  Skomorokh  04:29, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• This is the wrong place for this conversation - take it to the essay's talk page if you like/dislike what the essay says/doesn't say. Marking resolved, as there is nothing here to resolve. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 05:08, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Broy7 seems to be an obvious site abuser

User:Broy7 Has been warned twice already by me and refuses to respond or discuss. Numerous examples of blatant removal of material on dozens of articles. Deletes vast sections of articles and gives reasons like "poor grammar" or "bad English." The grammar and English on the page will be fine..........then what they leave of the article they mess it up with grammar errors and bad English on purpose. Unreal the nerve they have.

Constantly removes sourced and pertinent info from numerous pages, even entire sections of articles that are sourced and pertinent, citing "bad English" and "poor grammar," only to then leave a bare bones article, to which they then go through again and purposely put bad grammar and English on what is left of the page. Reverts back any restores of pages and reverts unlimited number of times, usually within an hour or less. If someone adds something new to an article this user works on or has worked on in the past, then within an hour, maybe less, the page will be reverted back. No matter what the add is, how pertinent it is, if it is updating an article, correcting an article, adding a source, whatever........it will be reverted back.

There are it seems in the dozens of articles now in a relatively short period of time that the user is doing this to. Most of them just include taking an article and deleting most info on it and leaving an edit summary like "greatly improved this article that was done so badly", or "fixed the terrible English in this article". Of course, there was no fixing or improving, just deleting of a whole lot of stuff and then purposely messing the English and grammar up. It seems that all articles relating to Lithuania Wikipedia project are what the user is targeting, at least for now anyway. If you try to talk to this user and explain about new material being added to a page that was a pertinent update or a source being added and that it should not be reverted back you get no response. You also get no response if you try to inform them of the 3 revert rule. This user is an abuser - one of the worst I have seen yet. I would not put this here lightly, but this user is certainly purposely trying to mess up articles. That is very obvious. This user might even be worse than Downwards. Wiki Greek Basketball (talk) 08:41, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

The first few diffs of Broy7's that I reviewed seemed like good edits. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:02, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Can you please provide us some links to this purported "problem behavior"? I checked out several of the edits and I do not see any obvious issues. Shereth 14:28, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

They are feuding at Šarūnas Jasikevičius (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Ramūnas Šiškauskas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Naturally neither one is using the article talk pages, Basketball's first edit to User talk:Broy7 assumes bad faith [46], and Broy7 has never posted to use own user talk page. Thatcher 15:17, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

The user is clearly abusing the site. I told you what they are doing already. I am 100% sure that the site would ban this person permanently if they looked at the pattern of all their edits. Also it seems that this might be the same user as User:Downwards, one of the most notorious site abusers ever.--Wiki Greek Basketball (talk) 05:15, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

2009 Israel Defense Forces T-shirt affair: Edit war ahead?

Hi, I improved the article greatly (well, forward it is). Since a few hours User:Jalapenos do exist is swamping the newly created section with weasel, fact, hih, fv templates. Since [one] I edited seriously three times to delete a bunch of his templates, and in the end he puts in more. Also: the article is in an AFD here, probably related userpolitics? Anyway, I feel an abuse of my good faith. Any advice? -DePiep (talk) 23:37, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Your last edit summary sounds like a challenge about edit-wars ... not good. Yes, a lot of the words in the article are weasel words. I expect that the article will be rightly deleted shortly, based on the current state of the AfD. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:48, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Of course, the advice was asked into improving the article, and how to react to an editor adding 25 huh-like templates to a section. Editing and improving is allowed during AFD. Especially since the section involved is a serious argument for a keep. Do you really mean I could frustrate an other AFD by behaving like the editor? Further, I don't think it is a good idea that you advise me here while voting delete on the same article. -DePiep (talk) 00:00, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I recommend then either allowing the valid templates where they belong, or remove the weasel words and unreferenced facts. My !vote to delete has nothing to do with the templates, but the notability of the subject matter. You've been on Wikipedia long enough to know these things. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 00:07, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Long enough to know? Sounds like you don't trust my question here. Anyway, you're invited to re-read the article, weigh the well-referenced new section (even now), and reconsider your vote. -DePiep (talk) 00:18, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Concern at DRV

Resolved

 – Indefinitely blocked as a sock puppet of User:Biaswarrior. MuZemike 00:31, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 June 29 has five seven successive nominations from a new user who's (alarmingly) called "TheGriefer", and I'm having trouble assuming good faith where he's concerned. Might these be disruptive nominations? Outside views would be welcome.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 00:17, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Blizzocked as a sock of User:Biaswarrior. MuZemike 00:31, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• All DRV's opened by this editor are now closed. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 05:01, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

RedPenOfDoom

Resolved

 – Advised all parties on their talk pages to resolve the content dispute on the relevant article discussion pages, and that attempts to adhere to policy do not usually constitute vandalism. Also directed users to WP:RFC and WP:CIVIL. Manning (talk) 03:28, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

This user is bothering me. I'm a fairly new user here and I'm sure that many of their edits to Ally Mcbeal related articles are vandalism. I've tried to respond in a friendly and helpful manner. Can anyone summon up the patience to read through the relevant talk pages on our accounts and do some sifting? I appreciate that I am making this harder by not really knowing what to do in this situation. Alaphent (talk) 02:30, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Could you provide diffs (links to the edits that you think are vandalistic)? RPOD's been around for a while, and I've always found him/her to be productive, though that doesn't automatically mean that you're wrong. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 02:33, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I would if I knew how. I know I'm asking for quite a lot here, but do you think you could read our relevant talk pages and look at recent edit contributions. That isn't to say I don't want to learn what to do in a case such as this. Alaphent (talk) 03:01, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I think Alaphent is referring to his interactions with RedPenOfDoom on his talk page. Tiptoety ^talk 03:06, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Here is a sample diff - Ally McBeal diff. It seems there is a dispute about whether the minor characters get their own article page or not. There is a relevant discussion here. I think this is merely a content disagreement and can be resolved on the talk page. My opinion is that it all looks in good faith to me. Nothing on the Alaphent's talk page seems overly objectionable, except possibly the use of the term "fancruft". Manning (talk) 03:11, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Mansourramis

Resolved

 – Mansourramis given 24 hour block for disruptive editing. Manning (talk) 05:40, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm a new admin and was hoping to get a second opinion on the edits by Mansourramis on Charm School with Ricki Lake‎. Basically, this user is ignoring all warnings and continues to add unsourced future information. Thanks! Plastikspork (talk) 05:20, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to the world of being an admin :-) (BTW - It's not too late to change your mind!) Am looking over it now. Cheers Manning (talk) 05:25, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

OK as far as I see it, much of this information seems to be casting an opinion about who will win the contest. If so, this is not really WP:CRYSTAL, this is actually WP:VANDAL. Can you confirm my interpretation? Manning (talk) 05:30, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Sure, my opinion was that it could be classified as both. I had asked for a second opinion at AIV, but they declined stating that it wasn't vandalism. Thanks. Plastikspork (talk) 05:33, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Well either way, I think you've been as patient as you need to be. I will commence with a 24 hour block. Let me know if you need any further action via my talk page. You've handled it well thus far IMHO. Manning (talk) 05:38, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

As the admin that declined at WP:AIV, I only note that I didn't deny that this could be vandalism. I only noted that the "quick glance" check did not show that it was simple vandalism of the type which could easily be dealt with at WP:AIV. This wasn't some kid inserting swear words into articles, and it was unclear, without considerable explanation and/or investigation, what was wrong with this users edits. I have no problem with a finding that this ended up being vandalism, but complex cases like this are generally hard for a process like WP:AIV to handle. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:46, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Jayron32 - Agreed and don't worry about it. All's well that ends well. Cheers Manning (talk) 05:49, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I also wasn't very clear when I asked at AIV. No worries. Plastikspork (talk) 05:52, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Sock wash please

Resolved

 – blocked 2 hours and six minutes before this was posted here.--Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:49, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi, we've got a new sock at Barack Obama -

The same editor who operated

• CrazyEd20 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (indeffed as sock)[47]
• CrazyEd30 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (indeffed as sock)

Recently created:

• Not An Ed Puppet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (please block!)

...whose only real activity is blanking the talk pages of the other two socks[48][49] and vandalizing Barack Obama with the same claim of losing his job because of Obama.[50][51][52]

No point going through the trouble of a sockpuppet report - this is WP:DUCK. Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 05:44, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Good, good. Thanks Bongwarrior and Jayron32. There's no block notice and I forgot to check the block log.[53] - Wikidemon (talk) 06:22, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Adding this...

//* Sysop decrier/detector (rights group displayer), version [0.2.0]
//Originally from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Splarka/sysopdectector.js
importScript('User:Splarka/sysopdectector.js');

...to your monobook.js will display usergroup(s) of the user at their user and talkpages, as well as if they are currently blocked. → ROUX ₪ 06:30, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Darko Trifunović

Darko Trifunović (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), a BLP, is yet again being repeatedly vandalised by a series of anonymous IP editors - this article has been discussed several times before on AN/I and the BLP noticeboard [54]. The IPs repeatedly post angry rants [55], blank the article [56] and replace the article with a canned resumé / curriculum vitae [57]. The individual responsible is almost certainly the subject himself, Darko Trifunovic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who has been blocked for periods of up to two weeks, has edited from IP addresses and socks, and has been warned numerous times for posting copyright violations, soapboxing, disruption etc. The article has been semi-protected several times but IP vandalism and disruption has resumed as soon as protection has lapsed. This situation has been going on for at least 18 months. Some kind of resolution is long overdue, frankly.

In the light of this continued disruption, I suggest that the discretionary sanctions in force on Balkans-related articles should be invoked. Specifically, I suggest:

• an extended block of Darko Trifunovic (talk · contribs) for up to the year mandated by the discretionary sanctions;
• an indefinite topic ban of Darko Trifunovic (talk · contribs) editing BLPs;
• indefinite semi-protection of Darko Trifunović (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) to prevent the ongoing disruption by IP sockpuppets.

I should add that I would not object at all to Darko Trifunovic (talk · contribs) being given an indefinite block. He is plainly not interested in contributing productively and has done almost no editing apart from disrupting "his" biography. Given the very lengthy catalogue of disruption that he has caused over a long period of time, I can't see him becoming a useful editor any time soon (or ever, for that matter). -- ChrisO (talk) 23:21, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I see some edits by him of "himself", but they are a week old. Is there evidence the IPs are this guy, such as a checkuser? I dislike community bans on gut feeling.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:31, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I have been peripherally involved, in that I have blocked some socks and also suggested that the editor/subject contact the Office regarding allegations about the editing of "their" article (which either they have not done, or it was not sustained), and would back ChrisO's call for some resolution. I would, however, hesitate in locking up the article and throwing away the key - I have seen some serious allegations linked to sources that do not necessarily support the comments regarding the subject. I support linking the article to the ARBMAC provisions to ensure that the neutrality (derived from reliable sources, properly ascribed) is not compromised by any party. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:39, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

(ec) It's not a community ban - it's a request for the enforcement of discretionary sanctions per WP:ARBMAC#Discretionary sanctions. The IPs all trace to the same ISP, Serbia Broadband in Belgrade, where Trifunovic is based [58] [59] [60] [61] [62], and they all do the same sort of thing - replacing the article with Trifunovic's CV and posting rants in broken English. As I said, this has been going on for a long time - 18 months at least. In response to LessHeard's comments, semi-protection is needed to ensure that the article can be edited without being continually vandalised. It's a bit of an exaggeration to say that semi-protection would be "locking up the article and throwing away the key" - it would just mean that the endless vandalism from IPs would cease, which can only be a good thing. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:41, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

(3x e/c) In response to ChrisO's prompting on my talk page, here are my thoughts:

• The Darko Trifunovic article is in an inefinite state right now. Various editors trimmed and RS'ed the article into a state just above stub, but only into a state where it is verifiable, not IMO to where it is notable.
• Darko (presumably) is mildly disruptive, but nothing that the multiple eyeballs already watching can't handle (as I just did). However the mild disruption does not violate BLP, in that it does not inject negative information. Thus I would be opposed to semi-protection or indefblocking of the Darko user themself.
• User:Bosniak could possibly use a topic ban, since their contributions are rarely productive. Also, Darko's presumed lawyer and the supporting academic possibly located in NY State have been unhelpful.
• The answer here, to me, is to finish the job and construct a proper article that deals properly with the subject. As it is, we have a single event where the subject is not necessarily a prime mover. Maybe so, but also maybe not. No matter how vile the viewpoints expressed, we need to obey BLP. We should either fix the article up properly (and I can't help much since I don't have access to EE sources) - or we should delete it. Franamax (talk) 23:44, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the incomplete task of rewriting the article needs to be finished - it seems to have stalled. With regard to the disruptive editor, WP:ARBMAC#Discretionary sanctions specifically provided for the sanctioning of editors who "fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, the expected standards of behavior, or the normal editorial process." I think it would be hard to argue that Trifunovic has adhered to any of those things. He has contributed absolutely nothing of value to Wikipedia and his continued involvement is not helping to improve the article. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:50, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I think that some evidence that the IPs are this guy are needed. Yes, I know, quack quack, but there are several peopele in Belgrade, at least ten or twelve, and no doubt a few of them write broken English.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:18, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

(e/c) Well, on the Purpose clause, the purpose is NPOV, which is not necessarily being satisfied here; the Decorum clause doesn't really apply, since Darko and all the sock/meat-puppets are quite polite; and Editorial process - well, when it's your own name, you find an injustice, nobody listens - wouldn't you walk around to every internet cafe in the city too? I'm not saying it's right, just that it's a reminder that we need to fix the article.

Even if you get an SPI that nails down a connection between DT and the IP editors, we generally block the puppets, not the master. I'd think that a final warning to the Darko user entity not to edit their named article page under any guise would suffice, with a reminder to raise specific concerns on the talk page of the article. If the resume is anonymously posted after the warning, sprot would be indicated, with around one month duration (it's not a high-traffic article). Same goes for the user and user-talk page.

Note that Trifunovic is not noticeably pushing the POV of "they raped and tortured people so it's OK that we raped and tortured people" here on the en:wiki. The issue from what I can see is to just clear up the BLP article. Franamax (talk) 00:28, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

It sounds reasonable, Franamax, though I'd be cautious about the final warning thing. Perhaps more along the lines of "Please work with us on the article talk page. If this is you, please cut it out, you aren't helping matters any."--Wehwalt (talk) 00:35, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I must say I'm surprised to see this individual still treated with this much mildness by some people here. As someone who has followed the issue from a distance for some time, I have to agree completely with ChrisO: the amount of long-term disruption the article has seen is mind-boggling. This guy is not here to correct BLP problems about his own article; his presence has been disruption-only for months. He should have been indef-banned long ago. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:22, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

It's called assuming good faith, not mildness, and demanding evidence before banning an editor. I still haven't seen any evidence these IPs are this editor except for being allegedly in the same city and language troubles. I suggest this thread be closed, this isn't going anywhere.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:20, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there's any real doubt that the IPs are the editor. I'll request a checkuser run on the IPs - in the meantime please keep the thread open so that I can update it as necessary. In the meantime, can we at least semi-protect the article so that the current run of disruption can be stopped? -- ChrisO (talk) 11:29, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, the identity is plain obvious. Just compare the following edits:

• posting CV instead of bio article
  • logged-in: [63]; logged-in sock: [64], IP [65]
• copy-pasting non-wikified article text from earlier versions:
  • logged-in: [66], IP [67]
• posting complaint rants in article space:
  • logged-in: [68]; IP: [69]

Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:44, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Updated - the checkuser request is at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Darko Trifunovic. The pattern is indeed extremely obvious. The IPs are doing exactly the same thing that the Darko account and a previous sockpuppet have been doing for some time. -- ChrisO (talk) 11:55, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I too have watched the Trifunović article and its Talk for some time. As I reverted one of the countless instances of vandalism by the the article's subject, I was notified of this discussion by ChrisO.

ChrisO and Fut.Perf are well up to speed with Darko Trifunovic (talk · contribs)'s persistent disruption. There have been numerous warnings. The fellow never complies. When his changes are reverted and his self-promotional propaganda removed, he switches to accusations of apartheidism and terrorism etc. It's clear from his repeated outbursts that if the article does not serve his personal agenda he will not hesitate to disrupt it and use it as a propaganda vehicle.

I tend towards liberal treatment of Wikimiscreants, but it was tried ad nauseam with Trifunović and it failed. ChrisO, in particular, has been patient and courteous in the extreme. It looks as thought the time has come for firm action such as he has suggested.

And it seems that Wehwalt may not be fully conversant with the article's history. WP:AGF is not a suicide pact. Writegeist (talk) 18:43, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism has resumed, this time from an apparent open proxy in Israel which is being used to repeatedly blank the article. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:24, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Checkuser has confirmed that Darko Trifunovic (talk · contribs) is responsible for the IP edits. In view of the lack of any interest here in dealing with an obvious case of disruptive sockpuppetry, I'm taking this issue over to WP:AE. -- ChrisO (talk) 06:57, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Result at AE was an indef block of Darko Trifunovic (block log). — Satori Son 14:24, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Joining this discussion late; however, I'd like to respond to Franamax's point. I for one am aware that the article is woefully incomplete. There's a good bit more that can be added, with proper sourcing. However, I and most of the other main contributors to this article have been somewhat preoccupied by WP:ARBMAC2 and the associated naming debate. I have every intention of returning to this article when time permits. // Chris ^{(complaints)•(contribs)} 13:16, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Also joining late - I have been dealing with this for years now, Darko had been extended good faith much longer than any other chronic abuser I am aware of. He's repeatedly been told not to do this with the article, and to bring concerns to the article talk page. Which he's done at times, and resulted in a significant reduction in critical content about him, but not a complete whitewash.

His ongoing disruption here was not acceptable. As CU confirmed the anons are really him - we have no reason to AGF anymore, we've proved bad faith engagement after repeatedly giving opportunities to engage within Wikipedia policy and plenty of assistance and openminded discussion. I support the indef. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:03, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll just go on record here as saying that blocking the primary account is not a good idea. That account is currently making quite ham-fisted attempts to "vandalise" one single article - really now, spotting that is a highlight of my wiki-day. We're not at serious risk of damage here. The distributed attacks by IP's, acknowledged by the CU to be unblockable at this minor level of disruption are similarly a small concern. An inadequate article is replaced by a resume for a few minutes. So what? It's fixable, right?

The bigger issue is that we need to either finish the article or dispose of it. We need to occupy the higher ground. I'll help either way, but I'm devoid of resources to research the whole thing. We need someone to step up to the plate and get this resolved. Franamax (talk) 09:12, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Rick Astley Hoax push

Resolved

 – Fully protected for 24 hours. MuZemike 07:26, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Looks like /b/ is at it again at Rick Astley. Wouldn't hurt to have a few extra eyes reverting the inevitable crap. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 06:19, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Watched. //Blaxthos ( t / c )

I'm on board as well. Potential trouble-making due to this post. [70]. Manning (talk) 06:28, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

If it keeps up we might want to fully protect it. It's currently at semi, but a bunch of sleeper socks seem to be coming out to insert the hoax info. I don't have time to dig into this now as I'm going offline, but it likely would not hurt to indef block some or all of those accounts. It's entirely possible they're controlled by the same person (though some might also make legit contributions, I haven't checked). --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:31, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Maybe a full protect is worth it. There has been no constructive edits made since June 9 so we're not interfering with anyone's work.Manning (talk) 06:51, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Threat of violence - Lancashire, England

I recently deleted some threats of violence from an article. In the past, I have simply deleted such edits and not taken any further action. In this case, however, it does not appear to be the typical schoolchild type threat - the threats are very specific in terms of named targets and place where they are employed. If there are any editors willing and able to make an appropriate report to local authorities in the area of Lancashire, England, please contact me. -- Ed (Edgar181) 17:10, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

The ordinary telephone number, accessible internationally, for the police station at Thurnham Street, Lancaster, Lancashire, LA1 1YB, which covers the Lower Lune Valley area, is +44 1524 63333. Callers within the U.K. can also use 0845 1 25 35 45, of course. Jonathan de Boyne Pollard (talk) 19:41, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. If someone local could assist, that would be helpful. Otherwise, I'll make the international call. -- Ed (Edgar181) 20:52, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that's a credible threat really; just moronic vandalism. Stifle (talk) 11:56, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Further intervention required?

I'm not sure what policy is regarding vandal IP edits in relation to FBI alerts, but should this edit be reported somewhere? ponyo (talk) 17:52, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Report it. Even if it isn't credible on its face it's still a threat against a state official and should be reported to the appropriate investigative body. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 17:59, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem doing so, but being from Canada I'm wondering what the best way to go about it would be? ponyo (talk) 18:08, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Call or e-mail the US Secret Service, as per this page. John Carter (talk) 19:52, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't bother. This is just cheap-ass vandalism. Stifle (talk) 11:55, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppeteer Trouble

Resolved

 – Socks blocked⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 12:02, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppet Investigations probably would've been a better place to put this but the socking seems to be so obvious that I don't think a CheckUser report is needed. The Borusmat socks User talk:Borusmat5 and User talk:Borusmat4 have both made unconstructive edits within minutes of each other in particular attacking the article Biscuit. I don't know how many socks there are or what they'll do next but I think this needs intervention.--The Legendary Sky Attacker 08:56, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Blocking as clearly abusive socks, though it does not appear the main account is blocked at the moment. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 11:59, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Also preemptively blocked Borusmat2; was a vandalism only account last used several months ago.⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 12:01, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Category:Tamils of Sri Lanka

Anyone have any idea what's going on with this category?? (See [71], [72].) Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 09:45, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Looks to me like there's an ongoing CFD at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_June_22#Category:Tamils_of_Sri_Lanka. Stifle (talk) 11:51, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Requesting a community review

I've recently stumbled upon Nableezy (talk · contribs) a few times too many to my liking where he reverts me automatically and, many times, makes clear mistakes on top of bias and civility issues.

The most recent account included three times changing the meaning of the source in a time span of 10 hours.

• [73] - Bell reported that "everyone has a tragedy, about executions they saw"
  • Source (Stewart Bell, "What happened at Jenin?", National Post, April 15, 2002) says: Ahmed Tibi, an Arab member of the Israeli Knesset, said ... "everyone has a tragedy, about executions they saw"
• [74], [75] - first-hand accounts of massacres was scarce. One such example was
  • Source (Stewart Bell, "What happened at Jenin?", National Post, April 15, 2002) says: The lack of solid information has fuelled the rumour mill. A grocery store owner near Jenin spoke in a hushed voice about seeing ... Asked to elaborate, he declined ... When a National Post reporter inspected the truck, it contained not bodies but apples and other food and supplies for the troops.
• Here's a link to the source (scroll down) - I have validated the source and can email an original copy to anyone interested.

My main concern here is that Nableezy is (a) confusing the project with a battlefield, where he requires explanations that the text is already biased in his favor to let go of accusations that others allow "just the one that fits the narrative of [their] liking",[76] and (b) that this conduct is spilling over into articles in a damaging manner where the sources don't even matter to him.

I noticed Nableezy was blocked recently for edit warring on another Israel-Palestinian related article but I haven't seen any warning/notice given in regards to to Final decision of the WP:ARBPIA.

With respect, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 08:41, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment: Nableezy seems to insist that his edits were not erroneous and does not show recognition of the problem with his decorum (per "Your proclamations dont mean much to me"). I can't see this as something that should be ignored when occurring on a repeated basis. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 16:52, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

It looks like a mountain out of a molehill. He appears to be arguing not over what the source says but he thinks that extraneous information like troops listening to Allanis Morrisette and whispering isn't necessary. I'd add that while his tone may not have been overly civil on the talk page, you are experienced enough to know that 'crying wolf' often escales rather than deflates tensions. If he tries to engage in comments about the editors and not the edits, just ignore that part of his comment or remind him that it is best if the argument focuses on the edits. --Narson ~ Talk • 10:15, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Heyo Narson,

Its not as bad as the previous edits but with yet another edit -- "collaborators" are everywhere removed as "needless information"[77] -- Nableezy is misrepresenting the testimony 4 edits in a row.

With respect, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 15:15, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

happy now? Nableezy (talk) 15:19, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

And please show how I have "misrepresented the testimony" or is that uncanny ability to say others actions are sinister and improper without the slightest bit of evidence rearing its ugly head? Nableezy (talk) 15:20, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Heyo Nableezy,

Its an improvement, sure, but he also said they were everywhere which seems quite germane to the quote. I believe you should, out of true good faith, revert this portion of the text back to its previous version. If you fix this and promise to stop reverting me on sight (try suggesting changes on talk maybe?), then I'd be happy to close this "review request". Fair enough?

Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 15:30, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

p.s. where did the "and rumors were abundant" text go?[78] Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 15:31, 30 June 2009 (UTC) add diff 15:33, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Last things first, we dont need to quote everything the source says, this is an encyclopedia and superlatives are not needed. I dont care about withdrawing your "community review", if others feel my behavior is improper I would welcome the critique. I am not reverting you on sight, so that isnt a problem. I think the current text is fine, so no I will not revert it back to your favored version. And about the narrative of your liking. You removed multiple times from the references and notes section an answer by Erekat but left a direct question to him out of fear of inflating "Erekat apologetics/further propaganda". When you cut out the answer to a question but keep the question you are in fact promoting your favored narrative without any response. It is not a personal attack to say that, and I would hope you can see some mistakes in your actions and attempt to resolve them. Also, I asked an admin to notify me of the ARBPIA decision (any admin here who reads this feel free), so that shouldnt bother you anymore either. Nableezy (talk) 15:39, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Dear Nableezy,

Changing the article body 4 times - 3 of them to something not said in the cited source - and then making further edits which removes highly relevant text is not a great way of helping the project and collaborate with fellow editors.

As a side note I add that the rumor mill is clearly relevant and not something to be dismissed with "we dont need to quote everything the source says".

With respect, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 15:54, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I am not going to respond again unless you can show what I changed that was not said in the cited source. Your proclamations dont mean much to me so I will not spend my time arguing with you unless you can actually show what I did. Bye, Nableezy (talk) 15:57, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

COI vandalism

Resolved

 – AfD relisted, editor warned.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:30, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

The article The Art of Dying (Cashis album) was nominated for deletion on June 23, 2009. Approx. 4 hours later, user:Rikanatti removed the AfD notice without comment. The artist who did the album, Cashis, has an article that lists his manager as Rikanatti. The same user has also removed a WP:SPS tag from the article on Cashis a couple of times, despite the fact that the article relies heavily on SPS's. Normally I'd put this on the COI noticeboard, but given that the user is intentionally sabotaging the AfD process, I thought it was better to place it here. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:23, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll relist it so it can go the full 7 days.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:23, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I made the nominator aware as well. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:06, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

DoctorBenwayMD

Resolved

• DoctorBenwayMD (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - copyright violations, 3RR violations, censorship, etc. Has received several warnings. —BMRR (talk) 15:58, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• Blocked for 24 hours by Toddst1 (talk · contribs). –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:36, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Involved admins making decisions at watchlist application

Resolved

 – Nothing actionable here. –xeno^talk 17:09, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Collapsing: good faith misunderstanding. Please take followup concerns to the relevant talk page. Durova^{273 featured contributions} 17:37, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Extended content

Three admins—|Ruslik0|, MZMcBride and Juliancolton—leapt in to "Oppose" the RFC on the arbitration role of Jimmy Wales in the English Wikipedia within hours of its opening, and then went straight across to oppose the application to notify the RFC on the watchlist banner. This appears to be unacceptable conflict of interest and a breach of WP:INVOLVED in the use of admin privileges to judge the merits of the application. The involved issue is, of course, quite separate from the merits or otherwise of either the application to watchlist or the RFC itself. It appears that the actions of these three admins at the application need to be struck. Tony (talk) 16:48, 30 June 2009 (UTC) Expressing my opinion is no way a conflict of interest or an abuse of admin rights. –Juliancolton | Talk 16:53, 30 June 2009 (UTC) Sorry to contradict, but in entrusting admins with the power to support or oppose applications to watchlist RFCs and other matters, the community expects you to act in an uninvolved way. Being uninvolved in admin actions is a clear and direct requirement of WP:ADMIN, and is implicit in the general expectations of admin behaviour in that policy. You are free to express your personal opinion at the RFC, but to hike straight over to the watchlist application and act in an administrative capacity, especially in such a way that reinforces your vote at the RFC, is a clear breach. I am surprised. Tony (talk) 17:06, 30 June 2009 (UTC) Directly editing MediaWiki:Watchlist-details is acting in an administrative capacity. Voicing an opinion at MediaWiki talk:Watchlist-details is not. If you want to point out they've voted at the subject RFC, you should feel free to do so. –xenotalk 17:11, 30 June 2009 (UTC) WHat? Explain to me how voting in two RFCs constitutes an abuse of admin powers. I am finding it hard to see a problem here?!? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:08, 30 June 2009 (UTC) (EC)I'm confused here. What admin powers were abused? Jauerbackdude?/dude. 17:10, 30 June 2009 (UTC) (ec x 6 .. *grumble*) I don't see any COI problems here. To say that someone who has expressed an opinion in the RFC itself cannot express an opinion regarding its inclusion in the watchlist banner is somewhat absurd; furthermore, I do not see how simply chiming in as part of a discussion is the (ab)use of administrative privileges at all. Their input is equally valid in both discussions. Shereth 17:11, 30 June 2009 (UTC) I understood that this was an admin role at the watchlist application page. Is it not? Tony (talk) 17:17, 30 June 2009 (UTC) I think you're confusing the admin role of actually editing the MediaWiki page itself and the "anyone role" of voicing an opinion at the talk page of the same. –xenotalk 17:19, 30 June 2009 (UTC) For what it's worth, I resigned my adminship in April and I didn't oppose the RFC. --MZMcBride (talk) 17:22, 30 June 2009 (UTC) It's still a conflict of interest to oppose an RFC and then go over and oppose its appearance on watchlist (or vice versa). --Laser brain (talk) 17:24, 30 June 2009 (UTC) (EC with below) How? Wouldn't the same conflict of interest exist from the other direction; under his own reasoning, wouldn't Tony1 be under the same set of conflicts since he proposed the RFC AND proposed its watchlist banner inclusion? I fail to see how the two situations are different! Seriously, there is no conflict here and no abuse! --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:31, 30 June 2009 (UTC) No, it isn't. Why would it be? Algebraist 17:27, 30 June 2009 (UTC) Ye gods, its being consistent in their views, that's all. No one violated COI concerns, and there was certainly no abuse of Admin tools. KillerChihuahua?!? 17:28, 30 June 2009 (UTC) <sarcasm> User:Tony1 has just as much of a COI as those 3 admins 2 admins and an editor. He proposed both, and therefore MUST be canvassing. Lets all make some drama over that. </sarcasm> Seddσn talk|WikimediaUK 17:38, 30 June 2009 (UTC) My apologies: I screwed up. I was posting under the mistaken belief that these were admin actions. This section does not belong here. However, I'm still concerned at the way in which the watchlist application process can be doubled up by users who have just themselves voted in an RfC. It is a meta-issue for the watchlist page itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tony1 (talk • contribs) 17:31, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Anyone can edit means IPs can edit

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

--I am boldly archiving this, as further discussion accomplishes nothing except timesink. Unitanode 19:08, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Resolved. 69.226.103.13 now knows that it has nothing to do with being an IP or not, and that everyone is subject to the filter. They can either do like everyone does and ignore it, or be so offended that they never edit again. Either way, no admin action is required.

My edits are being tagged as vandalism and abuse because I edit from an IP.[79] "Anyone can edit" means that IP edits are allowed. Telling me to register is not a solution. IPs contribute useful edits to wikipedia articles, from short stubs to featured articles.

I'm not going to register.[80] The only people wikipedians are ruder to than IPs are newly registered users. Regisering is not a solution to the hostility to outsiders by the wikipedia community as long as new users are the target of flaming idiots.

They've now move to accusing me of being uncalm, a personal remark not having anything to do with the topic, on the false positives board. In addition to repeatedly telling me to register and that if I were registered my edits would not be tagged as abusive. This is probably a useful way to create vandals out of good editors.

I'm not at wikipedia to discuss my personal state. I'd like the false positives removed from my edit history and abuse log. I should not have an abuse log for the time I've been using this IP to edit wikipedia as I've contributed no abusive or vandal edits.

I want my false abuse log deleted and the tags removed from my edits. They're not abusive edits. They're not vandalism. The abuse filter false positive board is not offering a solution, just defensive arguments and personal comments about me.

--69.226.103.13 (talk) 17:28, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

It was my comment about his or her state which may have to triggered this ANI entry. I still don't think I was inaccurate. —EncMstr (talk) 17:31, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia should have a rule: discuss the issue, not the person. And you should follow that rule even when there isn't one. --69.226.103.13 (talk) 17:42, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Not wanting to diminish your filter log or anything, but this is yours, and this is mine. You'll notice I've got "Replacing a page with obscenities" in mine ;-)

Seriously, though, it's far less of a deal than you seem to think it is. It doesn't prevent you editing, and if you report the issue at Wikipedia:Abuse filter/False positives there's a good chance someone will be able to improve the heuristics and make life smoother in future.

There was a discussion about this recently (possibly here - check the archives) and the filter log was renamed as a result (it used to be called "abuse log").

Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 17:34, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I want the false positive tags removed. That's the point of reporting false positives: remove the tags. --69.226.103.13 (talk) 17:41, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Removing the tags is impossible. Period. Sorry. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 18:02, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, no. The point of reporting false positives is to (a) enable an edit to be made (if prevented), and (b) help make the filters better. I've reported false positives before (hey! with a filter log like mine you'd have to, right?!) and I did so expecting to get an edit through, and the filters improved. The edit I was trying to make was eventually made, the filters were improved - and my filter log still shows me as "Replacing a page with obscenities". Ignore it - everyone else does. Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 18:04, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Note also that it's nothing to do with your being an IP. I have 120,000 edits on this account and still flag the filter. – iridescent 18:05, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

• "Entries in this list do not necessarily mean the edits were abusive.". –xeno^talk 18:06, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

• • Please don't keep repeating that about a log called an Abusive filter log. The disclaimer is without value under that title. --69.226.103.13 (talk) 18:13, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

So you created a tagging system which gives false positives, it's still in the testing stages, and you made it impossible to removed the tags? That's not well thought out, to say the least. You really need to attract competent programmers to wikipeida.

My editing is clearly not wanted. Just not allowing IPs or newly registered editors is a nicer and faster way of telling qualified writers and researchers to get lost, you know? How many more ways can wikipedia come up with to insult good editors?

Every time I see a discussion on wikipedia about how not to offend good writers and experts I come across another person who can't stick to a topice and another poorly thought out method to pointlessly offend quality writers and distract from writing this encyclopedia. --69.226.103.13 (talk) 18:12, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I feel left out; I don't have any edits at all in the filter. :( IP, now you know that false positives do not reflect badly on the people who have them in the log, you know that creating an account does not change the way the filter interprets your edits, and you know that it is technically impossible to remove things from the log. I'm not sure what, exactly, the administrative action you are requesting is. You can say, "Yay! I worried about this, but it's nothing to worry about, so I'll go back to editing." Or, you can say, "Boo! I don't like this, so I'm going to stop editing." I don't think that either choice requires the help of an administrator, though. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 18:15, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

A couple of comments: even I trip the filter here and there, see [81], even the most veteran editors of here do. Second, perhaps the term "abuse filter" should be renamed to something more neutral such as "edit filter" if you feel that it's so grossly offensive to you (but that can be left for another discussion over at WT:ABFIL and not here). Otherwise, I don't know what else to say. MuZemike 18:19, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I edit wikipedia a lot, from IPs. I've tried to edit with a newly registered name and it was impossible due to the hostility of wikipedia regulars to newly registered writers.

Now, although I've worked hard to contribute excellent writing and properly referenced encyclopedia level research, I'm accused of abusive editing.

If people write well, research, reference, and work to make the encyclopedia a usable resource on the web, they should not be tagged as abusive editors.

If wikipedia creates a system where it falsely accuses good writers of vandalism, it should have a system to correct that error.

What is the point of doing good work and being called a vandal?

Wikipedia needs to act as if good, well-referenced writing is a valuable resource.' --69.226.103.13 (talk) 18:20, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

The abuse filter detects problematic edits, not necessarily problematic editors. Now stop whining, please. MuZemike 18:22, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Then it should have a list attached to problematic edits, not to the editor. But it doesn't. Now, stop being inaccurate please. --69.226.103.13 (talk) 18:24, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Stop with the personal attacks. Everyone. And look at this: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki:Tag-Possible_Michael_Jackson_vandalism&action=history See, IPs aren't being discriminated, this thing will even tag itself. It's not Hal3000 and it's not perfect. Everyone just chill. -WarthogDemon 18:26, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Not true. I was told that it was because I am an IP. See the link above. Again, stop being inaccurate. It doesn't help on top of creating a stupid script that tags good edits as abusive and creates an abusive filter log to attach to an editor of this. --69.226.103.13 (talk) 18:27, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

No. You stop whining. You are quickly becoming disruptive. MuZemike 18:30, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Never thought about looking into that before: turns out I've sent up a few abuse filter flags also. What's hard to understand is this: if 69.226 dislikes the treatment that IPs and new users get yet keeps editing, then why not register a username and keep it long enough to get known to the community? In a better world we wouldn't need automated tools to assist with filtering abuse, because automated tools are inherently crude instruments. That's one of the shortcomings of having a limited volunteer staff to address the problems and a much larger pool of people who think it's fun to cause damage. And I apologize if the efforts of keeping up with that sometimes lead to jaded or brusque reactions. Personal notes are best when one has time for them, which realistically isn't always feasible. You're a good reminder that an IP editor is a person--not a set of numbers. If you decide to register or resume and account, please leave word at my user talk and I'll drop by at yours for a proper greeting. Best wishes, Durova^{273 featured contributions} 18:33, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I have registered twice. Kafka could not have imagined a situation like the village here at wikipedia. The first time I registered, I removed a link to a page that loads a virus onto your browser in an article I was editing. The link was inside a reference. I was reverted and accused of removing references. I explained the edit in the edit summary and on the article talk page. It got me hostility. The second time I registered I made the mistake of correcting an article that was closely monitored by an administrator who told me something like, "eat shit and die" and blocked me. Permanently I think. The administrator was later himself removed from admin status. You think I should give wikipedia a third chance to knock me out of the ballpark? --69.226.103.13 (talk) 19:07, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Just to throw a spanner in the works when IPs moan about it being a way to restrict good writers, can I just point out the missed irony in the section heading, "Anyone can edit means IPs can edit", well actually it should be that just because anyone is allowed to edit doesn't mean they can edit. Just thought I'd clear up that inaccuracy :) --WebHamster 18:46, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Let's do our best to continue this conversation without further use of the words whining or moaning. Even if the IP's complaint about the abuse filter doesn't hold merit, it's better to refrain from acting in a way that lends weight to the other half of the complaint: the lack of courtesy shown to IP editors. Durova^{273 featured contributions} 18:50, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

So, are you saying the registered editors should stop whining about the IP editors? *looks innocent*--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:54, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

lol Durova^{273 featured contributions} 18:55, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Someone should write an essay on just how many lines of text a complaint should hold before it progressively becomes a moan, then a whinge, and finally a whine. I'm sure there must be some reliable sources somewhere :) In any case I have no idea why some IPs are so desperate to hold onto an IP address for purposes of anonymity when everyone knows a registered name is far more anonymous, especially when using more than one ;) --WebHamster 19:01, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't use an IP for anonymity. Who said that? I use it because established editors are far less hostile to IPs than to newly registered users. That says something. Again, it's the established wikipedia editors who are straying off track. If the first admin had not felt it necessary to repost his psychic insight into me I would not have commented back. Administrators don't like negative feedback. Everyone on wikipedia gets that. Administrators flame and bait when faced with negative feedback. Everyone gets that. --69.226.103.13 (talk) 19:10, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Is there a difference of grade between a whine and a whinge? I thought they were British/American variants on the same concept, like aluminum and aluminium, or cookie and biscuit. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 19:14, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

There are Biscuits and then there are Biscuits. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:24, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

There are nappies and there are naps. --69.226.103.13 (talk) 19:28, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh no, we use both here. If you want a difference, I'd say "whine" is used to describe such things as children not getting something they want, or another unspecified complaint that doesn't have much merit "he whined when his parents made him go to bed", whilst "whinge" has the subtext of generally complaining about something ("He's been whingeing for ages about the traffic on his way to work"). Generally, though, both convey the sense of a complaint that you don't really want to listen to. Black Kite 19:34, 1 July 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.

Wipeout International Editions

We have taken great care to update the International Edition section of the Wipeout (2008 Game Show) page located at Wipeout_(2008_game_show). The section accurately lists all the international versions of the show. An unregistered user from the following IP address User talk:83.85.168.35 has added numerous countries that do not air Wipeout. They have engaged in an edit war and done this appx. 20 times. If you look at their TALK page they have been warned and blocked but they continue to add the countries without any reference or backup. All of the current countries include information about hosts, networks, etc. They are simply adding the name of a country with no information or backup. "MattMDK (talk) 23:51, 29 June 2009 (UTC)"

...and the IP user has a fairly nice block history from this article. They just came off another last week. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:58, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

What does "we" mean? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 20:15, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

User:VegKilla and User:Hell in a Bucket

Resolved

 – VegKilla has announced an extended Wikibreak. Nothing more to do/say here. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:50, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Two months ago I had a extended altercation with Vegkilla. I was extremely rude and inappropriate and very verbally abusive to him and admin. I recvd a few blocks for these behaviors. I did as my contribution show calm down and regret my behavior and apologized to all invovled. I recieved a last block in which I agreed not to contact that user again unless invited. Also there was a reccomendation to avoid pages with Vegkilla editing until I "reestablished my bona-fides" I have been accused of violating the terms of my unblock and unfairly warned in a situation that is clearly nothing but good faith. I would like uninvovled admin to please look at me and my contributions and clarify if my actions were incorrect and how to change them in the future. Also I will npot be posting the ani posting on Vegkillas page as to do so would invite more conflict, if someone could please help him out I would appreciate it. There is a Road, No Simple Highway (talk) 18:00, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and notified user:VegKilla of this thread. -T'Shael,The Vulcan Overlord 16:01, 24 June 2009 (UTC 18:12, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

As one of the admins who blocked HiaB for the earlier poor behaviour I would note that I feel that he has moved forward greatly over the last weeks, and has transformed himself into a good faith editor. I do not think that VegKilla's attitude is appropriate in referring to that previous instance over what may be considered a minor content dispute. I note that a couple of people have noted to VegKilla that his current responses are indicative of overreaction, but to date the only responses have been further references to the old instance. LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:29, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

The somments such as this is teh most bothering to me. I would invite Vegkilla to strike those accusations.

"I adamantly persist that this was blatant, repeated vandalism that HellinaBucket has already been warned about countless times. HellinaBucket was almost permanently blocked for making this exact edit to this exact article. The HellinaBucket account has been trying to make this edit to this article since the account was created. This article was protected to guard against this exact edit being made by anon ips, and further more, Hellina's edit summary of "changing verbage" was intentionally deceptive and is itself an act of vandalism, since it attempts to conceal the fact that the edit fundamentally changes the meaning of the first sentence of the article.VegKilla (talk) 06:53, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

HellinaBucket is a vandal. Unfortunately, ThaddeusB is not familiar with this issue. I directly oppose everything that ThaddeusB has said as being completely false and unwarranted (I specifically deny that Hellina's edit was a mistake and was not deliberate vandalism).VegKilla (talk) 06:59, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

"What I did accuse Hellina of, was of vandalism: making the same edit to the Operation Repo article that he has been trying to make since April. He has repeated this act of vandalism by removing words like "faux" or "scripted" from the article, and this is vandalism because it is introducing false information. I also accused Hellina of violating the agreement he made when he was making a plea to avoid a permanent block....

The concept of "assuming good faith" does not apply to this situation, because as I said earlier, this is not a new issue. This is an edit that Hellina has made to this article countless times, and has been warned and even blocked for persisting in this issue. Furthermore, Hellina's edit summary "changing verbage" is intentionally deceptive.

If Hellina wants to continue to vandalize Operation Repo, then he can start a new account, and (not knowing who he is) I'll start him out at a level 1 warning again. If Hellina wants to make helpful contributions to Operation Repo without introducing false information or using deceptive edit summaries, then he can (and does), because as you can see from the edit history, I don't even blink when he makes constructive contributions VegKilla (talk) 17:43, 30 June 2009 (UTC)" There is a Road, No Simple Highway (talk) 18:44, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• I was involved (with another non-admin, Neutralhomer, in the previous incident here when there seemed to be a shortage of admins (Saturday morning in the EU, the wee small hours of Saturday in the US). At the time I suppose I sided with VegKilla, since Hell in a Bucket's conduct was, as they acknowledge above, unseemly. Since then I've been following both VegKilla and Hell in a Bucket, and they appeared to have disengaged and generally become good members of the community. Unlike ThaddeusB I am familiar with the background to this; however, I do have to agree with ThaddeusB that VegKilla's allegation of vandalism is completely inappropriate. I'd view Hell in a Bucket's edit as good faith. I do not regard Hell in a Bucket as a vandal. Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 18:54, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

For the record, here is the supposed vandalism edit: [82] and here is the very strongly worded warning it received: [83]. To me, this is clearly a content dispute and not at all vandalism. I take no position on the correctness of the edit, but I feel strongly that the threat it generated was way over-the-top.

VegKilla went on the accuse Hell in a Buck of "following his edits around," which I consider a serious accusation without basis. VegKilla has mostly only edited Operation Repo for the last month. He has made 15 edits to the article (mostly reverts) while Hell has made 6. It is pretty hard to stalk someone through a total of 1 page. Again, this is a content dispute not stalking.

I do understand that these two have had conflict in the past, however that does not excuse making threats of "permanently blocking" over a minor changing of the words. At worst, this is a slow moving edit war - and it takes two to edit war.

Additionally, VegKilla has been jumping straight to L4 warnings every time an IP vandalizes the page. He seems to think ever IP edit is really coming from Hell in a Bucket, which is highly unlikely IMO. I have advised him to step back from the article for a while, as he seems to have lost focus and is emotionally involved to an unhealthy level. I believe this is good advice and stand by it. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:58, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• For someone with "no familiarity" of the issues behind this incident, you seem to have summarised it nicely ;-) I agree entirely that this is a context dispute - heck, I agree with everything you've said. VegKilla needs to step back. Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 19:04, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

VegKilla's objection is a change away from describing Operation Repo as a "faux reality show." As far as I know, that's not a genre name that is widely used by anyone. In my opinion, Hell in a Bucket's proposed change is not only not vandalism, but is a very reasonable edit. I've weighed in on the talk page regarding the genre discussion, and added the article to my watchlist- I'm conerned that User:VegKilla may have a slight case of WP:OWN. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 19:51, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Apparently the user is not going to review our thread and is "taking a long wikibreak". I would like to thank everyone who weighed in here and for the support for my turnaround. I do want it to be known that I hold my hand out in friendship to VegKilla, my actions before were completely inappropriate and I sincerely apoligize again for it to him. I hope you understand I am sincere and would love to reach a consensus with you at a later time of your choosing. There is a Road, No Simple Highway (talk) 20:08, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Blonde field

I blocked this user as an obvious reincarnation of sockpuppeteer User:TreadingWater and User:TruthPrevailsAgain (blocked by User:J.delanoy with a "vandalism" tag). As I consider myself involved in the boomer mess, I ask for confirmation. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:43, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

It's not exactly appropriate to annouce the new sock on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations, is it? If so, I'd just do that, if there's a perceived problem. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:01, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you about the sock. I went ahead and added the sock to the case page. In the future, you're welcome to add it to the pertaining investigation page. Icestorm815 • Talk 21:11, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Userpage question

Resolved

Just a quick question - I reverted this blanking, as per WP:USER, "Some people add information about themselves as well, possibly including contact information (email, instant messaging, etc), a photograph, their real name, their location, information about their areas of expertise and interest, likes and dislikes, homepages, and so forth. (If you are concerned with privacy, you may not want to and are by no means required to emulate this." I haven't delved much into userspace applications, so wanted a second opinion. Tan | 39 20:17, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Nevermind, it was a sock that is blocked, nothing to see here. Arbiter set me straight on my talk page. Tan | 39 20:20, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:NOT#PLOT

Resolved

 – Nothing for an admin to do with this. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:00, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

We need to get rid of this now, it's hurting the encyclopedia:

• It actively discriminates against a key part of the encyclopedic coverage of a fictional work.
• It encourages the deletion or hacking down to a paragraph of sections with encyclopedic content (plot summaries) in articles. This plot summary will just have to be recreated later when the article gets longer, and in the meantime, we've ruined what most people have come to Wikipedia to find.
• Plot summaries are encyclopedic content. Since when has encyclopedic content been part of what Wikipedia is not?
• Other encyclopedias, such as Encyclopedia Brittanica, have articles all or primarily plot summary.

WP:NOT#PLOT might just work as a guideline, encouraging improvement. It is appallingly bad policy. Please help save Wikipedia. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 20:29, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Help save Wikipedia? Hyperbolic much? The encyclopedic value of a particular work of fiction is how that work has been received in the world, the context in which it was produced, etc. A short plot summary allows for the salient points to be shown without devolving into fansite silliness. → ROUX ₪ 20:38, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

This is the WRONG PLACE for this comment. you want to go to the community improvement area to suggest removing a policy. no-one at WP:ANI can just remove a policy for you even if you tiouy are right that is thould be removed. Smith Jones (talk) 20:55, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• This is not the place to discuss PLOT. Protonk (talk) 21:09, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  • The injunction in WP:NOT#PLOT is not against plot summaries per se, but against plot-only articles. The underlying idea is to discourage articles that solely recapitulate a work's plot, in favor of encyclopedic articles that include at least some indication of a work's impact, reception, critical and commercial success, etc. Plot summaries are absolutely a key element of encyclopedic content; the policy says only that they shouldn't be the sole element. If this policy is being misapplied inappropriately, hand me a link to the article(s) in question and I'd be happy to take a look. MastCell ^Talk 21:32, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Yeah. Tell that to every single citation of the policy ever. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 21:34, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
      • Therefore the problem is not the policy, which is sound and fosters creation of encyclopedic content. The problem is its application, which is well beyond the remit of this noticeboard. → ROUX ₪ 21:38, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• Actuallty, it actively hurts encyclopedic content. Let's look at an article that several FA regulars were interested in, but which was re-deleted, citing NOT#PLOT. Plot of Les Misérables [[here - Completely invalid non-admin closure of an AfD, but, despite FA regulars wanting to improve it, NOT#PLOT was cited as a reason not to send it back to AFD, and we were told that it MIGHT be allowed if we did all the work first, with no guarantee that it wouldn't be deleted again. I'm sure that numerous other examples could be found, if dealing with utter fucking stupidity didn't upset me so much that I'd like to snap something in half. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 21:34, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  • In that case, a wikibreak seems like a good idea. Anything important about the plot points should be tied to real-world context, critical reception, historical analysis, or all of the above. Simply recounting the plot is a bad thing. → ROUX ₪ 21:49, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

No, that's completely wrong. We should describe the work itself. A basic description is important in its own right, irregardless of higher-level analysis. The higher-level information, such as analysis, requires a solid core of basic information, such as a good plot summary, in order to provide the context. Without this, the article is largely unreadable. .Hence, plot summaries and other things that the analysis build on are not, and should not be considered, subordinate to the analysis, since an article with very basic information that establishes notability plus a plot summary can stand on its own and provide a reasonable amount of information about the work, but an article with same very basic information and analysis is generally useless unless you know the plot already, because, by its very nature, analysis requires knowledge of the work being analysed. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 21:50, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Well um no, sorry. But again, this is not the correct venue for your quixotic campaign to encourage non-encyclopedic content and unsourcable fancruft. The correct place for that discussion is at VP or the policy talk page. Anyone uninvolved object to this being closed? → ROUX ₪ 21:58, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

i agere with you 1000% that WP:PLOT is abused to damage artices by mistake HOWEVER there is nothing that WP:ANI can do about this since it is not the right place to make corrections to broken polices Smith Jones (talk) 21:54, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Danras

I was cleaning up categories and ran across several articles created by Danras (talk · contribs). I am a bit concerned that most of his edits are creating/maintaining very poorly sourced BLPs like Dennis Dechaine and populating categories like Category:People convicted of murdering victims who were later found alive with articles that read more like the National Enquirer than any encyclopedia I've ever read. If it were one or two articles, I wouldn't be as concerned, but this appears to be a pattern of editing dating back to 2006 that has gone unnoticed as much of his editing appears to be in a walled garden of orphan criminal articles. MBisanz ^talk 02:16, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Taking a look at some of these articles, none of them contains any references, but they are all about people who are long dead. Doesn't seem like a BLP panic to me yet, but I'm still digging through his contribs. ⟳ausa کui ^× 04:18, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm fairly certain Dennis Dechaine and Robert Diaz are still living. I haven't done a complete audit, but it looks like at least half of his new articles are about living people. MBisanz ^talk 09:03, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Matt, I haven't looked through all these articles but I think there are definitely problems with Butler and Yelder which seems to plagiarise Center on Wrongful Convictions at Northwestern University.

• The Wikipedia article states without citing a source: "The remains allegedly were put into a sack and then thrown into the Alabama River."

• Northwestern states: "The remains allegedly were put into a sack, which Louise and George threw into the Alabama River"

• Wikipedia: "The children then admitted that they had fabricated the story, at the behest of a man who had a grievance against George. It was never explained why they also had implicated Louise, or why she had confessed."

• Northwestern: "The children then admitted that they had fabricated the story, at the behest of a man who had a grievance against George. It was never explained why they also had implicated Louise, or why she had confessed."

• WP: "Less than a week after sentencing, Topsy was discovered alive and well, and residing less than twenty miles away."
• NW: Less than a week later, Topsy was discovered alive, well, and residing less than twenty miles away,

Center on Wrongful Convictions gives permission to "reprint, quote, or [p]ost on other web sites with appropriate attribution" but it's not really clear if the commercial aspects of Wp are acceptable and the WP article only refers to the Center on Wrongful article as an "external link" and not as a reference or source and doesn't credit any of the parts copied or clearly derived from their article. Sarah 12:31, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh dear, this might be a broader problem. Nicholas Yarris also seems to be a problem which seems to plagiarise www.deathpenaltyinfo.org and www.victimsofthestate.org. Examples:

• Wikipedia: "Police leaked to other inmates that Yarris was a snitch, and he endured days of regular beatings and torture."
• deathpenaltyinfo: "Police leaked to other inmates that Yarris was a snitch, and Yarris endured days of regular beatings and torture."

• WP: "In an effort to save himself, he asked police what would happen if he had participated in the crime, but was not the murderer. The beatings stopped, and Yarris was charged with capital murder."
• DPI: "In an effort to save himself, Yarris asked what would happen if he had participated in the crime but was not the murderer. The beatings stopped, and Yarris was charged with capital murder."

• WP:"A fellow inmate made a deal with the DA and began exchanging false information about Yarris in exchange for conjugal visits and reduced sentencing."
• DPI: "A fellow inmate made a deal with the D.A. and began exchanging false information about Yarris in exchange for conjugal visits and a reduced sentence."

• WP: "This inmate became one of the few witnesses to testify against Yarris at trial."
• DPI: "This inmate became one of the few witnesses to testify against Yarris at trial."

• WP: "Yarris' alleged motive was that he was angry with his ex-girlfriend, and the victim allegedly looked like her. Yarris' blood type also happened to be among the 25% of the population that matched the actual perpetrator's blood type."
• victimsofthestate.org: "Yarris' alleged motive was that he was angry with his ex-girlfriend, and the victim allegedly looked like her...Yarris shared this blood type along with 15% of the population. "

This material was in the original version posted by Danras [84]. Sarah 13:14, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I won't keep lifting out comparisons as this is quite clearly an extensive problem but Robert Diaz, particular the "Crimes" section is heavily copied from victimsofthestate.org. If User:Danras is the original author of any of this material (and looking further I've realised that is possible for some but I don't think all) he needs to verify this to OTRS and confirm permissions and he still needs to be able source the material. Posting slabs of material that is copied from other sources without explanation and which isn't written in an encyclopedic tone or from a NPOV and is unverifiable isn't acceptable. Sarah 13:35, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Sarah--this is beyond unacceptable. I don't have time as of yet to help cull through them (ah, the joy of working nights), but we're definitely looking at a major, major copyvio/plagiarism problem here. I'm blocking this user indefinitely until he can come up with a really good explanation for his behavior. Can't be too harsh when dealing with copyright issues ... Blueboy96 14:00, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Per Blueboy and Sarah. Good catch. Durova^{273 featured contributions} 14:25, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Yep, I didn't even think to check for copyvios/plagiarism problems. Looks like an open and shut case. ⟳ausa کui ^× 00:23, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Blueboy. I find it credible that User:Danras may be the copyright holder of the material at victimsofthestate.org but the material at Northwestern and at deathpenaltyinfo.org were written by entirely different people so even if he can release the victimsofthestate info there's still an extensive and serious plagiarism and copyright problem here, so I endorse your block as appropriate and necessary. And even if Danras owns the content at victimsofthestates, Wikipedia is not just a mirror of other sites and these articles blatantly violate WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:BLP, WP:RS, and possibly WP:COI, so User:Danras really needs to adequately explain what he has been doing here. Sarah 00:58, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Abidreh again

Resolved

 – Re-indef'd by an admin

This tendentious user was let off an indefinite block, and again he is adding unsourced information or information sourced to homemade youtube videos. Despite a talk page message, he continues to say it is up to me to prove that his video is a valid source, which it clearly is not. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 08:07, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Another 3RR violation and keeps on violating undue, eg see Talk:Younis Khan YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 08:29, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Warned properly for 3RR. He does it again, someone can wack him with the banhammer. Ironholds (talk) 08:41, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Reported to AIV after more warring. Ironholds (talk) 08:45, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• Suggest and support a community ban then. Let off an indef and comes back for more? Lets not give him a third chance if he's chosen to throw away the second. Ironholds (talk) 08:24, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Sigh. Another case of an editor who simply does not understand this site's policies. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 13:57, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again folks YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 00:30, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Griefing

Wikipedia:Griefing (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). Obvious griefer/troll IP vandalization (IP:75.183.114.232), of Wikipedia:Griefing on June 30. Defaced the authors and placed obscene remarks on the essay, along with a message left on the talk page claiming to be from one "Lord Wulf". Definite IP bans needed. --Thecitrusking (talk) 19:33, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Similar report already declined on RFPP. If there are vandals that need to be blocked, AIV is thataway. Tan | 39 19:36, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Pages like Wikipedia:Griefing should almost never be protected, precisely because they work so well as a honeypot for idiot vandals. Anyone who gets blocked because of "clever" vandalism like that is denied the opportunity to do something that would actually cause problems for us. — Gavia immer (talk) 00:06, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Lester Coleman again

Resolved

Our friend who persistently tries to insert unsourced information into this article about a convicted fraudster is back again, this time in the guise of 1primeeditor (talk · contribs). I reverted once, but it will take an admin to deal with this properly. Looie496 (talk) 01:56, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Blocked. --auburnpilot talk 02:22, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Disruptive SPA?

I bet you'd like to know (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - I do not see this as permitted under WP:SOCK#LEGIT. Moreover, the last thing we need is more of these advocates for absolute free speech, especially ones that aren't even willing to do it under their main account. I almost blocked indefinitely myself, but I thought I'd solicit more views. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 03:40, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Given that the user seems to be American, they don't have the excuse that they're contributing from some politically sensitive region of the world and need additional protection. So far the "illegal" thing they've posted using this account is the name of a juvenile offender. Exploding Boy (talk) 03:44, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Which is in fact illegal to publish in Canada (the location of the crime), just so we're clear. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 03:47, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh for God's sake. We on about this again? When will people understand that just because we can (legally) publish something it doesn't mean we should (morally and ethically)? And more to the point, when will Americans learn to understand how their free speech guarantee actually works? Ugh. → ROUX ₪ 03:54, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Constitutional free speech and press largely has to do with the right to criticize the government. Unfortunately, some think free speech and press mean "no limitations". That ain't it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 03:59, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

What I'm taking from the above is that my first instinct to indef block was the correct one. I shall make it so momentarily. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 04:09, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse that block you are about to make. Good call; this is clearly a multiple account situation, and this is also clearly NOT a legit use of a secondary account. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:14, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
  • A checkuser would also be a good idea. Results don't need to be made public, but the user who is hiding their tracks needs a severe talking-to about why it's unacceptable. Frankly, I'd be happy if we changed the sock policy to "No socks, ever." Would make situations like this much more easy to deal with. → ROUX ₪ 04:25, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
    • The likely response of a checkuser request here would be "checkuser is not for fishing". I'd like to see it happen, but I'd be surprised if anybody would do it. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 04:26, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
      • Which speaks to an enormous misunderstanding of what Checkuser is good for, alas. Not to mention is found nowhere in WMF policy. It should absolutely be used for fishing; the long delay between identifying socks and getting rid of them is silly. Pre-emptively finding them would only be a benefit to the project. → ROUX ₪ 04:30, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
        • You won't find it anywhere in WMF policy because it's a English Wikipedia-specific policy. "Fishing" requests, as they're called here, are permitted elsewhere. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 04:55, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
          • I know; it's a silly policy. → ROUX ₪ 05:19, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
            • Is it because there's a shortage of checkusers? Seems like when even an accepted SPI is posted, it can take days for them to get back. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 05:23, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
      • Endorse check being run. Enigma^msg 04:33, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I was drawn to this discussion in reviewing this user's request for unblock. I find this block preposterous. This user has not posted the real name of the minor defendant that is being discussed and has no apparent intention of doing so, despite what their user page states. But they have stated that they live in Canada, and that their main account is under their real name. They have done nothing but make two comments in the discussion. There are reasonable editors (admins, even) on both sides of the dispute, and if the user has had a bit of confusion between the principle of free speech in the US and Wikipedia's own version, I think that's forgivable. This is clearly an appropriate use of alternate accounts under WP:SOCK#LEGIT, as an alternate account for a controversial area. Mangojuice^talk 21:07, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

The user has posted the real name of the young offender, in his second edit. Besides that, by the account's own admission it is an alternate account devoted to the single purpose of taking an extreme stance on freedom of speech; if somebody wants to push such a stance, they should not receive the benefit of WP:SOCK#LEGIT to do so. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 21:18, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I meant in the article. Two edits is not an extreme stance: I would like you to justify that these two edits constitute actual disruption rather than discussion. Mangojuice^talk 21:23, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

A couple of things: first, the account's gratuitous use of the young offender's name on the talk page, especially in conjunction with the posts on his user page, strongly suggest that he's here to make a WP:POINT. Second, I don't think it's helpful for Wikipedia to facilitate Canadians' violation of Canadian law (we're not responsible for enforcing it, obviously, but it strikes me as dubious to allow accounts whose sole purpose is to violate it). Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 21:59, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I have unblocked the account with the condition that it limit its activities to participating in this thread until the question is resolved. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 22:05, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Steve. I'd like the opportunity to speak on my own behalf. The question here is not whether the killer's name should be mentioned, or what the limits are to free speech. (For the record, I know free speech is not absolute, and that Wikipedia policy may differ from what's allowed in the outside world.) The question is whether I was being disruptive or violating any Wikipedia policies. WP:SOCK only bans secondary accounts used for "fraudulent, disruptive, or otherwise deceptive purposes that violate or circumvent enforcement of Wikipedia policies." In fact, WP:SOCK also says it is acceptable to use a secondary account to avoid "real-world consequences from their involvement" in a controversial topic. In order to determine whether the block is appropriate, you have to divorce yourself from all of your thoughts and opinions about the Richardson family murders article and look at it strictly as a matter of Wikipedia policy. If you have a strong opinion about whether or not to mention the killer's name, you should address that on Talk:Richardson family murders, not in a blocking discussion.

As regards WP:POINT, the policy is "Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point." I did not mean to disrupt Wikipedia; I merely posted two comments on the talk page.

For my part, I promise not to mention the girl's first name on the talk page again until the issue of whether to mention her name in the article is decided. -- I bet you'd like to know (talk) 22:31, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Your very username is WP:POINTy. → ROUX ₪ 22:35, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

(ec) To add to that, everything about this account - from the user name to the quote on its user page (including the quotation marks around "illegal") to its unnecessary disclosure of young offenders' names on article talk pages suggests that it is a single purpose POV-pushing account. Single purpose POV-pushing accounts are made no more acceptable by the POV in question being about Wikipedia policy rather than about a real world subject. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 22:38, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm confused. WP:POV deals with bias in articles. It has nothing to do with pressing a point of view about an article's contents on a talk page. That's the responsible thing to do -- to press one's case on a talk page rather than unilaterally editing an article. -- I bet you'd like to know (talk) 22:46, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:POV isn't applicable here, which is why I didn't link to it. You're here to push for a change to how Wikipedia deals with voluntary self-censorship; that is your account's single purpose (and don't try arguing that you're not trying to change Wikipedia's policy so much as to change the content of individual Wikipedia articles; the descriptive nature of Wikipedia policy means that this is the same thing). Per WP:SOCK#SCRUTINY, "In particular, sockpuppet accounts may not be used in internal project-related discussions, such as policy debates." Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 22:50, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

So you're saying that the "internal project-related discussions" mentioned in WP:SOCK#SCRUTINY applies to all discussions on Wikipedia, even localized discussions on individual talk pages? That leads to a conclusion that secondary accounts cannot be involved in any disputes on Wikipedia. I don't think many people would come to that conclusion after reading WP:SOCK. Anyway, the point of the account is to contribute information that may get me in trouble in the real world, not to get into policy arguments. But being a responsible Wikipedia editor, I decided to have a discussion on the talk page rather than to unilaterally change the article. -- I bet you'd like to know (talk) 23:05, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Not all localized disputes are about Wikipedia's broader policy. Localized disputes about Wikipedia's approach to information that is illegal to publish in some jurisdictions, especially when pushed by an account who acknowledges that liberalizing Wikipedia's rules on such matters is its sole purpose, are de facto Wikipedia policy discussions. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 23:13, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

The account was not created to "liberalize Wikipedia's rules on such matters." It was created to contribute information to the encyclopedia, like all constructive accounts. It so happens that was a dispute regarding the article, so I made my opinions known on the talk page first per WP:EP, like I should have done. -- I bet you'd like to know (talk) 23:25, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, I will request a change in username. -- I bet you'd like to know (talk) 22:36, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Participating in a discussion about a controversial issue in order to keep one's main account private is a perfectly reasonable thing for an alternate account to do as long as there's no disruption. I don't believe mentioning an already-public name of someone whose name is supposed to be kept secret constitutes disruption: in fact, I am far more concerned that the oversnsitivity being shown here will affect the debate on the issue. And Steve Smith's idea that this was somehow a Wikipedia-wide policy discussion is preposterous: no, this is really about this single article, and no one is proposing rewriting policy. That interpretation would have the effect of preventing any legitimate use of alternate accounts where policy is involved, which is basically all article editing when there is any contention at all. Mangojuice^talk 13:11, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Hold on. Including the names of murderers in an article about the murder hardly sounds like free speech absolutism to me, especially when a quick Google search shows several US-based reliable sources ( i.e. Discovery Channel's website ) which mention the name without reservation. I'm finding the reasons given for the block extremely underwhelming. I'm also seeing a contradiction in the arguments claiming this is an inappropriate use of a sock: One one side, some users want to take sensitivity to Canadian law into account in obscuring the names. But on the other side, editors are saying that the user is not contributing from a politically risky part of the world and therefore not a legitimate use of a sock. So which is it? It seems to me we're bending our own rules toward Canadian censorship standards while at the same time claiming Canada isn't repressive enough to allow the use of a sock. I highly doubt we would show the same deference to Iranian law. Squidfryerchef (talk) 14:36, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd just like to point out that permanently unblocking me does not mean we're going to name the killer. That decision will be made on Talk:Richardson family murders. I can see it both ways, but the question here is whether I was violating Wikipedia policy, and I think it's clear that I was not. I wish I could go back to 2005 and not use my real name as my username so this wouldn't be an issue. But I promise that if permanently unblocked, I will change the username of my secondary account, change my secondary account's user page, abide by WP:SOCK#LEGIT, refrain from using the killer's name on Talk:Richardson family murders and only edit Richardson family murders in accordance with Wikipedia policies on consensus and dispute resolution. -- I bet you'd like to know (talk) 20:52, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I was holding off in case more feedback comes in, but this is really all we could possibly hope for. I'm lifting the block completely; you are now free to rejoin the discussion. Mangojuice^talk 13:54, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Using a secondary username doesn't seem likely to afford additional protection from a subpoena, in the (I think unlikely) event one did come about, but should be enough to keep you more anonymous when it comes to search engines. For what it's worth, I don't see any obvious shenanigans happening here, although I can understand why some users were concerned. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:18, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I doubt the US courts would issue such a subpoena, as the information is completely legal to publish under US law. Squidfryerchef (talk) 04:31, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Soxwon at Talk:Fascism

Resolved

 – Users taking a break, so no further action required. Manning (talk) 05:19, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

.

Could an administrator please look at the already highly contentious Talk:Fascism, and instruct Soxwon to cease engaging in personal attacks founded upon misrepresentations of the comments of other editors? —SlamDiego_←T 04:33, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

This is largely just an argument over what "Fascism" is. The best thing would be for all concerned to just abandon the subject until next week, and confine the fireworks to Fourth of July shows. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:47, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

The argument has persisted for months or for years. Soxwon has declared that he is going on vacation, but in the same breath insists that the complaint here is meritless, which leads to some expectation that, unless appropriately cautioned, he will resume this mode of argument. —SlamDiego_←T 05:12, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Considering you've done the same thing during the course of the discussion, this complaint is indeed meritless. I'm taking a break and will be able to edit with a clearer head. Perhaps you should do the same. Soxwon (talk) 05:14, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

To all parties concerned: This is a forum to discuss issues with uninvolved administrators, not with each other. Please refrain from doing so now and in future.

As to the actual incident I think taking a break from this article will be in the best interest of all concerned. If new problems arise they can be examined then. Until that point we should consider the matter closed. Manning (talk) 05:19, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

The supposed evidence of my misrepresentng an editor was demonstrated to be itself yet another misrepresentation. (And, as I noted at the time, even if the counter-charge were true, it wouldn't legitimize any acts of misrepresentation by other editors.) —SlamDiego_←T 05:29, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

User:GaryColemanFan

I wish to report this user for using warnings in an invalid manner to try and stop me from making perfectly reasonable alterations to the article Bill Verna. I warned him to stop putting warnings on my page without discussing the matter at hand, but he insists on doing so even after the warning I gave him about it. It would appear that he does not understand how what he is doing is in any way wrong and he needs to be pulled into line on the matter. I consider his behaviour to be uncivil, but because he is using warning templates incorrectly I felt it would be better to report the matter here instead of going over to the Wikiquette area. TaintedZebra (talk) 06:31, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Additional note. I am unable to revert his edits without violating WP:3RR. TaintedZebra (talk) 06:35, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Um, you're removing cited information from the article. That is generally well worth issuing a warning. Are you claiming that the source does not exist or does not say what User:GaryColemanFan says it does? → ROUX ₪ 06:38, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm saying the source can not be verified, and he has not properly cited it (no author of the published work for example). The fact that he has not discussed it - preferring to arbitrarily issue warnings first - is the reason why I brought this issue here. Discussion should take place first, shouldn't it? TaintedZebra (talk) 06:48, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Indeed discussion should take place first... so where did you discuss with him your concerns about the sourcing? His warnings to you are entirely accurate. Can you explain why it's unverifiable? → ROUX ₪ 06:50, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

He wouldn't at first. That's the whole point. He went straight to the warnings without discussing the issue. It's unverifiable because the magazine he uses is not notable and could be nothing more than a local newsletter for all we know. This can't be confirmed or denied. I looked for it and I couldn't find any reference to it except in the Bill Verna article. So it is in violation of WP:V and WP:RS. I also previously mentioned his failure to provide an author, which would be needed for a source that is not online. Online of course an author would not be needed. I don't believe the warnings were justified at all. It was like shooting first and asking questions second. TaintedZebra (talk) 06:57, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Notability is applied to articles, not sources. That something doesn't exist online doesn't mean it can't be used as a source; I certainly have many books the text of which doesn't appear online. As for shooting first and asking questions later.. you brought it up on the talkpage eight minutes before coming here. → ROUX ₪ 06:59, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

The magazine being not notable means it fails WP:RS. And a magazine is not the same as a book. And just for your information on the chronology of events (off the top of my head) I went to the article's talk page after I warned him on his talk page, but before he stuck the latest warning on my talk page. It was that warning that caused me to come here because he had clearly ignored the warning on his talk page (which was informal - I did not use a template) and I assume he also ignored the article's talk page which would have been the explanation for the eight minutes. TaintedZebra (talk) 07:26, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of violations of 3RR, is recruiting someone else to make the third revert any different than doing it yourself? GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:52, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

No it's not. TaintedZebra (talk) 06:57, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

So.. you asked him to do it because...?→ ROUX ₪ 07:00, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes it is, the very definition of meatpuppetry. At a minimum, against WP:CANVASS. MuZemike 07:21, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

No it's not and I resent the accusation. The information GCF was providing was not within WP rules so it had to be removed and I couldn't do it because of WP:3RR. People have been asked to this before now so I see no difference in it. TaintedZebra (talk) 07:26, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

A copy of the article has been provided to TaintedZebra, as requested. I believe that this makes the lack of an author a moot point. The verifiability has should also be cleared up, as the article states what I said it did. I am requesting, therefore, that the sourced information be re-added to the article. The content has since been removed by an editor who claimed that it violated a neutrality policy. Because I am not claiming that Verna was "appreciated and admired as a player throughout the world" but rather than he was described in those terms, I do not believe that this violates NPOV. GaryColemanFan (talk) 07:05, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

No it doesn't. The link only uses the magazine as a source for the statement. Now we would need to find if the link I was provided with actually fulfils WP:RS by itself. If it doesn't then it kills the magazine citation by default. TaintedZebra (talk) 07:26, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• A source failing the notability guidelines does not mean it isn't reliable. Most of the law texts I use would fail the notability guidelines, because they don't have any third-party coverage. That doesn't mean, however, that they aren't reliable sources. To equate notability with reliability is incorrect. A source not passing WP:N should not lead to removal unless there are actual reasons to call its reliability into question. Ironholds (talk) 08:22, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

This matter piqued my curiosity, so I had a look at this questioned source. (The article in dispute has been deleted, so I used my Supar Admin Powerz to look at the deleted page.) The magazine in question is called Ash Shuja, so I plugged the name into the worldcat.org search tool. The magazine popped up -- it's an Urdu-language publication, available at Cornell U, Columbia U libraries, & at the Library of Congress. (I would assume it's also available at some libraries outside the US, but this is what WorldCat tells us.) I'd say if the publication is listed in WorldCat -- or any other publicly accessible library catalog -- then it can be cited in a Wikipedia article. (Whether Ash Shuja is a reliable source, is a matter I'll leave to the talk page of the next article it is cited in.) -- llywrch (talk) 22:18, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that note, Llywrch. I guess it proves that the magazine wasn't a local newsletter, which does help GCF's case a little. However you have noted that it's not an English magazine, so the link that GCF provided gave an English translation of the remark he was trying to use from it. It blurs the accuracy somewhat given that there can be a misinterpretation of a foreign language statement. This places a question mark over verifiability.

With the article being deleted now, I thought it would be prudent to note that GCF has contacted the deleting admin, trying to contest the decision because of this ongoing content dispute. I want to point out that the reason I brought this to the attention of this page was because of GCF's arbitrary use of warning templates. The deletion of the article indicates (in my opinion) that his actions were wrong under WP rules. Besides - this concerned only one citation. There were many others, and consensus was that notability had not been established. I don't think this link would have made any difference. I consider that GCF's reverting of my removals to have been vandalism as he failed at that point to fulfil WP:BURDEN so my calling in for help to avoid a violation of WP:3RR was appropriate as previously explained. TaintedZebra (talk) 01:02, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

There are so many things wrong with the above paragraph I barely know where to begin. So let's start with the simplest: nothing wrong with him warning an editor who is removing sourced facts without any explanation or discussion. Nothing. Please take that on board. Second, it does not place a question mark over verifiability; English-language sources are preferred on Wikipedia, not required. Non-English is better than no reference. Please familiarise yourself with WP:V and WP:RS as they seem to be escaping you in general terms. And finally, ANI is not a substitute for Deletioni Review, so any comments on the validity or not of the deletion belong there. Any questions? → ROUX ₪ 01:42, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Why is the arbitrary use of warning templates tolerated? HE was the vandal because under WP:BURDEN it was up to HIM to discuss it. I said all that was needed at the time in the edit summary - that it was not cited properly (and therefore it was NOT a sourced fact under WP rules for the record). The warning template was an over reaction and applied in an unacceptable manner. That is not a deletion review - that is a proper report to this page. The DRV is background material only. I ask once more for action on this matter, please. TaintedZebra (talk) 03:00, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Again, no. You were removing sourced information. That is de facto vandalism. It was indeed cited properly, so no. I may not be an admin, but to be perfectly blunt? The only person I see action being reasonable against is you. Should GaryColemanFan perhaps have tried to discuss with you? Sure, I guess. However--and this is the key point that you keep forgetting--you were removing sourced information without any discussion. You. Not him. And so he warned you. And you did it again. So he warned you again. Etc. Clearly 'all that needed to be said' wasn't said. Which is why you should have discussed it on the talkpage. To be even more blunt: he has done nothing wrong here. You have. Through misunderstanding, perhaps, but given that all through the above you don't appear to understand how sourcing works (claiming that WP:N applies, which it doesn't, claiming that sources must be in English, which they mustn't) it would appear that you need a refresher course in how Wikipedia works. I would suggest you start here and work your way through the pages linked in order to gain a better understanding of Wikipedia, particularly sourcing and verifiability. I'll be happy to answer questions for you about sourcing and verifiability at my talkpage, but I really don't see any admin taking any action over this. Or if one does, it is likely to be action that will inconvenience you. → ROUX ₪ 03:11, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

All warnings issued by GCF were illegal and therefore I had the right to ignore them. I was removing information that failed WP rules, and I strongly disagree that they were sourced correctly. You are applying the interpretation of sourced information way too broadly and you are therefore unable to assist with this any further. TaintedZebra (talk) 03:19, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

They weren't, you didn't, you weren't, you didn't, I'm not, see below. The offer of assistance in understanding basic policies, particularly reliable sourcing and verifiability still stands. → ROUX ₪ 03:31, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I ask for an admin ruling on this, please. TaintedZebra (talk) 03:19, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm an admin, and I approve this message (Roux's, that is). After receiving a warning, concluding that the correct reaction is to continue edit-warring rather than to bring up your concerns with the source (and I note from reading the above that you seem to have a very dubious understanding of WP:RS; whether the source qualifies for an article under WP:N is totally irrelevant, though I make no comment on the source in this particular case) is a very questionable approach. GCF possibly should have initiated communication with you too - though really he did, by issuing warnings. GCF's done nothing wrong here. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 03:26, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Right. That being the case, I hereby cease my activity completely as an editor of Wikipedia. This is due to the failure to properly protect users from arbitrary action. This will be effective once I clear my user space.

Goodbye. TaintedZebra (talk) 03:29, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

That's one winning attitude to have: when two different Admins point out that you were in the wrong (well, three if you want to count me), you complain that you are the victim of "arbitrary action" & quit Wikipedia. You shouldn't delete sources for facts -- that's what veteran editors told you here numerous times. If you think sources are inadequate then find better sources. And finally, you're getting bent out of shape over something in a deleted article! Sheesh, this surely must fit the requirement for admission to WP:LAME. -- llywrch (talk) 07:14, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Didn't Roux say he wasn't an admin? I've had trouble with Gary myself, but that's not why I'm adding a comment here even though I'm not really surprised a complaint was made. Gary can be pretty stubborn and upset people (like me). Anyway, reads to me that Zebra got cut because of the warning template issue, not the content situation. If the issue was content he shouldn't even have brought the issue here. Just my two cents after the fact. Zebra's gone no matter what I guess. Suggest the closure of this ANI. !! Justa Punk !! 10:41, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

A curious (possibly meaningless) sidenote: looking at the Contrib list, it seems that TaintedZebra spent the majority of his/her time voting on AFDs. There are very few article edits. Manning (talk) 12:04, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah probably meaningless. And the edits that weren't AFD votes and weren't talk pages (or edits on here of course) may well be the result of recent changes patrolling. His user page before he cleared it had an RCP template on it. I saw the edit that added it early on in his contributions. !! Justa Punk !! 14:37, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

User:AeronPeryton

This user has WP:OWNership issues over Shiloh, Alabama and Shiloh, Texas - both dab pages. Which I have marked with short page patrol, but s/he keeps reverting. Since the appearance of the articles are basically the same, the only rationale seems to be ownership and control of the articles. Short pages are patrolled as a quick way to check for crap insertions and unless long comments and marking is added, it just makes the short page patrollers must re-re-re-re-visit the same articles. Can someone talk sense to this editor. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 04:39, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This will be my only comment. Carlos has taken my responses and come to the conclusion that I want to start an edit war when I do not. I have asked the user to explain to me the reason non-article pages require being marked as short articles and his only response so far has been to report me. I was very to the point with him in my response to his edits because I've dealt with short-fused editors who take rules and guidelines literally before and I tend to make a quick break to a "shoot or blink" decision because of that. I'll be more careful in the future, especially with Carlos, and continue to await a response from him in regards to the evidence I presented that support my actions.  ^{æronphonehome}  05:44, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think this is a case of WP:OWN. I think there is about a lack of consensus about the Adding comments to pad short articles issue. Carlossuarez46 is adding a wordless template to DAB articles so that they do not turn up in Special:ShortPages. The reasoning for this is discussed at here. AeronPeryton feels something else can be done to ensure that DAB pages do not get picked up and rejects the wordless template approach.

Firstly, a firm reminder is extended to all parties concerned about the importance of civility and assuming good faith. Neither party has demonstrated particularly ideal behaviour in their fairly brief exchange. (See User_talk:Carlossuarez46#Short_paging_disambiguation_pages and User_talk:AeronPeryton#Reversion).

I can certainly see both sides of this dispute. Modifying MediaWiki so that Special:ShortPages not pick up DABs might be feasible and should be raised at Bugzilla. I believe that Redirects are not picked up, so the exclusion of DABs also would be a good thing.

Carlossuarez46 has developed a solution to a very real problem. Whether this is the best possible solution remains unresolved and should be examined.

Suggested Solution.

• AeronPeryton is requested to be a bit more sympathetic to this problem.
• Carlossuarez46 is requested to not make accusations of disruption or threats of blocking over what is essentially a procedural dispute.
• The possible exclusion of DAB pages by Special:ShortPages be taken to Bugzilla for a technical evaluation.

Manning (talk) 05:37, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

• AeronPeryton doesn't appear to think much of your proposal his latest post is here. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 05:49, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
• Given the close time frame of my post above and the post you cite I think there is ample room to believe AeronPeryton had not seen my comments at that time. He has since posted a comment to my talk page which was quite reasonable. I would be grateful for your response to my suggestion about taking the issue to Bugzilla. Manning (talk) 08:00, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Sure, we'll see what bugzilla will do for us... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 16:33, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
    • bug #19465 Carlossuarez46 (talk) 16:43, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

COI blanking at Montana Meth Project

Resolved

 – Article semi-protected. Manning (talk) 15:07, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

There is consistent evidence that one or more persons who are affiliated with Montana Meth Project (MMP) is/are not very happy with the presence of sourced information that is critical of MMP: regularly, around 20,000K from the article is removed. Editors who have done this include:

• FirstVirtual (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): too many instances of wholesale blanking to list, blocked for COI username (First Virtual is the name of the company owned by billionaire Thomas Siebel, who also funds MMP).
• 70.141.216.230 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) - diff - registered to First Virtual Management.
• 64.175.135.244 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) - diff, diff, diff - Registered to First Virtual Management Inc, currently blocked for two weeks for this.
• Antoine1786 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): diff

(Note: I notified all four users of this discussion with {{subst:ANI-notice}}.)

User:SarekOfVulcan is doing an excellent job monitoring the situation, ClueBot is also performing reversion tasks, and I'm keeping my eye on it as well. However, the problem persists: the editor or editors behind the inappropriate edits are wholly unresponsive to requests to discuss at Talk, and continue blanking. I suspect there is now block-evasion afoot, in the case of the blocked 64... IP range's edits subsequently being taken up by Antoine1786. As the situation has worsened, I am here to ask whether there is a more effective approach available than the game of Whack-A-Mole we've been playing. Thanks for your help. Whatever404 (talk) 14:18, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Semi-protection? (It's far easier to stop named, confirmed accounts than play whack-a-mole. :)) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:37, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Semi-protection may be worthwhile. The history log did not seem to have any constructive edits from new users (although I was not comprehensive in my checking), so semi-protection may not be unnecessarily disruptive. (I would note that playing Whack-A-Mole is sometimes oddly satisfying). Do you have any objection to semi-protection? Manning (talk) 14:38, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

As the edits are aggressive and disruptive, and the editors refuse to communicate, I think that semi-protection of this article would be appropriate. (I prefer arcade Whack-A-Mole, personally. :) ) Whatever404 (talk) 14:48, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I would still like to investigate whether Antoine1786 or anyone else here was engaging in block-evasion. Whatever404 (talk) 15:00, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Heh. Manning and I both protected the article at 15:07 -- but I chose 1 month and he chose indef. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:13, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Looks like the indef prevails. Thanks to both of you. Whatever404 (talk) 15:34, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Moving / renaming entries

I am a comparatively new editor, and wanted to report (without names) an incident which I experienced. I'd appreciate if you advise if this practice is in line with Wikipedia's rules:

I posted an entry, which after some discussion was approved. It was posted under my original title. After that, one of admins posted another entry under the same title. He/she used Wikipedia administrator's rights to move my original entry to a different title he invented, and to name his/her article with title used originally by me. In result of this operation, the search for my original string in Wikipedia now leads to the new entry, not to my original article as before. The same happens in the Google search, creating confusion. The administrator explained his action as follows: "...moving to make way for clearly notable topic", which appears to me as a case of subjective judgement of prioritization, when a single administrator decided which entry is more notable, according to his/her personal tastes. However, I may be wrong. Please, tell me if this practice is acceptable in Wikipedia. Thanks in advance. --Witizen (talk) 17:16, 29 June 2009 (UTC)Witizen

In the general case in which you frame the question, there is no single answer; it depends on the specifics of the situation. In this specific case, it appears they did not use their admin right to move the page, and any editor could have done that. It's a standard Bold editing decision. It seems pretty reasonable to me. If you disagree, start a discussion on the article talk page, or on the user talk page of the editor. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:36, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Especially considering that Wirtland was already redlinked from a National Register of Historic Places list, and Wirtland (micronation) wasn't linked from anywhere until you added it to the Micronations portal. I'd call this a good move, especially considering that Nyttend went out of his way to make sure your article remained findable from the original location.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:05, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. A hatnote at the actually notable Wirtland article seems more than generous. — Satori Son 18:08, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed with the others - seems fair to me. This is called disambiguation. Orderinchaos 10:23, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for all answers, which are helpful indeed in understanding Wikipedia's approach. Though I still believe the "more notable"/"less notable" judging lacks measurability and objectiveness, I don't have any further questions or suggestions. Again, thanks and happy editing to all. Witizen (talk) 13:19, 30 June 2009 (UTC)Witizen

<--Outdent: ahem, the whole article (Wirtland (micronation)) is a blatant copyvio of http://www.wirtland.com/ and I have tagged it for deletion accordingly. – ukexpat (talk) 18:20, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

How on Earth did the AfD get closed as no consensus anyway, considering that every keep appears to have been canvassed? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:17, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Precious few (only one) deletes, by the looks of it. I think the close was sound, though I'd prefer it if the AfD had been relisted, given the lack of genuine !votes. Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 12:25, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Please could you clarify if "genuine vote" is an official term, and if not, what do you mean exactly - thanks. Witizen (talk) 17:55, 1 July 2009 (UTC)Witizen

Not an officical term. What I meant was "!votes that hadn't been canvassed". Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 17:58, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Canvassed? I sincerely hope that decisions in Wikipedia are not based on assumptions. So far, I've seen some strong wording and stronger acting, but no facts or any sound measurable criteria. I'm not insisting on Wirtland entry, but I see nothing but broad use of Wiki's authoritarian powers, and a suprisingly low overall level of discussion. Witizen (talk) 18:36, 1 July 2009 (UTC)Witizen

Take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wirtland - there's one !vote that actually expresses a keep/delete view (ignoring the nominator), plus one that !votes merge. Two !voters have zero or few other edits outside the AfD: Special:Contributions/190.197.224.249 and Special:Contributions/Bokontonian. There are two contributions in, I believe, Bulgarian (the latter one apparently says "E.. .. ......., Thryduulf! E.. .. ......, I say. I do not want to talk to you because 'you simply ......... ." If "canvassed" is too strong, I certainly think it's reasonable to say that there were a surprising number of editors with little experience of AfD; however, the lack of !votes, the Bulgarian !votes, and the apparent single purpose accounts make me pretty certain that something drove these editors to edit the AfD. Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 18:46, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

If editors who are less experienced in AfD are not allowed to discussion, or their opinion weights less, it should be clearly stated. Otherwise, this talk is pointless. By the way, such editors may be more experienced in the content. Hope you agree that some expertise in the content is pretty useful Witizen (talk) 19:06, 1 July 2009 (UTC)Witizen

That is in no way what I said: indeed, if editors without prior AfD experience were prevented from !voting then !voters would soon disappear ;-) You asked me why I assumed that canvassing had occurred; I explained that the !votes were unusual for an AfD - and that didn't just include the level of experience of the !voters (keep/delete !votes), but also included the SPAs, the Bulgarian !voters, and (and I forgot this earlier) those !voters who acknowledged that they were (or claimed to be) citizens of the micronation involved. Compare this AfD with pretty much any other - and you'll quickly see why this AfD appears to have been the subject of canvassing. Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 19:12, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Bottomline: Wirtland entry is still blanked (though copyright permission is in place). No sound evidence of copyvio or other evil deeds. No clear, measurable criteria behind other accusations. Today, someone deleted even the Wirtland disambiguation page :-) . Well, I did my best to be cooperative, but if my modest contribution to Wikipedia is SO unwelcome, I don't see any point in further discussion. Dixi. Witizen (talk) 19:24, 1 July 2009 (UTC)Witizen

Just a heads-up, whether you're still involved in further discussion or not . It's obvious here that people haven't adequately explained why they feel the AfD discussion wasn't fully kosher and the situation with people new to AfD. I'm not going to try and explain it because my descriptive and explanatory powers are almost non-existent. But I just wanted to make the point that people who hang around AfD know how a discussion normally goes down and when one seems a little iffy. I recently had this with eDition, where ultimately a sockpuppet case was found. I'm not claiming any sort of sockpuppetry is going on in the Wirtland discussion, but with comments in Bulgarian and people signing as "Witizens", it's obvious these people didn't appear by coincidence. I know this isn't the explanation you wanted but the discussion just didn't smell right to editors, and that's what happened here. Greg Tyler ^{(t • c)} 21:45, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Perhaps I have not made my positon clear enough. I am saying that I do not see a serious, argumented discussion. I see emotions, strong wording, swift severe actions, but no real grounding, no facts, no clear criteria behind accusations in this or that. Also, I see a bold use of power, which already has almost killed the article. Willingly or not, but all opponents are avoiding the substantial questions I raised. That's why I felt this seemed pretty pointless to discuss. I wish I was wrong though. Witizen (talk) 22:11, 1 July 2009 (UTC)Witizen.

Tothwolf and Eckstasy

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

After inadvertently stepping on a landmine by nominating List of quote databases for deletion, I've been barraged with personal attacks, accusations of bad faith, off-wiki harassment, and veiled (on-wiki) bragging of denial-of-service attacks, mostly initiated by Tothwolf (talk · contribs) and Eckstasy (talk · contribs). Please see the discussion on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of quote databases. I'm not sure where to go with this... sorry for not detailing all the grisly details, but a quick read of the AfD (and advice) would be most appreciated. Thanks in advance. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 02:08, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I also note that Eckstasy, apparently dissatisfied with the AFD result, is now gathering "evidence" (presumably with which to harass me later). No comment on the irony that he's archiving an AFD debate, which exists ad infinitum in the proper namespace already... :) //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 11:44, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

With regard to Tothwolf specifically, while the discussion was heated...I don't see anything that would require administrator attention here, unless you can substantiate your claim of off-wiki harassment. The discussion with Eckstasy was also heated, but again, I don't see a need for admin intervention at this time. While I don't condone some of the things that were said, I would also note that the discussion was not helped by your accusation that the AfD was canvassed. Your presumption that the second link provided will be used to "harass" you later is a strong claim and an assumption of bad faith. Harassment is an incredibly strong term, I might add, and such accusations should not be thrown around lightly. In short, no action is needed at the moment, unless there is evidence that harassment is occurring. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 14:28, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

That article got archived there for a reason, not to harass anyone. And as for off-wiki stuff, it has nothing to do with Wikipedia whatsoever. Seeing you posting this in the noticeboard, sadly made me come out with even more stuff. if anyone read, they would gather what this is about. Eckstasy (talk) 15:37, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

tothwolf has harassed and caused drama in multiple articles he's had disagreements in. he has a COI in irc-related articles because he's a developer for a well-known IRC application, so he takes the articles very personally. he also is a regular on wiki's IRC, so expect him to canvas his IRC friends for help/support. good luck getting anything done with this uncivil harasser. Theserialcomma (talk) 15:47, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Theserialcomma, I suggest you stop commenting on Tothwolf. You're on very thin ice because you've been hounding him. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^vCardmaker)} 19:03, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

This is ANI, where patterns of behavior and abuse is discussed, so no, i won't stop reporting his patterns of abuse to the proper channels. i'm only on thin ice with an abusive admin (you) who is threatening to BAN me (not just block) for 'hounding' his irc buddy who canvassed an entire admin channel on irc for days before only you decided to step in and bother me. i've never been blocked before for any reason, and you've threatened to BAN me. you are the one hounding me, and tothwolf is the one with the pattern of abuse. i'm not intimidated by your threats. i am quite sure you'll block me, but i'm also quite sure that your block will be tenuous and it won't stick. so threaten away. i'm reporting abuse as i see it, whether it's tothwolf or anyone else Theserialcomma (talk) 20:54, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Your contributions history is evidence of stalking, and I've talked with other admins about it, who generally agree with my assessment that you're hounding Tothwolf. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 23:52, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

The blog that Eckstasy points to looks alarmingly like slander. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 20:25, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Slander? there's nothing false about it. Eckstasy (talk) 20:37, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

"he looks like a criminal on smack."? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 20:49, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Again, there's nothing false there. That's just my opinion; It's a blog post. Eckstasy (talk) 00:27, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Slander is spoken. You print it, it's libel. However, both are defamation. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 20:53, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Its not slander to say 'he looks like a..', that's just opinion. If he said 'he is a criminal on crack', that'd be defamation if it isn't true, but that's not what he said. Sticky Parkin 00:59, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Right. Try defending that in court. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 07:44, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Defamation

Canvassing, stalking, and defamation all in one edit... many thanks to Eckstsy for proving my point, complete with a URL including what he "believes" to be my picture. Given all this is now in evidence, what's the resolution? //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:14, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Stalking? I beg your pardon. This is just getting ridiculous. I suggest you stop. Eckstasy (talk) 00:16, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Eckstasy, I seriously suggest you stop with the off-wiki linking. If it's being misinterpreted, simply stop doing it. There is no conceivable reason that you would need to do so anyway, so please, let's keep this discussion on Wikipedia and about Wikipedia. Thank you. PeterSymonds (talk) 11:25, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Blaxthos, let's clear this up right now. I never claimed any responsibility for your DDoS troubles, [85] I only pointed out the obvious. [86] It is well known online that some of those affiliated with other sites and various image boards have targeted bash.org due to how you've treated people and in the past have run up your bandwidth bill. You certainly won't pin any of that on me, although after seeing how much trouble you've created for others, and in particular those affiliated with QDB.us, I can't say I feel the least bit sorry for you since from where I'm sitting it appears that you brought it all on yourself.
Now, if you want to talk about a true case of defamation, in making false accusations against me for your DDoS troubles I believe you are getting pretty close to the line and may have in fact already crossed it.
--Tothwolf (talk) 12:57, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Assessment and proposed solution

OK I've read through the AFD, and all the various snarling comments left on various pages. To be honest, none of the three parties in this debate can claim the moral high ground and ALL are guilty of some pretty poor conduct.

Off-wiki conduct: Eckstasy, you are for the most part free to say whatever you want off-wiki. However the administration body is entitled to consider off-wiki material as evidence when that material includes personal attacks. (See Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks#Off-wiki_attacks). I would *strongly* advise you to ease off.

Solution: There is bad blood here that appears to predate the AFD in question. I recommend that all three users simply stop interacting with each other voluntarily. Manning (talk) 11:56, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I've held off commenting here but I do want to clarify a few things. First, I've had no previous interaction with Blaxthos prior to this AfD and as of right now I've had no interaction with him outside of Wikipedia. Second, my comments regarding Blaxthos' behaviour regarding this topic (not limited to just this one article and AfD) can be proven with diffs and links. He has a known history surrounding the controversy with bash.org and the former admins/moderators whom he ousted who then went on to found QDB.us and his hatred of QDB.us is well known. I personally think it would be best if Blaxthos would steer well clear of any articles related to "online quote databases". This seems this one area where he has true conflict of interest and a problem maintaining neutral point of view (as defined by the COI guideline and NPOV policy), however best I can tell he still seems to do good work in other areas. --Tothwolf (talk) 12:28, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

It appears that admin advice has been (and will continue) to be ignored. I'm not going to bother responding to all that is incorrect in Tothwolf's statements (just the factual misrepresentations alone would take a good bit of time) beyond noting that his claim of having "no interaction with him outside of Wikipedia" is completely false (see his hateful blog post, complete with what he believes is my picture). Regarding bad bloood, I've never heard of nor interacted with these two editors before this AfD, and I hope never to interact with them again. However, I have to request a resolution beyond "don't talk to each other" -- I've been the victim of numerous false representations, denial-of-service attacks, off-wiki harassment, and on-wiki misrepresentation of history & fact. I'll be glad to review everything with any admin who is patient and willing enough to do so, but I won't just sit back and let other editors run roughshod over my Wiki reputation and Wiki standards. It's editors like these and unchecked behavior like this that causes well-intentioned editors in good standing to walk away from the project, and I'd think the community expects administrators to stand up and deal with abhorrent conduct such as this. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 18:12, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Just a note: Tothwolf hasn't posted a blog link. I think you're confusing him with Eckstasy. Killiondude (talk) 18:31, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it was me that posted the blog link. although Blaxthos did infact escalate it and I do agree with Manning ("ALL are guilty of some pretty poor conduct."). It should now be left and not escalated to a full blown public disaster. And, Blaxthos. "false representations, denial-of-service attacks, off-wiki harassment and misrepresentation of history & fact" is completely twisting it. (Considering I've never harassed you on or off-wiki, I've never even met you off-wiki, nor have I talked about denial of service attacks, and as for misrepresentation of "history & fact" the diff links prove it.) Eckstasy (talk) 19:51, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Blaxthos, you can review whatever you like (and as clarified by Killiondude and Eckstasy above, that blog you are attributing to me isn't mine). I stand firm in my statements regarding your behaviour concerning your clear conflict of interest and neutral point of view issues with articles related to "online quote databases" and due to your statement above I'm now tempted to seek a topic ban.
I don't have anything to do with your problems surrounding the Bash.org site but after having spent a significant amount of time researching the history of Bash.org while trying to determine if the Bash.org article that was deleted in 2007 (I suppose it's worth noting that I found the AfD nomination of Bash.org and in particular the editor who nominated it somewhat peculiar) would now meet the notability guideline (it appears to) I can't say that I like what I saw and I do not feel sorry for you one bit. As for your reputation, you seem to have done it to yourself and you yourself pointed out that you were the owner of Bash.org here on Wikipedia. [87]
You have continued to go after articles related to sites that you consider competition to Bash.org and your AfD nomination of List of quote databases was nothing more than an attempt to get rid of one more mention of QDB.us.
Quack, quack, WP:DUCK
--Tothwolf (talk) 20:22, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Continued disruption at Aisha

Gnosisquest has been causing trouble at the highly controversial article on Aisha for many months now, and I'm about at my wits end. I'm afraid admin action may be needed. Gnosisquest is a single-purpose account whose edits have been almost entirely confined to adding apologetic material to this one article, and arguing about it on the talk page. His material is in my opinion very poorly sourced and inappropriate for such a controversial subject, and his edit warring, revert warring, and use of sock/meatpuppets led me to protect the article back in April. This protection was lifted in May on the understanding that he would utilize the talk page. Since then he has resumed editing the page in the same tendentious manner, adding and reverting his material back in despite lack of consensus on the talk page. He's asked for comment WikiProject Islam, but found no support, and he requested a 3rd opinion, but didn't get the answer he wanted. In spite of this, he proceeded to make this edit, which plagiarised the source, and then revert-warred it back twice more in spite of several warnings about the plagiarism and TEND issues [88][89][90][91] Today, I saw that he's started engaging in CANVASSING[92][93], though admittedly in a more nuanced way than than the canvassing I asked him to stop some days ago. I don't see this problem getting any better. At this stage I think his edits have gotten disruptive to the point that a community article ban may be in order--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:36, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I was following this link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Islam/Expert_Wikipedians_in_Islamic_issues.I am using the talk page of the discussion too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gnosisquest (talk • contribs) 15:05, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, don't everyone jump in at once. ;)--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:31, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

lol!!--Gnosisquest (talk) 00:10, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Request at Christian debate on persecution and toleration

I am requesting some guidance here from an uninvolved administrator at the above page. The issue being discussed is whether the intro to the article should state that "Nowadays all significant Christian denominations embrace religious toleration, and 'look back on centuries of persecution with a mixture of revulsion and incomprehension.'" I changed this to a more qualified statement (dif) for reasons now discussed at some length on the talk page here. The change was reverted by User:Zara1709 here, and another wording was reverted by the same editor here.

As I have just said on the talk page, I am willing to discuss this issue without reverting until consensus can be reached, even though I believe the wording is a clear violation of WP:OR and WP:NPOV. The problem is that, as a dispute over WP:NPOV, I consider that the disagreement should be marked by the corresponding banner; nevertheless Zara1709 insists on removing the banner, at the same time as insisting on maintaining their version of the page. Zara1709 simultaneously seems unwilling to work toward consensus on the page, throwing around insults and suggesting that they will continue to revert any changes, banner or otherwise.[94]

I could just continue to wait for additional comments, but it seems clear to me that an editor should not repeatedly be reverting and removing a neutrality banner over disputed material where the problems have clearly been laid out. Mackan79 (talk) 06:58, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

The idea that all Christian denominations "embrace toleration" is ludicrous. Just because they don't slaughter non-Christians so much anymore doesn't mean they're "embracing toleration". Just ask the average fundamentalist Christian what they think about Islam. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 08:27, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that helpful comment, Bugs. Editors should indeed not be removing banners until the problem that caused that banner to be there is cleared up. Are other users involved, i.e is there consensus either way as to whether his version is perferable? Ironholds (talk) 09:40, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. Banner or no banner, such a statement is ridiculous and shouldn't be in any article here whatsoever. Ya dig? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 13:10, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

The dispute here seems to be which NPOV-violating wording of the statement should be one the article. Hopefully the editors there will realize that balance does not mean "which Christian apologist's views are we going to endorse as factual -- the extremely strongly worded one or the slightly less strongly worded one"? DreamGuy (talk) 12:44, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

There cannot possibly be any NPOV wording in which Christianity as a whole is alleged to be widely tolerant of other religions. It's bogus. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 13:34, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. If there were a reliably quoted statement of an expert saying something like, "Today, the majority of major worldwide Christian denominations embrace toleration of other faiths," I could see maybe adding that. But Christianity is so non-uniform that it would make no sense to try to say anything about "Christianity" as a whole, and the continued presence of some of the more militaristic groups would also make it erroneous. John Carter (talk) 15:47, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad you both agree. The POV statement was put back onto the article after I removed it, so your input (and of course that of anyone else who would like to chime in) there would be appreciated. (John: Even if a reliable source claimed that it couldn't be presented as anything other than that author's opinion and would require other opinions to be documented there as well. To do otherwise would be an obvious NPOV policy violation.) DreamGuy (talk) 19:53, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Temujin123

Resolved

 – IP blocked for a week. Manning (talk) 00:10, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

The user is blocked since last August, but an IP (probably him) seems to be routinely adding sockpuppetry "notes" to it. I haven't researched the accusations and I don't remember why I have that page watchlisted in the first place, but could someone have a glance? -- Luk ^talk 12:40, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Looks like it's the same guy. I blocked the IP for a week and removed the "notes". Cheers. lifebaka++ 13:02, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Problem edit at List of United States Presidents by age

Resolved

 – Indefinitely blocked by User:Tiptoety as a vandalism-only account. MuZemike 19:41, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

[95] → suggesting that Obama's term will end today. Admins, please advise, MuZemike 19:36, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Well on the bright side, at least he was bipartisan. (I reverted already, btw) Tarc (talk) 19:47, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Deleted file

Resolved

 – File was not deleted but renamed. User has located desired file. Manning (talk) 00:07, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

here Could it be brought back please? Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 22:28, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I could not find a deleted file by that name. If you're talking about the image which is shown in the upper right corner of Pyrocumulus cloud, it is still there and has not been deleted. EdJohnston (talk) 23:17, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I was talking about the image from that article formation section, but I see now that somebody changed the name of the file in the article. I put the correct name back now. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:38, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Supermanman420

Resolved

 – Indef block on Vandalism-only account. Manning (talk) 23:35, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

• This user called me a stupid face on my talk page! This user must have an anger problem or something. I do find it a little bit funny, but as a rude comment. Rude enough to report it. I just thought that i'd bring this up. Ryanbstevens (talk) 23:19, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Indefblocked. Tan | 39 23:23, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Can we see a photo so that we can judge whether you actually do have a stupid face or not? LOL... Tan got there before I did, so I'll just close this AN/I off. Cheers Manning (talk) 23:35, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Abductive is edit warring to replace prods after they have been contested,

User:Abductive is edit warring to replace prods after they have been contested, and even after warnings have been given to him on his talk page. He has taken to harassment and name calling in response to my warning him to not replace contested prods.

• Dr. Granvil Wade Seale Jr: Replace prod once
• Warning given on User:Abductive's talk page
• Dr. Granvil Wade Seale Jr: Replace prod twice and calling me a SOCK
• Login (DOMCA): Replacing prod once
• Warning given on User:Abductive's talk page
• Login (DOMCA): Replacing prod twice

left harassment message on my User page [96].Youup (talk) 00:19, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

One of the articles in question here, Dr. Granvil Wade Seale Jr, would probably qualify for speedy deletion under WP:CSD#A7 - it doesn't assert any coherent reason why he's notable. --Chiliad22 (talk) 00:28, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I feel this falls under WP:QUACK. Abductive (talk) 00:34, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Youup is blocked. He is obviously a sock of the two other people I have caught doing this in the last week or so, and I am getting very tired of having to manually revert him. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 00:41, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

You can stop now, Esasus. We all know your patterns by now.

Compare this to this. MuZemike 01:01, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Jonathan King caught POV-pushing his own article

Add Jonathan King, the sometime pop-music figure/TV personality, to the list of people caught trying to own their own articles. In this case the subject had been extensively anon-posting, trying to massage the presention of his underage sex convictions, and to reinflate the article's previous (self?-)assessment of his former importance.

Kudos to Little grape (talk · contribs) for detective work.

See: Talk:Jonathan_King#Rule_879:_'The_subject_of_an_article_shouldn't_edit_it_himself' & recent history

-- Jheald (talk) 18:11, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Already reported at WP:COIN. – ukexpat (talk) 18:26, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Um, does nobody see any contradiction in encouraging this sourt of thing while insisting on Wikipedia editors' god-given right to remain pseudonymous at all costs? If blatant POV pushing by I.P.s is becoming problematic, semi-protect the article. I thought we didn't out people here? Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 18:33, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

If career-long self-publicists like JK use Wikipedia this way, we should hang them out to dry. For WP's own self-defence. Jheald (talk) 18:37, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Do you want to propose a change to WP:OUTING, then, which currently says that "Posting another person's personal information...is harassment unless that editor voluntarily posts this information, or links to this information, on Wikipedia themselves. Posting such information about another editor is an unjustifiable and uninvited invasion of privacy. This applies whether or not the person whose personal information is being revealed is a Wikipedia editor."? If memory serves, there was a pretty high profile case in which a fellow was blocked for outing another career-long self-publicist (who was socking to boot). Something about some kind of tactic on financial markets... Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 19:11, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Outing that an IP address is where it is, that anyone can see? Outing where Jonathon King is, when it's public information anyway? There is no outing here - just a COI issue that needs to be managed properly. Pedro :  Chat  19:29, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Revealing the person behind a set of edits without that person having voluntarily done so is outing. I don't believe that outing should be outlawed here, but it is, and as long as it is I have a real problem with article subjects being held to a higher standard than Wikipedia editors. There's nothing in WP:COI (which is advice to people considering editing under a COI, not some kind of hammer allowing us to ban people or disregard their views) that allows for outing. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 19:32, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. Maybe we need to fix OUTING a bit. Pedro :  Chat  19:45, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

That could be gamed. Further beans instructions available on request. Hans Adler 19:50, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

This sounds like a perfect instance of WP:IAR when to not out them means the project is negatively affected, ie in this case used to spin a sad and ailing career back into existence by someone who is actively lying about who they are. --WebHamster 20:36, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

The thing is that Wikipedia's treatment of article subjects editing their own articles tends to be less WP:IAR and more WP:SASTTTWATERIAZBTBATSU (Subject Article Subjects To Treatment That, When Applied To Editors, Results In A ZOMG Banned!" Tag Being Affixed To Someone's Userpage). Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 20:48, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Context being everything of course. If an article's subject is sneaky and downright deceitful then they need to be outed and maybe even blocked. If they are willing to be dishonest about that then there's no way their edits can be considered to be reliable, it's pretty bloody obvious they aren't here for our benefit. I have to admit though that I am a little biased in this matter. For someone who is as well known as JC to have to take pictures of themselves to submit to something like WP is, in my humble view, somewhat sad and just adds to the bad taste. --WebHamster 21:07, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

So if somebody's not hear for the right reasons we can out them? Fine with me (seriously - that would actually be my preferred approach), but then we need to extend that to people other than article subjects, and we need to stop pretending that anonymity is sacrosanct here. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 21:43, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

This is what I mean about context and why WP:IAR seems to apply here. There should be no blanket ruling and each case should be on its own merits. WP:OUTING states that non-malicious outings should not result in a block. As I see it Little grape's outing is not malicious and was done purely as a means to protect the project from deceitful, and possibly harmful, editing. --WebHamster 23:35, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

What's impressive is that even having been busted, JK comes back and edits some more...

There are some examples, eg Peter Hitchens stands out for me, where article subjects engage on their article talk pages in an open and honest way, aware of COI issues, and their presence actually has a solidly beneficial effect. But posting anonymously from a hotel in Italy pretending to be somebody else seems a bit sad.

IMO the best way to prevent such activity is to make clear that people caught doing it will be named and shamed. As Durova said in a thread at WT:HA last year (00:33, 4 October 2008), manipulating Wikipedia can look like an attractive option, unless balanced by the PR risk that it can and will get out. Jheald (talk) 20:51, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not condoning the activities of article subjects who anonymously try to make their articles look more flattering (usually - in some cases I think it's justifiable), just as I'm not condoning the activities of Wikipedia editors who anonymously try to make articles less flattering on their subjects. I'm just not clear on how it's okay for one to be outed and the other not. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 21:43, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I think the term 'outing' implies the use of insider knowledge to expose something the subject has the right not to put in the public domain. The difference in this instance is that all the information is already in the public domain - most of it on King's own website. For example, there is a picture of the Italian hotel on his website alongside a caption stating that he's gone there for the last fifteen years, and that he appears to 'do Cannes' each year followed by holidays in Morocco and Italy (sometimes Tunisia too). It doesn't then take much intelligence to check hopelessly POV IP edits against WHOIS. In addition to the IP editors, there are a number of user accounts that would appear to be socks and may benefit from checkuser. Have a look at these. There are plenty more, but you get the point:

• Oopsie poopsie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Germing (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Joneseyboy2007 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Vandalwatcher (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I think Steve's point about anonymous editors making articles *less* flattering is interesting - we are all charged with the responsibility of making articles *not at all* flattering, and that means removing puffery, fabrication, fake cites et al. Part of this work will inevitably involve investigation of editors who may not be what they seem. While good faith should be assumed, as soon as solid evidence is obtained then that evidence should be presented for discussion. Little grape (talk) 08:28, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Checkuser request opened at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/jk1944. Jheald (talk) 09:34, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Checkuser request confirms that Germing (talk · contribs), Joneseyboy2007 (talk · contribs), and Vandalwatcher (talk · contribs) are all related. The accounts Oopsie poopsie (talk · contribs) and jk1944 (talk · contribs) have not been used recently enough to definitively confirm that they are also related. Jheald (talk) 08:19, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppet?

MarkusBJoke (talk · contribs) possible Sockpuppet of Judo112 (talk · contribs). MarkusBJoke took part in about 15 Afd's since account creation. In all of them supporting Judo112's position. The votes are very often made in a close timeframe to Judo112 [97], [98], [99], [100], [101]. Comparing their edits history i would say they come from the same computer. MarkusBjokes's first edit after account creation was a supporting vote for Judo122 [102] that made Judo122's position win, this behavior continues in an ongoing Afd. For me it looks like it is the same person but i may be wrong as i am quite new. So i would like you to have a look at it. Iqinn (talk) 12:34, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:SPI is that way. Cheers. lifebaka++ 13:07, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I checked there but the instructions of WP:SPI says in cases like this (ongoing vote) list on ANI. I still should submit it to WP:SPI? Iqinn (talk) 13:19, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I would recommend submitting the case to SPI. Worse case scenario is that we would just put the case on hold until the afd is completed. Icestorm815 • Talk 05:02, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Bullzeye making personal attacks in a deletion discussion

Resolved

 – Sock of banned user blocked indef by User:J.delanoy.

See his comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Awesome (smiley). I don't know what I should do.--Bored of the world (talk) 14:15, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

First, I don't understand how that is a personal attack. Second, if you think it is, have you tried WQA first instead of here? MuZemike 14:17, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Bored of the world, were you previously User:Wutwatwot by any chance? SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 15:37, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes.--Bored of the world (talk) 17:47, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I thought Goons and /b/tards were supposed to be super-cool Interwebz tough guys who lol at guro and love to remind everyone that "The Internet is [not] Srs Bizness"? Now they whine to Wikipedia admins for mercy when somebody tweaks their nose a bit? "Butthurt" doesn't do it justice. "Social phobic Walter Mitty in the Information Age" is more like it. Bullzeye ^contribs 18:26, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

"17:49, 1 July 2009 J.delanoy blocked Bored of the world with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (Abusing multiple accounts)" [103]. Seems the issue's moot. Bullzeye ^contribs 18:26, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Owww. Another Plaxico moment. MuZemike 19:00, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

"Hey, are you a sockpuppet of a banned user?" "Uh, yup." BANG! "Mr BOTW has NOT yet learned the first lesson of not being seen - NOT to stand up." Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 08:00, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Freegolan in Majdal Shams

Resolved

 – Freegolan on a 24-hour break

After considerable effort, I succeeded in bringing peace to this beleaguered article in May. I think everyone was equally dissatisfied with the compromise, which means it was a good one.

I have kept my eye on Majdal Shams, and the article has, until recently, enjoyed relative calm. This week we had a little edit war (over the inclusion of categories, believe it or not), and again the disputing parties reached a reasonable compromise.

And then Freegolan crashed in with a vengeance. Ignoring the discussion on the talk page, he reverted the compromise, adding vitriol in his edit comment.

I notice that Freegolan has been a problematic editor since he came on board, so I thought an administrator might want to have a word with him. --Ravpapa (talk) 10:24, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

202.249.50.60 making very rapid edits; content is probably correct, but stylistically poor and unsourced

202.249.50.60 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is making very rapid edits to biology- and biochemistry-related articles (often 2 to 3 per minute). See discussion on user's talk page. Given the complexity of the edits, and the frequency at which they're occurring, and the fact that the IP resolves to a school of pharmacy in Tokyo, I suspect that this might be a collaborative exercise. From my non-expert point of view, the information looks plausible. Unfortunately, it's mostly unsourced, and often uses poor style. Can someone look into this, and pursue action if necessary? TheFeds 06:09, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I looked at the chemistry ones. Some are right (and even supportable by existing cites, though this editor does not ever use cites). Some are clearly wrong (or at least contradict pre-existing content and are again uncited, so a poor edit). Some are strictly analysis or qualitative comparison that make universal statements about nonuniversal issues. And some are just casually-worded throw-away statements. Overall useful/good-edit contribution level is quite low, requires lots of cleanup. DMacks (talk) 06:42, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

November 2008 they had this same pattern of behavior, so quite likely a class project. I can't read the full Japanese website (vs sparse English overview page) to know if these are similar points in successive academic semesters, or to search for which class it might be. DMacks (talk) 07:53, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

The edits to mitochondrion were correct, but unsourced and in poor English. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:51, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I've gone through all the July 1 edits from this IP. Many were insalvagable and were reverted by myself or other editors, some just needed thorough copyediting or wikifying, and two or three looked ok as they were. I'd add {{resolved}} but I'm not sure whether it's worth contacting the school or something – I agree with DMacks' sentiment that this needed a lot of cleanup for little gain. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 13:12, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Karl Malden

Admins might want to get ready for a flurry of activity on the Karl Malden page as he has been reported as passed away. Whether it is true or not (ala Jeff Goldblum) remains to be seen. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 19:38, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

It is confirmed that the longtime Oscar-winning actor has passed away at the young age of 97. See LA Times, Entertainment Weekly, MSNBC. MuZemike 19:43, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

The first update came from TMZ (and I am not stepping in that wasps nest again) so I was a little leary. Thanks for the confirmation. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 19:51, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Wow! TMZ got something right again? They were the ones who broke the Michael Jackson story initially. Not bad for an "unreliable" source. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 06:05, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Better to be proven wrong about them being unreliable a dozen times, than one instance of them being referenced as reliable and finding they were not... LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:00, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

It would be interesting to see how often they get things right vs. wrong, compared with the "reliable" sources. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 13:13, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I am a piece of shit

Resolved

 – user blocked for racist remarks - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 13:56, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

See my talk page. My message to him wasn't friendly but not a personal attack, and his commentless reverts, violations of fair use policy and refusal to participate in discussion are drawing my patience short. I would like someone else to chime in. Note the removal of this comment — Jan Hofmann (talk) 12:40, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Cautioned. Fritzpoll (talk) 12:43, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

A block is needed immediately for such disgraceful language, no second chances and all that nonsense! --De Unionist (talk) 13:18, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

User has been given a final warning. No need to block immediately; blocks are for preventing, not punishing. If they continue then it might would defiantly be appropriate - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 13:22, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I would love to see you try and block me. Alex (talk) 13:50, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Well I'd rather not have to try. The best solution is for you to remove that piece of racism you put on Jan Hofmann's talk page and apologise. Then we could all just leave this behind us. I hope you'll seriously consider doing this, as it will hopefully leave everyone feeling better. - Kingpin¹³ (talk)

(Personal attack removed)Alex (talk) 13:50, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Block endorsed.Hell In A Bucket (talk) 13:53, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Aye, unfortunately, a block seems like a good idea at this point - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 13:54, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

User has also been reported as a vandal. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 13:55, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Blueboy96 must have magic powers or something. Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 13:58, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Blocked indef. Why he wasn't blocked immediately for this is beyond me. Blueboy96 14:00, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

RFC used to harass

Mosedschurte and Yachtsman1 have opened Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Viriditas in an effort to harass and intimidate me from pursuing my plagiarism investigation against them. I have already made two reports on one incident and I am in the process of making a third, more detailed report showing multiple instances of plagiarism. This RfC against me violates just about every aspect of a user-conduct RfC: 1) It does not show with diffs that two users tried and failed to resolve the same dispute 2) This RfC was brought solely to harass or subdue me as, Mosedchurte and Yachtsman1 consider me their adversary 3) I have responded twice to these baseles allegations in a related incident report, however it is close to impossible to respond due to every single, cherry picked quote taken out of context, without overwhelming Wikipedia's servers 4) The entire user conduct RFC represents a dispute over article content, including a dispute over how best to follow the neutral point of view policy. Per the user conduct RfC guideline, this complaint belongs in an Article RfC. 5) Even though the process page clearly says that "an RfC cannot impose involuntary sanctions on a user, such as blocking or a topic ban", all three users are using the RfC to call for sanctions. 6) Yachtsman1, who has a documented history of making false allegations against me, is now using the RfC page to make bizarre, sockpuppet allegations. Could a neutral administrator look into this? Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 21:02, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

If they are not willing to complete it, engage in constructive dispute resolution, and begin shouting that Viriditas is some random sockpuppet all the while demonstrating incivility and/or poor demeanor, then it stands that the user-conduct RFC is nothing more than blatant trolling at its best. seicer | talk | contribs 01:18, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Mosedschurte and Yachtsman1 are civil POV pushers and inadvertent plagiarists. Wildhartlivie is a primary contributor to Jonestown (95 edits) and an ally of Mosedchurtre on the same topic. He defended Mosedschurte on the same issue when the problem of cherry picking and POV pushing by Mosedschurte originally came up on the noticeboards in 2008. Viriditas (talk) 06:53, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

No, that is simply and completely untrue. The posts for a RFC on the Harvey Milk content were posted to the AN/I board by Mosedschurte here, as one of seven posts on the RFC that were supportive of the content on that page. It was not a case of "defending" anyone at AN/I about NPOV or cherrypicking and that statement misrepresents what was posted and why. Wildhartlivie (talk) 12:06, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Isn't that interesting? Most of those accounts were SPA, with the exception of you and Mosedchurtre. Curiouser and curiouser...how deep does this rabbit hole go? Let's take a look:

Special:Contributions/Caramia3403

Special:Contributions/216.23.197.82

Special:Contributions/75.215.117.116

Special:Contributions/72.209.9.165

Special:Contributions/CENSEI

You know, Wildhartlivie, at some point, you really need to know when to stop digging... Viriditas (talk) 12:22, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

This just keeps getting more outrageous. So you think all of those accounts are me too. You honestly just sit there and making more and more accusations. Is this how you intelligently discuss things, trying to scoop dirt on anyone who disagrees with you in order to get rid of them? And with such vehemence. Wildhartlivie (talk) 13:24, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

No, I don't "think" anything of the sort. I merely observed that all of the accounts that were "supportive" of Mosedchurtre were SPA or now, indefintely blocked. Interesting, that. Viriditas (talk) 13:32, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Insinuations are still insinuations and you avoided acknowledging that you made a wrong assumption about my having posted at AN/I in defense of Mosedschurte. This is why the Jonestown talk page discussions deteriorated as they did. Rather than acknowledge that something was said, the only thing that is seized on is another opportunity to make a subtle or not so subtle dig. Wildhartlivie (talk) 14:02, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I said that you "defended Mosedschurte on the same issue when the problem of cherry picking and POV pushing by Mosedschurte originally came up on the noticeboards in 2008." This is true. Now, perhaps I could have worded that better; I did not say you posted to AN/I. I said you defended Mosedchurtre on the same issue. This issue was brought to the noticeboards, where Mosedchurtre copy and pasted your support (presumably from the talk page) on the noticeboard page at 03:22, 7 August 2008.[104]:

"I've reviewed the Milk page, the Moscone page, and have worked on the various Jones pages. I disagree that this is being given undue weight. His involvement with, and defense of, Peoples Temple, during and just after their time in California, is relevant." Wildhartlivie (talk) 11:09, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Along with your support, Mosedchurtre included the five accounts listed above: User:Caramia3403, User:216.23.197.82, User:75.215.117.116, User:72.209.9.165, and User:CENSEI. Viriditas (talk) 14:20, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Re: " (to Wikldhartilive) Isn't that interesting? Most of those accounts were SPA, with the exception of you and Mosedchurtre. Curiouser and curiouser...how deep does this rabbit hole go? Let's take a look" (Viriditas)

• Oh good god. There have got to be 2-3 examples alone from this baseless, lashing out ANI section alone that should added to the WP:Wikihounding RfCU on Viriditas, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct. This editor's behavior and repeated and numerous false charges (too many to even keep up with) against now at least three other editors who have merely taken opposing stances on content issues have become more than a bit troubling. Mosedschurte (talk) 23:40, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I find it troubling that the only editors who support you are SPA's or edit warriors, either recruited from the Digwuren arbcom case or from one-time, throw away accounts who supported you above and disappeared, never to be seen again. Viriditas (talk) 00:00, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, but I am uninvolved.

1) It appears that this RFC was filed correctly. Three editors, Mosedschurte, Wildhartlivie, and Yachtsman1 have commented on the RFC, one more than the two required. Users Mosedschurte and Wildhartlivie have both provided multiple difs although Yachtsman1 has not. It is perfectly valid to call an RFC regarding the general conduct of a user; as stated at the top of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct, the process is for discussing specific users who may have violated Wikipedia policies and guidelines.

2) I won't comment on this because I am not familiar with the issue.

3) It would probably help if you posted a response at the RFC. Feel free to copy the information from the related incident report you mentioned. Don't worry about responding to every individual dif. Just pick the most important ones. Also be sure you include difs that demonstrate "good behavior" on your part to counter accusations more effectively. Also I strongly recommend you do not "attack" the other editors by giving difs of "bad behavior" on their part unless it specifically has to do with interactions with you. Digging up unrelated content to cast aspersion on another editor often looks bad.

4) It appears the three contributing editors are indeed focusing on conduct rather than on article content. I'm will have to disagree with your view that this RFC is a content related RFC.

5) I would suggest you ignore proposed solutions asking for a block or a ban because they won't get what they're asking for anyway from the RFC. The desired outcomes section is for "spelling out exactly what the changes they'd like to see in the user, or what questions of behavior should be the focus." You could leave a polite note on the RFC talk page pointing to the RFC guide to remind users that blocking or topic banning are impossible outcomes RFC.

6) Looking at the RFC for Uruk2008 as a comparison, it seems listing potential sockpuppets with good reasons seems acceptable. Assuming you aren't using a sockpuppet, I would ignore the sockpuppet allegation. It is relatively easy for an administrator to determine if the username in question is actually a sock using Checkuser. If you aren't using a sockpuppet, than the accusation will simply be baseless and won't hurt your arguments. If you are using a sock, then I would stop editing with it immediately, confirm it is a sock, and apologize. Sockpuppets are not looked well upon in these kinds of situations. Sifaka ^talk 02:04, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I asked for a neutral administrator to take a look. This is a content dispute that is being turned into a conduct dispute by cherry picking content-related discourse out of their original context and twisted into something I never said or intended. At no time has anyone tried to resolve a conduct dispute because there simply isn't one, and the diffs don't substantiate any of the claims being made. I don't use sockpuppets and there is not the slightest bit of evidence supporting such a claim. The entire RfC is nonsense, and it was designed to harass and intimidate me and serves no other purpose. We do not bring RfCs against editors who have content of NPOV disputes, and that is what is being done. There is not one single diff in the entire RfC that supports any of the claims being made. Not one. Viriditas (talk) 02:27, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Sifaka: Agree on all of 1-6. And, again, nothing at the RfCU is about any sort of content dispute. Also, in addition to numerous request across article talk pages and noticeboards, further requests to stop the campaign from spreading beyond one article were left by me on Viriditas' talk pages In addition to numerous requests on Talk pages, three days ago, I placed the following "here" and here.Mosedschurte (talk) 03:24, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

On top of Viriditas providing NO notice of this ANI section to me, the Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Viriditas was opened at the request of Administrators and editors on this board, such as here, here and here. I didn't even know that RfCU existed until these people suggested a filing there, and this is hardly "harrassment". In addition to doing so at the request of admins and others, no one who reads the contents of the RfCU -- which include about as blatant WP:Wikihounding as one will see -- would think that filing the RfCU was "harrassment." There is also no particular content dispute at issue at the RfCU. I would honestly just hope that something happens to end the WP:Wikihounding, with this renewed ANI section -- YET ANOTHER part of the campaing -- going exactly the opposte direction, and I'm not even particularly concerned about getting any kind of block of Viriditas or "winning" an argument.Mosedschurte (talk) 03:16, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

The charge of plagiarism didn't have anything to do with the article in question (Jonestown) on which a large part of the behavioral issues resulting in the WP:RFCU was based. Clouding the waters with unfounded accusations was part of the dispute, but not in regard to the article in question itself. That issues from other places were dragged into it and made part of the dispute is an editor conduct issue. I addressed my concerns about that repeatedly, questioning that this editor was sufficiently neutral based on history with the other editors. My understanding from this diff is that the reviewer did not agree with the claim. The issues brought up by Viriditas were primarily regarding WP:NPOV and were also reviewed and not supported [105]. Because the editor chose to reply to the RFCU with a report at WP:AN/I rather than respond to the RFCU doesn't negate my concerns with how I was treated by Viriditas and in fact, my history of editing on Wikipedia has never involved plagiarism, source cherry picking, or other similar issues. NPOV was never an issue until this. That I was drawn into this by how the dispute progressed was something I actively tried to avoid and said so clearly on the talk page. It doesn't negate my treatment and that is at issue. This issue for RFCU is not about the content, it is about how Viriditas's conduct progressively deteriorated. That there is a poor history between Viriditas on the one part and Mosedchurte and Yachtsman1 is the foundation for what happened on Talk:Jonestown and something I actively tried to discourage from the moment it began. Of course, Viriditas is going to see it as a personal attack, it's about his/her behavior. If the RFCU had format issues as to how it was written is something no one bothered to address at any time and no opportunity or notification was given to fix it. Instead, a posting here with Viriditas' POV about the event was used to erase the concerns that were raised. I requested, more than one time, to ask for dispute resolution or a third party neutral mediator/reviewer be brought in on Talk:Jonestown. Viriditas was not amenable to that, instead filing the WP:NPOV noticeboard report and sticking a peer review request on the page. If I didn't post those diffs in the right section of the RFCU, that is something that can be easily remedied since they are on the RFCU page. And finally, if I recall correctly, the original RFCU has content that I posted that confirmed Viriditas did know about the filing, even if a notice was not given on his/her talk page. That notification is a problem seems to go both ways. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:44, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

The charge of plagiarism has everything to do with Jonestown and that is what led me to that article. I also became aware of serious NPOV issues that Mosedchurtre had brought to other Jim Jones/People's Temple articles by reading the noticeboard archives where this has been extensively discussed. I began by handling the NPOV issues, first, and I have not yet finished reviewing the article due to the ownership issues demonstrated by you and the continuined crud flooding from the Mosedchurtre/Yachtsman1 tag team. Viriditas (talk) 06:48, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

This speaks for itself. Accusations of ownership, references to "crud", and for the record, now, Viriditas is planning to file a SPI report on me because my friend has been a roommate off and on for the last few months. When she is here, she and I use the same internet connection, and she occasionally edits on Wikipedia, though likely not all the time as she frequents the internet from work and also I believe from her daughter's house (which I didn't mention). I freely admitted to this, and per WP:ROOMMATE that is not a problem. My friend dealt with the user who popped into the Jonestown, after I reverted his first change to the article, whom Yachtsman1 thought was a sock account, who made some bizarre edits. That my friend and I have similar interests in topics isn't so unusual for two persons who have been friends as long we have and she has helped with removing some deprecated content fields and assists me to find sources at the library because I can't go. I was asked to prove a negative, which I'm not able to do. However, I won't be bullied into admitting something that isn't true and come here and throw myself on the mercy of the administrators in order to appease Viriditas. There are other editors on Wikipedia who know that the other editor is my friend and occasionally edits on Wikipedia from the same IP and who will likely speak up to confirm that. I find it disengenous to try to seek out ways to force people off of Wikipedia who disagree with him/her, especially since before this Jonestown incident, the only interactions I had with Viriditas were not in any way contentious. Wildhartlivie (talk)

"When editing the same articles, participating in the same community discussion, or supporting each other in any sort of dispute, closely related accounts should disclose the connection and observe relevant policies such as edit warring as if they were a single account. If they do not wish to disclose the connection, they should avoid editing in the same areas, particularly on controversial topics." I do not doubt that your roommate shares this account. However, after looking at your contributions, it becomes clear that you have "borrowed" the account to revert certain articles to your preferred version. It is also clear that you have used unique edit summaries from both accounts, in a style that appears to belong only to you. I will not pursue this here, but rather in the appropriate venue. Viriditas (talk) 12:14, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm guilty if it's similar, I'm guilty if it's different. According to you, I'm guilty of a lot things that aren't true (see the list of IPs and identities above that are me too). This is completely relevant here since you're waging war against someone who disagreed with you. The only "controversial" topic that the other editor ever edited on that I know of was the Jonestown page and it wasn't in relationship to anything to do with the dispute that had been ongoing on that page. The trouble is, a person can't prove something doesn't happen. Like I said, there are a lot of topics we both find interesting, that's going to happen and since I'm not aware of a policy saying we can't work on some things that interest us both, like hundreds of actor articles. It comes down to what you think is true. I stated here, first, that my friend edits on Wikipedia. I stated here that we have lived together off and on recently and in the past. This has forced me to disclose personal details that are frankly none of your business in the interest of being frank about it, but I can't say that I'm convinced that your intent is anything but mal intent. I don't use her account. I don't use her computer, which is even more relevant. She used mine a few times in the past before she bought her laptop. Wildhartlivie (talk) 13:24, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

We'll let someone else decide. Viriditas (talk) 13:32, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Response from one of the accused

Ah yes, the motives do get assigned rather quickly, do they not? Please note that I was not informed of this thread by its initiator. The RFC in question can be found here: [[106]]. Contrary to the statement above, it was started by user:Mosedschurte here: [[107]] at the suggestion of other editors on this noticeboard here: [[108]]. The RFC was started because of the conduct of user:Viriditas. The underlying problem is the marked hostility and incivility of user:Viriditas, as demonstrated here: [[109]], here: [[110]], here: [[111]], here:[[112]], here: [[113]], and here: [[114]]. The user's comments were the subject of debate here as well: [[115]] by user:Colchicum, and was admonished by an adminsitrator. I could go further, but the fact remains that user:Viriditas is a shockingly rude editor whose comments are, by an standard, not civil. I personally sought that the user act civilly here: [[116]], which was removed on the user's talk page here: [[117]]. The claim of "plaigarism" has been a constant accusation, yet when this claim was examined against user:Mosedschurte on the Content Noticeboard, it was found not to be plaigarism. See: [[118]]. Notwithstanding the finding that the cited material was not "plaigarism", user:Viriditas continues to make this claim against not only user:Mosedschurte, but against me as well without a shred of proof to support this allegation, and after one editor informed user:Viriditas the exact opposite. In any event, the position taken, that an assumption of good faith should be set aside and we should all presume that an editor started an RFC to stop the ever-so dreaded "plaigarism investigation" is not grounded in fact. I have modified my statements on the RFC to comply with its purpose, but the editor in question's position that this RFC is unsubstantiated is not well taken. It is probably best to let the RFC take its course, and the described conduct examined by others. My final wish is that the editor in question learn WP:CIV, stop WP:WIKIHOUNDING, and modify his or her behavior accordingly. Thank you.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 03:45, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

You plagiarized content from books wholesale and added them to Human rights in the United States. This fact is not in dispute. This is currently been dealt with and you can read my report when I file it. Viriditas (talk) 06:45, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you again for your accusatory, uncivil commentary, which conveniently omits response to your own documented behavior while oddly confirming it.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 14:19, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I was simply stating the facts. If you disagree, feel free to show how copying and pasting content from a book without attribution or quotes is not plagiarism. I already proved it was with a passage from Turabian 2007, and the copyright cleanup project already confirmed this. See also: Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing: "Educational institutions are primarily concerned with close paraphrasing from an ethical perspective: using another's words as one's own is considered plagiarism." Viriditas (talk) 14:25, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for asking me to prove a negative, as well as my own innocence. Allow me to take this opportunity to decline your kind invitation, and remind you that the burden lies on the accuser to prove guilt, not on the accused to prove his or her own innocence. Please publish your "report", and once accomplished, I will deal with these accusations at that time. Thank you.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 14:37, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I've already proven my claims repeatedly on the talk page of Talk:Human rights in the United States. You've continued to ignore them, and as a result, there is still plagiarism in that article. Since the problem is ongoing, the report will highlight the plagiarism, show exactly where it exists, and I will ask the copyright cleanup project to deal with it. Viriditas (talk) 14:43, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Place your "proven claims" into the report, and I'll deal with it there. I have not commented on Human rights in the United States for some time in an effort to avoid further conflict in light of your continued behavior. So, you are correct, I have ignored that talk page in recent days, and intend to continue doing so in the near future. Thank you.Yachtsman1 (talk) 14:54, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

No, you were given ample opportunity to deal with it on the talk page, and you refused. Viriditas (talk) 00:23, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

There is a difference between refusing a request, and ignoring one as not meriting a serious response. As stated, issue that report, and I'll defend myself accordingly.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 03:43, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Move for Closure

It is becoming more ironically evident that this ANI is merely a tool for harassment and intimidation of its creator. So far, we have two accusations of plaigarism, one attempted outing, threats of a future "plaigarism report", and a slew of uncivil comments from user:Viriditas, who has decided to assign motives to everyone involved as part of some sort of conspiracy. The basis for the RFC that was created has, if anything, been reconfirmed by this thread. I would suggest closure at this time, with the matter of the RFC taking its course. Thank you.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 14:30, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

The RfC is completely illegitimate and only serves to distract from the greater issues at work, those of civil POV pushing, plagiarism, alleged use of sock puppets, and edit warring, tag teaming and back channel coordination as we saw on the RfC for Talk:Human rights in the United States. That RfC recruited the key players from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren in an attempt to change the outcome. As this is a continuing problem, I see no reason to close. Viriditas (talk) 14:40, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

No Viriditas, it has to do with your bevavior, exemplified by accusations of "civil POV pushing, plagiarism, alleged use of sock puppets, and edit warring, tag teaming and back channel coordination" as seen above. This violates the core guiding principle of wikipedia to assume good faith, and further violates wp:civ. The only thing your constant accusations and attacks are demonstrating on this thread and in front of administrators is to fully display the continued merits of that discussion, and to provide its legitimacy for all to see. Thank you.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 14:48, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

No, this has to do with the behavior of a small group of coordinated editors who have taken over multiple talk pages and articles to push their POV using underhanded tactics of back channel coordination, edit warring, and civil POV pushing strategies. The evidence for this is overwhelming. You can't get your way so you start attacking editors, and when those editors reply to your attacks, they are suddenly "incivil". Viriditas (talk) 14:52, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

While your words speak for themselves, as does your continued refusal to assume good faith. Attack me all you like, but your behavior remains uncivil.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 15:04, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Indeed - the key list of players from the Digwuren case popped up at the RfC case as soon as Mosedschurte became involved. And these don't regularly edit United States-related articles. PasswordUsername (talk) 14:57, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

The RFC case is not a United States article, and I was not part of the "list of players from the Digwuren case" (whatever that is). The total number of editors on the RFC to date is three. --Yachtsman1 (talk) 15:04, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I was referring to the Human Rights RfC case – it's pretty glaring there. PasswordUsername (talk) 15:09, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

There are many comments on that section, all from differing positions, and from all sides of the debate. Who was involved in the prior case you mention?--Yachtsman1 (talk) 15:14, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

The RFC was on Human rights in the United States, a United States-related article. This RfC reflects the key players from the Digwuren arbcom case, who were "brought" to the article en masse in what appeared to be coordinated flash mobbing from the back channel. The only connection to these editors was Mosedschurte (talk · contribs). Viriditas (talk) 21:53, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

By my count, 19 editors commented on the RFC in question concerning whether they supported including international areas in the article. How many were "key players" as you assert? Identify them for us so we can examine the merits of your argument. I would also like some sort of evidence to support this claim of "back channel communications" as well as this "mob" that allegedly descended on the article in question. Thank you. --Yachtsman1 (talk) 00:14, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I will not wikilawyer over an arbcom ruling.[119][120]. Per Thatcher: "The list of editors and reversions makes a prima facia case for tag-team editing; whether it was organized or spontaneous is irrelevant..."[121] Viriditas (talk) 00:20, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Naturally not, because you have no real evidence. The ArbCom placed user:PasswordUsername on a 1RR restriction, but I will note he has also taken your side in this matter, together with his allies in that particular dispute: [[122]] Again, when you have provided me with some sort of evidence, please let me know. Until then I think it's merely speculative, and nothing more than a personal attack at this point. Thank you.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 00:39, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Yachtsman, this is both false and in bad faith. I did not take part in the Human Rights AFC – that makes just Offliner who was involved in the Digwuren dispute as an "ally." By contrast, the whole of the good-ol' Digwuren tag team took part. Being familiar with this de-facto tag team from my own on-Wiki disputes, I can say that the same mass participation from the same traveling party of players that had been used to swing discussions against myself in completely unrelated areas in the past (and on various occasions afterward) were also evident from the Human Rights in the United States RfC. And the RFCU against Viriditas on the grounds of your battle over article content – and I have seen much worse behavior from Mosedschurte – seems to be more of the same harrassment.

Now, please try very hard to keep in mind that an RfC "cannot impose involuntary sanctions on a user, such as blocking or a topic ban" as you are requesting in the case of the user RfC that has been put forward against Viriditas – at least this much, by the way, is explicity given at Wikipedia:RfC. The same page notes that "RfCs brought solely to harass or subdue an adversary are not permitted." As it appears that the RfC was adopted in response to Viriditas' reaction to the content dispute at the Human Right in the US article, I'd like to remind that it is not a venue for attacking editors, as seems to be the apparent goal in this case. PasswordUsername (talk) 11:26, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

The RFC does not ask for an involuntary topic ban or sanctions of any kind. You may want to review it. It does provide a very detailed history of Viriditas's actions in wikihounding and incivility (which is the subject of tyhe RFC after all), and a request that this editor be reminded of policies in these areas, and requested to stop her present campaign by suggestion of oustide editors. Your own position is clear above, though I never said you commented on the RFC section, merely that you were sanctioned as part of the Digwuren Case with a 1RR warning, as were those who were on your side of that debate, who also commented on the HR in the US RFC. The fact remains that it is speculative and "bad faith" as you put it to assume that it was because user:Mosedschurte was part of the discussion, or he "put them up to it". Your obvious bad will towards these editors, however, is duly noted.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 14:49, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

(od)These accusations and implications of some bizarre conspiracy theory becoming more bizarre and ridiculous by the minute, reflecting yet further WP:Wikihounding outlined in alarming detail in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct. I am in no way involved with the "Digwuren" case, and I seriously doubt that Yachtsman1 and Wildhartlivie are either. The reaching here on these latest accusations is too much. What next, Yachtsman1, Wildhartilive and I filmed Armstrong faking the moon landings?

Like the other editors, I am just wondering how to make the WP:Wikihounding -- including NUMEROUS attacks, accusations, uncivil behavior, etc, over several articles and noticeboard outlined here -- stop. I feared that bringing the RfCU would just make this editor even more aggressive, and had perviously even also twice practically begged Viriditas to stop bringing disputes to other articles/noticeboards on Viriditas' Talk page, "here" and here. Unfortunately, there is virtually no end in signt to this WP:Wikihounding campaign.Mosedschurte (talk) 23:59, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

No conspiracy required. Your edit history shows a direct connection to post-World War II history and Eastern European history, the primary focus of the Digwuren arbcom case. Viriditas (talk) 00:06, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

This conspiracy theory is becoming even more brazenly pathetic. Because some of the articles I edited involved World War II, this "shows a direct connection" to some "Digwuren" arbitration case? I would like to say that this is not indicative of the sort of false attacks from Viriditas on others, but it in fact is, as just a small portion of them that are outlined at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct. Mosedschurte (talk) 00:35, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Your contribution history ties you directly to the tag team editors named in the Digwuren arbcom case, the same tag team that tried to alter the outcome of the RfC on Talk:Human_rights_in_the_United_States#RfC:_Article_scope. No conspiracy theory is required. Viriditas (talk) 00:38, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

The idea that because my "contribution history" merely includes World War II articles, "ties you directly to the tag team editors named in the Digwuren arbcom case" is such a ridiculous over reach on this conspiracy theory that, if an admin reads this, he might take action against you on that comment alone. Somewhat tellingly,, when you first opened this further WP:Wikihounding section, yet another editor (User:Sifaka) told you "Digging up unrelated content to cast aspersion on another editor often looks bad". Unfortunately, his warning then was quite telling.Mosedschurte (talk) 01:04, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

• The point of making this RfC was to conduct all your discussions there, rather than at the ANI. This discussion only creates disruption. As about Viriditas, this diff tells a lot. I noticed that Alex stopped editing receiving this "question" at the borderline of a personal attack. No wonder.Biophys (talk) 04:24, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Wow. I had never seen those comments from Viriditas on an admin's page, many of which also included outrageous allegations about me and a variety of other editors. I'm starting to wonder now where hasn't Viridiatas been making these attacks rather than where has he/she done so.Mosedschurte (talk) 04:56, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Concealed original research (if you can call it that)

CaptainEagle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) copied an existing paragraph, references and all, and changed one sentence to read "Although race and ethnicity tends to be not a factor in whether or not guns should be controlled or not, although ethnic minorities in inner cities tend to in favor of gun control than are Whites." (I discovered the problem while administering grammatical CPR.) When I went to his talk page to warn him, I found numerous warnings from other editors. A quick review of the past few days history finds these offensive or disruptive edits:

• Many Jackson fans are dying from excess weeping and mourning.
• Adding North Korea and Iran to list of beligerents at "War on terror."
• Adding false American origins to "Wonder Girls," who are from South Korea.
• Many North Koreans believe that the world is 135 years old.

I can take this over to AIV, but I thought the racist undertones merited special attention. Celestra (talk) 20:15, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll look at this. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:23, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

CaptainEagle has a history of inserting unreferenced material and OR into quite a few articles, such as List of United States over-the-air television networks, Pornography in Japan, Major League Baseball on NBC, and NBC, to point out a few... I've been keeping an eye on him as well. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 20:36, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I've indef blocked CaptainEagle, see my note on the user's talk page for the rationale. In the end the simple fact is that the account is persistently disruptive (I don't necessarily see a racial issue here), though I can't say whether that's intentional or not (in a sense it doesn't matter). A thoughtful unblock request could be worth considering (I'll leave that to another admin obviously), but I don't think this user can contribute constructively at this point, and indeed they have already wasted a lot of other editors' time. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:52, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I think it's quite obvious that these edits, and the overarching behavioral problem, are better treated as a matter of WP:TROLL - one of the few bona-fide instances of trolling - not a matter of WP:OR. You have to be choking to death in a puddle of your own WP:AGF to see these edits as anything but. I really wonder if any admin will be so gullible as to unblock this account - then again, maybe I shouldn't wonder, it took months for people to come around on the "Aspergic Brazillian Concerned With Hot Jewish Sluts" incident... Badger Drink (talk) 03:58, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Badger drink up to a point: this looks like genuine trolling. Yes, am saying that. Good block. Durova²⁷³ 17:23, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Block needed

Resolved

PAROI (talk · contribs) was confirmed by checkuser to be a sockpuppet of banned user Brexx. The underlying IP was blocked but the account was not. Could an available admin please indef-block?

Thanks! Big Bird (talk • contribs) 12:35, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Hem, seems to have slipped through the cracks a little. Done now. Cheers. lifebaka++ 16:29, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! Big Bird (talk • contribs) 16:35, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Potential Legal Threat

There is a user who is posting what could reasonably be construed as a legal threat on the page David Wilshire. User 82.118.112.216 also potentially is in violation of 3RR.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=David_Wilshire&action=history Rmosler | ● 13:17, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

He's been given a short block. Your message was way too easygoing. Legal threats are not to be tolerated. PERIOD. He either retracts it immediately, or he's put on ice for a long time. The short block for the IP will let us know whether he's just messing around or if he means it. If he means it, the next block should be for a few months. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 13:34, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Do you not see a potentially big problem with this article, BLP#Undue Weight, for example? According to the article, he has never done a good thing in his entire Parliamentary career. Thatcher 13:37, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree, there are pretty big problems with this article, and I'm not that surprised that the IP was upset. – Toon 14:12, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I just went looking for news stories to balance the article with: I couldn't find a heck of a lot. Can you? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:41, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

LexisNexis contains 278 articles containing the term "David Wilshire", "tory" and "Spelthorne" prior to Jan 1, 2009, before the scandal broke. Probably most of those are for the correct person. (There are more than 1000 articles on "David Wilshire" but they may not all be about the Tory MP.) I imagine somewhere in those 278 articles there must be an occasional positive statement. Thatcher 14:49, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

accusation of trolling

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.

---

Resolved

 – Not trolling, but a content wording dispute, nothing for an admin to do here. However, please don't call other editors trolls or their edits trolling. If they've done something blockable, there's always a policy abiding name for it. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:06, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I was having a discussion with AdjustShift on his talk page whether the term "Germans" can be used in the contex of crimes committed during WW2 in Poland. (as in for example "the Germans destroyed Warsaw" etc). It's a long story but basicaly he claimed that using that term would make it look that the "entire German people were responsible". I disagreed with that and pointed out numerous respectable books about WW2 used the term "Germans" where it is clear from the contex what it means so this logic "use the word Germans -> you are trying to blame it on every German" is IMO absurd. Later I also provided links to articles on wikipedia to which his reply was that those articles needed to be rewritten that the Nazis did the crimes. I objected to that because if a crime was committed by the Wehrmacht that doesn't mean that the Nazis did it because obviously Wehrmacht doesn't equal to Nazis. [123] His reply was to erase that with the comment "erased trolling" [124] Ok my question is this, is it ok for a wikipedia Admin to launch accusations of trolling against sb when this sb was only expressing his honnest opinion rather trolling? I mean obviously I can be wrong on that topic and also if he doesn't want to discuss it further on his talk page he can just say so, but I find his accusation very uncivil. Thanks for any comments. Loosmark (talk) 13:55, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Loosmark's comments are argumentative and disruptive. Admins should look at his talk page, this report, and numerous other incidences where Loosmark was involved. Admins can also read the discussion on my talk page. AdjustShift (talk) 14:13, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes I was accused of edit warring and what's with it? I don't know about the "numerous incidences" but I have never been sanctioned for anything before so while I'm maybe not a model wikipedian I'm probably not that disruptive either. Anyway if my comments are so argumentative just say that you don't want to discuss anything with me and that's it. But accusing me of trolling during a discussion on war crimes is simply appalling. I've heard too many stories from people who survived those crimes and I'd never even dream of trolling on such a subject. Loosmark (talk) 14:33, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm. So would you like to be a model Wikipedian? If you were not trolling, you should have explained to me that you were not trolling. Trolling is a deliberate, bad faith attempt to disrupt the editing of Wikipedia. If you would have convinced me that your comment was in good faith, I would have restored your comment. Instead, you posted this on my talk page and posted this report here. I think you need to change you approach a bit. AdjustShift (talk) 14:44, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

It wasn't trolling: if you were talking about German military atrocities during WWII, the Wehrmacht is very much on point.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:47, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

SarekOfVulcan, please read the whole discussion on my talk page before commenting. When you read only a part of discussion and make a comment, your comment will be inaccurate. AdjustShift (talk) 14:56, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

After I replied to him [125], he posted this comment which I reverted. He needlessly brought the issue of Wehrmacht which had nothing to do with my reply. AdjustShift (talk) 14:19, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

He needlessly brought the issue of Wehrmacht which had nothing to do with my reply. How needlessly!? The crimes committed by the Germans during World War 2 were those by the various Nazi SS units and those by the Wehrmacht which was the regular army not Nazis. Describing that all the crimes were committed by Nazi Germans as you proposed is IMO simply untrue, and even if you think I mentioned that needlessly I still wasn't trolling. It would be nice if you'd appology for such an accusation. Loosmark (talk) 14:41, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Looksmark, can you bring a single diff where I wrote that only Nazis were responsible for all the crimes during WW2? I've never written that only Nazis were responsible for all the crimes during WW2. Your comments are argumentative. Your comment appeared as if you were trolling. Instead of posting this on my talk page and posted this report here, you should've explained to me that your comment was in a good faith. I would have restored your comment. AdjustShift (talk) 14:54, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok, how about a compromise? Instead of referring to "the Germans", use "the German military". That way we aren't claiming that the regular army is all Nazis, and we likewise aren't accusing all Germans of the behaviors.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:45, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

SarekOfVulcan I think your idea is valid but but then somebody will come up with the objection that not all the German military was involved etc and we are back at square 1. Not to mention that countless sources use just 'Germans' therefore we'd need a some sort of "wikipedia policy" to prevent quoting those sources or something. But anyway such discussions probably belong to the various talk pages, I started this section because I feel I was very injustely accused of trolling and I expect better by a wikipedia admin. Loosmark (talk) 14:58, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay, and we're gonna wrap this up then with two statements: AdjustShift, cmon, yer an admin. Even if Loosmark was trolling, this is hardly the way for you to handle this. Loosmark - try to thicken that skin up. One relatively minor accusation of trolling shouldn't make you lose your mind and come here to ANI in a rage. What did you think we'd do, block him? What admin action was necessary? Tan | 39 15:02, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Loosmark, you are also accusing me of falsely accusing you of trolling. I'm trying to show why your comment appeared as if it was trolling. If you would have explained to me that your comment was made in a good faith, I would have restored your comment with an edit summary Loosmark was not trolling. Looksmark, you need a think skin. Sometimes one can get smashed here. A minor accusation of trolling is basically nothing. We have cases where people have got banned; horrible things have happened to people. If you were not trolling, end of the story. Ok, Loosmark was not trolling; I erroneously thought that he was trolling. Are you happy now?

During the WW2, the German military was responsible for the crimes. Ok, not all the German military were involved, but most of them were involved. I think using "the German military" instead of "the Germans" can solve the problem. AdjustShift (talk) 15:21, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't see problems with using "Germans" if the contex is clear. Going by your logic one should never use the formulation "the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbour" because that would apply that the "entire Japanese nation is responsible" for the bombing, which is a bit absurd. Anyway I accept your appology and hope that in future you'll make 100% sure somebody is trolling before launching such an accusation. You are an admin, please set a good example for others. Loosmark (talk) 15:31, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I haven't "apologized" to you. There is no question of you accepting "my apology". I thought that your comment was trollish; but, after your explanation, I simply AGF and accepted that your comment was not trollish. There is absolutely no need for me to apologize. This is not a place to discuss a wording dispute, so you shouldn't have mentioned that dispute here. AdjustShift (talk) 16:16, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Adding stuff into a thread, which was already archived, making it impossible for me to reply is unpleasant. Read the "Please do not modify it" bellow. Loosmark (talk) 17:30, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

This is not the page for a wording dispute. Please don't call other editors' behaviour trolling, ever, it never helps anything. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:35, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Gwen Gale, I didn't started this thread. Loosmark started this thread and mentioned about the wording dispute. AdjustShift (talk) 16:16, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

No worries, this thread is closed and archived. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:48, 2 July 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.

"correcting the spelling" - new troll approach, bot or just paranoia?

My suspicion is that I'm reverting an increasing number of petty vandalisms like this, where a low-mileage anon-IP "corrects the spelling" of a word by changing it to something else. The edit summary is distinctive and deliberately interpretable as "well meaning".

Anyone else seeing these? My fear is that they're not just trolls, it's the test runs for a 'bot attack. Wouldn't be hard to build such a thing, would be quite awkward to extend ClueBot to catch them without a lot of false positives.

Or should I just put another layer on the old tinfedora? Andy Dingley (talk) 17:09, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Looks like sneaky vandalism. I've added a tougher warning. Any recurrence should result in a block. --Philcha (talk) 18:19, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Community review of Law's block of Peter Damian

Peter has been unblocked and has been asked not to destroy, or attempt to destroy, Wikipedia. Similarly, several folks have admonished Law for blocking a user for off-wiki hyperbole. Nothing more productive shall come of this discussion. WP:RFC/U is available if anyone feels something still needs discussing. –xenotalk 19:43, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Peter Damian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship#Peter Damian (diff) How to utterly destroy Wikipedia, Idea needed initiated by Peter Damian at Wikipedia Review User talk:Peter Damian#Blocked (diff) There's a lengthy thread on WT:RFA here. I considered an unblock pending community review but decided against it as Peter has not requested it and I couldn't reach Law as the blocking admin, so I'm just going to throw it up and see where it lands. Also, I will be pretty much out of touch for the next two days and it wouldn't be right to take an admin action and then be unavailable to discuss it. Best, --Wehwalt (talk) 15:16, 30 June 2009 (UTC) It could have been communicated better but it's a fine block. It's a pretty straight line from someone wanting to destroy Wikipedia - laying out a plan - starting to act on it - getting banned/blocked. If Peter wants to walk the whole thing back, fine. But otherwise...RxS (talk) 15:23, 30 June 2009 (UTC) I'm more bothered about the way it was done, in the middle of a discussion, it smacks of cowboy adminship to me.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:28, 30 June 2009 (UTC) Good block. R. Baley (talk) 15:29, 30 June 2009 (UTC) I also endorse the end result of a block. Considering that he called for wikipedia to be destroyed then tried to put it into action (however unlikely it was to succeed) a block to prevent disruption is justified, at least until Peter Damian retracts the threat and pledges not to intentionally disrupt or try to destroy wikipedia. Davewild (talk) 15:30, 30 June 2009 (UTC) Was a ban from participating in RfAs ever considered, or would something of that nature require ArbCom or similar? Tarc (talk) 15:31, 30 June 2009 (UTC) The general conclusion was that we can't ban people from RFA because it leads to a "slippery slope" of what is/is not acceptable as a vote, and that since his disruptive edits were outside AN/I as well it wouldn't cover everything. Ironholds (talk) 15:32, 30 June 2009 (UTC) Whose conclusion was that? And b'crats can certainly discount ppl who routinely post "oppose" with no reason except to make a point, they've done it before. KillerChihuahua?!? 15:38, 30 June 2009 (UTC) Endorse block. Prevents disruption and the attempted "destruction" of en-wiki. Ironholds (talk) 15:32, 30 June 2009 (UTC) Agree with Wehwalt. Yet another fine example of a power-crazy admin gone berserk, just 'cos he can. And any other administrators who agree with this block are just as guilty as Law is. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:33, 30 June 2009 (UTC) Endorse Guess I'm "guilty" then. Last I heard, accounts here aren't meant for projects to "destroy Wikipedia." Gwen Gale (talk) 15:35, 30 June 2009 (UTC) Had any attempt been made to "destroy Wikipedia" your argument may at least have had some some semblance of credibility. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:39, 30 June 2009 (UTC) (ec) What project? No such project has been started. KillerChihuahua?!? 15:40, 30 June 2009 (UTC) Looks to me like a straightforward call to gather others and do harm. Blocks are meant to protect the project from harm. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:55, 30 June 2009 (UTC) See my post below about internet stalking and punishing here for what happens elsewhere, also, then this is a preventative block? Because I see no harm or disruption from Damien. KillerChihuahua?!? 15:59, 30 June 2009 (UTC) Also, please answer the question: To What project do you refer? Please provide a link to the project here on Wikipedia which Damien started. KillerChihuahua?!? 16:01, 30 June 2009 (UTC) Oppose block. Overreaction much? He called (offwiki) for others (many of whom are banned trolls, the rest of whom aren't going to play) to "consistently vote against" all Rfas. Simple enough to ban him from Rfa, or discuss other options. He's hardly going to destroy Wikipedia with that petty gesture. Just make a note on the B'crat noticeboard that he's acting a little like Boothy and be done. KillerChihuahua?!? 15:36, 30 June 2009 (UTC) As was said at WT:RFA, Peter's efforts to destroy Wikipedia have much the same likelihood of success as Pinky and the Brain's efforts at world domination from their lab cage.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:40, 30 June 2009 (UTC) Yeah, exactly like Pinky and the Brain but without the catchy theme song. KillerChihuahua?!? 15:42, 30 June 2009 (UTC) Or the Brain... Badger Drink (talk) 23:27, 30 June 2009 (UTC) This is quite unlike the DougsTech incident in that Peter creates content. It is, however, similar in that he was blocked unilaterally at the tail end of an WT:RFA discussion for reasons asserted to be unrelated to the alleged disruption at RFA. The similar block of DougsTech was overturned. It's surprising a single vote and off-site thread kicked up so much dust and perhaps speaks to our proclivity to happily feed trolls at our dinner table. His Nietzsche-esque goal to destroy Wikipedia and create something better in his place smacks of tilting at windmills and he can be safely ignored. Nevertheless it is a good faith (if misguided and ill-advised) attempt to create something better. The block should probably be overturned as there will be less drama all-around. –xenotalk 15:39, 30 June 2009 (UTC) Question Where is the on-wiki statement that he is attempting to destroy Wikipedia? All I see is him trying to reform RFA. Direct links to diffs onwiki of his threats would be nice. Or are we now blocking people for what they say offwiki? I have some names to submit... Hipocrite (talk) 15:40, 30 June 2009 (UTC) As far as I know, the only on-wiki copies of his threats have been posted by people other than PD. Nev1 (talk) 15:45, 30 June 2009 (UTC) Oppose block It's not right to in the middle of a discussion about how to handle the situation. Since his vote on Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ceranthor 2 Peter Damian's edits were confined to improving the Nannette Streicher article and more importantly discussing his vote at WT:RfA. If he was serious about trying to bring down wikipedia, why didn't he vote in the other RfAs that were open at the same time as Cerantor's? Nev1 (talk) 15:45, 30 June 2009 (UTC) I find the application of a block in the absense of any on-wiki disruption to be disturbing. Are we really going to begin holding users accountable for what is said in other places on the internet? If a few baseless !votes at RFA are a blockable offense, then a whole slew of "per so-and-so" !voters had best brace themselves for the banhammer. This is silly. Shereth 15:45, 30 June 2009 (UTC) It was off-wiki. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:45, 30 June 2009 (UTC) Which is precisely why I find the block less than appropriate. Shereth 15:49, 30 June 2009 (UTC) I was under the impression we tried to avoid punishing people here for what they say elsewhere. Are we now internet stalkers and paranoid conspiracy theorists? I must have missed that memo. KillerChihuahua?!? 15:57, 30 June 2009 (UTC) I find it very difficult to believe it was just one RFA, he produced the off-wiki statement including the plan to vote against all RFAs early on the 24 May June then soon aferwards opposed 6 RFAs within 7 minutes. Davewild (talk) 15:51, 30 June 2009 (UTC) In breach of which policy exactly? Would you be equally arguing in favour of a block if he'd supported six RfAs within 7 minutes? Somehow I doubt it, even though it's plainly evident that the real way to destroy wikipedia is to promote as many poor administrators as quickly as possible. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:55, 30 June 2009 (UTC) If someone had made a threat to try and destroy wikipedia using any kind of plan beforehand (supporting or opposing RFAs)then I would certainly support preventing them by block if necessary. When someone has made a threat to disrupt wikipedia follow through on one point of that plan then I do not see how we can trust they will not implement the other parts of their plan such as point 4 - subtle vandalism. Is someone is willing to pledge to check every mainspace edit and the sources they are based on to ensure this is not happening? However if consensus is against the block then so be it. Davewild (talk) 16:09, 30 June 2009 (UTC) Where was this threat made? What disruption has occurred? Again I state, this is a preventative block based on off-wiki commentary, on a site I might add where people routinely blow off steam and complain about Wikipedia to no effect at all here. KillerChihuahua?!? 16:13, 30 June 2009 (UTC) He linking to the statement while implementing the first point of it on an RFA. I don't see much difference between that and just making a copy on-wiki. I know people say all kinds of things off-site but it's when they actually start acting on them that I think we should respond. Davewild (talk) 16:20, 30 June 2009 (UTC) So you're against linking, and want to prevent that, or against opposing on Rfa's, and want to oppose that? I'm not seeing what damage the block is preventing. KillerChihuahua?!? 16:34, 30 June 2009 (UTC) These bold blocks never cease to amaze me. Why not simply bring this to ANI first, saying "I think this calls for a long term block or ban, what do we all think?" Then wait an hour or so, and if consensus for a block develops, then enforce it; if it doesn't, then you shouldn't be blocking. Imposing an indef block after a tendentious WT:RFA discussion that had come to no conclusion whatsoever is just a bad idea. I'm not arguing for or against a block of Damian in general, just saying that this was ill-advised (predictably so), and that the objections above demonstrate why. If you expect a block to possibly be controversial (as Law must have), then maybe you should start a discussion about it instead of doing it. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 15:56, 30 June 2009 (UTC) oppose block At least for now. So far, all Peter is doing is opposing all RfAs. If he intends to destroy Wikipedia by that method while continuing to produce good content then let him. Letting him be unblocked and continue his tilting at windmills will result in more productive content than the reverse. We are trying to build an encyclopedia here and Peter's actions do still provide a net benefit. If he decides to destroy Wikipedia using an actually disruptive technique we can deal with that then. JoshuaZ (talk) 15:57, 30 June 2009 (UTC) Oppose block: What policy was violated in his off-Wiki comment to "consistently vote against" all RFAs? Topic ban him from a RFA if you must, but an indef block for such a comical gesture is a bit far. Do you really think that "consistently vot(ing) against" RFAs will really lead to WP's downfall? seicer | talk | contribs 15:59, 30 June 2009 (UTC) (edit conflict) (3x) Oppose block. Agree with Shereth. Off-wiki activity should not be reason for a block. We cannot block people for doing what they like on other websites, that's what they are perfectly allowed to do. We block them if and only if they disrupt Wikipedia itself with their editing. Peter Damian did not do so and as such, blocking him was certainly incorrect. No matter what one might think about his !vote at one single RFA, he has not behaved in any way that warrants a block. If he does do so, we can still block him but as long as he does not break any rules here, we cannot block him and have to deal with it another way. I prefer WP:DENY personally. Regards SoWhy 16:00, 30 June 2009 (UTC) It's my understanding that things like Peter's sockpuppet category were disposed of under the assumption that he would be leaving peacefully. If he has returned, it's time to re-evaluate his past "contributions" to the project. As far as I'm aware, this includes sockpuppeting extensively, being banned, trolling on his user talk page with retirement banners, trolling at RFA, and trolling with an Editor's Association or whatever. I'm all for second chances, but this one seems to be used up. I'm not sure the people opposing the block here are getting the full picture. (And if anyone can locate that category, I'd be much obliged. I can't find it anywhere.) --MZMcBride (talk) 16:01, 30 June 2009 (UTC) I'm all fine with discussing a block first but here we are talking about a block done for incorrect reasons before taking time to consult the community about it. I think it's perfectly possible to oppose this block and still support a block after discussion for other reasons. Regards SoWhy 16:06, 30 June 2009 (UTC) Hmmm, fair enough. Though it seems to be a bit color of the bikeshed to me. :-) Oh well. --MZMcBride (talk) 16:11, 30 June 2009 (UTC) Could not agree more. This discussion regard this block. Please don't muddy the waters with general discussion. KillerChihuahua?!? 16:09, 30 June 2009 (UTC) Hold on. That's a bit too far. Not checking the right checkbox on form 12W-A is a reason to put on blinders? That's a bit extreme. The block summary may not be descriptive enough, but that isn't a reason to forego a discussion regarding the blocked user. --MZMcBride (talk) 16:14, 30 June 2009 (UTC) We're discussing whether Law's block was appropriate. As SoWhy stated, and I agreed, there is no problem discussing whether Damien should be blocked - but not by adding post hoc rationalizations to this block. KillerChihuahua?!? 16:21, 30 June 2009 (UTC) You're right, my comments speak only to the present case. –xenotalk 16:31, 30 June 2009 (UTC) Found it. Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Peter Damian. --MZMcBride (talk) 16:19, 30 June 2009 (UTC) So the Established Editors Association was trolling? 10/10 for assuming good faith there MZMcBride. It appeared to many people like a genuine attempt to improve wikipedia by increasing representation. Nev1 (talk) 16:21, 30 June 2009 (UTC) Folks supporting the block know that ArbCom unbanned User:Thekohser the other day, right? That's a pretty good indication that off-wiki posturing isn't really blockable. I can see the motivation behind the block and that's fine, but in the grand scheme of things, it would have been better to get some consensus first. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:02, 30 June 2009 (UTC) That was a provisional unblock. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:15, 30 June 2009 (UTC) My point is that people can blow hot air off-Wiki all they want, and we don't seem to have a basis in enforcement to do anything about it here. Nothing Damian has done since that comment has been earth-shattering; much like Kurt Weber and DougsTech, it's easily ignorable. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:27, 30 June 2009 (UTC) Comment It is very likely Peter Damian would be unblocked soon and that should be handled at least by admins unrelated to Wikipedia Review that has caused this wasteful dispute for everyone.-Caspian blue 16:06, 30 June 2009 (UTC) Ideally the blocking admin would do that, and I have asked for that action on Law's talk page. There's a strong sentiment above (including from multiple admins) that this block was not good as enacted. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 16:12, 30 June 2009 (UTC) endorse block, since we don't really need this kind of WP:SOAPBOXing going on. However, I would support a full unblock if he retracted his published desire to bring harm to the project. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 16:13, 30 June 2009 (UTC) So you support preventative blocking, based on off-wiki activity. Just checking. KillerChihuahua?!? 16:15, 30 June 2009 (UTC) Nope. Not in any way, shape or form. However, I do support this one block based on the facts presented of this one case. I make no statements about general actions to be taken in the future, merely on this one situation. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 16:17, 30 June 2009 (UTC) I think KC is suggesting that this particular block, at least as implemented, seems to be a case of preventive blocking based on off-wiki activity. Personally I think that's an accurate interpretation—Damian said something off-wiki that people did not like (understandably) and then linked to it in an RfA vote. Nothing destructive has actually occurred, but the assumption was that it could. Alternatively, the block was solely for the off-wiki comment and was not trying to prevent anything, but I think this opposing here also clearly view that as problematic. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 16:37, 30 June 2009 (UTC) Oppose block per SoWhy above. If off-wiki comments are really a blocking offence, there are a fair few IRC logs and ED pages that make interesting reading. For the record, Peter has opposed 11 RFAs in his entire history on Wikipedia (and supported 3); for comparison, even a hardline "support by default unless there's a strong reason to oppose" editor such as User:Majorly has 64 RFA opposes. – iridescent 16:15, 30 June 2009 (UTC) For those opposing the block because it's based on off-wiki comments, the bright line here is that off-wiki comments were followed up by on-wiki actions. No one is suggesting that comments made off-wiki are blockable. His on-wiki actions are plainly done in bad faith and are clearly pointy. RxS (talk) 16:22, 30 June 2009 (UTC) It's only a violation of WP:POINT if the votes he made caused disruption. The votes themselves didn't dent the change of anyone running for RfA, and didn't harm wikipedia. What did cause disruption was people trying to get Peter Damian blocked or banned for opinion before he had violated policy. Denying his votes recognition would have been far more effect, but instead some people decided to make their own pointed remarks. Nev1 (talk) 16:28, 30 June 2009 (UTC) That may be clear to you, but what's clear to me is that this block was arbitrary, out of process, and not supported by consensus.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Malleus Fatuorum (talk • contribs) 16:24, 30 June 2009 and that "bright line" was opposing Rfa's. Wow. Now, opposing Rfa's is just too dang disruptive to have, I'm sure! /sarcasm. KillerChihuahua?!? 16:28, 30 June 2009 (UTC) It will not be long given the current rate of "progress" before it's forbidden for anyone to oppose at any RfA. --Malleus Fatuorum 16:44, 30 June 2009 (UTC) This is obviously not about merely opposing at RFA, strawman equiped rhetorical outrage aside, this is about threats and following through with those threats. RxS (talk) 16:56, 30 June 2009 (UTC) Endorse block Once you link to an off-wiki comment on-wiki they cease to be off-wiki. This person is basically describing to us how he is going to disrupt Wikipedia, of course we should prevent this with a block. I wonder if everyone opposing the block is aware of the full extent of the situation, several people have mentioned voting in RfAs when Peter also promised to do subtle vandalism and to attempt to demoralise vandal fighters. Please don't over simplify things. Chillum 16:41, 30 June 2009 (UTC) If Peter really wanted to destroy wikipedia then his tactic ought to have been to support RfAs of plainly unsuitable candidates, not oppose them. That would be one sure way of chasing the regular editors away, as they get confronted by the abuse of administrative powers like this example. --Malleus Fatuorum 16:49, 30 June 2009 (UTC) Endorse per Chillum. He linked his own comments here, that's not some paranoid stalkers trying to foist offwiki comments in an attempt to sabotage or discredit him. He did that himself. He's laid out his plan, I see no reason not to block preventatively. That's what we're supposed to block for. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 16:46, 30 June 2009 (UTC) Logic therefore dictates that you should immediately block yourself, to prevent the possibility of disruption caused by a potential mental breakdown. --Malleus Fatuorum 16:52, 30 June 2009 (UTC) (was responding to your original post, then got an ec) No, because we should assume good faith that you, me, or whoever isn't going to fly off the handle and attempt to destroy Wikipedia. But there's evidence to the contrary to the point that I can't assume good faith in Peter starting a thread and then linking it here. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 16:55, 30 June 2009 (UTC) Oppose block, basically per Nev, JoshuaZ, and Xeno; as the last outlines, a block is less reasonable here than it was for DougsTech, and inasmuch as I opposed our blocking DT, believing that single !votes at RfA are necessarily non-disruptive, I can't endorse this one. To be sure, if Peter does something more pernicious, we might revisit the issue, but for now we cannot rightly conclude that the net effect on the project of his continuing to edit should be negative. Joe (talk) 17:05, 30 June 2009 (UTC) Arbitrary break Endorse block at this time. I would advocate the allowance of Peter to continue conversation on his talk page if he so desired. If we are not understanding his intent, then perhaps he can clarify. re: the items being said "off-wiki": Peter himself brought the link to WP and posted it in this post, so my perception is that he is effectivly saying it here. To add a bit of clarification to the matter, it appears to me that this editor has also edited under the following user names: Peter Damian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) Current user name under discussion, and some of the un-ban discussion can be found at: the first talk page discussions Renamed user 4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) Original 2003 account which Peter references on WT:RFA. Original talk page ban discussion can be found here Peter Damian II (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) which was moved with this: 10:21, December 6, 2008 WJBscribe (talk | contribs | block) moved User talk:Peter Damian II to User talk:Peter Damian ? (Automatically moved page while renaming the user "Peter Damian II" to "Peter Damian") (revert) Americanlinguist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and the self-request to be banned can be found in this archive (now a redirect to User:Peter Damian) PeterDamian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) page delted as: 08:01, February 28, 2009 Nishkid64 (talk | contribs | block) deleted "User:PeterDamian" ‎ (CSD G5: Contributions by banned user) Peter Damian (old) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) Hinnibilis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) Now my own personal view of what I've researched so far is that Peter was originally one of our most valuable and prolific contributors, but fell into disagreements with others. (perhaps over animal rights?). My view at this point is that his efforts are geared toward extracting revenge for the original ban, and his perception is one that WP needs to be "destroyed" in order to be "re-built". I'd suggest, that since our site and its content is liscensed under CC-BY-SA and GDFL, that it is not necessary to "destroy" our site, but that one may visit godaddy.com, purchase a domain name, and simply "build" the site he deems to be more worthy of encyclopedic content. I don't find an admission of intent to "destroy" to be the least bit encouraging. Full disclosure: I was not around for much of this (2003-2008), so I would welcome the input of editors, admins, and arbs who are more familiar with the details of history. I fully understand that there are likely missing pieces to this puzzle, and am willing to modify my opinions with more relevant input. — Ched :  ?  16:50, 30 June 2009 (UTC) Endorse We see you trollin'. BJTalk 16:53, 30 June 2009 (UTC) I like Chamillionaire as much as the next guy, but I'm pretty sure he would oppose this block—he doesn't like the fact that "With So Much Drama On the Wiki-P, Admin police are listening." --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 17:01, 30 June 2009 (UTC) Time line and comment. Recent Peter Damian activity: 25 May starts working on his "Established Editors" project to give more weight to content contributors. 26 May significant contribution to Life. [126] 19 June Peter gives up his "Established Editors". [127] 23 June Off-wiki plan to "destroy Wikipedia". 24 June a series of RfA oppose votes with little or no explanation. [128] 28 June Ceranthor 2 oppose linking to his fiendish plan. [129] 28 June creates Nannette Streicher. And now Peter, who is known to be opposed to the role of content-phobics in Wikipedia gets blocked during an on-going discussion by someone who got through RfA a month ago on a DYK/vandal-fighting ticket? Wow. Hans Adler 17:03, 30 June 2009 (UTC) Just noting that the Nannette Steicher article appears to be a copy of the pre-existing German wikipedia article, not an original creation and no credit was made to the German authors or article by Peter Damian. I have added the Translated page template to the talk page which I think is sufficient for credit? Davewild (talk) 17:14, 30 June 2009 (UTC) ...the place should be blown up and destroyed could be taken by some as a call to vandalism. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:11, 30 June 2009 (UTC) You didn't quote what comes before it: [T]he majority of the 'community' are barking mad and are simply not normal people. They need to be hospitalised and cared for, and [...]. This could be understood by some to refer to themselves, which might lead them to overreact, sort of proving Peter's point. Not that I agree with Peter, but there are some problems with the most vocal part of our community and with the dynamics of discussions such as the one on the RfA talk page. Hans Adler 17:23, 30 June 2009 (UTC) Only because you brought it up, I did see it. I've found that kind of thing tends to say more about the writer than anyone else. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:26, 30 June 2009 (UTC) I agree. Hans Adler 19:29, 30 June 2009 (UTC) You forgot one data point, he brought his off-wiki threat on-wiki RxS (talk) 17:18, 30 June 2009 (UTC) I didn't forget it. I edited the time line to make it clearer where that happened. Hans Adler 17:23, 30 June 2009 (UTC) Oppose block as administered. Controversial blocks should not occur in the middle of discussions without consensus. This should have beed discussed at ANI and consensus developed BEFORE pushing the block button.--Cube lurker (talk) 17:13, 30 June 2009 (UTC) Comment After looking through the various block logs of the accounts, it appears that this is not just a matter of "opinion" or "Hyperbole". There are blocks for 3RR, abusing multiple accounts to avoid bans, block evasion, vandalism, parole violation, and dare I even mention the "incivility" item. Also, while the terms "lawyer", "legal", and other items mentioned in WP:NLT are not explicitly mentioned, this post certainly suggests an intent on building a "case" to present to those who would "fund" our efforts here. — Ched :  ?  17:31, 30 June 2009 (UTC) Just speaking to the last part of your comment, I think that is pretty clearly not a legal threat. It seems to be a threat to give a report to (presumably) large donors to Wikipedia—there's no mention whatsoever of going to court or anything like that. That diff is not edifying at all, but WP:NLT just does not come into play in my view. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 17:40, 30 June 2009 (UTC) (ec) and (out of sequence post) Understood, and agreed BTP; however, I think it does speak to the intent of the editor in question. I don't see the intent at this point to be constructive in any manner. In my eyes, it shows a clear intent to act upon the declaration of intent to "destroy". That is the primary item I think is most relevant in this particular thread. — Ched :  ?  17:50, 30 June 2009 (UTC) For clarity, you believe that threatening to ask donors to pull future donations is a blockable offense? Hipocrite (talk) 17:57, 30 June 2009 (UTC) In and by itself, no. However, as an "item" in a list of intentions, to be used to an end result, Yes. (big picture view) — Ched :  ?  18:07, 30 June 2009 (UTC) The blocking policy is quite explicit. Which of those criteria justifies this block in your view? --Malleus Fatuorum 18:09, 30 June 2009 (UTC) Common rationales for blocks, protection subsection, bullet 2: "making personal, professional or legal threats (including outside the Wikipedia site)". This is clearly a personal threat to Wikipedia, and the phrase "Including outside the Wikipedia site" has been a part of the policy since at least a year ago (I didn't look farther back than April 2008), and has been uncontested in all of that time. This may not be the NLT definition of a "Legal threat" but blocking policy also includes as blockable offenses "personal" and "professional" threats as well. Again, these two types of threats have been part of the policy since at least April 2008, and quite possibly much earlier. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:19, 30 June 2009 (UTC) The common rationales listed there are not all-inclusive. I think the background leading to this block (and speaking only of this editor) matches and meets all four goals listed at Wikipedia:BLOCK#Purpose_and_goal, along with the preventative (rather than punitive) goal of a block. If the likelihood of disruption wanes, the block can and should be lifted. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:25, 30 June 2009 (UTC) Unblock This is awfully silly. He couldn't "destroy Wikipedia" even if he wanted to, and doesn't strike me as muddled enough to believe otherwise. Topic ban maybe, but that's not something to be decided on WT:RFA. --SB_Johnny | talk 17:45, 30 June 2009 (UTC) Endorse block. Frankly, I find the "didn't happen here, can't do anything about it" argument completely unconvincing. The thread is written about this place, in a completely open, publicly-viewable forum. Personally, I don't even have any problem with a thread entitled "How to utterly destroy Wikipedia." I think that these things are good to discuss, as they provide insight into the biggest problems that face us and the road to destruction; (theoretically) they would enable us to change, address the issues and hopefully solve the problems (I admit, I'm an idealist). Discussion is good, criticism is good, but when the user actually starts implementing a plan to destroy WP and provides a direct link as form of explanation... come on. It doesn't really get much clearer that they are trying to "utterly destroy Wikipedia". Should we be good bureaucrats (in the RL sense of the word, naturally) and wait until he breaches Bylaw 13, Section 33(c) before we block him? Should we wait until he embarks upon point 4, the subtle vandalism? Oh but hang on, the thing about subtlety is that it’s just so damn... subtle. Or should we just say "urm, actually, we don't really want to be destroyed and we aren't going to let you try and do it here?" We have long passed the point of naiveté. To throw a WP-meme at you, there's AGF and then there’s plain old stupidity. – Toon 17:48, 30 June 2009 (UTC) Strong Oppose to Block - There is nothing in our policies or guidelines that suggest such a block is acceptable. This is Wikianarchy at its best and is a complete destruction of the values of our encyclopedia. This also supports drama mongering by those who called for the block, which happen to be the only ones causing problems. Those who support this block are not acting in any regard in Wikipedia's best interest. I am a blatant enemy of Peter Damian. Most people know that. I do not say these words lightly. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:59, 30 June 2009 (UTC) Support block, after a lot of thought. Intentions are important. If someone adds mistyped gibberish to one of our pages, we politely revert it, and ask if we can help with translating. But if someone's goals are specifically to damage our project, even if the way they go about it doesn't seem too likely to succeed, that is still the very point of a preventative ban. Peter Damian should be encouraged to start his own, better project - almost all our work here is freely available under GFDL, so he can have it all to build from. He should be encouraged to criticize in a way we can use to improve our project. But we shouldn't welcome someone who comes straight out saying he intends to destroy us. --GRuban (talk) 18:00, 30 June 2009 (UTC) Support block. It makes sense that people threatening to assassinate the president of the United States are arrested, especially if they have set out a specific plan to do so. This is essentially a parallel situation. Peter has publicly declared he is planning to destroy Wikipedia. He has even set out a numbered list of activities to achieve that goal, and has already acted on the first one. He is trying to destroy the encyclopedia, not just unintentionally causing disruption like Kmweber and DougsTech. I believe a block was necessary, and the current one was justified and should remain in place until/unless Peter promises to cease his quest to destroy Wikipedia. Timmeh 18:20, 30 June 2009 (UTC) Nuanced opinion that cannot be reduced to a sound bite: expressing dislike of the site's response to controversial voting patterns at RFA. This is the third time in less than a year that conduct RFC has been circumvented in favor of multiple rounds of drama/ban discussion etc. That does not speak well for us, collectively, as a project. We have dispute resolution venues; it would be far better to use them. That said, PeterDamian was formerly community banned, and was allowed to return upon terms against which a portion of the community has procedural objections. There is no doubt that he can contribute encyclopedic content. Can he do so without also causing disruption that exceeds the considerable benefits of that content? Is he a net positive--and if not, can he be? These unanswered questions leave me unable to support or oppose the block. Requesting that if he does return, the matter proceed to an immediate conduct RfC. Durova273 featured contributions 18:27, 30 June 2009 (UTC) Endorse block. Enough of the ridiculous drama already. We've got better things to spend our time on. The drama to content ratio, at this point, in my opinion, is not a net benefit. That said, I think throwing insults at the blocking admin is unnecessary. لennavecia 18:31, 30 June 2009 (UTC) Endorse block - user announces intention to disrupt Wikipedia. Links to announcement on wikipedia. Begins implementing an item from the list of disruption tactics. Any reason to believe he won't do the others? No. Ergo, block is preventing further disruption. → ROUX ₪ 18:37, 30 June 2009 (UTC) Endorse block and WP:TROUT to those who oppose it. "Detached reflection cannot be demanded in the face of an upraised knife" and second-guessing an administrator who takes decisive, preventative action in the face of a stated threat serves to undermine and disincentivize those who stand ready to defend Wikipedia against disruption. The only real question is whather an apology and retraction from the blockee would be acceptable and grounds for an unblock--I don't think it would be, given the fervency and intensity of the original statement, but on this score others might reasonably differ. Jclemens (talk) 18:57, 30 June 2009 (UTC) I'd agree, a question that should be considered; however, given all the second chances and apologies already offered by User:Peter Damian, User:Renamed user 4, User:Peter Damian II, User:PeterDamian, User:Peter Damian (old), User:Hinnibilis (all the same editor as I understand it), I'm not sure how much AGF would be left at this point. Personally, it appears to me to be a habitual pattern of disruption that we would be best to avoid. — Ched :  ?  19:14, 30 June 2009 (UTC) Stated threat? Your post right there is more of a threat than anything put forth about Peter Damian. If anything, you should be indeffed on your own rationale. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:16, 30 June 2009 (UTC) I guess I might take offense at your statement, Ottava, if I remotely understood it. Can you try again? Jclemens (talk) 21:20, 1 July 2009 (UTC) Someone asked above why Law would block first, and seek consensus later. The answer is clear and can be found in this thread - by changing the status quo, he made unblocking the action that needs consensus instead of blocking. Others have asked why an off-wiki comment should spark on-wiki action. In addition to the reasons noted by others (bringing the issue on-wiki by quoting/linking and by taking action in support of his off-wiki "plan"), its been my opinion that while off-wiki behavior that is unrelated to Wikipedia is irrelevant for our purposes, off-wiki behavior that is directly related to Wikipedia often and necessarily plays a role in on-wiki enforcement (think Bedford, Nichalp, Thekohser, the many opposes based on WR participation, and many other instances). Even so, this block was hasty and premature. There is something to be said for extending folks like Peter extra rope - either you give them the opportunity climb up, or you ensure that when they hang themselves with it the end is definitive. Nathan T 19:25, 30 June 2009 (UTC) "...by changing the status quo, he made unblocking the action that needs consensus instead of blocking." Well said, but of course that's precisely the problem. In a sense it was a smart move for someone who wanted Damian blocked, because now it is unblocking which is difficult, not blocking. But we are talking about an indefinite block for an editor who has contributed good content (and a lot of drama, obviously), and in that situation I think that is simply not how things should work. Incidentally I imagine a lot of the people here opposing the block are opposing primarily (or even solely) the process, not so much the idea that something needed to be done about Damian. One could easily argue that asking for consensus on this first could have resulted in a fairly quick solution backed by multiple editors. I think a simple rule for all admins before making a block should be to think, "Will this cause a shitstorm at ANI?" If the answer is yes (as it should have been for this) then post a comment on ANI (or wherever) instead of blocking, even if blocking benefits your position because you know it will be difficult to get consensus to undo it. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:07, 30 June 2009 (UTC) Unblock. Indefinite blocks for trolling are reserved for SPAs, which Peter Damian is not. There are other ways to deal with trolling, the best is to ignore it. Kusma (talk) 19:33, 30 June 2009 (UTC) Since when? Indef blocks are used for pattern disruption or to prevent incredibly likely further disruption. → ROUX ₪ 19:36, 30 June 2009 (UTC) endorse If PD will just settle down and make useful edits to articles - which he certainly can and has done - then he would be welcome. If he insists on all this pointless attention-seeking drama - which alas he does - then he should be blocked William M. Connolley (talk) 19:38, 30 June 2009 (UTC) Unblock So where we know where he is. Has socked in the past. Likely to do so again. Let's keep him on the radar. Does edit content well after all - and the fact that a stated aim of destroying Wikipedia doesn't seem to marry to actively improving it is clearly an indication of his - err.... issues. Pedro :  Chat  19:39, 30 June 2009 (UTC) Comment I have to say that blocking Peter Damian for disruption has really, really, really passed un-noticed and not tied up lots of people in discussion and argument. Is there any reason why I shouldn't simply block the blocking admin - and everyone commenting here (including me) - for the disruption this action has taken? LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:44, 30 June 2009 (UTC) Break Oppose, and a great big "Wake up, people": Off wiki is off Wikipedia. We do not, have not, and will not allow people to go searching through the web looking for similar account names, or trying to tie identities to account names, or alleging similarities, or the like to try to "get" people. The rules and policies of Wikipedia apply here and only here. They apply nowhere else, and one reason that the "badsites" and the like exist is because of the exasperation people feel when they think they're getting ganged up on or watched for any misplaced word. This kind of block (and indefinite, too!) was for something off Wikipedia. Do you want people looking for your entire Internet history to try to find something to hang you with? Do you want people to look for similar account names and say they're you? Do you want to have to prove who you are so as to free yourself from every charge? Do you want to be at Fark and then get blocked here for saying a dirty word there? Don't be stupid, people. Additionally, this block, without warning, without discussion, without review (all of which are violations of policy), was indefinite. We don't do that to IP trolls. But a long time contributor like Peter Damian who obviously cares enough to be angry... yeah. This is doltish, and the people endorsing are either not thinking or hypocritical. Geogre (talk) 20:02, 30 June 2009 (UTC) Except that PD linked to it himself, and is fulfilling one of the items he himself listed. So this isn't some sort of witch-hunt trying to find information, it is information provided by the user. → ROUX ₪ 20:05, 30 June 2009 (UTC) User makes threat off wiki to destroy it. User begins to carry out plan on Wikipedia, by mass opposing RFAs. Ergo, user is blocked for trying to destroy Wikipedia. I can't see what the issue is. User said they will destroy Wikipedia, user carries out plan, user is blocked. What else is there to it? I can't understand the opposition against a block for someone with such a blatant disregard for Wikipedia's well-being. It's like having a disease, but refusing to get the cure for it, despite the disease is actively destroying you. Complete madness. Majorly talk 20:19, 30 June 2009 (UTC) That's more than a little hyperbolic. "User said they will destroy Wikipedia, user carries out plan..." Really? Where and when did that happen? (sorry, but some RfA votes don't cut if for me). And Damian is "actively destroying" us? Really? I don't like his comments or his actions, and I'm quite open to serious sanctions (possibly including an indef block), but let's try to avoid blowing this out of all proportion, and let's respect the fact that there are a number of people opposed to the process by which this block was put into effect (i.e. in the context of an ongoing discussion in which there was no consensus for an indef block), and that that is a legitimate view to have. Thinking the block was smart and righteous is legitimate too, so let's just try to discuss calmly, to the extent that any discussion which started at WT:RFA and migrated to ANI can ever be calm. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:33, 30 June 2009 (UTC) Don't forget that the blocking admin promptly ended his wikipedia day less than 20 minutes after his block, and has not yet responded to a single thing regarding the block. Hipocrite (talk) 20:36, 30 June 2009 (UTC) Do you honestly believe that a one line oppose at RfAs that can easily be discounted by Crats chosen to decide such things could break Wikipedia? Gesh, Majorly. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:34, 30 June 2009 (UTC) Oppose a really stupid and unproductive block. Wikipedia is not the Tiananmen Square massacre ffs; legitimate criticism of the many faults in our governance (especially off site) needs to be cherished, not stifled or censored. --John (talk) 20:15, 30 June 2009 (UTC) Blocking someone who is actively trying to destroy Wikipedia is now stupid and unproductive? What about all those vandals who are blocked? Majorly talk 20:19, 30 June 2009 (UTC) Comment I think people are trying to answer the wrong question. Why not discuss how best to deal with Peter Damian? Whether or not this particular block was good will then become moot. If someone says they are contributing in bad faith, I tend to believe them, regardless of whether they say it explicitly in a Wikipedia post or link to it offsite. It may be debated whether or not "destroying Wikipedia to fix Wikipedia" counts as acting in bad faith or a kind of "ends justify the means" meta-good-faith. Personally the only thing I think it safe to take from such a statement is the user's intent to disrupt; there is no guarantee that the chosen means will lead to the desired end. That's a separate question, I think, from what's been going on at RFA. The 'crats assure us that contributions to RFA which are unrelated to the candidate will not affect the outcome, which makes possible the defence that Peter Damian's actions are harmless because futile. This is not the same as saying that such contributions are desirable in any way. The question is how to respond. Some at RFA argue that anything goes, that any user may say whatever they like, no matter how unfounded or indeed irrelevant, and that it is those who urge any reaction that are guilty of causing disruption. I worry that this tendency will lead to a trial-by-ordeal culture at RfA, where users intentionally behave like dicks just to see how the candidate responds. I'd like to see bureaucrats more actively indenting or striking RfA !votes that are clearly not appropriate and that will be ignored. This helps prevent the RfA being derailed and encourages future contributors to make sure their remarks are on-topic. I don't have any strong opinions as to what should be done with Peter Damian. I am inclined to think that this block wasn't a very good idea, as implemented, but that doesn't answer the question of whether he should be indefinitely blocked, or perhaps community banned, or banned from RfA, or unblocked with or without an apology. Unless a consensus emerges that an alternative outcome is better than a block, or someone has a link to the blocking admin stating their intent to destroy Wikipedia by blocking its best content editors (this part is a joke), I don't think further action here is necessary. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 20:21, 30 June 2009 (UTC) Oppose block – now if he took a dispute from on-wiki to off-wiki and started to engage in harassment, then I could see a block being justified. Otherwise, this is a baseless threat of, as mentioned above, the Pinky & the Brain mentality. MuZemike 20:24, 30 June 2009 (UTC) Far too many people are commenting without knowing the situation. Pretty much anyone who said something along the lines of "His voting at RfA is not a blockable offence" or saying "This was off-wiki" is just not reading the whole thread and is decreasing the signal to noise ratio in this discussion. This has to do with him announcing on-wiki his intentions to be disruptive and listing the precise means he intends to do it including announcing his intention of vandalism and demoralising the hard work of Wikipedians. Chillum 20:57, 30 June 2009 (UTC) Oppose block Nothing has happened yet except some RfA votes. Lots of users make big speeches about all the good they will do, and never do it and/or trash the place or only use the place to start their own personality cult or promote themselves. Statements of intent mean almost nothing unless backed up by edits. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 00:46, 1 July 2009 (UTC) The unblock by Geogre Geogre (talk · message · contribs · page moves · edit summaries · count · api · logs · block log · email) 2009-06-30T20:09:26 Geogre (talk | contribs) changed block settings for Peter Damian (talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 1 minute (account creation blocked) ‎ (Feeding the Wikipedian trolls) To anyone who is not aware Peter Damian has had the duration of block changed to 1 minute (some minutes ago now) by Geogre - User talk:Peter Damian#Blocked2 - is his explanation. Davewild (talk) 20:27, 30 June 2009 (UTC) With the edit summary "Feeding the Wikipedian trolls". He then "voted" on this discussion, opposing the block and attacking several people he disagreed with in the process. Majorly talk 20:31, 30 June 2009 (UTC) Sad because Geogre doesn't seem to understand the issue. This was not about off-wiki comments but bringing off-wiki threats on-wiki. I wonder if he even read the background. RxS (talk) 20:30, 30 June 2009 (UTC) In light of Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Geogre-William_M._Connolley#Geogre I have asked Geogre to consider reversing his action procedurally. Now is a time for consnsus rather than bold action. Durova273 featured contributions 20:31, 30 June 2009 (UTC) What an appallingly bad unblock (zero consensus for it) by someone who quite clearly doesn't understand--or doesn't care--what is actually going on. → ROUX ₪ 20:36, 30 June 2009 (UTC) Not advisable in my view given the above discussion, but then again neither was the original block given the lack of any discussion. Cries of "bad unblock!" routinely follow cries of "bad block!" (see above for the latter), and in fact we should probably even write some sort of essay about that pattern. The best thing to do is to avoid blocks that will result in drama (and perhaps even wheel warring) in the first place. I look forward to the re-block and then the re-unblock, and then the RFAR, all of which is completely unnecessary. Or we could just take Durova's advice above, end this conversation, and move the whole party to a user conduct RfC on Peter Damian, which probably should have been the path take in the first place. This ANI thread will likely not end well, which anyone could have guessed from the moment the block was implemented. It's rather sad and dumb and sad (and also dumb) all around, really. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:49, 30 June 2009 (UTC) Oh great. First we have a very extensive discussion at WT:Requests for adminship#Peter Damian with no doubt plenty of admins watching it and some even participating. Then one newbie admin of the kind targeted by Peter apparently decides that there is not going to be a consensus to block him, so it's best to make use of the veto right against not blocking that every admin has. And goes to bed 20 minutes later. (I checked the time zone, at least that makes sense.) There are quite a few things here that are appalling. Geogre's actions is not one of them. Hans Adler 20:57, 30 June 2009 (UTC) "Now is a time for consensus rather than bold action." The same can be said for the brazen indefinite block that was placed earlier. Let's not wheel war over this; I suspect that anyone who would re-block could face possible sanctions. seicer | talk | contribs 20:58, 30 June 2009 (UTC) This is not the first time this has happened. I hold Geogre responsible for any future disruption Peter causes due to this unblock. Any disruptive edits he makes now are troll food from Geogre. The very least Geogre could have done is ask Peter to promise not to be disruptive, I fear Peter will take this unblock as permission to do more of the same. Chillum 20:59, 30 June 2009 (UTC) Oh don't be silly. The block is at the very least controversial. Consensus is not clear; default is to unblock. It is too bad the blocking admin blocked, then promptly disappeared, but that's how it is. Block was against policy and very silly. Puppy has spoken. KillerChihuahua?!? 21:09, 30 June 2009 (UTC) I recommend reinstating the block. I'd do it, but Arbcom seems to feel that only the third admin in a row is wheel warring, not the second. Protonk (talk) 21:04, 30 June 2009 (UTC) Please, for the love of whatever deity or other being you care for, don't anyone reinstate the block. It just adds another layer of ridiculousness fo us to parse. And if someone does make the terrible mistake of doing that, please, for the love of whatever deity or other being you care for, don't anyone reinstate the un-block. Let's try to de-escalate this a bit. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:07, 30 June 2009 (UTC) (ec) Please don't reinstate the block. Some will take Geogre's action as wheel warring, since there was no consensus either way here. However, a third admin action would straightforwardly be wheel warring, whatever mistakes editors may think have been made before. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:10, 30 June 2009 (UTC) (ec, reply to Protonk) That's because that's when it is wheel warring. Admin actions must be undoable, in case of situations like this where a bad call or mistake was made. But re-doing it is warring. Its fairly simple, and its very clear. KillerChihuahua?!? 21:12, 30 June 2009 (UTC) Re to Gwen: If anyone thinks Geogre was wheel warring, then point them to WP:WHEEL and explain why it wasn't. They're wrong, that's all, and you can help them understand it. Even Elonka got it after the third time I explained it to her. KillerChihuahua?!? 21:16, 30 June 2009 (UTC) Geogre's unblock fit two of the Possible indications put forth at WP:WHEEL. Moreover, there was no consensus for an unblock and Geogre didn't discuss it with anyone beforehand. Some will take it as wheel warring. As I said though, a second undo (a reblock) would be wheel warring, wholly untowards and uncalled for, unless supported later by a consensus. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:26, 30 June 2009 (UTC) Honestly the first obvious reversal without discussion both violates BLOCK and brushes up against WHEEL. Edit warring in content confers a first mover advantage while dispute over admin actions confers a second mover advantage. And the result isn't pretty. Admin actions are supposed to be reversable but there is supposed to be deliberation (at least) and consensus (at best) before doing so. If the first block wasn't blatantly incorrect or made in bad faith the unblock should only be made after judicious consideration. But every time we have one of these clusterfucks (pick any one of your favorite "great content editor/doesn't get along well with others" block/unblock issues) drama escalates with the unblock and with the promise that there will almost always be an unblock, regardless of the foundations for the original block. Protonk (talk) 21:18, 30 June 2009 (UTC) I'm not sure whether I have an opinion about the original block, but that was a very bad unblock, unsupported by consensus. I agree that this fits the description of wheel-warring, and I would support sanctions against Geogre.  Sandstein  16:46, 1 July 2009 (UTC) User conduct RfC? In the interests of drama reduction, would someone initiate a conduct RfC? Let's regularize this situation and redirect it into productive venues. Peter Damian has much to offer. Clearly, he also has a bit to take on board. Let's move forward toward the most productive resolution. Durova273 featured contributions 20:54, 30 June 2009 (UTC) I think that's a capital idea. We need a couple of users who have tried (and failed) to resolve issues with Peter Damian in the past in order to even start an RFC (unless that's changed somehow). Or a couple of people could go to his talk page now and try to work something out, and failing that then proceed to start an RfC. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:00, 30 June 2009 (UTC) I don't see how RfC/U would work for the administrative actions involving "wheel wars" between Law and Geogre as well as the "off-wiki manifesto". ArbCom would be a right place for the whole fiasco.--Caspian blue 21:02, 30 June 2009 (UTC) WP:WHEEL makes it clear that the Wheel doesn't start until someone reverses Geogre. Therefore, there is nothing worthy of ArbCom's attention, especially without an RFC on this. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:10, 30 June 2009 (UTC) Rfc on which parties, and what grounds? KillerChihuahua?!? 21:13, 30 June 2009 (UTC) I think what we really need is an extension to WP:WHEEL: Blocking an editor against predictable substantial opposition, during an ongoing discussion with no apparent consensus, is itself wheel-warring against the other admins who have decided not to block, and it needs to be treated as such. And we also need a clarification that the ever so popular controversial midnight blocks can be undone while the blocking admin is asleep. Blocking is Wikipedia's closest equivalent to violence. It has a great potential to alienate users. The "block before thinking" and "when in doubt, keep blocked" mentalities are simply not acceptable. Hans Adler 21:21, 30 June 2009 (UTC) Case closed ... someone shall file an RFC if 2 people agree they tried to stop it. Drama over. Look elsewhere now. Nothing to see here. Oh look, a castle! (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:15, 30 June 2009 (UTC) It's only a model :-/ Sensible undo of block with inadequate warning etc., if someone wants to formally warn PD he'll get a block if he proceeds with his fiendish plan to destroy WP then ok, but the time ain't ripe. . . dave souza, talk 21:23, 30 June 2009 (UTC) I believe I mostly concur with Durova, here. I'm concerned by what I agree is disruptive behavior, but I'm also concerned by the community's tendency to pile on and villify -- then effectively ban -- users who've been with us for months or years over one or two colorful incidents. If this has been and continues to be a pattern of disruptive behavior, let's establish that via RfC and deal with it appropriately, moving forward; if this was a one-time error of judgement or can't be established as a pattern, let's accept that people who are with us this long are bound to make mistakes or take unpopular positions from time to time, and remember all the good things they've done for us in the meantime. Why create a drama storm when we can approach this reasonably? – Luna Santin (talk) 21:30, 1 July 2009 (UTC) And the chorus said, "AMEN!"---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 21:35, 1 July 2009 (UTC) Left note for Peter I've taken the step of actually leaving a comment/question for Peter on that editor's talk page. My suggestion is that he voluntarily avoid RfA (and it's talk page), and perhaps that would alleviate some of the concerns about his activities. I guess we'll see what he says. It's worth pointing out amidst all this drama that Peter Damian has not edited since being blocked, and therefore has said nothing about this affair whatsoever. Perhaps the next step is to wait for some sort of reply for him and proceed from there. In the interim perhaps we can all stop saying things for awhile. I'll start. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:24, 30 June 2009 (UTC) And what about the other disruptive actions he has indicated he will engage in? Forests and trees, people. → ROUX ₪ 21:28, 30 June 2009 (UTC) After posting a link to text saying effectively "I intend to damage Wikipedia by doing A, B, C, and D", it should be clear that carrying out any one of those actions will result in a block. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 21:41, 30 June 2009 (UTC) But isn't that precisely what happened? And then for some reason he was unblocked... → ROUX ₪ 21:47, 30 June 2009 (UTC) For what it's worth Peter Damian's reply to my suggestion was "thanks" along with a note that he was away on business for the time being. And to Roux above, my comment on his talk page is trying to address the on-wiki comment (at RfA) that started this brouhaha. I don't think I can do (or say) anything about something he might theoretically do because he posted about it somewhere off-wiki, and as SheffieldSteel says those kind of actions (such as vandalism) would clearly result in a block. If you want to argue that he should be blocked on the basis of the WR post go ahead, but that was not the consensus above, even from many of those who supported Law's block. I'm pretty sure I can see the forest from where I sit, and I think asking Peter a direct question is a lot more helpful in terms of resolving this than 95% of the things here, including my own previous comments. If you have alternative suggestions than by all means state them here. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:51, 30 June 2009 (UTC) Note that he's subsequently dived in at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Mikaey 2 with insults consistent with his previously stated objectives. Jclemens (talk) 21:25, 1 July 2009 (UTC) And his oppose has been struck. Next?--Wehwalt (talk) 21:34, 1 July 2009 (UTC) The thing is, Peter's "plan of action" is so inchoate that anything could be construed to be a part of it. Demoralizing editors. Was it that long ago that the media were being accused of demoralizing "the troops" for wanting to cover the landing of the coffins at Dover AFB and they were practically being accused of treason for the same? Vaguesness can be construed however you might like.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:36, 1 July 2009 (UTC) I left a followup note to Peter, and obviously take it that he will choose to continue participating at RfA, which at this point is certainly his right since there are no restrictions on him in that regard. I also think that, given all the above, this comment ("I don't want to destroy Wikipedia, and I think Wikipedia is a Good Thing") is worth noting. I'm not sure there's much more to be done here, but if there are ongoing issues with Peter Damian, I would strongly suggest that a user conduct RfC is the right place to go or, possibly but less desirably, ArbCom. I'd support archiving this thread since discussion seems to have tapered off, but I'll leave that decision to someone else. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 23:14, 1 July 2009 (UTC) Yes, I've now read the entire discussion , which I started over a day ago now. This should be closed as resolved. I support having a discussion in the appropriate venue as to whether blocking while a discussion is going on should be considered wheel warring.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:00, 2 July 2009 (UTC) Its not, although its against policy to block someone you are in a dispute with. No point dragging "wheel warring" into it, as that isn't remotely involved. KillerChihuahua?!? 12:28, 2 July 2009 (UTC) Statement by Law I would like to sincerely apologize for my delay in my response. I apologize for my inability to respond to this discussion, as I had no access, save my Blackberry. I routinely block users who decide to register with the same name as their business. It is not only a conflict of interest, but a block based on policy for promotional purposes. I have never been challenged for such a block. In this case, I blocked Peter, who professed that he wanted to destroy Wikipedia through vandalism and demoralization of invested editors. I stand by my block. In what world is an indef block appropriate based on a simple username and not appropriate for someone who has the sole goal of destroying and demoralizing all work done by good faith editors. This depends on what type of philosophy one believes in. Apparently a username is more dangerous than one who wants to quote "destroy" Wikipedia. It seems ridiculous that we block vandals and promotional usernames without incident, while blocking someone who wishes not to promote, nor advocate change, nor work with the community, but wants to literally destroy the community through nefarious actions such as vandalism and worse, demoralization, is a source of contention. He deserves to be blocked for good. Law type! snype? 10:56, 2 July 2009 (UTC) You broke policy. He didn't. Where is your justification? Blowing off steam in a "take over the world" thread on a forum or an "evil overlord" forum is not something which needs to be taken seriously, and off-wiki threats are never grounds for blocking; I realize Damien linked to it but then you're blocking for linking to another site, not for any policy transgression. Or you're blocking for oppose on Rfa, either one is ridiculous and against policy. You also blocked an editor you were in a dispute with, and that is strictly against blocking policy. I'll put it to you simply: I can find the username policy. What policy did Damien break that you blocked him for? KillerChihuahua?!? 12:27, 2 July 2009 (UTC) Which policy would that be, exactly? Let's go through this again, since it seems to be escaping people. 1) Peter Damian announces intent offwiki to destroy Wikipedia; 2) Peter Damian then links to it on-wiki, deliberately removing the 'offwiki is offwiki' argument; 3) Peter Damian begins to disrupt Wikipedia according to point 1 of his plan; 4) Peter Damian, having proved his intent to disrupt Wikipedia, is blocked in order to prevent further disruption. I fail to see where there is a problem here, and I find it headscratchingly bizarre as to why people keep missing this very simple chain of events. Head-in-the sand reactions to things said somewhere else are a net detriment to the project. While it is true that in general terms if it happened elsewhere it doesn't matter here, that is invalidated by the double action of the user linking to it themselves and doing exactly what they said elsewhere they were going to do. → ROUX ₪ 17:33, 2 July 2009 (UTC) Law, there was a community discussion going on about Peter, and there was no consensus to block. While we are encouraged to be bold, for sure editors, and admins, are part of the community, and are not above it. You should have awaited the outcome of the discussion, and respected it. It was a bad block. That's OK, we all make mistakes, but I wish that you gave more respect to the majority of the AN/I community which felt the same way as I did. I hope, though, that you will learn something from this after further study. The whole incident was unfortunate, and I hope we all learn something. All the best,--Wehwalt (talk) 12:43, 2 July 2009 (UTC) ←Whoa, hang on a second. Without getting back into the good block/bad block discussion - I don't think we need to be jumping all over Law here. Initial investigation could have very easily led many admins (and indeed many supported), to the same conclusions that Law reached. Multiple accounts, previous history of bans etc. I'm not saying the block was good or bad at this time - I think that is still to be determined. But I see no reason to shed AGF simply because a user does have a couple extra buttons. I'm starting to see some of the "Peter Support" points of view with some extended research - but please let's not be looking for a scape-goat to make an example of either. All due respect folks, I don't think there was any malicious intent here by Law. I'd ask that we not re-ignite something we don't need to. — Ched :  ?  16:18, 2 July 2009 (UTC) Ched, I think my comments to Law were perfectly civil, far more than some of the comments in the discussion. I simply think he was wrong and should not have short circuited the discussion.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:24, 2 July 2009 (UTC) (ec) Oh, I agree Wehwalt - I wasn't trying to imply that they weren't. It just seemed this thread was headed south, and I think that Law had plenty of support. I didn't mean to insinuate that anyone was being uncivil - just that I'm not eager to jump all over anybody for a good faith effort. I agree also that there have been some rather rude comments made from the RfA discussion to early in this ANI thread, I'm just hoping that we can quiet things down, rather than starting up another finger pointing session. No offense intended, honest. — Ched :  ?  16:38, 2 July 2009 (UTC) It's good that Law made a statement here, but I again reiterate that it's probably best to archive this thread now. I do not see any needed administrator action, and I don't think there's a whole lot more to discuss. If people want to further address Peter Damian's behavior at RFA, then start a user conduct RfC. Likewise if anyone feels Law's block was so out of process that it calls into question his or her judgment as an admin, discuss it on the user's talk page or open an RfC. I don't think we are served by beating this to death any further on the noticeboard to discuss incidents that require admin intervention. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:37, 2 July 2009 (UTC) Please. End the madness.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:39, 2 July 2009 (UTC)