Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Take a look at 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

Legal Threats

Resolved

 – Blocked indef ACB. — neuro^(talk) 00:48, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Can someone please look at User:Lawyer33 contributions? He seems to be making legal threats in his edit summaries. • \ / (⁂) 21:07, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

It appears so, but seems to have stopped when asked not to. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:19, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

But not to have retracted them. Legal threats don't get any more clear than that. I've indefinitely blocked the account. Toddst1 (talk) 22:04, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Heavy on the socking, too - I see User:Lawyeruniversal2 and Lawyergeffen doing the same things. The names suggest this person is at least ostensibly representing record labels; I'm going to give the latest iteration a note regarding OTRS and the proper way to report problematic errors. Tony Fox (arf!) 22:40, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Investigate before posting, Tony. A sock investigation already got the other two. Tony Fox (arf!) 22:41, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think this person represents anyone. Real lawyers use the mail and the phone, they don't create new accounts after being blocked on Wikipedia. At least if they did they should be fired. Chillum 14:24, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

An Admin is needed to block Greg_L

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

---

Do you really want to have a cat fight on the admin noticeboard, with al those itchy block fingers watching? Thought not. Guy (Help!) 21:49, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

---

I cuddlyable3 am a relative newbie and now contribute mainly to mathematical articles. I am experiencing such mounting disruptions to editing from Greg_L that action is needed by an admin to enforce WP:POINT based on defiant incivility and admitted untruths by Greg_L. This archived WQA raised by Thunderbird2 is Closed as Stuck. That is because block sanctions that were discussed cannot be issued from WQA. I do not see that any of the editors who contributed in the WQA (excluding the two users implicated) condoned the behaviour of Greg_L. My involvement has been can be seen in the strikeouts of falsehoods that Greg_L introduced. This summary is my opinion of what needs to be done (by an admin).

Short history

I have had contact with Greg_L only since 4/5/6 November 2008 when his entries at [1] brought in a level of combativeness unsuited to the civil way that editors on a mathematics related article normally collaborate.

I see that Greg_L is regularly cited in complaints including those arising in this 2-year debate, by Wolfkeeper and this by Omegatron last June.

Actions already tried

A WQA from me, Reaction by Greg_L.

A 12-hour block by Ryan Postlethwaite

My message wishing for civil collaboration to which Greg_L replied acceptably on his Talk page but then quoted the message with derision ("Imagine my surprise, when I see this ‘let’s let bygones be bygones & work together in peace’-post from you..") in the WQA.

My offer to go to mediation has been deleted by Greg_L without comment.

I have notified Greg_L of this request to WP:ANI. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 22:07, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

While other admin opinions are needed here besides mine, I think there is insufficient evidence (here and in GregL's contributions) to even warrant a warning, let alone a block. No action necessary here. Tan | 39 22:27, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I tend to disagree. He happily admits to uncivil sarcastic comments towards others, and happily says he won't ever change. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 22:34, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Well that leaves us in a bind as to a possible resolution, assuming we can't find some amicable (or otherwise) endpoint for this dispute. Have we just tried separating the two parties? Do they share too many common interests for this to be feasible? Does either not wish to disengage from a particular subject? More to the point, is Greg's behavior really all that bad? From those diffs and links I don't see anything too bad. Sure, he's being a jerk in that first post on his talk page about the WQA, but the next post is factual and direct. The rest of the links are him removing material on his talk page (perfectly reasonable) or past AN/I reports. So...I'm with Tan in a lot of ways here. Protonk (talk) 22:51, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I admire Tan's speed reading of the whole issue in what looks like 10 minutes. I estimate that would allow a few seconds to consider the bit in the WQA where Greg_L links me to a terrorist shooter. My complaint is that false statements such as Greg_L admits making would be immediately handled under WP:BLP if I were not an editor.. FYI I am a "LP", just not yet old enough to be a notable one.Cuddlyable3 (talk) 23:55, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, spending ten minutes of time on this was pretty good. Most admins will agree. What did you want, an hour? Your sarcasm is noted, and further justifies my belief that you two need to just stay the hell away from each other. Tan | 39 00:32, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Talking shit about people who comment on your request is a sure way to get it ignored. Protonk (talk) 01:00, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

While I don't agree with the eviscerated nature of Protonk's and Tan's replies, I DO agree with the principle behind them. You asked for some assist here, and if anyone can speed read, Tan can. (Sorry Tan, I couldn't resist.) Picking apart someone's handling of your request is not a great way to engraciate yourself here. That being said, I'll hop back over to WQA now, take it away guys. Edit Centric (talk) 03:57, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

• Proton, quoting you: Have we just tried separating the two parties?, we are separated unless he seeks me out. I have had nothing to do with Cuddlyable3 since he filed a WQA against me last November and was told that he was responsible for precipitating the behavior about which he complained.[2] He has apparently harbored resentment over that ever since.

  When another editor recently filed a WQA against me, Cuddlyable3, who is no stranger to the WQA process since 2.6% of his last 1000 edits are Wikiquette alerts, weighed in for a dig. When he pointed out a factual error in my rebuttal where I said he had deleted an animation, I apologized for that error publicly—in several places. He holds onto grievances and is here—again—seeking his pound of flesh. All he needs to do is stop obsessing about Greg L and get on with editing. Problem solved. I don’t specialize in math-related articles and have zero interest involving myself with anything at all do do with Cuddly, except for when he leaves yet another post on my talk page announcing that he has found yet another forum to seek revenge. Is this surprising? Note his block log, where there is this explanation for a block: “Attempting to harass other users: Continued Disruptive editing despite warnings and opposing consensus from editors and/or administrators.” Then they had to block him again when, fresh off that block, he picked right back up with his harassment. I’m seeing a pattern here with his inability to “let go”.

  BTW, the “A 12-hour block by Ryan Postlethwaite” is… uhm… ‘misrepresentation’ as it had absolutely nothing to do with this, and his “My message wishing for civil collaboration” that he left on my talk page was self-serving posturing and/or baiting—perhaps hoping for an uncivil response from me—since he was at that very moment busy making new calls for sanctions against me on the T‑bird WQA, which I had forgotten about and had assumed had been archived. The phrase “civil collaboration” didn’t even make any sense because he and I hadn’t edited on the same thing (just that one single article) since back in November when he was admonished for egging me on. As I stated on the T‑bird WQA, I just wish he would leave me alone. I really wish he would leave me alone. Greg L (talk) 07:09, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

• P.S. There is one more bit of misinformation, above, that I find particularly galling and which I would like to point out: Examine the first sentence in Short history, above. What impression did he clearly try to imply? He would have you believe that …[Greg L] brought in a level of combativeness unsuited to the civil way that editors on a mathematics related article normally collaborate. In other words, me (the uncivilized outsider) comes to a venue frequented by peaceful mathematicians and acts like a barbarian. What posts are actually there from November on Talk:Mandelbrot set? Why, this thread, the one over which he was admonished [3] for egging me on and that I had done nothing against policy. What did he actually link to in order to “support” his allegation? Why this, which is a post he recently put on my talk page complaining about my false recollection on the recent T‑bird WQA. There seems be a pattern of misinformation in his above allegations, and that seems very wrong to me. Greg L (talk) 07:58, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

filibuster, is a form of obstruction in a legislature or other decision-making body. An attempt is made to infinitely extend debate upon a proposal in order to delay the progress or completely prevent a vote on the proposal taking place. Kilde: Wikipedia. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 11:41, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

But, since we don't vote around here, filibustering does not apply, neither does your growing wikilawyering. All that to say, Cuddlyable3, you are not helping your "case" at this moment. You provided your "evidence", you trashed the first neutral admin who commented, and because of that, I see things going downhill from here ... your next step: WP:RFC ... although I recommend trying to avoid Greg L for awhile instead. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 12:19, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Again, what administrative action is required here? seicer | talk | contribs 12:26, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

 Not done Original post was asking for a block. I wish that Greg L was a bit less annoying, but I've never doubted that he's working hard to improve Wikipedia, and before issuing a block to a good-faith contributor I'd like to see at minimum a user conduct RfC establishing consensus that his conduct is problematic or disruptive - and failing to establish any alternative remedy. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 14:41, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Whether action is taken or not, it may be illuminating for people to read this user conduct RFC on Greg L from June 2008, and this, this and this, all part of an ongoing arbitration involving dealing with Greg L's incivility. -- Earle Martin [^t/_c] 14:57, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I think the task of weighing up the evidence presented at ArbCom pages and taking appropriate action is best left to the arbitration committee. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 15:11, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment having read through the above, it looks like an angry person rehashing past events, going back a long time, and misrepresenting some events to make his case seem stronger. What exactly has Greg done in the last 3 months? 2 weeks? Cheers, Dlohcierekim 15:20, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I am only providing the above as context, in the inevitable event of this issue being raised again some time in the future and a link made back here. -- Earle Martin [^t/_c] 15:28, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

If nothing else he proved to be a thoroughly nasty piece of work in Talk:g-force less than a month ago. There's a strong case for a new RFC on him, there's plenty of ammunition. It's amazing to me he hasn't been blocked more than he has been, I think it's just because people haven't been joining up the dots enough.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 16:42, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I would agree that above is context only. A view of the WQA (link provided above) is probably key to recent (ie last 2 or 3 weeks) activity. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 16:53, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

BMW you know my feelings about this, I think you are plain wrong. By the way, Wolfkeeper above is the one case I know of where Greg L's behavior was not right, and I understand Wolfkeeper's gripe. All the others who have been recipients of Greg L's sarcasm had it coming.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 19:44, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

How entirely incivil: nobody on Wikipedia "has it coming". The entire reason we're at arbitration over date delinking is because of the attitudes this kind of behavior inspires. It's poisonous, and so long as it's allowed to continue unstopped it only inspires those on the same side of an argument as Greg to ratchet up their behavior to his level. —Locke Cole • t • c 08:18, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

The above comment from one of Wikipedia's most vicious street fighters, one who just falsely called me a flat out liar on another WP page. You'll excuse me Locke Cole if I LOL at your self-righteous charade.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 14:17, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

See what I mean? —Locke Cole • t • c 18:06, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

• Goodmorningworld’s reaction is understandable. See what we mean? Greg L (talk) 20:16, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

• As per usual my block log doesn't make me wrong Greg, no matter how much you wish it did. —Locke Cole • t • c 20:19, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

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

Help with important issue on Don Stewart

I've attempted to add WP:RS and been reverted based on the objections of Harvest09 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who is a WP:SPA interested in removing negative material from Don Stewart, a faith healer. This user misunderstands policy, and has called cited material wrong or misquoted. As pointed out by myself and another person, it is that user who misunderstands the material.

When The Daily Courier, a newspaper from Stewart's hometown, is quoted (via google news archives--"Prescott native hopes ashes will help rebuild his ministry", The Daily Courier, November 5, 1982) Harvest09 called it "an old photocopy that can be questioned." Then ironically, the user brings up WP:V in which he clearly does not understand it has to do with "verifiability, not truth." Then in another case the user accuses a living person and a religious foundation of "misquote articles like the one they claim to be using in the Dallas Morning News and as a result their reference is not a RS." It is entirely inappropriate to attempt to remove a source by claiming a living person and foundation are purposely misquoting material. It also important to note that TWO sentences in question deals with the fact that the foundation worked with Inside Edition on a national broadcast about Stewart's faith healing and finances. On a side note, the user also wants the reference to a critical story on Inside Edition removed.

There are 271 press stories from 1981-83 in google archives all backing this up the racism, riot, arson, and money. Articles in that link include "Black Church Vs. White Pentecostals", Los Angeles Times, Oct 1, 1981; "2 Die, 9 Hurt In Police, Sect Shootout," Pittsburgh Post-Gazette; "Miracle Valley church members arrested as feelings run high," Kingman Daily Miner.

Furthermore, the riots from 27 years ago are so famous that recent accounts on the riots and shooting from police are published regarding a new book about the events. How a WP:SPA can block something that has a current and historical interest is why I am posting here. Can some other people take a look at this article/talk page and work on it with me? It seems no one else is willing to actually look at what's going on with this user and article. BBiiis08 (talk) 00:36, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

• It seems that no one is reverting or adding ad hominem attacks - just a rather heated discussion on the talk page. I think that process should be continued, keeping in mind that reliable sources can be wrong, and if contrary information can be found in another reliable source, put both in the article or leave both out, as consensus serves. I don't see anyone trying to keep all negative information out, just questioning the details whether they appear or not in the sources. Using exact page or paragraph cites will help point people to such details, or consider whether those details really add anything to the article. Basically a content dispute that hasn't bubbled too far off course. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:52, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Please look again. This is a revert and this is a revert from two uninvolved parties in the last two days. Whereas, this is a removal of sourced information. BBiiis08 (talk) 04:37, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

• • I think the seriousness of the paragraph removed by administrators should be very carefully worded, if it is used at all. The paragraph he wants to insert doesn't make a number of things clear. I guess we could get into it now, but it is kind of frustrating, because we had started discussing something totally different and this has become a diversion. There is so much there I haven't had time to read all the articles, but I haven't seen Stewart mentioned as a major player in these events. Sorry this has become such a bother. You can see my objections on the discussion page to the paragraph that includes events of murder, riots, a church burning, etc. We aren't getting any discussion from BBiiis08 on the article discussion page before he inserts edits. His only discussion is criticism of my concerns about WP-V, RS, and NPOV on the things he has already edited. I'm confused about what point he is trying to make about Stewart when he keeps inserting this paragraph into the article. Harvest09 (talk) 04:56, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
    • @BBiiis - as detailed also by Carlossuarez46 - the process of discussion on the talk page is appropriate and should be continued. Arguing therefore that an editor has a Single Purpose Account (SPA) smacks a little of not assuming good faith (AGF) towards an apparently new editor because on the face of it there is nothing wrong with Harvest09 having an initial interest in this article - unless he breaches policy or perhaps COI guidelines. Given that he is discussing his concerns at length at the article talk page, and that his concerns appear important, reverting your recent edits whilst awaiting the outcome of the discussion seems the appropriate and patient thing to do. Please note both Scarian and myself have only reverted based on our administrator role (in this case of assisting the process of discussion) and certainly in my own case I have no specific interest in the article.--VS ^talk 06:30, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
      • Harvest09 being a WP:SPA is completely relevant because he is writing a book on the subject/Stewart and has a vested interest-- maybe WP:COI? Just read that post about him interviewing people in the ministry for his book as well as his attempts to contact them over this article. BBiiis08 (talk) 06:37, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
    • You (Harvest09) haven't explained what line/what sources you are concerned with. You simply write exclude for "WP-V, RS, and NPOV" concerns. You haven't been specific at all. Which WP:RS? Are you doubting that a boy was killed during the rioting as referenced in James Randi's book? Do you doubt two people were killed in the above cited sources or this news article? Are you saying this article is wrong about Stewart sending out letters asking for money? You can't throw a blanket claim of "WP-V, RS, and NPOV" to get sourced material removed. You can't just say, "I doubt this newspaper's article so we can't include it."
    • Above Harvest09 wrote: "...I haven't had time to read all the articles." If you haven't read the articles then on what basis do you oppose using the newspapers as references?
    • I added my proposed addition here: Talk:Don_Stewart_(preacher)#Proposed_paragraph. BBiiis08 (talk) 06:34, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) This really is a content dispute so doesn't belong here, but I can affirm that my feelings about User:Harvest09's participation echo those of User:BBiiis08. They appear to be an SPA intent on removing negative content from the article (see their contribs and judge for yourself). Just my 2 cents. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:17, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, not an SPA - two SPAs: User:JScardilli. See contribs (and note edit summaries vs changes). Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:28, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Yep, I didn't mean to SPA, but I didn't have a clue how to do things then. But I have been studying a lot and trying to do things correctly now. We can talk about this article on the discussion page, but like BBiiis said there are 271 newspaper & other articles. I've only read about 15 (How many have you guys read?), and don't see any connection to Stewart and all the dramatic stuff, (murder riots etc) For instance one article says Stewart sold the property to The Assemblies of God, (religious denomination), for one dollar long before all this happened. Then there is another that says it was valued at 2 million after it burned, see what I mean? Sorry if I'm doing something wrong here, but we should make it clear these people didn't have anything to do with Stewart, unless there is something in one of the other 256 articles I haven't read. I sure wish we could just cleanup the Stewart article as it stands first before we tackle something with this much material and this controversial. I don't see the big rush for anything in this article, (except not accusing or insinuating someone is involved with a group that committed murder), that is why I'm using it to learn on. Harvest09 (talk) 07:31, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Yousaf465 on an Anti-India Propoganda

Yousaf465 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has been on an Anti-India propoganda for sometime now.He began with complaining of too much India bias for FAs on Mainpage at time when there was 59 Indian FAs and 1 Pakistani FA. He is now on a spree to get all images that decipts Pak as terrorist hub like [4]. His new interest is to push Anti India POV on State-sponsored terrorism (history) article. With this edit he removed everything related to Pakistan and replacing with India and Israel. His edits were repeatedly revereted by many users including YellowMonkey. YM blocked him for edit waring and POV push on the article. User:Seicer who is soft on Yousaf , unblocked him ( saying that YM didnt respond back in time) and blocked User:24.28.83.178 who had been also reverting Yousuf's POV additions. A new user Maijinsan (talk · contribs · count) came up from no-where an adding sock tag to many usernames including the above IP editor... It is evident that he himself is a sock. Seicer semi-protected the article and allowed Yousuf to continue to add Anti-India POV statements referenced to Pak dailies which cannot be considered as reliable . I dont want to "edit war" with him and request for third opinions here. -- Tinu Cherian - 05:24, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

First, I suggest that you take the effort to add "istan(i)" to the (likely insulting) diminutive "Pak" if you wish to be taken seriously as desiring a neutral consideration of this problem. I would further suggest that you take this complaint to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Geopolitical ethnic and religious conflicts for review by sysops who are better able to disregard the nationalistic rhetoric of the differing parties. I trust you will update your notices to the above mentioned editors to reflect the new venue. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:49, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

"Pak" is a common abbreviation for Pakistan used in English language publications both in India and Pakistan; it is no in way shape or form pejorative or insulting. E.g. "Pak-Afghan border situation needs urgent attention: US" The Daily Times, "Pak serious about fighting extremism: NATO chief" The News International (both Pakistani publications), "With Pak alleging links between the Samjhauta..." The Times of India. 87.112.89.175 (talk) 17:16, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, but I would note that the diminitive "Paki" is considered an extremely pejorative insult in British society and, this being the English language Wikipedia, similar terms may strike the readership as antagonistic. Cultural sensitivities should work both ways. LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:57, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Pak is short term for Pakistan,but "Paki" is not acceptable.User:Yousaf465

If I see no rationale given for the block, and his contribution history looks fairly legit, and the unblocking administrator makes no comments regarding the block in a reasonable matter (I did notify the blocking administrator), then I will unblock in most instances. Case closed for YM's old block.

It should be noted that I am not "soft" on anti-Indian propogandists. I frequently get asked to block or review the contributions of specific editors (check my user talk page), and I have done sweeping blocks on this in the past. Perhaps you didn't bother to do a little check of my contribution history??? seicer | talk | contribs 12:13, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

If someone thanking you is evidence of "being soft" then we are all soft, and that's the way I like it. Theresa Knott | token threats 12:39, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Apparently, I'm just confused. seicer | talk | contribs 14:17, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

will replx in detail.User:Yousaf465

I havent used the term 'Paki' anytime above ,instead used only "Pak/Pakistani" terms which are generally considered acceptable. Secier, you have unblocked a good faith block by YM and allowed Yousuf to continue with his disruptive edits like [5][6] [7] while you blocked an IP editor who has been reverting yousuf's POV push. -- Tinu Cherian - 04:20, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

1) Personal commentary in edits/synthesis/OR/POV 2) Engages in IND/PAK battlefield mentality per the main page gripe, also assumes everyone else is campaigning/soapboxing, per his complaint ages ago that DYK people were promoting homosexuality 3) nominating pictures for deletion on bogus criteria (images were US govt -> PD, the other was already marked as FU as a magazine display of Pakistani terrorists but he keeps on saying it isn't needed and replaces it with a another magazine display that doesn't show related at all 4) per battlefield/sectarian mentality, has an Israeli flag on his talk page, with the Star of David replaced with a swastika.... 5) Also BLP violations and personal cynical commentaries inserted on this page along with another Pakistani Strider11 with battlefield mentality which Seicer reinserted; although it is a banned Hkelkar IP, the Pakitani edit needs to be excised because of a BLP violation implying a terrorist conspiracy on the part of the subject "it is worth noticeable..." YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 05:43, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

One dynamic to watch out for in admin discussions with multiple issues is that one hot button point dominates the discussion, and if that gets resolved as a nonissue the other outstanding issues may get overlooked. This discussion has determined that 'Pak' does not carry the derogatory connotations of 'Paki'. What it has not resolved is whether this person is edit warring. And it may be arguable that block-worthy edit warring has been going on within the last few hours. Please examine all issues at hand before declaring a determination. Durova^Charge! 05:30, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I have blocked Yousaf for 48h as he continued disruption after his previous unblock. If the block would not help, I think a longer block is warranted Alex Bakharev (talk) 06:15, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't know about the other issues, but this tagging (repeated 3 times) is simply disruptive behavior in Yousaf's part. Despite being reminded that the image is work of a US Federal agency, Yousaf retagged the image again with a meaningless comment. He also tagged a fair-use magazine cover as "possibly unfree image", despite the presence of a fair use rationale. These actions are all correlated, and not isolated events. --Ragib (talk) 06:17, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

While PUI is not quite the right venue, the fair use rationale on the Herald image is complete bogus. This is an understandable error. I'll put it up for WP:NFCR.--Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:19, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Juris Doctor article edits by abusive user

Based on the pattern of edits to the Juris Doctor article, it is apparent that a user has been making disruptive edits. The user has been insisting that the J.D. is now replacing the LL.B., but have not provided any support for the claim, and have ignored discussions. This began on 19 June 2008, was particularly strong in September, occurred again in December, and persisted in January. This user has recently begun aggressive editing on this issue again yesterday and today. An attempt to open a discussion with the user after numerous reverts in September of 2008 was made by initiating a section on the talk page addressing the edits, and reference was made to that discussion every time the change was undone. Posts were also made on the user pages. The user has promised in edit summaries on numerous occasions that she or he will keep correcting the error she or he perceives until it is "right." In fact, it is from the pattern of edits, and the comments in the edit summaries (which say things like "flies in the face of facts," "get it right," "wow! is wiki truth or fiction," and "this is a lie"), that it becomes apparent that all these edits are from the same user. The user does not use an account for the edits, and the IPs include 38.13.201.18235.13.201.182, 68.61.196.89, 68.61.197.65, 24.11.161.213, 71.206.107.220, 76.252.71.24 and 81.208.83.242. Zoticogrillo (talk) 13:11, 19 February 2009 (UTC) Zoticogrillo (talk) 13:15, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Take it from me: the JD hasn't replaced the LLB, at least in the United Kingdom. I'll head over to the talkpage and chip in. Ironholds (talk) 13:45, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

The user doesn't seem to be getting the message, and doesn't seem to be interested in talking. I recommend semi-protecting; if he wants to edit it he can create a single account we can track and talk to rather than multiple IPs which indicate a changing IP address, meaning we have no way of telling if he actually got our messages. Ironholds (talk) 13:49, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

The abusive edits have continued. Please intervene asap. Zoticogrillo (talk) 09:44, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

needs admin action User:Ironholds is helpful but not an administrator. Administrators please take action. Zoticogrillo (talk) 09:47, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I have semi-protected for 3 days - if this is insufficient to persuade our friend that consensus is the only option then drop me a line at my talkpage to have it re-instated. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:54, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Zoticogrillo (talk) 17:44, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Damage to microformats

J JMesserly is making a number of edits which are damaging the microformats emitted by Wikipedia, often making them emit broken and/ or bogus metadata (and is doing the same on Commons, but I've raised the matter, separately, there). I've tried to reason with him on his and my talk pages, the microformat project page, various other projects, and many template- & article talk pages. I've offered to assist him (he's clearly new to microformats; I've been implementing them here and elsewhere, and contributing to the designs of microformats and microformat parsers, since 2006). I've got nowhere (I'm sure he feels the same way about me). His behaviour includes repeatedly threatening me with Arbcom if I won't I submit to binding mediation, repeatedly asking the same questions, accusing me of vandalism (after having to apologise for doing so on Commons); making ad hominem attacks, edit warring without discussion (I've also reverted often, but have always given reasons). I've asked him to hold fire while we discuss matters, but he's continued; making so many edits to implement his preferred way of doing things that it looks like a bot run. I can see no evidence that he is interested in building or working towards consensus. I'm tired of this (and currently ill); I really don't want to devote my time to compiling a catalogue of evidential diffs (most of my editing for the last week or two has been to argue these matters with him, to revert his damage and to point him at WP:BRD, to the point where I'm always fire-fighting instead of making more constructive edits); but some neutral party who understands metadata and especially microformats needs to look into this. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 19:15, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

• You give such a strong impression of WP:OWNing everything to do with microsformats, and dragging everybody with whom you have a unilateral dispute to ANI claiming mass damage and destruction (which is often not evident to anyone else) that I don't hold out much hope of this being anything other than shunted elsehwere. Take it to the Wikiproject or RFC is my advice. Guy (Help!) 19:30, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Andy Mabbett has an extensive history of making assertions about the correctness of his positions regarding microformats [8][9][. I was not aware of any of these prior events until recently, and I appear to be only the latest recipient of Mr. Mabbett's oversight of my contributions at Wikipedia. While I maintain a positive outlook towards Andy, I am having a difficult time differentiating his past behavior from his current behavior. Regardless, I have not responded to his frequent personal attacks and hope that memories of this friction will fade with time as we work together regarding our common passion for microformat capability at Wikipedia. I have made repeated attempts at reaching common ground with Pigsonthewing. Although he asserts authority regarding microformats, he quite often makes demonstrably incorrect statements (lamian war)[10] (ISO date for JFK:November 22, 1963 (-07:00))[11] causing me to regard his frequent unsupported assertions with skepticism, and requests for support for his allegations. These are declined, with the remark that he has already responded. My proposal to him as that microformats.org community be the arbiters on the technical points he raises. My repeated inquiry to him is whether he prefers to continue to try to work this out, to agree to binding mediation at Wikipedia:Mediation, or to go to arbcom. So far, I am unclear what his preference is, but I do not see that the incidents board can do much with this, as was the observation in a prior incident (see Fabrictramp recommendation [12]). -J JMesserly (talk) 20:21, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I concur with Guy above, especially because this is not the first time I remember Pigsonthewing making very, very serious-sounding statements about how everyone else but he is the problem in this obscure formatting dispute.  Sandstein  14:28, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Threeafterthree

Resolved

 – Talk page debate is going fine, nothing much more to say really. Guy (Help!) 16:45, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

What could be controversial in the following sentence from Martin Fleischmann? "He is best known for his controversial work with his colleague Stanley Pons on cold fusion using palladium in the 1980s and '90s." According to User:Threeafterthree it is the word "best", which apparently is a clear violation of WP:PEACOCK and WP:MOSBIO. And of course it needs a source which says specifically that he is "best" known for it, otherwise the word must be removed or replaced with "also" (which, apparently, is perfectly fine here).

This has been going on since shortly after Guy expressed concern that Fleischmann might fall under WP:BLP1E or WP:COATRACK (for cold fusion). Note also that when the controversy started, the sentence following the incriminated one cited an article that included the phrase "best known for his role in the 'cold fusion' controversy". Oh, and Threeafterthree "got give a rat's ass about this guy, but if folks want to write that FACT, then back it up". [13] By now the word "best" is sourced immediately in the place where it appears, and I seem to have satisfied Threeafterthree's concern [14] that I might have a COI or other agenda. Threeafterthree even got an unrelated edit in that nobody objected to so far, even though it's almost equally silly. [15] (Note the phrase "who replicated the experiment" after the who-tag.) That, of course, doesn't seem to be sufficient success, and 4 1/2 hours later Threeafterthree asked User:Abd and me how many accounts we each use for editing. [16]

It looks like he is once again longing for a wikibreak, as in November when he last edit-warred (on Barack Obama). [17][18] Now he has also started censoring other editors' comments (at an unrelated article), a behaviour that ultimately led to his blocks in September and October. [19]

I suppose some kind of admin action is in order here. E.g. checkusering me to see how many sockpuppets I have, or warning me for calling a spade a spade. Thanks. --Hans Adler (talk) 19:51, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

The content issue should generally be ignored here and only behavior examined. Behaviorally, Threeafterthree was insisting on a content position and wikilawyering for it, insistently, repeatedly and sometimes uncivilly, plus asserting the position with edits when it was clear that no other editor supported him. (The position unsupported by others is that "best known" is inappropriate, and then a source is demanded for it, when there is a source and it's been asserted and shown. But, please, assume that Threeafterthree is correct on the content and focus on the behavior, i.e., insisting on correct content with repetitive edits, tendentious argument, and without any support from other editors.) .I've been following this and have informally warned Threeafterthree on the article Talk page. If the behavior continues, I would warn him on his Talk, I felt that it was still short of that, though getting close. The behavior could warrant a Talk warning, and, if continued, a block. I can understand why Adler is concerned, though. Adler's behavior has not been spotless, he's been gratuitously uncivil, but also apologized for it, as I recall. --Abd (talk) 21:10, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

The user should have been warned before bring this here. I recommend speedy close of this discussion as premature, unless someone has other serious behavior to report that took place after warning. This, and the notice on his talk page, could be considered the warning. On the other hand, I have not investigated this user's history, and if this is a repetition of prior patterns, with previous warnings and a block for such behavior, warning may not be necessary, I'd take back my recommendation. --Abd (talk) 21:20, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

• Hans, I think Threeafterthree is a reasonable guy, you should try just talking to him, maybe even send email or something. It's certain that we need to be careful saying that Fleischmann is best known for probably the largest and most spectacular cock-up of his entire career, so maybe an alternate form of words can be found. I had a go, see what you think. Guy (Help!) 21:38, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

• I apologize that this has come to this board. There was a content dispute at a biography about using the term "best known for" and I pressed the issue I guess without knowing who all the players are, ect. or that cold fusion is touchy. Anyways, I really do not want to defend my prior history or feel a need to. I do remove comments from talk pages that I feel are harmful or off topic per WP:FORUM. Anyways, again, I think this has been overblown to reach this level but will listen to the community and try to work with the folks on the Martin Fleischmann talk page. Thank you, --Tom 22:46, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Foie gras

Sko1221 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) There is once again an edit war going on at that article, being instigated by the same guy, User:Sko1221, a single-purpose account focused on POV-pushing on that article. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:08, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

The image has been in Foie gras controversy for a long time; I don't see a major problem with it existing in this article and it could be argued that removing it is also pushing a POV. It's certainly more encyclopedic that the image of the bottle of wine ... Black Kite 20:14, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

It is alleged to be a photo of a duck being force-fed. Prove it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:16, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I am hard-pressed to think of an alternative reason why a duck/goose in a battery farm should be having a funnel put down its throat. Come on, be realistic - it is a duck being force-fed - compare [20]. Black Kite 20:20, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

My purpose for wanting this picture to be included is that i know people don't usually read every word on a Wiki page, we usually skim the page. I am adding this picture for those people who want a fair, informational story but want it fast, without having to read each word. There are probably good paying jobs for those who want to create an ad for foie gras, but this is not the place. Thanks, Sarah 68.13.134.213 (talk) 20:28, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

This is a pure content dispute with no admin action really needed, and consensus here and at Talk:Foie_gras#Images seems to agree that the image is what it claims to be (a duck being tube-fed to make fois gras) so there's nothing for an admin to here. rootology (C)(T) 20:32, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

The single-purpose, POV-pushing account wins the battle. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:33, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Please discuss this on the talk page of the article; there's no battles to be won, and I had an outstanding question for you on how a visual representation of a physical action described in the article is any kind of a POV push. rootology (C)(T) 20:37, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

It's to try to "prove" that it's cruelty to animals. A photo provides better shock effect than simply talking about it. Meanwhile, the guy who originally raised this issue, and claimed Sko1221 is a sock, has stayed away from this for the time being. It's more his battle than mine, as I don't like POV-pushing, nor do I like liver. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:39, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Sarah here, SKO1221. I have not stayed away, i am not a "sock", i simply forgot to log in so did not show up as SKO.

Never been to either article, just saw this in passing. I would tend to think that an article on Foie gras should concentrate on only the subject matter itself, and not the controversy. That is why there appears to be this separate Foie gras controversy to cover the issue of why people are against this product, rather than the product itself. The Fur clothing article does not contain images of bloody animal pelts, for example. Tarc (talk) 20:37, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

But the article already has a section on fattening. The image is hardly comparable to bloody animal pelts, it is merely an image of a duck being fattened up to illustrate that section of the article. Theresa Knott | token threats 20:55, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

And it has arguably a POV-fork that focuses on the controversy, which is where the picture came from. And the SPA / IP wants the picture in this article, too, as "it's a huge part of the story". [21] Maybe the solution is to put the whole "story" into a single article? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:00, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I have just read the controversy article and it reads fairly neutral. It's kinda long to put into the foie gras one. Theresa Knott | token threats 21:05, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Why does the picture need to be in both articles, other than to further push the "cruelty to animals" viewpoint? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:07, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Someone has removed the picture again, after going through this process of resolution.SKO1221 Sko1221 (talk) 21:07, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

News flash: It ain't resolved. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:11, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring is still ongoing here, now, with another undiscussed reversion. rootology (C)(T) 21:08, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

What you've got here is a single purpose account that turned up in the last day or so for the express purpose of trying to push the "cruelty to animals" angle as much as possible. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:11, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

And that's all well and good, but we don't block to win content disputes. rootology (C)(T) 21:14, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

i thought this had been resolved. suggest reversion to resolved edit and lock. Sko1221 (talk) 21:10, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Suggest blocking the single purpose account for POV-pushing and edit warring. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:12, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

And blocks for the other editors edit warring, as well? Regardless of their "original" intention, when more people reviewed it, a consensus seems to have formed/is forming on the talk. rootology (C)(T) 21:14, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Page locked until the disputes are resolved. PeterSymonds (talk) 21:15, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

suggest blocking baseballs for un-resolving resolved issues.

Here's a suggestion - lets not block anyone. Lets have everyone go to the talk page and put their arguments forwards. Kinda novel idea I know. Theresa Knott | token threats 21:22, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

What protection is there for a resolved issue (other than the temporary locked mode of the page) from edit warring when someone is very POV toward foie gras, as we have seen here? Sko1221 (talk) 21:29, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

What? Let it rest. Don't think for one minute that because some admins happen to agree that the picture should stay that we cannot see that you are in fact the most POV editor on the page. You editing history speaks volumes. Theresa Knott | token threats 21:41, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Makes sense, thanks for your help. Sko1221 (talk) 21:48, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Suggest blocking Theresa knott for cruelty to otters over an extended period (no one believed your excuse). Meanwhile, this really does look like a content dispute that should be resolved using dispute resolution techniques. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 22:49, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I am innocent! It's not my fault that I came across a sinking otter, what kind of otter cant swim? Theresa Knott | token threats 07:25, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

He was force-fed; stuffed with wholly mackeral, to give him a fish oil sleek coat. Alas, he slid under. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:38, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Can someone take another look at the image source[22]? It looks like it is copyrighted which would make the matter moot. Thanks!--Ramdrake (talk) 22:57, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

They require attribution, so does CC-by SA and so does the GFDL doesn't it? Theresa Knott | token threats 07:22, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I have requested the owner of the image (Gaia) remove copyright. Will let you all know what i hear.Sko1221 (talk) 01:11, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

This thread was vintage Baseball Bugs. Tan | 39 01:36, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

There was obviously an issue that needed to be raised, although the user who originally turned in SKO to WP:AIV the other day (without success) has kept quiet on this subject today. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:32, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Until now. He has posted a good-sized argument on the article talk page reinforcing what I said, namely that you all have let the PETA-type POV-pushers win this one. Congratulations. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:09, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Response from Gaia regarding photo copyright can be found on discussion page. Sko1221 (talk) 11:26, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

question about an old "friend"" of ours

As this user or an imitator has returned (if ever so briefly), should some version of this page be around for a reference? I remember reading it when I first started out, but it has since been deleted per WP:DENY. I doubt if many of us remember, and I think the benefits of having a point of reference outweigh the detriments. If nothing else, it's answer to a common RFA question. Dlohcierekim 22:07, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion on wheels!!!!!. Guy (Help!) 22:45, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:DENY is not policy. Endorse restoration, its deletion is merely a hindrance. Besides, Willy on Wheels is already reasonably well known on Wikipedia aside from the LTA page. — neuro^(talk) 00:38, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

...and has publicly apologized, lest I'm mistaken. It's a Spy wearing a WoW mask. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori)} 01:29, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion; I recall reading on a mailing list post a sincere apology from WoW after Wikipedia use managed to save him from flunking out of college. Anybody with the "(Willy) on Wheels" moniker is an impersonator, and should be blocked, no LTA needed. In fact, I wouldn't be shocked if this was a Grawpalike. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori)} 01:29, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I realise that this is probably just a copycat, but there is no real need for that LTA page to be deleted, as far as I can see. If he really has apologised, WP:DENY suddenly loses any effect to me. — neuro^(talk) 08:03, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

fake "wikipedia"

Resolved

 – Wrong venue. — neuro^(talk) 01:28, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I just followed a link to a "Takarazuka Wikipedia" (link), thinking it was some obscure language of WP. I get there and see that it's some not-the-real-thing using the word "Wikipedia" in its name. Should something be done about this? Like emailing them and saying "Don't use that name"? flaminglawyer 01:19, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

(if this is posted in the wrong place, I'm terribly sorry, but it's the place that I though it fit best) flaminglawyer 01:21, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

There's nothing an administrator here could do. Your best bet would be to notify Foundation counsel, lest I'm mistaken. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori)} 01:22, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I have notified Cary and Mike at the WMF. For future reference, apparent fake wikipedia things should go to the foundation. English wikipedia folks aren't the foundation and can't start proper legal review etc... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:33, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

It's a trademark violation, but a fairly harmless one, since they're visually distinct from Wikipedia. I think some people have just started using Wikipedia as a synonym for any kind of topical wiki encyclopedia. A friendly e-mail wouldn't hurt, I don't think it's worth the Foundation's trouble. Dcoetzee 01:27, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

IANAL, but IIRC, if you don't pursue claims against people using your trademark you lose it (Couldn't fit more bizarre acronyms in there). Protonk (talk) 04:44, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

IAAL and that is generally correct. – ukexpat (talk) 21:17, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I really think there is no malicious intent there. It's possible that some people (especially with limited knowledge of English) genuinely take "Wikipedia" to be a generic term for an encyclopedia, or any online encyclopedia. (After all, we frequently see "wiki" as an abbreviation for "Wikipedia", so why not the other way round?) In any case, this definitely makes more sense than Stir-fried wikipedia (or "Steam eggs with wikipedia" and other similar delicacies). -- Ekjon Lok (talk) 21:20, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Born2cycle - disruption at WP:NC (flora)

Born2cycle (talk · contribs) has been given the opportuntiy of the last three months,archived discussions,more discussion,even more, to express his opinion on the way in which plant articles are named. After 3 months of discussion B2c has again gone forumn shopping[23],[24]. At this point in time B2C appears to no longer be acting in good faith with editors but deliberately ignoring consensus.[25] He has also been cautioned about disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, some of the many warnings about WP:POINT, [26],[27],[28]. It has now reached the point that temporary sanctions need to be enacted. Gnangarra 01:31, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Ironically, Hesperian and I are covering new ground today, and that link above is part of it. What consensus am I ignoring? I certainly would not want to do that. The only "warnings" I've received are from people who disagree with the view that the current flora guideline is in conflict with general naming policy. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:44, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Furthermore, all I'm doing is engaging in discussion, with those who choose to discuss with me, on the talk page. How this disrupts the editing of any actual articles -- as is constantly claimed it does -- is beyond me. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:46, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

see Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(flora)#Discussion_statistics Gnangarra 01:48, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing new in that discussion, I didnt say your disrupting editing of article I said that your forumn shopping and ignoring consensus for the convention is disrupting Wikipedia. Gnangarra 01:51, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Why fault Don Quixote for Tilting at windmills? Much like The Scorpion and the Frog, we all do what is in our nature. --Kralizec! (talk) 01:59, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

What's new in that discussion is the principle angle, and whether we're talking about "my" principle, or a principle explicitly stated, or implied, in the WP:NC policy.

Announcing what I believe to be a conflict with a given policy, and asking for help, on the talk page of that policy, is "forum shopping"? Or are you referring to something else? If so, what?

What am I doing that causes you to believe I'm ignoring consensus? --Born2cycle (talk) 18:48, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

When such actions infringes on the ability of community to work co-operatively, we assume good faith, when its no longer possible for the assumption of good faith in an individuals action we seek WP:BLOCK // WP:BAN, as I'm involved with issues, along with many others I'm bringing the issue here to seek independent action. Gnangarra 02:08, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

How do my actions -- engaging in discussion on a talk page -- "infringe on the ability of community to work co-operatively"? Why is it no longer possible for you to assume good faith? You don't think that I, along with about half of the non-plant editors who have weighed in on this issue per Hesperian's statistics, honestly believe that the flora guideline is in conflict with WP:NC in a way that no other guideline is? All I'm doing is essentially explaining why I believe that, and trying to understand why those who disagree with me, disagree with me. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:09, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

• I completely agree with Gnangarra. Born2cycle's only purpose for being on Wikipedia is to participate in naming disputes (he hasn't edited in the mainspace for over a fortnight). This naming dispute has now been going for 77 days, and it is Born2cycle who continues to sustain it, because such disputes sustain him. Every argument he has put forward has been responded to at length and in good faith, and numerous times, but nothing can dent his conviction that he alone bears The Truth. Everybody but Born2cycle is sick to death of this dispute, but Born2cycle will not let it go, continuing to badger us with the same long-refuted claims, insisting that the matter remains under dispute, and that further discussion is warranted, and that those who refuse to discuss it further are guillotining debate. 100% of editors who actually contribute in the field are against him, but he declares that a sign of bias, and fights on, forum shopping for "unbiased" participants, and seeking to deny a voice to the editors who actually have a stake in the decision. This has long since moved into the realms of arguing for the sake of arguing, or perhaps arguing for the sake of refusing to admit defeat. Hesperian 01:53, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

It is simply not true that my "only purpose for being on Wikipedia is to participate in naming disputes". That's ridiculous. However, naming consistency within Wikipedia is a particular interest of mine (we all have our roles), and that interest causes me to get involved in many naming disputes. Because of this interest, I watch and frequent WP:RM and the talk pages of several naming guidelines, and get involved when something piques me interest. It just so happens that I've never seen a guideline so out of line with the rest of Wikipedia as is the current flora guideline, and that's why I'm particularly interested in it. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:16, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

• I agree with Gnangarra. Born2cycle's intransigence is made manifest by his/her response to my suggestion to table the matter for now: a link to a 3 week old post, much commented upon, itself little more than a rehash of even older arguments.[29][30] Such an inability or unwillingness to accept that the current discussion has run its course suggests that some involuntary means must be employed to achieve that end. Walter Siegmund (talk) 07:00, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

It takes two to tango, folks... You are free to ignore my arguments. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:48, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Serge, having experienced your technique for at least 3 years on WP:NC:CITY, ignoring your arguments tend to result in you assuming that consensus has been reached in your favor and you proceeding to the guideline and modify it to your liking.--Bobblehead ^(rants) 22:40, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what specifically you're talking about, but there is a difference between completely ignoring a discussion and stating clearly that you disagree and then disengaging. But these guys choose to engage over and over, and even bring up new points and ask me questions, and then complain about me taking up too much of their time. For example, Hesperian has used some caustic language here, but he's the one who started this discussion with me just yesterday. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:02, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Requesting further input regarding the addition of stock information to Warren Buffett

Resolved

 – Gary King (talk) 05:51, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi, there is a content dispute at Warren Buffett regarding the addition of stock information, such as in this diff. I removed the content, but User:Iifacts added it back. We discussed the issue on their talk page, but it didn't go anywhere, so I am requesting for further input into the situation. Please see Talk:Warren_Buffett#Stock_Holdings for the latest discussion, in which we are trying to form a consensus. The user reverted the same thing four times in the past 24 hours (1, 2, 3, and 4) but instead of going to WP:3RR, I'd rather just build a consensus on this as soon as possible so it can be done with. Thanks! Gary King (talk) 03:59, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Gary cut off many good content from the Warren Buffett page, especially the stock holding part and time line just because of his own taste. I try to engage talk with him but he dictated the page has to be in his way only, and reverted the page many times (4 times in 24 hours). Many people have done a lot of work and it's a shame that everything is gone and the page now looks very difficult to read. Thanks! Iifacts (talk) 04:12, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

The information in the timeline is still in the article. I merged it into prose form because it was essentially prose line. Regarding my overall changes to the article, here is the before, and here is the after. For the record, I did not revert four times in the past 24 hours. Gary King (talk) 04:19, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Also, the user might have a COI with the website that they are using as a reference. Gary King (talk) 04:28, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I tend to feel the chart was too much smack in the middle of the article there, and I don't believe I've ever seen someone's stock holdings in their article before. It seems to me to be rather too detailed, and I've said so on the talk page. Tony Fox (arf!) 04:31, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I strongly think the stock holdings are important, what Gary did was that he cut off the stock holding info on Warren Buffett page and in the same time, change the stock holding data to his own, which was difficult to read and out-dated, with many data are plainly wrong (% of reported portfolio) on the Berkshire Hathaway page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_assets_owned_by_Berkshire_Hathaway). As an experienced editor, he intentionally violated the 3RR rule and tried to dictate everything.Iifacts (talk) 04:41, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Guys and gals, what Administrative action are we looking for here, not that I am an admin, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn last night. This looks like a content dispute? Maybe try request for comment or ask some others to look at it which you did at the top of this section, but other than that? If parties are edit warring, take it to the 3RR board and I am sure some admin will be happy to block for a bit to help cool things down. Anyways, good luck. Tom 04:47, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm just looking for further input on how to best proceed. Anyways, the user was reported to WP:UAA by someone else and the information in question has been removed from the article. Gary King (talk) 04:56, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

• The information pertains to Berhshire Hathaway, and not Buffet, also, WP appears to be against including exhaustive, directory-style information, and I have tried to explain it to lifacts (talk · contribs) on his talk page, along with the rest of this discussion. Ohconfucius (talk) 05:18, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I believe that this has now been resolved. Gary King (talk) 05:51, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Are you sure?

IP threatening assassination?

Check out this edit on the Alina Mungiu-Pippidi page. The article deals with a controversial subjects, and Mrs. Mungiu has ticked off some far right nuts. This may be a very stupid joke, but then again it may be serious hate mail, and perhaps even be read as a serious death threat. I just noticed the same was done to the Cristian Mungiu page. Dahn (talk) 05:03, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I've blocked the IP address. Don't know how credible this would really be; moot point for me anyway, since I doubt the Romanian authorities would take an American college student calling at 6-7 AM (their time) too seriously. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 05:20, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

PM, to be exact. But, alas, you do have a point. Dahn (talk) 05:23, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

If you really feel it's worth pursuing, you can always send an e-mail to their ISP's abuse address, listed here. Then the originating ISP (which will actually know who this customer of theirs is) can make the call on whether they want to take action on this or not. --Dynaflow babble 06:25, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

@Dahn: That's why I hate time zones. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 15:35, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Can someone please block Decoybrick1?

• Decoybrick1 (talk)

This user is vandalizing User talk:Eugene Krabs and OGame. - Eugene Krabs (talk) 06:51, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

This closely resembles a content dispute to me. The cheating section would warrant some redaction because of possible defamatory content, but I only see warnings about "vandalism." Has the user been informed about BLP policies and such? --Dynaflow babble 06:53, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

If these questions annoy you, I apologize. What's BLP policies mean? Also, what's BLP stand for? - Eugene Krabs (talk) 07:02, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah, good question. See WP:BLP. If I'm seeing this correctly, Decoybrick1 added some odd and problematic material to an article, and then you and he proceeded to edit war over it. Has Decoybrick1 even been informed why, specifically, his or her edits are a potential problem? --Dynaflow babble 07:07, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I think I'll let you take over the operation. That way, I won't accidentally get in trouble with another administrator. =D - Eugene Krabs (talk) 07:12, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not an administrator, just helpful. All I'm suggesting is that you may want to communicate with Decoybrick1 in a more in-depth way than uw-vandx templates and see what kind of response you get. You both need to stop edit-warring, though. I'll leave a warning to that effect at Decoybrick1's Talk page. [EDIT:] Someone beat me to the punch, but do try to be more communicativey and less reverty when Decoybrick1 gets back from his 3RR vacation. --Dynaflow babble 07:17, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay! Also, LOL at your vacation joke. XD - Eugene Krabs (talk) 07:24, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

(ec x 2) I don't see this as straight vandalism (on OGame), there is an element of content dispute. I gave him a 24hour block for 3RR violation. Mr. Krabs, please do try that communicativey thing :) --Versageek 07:28, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Commemorative Coin Controversy

A clash of opposing views has developed into an important discourse re:images and copyright ideology. As a side bar, a valuable and completely wholesome editor User:Miguel.mateo is being discredited and treated as if he was a vandal. Bigger minds than mine need to involve themselves in this matter and resolve it for the betterment of Wikipedia. Please see:Talk:Theater am Kärntnertor#Revert_fighting and Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions#Commemorative_coin_images. Also, of course, Editor:Miguel.mateo's talk page. If, as he claims, more than 20 articles were effected by another editors POV regarding the validity of his edits, it certainly warrants the attention of a dispassionate and impartial Administrator (maybe more than one). The lack of common courtesy that was displayed, contrary to Wikipedia guidelines, is only one of the factors that is uncomfortable and frustrating. Some form of communication should have occured prior to such a widespread revert over a broad spectrum of articles. I have assisted Editor:Mateo by copy editing some of his Euro Coin articles and found him to always be a gentleman to the extreme...and I found his images to be an extreme benefit to the encyclopedia. It is transparent that he and his edits are being castigated by an obvious POV cabal because they feel ownership of "their" articles. Please look into this matter. Editor:Mateo edits deserve to be seen by our readers. He has gone thru the hurdles of copyright verification. --Buster7 (talk) 07:04, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Buster7 for bringing this up to the admins. The basics of the recent fight:

1. There were a content dispute discussed in Talk:Theater_am_Kärntnertor#Austrian_coin_issue:_Revert_fighting, consensus was to keep the image and the text.
2. Not two days has pass and user Kleinzach challenged exactly the same additions, this time in other article, proof here: Talk:Maria_Callas#Non-free_coin_image.
3. Immediately after user DavidRF started to removed all contributions from all articles, claiming that the use is illegal. Note that he removed the images and the text that comes with each image. Apparently these two users team up to go against all contributions I have done, as can be seen here Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Composers#Commemorative_coins_in_classical_music_articles. Obviously revert fight started and since there were three users teaming against me I may have broken the 3RR more than once. I have asked them to stop severla times but they continued until recently.
4. Aparently they brought the topic the the use of the images is illegal here Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions#Commemorative_coin_images, thinking that they have a strong case to remove all my contributions; but they decided to start to remove texts and images even before this topic is concluded, which is not concluded yet.
5. Notice that neither of these two users had the decency of telling me what they were plannign to do in my talk page. Instead a blant team up to remove all my contributions was made.
6. I clearly asked to stop, I said that the legal ussage is clear and if by any reason is not as I think it is I will be removing the images myself. I have asked to talk, to remove the image but leave the prose ... but nothing, the only thing I have got is blind removal of all my contributions even in articles that are not related to music at all.

Basically this is nothing that these two users attacking my contributions just because they do not like what they add to "their articles". I have been very collaborative in the past, and more than once I have been asked to removed the image or the texts associated to the coin, in more than one article. After the initial discussion, I have agreed in more than one article to not to include them based on the arguments of the discussion; but this time, no discussion, teaming up to blindly remove everything I have created.

I am not looking for a content dispute here, I just want the users Kleinzach and DavidRF to recognize that what they did is not ethically correct. Thanks, Miguel.mateo (talk) 14:13, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Here upon request - looks like content dispute spanning multiple articles, and some copyvio claims. I'll have to do some research, get some other work done, and will be glad to offer an opinion in a bit (if it hasn't been resolved by then). Any particular diffs of note would be helpful. — Ched (talk) 14:24, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you — Ched. It did start as content dispute, but quickly escalated to personal attacks against me and my contributions by the two editors mentioned. I have already included the vast mayority of the conversations. There were more conversations in all of our talk pages (some of them already removed by one of them). I have no issues going the ethically correct way to reach an agreement of when can the images and/or the prose can be added, but teaming up to push me at the point to go to 3RR violation, and pushing the WP:POV that the images are illegal and that the content is SPAM is definitely not correct. I have clearly asked them to stop and to talk, but instead they keep reverting my contributions even after I have explained several times. At the end one of them even went to an article that he has never touched before, just to remove my contribution too. This is for me unacceptable. Apologies to you for the time you will spend looking into this issue. Thanks, Miguel.mateo (talk) 14:31, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Coin images are non-free and should not be added to any articles that are not directly about the coins themselves (e.g. the coin articles, or perhaps an article about the mint). Doing so is clear fair-use overuse, and edit-warring over it is likely to lead to a block. I have warned User:Miguel.mateo to stop doing so. Black Kite 14:33, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Black Kite, when and where have you warned me? Also, "should not be added to any articles that are not directly about the coins themselves" is not true. Where it says so in the policy? Can you take a look at the classical sample in Billy Ripken, a copy right image of a baseball card is used in this article, but it does meet the fair use rationale. Miguel.mateo (talk) 14:38, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

On your talk page - have a look. The relevant policy is WP:NFCC - please read it, especially WP:NFCC#3a (minimal use of non-free images) and WP:NFCC#8 - significance. Since a picture of a coin can never significantly increase the reader's understanding of the person or place depicted - it is merely a picture - they will always fail this policy. If the images were in the article about the coin itself, then they are directly relevant and that is reasonable. The only exception might be if the person was deceased and the non-free image was the only image that could be used, or if the image itself was particularly notable - hence Billy Ripken. In all the articles relevant here, there are free images available. Black Kite 14:42, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I have a long discussion with user ElCobolla about this topic, and I have the archives. While we did not interpret "understand" similarly, it did give me a completely wide view of the copyright issues.

1. WP:NFCC#3a does not apply, I added just one image in each article, that is minimum ussage. If you are trying to interpret this as "in all of Wikipedia", then why do we need more than one fair use rationale? WP:NFCC#3a is per article.
2. WP:NFCC#8, please read it carefully. "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic" the topic in thsi case are the coins being described, not the subject of the coins. Removing the image of the coin because it does not help to understand the subject is a wrong interpretation of the policy. Regardless, this is maybe the weakest point, and I do agree that in some cases the image can be removed by enhancing the prose of the coin. But this is exactly what the other two editors are against, they are against the fact of adding information of the coin on the articles of the subject of the coin. Even if the article is a stub, they are against of adding such information.
3. Where in the policy this exception is explained?

But again, I am not here to talk about the content dispute, is the way that lots of my contributions were removed, now by Black Kite too, without having a full understanding of the copyright issues, and without listening that in more than one occasion I have asked to leave the prose which is not illegal at all. The proper way of doign this IMO is bringing this issue to a talk page and later decide the course of action. Miguel.mateo (talk) 15:02, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Why can't we talk about the content dispute? You've added these images to hundreds of pages. We have to have a talk page discussion on each one for them to be removed? Where was the talk page discussion when they were added in the first place? You watch these pages like a hawk because you know people's first instinct upon seeing the images is to remove them. It sounds like you are trying to create a barrier for removal so high that people just give up and let you keep the images on every page in wikipedia. We have had monthly discussions where we re-hash the same points:

• Talk:Schloss_Esterházy
• Talk:Joseph_Haydn#Joseph_Haydn_Gold_Coin
• Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Composers/Archive_14#Gold_Coin_Images_in_Composer_.26_Related_Articles
• Talk:Symphony_No._3_(Beethoven)#Symphony_No_3_in_a_commemorative_coin
• Talk:Theater_am_Kärntnertor#Austrian_coin_issue:_Revert_fighting

My worry is that you'll be back next month with another coin and you will completely forget we had this dispute, claim its personal (its only "personal" because you are the only editor spreading these images across non-coin articles) and we'll rehash the whole thing will happen again. What is most frustrating, actually, is that you have no interest whatsoever in the quality of these articles other than they should contain a link and a picture to an uncirculated twenty-first century commemorative coin. How is this constructive editing? Can we get a ruling on this dispute once and for all so that we can return our energies to the actually content of the articles and not some tangential see-also, pop-culture link at the bottom of each article. Thanks. DavidRF (talk) 15:22, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

• I added just one image in each article, that is minimum ussage.. No. Minimal use is zero, and non-free images should only be used where they pass all criteria in WP:NFCC. The coin images do not do that, as I explained above.
• the topic in this case are the coins being described, not the subject of the coins.. No. If you add a picture of a coin to an article about a person, then the subject of the article is the person, not the coins. Hence why there is far more latitude in an article which is actually about the coins.
• is the way that lots of my contributions were removed, now by Black Kite too, without having a full understanding of the copyright issues, and without listening that in more than one occasion I have asked to leave the prose which is not illegal at all.. The copyright issue is irrelevant; it is only the Wikipedia fair use policy which is important. Also, the prose is fine to leave in, if it is important and relevant to the subject (you'll notice that I did so on one of the articles) but that's a content issue. Black Kite 16:12, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

The same issue takes place with postage stamps and there are several biographical articles where stamps are used and these need to go, but that's another story. Perhaps there is a need for WP:NFC#Images to spell out more clearly than it does now that stamps and currency includes coins and that their use may only be in articles about the coin or stamp itself. IMHO, there should also be more clarity in [[WP::NFC#Images 2|the exceptions listing]] so editors can see more plainly what is allowed and what is. The current statements get twisted by editors who want to include non-free images where they are not permitted to their own advantage unless challenged like this coin-in-music-articles situation. ww2censor (talk) 16:23, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

←I support a paragraph about the coin in the article (with WP:V/RS), and even a link to the article about the individual coin that describes the "who, what, when, where, why and how", the coin was made. My very limited knowledge of copyright and fair use policy, leads me to believe there may be a way to include the picture in that specific article. Sorry, I got nothing else. — Ched (talk) 19:21, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Unindent...What a funny co-incidence. Check out todays op-ed section of the Chicago Sun Times: "The Opera is a place where people can get irked if you unwrap a stick of gum". Neil Steinberg, Chgo Sun Times< Feb 20,2009 (pg.18) That seems to sum up what is more at play here than any self-appointed protection of Wikipedia's legal status or a lawsuit over Editor:mateo's coin entries.

No one questions the protective nature of the Opera enthusists. It is a natural trait after working long and hard to create a quality article. But the same holds true for Editor:Mateo. He has also worked long and hard to facilitate good faith coin edits to a variety of articles that only add to the Wikipedia concept of the sum total of knowledge.

The claim that these edits do not comply w/ copyright violations or non-free policy, and that that is why his edits were deleted from Maria Carras (for instance among dozens of others) is pure Baloney...Opera Style.

The request (or is it a demand?) for written permission is also a bit out of whack with what is possible. As a private citizen, Editor:Mateo has done all he could (and more) to contact representatives and officials of the various mints to guarantee that he has his ducks in a row. The hint that he is somehow under-handedly trying to edit to his own advantage is akin to putting handcuffs on the good guys. What should be happening is assisting each other in the endeavor to implement these minor additions to quality articles. Instead they are being treated as though they were graffitti on the Opera Halls front doors.--Buster7 (talk) 22:50, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

This account needs a looking at

Resolved

 – Hardblocked. — neuro^(talk) 10:32, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

[31]. Edit is troubling even in sand box. Flaquito (talk) 07:10, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Username reported. — neuro^(talk) 08:01, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

And hardblocked. Flaquito (talk) 09:04, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

New Vandlism account/possiable sockpuppet.

Resolved

YLHG IS BACK AGAIN (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) Vandalized these pages: [32], [33], [34], [35]. Also, the user first redirected thier user page to Youlittlehandsomeguy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) a user who was indef blocked [36]. Then the user finally simply put this message on their talk page [37] saying they were a sockpuppet.

This account needs looking at. Brothejr (talk) 11:15, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Blocked indef. Kevin (talk) 11:45, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

What will we do about Eugene?

Resolved

 – User has responded, and there doesn't seem to be anything here requiring immediate intervention. –xeno (talk) 15:35, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Earlier i started a section about disruptive editor "Eugene Krabs". Who i've finally realized is a teenager, and therefore won't listen to me. He's been blocked 5 times already and i worry that he might get blocked for a 6th time. He modifies sections on his talk page to the way he likes it, he completeley deletes my comments, adds links to redirects that lead to the same page, threantens to block someone even though he's not an admin, and requests people to be blocked here, instead of WP:AIV. And has so far developed 2 enemies in one day, while most users take months to get an enemy. And last but not least recreates pages that have made into a redirect. Like the section says, what will we do with Eugene? I tried being his mentor but he said no, and he obviously didn't learn from his past blocks. Elbutler (talk) 12:21, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Eugene Krabs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) seicer | talk | contribs 12:46, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I take issue with the statement that "he is a teenager and therefore won't listen" to you. Also, saying he "made 2 enemies in one day while most users make 1 enemy in several months" doesn't make much sense. I can't take a report seriously that makes such false and generalizing assumptions. Also, since your views are so off the mark, I don't think you would make a good mentor anyway.--Atlan (talk) 13:04, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the statement is inappropriate: I'm a bloody teenager, and I'd like to think I can listen when people tell me action X is wrong (see my squeaky-clean block log, f'rinstance). However the user in question obviously needs something done. I'd support a one-strike system; he toes the line from now on or we block him until he is more inclined to listen. Ironholds (talk) 13:39, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, i didn't know. And i admit that i'd probally not make a good mentor, and i didn't mean to hurt any teenage user's feelings. It's just i once knew i teenager who wouldn't listen to any adults. And it took me months before i met my first enemy. Elbutler (talk) 13:59, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

• I've notified the user of this thread, but I don't really see anything here requiring immediate administrator intervention. –xeno (talk) 14:12, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
• If he continues to not respond, an RFC would seem to be appropriate. Stifle (talk) 14:13, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I'm late responding. I just woke up like 15 minutes ago. I also don't have much time to be on here until after school. I only go to 1st, 2nd, and 3rd period, so I'll be back around 11:25am (PT).

Anyway, Ebutler, when I modify my talk page, I don't delete things. I just add the "equals" signs so I can have it organized. In fact, before my last block, I restored a bunch of stuff for reference. Also, don't worry, Ebutler. I listen to adults well. I got my Learner's Permit January 31st and my mom's been teaching me how to drive (and still is). I listen and everything. At first, I didn't listen as much, but was still careful. We also argue sometimes (not in the car) about things, which is normal. I think I'd rather argue than go out and take drugs like some teenagers my age do, though. I'll talk more later, but right now I have to get ready to go to my high school. - Eugene Krabs (talk) 15:26, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by IP User

The Boy or Girl paradox article is having a problem with an IP user demonstrating a clear pattern of disruptive editing, making the same edits repeatedly without discussion when 5 other users have reverted the changes and called the user to reach consensus before making additional changes. These edits were reverted by me (thesoxlost) ([38]), User:Snalwibma ([39]), User:Rick Block ([40]), User:Noe ([41], and User:Versus22 ([42]). The IP user has not engaged in any discussion on these topics, and simply reverts changes made by anyone who he disagrees with. These edits are clearly made by the same user: the content of the changes are nearly identical and the IP addresses are all highly similar, from Japan.

These edits stem from a content dispute, but the problem is not the disagreement over content, its the disruptive editing without an attempt for consensus building. The edits meet the standards of disruptive editing: they are tendentious, do not satisfy WP:verifiability, not interested in consensus, rejects community input, and if the user has engaged in any discussion through a username, then he is engaged in IP sockpuppetry.

I think the easiest way to solve this problem would be to simply protect the page from IP users, forcing this user to use his own username to make these disruptive edits.

• 210.196.10.137 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 61.200.132.108 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 61.200.146.52 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 211.5.16.17 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 219.97.88.112 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 61.200.128.160 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 61.200.132.83 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 61.200.138.38 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 133.9.4.12 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 211.5.10.166 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 211.5.17.144 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 133.9.4.11 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 1. #1 by IP #1
• 2. #2 by IP #1
• 3. Revision #1 by IP #2 Content highly similar to JeffJor's; in places it is identical (e.g., "The reduced sample space is the set {BG, BB}")
• 4. Revision #2 by IP #2
• 5. Revision #3 by IP #2
• 6. Revision #4 by IP #2
• 7. Revision #1 by IP #3 Content was part of JeffJor's original post (e.g., he deleted question #2 entirely)
• 8. Revision #2 by IP #3
• 9. Revision #1 by IP #4 Content changed was complained about by (only) Jeff in the talk page
• 10. Revision #2 by IP #4
• 11. #1 by IP #5 Same content change as IP #4
• 12. #1 by IP #6 Same content change again
• 13. #1 by IP #7 Same content change, misleading description
• 14. #1 by IP #8 Same content change, misleading description
• 15. #1 by IP #9
• 16. #1 by IP #10

This issue was previously posted here as disruptive editing by JeffJor; CU check indicates JeffJor's IPs do not match these, so I am reposting it as a disruption by an IP user. It remains just as disruptive. Thank you in advance for the help. --Thesoxlost (talk) 14:22, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Semiprotected the Boy or Girl paradox. The sock charge against JeffJor was not confirmed by checkuser (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/JeffJor/Archive). But the IPs, though they are not him, are clearly edit-warring, and do not participate on Talk. EdJohnston (talk) 15:14, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Stappsclass

Resolved

 – Blocked

Stappsclass (talk · contribs) seems to be a vandalism-only account. The user seems to have a propensity for editing Today's Featured Article with edits ranging from questionable to blatantly idiotic. Powers ^T 15:47, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

An admin blocked him a minute after you posted. Taunting another admin, like this [43], probably helped expidite the process. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:04, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Humboldtbear

Resolved

 – Humboldtbear blocked after yet another revert - Erikupoeg needs to stay away from article for a while.

Humboldtbear (talk · contribs) keeps deleting content from Dusty Springfield without any comments, having already violated the three-revert rule twice. The user also has vandalized the Erikupoeg user page twice. --Erikupoeg (talk) 16:42, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

You have also violated 3RR. Seems to be a content dispute over the more BLP-unfriendly (although admittedly Springfield is dead) bits in the article, but they do seem to be sourced. — neuro^(talk) 16:49, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of cobaab 2.gif

Resolved

 – No issue. — neuro^(talk) 18:36, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I would like to know why this file was removed and how i can get it back up on wikipedia. The file is an image of the crest of my alma-mater Calabar High School, and I contributed it so that it could be used on my school's wiki page. However I recently visted the page and noticed that the file seems to have been deleted. If wikipedia is to be a creditable educational resource, you need to be more diplomatic in the deletion of information from the site.

Please inform me of how I can get the image back up on wikipedia as soon as possible. Thank You.

--Neo returns2006 (talk) 16:50, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Uh, it's still there. — neuro^(talk) 17:25, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

LOL, Sorry bro, I see it. Thanks.--Neo returns2006 (talk) 18:18, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

need a hand

Any oversighters online? yandman 17:17, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

They usually respond to their email list fairly quickly - Special:Emailuser/Oversight. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 18:04, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. yandman 18:18, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry at AFD

Can some admins keep an eye on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Left-Wing Fascism in India, which is getting attention of several SPA and sock/meat accounts, namely, Mahanteshwar (talk · contribs · logs), Michonuri (talk · contribs · logs), Minten (talk · contribs · logs) and Gabriel_N (talk · contribs · logs) ? Abecedare (talk) 17:31, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

• I suspect the closing admin will not be fooled. That article is hilariously bad. Guy (Help!) 19:58, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
  • I agree.--TRUCO 23:31, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Soliciting off-wiki pressure on editors

• Scripturalreasoning (talk · contribs)
• Scriptural reasoning (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I recently posted about the above user's threat to publish inflammatory material if other editors didn't back off. [44].

Same editor has been in direct consultation with an organisation mentioned in the article: "I have now notified the "Scriptural Reasoning Society" Trustees of some of the stuff that has been going on with recent editing."

Now this statement from said Trustees has appeared off-wiki, repeating unproven claims about the affiliations and hostile motivations of editors here *, as well as making heavy hints about what the article should say about this organisation. Apart from such close communication being probable COI, this smells of attack-by-proxy. Does it come under WP:NPA#Off-wiki attacks? Gordonofcartoon (talk) 18:08, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

PS: oh, apparently not here, since (despite precisely matching what he said was discussing with them) the statement doesn't mention Wikipedia by name. Must be some other user-editable "online encyclopaedic resource" with exactly the same dispute then. FX: rolls eyes Gordonofcartoon (talk) 19:16, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

This looks like the kind of editor who is here to Right Great Wrongs, having no caring about our policies and community ethos. Such people often have a short but turbulent career on Wikipedia. Does WP:BATTLE apply, do we think? as an aside, the article scriptural reasoning needs a complete rewrite or nuking; right now it reads as an unholy mix of WP:OR and WP:HOWTO. Guy (Help!) 18:13, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

They come to Right Great Wrongs and then we tell them to Fuck Right Off. HalfShadow 18:17, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

You could possibly add that slogan to the policy guidelines. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:26, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

You could possibly be slightly more subtle HalfShadow. PhilKnight (talk) 18:20, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

And you could burst into flames spontaniously. What's your point? HalfShadow 18:23, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

In your opinion, should this user be indefinitely blocked? PhilKnight (talk) 18:28, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I approve of the "fuck right off" message. In regards to the article, do we have any experts who could take a look and assess and edit? please step forward now... --Cameron Scott (talk) 18:35, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

So you approve of an indefinite block? PhilKnight (talk) 18:43, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Me, definitely, yes. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:47, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The same editor has also created Interfaith scriptural reading with a lead "Interfaith Scriptural Reading is a form of Interreligious Dialogue, and takes place is a variety of different ways. This page is new and under construction..." (and Interreligious Dialogue is red-linked, so..). Google and Alltheweb come up with [45] and a mention in a pdf of someone taking part in an interfaith scriptural reading conference but that wasn't the title of the conference. At least Scriptual reasoning is I think notable enough for an article, but the Isr article needs to be dealt with appropriately. dougweller (talk) 18:53, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Cameron Scott: there is the Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion/Interfaith work group. The other editors appear to be editing well within WP:NPOV, but it's very much written from an insider perspective, and there's a lot of exposition that seems to be expand sourced statements in a loose OR way (akin to describing a tea-party and citing it to the Brewing Instructions on a teabag box). Gordonofcartoon (talk) 19:31, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Beautifully put, thank you. Guy (Help!) 19:45, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

←And on the 8th day Jimbo (and/or Sanger) did createth the wiki. And thine policy shall stateth: Go forth and propagate thine web with great "sum of human knowledge", but be not vain in your efforts. Thou shalt push neither negative, nor positive OR, but rather provide great NPOV. (ohhh I hope the big guy upstairs don't get mad about that post!) — Ched (talk) 19:12, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

This whole thread is just great. :O) seicer | talk | contribs 19:25, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Reading the posted document, it is not just a matter of propaganda in favor of this religious group, but a question of there being two rival groups, the one that posted the message, the "Scriptural Reasoning Society" and its sponsor,the "Interfaith Alliance UK" (which cooperates with a loosely associated US organization, ""Interfaith Alliance"; and on the other hand the "Society for Scriptural Reasoning" and its "Cambridge InterFaith Programme". The matter at controversy is the relative importance of the two, and also whether, as the SRS claims, the term "Scriptural Reasoning" is generic for reading the scriptures of various faiths in parallel. Given all this, I would therefore not make any assumptions about which edits to the article are the fair ones. I of course do support the present block, and it is possible that other editors may need similar attention. In any case, i would not disparage any of them, & I think the two immediately preceding comments ought to be retracted. Obviously, as dougweller says, people from outside both must do the editing here. DGG (talk) 19:32, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

And this is indeed reflected in the edit history of the article, and the WP:SPAs who have edited it. So, should we banninate the primary warrior here? Guy (Help!) 19:42, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I approve of the indef block as well. Toddst1 (talk) 22:55, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Toddst1 has just left a notice on my talk page about this discussion and directing me to it, so not sure whether I am supposed to post here, but he has posted. I have already posted details on my talk page about this incident [46] so not intending to repeat at length.

Given that that Trustees have clarified that they were informed having received a telephone call from someone from the "Inter Faith Network of the UK" of which the "Cambridge Inter-Faith Programme" and "St Ethelburga's Centre" are both affiliated member organisations (both are also part of the "Society for Scriptural Reasoning" and both have been critiqued by me in past edits of Scriptural Reasoning) ---- the question arises exactly how did this happen? So who exactly put the "external pressure on a Wikipedia editor"? You might therefore want to clarify this from the other users on Scriptural Reasoning since with the exception of Gordonofcartoon they are all stalwarts of the "Society for Scriptural Reasoning" and Thelongview works for the Cambridge Inter-Faith Programme, which is a nice coincidence.

Also a nice coincidence is how on 27 November 2008 and immediately around that time, after 20 months previously of quiet and low activity on Scriptural Reasoning all of a sudden Thelongview (at that time Nsa1001) arrived and immediately concurrently Mahigton and Laysha101 (new user to Wikipedia), all three of whom admit to knowing each other and are part of the same "Society for Scriptural Reasoning" group. Not long thereafter, other brand newly registered users, all very familiar and supportive of the "Society for Scriptural Reasoning" position -- and all editing together. External pressure?

The article Scriptural Reasoning has been a promotional brochure for Scriptural Reasoning and exaggerated the practice's importance and originality (SR is nothing original nor practiced by thousands), and as DGG there is a dispute between the "Society for Scriptural Reasoning" which claims ownership of SR and the "Scriptural Reasoning Society" (Oxford Group) which claims that SR is just a name for something loads of others have done.

I'm not all that bothered about being "banninated" so do go ahead. But what I don't think is acceptable is for others who have been rather cleverer and less stupidly open about what I think and which of my friends I talk to, to get away with a biased promo article for Scriptural Reasoning. In fact to save you all the hassle....I shall delete my account...so happy jolly days chaps...and tatty bye...(arseholes)

--Scripturalreasoning (talk) 23:29, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

This user has requested that their user talk page, User talk:Scripturalreasoning be deleted under CSD U1, but U1 does not apply to user talk pages unless RTV is invocted, but given the above, I do not think the user talk page should be deleted; I especially don't think it's right that WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY is to be thrown in my face when I question the deleting admin's deletion of the page.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 00:16, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Admins inappropriate comments in this thread

A number of administrators / other responding parties violated WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL using comments such as "fuck right off".

It is entirely possible to respond to abuse cases such as this one without insulting the party who caused the problem. Using insulting and abusive language violates Wikipedia's policies and degrades the quality of participation in the community and the communities' values.

This is not acceptable behavior here or anywhere else. Please do not do it again. HalfShadow is getting a warning - others should consider your own actions and participation in the abusive subthread. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:38, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps they were not setting the most open mood possible, but I doubt those comments constituted WP:CIVIL vios, and certainly not WP:NPA violations. It was indirect speech anyway. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 00:58, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I can only assume George's message to my talk page is some aftereffect of a sharp blow to the head or possibly a temporary descent into insanity. HalfShadow 02:59, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

ThomasJeffersonsBane

I have indefinitely blocked ThomasJeffersonsBane (talk · contribs). This user claims to be a ninth grade teacher at Middletown High School North. He registered a new account yesterday, and tried to hijack the school's article to show an example on why WP is not a good resource for term papers. I reverted them and left a templated warning. He restored the example this morning, which I then re-reverted. I left a clearly-worded, untemplated warning on his talk page. He then restored the example again, this time leaving a note on the article's talk page. At this point I indef blocked him, and left a sharply-worded response on the article talk page.

I just wanted a sanity check. I felt an indef block was necessary, as not only did this user register an account for purposes other than building an encyclopedia, but that he essentially gave a tutorial for future vandals in his class. caknuck _° is a silly pudding 19:47, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

• There's no real likelihood that we'll get anything productive out of him until he starts engaging with us, so indef-as-in-no-expiry looks reasonable to me. Guy (Help!) 19:57, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I hope he teaches the class what he learned from his experiment. dougweller (talk) 20:01, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Correct. If he wants to act like a high school student, vandalizing for his own reasons, treat him like one. Though I do notice he put his real name on the talk page. We're not out to screw the guy or undermine his authority, suggest we remove his name and modify the edit history--Wehwalt (talk) 20:46, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Why? He came to vandalize, behaved childishly, then chided the editor who undid the vandalism. Then he identified himself (maybe -- it's possible this is a hoax by one of his students). No one made him put his foot in it. If there are repercussions, he'll have to wear it. A good learning experience.Bali ultimate (talk) 21:13, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Why? Because we are not evil and we do not immortalise people's bad judgement. Guy (Help!) 21:35, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but neither need we devote energy to preventing someone from himself immortalizing his bad judgment (cf., our creating an article to memorialize an IRL bad act, which is active, not passive). The issue is, I know, a trivial one, and I can't imagine that anyone should quarrel with one's removing the guy's name (particularly because don't know whether the user was the person whom he purported to be or simply a student looking to have fun at a teacher's expense and because the putative disruption was innocuous), but I've never understood why we are sometimes eager to assist those who would interfere with our enterprise; if someone of the age of majority who plainly acts in bad faith (by which term I would not characterize the user at bar) makes a public disclosure with which he is later uncomfortable, he is welcome to e-mail OTRS to seek removal, but I simply can't understand why one would seek to help proactively (unless, I guess, out of fealty to some provincial moral scheme to which none of our number, I hope and trust, clings). Joe 22:05, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Because it does us no harm to be nice, and because by the time the guy would come to us with a problem, it would be too late and the cat would be comprehensively out of the bag. The guy obviously doesn't have a clue and probably has no idea how Web savvy kids are.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:33, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

You state that it might not be him but may instead be a hoax by his student, then say he has to wear the albatross around his neck anyway? That doesn't make any sense at all. Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 22:54, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

When I first became aware of schoolblocks I did wonder what process was available for the teacher/lecturer/hall monitor responsible for the students to ensure that we might co-operatively ensure appropriate use of Wikipedia's resources in building encyclopedic content.

As the years pass, I begin to wonder if any such process would ever be needed. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:08, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I certainly hope that The purpose of this experiment encourage students to find the validity of a website for themselves. was not written by a teacher. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 01:03, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

DrKiernan moving articles against consensus

This is yet another case that makes me feel that we should have a process, perhaps similar to WP:DRV, for reviewing inappropriate closures of requested moves. Admin DrKiernan (talk · contribs) closed the following requested moves clearly against consensus, for which I would appreciate feedback:

• Mahilyow to Mogilev: DrKiernan closes the discussion using his own arguments and research, disregarding participants who provided a different feedback. If he had a personal position, he should have participated in the discussion and excused himself from closing it. The result was a move war with one one of the participants, which led to move protection. After complaints, DrKiernan reopened this discussion.

• Marko Đoković to Marko Djokovic: Disregarding the arguments provided by half of the participants, DrKiernan goes ahead and moves this article to its diacritic-less version (making it one of the few exceptions amongst thousands of articles on Wikipedia where we use diacritics for articles on people whose names do contain diacritics in their original language). According to DrKiernan's closing rationale, the "opposers did not provide evidence". I explained on his talk page that this is false, but DrKiernan rebuffs and claims that the source provided is "dubious", and doesn't comment on the fact that usage of diacritics on Wikipedia is not affected by the predominance of sources that prefer not to use them. This discussion has not been reopened, nor its resulting move reverted yet.

From these cases, it appears to me that DrKiernan seems to be unaware that, just like other poll-like discussions, personal opinions don't bid well upon closing requested moves, especially if they are used to enforce what's against consensus (or lack of). A review of these cases could prove most useful. Húsönd 20:00, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Husond, closing admins on anything even vaguely contentious should be explaining how they understood and evaluated the consensus. That kind of behaviour should be lauded, discussion closures shouldn't be black boxes. WilyD 21:48, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

• Notified DrKiernan (talk · contribs) about this thread. Exxolon (talk) 20:29, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

• These closures seem to be in line with consensus. WilyD 20:37, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

• Agreed. Don't see a problem here.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:44, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

• Both of these closures seem to be both in line with specific consensus at the article talk pages, and with the more important consensus-established naming convention guidelines. I see no violation here. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 21:45, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

• Agree as well. I do not see any concerns here. Consensus is always evaluating strengths of arguments, not numbers and if he repeats one argument in his closing statement, even with a new source, it's still not a personal bias. The first example has also, unrelated, an ugly case of wheel-warring as one of the admins (Mzajac (talk · contribs)) involved in the discussion reverted the move.[47] SoWhy 21:56, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

• • I was supposed to be either worried or surprised by this kind of feedback, but I'm frankly not. Your message in the end is that next time, instead of wasting my time participating in move discussions, I'll just close them according to the so-called "strength of arguments" and naming convention guidelines that do not exist. After all, there seems to be a clear consensus here for such kind of closures. Which I must say is sadly in line with Wikipedia's growing tendency to move decision making away from the community, and closer to the bureaucracy we were never supposed to be. Húsönd 23:18, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Incredible.

WP:RM clearly specifies that the admin's job is to gauge consensus: “If there is a clear consensus after this time, the request will be closed and acted upon. If not, the administrator may choose to re-list the request to allow time for consensus to develop, or close it as "no consensus".” DrKiernan wilfully ignored the lack of consensus (he stated “the vote is evenly split”, but that was false), and made his own decision about the content. I started the “ugly wheel war” because I honestly thought from his comment about the content that he was a participant who decided to unilaterally move the article—I knew that the majority was against the move, and so I was quite surprised to learn that he considered himself to be closing the request in good faith.

So “Consensus develops from agreement of the parties involved” is now out the window? Why bother with move discussions at all? Just pick your favourite “closing admin” and present your opinion to him. Screw the majority, he'll you just have to convince a single judge and jury. If someone protests, then he'll wash his hands of it by “relisting” the article improperly for a few hours until someone else cleans it up, as Dr Kiernan did.

If this is how it works, then there should be a clear explanation at WP:RM of what editors are to expect. What I see is one thing at WP:RM, and completely contrary behaviour being rewarded. This looks like a big crock to me. From now on I'll stick to making my own consensus by closing move requests, rather than participating in them. —Michael Z. 2009-02-21 00:58 z

New sockpuppet, not sure what to do about it

Resolved

 – Indef blocked Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:06, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for posting this here, but I'm not sure exactly where to go with it: User:Ziggymaster and User:Manmohit2002 have been blocked indefinitely as socks (Ziggymaster is the sock puppeteer; the case is at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ziggymaster), and I think the investigation is closed. A new user has just popped up who I think is probably a new sock of this same person: Mayamore (talk · contribs) is repeatedly reverting to the same version of the article that was last edited by Manmohit2002 (not only that, but in the first diff I gave above, he actually quoted one of my own edit summaries from weeks before User:Mayamore was created). What's the best way to get this dealt with quickly? rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 00:29, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Reviewing now... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:54, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Agree with your conclusion that this is Ziggymaster returning. I have indefblocked the new User:Mayamore account. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:06, 21 February 2009 (UTC)