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

Mass change to formatting style

For the past 24 hours I have been constantly finding myself readding quotation marks to the formatting of ref names on University of Miami (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) because Racepacket (talk · contribs) appears to have an off-site copy of the article text that he has removed all of these from. He has told me that he prefers to not use them because they are not entirely necessary unless the name parameter uses spaces, punctuation, or non-ASCII characters.

I do not think that this requires removing every single instance as he has done in the following diffs which include misleading edit summaries: [1], [2], [3], [4].

I have brought this up to Racepacket on his talk page as seen here where I also ask him to stop removing the carriage return between the infobox and the lead paragraph ([5], [6], [7], [8]): User talk:Racepacket#Carriage return. He does not seem to care, or he has not been answering me at all because he keeps making these edits long after I began the discussion on his talk page.

Racepacket has begun accusing me of stalling improvements to the page because he has it set in his mind that there is an all important deadline (he assumes there is one because of a pending GA review), and has accused me of doing harm to the page because of a single mistake (where he corrects a + to an = and then says I harmed the page because I undid the edit because it was one where he removed all the quotation marks) and that I am keeping him up by asking him to add two more keystrokes when he adds content.

I know he is improving the page. I know it is good that he wants it to be considered a good article and probably eventually a featured article. I just do not think it is appropriate that he reformats the entire article just because he does not want to add two instances of " whenever he adds a reference.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:48, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

In the time that I was writing this, he did it again.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:51, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

---

Counterview: As indicated in a prior ANI, User:Ryulong is doing everything possible to see that the article University of Miami fails its GA review. We have a limited period of time to respond to the review while it is on hold. In response to the review, I split off University of Miami School of Business Administration, and three times Ryulong merged it back. After repeated requests, he finally left the article in place and started an AfD, where the vote is going toward keeping the article. Second, the review asked that we expand the Research section, and User:Ryulong has been actively moving (to other articles) or deleting content which I have added to that section. (See, Talk:University of Miami#Research) Third, the review asked that we find sources independent of UM to meet WP:V They suggest that at least half of the sources be to something not on the UM website. User:Ryulong has been finding excuses to move the non-UM sources to other articles and where several sources can support a remaining sentence, he insists on using the one from the UM website. What prompted his current complaint is that I do not use unnecessary quote marks around the name parameter value in <ref> tags. He goes backs and adds them. He has also changed the = symbol to the + symbol in cite templates which cause values to not be displayed. Because I don't have time to go through each citation repeatedly to check for such nonsense, I have asked him to stop. He then harrasses me with endless discussion over the quote mark issue which has absolutely nothing to do with how the article will be displayed on the page. He goes so far as to reformat my responses to him on my own talk page, causing more interruptions to my work.

Here is someone who has not made substantive additions to the article for months, wasting time in our efforts to address the review in a limited time period. An administrator's intervention is needed to stop User:Ryulong from wasting valuable time by doing everything possible to prevent the article from passing its GA review. Racepacket (talk) 07:20, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) There is no such thing as a limited time period on Wikipedia. No comment otherwise. → ROUX ₪ 07:21, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

And again, here you come accusing me of bad faith and bringing up things that are so minor and not intentional just to make me look bad. I am not seeking to prevent University of Miami from being promoted to good article status. I merged and then listed a page for WP:AFD that I did not think was notable for inclusion. I moved references that had nothing to do with the article to an article they were related to. I did not mean to change any = to any + in any edit; it was an unintentional change from an undo I performed on your edits regarding the reason I brought up this thread. All I have been doing to your talk page is change * to : because no one uses * in responses to people. If anything, your mass removal of the quotation marks is not recommended.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:12, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) There is no such thing as a limited time period on Wikipedia. No comment otherwise. → ROUX ₪ 07:16, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

<ref name="fn"> versus <ref name=fn>. Lamest edit war ever. Hesperian 07:20, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm aware. I have asked him to not remove them, as well as a single line break, but based on an off-site copy he is keeping and the fact that he replaces the text of the article wholesale whenever he adds a new edit, I believe that this is an issue to be brought up here.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:24, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

pls guys clam down on the talk page ...you will notice noone has answered..this can only mean people are looking deep into what is going on..so guys pls lets turn down the YELLING .. just give admin time to look things over ..both should not edit the article until we come up with a solution to your problem, since you guys cant solve it yourselves... Buzzzsherman (talk) 07:21, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Buzzzsherman you have no idea what you are talking about so if you would not mind, do not get involved with disputes if you do not know of a proper way to solve them.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:24, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Uh, Buzz is completely correct. Back off and let people investigate. → ROUX ₪ 07:26, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I was confused because he copied over other people's comments in the process of adding his comment.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:28, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

• (EC)I agree with Roux. How can I get back to looking for sources? It is 2:30 a.m. and this ANI is an incredible waste of everyone's time, as is the petty harrassment over the quote marks and whether I am allowed to format the comments which I leave on my own talk page with a bullet. Racepacket (talk) 07:33, 8 February 2010 (UTC) [This comment was added immediately after Roux's but ran into 4 different edit conflict] When I tried to add it where I first submitted it, [{User:Ryulong]] is trying to start another edit war over the order in which our comments appear below Roux's. diff

For the quotation marks there is this: Wikipedia:Footnotes#Caution on converting citation styles. I am not going to bother with the bullet marks or anything similar.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:36, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

This is WP:LAME. Nobody cares (or, at least, nobody should care) about minor coding details that make absolutely no difference in the formatted article. If it affects the GA review then something is seriously wrong with the GA process. Both of you, stop arguing, stop worrying about how each other's refs are coded, stop asking for admins to interced in your petty disputes, and get back to doing something constructive. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:25, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I know it is lame, but I have asked him to stop changing the coding style entirely but he just ignores me and has been accusing me of preventing the article from being promoted. Certainly the fact that the quotation marks are or are not there should not affect his ability to edit the page. He should not change them in every edit nor should he replace the text of the article wholesale with a version he has copied off of site because he does not want to use the quotation marks or a single line break at the lead of the article.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:28, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

• User:Ryulong is misquoting Wikipedia:Footnotes#Caution on converting citation styles which address converting articles from {{ref}} to <ref>. The principle applies however as common sense, which Ryulong is ignoring. I am the one doing the research and adding the references, and User:Ryulong is the one who goes back and tries to confusing things by editing the footnotes which I create by adding quotes and even a + where I placed a =. This is a lot of work -- the GA Review has asked us to add a publisher parameter to each footnote and to find alternatives to the UM website references. If he does not want to help make the article meet WP:V standards, then he should stand back and let others get the required work done. Racepacket (talk) 07:54, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Should there be a difference? And would you stop bringing up that stupid + to = thing? It was not intentional as I have been telling you for the past 2 hours. And I am not trying to sabotage a Good Article Promotion. Stop accusing me of things.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:55, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

• The fact that you have wasted the last two hours of my life with this quote mark nonsense and this ANI speaks mountains as to your intentions. It is now 3:11 a.m. and I have not been able to spend any substantial time since midnight finding new sources. Please stop this behavior. Racepacket (talk) 08:12, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Stop accusing me of keeping you awake and intending to cause the GAR to fail. I've removed the fucking quotation marks at this point because it's obvious you are going to keep using your .txt copy of the page's text. I'm just tired of you thinking I'm your foe in this matter.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:13, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Interim resolution except for Daedalus969

I am please to announce that the only two users involved in this dispute myself and Ryulong have agreed to proceed without quote marks for now. Once that was established, I uploaded two more references (again without the quote marks) only to discover that after Ryulong and I have reached our agreement, User:Daedalus969 who has had no prior role in this matter has reverted the article to a state that used quote marks. He then reverted my change and added one of them back into the article with quote marks. He has also started a parallel proceeding at AN3 It is difficult to see how his edits were made in good faith. As best I can determine, they don't have a visible impact on the article (unless he accidentally picked up one of Ryulong's stray + symbols.) I have left messages on his talk page to no avail. Racepacket (talk) 09:25, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I did not agree to anything. I just know that you are going to constantly refer to your offline copy that you've removed all of the quotation marks from because you can't trust the online copy because of this +/= issue that you keep referring to. There are no such items in the text now. Just copy that and deal with the lack or existance of quotation marks. Maybe you shouldn't modify articles by using an oldid of an article's content and just add references to sections as you go through them like normal editors instead of making the formatting of the article your preferred version every single fucking time.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 10:04, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry I misunderstood you. I thought that we had agreed to proceed without quotes for now. By the way, I don't use any javascript editors, which is perhaps why I am locked out on these edit conficlts. However, I don't see how the invisible differences between the two files can constitute edit warring. And I don't see how Daedalus' action is consistent with WP:POINT - sure he managed to make invisible changes to the document and he certainly managed to confuse me and steal another hour and a half from my life. I have to be at work in 3 and a half hours, and we have many more footnotes to process. This entire invisible quote stunt is unforgiveable and will go down as one of the sillier episodes in Wikipedia lore. Racepacket (talk) 10:31, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Seriously, it doesn't matter whether there are quotation marks in references or not. It makes no difference whatsoever. Why do you guys even care? --Conti|✉ 11:24, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

• I agree that the quotation marks don't affect the article at all. I was worried about more sneaking in changes of = to +, which prompted me to work from a trusted copy. Which prompted Daedalus to start an invisible, artificial self-proclaimed "edit war" regarding changes nobody including me could see or be aware of. This is a clear case of WP:OWNership and need for attention distracting us from the task of addressing the problems noted by the GA review. A series of experienced editors with no connection to the University of Miami have pointed out WP:BOOSTER and WP:V problems with UM articles, and people need to roll up their sleeves and address them. Racepacket (talk) 14:48, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Actually, their tag teaming results in perhaps unintended, substantive changes. In diff Daedalus deletes two footnotes. In the next edit, he only adds just one back in. And then Ryulong comes along and deletes the ref name that was common to both footnotes. Daedalus does not explain why he deleted the second footnote. Racepacket (talk) 15:10, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Clarification - the reason why I care is that each time Ryulong goes through and edits the article (perhaps just adding invisibile, optional quotation marks or perhaps changing a = to a +) I have to go through all of his changes to check his work and that is very time consuming when we are under a deadline. That is why I started using a copy of the article so that I could keep on going with the business of adding the requested footnotes. But I am willing to stop working from the second copy if Ryulong stops playing these distracting games. Racepacket (talk) 15:43, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest you either stop using the second copy, or otherwise make sure you're not reverting any intermediate edits when you save your changes. It's a wiki. Other people will be editing the page besides you. Jafeluv (talk) 16:23, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

• I have been careful, but there are so many "invisible" changes in Ryulong's edits that it is hard to spot his = to + change, or Daedalus969 dropping one of the two footnotes. Whatever changes they are trying (or not trying) to make is camoflaged by the sea of quotation marks. Take a look at these diffs:

Daedalus' diffs

• no visible effect
• removed 2 footnotes
• added back the just one footnote without the unnecessary/optional quote marks

Ryulong's diffs

• added back the invisible quote marks
• added back the invisible quote marks
• added back the invisible quote marks
• note the change from = to + in the template parameter Racepacket (talk) 19:18, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Stop bringing up the =/+ thing. It was not intentional other than the revert that I performed to the rest of the page to deal with your overwriting with the off-site copy.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:48, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Proposed interaction and topic ban pending outcome of mediation

Look, we've tried all this several times. You've both been told to not use ANI as a place to hash out your conflicts. You have both been told to seek mediation and dispute resolution. Neither of you has done so. You want admins to take control of the situation? I'm an admin, and I am proposing the following solution:

1. Racepacket and Ryulong are placed under a mutual interaction ban, with the sole exception that both are to participate in a mediation by filing a case at WP:MEDCOM or WP:MEDCAB to deal with these problems. Neither editor is to comment about the other, nor interact with the other, for the duration of the ban.
2. Both Racepacket and Ryulong are topic banned from editing the University of Miami article. Neither editor may make any further edits to that article at all. Furthermore, both are banned from seeking out articles the other has substantially edited for the purpose of antagonizing the other editor.
3. These restrictions are to be lifted upon satisfactory completion of mediation.

Seeking comments from other uninvolved editors and admins... Support? Opposition? --Jayron32 20:14, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. This whole issue is ridiculous. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 23:16, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

What? Topic banned from the article of my own alma mater? That is ridiculous. All that should come out of this is that Racepacket should not be using his offsite copy to overwrite everything on the UM article. I've kindly requested that he use the quotation marks and leave a single line break. All that has come out of this is that Racepacket has been constantly accusing me of trying to make the GA nomination fail. All that I have been telling him is that he should not be repeatedly sending this thing to GA review, and having taken it on his shoulders to force the article to become a good article. I am fine with the fact he is making the page better. I have just been asking him to add a few more key strokes when he writes, and adding them back once he's done overwriting the article without those keystrokes. There wouldn't be an edit war if he did not keep an offline copy that he overwrote everything with and there certainly wouldn't be a need to ban either of us from the page.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:43, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

And I'd like to point out I tried a dispute resolution tactic. Nothing came of it.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:51, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Look, the situation here is that this is a WP:LAME dispute, which has zero to do with content, and 100% to do with the personality conflict of the two combatants. The solution proposed is because admins aren't here to decide who is right. Frankly, the exact locus of this specific dispute, which is over the use of quotemarks in the ref name= tag is the most pointless edit war, maybe ever. It doesn't matter who is right, but given that you two have a several months long history, and neither side appears to want to back down, the only solution seems to be to end the problem by ending the problem. The U of M article will have someone else who is interested in it; I am unconcerned if the two of you no longer get to edit it. Indeed, given the absolute mess this dispute is causing, I am rather sure the article would be better off if it is not edited by either of you while you two are disputing. I recommend bilateral mediation, since an RFC is really about one user tattling on another, which is why it isn't helping solve the problem. When and if you two can figure out how to coexist and not generate these conflicts, THEN you can both go back to editing the article. But it is clear this conflict has nothing to do with this specific article, and everything to do with the conflict between the two of you. So, if the two of you can agree to mediation, work it out in MEDCAB or MEDCOM, and reach a mutually agreeable resolution to your conflicts, the article can be edited harmoniously. At this point, there is no reason to let the article continue to be edited by either of you, since neither of you is really trying to edit the article, you're both just trying to one-up the other. Lets solve the conflict FIRST, then we can get to the article LATER. That's my justification for proposing the above sanctions. It's no use claiming the "I'm more right so I shouldn't be sanctioned here" from either side; since as far as I can see neither side in the conflict can claim any moral high ground. So lets quit it with that, end the conflict, and worry about the article later. Mkay? --Jayron32 03:18, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I have proposed a solution to Racepacket such that he simply stops utilizing his off-site copy and edits the article as everyone else does. This would end the issue of his massive and unilateral reformatting of the article and the WP:LAME edit war that he and I have been involved with. However, he has not appeared to respond to this suggestion. If he manages to pay attention for five seconds and see my comment here and respond in a clear and coherent matter, I would be glad to have this stop. I'm not seeking any moral high ground. I'm just seeking that he see someone else's opinion instead of thinking he is the one who is the end-all be-all for the page.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:24, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

You're not hearing me. This isn't about these edits. You and Racepacket have been disputing for a long time. The conflict between you two is the problem; it has nothing at all to do with this batch of edits. If it was this one batch of edits, then we could solve it by facing that. Its about the fact that neither of you wishes to back down against the other over any issue. This is the merely today's one thing; if we did decide somehow that one of your versions of the article was favored, we'd just be back here tomorrow on a different problem or a different article. The problem is the conflict, not the article, so we need to end the conflict. Seek mediation so you can work together harmoniously, or stop working together. That's the only two solutions I see... --Jayron32 03:32, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Then I don't know what the fuck will resolve it. I just have been finding things that need fixing (the reference formatting), things that would be better suited to other articles (like this block of only references), or things that are trivial or poorly referenced and I feel should be removed ([9]) in his edits and he starts accusing me of sabotaging the GA review.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:41, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support the interaction ban and topic ban. Judging from WP:Requests for comment/Racepacket it's unlikely that calm will be restored any time soon at the University of Miami article. This dispute can't be allowed to continue on the admin noticeboards without action being taken. I'd withdraw my support if Ryulong and Racepacket would suddenly agree to work together harmoniously on the GA nomination, but that's not going to happen. The October, 2009 RFCU on Racepacket (opened by Ryulong) shows that the underlying dispute has been going on for many months. EdJohnston (talk) 01:59, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

1) Ryulong said, "Topic banned from the article of my own alma mater?" but shouldn't we have sensitivity for WP:COI and the need for objectivity necessary to avoid further WP:BOOSTER problems. We have a number of experienced users noting WP:V and WP:BOOSTER problems with the UM article, and these concerns need to be addressed. I have asked Ryulong and others to join me in this work, but so far I seem to be the only one working on finding reliable sources for the UM article. I don't OWN the UM article and want multiple other people working to improve it. In a prior dispute (involving the Miami Hurricanes football article), I suggested repeatedly that we use mediation, but Ryulong rejected the proposal. I am not sure what dispute there is to mediate -- the current goals are not being disputed: Wikipedia expects articles to meet WP:V; Wikipedia aspires to have all articles meet Good Article criteria; Wikipedia does not want copy and paste from the UM website. Somebody in authority will say whether quotes are mandatory or optional in <ref> tags -- from what I read it's currently optional. We need to get on with these goals. 3) I thought that Ryulong and I had worked the quotation marks issue out until Daedalus969 started his WP:POINT edits. I am willing to continue working on the UM article to meet the matters raised in the GA review. Racepacket (talk) 02:09, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

That's ridiculous. Aside from the ridiculous quotation marks business, are you saying that Ryulong has been POV pushing? out of interest, why are you removing the quotation marks? It's not normal practice, even if it doesn't cause an issue. Hopefully we'll never move to a strict XML format that requires the quotation marks, else we're going to have to put them back in again. Would it hurt you to use quotation marks? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 14:46, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

• Abstain - I am a bit involved, therefore I will not comment support or oppose.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 02:27, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support interaction ban and topic ban. (1 & 2) Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:56, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
  • So you do not support the lifting of the ban at any point? That would seem counterintuitive to the mediation seeking.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:10, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
    • I would've only supported 3 if it's the community who comes back here and decides that the condition has been satisfied; I am not comfortable leaving that in the hands of either the parties, mediators, or any other committees. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:20, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support - I have been following this drama from afar for a bit and, while I tend to think one editor is a bit more "in the right" than the other in general, there to me at this point seems no possible amicable solution. This particular conflict -- that it even exists -- is strongly suggestive of that. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 22:47, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Second proposed interaction ban

Neither Racepacket nor Ryulong may remove or add quotation marks on existing references on ANY article. This whole issue is over the lamest edit war I've ever seen, and this proposal would a. stop this stupidity, and b. allow them both to edit any article they want to, aside from this restriction. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 14:49, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support (proposer) - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 14:49, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Mutual end

Per the discussion that was taking place at WP:AN3#User:Racepacket reported by User:Daedalus969 (Result: No action) and User talk:EdJohnston#3RR/Racepacket, and I hope with Tbsdy lives's comments above, I would believe that this is done with. Unless anyone else thinks otherwise and still believes that a ban is necessary.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:10, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

At this point, I'm not convinced that the underlying issues have/are been/being addressed in the long term. But I am very open to being convinced. I'd like to hear others views on this matter; and also, would letting you both edit together unsupervised (or without a mediator) be a good idea, given the history? Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:37, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I do not know what the underlying issues are at this point. Racepacket has been adding content to/removing content from University of Miami (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). I have it in my Watchlist and I see what he has done. I come in and perform grammatical fixes or as I state in my comments to Jayron32 that I move it to other pages or remove it due to triviality I perceived from the content. The "dispute" results from his stubbornness (which I attempted to bring up in the RFC) and my reaction to it. His goal for the article to be of a better quality is admirable. However he can't take "no" for an answer unless a consensus tells him he should stop. I know the quotation mark thing is incredibly lame, but he was ignoring me on his talk and accusing me of wrong doing. Again, at this point the issue seems to have ended and I don't see how preventing anyone from editing a single page is going to resolve matters.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:54, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

So can this mess be marked as closed?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:17, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

• Depends. If either one of you edit University of Miami from now, can I block you for a week? Meanwhile, support any interaction and topic ban for both parties. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:57, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Racepacket's contributions to University of Miami are currently being investigated for various copyright reasons, as well as several hundred other pages. I think it's done and no topic or interaction bans need to be enacted.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:33, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Legal Threats

Gibnews, frequenter of the Gibraltar article, often uses gibnews.net as a source in his arguments. I have said that this (privately owned, non-peer reviewed) website is not a reliable source as far as Wikipedia goes. In response, he has now twice made legal threats towards me. 1 2 Even though they were made on behalf of others, and even though I'm neither worried by them nor believe he really means it, I would appreciate some assistance, as my reading of WP:NPLT suggests it constitutes unacceptable harassment. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 18:56, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Agree, especially the second one. I have indefinitely blocked this user per WP:LEGAL. Tan | 39 19:00, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Unblock request ensues with "I didn't do anything, it was a setup", admin eyes requested - Tan | 39 19:06, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree that this was a legal threat, but further, [10] fairly explicitly fails WP:RS. We cannot operate under any theory that such links have a "right" to remain on Wikipedia free of molestation, and so we cannot allow such filibustering even if it does not rise to the level of explicit legal threats. — Gavia immer (talk) 19:10, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I would like to point out for the record that after the first threat, I replied saying that I would post here if he did it again. [11] He then proceeded to repeat the threat. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 19:14, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I declined the unblock: first threat is quite clearly "post using your real name so that you can be sued" and the second is an attempt to quash discussion via the threat of legal action. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:25, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

• As someone with probably a reputation for thinking WP:LEGAL is severely overused on ANI, I agree that this is a perfect example of what it was meant for. Support block, support continuing block until the threat is very clearly recognized and retracted. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:50, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

The user's unblock request (viz. "I have not made any legal threat." and "I was not the party who would be involved") makes it clear that s/he is not threatening legal action. The comments in question were more a case of "Be careful, for those type of comments could land you in trouble [with others]" rather than "I will sue you if you continue". RedCoat10 (talk) 20:52, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

You're right, their unblock is phrased quite differently than the two items (especially the first one) that led to the block. If they were to be so kind as to actually retract the originals, they might have a reduction of said block. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:55, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm really, really, really disheartened by all of this. I've been trying to help with the situation at the Gibraltar article, and related articles, and acted as mediator for a particular dispute and have given advice to various editors involved in the area. Just today one editor involved has left Wikipedia due to stress over editing the articles, and the other editor who generally takes that "side" is blocked. I have to agree, however, that the block is entirely appropriate; those legal threats are as unambiguous as it gets and since Gibnews is unwilling to retract them the block should stand. -- Atama頭 21:07, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

It's probably worth noting that the name looks like a username violation, since it tends to identify the user with the website he's trying to use as a source. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 22:43, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Technically yes, but after editing Wikipedia for over 4 years and making 5,000 edits it's not something that an admin is liable to block someone for. -- Atama頭 00:22, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I think this can all be resolved by a ban on this editor from using gibnews.net, as this is a clear conflict of interest and an unreliable source. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 00:51, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Waiting to see how he responds to my latest post on his talk page. Tan | 39 00:51, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I seem to recall numerious similiarly named accounts being used at that article-in-question a few years ago. Could this be the same editor? GoodDay (talk) 00:58, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Gibraltarian blocked indefinitely on 16 December 2005, after initial block on 12 December 2005 [12]. User:Gibnews created on 7 December 2005 [13], picking up exactly where Gibraltarian left off at Disputed status of Gibraltar. The style and language of talk page posts are remarkably similar [14]. Make your own mind up... The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 01:07, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

It's time to band a sock. GoodDay (talk) 01:20, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

If it's a sock please someone block it, or else file SPI? Burpelson AFB (talk) 02:07, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

My understanding of SPI is that if the IPs don't match it gets rejected. Anyone who has heard of the term "proxy server" knows how easy it is to get round that (and Gibnews himself has said he is a web programmer/site maintainer). Last year, I was arguing with Gibnews over an edit when a brand new user surfaced, again employing similar language to Gibnews, to make a revert that would have taken Gibnews over the 3RR rule, I filed a report. [15] But it came back negative on the basis of the IP. So there is only circumstantial evidence, such as that I list above. Oh, and other stuff like this: Gibraltarian uses gibnet.com as references [16]. That in itself is fairly similar to Gibnews using gibnews.net, but it gets more mysterious, because Gibnews himself tells us he is the registrant of gibnet.com on his user page [17]. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 02:28, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

That's just for checkuser, not all SPIs use checkuser. Many of them are done based on behavior alone. Actually, this one could easily be done as a WP:DUCK. Burpelson AFB (talk) 03:48, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

So let me get this straight - Gibnews is a sockpuppet, has a COI username and is a disruptive editor who now makes legal threats? Wow... I suggest that nobody unblock. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 08:31, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

NO, Gibraltarian was a retard, an abusive editor with a very distinctive style. Gibnews is nothing like him. As regards Gibnews' username, he has his own domain name, Gibnews.com from memory and its commonly used on a number of Gibraltar related websites. What Red Hat has conveniently forgotten to mention is that he and Gibnews have a long and acrimonius history; they wind each other up. I don't disagree that legal threats are a basis to block Gibnews he shouldn't have done that but this is simply a more politically adroit editor using AN/I to settle old scores and it was less than 24 hrs after about the only other editor aware of the history ie me quit. He knows that Gibnews is not Gibraltarian, there have been several SPI checks and all failed. Block the both of them. Justin talk 10:20, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

For the record everyone, I have no issue if Gibnews retracts his legal threats and rejoins the editing fold. I mentioned the sock matters because someone else raised it and the editing history is rather fishy. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 10:25, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

For the record after you repeated sock puppet accusations you 'KNOW are false, rather than explaining others have had simillar expressed similar suspicions, have investigated them previously and they are known to be false. You might also mention you never apologised for making groundless allegations either. Justin talk 10:38, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, definitely need to black list gibnews.net. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 11:34, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

No, we definitely don't its simply an online resource for Gibraltar related documents and its very useful in that respect. Banning an innocent 3rd party website because of one editor's vendetta is ridiculous by even wikipedia drama standards. Justin talk 12:22, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Ban proposal

I propose that Gibnews be banned from using gibnews.net on Wikipedia.

If this is based on the claim that I am banned user:Gibraltarian then lets stop here as that is not the case and the editor making the suggestion knows the claim is false. What are the reasons for this proposal?

Can I suggest that the editors supporting the ban take a moment to actually look at what they want to censor and ask themselves why a Gibraltarian news website presenting news about Gibraltar should be banned from being mentioned in Wikipedia?

Yes, It seems to have incensed an editor that I cited a document from it on the talk:Gibraltar page - a joint statement by the Government of Gibraltar and the Governor which destroyed his arguments. Is this a case of shoot the messenger? --Gibnews (talk) 13:51, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

No, there are some genuine concerns about whether Gibnews.net can be considered a reliable source. The arguments are on WP:RS/N#gibnews.net. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk

I started that discussion so the comments below predate it, and are largely based on the assumption I'm another editor. I'm surprised at the enthusiasm to ban something with so little research about it or even an explanation of why at the beginning of this section. --Gibnews (talk) 17:54, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 00:51, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support better idea than a username block. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:06, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support as this fellow has become pathetic. GoodDay (talk) 01:20, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose The user is indef blocked, and is in fact a sock of an earlier user(or maybe it was later) who is also indef blocked. They refuse to retract their clear legal threats, so it seems that that(those) block(s) is(are) going to stay, so this entire thing is rather moot.

Also take note that gibnews does not have a wikipedia page. I ask all of you participating here, why not consider the blacklist?

However, if they are unblocked, then sure, I

• Support - Per the above, but only if they are unblocked.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 01:57, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support technically, but I agree with Daedalus that the gibnews.net domain ought to be blacklisted, which will resolve the issue of it being used here better than all the blockifications in the world. :-) Burpelson AFB (talk) 02:07, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support blacklisting of site; that's the only way to keep this from reoccuring. :) — Huntster (t @ c) 03:34, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support blacklisting the site. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 03:47, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support I doubt the user will ever be unblocked, so we can consider it a defacto community ban. AniMate 04:11, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

c.c

So, you support a ban, a topic ban, or a blacklist addition?— Dædαlus ^Contribs 05:00, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I support the blacklist. Since I stated the community ban was defacto, I assumed you would get that I was supporting the blacklist. Next time I'll spell it out for you. AniMate 07:17, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support blacklisting gibnews.net, if that's what this discussion is about. If allowing links there leads to this kind of behavior, we should avoid future iterations of the same behavior by not allowing links there. By the nature of the site, it doesn't appear there's anything lost by not linking there. — Gavia immer (talk) 07:30, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support blacklisting gibnews.net. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 09:04, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose Gibnews is not Gibraltarian, that accusation was already made and investigated and Gibnews was cleared. Red Hat is actually aware of this, so making the accusation yet again smacks of sticking the knife in while an editor can't defend themself. Red Hat and Gibnews have a long and acrimonius history, this is Red Hat working the system to pay back old scores.

Secondly Gibnews.net is simply a repository of documents released into the public domain, reproducing them verbatim, it is a reliable source. It links documents related to Gibraltar and is a useful online resources for documents that would only be available in paper form. Blacklisting it, means that a lot of PD Gibraltar related documents online are lost, since there is no other source. Thats what Red Hat's objective is here.

Thirdly as regards username Gibnews is commonly used on several Gibraltar related websites, Gibnews already had it for his own domain name. But Red Hat is also aware of this.

Now if you're blocking Gibnews for legal threats, Red Hat should also be blocked for a) winding him up and b) knowingly bringing false information to AN/I. In fact you could block half a dozen editors on Gibraltar related topios just to get rid of the utterly poisonous atmosphere there.

This is why I've quit wikipedia, I've had enough of it. Even when I've quit I'm being dragged back because what is happening on that article is simply poisonous. Please just ban the lot and you can include me in that if you like. Justin talk 09:27, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Please, stay away at least 24 hours from wikipedia if you intend to keep telling us that you've quit it. You could read this in the meantime. When this user complains about the poisonous atmosphere, he forgets to mention that his own personal attacks had a lot to do with it. No kidding, attacks such as these [18] [19] [20]. 10:24, 11 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.129.38.21 (talk)

Above is banned user PalestineRemembered, who I apparently upset but over something so minor I don't recall. In case you hadn't noticed I said include me in the blocks, I didn't claim my behavious was above reproach. Justin talk 10:34, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I say: stay! Even if you don't remove the farewell, keep contributing. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 12:42, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support Gibnews has now commented on this website [21], still obviously does not understand our policies and obviously will not voluntarily stop using it. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 11:48, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Additional Block Proposal

Close tendentious proposal, not gonna happen. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 15:38, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Block Red Hat of Pat Ferrick for using AN/I to settle old scores and deliberately making a knowingly false sock puppet accusation. He has already made that accusation and an SPI investigation cleared Gibnews. Now please will everyone just leave me alone. Justin talk 09:27, 11 February 2010 (UTC) That won't solve anything, particularly when the sockpuppet accusation came after the fact that Gibnews explicitly said "If you want to defame the reliability and reputation of gibnews.net in reproducing it 'as is' can I ask that you do so in another place under your real name so that you can be sued for libel" (emphasis mine). This is not an issue of two users fighting one another. It is an issue of how one user is using his own website as a source for the edits he performs on Wikipedia.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 11:36, 11 February 2010 (UTC) No its not Gibnews' site, that has been alleged and disproved before. Justin talk 12:11, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Unblock Proposal

Legal threat withdrawn and I note the complaining editor forgot to mention that when he piled onto the attempt to block a useful site. Diff [22]. Justin talk 12:17, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I support this. The editor has retracted any legal threats. Of course, he still doesn't understand why Gibnews is not a reliable source (or Justin, apparently, but that's neither here nor there), but with the blacklist proposal flying above, I don't think this will be a problem anymore regardless of whether or not he agrees. Since it's my block, does anyone have a glaring issue why I shouldn't unblock? Tan | 39 14:56, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

If the legal threat is withdrawn then the block should be lifted. The other issues are peripheral. –xeno^talk 14:57, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 15:03, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I support, if the blacklist is implemented. It will be the only way to get it through to him, and besides, if it's just quoting other sources I'm sure we can go to the horse's mouth instead of this middleman website. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 15:11, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you guys, on a completley unrelated subject would anyone be able to tell me why Wikibreak Enforcer doesn't appear to work for me? Justin talk 15:08, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Do you have javascript enabled? Have you bypassed your cache? –xeno^talk 15:12, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I still say that Gibnews should be banned from using gibnews.net as a source. He should be able to ask on talk pages, but not use the link himself on the article. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 15:14, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

That's peripheral to the NLT block, and appears to be fairly well-supported in the above. –xeno^talk 15:16, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I have unblocked Gibnews, and encouraged him/her to participate in the site blacklist proposal above. Tan | 39 17:25, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

As a point of order, the above is a proposal to ban Gibnews from using the site, but not someone else. I would suggest this be taken up at WP:RS/N. –xeno^talk 17:26, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Ah, yes - I got sidetracked a bit with that line of thinking. I suppose it changes nothing; I would still encourage gibnews to participate in the discussion, but personally, I think the site should be completely blacklisted. Tan | 39 17:37, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Note about gibnews.net

I don't know what the exact relationship is between gibnews and the site of the same name (Justin claims it was established there is none - I don't know how that was established or when) but (1) Gibnews had a hand in setting it up (by his own admission) even if its content is not coming from his own mouth (2) the site's lawyers are the same lawyers Gibnews refers to on another site which is definitely his (gibnet.com - see About Us, where we are assured "his lawyers are bigger than our lawyers") (3) the language used on the two sites is remarkably similar. (4) he chose a user name that was the same as the domain name. There is a definite connection between Gibnews and gibnews.net. (5) the site seems wiki-like in nature, if anyone can submit information, and there is no vetting or scrutiny of the content (the owners absolve themselves of responsibility) so it is not reliable anyway. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 15:49, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Firstly I would encourage any editors in this thread to actually take a look at the site in question and see for themselves.

NO it is not a 'wiki' thats a blatent lie.

YES There is vetting on who can contribute and its controlled by usernames and passwords and restricted to legitimate organisations.

YES There is scrutiny of content, and content providers are told that in the TOS. But the contributors are REPUTABLE ORGANISATIONS. Anything libelous would be removed to comply with Gibraltar law which is very different to that in the US. So far I am informed nothing has been removed.

The site provides an archive with permalinks of press releases in Gibraltar, 'as-is' without alteration. Some of the material is not available anywhere else, and even where it is, the links are guaranteed permanent.

The rationale for 'banning' references to it is not clear, Yes I wrote the code behind it. No I do not write the content referenced in wikipedia. RH seemed to take particular exception to my referencing in a talk page a press release from the Governor of Gibraltar's office, which made the Governor's role clear. Why ?

I've created around a hundred websites, some of them are referenced in Wikipedia. But there is a separation between creating templates and scripts and the content of Gibnews.net In Gibraltar its seen as a reliable trusted source of information. Why is it feared here?

wikipedia is about openness and not suppressing things some people dislike for being true. --Gibnews (talk) 18:25, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

A Comment

This is a verbose commemt, probably in the tl;dr category and probably one that doesn't go down too well at AN/I because it seems clear to me that I don't have the political skills needed here. Please do take the time to read it.

The block on Gibnews using Gibnews.net seems to be based on the erroneous assumption promoted by Red Hat that its his personal website. It isn't, though he has disclosed he worked for the owners doing some coding some time ago. The supporting comments seem to be a typical example of the way that editors can sometimes pile onto a a proposal sometimes and it really should not be enacted. There is an essay on that phenomenon but I'm buggered if I can find it. Its also separate from unblocking for the legal threats.

As a matter of disclosure, I said some things in the heat of the moment a few days ago that I regret and apologise publicly and unreservedly for. If the community thinks I should be blocked or banned for them, then fine I have no problem with that. I broke the rule and I'll take my punishment. I fully expect someone will be along soon to propose that anyway. I don't regret or apologise for commenting on the agenda of the editor concerned. I don't think I'm wrong about that and if the community wishes to block me for it, then fine because I don't really don't wish to be part of a community that allows itself to be manipulated to support his agenda.

I don't apologise for calling for Red Hat to be blocked, he has very skilfully fed the feeding frenzy prompted by Gibnews' stupid legal threat. Seems he has also achieved a long term agenda of his for having that site blacklisted, I can provide diffs if necessary. A while ago I made the decision to make my peace with him as given the good work he has done on British Empire I thought I had misunderstood him and his motives. Now I'm not too sure I was right about that. I really would appreciate someone looking at that and I really would appreciate someone taking the time to look at Talk:Gibraltar and doing something about the poisonous atmosphere there.

I am sincere in my desire to quit, call me a Diva if you like. I really don't think I have what it takes to edit in my areas of interest and thats why I'm quitting and only why. But on my way out if I can draw attention to what has been going on you can call if my swan song. Thank you to anyone with the integrity to listen and take action, I recognise that I just don't have what it takes. Justin talk 16:12, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes it is a verbose comment indeed. And a strange one as well, provided that out of 16 lines, only 3 are devoted to the issue at stake (Gibnews and Gibnews.net). The remaining 80% of it, however, is focused at:

• Not-really-apologising for calling another editor "fascist fuckwit" and the like, as you imply by immediately stating that you "don't regret or apologise for commenting on the agenda of the editor concerned".
• Not apologising for calling for The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick to be blocked either, even thought he has done nothing but reporting here a particularly blatant violation of Wikipedia:No legal threats policy. Of course, you know that the ensuing block and ulterior revision (rejecting to lift the block) have been undertaken by two uninvolved admins.
• Reiterate your "sincere" (yet unfulfilled) desire to quit. 17:16, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

For the record, I don't think anyone should block you, especially as you have now apologised. Far out... if I'd been blocked for some of my outbursts... :-) - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 13:27, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

A further comment

I see allegations of sockpuppetry.

1. I have only ever had ONE account on Wikipedia. I started as an IP editor and registered an account at the time that the forces of darkness were trying to get ALL Gibraltar IP addresses banned from editing Wikipedia. Even my private static IP which nobody else had access to and was never used by the banned user:gibraltarian. We sorted it out.

2. I am not that user and do not know his identity, but he is alive and well and makes occasional forays into wikipedia which I revert.

3. There is a further allegation of sockpuppetry made by RH on my user page Here I have no idea who user:gutterbrothers was, presumably someone who disliked RH.

I note comments that RH has nothing against me

That is not my perception as he has repeatedly had a go at me, mainly on talk Gibraltar and has attempted to wind me up repeatedly, and even has a section on his userpage complaining that people in Gibraltar claim to know more about the place than him.

As I got banned he is out in full force to try and get a permanent ban, with arguments that are demonstrably short on truth. I have tried to minimise the interaction, but made a serious error. However, that does not justify calling for a permanent ban simple because he wants to re-write the Gibraltar pages his way, and supress websites that provide useful information in an un-biased manner. --Gibnews (talk) 18:57, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

RS Noticeboard

Gibnews has posted at the RS Noticeboard [23]. Although I am already firmly of the view that this site does not even come close to meeting WP's Reliable Source requirements, I have posted a series of objective questions there which I think would need answering, and which I hope Gibnews treats with the respect they deserve. I encourage anyone who reads this to post their views too. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 00:04, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Kundalini yoga - User:Fatehji

Fatehji (talk · contribs) This page got my attention some days ago as the result of an edit war between Fatehji and another user which resulted in page protection. I've since taken a closer look at the article and discovered that Fatehji has turned the page into a blatant WP:COATRACK for Yogi Bhajan and his 3HO movement. After I deleted the COATRACK section, Fatehji has been repeatedly restoring it[24][25][26] based on the transparently POV and, I believe, demonstrably false assertion that Kundalini yoga and Yogi Bhajan's teachings are synonymous, when in fact there are countless writers and teachers on the topic (see Google books search results). Fatehji has also been editing the Kundalini syndrome article, trying to minimize the seriousness of the phenomenon[27] (presumably because Yogi Bhajan has said kundalini yoga is perfectly safe), falsely claiming the article relies upon only one reference[28] and even arguing for its deletion.[29][30] (To refute this position, one need only do a search for the term on Google books).

In normal circumstances, I will try to work with other editors to establish NPOV, but in this case I cannot persuade myself there is a realistic chance of doing so. Unfortunately, spiritual topics tend to attract adherents of one or another spiritual group who attempt to use such articles as promotional vehicles for their own particular group, and in my experience there is little hope of dissuading such editors from their disruptive activities except through bans or blocks. I am therefore proposing that Fatehji be topic banned from all kundalini-related articles, with the possible exception of those pertaining to his particular group (namely Yogi Bhajan, 3HO and Kundalini Yoga as Taught by Yogi Bhajan). Gatoclass (talk) 01:18, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

• I concur with the topic ban, as it appears that there is some considerable bias as regards the promoting and demoting of differing disciplines. As for an allowance on those topics relating solely to their interests, I am assuming Gatoclass has not detected any WP:OWNership issues and agree also. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:48, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

• I don't want to be unduly harsh. My primary concern is to stop the COATRACKing, which is the immediate problem, and I think likely to be an ongoing one unless something is done to prevent it. My comment was not intended as an endorsement of his editing on the Yogi Bhajan pages, I just think that as he's only been editing for three weeks he is entitled to be given some time to adjust. If he's still causing problems down the track, that can always be looked at later. Gatoclass (talk) 01:18, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

• I support the topic ban also. Since he created his account on 18 January, Fatehji has managed to receive warnings from two different admins, and his contributions include frequent reverts. The single most worrisome thing is his minimization of Kundalini syndrome, which has plenty of references. EdJohnston (talk) 22:21, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
• I concur as well, a topic ban would be a good first step, the diffs are quite worrying. If Fatehji is unable to comply, we should proceed immediately to escalating blocks. GlassCobra 22:38, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

From the start let me say in my defense, despite these claims, I have ALWAYS been open to changing the wording, edits, and I have been open and fair to adjustments and changes as long as there have been valid references from neutral 3rd party opinions. If I have done something wrong, I am always willing to change it. Everything I need to say is in the Talk page for this article if read carefully [[31]], but due to the slant in this claim I have to defend myself here. In fact, my counter-claim is that Gatoclass and user Atmapuri on this page have been advancing far too much of a bias against and new referenced material relating to Yogi Bhajan with complete deletions at every posting with little or no effort to reach consensus [Resolve the Dispute]. As you can see in the Talk pages [[32]], changes have been made, and I am always open and inviting to those who are neutral and who have done homework on the subject. I have repeatedly asked for clarification and references from these users without receiving any: Namely Gatoclass and Atmapuri, who themselves were exhibiting warring tendencies and have leveled threats [Warning]. [Resolve this Dispute].

Additionally, This entire claim is both pedantic and aggressive. I have shown my positive support of 3rd party views on numerous occasions [[33]]. There's a lot of assumption going on in this Incident claim: Gatoclass is using the language "I believe" and "presumably" pretty liberally in his agenda to service his POV. Gatoclass claims that in "normal cases" he would would try to make concurrent and 3rd party observations your primary avenue of pursuance in resolving disputes yet he did not make any effort in this direction even after I requested such and offered my openness to NPOV resolution. What he claims as "in this case I cannot persuade myself" means simply... you did not want to listen, nor did he want to follow policy (i.e. my quote: "Please ask for a 3rd party resolution ... before you request for a dispute resolution."[[34]]). He has skipped over NPOV in his bias against me and your not observing the policy of Wikipedia to take these steps first.

So, therefore because you are leveling more claims, I have to defend myself and the information (again). First of all, 3HO is not a "movement" initially as you claim - with the implication that somehow it is an agency with an ulterior agenda (this wording choice is typically indicative of your POV bias). It is a simply the support community for teachers of Kundalini Yoga and the organization that supports the teaching of Kundalini Yoga and yogic events. If anything that it is "moving" or promoting, it is positive change and health forward into the consciousness of people who need it.

Also, I will refute that your search on Kundalini Yoga books is a red herring because you did not do a search for "Kundalini AND yoga" (quotes needed). Kundalini itself is a ubiquitous and non-scientific source of spiritual energy and of course yoga widely covered, so of course a search of this will return many books..! What you should be referencing - instead of diverting - is the content of the books, not the 'number' of books a search calls up. All this I have covered in the talkback pages [[35]] and [[36]].

As I have stated over and over, I'm open to referenced additions and changes and would love for this article to be a world class and accurate representation of this beautiful form of yoga. However, certain users have not been helpful, while others have been very insightful and neutral (Bhuto, [Resolve the Dispute], Debsandeep [This article is a mess], TransporterMan [See 3rd Party Opinion], Cactustalk [Refutation of Coatrack Claim]

Lastly, I again refute your claim and show - as I have numerous times, and as it has been supported by Neutral 3rd party observations - that the Kundalini syndrome page is riddled with inaccuracies, non-scientific and uncited claims [References provided are false], and has nothing to do directly with Kundalini yoga, except by confluence of name. It is a culture-bound syndrome, with no professional validation, and linking it to yoga is like linking 'tennis' with 'tennis elbow', 'bruising' or 'ankle injuries' (as one neutral observer said [[37]]). There's nothing 'disturbing" about correcting false and misleading information. rather, harmful, negative information of non-relevance should be appropriately removed and not disseminated without professional validation.

Specifically speaking to the Kundalini syndrome page It was Gatoclass actually who removed the "professional validation" request without any so much of a comment except "out of date" [[38]]. Yet, no professional validation has been made at this time... So how is it "out of date"? The article is out of date on getting the validation, not the request for validation out of date for the article... This shows how you are twisting things around to suit your POV.

My last word is that over and over again I have shown opening to change and update this article(s) in question to make them more neutral and less biased and the goal is ultimately to make them much more like the articles currently on Wikipedia showing other forms of yoga. As it progresses, it will improve, based on verifiable information and in line with the policies of Wikipeida. I have always indicated that being my sole purpose.

I am new to the site, and that may be to my disadvantage against "multi-starred" uses such as Gatoclass but that that doesn't mean he should bull-dozer me and slant his bias against me by leveling an incident request and blockage requests over my fair requests for neutrality and 3rd party resolution dispute. If I am somehow wrong in this defense I apologize, but my intent is true.--Fatehji (talk) 17:09, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Fatehji is still edit warring on the page in question - indeed, he appears to be expanding his COATRACK section. Gatoclass (talk) 22:13, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Dashbullder

Dashbullder (talk · contribs) has, among other things, added articles of his own creation to Current Events without discussion [39] [40] and added links to one such article to two unrelated pages apparently as a POINTy attempt at pushing Christian PoV. [41] [42]

Also seems to have issues with "getting" copyright [43] after adding a decently long script CAP to an article [44] -- Pakaran 22:29, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

• I have reverted a few of this user's edits, including his additions to the Current Events templates. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 22:32, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

(ANI is a bad bad place) 66.172.228.21 (talk) 22:34, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I asked exactly how long a quote could be and I'm still waiting for an answer, and if adding articles about current events to the current events area with out a vote is a problem I am sorry I did not know this. --Dashbullder (talk) 01:42, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

There is no specific answer, but it doesn't matter. The quotation doesn't belong for other reasons that you have already been told about. If you want the quotation to be in the article when others disagree with you, that's what the article talk page is for -- use it. ~Amatulić (talk) 06:51, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

"There is no specific answer"? if there is no rule then how can I have broken it? --Dashbullder (talk) 03:09, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

He means there's no specific answer regarding acceptable quote length. Quotes are supposed to be used when they serve a specific purpose that paraphrasing wouldn't fulfill. They're not supposed to be "extensive". In this instance, it looks like the significance of the piece could've been adequately summed up using other words. Again, use the article talk page to seek advice on how to handle it. Equazcion ^(talk) 03:15, 12 Feb 2010 (UTC)

Give how touchy some people are about this film I thought it would be best for me not to put words in the speakers mouths. --Dashbullder (talk) 03:33, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Counterproductive sockpuppetry charges: Time to re-examine these witch hunts

User Jayron32 recently filed yet another one of these sockpuppet applications that some Wikipedians tend to file from time to time at the sockpuppet-handling board. Are we yet tired of this? I currently edit at Squidoo as NYPress scholar, at Citizendium under a real name, and maintain several Wikipedia articles. The continued surveillance of obscure articles, such as "Is Google Making Us Stupid?" or "Oath Keepers", for the potential appearance of a sockpuppet has been a remarkably harmful cancer on the encyclopedia. There are those who write articles and there are those who lock others out. Sometimes users do need to be locked out, but mostly it's the kind of thing going on with the "Is Google Making Us Stupid?" article where a witch hunt-mentality persists to the detriment of the article when no controversial edits are in fact being made. It's time to make more liberal use of the WP:IAR policy that Larry Sanger once proposed. I see far too much power in the hands of people well-versed in policy and far too little power in the hands of those who do the bulk of the writing around here. Uncover a few more of my accounts and you will see what I mean. I'm all over the encyclopedia making edits, trying to stay as far away from those who see the encyclopedia solely through the lens of policy. Will some level-headed individual please stand up and change the balance of power? The Audacious Mr. Ox (talk) 05:03, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Well considering that you are a subject of this SPI, I can see why you would say that. Unfortunately no, we aren't getting tired of SPIs because they help legitimiZe the site. You are also advocating for people that you aren't really a part of as well. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 05:13, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Also, the fact that you know all of this when you've only been here ten days is also suspicious. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 05:22, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

This editor is blocked for sockpuppetry. A better example of WP:PLAXICO I have not seen. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 08:15, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

PLAXICO seems to have been deleted. Probably a good thing, since it was basically a massive BLP violation. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 08:19, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

How so? Are you saying he didn't actually shoot himself in the leg? Regardless, an even better metaphor is Haman (Bible). Ain't no BLP there. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:00, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I was a bit surprised too, but it was probably a good decision. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 08:27, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Deleted today, in fact! - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 08:28, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

No reason not to use PLAXICO, is there? Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:02, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Other than not ridiculing a living person on an ongoing and regular basis, no. –xeno^talk 16:13, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I wonder if WP:PLAXICO should be recreated as an essay that explains why the names of living persons shouldn't be used in a pejorative manner. And no, I'm not being sarcastic. -- Atama頭 17:45, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Would this not be a rather self-defeating argument? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 13:43, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Might be a bit superfluous to note at this point, but I've done some checkusering at the SPI linked above. – Luna Santin (talk) 18:34, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Cpofpakistan (Communist Party of Pakistan)

Cpofpakistan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), an account which purports to belong to the Communist Party of Pakistan, had been using their user page User:Cpofpakistan to advertise their political campaigns and upcoming party events. That page was speedily deleted and the account blocked for violating the username policy. However, blocks don't prevent an account from editing its own talk page, and now the user is posting their political advertisements to User talk:Cpofpakistan. Either the account needs to be blocked from editing its own user talk page, or else the user talk page needs to be deleted/blanked and protected. —Psychonaut (talk) 11:56, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

It's been blanked; we'll give him one more chance to go away and then disable own talk page editing if it shows up again. Stifle (talk) 12:44, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Er... Cpofpakistan? That's an indefinite block for sure. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 14:06, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

As I mentioned, the account is already blocked for violating the username policy, which prohibits usernames implying that the account is associated with or controlled by a particular group or organization. —Psychonaut (talk) 14:10, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, misread what you wrote. If it's not protected already, if they post ads then we should protect the talk page. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 13:47, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Ayaan Hirsi Ali (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Could an uninvolved administrator please take some time and look thoroughly into this issue here?

This editor Zencv (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) has repeatedly added controversial material into the BLP article of Ayaan Hirsi Ali without providing any reliable verifiable sources. The controversial & contentious material is a link to the Islamophobia article within the 'See also' section of the BLP article, which implies that the subject of the BLP article is islamophobic, a person who hates, fears or dreads Islam.

Wikipedia's rules state:

• ...unsourced contentious material about living persons should be removed immediately.
• Any material lacking a reliable source may be removed.
• Material for which no reliable source can be found is considered original research.

This unsourced material should be removed from the article. I have already been unrightly accused of edit warring, simply because I reverted the unsourced addition, and therefore I am bringing the matter to AiN and BLPN, so that others will get the chance to have their say on this issue.

I am not a content contributor to the BLP article in question. My main objective for this article is to fight off vandalism on that page and to revert the usual unsourced additions. Zencv is known for his anti-Ayaan Hirsi Ali position, he is a major content contributor to the Ayaan Hirsi Ali article, and has been blocked for breaking the 3RR rule on the Fitna Film article. Zencv's first edit on the Ayaan Hirsi Ali article is from 23 February 2008, and in that edit he placed the "Islamophobia" link for the first time into the article. This unsourced addition was unchallenged, and remained there till September 2008. The controversial link was changed by User:Tomixdf on 16 September 2008, who wrote in his edit summary: Changed biased link to "Islamophobia" to the "criticism of islam/islamism".

Checking through the history of the Ayaan Hirsi Ali article will reveal that Zencv has been a regular source of disruption on that article. When Zencv re-added the Islamophobia link to the article on 4 February 2010, I reverted his edit, stating WP:NPOV. He then reverted my revert. After this revert, I stopped editing and to avoid edit-war I brought the issue to both RfP and AiV. The issue was brought to RfP because Zencv is a content contributor to the said article, and has been involved in several mini-edit wars on the same article in the past. The issue was brought to AiV because Wikipedia rule states that ...adding a controversial personal opinion to an article is not vandalism; although reinserting it despite multiple warnings can be disruptive. Reinserting the unsourced controversial personal opinion (the Islamophobia link) into the BLP article is disruptive editing and thus vandalism. I thus waited for an hour without editing the article to allow the admins to take over the issue. When they finally replied, administrator Fastily declined my request on AiV, stating that "User has been incorrectly or insufficiently warned. Re-report once the user has been warned sufficiently". I asked Fastily on his talk page to explain what he meant by this, asking if this is edit war, he then replied: "You are never violating the three revert rule if you're reverting vandalism". Only after this go-ahead from the admin, after this green light, I proceeded to revert the revert of Zencv on 5 February 01:05 am (UTC).

Recap:

• 4 February 2010, 23:27 (UTC), User:Zencv added a controversial link into the 'See also' section of the Ayaan Hirsi Ali article.
• 4 February 2010, 23:47 (UTC), I reverted the edit, citing WP:NPOV
• 4 February 2010, 23:51 (UTC) Zencv reverted my revert.
• 4 February 2010, 23:58 (UTC), issue reported to AiV
• 5 February 2010, 00:00 (UTC), request for page protection
• 5 February 2010, 00:56 (UTC), Administrator Fastily replied on AiV. On his talk page he gave me the go-ahead to revert the disruptive edits.
• 5 February 2010, 01:05 (UTC) I reverted the revert of Zencv
• 5 Februar 2010, 01:22 (UTC), Administrator Explicit replied on RfP, accusing me of edit war.
• 10 February 22:43 (UTC), Zencv reinserted the controversial link into the article, claiming "per talk page" in his edit summary.

On the article's talk page, a discussion was started by Zenvc after Admin Explicit issued out edit-war warnings. Incidentally, this discussion, trying to get consensus, is what Zencv ought to have done in the first place, before adding the contentious material. Approximately 4 (four) editors have participated in that discussion. Zencv and User:Strausszek wrote in favour of adding the Islamophobic link, User:ChildofMidnight and myself were against the addition. User:ChildofMidnight suggested including the word Islamophobia "in the article than as an external link". Both Childofmidnight and I requested for reliable sources for the link. Consensus was not reached, and the requested reliable evidence for Ayaan Hirsi Ali being islamophoc has not been provided, yet Zencv went ahead to reinsert the contentious link into the BLP article.

It appears as if Zencv has concluded within himself that he has the right to continue to add this unsourced and contentious material into the article, thus continuing his disruptive editing on that BLP article.

Summary:

The inclusion of the Islamophobia link strongly suggests that the subject of the BLP hates Islam, fears Islam and dreads Islam (according to Wikipedia's definition of Islamophobia). Without citing reliable and verifiable sources, such a controversial statement should not be included into this article. If there are reliable verifiable source that prove this, then the link should be included and noone will challenge the inclusion. Since the added material is unsourced, it must be removed.

Lastly, this issue leads to these questions: if editors are permitted to add controversial and contentious links into the 'See also' section of BLP articles, without providing reliable and verifiable sources, then how would Wikipedia admins react, if, for instance, an internal link to the LGBT article is being placed in the 'See also' or 'External Links' section of BLP articles of contemperary well known persons (e.g. celebrities, politicians, religious persons like Paul Crouch)? How would wikipedia administrators react if someone, without providing any reliable sources, placed a link to the Pederasty article into the 'See also' section of the Michael Jackson article? Amsaim (talk) 13:41, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree - this is a clear violation of BLP guidelines. I will warn the editor who is adding it, and I have removed it from the article. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 14:10, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Concur with the above. "See also" entries that attach negative connotations to living people generally ought to be removed. An alternative would be to require a sourced descriptive explanation that makes it clear who is making the association (i.e. "Islamophobia, or anti-Muslim prejudice, of which Hirsii Ali has been accused by left-wing critics").  Skomorokh  14:54, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

MJ/Pederasty analogy is logically invalid as hanging out with children was not MJ's main job. He was an entertainer and Paedophilia allegation was just one of the many episodes in his controversial life - so having Pederasty under See Also would obviously be in bad taste. Hirsi Ali on the other hand made a career out of criticizing Islam - she became a politician, author , everything she is known for because of her widespread criticism of Islam and Muslims(which another user pointed out with examples in the talkpage disussion). So having Islamophobia in the link is no violation of BLP. As for the concensus, only four people(including me) took part in discussion - 2 agreed completely, one sounded vague and another opposed. I would urge admins to reconsider the opinion taking both of these points into consideration Zencv ^Whisper 22:20, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

In the second case you give as an example, that should be in the main article, and sourced. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 15:15, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I would note this issue has been raised in Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard and here. Please don't do that. If it's necessary to raise an issue in multiple boards, choose one as the place for primary discussion and just link to it. I have removed your post to WP:BLP/N and linked here instead. However you should only do this when there's a significant wikipedia wide issue which requires far ranging attention not for a single dispute like this anyway. It'll also usually be okay if you've received insufficient feedback and waited a resonable period of time (probably several days at least). On to the actual issue, I agree that the best way to handle this would be to integrate the Islamophobia into the article, as we did with Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive71#Ian Plimer in Heaven and Earth (book) for example. On the more general issue, I would caution against calling Zencv's edits vandalism. It comes across as a content dispute to me. However as it was likely he/she was violationing BLP, this is a far more serious thing then vandalism anyway (and reverting BLP violations also provides an exemption against 3RR). Fastily has a point that you are normally expected to warn people they are violating policy and may be blocked, admins are generally fairly reluctant to block without any warnings. However Zencv has posted WP:DTTR on his page in response to a few warnings so I think this can be taken as a sign further warnings are not necessary. Bear in mind that in normal circumstances, if there's two people arguing and one person arguing the other, it's unwise to consider the matter closed or go around edit warring to get your POV in the article. Seek wide feedback quickly. P.S. Since external links were raised even though this doesn't concern external links, we already have a section at WP:BLP#External links dealing with that. Nil Einne (talk) 15:41, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. When this issue first came into light, it was a content dispute between the initial users, Amsaim (talk · contribs) and Zencv (talk · contribs). By reading the article—specifically the Islam section—I'm assuming Zencv came to the conclusion that Islamophobia is a term that relates (directly or indirectly) to the subject and seemed fit (if this is not the case, my apologies). Amsaim reported Zencv to WP:AIV, despite the fact that the venue is for vandalism only, stating "I'm not in any mood to engage in any Edit War". Rightfully, Fastily did not block Zencv. Amsaim went on to request page protection for the article, in which he stated "editor boasting of being "a regular" has introduced a link to Islamophobia on the Ayaan Hirsi Ali article, thus implying that the subject of the BLP is Islamophobic. in order to avoid edit war, pls protect the page from such vandalism." Amsaim contradicted himself in both venues, as he implied that Zencv was vandalizing while calling the whole thing an edit war. Clearly, this was not blatant vandalism, but a dispute between two users. This being the case, I declined the protection request and warned both Amsaim and Zencv. Amsaim doesn't take the message lightly, as one can see here. All that being said, they did engage in discussion on the article's talk page. There was no consensus to include the link in the 'see also' section, but Zencv persists in adding it and has been warned about it. At this point, a block for Zencv seems justified should he continue to insert the link to the 'see also' section despite my warning and the lack of consensus for its inclusion. — ξ^xplicit 21:06, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

What seem to have lost here in the noise created by User:Amsaim is that in the discussion in the talkpage, I made it clear here that adding Islamophobia under the section is not necessarily calling her an Islamophobe, but rather as a balance to the existing links under the section which already contain Criticism of Islam. As I made it clear in the discussion, Criticism of Islam and Islamophobia often(though not always) overlap. As we have links to 3 prominent critics of Islam and a link to Criticism of Islam itself, it could have made sense to have a link to Islamophobia, and hence in no way would be a violation of BLP. Has anyone else thought from this angle? Zencv ^Whisper 22:07, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I understand the argument, but the argument is flawed. As there is necessarily no discussion in a see also section, or references, then on articles about individuals you can't add pejorative terms such as Islamophobe. Islamophobia, as a term, is used to describe someone who has an unreasonable fear or prejudice against Islam, but it can also be used in such a way to call someone a bigot. The See also section in a Wikipedia article is a way of making a definitive statement on a person, term or concept; it says that "This is an article that definitively relates to this article". By adding Islamophobia to this section of the article, we aren't saying that some people say that Ali is an Islamophobe, it is saying that Wikipedia takes the position that Ali is an Islamophobe. That cannot be, so we can't add it to the section as this is a BLP issue as well as an NPOV issue. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 22:43, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I second that. Criticism of Islam is not the same as Islamophobia, and to insist that they're the same would only squelch freedom of expression and would be contrary to WP's mission. 24.23.197.43 (talk) 07:27, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I second that as well. Tomixdf (talk) 14:15, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Snek01

This user has a large issue with a minor point of style, see [45]. He reported the subject of his complaint (and myself) for edit warring (also make a sock accusation) [46], which was declined, and he was told to stop his reverts. He has also made a complaint further up this page [47]. He continues to engage in edit warring, and misuse of edit summaries, despite being asked to stop [48]. Attempts to communicate have resulted in a vandalism notice on my user page. Can stronger action be taken as his actions are clearly disruptive? Thedarxide (talk) 13:55, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I also would like to seek for editor assistance because all three participants have broken 3 revert rule already http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Norway_lobster&action=history . Thank you. --Snek01 (talk) 14:04, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I am requesting full protection on Norway Lobster at the moment, as it seems like there's a dispute going on around here. If there are any more articles that we have to get concerned about tell me. Thanks. Minimac94 (talk) 14:17, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Although I may bow to wisdom of those more experienced than I, doesn't the 3 revert rule not apply to vandalism, which Snek's edits now count as? I've followed the discussions - entertaining as they are - and I'm pretty sure Snek was asked to refrain from any more reversions until discussion and a resolution had been found. But hey - what do I know? a_man_alone (talk) 14:22, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

From my perspective as an outside, un-involved editor, this essentially looks like a content dispute over the interpretation of the MOS when it comes to formatting references. In the past two days,

• Thedarxide (talk · contribs) - reverted the article five times, including use of TW in the dispute to label his opponent's edits as "vandalism"
• Snek01 (talk · contribs) - changed the article back to his or her preferred version six (or seven, depending on how you count) times
• Stemonitis (talk · contribs) - changed the article back three times

While I see that a request at WP:ANEW was declined yesterday [49], since the two primary parties have only escalated the conflict today, it looks to me like they both need blocked for edit warring. — Kralizec! (talk) 14:36, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I dispute the fact that I have "escalated" the conflict - Snek01 has been spoken to nicely, then told by an admin that his actions are to stop. Based on the fact that he has been told this, I have been reverting his changes. I believe the vandalism tag is justified Thedarxide (talk) 14:40, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

• • Snek01 and Thedarxide both have 48 hours to think about the stupidity of a lame edit war. I also locked the article for 24 hours to prevent other proponants in the rever warring from benefiting from the forced absence of the other two participants. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:47, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
    • That may help calm things temporarily. There's still the question of whether placing nbsp's before all ref tags is appropriate, and they'll still have to deal with that once the blocks expire. I personally don't think that's a content dispute. If an editor is going to try to do this across all articles he edits, he should be plainly told whether or not that's appropriate, otherwise this will end up back here at ANI. My personal thought is that it's not appropriate. I've never seen it in a guideline, policy, or in practice. Refs generally follow text directly with no spaces. Equazcion ^(talk) 14:55, 11 Feb 2010 (UTC)

This issue has been handled badly and should have been resolved long before it came to this point. Snek01 is correct. The formatting changes made by Stemonitis go directly against MOS. WP:MOS#Punctuation and inline citations clearly states

Place inline citations after any punctuation such as a comma or period, with no intervening space

Stemonitis should revert his edits, which run across many articles (as an aside, this is not a "minor" point of style). Snek01 is a valuable content editor, prolific and professional, even though English is not his native language. I hope you do not take this too badly Snek01. --Epipelagic (talk) 22:42, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

The trouble is, our style guidelines are contradictory. What is implicitly forbidden in one place is explicitly allowed elsewhere. WP:FN states that "Some editors prefer the in-house style of journals such as Nature, which place references before punctuation. If an article has evolved using predominantly one style of ref tag placement, the whole article should conform to that style unless there is a consensus to change it." During the oddly extensive discussions on this matter recently, several editors have defended the method I use, and almost all have agreed that consistency is more important than quibbles over punctuation, and not worth warring over. This really is a minor point of style, and any consensus over it is far from unanimous. As far as I recall, in all my time here, only one editor has felt so strangely strongly about it as to risk getting himself blocked. I am more than happy to discuss the issue in a calm and reasonable arena, and I will of course alter my style if there should be a strong consensus formed over it. (Similarly, if I thought there already was a strong consensus, I wouldn't have been doing it before.) However, the issue has indeed been handled badly, and discussion was made more or less impossible. I will add that I don't think it adds to the project if we all spend time legislating over such tiny things; Wikipedia already has a reputation in some quarters for needless bureaucracy. A more pragmatic solution is to (explicitly?) allow various reasonable systems to be used (just as we allow different methods of referencing (footnotes, shortened footnotes, parenthetical references) and different forms of the language (WP:ENGVAR). I can see the appeal of rigid standardisation, but I rank it pretty low on the list of what's important. --Stemonitis (talk) 07:51, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

The salient point is that MOS does not support you. I doubt this is the place to discuss this matter further. But WP:FN states something different, partially because, as a review of the edit history shows, you yourself were implicated in enforcing those changes. You must have known that those changes were not supported by MOS, yet you did not risk presenting your viewpoint to MOS in order to resolve the contradiction and confusion you had introduced.

You are also using a language style which belittles and pre-empts other views, implying, for example, that people with views other than your own are rigid and lacking in pragmatism. To mirror one of your sentences, but with a shift in target: "As far as I recall, in all my time here, only one editor has felt so strangely strongly about using his alternative style as to push an unwitting editor to the point where he was blocked."

You say, in the amended guideline you helped promote, that the style used by Nature was acceptable. But the style used by Nature does not place square brackets around the citation numbers. Nor does it sanction the ungainly spaces you, to use your term, "rigidly" insisted on introducing. So I suggest that if you wish to continue imposing your particular preference on other editors, then, even though you rank this matter as "low on the list of what's important", you put the energy into gaining support on MOS. --Epipelagic (talk) 10:05, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I am somewhat disturbed by this statement you also made: "During the oddly extensive discussions on this matter recently, several editors have defended the method I use, and almost all have agreed that consistency is more important than quibbles over punctuation, and not worth warring over." I have just examined those discussions, and my impression was that, pretty much without exception, the other editors clearly disagreed with your method of citations. Also, throughout the discussion, you are th one that keeps reiterating what a "quibble" this is. A quibble that has caused a lot of unnecessary grief. --Epipelagic (talk) 10:56, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I will, if I may, counter some of the specific points raised here. Firstly, it was my understanding (both then and now) that WP:FN, as a style guideline, formed part of the Manual of Style. I therefore didn't push for the wording to be adopted elsewhere, because as far as I understood, WP:FN was the place for it to be, with other guidelines referencing WP:FN. I may have misunderstood that, and I'm happy to be corrected. Secondly, the implication in your analogy is that I caused Snek01 to be blocked. I did not. I have refrained from excessive reversion in favour of discussion; sadly, Snek01 and Thedarxide did not. It is a shame that either had to be blocked, but it was their own actions which caused it. Finally, I am not the only one who thinks this is a minor point. Here are a few examples, which are not intended to read as either endorsement or criticism of any referencing style, but only concern the scale of the issue (I have excluded comments by myself, Snek01 and Thedarxide): "Admittedly though, it is a bit of a waste of people's time discussing this when we could be adding content instead. Smartse (talk) 18:29, 7 February 2010 (UTC)" ; "restricting users from using certain styles because others subjectively don't like them is a pointless exercise. Ucucha 03:46, 8 February 2010 (UTC)" ; "this continued effort serves little purpose Drmies (talk) 20:17, 9 February 2010 (UTC)" ; "I prefer no space, but who actually cares? You're making a mountain out of a molehill. It's a minor issue, nothing more. Reach Out to the Truth 18:44, 10 February 2010 (UTC)" ; "we take a very WP:ENGVAR-type approach to minimize edit warring over these unimportant (=non-content) changes. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:24, 11 February 2010 (UTC)" ; "This is not a major issue CBW 13:14, 10 February 2010 (UTC)". Either it isn't a major issue, or the view that it isn't a major issue is reasonable and is held by at least a significant minority of editors here, and cannot simply be dismissed. --Stemonitis (talk) 13:14, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I brought up the discrepancy between the two MOS pages, noted above by Stemonitis, at WT:MOS#Contradiction regarding inline citations. Ucucha 14:08, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Of course editors nod at your your constant repetition in the discussion threads that this a trivial issue. It is also the main theme of your response above. You say there "I don't think it adds to the project if we all spend time legislating over such tiny things; Wikipedia already has a reputation in some quarters for needless bureaucracy... I can see the appeal of rigid standardisation, but I rank it pretty low on the list of what's important." Nobody want to be seen as obsessing over tiny things and rigidly promoting needless bureaucracy. Naturally people distance themselves from such a prospect, and agree with you, because of the way you have framed it. But this is a smokescreen to pre-empt debate. If you really thought the issue was so trivial, you would not have spent so many hours elaborately reformatting articles. Recently I formatted the references entered by a new editor on sea louse. You came along shortly after, and needlessly reformated them in your own style. These conversions are time consuming, and that you go out of your way to make them suggests that, far from considering the matter to be trivial, you are actually on something of a crusade. --Epipelagic (talk) 19:00, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

IP Making Massive Changes to Various List Guidelines

174.3.98.236 (talk · contribs) appears to be on a crusade to remove most list related pages from the Wikipedia scope and to completely change various guidelines. He has made massive changes to several Wikipedia changes that completely change their meaning without any discussion. I have reverted them, but he comes back and reverts, throws a note on the talk page (usually with a header of "Collectonian reverts") and demands they be discussed while his version stands. I am not the only one who has reverted him in the past, and for now I have restored the community consensus based versions (again), but I feel administration attention should be given to this particular editor due to his seeming campaign of attack with some talk page "discussions" he has also started arguing that all lists should be deleted. This does not seem the sort of attitude that one should have when supposedly trying to "improve" guidelines. The ones he has editted include:

• Wikipedia:When to use tables (changes made; he claims there is "consensus" but all the discussions were started by him and almost exclusively are him and his proposals clearly had no consensus at all - most editors were correcting his wrong claims[50][51][52] - and pretty much all discussion after that one are his))
• Wikipedia:Lists (changes made)
• Wikipedia:Embedded list (changes made)
• Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists (changes made; on this one he filed an ER saying I was edit warring for not allowing his random changes to stand[53])

Here is the discussion he started at the same time he messed up all of those pages, stating that we should get rid of all lists[54] (on-going link) and the second he started at WP:NOT[55]. He randomly made a talk page that no one sees noting he is going to change how WTUT, despite its focus being....when to use tables[56], and his post here seems to make it clear he intended "to make changes" not just propose them[57] which would explain why he doesn't care if he has no consensus for them. He has userfied his preferred versions of the pages above at User_talk:174.3.98.236/a and User_talk:174.3.98.236/b. At this point, other than continuing to edit war, I don't know that he's broken any rules specifically, but it all just smacks of single-minded, and inappropriate, attempts to change styles and guidelines against consensus and for no other reason than his own apparent misunderstanding of Wikipedia terminology and editing practices. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:34, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I've blocked them for 3 hours. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 14:45, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

FYI: They've got two subpages containing modified copies of MOS sections. —DoRD (?) (talk) 16:45, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Deleted both; clearly not good use of space. No point in aiding disruption. GlassCobra 20:14, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Since his unblock, IP is continuing to forum shop, filing 30s against me without bothering to mention the opposition to his various proposalss adn changes on other pages, and without mentioning the ANI, claiming we are in a "disagreement" over his edits that just needs a third opinion. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 07:02, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I've reviewed the IP's changes (to Wikipedia:Embedded list, anyway), and while I understand that IP's behavior raises a lot of red flags (a new IP who seems to know a lot about Wikipedia, extensive edits to a guideline, a post to VPP proposing to get rid of all lists), ultimately I think the changes to that guideline were largely structural, and benevolent if not beneficial. Maybe this is a sockpuppet or something, but lacking evidence for that, I think we pulled the trigger too fast on this one. Less bite, more AGF is called for here.--Father Goose (talk) 07:57, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

The changes to the other guidelines look sensible for the most part as well, although there is room for disagreement on some of the points.--Father Goose (talk) 08:05, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

As he made major changes to some of them, I disagree that they were sensible, as the community agreed to those guidelines and this random person who also declared that all lists should be deleted and that tables are not list is in no position to decide to butcher them. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:12, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Most of you are assuming bad faith, just saying.174.3.98.236 (talk) 08:23, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Not really. Who are you? Normally people who want to change the MoS have been heavily editing articles for some time, now it's not possible to say who you are when you post under an IP address. I'm not particularly enamoured with lists myself so I have some sympathy for your general position, but really the way you are going about this is totally counter-productive. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 13:51, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Just a notice: none of those guidelines are part of MoS. Also, being anon is not exclusionary to constructive participation.174.3.98.236 (talk) 16:24, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, you know what, I'm not going to let you push me around

• • [58]
    • A copy of [59]. Everything else actually fixed up the table of contents, or was just table markup fix up. Maybe I should not have included the bullets, which I did not war on. Reason being that I misunderstood that these were strictly MoS rules and guideline rules cannot include them (if this was the case).
  • changes made
    • Primarily good faith edits. This was just a change in aesthetics,
    • "There are a number of formats" vs. "There are a several list formats"
      • The meaning has primarily not changed.
    • The only sentence I took out was ". Most "timeline of" list articles do not use this specialized type of timeline syntax. "
      • Which to me could have extended to EVERY point and given an explanatory sentence, and then you would need another sentence to explain that sentence, so etc. etc.

So yes, I believe you are assuming bad faith. And because primarily LOTS of editors take out sentence, AND some others change formatting, ALL WITH OUT CONSENSUS I DO BELIEVE YOU ARE SINGLING ME OUT.174.3.98.236 (talk) 16:52, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

He has now filed false reports at WP:3RR and seems to have decided if he can just get rid of me, he can do his own thing. He then reverted again on one[60] and when an uninvolved editor reverted, the IP called him "another bad-faith editor" and begged someone else to revert so he himself wouldn't pass 3RR.[61] and demanded the editor self revert claiming "I didn't vandalize"[62].-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:12, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Unblocking editor Wiki Greek Basketball

Resolved

 – Consensus seems clear: closing promptly to avoid pileon. --SarekOfVulcan (talk • contribs) 18:52, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Wiki Greek Basketball (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfas · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks confirmedsuspected)

Please can he be allowed back in from the cold? He apologises for the past disruption and hopes that as its been a month since he was blocked, he can be allowed back in line with some of the more lenient suggestions at the previous discussion. He is very keen to go back to writing articles. Except for that he didn't want to wait a further 2 months as I advised, he has volunteered for harsher restrictions than was suggested. WGB says if he is allowed back:

• He will consider himself perma banned from RfA , not only from applying to be an admin but even from voting.
• He is happy for you to ban him from ANI if you wish.
• He is happy to be mentored if felt appropriate.

Hopefully you guys will have clemency here. If things go well we get back a good mainspace contributor, if not there is little downside risk as it seems unlikely many will speak up for him and he can be re-blocked at the first offence. FeydHuxtable (talk) 15:25, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

• Resounding oppose—he needs to come back after a significant period of time, per Wikipedia:Standard offer. ╟─TreasuryTag►Not-content─╢ 15:26, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - he was to be given the standard offer, and chose to create a sockpuppet instead (or is it his cousin?). (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:29, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose: they're still bombarding random admins with email pleas to be unblocked. They would appear to have been doing so constantly since they were blocked. Doesn't suggest to me that they've learned what the problem was in the first place. ⇦REDVERS⇨ Say NO to Commons bullying 15:33, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
• Hell no, and reset the clock on the standard offer. Tan | 39 15:35, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

This isnt a vote gentlemen. Per WP:No consensus it only requires one fair and independently minded admin to unblock WGB and then we gain a constructive editor and send a positive signal about our considerate treatment of volunteers. FeydHuxtable (talk) 15:39, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Wrong. If any admin unblocks in the face of this much opposition, it's clearly very inappropriate. ╟─TreasuryTag►Lord Speaker─╢ 15:41, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Uh, you asked. We replied. Tan | 39 15:40, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

FeydHuxtable, admins don't act by fiat. If there is consensus against an unblock then that admin should not go against that consensus. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:51, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes at this point there does seem to be a concensus, so WP:No_consensus no longer applies. I guess you could resolve the request. No point fighting the great beast of consensus! FeydHuxtable (talk) 16:32, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

• Comment—there was a clear consensus last time (before he created a sock) that he should be given the standard offer. If we're going to have this whole palaver once a fortnight until six months away, it's counterproductive. Let's completely ignore any of his constant appeals until a significant piece of time has elapsed. ╟─TreasuryTag►Not-content─╢ 15:37, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose:Just because he has whined and whined like a five year old, doesn't mean that we have to act like his mum. Also, he's managed to get himself blocked in three other places since we blocked him. Do we want him back? I think not.Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:41, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
• His email access was blocked, and yet he has still been emailing admins (presumably from previous correspondence or finding their emails on their userpages) asking for an unblock. So it doesn't appear that he is respecting the terms of his block, even as recent as today. –xeno^talk 15:44, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose To soon, and not really showing any sign of "getting it". Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:49, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose as above. WGB has caused problems and hasn't shown any sign that the lesson has yet been learned. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 15:54, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
• opposse anyone who causes that much drama gets my standard response of the door, and as always I don't remotely support standard offer.--Crossmr (talk) 16:03, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose as this is the kind of eDrama we didn't need then, and don't need to see a return of now. And the news that he has been given the boot at three other wiki-projects during his block here kinda seals the deal, IMO. Tarc (talk) 16:06, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose per all of the above. Willking1979 (talk) 16:14, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose per everyone above me. No need to keep rehashing this one. Clearly isn't even respecting the terms of his block as we speak. --Smashville^talk 16:26, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - Despite being one of the random admins to have received his latest email plea, Wiki Greek Basketball needs to follow the standard process. — Kralizec! (talk) 16:34, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

  Does anyone want to handle the latest adminhelp request from his obvious sock (you may need to remove talkpage access to prevent additional misuse)? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:44, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Talk page access revoked. Why we're even entertaining unblock ideas is beyond me. Tan | 39 16:54, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

• Strong oppose Socking to evade a block? Not only should this request be denied, I agree with Tan that the clock on the standard offer should be reset. The Thing // Talk // Contribs 18:03, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. Even when blocked, he's too much of a drain on our resources. Who'd want to deal with incessant whining and suicide threats again? I'm pretty sure it'll take a good deal more time before he's grown up.--Atlan (talk) 18:22, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose If he takes some time off and stops the drama, i'm fine with him coming back. No appearance of that happening currently though. Doc Quintana (talk) 18:50, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Time to formally ban User:Wiki Greek Basketball

See users talk page and User talk:Abecedare#Wiki Greek Basketball. User refuses to accept their block here, has apparently engaged in socking, and is emailing users outside of the WP email system who were unfortunate enough to have emailed him the past, allowing him to see their addresses. Has a terminal case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, and was warned on his talk page the last time he sent out his emails begging to be unblocked that keeping it up would lead to a ban. After being blocked here, he went on to get himself blocked from Simple, Italian Wikipedia, and Commons. This user has had good faith extended to them time and again, only to have him spit in our faces each time. A formal siteban seems an appropriate action, this one is a lost cause. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:35, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

He's already de facto banned - indef blocked and just had a (I think?) unanimous rejection of the proposal to unblock him. –xeno^talk 19:18, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Maybe just the guy who started the thread - although he kind of backed off during the discussion. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:37, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Yep, he's the proposer, so it's somewhat implied he supported it. The proposal itself still stands unanimously rejected. –xeno^talk 19:41, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) the guy is clearly de-facto banned anyway - I certainly never plan to unblock him, and I'd be surprised if there were any admins around with enough over-optimistic good faith to do so. He's had more than enough chances, and will need a lengthy absence before he can have another one. I don't think we need a great deal of extra discussion here. ~ mazca ^talk 19:20, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

There is no way he will be let back in less than six months, if ever. I say leave it be as is unless more socking and email nettling crops up. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:23, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

But it did just crop up, after he was warned to cut it out. While he is defacto banned, an actual siteban makes the process of dealing with the inevitable sock accounts simpler, that is essentially the only reason for this request for a formal ban. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:27, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I actually hadn't realized till just now that he'd duped someone into requesting his unblock here just yesterday, I missed that but if anything it strengthens the case for banning. He was blocked from the WP email system, but continues to evade that as well and emails users with his begging and pleading to be unblocked despite having the issues explained to him about a thousand times already and being told he needs to sit tight for a while. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:31, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

How does a formal site ban make it easier to deal with socks? Block evasion is block evasion whether it's evading a de facto or formal ban. –xeno^talk 19:36, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh, he's lied without end. I've tagged his userpage with the banned template. If this doesn't have consensus, any admin can take it down or ask me to do so. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:35, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

That works for me. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:40, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

As one of the admins he's been in touch with (albeit without knowing that I was recently made an admin), I agree with everyone above. I have reached the limit with WGB. I can see no evidence from the communications that I've had with him that he is sorry for the disruption he has caused (here, on Commons, on SE Wikipedia and on the Italian Wikipedia) - all he does is blame everyone else. I have now set up an auto reply which just lets him know that I am ignoring his email (I have emailed him to let him know that is what I am doing). The auto-reply was triggered about 30 mins ago. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 22:44, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose That only gives him no other option other than to make socks if he doesn't get Wikipedia out of his system. WGB doesn't seem to respond well to feeling cornered as we've seen. Sure, we can block the socks and then he'll make more and we'll block those, and we'll just waste everyone's time. Keep it at an indef block. Doc Quintana (talk) 22:54, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not therapy. Those are all his problems, not ours, it's ridiculous in the extreme to suggest he has no choice but to create sock accounts. I'm sure his web browser allows him to access the rest of the internet, not just Wikipedia.The fact that he has in the meantime managed to be indef blocked from three other Wikimedia sites is telling as well. Caving in to his pathetic whining is only going to encourage more of this foolishness. This user needs to be sent a clear and direct message (again) that they are not welcome to be editing Wikipedia under any name. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:12, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Keeping the indef block isn't caving into him by any means. Caving in would be removing the block. My goal is to reduce to amount of aggrevation we see in regards to this user. If he completely loses hope with the WGB handle, but isn't completely off Wikipedia, he'll just cause more aggrevation. If you want to deal with that aggrevation, i'm fine with it: in that case, we shouldn't be talking here, his incarnations should just be blocked on sight. Doc Quintana (talk) 23:32, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Once again, wikipedia isn't therapy. It isn't our place to coddle people, unless they're incredibly uncivil and make friends first.. The community needs to handle problem users appropriately. We're a group of volunteers and don't have the time, skills or resources to go around psycho-evaluating everyone to see how our discipline is going to effect them.--Crossmr (talk) 01:11, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

• support Like most, I don't see much chance of reform here.--Crossmr (talk) 01:11, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support And the argument that a ban will encourage him to further violate the rules, what's the next alternative, letting him back so he wouldn't need socks? He's already shown that he won't stop with the current situation. He knows what he needs to do and he just doesn't want to do it. I know it's absurd but why not let him have the admin tools too so he won't bother people with AFDs and the like if he gets disruptive there? Rewarding this kind of behavior is bad. If he cannot control himself, he should get punished further. Period. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:01, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support - By inciting a formal ban, we'll eliminate the need to worry about WP:OFFER - not that it's official or anything, but I think the user has certainly exhausted the patience of the community infinitely. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 17:46, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support I feel that WGB has exhausted the patience of the community (he certainly has mine). He has shown by his actions on other WMF projects that he is as unwilling to work in a co-operative manner on any of them, not just the English Wikipedia. Although not 'admissible' here, his behaviour off-wiki (including threats of legal action against two admins here who had done nothing wrong) leads me to personally be unwilling to extend him any leeway - but his behaviour on-wiki is just as bad, and so even without the emails which I used to receive from him (before I set up an "ignore" rule) I would feel that a ban is justified for this user. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 18:08, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support There was already established consensus for this, and the above arguments have identified those well. This is really just a technicality at this point. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 18:18, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Seb az86556

Okay, this has gone too far now. Seb az86556 (talk · contribs) doesn't like that I choose not to get an account. Fine, I'm used to the anti-IP bias around here. But now s/he has been dogging my edits, removing PROD tags without improving the articles just because I've added them,[63][64][65] deleting AFD notices from pages[66][67][68] and deletion logs[69] because s/he doesn't think IPs should be able to nominate for deletion, issuing spurious warnings,[70] creating a essay for me to use,[71][72] telling me to "stay away from where you don't belong,"[73] [74] and finally, removing comments from my talk page with a fuck you edit summary.[75] It's the latter one that I find so disturbing because anybody unfamiliar with their vendetta might mistake it for something I endorse. At the very least, I'd like to see the essay deleted, have this user restricted from my talk page and stop their pursuit of my edits which just wastes time that could be spend actually dealing with articles. 76.102.12.35 (talk) 16:44, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I've blocked Seb for 24 hours for the comment deletion and the creation of WP:F*CKYOU and its associated article. I've also speedied it as an attack page. As always, I welcome review by other admins. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:44, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I said it on the MFD and I'll say it here. Why hasn't anyone tried communication. You didn't even leave a block notice, much less try to actually resolve anything.--Cube lurker (talk) 17:49, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I did post a block notice -- unfortunately, he beat me to it with the unblock request. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:06, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

10 minutes after you blocked him and 5 minutes after you posted here. The user obviuosly had some issues but I'd think there could have been at least an attemt to talk to him before facerolling the block button.--Cube lurker (talk) 18:15, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Good block, clearly disruptive user (particularly the deletions of tags and comments). ╟─TreasuryTag►most serene─╢ 17:53, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Don't make generalisations a limited amount of information. If you'd encountered Seb before branding you'd realise it's ridiculous it is to casually brand them a "clearly disruptive user"; it's not that simple. That said, in this instance their behaviour is not acceptable. Nev1 (talk) 20:19, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I was the one who nominated the essay mentioned above for deletion, so I'd like to add my two cents. It was an error on my part not to notify the user that I nominated it for deletion, even though the essay was grossly inappropriate. I also think the block was hasty, even though the editor was a negative influence on Wikipedia from the brief time I was involved with them. Doc Quintana (talk) 18:48, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

(copied from userpage)
In light of a particular user's (see last point) response to his thread, I would like to post the following:

1. I acknowledge that the creation of the redirect in question was pointy and that I should not have done it.
2. I acknowledge that my interaction with the IP in question was partially inappropriate.
3. I request a mutual indefinite interaction-ban between myself and the IP in question (and any subsequent IPs that seem to be the same person)
4. There remain my grievances concerning the circumstances of this block, because:
   1. I have seen other people engage in mudslinging that was way worse, yet they were almost always given a chance to respond.
   2. The 4im-warning exist for a reason, and numerous reports I have filed were rejected as "not appropriately warned".
5. There remain the grievances I voiced in the (now deleted) essay. It is ironic that precisely the practices I was venting my frustration about were repeated in applying this block.
   (Note for crystal-clear clarification: This point is not about the validity or merit of the block, it is about procedure)
6. I suggest that these grievances will be addressed in the near future.
7. (And last point) User:Cube lurker: You have a new message at User_talk:Seb az86556.

Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 04:40, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
(end of copy)

• The idea of a mutal interaction ban between you and the ip rather founders on the fact that you were the one behaving like a dick. Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:36, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

• The other problem with a mutual interaction ban, from both sides, is that an IP isn't identifiable like a registered account. You might find yourself interacting with a wholly different person who has the same or similar IP, or you might end up interacting with this same person under a different IP. Who would know? You can't have a mutual interaction ban with all IPs, that's unfeasible. So I don't think this can work. -- Atama頭 20:56, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Alien Quadrilogy

Hi. Someone keeps restoring the Alien Quadrilogy article despite the fact that it was merged into Alien (franchise) in a deletion debate. Can someone revert this and protect the page for a bit maybe? 96.52.12.116 (talk) 17:42, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I've restored the redirect per the AfD. An admin will need to decide it if should be protected though. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 17:53, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Not that there's rampant edit warring requiring a protect, but protecting the redirect seems like a fine idea, as I doubt the Alien Quadrilogy dvd set will ever warrant its own article.--Atlan (talk) 17:57, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Semied for a week, even if it's low key, there's no reason to let this turn into a full scale revert war and then come back here in two days to find we're now in a full blown drama. MLauba (talk) 18:02, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Especially seeing as there's no such word; the proper term is tetralogy. Quadrilogy is something I'd see coming from a eleven year old... HalfShadow 18:24, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

You are quite right HalfShadow. Put the blame for this word on some marketing wonk (probably 11 in terms of intellect if not actual age) at 20th C. Fox who put the term on their DVD box set of the four films. MarnetteD | Talk 18:35, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Kodrion

User Empathictrust refuses to talk and misuses sources , removes references from Kodrion. diff,talk,among the claims are placing of ancient tribes in different locations.Megistias (talk) 20:25, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Example found in talk as well, uses a tour guide from 1819 for Greece(?!) to describe events of Roman wars against Illyrians...Megistias (talk) 20:36, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, comments like "the violence of ignorance of certain users here in Wikipedia" isn't helping. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:08, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Legal threat by sock of User:James dalton bell

See this edit. It tends to ramble, but he's talking about "Jimbo Wales losing Wikipedia to Jim Bell", which sounds like he's planning on suing. Jim Bell's socks continue to edit, no matter how often they get blocked. Woogee (talk) 20:37, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

IP blocked by Tnxman307. —DoRD (?) (talk) 20:46, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

As the editor responsible for much of the content of the Jim Bell article let me say, though I have not reviewed them in detail, that the IPs concerns seem on the face of it legitimate and to be welcomed by any conscientious editors. As with many biographies of figures who have not been comprehensively covered in reliable sources, this article is susceptible to "verifiability not truth" problems as it is reliant on the journalistic professionalism of once-off news stories. Thirdly, whether or not the subject of a BLP has a right to respond, they ought to be heard. If one tenth the zeal was shown towards addressing concerns as with purging the project of unpersons, the encyclopaedia and its subjects would be a lot better off.  Skomorokh  21:55, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

The concerns so far by Bell seem more in the line of WP:COI edits to make the article conform to how he sees himself and the world, whats wrong with the govt and their previous prosecution of him, and how he's gonna stop global warning, which seems to not be covered by any news sources so far. He completely misunderstands the meaning of consensus, verifiability, and a few other core principals of Wikipedia, as well as what the definition of sock and meat puppets, civility and WP:AGF. Unfortunately, as he is somewhat of an expert with techno matters, we could have a very determined Ip socker developing. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 22:10, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

He's been repeatedly asked to discuss his edits on the article's Talk page, which he explicitly refuses to do. Woogee (talk) 22:45, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I went ahead and blocked 97.120.244.0/22 for 3 days for the disruption. –MuZemike 23:35, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I also blocked User:71.36.114.161 for 3 hours. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 00:46, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

• He's been given at least a couple of routes to bring accuracy issues to the community's attention, of which block evasion is not one. He has absolutely no excuse whatsoever. Guy (Help!) 12:34, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Input requested

At Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Mooretwin re proposed unblock. Ty 21:45, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Regarding this, the blocked editor has asked me to place his appeal on ANI. I find his position quite compelling, and see this is an example of rule-wonkery superseding the basic fact we are supposed to be writing an encyclopaedia. Rockpocket 23:21, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

The following was emailed to me by Mooretwin (talk · contribs):

1. When I was put on probation, for 90 days on 11/11/09 (i.e. expiring on 9/2/10), I was told clearly that "partial" reverts, i.e. where I don't simply revert another editor's action, but modify it in some way, would not count as a revert for the purpose of the 1-edit-per-week restriction. I was told "if you see an edit that you don't like on an article, try changing it to a compromise version" and "If you change the text to something different than it was before, that would not be a revert, it would be "attempting to find a compromise". This advice was given by the admin (User:Elonka) who put me on probation.

2. The revert I made which was deemed as breaking the probation, was not a straight revert. It was a change to the text and the addition of a reference to support the text, in response to a comment by User:Gnevin on the Talk page, noting that the previous reference didn't back up the text.

3. This particular edit formed part of an iterative process of editing and discussing between myself and Gnevin, which eventually achieved consensus. This can be seen from reading the Talk page and perusing the edit history of the article. I suggest that this is a perfect example of exactly how editing is supposed to happen on Wikipedia.

4. Gnevin has stated that he did not have an issue with my edit and that he did not consider it to be a revert.

My first contention, therefore, is that it is unreasonable to consider this edit as a breach of probation, based on the information provided to me about the terms of probation. I do not therefore consider that any sanction is necessary or appropriate. My second contention is that, without prejudice to the first, the sanction imposed against me was completely disproportionate.

6. In relation to the second contention, my first point is that it takes considerable discipline to abide by one-revert-per-week - it is easy not to realise, when one is editing an article with - as in this case - five days between edits, that one risks breaking the restriction. Nonetheless, I managed to abide by the probation for 86 of the 90 days. Surely it would not be unreasonable to exercise some discretion in recognition of my compliance with the probation for almost the whole 90 days, combined with the nature of the actual edit itself as discussed above.

7. My second point is that - even if the edit in question is technically regarded as a "revert", it is surely clear that it was, in fact, a constructive edit - as agreed by the editor with whom I was allegedly "edit-warring", and it is therefore perverse to impose such a harsh punishment on somebody participating in the recommended dialogue and editing process and which had a positive outcome.

8. My third and final point is that, in the interests of justice and credibility, there ought to be a responsibility on admins imposing sanctions to at least endeavour to be consistent in the severity of sanctions they impose for similar cases. The editor (User:Domer48) who was put on probation at the same time as me for the same "offence", also violated the probation - with a clear "revert" (not a partial one), and his sanction was merely a 1-week block. I, on the other hand, for a lesser offence (given the partial revert and the advice I was given in relation to partial reverts) was given a 3-month block and an indefinite extension of probation. And if past conduct is relevant, Domer48's block record is worse than mine, so this cannot be a reason for differentiating. This inconsistency and draconian punishment is unjustifiable.

9. Regarding the indefinite probation, I suggest that it would be humanly impossible to comply with this. The probability of inadvertently reverting twice-in-a-week at some point during an indefinite period would surely be close to 1. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mooretwin (talk • contribs) (posted by Rockpocket (talk · contribs) on his behalf)

Personal attacks and incivility by User:Chowbok

Chowbok has launched full-fledged personal attacks, incivility and false accusations against me. He came to the article John Wayne Gacy for the first time on January 14, 2010 and proceeded to change the style of referencing to a lesser known and utilized style without first broaching the change on the article talk page [76] clearly in violation of WP:CITE#Citation templates and tools, which says editors should not change an article with a distinctive citation format to another without gaining consensus. (Bolding emphasis not added). There was no effort to garner consensus prior to this change and it was reverted and a talk page discussion started, where it was protested. One of Chowbok's responses to the protest was to make accusations of ownership [77]. He later moved over to the Dawn Wells article and returned content that had been taken 3 different times to WP:BLP/N as inappropriate content [78], which I reverted and took immediately to WP:BLP/N#Dawn Wells once again. I posted notice to Rossrs and Pinkadelica about this issue since they had both been involved in discussions about this in the past. Chowbok followed around my edits and posted comments on both user's talk pages [79] [80] and to mine [81]. I replied here that I knew the editors' opinions and knew they had not changed and replied in greater depth here. He was further asked by Rossrs not to leave sarcastic posts on his talk page [82] [83], a sentiment that was echoed by Pinkadelica [84]. He went so far on Talk:Dawn Wells to say "I wonder how seriously to take WP:BLP/N discussions anyhow, when you're doing things like going around calling in favors in an attempt to rig the discussion." Editors also posted protests to his actions on his talk page.

Chowbok returned to the John Wayne Gacy article yesterday and once again implemented wholesale changes to the style of formatting used in violation again of WP:CITE [85] and falsely claimed in an edit summary that "No objections stated on talk page to anchored ref format, starting implementation." Again I reverted it as an undiscussed change without benefit of consensus and posted discussion on the talk page [86]. When I didn't respond fast enough to suit him on the article talk page, Chowbok posted this demand for response to my talk page. After some discussion on the subject, Chowbok withdrew his suggestion and launched a personal attack against me, making false accusations, where he said "Yeah, and basically it'll be impossible to gain consensus because of Wildhartlivie's vast army of meat puppets that she can canvass at a moment's notice. No doubt Pinkedelia and LaVidaLoca will show up should anyone else express even tentative approval for this change, or indeed anything else she doesn't like. Consider the suggestion withdrawn." An editor, Doc9871, clearly stated "I'm no meat-puppet, I can assure you. As for a "vast army of meat puppets"... what, is she Saruman? "You will taste... Man-flesh!!!" ;P". Chowbok responded and ended his comment with the personal comment "Anyway, that's all I'll say about it, I know we're supposed to be commenting on articles, not editors. Wildhartlivie, I'll let you have the last word: commence freak-out and attacks below." At that point, I posted a formal request that Chowbok withdraw his attacks here and also at his talk page here or I would bring his behavior to this board. His response to me was "I don't respond well to threats. I stand behind everything I wrote. Go ahead and report me wherever you like if it'll make you happy. I'm busy editing an encyclopedia." This is absolutely unacceptable commentary and attacks and Chowbok needs to try and understand this is not an acceptable standard for here. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:24, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Moved to WP:WQA since this has been posted here without response or attention for nearly 10 hours. Wildhartlivie (talk) 09:09, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Barentsz and Noel McCullagh

User:Barentsz is the primary author of Noel McCullagh. Unfortunately, he also claims to be Noel McCullagh. And now he's edit-warring on his own article. I have warned his on his talk page to discuss any revisions to this article on the talk page prior to making the edits, but would appreciate an extra set (or three) of eyes on this one. Thanks, caknuck _° needs to be running more often 23:49, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Solar Dynamics Observatory

The article is on the front page today (the news section) and I just had to fix its infobox. Please check these things before putting articles there because it makes wikipedia look amateurish.  Dr. Loosmark  23:53, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Umm, that was vandalism or editing tests done right before your edit [87]. Thanks for repairing it, though. I have warned the very new user about it. —DoRD (?) (talk) 00:07, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I have missed it was vandalized. IMO it wouldn't be a bad idea to protect the articles while they are on the front page because they are a big fat target for vandals.  Dr. Loosmark  00:28, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

You have a good point, but articles linked from the main page are rarely protected. —DoRD (?) (talk) 00:41, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Spam

Please see User talk:Humilityisfine about spam additions. Another warning by someone else may be in order, plus some more reverts of the spam. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 00:30, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Cleaned and left a message. I'll notify the user he is mentioned here as well. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:29, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

User:School911

User:School911 is claiming to be 8 years old, has already posted some (vague) personal information, and claims to be to be about to post pictures of him/herself. Regardless of whether they are a minor, or a troll claiming to be one, this is probably not a good thing. -- The Anome (talk) 00:35, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Indefinitely blocked. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 00:40, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Possible 2009–10 Toyota vehicle recalls COI edits.

On the very important 2009–10 Toyota vehicle recalls article, a new section "Possible driver error cause" was added.

The only source giving serious credence to this theory in this current case is Ward's magazine, a trade publication for auto dealerships with an arguably serious COI. The other more neutral sources in the section are no more than re-tellings of the 20-plus year old case of the Audi sudden accelerations and none of them speculate that "driver error" is the cause in the current Toyota case. Not only outside of Ward's that no reliable source has seriously speculated on this theory - but even Toyota doesn't make this claim (as every source indicates, they feel it is a gas pedal issue). While the theory might warrant a mention, User:Astrakerie, a newly registered SPA, insists on keeping the entire section and above the more reliably sourced "Possible electronic throttle control system cause" [88][89][90]. In one revert, the user's edit summary is "returning to orignal alphabetized order"[91]. This user, besides their logic being flawed, is having ownership issues. As the user has reverted me 3 times (breaking WP:3RR by the way), I can't revert again. Can somebody please take a look at this?--Oakshade (talk) 00:40, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

COI only applies to editors, it doesn't cover sources. It should be perfectly fine to cite a source from a trade magazine, of course noting that the allegations are from a single source. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 00:44, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

That's just it. The theory (and article section) relies entirely on a single source with a very arguably COI.--Oakshade (talk) 00:48, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Right, so as its a trade mag then it seems to me that it should be included as appropriate in the article. I don't see what the issue is. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 00:50, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

This issue is the section should be minor (if an entire section at all) and certainly not on top of the "Possible electronic throttle control system cause" which is heavily sourced by non-COI sources.--Oakshade (talk) 00:52, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't disagree, but I don't see how this is an admin matter. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 01:12, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I just gave an interview to the Los Angeles Times giving credence to the driver-error theory as a legal expert on sudden acceleration litigation. There will surely be other RS on the subject shortly if there isn't already. In the meantime, find an RS that says that Ward's magazine has a biased viewpoint on the subject, and then you can add that to the article--otherwise it's just your own original research. In any event, this is a content dispute, and doesn't belong on ANI. As for 3RR, give a polite notice to the newbie. THF (talk) 00:54, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Appreciate the feedback. Interesting on your interview with the LAT. It being such a legally sensitive article is why I brought it here. --Oakshade (talk) 03:01, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

It took 15 minutes for a non-admin on the Administrators' noticeboard to revert my edit [92] on a page he had never edited before. Astrakerie (talk) 05:06, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

As that was THF's right. Please respect consensus and avoid WP:OWN and WP:3RR.--Oakshade (talk) 05:19, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

What Oakshade wants is the "reliably sourced" section he created [93] attributing the sudden acceleration to the electronic throttle control system placed ahead of the section attributing it to driver error. Odd that he'd claim I'm the one with ownership issues after changing the order another editor established and I reestablished to favor his only major addition to the article. Oh and his other noteworthy addition [94] is inaccurate, the NHTSA never reopened the six Toyota sudden acceleration investigations they had closed. They are "not again" investigating the same cases rather are investigating existing ones they never reached conclusions for. The claim I am somehow "insists(ing) on keeping the entire section" is false. I never added the driver error section or somehow restored it. I did nothing more than return it to its original location.

And the reasons he changed the order three times:

• "Only one source, an auto dealer publication which has a COI, is seriously suggesting "driver error" in THIS case, not the 2 decade old Audi case."
• "Only an auto dealer trade magazine with a COI is advocating this POV in THIS case, not the 20+ year old Audi case."
• "Very few references are related to the current issue (most are a 2 decade old case) and the primary one, Ward's Auto, is a trade publication for dealers."

Firstly, not just Ward's Auto is suggesting driver error is the case but also Car and Driver [95] and Motor Trend http://blogs.motortrend.com/6620540/recalls/wild-out-of-control-toyotas-baloney/index.html which are both sourced in the article. Both magazines are the largest published automotive magazines in the United States. [96] Secondly Ward's Auto just like AutoNews.com is an automotive journal, the claim that it somehow represents auto dealers is unsubstantiated.

Either way Oakshade seems to think he alone determines what the "only source(s) giving serious credence to this theory" are when clearly there are other sources. He thinks he alone determines what constitutes a COI. And is misrepresenting Toyota's position, "but even Toyota doesn't make this claim (as every source indicates, they feel it is a gas pedal issue)." Because Toyota doesn't officially blame their customers doesn't mean they equate to them blaming electromagnetic interference. Toyota has published information to the contrary and insists that electromagnetic interference is not to blame. None of their recalls address electromagnetic interference issues. Astrakerie (talk) 04:47, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Funny how Oakshade tags me with a 3RR when he never once bothered to communicate with me directly. Astrakerie (talk) 05:06, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

A 3RR tag was placed on your talk page because you reverted three times and a respected editor above suggested leaving a 3RR message. (You're quite well Wiki-versed for a brand new user... Just saying.) As the administrators above have indicated, this is a content issue and I won't engage on this subject on this board unless new developments require it. --Oakshade (talk) 05:19, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Socks doing stuff

Resolved

 – socks have been blocked Equazcion ^(talk) 03:05, 12 Feb 2010 (UTC)

Just created:

• Mister Salvatore (talk · contribs)
• Gran Paradiso (talk · contribs)
• The Reichsführer (talk · contribs)

Already blocked:

• Autistic Little Child (talk · contribs)
• Pickbothmanlol (talk · contribs)

Could someone look into these three most recent accounts and block them please? I'd go through SPI, but that takes a long time. This is more the short-term mischief type of thing. Thanks. Equazcion ^(talk) 00:53, 12 Feb 2010 (UTC)

User talk:The Reichsführer‎ has started making threats regarding Simple English Wikipedia, abusing the unblock and help requested templates. Check his talk page history, and please block his use of his talk page. Someone. Please. Thank you. Equazcion ^(talk) 01:59, 12 Feb 2010 (UTC)

Why has the username been oversighted in all contributions of The Reichsführer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (see the history of User talk:The Reichsführer‎), which appears to make it impossible to list his contributions, and why is his block log empty?  Sandstein  08:15, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

This is probably a global account lock by a steward[97]. As I understand it non-admins and AIV helperbots won't even be able to see that the account is blocked. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 09:18, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

User:TungstenCarbide XIII

I have indefinitely blocked TungstenCarbide XIII, as they are showing clear evidence they have or are editing under another account. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 01:00, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

• I've added a checkuser request. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 01:31, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

• I think we can safely assume it's a TungstenCarbide (talk · contribs) reincarnation (just like all the others). Steve Smith (talk) 01:32, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

• Thats some nice detective work there Steve. You'll make Sergeant for this--Jac16888^Talk 01:34, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

• LOL! I had no idea :-) Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 01:35, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

That must be why Steve's an arbitrator and not an SPI clerk :-) –MuZemike 04:49, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Noleander redux

Noleander is back, and continuing his previous disturbing behavior. If you'll recall, in the past he created articles promoting antisemitic conspiracy theories, which were eventually deleted: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Misuse_of_antisemitic_accusations http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Controversies_related_to_prevalence_of_Jews_in_leadership_roles_in_Hollywood

His activities prompted a lengthy AN/I thread, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive572#User:Noleander in which he quite plainly stated "My perception is that Wikipedia is censored in regards to some topics that reflect negatively on Jews, and I'm attempting to reverse that censorship." While that AN/I thread was in progress, he disappeared for 3 months. Since his return to regular editing two weeks ago, however, he is doing much the same, albeit with more subtlety.

His first actions were to add three new antisemitic conspiracy theories to the Antisemitic canards article, that Jews control the media, Hollywood, and global finance:[98] While this may seem innocuous enough, he then focused on adding to the List of Jewish American businesspeople any Jews who were senior members of Financial firms, media owners, or heads of Hollywood studios: [99] an eye-winking way of saying "we don't believe this canard that a Jewish cabal controls all this stuff, it's just that there happen to be so many Jews in senior roles here". Prominent in the "Finance & Trading" section were fairly notorious Jews Ivan Boesky, Andrew Fastow, Bernie Madoff, Michael Milken and Marc Rich. For good measure, he threw in a "Pornography" section. Now, he may claim that he just happened to be adding names that he came across while reading J.J. Goldberg's Jewish Power (1996). This, however, is not the case. In fact, he has had to do Google Books searches for specific names, in order to prove they were Jews; a variety of sources including

• Shapiro, Edward (1995). A Time for Healing: American Jewry Since World War II
• Shay, Scott (2007). Getting our groove back
• Harlan, Stephan (2008). Encyclopedia of American Jewish history, Volume 1
• Strober, Deborah (2009). Catastrophe: The Story of Bernard L. Madoff, the Man Who Swindled the World
• Abigail Pogrebin. Stars of David (book): Prominent Jews Talk About Being Jewish
• Amman, Daniel (2009). The King of Oil
• Maisel, Louis (2001). Jews in American politics
• Langley, Monica (2004). Tearing Down the Walls
• Rosenberg, Hilary (2000). The Vulture Investors

etc.

Again, this is not a case of someone coming across a name in a book they were reading, and adding it to the list, but of someone actively searching for proof that specific individuals are Jews, so that they can be added to the List. Ivan Boesky, Andrew Fastow, Bernie Madoff, Michael Milken, Marc Rich etc. do not appear on this list by chance, but rather as part of a campaign of reversing alleged "censorship" "in regards to some topics that reflect negatively on Jews". It is no accident that it is those specific Jews he searches for to add to the list, rather than, say, Sheldon Adelson, Michael Bloomberg, Eli Broad, Edgar Bronfman, Andrew Grove, George Kaiser, etc. If they're not controlling world finance or the media/Hollywood, and are not criminals (or are not "pornographers"), then they don't interest Noleander.

His other edits have included edit-warring in a section about "Allegations of control of the world's banking system" in the Rothschild article:[100][101], adding sections to the "Criticism of Judaism" article [102] and proposing more [103] Also relevant are these recent edits: [104][105]

It appears, as was evident in the previous AN/I discussion, that Oleander edits Wikipedia primarily for two reasons; to include negative information about Mormons and Jews. In the past he focused more on Mormons; since the last AN/I discussion however, he has focused more on Jews. Even when the information he provides is arguably relevant, it has to be extensively edited to conform with policy (e.g. [106], [107]). While his pretense is that he is only attempting to debunk antisemitic canards, his actions indicate that he is actually attempting to promote them. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:35, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

This seems like one giant bad-faith assumption. I don't see anything wrong with any of these actions, unless one were to put them together and look at it from a conspiracy theorist's point of view. The heart of the original complaints against Noleander's edits were that he created a separate article about an antisemitic canard, rather than contributing to the existing article that lists them. Now you're complaining that he's contributing to existing articles by adding things that properly belong there, merely because you think he's doing it for some devious purpose? This isn't right. Equazcion ^(talk) 01:40, 12 Feb 2010 (UTC)

Equazcion, it's admirable that you leap to Noleander's defense yet again; loyalty is a great thing. However, we're not idiots here. I've described essentially all he's done on Wikipedia since he returned; tried to subtly promote antisemitic conspiracy theories. Why did he go to the trouble of adding Andrew Fastow etc. to the List of Jewish-American businesspeople? Why that list of Jewish "pornographers"? WP:DUCK applies here. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:49, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm loyal to no persons, only ideals. Are you saying Jewish pornographers are somehow inappropriate for the list of successful businesspeople? For what reason? Equazcion ^(talk) 01:53, 12 Feb 2010 (UTC)

Please stop pretending this is an issue about a single edit. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:04, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion: If you think the list articles have become unbalanced, or something, and there are "better" examples of Jews in big business positions, then add the ones you think are missing. Equazcion ^(talk) 01:47, 12 Feb 2010 (UTC)

As is obvious, the issue isn't with specific article edits, though some of them are obviously problematic, but with a pattern of behavior. Please don't try to sidetrack. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:49, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with this pattern. If there are things missing from articles that have been omitted because people find them unpleasant, then I think it's a good thing they're being added. Articles shouldn't artificially lean towards the positive, even for sensitive subjects like Judaism. Equazcion ^(talk) 01:53, 12 Feb 2010 (UTC)

Again, please stop deflecting. The issue has nothing whatsoever to do with articles "artificially leaning towards the positive". You see nothing wrong with editing Wikipedia solely for the purpose of either promoting negative information about members of an ethnic group, or promoting information intended to support conspiracy theories about that ethnic group? Jayjg ^(talk) 02:02, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah I think it's fine. The "conspiracy theory" aspect id your guess, not exactly apparent. He's inserting the omitted "bad" stuff. The reason he's doing it is a matter of interpretation. You can say "aww come on, it's obvious he's promoting conspiracy theories" all you want, but that's again a bad-fait assumption. I'm not deflecting, I've answered your concern by explaining to you why I think this "pattern" you've identified is not a problem. Equazcion ^(talk) 02:05, 12 Feb 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Equazcion, we know you think "it's fine". You also thought the two deleted articles were "fine"; more than fine. And you think it's fine to edit Wikipedia solely for the purpose of denigrating a specific ethnic group. Gotcha. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:11, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any reason for this to be at ANI. There's no immediate pressing concern for admin action. Surely WP:DR or similar? Black Kite 01:57, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

This seems to have been the only thing Noleander has focused on recently, which does make it worrying. You might say, "but all that matters is the content," but the content can't be trusted if it's being added by an editor who seems to be overly focused on one POV about one group of people. That means someone has to be constantly checking and balancing it, which isn't fair to other editors. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 01:59, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I think it's pretty fair. Part of editing the encyclopedia is balancing out each others' POV's. That's part of how articles become NPOV. The fact that a sensitive subject like Judaism is involved is the only reason this issue is at ANI. Equazcion ^(talk) 02:02, 12 Feb 2010 (UTC)

This isn't about a single article, however, such as Judaism. It's about multiple articles, with one editing goal. Or do you, too, share Noleander's view that "that Wikipedia is censored in regards to some topics that reflect negatively on Jews"? Jayjg ^(talk) 02:05, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

But what would you say, Equazcion, of an editor who went around adding the names of terrorists to List of Muslim businessmen, because some terrorists are Muslim and some of those were also businessmen. And when we looked at his contribs, we found that was the only thing he did, and that there was never anything positive added, only the negative. There are BLP implications, there are racism/antisemitism implications, there are SPA implications, not to mention NPOV and NOR. It's just not good editing, however you look at it. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 02:09, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

(ec)I'm not noleander, nor am I in a cult with him, so stop trying to lump your enemies together with pigeonholes. It's irrelevant that it's not about a single article. There are editors at all these articles who can see if there's a problem with their balance, and respond to it. Maybe you could simply watch them and help balance them out. I'm not sure why we would even make the assumption, though, that this will turn into a problem. If the user is inserting material previously omitted due to it being somehow unpleasant, in order to balance them out, why are we assuming he'll go too far in the other direction? Has he already unfairly slanted any article towards the negative? Which ones? If he hasn't, should we be assuming he will? That would not seem like an assumption of good faith to me. SlimVirgin: All those implications can be dealt with per-incident, if there are any. Right now you're basically only assuming such incidents will occur. I don't think that's what we generally are supposed to do here. Equazcion ^(talk) 02:13, 12 Feb 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the lists of Jewish people (although adding a "pornography" section is really out of line), but it's ridiculous that he added this and this. I'm going to block indefinitely, this seems like a very clear case of a disruptive editor. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 02:12, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay, what exactly is wrong with those edits that warrants a block, Tbsdy? Equazcion ^(talk) 02:18, 12 Feb 2010 (UTC)

Adding Jewish conspiracy theories to Sept 11th articles is not the right way of editing this encyclopedia. I've reviewed the previous discussion and seen enough contributions to see that we have a disruptive editor on our hands. I would normally be hesitant about this sort of block, but in this case I believe it to be warranted. They clearly know what the norms and policies are of Wikipedia, so I think that ignoring them as they have done is totally out of line and shows to me that they aren't willing to abide by them. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 02:22, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

He appears to have added "Several analysts documented that a motiviation for the attackes was the support of Israel by the United States". Is that a conspiracy theory? I'm pretty sure it's well documented that that was indeed a possible motivation, and he added credible citations. It doesn't even seem offensive. What's the problem? Equazcion ^(talk) 02:24, 12 Feb 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The problem is that it's giving undue weight to fringe conspiracy theories. There are thousands of conspiracy theories about September 11th, we don't include them in the article. There is already an article at 9/11 conspiracy theories with a whole section, and in fact another article also has a whole section on this also. He knows this, so he should be editing there, but he isn't so he's being quite disruptive. There are other worrying signs he's got a POV to push, which is OK so long as it isn't disruptive, but in this case it is so therefore I've blocked him indefinitely. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 02:29, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

The motivation involving the US support of Israel is not a conspiracy theory, fringe or otherwise. It's a well-documented possible motivation for the terrorist act. Equazcion ^(talk) 02:33, 12 Feb 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Oh brother, do I have egg on my face. I didn't read carefully enough. I'm unblocking. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 02:34, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks :) Equazcion ^(talk) 02:36, 12 Feb 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Editor is unblocked with my apologies. I will refrain from any further blocks based on this thread, though I reserve the right to comment on his actions on WP:AN/I and to block in future (obviously with a bit more care than this time). - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 02:38, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if he should be blocked, but there's a very clear pattern of edits. And it isn't pretty. The Jewish pornographers seems to be the most blatant. Many of these edits by themselves look innocuous but the overall pattern seems like he is pushing an anti-Semitic agenda. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:23, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I think none of us agree with "Noleander's view that "that Wikipedia is censored in regards to some topics that reflect negatively on Jews"? ' We therefore should wish to make certain that we never do anything of the kind. DGG ( talk ) 04:42, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia blacklisted some sites because they are critical to Wikipedia. I hope you are not suggesting that Wikipedia should become yet another anti-Semitic site just because somebody adds anti-Semitic garbage to the articles, and claims censorship, if he is not allowed to do it.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:39, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

No, but nor should Wikipedia refrain from featuring verifiable (not rumoured, speculated, or "well, everybody knows that") facts (not gossip, folk myth or urban legend), just because they are about Jews, Irish, Chicanos, Phonecians, Hittites etc Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:32, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Alansohn is now abusing DR and engaging in textbook wikihounding

Alansohn (talk · contribs) has repeatedly engaged in uncivil and unseemly conduct, despite being previously sanctioned in Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Footnoted_quotes. When 2 administrators, Good Olfactory & Postdlf, properly followed dispute resolution and filed this WQA to resolve their concerns, Alansohn was repeatedly unresponsive. At the time, I also commented as an uninvolved editor, and at the request of the filing party, also left my view on Alansohn's talk page [108]. Alansohn made assurances he would tone his remarks, but continued to make serious accusations without serious evidence.[109] He has repeatedly misrepresented my comments and position to others. [110] [111] [112]

Alansohn has also been wikihounding me [113] and filing a retaliatory WQA report regarding that issue that he was not a party to. Rather than avoiding filing an alert "to complain about an editor who responded to and possibly closed your previous WQA alert" as stated at the top of the page, he's done the opposite. This sort of clear-cut abuse of dispute resolution is really beyond the pale.

We're having to tolerate conduct that would otherwise be considered ban-worthy at a WQA level. I'd like to think it's because the community is unaware of it, but it's possible that they are fearful of what will happen to them if they try to address Alansohn's conduct. If we cannot come up with a sanction proposal, then it appears that our dispute resolution system has finally crumbled beyond repair. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:18, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Shouldn't we be talking about the next stage of DR, rather than "a sanction proposal", which I assume refers to an indefinite block? Stifle (talk) 11:20, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

As laid out in greater detail (and diffs) in the WQA, this is a continuation of the same conduct for which he was previously sanctioned. He has largely shown improvement since those sanctions were imposed, but still has the same issues with incivility, failure to assume good faith, and personal attacks, and anyone who tries to point this out to him, however civilly, is in turn themselves made the subject of attacks (as is clearly shown at the WQA and in numerous posts currently on his talk page).

I for one would be extremely reluctant to push for an indefinitely block, given that his problematic behavior is intermittant, not constant, and that he is otherwise a prolific and valuable contributor. But it is a longstanding pattern (I have personally been trying to address it with him for over a year now; see my recent attempt here) and it can be extremely disruptive. It was suggested that a request could be made for the arb committee to just amend the previous sanction? I don't know how that works.

I've been wondering whether a ban from CFD and CFD-related DRV discussions would be a good resolution, given that this conduct presently arises from his inability to deal with content disputes there without making it personal (at least that's the only context I'm aware of). It's only just now spilled over and escalated into another forum with the WQA. So maybe that would contain it. But his previous sanctions were for conduct in entirely different forums and contexts, so maybe it's inevitable that it will occur wherever he chooses to focus his time. Every time he has promised to address this, it's come front-loaded with even more hostile accusations of bad faith, harassment, trolling, and "manufacturing knowingly false disputes."[114],[115] Never with any acknowledgment on his part that those complaining have honest and valid concerns, regardless of whether he agrees with their characterization. So I don't know what the solution is, given that there is a clear lack of basic respect underlying all of this. postdlf (talk) 16:58, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Block evasion by User:Richard Daft

Resolved

 – I dealt with this when I found it at AN.LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:57, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

This person is still active on the site despite being banned only last month. He is using two accounts, User:FirstComrade and User:BrownEdge. His edit patterns and his talk page comments [116] [117], especially where he is in discussion with User:Sarastro1 who has "rumbled" him [118] [119], leave no doubt whatsoever that he is the same person who was previously User:Richard Daft, User:Fieldgoalunit and User:HughGal. He is here for confrontation purposes only, being what the internet terms a WP:TROLL. Would you please ban the two active accounts immediately. --JamesJJames (talk) 19:49, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I have also discovered User:ASMF which is again the same person [120], although this account seems to be not in use any more. --JamesJJames (talk) 20:10, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Would someone please attend to this asap, please. It had been archived by the bot. User:FirstComrade and User:BrownEdge are definitely block evasions. See Sarastro1's talk edits. --86.134.60.7 (talk) 19:56, 11 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.153.58.146 (talk)

• Nope, neither this or AN is WP:SPI. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:57, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Massive new page creation

User "Nameless User" has been creating a lot (at least 200, probably more) articles over the past 24 hours. The vast majority (I don't now of any that aren't) are stubs. They all have some formatting issues (including date linking) and I don't see any indication that this editor is going to expand or elaborate on them. I've tried to communicate with the editor but have receive no response, despite continuing new pages having been created, including right now. I'm unsure how to proceed. Shadowjams (talk) 10:14, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I took at some of the most recent edits and the ones about the Lebanese Premier League could be nominated for deletion per WP:N, also no references and the information looks copied from another source (so possible WP:COPYVIO). - NeutralHomer • Talk • 10:36, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Any ideas? Mass AfD? Wait a while? Or prod each one? I'd like a response from the creator but that appears unlikely (or perhaps it's a bot). Shadowjams (talk) 10:51, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

PROD is probably most productive here. Stifle (talk) 11:19, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Is it humanly possible to create 21 articles in four minutes, as he did between 8:53 12 February and 8:57? It seems to me quite likely we are dealing with an unauthorized bot. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:46, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

They're all cookie cutter articles. Copy and paste works wonders with multiple tabs. MER-C 12:52, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I suppose that's possible. Looking at the edit history, there does seem to be a bit of clumping: 6 articles created at 10:16; 7 articles created at 10:06; etc. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:55, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Is this a huge concern though? While they aren't exactly what I'd call great stubs, is this against policy in any way? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 15:38, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Judging by the bot-spam on his talk page for creating unreferenced BLPs...currently a serious and heated issue around here...yea, I'd say this is a problem. Tarc (talk) 17:20, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

The same user created most of the articles linked from Template:The Football League Seasons, Template:Primera División Argentina Seasons, Template:Eredivisie seasons, Template:Primera División Argentina Seasons, same for leagues from Armenia, Albania, Italy, Austria, Belbium, Azebaijan... the list goes on. The only difference is that these later ones have less content - both at their current state and at creation - and are not formatted as well.

This may be because "football-speaking" they are not the most popular countries in the world, but we should be careful of systemic bias before any mass deletion takes place. As for the unreferenced BLPs, User:Rettetast raised that issue on their talk page when they mass produced Japanese international footballer articles back in January and the user fairly promptly added references, so the user least appears responsive to comment.--ClubOranje^T 20:52, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Probable single-purpose harassment accounts

I'd appreciate a second set of eyes on two accounts, Daltonslaw and Catzoo, two SPAs which exist solely to harass me. At first it appeared related to User:24dot, who reappeared at the same time as Daltonslaw, based on the links to this AN/I archive. However, the pattern of behaviour is also similar to that of now-blocked User:Carljung, himself a CU-confirmed sock of banned vanity spammer Akraj. I'll probably file a checkuser, but thought I'd check here first. Thanks in advance. --Ckatz^chat_spy 10:33, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. They were both blocked by Future Perfect at Sunrise. Minimac94 (talk) 13:18, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

If this persists, user harassment filters have been created in the past and I already see a pattern that could be used. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 16:15, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Minimac94 and Future Perfect, thanks for checking this out; it is always helpful to get an uninvolved opinion. Shirik, I appreciate the offer; it is interesting that the filter can be that specific. Realistically, this sort of behaviour is just a nuisance, unlike the more abusive attacks from banned users like Serafin. As such, I don't feel that a filter is needed specifically for the harassment described above unless it would benefit a large number of editors (rather than just me). It is probably easier to weed out these socks here before they do real damage elsewhere. Thanks again, though. --Ckatz^chat_spy 17:03, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Leinad's disruptive edits

Let's start from here. Polish Wikipedia is currently under a strong attack from bloggers because of Polish Wikipedia Admins' trials to censor it. [121] [122] They remove even some content from talk pages.

However they started to censor English wikipedia. [123] [124] [125] [126] [127] [128] As you can see Leinad ever removed content from article Danuta Hubner, similar to Polish wikiepdia admins.

I warned Leinad [129], he removed my warning [130] and warned me instead [131]. It's really a good behaviour for a steward.

I hope you will stop Polish wikipedians from copying their hysteria here. Slijk (talk) 14:50, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

The diffs you cite above (e.g. [132] [133]) seem OK to me. If the text says that the files of organization X show information Y about a person, then the source must be an online or published copy of those X files. In this case it seems to be a third party's claim of what's in those files, so the text is incorrect. In theory, you could say "[Third party T] has written that X shows Y ...", if T is a reliable source. In general, we treat a recently-deceased person almost as carefully as a live one, since grieving family members are involved and this could affect the lives of living people. Crum375 (talk) 15:04, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Please, do not trust pseudo-bloggers. The information was published only in one of the right-wing newspaper and re-published in website. The Institute of National Remembrance never published the publication which would confirm this information, as well as no scientific study never appeared. On Polish Wikipedia we protected this articel, because this information was a slander (Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Semi-protection and protection). Regards, LeinaD (t) 17:15, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I would tend to agree that if the INR's records are published and accessible (as a primary source), it would be important to verify that this information is there. In principle, even a right wing paper is WP:RS, albeit with a clear POV, but for a recent death, a "near-BLP", I would want to see more corroborating independent sources, and ideally INR records for confirmation. Crum375 (talk) 20:38, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Leinad, you must be precise. WP:BLP doesn't apply to one of the articles. Slijk (talk) 17:48, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Leinad is right. Information about alleged past in the Służba Bezpieczeństwa is very delicate and requires a strong and reliable sources. Such a source can only be good historical treatise, but not an article in a newspaper. Regards, Wiktoryn (talk) 21:04, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Tko96

Tko96 (talk · contribs)

SPA abusing wikipedia for hosting pseudo gang stuff. No encyclopedic edits whatsoever. Before February 4, they put up a lengthy userpage at their master account User:Tko96 and copied it to two sock accounts, i.e. User:Musculion and User:66truekillerobituaries99, and to the article Muscolion in mainspace. They took a break after the socks were blocked and the article was deleted.

Today, they are back re-creating Musculion (speedied already) and copied the same stuff to User:Tko96/Tko96, also to the userpage of his blocked sock User:Musculion, and also to Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Tko96.

I request that

• the content be deleted, userpage or not, as wikipedia is not a host for that stuff,
• the account be blocked indef, as they had their chance and there is no indication whatsoever that the user registered themselves to work on an encyclopedia
• and "Musculion" and "truekillerobituaries" be added to some filter.

Skäpperöd (talk) 16:41, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I have indefblocked Tko96 as advertising-only. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 18:55, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

New user uploading copyrighted images

Okay, we have a new user, Hvalfisken (talk · contribs), acting completely in good faith, who is spending their editing time adding information for Recell artificial skin. They are uploading a lot of copyrighted images, and they are stating they are being used with permission, but copyright is still retained by the company. In addition they did create an article for ReCell Autologous Spray-On Skin that I ended up deleting for the copyright violations after the article was tagged but the issues weren't addressed. Now the reason I'm bringing this up, is I don't know enough about the copyright, and the user seems non-responsive to commuication (though there hasn't been that much of it admittedly.) However they're now uploading a load of images again and I'm not sure what to do with them. Can anyone give advice or have a look at how they're going about this? I don't have much time at the moment, and am heading off for a while. As I say it's good faith, but they do appear to be promoting the company and using copyrighted materials a lot. I will quite freely admit I'm probably not dealing with this very well, so feedback is appreciated. Canterbury Tail talk 16:45, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

ReCell Autologous Spray-On Skin has been re-created and I have tagged it for G11 speedy. – ukexpat (talk) 17:30, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Problematic article title

Andrew Byrne (paedophile) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This is a new page - is it appropriate?? I'm not sure to be perfectly honest! _Will^dow (Talk) 17:25, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Extraordinarily inappropriate to classify people, especially an article title, by crime. Tarc (talk) 17:29, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Speedied A7. JohnCD (talk) 17:36, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I left a note on the creator's talk page suggesting how to move forward if he wants to repost it. Starting with reading WP:BLP. postdlf (talk) 17:49, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

If the title is the problem then the page can easily be moved. I don't think the speedy deletion used (CSD A7 is appropriate in this case. I've commented on the article talk page. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 17:53, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

It is this guy. The existing Andrew Byrne is an 19th Century catholic priest. No comment. MickMacNee (talk) 18:21, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Userfied by request, though I'm not convinced there is an encyclopedia article here (as opposed to a ghastly-true-crimes article). I have pointed the author to WP:BLP, WP:N/CA, WP:NOT#NEWS, WP:BLP1E and suggested making it about the case rather than the criminal. JohnCD (talk) 18:29, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

The guy who created that article says on his user page that he's 16 years old. There's a certain ick factor about that considering what Byrne did and who he targeted. Is it just me? I have no idea what, if anything, should be done about that. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 22:49, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

AIV Backlog

Resolved

 – backlog snaked Equazcion ^(talk) 20:10, 12 Feb 2010 (UTC)

There is a backlog of over an hour on AIV. Could an admin or two address that backlog, please? Thanks...NeutralHomer • Talk • 18:02, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Death threat

Hi, I've just blocked Stragewarior (talk · contribs) for some rather threatening behaviour. But should we tip the police off about this? ϢereSpielChequers 18:15, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

To me it just looks like standard vandalism. Nothing that requires a phone call to London about, but I would watch for further edits. If it happens again, then make a call. Others could disagree me on this one, but I see nothing here but vandalism. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 18:22, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

That one seems fairly par for the course. I'd say this one[134] was more concerning "We have some demands either fulfill them or ready for a war", but from his other posts, sounds more like a poor command of English language rather than a legitimate threat of a war. Looking some more, though, I see this person, while editing an IP, does appear to be issuing a death threat to the article subject[135], including claiming the future date of death is "true"[136] and I guess that is what is being noted above? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:24, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually I think this was what he was intending to refer to... Tabercil (talk) 18:27, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Yup. it's the two in combination that made me think we might want to treat this as a bit more than just vandalism. ϢereSpielChequers 18:35, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

• Yeah, we'd better watch our step; 'Stragewarior' might type the shit out of someone if we're not careful. Dollars to donuts it's some thirteen year old suffering from an influx of stupid. HalfShadow 18:32, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
  • 2012? Well, at least the assassin is giving us plenty of advance notice. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:34, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
    • Yeah, but the world's supposed to end then anyway. Sort of a non-starter, really. HalfShadow 18:38, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
      • That's in December, though. On the other hand, if the world's going to end in December, why go to the time and trouble of committing murders? Just let mother nature take care of it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:48, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

User continued to threaten in an unblock request [137] so I reblocked without talkpage access. —DoRD (?) (talk) 20:02, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Doubtful that this is some 12 year old. This is part of the continuing edit war on these articles. Woogee (talk) 20:24, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Continuous disruption on Catholic-related articles

• 71.145.132.80 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• Related ANI discussion thread: Holy war (sort of)
• Example diff

The user of this IP address (and many other IP addresses besides this one) continues, despite repeated pleas and prior blocks, to continue to traverse various Wikipedia articles removing the word "Roman" where it appears before Catholic. In some instances, this has been perfectly fine; however, in many instances these removals are contrary to what reliable sources are saying. One particular example is in the article on Rachel Maddow. A Newsweek article explains that Maddow "was brought up as a strict Roman Catholic." This is reflected in the article, and is cited appropriately. Many Catholics use "Roman" to distinguish between their species of Catholicism and others (see 487,000 Google News hits), but in recent times this has been evidently frowned upon by the Vatican. It is for this reason that the anonymous user seems to be "crusading" against the "Roman Catholic" term. Numerous editors have tried to engage this individual to explain how we use reliable sources and verifiability to determine article content, but all such attempts have been fruitless.

Despite the difficulties of a rangeblock (the range is quite large, according to the previous discussion), I think that it has become appropriate to act in some way beyond the short-term blocks that have been tried in the past (example). I urge administrators to consider more draconian measures to prevent this disruption. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:33, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Given the recent conduct over the Rachel Maddow article, I think further short term blocks could be justified. I'd prefer to find a sympathetic mentor to adopt the user, however if that isn't possible, then I guess longer blocks and/or range blocks could be applied. PhilKnight (talk) 21:29, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

You might find mentoring difficult given the fact that the individual keeps changing IP. A good start would be to encourage them to create an account. An analysis of the IPs in question reveals a single-purpose agenda, so any mentor would have their work cut out for them. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:40, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Popular Assembly of the Peoples of Oaxaca (APPO)

A dynamic IP 187.132.XXX.XX had been disruptively editing a section of the Oaxaca article that dealt with protests by the Popular Assembly of the Peoples of Oaxaca. That article was semi-protected on 10-02-03 and the disruptive editing has stopped. However, since it can no longer disruptively edit that article, it has now moved on to the Popular Assembly of the Peoples of Oaxaca article itself, making the same, unexplained, disruptive edits that violate WP:TERRORIST,WP:NPOV and WP:RS. Attempts to talk with "it" have been unsuccessful, as it seems happy to keep reverting. I posted a request for page protection over ten hours ago, but no one there seems interested in dealing with it, meanwhile the IP keeps reverting and inserting disruptive information. nsaum75^{¡שיחת!‎} 18:44, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

IP does need a bit of a time-out for edit warring, I'd agree. This is the same problem we used to have at Hezbollah and Hamas. If this group is a designated terrorist organization, try to steer the conversation in that direction, to describe neutrally who considers it a terrorist or and why. The "...is a terrorist" kinda stuff is completely unacceptable. Tarc (talk) 18:55, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Since its a dynamic IP, it would be easier to just semi protect the article, but its been sitting over at RPP for over 10 hours and no one there seems interested in doing anything. --nsaum75^{¡שיחת!‎} 18:58, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Tnxman307 just semiprotected it; I was on my way to do so, he beat me to it. Hopefully that ends the problem, though watchlisting both articles in case they sockpuppet accounts past the autoconfirmed boundary and start up again seems wise. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:09, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Cladu1u

Cladu1u (talk · contribs) has a long history of uploading copyrighted images, and of creating tons of unsourced BLP articles. They don't seem to be getting the message, despite huge numbers of warnings on their Talk page. Woogee (talk) 20:22, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

He's continuing to upload copyrighted images and add them to the articles. He isn't responding to my comments on his Talk page. Could somebody block him till his uploads and edits can all be reverted? He's uploading faster than I can clean up after him. Woogee (talk) 20:50, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

He's been indeffed now. Suggest no unblocking without a ban on uploading images, ban logged at WP:RESTRICT. Mjroots (talk) 21:03, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I've blocked the account and deleted all of the images uploaded today. TNXMan 21:09, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Scibaby disruption

The climate change articles are a mess because of scibaby vandalism. Since scibaby is against AGW, I propose that all editors against AGW be blocked until it's proven that they aren't scibaby. Their attacks have resulted in User:William M. Connolley being prevented from stopping the lies being spread. This is too important to let a vandal disrupt. -- 166.135.119.155 (talk) 20:53, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, you're proposing proving a negative (that someone has to prove they are not Scibaby). I'm also reminded of something about babies and bathwater. TNXMan 21:01, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

If we weren't talking about baby Hitler. Has any of those characters added anything good to those articles? This is a classic WP:IAR proposal for dealing with a long-term vandal. -- 32.172.238.143 (talk) 21:11, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) We already have a filter that attempts to track down scibaby's edits. Many users (including myself) monitor that filter and report as appropriate. I don't think anything more is necessary, and most certainly we shouldn't block every user that happens to go against AGW just because they had an opinion. That's more than WP:BITE, that's more like WP:TEARHEADOFF. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 21:12, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the idea on the essay though! --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 21:47, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Look at the climate change enforcement page. Nobody cares about the filter, the admins know that scibaby is against AGW so any new editors against AGW is likely scibaby. Who else but a troll like him would doubt the science? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.172.238.143 (talk) 21:18, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

The same troll who's calling for the presumption of guilt before innocence and advocating shooting users who may dislike AGW but are not Scibaby first, and NOT asking questions later. My guess is that you have an ulterior motive here, and it doesn't involve dealing with Scibaby. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Boribori!)} 21:35, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

WP:FRINGE should be your concern. I said that the editors can be unblocked if they aren't here vandalizing. It's not eliminating the competition. It's just realizing this isn't a suicide pact. -- 32.175.35.20 (talk) 21:42, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

No, my friend, you would in effect be driving off good editors who aren't acting like Scibaby because they make one mistake that is interpreted as a Scibaby hallmark. It *is* eliminating the competition and biting the innocent newcomers to boot. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Boribori!)} 21:48, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

At a minimum, I monitor that filter on a regular basis. I'm sure there's others that do as well. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 21:55, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I do wonder though if a checkuser could comment on the possibility of Baby Hitler making edits here.--Cube lurker (talk) 21:39, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

On a related note, if anyone feels like lending a hand at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement or taking a gander at TS's list of recent changes related to articles under climate change probation, it would be greatly appreciated. - 2/0 (cont.) 21:54, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

are you saying I should post it there? I think you're right, those admins would be much more receptive at stopping the vandalism. -- 32.175.137.149 (talk) 21:59, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

If you have credible evidence that an account is being controlled by Scibaby, please post to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Scibaby; skeptical of anthropogenic global warming is one of the hallmarks of that particular sockmaster, but is not in itself reason to bring an accusation. If you have a suggestion for a better way to manage the disruption than the current method of scanning the recent contributions and applying Wikipedia:Revert, block, ignore as indicated, that would be very welcome at Wikipedia talk:General sanctions/Climate change probation. Please do keep in mind, though, that that is a public page; if you have any ideas that might be twisted by a sockmaster in the service of disruption, please feel free to email me or one of the people active at the sockpuppet investigations page. You might also want to consider the benefits of creating an account. - 2/0 (cont.) 22:35, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

User:GiacomoReturned

• I don't often mess with things like this, but even I can see that the claimed "attack" is so mild as to be ignorable and further discussion will only cause problems. TNXMan 21:58, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

In relation to the aritcle Blenheim Palace, GiacomoReturned has been making numerous personal attacks, particularly on the talk page (Examples: [138] [139]). I am not looking to get involved in any further conflict regarding the article and am now limiting myself to a support function to avoid such, but the user's uncivil attacks do not stop. --Labattblueboy (talk) 21:15, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh for crying out loud. "I suggest you see an optician" is not a personal insult. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 21:18, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Ahem, isn't "questioning someone's eyesight" listed as a sufficient basis for an indef in the new Civilty Blocks proposal? ;-) Proofreader77 ^(interact) 22:02, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Maybe if people stop baiting him by being idiots. How else should he respond? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.172.238.143 (talk) 21:21, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

If we are going to complain about a user on the noticeboard there's something else we are supposed to do.--Cube lurker (talk) 21:25, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Labattblueboy. 1- Have the common decency and courtesy to notify Giano (GiacomoReturned) of this thread per the instructions at the top of the page. 2- Use diffs that don't mean we have to scroll down the whole page (like this [140] if it helps. 3-, what admin action are you after? Pedro :  Chat  21:31, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I've notified him in the most accurate manner. -- 32.175.156.35 (talk) 21:33, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

"There are some whiners butt-hurt about comments you made."[141] Gee, that's a great way of dealing with a complaint about incivility.   Will Beback  talk  21:56, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I am honestly not trying to cause any further trouble. I am, very humbly, seeking help or suggestions because the current process is none too fun. I am fully prepared to accept and acknowledge some of my actions were poorly thoughtout. I was just looking for some help. I was not seeking or even suggesting a punishment mechanism, I was looking for some aid in conflict resolution. I'm sorry for having disturbed you, please consider the matter closed.--Labattblueboy (talk) 21:36, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

You should be aware that, no matter what Giano does, nobody here will do anything about it. He's protected. Woogee (talk) 21:51, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User creates a new account and tells us its password

CoolMatt18 writes here that he's creating a new account, Funny110, for the banned user ScienceGolfFanatic to use, and writes the password to that account on that page. Funny110 does exist and has edited today. His edits were to User talk:FuckSeasickness, who has been blocked, but only for his username. I think all four of these accounts should be looked at, perhaps by a checkuser, to see if any of them is ScienceGolfFanatic or some other user who knows him. I haven't attempted to log in to the Funny110 account; I imagine whoever is using it, whether it's SGF or just someone else who saw the page, probably was smart enough to change the password. —Soap— 21:19, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

All blocked now, along with some more. Thanks. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 21:44, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Master133

I'm having problems with Master133 (talk · contribs), who has been dumping links in the articles Jane Beale and Laurie Brett (both are semi-protected) and then logging out and asking on the talk pages that we "fix the link", but then removing the request once it has been signed by a bot (example). I've asked the user several times to stop doing this and to use the account on talk pages but they seem unable. The two pages were originally semi-protected to stop the user (who I don't think had an account at the time) from adding requests to the articles instead of the talk pages, but it became clear that it was the same user when another request was added to the article ([142]). I'm just not sure how to handle it and it's very frustrating. Thanks. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 22:12, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Upon review of Master133's editing history I note both that they are primarily interested in the Laurie Brett (and the character portrayed by her) article, and they have a been a contentious contributor from the start. Since they have not improved their editing manner in the year they have been active I concluded they have no intention to do so - so I have blocked them indefinitely. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:46, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

User:James dalton bell revisited

Over the last day or two, a number of edits have been made to Talk:Jim Bell by IP addresses. While they initially presented a claim that certain information in the article was wrong, they never presented a link to verify the claims. Instead, they quickly turned into the kind of talk page posts that lead to James dalton bell (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) getting blocked.

I hate protecting talk pages; however, I'm wondering if temporarily protecting Talk:Jim Bell isn't one solution that should be used to dissuade this user. Alternatively, is it time to just ban this user, so that further outbreaks can be dealt with along the lines that his conduct has been discussed openly in the community and his conduct—and him, as a result—is not welcome at Wikipedia? —C.Fred (talk) 22:24, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

The quickest way would be for a semiprotection of the talkpage, perhaps initially for a couple of weeks. I see the two ip's (I am assuming that the ones starting 71.XXX are the same individual} concerned are the only two this year, so sprotection would not create too much disruption. Another way would be to raise an SPI report, and see if there is a small range of ip's that could be blocked. That might result in the disruption not being transferred to another page, and could be of a longer duration than a sprotect. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:34, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

HalfShadow

The user and administrator HalfShadow made a personal attack by calling another user "stupid" on my talk page (you can still see it). I don't think it was appropriate or mature. So, I think something needs to be done about that user.

YourBrain (talk) 22:45, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh good. My daily dose of humor. Take it away, gentlemen and ladies. HalfShadow 22:52, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

YourBrain, would you care to comment upon whether your underlying ip would geolocate to Texas, USA? LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:55, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Hey, I just thought of something...If I'm an admin because someone thinks I am, does that mean I can ban people? HalfShadow 23:07, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Bishonen | talk 23:16, 12 February 2010 (UTC).

Anonymous disruptive user

Lately, an anonymous user has been disrupting editing in Moon (film). This user insists in questioning the mention of the translation of a Korean word seen in the film. This information had already been discussed by several editors here and its mention had been agreed on. Now this editor comes up and decides to remove the information (diff here). Following WP:BRD, I revert him and start this discussion. The editor replies, immediately reverting to his own version (diff here), somehow suggesting that the word may not be what it's said to be, first arguing "sarang" might be an acronym. I proceed to expose a screenshot of the word written in Korean alphabet, thus ruling out the acronym theory, but then the editor goes on to fabricate an argument about the film writers probably using the word referring to something else, but failing to explain how a given word in a known language could get another meaning, or what those other meanings could possibly be. The discussion continues, with the editor insisting in keeping his version of the article, reverting two more times (here and here), claiming violation of a consensus of which only him is a part. It should be noted that it's unclear why an editor that apparently has a relatively good knowledge of the rules (as seen in the talk) insists in posting and even edit warring anonymously. It should also be noted that the author has changed his IP, first using 65.41.234.70, and later 71.77.21.198. --uKER (talk) 22:53, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Probably be best (or at least easiest) to ask for a semi-protect of the page. HalfShadow 22:57, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

There's a word for this....

Zengar Zombolt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has reverted a 3RR warning from Tim Vickers with the charming edit summary Autistic trolls are the worst trolls. In his previous incarnation as User:Yzak Jule he was also a charming chap. I'm sure there's a shorter word than "anti-people with learning difficulties" for this behaviour. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:09, 12 February 2010 (UTC)