Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Read these tips for dealing with incivility If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page Try dispute resolution Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight. When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
Start a new discussion

Uncivil language by Wiki San Roze

Repeated personal attacks were made by Wikiality123. In spite of request to stop them an uncivil comment is made as follows on discussion page of Hogenakkal Falls article.

No more trolling will be tolerated and with this I shall stop answering your BS, since its just wasting my precious wikipedia time (which I hardly get between my work).

Giano II

Moved to subpage at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Giano II. Signed w/o timestamp to prevent archiving. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)}

Timestamp. -- Naerii 09:49, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Link title

Improper page moves by Husond

User:Husond has once again started engaging in improper, undiscussed page moves, moving Mihai Suba to Mihai Şuba in this edit. He tries to justify it by attacking me and my motives in moving it to align page name with the cited sources,[1] rather than addressing the issues involved.

The Mihai Suba spelling is not only the one in the cited reference here; is is also the spelling in both external links in the article and in the book he wrote with the ISBN 0-08-037141-8 citation in the article. It is quite reasonable to think that these spellings are accurate and correct spellings, the way this British resident for the past 20 years or so (since before he wrote his book, the main reason why he is notable) in generally known in English.

Husond's move is an improper, unreferenced move of this article to a name not supported by the cited sources. Furthermore, it is contrary to the spelling of his name as the author of his book mentioned in the text.

That the move Husond made was undiscussed is especially improper and inappropriate given that there already was a talk page discussion before his move. His move was clearly much more inappropriate than the original creation of the page under an unreferenced spelling contrary to that of the sources by User:Krakatoa, who—unlike Husond—hadn't then had it specifically pointed out to him/her that the spelling was contrary to that in all the sources.

Note further that even if he can and does find some sources supporting the spelling in the move he made, that would be sufficient to list the alternative spelling in the article. It is not by any means determinative of the spelling of this English resident's name in the article's name under Wikipedia:naming conventions. But so far, we have absolutely no evidence from any reliable source, nor even from any unreliable source, that the "Mihai Şuba" spelling has ever been correct at any time in any language whatsoever.

Note in particular that Husond did not change my correction of my spelling of the name of the author of Dynamic Chess Strategy from "Şuba" to "Suba", the name of the author as it appears in that English-language book he wrote. He knows better than to deliberately change that to a spelling different from that used in the book itself (LCCC listing, which is reachable by following the ISBN link already cited in article and clicking on the appropriate "find this book" link), yet he thinks it is okay to improperly move the article containing it contrary to Wikipedia's naming conventions, without even discussing the points which had already been made on the talk page. Gene Nygaard (talk) 14:18, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

This is a content dispute and you are discussing many issues of the content dispute here. Please spend more time looking for resolution on the article talk page or the user's talk page. You are far away from needing to bring this issue to A/NI. Husond should engage in a talk page discussion over the correct name of the page. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 14:32, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

As an outside view, I noticed Gene that you made no attempt (at least that I can see) to resolve this name dispute with Husond. This feels like tattling. Do you have some sort of history with this particular editor to bring you to AN/I so quickly. This seems like a simple dispute that could be fixed on article talk, user talk, even WP:RM. Why the AN/I drama? This isn't traditionally a first stop. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 14:45, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

The valid core of this complaint is that Husond should have brought the move to WP:RM. He knows, better than most, that all diacritical moves are likely to be controversial. Instead, he argued in the edit summaries. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:25, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Husond has been notified of this thread. Rudget 15:27, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't Husond revert a prior move that wasn't brought to WP:RM? He has the page named the same way the original author had it. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 15:28, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I would gladly welcome such a rule, Gwynand. Will you stand behind me, supporting a carte blanche right to revert badly made moves? There are thousands of them on Wikipedia now; somebody needs to address that issue. And if everyone can agree that reverting the first move is always okay, it will be much more easily fixed. Gene Nygaard (talk) 10:10, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

And contrary to the spelling of the sources (see the links in the article). Husond disagrees with WP:UE, and has every right to campaign for his minority view; but the way to do so is to discuss and poll to see whether he has gathered support, not by move warring. Gene at least discussed his move on the talk page; Husond did nothing. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:31, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

• I would not regard this (as it stands) as warranting sanctions, in either direction; but is this not a reasonable place to ask for a third opinion? It may require adminship to act on a move war. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:38, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

• No, this isn't the place. (Read the header). It's a dispute. We have Dispute resolution. We have third opinions. But before those even get going, we have talk pages. Nobody even went to Husond's talkpage. Calling the article talk page a "discussion" is rather laughable. It's a one liner by Gene Nygaard "telling it like it is". That's not a discussion, that's an order. I wouldn't have replied to that either. This thread should be closed. Husond and Gene are disagreeing on something, outsight eyes need to be on it, I agree, before it gets ridiculous over something rather ridiculous. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 15:44, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

This would be ludicrous if not for the aggressive nature of Gene Nygaard's reaction that I unfortunately am so well used to. I'll try to make this brief. First, Gene strangely failed to mention that right after I reverted his move, I reminded him on his talk page that he is under community probation and may not move articles in order to remove diacritics without going through WP:RM first. Second, Gene seized the opportunity to move this article under the grounds that the only source refers to this person without the diacritic. Any search on Google with most adequate regard for Romanian sources will clearly show that this Romanian citizen's name is clearly and naturally written with a diacritic [2] and that all the other sources are lacking this diacritic simply because most non-Romanian keyboards don't have it. But this, in case someone forgot, is an encyclopedia and accuracy is imperative. English speakers who know how "Ş" is pronounced don't have to be mislead into reading the name wrong simply because most English speakers don't know how to read it. Those will likely read it as "S" anyway, while the ones aware of the correct pronunciation would read "SH". In my view it is thus logical that in an encyclopedia readers be provided with an accurate and clear presentation of the subject, starting with its correct pronunciation. Gene Nygaard and Septentrionalis think otherwise, they defend that everyone has the right to be dumb, stay dumb, and make everyone else dumb. But that's not for here. I am surprised that Gene brought this issue here without contacting me or User:Krakatoa, the creator of the article. But I see that Gene has just declared on his talk page that the probation does not exist, which is false: Wikipedia:Community sanction/Log is marked as inactive but as one can clearly read there, his probation is still active (and for good reasons). Gene has once again moved the article, which I will revert once again and block Gene Nygaard per his probation if he attempts to move the article once more without going to WP:RM. Húsönd 18:19, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

This would be ludicrous if not for the aggressive nature of Gene Nygaard's reaction that I unfortunately am so well used to ...

Husond, please stop the mud slinging. Gene tried to discuss this twice - on the article talk page and on his user page - and your reply was to threaten blocking. Enough already, quit stirring up trouble. --Duk 19:39, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Move protected for one week. Tiptoety ^talk 19:05, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

(i) Husond is an admin, and party to what is apparently a two person dispute where one user is an admin and one is not and (ii) I'm not sure that protection is necessary, particularly if Gene Nygaard ends up blocked for edit warring and violating a community probation. Also, Husond, it would be a bad idea for you to block Gene yourself. Avruch ^T 19:10, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I've requested protection because a user who often teams with Gene Nygaard joined in and moved the article again. Didn't want this to go on forever. As for blocking Gene Nygaard, I understand your concern but I don't view this as a situation where I'd be using the block tool to have advantage over a dispute. Gene's probation is very clear and whenever I monitor his recent contributions I always find violations. He has been warned many times and I could've blocked him right away for persistent violations. And perhaps I should have, because I'm always lenient and explain to him over and over what he is not supposed to do, but then he always attacks me and this time came up with this unnecessary thread. The fact that Gene and I have a long history of disagreements does not mean that I may not enforce a clear community probation when it is blatantly violated. Húsönd 19:32, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment If a clear community probation is blatantly violated then there is likely to be another uninvolved admin willing to block, so to avoid the inevitable filing of a complaint why don't you let that happen? Indeed, if you are insistent on performing the block it may become the view of some that you appear more willing to act on matters where you have some interest than with keeping as much drama out of Wikipedia as possilbe. It may even be considered that acting in such a manner is disruptive. If there is a blatant violation of community probation then why not contact me and request me - or any other uninvolved admin - to perform the block (once satisfied)? LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:44, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree, Husond. I wouldn't recommend you blocking GN, regardless of the probation. Even though you may "technically" be within your rights to do as much, the perception of admin abuse, and inevitable drama to follow, would not be in anybody's best interests. I recommend letting the community handle any potential blocks (and at this point, I don't believe any blocks or other sanctions are warranted). Cheers, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:49, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, your argument is sound- drama would be inevitable indeed. Okay, I won't block Gene if I see further violations, but I may be reporting them here if they do occur. Húsönd 21:10, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I appear to have quite accidentally ignited World War III. I was the original author of the article in question. Husond notified me on my talk page of the resulting controversy. In case anyone cares about my views and the genesis of my use of "Şuba" rather than "Suba," this is what happened. I wrote the article First move advantage in chess and cited therein a book by Mr. _uba. I have a copy of that book, "Dynamic Chess Strategy" by Mihai Suba (that's how it's spelled on the title and cover page). I accordingly spelled the name "Suba" in First move advantage in chess. Upon seeing a redlink in the article, I searched Wikipedia for "Mihai Suba" and found that there was no article on him, but that he was mentioned (as "Mihai Şuba") in the article on the Romanian Chess Championship. Knowing how obsessive people are about proper punctuation of names and not wanting to offend anyone (Hah! Silly me!) , I wrote the article on "Mihai Şuba" and went back and changed my spelling of the name in First move advantage in chess. Gene Nygaard promptly went ballistic and moved the article from Mihai Şuba to Mihai Suba; evidently Husong went counter-ballistic and changed it back. FWIW, all the sources I saw, other than the Romanian Chess Championship article here on Wikipedia, used "Suba" rather than "Şuba." I don't really give a @#$%, myself, about the resolution of this tempest in a teapot. Krakatoa (talk) 02:48, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Gee, that's really magnanimous of you, Husond. You won't block me in a content dispute in which you were involved! Great! But what ever made you think that was an option in the first place? What made you think you could make changes not only without providing any evidence or reasoning for them, but that you could also stifle any discussion by coming to my talk page and threatening to block me for it? That's part of the core problem here. Krakjatoa's characterization of my actions is a little off; when I fixed it on 14 April, I wasn't upset at all, and I explained why I was fixing it on the talk page. It was only after Husond on 18 April started edit-warring without any explanation, and came to my talk page threatening to block me, that I came anywhere near what Krakatoa characterizes as "went ballistic".

By the way, Krakatoa, that's one reason why Wikipedia is not a reliable source; it isn't as bad here as in other articles in which invented-for-Wikipedia names are used, tainting results from sites all across the web. Gene Nygaard (talk) 03:54, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, Krakatoa, you caused quite an eruption. ;-) Do you mind if I copy some of your comment to the article's talk page? It seems to me reliance on the sources will be the best way to resolution of this. Jonathunder (talk) 12:08, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Husond has skirted the three-revert rule by making his third revert in six hours,[3] [4] [5] and then in the very same minute as his last reversion going to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection and requesting that his version be protected[6] (gaming the system to his advantage what he knows from handing such requests on a regular basis, taking advantage of "The Wrong Version" opinion page often cited there).

Even that has some appearances of collusion beforehand. Within five minutes of his request, there were two different editors who protected the page (one of them three times)—one of them before Husond decided to amend the request he had just written, four minutes later. There might, of course, be a perfectly innocent explanation, but that is not the norm for the time frame for handling those requests for protection, and there wasn't much time for any editor granting the protection to make an independent investigation of the circumstances. Gene Nygaard (talk) 12:27, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I think a short page protection is a good idea in this case. Gene, would you consider removing the 3RR/gaming complaint from Talk:Mihai Şuba since you've already noted it here? --Duk 14:53, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

It's not the gaming of 3RR that's the biggest problem; it's the gaming of the page protection rules. There ought to be a rule that when a self-identified edit warrior requests page protection because of his edit warring (note that in this case, there is only one editor who has reverted anything more than once in the article—that being Husond, also the page-protection requestor, who reverted three times) it is first reverted to the version before that last edit by the one requesting protection and only then protected. Any requests for protection by any third-party not involved in the editing would not be affected by this. That would eliminate a lot of the gaming of the rules for page protection, of simultaneous edits accompanied by page protection requests at the same instant as Husond did here. But in any case, it is much more relevant at the article's talk page than it is here. Gene Nygaard (talk) 13:46, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I too am bothered by the implications of a blind following of WRONG VERSION. Since the harmful edit is the one usually followed by the complaint, it is not just the possibility, but the practical certainty that the truly wrong version will in fact be preferentially protected. The version to protect is the stable version before the edit war, just as we would protect the unvandalized version in a case of outright vandalism. DGG (talk) 05:20, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Carcharoth (talk) 05:47, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• I noticed Husond's threat on Gene Nygaard's talk page. I've supported Gene Nygaard in the past, and noted the good work he does. I've also noticed that Husond and Nygaard come into conflict too much over these issues. I think what is needed here is for Husond to be placed under a similar restriction to that placed on Gene Nygaard. That should take a lot of the heat out of the issues and force Husond to discuss things and listen to others instead of edit warring. Carcharoth (talk) 05:47, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• An alternative, since I see from his talk page that Gene contests the rather old restriction, is to formally lift the restriction (and review all the restrictions at that old page) and acknowledge the good work that Gene Nygaard has been doing. Of course, both he and Husond would still have to discuss controversial moves, just like any other editor does. Carcharoth (talk) 05:58, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Husond already tried to make that claim here last November, and was rejected, without me saying a word about it (he had deliberately timed his claim to bring it up knowing that I was then blocked for unrelated reasons, and it was already rejected and archived when I got back). That "currently inactive and is retained for historical archive" (emphasis in original) log page means what it says, and in any case, the underlining historical restriction was based on moving pages because they didn't have redirects they should have, using it as a shortcut for that purpose, not on moves based on our naming conventions. Gene Nygaard (talk) 12:11, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I must be confusing things a bit. Sorry. In any case, I would be happy to see a formal lifting of that very old (18 months) restriction, if needed, and for it to be replaced by something asking both you and Husond to adhere to community norms over page moves and diacritics (and for Husond not to use his admin tools in such disputes). I think you already follow norms. Husond may disagree, but then his stance is not exactly in line with consensus or guidelines either. The real problem is the "until further notice" bit. That should never be done, really, as that allows the community to conveniently forget about things, and leaves the person under sanctions having to appeal to get them lifted, rather than having them expire naturally. Carcharoth (talk) 12:25, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

another Pinoybandwagon's sockpuppet

short summary: please block User:Martindanza for being a sock of a blocked user, and repeating the same stuff that got him blocked.

This user Pinoybandwagon was blocked for using socks and not respecting wikipedia naming convetions, including altering them to name one of his socks as top authority for philippine radio stations. He has created another sock called User:Martindanza, wich needs to be blocked asap. For proof, see the sock case, his changing of names just like his socks on the templates [7][8] and on moving articles to bad names after being moved back by admins and warned by it [9]. He has been denied unblock by 3 admins, and his talk page was protected to avoid him editing it. He's still doing the same stuff that got him blocked. Check out his latest contributions. Also, his user page is very similar to one of the sockpuppets of Pinoybandwagon (User:Bad false). -Danngarcia (talk) 05:59, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

The sock case and he other things are no proof that Martindanza is a sock. All that proves is that this Pioybandwagon created loads of sockpuppets.--Phoenix-wiki 06:04, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Do I need to open *another* sockpuppet case for what is an obvious sock just like the ones blocked at that case? The behaviour of this account is totally online with Pinoybandwagon's socks, up to the recreation of the same hoax article that got recreated several times with the exact same text by several different socks already blocked, addition to the same templates, re-naming of the same articles to the same names, exact same wording of some comments, exact same lenghty additions to the same articles, etc. --Enric Naval (talk) 07:24, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Note: I requested block on WP:AIV and got declined for his edits not being actual vandalism (notice I had got confused with another user, hence the re-block request instead of simple block) [10] --Enric Naval (talk) 07:35, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

This user already has *two* resolved sock cases against him here and here and has even edited the first archived case to blame his blocked User:Map_inc account for some of the socks and salvage some of his accounts --Enric Naval (talk) 07:42, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

If you are looking at probable sockpuppets and there's any dispute on it, best to just create a new case at the top of the old RFCU. Some RFCU's I've seen have 11 or 12 instances over a period of time within the same report. Unless it's a clear WP:DUCK case and you can prove it, it's safest just to add it. On looking at the guy's edits, though, I must admit he has a good point re the naming, it wouldn't be a violation if Philippine stations are generally known by name as they are here in Australia. Orderinchaos 11:42, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

It's a WP:DUCK case, with his user page being identical to other socks and identical edits. I will prove it tomorrow here with damning evidence, I can't do it today --Enric Naval (talk) 13:57, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Don't forget his characteristic addiction to the use of ALL CAPS to ORDER other editors to LEAVE HIS EDITS ALONE and NEVER CHANGE THEM BACK! --Orange Mike | Talk 18:05, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Evidence for this user being a Pinoybandwagon's sock:

• user page almost identical to blocked socks, and follows the same layout patterns, compare User:martindanza with 3 differents sock's user pages before being indef blocked [11], [12] and [13]
• same answer to block warnings on talk pages, with emphasis on same words and CAPS use, compare his anwer "There is NO NEED to block me."[14] with blocked user anwer "THERE IS NO NEED TO BLOCK ME."[15]
• Tries to move DYCL-FM to 96.3_WRock three times [16] [17] [18]. Pinoy also tried the same move [19] and so did Bf2 (a Pinoy's sock) [20]
• edits a template edited by Pinoy's socks and Map inc's socks template history, and make the same noming changes. Compare his name changes at [21] [22].
• same pattern of not following WP:Naming conventions#Broadcasting by not using the callsign as name of the article despite all stations having a callsign. See changes on templates here, here and here, all of them on templates where only socks of Pinoybandwagon have made that type of changes, like [23]. Creating AU_Radio_104.1 instead of DWAU, 107.1 Dwee FM instead of DWEE (I intend to move those articles later), as well as placing the frequency in front of the name. Also moving from the callsign name to that sort of names [24][25][26]. There are dozens of examples of this on the sock contributions, I'll pick some of the most recent ones: creating 98.3_One_FM instead of DZLT, moving from DWKX to 103.5_Max_FM [27].
• Making the same redirect as blocked socks, from 99.5 Campus FM to DWRT-FM here and here again. Admins can look at the deleted pages on 99.5 Campus FM and see the blocked socks trying to create the same page there.
• Recreation of deleted hoax article 99.9 Hot FM (admins can look at the deleted pages and see how it was re-created by at least one blocked sock with the exact same wording on the page creation). See the link reinclusion on a template by martindanza [28].
• similar contribution patterns to socks, like editing always on philippine radio stations and even on the same articles, and not editing on any other topic ever. Also, as explained above, re-creating the same redirects, performing the same page moves, creating article with the same non-compliant names, restoring the same deleted article,

Editor testimonial: I'm sure that User:Orangemike and User:Danngarcia will be happy to confirm that there are lots of evidence pointing unambiguously that he is a Pinoybandwagon's sock --Enric Naval (talk) 10:14, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

need an admin to look at the evidence for the sock status, and make the block if he is convinced. --Enric Naval (talk) 00:41, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

JzG's recent deletions

JzG has gone through and deleted a large number of subpages in other peoples userspace under the heading "G6: Housekeeping and routine (non-controversial) cleanup". The problem being that he 1. failed to notify the pages authors of the deletions in any way shape or form or even ask them if they wanted to keep the pages and 2. speedy deleted them, circumventing the MfD process used for this kind of deletion and completely misapplied "non controversial housekeeping" which is actually "Housekeeping. Non-controversial maintenance, such as temporarily deleting a page to merge page histories, or performing uncontroversial page moves." - to include deleting someones subpages under this heading has stretched the term "non-controversial housekeeping" to beyond breaking point. To make matters worse, he then proceeded to refuse to overturn such deletions [29][30]. And accused me of wheel warring when I complied with a very reasonable request from one of the editors to have his page back [31]. Now I am apparently banned from his talk page so someone else might like to go and point out the deletion policy again. Viridae^Talk 10:54, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Did you reverse his deletion without discussion with him BEFORE? Don't do that. There's seldom a rush to undelete, and if you disagree it is better to get a consensus of admins than to start wheel warring.--Doc^g 10:58, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

What the hell? He had alrady shown himself unwilling to overturn his supposedly uncpontroversial deletions (clearly not by the way) at the request of the authors. So why the hell shouldnt I undelete a userpsace copy of an uncontroversial article on author request when they have been improperly deleted? Viridae^Talk 11:02, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Whether something is "improperly deleted" is always something to discuss. If we all just undeleted anything we thought "improperly deleted" then we might as well wind up WP:DRV now. That's not the way we work. Always discuss BEFORE jumping in with tools (unless there's urgency). You can't complain that JzG unilaterally used tools without discussion, and then do the same yourself. Two wrongs don't make a right.--Doc^g 11:05, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

No way can you be considered uninvolved. It would be extremely inappropriate for you to undo any of Guys actions without having a consensus behind you and frankly we have enough admins that you shouldn't get involved. DRV is thataway... Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:09, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually there was discussion - see WP:AN where there is consensus that there is no reason for pages sismilar to that one Guy has complained about to be deleted. I like how Guy suddenly has carte blanche to flout the CSD policy, claiming clearly controversial deletions are uncontroversial housekeeping, stonewall those people who complain about such deletions and refuse to undo them at the authors request (which, if they were uncontroversial would be the obvious thing to do...) Viridae^Talk 11:11, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

You of all people are not qualified to judge a consensus on an admin action of Guy's. I get the impression that the only views you judge significant are the anti brigade. This was a shocking decision. For someone as wedded to doing the right thing as you purport to be I'm amazed that you didn't do the right thing here and take it to DRV. Be warned your own behaviour is as disruptive as you claim Guy's to have been and righting wrongs can cut both ways. I strongly advise you to completely avoid using your admin tools in any issue even tangentially related to Guy. You can't say you haven't been warned if you wheelwar again and we know how the arbcom voiew wheelwarring don't we! Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:52, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

First and foremost, it is wholly unacceptable to reverse the admin actions of another administrator with whom you are in long-standing dispute. Wholly, utterly, completely, unambiguously wrong. Never ever do that again, please. Second, you undeleted one of these pages without giving me time to discuss it with the user at all, which is doubly unacceptable. Third, you have not looked at the overall context. Most of these pages were userspace copies of articles made while the articles themselves were protected, and have been edited a handful of times at most. The main editor on most of them is maintenance bots. Removing something that's been moved to userspace and forgotten, is not controversial. What is controversial is maintaining POV-forks in userspace, which some of these editors were doing, but that's another matter. I found I think six separate copies of human with varying numbers of edits serving different POVs; long experience indicates that POV-forking an article into userspace is an atrocious way of handling a content dispute.

I am staggered by your chutzpah, coming here and drawing attention tot he fact that you are reversing the deletion of abandoned POV-forks by an admin with whom you are in dispute, while those deletions are already being debated in another venue with uninvolved admins looking on. I am now making a formal request, as I have made several informal ones: unwatch my talk page, never post there again, never revert another of my admin actions. You have declared an agenda against me, and your continued harassment is not appreciated. Guy (Help!) 11:12, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Stop flouting policy and you wont hear a peep from me Guy... Viridae^Talk 11:14, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore, what declared vendetta against you Guy? Oh and why are you objecting so loudly to me overturning a deletion you marked as "non-controversial housekeeping" - if its so non-controversial, surely when the author requests it back you should give it to them asap... Viridae^Talk 11:18, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Viridae, there are means for you to pursue any complaints against Guy. Do not use your tools in a dispute. If there's a pressing need for things to be undone without DRV, there are plenty of others to do it. If you continue down this line, desysopping is the likely outcome.--Doc^g 11:20, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

There is also a pressing need to placate those who have been wronged as quickly as possible WP:EM Viridae^Talk 11:23, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore, actions like these are already on RfC for guy, and he clearly hasnt learnt. Viridae^Talk 11:24, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

So take it to arbcom, do not use your tools in a dispute. It is quite unjustifiable.--Doc^g 11:27, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Viridae, you are confusing policy with process. Policy says we don't have POV forks (WP:NPOV), we don't allow users to indefinitely keep deleted content in userspace, and we don't use unreliable sources. Oh, and we don't wheel-war. Guy (Help!) 14:11, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Here are some examples of these massively contentious deletions:

• User:Sherurcij/cars (edit | [[Talk:User:Sherurcij/cars|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and User:Noahcs/List of cars used by the 9/11 hijackers (edit | [[Talk:User:Noahcs/List of cars used by the 9/11 hijackers|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), both copies of List of cars used by the 9/11 hijackers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) which was deleted by robust consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of cars used by the 9/11 hijackers. Neither was being actively worked on, the latter was copied to userspace by request in December last year and not touched since. I don't think there is anything in the least controversial about removing userspace copies of resoundingly deleted content which are not actively being worked on (as in: not touched other than by bots for at least six months). Maybe I'm wrong about that.
• User:Jaakobou/Temp2 (edit | [[Talk:User:Jaakobou/Temp2|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), User:Jaakobou/Battle of Jenin (edit | [[Talk:User:Jaakobou/Battle of Jenin|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), two copies of the same article in the userspace of an Arbcom-sanctioned editor who has apparently begun to mend his ways. Kudos to him for that, but what's the purpose for having two separate forks of the same article, when the main article is still editable?
• User:W1k13rh3nry/Human (edit | [[Talk:User:W1k13rh3nry/Human|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), User:Goethean/Human8 (edit | [[Talk:User:Goethean/Human8|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), User:Goethean/Homo sapiens (edit | [[Talk:User:Goethean/Homo sapiens|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), User:Goethean/Human7 (edit | [[Talk:User:Goethean/Human7|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), and various other forks of human
• User:Huysman/Sandbox (edit | [[Talk:User:Huysman/Sandbox|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), User:Huysman/Sandbox1 (edit | [[Talk:User:Huysman/Sandbox1|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) two forks of Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda not touched since September 2006 in either case.

But you know something? Part of the reason was, and I will freely admit this, laziness. I was removing citations to Free Republic, which is an unreliable source and riddled with copyright violations, and yes, I admit it, I could not be bothered to fix the links in these abandoned userspace forks rather than simply getting rid of them. The staggering assumptions of ill-faith from Viridae are amusing, but simply wrong: I could not see the point in fixing articles which have been lying around in userpsace untouched by anything but bots for months or in some cases years. Still, why even ask for the truth when an assumption of bad faith is so much more satisfying? I think I made around 1,500 edits to get rid of the links and bogus "citations" to Freeper threads or copyvios of mainstream sources (see L. A. Times v. Free Republic) and yes, I really was getting thorughly fed up with it and lost a bit of patience when I found these abandoned forks. On the plus side, we no longer have contentious facts about living individuals supported by reference to Freeper rants about their evil pinko commie subversive ways, so some good at least has come of all those hours of effort. I'm sure Viridae did something to improve the encyclopaedia in that time as well, besides shit-stirring and wheel-warring with an admin with whom he is in dispute. Guy (Help!) 11:49, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Current policy does not lay down how long archived article material may be kept in userspace, if it isn't being worked on. I do think we need a clearer and more specific guideline on this, to avoid such conflicts occurring in the future. I do think that JzG was wrong to originally delete these pages under CSD G6, since that criterion is expressly for routine and non-controversial deletions, and these are self-evidently controversial; however, I applaud the fact that he has now sent them to MfD, which is entirely appropriate. Depending on the consensus which arises in those MfDs, we may be able to add a paragraph to WP:U detailing precise rules for these types of pages (maybe allowing the deletion of such pages if they haven't been worked on for three months, or something like that). Walton^One 14:14, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Current practice, however, has it that it is not acceptable to leave deleted material hanging around in userspace forever without being worked on, as an end-run around WP:CSD#G4. Guy (Help!) 18:09, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

While I do see the sense in that argument, and I have seen such material put up for MfD many times in the past, it has never (for good reason) been eligible for speedy. The problem is, it's often hard to tell whether someone is trying to store their own preferred POV fork of an article, or simply intended to work on the material and hasn't got round to it yet. I don't think speedy was appropriate in such a case, but we'll see what consensus develops on the MfDs. Walton^One 19:30, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

This is ridiculous...two admins attacking each other over some silly user-sub-page deletions. Shame on you both, I would have expected more from admins. JzG, really you should have notified before deleting, and Viridae, just don't undo his actions, take it to his talkpage first.--Phoenix-wiki 14:44, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

• Normally if I see abandoned userspace forks and the user is still active, I WP:PROD them. If the user is gone, and they are obviously left-overs form some long-dead dispute, then deleting them quietly is not usually controversial. I have found that in some cases trying to delete "backup" or "safety" copies of material that was copied to userspace without history during AfDs, causes stpid drama and ends with the same result. In this case, though, see my comment above: I was trying to get rid of well over a thousand links to an inapppropriate source and really did not see any point fixing userspace content forks that had not been touched for months other than by bots. When such pages are MfDd, in my experience they get deleted. I fixed any userspace pages that had current or near-current edits to them. Guy (Help!) 11:06, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Blacklisting sources

I wonder how can someone unilaterally decide that certain source (say Free Republic) is "unreliable" and then remove it from all articles and user spaces? Was it officially "blacklisted" somewhere?Biophys (talk) O'K, I see it here: [32]. All these sources, including YouTube seem to be unilaterally blacklisted. But on what grounds? Was it a proper procedure? This way one can eliminate a lot of sources. For example, if a site (say YouTube) has occasional copyright violations, should we exclude all links to this site, including those which are not copyright violations? I do not think this is right.Biophys (talk) 15:53, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

It isn't. See, for example Little Tich for an example of a YouTube video that's free of copyright. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 15:56, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Right. No one should blacklist sources simply because they are deemed unreliable. For example, even if Free Republic is an unreliable source (which is debatable), it still may be appropriate in the article about Free Republic itself. Therefore, the blacklisting and such edits [33] are inappropriate. Especially when the blacklisting was justified by simply telling "Fuck no" (see here [34]).Biophys (talk) 16:24, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

In case it hasn't been brought up (didn't read the above section, just noticed this), in the case of a site that's being widely misused (no idea if Free Republic is or is not), but, is still valid in one or two articles, specific links may be whitelisted... SQL^{Query me!} 16:29, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Some of the sites he blacklisted were used in too many articles. I am arguing about a proper procedure. If a source is simply "unreliable" (which may be disputed at any time), it should not be blacklisted simply because it is unreliable. Just to clarify, a racist blog like "stormfront" might be eliminated like that, but blacklisting of a good educational site "Spatakus" ([35]) has no justification whatsoever.Biophys (talk) 16:39, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Free Republic is undoubtedly an unreliable source as far as WP:RS goes, and shouldn't be used to back up claims of fact. However, it might well be a relevant source/external link in articles about Free Republic itself. I do understand, though, that we have to avoid linking to potential copyvios; I'm not an expert on copyright law, so I defer to the judgment of the community on this one. Walton^One 16:50, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

The Free Republic was discussed on WP:RSN and the consensus was that it was unreliable.[36] Aside from being copyright violations, the materials posted there are edited and followed by large amounts of highly POV commentary. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:01, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Blacklisting a site simply because a few editors find it unreliable is a very, very bad idea. The purpose of the blacklist is to prevent links to spam sites, sites that might be hosting viruses, etc. It is not there to enforce WP:RS. Squidfryerchef (talk) 17:13, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Right. Please note that not only "Free Republic" has been blacklisted here [37], so the argument about "Free Republic" discussion is not relevant. Did anyone discussed "Spartacus" and YouTube? I used this these sites many times. This is not spam. We must follow the existing policies for sources.Biophys (talk) 17:55, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

← There is a discussion on the blacklist talk page, and it was absolutely not just my call. The problems with Free Republic include: polemical content about living individuals; egregious copyright violation; lack of editorial policy and oversight. It is simply not a reliable source. Not even slightly. But the major problem was citations to sources flagged as "subscription required (subscription free copy at freerepublic.com) kind of stuff. Simply not appropriate. I removed links to YouTube a long time back (and a few more recently) mainly due to copyright concerns. Spartacus Educational is an odd one; there are a lot of links, and my original research shoewd that a very large number of them had eben added ot the site owner. The content looks good, but there is no evidence of editorial oversight or to support the incredibly wide ranging expertise that would be required of the site owner if all the content is genuinely his own work. I seem to recall some copyvios (from newspapers) as well. This is not really the place to discuss editorial actions, though, since neither YouTube removal nor the few Spartacus links I've removed involved any admin tools, only blacklisting Freep required that, and that was a perfectly routine blacklist following discussion in the relevant places. There has never been any assertion or evidence that Free Republic satisfies our sourcing requirements. My personal page on unreliabel sources is just that: a personal page. It's a work list, of no particular relevance other than that it allowed me to give an edit summary that explained in some detail the multiple reasons why I was removing citations to Free Republic; this was a response to several questions on my talk page. Very few came up after I started linking that in the edit summaries. It's a user subpage, so obviously not asserted as any kind of policy in and of itself, though I reference policy for the Frrep case since that's what I was doing at the time. You'll notice that I also identify Stormfront as an unreliable source; I removed most of the links to that a long time ago and there was no dispute about that. Guy (Help!) 18:04, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I think this is not a good idea to blacklist any source simply because it is deemed unreliable by several people. As about "Spatacus", you admit you are not sure if it is reliable or not, but you still deleted some links. This would be better done by users who edit the corresponding articles, after an appropriate discussion, rather than as an administrative action.Biophys (talk) 18:19, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe that FreeRepublic.com was blacklisted simply because it is an unreliable source, it started out that way as my original question on the Blacklist page shows[38], but my request to have it blacklisted was because it was being used primarly for linking to for its unauthorized reprints of copyrighted material which is in violation of WP:COPY#Linking to copyrighted material.[39] Prior to JzG going through and removing a vast majority of the links, there were over a thousand links to Free Republic that were clearly reprints of copyrighted material that was being reprinted without permission of the owner of that material, something Free Republic has gotten in trouble with before.--Bobblehead ^(rants) 18:22, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes. I am sure people would not even have suggested blacklisting if the site was not being linked to excess and in breach of policy. But it was - widely, systematically and in some cases quite blatantly, with link summaries that made it abundantly clear that the material was a copyright violation. Free Republic asserted at trial that hosting copyright violations was protected under the First Amendment; they lost. It's not clear to me what is lost to the encyclopaedia here. Guy (Help!) 20:08, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Frankly, if you can't find an alternative source then I'd suggest the information was pretty fishy in the first place. We wouldn't need to pblacklist it is people didn't use sources that breached our fundamental values and ethos.Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:30, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

How about Associated content as an example of using the blacklist for enforce WP:RS. I dont see too many copyvios there. It's not something I would use as a source, but its possible one day I might want to link to it from the WP:EL section, which has looser requirements and allows some self-published material. Having AC on the blacklist interferes with that. P.S. I didn't notice Youtube on either the WP or the global blacklist. Squidfryerchef (talk) 02:40, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Viridae and JzG

This really has been going on too long. I'm sure everyone is by now aware of the contempt that Viridae clearly holds for JzG's judgment. His longterm habit of reversing admin actions by Guy that he disagrees with without discussion is totally inappropriate. This is far from the first time this board has wasted time dealing with the fallout. If Viridae thinks JzG has made the wrong decision, there are processes he could use to challenge them. But simply undoing everything is overtly antagonistic. There are over 1,500 admins, I see no reason why it always seems to be Viridae reverting JzG's actions. I think the time has come to ask Viridae to agree never to undo Guy's action however strongly he feels about them - he is clearly not sufficiently neutral to do so dispassionately. WjBscribe 14:57, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree; the Viridae-Guy beef is as well known on Wikipedia as Tupac and Biggie (though my rap knowledge is wanting). Neither should be reversing each others actions. Sceptre ^(talk) 15:59, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it may be productive if both were to agree to not revert or otherwise edit each others contributions - certainly not undo eithers sysop actions. I would point out, to be impartial, that the disrespect between the two parties appears mutual (I am certainly aware of it) and that it isn't only the one who instigates derogatory comment. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:09, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, Viridae was clearly in the right as far as reversing the original deletions goes (since it was self-evidently inappropriate to cite CSD G6, a criterion which relates only to non-controversial housekeeping, in making deletions which were likely to be controversial). However, I do agree that, given that he and JzG clearly have an ongoing feud, it might have been better if he had sought a second opinion from another administrator before undeleting, or taken it to DRV as per normal procedure; there was no urgent need to undelete straight away. But the pages are now at MfD - which, IMO, is the correct forum for resolving this - so I think we should leave it be, and close this thread. No harm done overall. Walton^One 16:54, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Can I point out that I only undeleted them after discussion on the subject in which Guy had refused to overturn his own deletions and only undeleted those pages for which the original author/subpages owner had requested undeletion. I didn't go through and undelete all of those to which the speedy had been misapplied. Viridae^Talk 21:52, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

No other admin seems prepared to point out Guy's questionable actions. -- Naerii 16:58, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Pointing them out would be different then undoing them without discussion. John Reaves 17:05, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Guy doesn't really do discussion, though. It is true that he does sometimes listen, but generally only to those people whose point of view he has sympathy with (and vice versa) while anyone else is fair game for his pretty individual interpretations of not quite in violation of WP:CIVIL responses. Discussing Guys actions with anybody else just brings out the "valuable contributor with refreshing bluntness" vs. "rude prat who uses the tools inappropriately" cycle (jerk) responses. Generally, it is best that sysops do what they are supposed to - act in what is believed to be the best interest of the encyclopedia. Afterward we can discuss the whys and wherefores. LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:28, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

So you say. But as it turns out I've had quite a productive and civil dialogue with Jaakobou. Guy (Help!) 17:54, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

In which case, I am pleased to have been proven wrong. I hope I continue to be shown up as being mistaken; it's good for the encyclopedia, and something that I have been used to (on occasion) over the years. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:37, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually you initially flatly refused to undelete, and despite saying you would provide the info by email at a later stage you didn't offer that upfront, meaning the editor was unaware of that option. Viridae^Talk 21:49, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

And you wheel-warred, forestalling any resolution of that discussion. Just as you undeleted another userspace page which (has now been re-deleted after a very short slam-dunk MfD) without my even having seen it, let alone responded. But that's really beside the point: as noted in several places, and last time you undid one of my admin actions, and the time before that, you are the very last person who should be undoing my admin actions. There are 1,500 admins, leave it to one who is a neutral third party. Guy (Help!) 11:01, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Voicing in as Jaakobou's mentor, I'd like to respectfully request a strikethrough of the pages from Jaakobou's userspace from this discussion. The recent thread about those deletions was a chain of maybe-not-the-best-decisions by several people that got resolved pretty quickly once they began communicating. Wikipedians have little miscommunications all the time; as long as everyone is reasonable that's not a big deal. So let's pass over this bit instead of letting it plague us. Disclaimer: I have no idea whether Jaakobou agrees with me or not on this; it's a major holiday for him and the middle of the night in his part of the world. Durova^Charge! 01:44, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

One more thing to clarify: Jaakobou was not singled out for any sanction by the arbcom; the Israeli-Palestinian dispute articles are under general parole. Durova^Charge! 02:03, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm seeing more and more admins deleting things outside of the deletion policy. Guy is one of them, WJB is another. Often times these deletions are slipped in there, and if you try to challenge them you're either ignored or written off as a troll. Especially when you already know, from experience, how these editors tend to respond when you question their admin actions. While Viridae's actions were not ideal, I can hardly fault him for correcting an obvious policy violation. -- Ned Scott 03:23, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• I agree that JzG and Viridae are "involved" with respect to each other. Neither should use sysop tools against the other, nor use tools to undo something that the other has done. To both of you: if you have a problem with the other's actions, get help from an uninvolved admin. Jehochman ^Talk 03:27, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• • as I have equal problems with some of the admin actions of both of these editors, does that make me a suitable neutral party? or am i just looking for trouble? DGG (talk) 06:02, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• You're a militant inclusionist, of course you're looking for trouble :-) Incidentally, can anyone point to occasions where I've reversed Viridae's admin actions? Anything in the last six months should be fine. I'd like to check, because I don't think I have, my policy with respect to Viridae is to leave well alone, the issue is entirely in the opposite direction as far as I know. Guy (Help!) 10:58, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• I am not one for defending JzG, but in this case, I believe he is correct - I have never seen him revert Viridae's admin actions. I have asked Viridae before to just leave Guy's stuff alone, as there's some unfortunate antagonism between the two. I really do wish he would. If he is concerned, post the concerns here and let one of our many admins less antagonistic to Guy (which is {{numberofadmins - JzG - Viridae}} admins, pretty much) respond to it. Neıl ☎ 11:05, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Neil's right. Guy, go <-- way. Viridae, go --> way. Both look away from each other. Now you can't see what the other is doing, and you're all the better for it. Let the people between you, who can see both of you in a neutral light, sort it out. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 11:10, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

я вам пишу, чего же боле

I have seen many many IPs adding "я вам пишу, чего же боле" to various articles (reversions:[40],[41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46]. And those are just a few of my reversions. User:Thingg and Cluebot get a lot as well.) "я вам пишу, чего же боле" is Russian. It means (per google translator) "I am writing to you, what pain". It appears that the vandal is using a proxy server, and he is mainly targeting random pages in the Wikipedia namespace, and articles related to visas and passports in the article space. What I am asking is, may users file reports to AIV with the first vandalism, and can admins block the vandals for a week the first time? J.delanoy^gabs_adds 16:37, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I have been blocking those accounts like mad today. Tiptoety ^talk 16:44, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I guess it's slowed down now, maybe he ran out of IPs finally. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 16:48, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest reporting the spambots on m:User:Drini/daylog for blocking on other wikis as well. Mr.Z-man 17:33, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Dynamic IPs that change that much will continue to do so, especially if the editor is using a service such as AOL. I have a feeling that it will continue despite the blocks. Not to get ahead of ourselves, or myself, but could a range block be entertained at one point? Also, Z, the editing didn't seem to be done in rapid fire succession, how can you be sure it was a spambot? Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 17:48, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Targeted based on article title, nonsense in edit summaries, and adding random nonsense in Russian. Very likely that it is coordinated to some degree and not just random vandalism. Mr.Z-man 18:48, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

One correction: not "what pain", but "what else". MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 19:03, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

What does it mean? (I see it does appear on Google in its Latinised form, and has several thousand hits in Cyrillic.) Orderinchaos 18:47, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I used Google's automatic translator, and came up with "I am writing to you, what pain?" MasSem (who I assume actually knows some Russian, unlike me) said above that it means "I am writing to you, what else?". Either way, I know one word in Russian, and I do not know how to write that one word in its Latinised form, let alone in Cyrillic. Sorry. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 22:57, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Legal threat from a non-profit organization in the UK

This just came in my e-mail. The blocked spammer was User:Pixaerial (also a role account, you will note). Emphasis added

I'm very concerned at the negative attention my block is receiving on Wikipedia, as it is still appearing as a spam report under google searches.

It is clearly self-evident, as a government-sponsored organisation, that we are not spammers and were merely raising awareness of this project, which has been part paid for through public taxation. The intention is to get people using and enjoying the site, not to make money. All articles we chose to place our link within were places covered by our project.

I accept the need for rules, but I think there is need for more caution before deciding an event that happens more than once is automatically 'spam'. Now, I have completely dismissed Wikipedia as anything other than a body of information governed by largely unaccountable 'editors' who seem to have an over-representation in the US. There is also a question of the negative, possibly libellous attention our organisation is receiving, and we may well need to appoint a lawyer to address this issue unless some form of reasonable action can be reached.

I would be grateful for your response.

John Rowlands

Project Director, Pixaerial.co.uk

--Orange Mike | Talk 17:59, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

it's not an non-profit, it's a commercial organisation which has been contracted to take some photos by various public bodies (also goes under the name Fotonix Photography). I see nothing of concern. The legal threat is without merit and would be dismissed as such. if they send another email, pass it over to the foundation. --87.112.39.93 (talk) 18:10, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

This may be related to Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/LinkReports/pixaerial.co.uk. See the prior ANI posting about this: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive139#forwarding you a message from a self claimed .22government associate.22 i just received. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:18, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Send them details for contacting the office, for sending lawyer stuff to. This does raise another problem - people with bad usernames get very short templates that don't do much to explain WP policies. If you want you could point them to relevant policies, and explain why role accounts aren't allowed, and why COI is bad, and why WP isn't somewhere for people to dump links to their companies. Dan Beale-Cocks 19:34, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

"...an over-representation in the US"? Would that be the US where the servers are located, from where the founder lives and works, in which the administration offices reside, and in which over half the English speaking peoples of the world live? Strange that... LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:48, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Not if you include non-native speakers, I think. I don't believe that Wikipedia (or even the English Wikipedia) is aimed only at native English speakers. Bovlb (talk) 06:23, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• I have seen a number of these as well, and I have proposed that we retitle them as "link issue" reports or some such because of it. A lot of these are not actually spamming in the sense of links added by the company, they may be victims of a joe job or obsessive fan. Guy (Help!) 19:57, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

The discussion towards renaming either the WP:WPSPAM project, or at least renaming the associated bot-generated reports seemed to have some support; but the discussion seems to have stalled out with no changes successfully made. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:56, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

This again, I emailed the Welsh Assembly Government about this a week ago. Never got a reply. Just for Kicks I will do it again. Rgoodermote  01:07, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Done, I just do not believe this is a government run site. Well we should find out if they bother to read their email. Rgoodermote  01:17, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

• http://spam.pixaerial.co.uk
• pixaerial.co.uk: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

Accounts

Pixaerial (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
82.2.82.117 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
Registrant type: UK Individual. http://whois.domaintools.com/pixaerial.co.uk the "Registrant" is one of the photographers, John Rowlands is the other. Another case of self-promotional use of Wikipedia by individuals spamming their personal photography site. Wikipedia is NOT a "vehicle for advertising". I'll delete the link report (which for the record was Vandalized by Pixaerial.--Hu12 (talk) 09:21, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Kanabekobaton

Resolved

 – Blocked for sockpuppetry after making same edits with User:221.106.246.159. —C.Fred (talk) 22:02, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

User has been making numerous unexplained edits, and seems especially keen on changing arena infoboxes to stadium infoboxes [47]. User has been asked for explanation without reply, warned and final warned, but there has still been no response. I'm near the 3RR on Stansbury Hall (West Virginia University), so I can't do anything more to fix that article if and when he comes back. Because of the final warning, I reported user to AIV, and I was directed here. DarkAudit (talk) 21:11, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

User continues to edit war, and has removed warnings from their talk page. From this point, the arena/stadium edits without explanation will be considered vandalism. I only warned him, and he followed up by blanking the page. DarkAudit (talk) 21:31, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

User and IP have been blocked for 48 hours, and in the interim I reverted a large number of other arena articles where this user changed the infobox to stadium. The IP showed up only editing to revert back reversions I had made until it was blocked. There was no response to my or other editors' requests for comments, except for a summary blanking of the talk page. I made note of this discussion, which apparently was ignored. I fully expect a rash of unexplained reversions by one or both when the block is up. DarkAudit (talk) 05:11, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

C.Fred, please familiarize yourself with what a sockpuppet is before blocking users based on that rationale. These edits are not vandalism. Holy crap guys, are any of you paying attention tonight? -- Ned Scott 07:03, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Take a look at the behavior as a whole. There was no explanation for the edits. Even when warned, the only reply was to blank his talk page. Then he apparently switched to an IP to continue along as if nothing ever happened. I was not the only editor who tried to get a response out of this user. There was none. At one point he chopped the Pauley Pavilion article in half. Still no edit summary oe explanation for these actions. If he had spoken up at some point to let someone know why here was doing this, this whole sorry mess could have been averted. But he didn't. That made it harder and harder to assume good faith as the behavior escalated. DarkAudit (talk) 13:51, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Looking at Kanabekobaton's edit history, there has been virtually no use of edit summaries. From 2005-2007, I think I found one that wasn't automatically provided. Evidence suggests that the user is not a native English speaker. Someone who speaks Japanese should try to get in touch to find out why Kanabekobaton either will not or cannot use edit summaries. Apologies may be in order here. DarkAudit (talk) 18:37, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Hkelkar strikes back

Resolved

 – Gary King (talk) 18:58, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Sock. Special:Contributions/Blindmansbuff. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 23:06, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Indef'd and templated. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:19, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Contextflexed - Outing threat

Resolved

 – User blocked for a month Gary King (talk) 21:06, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

206.148.20.9 (talk · contribs), an anonymous IP claiming to be Contextflexed, threatened to "out" the real identity of Irishguy. [48] --GentlemanGhost (talk) 00:12, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Blocked for a month by Mr Z-man. Hut 8.5 08:52, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Hopiakuta

Anyone know what's going on at User:Hopiakuta, with sub-pages like this and what looks like vandalism edits in the contribs? [49]. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 02:38, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Leave it be - This has been discussed to death, and it has been brought up that hopiakuta uses accessibility software and/or has some mental health issues. Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/User:hopiakuta. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Karistaa Usko)} 02:44, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't the numerous redirect pages, which don't begin or end anywhere, that this unstable editor has created be deleted? MarnetteD | Talk 02:49, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry if I brought up a sore point - I'd never come across this stuff before, or the previous report. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 02:50, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Wait - the link you sent me to is more random stuff, not a previous discussion. It's been redirected to a nonsense page, and the history of the redirect page says something about the user not wanting to be treated like a screen name?

I'm sorry if this is the result of someone with problems, but it seems to me that the result is indistinguishable from vandalism and should be undone, and the user blocked. Why hasn't this been considered?

This is a project to build an encyclopedia, in what way are these things any more helpful to that than cabals and secret pages? Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 02:55, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Because in amongst the communications issues, he's actually a highly intelligent, useful and productive editor. He sees things that the rest of us miss and it's not his fault that we have difficulty interpreting his mode of communication. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 03:02, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#What_in_God.27s_name.3F where I just raised the issue. The way, the truth, and the light (talk) 03:01, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I just found that thread, and I am no more enlightened now than I was then. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 03:03, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Because there is a difference between "unable to always understand his edits" and "clear vandalism." The goal is to make any encyclopedia that anyone can use and excluding the slight oddness, what is wrong with this edit, for example? As I said before, given his length and number of edits, there's only been a few questions about him and little actual drama, so I'd say he's better than a lot of editors here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:40, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with that edit, of course, just as there is nothing wrong with the non-disruptive edits of a sometimes disruptive editor. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 03:45, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

This editor is blind, among other things, and uses special software to browse Wikipedia. We should be encouraging him to contribute more rather than alienating him because of his disabilities. By the way, that's not a "nonsense page," DonFphrnqTaub Persina is Hopiakuta's real name; it's been archived because Hopiakuta has difficulty loading large pages and can be found here. east.718 at 04:09, April 20, 2008

I think this enigmatic user was first discussed on ANI in September 2007. The original discussion was moved to his talk page, see here: User talk:Hopiakuta#WP:ANI.23User: Hopiakuta. Cheers, Face 13:41, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

In addition, this user uses a rather old browser some of the time, which leads to additional formatting problems and occasional page truncations. Brilliantine (talk) 23:10, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

User:john celona

This user had been discussed before, but he is attacking other editors, edit warring, and showing a great disrespect for WP policy. Please see this recent edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category_talk:American_criminals&diff=prev&oldid=206813313 - there is no justification for accusing me of a personal or political agenda. User Celona has done this over and over. Someone needs to stop this. Additionally, others have noticed that he is likely a sockpuppet of Rastishka: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:John_celona&diff=195596873&oldid=135135655 -- regardless of whether or not this can be proven conclusively, Celona's edits speak for themselves and they are out of control. --Jkp212 (talk) 03:00, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Notified him of this thread and I see that User:Rodhullandemu responded immediately afterwards to one of the comments. He seems to have stopped editing at this point. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:10, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

The above user Jkp212 has just unilaterally deleted, without discussion, over 3 dozen articles from a category. Some have been up for years, disrupting the work of many individual editors. He may well be a sockpuppet of David in DC, even if this cannot be proven conclusively. A look at their edit histories will confirm that where one is, the other usually follows. John celona (talk) 13:57, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I have been the subject of similar personal attacks by this editor. I hope Ricky is right. But I fear he is not. I agree with Jkp. This needs dealing with. David in DC (talk) 13:56, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I should add that, in a frenzied attempt to censor the prison sentence served by child molestor/one hit wonder pop star Peter Yarrow, suspected sock puppets David in DC and Jkp212 have repeatedly posted on this board trying to have me blocked and been shot down every time. They have posted to Jim Wales personal page to have me blocked and been shot down by 2 Administrators who reviewed my edits, found them well-sourced (they have been on the article over 3 years) and ruled they should STAY. John celona (talk) 14:02, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Ricky I hoped you were right. But sad experience suggested otherwise. I posted at 13:56. Response: 14:02. Does the name Pavlov ring a bell John? David in DC (talk) 14:14, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

The category page clearly states that "any subject that is notable in any way outside of their criminal activities is ineligible for inclusion in the category. [paraphrased and emphasis added]".

Most of the articles John added (and re-added) to the category around 12 hrs ago were musicians and/or members of prominent music groups. Thus, they are notable outside of their criminal activities, and are not eligible for inclusion.

Accusing someone of "unilaterally removing over 30 articles from a category with no discussion" is meaningless when the articles removed from the category are not eligible for inclusion in the first place.

It was not Jkp212 who "unilaterally removed" the articles with no discussion, it was John celona who unilaterally added articles to the category "with no prior discussion". It boggles my mind that John had the audacity to demonstrate such blatant hypocrisy in full view of the entire English-speaking world.

I will continue to remove any erroneous articles from the category. This does not fall under the 3RR because John is clearly violating the guidelines set out on Category:American criminals.

John's main defense for his edit-warring is "Many of the articles have been in there for years, and the subjects are notable outside of their criminal activities." Just because an article has erroneously been included in the category for "years" does not change the fact that it is erroneous. If a museum held what they thought was an Lincoln-written copy of the Gettysburg Address for 75 years and then the copy was proven to be forged, does John think that the museum would or should keep the fake?

If John will tell me specifically which articles in Category:American criminals are notable outside of their criminal activities and have been there for "years", I will be happy to remove them from the category.

Last night, (My local time is UTC-4) I reviewed all the articles listed in Category:American criminals from "A" through "C" and removed many ineligible inclusions, mainly politicians, from the list. Today, I got on and saw that almost all had been re-added by John, then removed by Jkp212, and then re-added by John. I will re-remove the articles that John has already added twice, and I will review the rest of the articles in the category to ensure that they belong there.

One final note: John's accusations of sockpuppeting are ludicrous at best. Any rational person looking at those two users' contribs would be utterly convinced that there is no way they could be sockpuppets. I would consider opening another thread to deal with that accusation, but that would be redundant. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 18:38, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure where to go from here. John is undoing all of the edits he can without violating 3RR. ([50], [51], [52], [53], [54], [55], [56], [57], [58], [59], [60], [61], [62], [63], [64], [65], [66], [67]). In addition, he is attempting to canvass support from other users by accusing me of censoring ([68], [69], [70], [71], [72]). I am at a loss of how to deal with this. I could simply re-remove the categories from the articles, but then I could be accused of edit-warring. I just don't know what to do. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 19:53, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Right now, this is the subject of an RFC at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category_talk:American_criminals#What_should_be_the_threshold_for_inclusion_of_this_category.3 I have agreed not to add any names to the category while the RFC is in progress. Other users have posted on that talk page IN SUPPORT of allowing convicted criminals who are otherwise notable to appear in both categories, as they have for years. Literally as we speak, while the RFC is pending, user J. delanoy has unilaterally deleted over 100 articles from the list. Many of which were put on by editors years ago. To do this mass purging while the very issue subject is under an RFC is nothing short of vandalism. John celona (talk) 19:56, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I hope this was a mistake... J.delanoy^gabs_adds 20:01, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Instead of unilaterally deleting hundreds of different editors work while the subject is under an RFC why don't you engage on the discussion page at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category_talk:American_criminals#What_should_be_the_threshold_for_inclusion_of_this_category.3?

As far as canvassing, do you mean this [[73]] or this [[74]] or this [[75]] or this [[76]]? John celona (talk) 20:17, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

You may look at the talk pages of either of the users who posted on my talk page, and you will see that I did not solicit their comments. Also, Jkp212 was not canvassing: he only contacted one user and asked them to help him out. Canvassing is when a user asks multiple disinterested users to review an argument, which is what you did. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 20:32, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I was not accusing YOU of canvassing but of being canvassed . "Don't back down", etc. I did not canvass disinterested parties but those whose edits (in some cases years old) were unilaterally deleted without notice or engaging on those articles discussion pages. This whole subject is under a RFC. There is a pending compromise offer which would clarify and eliminate any claimed amiguity. John celona (talk) 20:43, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Formal Apology

I am putting this under a subheader to make it more visible.
I owe John celona a public apology for attacking him above, and for edit-warring. I have an opinion, and John has another, but that does not justify my attacks or edit wars.

John, I am sorry for attacking you, and I am sorry for edit warring. I will wait for the RFC to proceed before taking any further action with this category. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 20:49, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

User:12.227.159.219

This user refuses to respect consensus decisions in terms of chronology linking of the Star Wars movies and has repeatedly reverted corrections. [77] This user has also issued personal attacks on the talk pages. Talk:Star_Wars_Episode_IV:_A_New_Hope. User is arguably attempting to WP:OWN the articles. Dp76764 (talk) 03:51, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

• User is also violating 3RR. Definitely needs a block, please. Dp76764 (talk) 06:31, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
• Possible sockpuppet of User:A Raider Like Indiana Dp76764 (talk) 07:02, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Look like it is done, but WP:AIV would be much faster next time. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:02, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Possible reincarnation of indef blocked user

• FarenhorstO (talk · contribs · block log)
• Farenhorst (talk · contribs · block log)
• Voice of Britain (talk · contribs · block log)

A comment on Talk:Child sexual abuse by a new user caught my attention tonight: [78]

It was followed by a strange note on a subpage of Wikipedia:WikiProject Pedophilia Article Watch: [79]

That seemed like something that should be reported here so it can be checked out by someone who knows more than I do. Thanks... --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 04:41, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not able to find the checkuser case for Farenhorst that got him banned. So far I found Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Happy Camper II and Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/82.45.15.121. -- Ned Scott 06:16, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind, seems there wasn't a request page, User talk:WJBscribe/Archive 10#Question. -- Ned Scott 06:20, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Whether or not FarenhorstO is a sock or not his name is far too close tot hat of another user and he should be indef blocked and requested to choose another name if he isn't a blocked user and if he is he should be asked to find another hobby. He either is Farenhorst or he is trying to stalk Farenhorst, either way he should not be allowed to edit under this user name . Thanks, SqueakBox01:45, 21 April 2008 (UTC)~~

Inappropriate images

i believe that User:U.S.A./coolpics should be investigated because he has far too many pornographic pictures which i think do not have any real puprpose except to show pictures he likes looking at which shouldnt be put on wikipedia if they do not have a real purpose.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Thfrang (talk • contribs)

Just a small point: User:U.S.A. did not upload any of these pictures, as far as I can tell. They were on wikipedia or the commons already. He just linked to these pictures from his user space. That said, the relevant policy about material perceived to be offensive on this site is Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not censored. Darkspots (talk) 11:16, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I did removed some non-free content images. For the rest the list doesn't really bother me. Garion96 (talk) 11:20, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

You pretty much have to go through each one to figure out what's fair use and what isn't, right? I randomly sampled a couple and found appropriate tags on the images, but I guess that's not sufficient. Darkspots (talk) 11:51, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Nah, just a quick glance. It was pretty obvious which was fair use and which was not. I might have missed some, but I think I got them all. Garion96 (talk) 12:06, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

The shots appear to be professionally done but not by any pornographic magazine; for instance, many are either at public events or in a home studio. And in addition, they are available at the Commons. They are indeed acceptable to be used on the user page. Gary King (talk) 18:56, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd say tell him not to use fairuse images, leave the page alone otherwise, and tell him to quit screwing around and do something useful for the encyclopedia. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:08, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

New (banned) Vintagekits sock

User:German.Knowitall. - Kittybrewster ☎ 11:06, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

This editor has been editing since Dec 12 2006 so maybe not a sock.BigDunc (talk) 11:42, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Also judging by this seems a bit rich to be throwing around accusations. BigDunc (talk) 11:44, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh dear, it looks like the champagne will have to stay in the bottle [80] [81]. Giano (talk) 11:48, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Vintagekits, Vintagekits, there's no on like our Vintagekits,

He's broken every human law, he breaks the laws on wiki-blitz.

His powers of levitation would make a fakir stare,

And when you reach the scene of crime--Vintagekits not there!

You may seek him in the basement, you may look up in the air--

But I tell you once and once again, Vintagekits not there!

Give this man a barnstar :D Sceptre ^(talk) 12:35, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

That really is the funiest thing I have seen on Wiki for ages. Giano (talk) 12:59, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Kittybrewster shouldn't make false accusations of sockpuppetry without even a shred of evidence!--Domer48 (talk) 12:37, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

The evidence lies in the contributions. The probability is there and is not disproven by the date of commencement. But I don't have checkuser powers which would provide proof (or not). And yes, Vk, Giano and ONIH have all earned the Lazarus barnstar. - Kittybrewster ☎ 12:43, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

If that's Vintagekits, he's certainly being very cunning in creating a new persona that, whilst fluent, clearly doesn't have English as a first language - "is a Hungarian amateur boxer best known to win two Bronze medals", "2006 he was successful at the Euros", the use of contractions ("didn't"), grammar ("title’s") - etc. Plus, creating the account nearly 18 months ago certainly shows marvellous forethought. So, er, I'm sorry, I hear no quacking. Black Kite 13:34, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

For the record, User:German.Knowitall is  Unrelated to User:Vintagekits - Alison ^❤ 05:29, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Note that Vintagekits (via a sock) has previously offered to email German.Knowitall the contents of several articles created (and deleted) after his ban took effect [82], so some scrutiny might be warranted here. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 05:41, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Personal attacks

I have been absent from the site for the last eight days owing to the demands of personal business and I have returned to find that a person, whom I believe to be using possibly three separate userids, is carrying on a campaign of attacks against me. The userids in question are User:Fieldgoalunit, User:Mountlaurel and possibly User:Fiddler Einar of Saipan. I cannot be certain about the last one, who has made two very curious contributions. It is a little disturbing that this person seems to think he knows me in real life as I would like to preserve my privacy when using this site.

The problem has arisen because I objected to the quality of Golden Age of cricket which went to AfD and was kept after it was substantially improved and I withdrew the nomination. It may be that I was over-critical in a couple of comments I made about the quality of the article and I apologise if that has caused all this bother, but I stand by my view that drastic action was necessary to make that article compliant with site standards. The fact that I sought to improve a poor article does not merit the abuse that I am now receiving.

Please see my talk page and the contributions record of the userids named above. Thank you. --JamesJJames (talk) 13:44, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Could you provide diffs for the alleged attacks, as I have been reviewing one editor without seeing anything (yet) and am not keen to do the same with the others. FWIIW, the contribs of the editor I reviewed so seemed legit generally. Details will therefore be helpful. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:27, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

If you look at this talk page you will see that a ban has already been imposed on this person. No sooner has it expired than he is back on my talk page with the sarcastic nonsense about Allan Watkins as he evidently believes that I am the author of a book about Mr Watkins (I am not, but I know who is). You need to read all the recent contributions to see what he is about, including his messages to Moondyne and Keeper. --JamesJJames (talk) 15:00, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid I am going to let someone else deal with this, since I am not disposed to reviewing various contributors histories to find examples of policy violations. I note that the editor linked above was possibly sarcastic regarding a source - but possibly only if it were addressed to the books author, which you have said you are not. I also note that there has been a prior notice to ANI about your alleged policy violations... I think a fresh pair of eyes would likely result in a better response. Sorry. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:20, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

What a waste of time. --JamesJJames (talk) 17:27, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, there's three accounts.

• One of those accounts has three edits. Another has two. There may be some assumption of bad faith in their edits, but nothing blockable from my point of view.
• The main account, Fieldgoalunit (talk · contribs), previously JimBakken (talk · contribs) but changed when they forgot their password, has a combined total of about 150 edits including several to the page in question. On 16 April they were blocked for an outing offence, given a stiff warning for it, eventually unblocked after 48 hours and have not resumed offending.

While I'm personally suspicious one or both of the other accounts may well be sockpuppets of the third, there's no action we can actually take without some evidence that there is something we need to prevent, rather than on the basis of a previous incident which has already been dealt with 4 days ago. (See this thread at AN for the preceding episode.) Orderinchaos 18:06, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

As I have mentioned on User talk:Orderinchaos the post by Fieldgoalunit (talk · contribs) on 19 April is another outing attempt made after his ban expired. I take the point about evidence of WP:SOCK but, in this context, it has been suggested to me that I should refer you to the WP career of User:Richard Daft who was banned by Orderinchaos some months ago for confronting another WP member, again about the subject of cricket. --JamesJJames (talk) 06:13, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Biff714 editing of Sandra Lee (cook)

• Biff714 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a WP:SPA that regularly violates WP:BLP in his edits to:
• Sandra Lee (cook) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Biff714 has been repeatedly warned yet continues. A recent BLPN request has not resulted in any response yet. --Ronz (talk) 17:02, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

• I'd suggest leaving BLPN to handle it - there's no need to double-post things. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 17:19, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Note that I waited two days after posting to BLPN before posting here. I'm asking for help with Biff714, who continues his blockable editing behavior. --Ronz (talk) 03:07, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Racism on userpage?

I'm not sure if this is the right place for it. But is this appropriate for a userpage? xenocidic (talk) 17:05, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

No. -- Naerii 17:10, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

IMHO, user Pages are also part of the Project and should conform to all the policies. Accordingly, such racial remarks should be removed from the user pages. --Bhadani (talk) 17:11, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

• Removed and warning left. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 17:12, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. xenocidic (talk) 17:16, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

That user has a rather odd history, actually - mostly they revert vandalism, but occasionally there's an edit that actually adds it, and there's at least one other instance of a potentially racist comment. I've left another note letting the user know that they will be blocked if it continues. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 17:18, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed that as well. Strange. xenocidic (talk) 17:21, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

This editor is sporadic to say the least, and seems to be of school age. I wonder if we have a compromised account here, and should it be blocked accordingly? --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 17:23, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

If the account was indeed compromised, then after someone warns the user, they would respond back in a puzzled manner. If that hasn't happened, then I think the more likely explanation is that the user thinks that they have a free pass to vandalize if they themselves remove some every once in a while. I've come across vandals like that before, so it would not be a surprise to find that as the reason to this user's behavior. Gary King (talk) 18:53, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, the editor hasn't edited since the warning was placed so may not have seen it. I have it watchlisted, so will see what happens. It is somewhat worrying that the racist comment was on the user page since July 2007 without being spotted, however. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 18:56, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

It probably just means that few people visit their user page? It doesn't seem like the user is a very prolific editor. Gary King (talk) 19:41, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

A little sad that the page has had 73 hits this year before anyone has complained. Oh well. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 01:52, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

A minority of Web forum users planning vandalism

Over at WP:AIV someone recently reported this:

I'm not sure if this is the correct place to reports it (sorry, I'm new to this how editting wiki thing), but a webforum I use has launched a series of vandalism against a selection of articles in an attampt to play a game. Details here: http://www.altnation.com/forums/junk-talk/134411-wikipedia-jenga.html

Might be worth watching. -- Roleplayer (talk) 18:52, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Browsing the forum pages, I notice that the vandalism has been quickly reverted and has resulted in some blocks. I suspect that the handful of vandalism edits the forum will generate will not survive recent changes patrol for long. Keep up the good work, gang! —Travis^talk 19:14, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I've semi'd the articles being used as the latest post is telling users how to evade their IP blocks. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Karistaa Usko)} 19:15, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

You might want to watch out for them changing articles about or relating to Neil Gaimen. There is a meme about him on said forum --86.163.79.85 (talk) 21:11, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Said article is now semi'd. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Karistaa Usko)} 21:50, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Just reverted at Neil Gaiman. Can I suggest a permanent block for Bikuki (talk · contribs) for being a vandalism only account? -- Roleplayer (talk) 21:15, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

This is quite comical actually. Where else can you get a running commentary on what they're going to do next? Look out for the next instalment: creating the Alternative Nation article (currently a redirect) -- Roleplayer (talk) 21:37, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I've semi'd all the targeted articles (including the Alternative Nation redirect). I'm just about ready to register an account and explain my case over there. I'm going to deal with Bikuki in a moment. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Karistaa Usko)} 21:43, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I gave Bikuki the Ace of Spades. Iff (s)he wants to contribute freely instead of participating in such a retarded "game" I'd be more than happy to take it back. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Karistaa Usko)} 21:50, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

RE: Bikukis ace of spades - 'if she wants to I'll take it back' - I can't bloody well explain myself! There are no email addresses, no forum, no way of editting the pages myself... It looks a bit like censure guys. - endless psych (talk)

Also I've altered the title because its not as if the whole of alt nation is planning to vandalise wikipedia. endles psych (talk)

The pages were semi-protected because of this. With the exception of the Alternative Nation redirect (which I will unprotect now), the semi-protection will expire in a few more days. Please note that, if your account is at least four days old, you can edit semiprotected pages. Further, if you are Bikuki, you can still edit your talk page as Bikuki in order to make an unblock request with {{unblock}}. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Karistaa Usko)} 18:01, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

From AltNation - This is meant to be a bit of playful fun, not malicious, furrowed-browed vandalism. I can assure you that no bad feeling or malice towards wikipedia was or is intended. I think this has been taken a bit too seriously to be honest. - lesmts

Why don't you continue playing with each other and leave Wikipedia out of it? ... discospinster _talk 13:52, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Les, it isn't a bit of fun and you know it. For the record, the forum user who reported this wasn't me, I do use that forum and have reverted many similar edits by AltNation vandals, many of whom have also targetted my user page and ridiculed me in public for taking Wikipedia seriously. It's ridiculous, so just stop it.Caissa's DeathAngel (talk) 15:01, 21 April 2008 (UTC) (AKA Addy from AltNation, yes I'll admit that)

I would also like to apologise for the vandalism on behalf of Alternative Nation itself; while a minority of users there have decided to have fun at Wikipedia's expense, I hope that it is recognised that these activities are in no way sanctioned by the website or the infinite majority of its users, and that said majority greatly respects Wikipedia and everything related to it. I have no interest in sticking up for my friends there who have committed acts of vandalism here, especially since I've become the scapegoat there for the - entirely appropriate and reasoned - response of the admins here, but at the same time I would hope that the name of AltNation itself not be sullied by the actions of the inconsiderate few recently. If I see anymore instances of vandalism by them, I'll be sure to revert and report accordingly.Caissa's DeathAngel (talk) 15:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Should anyone who would use the phrase ″infinite majority" be editing an encyclopaedia?Potatojunkie (talk) 16:59, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

The problem with "a bit of fun" is this: Sure, it's clever the first time. The problem is, the millionth person to do it still thinks they're being clever, when really it's gotten old. Every time someone watches a rerun of that episode of the Colbert Report, there's a chance they'll be inspired to change the "Elephant" article to say that the population has tripled. And every time, they'll think it's funny, and that they're the first ones to actually do it, etc. But in the end, it's just yet another lame vandalism. --Random832 (contribs) 18:49, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Or that Librarians are hiding something. v^_^v -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Karistaa Usko)} 19:03, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Requesting outside opinion

Could anybody check Special:Contributions/Ewenss for contributions to Jeremiah Wright sermon controversy and Trinity United Church of Christ, Chicago? The user insists on making incredibly-POV edits to these articles, and reverts others when trying to correct him. Thanks, Grsz11 18:57, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Agree that there is a POV problem - this and this being the most recent (I didn't look back too far, I admit). Weasel words, etc. Tan | 39 19:01, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Fake New Messages

Resolved

 – nothing much left to do here Neıl ☎ 13:20, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello. If you look at User:Jeanenawhitney, you should see a new messages notice at the top. If you click on it, it leads you to this article. Is this really necessary/appropriate to have?--RyRy5 (talk) 19:27, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

There's a policy that states that if you copy the real MediaWiki message, then that's against policy, but if you change the wording, then it is allowed as long as it stays on a user page. Gary King (talk) 19:29, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

While i don't mind the joke banners, this seems a little to far. I also find it concerning that their talk page is automatically archived after one hour.--Jac16888 (talk) 19:30, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

But is it approriate if it leads to this article?--RyRy5 (talk) 19:32, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

The user archives their talk page that often because they are retired and "don't want to be bothered". That's my assumption. Gary King (talk) 19:34, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

The user is hardly retired. The user is, in fact, quite active, using AWB to make a lot of minor changes to infoboxes without regard to the consequences of the reformatting, and then ignoring messages left on their talk page. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 20:16, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Over 500 edits in the past week - I wouldn't call that "retired" or even "semi-retired". Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 20:20, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

There's been countless lengthy debates over this, and the consensus is that it's very much discouraged, but wouldn't merit something like a block. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 19:38, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Considering the user is semi-retired, that would also mean that less people will visit their user page, so it's really less of a problem. Gary King (talk) 19:40, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

But my concern is that it leads here. I understand that the notice says "You may have new messages". But what about where it leads to?--RyRy5 (talk) 19:41, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

It leads to the word "fuck," what is the problem? It's not as though it redirects to Goatse.cx or tubgirl! George The Dragon (talk) 19:48, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what exactly the policy states, but my personal opinion is that it does not bother me. If there were disgusting images there, then that would be a different story... Gary King (talk) 19:47, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think this discussion is resolved, agree?--RyRy5 (talk) 19:56, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Yep. But, if someone can come up with the policy (which I saw just a few days ago!) then please post it. Gary King (talk) 20:04, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Resolved? The user in question puts a "semi-retired" banner on her talk page, but is clearly active, using AWB to make minor changes to infoboxes without regard to the consquences of the reformatting, has over 1500 edits in the past 8 days, ignores messages to the talk page without responding to them, and has the page set to archive every 24 hours, and on top of it has a "new messages" banner which sends you to the article on "Fuck." Doesn't anyone think that adds up to something? Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 20:23, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Now that I think of it, I do still have concerns that the link leads to the Fuck article. I suggest telling the user to remove it.--RyRy5 (talk) 20:26, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

On what basis? George The Dragon (talk) 20:31, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome to ask, but you need to realize that you have absolutely no grounds on which to protest. We're not censored, and unless someone is placing links to profane articles on your userpage, you're going to have to just ignore it. It shouldn't be hard; you know where the link goes, so just don't click it. Easy breezy. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:34, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how any of what you just mentioned is relevant to the topic being discussed, which is the new messages bar. If someone says they're semi-retired but they aren't, so what? Perhaps they just have a different definition of "semi-retired" than you do. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:28, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Sure, but do you think that over 4500 edits in the past 10 days is a reasonable definition of "semi-retired"? Or is the "semi-retired" tag and the 24-hour archiving and the "fuck" banner simply a way of ducking responsibility for their editing? Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 20:46, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Then take it up with him. Seriously. There's nothing the administrators, as a whole, can do about someone that wants to have a semiretired tag on their userpage, and it's not a particularly big deal. I never once thought that he was trying to duck out of responsibility for his edits; though I think it often gets abused, WP:AGF is perfect here. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:00, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored nor is it a family site. Stop being offended about something pretty harmless. If you want do do something, concentrate on his/her policy-breaking (or at least bending) edits. Tan | 39 20:30, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Sorry, I don't see anyone expressing offense. My impression was that people are wondering about the civility of redirecting unsuspecting visitors to a page that says "fuck". That's certainly my concern, and I was one of those fooled in that manner. It would have been an OK joke, but when combined with the other factors I mentioned, it seemed more like disdain than humor. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 20:50, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't censored, but there's a general practice here of not surprising users by needlessly leading them to distracting content. I've removed the link as mild, unintended disruption, revert me if you like though. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:47, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm neutral on the reversion. What is unnecessary is this entire ANI debate on some suprise link to Fuck and a dubious claim of a state of retiredness. Tan | 39 20:49, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Have you simply asked/told her to change it? When I had a sig with a blink effect, someone simply told me it was discouraged, asked me to change it, and I changed it. Merkin's mum 20:52, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

The user's talk page is being archived every hour, so it's not really an effective means of communication with this user. Gary King (talk) 20:53, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I've told the user of this discussion. If they want to play "semi-retired", continue editing heavily, and having the bot archive almost instantly, that's their choice. If it is found that they cannot be worked with, they could be blocked if their edits are disruptive. I don't care about the message as I just feel that anyone who is actually offended can complain if they wish. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:57, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Someone might want to remove the archiving on their talk page for now, because it is automated, and 1 hour archival is a very strange interval. Gary King (talk) 20:59, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Interesting looking at the history of the discussion page (which is the only way to really see what's posted there, because of the 1 hour archiving), this diff [83] indicates that the user is willing to edit war and doesn't care if they get blocked for it. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 21:05, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

(ec)I wouldn't read too much into that; at the time s/he and I, and others, were dealing with an editor who persistently want to insert Martha Stewart's non-notable dog into Deaths in 2008 against consensus. The editor clearly would prefer an encyclopedia to be, er, encyclopedic,as would I; however, I wasn't prepared to break the 3RR rule over it. If s/he had, s/he was clearly prepared to take the consequences. Commendable in one way, though not in another. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 21:13, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh sure, I realize a single diff can be misconstrued without context. Problem is, the user has eliminated the context by archiving every hour! Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 21:17, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

A 1-hour archiving interval already implies that a user wishes to hide any messages that gets posted to their talk page, anyhow, and should generally be inspected. Gary King (talk) 21:09, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

That's their choice. If they get blocked, they can't play the "I didn't know" card. In fact, they are going to have to disable the archiving if they want to put an unblock request out there. What the hell, I'll ask User:Misza13 about setting more rules for the bot. That's a completely separate point though. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:15, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

(undent) Well, the links have now been removed so I think this is really resolved now. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:23, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Yeah, sorta. They restored the "new messages" banner but disabled the links, so the poor random user will go crazy trying to make the link work and get their new message! Another joke that's midly funny but just a bit mean, which seems in line with this user's general attitude. Nothing much to be done about that, I guess. De gustibus Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 21:34, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Unless her edits start going astray I'd want to skirt stirring things up. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:32, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

FYI, she added a message on my talk page. She does read the messages so I'm just going to leave it for an actual dispute. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:34, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

"Otherwise it is don't bother me with your pettiness" At least this person is consistent in their attitude. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 02:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Ed, I'd leave it alone. She is doing her thing and it really doesn't seem to be a problem overall. Besides, there are plenty of more unusual users around here anyway. Variety is the spice of life, I say. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:40, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Yep, I have no intention of doing anything further. C'est la vie! Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 07:53, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Marking as resolved, as I think this has run its course. Quick note - it doesn't matter if the user has a 1 hour interval on the MiszaBot III archiving, the bot only archives once per day (look at the talk page history - it doesn't archive every hour, it archives everything older than an hour, once a day). Neıl ☎ 13:20, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I get that, but that still means that messages can potentially be archived an hour after they're posted, depending on when the bot shows up. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 13:22, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Tastes like spam -- sanity check

Thehollycroft (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has taken it upon him- or herself to add external links to a plethora of articles related to coffee, mainly showing videos of machines making the sorts of coffee the articles reference. However, all the videos are part of the advertising for cafeserv.co.uk, a company the sells commercial coffee-making machines. Some of the links added are somewhat germane to the articles in question, but the overall pattern is really spammy, especially considering edits like this. I didn't get much sleep at all last night, and so I'd like a second-opinion sanity check before I start reverting all these additions wholesale. --Dynaflow babble 19:27, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

A little out of context :) A good sleep is always required. Please do not get perturbed - things get settled here for sure. --Bhadani (talk) 19:34, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I request for comments - not on the "sleep" but on the issue raised by Dynaflow. Thanks in advance. --Bhadani (talk) 19:35, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Such links are generally to be avoided per WP:ELNO #5. As I don't get the impression that the information they add is overwhelming useful, showing how coffee is made, I'd revert them myself. John Carter (talk) 19:40, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Tally ho! --Dynaflow babble 19:53, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks like linkspamming to me. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:10, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Vandalhammer

vandalism on "Hammer" article.

IP address of source: 75.53.115.176

AeturnalNarcosis (talk) 20:04, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

One edit is not enough. Use the warning templates and list at WP:AIV if there is enough vandalism. That will be much faster. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:09, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I've warned the user. If it happens again, then warn again, and if more, then report to WP:AIV. Gary King (talk) 20:12, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Homeopathy

OffTheFence (talk · contribs), an SPA (Arsenicum album, Dana Ullman arbcom case, Homeopathy) stopped editing for a month after being topic-banned for a week. The user has returned and is now arguing vehemently for inclusion of a paragraph comparing homeopathy to religion and magic. The paragraph seems to be mainly a coatrack for references that are inflammatory in creative ways. This was the user's next edit after I suggested that the regular editors should treat him as a troll and stop feeding him. Does this fit a known pattern?

Someone should have a look at Talk:Homeopathy#Nature of Belief in Homeopathy and do whatever needs doing before the situation escalates. --Hans Adler (talk) 20:54, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

p.s. Hans, I've just noticed that for some reason you highlighted a comment I made in connection with an edit I made to the Pinkerton Detective Agency page. I'm afraid the inference you are trying to draw from this is completely lost on me. If you must know, I was watching a rather poor 1950's film on television in which the Sundance Kid featured. That led me to look him up at Wikipedia and that led to the Pinkerton page, where I found an infelicitous sentence that I chose to correct, but seemingly failed to sign properly. Now I have confessed my daytime TV viewing habits are you happy? OffTheFence (talk) 22:01, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I confess I felt that it looked a bit like an elegant answer to the problem: "Oh dear, my sockpuppet was found out earlier than I thought, and it hasn't even made a single non-homeopathy edit yet. What can I do?" But I suppose this idea is about as far-fetched as the idea that someone should have intentionally concocted a poisonous brew of references to two papers by Peter Morrell that he doesn't believe in any more, a 1922 book that calls voodoo practices "homoeopathic", paper by a homeopath who later developed his own version of quantum theory, and the Skeptical Inquirer, and then fail to understand that it is offensive. Since trolls live under bridges and have neither the necessary intelligence for such actions nor access to non-free medical journals, I am well satisfied that you are not a troll and apologise for any inconvenience caused by my opening this thread. --Hans Adler (talk) 22:42, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Mad kudos to the first person willing to wade into this one ;-) Tan | 39 20:56, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

OffTheFence (talk · contribs), an SPA (Arsenicum album, Dana Ullman arbcom case, Homeopathy) has a life but decided to return to Wikipedia and try to make some small changes to the Homeopathy article to place its philosophy in a more accurate context. This seems not to have gone down well with the pro-homeopathy editors at that page. But, I'm a big boy and am happy to defend my proposal by reference to appropriate citations even if others choose not to do the same. I will not cry to Mummy if other editors don't like my proposals. I do note that Hans makes snide reference to my account being "SPA". Homeopathy happens to be something I am interested in and given that life presents me with limited time for editing at Wikipedia, I choose to spend it on pages related to homeopathy. Whether that is good or bad is surely more a matter for my spouse than Mr Adler. OffTheFence (talk) 21:34, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Now that should get an admin's attention. Tan | 39 21:39, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I think... OffTheFence (talk) 21:55, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Proclaiming himself an "expert" [84] in homeopathy certainly says a lot about him. Arion 3x3 (talk) 02:00, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

As I noted on the homeopathy talk page, the ironic intent of the inverted commas has clearly passed you by. Irony is never an easy nuance to convey via a simple text editor. OffTheFence (talk) 06:54, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

AfD sockpuppetry

Dear administrators, I filed a checkuser on a suspicious account (see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Divinediscourse) and Thatcher has confirmed that the following two accounts are the same editor and that they have double voted in AfDs:

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

Please see this link for the 16 AfDs in which they have supported each other in a sockpuppet fashion. Please also take note of these accounts' incredibly rapid practically copy and paste "votes" in scores of AfDs. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:28, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Both blocked now. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:09, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Possible AfD sockpuppetry

I would appreciate if the administrators could determine if User:Procession is a sockpuppet. This user abruptly turned up in the middle of this debate[[85]] and helped to give the vote for keeping the article a very slender majority. The user is also new to Wikipedia, so his/her appearance at this time seems more than a little coincidental. If this is the case, would the vote be voided due to fraud? Thank you. Ecoleetage (talk) 22:00, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I am not an admin, however AfD is not a vote. The closing admin weighs the arguments, if it appears that one side "won" due to votes, it is simply coincidence that the majority side was also the most persuasive in their arguments. You can request a check at WP:RFCU, however you have to know who you want them compared to I believe. --I Write Stuff (talk) 23:06, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Vince the Vandal

Copying this from Wikipedia talk:Administrator intervention against vandalism:

There is a spate of vandalism at present from several IPs, adding comments about vince the vandal. As it's obviously the same user, I'm blocking on sight rather than giving warnings. Keep an eye on today's featured article, talk:main page etc as this is wehre he seems to be concentrating. —  Tivedshambo  _(t/c) 21:59, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Another admin there has suggested an IP range block, if a range can be determined. I think this is a better, broader venue for this issue, hence I'm moving the report here. —C.Fred (talk) 22:07, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

So far I've caught 92.40.211.53 (talk · contribs), 217.171.129.77 (talk · contribs), 92.40.3.248 (talk · contribs), 92.40.197.75 (talk · contribs) —  Tivedshambo  _(t/c) 22:15, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Just a note, I'm not an admin (as was thought, I suggested a range block). It would probably be more effective in this case. I'll try determining the range. Steve Crossin (talk) (anon talk) 22:20, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

A range block is probably a good idea if the vandalism is still continuing, bu could I ask someone more experienced to do it, as I haven't looked at how to do these yet, and I'm going off line soon. —  Tivedshambo  _(t/c) 22:23, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Checked the IP's, they're IP's from Hutchison 3G UK Limited. Seems the edits are being made from a cellphone. I'd recommend maybe a 24 hour softblock might be effective here. Anon Only, account creation block. The range I got from the WhoIS data is 92.40.0.0/15, and 217.171.128.0/20. WHOIS info is here and here. Just my thoughts here. Steve Crossin (talk) (anon talk) 22:30, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Edokter

Edokter (talk · contribs) is removing my image tagging from Image:Rosetyler2.jpg. This image is missing the source and I have tried several times to explain to this admin that he should not remove the no-source tag until he has provided a source for the image. I'm clearly failing in my attempts, could someone else please explain this? Thanks. --Yamla (talk) 22:08, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

You caught me in the middle of trying to repair a bad upload; I asumed you tagged the wrong image. I tried to explain that and reverted, after which you blocked me imediately. Now PLEASE let me try and repair the damage! — Edokter • Talk • 22:13, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Note that Edokter has clearly done more than I ever have to bring the Doctor Who-related articles up to high quality. Additionally, it is entirely possible that he had every intention of adding a source and we just ended up edit-warring. I have already agreed to leave that image alone for a reasonable period of time, so maybe that alone will resolve the issue. Still, I do not believe anyone should remove the no-source tag from an image until the source has been provided, and I was apparently unable to make this clear to Edokter. --Yamla (talk) 22:16, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

What set me off hitting rollback was you removing the rationales while placing the tags. — Edokter • Talk • 22:17, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I was removing rationales from the image page because the image was not being used on those pages. If (as seems likely) it was always your intention to add the source to the image page and to readd the image to those pages whose rationale I had removed, you have my unconditional and sincere apologies. I am aware that I am phrasing this conditionally, but I freely admit that our timing seems to have been bad wrt this image and the fault most likely lies with me. --Yamla (talk) 22:19, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Bad timing indeed. And sorry for coming off so strong. — Edokter • Talk • 23:04, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Rose

Tangentally, if we have to use a non-free image in this article, shouldn't it be actually be one that actively shows the Rose Tyler character in action in the series? That particular photo might as well just be a photo of Billie Piper, and thus, I would argue, technically fails WP:NFCC. Black Kite 23:01, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

That is Rose in character; Billy would not look so seriously. — Edokter • Talk • 23:04, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Now you know that, and I know that, but would an average reader? There must be a better image out there somewhere. Black Kite 23:36, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

The BBC have a gallery of images of her: [86]. Either [87] or [88] seem more obviously related to her on the series. Just my 2p. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 03:43, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

It is a cropped publicity shot from a BBC news page. I'd rather not use a screenshot or wallpaper for this, as the wallpaper explicitly states they are for personal use only... which opens up another can of worms. — Edokter • Talk • 10:39, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Jon Awbrey

Hi there. So, on a Site which Shall Not be Named, two users who appear to be Wikipedia admins agreed that it was a bad thing that this disruptive user's real name googles to his history of disruption on Wikipedia, and that something should be done about that. Neither of them, however, was available to do anything about it. User:Jayneofthejungle registered to try to do something about it, and was rather firmly slapped down for it. Of course, she did also create an obvious nonsense page, but that's not related to the issue at hand, which is: should something be done about it? I present the question to the Council of Administrative Wisdom for judgement. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:14, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Has Jon Awbrey refrained for a reasonable amount of time from editing Wikipedia and/or setting up sockpuppet accounts? We could certainly extend the badly named "Right" to Vanish, but not unless he has shown he will never again edit the Wikipedia. This does not currently seem to be the case. --Yamla (talk) 22:17, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

The problem of editors who use their own names and then get into trouble is complex. However it is the case that the current #1 google hit for Awbrey is an announcement that he is banned from editing wikipedia. I don't advocate deleting the page, but how does blanking it interfere with tracking and blocking his socks, assuming he is still trying to edit? Thatcher 22:25, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Further, if we blank the page, how can we readily determine that the community ban is still in place? —C.Fred (talk) 22:30, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

The page history and the block log. I said blanked, not deleted. Thatcher 22:37, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, why is it "a bad thing that this disruptive user's real name googles to his history of disruption on Wikipedia"? Should unrepentent vandals really expect that all record of their misbehaviour should disappear down the memory hole after a while? How "fair" is it that the 2nd-placed link on Google for Usama bin Laden is an FBI "most wanted" notice? This isn't a Daniel Brandt-style BLP situation; the prominence of Awbrey's ban is entirely a situation of his own making, resulting from his own actions. Also, I note that WP:RTV applies specifically to users "in good standing", which Awbrey plainly isn't. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:39, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not citing RTV, I'm saying that it is nice to be nice to people even if they aren't always nice to us. Thatcher 22:49, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

bin Laden? Really? Come on. That kind of analogy is beyond tasteless and offensive, and not in any way okay. Please don't do it again. - Revolving Bugbear 22:53, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Bin Laden's name is linked to bad things because he has done bad things in the real world. Awbrey's sin is that he dicks around with a website that he has a disagreement with. Hardly a fair comparison, and a sign that Wikipedians take themselves way too seriously. Thatcher 23:03, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

The point is, obviously, that misconduct brings notoriety; and the author of the misconduct has nobody to blame but themselves for that notoriety. -- ChrisO (talk) 06:41, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Awbrey has stated the he intends to continue to make socks here to cause trouble (of which he has already created a very generous number) ad nauseum. I fail to see why we should extend a page-blanking courtesy to him until he at the very least shows courtesy to us by making a committment to cease that disruption. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:47, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

That's a fair request, I think, although I would be willing to blank the page first and see what happens. Thatcher 22:49, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Under absolutely no circumstances is this user to be unblocked. Nor should his user page be cleared. He continues to use sockpuppets, creating much work for me (and other checkusers) in blocking his user accounts and ranges. Raul654 (talk) 22:49, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

(ecx2)Nobody was discussing an unblock, and what does the work involved in blocking have to do with his userpage? Is it just "don't screw with us", some sort of incentive, or what?

If he has a problem with the results on his name, he can write OTRS himself, I think, and then we can have this discussion. --Relata refero (disp.) 22:52, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

It's a shame that we have to have somebody write an email, which may or may not be answered or actioned, in order to do the ethical thing. Blanking the page does not in the least interfere with the work of our checkusers; I am certain every last one of them is well aware of who Jon Awbrey is and what his patterns are. Nobody is suggesting he be unblocked, simply that the #1 Google-hit on his name not be a ban notice from Wikipedia. Risker (talk) 23:03, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I have toddled over to the Board of Outer Darkness Where there is Weeping and Gnashing of Teeth myself, and checked whether Awbrey has asked for it himself. He hasn't, not even there, which is why I make the statemen above. (At least I think not, his posts are relatively incomprehensible). I do think that he should at the very least make that much effort. --Relata refero (disp.) 23:06, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah yes, I won't abbreviate that for fear of creating a post that vaguely resembles what he writes. It doesn't change my position. It's either the right thing to do or the wrong thing to do, regardless of who asks for it (and I would think that Newyorkbrad asking for it should count for something) or the way that it is requested. Since so far the main argument is "he deserves it", I think we can do better than that. Risker (talk) 23:21, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't see that at all. Sometimes the right thing to do is conditional on the expressed preference of the person it most affects. In this case, if he doesn't give a damn, I don't think that it should be necessary to make an exception. --Relata refero (disp.) 09:23, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

This question of renaming Awbery came up awhile ago, before I knew of his involvement "there". My position was that it would be a humanitarian gesture to rename such accounts. However, I later discovered on "that" site, that he only wished to be renamed if we renamed several other accounts, some of which have nothing to do with living people's names. So since he is opposed to the rename, and clearing his page would make the ban less obvious to uninvolved admins or non-admins working at SSP/AIV, I think we should just leave this the way it is. In the past, I have worked with users who are banned and who have link-able names to communicate with the crats and invoke their RTV via rename, and it seems to have worked well. But if the subject is still abusing the 'pedia, I don't see why we should help them hide that abuse. MBisanz ^talk 23:34, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I hear what you are saying, MBisanz. It still comes back to one point: it is the right thing to do. If it is the right thing to do for another banned user, it is the right thing for JA, regardless of from whom the request originates. How many people at SSP don't know who he is? And how will having a "banned user" banner change that? He is still on our list of banned users, is he not? Risker (talk) 23:45, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah jeez. Didn't see this here. I went ahead and blanked the user pages because I think they're a BLP problem. It doesn't really matter what he wants done with this or any other account; they can remain where they are, and they must remain blocked. We can simply move the category to a name that has less impact on the google results of a living person. "Do no harm" and all. Cool Hand Luke 23:54, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and undid your unilateral decision to ignore our guidelines for dealing with sockpuppeteers - we tag their userpages, and collect lists of their sockpupppet accounts and IPs, to assist in future damage control. Raul654 (talk) 23:57, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Also note - BLP is an article space policy, not a user space policy. If a user wants to register under his real name and act like a dick, he has no reasonable expectation that we will treat him any differently than we treat any other misbehaving account. Raul654 (talk) 00:00, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

The sockpuppet guideline that you referred to, Raul, would it be this one: "Sockpuppeteer - The original or best-known account of a user that operates sockpuppets may be tagged with {{Sockpuppeteer}} if it is being blocked indefinitely." (from WP:SOCK) I note the use of the word "may" instead of "must". I also note that the tag has not been removed, only the page blanked. As to acting like a dick, well, we are back to the "he deserves it" argument. Is that the way we want to operate here? Risker (talk) 00:05, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Um, BLP applies in all namespaces. It's been that way for years.

As for the account, that's not the issue. They should all remain blocked. But there's no need for them to have content. They're blocked and full protected—and they should stay that way. If you're really concerned that the check users will forget that the account is blocked and forget how to use the history tab, we could at least move the account elsewhere. See Risker. Cool Hand Luke 00:08, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

And of course, the username policy from December 2005, when Awbrey registered, says nothing about, "If you register your real name and then screw with us, it will follow you on google forever." People who do bad things in the real world find their name attached to those bad things, and justifiably so. This is just a website with aspirations of grandeur. Thatcher 00:13, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Raul and KC here. There is no BLP issue here, "Jon Awbrey is banned from editing Wikipedia" is a simple, accurate, and trivially easy to verify statement. I was afraid of this with BLP, but we were all assured "This will never happen." Well, folks, it's happening. BLP covers false, misleading, or unverifiable information, not true and verifiable information which may be negative or embarrassing. Awbrey was well aware of the consequences of his actions (such as, well, an editing ban) when he chose to take them. If he's really that bothered by the ban notice, I suggest he first stop the behavior which led to the ban in the first place, and then, and only then, ask for some consideration in return, such as removal of the ban notice. Notices that a user is banned is important for tracking purposes, and if Awbrey chose to create an account under his name, and then chose to take actions which he knew would be in public view forever, and still chooses to continue those actions to this day, he cannot then choose whether or not that page has a ban notice, because we need that notice to prevent the very harm he chooses to continue to cause. If he wants to show us good faith first, by leaving us alone and respecting the fact that he is not welcome here, then perhaps after he has done so for some period of time we can reciprocate that. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:16, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Not sure why we can't blank or change the message on his page. The whole spirit behind BLP is doing no harm on marginally notable people. Why would we relax that spirit for people who are not notible at all? Seems backward...you don't have to be the subject of an article to be harmed by Wikipedia you know. This feels like we're insisting on punishing someone...RxS (talk) 00:29, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

"BLP covers false, misleading, or unverifiable information, not true and verifiable information which may be negative or embarrassing." WP:UNDUE. --Random832 (contribs) 00:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I suppose I think differently because of the Daniel Brandt redirect DRV (which is, incidentally, blanked as a courtesy). The Brandt redirect had very slight encyclopedic value, but helped dominate google results for "Daniel Brandt." We deleted the redirect almost solely because of its impact on google, and it really didn't matter how despicable Brandt might be considered. This is an analogous situation; a hated commentator with a barely-useful user page, which is #1 on google. I really doubt that check users will forget about this user, and many of these comments suggest that we think the notices are some sort of punishment ("If he's really that bothered by the ban notice, I suggest he first stop the behavior which led to the ban in the first place"). That's perverse, and wholly out of line with BLP.

I'm not going to edit war on the point though; really, the site should just edit robots.txt so that user pages are not indexed. Cool Hand Luke 00:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• I agree that his page should be blanked. Not so much BLP as a basic issue of ethics. No one has actually provided a reason for keeping the notice on his page yet. -- Naerii 00:42, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Nobody has yet given a substantive reason for giving special treatment to a persistent, unrepentant vandal. Raul654 (talk) 00:44, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
    • It shouldn't _be_ "special treatment" - we should treat _everyone_ the way we're proposing. "We don't treat everyone this way, so why should we treat anyone this way" is not a sensible response to a proposal to give everyone some benefit. --Random832 (contribs) 00:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I suppose if we're going to be nothing but policy wonks then Wikipedia policy would be more important than preventing doing RL harm to someone. But surely the spirit of BLP is more important than whatever text happens to be there at the moment. Real life punishment is not part of our banning policy...RxS (talk) 00:44, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Contrary to popular opinion, Wikipedia is part of real life, and the person editing on Wikipedia is living in the real world. If a real person edits under their real name and screws up and there are consequences to it, how is it that we are doing that person harm in the "real world" by having a record of those actions? They brought the harm on themselves, we are only recording it. There's no conceivable "ethical" reason to remove that record. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 02:45, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps it is because I am the first contributor to this discussion who uses his full name as user name, but it's completely incomprehensible for me why this even needs discussing. Is it really necessary to put it the other way round to get consensus for a tiny gesture of generosity? So be it then: wikiversity:WV:SHRINE. I think that speaks for itself, although it refers to vandals, not trolls. --Hans Adler (talk) 01:11, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Good point. KC told me when I blanked the page that user "considers it a 'badge of pride' to have been banned." In my opinion, that makes the case for blanking even stronger, not weaker. Cool Hand Luke 01:21, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I took the templates off and left the link to the blocking discussion, maybe that's an acceptable compromise. I don't understand how potentially harming someone in real life is part of our blocking/banning policy. Please don't revert unless you have a real answer to that question...RxS (talk) 01:18, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

How about don't continue to edit war on protected pages.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:51, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

One compromise attempt is not edit warring...WTF, unbelievable. You're the one who reverted a protected page....is it less "protected" when you edit? Unbelievable...RxS (talk) 03:01, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

The page is still protected. As I stated, I returned the protected page to the status it was when it was protected.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:06, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Would you prefer if he unprotected it, reverted, and then protected it? Seems senselessly formal. Cool Hand Luke 03:12, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

The usual process is you figure out what to do with it while it is protected, and then go on from there. I haven't seen that issue come up here as being "We're gonna do this" and everyone agreeing with it.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:15, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

The "usual process" is that the protecting admin does not revert before protecting the page. But that's unfair. The "usual process" simply has no meaning for editing a banned user page. Do you have an actual reason for reverting? Cool Hand Luke 03:47, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Why not simply redirect his page to one his socks and add the ban banner there ? Abecedare (talk) 01:40, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, I actually WP:DGAF what Jon Awbrey or just about anyone else on WR wants done here, with a few exceptions, like for instance Newyorkbrad, ( a sitting arbitrator, remember? ) who asked that this be corrected, and Alison (a CU and Oversighter, remember? ) who said it would be. WP:DENY has been used many many times to deny recognition to sockpuppeteers who seem to want it, and Jon Awbrey seems proud of being badged this way. So let's deny it to him. Also, I don't see how having this page blanked (not deleted, just blanked) is going to impede operations of CUs ( I'm a CU here and elsewhere, remember? ) in the slightest. BLP applies throughout the entire project, not just in articlespace. This page needs to be blanked. If it requires first getting consensus to unprotect, to satisfy the policy wonks standing on "it's protected, you can't change it", then so be it. But blank the damn thing and move on. Stop with the revenge bit and the "you were a dick so tough noogies" bit... that's so middleschool it's not funny. We should follow the principle of doing what is right, what is good and proper, even for people who are big weenies, as I have said before. I leave it as an academic exercise who is the bigger weenie... ++Lar: t/c 03:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

A forceful statement, but, frankly, I don't understand why that is the "right" thing to do. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 03:46, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

People need to just tell these chumps to buzz off. Really, OTRS needs to just be a recording that says "go away" or "fix your entry if you don't like it." I think it is totally ridiculous just how much the 'pedia has gotten into busybody meta about how things affect real world people. How can we be NPOV if we are trying to make everyone happy? It's impossible and a recipe for certain disaster. It shouldn't be our job or our goal to be protectors of the world. This is getting to the point of being disruptive with nonsense like the suggestion of mass deleting our biographies of living people because we don't have enough eyes to cover them all. Again, it isn't our job to make people feel good. It isn't that hard, you know. At some point, the foot needs to be put down about these grievers who go whining to board every time something they don't like shows up here. Sorry, but enough is enough. Much too much navel gazing and unneeded bureaucracy is being put in place to deal with problems that don't exist. In fact, we have all sorts of absurd policy proposals coming from the BLP extremists. In this case, we have a request made by someone who continues to be a malicious sock puppeteer, as Raul has pointed out. WHY THE F**K ARE WE GIVING HIM ANY QUARTER!?! This is a no-brainer, people. Tell the bozo to shove off and accept responsibility for his actions. You reap what you sow, as the saying goes. --Dragon695 (talk) 05:16, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

It's not such a no-brainer. One the one hand, we have 'He made his bed, he lays in it', which some will interpret as either cold and hard, or vindictive and malicious. On the other, we have 'Let's do what's right, even if he doesn't want it', which can look Big Brotherish, or 'the state knows what's best for you', a heavy handed authoritarian reaction. Neither makes us look good, and both are guaranteed to get us criticized at WR and other sites. Neither has the 'right' outcome for us, and neither will get him to stop attacking WP and its' editors. Short of unblocking him and letting him run amuck here, nothing we can do, be it action or inaction, gets WP any positive ground, and everything gets us negative ground. The best we can hope is that by following our policies, we can look consistent. However, we don't have good policy and precedent for this, so we really need to work it out now, before we have to double back on ourselves (Again, given that one admin tried already to change the status quo), and look like bigger fools. We need sokme seriously well thought out logical arguments on both sides of this before we do anything. This situation has existed for months, and JA doesn't really seem to find anything urgent in us resolving this. (That alone ought to be our best guide in this matter, that he doesn't care that it's the top google hit) Let's take the time to really build community consensus for a guideline or policy, instead of just rushign to mark this as resolved. ThuranX (talk) 05:27, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Well Dragon695, I certainly feel all foolish now. I missed the part about this being a war, I thought it was a peaceful project, one with high standards where doing the right thing mattered more than getting revenge, one where we were trying to build an encyclopedia. "GIVING HIM ANY QUARTER!?!" you say? Why stop at keeping his user page (the number one return) all vindictive and stuff.. heck, let us write a bio on him that points out what a weenie he is... that way we all can feel better about ourselves. Would that be better? Don't forget to kick Newyorkbrad while he's down, ok, for being foolish enough to make an honest and sincere request that the right thing be done? That isn't the project I signed up for. Guess I was wrong. Or maybe you are, and this actually IS more like the project I think it is (and want it to be) than a schoolyard pissing contest. Get a grip man, you are racing to the bottom and fast. Maybe this matter needs to go to ArbCom now so they can remind us again that BLP applies everywhere and trumps lesser policies. I'm not saying there aren't nuances to this matter, that some thought isn't required, but a clear cut "F**K OFF" probably isn't the right answer. ++Lar: t/c 05:42, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I know I shouldn't have edited the page per my earlier statements, but does this appear to be a good midpoint?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:13, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I arrived late to this debacle - I was off teh intarwebz. I've modified Ryulong's edit to remove the 'banned' tags. Folks - this is someone's RL name here we're bandying around. It doesn't matter whether they're banned or not; it's just not right. I see a lot of the comments above and all I can get from them is vengeance and punishment. This is not what we're about here and the sole purpose for tagging a userpage like that is for tracking banned editors. No more. It's not a brand of shame. Frankly, just about every admin know's Mr. Awbrey's modus operandi at this stage, and every checkuser his account signature, so that whole issue is moot anyway. I've recently had my own RL name bandied about by Mr. Brandt and I didn't appreciate it either, especially given the ensuing issues it brought. This is more of the same. Let's move on and leave the man's name out of it. This isn't an appeal to BLP (because it's not a BLP issue), nor is it an appeal to whatever policy documents which could be pointed to (there are a number); I'm simply asking us to do what's right here. JA came to the site here in good faith, from what I can determine and contributed a vast amount of good work. It's all in the contrib history. What's happening now just smacks of punishment and that's not what we're about. Of all people, I have a huge amount of respect for NewYorkBrad and, once again, he's right on this one - Alison ^❤ 07:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Just a few thoughts on this myself: personally, I do think that Jon made his own bed on this, but yes, the "banned" notice is a bit strong. I think the current solution works as well. As for the sockpuppet category... is there any use for these categories? Abusive account is abusive account, whether it's banned or not. Sceptre ^(talk) 07:59, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I see no use for them. Are we keeping count on the socks? Why? I've deleted enough of those categories in the past per WP:DENY anyway and these ones serve no purpose. Some people even use them for bragging - Alison ^❤ 08:23, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Just delete all the pages. The accounts remain blocked, it remains noted in the block log. I see the question being asked "why should we blank the page a banned user?" I would ask, "why shouldn't we?" It doesn't help us to have Jon Awbrey's #1 hit on Google to be "this user is banned on Wikipedia". Nor does it particularly harm us. Given that, the presumption should be towards getting rid of such stuff. Neıl ☎ 11:17, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, delete it. If we have a choice between doing harm to a real person, and doing no harm, and neither choice actually benefits us much...let's go with the do no harm. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 11:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• I will repeat my earlier suggestion: that we rename the master account to something innocuous and then carry on as usual. I would hope that removing the Google bomb would de-escalate the situation anyway. Guy (Help!) 14:20, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm pretty sure forcibly renaming a user's account (yes, even a banned user) without their assent - effectively disappearing their attribution - would violate GFDL in some way or other. Neıl ☎ 15:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
    • It doesn't vanish their attribution, it merely changes the name. I was happy to reassign the socks to a different category (dummy account) but people thought it was a bit much keeping some stuff attributed to a named individual, while listing all the problems they caused somewhere else. I would, in a heartbeat, run AWB and rename every instance of Jon Awbrey outside article and talk, to something else, but I don't think it would go down well. I remain convinced that seeing his name immortalised as a vandal is provocative for Jon, who is I think inclined to be somewhat obsessive anyway. He said, as I recall, that he'd be OK with this along as the same remedy was available to anyone else, as of course it should be. I don't see him emailing OTRS to request it, though, due to all the bad blood. Guy (Help!) 17:17, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Having the socks in a category that collects them together as being related is useful, I think. The category doesn't necesarily have to exist, it can be a redlink, going to the page shows you the socks anyway. It also doesn't have to have his name on it. I think a redlinked category won't show up in searches but I could be wrong. So I'd hate to see the socks decategorised. Changed to a different category, sure. ++Lar: t/c 15:36, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Should this be oversighted?

See this. It appears to be fairly serious accusations against a person with no citations. Should it be made to vanish? Loren.wilton (talk) 22:24, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

• Deletion is sufficient, I think. And  Done Thatcher 22:28, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
• I'd want it oversighted if it was about me. WP:OS Dan Beale-Cocks 22:30, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Discrimination

Look here "there is no comparison in the degree of support terrorists receive from the Muslim majority; it is not supported by "minority cults of extremist Muslims". the editor is saying that most Muslims support terrorism. Clearly racism. I was suggesting only that because Islam has a mention of Islamic terrorism so should Christianity have a mention of Christian terrorism or Pro Life terrorism. It was just a passing suggestion and the editor said this about Muslims. see talk:Christianity sub heading comparisons with the Islam article --77.98.178.218 (talk) 22:24, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

It look like this falls under WP:FRINGE. Grsz11 22:27, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand. Please elaborate --77.98.178.218 (talk) 22:29, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Reading the comment in context, it doesn't seem that the editor was saying, "Most Muslims support terrorism," but something more like, "Terrorism is significantly associated with, and written about, with regard to terrorist acts committed by Muslims, and thus a section in that article is useful. Terrorism by Christians is less common, carried out by people who are widely understood to be a fringe group, and the way it is written about is so fundamentally different that a comparison between the two is not useful." It's easy to see how someone might disagree with that, but I'm not sure that it's an inherently racist opinion. (Incidentally, Islam isn't a race, but a religion practiced by people of every race). -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:35, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, it's an exaggeration to say the terrorism is significant in the Islam article, as the word "terrorism" is only used a single time. Grsz11 22:37, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the opinion. I sometimes find it offensive that people ignore the Pro life terrorism. Someone I know was injured in an action they committed in the eighties, this is why I am upset about the subject. Islam being not a race - true but in law racism does extend to religion (at least in the UK, where I now live). --77.98.178.218 (talk) 22:39, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually the UK law against racism doesn't extend to Islam, or any other religion for that matter (religions obviously are not equivalent to races). The only religion specifically protected under the law is, rather unfairly, Christianity (see Blasphemy law in the United Kingdom). You might be thinking of the Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006, though that only criminalises efforts to incite hatred against a person on the grounds of their religion. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:45, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

The any racism stuff is generaly thought to protect sikhs and jews.Geni 00:45, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Why so angry?

Can someone tell me why is User:Shalimer exhibiting such annoyance and anger at [89] and [90] without any provocation over what was a legitimate demand abiding by all WP policies? DrAjitParkash (talk) 22:53, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that's worth reporting, yet. I suggest you talk this over with the user before reporting it to here, if and when it becomes more serious. Gary King (talk) 22:58, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree, politely approach him and remind to please WP:AGF about allegations of sockpuppetry. Also, I suggest taking your changes to the talk page of the article itself - that always makes for good and smooth inclusions. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 01:04, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Repeated NPOV tagging of article by User:Jglogau

• Jglogau (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has repeatedly NPOV-pushed tags on article: US SEC Boiler Room Prosecutions despite consensus that the article is neutral and well-referenced (SEC Bulletins). He has been warned by several members, yet continues to post NPOV and other tags against the article. His own contributions to Wikipedia have been labeled 'promotional' CorraTech and he himself has been tagged as potentially being in a conflict of interest.

Chopped Lamb (talk) 23:01, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Content dispute. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 04:32, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Total content dispute. I'm doing my best to fix up the article, but have absolutely no idea what the content is about, to be honest. And doubt is starting to creep into my mind about whether this even needs an article here. More eyes on it wouldn't hurt. —αlεx•mullεr 09:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Unhelpful and persistent comments on R&I Talk page

Reference is made to the "Race and intelligence" Talk page: Talk:Race and intelligence. I have mentioned unhelpful and persistent edits by User:Slrubenstein like those shown below to administrator Moonriddengirl:

"Also, please note these more recent edits by user Slrubenstein that seem aimed at preventing an amicable resolution over the sentence discussed above. He seems to be encouraging his buddies not to participate in the discussion or am I supposed to assume that these edits were well intentioned?[91][92] --Jagz (talk) 20:48, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

He is definitely not assuming good faith with those. I will address it with him. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:02, 18 April 2008 (UTC)"

Moonriddengirl asked him to refrain from making edits like that but he has continued anyway: [93] He is not participating in those discussions on the Talk page and seems to be encouraging others not to participate as well. Is there a way to get this to cease? --Jagz (talk) 00:20, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

This discussion [94] identified the problem editor on R&I. It was not Slrubenstein. 131.111.24.97 (talk) 16:16, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that so far, it is User:Jagz who has exhausted the community's supply of good faith on the R&I article, by repeated edit-warring, unhelpful comments on the talk page, and repeatedly bringing the same complaint to different forums in hopes of a different resolution. I'm wondering if a topic ban might not be appropriate at this point? If anyone wants diffs to support these, I'll supply them, but the Race and Intelligence article and associated talk page are a good place to start, in addition to the revision history of Jagz' talk page.--Ramdrake (talk) 16:55, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

This edit [95]

I take it that you are LGBT?

is quite uncalled for. Editors are often blocked for such personal attacks. Mathsci (talk) 17:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

This edit is no more brilliant.--Ramdrake (talk) 17:32, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

User:God Save the South blocked

His second (2nd) edit after coming off a three-day block was to call OrangeMarlin a fascist.[96] I can see no benefit to Wikipedia from his continued participation and have blocked him indefinitely. Reviews and discussion are of course welcome as always. Raymond Arritt (talk) 01:51, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

So much for WP:AGF. We give these people far too much leeway. Entirely agree with indef. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 01:54, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Rodhullandemu, I'm not sure you were here for the incredibly prolonged discussion(s) on this user previously. He was severely warned not to do that again, and apparently missed the memo. Multiple times. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 01:56, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the block, especially considering the previous warning. Someone should tell OrangeMarlin to not respond with more personal attacks though, regardless. ~ UBeR (talk) 01:57, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Hersfold; I read everything and didn't make my comments in a vacuum of ignorance. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 02:01, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Before this gets out of hand, my impression is that Hersfold misread Rod's comments. I read the "so much for WP:AGF" as exasperation that GSTS abused our extension of good faith, not as an objection to the block. (Rod, correct me if that's wrong.) Raymond Arritt (talk) 02:08, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Oops, yes, I did. My apologies. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 02:17, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

No problem. It's sometimes easy to forget that AGF is supposed to work both ways. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 03:05, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• • I will assume good block here, since my every interaction with that user has led me to believe that he is no net gain to the encyclopaedia. Guy (Help!) 13:06, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University

Just a quick one - this article is on ArbCom probation. I managed to help them get sorted out without having to resort to the ArbCom provisions earlier this year (January-February), but right now I'm unavoidably busy offline and won't even be on Wiki for the next 4-5 days, and a new dispute of some form seems to have arisen. I have not had time to look in to see what the dispute is about, but it seems to be over the same minor wording and heading issues that dogged parts of the last dispute, although now with different participants. Can someone with a gentle manner have a look and see if the latest blowup can be resolved amicably? Thanks. Orderinchaos 01:56, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I've had a go. It is over something very minor indeed (should it say "critical links" or "other links"?) Neıl ☎ 13:11, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Turemetalfan / 98.224.211.86

The above user has been blocked indefinitely from editing on wikipedia but is still evading the block through the use of that ip address. He is making edits on the Epica page and I'm not going to revert his edits a third time in a row. He has also left an abusive comment towards me on both the talk page of that article as well as on my article. --Bardin (talk) 02:59, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• This is the indefinite block noting the user of the sock puppet 98.224.211.86.
• This is the third edit in a row on the Epica page removing sourced information referenced by reliable sources (in the main body of the text).
• This is the abusive comment left on my talk page.

--Bardin (talk) 03:08, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

John Oliver (comedian) just challenged his audience to change entries

Moments ago, on his new Comedy Central special, in the last five minutes of the special, he gave specific, Colbert-like instructions as to specific entries to vandalize. BusterD (talk) 03:00, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

So, do you recommend protection, then? Is there any specific course of action that should be taken? —  scetoaux (T|C) 03:03, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Which entries? --Elonka 03:06, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• Charles Schumer - basketball court halfway toss
• Nancy Pelosi - firestarting gaze
• Karl Rove - Gloria Gaynor tattoo
• Dick Lugar - soluble in water
• George W. Bush - performance artist

These are the "lies" Oliver listed, he said wished to get on the pedia. BusterD (talk) 03:09, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Already seeing some action at Charles Schumer. BusterD (talk) 03:10, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Schumer's article is protected now. Pelosi's and Rove's too. Bush's article has been protected, and now I'm protecting Lugar's article.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:13, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Replays in two hours. Unless CC plans on re-running this heavily, 24 hours should be fine. BusterD (talk) 03:17, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh well, these things tend to go on for a while. Maybe preventing them from editing in general will disuade such vandalism in general.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I reiterate: Lead pipe. Comatose. HalfShadow (talk) 03:23, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Better to beat them with quick eyes and disciplined reaction, like we just accomplished. Damage by ips is minimized, echos are very small. He did say some rather authentically nice things about the project (then encouraged everyone to spoil it). BusterD (talk) 03:28, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Nnno, he said nothing nice, but many TRUE things about 'Wikiality', and the ability of any jackass to rewrite history. He got to teh heart of a LOT of the problems with this project. ThuranX (talk) 05:11, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Heh. I just watched that and came by to mention it. He also said that his own bio listed his middle name as "Cornelius", and somebody has already tried that. Might as well protect his entry if you're doing the rest. Probably worth keeping an eye on Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert, and Colbert's favorite targets, too. William Pietri (talk) 03:20, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Was about to mention that but got a edit conflict(thats like the 8th tonight) БοņёŠɓɤĭĠ₳₯є 03:21, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• This may flush out some sleeper socks; I've already reverted one on Chuck Schumer; first edit, though he has been registered since 2006. Horologium (talk) 03:30, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Twothreebreak is another such editor. Also ,requesting MOVE protection on the page, cause... well, idiots are idiots. ThuranX (talk) 05:04, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Okto8's mess at Oliver has been cleared as well (I left the idiotic redirect). I wish a comedian would get out there and made fun of the people who jump and vandalize whenever they tell everyone to. That would be really funny. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:16, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I cleaned up a bit more stuff. I still think his bit was funny, and encourage others to watch the show. I think it's great that we're important and interesting enough to get discussed like this. William Pietri (talk) 05:26, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Roving vandals adding BLP threats to random pages, please zap these

Resolved

 – Looks fine now --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 10:57, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I've just had an IP add some obscene messages to my userpage. This appears to be an ongoing issue regarding a BLP article (per discussion on the AFD page), and the IP is making profane and threatening messages against this person[97]. Can someone range-block this IP, and can someone please zap (as in delete, not revert) those versions of my userpage, as I don't wish to retain defamatory statements in my page history. Squidfryerchef (talk) 03:46, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Squidfryerchef (talk) 10:51, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Personal attacks from User:Jeffmichaud

This user has consistently been unable to discuss policy, but insists on theological discussion laced with continual personal attacks.

• "your finite understanding of this particular subject"
• "You've taken it upon yourself to interpret Explicit Writings"
• "You're making uneducated assumptions without all the facts"
• "Your assertion … irresponsibly concludes"

[98]

• "Pointing out that you're uneducated about "this particular subject" is not a personal attack;"
• "You seem to be suffering from a delusion that your limited understanding of this subject"

[99]

• "you made it up and shamelessly attempted to pass it off as authentic"
• "In fact no reference exists that … are there Mr. Smarty?

[100]

When warned on his user page, these are struck with deliberately insulting edit sums: [101] [102]

Some admin help would be of help. MARussellPESE (talk) 04:46, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh goody, a religious content dispute, with escalating warnings, warnign blankings, and increasingly arrogant tones... whee! but not AN/I material. You've got some ridiculously pontificating content disputes here about the relevancy of Judaic theory to Ba'hai theologies. YOu probably want WP:3O. or WP:DR, but not AN/I, unless you're asking for somethign specific? ThuranX (talk) 05:10, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Requesting Attention

Resolved

 – no action required at this time

Dear Admins,

Due to my approach to balance articles, I have been subjected to harassment, especially by members of Sahaja, here are two examples. First one is from User:Marathi_mulgaa, [103], this is a case of Stalking, second one [104], is from User:Sfacets, [105], Requesting intervention, We cannot do much with IP's though.. --talk-to-me! (talk) 07:29, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Of the three diffs you give, the first two are expressing a concern that you may be a sockpuppet of a banned user (see Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Cult_free_world). I don't think this could be characterised as stalking or harrassment, although if the checkuser comes out negative, then drop me a note on my talk page and I'll remove the notes Marathi_mulgaa and Sfacets added in good faith. The third is an IP blanking their talk page, which is allowed. Neıl ☎ 11:43, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Checkuser came back negative due to stale data (Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Cult free world). I will remove the template from your userpage and the accusations. Note Sfacets is already blocked for other things. I will keep an eye on Marathi_mulgaa. There's nothing else that can be done at this point so I have marked this as resolved. Neıl ☎ 13:06, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the sock puppet case is still active here (based on difs, language and other characteristics). Renee (talk) 13:25, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunatly NONE of the links (diff's) you all (members of Sahaja Marg) provided, works!!, as it is blocked by spam filter... even MfD [106] didn't worked, what else is remaining ? neither sock case, nor various notices at almost all notice boards worked !! may be its time to re-think that due to your WP:COI you fail to see that there is nothing against any policy that I am doing, all i am doing to starting an article, this is what wikipedia is for... not to delete all articles and become blank !!--talk-to-me! (talk) 16:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Trolling and harassment

• User:Jsn9333 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

SPA previously blocked for WP:SOCK violations, this guy has gotten into it with a slew of respected editors as well as admins. Many editors (and admins) have pointed out that incivility, personal attacks, and disruptive behavior will get him blocked, yet he moves ahead full tilt & boogie. I don't have time to dig up all the diffs, but I'm sure pulling a few random diffs from his contribution history over the last few weeks should provide more than enough evidence of trolling and persistent harassment. Don't be tempted to write this off as a content dispute, for it surely is not. I'll leave a notice on some other editors' and admins' talkpages to comment here as well. Thanks in advance. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 11:55, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• Currently I am ignoring all posts by Jsn, so I don't really have much to add to what Blaxthos has previously written. My only interaction with the user was him leaving an innaccurate post on my talk page requesting my comment since there was a new consensus regarding the lede at the Fox News article. When I got to the article talk page it was quickly apparent that the post on my talk page was a lie. After I made an edit in error, I was accused of favoritism, and bias. Even after I explained the error, and apologized for it, he still kept harping on it and saying that I did not show good faith towards him. At that point, I realized this user was simply an agitator single purpose account and very like a troll. So after one day of interaction, I have ignored all his further posts. Although there is a content dispute aspect to the discussion, the behavior of certain editors there has made movement towards consensus almost impossible. I am not sure if ANI can help the situation but if it can, please do so. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 18:06, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• I hope other administrators choose to look into this matter. Jsn is a single-issue editor determined to be combative with everyone in sight. This is an article that is obviously controversial but the editors there have largely managed to work harmoniously until the arrival of Jsn. I have no problem with him being a strong advocate, but he should be asked to work on his interactions with other users. Gamaliel (talk) 18:16, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• Late to the party, but like Ramsquire, I began ignoring any posts made by Jsn several days ago. Almost every post he makes is an attempt to discredit other editors (specifically blaxthos) and their motives. He/she is a disruptive SPA and hasn't taken well to nudges in the right direction. He's quite the disruptive force in a discussion that, while heated, has always been quite civil. - auburnpilot talk 18:39, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• Account summary by R. Baley (unsolicited and uninvolved)
• Jsn9333 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

account created: 14 March 2008

Interiot's tool (wannabeKate) results link.

• At FoxNews talk page (SPA?):

312 edits (out of 441 edits total, run at Mon Apr 21 17:03:13 2008 GMT)

Diff showing that the editor knows good deal about wikipedia at 15 days (however, this could have an innocent explanation), to quote from the previous diff, "If discussion with the other party seeking to bias the entry does not solve the problem then we'll have to turn to another request for comment or a survey (most likely even arbitration since supposedly a consensus was already built. . ."

Virtually all 441 edits concern Fox News or Jeremiah Wright, however, the editor states in an unblock request, "I'm not a conservative; I'm not a liberal. I'm someone who spots bias when I see it. . ."

• Other relevant information:

Jsn9333's Block log "19:23, 5 April 2008 Gb (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "Jsn9333 (Talk | contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 48 hours ? (Abusing multiple accounts) (Unblock)"

SSP case, related RFCU

Talk page revision showing discussion related to the block before it was removed.

Oblique ref to wp:bite:

"I'm fairly new here.

". . .but rather am seeking to understand this process better."

Other:

FNC indefinitely protected

Conclusions: My check leads me to believe this might be a reincarnated account, whose user has probably run into trouble before through POV-pushing, but has learned enough to at least push the boundaries of our policies this time around. Also the last edit seems to be on April 17. Since I can't be around much right now (for following-up) -I would like input from others. But I think this is worth keeping an eye on at the very least. BTW, has anyone notified the editor of this discussion? R. Baley (talk) 18:42, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

WikiLobbying campaign organized offsite by ethnic pressure group

The lobby group Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America has apparently organized more than fifty editors via a mailing list to correct what it sees as bias against Israel. The list archives are here.

So are we going to do anything about this? Or are we going to declare the source an "attack site" and make wild accusations against everyone who brings it up? <eleland/talkedits> 14:17, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Israel is an article that gets thousands of editors' attention already, both good and bad, so I doubt 50 more would make a big dent in things even if they were rabid POV warriors, which let's not assume. They may even improve the articles. If they do not, we can take action then. If CAMERA starts getting too much non-neutral editing, we can always semi-protect it and require rigid sourcing. Neıl ☎ 14:26, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

There is one "rapid POV warrior" who is almost single-handedly affecting numerous articles on the subject by a combination of wikilawyering and attrition. Unfortunately no-one seems willing to do anything about him. пﮟოьεԻ 57 14:46, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Noting in passing that any group with the words "truth", "fairness" or "accuracy" in its name almost always stands for the exact opposite - funny old world. Guy (Help!) 14:28, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

It's highly doubtful that there are "thousands" of editors working even on a big article like Israel, let alone on the articles which were specifically targeted, such as AoIA and Causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus. Even five editors working rationally in co-ordination could achieve massive changes to such articles, let alone fifty. And that's if we charitably assume that CAMERA wouldn't use their massive funding and thousands of members to create undetectable sock puppet accounts. They (including somebody with the same name and writing style as User:Zeq) were talking about creating accounts to edit unrelated topic areas, getting them promoted to admins, and then using them as "uninvolved admins" to ban people per the Arab-Israeli arbitration ruling. This is pretty serious. <eleland/talkedits> 14:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hopefully this revelation will put an end to the arguments about CAMERA being a strictly NPOV source. Statements such as "One or more of you who want to take this route should stay away from any Israel realted articles for month until they interact in a positive way with 100 wikipedia editors who would be used later to vote you as an administrator." are quite worrying. I wonder if zeqzeq2 is any relation to our own User:Zeq... пﮟოьεԻ 57 14:40, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

According to this article, he's one and the same. pedrito - talk - 21.04.2008 14:44

P.S. As somebody who works hard trying to keep these articles WP:NPOV, this really, really sucks. pedrito - talk - 21.04.2008 14:46

OK let's look at this in context, Most of what is in that document is entirely non-problematically - "stick to wikipolicies, make sure you have a policy reason for removing material you think is bias, edit in a rational manner etc". That's fine, but what's worrying is the suggestion that the end game should be that some of them because admins who don't edit those articles so that they can then dive in and lock pages as "uninvolved" (and I guess take orders off-site about what articles they should be "uninvolved" on). There is a list of articles that shouldn't be touched to start with and it's noted at the end of the list that about one article in particular - be carefully as this will get you in direct fight with all the muslims there. for now I don't touch this any more until we have maybe 20 editors who can fight and two "uninvolved" admins on our side --87.112.70.168 (talk) 14:55, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree that not all the suggestions proferred are entirely evil, at least when taken at face value. That is a sign that Wikipedia's core policies really do tend to channel people into the right mindset. However, the e-mails also reveal that conscious POV-pushers are well aware of the defects in our policies. For starters, the whole "uninvolved admin" trope has gotten way out of hand, and effectively undermined NPOV. If you actually know enough about a topic area to recognize stealth POV pushing, you're almost certainly involved in that topic area. As a result, subtle and well-crafted frauds absolutely plague our Israel-Palestine pages. <eleland/talkedits> 15:02, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

....it would be best to note on the discussion page that 'This sentence violates Wikipedia's NPOV policy, since the description of Israel's policies as 'oppressive' is an opinion. In addition, it is often noted by Middle East experts that one of the reasons Palestinians decide to become suicide bombers is hate education and glorification of martyrdom in Palestinian society ...' Sorry, that is evil, regardless of the fact that its technically bang-on and something I might post in support of. Its evil because its a Wikilaw school. Read the last sentence: they're being taught to misrepresent sources, to weasel their way around, to take advantage of assumptions of good faith. Notice the avoidance of which experts - not academic experts, you can bet. --Relata refero (disp.) 15:38, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

(undent) We can't crack down hard enough on groups like this. I'd support immediate indef topic bans from all Israel-related articles for any editor demonstrably associated with activities like that. No warnings. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:03, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Pro-Israel editors are as bad as anti-Israel editors. An indef ban seems fine here. It's WP:CANVASSing, to me. Grsz11 15:07, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, it would appear that we have one. I might try and infiltrate the group to see their distribution list and see if any other editors are on it. пﮟოьεԻ 57 15:09, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd block and topic ban on sight. That sort of conduct is completely unacceptable and must be removed immediately, before others get any ideas. Rudget 15:10, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Moreover I think the uninvolved admin notion (especially, in my own opinion, as it relates to single purpose accounts) is somewhat broken. As User:Raul654 has been saying lately, this tends to shut out those very admins who know enough about a topic and its contribution history to make the most helpful calls on what to do about PoV/edit warring, original research and source warping. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:15, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Hear hear. At the moment its impossible for me to put sanctions on the various POV-pushers in the Israel-Palestine sphere as I'm an "involved" admin (although I nearly wasn't as some of the POV-pushers tried to derail my RfA through CANVASsing, though that's another story). When outside editors get involved they don't know the history of certain editors and tend to make poorly informed decisions. пﮟოьεԻ 57 15:23, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• My take is that the specific articles listed need to be watched more closely, and new editors entering those topics need some scrutiny, but most of what is laid out in the original document is good advice; recommending that editors follow Wikipedia's procedures and policies, and more importantly, to cite relevant materials in a civil and NPOV fashion is hardly something to condemn them for. It's collaboration, but it is specifically framed to work within Wikipedia, rather than to violate established norms. Horologium (talk) 15:18, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

An interim solution seems obvious. If Camera has indeed canvassed a stacking campaign of editors organizing themselves off-line to influence Wiki content, then it has set up an extremely dangerous precedent (of sorts: it doesn't take much editing to recognize this problem is already present). Therefore a deterrent of some sort is required. What CAMERA advocates can be repeated by other lobbies (from anywhere, on any section). I therefore suggest that CAMERA itself be declared an Unreliable Source, a sufficient warning to any external agency ringing in POV-tagteam editors that, if it tries to stack Wiki, it will suffer the consequences of not being ever cited by Wiki. Anything else is a waste of time. How this is handled will be well worth watching, it will be a touchstone on which Wikipedia's administrative integrity proves, or disproves itself Nishidani (talk) 15:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

No - that's a non-starter for a number of reasons. The reliability of CAMERA as a source is entirely separate to their actions here. One concern should not be piggybacked onto another. --87.112.70.168 (talk) 15:25, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

(clarifying my earlier comment after ec) Yes, CAMERA should be declared as unreliable, and use of its documents deprecated. However, if they provide reliably sourced citations (which appears to be one of the group's aims), then there should not be a problem. Horologium (talk) 15:26, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• I've been worried about this for some time. See Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Evidence-based for just one recent related problem. In addition, there have been several problematic AfDs recently of articles that have been sourced almost entirely to CAMERA and related editorials in marginal newspapers; those have mostly closed as keep after they attract vast amounts of attention. I note that RfAs should be scrutinised more carefully. All the people who vote cheerfully for people who have never participated in any form of dispute resolution, etc., etc. be warned. I haven't read the emails in detail yet, and am going offline to do so, but I've read the summary. (I notice that while Zeq is involved up to the hilt, he seems to think that Jay, while considered a useful ally, is supposed to be generally ignorant of this machination. This is good news.) Incidentally, I have been asked about this recently by a couple of reporters, including one for the Boston Globe. --Relata refero (disp.) 15:23, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• Block the lot for disruption, conflict of interest, and abuse of Wikipedia, and set up a long-term abuse page on them. In fact, let's get them on Wikinews and Signpost to send a message that this isn't tolerated. We don't need Zionist crazies damaging Wikipedia, or any other crazies of <insert affiliation> either doing organized trolling and trouble. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 15:32, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

From their newsletter:

"The bad news is this allows anti-Israel "editors" to introduce all kinds of bias and error into the many Israel-related articles, even the entry on CAMERA. The good news is, individual volunteers can work as "editors" to ensure that these articles are free of bias and error, and include necessary facts and context. Assuring accuracy and impartiality in Wikipedia is extremely important. If someone searches for "Israel" on the Google search engine, for example, the top result returned by Google would be the Wtkjpediapag~emQn Israel. CAMERA seeks 10 volunteers to help us keep Israel-related entries on Wikipedia from becoming tainted by anti-Israel editors. All it takes to be an effective volunteer is a basic comfort level with computers. Call or email me, and I will train you on how to become a volunteer Wikipedia editor."

This group is not here to improve Wikipedia, but Israeli/their interests' standing in Google. We need to slam the door in their faces before other people decide to do this very bad thing. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 15:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Gosh, you make it sound as if POV-pushing is relatively rare on WP. As far as I can see, it's all over the place, and WP is fighting a losing battle. A witch-hunt to smoke out CAMERA infiltrators would be an utterly paranoid way to go about handling what actually is a specific instance of an endemic problem. Just handle the POV-pushing as and when you encounter it. rudra (talk) 15:46, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Bollocks, its worse here than elsewhere, because its co-ordinated, methods of misrepresentation are taught, and readymade, if slanted, "reliable source" quotefarms are made available. This happens only rarely elsewhere that I've seen. --Relata refero (disp.) 15:48, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

This is an organized attack by nest of trolling POV warriors. If we don't slap them down hard and in public, others will get this same bad idea. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 15:54, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree 110% with Lawrence, i suggest a cease and desist letter from foundation lawyers would be a good start. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 15:57, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

It is much worse in this area than in others. The basic pattern of conflict here is the same as in the other ethnic fights, but the kind of stuff that would be easily, instantly identified as Albanian or Macedonian POV-pushing goes virtually unchallenged. We are literally still dealing with "questions" like whether the West Bank is under military occupation and whether territory outside the Green Line is Israeli. These are "controversies" in media punditry perhaps, in the same sense that global warming or evolution are "controversies," but in the relevant academic communities they are settled, consensus issues. <eleland/talkedits> 16:03, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Or, to add a recent and absolutely bizarre example, entire articles are for months blocked because no administrator with native English competence can come in and tell two or three editors that the word 'uprising', as established by dozens of quotations from scholarly books, the O.E.D., and over a 142 wiki pages, has been shown exhaustively to be quite normal to describe an insurrection like the al-Aqsa Intifada neutrally, being used for several hundred similar historical episodes in world historiography. Why is it blocked? Because one editor thinks using it of a Palestinian insurgency creates an unhappy analogy with the Jewish 'Warsaw Uprising'. It's rather like a Christian fundamentalist saying we shouldn't translate Tolstoy's novel with the word 'Resurrection' (denoting Dmitri Neklyodov's and Maslova the prostitute's Воскресение because it offends sentiments that associate the word with Christ's unique Resurrection.Nishidani (talk) 16:28, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

"We will go to war after we have build our army, equiped it, trained..." Good times. Actually, the mechanisms to deal with this are already in place. I seriously doubt that CAMERA-solicited POV-pushers will slip under the radar; the problem in such situations is more a matter of the will and energy to deal with obvious problems. I'd suggest the following as good general guidelines for this or any such situation:

• Watchlist requests for adminship and demand evidence of actual commitment to and understanding of Wikipedia policy in admin candidates. Wikignoming and rolling back vandalism are great, but they don't require the tools. Adminship is a very big deal in April 2008, largely as a result of a series of ArbCom decisions which have handled thorny issues by empowering the Platonic "any uninvolved administrator" with extraordinary discretion. It's entirely reasonable to oppose people who haven't satisfactorily demonstrated a grasp of core policies and conflict resolution before requesting the tools. You wouldn't give someone a drivers' license because they can change a tire, would you?
• Watchlist problem articles, even if you don't participate. Agenda-based POV-pushing thrives on a lack of outside eyes. The more these issues devolve into back-and-forth shouting matches, the less effective we are at dealing with them.
• It's not hard to identify agenda accounts which place advocacy for their POV above Wikipedia's policies. It's really not. If you observe such behavior, then request outside input, here or via WP:RFC/U, sooner rather than later. It will not be pretty - in this recently-closed ArbCom case, I spent 6 months dealing with an obvious agenda account at every level of dispute resolution, only to be accused of "biting a newbie" when the situation ended up with ArbCom - but it can be done. MastCell ^Talk 15:53, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, a voice of sanity. The watchword is patience. rudra (talk) 16:12, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

"Not hard to identify agenda accounts"? "will and energy"? What universe are you living in? If you had happened to step by recent AfDs sourced entirely to CAMERA quotefarms, you would have noticed that they became such a mess that people cheerfully closed them as no consensus keeps. Will and energy are strikingly lacking in the average AfD closer - naturally, these AfDs are hardly the straightforward closes one expects, nor are they scrutinised by higher-up muckety-mucks like that of some WR rabble-rouser. How will the standard mechanisms deal with that? When further up this page we have Durova cheerfully defending an extraordinarily tendentious editor she's mentoring, who's singlehandedly derailed normal academic sourcing on a dozen articles? When any admin is 'involved' if at any point they've edited these articles? When these "agenda accounts" are being taught to wikilawyer in such a way that it will not be easy to demonstrate, in the face of the usual cheesy uproar about character assassination and rushing to judgment and lynch mobs, that they have an agenda over and above WP's? Patience-schmatience. --Relata refero (disp.) 18:42, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• The alarming thing is that the group is told that creating and editing with a user account is a way to maintain anonymity. It exposes incredibly bad faith! 24.12.95.171 (talk) 16:14, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

bangpound needs a cookie. i'm not trying to be ironic. i just forgot to log in myself! i claim the above edit. Bangpound (talk) 16:16, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Is there any corroboration of the evidence? The pdf file, generated by paper capture, comes from Electronic Intifada, who we could hardly consider to be a neutral on this topic any more than CAMERA. If in fact it can be independently corroborated, shut them out as fast as possible before EI gets the idea they should adopt the same tactics. LeadSongDog (talk) 16:20, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Can any other existing account be linked to the group, except Zeq? Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:23, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

If this is, as EI claims, a consipracy of many people - where are they ? Is there any evidence in Wikipedia that there is such a group ? is there any edit of mine which can be viewed as part of a group effort ? seriously - it seems that someone have not done his homework as I have never took part in any tag team. It is the other side who usualy able to gather several editors who revert my contributions. This whole thing smacks of a capmgain to deletimize what all good editors are trying to do: Improve the project and keep wikipedia follow it's own policy. If anyone can point to existance on wikipedia to an orgenized campgain to re-write history by Pro Israel group I would like to see proof of it - show me diffs ?. What I see now is mostly re-wrting of history by pro-Palestinian editors who may or may not work as a group. Also if my memory is correct I have never editted an article about CAMERA. please check out the history files....Zeq (talk) 16:38, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

'is there any edit of mine which can be viewed as part of a group effort ? seriously - it seems that someone have not done his homework as I have never took part in any tag team.'[User:Zeq|Zeq]]

Well since you asked for it, yes there is, and anyone can read the close analysis of how you operate with the full details on my talk page, where I documented how you blocked my attempt to work in reliable sources on the Mohammad Amin al-Husayni page you refused to accept, by ringing in another editor to engage in an edit-war with me, and the damage was Walter Laqueur, and Benny Morris excluded from the page, and me with a 3RR violation, after I called your game and wore an 'antisemitic' insinuation. E.g.

'Very early on October 26 Zeq asks User:Armon in New Zealand, long invisible on the page, to email him here. Quickly afterwards User:Armon begins to edit vigorously against my content contributions, often wikilawyering.

No one will notice. I never reported it. But (1) You disliked my reliable sources, (2) asked Armon to email you (3)Armon immediately began to tagteam edit with you against me, and I got banned while the two of you continued on your merry way. Go to my talk page and enjoy the full details. Nishidani (talk) 17:24, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Dont't ask us if we have proof. You tell us the truth. Are you claiming the whole thing is a fake, yes or no? Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:40, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

It never fails to amaze me how often Wikipedians give themselves away simply by not denying the charges against them. <eleland/talkedits> 16:45, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Guilty until proven innocent ? I am asking again a simple question: Where in wikipedia there is even a shred of evidence to show there is any such group. I edit some of the articles mentioned by EI (not all) and I follow most of them for years. I can tell you flat out that these article have no hint none what ever as to any pro-Israeli group who edit in these articles. The opposite is true: many such articles are WP:Own by group of pro-palestinian editors - this is the real issue Wikipedia need to address. take for example the article about Israeli apartheid. All other articles on such apartheid (like in Saudi Arabia) have been removed - except the article about the so called "israel apartheid" - an article that again and again by an orgenized group that prevent it from being deleted as it should have. Zeq (talk) 16:47, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

One 'shred of evidence': [107]. This was intended to be sent to Pinchas Cohen, Beit Or, and Humus Sapiens when it was "sent in error" to the WikiEN-I list. 66.82.9.77 (talk) 18:15, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Certainly guilty if you can't even be bothered to plead not guilty. I asked you a very straightforward quesion. Why are you not answering it? Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:51, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

...and even after I prompt you, you don't deny that you wrote those emails. <eleland/talkedits> 16:52, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Wait, are you implying that User:Zeq is organizing this off-Wiki CAMERA disruption and attack? Lawrence Cohen § t/e 16:54, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

That is what the document shows. Unless all the mails in it are fake, he is the organiser (or would-be organiser). As he isn't actually denying he wrote those mails, I would say I've seen enough at this point. I don't believe it's a fake; it's too well done for that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:59, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

No. Future - You are not a court and I don't need to "plea" anything. If there is suc a group that include anyone but me - who are the group members ? where are diffs with their edits ? I suggest that instead of chasing ghost group wikipedia once and forall will take a look at how history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is being re-wriiten by pro-palestinian editors using clear violations of wikipedia NPOV poliocies. Zeq (talk) 16:56, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Zeq, are you a member of this off-Wiki group in any capacity, or the one who wrote this email notice to disrupt Wikipedia? Lawrence Cohen § t/e 16:59, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

If you are not part of this group just say so, why not deny it if its a lie? ^{(Hypnosadist)} 17:05, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I have not tried to disrupt wikipedia in any way. My record as good faith editor is very clear. I have my viwes _ which do not fit any group - and I edit in good faith providing sources to any of my views or edits. This record is clear over the past two years. Zeq (talk) 17:13, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

The "group" may well not yet exist of course - assuming the EI docs are genuine, canvassing for volunteers only started recently. Plus any participants are being advised to keep a low profile to start with. So this denial of any active group editing isn't really worth very much on its own, even if Zeq has nothing to do with this at the end of the day. And what is particularly galling about this is that in the past I and others, often genuinely uninvolved outsiders, have faced utterly spurious allegations of biased tag team editing, simply for making NPOV edits to articles in this area. How far did COI discussions about User:Gni get as well? I've noticed they were accused of editing from a CAMERA-associated IP address and have been barred from editing the CAMERA article. The username looks oddly linkable to name of the "senior research analyst" quoted in the documents, Gilead Ini (apologies if I'm a bit behind with this one, I've only had a quick glance around the history) --Nickhh (talk) 17:01, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

The Google Group where the discussions originate does exist. http://groups.google.com/group/isra-pedia But it is invite only. Bangpound (talk) 17:03, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

There is another very disturbing issue, which does not yet seem to have been picked up. In the exchange of emails, the correspondent identified as "Isra guy (zeqzeq2@yahoo.com)" urges people to make edits to Mohammad Amin al-Husayni, writing "this is an article that the Palestinians will fight for. You want to get them into trouble: make legitimate edits on this article by bringing quotes from ACADEMIC sources (not jut from links on the web). get them sanctioned after they delete this info." So we have here evidence of a deliberate campaign of edit-warring, designed to get less-experienced, or careless, editors, banned from editing. I would urge all admins to check very carefully before applying any sanctions to an editor who appears to have been deliberately entrapped by such a manoeuvre. RolandR (talk) 17:02, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• Let's get this stright: According to this accusation I am accused of telling "members of the group" to use proper academic sources and make legitimate edits... Nice. And where is the evidence for "deliberate campaign of edit-warring" ? Zeq (talk) 17:16, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh look Zeq has editited that article a lot. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 17:09, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Is there any thing wrong in editing this article ? Zeq (talk) 17:12, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I did not say that but its a 1 in 2,000,000 shot that you Zeq edit the article zeqzeq2 wants people to edit. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 17:22, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Properly speaking, CAMERA senior research analyst Gilead Ini is the organizer. Zeq was helping out, though - start on page 5 of the pdf. <eleland/talkedits> 17:02, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Page 5 of which PDF? Link please? The one at the thread start is only one page. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 17:10, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Pdf at bottom of this page http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article9474.shtml ^{(Hypnosadist)} 17:14, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

No it's 13 pages long, I don't think you have fully downloaded it. --87.112.70.168 (talk) 17:13, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

A thought: if electronicintifada.net has these e-mails, it will almost certainly have more. Plainly someone has signed up to the Isra-pedia Google Group with the intention of acting as a mole. I think we can expect further exposés from that source in due course. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:07, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Ban proposal

So, the upshot so far is: Zeq is denying that the group is currently active on Wikipedia; he is not denying that the mails are genuine and hence that he was trying to organise the group. Whether its alleged or real non-activity is part of his plan, or whether its a sign of the failure of his attempts, is immaterial. What counts is that he tried to organise it. In light of this, I hereby formally propose a community-imposed topic ban on Zeq from all Israel- and Palestine-related articles, for a period of no shorter than a year. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:11, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• based on what Proof ? I ask again : Show me shred of proof that there is such effort. Show me any diff that fit an orgenized group edit ? I deny taking part in any effort which tried to disrupt wikipedia. last time I checked EI is not a WP:RS source...I would submit that there is actually an orgenized group by People such as RolandR who take turns in reverting m edits. If you want to see Diffs showing that I cam provide them. Zeq (talk) 17:22, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Based on the fact you've been asked to deny being part of this group and you don't. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 17:27, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Zeq is an incredibly tendentious editor to begin with. I really don't want to have to deal with whatever tactic he'll come up with to skirt the ban, or listen to him wikilawyer about how X isn't really a Isr-Pal article, and anyway Y is an involved admin with no right to control him. I propose that Zeq be hardbanned and blocked indefinitely. <eleland/talkedits> 17:18, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• Not the first time someone who does not like my edits suggest to ban me. Zeq (talk) 17:22, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

let's not get into wikilawyering and bullshit, nobody here has the stomach for it and you are wasting our time trying that one. You have been asked a number of times and have failed to give an answer - so let me ask once more - are you saying 1) that the emails are not from you 2) that the emails are from you but are faked/altered in some way 3) that it's all faked. What is the answer? --87.112.70.168 (talk) 17:27, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Let's be clear about this - he should be banned, not because he was trying to WP:CANVASS but because he was trying to fundamentally undermine the neutrality of the project. Attempts to install 'sleeper' admins who are answerable to off-site interests is NOT an attack on a specific topic area, it is an attack on the fundamental nature and integrity of the project. A clear signal must be sent - let's be clear this is not about I/P, this is about protecting the project from those who wish to use the project for their own purposes. He should be banned for a minimum of six months. --87.112.70.168 (talk) 17:21, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• I agree based on the above discussion and per 87.112.70.168's comments. I also hope, that for Wikiipedia's benefit, that no major media groups pick up this story. D.M.N. (talk) 17:23, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• And I hope, for Wikipedia's benefit, that many do. Larry Sanger was right; Wikipedia is a polity, and a democratic polity needs a free press keeping it honest. <eleland/talkedits> 17:29, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

There are a couple of issues here. Is this email genuine? I don't think we can answer that easily, and I'm uncomfortable sanctioning someone based on an email exchange reproduced on a partisan website with zero accountability or fact-checking. I think that's a very dangerous precedent. That said, Zeq's respone - a combination of evasion and aggression - is not particularly reassuring. If the reproduction is genuine, then I think there's more than ample grounds to topic-ban Zeq under the terms of the Israeli-Palestinian ArbCom case. It may be worth consulting with ArbCom about this, since I suspect any remedy will likely be appealed there. MastCell ^Talk 17:28, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Is this what you meant when you said the existing systems are adequate? Because this very post seems to indicate that they aren't. --Relata refero (disp.) 18:31, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean? We're discussing a potential future problem and ways to head it off. Even if these emails are accepted at face value, they describe plans for future action. We're discussing whether some sort of remedy should be applied preventively, or whether we should wait and watch. I've voiced my opinion. What inadequacy are you seeing? MastCell ^Talk 18:48, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

See above. You're assuming rather neatly that this 50-strong effort is the first one they've made. The COI noticeboard had something similar copied from April last year, IIRC. The fact that this may have been going on without our current structures noticing (well, except for the occasional self-righteous editor jumping up and down about original research and quotefarms and coatrack articles and sockfarms) seems to suggest a certain inadequacy, what? --Relata refero (disp.) 18:56, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• Given that my wikipedia ID is meared in such way it is reqsonable that I will be a bit angry - don't you think ? I have stated very clearly that I have not participated in an effort to disrupt wikipedia and that if you look at the articles I edit (there isreally a limited group of such articles - my watch list is maybe 50 articles) there is no evidence of any pro-israel group editing them. Zeq (talk) 17:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Some simple yes/no answer questions;

1)Are you a member of the Isra-pedia google group?

2)Have you ever used the email address zeqzeq2@yahoo.com?

The only answers i'll except are yes or no. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 17:43, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

MastCell is correct. The evidence against Zeq at this point is entirely from electronicintifada.net. I don't think that can be accepted as fair evidence from an unprejudiced source. At the least, it would certainly be correct to say that they openly take an opposite view to CAMERA, and, among other things, are openly dedicated to trying to destroy its credibility. They may well be right--extreme POV does not prevent someone from actually being in the right; they are dedicated to finding evidence against CAMERA, and they may indeed have found some. But I don't think we can take their word for it. If an editor is organizing a campaign of this sort, that ed. and anyone cooperating in it should be banned, but first we need some reliable evidence that it is the case. I have an opinion on this matter also, but that's not evidence either. DGG (talk) 17:29, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't buy anything from EI.net if they offered to throw in an adorable puppy, and the moment Zeq denies that zeqzeq is him, we will have to move on. I merely note that the articles zeqzeq is supposed to discuss, and the idiosyncratic spelling and grammar on display, appear to be truly remarkable feats of impersonation. --Relata refero (disp.) 18:31, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• I will support a topic ban of Zeq from the Israeli-Palestinian articles unless he denies his involvement in the offsite email campaign in a forthright and believable manner. Since misbehavior by editors pushing CAMERA's POV was previously discussed at WP:COIN I believe the evidence given there was enough to show that CAMERA was trying to organize a campaign to perform POV editing of Wikipedia. The evidence wasn't sufficient (at that time) to show how much that campaign had actually done. I note that Arbcom has given authority to individual administrators to impose article bans in this area. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles#Log of blocks and bans. EdJohnston (talk) 17:43, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• Support EdJohnston's particular version of a proposed topic-ban with the same conditions. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 17:44, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• Agree. Fut. Perf. puts his finger on it: "As he isn't actually denying he wrote those mails, I would say I've seen enough at this point. I don't believe it's a fake; it's too well done for that." I can't say I'm particularly familiar with Zeq, since we don't seem to edit the same set of articles, but I've compared the language used in the e-mails quoted by electronicintifada.net and Zeq's own posts on Wikipedia; they seem to be very, very similar. I suppose one could claim it was a clever fake but there's simply too much detail, and it's too similar to Zeq's style, for that explanation to be convincing. The area of editing (and the specific articles mentioned in the e-mails) are identical. Frankly, if this was a simple case of sockpuppeting I would feel confident in blocking Zeq based on the evidence. Given the weight of evidence against him and his non-denials, I think this has to count as a cast-iron violation of the stipulations of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles, specifically that editors are expected to "adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process." This sort of off-wiki aggressive meatpuppetry is plainly far from our expected standards of behaviour. -- ChrisO (talk) 17:49, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
• Support topic ban - The last thing this encyclopedia needs is organized groups of POV-pushers, particularly on I/P issues. This has the ability to disrupt and destroy the credibility and integrity of the encyclopedia. FCYTravis (talk) 18:03, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose - What I've seen so far is shaping up as a witch-hunt. The evidence so far consists of (a) a PDF from a biased source, and (b) Zeq's lack of disavowing the identification with zeqzeq2(at)yahoo, to which IMHO he's perfectly entitled, by the usual understandings of anonymity. Besides, I haven't seen any analysis of things like writing style, characteristic typos and the like to substantiate the identification. The basic problem with the PDF is that it's a selection. Posts to mailing lists aren't dissertation theses with every word scrutinized in advance. I don't know how many times I've posted follow-ups to mailing lists clarifying infelicitous turns of phrase or other potential sources of misinterpretation in earlier posts. One simply can't judge from incomplete histories. Yes, the selection shows zeqzeq2 "aiding and abetting" meat-puppetry, but he offers plenty of sound advice while doing so, which taken on board could make someone coming to scoff remain to pray. I just don't see reasons to panic. rudra (talk) 18:38, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• If it's not him, that wrote that email, why doesn't he just say that? Lawrence Cohen § t/e 18:51, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea. But I don't think that he must answer. That's too inquisitorial an attitude for my tastes. rudra (talk) 19:03, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is under attack, here, from a known advocacy group who we have evidence intends to disrupt us. We have a smoking gun that implicates an editor here with a long-standing history of the same advocacy as the troll organization in question. Is Zeq being setup for a fall? Maybe. If it's not him, though, all he has to say is "No". I AGF, so that would be enough for me, as I noted in my Support of a proposed community ban. The fact he's completely ignored this very, very, very easy out tells me that zeqzeq2 is our User:Zeq. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 19:07, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• Support a Full community ban, clearly Zeq is part of this Trolling group and a point must be made that this is NOT ACCEPTABLE on wikipedia and must be stopped. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 19:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Chris, I am not a member of that Group. Is that enough of a denial for you ? The list of articles I edit is small and anyone can compile such list from looking at my contribution page. This is really going too far. What you are doing is giving to an outside source EI the power to ban users who edit (according to policy) in a POV that EI does not like. You have to ask yourself if I was a pro-Palestinian editor and member of such group would EI publish this article ? The siomple answer is no. I suggest that if you want further evidence you look in wikipedia itself and so I simpley ask again: Is there any evidence within wkipedia that suggests that over the time EI claim this group exists it has been doing anything in wikipedia ? Since I know the articles mention in the list very well (these are indeed the article s I tend to edit) I can tell you 100% : there is no pro-israeli group working on those articles, In fact there is an effort cordinated by several pro-Palestinian editors to WP:Own some of these articles. Zeq (talk) 18:02, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Were you a group member in the past? <eleland/talkedits> 18:07, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Forget were you a member--did you write the cited email on page 5 of that PDF? Thats what is critical here. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 18:14, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Are you zeqzeq2 in those emails? --Relata refero (disp.) 18:31, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• Support if EI's assertions hold up, as this is a very disturbing allegation. Its one thing to face off with those of opposing points of view; as tenditious as they may be, it is still just one person and one opinion. To find that there really may be a cabal behind it gaming the system kinda undercuts what this project is trying to accomplish here. The broken Engrish of Wikipedia's Zeq and zeqzeq2@yahoo.com are certainly strikingly similar for what its worth...I've had to read that stuff for 2+ years here now. But the part I find kinda damning is on Page 13 regarding the Allegations of Israeli apartheid and Uri Davis page numbering discussion. Zeq was heavily involved and had been fighting that for awhile, and per usual, Jayjg leaped into the fray and the issue eventually got tied up over at WP:V. zeqzeq2@yahoo.com touting this on the e-mail as a victory is precisely how Zeq would see that. Feel kinda sorry for Jayjg in all of this, as it appears that this cabal has been keeping him as an unwitting shield. Tarc (talk) 19:18, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Question for Zeq

The email in question is on page 5 of this PDF: http://electronicintifada.net/downloads/pdf/080421-camera-wikipedia.pdf Zeq, is this you? The writing style, language, and unique formatting of using ? with a space does appear to be. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 17:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

An earlier CAMERA ANI case is here. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 17:38, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Zeq, please address this, as this is the apparent key issue as relates to you. Otherwise, this is something for RFAR, if you do not. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 17:40, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Related sock farm?

I note that a few days ago a checkuser run by Thatcher discovered a large farm of sockpuppets, which had been editing (sometimes rather disruptively) mostly Israel-Palestinian articles. See Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Evidence-based for details. I wonder if this is related to the CAMERA campaign discussed above? -- ChrisO (talk) 17:31, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

This is intersting. I took a look at the group described here Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Evidence-based. I reconized one name Susan somthing. I stumble upon several of her edits when her user page was RED. So I tried to e-mail her but there was no e-mail. I asked her to open an e-mail account but she did not do it so at the end i told her on the talk page (if I recall correctly) to open a user page so that her name in history file will not apear red. This is pretty much as far as my involvment with any of the names on that list. Surly not very "disruptive" . I also did partyicipate in one AFD in which she participated in (I think) - hopefully that is not a crime either. Zeq (talk) 17:42, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I say "disruptively" because the sockpuppeteer didn't have much idea about reliable sourcing and repeatedly insisted on inserting thoroughly unreliable sources (FrontPage Mag, Michelle Malkin's blog etc) in the one article where I interacted with the sockpuppets. It wasn't very disruptive, just typical of the sort of thing you get when you deal with people who are convinced they alone are in possession of The Truth™. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:02, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Why will you not just answer the question? --87.112.70.168 (talk) 17:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Some simple yes/no answer questions;

1)Are you a member of the Isra-pedia google group?

2)Have you ever used the email address zeqzeq2@yahoo.com?

The only answers i'll accept are yes or no. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 17:54, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

If the answer to #1 is "Yes", what does that prove? Last I checked, being a member of a google group doesn't mean that one agrees with everything posted there.
If the answer to #2 is "Yes", what does that prove? Emails can be faked, y'know.
Even so, what, exactly, would answering "No" prove? Either Zeq would be honestly answering if he wasn't involved, or lying if he was involved. Either one would believe him/her or not -- it comes down to reputation and believability, and, besides, it seems like the questioners already have their mind made up either way. I can understand getting my hackles up at those questions and refusing to answer -- the line of interrogation is too much like the loyalty oath fever of the American 1950's for my taste.
If there's a group plotting to abuse Wikipedia (pro- or anti-Israel, f'rinstance) (and it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest), root it out, no matter what the cause they are fighting for. But let's try good old-fashioned methods, like evidence and analysis, instead of the new trend towards badgering and character assassination.
Oh, in case anybody wants to know (and wants to believe me), I'm not a member of any such group, I have not been a member of the Communist party (although, in high school, I did put up posters saying "Leon Trotsky for Student Body Treasurer" as a joke), I have not advocated the violent overthrow of the Government of the United States, and I don't think I have edited any article dealing with Israel or Palestine except possibly for vandalism reversion (and if I have I am deeply sorry and promise to try not to do something apparently stupid like that again). I'm just not sure I like what is happening here in general. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 18:24, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia demands loyalty to its policies and its objectives if not you get banned. Zeqs constant unwillingness to answer a simple question is what makes me believe this aligation to be true. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 18:29, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Loyalty is shown by deeds and actions -- oaths and interrogation are useless. Again, I ask, what if he answered "no"? Would it change anything? Would it mean anything? Would it change your mind? -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 18:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Not now, if he had said that over an hour ago i would have believed him. But more evidence has turned up in that hour, such as the links between Zeq articles and zeqzeq2 articles and also grammar/spelling simularities. Now the only line of defence is claiming persicution. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 18:45, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

That is exactly the point. Indeed e-mails can be spoofed but so many have already supported to ban me despite the fact that there is absoltly no proof of any such activity. I have went a step further and said that I am not a member of that group. This whole "interogation" smacks of McCartism at it's best.

If anyone have a proof that I took part in an effort to disrupt wikipedia - surly that person can bring one diff that supports this allegation.

Anyone who fiollow my edits over the last two years or more can see that I am not part of any group. My edit are my own. In good faith and in an honest effort to improve the project.

My edits are not liked by many of the large group of pro-Palestinian supporters in wikipedia. They have done a good job in re-writing history except in few places where I was able to stop them. I have been editing under a list of restrictions and for the past 2 years have not violated them. yet, time and time again there are editors and admins who come up with a reason to ban me ? and now we have this.

If anyone will come up with a proof that anything in wikipedia has any connection to the allegation i.e. show me a group effort, show me editors who became admins show me SOMETHING to support te allegation. Where is your proof ? Zeq (talk) 18:48, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Look, the most damaging thing in the email collection is not a specific edit that you or anyone else has made. It's the naked intent to use Wikipedia as a battlefield, to "train and equip an army" of POV-pushers and admins. The "proof" or disproof of that is in your behavior. Even if the articles were 100% biased to a pro-Palestinian point of view, this would be a destructive and inappropriate approach. If your behavior (past, present, and future) gives credence to the idea that you view Wikipedia as a battlefield on these terms, then a topic ban would be not only appropriate but lenient. If your behavior contradicts the assertion that you treat Wikipedia as an ideological battlefield, then I wouldn't worry about what EI has to say. MastCell ^Talk 18:53, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Exactly Mastcell. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 18:55, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

This could have been an issue if this discussion would arrise from my edits in wikipedia. In fact in the last year or so I have avoided getting into fights. In many cases left articles in which I was alone and a group effort against me (2-3 editors) was reverting all my edits. Is wkipedia battlefield ? I have suggested long ago that the only way to deal with articles in the I/P conflict is this way:

1. create the article off line - visiable only to editors 2. Vote on the article by a large number of editors (who did not edit the article). 3. The vote should be on one issue: Is the article NPOV ? 4. If the answer is yes by consensus - only at that point would the article published to the rest of the public 5. In the backgroud - work on the next rev of the article to be published in 3-6 month. (or if urgent fixes/upadtes in 2-3 weeks)

As things stands right now. Most wikipedia articles are tilted to a pro-Palestinian POV. Most other editors from Hebrew wikipedia have left the english wikipedia because they can not deal with on going fights by pro-palestinian editors.

This is the real issue, the issue wikipedia refuse to deal with for years. banning me is indeed a solution : To ban a single voice that tried to keep a small list of atrticles NPOV.

the issue of how I view wikipedia as nothing to do with this ban. never before was an editor subject to Thought police. Also to pretend that there are no off-wiki coordination (by e-mail and such) is false. So I suggest agaim that you look to find ANY EVIDENCE in wikipedia itself. If you find disruptive behaviour ban that editor. If you find such behaviour in a group ban the group. I am not and have never been part of a group that disrupted (or intended to disrupt) wikipedia. Zeq (talk) 19:05, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Some simple yes/no answer questions;

1)Have you ever been a member of the Isra-pedia google group?

2)Have you ever used the email address zeqzeq2@yahoo.com?

The only answers i'll accept are yes or no. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 18:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Outing at Zeqs Talk page

Extended content

User:Future Perfect at Sunrise is a sockpuppet of User:L****P****** (L**** P****** being his real name). Cheers. 77.183.86.62 (talk) 17:58, 21 April 2008 (UTC) reposted and redacted by (Hypnosadist) 18:09, 21 April 2008 (UTC) someone (whom I don't know) left on my talk page a note suggesting that one of the people making this accusation is a sock ppuepet. This whole thing is getting beyond my ability to resond (this page is edited so frequantly so there are amny edit conflicts). I have said all I have to say: I am not a member of the group described above and I am not aware of any such effort to disrupt wikipedia. In the articles I frequantly edit and mentioned in the PDF I have not seen any evidence to suggest there is a pro-Israeli group working there. The opposite is true: I have seen an effort by pro-Palestinian editors who many times revert my edits. Anyone who will review my edit will see that in the last 2 years I have edited according to policy and alone without coopration from any one. Zeq (talk) 18:12, 21 April 2008 (UTC) Haven't bothered to remove it though have you. (Hypnosadist) 18:18, 21 April 2008 (UTC) Oh, that guy again :-) Don't worry, he's totally unrelated to this case. He's just got a habit of going round trying to contact people I'm involved in blocking and stuff, hoping to enlist them in a campaign of harassing me. It's getting boring. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:20, 21 April 2008 (UTC) I've removed it. The IP is a TOR proxy and I've blocked it. Let's move on. MastCell Talk 18:20, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Blocked user contextflexed outing editor and driving him away; threatening attack article in print venue

If you read User talk:Irishguy, you will see that he has decided to quit editing here, in hopes that the aforementioned contextflexed will cut back on his attacks on Wikipedia. The idea, while noble, is futile: contextflexed has continued to attack Irishguy and I (he seems to think we're best buds or something) elsewhere, and says he's offering a US$50 reward to the first person to "out" Irishguy; and now he says that an article is coming up in a print source in my home town, attacking me for my Wikipedia editing, my clothing choices, and my fanzine(s)! --Orange Mike | Talk 15:39, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

The account has already been blocked, back in February. While this behavior is unacceptable and I support the block, I'm not sure what else we can do here. What sort of action were you looking for? MastCell ^Talk 16:00, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I figured a generic heads-up was warranted here. I guess as much as anything else, I'd like some Wikilove spread for Irishguy, in hopes of not losing this valued editor; and it wouldn't hurt if his userpage/talkpage was on a few more watchlists. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:31, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Watchlisted. MastCell ^Talk 16:33, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Also agree with block and watchlisted Irishguy's page. Let me know if there's anything else I can do. R. Baley (talk) 16:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Personal attack by User:Erdeniss

Resolved

 – User blocked for 24 hours. MastCell ^Talk 15:55, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I would like administrators to interpret this obscene edit summary, left by User:Erdeniss, and see what response it merits. Dahn (talk) 15:44, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

It gets Erdeniss blocked for 24 hours. Neıl ☎ 15:52, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I left a warning but the block was also called for. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:53, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Personal attack by Francis23

Resolved

 – yuck. indef blocked. --barneca (talk) 16:11, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

This has scrolled by on my watchlist and I think it's blockable. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:07, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Disruptive Editing on Archaeoastronomy

I am asking admin assistance in dealing with User:Breadh2o's edits since late December on Archaeoastronomy, its talk page and related pages, which have constituted a clear case of Disruptive Editing. Let me begin with a little background. The article was highly undocumented until April 2006, when User:Alunsalt performed a major rewrite. As a personal aside, that fine revision was one of the things that drew me to move from being an anonymous editor to editing under my own name. Among my other edits I continued to contribute to Archaeoastronomy, which developed to provide a solidly documented account of the growth, development and content of that complex interdisciplinary field.

Near the end of December, Breadh2o first appeared on Wikipedia (he occasionally edited under the IP 24.9.222.91).[108]. He opened his discussion on the Archaeoastronomy talk page with criticisms of the article's content, criticisms of the alleged suppression of archaeoastronomy by archaeologists, and ad hominem attacks on Alunsalt. Those of us who had been actively involved in the article first thought we would "give him time and space" to improve the article, but it soon became apparent that this was not leading to productive edits, so on 21 March Alunsalt posted an informal request for comments on the five Wikiprojects associated with the article to establish a consensus on POV. Shortly thereafter, on 24-25 March, Breadh2o posted a formal RfC for Science-related articles, questioning abuse by "two academics". As the discussion became increasingly personal, on 30 March Alunsalt tried to address the subject matter of the article by posting a notice on the No Original Research/Noticeboard. In order to get a wide range of comments, friendly notices of these actions were posted on the Talk pages of the five Wikiprojects associated with the article. Despite these friendly notices, only a few editors: User:Alunsalt, User:SteveMcCluskey, User:Breadh2o, and User:DougWeller have participated actively in the discussion. In addition, a few other people have commented, [109] [110] and with the exception of Breadh2o all have endorsed the position of Alunsalt and SteveMcCluskey on the editing of the article. Despite this apparent consensus, Breadh2o repeats the same arguments for his unorthodox thesis.

On 13 April admin User:Kathryn NicDhàna posted a notice on the Administrators' noticeboard / Incidents pointing out, among other things, Breadh2o's OR, POV pushing, and insistence on unencyclopedic tone and questionable sources. On Breadh2o's talk page, another admin, User:Blueboy96, cautioned him against personal attacks and attempting to use Wikipedia as a soapbox; about a week later Kathryn NicDhàna added a warning to the talk page about WP:CIVIL and WP:OWN. A few days afterwards, Breadh20 had dismissed Kathryn NicDhàna's warnings as a case of her choosing "to side with Alun Salt's and Steve McCluskey's [alleged] carte blanche to revert any edit I might attempt."

In the course of the discussion, Breadh2o identified himself as as Scott Monahan, who has "edited for over a decade" an off-wiki site to which he provided a link in the article (see footnote 3), who operates another website, OldNews, concerned with demonstrating that "Plains Indians had visitors from the far side of the Atlantic a thousand years before Columbus," and that he makes his living in internet, broadcast and cable video media, in which he advances these ideas.

Our substantive concern was that Breadh2o's edits were intent upon pushing his own point of view, by using the archaeoastronomy article as a vehicle to propagate the marginally related fringe hypothesis that Celtic people left inscriptions in the Colorado/Oklahoma region and which involves a hostile opposition to the archaeological establishment. Examples of this process included:

• In his earliest posts on the talk page he made clear his open hostility to archaeology "which looks downward" and his perception that "the agenda of archaeologists or anthropologists" was being used "to summarily veto legitimate inquiry."
• He presented an original research account of the origins of archaeoastronomy, which sought to place pyramidologists at the origins of the discipline and would conveniently remove archaeologists from any significant role in its establishment.
• He repeatedly insisted[111][112][113][114][115]that critiques of the archaeological establishment for its refusal to accept diffusionist and other unorthodox ideas was an essential part of the article, placing it successively in two different places.[116][117]
• He responded to a discussion under fringe archaeoastronomy of a site in West Virginia which was claimed to associate Ogham inscriptions with claimed archaeoastronomical indications, by adding a defense of diffusionism and an attack on the archaeological establishment for stifling dissent.
• He associated archaeoastronomy with the unorthodox hypothesis that Celtic inscriptions describing astronomical phenomena provide evidence of early trans-Atlantic contact.
• He engaged in repeated ad hominem attacks against editors who challenged his point of view, Alunsalt, SteveMcCluskey, User:Dougweller at the No Original Research/Noticeboard, against the archaeological community as a group,[118][119] and against the academic system in general.
• He provided a link to his off-wiki site on which we find an extensive bibliography and long history of disputes going back to 1977 between advocates of Celtic influence in the Southwest and members of the archaeological establishment.
• He refused to accept an attempt at consensus and in the course of his refusal did not assume good faith, accusing User:Bwwm, a new, but active, editor in articles on the History of Science, of being sockpuppet.

I had not realized he had accused me of being a sockpuppet, as I am not engaged in the discussion in an active way. I was trying to help by offering my opinion on a dispute. In any case, an admin can easily verify this by looking at my IP to verify that I'm not anyone's sock. --Bwwm (talk) 18:54, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Breadh2o's edits have concentrated almost exclusively on archaeoastronomy; as of 7 April, 277 of his 301 edits have been on archaeoastronomy or its talk page, the other 24 have been on user pages and the No Original Research noticeboard. In contrast, only 104 of Alunsalt's 393 edits have been on archaeoastronomy or its talk page and only 120 of SteveMcCluskey's 4480 edits have been on the archaeoastronomy pages. His pattern of edits suggest that Breadh2o wishes to use Wikipedia as a vehicle to continue his long-running conflict with the academic establishment. This conflict is one of the identifying characteristics of Pseudoarchaeology and the hostile method he employs is characteristic of Disruptive editing. Given the decade-long history of this conflict, the lack of resolution at either the RfC or the No Original Research/Noticeboard, Breadh2o's continued insistence that his unorthodox POV, that "pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact" and claimed "Ogham archaeoastronomy in Colorado and Oklahoma" has something to do with archaeoastronomy, and his repeated expressions of hostility, I doubt that it can be resolved by any of Wikipedia's conflict resolution procedures.

Either Breadh2o should agree to voluntarily refrain from editing on archaeoastronomy and its talk page, or he should be permanently banned from the article and its talk page. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 16:12, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

It would be expedient to remove me, as I have raised troubling issues about WP:OWN, WP:IDHT and WP:NPOV with Alun Salt and Steve McCluskey. Everything I have added to the article has been purged. I have not engaged in any article edits since the admin warnings of more than a week ago, and have only modestly engaged in Talk dialogues, moving the bulk off article Talk, onto my own user page, so as not to seem in any way disruptive. My belief is the dual authors are intent on controlling not only article content, but banishing me because I represent a contrarian, minority opinion. I do not have the time or patience to assemble an offset to the extraordinarily detailed and footnoted position statement by Steve McCluskey, above. I trust the edit history, the status of the present article with nothing of mine remaining and my good faith efforts to justify in discussion uncomfortable content that is notable, meets qualifications beyond tiny minority opinion, is sourced by reliable and verifiable mainstream news media organizations, and my appeals to common sense will suffice. If not, then so be it. Perhaps I haven't given it my best shot, perhaps I have been rude and uncivil at times, perhaps what I have to contribute as a journalist myself matters not one iota. I'll respectfully step back and await a determination on Steve's efforts to silence me permanently. I guess I assumed Jimbo Wales' libertarian idealism might have shown more tolerance than is to be expected in an organism that has matured over time to tilt more favorably toward what academics have to contribute versus what dedicated devotees think. I was BOLD and at times broke some rules to make the article better. But it's reverted now to only what Steve and Alun believe is suitable for readers to consider. -- Breadh2o (talk) 16:39, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the above shows the challenge of editing with Breadh2o. He is unwilling to cite reliable sources to back up his assertions, but believes the depth of his feeling is strong enough to justify the acceptance of his opinions.

Normally it would be possible to accommodate him by reading his bluster and attempting to discern if there's a valid point buried within it. However editing on the article is moving towards a state where peer-review would be useful to prepare for an FA application. This isn't really practical if sections of the article are going to be replaced with wild speculations about Celtic America and the cabal of archaeologists which aims to hide the truth (I suspect there are many so-called archaeoastronomers running around who are deep down inside hard-core archaeologists pushing an agenda of absolute control over archaeoastronomy.).

While Breadh2o hasn't edited the article since being warned by admins for his tone and personal attacks, his first edits after the warning were to launch another tirade against other editors on the Archaeoastronomy talk page. This signalled his intent to persist in re-writing a history which had been shown to be an original synthesis based on unreliable or irrelevant sources. In addition he added a George Orwell quote at the top of a draft of this on his userpage. When he chooses to be uncivil he's willing to devote hours to the project, re-drafting to find the exact phrase. It's flattering, but does suggest that his abuse is thoughtfully constructed rather than a temporary outburst of passion.

Despite this I'm reluctant to say there should be a permanent ban. It is a pity that he seems to have leapt into conflict rather than learning how Wikipedia works. A possible solution could be a ban from the Archaeoastronomy page and its talk page, which can be appealed against when he can show from edits on other topics that he can work with other editors in a civil manner. This would avoid punitive measures or 'silencing' him, while providing the stability to make a review of the article practical in the near future. If he continues to use his user page as a soapbox rather than productively edit then he will be choosing to make the ban permanent himself. Alun Salt (talk) 19:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Very "Discretionary" sanctions

Apparently a honest user has been arbitrarily banned without any possible explanation at all. I'm referring to this case. I'm a little worried about this and I would like to better understand what's going on, I mean: does "discretionary sanctions" mean "completely arbitrary" sanctions? Is there a limit to this "discretionarity"?--Pokipsy76 (talk) 16:57, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• I think it's only a topic-ban, and is part of the process of trying to damp down the ever-raging fires by encouraging people not to keep going round the same loops over and over again, something that Thomas has a regrettable habit of doing. WP:TRUTH vs. WP:NPOV as ever. Guy (Help!) 17:02, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

  You are just unsuccesfully trying to make it appear as something non problematic for the editor ("only a topic ban") and useful for the project without even remotely trying to provide any decent justification. Obviously any possible flame will disappear if we ban every people who do not share your POV but this is obviously not an acceptable solution.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 17:15, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

  • This matter is already open for discussion at Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement#Controlled demolition hypothesis for the collapse of the World Trade Center and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Clarifications and motions#Request for appeal: Topic ban of Thomas Basboll. Please do not create a disruption by spreading the conversation to multiple venues, Pokipsy76. Jehochman ^Talk 17:20, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

    I'm asking specific questions to the wikipedia community here about the concept of "discretionary sanctions" in connection to what happened. What's your problem? Do you prefer that this thing was not advertised too much?--Pokipsy76 (talk) 17:44, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

A note in passing

I have just talked Keithmb (talk · contribs) through registering and have confirmed his identity as an authorised representative of Gina Bold. Ms. Bold has some issues with her article (see VRTS ticket # 2008032110015808), they are somewhat complex so I thought it easiest to steer her towards fixing it rather than edit by email, which is clumsy; she has asked Keith to do it for her. I hope we're not going to bite Keith, but please do help out if you see any issues with this user. He seems very nice and polite, but there are a lot of issues and much of it conflicts to some extent with the limited sources cited in the article. Hopefully there will be no problems. Guy (Help!) 17:01, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, he broke the ref tags for a start, but that is a common beginner's error. I don't have time to help right now, but maybe someone else will? Carcharoth (talk) 17:18, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Fixed it. Like you say it's a common error. EconomicsGuy (talk) 17:30, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Editor engaging in pointy editing, using his talk as an attack page, violating WP:OR

Proxy User (talk · contribs) is engaging in some WP:POINTy editing at the Joseph Konopka article. He insists on changing one piece of information about the subject from "computer expert" (which is what the cited reliable source refers to him as) to "systems administrator". He claims that systems administrators are not computer experts and so the article should not say this, however, this is basically a violation of WP:OR. He's been engaging in edit wars at the Dawn Wells article and accusing other editors of having a conflict of interest and of pushing a POV when they have, in fact, attempted to make the article conform to NPOV. Furthermore, he was engaged in some dispute with FCYTravis, after which he posted the following to his own talk page [120]. This persons behavior and attitude are disruptive. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 17:15, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

This really sounds more like a content dispute. Perhaps you should seek help from outside parties via WP:MEDCAB or from WP:MEDCOM. In any case, I'm not sure exactly what you want us to do here? JodyB _talk 17:22, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

On second thought, I would encourage you all to be very careful about WP:3R. The two of your should work it out on the talk page. To encourage your fruitful communication, I have protected the page for a couple of days. JodyB _talk 17:26, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

62.30.163.249 (talk)

Resolved

 – Likely IP sock of User:AFI-PUNK; blocked. MastCell ^Talk 17:41, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Repeated changing of genres; has been blocked for this once before.

Continues to do so AFTER 4th warning. 21655 ^{ωhατ δo γoυ ωαητ?} 17:34, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Have they been reported to WP:AIV yet? Wildthing61476 (talk) 17:40, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

No need. Blocked for 31 hours. Likely an IP sock of AFI-PUNK (talk · contribs), based on the pattern of edits. He uses a dynamic IP, so probably no point in blocking for longer. If the problem resumes after the block expires let me know or go to WP:AIV. MastCell ^Talk 17:41, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

STBot and unicode

Per http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=207120593 where STBot notified me about NFCC problem with Image:50 öre SEK.png. It seems that the bot isn't working fully with unicode filenames. Question is if the bot should be blocked or not. _→AzaToth 18:09, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Get the right bot, first! It's User:STBotI (one of four bots operated by User:ST47 - User:STBot, User:STBotD (deprecated), User:STBotI, and User:STBotT). This one ('I' for image, presumably) says it "operates under the functions of Operation Enduring Encyclopedia" - someone save us from bad American patriot puns! :-) As for blocking, surely you can ask User:ST47 to undo it's bad tags? Carcharoth (talk) 19:16, 21 April 2008 (UTC)